The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity: Towards a Pneumatological Reading of Galatians 3:1–6:17 9780567709257, 9780567709271, 9780567709264

Table of contents :
Cover
Contents
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
General
Extra-Biblical Abbreviations
Josephus
Philo
1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Book Aim
1.2.1 Paul as Generative Theologian
1.2.2 Paul within Judaism
1.2.3 Two Cautions
1.3 Situating the Spirit in Galatians
1.4 Methodology
1.5 Outline of the Book
2 Generative Cosmogonies: Antecedent Interpretations of Creation and Spirit Prior to Paul
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 Paul and His Tradition
2.1.2 Aim and Outline of This Chapter
2.2 Genesis, the Spirit, and the Creation of the Cosmos
Gen. 1:1-2 The Spirit and Creation of the Cosmos
Gen. 2:7 The Spirit and Creation of Humanity
Summary of the Spirit and Creation in Genesis 1 and 2
2.3 The Spirit and Creation in Old Testament Biblical and Extra-Biblical Texts
2.3.1 Psalms
Ps. 33:6-9 MT (32:6-9 LXX)
Psalm 104 MT/103 LXX
2.3.2 OT Prophetic Literature
2.3.3 Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah
Isa. 42:5
Isa. 65:17
Summary of Spirit and Creation in Isaiah
2.3.4 Ezekiel: Spirit and New Life
Ezek. 36:26-27
Ezek. 37:1-14
Summary of Spirit and Creation in Ezekiel
2.3.5 Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS)
4Q422
1QS3
1QS4 20–22
11Q19 29 7-10
Summary of Spirit and Creation in the DSS
2.3.6 Jubilees
Jub. 1:23-25
Jub. 1:29
Jub. 2:1 The Angel of the Presence-Face
Summary of Spirit and Creation in Jubilees
2.3.7 Wisdom of Solomon
Wis. 1:5-7
Wis. 7:22
Wis. 15:11
κτίσις and κόσμος in Wisdom
Summary of Spirit and Creation in Wisdom
2.4 Conclusion
3 Gal. 3:1-5 This One Thing
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Overview of the Next Four Chapters
3.1.2 Aim and Outline
3.2 Gal. 3:1-5: A Starting Point
3.2.1 A Lens for Interpreting Gal. 3:1-5
Justification
Hearing of Faith
Spirit
3.3 Gal. 3:1-5
3.3.1 Galatians 3:2
Summary of Gal. 3:2
3.3.2 Gal. 3:1
βασκαίνω
βασκαίνω as Witchcraft
βασκαίνω as Metaphor
βασκαίνω as Envy
βασκαίνω in Context
προεγράφη
Summary of Gal. 3:1
3.3.3 Gal. 3:3
3.3.4 Gal. 3:4
3.3.5 Gal. 3:5
3.4 Conclusion
4 Gal. 3:6–4:11 The Blessing of the Promise
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Gal. 3:6-9 Just Like Abraham
4.2.1 Gal. 3:6
Who Introduced Abraham to the Galatians?
The Importance of Abraham to Paul’s Argument
4.2.2 Gal. 3:7-9
προευαγγελίζομαι and ἐνευλογέω
ἔθνη
Which Narrative from Genesis?
4.2.3 Summary of 3:6-9
4.3 Gal. 3:10-14 Curse, and the Spirit as Promised Blessing
4.3.1 Gal. 3:10-13
Gal. 3:10
Gal. 3:11-12
The Emphasis of Gal. 3:13
Summary of Gal. 3:10-13
4.3.2 Galatians 3:14
Literary Setting of Gal. 3:14
ἵνα … ἵνα …
The Promised Spirit
4.3.3 Summary of Gal. 3:10-14
4.4 Gal. 3:15-29 Promise and Inheritance
4.5 Gal. 4:1-11 Sonship and Spirit
4.5.1 Gal. 4:1-7
Gal. 4:1-3 τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου
ἡμεῖς in Gal. 4:3
Gal. 4:4-7
Interpretation of ὅτι in Gal. 4:6
The Sending Motif in Gal. 4:4-6
4.5.2 Gal. 4:8-11
4.6 Conclusion
5 Gal. 4:12–6:10 The Spirit, Freedom, Identity, and Praxis
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Gal. 4:12-20
5.3 Gal. 4:21–5:1 Children of Promise and Freedom
5.3.1 ἐλευθερία
5.3.2 Born κατὰ σάρκα or δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας
5.3.3 The New Jerusalem
5.3.4 Just Like Isaac
5.3.5 Gal. 5:1
5.3.6 Summary of Gal. 4:21–5:1
5.4 Gal. 5:2-12 Through the Spirit
5.4.1 Gal. 5:2-6
5.4.2 Gal. 5:7-12
5.5 Gal. 5:13-25 The Agency of the Spirit and the Believer
5.5.1 The Imperatival Shape of Gal. 5:13-25
5.5.2 Gal. 5:13-15
5.5.3 Gal. 5:16-25
Gal. 5:16-18
Gal. 5:19-24
Gal. 5:25
5.5.4 Summary of Gal. 5:13-25
5.6 Gal. 5:26–6:10 Spiritual People Sowing to the Spirit
5.6.1 Gal. 6:1
5.6.2 Gal. 6:2-10
5.7 Conclusion
6 Pneumatological Undertones in Gal. 6:11-17
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Gal. 6:11-17 An Epistolary or Body Closing?
6.3 Paul’s Pneumatological Argument so Far
6.4 Gal. 6:11-13
6.4.1 Gal. 6:11
6.4.2 Gal. 6:12-13
6.5 Pneumatological Undertones in Gal. 6:14-16
6.5.1 Introduction
6.5.2 Gal. 6:14
The Cross or the Spirit?
6.5.3 Gal. 6:15 Circumcision, Uncircumcision, and New Creation
Circumcision and Uncircumcision
καινὴ κτίσις
Καινὴ κτίσις as Anthropological Renewal
Καινὴ κτίσις as Cosmic Renewal
Both Anthropological and Cosmological Renewal
Καινὴ κτίσις as an Ecclesiological Concept
Toward
a Possible Solution: καινή κτίσις as a
Pneumatologically Defined, Socio-Cosmic Renewal
Summary Conclusion to καινὴ κτίσις as a Pneumatological Concept
6.5.4 Gal. 6:16 This Rule, and the Israel of God
στοιχήσουσιν and τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ
ὁ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ
6.6 Conclusion
7 Conclusion
7.1 Summary Overview
7.2 Reading Galatians through a Pneumatological Lens
7.3 Paul’s Pneumatological Cosmogony
7.4 Further Research
7.5 Final Thoughts
Bibliography
Index of References
Author Index

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

681 formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series

Editor Chris Keith

Editorial Board Dale C. Allison, Lynn H. Cohick, R. Alan Culpepper, Craig A. Evans, Jennifer Eyl, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, Juan Hernández Jr., John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Matthew V. Novenson, Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Catrin H. Williams, Brittany E. Wilson

ii

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity Toward a Pneumatological Reading of Galatians 3:1–6:17 Grant Buchanan

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2023 Copyright © Grant Buchanan, 2023 Grant Buchanan has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgments on pp. xii–xiii constitute an extension of this copyright page. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-0-5677-0925-7 ePDF: 978-0-5677-0926-4 eBook: 978-0-5677-0928-8 Series: Library of New Testament Studies, volume 681 ISSN 2513-8790 Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

I dedicate this book to my wife, Trudy, and my boys, Joel and Zac.

vi

­Contents ­Acknowledgments ­Abbreviations General Extra-Biblical Abbreviations Josephus Philo ­1 ­Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Book Aim 1.2.1  Paul as Generative Theologian 1.2.2 Paul within Judaism 1.2.3  Two Cautions 1.3 Situating the Spirit in Galatians 1.4 Methodology 1.5 Outline of the Book ­2

Generative Cosmogonies: Antecedent Interpretations of Creation and Spirit Prior to Paul 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1  Paul and His Tradition 2.1.2  Aim and Outline of This Chapter 2.2 Genesis, the Spirit, and the Creation of the Cosmos Gen. 1:1-2 The Spirit and Creation of the Cosmos Gen. 2:7 The Spirit and Creation of Humanity Summary of the Spirit and Creation in Genesis 1 and 2 2.3 The Spirit and Creation in Old Testament Biblical and Extra-Biblical Texts 2.3.1 Psalms Ps. 33:6-9 MT (32:6-9 LXX) Psalm 104 MT/103 LXX 2.3.2  OT Prophetic Literature 2.3.3  Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah Isa. 42:5

xii xiv xiv xvii xviii xviii 1 1 3 5 6 10 13 15 16

19 19 19 19 21 22 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 29

viii

­3

­Content Isa. 65:17 ­Summary of Spirit and Creation in Isaiah 2.3.4  Ezekiel: Spirit and New Life ­Ezek. 36:26-27 ­Ezek. 37:1-14 Summary of Spirit and Creation in Ezekiel 2.3.5  Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) 4Q422 1QS3 1QS4 20–22 11Q19 29 7-10 Summary of Spirit and Creation in the DSS 2.3.6 Jubilees Jub. 1:23-25 Jub. 1:29 Jub. 2:1 The Angel of the Presence-Face Summary of Spirit and Creation in Jubilees 2.3.7  Wisdom of Solomon Wis. 1:5-7 Wis. 7:22 Wis. 15:11 κτίσις and κόσμος in Wisdom Summary of Spirit and Creation in Wisdom 2.4 Conclusion

30

Gal. 3:1-5 This One Thing 3.1 Introduction 3.1.1  Overview of the Next Four Chapters 3.1.2  Aim and Outline ­3.2 Gal. 3:1-5: A Starting Point 3.2.1  A Lens for Interpreting Gal. 3:1-5 Justification Hearing of Faith ­Spirit 3.3 Gal. 3:1-5 3.3.1  Galatians 3:2 Summary of Gal. 3:2 3.3.2  Gal. 3:1 βασκαίνω

53

31 32 33 34 35 36 38 38 39 40 40 41 42 43 43 44 44 45 46 47 47 49 50

53 53 54 55 56 56 58 58 59 59 63 63 64

­Content

­4

ix

βασκαίνω as Witchcraft ­βασκαίνω as Metaphor βασκαίνω as Envy βασκαίνω in Context προεγράφη ­Summary of Gal. 3:1 3.3.3  Gal. 3:3 ­3.3.4  Gal. 3:4 3.3.5  Gal. 3:5 3.4 Conclusion

65

Gal. 3:6–4:11 The Blessing of the Promise 4.1 Introduction ­4.2 Gal. 3:6-9 Just Like Abraham 4.2.1  Gal. 3:6 Who Introduced Abraham to the Galatians? The Importance of Abraham to Paul’s Argument 4.2.2  Gal. 3:7-9 προευαγγελίζομαι and ἐνευλογέω ἔθνη Which Narrative from Genesis? 4.2.3  Summary of 3:6-9 4.3 Gal. 3:10-14 Curse, and the Spirit as Promised Blessing 4.3.1  Gal. 3:10-13 ­Gal. 3:10 Gal. 3:11-12 The Emphasis of Gal. 3:13 Summary of Gal. 3:10-13 4.3.2  Galatians 3:14 Literary Setting of Gal. 3:14 ἵνα … ἵνα … The Promised Spirit 4.3.3  Summary of Gal. 3:10-14 4.4 Gal. 3:15-29 Promise and Inheritance 4.5 Gal. 4:1-11 Sonship and Spirit 4.5.1  Gal. 4:1-7 Gal. 4:1-3 τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἡμεῖς in Gal. 4:3 Gal. 4:4-7

81

65 66 67 67 69 70 75 76 77

81 82 82 83 84 85 85 86 87 88 88 88 89 89 91 91 92 93 94 96 97 98 101 101 102 105 105

x

­5

­6

­Content I­ nterpretation of ὅτι in Gal. 4:6 The Sending Motif in Gal. 4:4-6 4.5.2  Gal. 4:8-11 4.6 Conclusion

106

Gal. 4:12–6:10 The Spirit, Freedom, Identity, and Praxis 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Gal. 4:12-20 5.3 Gal. 4:21–5:1 Children of Promise and Freedom ­5.3.1  ἐλευθερία 5.3.2  Born κατὰ σάρκα or δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας 5.3.3  The New Jerusalem 5.3.4  Just Like Isaac 5.3.5  Gal. 5:1 5.3.6  Summary of Gal. 4:21–5:1 5.4 Gal. 5:2-12 Through the Spirit 5.4.1  Gal. 5:2-6 5.4.2  Gal. 5:7-12 5.5 Gal. 5:13-25 The Agency of the Spirit and the Believer 5.5.1  The Imperatival Shape of Gal. 5:13-25 5.5.2  Gal. 5:13-15 5.5.3  Gal. 5:16-25 Gal. 5:16-18 Gal. 5:19-24 Gal. 5:25 5.5.4  Summary of Gal. 5:13-25 5.6 Gal. 5:26–6:10 Spiritual People Sowing to the Spirit 5.6.1  Gal. 6:1 5.6.2  Gal. 6:2-10 5.7 Conclusion

113

Pneumatological Undertones in Gal. 6:11-17 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Gal. 6:11-17 An Epistolary or Body Closing? 6.3 Paul’s Pneumatological Argument so Far 6.4 Gal. 6:11-13 ­6.4.1  Gal. 6:11 6.4.2  Gal. 6:12-13 6.5 Pneumatological Undertones in Gal. 6:14-16

139

107 109 110

113 114 114 115 116 117 119 120 120 121 121 123 124 124 126 127 129 130 132 133 133 133 134 137

139 140 142 143 143 144 146

­Content

­7

xi

6.5.1 Introduction 6.5.2  Gal. 6:14 The Cross or the Spirit? 6.5.3  Gal. 6:15 Circumcision, Uncircumcision, and New Creation Circumcision and Uncircumcision καινὴ κτίσις Καινὴ κτίσις as Anthropological Renewal Καινὴ κτίσις as Cosmic Renewal Both Anthropological and Cosmological Renewal Καινὴ κτίσις as an Ecclesiological Concept ­Toward a Possible Solution: καινή κτίσις as a Pneumatologically Defined, Socio-Cosmic Renewal Summary Conclusion to καινὴ κτίσις as a Pneumatological Concept ­6.5.4  Gal. 6:16 This Rule, and the Israel of God στοιχήσουσιν and τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ ὁ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ 6­ .6 Conclusion

146

Conclusion 7.1 Summary Overview ­7.2 Reading Galatians through a Pneumatological Lens 7.3 Paul’s Pneumatological Cosmogony 7.4 Further Research 7.5 Final Thoughts

165

­Bibliography Index of References Author Index

147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 158 159 159 159 161

165 167 168 169 169 171 192 202

A ­ cknowledgments This book is a reworking of my doctoral thesis. A work of this size requires immense amounts of time, focus, and energy, and represents a culmination of more than eight years of my life. Unfortunately, I cannot acknowledge everyone who assisted my journey. However, I acknowledge and show gratitude to a select few who have been significant to its success. Thanks to the team at LNTS at T&T Clark for accepting my original work for publication. I especially thank the editorial team, Chris Keith, Lucy Davies and Sarah Blake who have guided me in preparing this book for publication. Thanks also to Kerrie Stevens, Head Librarian at Alphacrucis University College in Melbourne. Your keen eye and help in proof-reading the final copy has made this a much better book. My immense appreciation goes to my supervisor, Dr. Sean Winter, Principal of Pilgrim College, University of Divinity, Melbourne, Australia. Without him the quality and clarity of this book would not have been possible. Sean, you challenged the way I think and write. Many hours were spent and emails sent clarifying my thoughts, tightening my argument, and encouraging me to explore ideas further. Thanks for your patience, consistent advice, willing challenge, and your red pen. I often hear your voice as I teach and grade my own students. I am a better exegete, scholar, and writer because of you. Any mistakes, grammatical errors, or lack of consistency or coherency of argument are solely mine. To my work colleagues and students at Harvest Bible College and Alphacrucis University College in Australia, I am grateful for your ongoing encouragement and challenge to my thinking—often the result of many conversations around the coffee machine, food, and work. You each contributed to this work by helping me hone my thinking, especially in relating the abstract and obscure of Paul to real life and ministry contexts. Thank you, also, to the many students in my biblical and theology classes who willingly listened to my heresies and openly discussed many of the ideas that I bought to our exploration of biblical texts and theological conversations. You also helped shape and inspire some of the thoughts within this work. I am humbly honored to have been able to teach and learn from you all. To my boys, Joel and Zac, I am grateful for the time you allowed me for my studies. I acknowledge the times when my focus was on my study when it should have been with family, but I know that I could not have completed this without your support. To my mother, Joan, my extended family in New Zealand, my close friends, and my church community at Kaleidoscope Community Church in Melbourne, thank you all for your encouragement and questions. You continually remind me that we are encouraged, supported, and shaped by one another. You are all a major motivation that has helped shaped my thinking around the communal nature of Paul’s argument in Galatians. You define who I am “of.”

­Acknowledgment

xiii

To Trudy, my soulmate, friend, accountability, and coach through many frustrating and stressful times, thank you for your love, support, and willingness to challenge me when I drifted off track. You are my forever-love. I have often been reminded how the Holy Spirit sounds just like you. You bring focus and wisdom to my life. Finally, thank you Paul for writing such an awesome letter, and Triune God—Father, Son, and Spirit—for calling me to this task and inspiring me to journey deeper into the Bible in order to seek a greater understanding of what it means to be a Spirit-person, a true child of God.

­Abbreviations All abbreviations have been made in accordance with The SBL Handbook of Style 2nd edn.

General AB

Anchor Bible

AGJU

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums

AnBib

Analecta Biblica

ANE

Ancient Near East

BBR

Bulletin for Biblical Research

BBC

Blackwell Bible Commentaries

BDAG

Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

BECNT

Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

Bib Biblica BJRL

Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester

BNTC

Black’s New Testament Commentaries

BR

Bible Review

BSac

Bibliotheca Sacra

BTCB

Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible

BZAW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

BZNW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CEJL

Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature

CJB

Complete Jewish Bible (1998)

CSCO

Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium

­Abbreviation CurTM

Currents in Theology and Mission

DCLS

Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies

DJD

Discoveries in the Judean Desert

DPL

Dictionary of Paul and His Letters

DSD

Dead Sea Discoveries

­DSS

Dead Sea Scrolls

EJL

Early Judaism and Its Literature

ETL

Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

EvT

Evangelische Theologie

FAT

Forschungen zum Alten Testament

FOLT

The Forms of the Old Testament Literature

FRLANT

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

GAP

Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

HR

History of Religions

HTS

Harvard Theological Studies

ICC

International Critical Commentary

IJT

Indian Journal of Theology

IOS

Israel Oriental Studies

xv

J Relig Health Journal of Religion and Health JBPR

Journal of Biblical & Pneumatological Research

JHI

Journal of the History of Ideas

JQR

Jewish Quarterly Review

JSJ

Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period

JSJSup

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism

JSNT

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup

Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series

JSS

Journal of Semetic Studies

KJV

King James Version

LASBF

Liber Annuus Studii Biblici Franciscani

­Abbreviation

xvi LHBOTS

Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies

LNTS

Library of New Testament Studies

LSTS

The Library of Second Temple Studies

NASB

New American Standard Bible

NCBC

New Cambridge Bible Commentary

Neot Neotestamentica NIBC

New International Bible Commentary

NICNT

New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIDNTT

New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

NIGTC

New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIV

New International Bible

NJB

New Jerusalem Bible

NLT

New Living Translation

NovT

Novum Testamentum

NovTSup

Suppliments to Novum Testamentum

NRSV

New Revised Standard Version

NSBT

New Studies in Biblical Theology

NT

New Testament

NTL

New Testament Library

NTS

New Testament Studies

OT

Old Testament

OTL

Old Testament Library

PHSC

Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and Its Contexts

PRJ

Puritan Reformed Journal

PRSt

Perspectives in Religious Studies

PSTJ

Perkins School of Theology Journal

PVTG

Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece

RevQ

Revue de Qumran

RSV

Revised Standard Version

SEÅ

Svensk exegetisk årsbok

­Abbreviation SNTSMS

Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

SNTW

Studies of the New Testament and Its World

ST

Studia Theologica

STDJ

Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah

STJ

Stellenbosch Theological Journal

SVTP

Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha

­TDNT

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TDNTW

The NIV Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words

TTZ

Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift

TynBul

Tyndale Bulletin

UUA

Uppsala Universitetsårsskrift

VT

Vetus Testamentum

VTSup

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

WUNT

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZTK

Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Extra-Biblical Abbreviations 2 Bar.

2 Baruch

3 Macc

3 Maccabees

Apoc. Ab.

Apocalypse of Abraham

Bar Baruch Cant. Rab.

Canticles Rabbah

Cor. Demosthenes, De Corona De or. Cicero, De oratore Jdt Judith Jos. Asen.

Joseph and Aseneth

Jub. Jubilees Men. Plautus, Menaechmi Odes Sol.

Odes of Solomon

xvii

­Abbreviation

xviii Phaedr. Plato, Phaedrus Rhet. Aristotle, Rhetorica Sir Sirach T. Levi

Testament of Levi

Tg. Onq.

Targum Onqelos

Tg. Ps.-J.

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

Tg. Yer. I.

Targum Yerušalmi

­Wis./Wisdom Wisdom of Solomon

Josephus A.J.

Antiquitates judaicae

Philo Abr.

De Abrahamo

Aet.

De aeternitate mundi

Conf.

De confusione linguarum

Flacc.

In Flaccum

Her.

Ques Rerum Divinarum heres sit

Jos.

De Josepho

Legat.

Legatio ad Gaium

Migr.

De migration Abrahami

Mos.

De vita Moses

Mut.

De mutatione nominum

Opif.

De opificio mundi

Som

De somniis

Spec.

De specialibus legibus

Virt.

De virtutibus

­1

­Introduction

1.1 Introduction In Gal. 6:15, Paul declares οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις—“for neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; but [what matters is] καινὴ κτίσις (new creation).”1 What led Paul to this conclusion? Something radically new had obviously occurred in Paul’s thinking that was a direct result of his encounter with the risen Christ,2 and his experience among the Christian communities in Galatia that he had helped start. This encounter and reconsideration of what God was doing lies behind Paul’s language of new creation in Galatians.3 Gal. 6:15 suggests that this involved a major epistemological shift that reconfigured his understanding of past, present, future, and what constituted identity within a new creation reality. As Witherington states, “belief in a crucified Messiah entailed an enormous transvaluation of values, and an adoption of a new paradigm of what God was really doing in the world, [and] how he was doing it.”4 This new creation language in Galatians, however, was not unique to Paul. On the contrary, new creation language was already available to Paul from his Jewish tradition. Prior to Paul, in a fresh trajectory from the original creation narratives in Gen. 1:1 and 2:7, Isaiah had already spoken of YHWH creating a new heaven and a new earth; a renewed cosmos where both Jew and non-Jew would come and worship Israel’s God.5 This new creation would be the fulfillment of God’s saving purposes for Israel. Furthermore, the likes of Ezekiel viewed such eschatological renewal, especially of YHWH’s covenant people, in terms of the activity of the Spirit of God, while Joel saw Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own. Keck considers this the foremost event that was the catalyst that redefines all of reality for Paul, and ex post facto, redefined what God was doing in the cosmos. “Paul as Thinker,” Interpretation 47, no. 1 (1993), 29–30. 3 2 Cor 5:17 has the only other occurrence of καινὴ κτίσις. Ephesians 1–2 includes a new creation motif. Mark D. Owens, As It Was in the Beginning: An Intertextual Analysis of New Creation in Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and Ephesians (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015). On Paul’s use of κτίσις in Romans 1–8, see T. Ryan Jackson, New Creation in Paul’s Letters: A Study of the Historical and Social Setting of a Pauline Concept, WUNT 2/272 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 157–69. 4 Ben Witherington, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 450. See also, Ian W. Scott, Paul’s Way of Knowing: Story, Experience, and the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 284–6. 5 See, e.g., Isa 65:17-25; 66:22-23. 1 2

2

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

the Spirit would be poured out in the last days.6 As I hope to demonstrate in what follows, it appears that for Paul, the presence of the Spirit in the lives of the Gentile believers in Galatia was the sign that what God had promised long ago was already happening now. Consequently, Paul can declare that the new creation exists now, and now matters because of the work of the Spirit in the Galatian believers. Thus, in the light of this connection between new creation and the Spirit, the activity of the Spirit becomes for Paul a sign of the reconfiguration of all things in the light of divine promise. This connection between the motifs of new creation and the activity of the Spirit elicits several important questions that I explore here. 1. If, as I argue, the presence of the Spirit represents for Paul both the actualization and actuality of the promised new creation, then how does this idea correlate with antecedent and contemporary Jewish traditions and expectations of both Spirit and creation? 2. How does Paul’s thought relate to Jewish creation traditions in Genesis 1–2, that narrate the creation of the cosmos and humanity with specific reference to the activity of the Spirit? As I show in Chapter 2, these themes from Genesis undergo diverse developments within Second Temple Jewish (STJ) thought prior to Paul; including a developing idea of an eschatological renewal of both cosmos and humanity. These developments, that I call generative cosmogenic trajectories, provide us with an understanding of how Paul adapts and contextualizes the same themes in his own context.7 3. Given the importance of pneumatology throughout Galatians 3–6,8 culminating in the statement about new creation in 6:15, which I argue has pneumatological inferences, how does Paul’s pneumatology align with or differ from Jewish tradition? 4. Furthermore, related to (3): if this “new” thing presented in Galatians is God’s intended plan for salvation, where the Spirit confirms God’s approval and acceptance without circumcision and Torah obedience, then is the Jewish tradition that is more focused on God’s promise to Israel, somehow obsolete according to Paul? Galatians 3–4, with its familial language, is an attempt to answer some of these questions. 5. This leads to a final question: what is the role of the Spirit in Paul’s understanding of this promise, and the incorporation of the Gentiles into the Abrahamic promises? Ezek 36:26-27; 37:1-15; Joel 28:32. “Cosmogony” denotes a contextually embedded and defined cosmological narrative; a received cosmogony that is adapted and rearticulated in light of contextual issues and cultural needs, and that acts as a framework to explain current reality. The analysis of these earlier trajectories, focused on the work of the Spirit in relation to creation, sets the scene for understanding Paul as a contributor to the emergence of diverse cosmogonies within STJ theologies. My definition of cosmogony is informed by Richard J. Clifford, “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah and Its Cosmogonic Language,” CBQ 55, no. 1 (1993), 1–17. 8 Gal 3:2, 3, 5, 14; 4:6, 29; 5:5, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25; 6:1, 7, 8. 6 7

­Introductio

3

The exploration of OT biblical and extra-biblical texts prior to Paul and the interpretation of Galatians that follows in this book aims to respond to these questions and provide exegetical insights in support of the view that, according to Paul, the Spirit received by the Galatians is intimately connected to the re-creation of the cosmos, community, and individual. This connection stands in line with themes within Paul’s Jewish tradition and provides coherence for understanding the argument of Galatians. All this raises one overarching question. In light of the Spirit and the redefined Spirit-life of the believing community in Galatians 5–6, is there a way of reading Galatians 3–6 pneumatologically that helps us understand how Paul’s argument in the letter is appropriately read and concluded with his assertion in 6:15 that there is now an actual “new creation”?

1.2 Book Aim Drawing these questions together, the aims of this book are fivefold. Firstly, to identify how biblical and extra-biblical STJ authors generatively rearticulate the biblical creation texts in Gen. 1:1-2 and 2:7 that specifically connect the Spirit to creation of the cosmos and humanity, respectively. Because several important biblical and extra-biblical texts either directly or indirectly rearticulate these two passages and their creation motifs, it is sufficient to note that they were obviously early narratives that informed the notional expressions of Jewish cosmic and anthropological creation motifs and provided a basis for the development of later cosmogenic developments of a renewed cosmic and social reality. Exploration of select passages from biblical and extra-biblical STJ texts prior to Paul reveals a trajectory of diverse ideas that rehearse and rearticulate the creation narratives of Gen. 1:1-2 and 2:7 in distinct ways, reflective of the contingent circumstances present within the contexts of the authors and audiences of the relevant texts. As Figure 1 below highlights, the relationship between the cosmic and anthropological creation motifs from these Genesis texts is further developed within this diversity to include

Figure 1  Generative Trajectory of New-/Re-Creation Motifs in Second Temple Judaism.

4

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

social/communal and covenantal dimensions—all of which include both implicit and explicit pneumatology. In this relationship of Spirit and creation, individual/ anthropological creation (Gen. 2:7) that occurs within the creation of the cosmos (Gen. 1:1), eventually becomes individual transformation and re-creation in later trajectories. In these later trajectories individual transformation and re-creation both occur within a new creation covenant community which, in turn, exists within a recreated and transformed socio-cosmic new creation framework. All this is due to the agency of the Spirit. In other words, a noticeable trajectory appears in biblical and extra-biblical STJ thought of a developing expectation of a socio-cosmic renewal; a renewal that includes individual, corporate (predominantly covenantal Israel as God’s people), and cosmic dimensions. These cosmic dimensions, in turn, include both the physical heavens and earth, and the spiritual and social reality in which life is lived. As such, this represents a clear cosmogenic development within the tradition. Additionally, within this dynamic there is sufficient evidence that Jewish understandings of the Spirit of God also developed, especially in relation to a connection between the Spirit and this (new/ re-) creation. Secondly, by exploring Paul’s references to the Spirit in relation to themes of Gentile identity and new creation language in Galatians, I aim to identify how the coming of Christ and the presence of the Spirit in the Galatian community leads Paul himself to adapt similar Jewish creation motifs explored above, and generate a fresh, pneumatologically defined cosmogony: a fresh cosmogony within which Paul’s unique pneumatology is developed, but one that is still grounded within the Jewish tradition and that is reflective of the generative trajectories evident in earlier interpretations of the creation stories and later covenantal people-of-God language.9 The third aim is to explore the importance the new creation motif in Gal. 6:15 by making its relationship to Paul’s pneumatological statements in the letter clear. Investigating 6:14-17 for potential connotations of the phrase “new creation” (καινὴ κτίσις) in 6:15, I consider an implicit pneumatology in the phrase and, consequently, establish its relationship to the argument of 3:1–6:17.10 Fourthly, I show that in Galatians, the language of new creation is related to the issue of Gentile inclusion and a redefinition of Gentile identity. Paul brings the Spirit and the new creation together in a dynamic and fresh way, so that the Galatian believers can recognize they are now part of the people of God without the need for circumcision, because they too experience the Spirit. This idea of a

On the importance of pneumatology in Israel’s scriptures and as the prolegomenon to Christian understanding, see, John R. Levison, The Holy Spirit before Christianity (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019), 155, n.5. 10 I consider Paul’s new creation language as representing a similar “socio-cosmic” renewal to that of some STJ thinkers; a renewal that includes anthropological, cosmic and ecclesiological dimensions implicit within the term. Similar to Figure 1 above, Paul’s views individual (anthropological) renewal as embedded in ecclesiological renewal—framed in the idea of covenant inclusion—that is broadened to include a new epistemological understanding of the social fabric of the cosmos. On this see Chapter 6 below. 9

­Introductio

5

redefined identity for Gentiles is part of Paul’s rearticulation of God’s purposes for Abraham’s family and for the world. Finally, in light of all of the questions and aims outlined above, I aim to show how Paul’s pneumatology, understood this way, positively impacts the way we read and interpret Galatians 3–6.

1.2.1 Paul as Generative Theologian In Chapter 2, I explore ways that the early Jewish cosmogonies of Gen. 1:1-2 and 2:7 are creatively adapted by biblical and extra-biblical STJ authors prior to Paul in order to address contextual issues and concerns in their own communities. While it may appear strange to focus on only two brief passages in the creation narrative, my exegesis of biblical and extra-biblical literature will reveal the importance these passages had for later Jewish cosmogonies concerning the creation of the cosmos and humanity (the latter often referred to as the “breath-of-life” tradition).11 These later adaptations creatively reconfigure the cosmic and anthropological elements present within the two primary texts from Genesis, resulting in fresh, yet at the same time, variant cosmogonies that reflect the cultural and sociopolitical contextual realities of the community within which they were written. The diversity of these variant adaptations suggests a fluid hermeneutical tradition showing the authors were not bound by a single hermeneutic or interpretation.12 The creative nature of this rearticulation of Scripture and tradition can be considered “generative theology.”13 Generative theology describes the ways that Scripture and traditions that inform later Jewish cosmogonies and Jewish covenantal identity are often reconfigured by biblical and extra-biblical authors. Generative aspects are inherent in any hermeneutic or theological construct. They allow a community to redefine their received tradition and shared history resulting from their own historical, cultural, and social contexts. Paul’s work in Galatians falls within this category of generative theology.

Gen. 2:7 represents a breath-of-life tradition where God’s Spirit is the breath of life (‫נשמת‬‎‫חיים‬/πνοὴν ζωῆς) breathed into humanity. On the concept of the breath-of-life tradition in Jewish thought see, John Yates, The Spirit and Creation in Paul, WUNT 2/251 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 25–41. Also, Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols., OTL (London: SCM Press, 1967), 2.121, 2.137. 12 Ehrensperger calls this a “conversation in all its diversity.” Searching Paul: Conversations with the Jewish Apostle to the Nations, WUNT 429 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 39. See also, M. J Bernstein, “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the History of Early Biblical Interpretation,” in Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. H. Najman et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 238. On the fluidity of scriptural traditions, see, Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier, and Leroy Andrew Huizenga, Reading the Bible Intertextually (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), xii. On diversity within STJ thought, see, N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 167–279. 13 My definition is a variation of Wynard de Kock’s thesis. Out of My Mind: Following the Trajectory of God’s Regenerative Story (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014). On the generative utilization of pneumatology in STJ thought see, Levison, Before Christianity, 95. 11

6

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

1.2.2 Paul within Judaism Regarding Paul’s pneumatology, Vos argues that “Paul’s concept of pneuma … is the most comprehensive and, at the same time, most difficult, variable concept that [he] generated.”14 Similar things can be said of Paul’s cosmogony, especially given the way he creatively employs antecedent Jewish creation motifs in Galatians.15 I argue that Paul’s pneumatology and new creation language are not purely anthropological (an internal, individual experience of transformation), but also represent a covenantal and cosmic transformation in which social and eschatological realities are reconfigured in the light of the crucified Messiah. This raises the question of exactly which antecedent ideas or texts informed and shaped Paul’s cosmogony and pneumatology in Galatians, and how his views are shaped by contextual factors. While nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century debates centered around the primacy of Hellenistic influences on Paul’s theology, consensus today affirms the primacy of Jewish antecedents.16 While there is little evidence for a single Jewish text as the primary source for understanding Paul’s own cosmogony and pneumatology, key motifs in Paul’s discussion of the Spirit and his new creation language are best explained with reference to the diversity of such antecedent texts.17 Exploring this material assists us in identifying how Paul’s theology reflects both continuity and discontinuity with his Jewish traditions. Irrespective of whether we can be sure how much of the primary antecedent literature Paul knew or not, “many of the themes that they employ” are utilized by him.18 Consequently, “like many of his contemporaries Paul most likely often used these motifs without consciously alluding to the OT texts in which these themes feature prominently.”19 Ehrensperger argues this more concretely. Because Paul’s schooling was in Jerusalem, he “was a participant in Jewish interpretive discourse … [and he] lived and argued with the My translation. J. S. Vos, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Paulinischen Pneumatologie (Assen: Von Gorcum, 1973), 1. Internal quote, Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Adolf Jülicher, and Walter Bauer, Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1911), 155. 15 Edward Adams, Constructing the World: A Study in Paul’s Cosmological Language, SNTW (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 153; Oda Wischmeyer, “ΦΥΣΙΣ und ΚΤΙΣΙΣ bei Paulus: Die paulinische Rede von Schöpfung und Natur,” ZTK 93, no. 3 (1996), 353. 16 See the helpful discussion Kimberly Ambrose, Jew among Jews: Rehabilitating Paul (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015), 6–43; Kathy Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space-Between, LNTS 456 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 18–29; 131–9. 17 Jewish sources include texts from Jewish scriptures as well as interpretations of these texts within intertestamental writing. David McAuley, Paul’s Covert Use of Scripture: Intertextuality and Rhetorical Situation in Philippians 2:10-16 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2015), 13. NonJewish thought may have influenced Paul’s thinking, but only as second-order influences. On locating Paul’s argument within a diverse Jewish hermeneutic, see, e.g., Mark D. Nanos, “Paul and Judaism: Why not Paul’s Judaism?,” in Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle, ed. Mark D. Given (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 117–60; Ambrose, Jew among Jews; Magnus Zetterholm and Mark D. Nanos, eds., Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015). 18 Rodrigo Jose Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians, WUNT 2/282 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 9. 19 Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel, 9. Similarly: Calvin J. Roetzel, The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, 5th ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 49. 14

­Introductio

7

scriptures in a way that mirrored the creative and diverse practices of interpretation that were practiced in first-century Judaism.”20 Like many of his contemporaries and predecessors, Paul is aware that the context of his readers and as such, the situational context of his letters invites an interpretation of Jewish scripture and tradition that is relevant to these contexts. Thus, “Paul’s thought and argument tend to be hermeneutical, drawing out the implications of a new fact within the context of a prior framework, rather than foundationalist, working up from unquestionable premises by way of syllogistic logic.”21 To achieve this Paul employs key OT passages and core Jewish motifs and creatively reconfigures them when developing his theology.22 Consequently, given the generative nature of cosmological and pneumatological indicative of some STJ thought, and the similarity of many of the core motifs within these texts to those in Paul’s letters, Paul is a generative Jewish theologian located within Second Temple Judaism.23 Wright concurs. Paul develops his thought within a Jewish covenant framework.24 Paul, like all first-century Jews, had a “plight,” though it is not to be identified with that of the puzzled existentialist, or for that matter that of the consciousstricken Protestant. The “plight” consisted of the sorry state of Israel, interpreted as a problem about the covenant faithfulness and justice of the Creator God who had called her to be his chosen people.25

While this plight included individual sinfulness, this was not Paul’s main concern. “Nothing less than the framework of covenant theology will do justice to the plight as perceived by Paul.”26 Paul experienced an unexpected and unusual solution to this plight on the Damascus Road. “If the creator had done for Jesus what he was supposed to be doing for Israel, then the solution to Israel’s plight had arrived, but it was not in Ehrensperger, Searching Paul, 41, 47. Ehrensperger’s “creative and diverse practices of interpretation,” are what I call generative theology. Wright calls Paul’s generative thought “situational.” N. T Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 259. 21 Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 75, emphasis added. 22 John Henry Paul Reumann, Creation & New Creation; The Past, Present, and Future of God’s Creative Activity (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1973), 90. Reumann draws on Gösta Lindeskog, “The Theology of Creation in the Old and New Testaments,” in The Root of the Vine: Essays in Biblical Theology, ed. Anton Fridrichsen (Westminster: Dacre Press, 1953); idem, Studien Zum Neutestamentlichen Schöpfungsgedanken, UUA 1952:11 (Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1952). 23 Which may explain the difference between Paul and other SJT thinkers. For similar conclusions to mine see the recent material from within the Paul Within Judaism school of thought see, e.g., Ehrensperger, Searching Paul; Nanos, “Paul and Judaism”; Zetterholm and Nanos, Paul within Judaism; See also, James Thompson, Apostle of Persuasion: Theology and Rhetoric in the Pauline Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020), 55. On Paul’s religious affiliation see John Ashton, The Religion of Paul the Apostle (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000); Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990). 24 Wright, Climax, 260–2. 25 Wright, Climax, 261. 26 Wright, Climax, 261. 20

8

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

a form that Israel had expected.”27 Consequently, Paul has to reconfigure everything that he once believed about God, God’s faithfulness, Israel’s plight, and the future in light of the crucified and resurrected Christ. This, of course, leads Paul to consider the plight in a fresh way; one that includes a broader perspective of the core issues, but that was also represented by an ongoing covenant faithlessness that includes Israel’s rejection of Jesus as the answer to the plight. Viewing Jesus as God’s Messiah did not mean adopting a new religion, or a new god, however.28 On the contrary, Paul claims that in the death and resurrection of the Messiah, the God of Israel fulfills the promises, already present in extant Jewish traditions, in a radically different way.29 Whether or not we accept Wright’s “Israel-still-in-exile” motif, he is correct to avoid reading Paul through post-Reformation individualistic or existential concerns. Paul simply assumes “the truth of the traditional Jewish narrative which forms his overall hermeneutical framework.” Consequently, “his argumentation tells us much about how [he] believes he can proceed from this starting point.”30 The shape of Paul’s thought is, therefore, that of a reconfigured Judaism. This idea is not without its detractors. Barclay, for example, acknowledges that Paul draws on the story of Israel, but only when this supports his “grace-shaped” story as derived from “one central point, ‘the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ’.”31 Furthermore, Paul “does not trace linear lines through historical processes or human continuities … Paul’s stories are neither plotted on a common timeline, nor linked by some other ‘organic’ principle: they are connected only by the common thread of the grace of God, which weaves its own independent patterns in history.”32 Watson argues similarly. Paul does not “incorporate his gospel into a linear story of creation and Israel as the end and the goal of that story.” Watson even suggests “that the Pauline gospel is not in itself a ‘story.’”33 Key to Watson’s argument is that for Paul, scripture is “not simply narrative, but he does draw freely on scriptural narrative texts.” Nevertheless, because Paul’s gospel “is itself the hermeneutical key to Scripture … [it] must be correlated with ‘the story of God in creation’ and ‘the story of Israel.’”34 In what follows, I explore aspects of this correlation. As such, Watson’s view allows for greater consideration of how Paul utilizes his Jewish tradition. Wright, Climax, 261. Ambrose (186) concludes similarly that, in light of Damascus Road, “transformation” underpins Paul’s theology: “The old is transformed into the renewed rather than abandoned or displaced.” Ambrose, Jew among Jews, 186. Also J. A. Ziesler, Pauline Christianity, Rev. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 8–9. 29 N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2 vols. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013), 611. See also, Michael F. Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007), 105; Bruce N. Fisk, “Paul among the Storytellers: Reading Romans 11 in the Context of Rewritten Bible,” in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation, ed. Christopher D. Stanley (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012), 57. 30 Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 10. 31 John M. G. Barclay, “Paul’s Story: Theology as Testimony,” in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 154. 32 Barclay, “Paul’s Story,” 155. 33 Francis Watson, “Is There a Story in These Texts?,” in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 234. 34 Watson, “Is There a Story in These Texts?,” 234, emphasis added. 27 28

­Introductio

9

While both Barclay and Watson provide important cautions to simply viewing Paul’s gospel as merely a rehearsal of the Jewish narrative, an equally alternate caution is to tip the balance the other way and view Paul as merely using aspects of Jewish scripture and tradition in articulating his gospel. Horrell rightly challenges Barclay’s concern “to oppose the idea that Paul presumes an ‘essentially Jewish story’ to which Christ adds a final, if surprising, chapter.” Instead, Horrell argues that while “the Christ-event is the … generative beginning of the story as Paul now perceives it, … arranged chronologically, [the] beginning [of Paul’s gospel story] is the creation, Adam, and so on; in this sense the coming of Christ is a subsequent event within this temporal narrative.”35 Further challenge to Paul within Judaism comes from Engberg-Pedersen and the “material spirit” school of interpretation. They argue that Paul’s thought, especially his pneumatology, is strongly influenced by Stoic cosmology.36 While I am sympathetic to aspects of Engberg-Pedersen’s argument, especially within my own Pentecostal context that understands the Spirit in quasi-substantive terms, I also challenge his emphasis on a material Spirit. Levison also challenges Engberg-Pedersen’s reading of Stoic texts suggesting they are narrow, and at times, deficient; especially Stoic texts which present the Spirit in less material terms such as breeze of vapor or energy.37 Furthermore, Paul understands the Spirit to not only transform the individual, but the whole community and communal praxis; something quite distinct from Stoic ideas.38 Therefore, while Greek philosophical traditions may have influenced Paul’s thinking, these should only be viewed as second-order influences, mediated to Paul through his Jewish tradition.39 Notwithstanding these concerns, Paul’s letters do reveal a definite willingness to modify—sometimes radically so—texts, terms, and concepts from Jewish texts and traditions in order to address the context within which he writes. Thus, Paul creatively and selectively accesses and arranges traditions.40 Thus, in Galatians, Paul’s theology is “a contextual theology … shaped by the interaction between situational

David G. Horrell, “Paul’s Narrative or Narrative Substructure?: The Significance of ‘Paul’s Story’,” in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 167, n.18, emphasis added. 36 Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). 37 John R. Levison, “Paul in the Stoa Poecile: A Response to Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit,” JSNT 33, no. 4 (2011), 425, 432. 38 John M. G. Barclay, “Stoic Physics and the Christ-event: A Review of Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010),” JSNT 33, no. 4 (2011), 413–14. In counter-response to both Levison and Barclay, see, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, “Paul’s Body: A Response to Barclay and Levison,” JSNT 33, no. 4 (2011), 433–443. Kavin Rowe views the relationship between Christianity and Stoicism as “a relation of rival traditions.” One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016), 6. 39 See further, Ehrensperger, Paul at the Crossroads, 131–9; Ehrensperger, Searching Paul, 11–14, 139–58. 40 See, e.g., Eve-Marie Becker, “How and Why Paul Deals with Traditions,” in Pauline Hermeneutics: Exploring the “Power of the Gospel,” ed. Eve-Marie Becker and Kenneth Mtata (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt GmbH, 2017), 35–6. 35

10

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

contingency and the material coherence of the gospel.”41 Paul’s interpretation and application of antecedent traditions belongs to this dynamic. Unlike his predecessors, however, Paul takes these traditions beyond usual Jewish boundaries, creatively representing them in light of fresh revelation—the risen Messiah, Jesus. As Scott states, the “very ‘happenedness’” of the resurrection “‘requires thinking’ … Since his prior understanding of the world took no account of this event, his acknowledgement of the resurrection forces a reinterpretation of everything within these new terms of reference.”42 And yet, although the encounter with Christ was pivotal in changing Paul’s view of God and the cosmos, “the irruptive event of the Damascus Road … could not in itself have guided Paul to any certain destination.”43 It was also his experience of the Spirit that helped shape a fresh understanding of what God was doing.44 Therefore, Paul’s new understanding of Christ may have been the catalyst for the epistemological shift that reshaped his cosmogony and pneumatology, but it was also his own experience along with his received tradition and theological hermeneutic, that influenced how his thinking was reconceived, and what that thinking primarily consisted of.45 This accounts for both the place Paul has within his Jewish tradition, as well as the fresh generative and unique nature of his pneumatology. Consequently, although Paul’s pneumatology is grounded in his received tradition, he is also “an innovator and adds something new and important … speaking of the Spirit in new and more comprehensive ways.”46

1.2.3 Two Cautions This understanding of the nature and dynamic of Paul’s work as a generative theologian prompts me to explore Paul’s pneumatological language in Galatians, identify how it fits within his argument, and clarify whether it echoes antecedent Jewish pneumatology or not. This serves the goal of identifying how it shapes his argument about Gentile identity and reference to the new creation. However, two cautions are necessary moving forward. Firstly, as is now apparent, any discussion of Paul’s pneumatology must avoid viewing the concept through a too narrow Christo-centric lens, whereby the Spirit

Johan Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980), 56. On Paul’s exegetical method in Galatians see G. Walter Hansen, Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts, JSNTSup 29 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 201–5. Also, Robert B. Foster, Renaming Abraham’s Children: Election, Ethnicity, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 9, WUNT 2/421 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 5–42; esp. 21; 25. 42 Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 78, emphasis added. 43 Garwood P. Anderson, Paul’s New Perspective: Charting a Soteriological Journey (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 119, emphasis added. 44 J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 310. 45 Roetzel, Letters, 49, 54. 46 Youngmo Cho, Spirit and Kingdom in the Writings of Luke and Paul: An Attempt to Reconcile These Concepts (Bletchley: Paternoster, 2005), 11.

41

­Introductio

11

is viewed in “strictly Christo-centric terms.”47 Dunn is representative of this.48 At times Dunn does attempt to present the Spirit as distinct from Christ. For example, in Christology in the Making, Dunn states that, for Paul, “the exalted Christ is not merely synonymous with Spirit, has not been wholly absorbed as it were by the Spirit, so that ‘exalted Christ’ becomes merely a phrase to describe the Spirit.”49 Instead, the categories of “Spirit” and “Christ” overlap. “Each defines and limits the other … but neither has wholly subsumed the other under it as a subordinate category.”50 Yet, surprisingly, prior to this he argues that “for Paul no distinction can be detected in the believer’s experience between the exalted Christ and Spirit of God,”51 and elsewhere, that “the Spirit experienced other than as the Spirit of Christ is for Paul not the Spirit of God.”52 Dunn correctly emphasizes that for Christians, the experience of God and the risen Christ is through the medium of the Holy Spirit, but at times his argument is such that the reader is left with the notion that the Spirit is subsumed by the presence of Christ; thus for Dunn, Paul’s pneumatology is predominantly subsumed within and, therefore, subordinate to Christology.53 Paul did not just wake up post-Damascus Road with a new understanding of the Spirit.54 His pneumatology is, therefore, not just Christologically generated. The Spirit is an established feature of his received tradition.55 The preexisting connection between the Spirit and creation in biblical and STJ literature prior to Paul makes this

Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 835, emphasis added. What Colin Gunton calls, “Western Pneumatological Subordinationism,” in The Promise of Trinitarian Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 135. See, e.g., Neill Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957). 48 James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 325. 49 James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of The Incarnation, 2nd ed. (London: SCM Press, 1989), 146–7, emphasis original. 50 Dunn, Christology, 147. 51 Dunn, Christology, 146, emphasis original. 52 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 264. 53 For critique see Francis Watson, “The Triune Divine Identity: Reflections on Pauline God-language, in Disagreement with J. D. G. Dunn,” JSNT 80 (2000), esp. 119–23; Christopher T. Baker, “The Identity of the Spirit in Paul: Did the Spirit Come to Possess a Distinct Identity Within Paul’s Christian Monotheism?” (PhD Australian Catholic University, 2013), 20–3. Unpublished Thesis. Also, Karl Barth, CD IV.3.1, ed. Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 351–8. 54 On this view see Vos, Traditionsgeschichtliche, 1–5; Segal, Convert; Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982). Kim’s thesis has merit but is overstated in my opinion. 55 See, e.g., Erik Konsmo, The Pauline Metaphors of the Holy Spirit: The Intangible Spirit’s Tangible Presence in the Life of the Christian, StBibLit (New York: Peter Lang, 2010), 1–20; Troels EngbergPedersen, ed., Paul in His Hellenistic Context (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994); Jörg Frey and John R. Levison, “The Origins of Early Christian Pneumatology: On the Rediscovery and Reshaping of the History of Religion’s Quest,” in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Jörg Frey and John R. Levison, Ekstasis (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 1–37; Vos, Traditionsgeschichtliche, 1–9. 47

12

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

clear.56 Although Paul’s “trinitarian” language57 is grounded in his Christology, Paul’s pneumatology is just as important to this language and is clearly shaped in important ways by the generative forces of his own Jewish tradition, and the experiences of his communities. The Spirit in Jewish tradition is recognized as God’s Holy Spirit present throughout the creative and redemptive events of Israel’s history, defining Jewish understanding of creation, life, and identity. While scholarship remains divided over how ‫רוח‬/πνεῦμα should be interpreted, along with other descriptors used to denote the presence of YHWH in the Old Testament,58 it does at times refer to the Spirit of God.59 The implication of this is that, in these cases, ‫רוח‬/πνεῦμα identifies God as being manifestly present to God’s people, defining the whole of creation and life for Israel.60 I argue that this reflects Paul’s own understanding of the Spirit and the new creation, and that “the Spirit retains its ‘divine’ nature as the Spirit of God in its OT/Jewish sense throughout his writing.”61 The second caution relates to a tendency within recent scholarship to emphasize ecstatic and prophetic aspects of the Spirit within earlier texts. While such associations

For pneumatological development within SJT, see, Jörg Frey, “How Did the Spirit Become a Person?,” in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Jörg Frey and John R. Levison, Ekstasis (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014); Levison, Before Christianity. 57 Other suitable terms include: “trinitarian presuppositions.” Andrew K. Gabriel, “Pauline Pneumatology and the Question of Trinitarian Presuppositions,” in Paul and His Theology, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 367; “Trinitarian Assumptions.” Gordon D. Fee, Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson 1996), 45. “proto-Trinitarian” Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: an Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 586– 93; also Chris Tilling, “Paul, the Trinity, and Contemporary Trinitarian Debates,” PJBR 11, no. 1 (2016), 26. Tilling rightly argues that, when considering Paul’s theological grammar about “God’s Godness,” there is an apparent “threeness” (my term). It is, therefore, legitimate to “speak of Paul’s tri-une theology.” Chris Tilling, “Paul the Trinitarian,” in Essays on the Trinity, ed. Lincoln Harvey (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2018), 58, emphasis original. See also, Wesley Hill, Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 2015), 45. Contra Richard E. Averbeck, “Breath, Wind, Spirit and the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament,” in Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, ed. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 27. 58 Such as face (‫)פנימ‬. In the DSS, the angel of Presence is literally “the angel of the face.” See also, Ex 33:14; Isa 63:9; Jub. 2:1; and my discussion in Chapter 2 below. 59 On ‫רוח‬/πνεῦμα in the Hebrew scriptures See, e.g., R; Marie E. Isaacs, The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and Its Bearing on the New Testament (London: Heythrop College, 1976). Isaacs notes that of “the 378 occurrences of ‫ רוח‬in the MT, 277 occur as πνεῦμa in the LXX.” Where ‫ רוח‬means wind in the Hebrew (117 instances) the LXX employs ἄνεμος for 52 of these. She also notes that the LXX uses πνεῦμa to translate other Hebrew words. Isaacs, 11. Thus, not all instances of ‫ רוח‬or πνεῦμa are necessarily co-related. 60 The theology of divine presence, which in rabbinic theology was called the shekinah, is central to Jewish thought. See, e.g., George Foot Moore, “Intermediaries in Jewish Theology: Memra, Shekinah, Metatron,” HTR 15, no. 1 (1922), 58; Samuel L. Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1978), 42, 452; Efraim Elimelech Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979), 37–65. Although Urbach’s discussion engages with later Rabbinic Talmudism (second century CE), it does represent developing lines of Jewish thought coterminous with Paul. 61 Mehrdad Fatehi, The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications, WUNT 2/128 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 169, emphasis added. See also Baker, “Identity.” 56

­Introductio

13

are evident in the extant material,62 the ecstatic and prophetic elements are only two aspects of the Spirit in these texts.63 My exegesis shows that Paul’s pneumatology in Galatians is primarily cosmic and transformative in nature, rather than ecstatic.64

1.3 Situating the Spirit in Galatians Galatians is considered one of Paul’s earlier letters.65 Consensus is that Paul wrote the letter as, it “is too closely connected with the local situation and to close in style to other letters with local connections to be pseudepigraphic.”66 This means we can explore the letter knowing that we are dealing directly with Paul’s thought. Galatians addresses issues of potential apostasy from Paul’s perspective on the part of the believing community (1:6). To Paul’s amazement, the Galatian believers are quickly turning away from or deserting (ταχέως μετατίθεσθε) God and turning to a different gospel (ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον) from the one that Paul proclaimed. The emphatic nature of the start of the letter, along with the emotive language Paul uses throughout his introduction, suggests that, for Paul, this other “gospel” is dangerous to the life and identity of the new believers. Given the focus throughout the letter on Jewish motifs such as circumcision, law and Abraham, and Paul’s own appeal to his past in Judaism, it is likely the opponents of Paul were Jewish Christians who came from Jerusalem promoting a nomistic form of Christianity, where adherence to Torah, including circumcision, were further requirements for salvation alongside faith

See, e.g., Archie Hui, “The Spirit of Prophecy and Pauline Pneumatology,” TynBul 50, no. 1 (1999); John R. Levison, The Spirit in First Century Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1997). 63 Fatehi suggests six categorizations of the Spirit: (1) prophetic inspiration; (2) divine power; (3) divine wisdom and understanding; (4) source of ethical influence and guidance; (5) the creative and recreative life-giving Spirit; and (6) the mediator of Yahweh’s presence. Spirit’s Relation, 50–2. Contra, Turner, who wrongly asserts that “neither the Old Testament nor Judaism knows of any ethically transforming or recreating gift of the Spirit that is necessarily other than the gift of the Spirit of prophecy which reveals God’s presence, wisdom and will to the human heart in such a way as thereby to motivate (and so enable) the life of filial righteousness.” Power From on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 15, emphasis added. See further, Wilf Hildebrandt, An Old Testament Theology of the Spirit of God (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995); L. Neve, The Spirit of God in the Old Testament (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2011); Vos, Traditionsgeschichtliche; William Ross Schoemaker, “The Use of RÛAḤ in the Old Testament, and of πνευμα in the New Testament,” JBL 23, no. 1 (1904). 64 Galatians 3:5 may allude to ecstatic experiences, but it is a minor emphasis in Galatians. David A. DeSilva, The Letter to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018), 276, n.33. 65 Dating Galatians is difficult, due to the ambiguity of information in the letter that would help situate it chronologically. Dates range from mid-40s to mid-50s. See, e.g., DeSilva, Galatians, 58–62. 66 Craig S. Keener, Galatians: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018), 6. For provenance and whether Galatians was written to a group from southern Galatia (the provincial view), or northern Galatia (the tribal view) see, e.g., Neil Martin, Regression in Galatians: Paul and the Gentile Response to Jewish Law, WUNT 2/530 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 14–25; Douglas J. Moo, Galatians, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 4. 62

14

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

in Jesus Christ.67 As my exegesis of 3:1–6:17 reveals, Paul specifically confronts this Torah-based emphasis in ways that suggest that his Gentile audience already had some understanding of Jewish Scripture and the demands of the Torah (i.e., works of the law). While the specifics of the opponents’ preaching are not clear, their emphasis on desiring the Galatians to be circumcised “was a noticeable feature of their message … as a means of securing their place in the family of Abraham.”68 The fact that Paul regularly refers to them negatively throughout Galatians69 suggests their message did appeal to the believers and was having some impact.70 In contrast, Paul reiterates his authority. Rather than being mediated through human agency, his gospel, a revelation concerning Jesus Christ, was straight from God;71 thus trumping the authority of his opponents. Furthermore, his role as an apostle commissioned and sent from God further reiterates his divine authority.72 The autobiographical material in 1:13-14 establishes Paul’s right to present the gospel in relation to his Jewish tradition and to challenge the message and authority of his rivals. He too is grounded in the tradition within which the God of Israel determines a correct reality. Ultimately, however, the revelation of Jesus Christ and the presence of the Spirit has become the only true metrics for a decisive rearticulation of that received tradition and reality. In Galatians it is ultimately the presence of the Spirit in the Gentile believers that becomes the primary datum for their identity, establishing that God made them children of Abraham. Spirit and Torah observance as means of determining identity and status are, therefore, incompatible.73 This is based less on theological propositions per se, but on the experience of the Spirit. Consequently, Paul’s argument is not specifically positional (justification by faith, etc.), but experiential.74 Accordingly, the Spirit is crucial to Galatians and central to Paul’s argument and it plays a crucial role in his understanding of Christian identity.75 As such, Paul’s new creation theology and pneumatology in Galatians, clearly grounded in his Jewish tradition yet creatively rearticulated resulting from Christ, continues to be worthy of investigation.

This is the majority view. See, e.g., Keener, Galatians, 27–31. Contra, Nanos who argues that Paul’s opponents were not Jerusalem-based Judaising Christians, nor were they necessarily opposed to Paul or a “Christ-gospel.” Instead, they are local Galatians and “members of the larger Jewish communities of Galatia trusted with the responsibility of conducting Gentiles wishing more than guess status within the communities.” The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2002), 6. 68 DeSilva, Galatians, 8. Others include eating cleanliness (2:11-14) and calendric issues probably including Sabbath (4:10). 69 1:7; 5:7, 10, 12; 6:13. 70 DeSilva, Galatians, 9–10. 71 1:1, 11-12, 15. Paul claims the “other” gospel from his opponents was from human origins (1:11). 72 DeSilva, Galatians, 114. 73 Fee, Empowering, 369. 74 Fee, Empowering, 368–9. 75 Fee, Empowering, 369–70. 67

­Introductio

15

1.4 Methodology Research into Paul’s letters and theology uncovers a plethora of material that seeks to articulate the center of his thought, or explore his language, theology, or argumentation. Attempts to argue for a single center of Paul’s theology or any univocal interpretation of his letters are tenuous at best. This should not, however, prevent us from exploring fresh ways to understand his thought. In fact, it is a motivation behind all Pauline research. Advances in social, historical, and linguistic studies continually present fresh findings and different perspectives that help explain the texts, contexts, and theology of Paul. Many of these insights help us to better understand the cultural, social, and linguistic settings from which Paul drew his ideas. As such, any attempt to read a biblical text and interpret it without reference to other important contextual voices is unwise, even if to “acknowledge theological continuity and discontinuity.”76 Instead, all the tools of good exegesis must be employed to unpack and understand Paul’s letters and theology. I employ a broad-based exegesis of key biblical and extra-biblical Jewish texts and Galatian passages, with a view to identifying and exploring the historical and literary contexts that illuminate Paul’s argument. A synchronic exegesis of selected passages from the OT, extra-biblical literature, and Galatians, respectively, will identify theological and textual linguistic parallels and echoes within these texts. Exploring secondary literature provides diachronic information such as historical, theological, and social considerations that inform our understanding of the selected texts. Diachronic investigation considers what led an author to engage the themes, phrases, imagery, or rhetorical devises, etc., used to convey their message. It includes, among other things, attention to the original language of the text—including how the original language was used within the given historical, social, and cultural contexts of the original writing itself. It also attempts to uncover the cultural assumptions inherent within and behind a given text.77 Other diachronic approaches include recent social theories. For example, socialidentity theory, supply language, and concepts help explain how and why Paul presents parallels between Abraham, Christ, and the Galatian believers, as well as the dichotomy of the Spirit and flesh.78 Linguistic studies provide fruitful grammatical and syntactical insight into both the language itself and the contextual use of that language. As Barclay notes, the “careful gathering of the linguistic data [and] also alertness to patterns and networks of speech (not isolated items of vocabulary)”79 is crucial to the study of Paul Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and J. Maston, eds., Reading Romans in Context: Paul and Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 21. They note the danger of misreading and misapplying ancient texts in biblical studies. Also, Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81, no. 1 (1962). 77 See, e.g., Matthew W. Bates, “Beyond Hays’s Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul: A Proposed Diachronic Intertextuality with Rom. 10:16 as a Test Case,” in Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation, ed. Christopher D. Stanley (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012); Bruce W. Longenecker, Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002). 78 See, e.g., Philip F. Esler, Galatians (London: Routledge, 1998); David Paul Shaules, Galatians and Social Identity Theory (Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest, UMI Dissertation Publishing, 2011). 79 John M. G. Barclay, “Πνευματικός in the Social Dialect of Pauline Christianity,” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn, ed. Graham Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker, and Stephen C. Barton (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 158, emphasis original. 76

16

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

and the unique language developed in distinction to other Jewish groups. This is because “language can do more than just ‘express’ beliefs: it can play a critical role in shaping ideas and identities since it does not just reflect, but in important senses constitutes the realities which we inhabit.”80 Consequently, exploring the linguistic, rhetorical, and epistolary aspects of the letter informs us what not only what Paul believes and what he considers important, but also why and how he conveys his message and constructs his argument.81 An understanding of the nature of intertextuality also provides useful tools for understanding Galatians.82 My exegesis of Galatians will reveal that, while some explicit OT references are present, Paul’s thought is also imbued with allusions to and echoes of many the themes and theological motifs central to Jewish thought and tradition, but now generatively reworked to suit his own context.83

1.5 Outline of the Book Chapter 2 explores select OT biblical and extra-biblical texts that connect the Spirit to creation. Section 2.2 exegetes Gen 1:1-2 and 2:7; texts that present foundational pneumatological-creation motifs, utilized by later biblical and extra-biblical STJ authors. Section 2.3 discusses selected biblical and extra-biblical texts that engage these earlier Genesis passages with respect to the Spirit and creation. This includes several key texts where new creation motifs are present without any mention of the Spirit. The importance of these other texts to our discussion is that they express Jewish new creation motifs that Paul develops further in Galatians in relation to Barclay, “Πνευματικός in the Social Dialect of Pauline Christianity,” 158. See further, DeSilva, Galatians, 62–102. For discussion, caution and critique of employing rhetorical analysis in Galatians see Mika Hietanen, Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-dialectical Analysis, LNTS 344 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 32; Philip H. Kern, Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Paul’s Epistle, SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 110; R. Barry Matlock, Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul’s Interpreters and the Rhetoric of Criticism, JSNTSup (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). On Paul and letter writing see Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, LEC 5 (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1986); E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and Collection (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004). 82 On this, see, Susan Grove Eastman, “The Evil Eye and the Curse of the Law: Galatians 3.1 Revisited,” Article, JSNT 24, no. 83 (2002); Brigitte Kahl, Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished, Paul in Critical Contexts (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010); Richard B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1–4:11, 2nd ed., BRS (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002). On Intertextuality see further, Hays, Alkier, and Huizenga, Reading; Jeffery Leonard, “Inner-Biblical Interpretation and Intertextuality,” in Literary Approaches to the Bible, ed. Douglas Mangum and Douglas Estes (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017); McAuley, Covert Use, 60–9; B. J. Oropeza and Steve Moyise, eds., Exploring Intertextuality: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2016). 83 On allusion in Paul’s letters see McAuley, Covert Use, 69–85. Paul’s letters need to be read in a manner that allows for variances in given rhetorical constructs, and that ensures the integrity of the argument is maintained. On this, see Thompson, Persuasion. Socio-rhetorical interpretation also attempts to address such variances. According to Vernon Robbins, “Like an Intricately Woven Tapestry, a text contains Complex Patterns and Images,” Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), 2. See also Steve Moyise, Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 134–5. 80 81

­Introductio

17

the Spirit. Throughout Chapter 2, I consider how Jewish exegetes interpreted the Jewish Scriptures in diverse ways that are representative of their own historical and theological contexts. Comparisons and contrast between these various interpretations highlight the diversity and generative nature of OT biblical and extra-biblical exegesis concerning Spirit and creation. Chapters 3–6 provide exegesis of key passages in Gal. 3:1–6:17 especially those texts that explicitly mention the Spirit or where an implicit pneumatology is present. More specifically, Chapter 3 provides a detailed exegesis of Gal. 3:1-5. The first mention of the Spirit in Galatians is in 3:2, so I give more attention to the exegesis of these verses than later sections of the letter. I argue there that Paul does not locate the work of the Spirit as subsequent to Christ’s work, or as secondary to justification by faith as a discrete, abstract concept. Instead, the experience of the Spirit in the Galatians is fundamental to Paul’s understanding of the new identity of the believers. Additionally, I highlight that, beginning with 3:2, there is a creative correlation in Galatians between Christ, Christ’s crucifixion, and the gift/experience of the Spirit. This provides support for arguing an implicit pneumatology exists that informs 6:14-17, even though the Spirit is not explicitly mentioned. Chapter 4 exegetes Gal. 3:6–4:7. I identify 3:14 as the linchpin to this section of the letter. Detailed discussion of 3:6–4:7 highlights the cohesion of Paul’s argument and the generative nature of his thought in Galatians; especially given the mention of the Spirit again in 4:6. By connecting the Spirit to the Abrahamic promise, I argue that Paul’s pneumatology provides this coherence, and that many of the key themes central to Jewish theology are present in Galatians 3–4 but are creatively utilized by Paul within his context. Chapter 5 exegetes selected passages from Gal. 4:28–6:10. I identify the centrality and importance of the Spirit throughout this section and consider the importance of the Spirit for the identity, community, and praxis of the Galatian believers. Considering the pneumatological emphasis throughout Gal. 3:1–6:10, Chapter 6 discusses potential pneumatological underpinnings within 6:11-17. By considering 6:1117 as the body closing of Paul’s argument in Galatians rather than an epistolary closing of the letter,84 I argue that 6:14-16 is the crux of Paul’s argument. By taking 6:11-17 as a continuation of Paul’s argument, I argue that, even though the Spirit is not explicitly mentioned in this passage, given the continuation of key themes in Paul’s preceding argument where the Spirit was either explicit or implicit, an implicit pneumatology exists—especially within the new-creation motif in 6:15. I discuss how this vital concept impacts the whole of Paul’s argument from 3:1–6:17, and how pneumatology offers a greater level of coherence to the argument of Galatians as a whole. Chapter 7 draws the various threads together and considers the impact a pneumatological reading has on Paul’s argument regarding the Spirit, new creation, and Christian identity in Galatians. I also consider further potential research opportunities that result from my findings.

Jeff Hubing, Crucifixion and New Creation: The Strategic Purpose of Galatians 6.11-17, LNTS (London: Bloomsbury, 2015).

84

18

­2

Generative Cosmogonies: Antecedent Interpretations of Creation and Spirit Prior to Paul

2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 Paul and His Tradition A major claim that I seek to establish is that Paul’s theology is generative in nature and his cosmogony and resulting pneumatology represent a development within STJ traditions. Consequently, determining which antecedent ideas and texts helped shape and inform his thought is important to its interpretation. Notwithstanding the difficulty in determining the dating of antecedent texts with any precision, and noting the caution in overstating the presence of allusions and underlying Jewish grand narratives used by Paul,1 there is sufficient evidence in his writing that he knew and utilized OT biblical and extra-biblical texts and concepts which shaped his thinking.2 Exploring this literature, therefore, assists us to understand Paul’s thought by identifying how Jewish tradition prior to Paul understood the Spirit in relation to creation and to the subsequent establishment of the people of God. These motifs are central to Paul’s argument in Galatians so the undertaking in this chapter helps to lay a foundation for our exegesis and interpretation of that letter.

2.1.2 Aim and Outline of This Chapter Fishbane argues that inner-biblical exegesis is present in the exegetical traditions of later biblical and post-biblical authors.3 More recently, Bernstein asserts that all translations of the ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures are “perforce commentaries, because they must respond to obscurities and ambiguities in the original language text by A. Andrew Das, Paul and the Stories of Israel: Grand Thematic Narratives in Galatians (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2016), 217–38. 2 Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 2nd ed. (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 16. 3 Michael Fishbane, “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis,” JBL 99, no. 3 (1980); Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988). For critique of Fishbane see Lyle Eslinger, “Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category,” VT 42, no. 1 (1992); Benjamin D. Sommer, “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger,” VT 46, no. 4 (1996). 1

20

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

clarifying them in the target language.”4 Both argue that pre-Christian exegesis and interpretation was never a static rehearsal of the original ideas or texts. Instead, any biblical and extra-biblical materials we have are themselves dynamic commentaries that employ exegetical principles relevant to their own contexts and interpret earlier texts in light of current contingencies. As a result, if there is evidence of thematic trajectories within these later texts, it reflects the contextual concerns present at the time of writing. This chapter explores biblical and extra-biblical traditions to identify firstly, possible texts that may help inform Paul’s thought and argument in Galatians; secondly, any evidence of diverse exegetical and hermeneutical approaches across these sources. This highlights evidence of divergent trajectories that explain how Paul’s own theology can reflect both continuity and discontinuity with his own traditions. Consequently, the aim of this chapter is to explore more specifically which antecedent Jewish cosmogonies and pneumatologies possibly inform Paul’s own thinking. To achieve this I explore diverse trajectories within OT biblical and extrabiblical STJ literature that interpret and rearticulate cosmological and anthropological creation motifs and the correlated pneumatology present in the creation narratives of Gen. 1:1-2 and 2:7.5 The presence of these motifs in Genesis 1–2 and the way in which they continued to be used and influence the cosmology and pneumatology within other biblical and extra-biblical texts suggest that they are guiding texts for Israel’s understanding of the world, the human person and community, and their identity as the people of God. This chapter analyzes not only explicit mentions of the Spirit with creation, but also select texts where an implicit relationship is present. A major emphasis of this chapter is to highlight the movement outlined in Chapter 1, Figure 1 (p. 3 above), whereby the cosmology of Gen. 1:1-2 and 2:7 is rearticulated in terms of covenantal people-of-God language with a further emphasis on socio-cosmic re-/new creation indicative of the likes of Isa. 65:17, Ezekiel 36 and 37, and other extra-biblical STJ texts. My analysis will show that, based on their own contextual contingencies such as exile, the authors of these texts develop the two motifs of Spirit and creation in creative ways that represent contextually generative theologies.6 This is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis, but one that identifies and illustrates trajectories in Jewish thought that help our understanding of Paul’s relationship between his cosmology and pneumatology. Key criteria for the selection of texts include: (1) explicit references to creation; (2) some allusion to or evocation of Genesis; (3) explicit mention of the Spirit in relation to creation/new creation; and (4) passages that present new creation motifs where there may be no explicit mention of the Spirit but infer the Spirit, or that reflect similar language and/or ideas evident in Paul’s argument in Galatians, where he makes such a link.7 M. J. Bernstein, Reading and Re-Reading Scripture at Qumran: Genesis and Its Interpretation, 2 vols., STDJ (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 93, emphasis added. 5 Arguments on the specific dating and provenance of these two passages from Genesis, including whether they predate early STJ contexts are beyond the scope of this work. 6 See, Eslinger, “Question of Category,” 53. 7 For discussion on other aspects of the Spirit not be explored here (e.g., prophetic, ecstatic, wisdom, etc.), see Marie E. Isaacs, The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and Its Bearing on the New Testament (London: Heythrop College, 1976); Levison, Spirit; John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009); Robert P. Menzies, Empowered for 4

Generative Cosmogonies

21

Based on these criteria, the major outline is as follows: Section 2.2 briefly exegetes Gen. 1:1-2 and 2:7 with respect to the Spirit and creation. Section 2.3 explores select passages in the biblical and extra-biblical literature where there is an explicit or implicit connection of the Spirit to creation, especially texts that, in some form or other, rearticulate the initial creation story. This includes texts where creation refers to or includes an evocation of the Genesis account. My discussion reveals that in a number of these texts, even if Spirit is not explicitly mentioned, it is implied.8 Section 2.4 draws the threads of my exegesis together and prepares for what Paul argues in Galatians regarding the Spirit and new creation.

2.2 Genesis, the Spirit, and the Creation of the Cosmos The underlying cosmology of the generative cosmogonies found in many biblical and extra-biblical STJ texts appears to reflect the creation narratives of Gen. 1:2 and 2:7.9 As Yates notes, both play an “important role in the broad development” of the traditions of the Spirit and creation in Jewish thought.10 Consequently, because the dual concepts of God’s presence and the restoration to life found in later texts all draw from this foundational narrative, I consider these two passages first.11 Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (London: T&T Clark, 2004); Finny Philip, The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit upon Gentiles in Judaism and in the Early Development of Paul’s Theology, WUNT 2/194 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: Then and Now (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1996); Max Turner, Power From on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996); Vos, Traditionsgeschichtliche. A further key criterion for selection is engagement of some of the texts included in recent scholarship discussing background to Paul’s cosmology, anthropology, pneumatology, and new creation motifs. My indebtedness to this scholarship is appropriately acknowledged throughout. Because of uncertainty concerning dating, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo), Sirach, and Joseph and Aseneth will not be considered as they may not have been available to Paul. The lack of pneumatology in Sirach makes it less relevant to my thesis. Joseph and Aseneth include both pneumatological and new creation motifs. However, because its emphasis is primarily on individual transformation and is most likely a late composition, I will not discuss it here. For provenance of Jos. Asen., see Ross Shepard Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); Randall D. Chesnutt, “When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered,” Review, JBL 119, no. 4 (2000); Richard Bauckham, “When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered,” JTS 51, no. 1 (2000). On new creation in Jos. Asen. see Moyer V. Hubbard, New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought, SNTSN 119 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 54–76; Mell, Neue Schöpfung: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Studie zu einem soteriologischen Grundsatz paulinischer Theologie, BZNW 56 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989), 230–49. On pneumatology in Jos. Asen., see Volker Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014), 55–67. 8 As Davies rightly states, “the absence of a phrase does not prove the absence of an idea.” J. P. Davies, The Apocalyptic Paul: Retrospect and Prospect (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 122. 9 How the two creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2 relate to one another is not relevant here. For discussion see Terence E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2005), 30–4. 10 Yates, Creation, 22, n.12. 11 In the interest of brevity, I refrain from citing full texts for all relevant sources but have included some more obscure texts that will assist the reader.

22

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

Gen. 1:1-2 The Spirit and Creation of the Cosmos The opening of Genesis places the Spirit of God (‫ אלהים‬‎‫רוח‬/πνεῦμα θεοῦ) as the cosmos-creating presence of God at the beginning of creation (Gen. 1:2),12 and as the one who forms every part of creation.13 Linguistically, both ‫ רוח‬and πνεῦμα can mean breath, wind or S/spirit.14 Although some argue that “wind” is the more appropriate translation in Gen. 1:1, given its connection with ‫ אלהים‬and ‫( מרחפת‬hovering), “Spirit” is more appropriate.15 Three reasons support this. Firstly, the only other instance of ‫ רחפ‬in the same linguistic form as Gen. 1:2 is Deut. 32:11, describing an eagle hovering over its young.16 While ‫ רוח‬could describe the air created by the flapping of the wings, the context and the nature of the metaphor in 32:11 mitigates against this. The metaphor focuses on the eagle as the subject of the action, not the action of the wings. In other words, the eagle represents the nurturing and sustaining presence of God hovering (‫ )רחפ‬over Israel. Similarly, in Gen. 1:2 God’s Spirit hovers over the chaos/void in preparation for creation. The verb “hovering” connotes God’s direct presence as subject, suggesting that “wind” is an inadequate translation.17 Secondly, when ‫ רוח‬denotes wind elsewhere, it tends to represent a destructive force.18 This compares with many other ANE cosmogonies where wind is post-creation,

:‫רוח יהוה‬, Elsewhere twenty-seven times; ‫אלהים רוח‬, nineteen times; twenty-eight times with a possessive suffix referring to God. Context determines whether “breath,” “wind,” or “Spirit” is the best translation of rûaḥ. William H. McClellan, “The Meaning of Ruaḥ ʾElohim In Genesis 1, 2,” Bib 15, no. 4 (1934), 521. 13 The phrase “the Heavens and the Earth” (‫’השמים ואת הארץ‬/τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν LXX) in Gen 1:1 is a hendiadys representing all creation. Walter C. Kaiser, “The Pentateuch,” in A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit, ed. Trevor J. Burke and Keith Warrington (London: SPCK, 2014), 5. 14 The nine instances of ‫ רוח‬in Genesis reflect the various ways it is employed throughout the Old Testament. Three refer to the Spirit of God (Gen. 1.2; 6.3: ‫רוחי‬/τὸ πνεῦμά μου: “my” Spirit; 42.38); three the Spirit/breath of life (Gen. 6:17; 7:15; 7:22—‫חיים רוח‬/πνεῦμα ζωῆς. Gen. 7:22 LXX translates ‫ רוח‬as πνοήν, “breath,” a cognate of πνεῦμα); one to a mighty wind (8:1); and two to the human spirit or some emotional effect (Gen 26:35; 45:27). See further, Harry M. Orlinsky, “The Plain Meaning of Ruaḥ in Gen. 1.2,” JQR 48, no. 2 (1957). Orlinsky believes that the personification of ‫ רוח‬as “Spirit” is Hellenistic and later Christian (181). Also, Michael R. Westall, “Scope of the Term ‘Spirit of God’ in the Old Testament,” IJT 26, no. 1 (1977). The Targum of Onqelos renders ‫ אלהים רוח‬as “wind from the Lord” (‫)וְ רּוחָ א ִמן קֳ דָ ם יְ ָי ְמנ ְַּׁשבָ א עַל אַ ּפֵי מַ ּיָא‬. Tg. Onq. Gen. 1.2; whereas both Targums Jonathan and Jerusalem translate it as “Spirit of Mercies” (‫)וְ רּוחַ ַרח ֲִמין ִמן קֳ דָ ם יְ י‬. Tg. Ps.-J.; TG. Yer. I. J. W. Etheridge, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum [Tr.] from the Chaldee (London: Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts, 1862), 35, 157. While these represent first and second century CE texts, they highlight the diversity of theological development during late Second Temple Judaism. Yates, Creation, 57. 15 Taking ‫ אלהים‬adjectivally, as those who translate ‫ רוח‬as wind do, “is foreign to [Genesis 1] where the term is used so many times to mean ‘God’.” Averbeck, “Breath,” 32. See also, Schumacher, Steffen G., The Spirit of God in the Torah: A Pentecostal Exploration (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2021). 16 ‫( ירחף יפרש כנפיו‬piel). Jer. 23:9 has the only other use of ‫( רחפ‬qal). On this term in Gen. 1:2, see Ellen van Wolde, “Separation and Creation in Genesis 1 and Psalm 104, A Continuation of the Discussion of the Verb ‫ברא‬,” VT 67, no. 4 (2017), 632. 17 On a possible connection between Deut. 32:10-14 and Galatians 3–6, see Telford Work, Deuteronomy, BTCB (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2009), 285. 4Q521 also understands it as God’s Spirit (‎‫—רוחו‬also piel) hovering, albeit in this instance, over the poor. Yates, Creation, 43. 18 David T. Williams, “The Spirit in Creation,” SJT 67, no. 1 (2014), 4. Hamilton also argues against ‫רוח‬ ‫ אלהים‬denoting a mighty wind (where ‫ אלהים‬is read as a superlative). Such a reading is inconsistent 12

Generative Cosmogonies

23

primarily destructive and not personalized.19 In contrast, in Gen. 1:2 it is God’s Spirit who oversees the creative ordering of chaos, reflecting the presence of an active creating power, rather than an impersonal attribute of a creating deity.20 Thirdly, The LXX also challenges this idea. As Menzies notes: [W]ith their tendency to translate ‫ רוח‬of the Hebrew Scriptures with πνεῦμα, the LXX translators added a new dimension to the term. Whereas in Greek thought … πνεῦμα was not usually associated with God and confined to such concepts as “wind, breath and air”, in the LXX the association with divinity becomes quite common.21

Hildebrandt concurs, noting “The passage is emphasizing the actual, powerful presence of God, who brings the spoken word into reality by the Spirit.”22 The Spirit is thus central to the creative activity of God as the presence of God, and not just as a passive expression of God’s creative activity. As will be seen below, many STJ writers who draw on the creation themes of Genesis 1 retain a similar implicit or explicit role for the Spirit in their accounts of creation.

Gen. 2:7 The Spirit and Creation of Humanity Gen. 2:7 is the second passage important to later pneumatological and creation texts and is the source text for the breath-of-life tradition within Judaism. Gen. 2:7 presents an anthropological creation narrative: “Then God formed the Adam (‫האדם‬/ἄνθρωπος) of the dust of the ground and breathed into [his] nostrils the breath of life (‫נשמת חיים‬/ πνοὴν ζωῆς) and the Adam became a living being (‫לנפש חיה‬/ψυχὴν ζῶσαν).” The

with other instances of ‫אלהים‬. Hamilton argues that the author of Genesis could have used less ambiguous terms: “rûaḥ geḏôlâ” (1 Kgs 19:11; Job 1:19; Jon. 1:4, “a great wind”) or rûaḥ ṣe’ārâ (Pss. 107:25; 148:8, “a stormy wind”). The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1–17, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 112. Pace E. A. Speiser, Genesis, 3rd ed., AB1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979). Speiser interprets ‘ělōhȋm adjectively and suggests “spirit” is too concrete. Also, Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 17. See further, John Day, From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1-11 (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014), 9–10; Robert L. Hubbard, “The Spirit and Creation,” in Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, ed. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011). 19 Menzies, Empowered, 50. Walton explores an Egyptian cosmogony that reflects similar ideas to Genesis. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Spirit of the Lord in the Old Testament,” in Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, ed. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 44–5. 20 Averbeck suggests that ‫ רוח אלהים‬may be a “double entendre, connoting both ‘breath/wind’ and ‘Spirit’ at the same time.” He further suggests that ‫ רוח‬could be a “reflection of the power of God present and ready to work through ‘wind’ … as well as the work of the ‘Spirit’ of God … shaping creation.” “Holy Spirit in the Hebrew Bible and Its Connections to the New Testament,” in Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit: An Investigation into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today, ed. Daniel B. Wallace and M. James Sawyer (Dallas, TX: Biblical Studies Pr, 2005), 24–5. 21 Menzies, Empowered, 49–50. See also Ps. 104:30 LXX; Isa. 40:13. 2 Bar. 21:4 also presents the Spirit in a similar way. Ps. 33:6 LXX and Job 26:13 include possible allusions to the creation narrative; however, many translate ‫ רוח‬as “breath” in these texts. Translating ‫ רוח‬in Psalms and Job as breath still connects it directly to God—i.e., God’s breath. 22 Hildebrandt, Theology of the Spirit, 35.

24

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

importance of this verse to our discussion is its central role in later Jewish thought regarding life, understanding of the human person, and the establishment of the people of God. Consequently, it provides an important precursor to a Jewish understanding of the divine initiative and divine power in the creation and animation of humanity.23 Debate continues whether breath (‫ )נשמת‬in Gen. 2:7 infers the Spirit. Although formal terminology for Spirit is not present, there is growing support for viewing the two terms synonymously. Thus, although ‫ רוח‬is not used in Gen. 2:7, the Spirit is implicit in the action of the verb ‫( נפח‬LXX: ἐνεφύσησεν; “breathed”) and is the implied subject of ‫נשמת חיים‬. More explicitly, the LXX utilizes πνοή (πνοὴν ζωῆς), a cognate of πνεῦμα.24 This is developed further in Gen. 7:22, where all living on earth are called “the breath of the s/Spirit of life” (‫חיים נשמת־רוח‬/πνοὴν ζωῆς).25 Job 33:4 also links the two concepts. Elihu states that he has been “created”26 by the Spirit of God (‫רוח־אל‬/ πνεῦμα θεῖος), and the breath of the Almighty (‎‫ונשמת שדי‬/πνοὴ δὲ Παντοκράτορος) gives him life.27 Both actions, creating and the giving of life, are activities of God. As a form of Hebrew parallelism, Spirit and breath are correlated.28 Taken together, the various texts which speak of “breath of life” reveal three important facts.29 Firstly, Jewish anthropology connects human life to the divine breath/Spirit; secondly, these reflect explicit echoes of Gen. 2:7;30 and thirdly, ‫ רוח‬and ‫ נשמה‬are essentially synonymous when “the breath of God vivifies humankind.”31

Summary of the Spirit and Creation in Genesis 1 and 2 My brief exploration of Gen. 1:2 and 2:7 has highlighted an important correlation between creation and the Spirit. Taking ‫ רוח‬in Gen. 1:2 to denote God’s personal Spirit rather than wind or breath (as an impersonal concept), we see that early Jewish

Roland J. Lowther, Spirit and Life: The Holy Spirit and the Practice of Christian Living (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2016), 76. 24 God is the subject of the verb “to breathe.” On ‫ נשמה‬and its cognates, see T. C. Mitchell, “The Old Testament Usage of Nešāmâ,” VT 11, no. 2 (1961). On the synonymy of ‫ נשמה‬and ‫רוח‬, see Schumacher, Spirit of God, 243; Yates, Creation, 25–8. This is emphasized in Gen. 6:3 where God declares that his spirit (lit. “my” Spirit: ‫רוחי‬/τὸ πνεῦμά μου [LXX]) will not contend (‫ )לא־ידון‬with/in Adam forever (‫)באדם לעלם‬. 25 That is, all life is given breath and exists by the Spirit of God. Contra Neve, Spirit of God, 12. Isa. 42:5 also connects these two concepts. 26 Or “made” (‫עשה‬/ποιέω LXX). This is the same verb used in Gen. 1:27 for the creation of humanity. 27 The LXX changes the “giving” of life, ‫—תחיני‬a piel imperfect—to “instructs me,” διδάσκουσά; a present participle, most likely to retain the intent of 32:8. 28 Contra Williams, “Spirit in Creation,” 3. 29 Yates, Creation, 28. 30 On Job 32:8 and 33:4 as an echo of Gen. 2:7, see John H. Walton, Job, NIVApp (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 352, 354. 31 Yates, Creation, 38. Robert Kvalvaag sees an echo of Gen. 2:7 in 1QH 1:27-29. The emphasis there, however, is that spirit represents the “faculty which enables human beings to speak and communicate verbally.” “The Spirit in Human Beings in Some Qumran Non-Biblical Texts,” in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 165. See also Mitchell, “Nešāmâ,” 186: Of the twenty-six uses of ‫ נשמה‬in the OT, “eighteen, or over two thirds of them … refer to the breath of God, or of man [sic] received from God.” 23

Generative Cosmogonies

25

cosmology viewed God as intimately present by the Spirit to the establishment of the cosmos. Accordingly, Gen. 2:7 provides the source of later breath-of-life traditions that intimately link the presence of God to the life of humanity; a theme that later exilic and STJ texts also link to the establishment of the people of God. Thus Gen. 1:2 and 2:7 express two distinct Jewish understandings of the dependence of humanity on God for the vitality and preservation of life.32 Taken together as part of the creation narrative within Judaism, they highlight the cosmological and anthropological aspects of creation by the Spirit. Discussion of later texts that employ these texts or the concepts from these texts will reveal that both cosmological and anthropological schemas continue to be intrinsically linked to the presence and animating power of the Spirit of God.

2.3 The Spirit and Creation in Old Testament Biblical and Extra-Biblical Texts Having established the importance of Gen. 1:1-2 and 2:7 as two major texts that articulate Jewish creation thinking and noting the presence of an inherent relationship between the Spirit and creation, we now explore selected biblical and extra-biblical texts that either directly engage with these passages or reflect the cosmology and pneumatology inherent in them. In this section I, firstly, consider how the Psalms, Isaiah, and Ezekiel develop these motifs and further augment the connection between creation and the Spirit. I then explore other key extra-biblical texts that interact with both the Genesis motifs and this important wisdom and prophetic literature.

2.3.1 Psalms A few Psalms reiterate the cosmogony of Genesis 1 and 2.33 Although creation is seldom the substance of an entire psalm,34 “it is … a subtheme that is combined with other themes.”35 This subtheme proves vital for later Jewish rehearsals of their foundational cosmology and resulting cosmogonies. Consequently, “one could well argue that even Yates, Creation, 25. Although there is no explicit engagement with Gen. 2:7 in Galatians, there are inter-textual echoes in other Pauline passages, especially in Paul’s Adam Christology in 1 Cor. 15, and possibly his discussion in Rom. 7. See Adams, Constructing, 145. There is, therefore, a valid argument that Gen. 2:7 helped inform Paul’s anthropology and cosmogony. See Dunn, Theology, 242, 260–1, 289, 324, esp. 429, n.89; Fee, Empowering, 262–7. Although Macchia rightly connects the Spirit to creation (145), his conclusion that creation is destined “from its beginning to be ‘baptised in the Spirit’” differs to my own. Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 74. 33 On the various types of Psalms see James L. Mays, Psalms, Interpretation (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2011), 19–39. 34 Psalm 8 is the exception. 35 James L. Mays, “‘Maker of Heaven and Earth’ Creation in the Psalms,” in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner, ed. S. Dean Mcbride and William P. Brown (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000), 75. See, e.g., Psalms 8; 19; 24; 29; 33; 44; 55; 74; 78; 89; 89; 95; 96; 102; 104, 119; 121; 124; 136; 146; 148. See further Daniel J. Estes, “Creation Theology in Ps 148,” BSac 171, no. 681 (2014), 30; van Wolde, “Separation,” esp. 613, n.2; Stacy R. Obenhaus, “The Creation Faith of the Psalmists,” TJ 21, no. 2 (2000). 32

26

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

if the Genesis Creation narrative did not exist, one could conclude from the Psalms themselves that creation held a fundamental place in Israel’s faith and worship.”36 Of the thirty-three passages in the Psalms that include ‫ רוח‬or πνεῦμα and their cognates,37 sixteen denote the human spirit, thirteen denote wind or storm, while only five clearly represent God’s Spirit.38 Significant for our discussion here, Psalms 33 MT (32 LXX) and 104 MT (103 LXX) explicitly connect the Spirit with the creation narrative.39

Ps. 33:6-9 MT (32:6-9 LXX) Psalm 33 MT (32 LXX) extols the sovereignty of YHWH. Echoing Gen. 1:1-2, Ps. 33:6-9 presents the creative activity of God in the establishment of the heavens and the people of God.40 In 33:6 MT (32:6 LXX), creation (represented by the corporate term “the heavens”: ‎‫שמים‬/οἱ οὐρανοι) is made (‫עׂשה‬/ἐστερεώθησαν) by the word and breath (‫רוח‬/πνεύματι) of God.41 The inclusion of the heavenly hosts (‎‫כל־צבאם‬/πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν; v. 6), the waters (‎‎‎‫מים‬/ὕδατα), the deep (‎‫תהומ‬/ἀβύσσους; v. 7), and the earth (‎‫הארץ‬/ ἡ γη; v.8) highlights the intertextual link between this passage and the Genesis narrative. In 33:6 MT (32:6 LXX), given the broader context of the passage, ‫רוח‬/πνεύματι most likely refers to “the breath of [God’s] mouth” (‫פיו ברוח‬/τῷ ‎πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος). Even so, this “breath” still represents the active, spirated presence of God, acting as agency over creation. Given the structure and language of verse 6, the allusion to Gen. 1:1-2 is clear.42 Verse 9 further reiterates what is said in Gen. 1:1-2. In the MT, “YHWH spoke (‫ )אמר‬and it (creation) came into existence (‫—היה‬third person singular), YHWH commanded, and it was established/stood firm (‫—עמד‬third person singular).”43 The LXX reflects a shift in the trajectory of the way it translates ‫ היה‬and ‫עמד‬. According to Ps. 32:9 LXX, “YHWH spoke (εἶπεν) and they (creation) came into existence Obenhaus, “Creation Faith,” 142. 33x in the Hebrew text and 28x in the LXX. 38 Based on linguistical and contextual considerations. “God’s breath”: 18:6 (17:16 LXX); 51:11 (50:13 LXX); 104:30 (103:30 LXX); 106:33 (105:33 LXX); 143:10 (142:10 LXX). The meaning of ‫ רוח‬in Psalm 51 is debated. While three out of four occurrences clearly refer to the psalmist’s own spirit (vv. 12, 14, 19), it is not clear whether ‫ רוח‬in verse 11 represents God’s Spirit as God’s own presence, or merely as the life-force given by God. Hildebrandt suggests the former stating that “here the psalmist acknowledges his need for Yahweh’s presence in his life.” Theology of the Spirit, 82. Basing his argument on the use of ‫ רוח‬in Ps. 139:7, Hildebrandt suggests ‫ רוח‬in 51:11 is God’s omnipresence, which infers something more than an impersonal life-force. See also Craig C. Broyles, Psalms, NIBC (Peabody, MA; Carlisle: Hendrickson; Paternoster Press, 1999), 228–9. Contra Levison Spirit, 66. 39 Hildebrandt suggests that these two psalms may have influenced Paul’s use of πνεῦμα and κτίζω. Theology of the Spirit, 19. 40 Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50, WBC 19 (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 273. 41 In this Psalm, the Hebrew employs ‫( עׂשה‬niphal) for the act of creating, rather than ‎the usual ‫( ברא‬qal). This does not affect the intent of the passage, however. The LXX employs στερεόω (ἐστερεώθησαν— “being strengthened”) to translate ‫עׂשה‬. This is most likely due to vs.9 where creation is said to be “standing firm” (Hebrew: ‎‫)עמד‬. The verbs ‫“( אמר‬spoke”) & ‎‫“( צוה‬commanded”), both represent the command of God in Gen 1:3. 42 On the echoes of this in 4Q422 see Torleif Elgvin, “The Genesis Section of 4Q422 (4QParaGenExod),” DSD 1, no. 2 (1994), 186. He suggests that ‫ פיו רוח‬means “the breath of his mouth.” 43 My translation. 36 37

Generative Cosmogonies

27

(ἐγενήθησαν—third person plural); YHWH commanded, and they were established/ stood firm (ἐκτίσθησαν—third person plural).” These plurals in 32:9 LXX could possibly have “all the earth” (πᾶσα ἡ γῆ) and “all the inhabitants of the world” (πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες τὴν οἰκουμένην) as their referents. Alternatively, within the broader context of 32:6-9 LXX, these plurals may refer to the creation of the cosmos in 32:6-7, where the two groups in 32:8 are merely witnesses to the fact. Either way, this reflects a cosmogenic development within the LXX community that shifts the emphasis of a singular cosmic creation in the MT to a broader, anthropological focus in the LXX. The inclusion of πνεύματι and κτίζω in Psalms 32:6 and 32:9 LXX, respectively, is significant. The referent of ‎‫ הוא‬in 33:9 MT (αὐτός in 32:9 LXX) is clearly God (‫יהוה‬/κύριος) in 33:8 MT/32:8 LXX. In 32:9 LXX, the aorist ἐκτίσθησαν, translating ‫ עמד‬of 33:9 MT, infers the establishment of creation by divine command. In the MT ‫היה‬, and the verb ἐγενήθησαν in the LXX, both infer the life-giving power of God in the creative act. Thus, according to the author of Psalm 33 MT/32 LXX, the Spirit in conjunction with the word is God’s power through which God created everything. This psalm, therefore, explicitly presents what is implicit in Gen. 1:2: “The Spirit of Yahweh participates in the creation.”44

Psalm 104 MT/103 LXX Psalm 104 MT/103 LXX represents the clearest deliberate rehearsal of Genesis 1–2 in the Psalms.45 As Allen notes, its “immersion into a distinctly Hebrew cosmology is revealed by its relationship to Gen 1.”46 It recites the creation motif within a broader rehearsal of Jewish Heilsgeschichte in praise of YHWH. Furthermore, in this Psalm the explicit connection of God’s Spirit to the creation supports a direct echo of the Genesis narrative. In 104:3-4 MT, ‫ רוח‬means “wind/s” (‫ )רּוחֹות‬in line with the context of the metaphor being used.47 Later in verse 30, however, the meaning of ‫ רוח‬is better translated as “spirit” or “breath” (τὸ πνεῦμά σου 103:30 LXX). Throughout 104 MT/103 LXX, the Psalmist expounds the creative action of God, placing all purpose and capacity for life exclusively under the animating power of God. In 104:29 a distinct shift occurs, from the ongoing creative work of God to “eschatological overtones in both the language and placement of vv. 29-30.”48 When God hides his face (‫—פניך‬a clear synonym to the Neve, Spirit of God, 67, emphasis added. Hildebrandt, Theology of the Spirit, 55. See also, Patrick D. Jr. Miller, “The Poetry of Creation: Psalm 104,” in God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner, ed. S. Dean McBride and William P. Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 87; Fred Gottlieb, “The Creation Theme in Genesis 1, Psalm 104 and Job 38-42,” JBQ 44, no. 1 (2016); Mays, “Creation,” 75; Richard M. Davidson, “The Creation Theme in Psalm 104,” in The Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the Old Testament, ed. Gerald A. Klingbeil (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2015). Contra Philip, who suggests it fits better with the sapiential literature. Unfortunately, he provides little exegetical support for this. Origins, 107. 46 Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150, WBC (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), 30. 47 The LXX translates ‫ רּוחֹות‬with ἀνέμων—lit. “winds.” 48 Yates, Creation, 31. 44 45

28

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

presence of YHWH49) from Israel and takes or gathers their spirit (‫רוחם‬/τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῶν) away from them, they return to the dust (a clear allusion to Genesis 2). Alternatively, in 104:30 MT/103:30 LXX, when God sends (‫תשלח‬/ἐξαποστελεῖς) God’s Spirit (lit “your” Spirit: ‎‫רוחך‬/τὸ πνεῦμά σου), life is created (‫יבראון‬/κτισθήσονται).50 Furthermore, both “they” (all living creatures) are created (‎‫יבראון‬/κτισθήσονται) and “the face of the ground” (‫אדמה‬‎‫ פני‬/τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς) is renewed (‫חדׁש‬/ἀνακαινίζω). Clearly, the verb ‫( ברא‬κτίζω LXX) suggests that the Spirit does more than just reanimate creatures but plays an active part in the renewal of the whole of creation.51 These linguistic and conceptual referents that connect the Spirit to creation represent a rehearsal of the original creation narrative that reiterates the agency of the Spirit in the creative act. More importantly, this rehearsal “also conveys the sentiment that nothing in creation ever exists unconnected to or detached from the Spirit.”52

2.3.2 OT Prophetic Literature While the roots of Israel’s cosmology and subsequent cosmogony are most likely located in the Torah, early pre-exilic wisdom, historical, and later exilic and postexilic prophetic texts contain contextual, generative developments of this cosmology. This generative development is especially recognizable in the fluid yet constructive cosmogonies and pneumatology evident in some of the prophetic and later extrabiblical literature. Rather than being predictive writings that present some idealized distant future, the prophetic texts express contemporary expositions of Torah based on contextual circumstances.53 Of the 138 references to ‫ רוח‬and πνεῦμα in the prophetic writings (including the book of Daniel), thirty four of these refer directly to the Spirit

So, Jamie A. Grant, “Spirit and Presence in Psalm 139,” in Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, ed. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 144. Based on the parallel use of ‫ רוח‬and ‫ פנימ‬in Psalms 51, 104, and 139, Grant concludes that these terms are used synonymously for God’s divine being. See also Exod. 33:14: ‫( ילכו פני‬lit: “my face will go before [you]”). ‫ פני‬is translated as “presence” in most English versions. This motif is prevalent in Exodus, especially Exodus 32–34. John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 3 vols. (Milton Keynes; Downers Grove, IL: Paternoster; InterVarsity Press, 2003–9), 1.402–3. Other texts appear to ensure that this idea does not dishonor God. For example, where in Exodus it is God who speaks to Moses on the mountain, and delivers Israel, in Jubilees it is the angel of God’s presence—literally “the angel of his face”—who speaks with Moses. The MT of Isa. 63:9 may also allude to the “angel of God’s face” (“God’s face–aide”—so Goldingay) saving Israel. Given the ambiguity of the MT, however, it may also refer directly to God as the saving agent. On the possible variants of this passage see Goldingay, OTT, 1.403, n.65; John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 40-66, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 556. Motyer correctly suggests that this apparent alter ego of God is “distinct from God only insofar as God-in-revelation is different from God-in-himself [sic].” The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993), 513–14. 50 For a unique perspective see van Wolde, “Separation,” 639–42. 51 Contra Allen, Psalms 101-150, 34. 52 Andreas Schuele, “The Spirit of YHWH and the Aura of Divine Presence,” Interpretation 66, no. 1 (2012), 27. 53 Later Judaism viewed the prophets as teachers of Torah. Donald E. Gowan, Theology of the Prophetic Books: The Death and Resurrection of Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 2. 49

Generative Cosmogonies

29

of God.54 Among the exilic and post-exilic prophetic literature, explicit connection between God, the Spirit, creation (and new creation), and the renewal of God’s people by the Spirit is found predominantly in Isaiah and Ezekiel.55 We turn first to Isaiah.

2.3.3 Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah The thirty-eight mentions of ‫רוח‬/πνεῦμα in Isaiah highlight the importance of pneumatology to Isaiah’s theology.56 Additionally, Isaiah 40–66 presents explicit engagement with creation traditions.57 Noticeable in Isaiah 40–66 is a cosmogenic trajectory from a past-focused rehearsal of the original creation seen in the likes of the Psalms, to an eschatological, future-oriented expectation of new creation. This suggests that the “idea of creation appears to have gone through a substantial evolution by the exilic period.”58 I briefly consider two key passages that represent creation/new creation motifs in Isaiah: Isa. 42:5 which presents the Spirit as the life-giving power of God in ways similar to the rehearsal we saw in the Psalms, and Isa. 65:17, which speaks of the creation of a new heavens and new earth—highlighting the shift from rehearsal to a rearticulated cosmogony based on current post-exilic contingencies.

Isa. 42:5 Isa. 42:5 states that “God (‎‫)האל יהוה‬/Κύριος ὁ θεὸς LXX)59 creates (‎‫בורא‬/ὁ ποιήσας) the heavens and spread out the earth, gives breath (‫נשמה‬/πνοήν) to the people and spirit (‫ורוח‬/πνεῦμα) to those who walk on it [the earth].” The LXX employs πνεῦμα and its cognates to translate both breath and spirit here. The inclusion of God creating the heavens and earth in 42:5a, with a parallel emphasis on a life-giving pneumatology in 42:5b, clearly locates the theology of this passage within a Jewish cosmogony that echoes the two Genesis creation narratives discussed previously. Accordingly, the four participles in verse 5 “describe the fourfold, unchanging relationship between

Isa.: 11:2; 30:28; 32:15, 34:16; 40:7, 13; 42:1; 44:3; 48:16; 59:21; 63:10, 11, 14; 65:14; 66:2; Ezek. 1:12, 20; 2:2; 3:12, 14, 24; 8:3; 11:1, 5, 24; 36:27; 37:6, 14; 39:29; 43:5; Joel 3:1, 2 (2:28-9 ET); Mic. 2:7; 3:8. 55 Ma identifies an obvious development, beginning with Second Isaiah, where the Spirit is presented as the agent of creation and life. Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah, JSOTSup (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 109. 56 14x relating to God; 10x relating to wind or breath; 14x relating to the human Spirit or a spirit of something evident in humans; 1x relating to a spirit of wisdom from God (11:2). The MSS includes thirty-five instances of ‫ רוח‬while the LXX includes πνεῦμα or its cognates, only twenty-eight times. Most of the instances where the MSS uses ‫ רוח‬to denote wind, the LXX uses ἄνεμος. David Firth finds fifty-one occurrences, twenty-one of which possibly refer to God’s Spirit. “Spirit, Creation and Redemption in Isaiah,” in New Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Essays in Honor of Hallvard Hagelia, ed. Markus Zehnder, PHSC (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2014), 31, n.1. 57 Hubbard, New Creation, 12. 58 Ma, Until the Spirit Comes, 109. Also, tentatively Carroll Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah, AnBib (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), 236. 59 The phrase ‫( האל יהוה‬el yhwh—God the Lord) occurs only twice in the MSS, here and Ps. 85.9. The inclusion of the definite article, ‫“—יהוה אלה‬the God Yahweh”—is most likely used for emphasis. Motyer, Isaiah, 321. DSSIsa has ‫האלהים‬‎ ‫“—אלה‬the God, the God.” John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66, WBC 25 (Waco, TX: Word 1987), 113. 54

30

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

the Lord and the created order.”60 Although the context of 42:5 suggests that a better translation of ‫רוח‬/πνεῦμα may be “breath,” the personal Spirit of YHWH given to God’s servant in 42:1 (‎‫רוחי‬/τὸ πνεῦμά μου), along with the active creating presence of God in 42:5, clearly echoing Gen.1:1-2, and the distinction in 42:5b between ‫נשמה‬/ πνοήν (echoing Gen. 2:7) and ‫ורוח‬/πνεῦμα suggest the latter phrase represents God’s life-giving Spirit.61 Furthermore, the echo of Gen. 2:7 in 42:5b, along with mention of the heavens and earth in 42:5a, shows that both anthropological and cosmic creation motifs coinhere in this verse.62 Consequently, this reveals three things. Firstly, that the author of 42:5, viewed Genesis as an “authoritative source for his audience.”63 Secondly, “he possessed [an existing] theological framework rooted in God’s creative power to begin life,” believing that “God was able to create a ‘new thing’ by breathing life into His people.”64 Thirdly, that the author clearly understood that God’s Spirit has agency in the creative process.

Isa. 65:17 Although Isa. 65:17 does not mention the Spirit, given its emphasis on new creation, it is an important passage in post-exilic and STJ creation/new-creation theology. Reflective of the eschatological tone of earlier passages such as Isa. 11:6-9 and 35:110,65 Isa. 65:17 states that God will create (‫בורא‬/ἔσται) a new heavens and new earth (‫חדשה וארץ שמים חדשים‬/ὁ οὐρανὸς καινὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καινή). Motyer notes that the phrase “heavens and earth” here “represent the totality of things as in Gen 1:1.”66 The author of Isaiah 65 then proceeds in verse 18 to prophesy a new Jerusalem within this renewed cosmic event; and “it is a new world in which this city comes to life.”67 The center of this city is God’s court; the formation of this city is solely God’s creative activity. There may be “a focus on the city (Jerusalem) and mountain (Zion) of God but it is never separated from creation as a whole.”68 Consequently, Jerusalem in 65:18 epitomizes creation, and as such, represents “a microcosm of the newly created world” of verse 17.69

Motyer, Isaiah, 321. Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Cosmological and Protological Language of Deutero-Isaiah,” CBQ 73, no. 3 (2011), 498. 62 See, e.g., Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1969), 98–9; Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption, 194. 63 Kevin L. Jackson, “The Intertextual Use of Genesis in Isaiah” (Unpublished PhD, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, 2017), 141. See also, Isa. 43:15, 18-19; 45:21; 48:3, 6-8. Also, tentatively, Blenkinsopp, “Cosmological Language,” 498. 64 Jackson, “Intertextual,” 498, emphasis added. 65 Possibly also Isaiah 32. See Firth, “Spirit,” 37–41. 66 Motyer, Isaiah, 529. 67 Watts, Isaiah 34-66, 338, emphasis added. Also, Richard J. Clifford, “The Hebrew Scriptures and the Theology of Creation,” Theological Studies 46, no. 3 (1985), 520. For a possible parallel between the Isaianic New Jerusalem and Paul’s use of καινή κτίσις in Gal. 6:15, see Chapter 6 below. 68 Jackson, New Creation, 28. 69 Jackson, New Creation, 28. For this passage as a possible antecedent to Gal. 4:26, see 117–18 below. Also, Das, Galatians, Concordia (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2014), 499–500. 60 61

Generative Cosmogonies

31

The use of ‫ ברא‬in Isa. 65:17-18 MT clearly echoes Gen.1:1.70 While Isa. 65:17 LXX employs ἔσται (the future middle of εἰμί) to translate ‫ברא‬, in 65:18 it employs ποιέω—the same verb used in Gen. 1:1 LXX. Jackson suggests the omission of ποιέω in 65:17 may be due to selective editing in order to “downplay the cosmological significance of the passage.”71 This is unlikely for three reasons. Firstly, the pericope and its broader context following the verse are clearly situated within a cosmological theme. The threefold use of ‎‫ ברא‬in 65:17-18 suggests a dependence on Isaiah 40–48. “The author of the poem [gives] fresh content to the theme of renewal that is pervasive throughout chapters. 40–48, especially in contrast between ‘former things’ and ‘new things’ now coming into existence (42:9; 48:6).”72 Secondly, ‫ ברא‬refers to the cosmological creative activity of God. Furthermore, cosmological language may not necessarily require cosmic replacement in the traditional sense. Goldingay cautions against bringing ideas of a replacement theology to the text where the “creation of a new cosmos” is in view; something more indicative of later STJ apocalyptic writing (e.g., 1 En. 91:16; 4 Ezra; 2 Baruch; Revelation, etc.).73 Thus, the “prophecy is not referring to the creation of a new planetary system or implying that YHWH is going back to square one of the process of creation,” indicative of Genesis.74 Instead, Isa. 65:17 refers to a qualitative transformation, centered around the renewal of Jerusalem and Zion. This does not contradict Watts’s assertion but in fact complements it. All the creation motifs in Isaiah creatively draw on existing Jewish ideas, such as Jerusalem, Zion, Heavens and Earth, etc., and present a fulfillment of what God created rather than its rejection. Consequently, this text provides a vision of the telos of God’s creative act, bringing creation to completion.75

­Summary of Spirit and Creation in Isaiah Although the emphasis of Spirit and new-/re-creation in Isaiah tends to focus on Israel,76 this is not Isaiah’s only concern. The author of Isaiah 42 draws on the cosmology of Genesis to reconfigure present and future cosmogenic pictures of Israel and the cosmos—including “God’s people and God’s world.”77 In Trito-Isaiah an even broader, universal plan unfolds; one that eclipses an Israel-centric picture. This envisions a new cosmos where, by inference, all creation will experience God’s re-creation. Furthermore, and what parallels Paul’s rendering of new creation, Isaiah envisages that the nations

Konrad Schmid, “New Creation Instead of New Exodus. The Inner Biblical Exegesis and Theological Transformations of Isaiah 65:17–25,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Chronological and Thematic Development in Isaiah 40-66, ed. Hans M. Barstad and Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, FRLANT (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014), 187–9. C.f. also Isa. 45:18. 71 Jackson, New Creation, 28. 72 Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66, AB (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 286–7. 73 John Goldingay, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 56-66, ICC (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 468. 74 Goldingay, Isaiah 56-66, 468. 75 Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 62. 76 Clifford, “Hebrew Scriptures,” 519. 77 Hubbard, New Creation, 17. 70

32

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

will experience this re-creation as well.78 The seedbed for later eschatological restoration or renewal ideas is thus found in Isaiah. In a reconfigured cosmogony, Isaiah reflects on and reiterates the central Jewish narrative: it is YHWH who creates and establishes and renews; in Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah, it is more concretely YHWH’s Spirit who, as the divine presence, establishes and sustains this new creation. Consequently, these texts clearly link the Spirit “to the work of renewing the creation.”79 Furthermore, while they may speak “in terms that echo the original creation,” they reveal a trajectory of thought that highlights “a significant inner-biblical development regarding thinking about the divine Spirit.”80 This trajectory moves away from “the [purely] ‘breath of life’ tradition to a view of the divine Spirit that is more active and often eschatological.”81 It is most likely due to rupture Israel experienced in the exile, and the consequential epistemological shift that occurred as a result. This epistemological shift impacts what they believe about God’s purposes for creation and them as God’s people, and what they now have to deal with in the realities of an exilic and post-exilic world: people other than YHWH and YHWH’s people appear to control the cosmos. This is picked up again in Ezekiel.

2.3.4 Ezekiel: Spirit and New Life Second only to Isaiah, Ezekiel contains one of the highest number of references in the prophetic corpus to the Spirit as God’s Spirit. Of the fifty-two mentions of ‫ רוח‬in Ezekiel MT, sixteen refer directly to the Spirit of God.82 Over half of these relate to the Spirit directing movement83 or animating life.84 Central to Ezekiel is the promise that Israel will, once again, be restored to a status of God’s people at some future stage.85 In Ezekiel 36 and 37, this restoration is directly related to the giving of God’s Spirit (‫רוח‬/πνεῦμα) to Israel. The creation narratives of Genesis were utilized by Ezekiel. “The basic principle of ordering chaos, now preserved in Gen 1, was a part of the Ancient Near Eastern air that Ezekiel and his comrades in exile breathed.”86 Ezekiel See, e.g., Isa. 2:2, 4; 11:10; 42:1; 49:6; 60:3; 66:18. Yates, Creation, 31, emphasis added. 80 Yates, Creation, 31. 81 Yates, Creation, 31. 82 Daniel I. Block, “The Prophet of the Spirit: The Use of RWH in the Book of Ezekiel,” JETS 32, no. 1 (1989). For the various cognates of ‫ רוח‬in Ezekiel see the table in Bock, 30–1; James Robson, Word and Spirit in Ezekiel, LHBOTS (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 79–95. 83 E.g., 1:12, 20; 3:2, 12, 14; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 37:1; 43:5. 84 37:1, 5, 6, 8, 9. 85 ‎Seen in the recurring formula: “their God … my people.” See, e.g., 11:20. This reflects a Hebrew understanding regarding who Israel was in light of who God was and based on what God had done. In both the MT and LXX these formulas are presented as future possibilities, suggesting that at the time of writing Israel has somehow lost its status as God’s people. The change of order from “my people … their God” in, e.g., 11:20, to “their God … my people” in 37:27, has little impact on the importance or meaning of the phrase in Ezekiel, or in later commentary on this text. Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983), 277. 86 John T. Strong, “Cosmic Re-creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary,” in Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions, ed. William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter, FAT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 248. 78 79

Generative Cosmogonies

33

clearly knew about “the formation of ‫ האדם‬out of ‫האדמה‬, followed by the animation of the [human] by the Spirit … available in Gen 2.”87 An exegesis of Ezek. 36:26-27 and 37:1-14, both that explicitly connect the Spirit to creation and life,88 will reflect how Jewish cosmogony within Ezekiel continues to support the connection to this Genesis narrative we previously saw evident also in Psalms and Isaiah.

­Ezek. 36:26-27 Recognized as “one of the most central passages on the S/spirit in the Hebrew Bible,”89 Ezek. 36:26-27 declares that God will give Israel a “new spirit” (‫רוח חדשה‬/πνεῦμα καινὸν). While the new spirit in 36:26 may merely represent an internal life-animating breath,90 in 36:27, it is God’s Spirit (‫ואת־רוחי‬/τὸ πνεῦμά μου—lit. my Spirit) that is supplied. This clearly describes something more than just an animating life force; something distinct from the human spirit is inferred.91 The construct of Ezek. 36:27 indicates that God places the Spirit into the people (‫ בקרבכם אתן‬/ἐν ὑμῖν), suggesting something ad extra is given to an individual. Thus, the new heart and new spirit of verse 26 now includes in verse 27 an additional dimension—the Spirit of God that transforms ordinary life. This suggests an infusion of the human spirit with the creator Spirit.92 The contrast of two hearts in Ezek. 36:26—one of stone (‫את־לב האבן‬/τὴν καρδίαν τὴν λιθίνην) and one of flesh (‎‫לב בשר‬/καρδίαν σαρκίνην)—is also important.93 In Jewish thought, the heart represents the center of one’s life, thinking, and inclination. Replacing the heart, therefore, means a change in inclination, and resulting praxis. In effect, the community will be unified in a new way of life. By including a new Spirit in the formula, Ezekiel points to the divine agency effecting the change. This is “God’s own dynamic” restoring Israel to a relationship of single-minded fidelity.94 There is a similarity between Ezek. 36:26 and the new covenant theme in Jer. 31:31-34. However, where Jeremiah applies “new” to the covenant—“a new covenant”—Ezekiel connects it to the heart and the Spirit. Both are the result of divine agency. Significant to Ezekiel, however, is that God’s Spirit in 36:27 takes Ezekiel’s vision beyond that of Jeremiah, “and allows YHWH to participate directly in [humanity’s] new obedience.”95 Strong, Cosmic Re-Creation, 86. Pieter de Vries, “The Relationship between the Glory of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH in Ezekiel 33-48,” OTE 28, no. 2 (2015). 89 Rabens, Ethics, 163. Ezek. 11:19-20 is a parallel text. 90 ‎‫ רוח‬is juxtaposed with ‎‫( לב‬heart) suggesting that the two terms are most likely used synonymously. Block, “Prophet of the Spirit,” 38. 91 Block, “Prophet of the Spirit,” 39. 92 de Vries, “Relationship,” 331. Contra Vos, who argues that, while the gift of the Spirit and the new heart are related to each other, within Ezekiel’s framework we should “eine besondere Beziehung zwischen der gabe des göttlichen Geistes und der Reinigung des Menschen nicht anzunehmen.” Traditionsgeschichtliche, 42, emphasis added. 93 Both the MT and LXX highlight that it is in Israel’s flesh that this transplant takes place:‎ ‫מבשרכם‬/ ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν. The use of σάρξ in this passage, however, contrasts with Paul’s use. Goldingay, OTT, 2.392. 94 Goldingay, OTT, 2.393. 95 Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 249. 87 88

34

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

Ezek. 36:26-27 clearly focuses on the divine initiative in restoring the community and establishing a renewed people. Furthermore, anticipating what Gal. 6:14-16 reveals, the scope of this change is profoundly developed beyond previous expectations, where “the boundaries of physical Israel will finally be coterminous with the borders of the spiritual people of God.”96 Further on, Ezek. 36:35 has clear echoes of the “primeval motifs” of the Genesis creation narrative with the restoration “becoming like the garden of Eden.”97 Consequently, because the renewal of the people in 36:26-27 by God’s Spirit is closely correlated to the restoration of an Eden-like land throughout Ezekiel 36, then it is possible that the author recognized an allusion from the Genesis creation narrative and deliberately presented these two correlated themes in such close proximity. This correlation is further emphasized by the juxtaposition of this Edenic ideal with the oracle of re-creation in 37:4-9, where the author “envisages the re-creation of the corporate body of Israel—much like a new Adam—with a new flesh and a new spirit.”98 Consequently, we clearly see cosmic, covenantal, and anthropological renewal themes coinhere within a passage that explicitly links the Spirit to these recreation themes.

­Ezek. 37:1-14 Space does not permit a full exegesis of Ezek. 37:1-14.99 The significance of this passage is twofold. Firstly, culminating in 37:14, the vision speaks of an eschatological renewal/ restoration of Israel where God will put his Spirit (‎‫רוחי‬/πνεῦμά μου) within Israel and they shall live (‎‫חיית‬/ζήσεσθε).100 Secondly, as is generally accepted, the vision echoes the two-stage creation of humanity in Gen. 2:7.101 This is especially noticeable in 37:56. In verse 5 God will enflesh the dry bones and put breath (‫רוח‬/πνεῦμα) in them (which, in v. 6 LXX, becomes my Spirit—πνεῦμά μου) so they shall live (‎‫חיית‬/ζωῆς). The change from ‎‫ נשמת‬in Gen. 2:7 MT to πνεῦμα in Ezek. 37:5-6 LXX is not surprising, since, as Robson argues, “the need to exploit the polysemous nature of ‫ רוח‬in 37:1-14 makes it impossible for the breath that entered the bones to be ‫נשמת‬, and by the time of the exile, the two words clearly had overlapping semantic domains.”102 In the context of the vision in 37:1-14, the clear parallels between the breath of life in Gen. 2:7 and the Spirit in Ezekiel 37 reiterate the role of divine agency in forming and animating human life. It is the divine command that enables the prophet to prophesy, but it is the Spirit of God who ensures the recreation and animation of the dry bones. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25-48, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), LOC 234. See §6.5 below. 97 Bernard F. Batto, “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif,” CBQ 49, no. 2 (1987), 189; Ashley S. Crane, Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36-39, VTSup (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 86. 98 Fishbane, Interpretation, 370. 99 See, Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48, WBC 29 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990), 183–4; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 256–8. 100 For this see Michael Konkel, “The Vision of the Dry Bones (Ezekiel 37.1–14): Resurrection, Restoration or What?,” in Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions, ed. William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter, FAT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 112. 101 Robson, Word and Spirit, 225. 102 Robson, Word and Spirit, 225–6. 96

Generative Cosmogonies

35

In other words, this reiterates the “‘establishment of the continuity of divine action.’ The new creation corresponds to the old creation.”103 Thus, the passage not only makes explicit the agency of the Spirit, but also clearly articulates a new creation vision of a restored Israel in a renewed land, reanimated and energized as God’s people.

Summary of Spirit and Creation in Ezekiel Ezekiel envisaged a future in which both anthropological and cosmic transformation occurs through the Spirit of God.104 Apart from the new heart and new spirit, other themes in Ezekiel such as creation and resurrection (37:1-10), and exodus (36:24; 37:12), reflect the Jewish traditions of the divine work of God.105 Given the correlation of these themes, restoration as new creation may be a better description of this section in Ezekiel. The positive reversal that is expressed following 36:28 reflects the hope of a promised restoration. Renewal of covenant and reversal of the curses of Deuteronomy suggest that the new heart in Ezek. 36:26, and the given Spirit in 36:27, 37:5 and 14, inaugurates this new state of affairs. Clearly, this “new” thing is more than simply a restoration of something old, however.106 It is new in that, through God’s agency, the old heart is replaced by God’s new one. Furthermore, in this divine work God’s Spirit is central. The Spirit’s agency enables God’s people to live obedient to covenant requirements. There will be a consequent new attitude toward God, “where the reality of ‘I will be their God, and they will be my people’ would be experienced [and expressed] as it was originally intended.”107 Ezekiel’s prophetic insight, eschatological in scope, echoes similar concerns that Isaiah expressed, possibly because Ezekiel most likely shared the same context and contextual contingencies that led him to envision a new community. This is very similar to the emphasis Paul places on the contrast between old and new in Galatians.108 Furthermore, the idea of divine and human agency in 36:26 has parallels in Gal. 5:16 and 25, where Paul exhorts the Galatian believers to walk according to the Spirit they now have—the Spirit that, like Ezekiel 36 and 37, is now in them (Gal. 4:6).109 The centrality of God’s Spirit within the (re) establishment and renewal of the believing community as the people of God may also be of value when we later explore Paul’s view of new creation life in the Spirit.110 Robson, Word and Spirit, 226. Internal quote from Ronald M. Hals, Ezekiel, FOLT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 269. 104 Jackson, New Creation, 31. 105 See James Robson, “Ezekiel,” in A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit, ed. Trevor J. Burke and Keith Warrington (London: SPCK, 2014), 67. 106 Ezek. 36:26-27 was commonly considered an adaption of Jer. 31:33. While Jeremiah spoke of Torah within the hearts and Ezekiel replaced Torah with God’s Spirit, in both texts “the result is a renewal of the covenant relationship.” Block, “Prophet of the Spirit,” 40. 107 Hildebrandt, Theology of the Spirit, 94–5, emphasis added. I suggest this change of attitude, brought about through a transformed heart, reflects a cosmogenic shift in Ezekiel’s view of the future. 108 On the importance of this text to Paul see Levison, Filled with the Spirit, 254. 109 See Chapters 4 and 5 below. 110 See, e.g., Preston M. Sprinkle, Paul and Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in Salvation (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 93–109. 103

36

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

2.3.5 Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) Given the historical and geographical proximity to the culture and context of the New Testament, it is not surprising that in the past seventy years since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, their potential influence on New Testament thought continues to evoke considerable debate. Where scholarship initially viewed the Qumran corpus as homogeneous, it is now considered a collection of important, albeit divergent texts that represent different perspectives and theologies current to the time of writing and/ or collating. As Tigchelaar notes, “different perspectives can even be found in the core group of so-called ‘sectarian’ texts.”111 These differences “may be attributed to different provenance, or diachronic developments within one and the same group, but also might be related to the different genre and rhetoric of texts.”112 Consequently, these ideas are not a unified system. They represent “many competing ordinances”—“clashing concepts, explanations, exhortations, and rules.”113 It is better, therefore, to view these as multiple theologies. This is due in part because much of the biblical material in the DSS commentaries are often rewritten texts, redacted in light of particular communities’ contexts. Consequently, they “are multidimensional and … include various redactional layers.”114 Molly Zahn concurs. “Changes in rewritten texts reflect ideological positions that may or may not have any connection to the particular passage in which the change occurs.”115 While Fitzmyer cautions against making too strong a link between Qumran and the New Testament, he nevertheless acknowledges that “the data in the Qumran texts provide at least an intelligible Palestinian matrix for many of the practices and tenets of the early church.”116 Although it is unlikely Paul Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “Historical Origins of the Early Christian Concept of the Holy Spirit: Perspectives from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Jörg Frey and John R. Levison (Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2014), 169–70. 112 Tigchelaar, “Origins,” 170. 113 James H. Charlesworth, ed., Rule of the Community and Related Documents, 7 vols., vol. 1, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (Tübingen; Louisville: Mohr Siebeck; Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), xxii, emphasis added. 114 Jutta Jokiranta, Social Identity and Sectarianism in the Qumran Movement, STDJ (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 44–5. On the concept of a rewritten Bible, see Emanuel Tov, “Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch,” DSD 5, no. 3 (1998); Crawford Sidnie White, “The Fluid Bible,” BR, June 1999; John J. Collins, The Scrolls and the Bible (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013), 193–6. 115 Molly M. Zahn, “The Forms and Methods of Early Jewish Reworkings of the Pentateuch in Light of 4Q158” (PhD, University of Notre Dame, 2009), 17, n.36, emphasis added. Zahn prefers to use the term “compositional technique” to explain how the texts were read and applied, or more correctly reapplied, within the specific communities (15, 335). See also, Molly M. Zahn, “The Problem of Characterizing the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts: Bible, Rewritten Bible, or None of the Above?,” DSD 15, no. 3 (2008). 116 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Semitic Background of the New Testament: Combined Edition of Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament and A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 273. Also Pierre Benoit, “Qumran and the New Testament,” in Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. J. Murphy-O’Connor, James H. Charlesworth, and Pierre Benoit (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 1–2; Jörg Frey, “Paul’s View of the Spirit in the Light of Qumran,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 248; Jörg Frey, “Investigation of the Scrolls and the New Testament,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 533–5. 111

Generative Cosmogonies

37

had anything to do with the Dead Sea communities,117 the literature from the DSS provides important information for an understanding of the Spirit and creation within STJ thought, as well as highlighting the dynamic and diverse trajectories these motifs represent prior to him. Qumran literature contains approximately 233 occurrences of ‫רוח‬.118 Although anthropological pneumatology predominates,119 several texts reveal a connection between the Spirit, new creation, and the transformation of the believing community— albeit a Jewish sectarian one.120 Additionally, although mention of the term “new creation” in the DSS is limited, the community did see themselves as the forerunner to what God was going to do in the renewal of the cosmos and the reestablishment of Torah in the hearts of individual community members and as such, “conceptualised renewal of the world as new creation language.”121 There is ample evidence of eschatological renewal throughout the corpus, albeit a realized eschatology. As Collins argues, this “‘realised eschatology’ of the Dead Sea sect is also relevant to the puzzling absence of apocalypses as a literary genre among the Scrolls.”122 This is in no way consistent, however. As Mell notes, the variance at Qumran regarding new creation is based on where they sourced their material from. Consequently, the concept is sometimes vague.123 Clearly evident is a dependence on Isaiah for the Qumranic understanding of the creative and restorative activities of God within the community.124 In what follows, I discuss key passages (4Q422; 1QS 3, 4; 11QTemple 29:7-10) that are indicative of the emphases mentioned above.

Contra Karl Donfried, “Paul the Jew and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, ed. Matthias Weigold, Emanuel Tov, and Armin Lange, VTSup (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 733. 118 For ‫ רוח‬in the Scrolls see Tigchelaar, “Origins,” 170–4. A number of texts include references to Genesis (e.g., Genesis Apocryphon), and/or God’s creative activity but are not relevant to my discussion: e.g., 1QH5 25, 28; 7:27 [2x], 30; 9:9, 15, 29; 12:39. 4Q303; 4Q304 & 4Q305 are too fragmented to discuss here. While 4Q504 discusses the animating of Adam (‎‫)אדם‬, there is no reference to the Spirit. On 1QH see Eileen M. Schuller and Carol A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms): A Study Edition of 1QHa, EJL (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012). See further, Frederick H. Cryer, “Genesis in Qumran,” in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments, ed. Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson, JSOT Sup (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 104–5. 119 Of the 233 occurrences of ‫ רוח‬in the Qumran corpus, of which sixteen occur in 1QS3 13–4:26 alone, ninety-seven refer to the human spirit. Kvalvaag, “Spirit in Human Beings,” 159. The predominant role of God’s Holy Spirit in Qumran appears to be revelatory. So, Alex P. Jassen, Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism, STDJ (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 37–63. 120 Andrew W. Pitts and Seth Pollinger, “The Spirit in Second Temple Jewish Monotheism and the Origins of Early Christology,” in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, ed. Andrew W. Pitts and Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 158. 1QH 13:1 may also refer to a “creative” Holy Spirit. George Johnston, “‘Spirit’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ in the Qumran Literature,” in New Testament Sidelights: Essays in Honor of Alexander Converse Purdy, ed. Harvey K. McArthur (Hartford: Hartford Seminary Foundation Press, 1960), 38. Contra Kvalvaag, “Spirit in Human Beings,” 174. 121 Jackson, New Creation, 54. 122 John J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997), 154. 123 Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 111. 124 J. Duncan, M. Derrett, “New Creation: Qumran, Paul, the Church, and Jesus,” RevQ 13, no. 1/4 (49/52) (1988), 599, 607. Derrett identifies inherent anthropological aspects of new creation motifs within the literature but overlooks cosmic aspects of new creation also present. 117

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

38

4Q422 Considered a “didactic reworking” of portions of Genesis and Exodus,125 4Q422 represents a text which highlights the consistency of the cosmology at Qumran with earlier Jewish thought. Israel’s God, YHWH, is the creator of the universe and the Spirit is God’s Spirit, proactive in this creating process. The Holy Spirit (‫ )קודשו רוח‬is mentioned in line 7 of the section that appears to be a brief summary of the creation story from Genesis. ‎[·· .‫בדב ֗ר[ו‬ ֗ ‫וכול]צבאם עשה‬ ֗ ‫  ]·· השמים והארץ‬6 ‎[·· ‫קודש[ו‬ ֗ ‫  ]·· וישבות ביום השביעי מכול מלאכתו ? אש]ר עשה ורוח‬7 6 the heaven and the earth and all [the] host that he made with [his] word 7 And on the seventh day rested from all work that he did and the [his?] Holy Spirit

Although there is little consensus on how to understand this last phrase, some suggest it most likely refers to the “divine Spirit” either in general or in relation to Gen. 1:2.126 Elgvin argues that even though “4Q422 displays similarities with several compositions from Qumran and elsewhere covering the creation story … 4Q422 assigns more importance to the role of God’s Holy Spirit in the act of creation than Gen 1 and Psalm 33:6-9.”127

1QS3 The Community Scroll, 1QS, includes forty mentions of ‫רוח‬, most of which (twentyfive) refer to an anthropological spirit.128 1QS3 and 4 do, however, include references to God’s Spirit and the establishment of the community as God’s people. While ‫רוח‬ predominantly represents aspects of the human character, rather than God’s Spirit, the mention in 1QS3:7 of “a holy spirit” (‫ )רוח קדושה‬is debated.129 In 3:7, “holy spirit” may merely refer to an aspect of human character (a spirit of holiness), especially given its context is in a passage that includes “a spirit of truth” (‫ )אמת עצת רוח‬and “a spirit of uprightness and humility” (‫)וענוה יושר רוח‬. All three mentions of ‫ רוח‬in 3:6-8 relate to something that enables a person to have their sins atoned for so they can walk So, Ariel Feldman, “4Q422 (Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus),” in Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts That Rework the Bible, ed. Devorah Dimant, BZAW (Boston: De Gruyter, 2014), 129. Tov and Elgvin titled it “4QParaphrase of Genesis and Exodus,” in Qumran Cave 4 VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, DJD, ed. Harold W. Attridge et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 417. Bernstein disagrees with their designation, given the “overtones of psalmodic wisdom” throughout the fragment. Genesis, 1:80. 126 Feldman, “Scripture and Interpretation,” 88. 127 Elgvin, Genesis Section, 188, 186, emphasis added. Also, Yates, Creation, 42. Pitts and Pollinger are even more emphatic: 4Q422 “clearly identifies the divine creative work with the Holy Spirit.” “Spirit,” 158. 128 Arthur Everett Sekki, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran, SBLDS 110 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989), 7–69; On the possible relationship with 1QS see Robert Kugler, “4Q225 2 i 1-2: A Possible Reconstruction and Explanation,” JBL 126, no. 1 (2007), 172–3. 129 Also, 1QS4 21. Charlesworth suggests that the term “Holy Spirit” denotes “a being perceived as separate from God.” Rule, 5. See also Sekki, Meaning of Ruaḥ, 71 ff. For an alternate position see Menzies, Empowered, 72–6. 125

Generative Cosmogonies

39

(‎‫ )הלך‬faultlessly (‎‫ )תמים‬in the ways of God (1QS3 9).130 A textual parallel in 4Q255 2:1, however, speaks of “his” Holy Spirit (‫)קודשו וברוח‬.131 This suggests that at least some scribes in the community saw these as references to the divine Spirit.

1QS4 20–22 1QS4 21 references a holy spirit (‫)קודש רוח‬. The lack of the definite article and a context of purification may, once again, suggest this refers merely to a human spirit. The writer speaks of two polarities defined by two sets of spirits. In ideas similar to Ezek. 11:19 and 36:25-26, God (‎‫ )אל‬will end or remove a spirit of evil/iniquity (‫ )עולה רוח‬from the innermost parts the person’s flesh (‫ )בשרו מתכמי‬and purify every wrong deed through a holy spirit (‫)קודש רוח‬. God will produce purification by sprinkling a spirit of truth (‫ )אמת רוח‬to eliminate abomination and iniquity resulting from of a person defiling themselves through a spirit of deception (‫)ברוח והתגולל שקר‬. Reminiscent of Ezek. 36:26-27, this passage reiterates an expectation of the anthropological renewal that God will undertake by the Spirit in an eschatological future.132 The multifarious, and at times, ambiguous use of ‎‫ רוח‬in the DSS should caution us about overstating any simple correlation between the Holy Spirit and the spirit of truth in this passage.133 Nevertheless, although some doubt a direct correlation, the synonymous parallelism in this passage may suggest that the spirit of truth and the Holy Spirit (or spirit of holiness) represent the same spirit provided for purification. Furthermore, in Jewish thought both truth and holiness are representative of the character of God, so any distinction may reflect the way a writer further elaborates this idea. 1QS4 20–22 presents a restorative-creative act. In terms familiar with new covenant terminology present in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and new-creation motifs in Isaiah, 1QS4 20–22 describes the way God will, at “the appointed time of visitation” (‫)מועד עד‬, remove any perverse spirit (‫ )עולה רוח‬from their inward parts (‫)מתכמי‬. Some consider the appointed time represents an eschatological new creation, as indicated by the intransitive nature of the infinitive 1( ‫ ועשות‬QS4 25)—“until the creation of something new.”134 The two spirits within an individual in present time are, therefore, representative of the change that will occur at the end, when God will create something new.

This is why some translate ‫רוח קדושה‬, “a spirit of holiness.” See, e.g., Géza Vermès, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 3rd ed. (London; New York: Penguin, 1987), 62. See also Tigchelaar, “Origins.” Charlesworth takes ‫ יחד‬in 1QS3 7 as a noun—“the community.” Thus, ‫ ליחד קדושה וברוח‬becomes “the holy spirit of the Community.” The more common translation interprets ‫ ליחד‬as a verb (piel infinitive construct: “to be joined to”): “and so be joined to his truth by his Holy Spirit.” Rule, 8. 131 Hui, “Prophecy,” 113, n.67. 132 Tigchelaar, “Origins,” 279–180. For parallels to Ezekiel see Paul Heger, “Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings,” in Dualism in Qumran, ed. Géza G. Xeravits, LSTS (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 97. Mell suggests the new creation motif here is future-eschatological (“zukünftig-eschatologisch”). Neue Schöpfung, 103. 133 Frey, “Paul’s View,” 252. Frey suggests that the spirit of truth is that which was given as the primordial spirit given at creation, or at least the creation of humans, while the Holy Spirit is spoken of in eschatological terms. 134 Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 103. 130

40

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

11Q19 29 7-10 11Q19 29 7-10 also expresses several relevant themes. At the day of creation (‫הברכה‬ ‫)יום‬ God will create (‫“ )אברא‬my temple” (‫מקד֗ שי‬ ֗ ‫ )אני את‬as a fulfillment of a previous covenant. The language used to describe God’s creative activity echoes that of Gen. 1:1-2, while the inclusion of “an everlasting fulfilment” and the (rather awkward) phrase “they shall be my people, and I theirs” (‫מקד֗ שי‬ ֗ ‫ )אני את‬echoes the covenant formulas in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. While there is no explicit use of the phrase “new creation” or any mention of the Spirit in this passage, the connection between an explicit temple theology and an implicit new creation motif in 11Q19 29 7-10 highlights that a new creation theology was already developing in early STJ.135

Summary of Spirit and Creation in the DSS Noticeable within Qumran literature is the way that scriptural texts were adapted to suit particular contexts. The evidence of diversity in exegetical and hermeneutical methods within both the sectarian texts and biblical commentaries found at Qumran highlights the dynamic and contextual way the various communities interpreted the Old Testament.136 Consensus today is that the Qumran communities viewed themselves as the receptors and fulfillment—or at least, the inauguration of fulfillment—of the prophesies regarding the Spirit and (re-) new creation from the likes of Isaiah and Ezekiel.137 Like Paul, their willingness to alter Scripture for their own purposes highlights the way these exegetes viewed the authority of Scripture. As Lim notes, “the intrusion of textual modifications into the biblical lemmata suggests that the locus of authority and hermeneutical centre lie elsewhere.”138 The primary sources were not

Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 69. On the relationship between temple theology and Jewish cosmology, see, e.g., John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009); Jon D. Levenson, “The Temple and the World,” JR 64, no. 3 (1984). See especially Levenson’s discussion on the temple–cosmos analogy in Josephus (284–5). Whether we accept Josephus’s analogy or not, it does highlight an established cosmogony that reflected a temple cosmology contemporary to Paul. Although Paul’s temple theology is more explicit in 1 Corinthians 6, 2 Corinthians 6, and Romans 12, the ethical emphasis in these passages highlights the similarities between Paul and his tradition. On the importance of temple theology in Paul, see Joseph R. Greene, “The Spirit in the Temple: Bridging the Gap between Old Testament Absence and New Testament Assumption,” JETS 55, no. 4 (2012), 717–42. 136 Based on the fluidity of interpretation within the DSS, some consider that Pesher is the main hermeneutic employed at Qumran. According to Mandel, Pesher views “the reading of biblical texts—specifically, prophetic and poetic texts—as concrete references to current historical events.” “Midrashic Exegesis and Its Precedents in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” DSD 8, no. 2 (2001), 154, emphasis added. Also, Géza Vermès, “Bible Interpretation at Qumran,” in Yigael Yadin Memorial Volume, ed. Yigael Yadin et al., Erets-Yiśraʼel (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989), 188. George Brooke suggests “Qumran Midrash” may be a better descriptor. “Qumran Pesher: Towards the Redefinition of a Genre,” RevQ 10, no. 4 (40) (1981), 503. 137 Samuel D. Ferguson, The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Paul, WUNT 2/520 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), 142–3. 138 Timothy H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 9. See also George J. Brooke, “Shared Exegetical Traditions between the Scrolls and the New Testament,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. John J. Collins and Timothy H. Lim (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 569.

135

Generative Cosmogonies

41

considered like some rigid formula where one variation would invalidate the whole. Instead, they “were treated as malleable clay in the hands of an expert and authoritative interpreter.”139 The diversity and ambiguity with which ‫ רוח‬was employed at Qumran highlights this “malleable” diversity.140 Furthermore, while creation and new creation in the scrolls focused predominantly on Jerusalem, a greater eschatological expectation that included the giving of the Spirit was present.141 The dynamic way Isaiah was reinterpreted for their own purposes further highlights that the community saw the possibility of God doing a new thing among them. The eschatological expectation was, therefore, potentially imminent. As a result, the existence of “a new creation, limits the time of the old creation.”142 Such diversity reals that generative cosmogonies existed within the Qumran communities.

2.3.6 Jubilees Although similarities between Jubilees and the DSS suggest they were written in a similar milieu,143 Jubilees most likely predates the composition of the Qumran scrolls.144 The high number of copies found at Qumran reveals it clearly held a special place in their theology as an authoritative text.145 Furthermore, “Jubilees is regarded as one of the most extant Jewish works from the ST Period.”146 For our purposes, Jubilees places an emphasis on the creation story from Genesis, the presence of Spirit language and renewal themes in Jubilees 1–2, and the reference to the angel of the presence/face in 2:1. The Spirit in Jubilees is, however, ambiguous. Some ambiguity is explicit and some implicit where the agency of Spirit is reflected in connection to the Genesis narrative. Jubilees does not begin with Genesis 1 but instead begins with Moses at Sinai. The reconfiguration of the Genesis account is most likely to elevate the importance and role of Torah within the faithful community.147 To achieve this, Jubilees situates the Lim, Holy Scripture, 9. Menzies, Empowered, 82. 141 Derrett, “New Creation,” 599; Frey, “Paul’s View,” 252. 142 Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 111. “als Neuschöpfung begrenzt sie die Zeit der ‘alten’ Schöpfung.” 143 Michael Segal, The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology, JSJSup (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007), 1. 144 Bernstein, Genesis, 1. 145 Timothy H. Lim, “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. John J. Collins and Timothy H. Lim (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 316; idem, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Authoritative Scriptures,” in The Formation of the Jewish Canon, ed. Timothy H. Lim (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013), 131. 15 copies were found at Qumran. James L. Kugel, A Walk through Jubilees: Studies in the Book of Jubilees and the World of Its Creation (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 1; James C. Vanderkam, “Genesis 1 in Jubilees 2,” DSD 1, no. 3 (1994), 300. 146 Owens, As It Was, 63. 147 Thus highlighting the fluid nature of biblical exegesis during the Second Temple period. Ben Sirach also reconfigures the Genesis narrative, but around covenant. For Sira, this ensures that the Torah and Sinai covenant occur at the point of creation, thus maintaining their primacy in God’s purpose for Israel and the world. See Ari J. Mermelstein, “The Genesis of Jewish History: Creation, Covenant, and Historical Consciousness in the Wisdom of Ben Sira and the Book of Jubilees” (PhD New York University, 2011); idem. Beginnings of Judaism, 87. 139 140

42

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

creation narrative after Moses ascends to the mountain. The author’s desire appears to be to ensure that the Torah precedes the nationalistic narrative that describes Israel’s election.148 A renewal motif is presented in terms of an eschatological new creation,149 where God purifies Israel in language similar to Ezekiel 36.150 In addition, it is the “angel of the presence” who speaks to and interacts directly with Moses throughout the narrative. Each of these ideas serves to ensure that the readers understand not only the book’s meaning, but also its authoritative nature.151

Jub. 1:23-25 Jubilees 1 represents a text that echoes the covenantal and anthropological renewal present in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel. Jub. 1:23 states “I will circumcise the foreskin of their heart and the foreskin of the heart of their seed, and I will create in them a holy spirit, and I will cleanse them so that they shall not turn away from me from that day unto eternity.”152 Bringing together the motifs of circumcision of the heart, reminiscent of Deut. 30:6 (and maybe Jeremiah 31), and the creation of the/a holy Spirit in them,153 reminiscent of Ezek. 36:26-27, Jubilees reflects the eschatological expectations of some early STJ communities. For Israel to be able to truly follow Torah, God will have to intervene in the future to ensure that their “hearts” will be able to obey Torah.154 This act of re-creation is explicitly the result of divine agency.155 Although, by inference, it may represent an anthropological new creation, this is clearly situated within a communal transformation.156 Thus, although provision of “a holy Spirit” most likely speaks of an internal restoration and purification process,157 it is corporate in scope. The relationship of this renewal to the wider context of creation in Jubilees 2 reflects the ambiguous relationship between the human and divine Spirit throughout this, and earlier OT texts.158 While the divine Spirit is not always explicit, given that it is God’s divine agency that effects transformation, there is a possible inherent link to the Holy Spirit in this agency.159 As Levison notes, the multivalence of experiences related to the Spirit throughout the biblical and extra-biblical literature indicates “unequivocally

Segal, Jubilees, 284–91. Jub. 1:29; 4:26. See Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 154–9. 150 Jub. 1:23-25. 151 James C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees, GAP (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 26, 86, 91. 152 Translation R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees; or The Little Genesis (London: SPCK; Macmillan, 1917). 153 Few translate this as a divine spirit. See Hubbard, New Creation, 45–6. 154 David Lambert, “Did Israel Believe That Redemption Awaited Its Repentance? The Case of Jubilees 1,” CBQ 68, no. 4 (2006), 640–1. 155 Lambert, 648–9; James C. VanderKam, Jubilees 1: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees Chapters 1-21, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2018), 159–60. 156 Evident in the plural “children” in Jub. 1:24-25. This theme is picked up again in Jub. 2:19-20. 157 Morales, Restoration, 48. 158 Morales, Restoration, 47, n.13. 159 Notwithstanding that in Jubilees God alone is uncreated, while the spirits associated with God are created on the first day. 148 149

Generative Cosmogonies

43

that the identification of the spirit … can be made only with the awareness of just how deeply convictions concerning the spirit were enmeshed in other spheres of life, from creation to new creation.”160

Jub. 1:29 The concept of new creation appears explicitly in Jub. 1:29 and 4:26. In 1:29, the angel of the presence takes the “tablets of the divisions of the years” in preparation for speaking with Moses in 2:1. The division of the years has two beginnings: from “the time of the creation,” which appears to be related to the creation of the Torah, and “from the day of the [new?] creation when the heavens and the earth shall be renewed and all their creation according to the powers of the heaven, and according to all the creation of the earth.” The telos is the reestablishment of the “century of the Lord” in Jerusalem. The awkward reading of this passage161 appears to be corrected in 4Q216 7–8 to read “from the beginning of the creation until the building of the sanctuary in their midst for eternity.”162 Stone argues the awkwardness is due to paralepsis and should read “from the time of creation until the time of the new creation.”163 If correct, then this text indicates that the reestablishment of Israel, seen in the motif of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem on Mount Zion, is being configured in Jubilees as the establishment of a new creation. Given that 1:29 sets up the framework from which the rest of the book is written, the scope of time represented in this passage alerts the reader to the way in which the Torah sits within an ordered chronology and cosmogony; one that points toward the fulfillment of God’s plan for Israel.164

Jub. 2:1 The Angel of the Presence-Face The identity of the “Angel of the Presence” in Jub. 2:1 is debated.165 It is this angel rather than God who appears to Moses, dictates the law to him, and leads Israel through the wilderness. This may be to maintain the transcendence and holiness of YHWH. It also may reflect the author’s dependence on earlier prophetic literature, especially Isaiah.

Levison, Spirit, 253. Contra Robert P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology with Special Reference to Luke–Acts (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). The familial motif that results from a “new heart” and “holy Spirit” is central also to Paul’s thinking, especially in Galatians. See, e.g., Morales, Restoration 48. The difference, however, is that in Jubilees, the promised Spirit is anticipated for Israel alone as God’s first-born son (Jub. 2:19-20), while Paul argues that the promise is available now to all, including Gentiles. 161 “The text is clearly corrupt. It should furnish us with the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem.” Charles, Little Genesis, 9. Charles suggests the reading: “from the day of creation, till the heavens” (9–10). The idea of the [new] creation speaks of a gradual renewal rather than replacement of the physical world. 162 ‫עולמים לעולמי בתוכם מקדשי יבנה ֗ר[אש עד הבריאה ראשית מן‬. See also 4Q225. So, Segal, Jubilees, 286, emphasis added. 163 Michael E. Stone, “Apocryphal Notes and Readings,” IOS 1 (1971), 125–6. 164 Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 157. 165 James C. VanderKam, “The Angel of the Presence in the Book of Jubilees,” DSD 7, no. 3 (2000); idem. VanderKam, Jubilees, 24, 87–9. 160

44

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

Alternatively, it may also be an oblique way of presenting God’s self-revelation; one that avoids any implication that God is somehow a created, albeit divine, being. In other words, Jubilees may consider this angel as the very presence of God.166 As VanderKam suggests, “the way in which the Angel of Presence who speaks with Moses is described, including the way Moses is to be attentive to him … suggests a near identification of the angel and God.”167 If so, then this represents a development in STJ pneumatology that understands the Spirit of God as God’s manifest presence, similar to that of New Testament authors.

Summary of Spirit and Creation in Jubilees Lambert suggests the focus of Jubilees is “an eschatological re-creation of humanity.”168 As such, it reflects the generative nature of the creation narrative in Jewish thought—especially in its rearticulation of the creation text of Gen. 1:1– 2:9.169 Significantly, the dependence of Jubilees on the Pentateuch “reflects the author’s desire to impart legitimacy and authority” to their work, while at the same time adapting it by including content contemporary to their present worldview.170 The close connection between temple and people as the reconstituted new creation is later echoed in Paul’s connection between the Spirit, people, and the new creation.171 Neither author presents an idealized model of new creation, indicative of other Jewish apocalyptic literature. Instead, what is envisaged is a renewed existence that redefines the state of the existing world, realigned under God’s rule and by God’s Spirit.

2.3.7 Wisdom of Solomon Although difficult to date with any certainty, the importance of Wisdom of Solomon to STJ thought is evident.172 Because of the diversity of themes and motifs within Wisdom, there is little consensus how to categorize it within either wisdom or non-wisdom On the same term in Isa. 63:9, see Levison, Before Christianity, 32–5. VanderKam, Jubilees, 87–9, emphasis added. Vanderkam does acknowledge the intermediary role of the Angel. See also, Levison, Before Christianity, 21–5; 96; 137; 179, n.93. Although Levison’s discussion relates to Isa. 63:7-14, it highlights a continuing theological reflection (so Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56-66, 261) and rearticulation of the Spirit on the part of Judaism which may have informed the author of Jubilees. I acknowledge Levison for the reference to Blenkinsopp. 168 Lambert, “Did Israel Believe,” 640. 169 VanderKam, Jubilees 1–21, 21. 170 Segal, Jubilees, 4–5. 171 Lambert, “Did Israel Believe,” 641. 172 Suggestions for dating range from early first century BCE to the reign of Gaius Caligula, 37–41 CE. See Matthew Edwards, Pneuma and Realized Eschatology in the Book of Wisdom (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 24–8; Moyna McGlynn, Divine Judgement and Divine Benevolence in the Book of Wisdom, WUNT 2/139 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 9–13; David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 43 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979), 21–5. McGlyn argues for 31BCE or later, with Alexandria as its probable setting. Collins suggests a range from 30 BCE to 70 CE. John J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 178–9. 166 167

Generative Cosmogonies

45

genres.173 Wisdom is clearly a syncretistic text, combining several key elements from the Old Testament (such as creation, the Exodus narrative, and the place of wisdom in Jewish thought, etc.) with elements from early Stoicism.174 According to Collins, Wisdom infers a material πνεῦμα indicative of Stoic pneumatology.175 Edwards argues that Wisdom draws on Stoic explanations “of the workings of the cosmos.”176 However, a Jewish creator has to remain distinct and transcendent from creation. Therefore, “Sophia operates in the role of Stoic pneuma,” allowing God “to remain transcendent, while retaining the philosophical benefits of Stoic physics.”177 Thus, Wisdom highlights the generative nature and fluidity of Jewish exegesis present in STJ literature; exegesis driven and influenced by a strong Hellenistic context. While there are no passages that explicitly link the Spirit to the act of creation, given inherent links throughout Wisdom of the Spirit and wisdom (Sophia),178 and of wisdom to the act of creation, the Spirit of God is implicit in the acts of creating and sustaining the world. In Wisdom “spirit” is predominantly anthropological. Nevertheless, there are a few instances where it clearly represents the divine Spirit. Philip suggests four: 1:4 (5?), 7; 7:22-25; 9:17.179 Philip’s first reference, 1:4, does not mention the Spirit, whereas 1:5 describes an attribute of a person’s character—“a holy and kindly spirit” (ἅγιον πνεῦμα παιδείας). Wis. 1:6 provides the first mention of πνεῦμα in relation to σοφία (πνεῦμα σοφία), while 1:7 has an explicit reference to the Spirit of the Lord (πνεῦμα Κυρίου). Additionally, 12:1, 15:11, and 15:16 also infer the divine Spirit, although the broader context of 15:16 can also refer to the human spirit as the life force within each person. In what follows, I explore the passages that explicitly mention the Spirit in relation to wisdom and anthropological renewal—including 15:11 which includes an echo of Gen. 2:7—and then conclude with a brief discussion of Wisdom’s use of κτίσις and κόσμος.

Wis. 1:5-7 Three mentions of Spirit occur in 1:5-7. The issue is which of these refer to the Holy Spirit. Although 1:5 provides the first mention of a holy spirit (ἅγιον πνεῦμα), given the immediate context, this clearly refers to a human spirit. The second in 1:6 speaks of

Shannon Burkes, “Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Wisdom of Solomon,” HTR 95, no. 1 (2002), 22. 174 On Stoic influences see, e.g., Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 196–9; Winston, Wisdom, 104. 175 Collins, Jewish Wisdom, 196–9. 176 Edwards, Pneuma, 71. 177 Edwards, Pneuma, 71. See also, Angelo Passaro, “Cosmology and Music. Wis 19:18 and the Concept of Creation in the Book of Wisdom,” in Studies in the Book of Wisdom, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér, JSJSupp (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 106; David Winston, “The Book of Wisdom’s Theory of Cosmogony,” HR 11, no. 2 (1971). Winston suggests that “the Stoicising Platonism of Wisd [sic] is the characteristic trademark of Middle Platonism scholasticism.” Wisdom, 333–4. On the relationship of Wisdom with Middle Platonism see McGlynn, Divine Judgement, 15–16. Ronald R. Cox, By the Same Word: Creation and Salvation in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity, BZNW (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 58–9, 74, 353–4. 178 References to the Book of Wisdom will be uppercase while wisdom in the book will be lower case. 179 Philip, Origins, 91. 173

46

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

wisdom as a kindly or benevolent spirit (φιλάνθρωπον … πνεῦμα σοφία). Opinion is divided over the meaning of this spirit. In 1:7, the Spirit is described as “the Spirit of the Lord [that] has filled the world” (ὅτι πνεῦμα κυρίου πεπλήρωκεν τὴν οἰκουμένην)— clearly a reference to the divine Spirit. The interpretation of πνεῦμα in 1:5 and 6 is dependent on how the three-tiered structure of 1:1-15 is determined. If the first tier ends at verse 5 (so NRSV), then, even if σοφία in 1:6 represents the substance of πνεῦμα in 1:7 as is commonly acknowledged, πνεῦμα in verse 6 is distinct from the ἅγιον πνεῦμα in 1:5.180 Although this spirit appears to be related to σοφία in 1:4, the flow of argument in 1:1-5 relates to the spirit of those who “love righteousness” (ἀγαπήσατε δικαιοσύνην) and seek the Lord (1:1). In other words, the ἅγιον πνεῦμα παιδείας is the anthropological spirit of those who “leave foolish thoughts behind and will be ashamed at the approach of unrighteousness.”181 If, however, the first section ends at verse 4, then ἅγιον πνεῦμα παιδείας relates to both σοφία and πνεῦμα in 1:6. Consequently, because σοφία and πνεῦμα are, therefore, linked to κύριος in verse 7, both must be viewed as divine.182 This is further emphasized in 1:7 where the Spirit is explicitly given responsibility normally attributed solely to God.183 Accordingly, “[t]he spirit is responsible for the continual sustainment of the cosmos since the spirit (7a) is the subject of the dependent clause (7b).”184

Wis. 7:22 In 7:22, wisdom possesses an “intelligent spirit” (πνεῦμα νοερόν) that is, among other things, holy (ἅγιος). Other times, wisdom “pervades and penetrates all things” (διήκει δὲ καὶ χωρεῖ διὰ πάντων 7:24) and is described as “the breath [ἀτμίς; lit. vapor] of the power of God and a pure emanation (ἀπόρροια … εἰλικρινής) of the glory of the Almighty” (7:25). In Wisdom there are twenty-one attributes ascribed to the Spirit which dwells in σοφία. In order to avoid the pantheism of Stoicism, Wisdom explains that σοφία, “in her pneumatic action, is only an emanation, effluvium, and reflexion

Either “a holy and disciplined (παιδείας) spirit”—translating παιδείας adjectivally; or “a holy spirit of instruction”—translating the genitive singular in the usual way. The inclusion of παιδεία in the genitive form makes the ἅγιον πνεῦμα in 1:5 more definite. So, Friedrich V. Reiterer, “Philosophische Lehre und deren Wirkung aus der Sicht eines Weisheitslehrers. Untersuchung von Weish 1:1‐15,” in Studies in the Book of Wisdom, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér, JSJSupp (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 149. 181 Reiterer, “Weish,” 151. Based on linguistic and syntactical evidence, in contrast to the NRSV, Reiterer places the first section break after verse 4 (135–7). See also Jonathan A. Linebaugh, God, Grace, and Righteousness in Wisdom of Solomon and Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Texts in Conversation, NovTSup (Boston, MA: Brill, 2013), 162. Linebaugh also argues that σοφία is “divine” in verse 6. 182 Reiterer, “Weish,” 151. 183 Baker, “Identity,” 84. 184 Baker, “Identity,” 84. In response to the issue of why 7b includes a neuter subject (τὸ συνέχον—“that which holds together”) compared to 7a, Reiterer argues that “Ganz flüssig und natürlich ergibt sich das Neutrum, wenn πνεῦμα das Bezugssubjekt ist.” “Weish,” 149. This may be because πνεῦμα has not yet been personified or personalized as it is in the NT. 180

Generative Cosmogonies

47

of the Almighty.”185 Consequently, both in 7:6-7 and here in 7:22, we find a direct echo of the wisdom tradition from the likes of Prov 8 that explicitly presents σοφία as the active agent in creation. This further supports the presence of a developing trajectory in STJ thought that views the Spirit and σοφία as the same active divine agent of and within creation.186

Wis. 15:11 Wis. 15:11 also connects the Spirit with the creation narrative in Genesis; specifically, the animation of humanity in Gen. 2:7. Similar to Paul’s argument in Rom. 1:18-32, Wisdom speaks of “those who were ignorant of (ἠγνόησεν)187 the one who formed them (τὸν πλάσαντα),188 the one who ‘breathed’ on them (τὸν ἐμπνεύσαντα) an active soul (ψυχή ἐνεργοῦσαν) and breathed into them a living spirit (καὶ ἐμφυσήσαντα πνεῦμα ζωτικόν).” The parallel terms used for “breathing” life into the formed ones— ἐμπνεύσαντα and ἐμφυσήσαντα—are significant. The latter, along with ἐνεργοῦσαν, further suggests an allusion to Gen. 2:7. A significant change of terminology from the latter reflects the author’s context. Wisdom replaces πνοὴν ζωῆς in Gen. 2:7 LXX, a literal translation of ‫חיים נשמת‬, with πνεῦμα ζωτικόν, a peripatetic “technical term of Alexandrian physicians.”189 This further highlights the generative, contextual nature of Wisdom’s interpretation of the Jewish narrative.

κτίσις and κόσμος in Wisdom An important aspect of Wisdom’s cosmogony is its use of κτίζω for God’s creative activity. Also, there are passages in Wisdom where this term is associated with κόσμος (1:14; 2:23-24; 11:17)—themes which parallel Paul’s use of the terms in Galatians. In Wisdom, κτίσις describes the act of creating, and only occasionally what is created. Kόσμος describes the earth, the world, or the universe as a whole (2:24; 10:1), that serves and supports the work of God (1:14; 16:24).190 Theologically, the author of Wisdom expresses the same cosmology found in Genesis 1–2.191 Utilizing the same language of “making” in Gen. 1:1, Wis. 9:9 states that God (θεός in 9:1) creates (ἐποίεις)

Maurice Gilbert, La Sagesse de Salomon: Recueil d’études (Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011), 394–5. A similar association of wisdom with God is evident in Ben Sira. See Ari J. Mermelstein, Creation, Covenant, and the Beginnings of Judaism: Reconceiving Historical Time in the Second Temple Period, JSJSupp (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014), esp. 16–51. See also Proverbs 8. 186 Edwards, Pneuma, 70. 187 Note similar parallels in Wis. 11:15-16. 188 Used of a potter or artisan. 189 James M. Reese, Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences, AnBib (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970), 16. 190 σωτήριοι αἱ γενέσεις τοῦ κόσμου (1:14). See also, 16:24: ἡ γὰρ κτίσις σοὶ τῷ ποιήσαντι. For discussion on the idea of creation “serving the one who made it” see Winston, Wisdom, 297. 191 Gilbert, Sagesse, 387. 185

48

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

the cosmos.192 In 2:23, God created (ἔκτισεν) humanity, and made them (ἐποίησεν) in God’s own image (εἰκόνα τῆς ἰδίας).193 In 11:17 God’s “hand” created (κτίσασα) the world (τὸν κόσμον). These three passages highlight that the Genesis narrative is the antecedent text that informed Wisdom’s cosmogony. This also confirms that in Wisdom, κτίζω is synonymous with the creative activity of God.194 Wis. 11:17 further states that God creates the cosmos from primordial, or preexisting matter (ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης). Although this may reflect Hellenistic rather than Jewish influences,195 two considerations suggest otherwise. Firstly, the concept of creation ex nihilo was not fully developed until much later in STJ thought.196 Secondly, the flow of the argument speaks of God’s active engagement with Israel through the wilderness. Furthermore, 11:17 places the creative action solely with God, thus highlighting the author’s desire to ensure that there is no sense of any “demiurgic activity,” more common in Hellenistic cosmogonies.197 In this, the author of Wisdom situates themself firmly within Jewish tradition.198 As indicated above, Wisdom also uses κτίσις synonymously with κόσμος referring to “the natural world … distinct from human beings … ‘non-human creation.’”199 This is evident in 2:6, where κτίσις is paralleled with the participle τῶν ὄντων. The “good things that exist” (τῶν ὄντων ἀγαθῶν) are the things of creation that the readers are called to make use of (χρησώμεθα τῇ κτίσει). Creation (κτίσις) also serves the creating one (τῷ ποιήσαντι; 16:24). Being “made again” (γένει πάλιν: “fashioned anew,” NRSV; “re-created,” NJB), creation complies with the commands of God to protect God’s people as they traverse the sea in the exodus (19:6). The refashioning of creation in 19:6, along with τὰ στοιχεῖα changing places (μεθαρμόζω) in 19:18, is, perhaps, the closest we get to the idea of new creation in Wisdom.200

Gen 1:1 LXX: ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς. A direct echo of the creation of humanity in Gen. 1:26-27 and 5:1. The LXX uses ποιέω. 194 Clearly, κτίζω is not used as the translation of ‫ ברא‬for creation/created in the LXX of Gen. 1:1. Instead, LXX Gen. 1:1 employs ἐποίησεν to translate ‫ברא‬. Ellen van Wolde argues that, while ‫ ברא‬is used exclusively of God, it is not the only term used by Hebrew authors to describe God’s creating activity. “Separation,” 619–22. Foerster states: “[o]f the 46 passages in which the LXX read ‫ ברא‬in the sense ‘create’ (not counting Isa 4:5), only 17 have κτίζειν, and none of these are in Gn., which always uses ποιέω … only at Dt. 4:32 do we find κτίζειν for ‫ ברא‬in the Pentateuch.” TDNT 3.1027, emphasis added. Later translators of the Hexapla, however, did employ κτίζειν to translate ‫ברא‬, including Gen. 1:1, highlighting again, the way language developed and how authors dynamically employed different terms for similar concepts. 195 Adams, Constructing, 76. The phrase ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης is drawn from Stoic-Platonic thought. So Passaro, “Cosmology,” 112. Collins argues that Wisdom’s creation theology in 11:17 “is closer to Platonism than to Stoicism.” Jewish Wisdom, 198–9. 196 McGlynn, Divine Judgement, 33, n.27. 197 Passaro, “Cosmology,” 113. The inclusion of κτίσασα suggests that the “interest of the author [of Wisdom] is to highlight the power of the creator as a hermeneutic device to understand [the creator’s] position with regard to history [against such Hellenistic ideas]” (112). Furthermore, “in the Hellenistic period, the verb [κτίζω] indicates the activity of the one who has the power, the exercise of absolute dominion by him who by his word arranges and founds all things” (113). 198 Passaro, “Cosmology,” 112. 199 Adams, Constructing, 79. 200 Gilbert, Sagesse, 43. This provides further parallels with Paul’s thought in Galatians. 192 193

Generative Cosmogonies

49

Summary of Spirit and Creation in Wisdom Each of the descriptors attributed to the Spirit in Wisdom echo what is said of God’s ‎Spirit throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Apart from perhaps Wisdom 15, πνεῦμα often represents a spirit distinct from the human spirit, or the “spirit of” a specific virtue (i.e., the characteristic of that virtue). A significant distinction of Wisdom’s divine pneumatology compared with other contemporary texts is the noticeable lack of an eschatological focus.201 This is because, according to the author of Wisdom, the Spirit is now available for everyone irrespective of eschatological conditions.202 Wisdom also draws together the concepts of wisdom and Spirit in a way unique to previous wisdom literature such as Psalms and Proverbs.203 For example, in Wisdom, divine wisdom is uniquely synonymous with the Spirit of God.204 Wisdom has “assimilated the Israelite idea of the Spirit as the source of divine revelation and of the divine guidance to order human life/righteous living,” providing the community “with a new understanding of the Spirit;”205 albeit “intensely nationalistic.”206 Furthermore, Wisdom “demonstrates the Spirit is God’s all-embracing presence within creation and is paralleled with statements of God’s function as the creator.”207 This new understanding moves beyond “Torah or Temple.”208 What is clear, therefore, is the way Wisdom generatively reshapes its Jewish heritage. Wisdom draws from the Jewish scriptures but uses them “in an unconstrained and natural way,” adapting the text based on the authors’ “own thought and originality,” shaping them to the contingencies of their own time.209 Thus, Wisdom’s “exegesis becomes actualizing to his contemporaries, and the unexpected relationships between different biblical texts give rise to a new message which is his own.”210 Because of its likely provenance, this shaping is most likely due to the Hellenistic context in which Wisdom is written.

That said, Wisdom does include eschatological themes. Philip, Origins, 100. On the one hand, the lack of a future eschatological provision of the Spirit for the righteous places Wisdom in stark contrast with many of other contemporary Jewish theologies, including that of Paul. This is due, in part, to the sapiential nature of the book. Within the Hebrew wisdom genre, the theme of wisdom tends to trump apocalyptic. As a result, Wisdom does not correlate well with other similar Jewish or Hellenistic texts. So, Vos, Traditionsgeschichtliche, 65. Vos notes that the ontological dualism present in the book is not situated in the pessimism of apocalyptic thought but is still influenced by Greek thought. Vos, however, overstates the extent that Greek dualistic cosmology influences the core components of Wisdom. The central narrative is primarily Jewish. On the subordination of apocalyptic in Wisdom, see, S. J. Michael Kolarcik, “Sapiential Values and Apocalyptic Imagery,” in Studies in the Book of Wisdom, ed. Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér, JSJSupp (Leiden: Brill, 2010), esp. 33–6. 203 Menzies, Empowered, 58; Philip, Origins, 96ff. 204 McGlynn, Divine Judgement, 115. 205 Philip, Origins, 96, emphasis added. 206 Baker, “Identity,” 83–4. 207 So, Isaacs, Concept, 24. 208 Philip’s term. 209 Gilbert, Sagesse, 63. 210 Gilbert, Sagesse, 300. 201 202

50

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

2.4 Conclusion The aim of this chapter was to identify biblical and extra-biblical texts that presented a connection between the Spirit of God and (new) creation, and that represent antecedent ideas that may have influenced Paul’s own cosmogony and pneumatology. My discussion highlighted the fluid nature and at times, ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of Spirit language in these texts, especially where ‎‫רוח‬/πνεῦμα was mentioned in context with creation. This fluidity allowed later STJ authors to adapt earlier texts to their own contextual needs and concerns. Consequently, these adaptations revealed a cosmogenic development whereby the proto-creation narratives in Gen. 1:1-2 and 2:7 were appropriated and rearticulated based on the context of the given authors. The selected texts revealed three important ideas: (1) they all point to a focus either on the creation, recreation or renewal of humanity/Israel, or the possible renewal of the cosmos/nonhuman creation; (2) they all insist on the importance of divine agency in the initial act of re-creation and humanity. This in turn highlighted the existence of a developing understanding of the Spirit’s agency in both the initial creative act and the ongoing transformation of the people of God; (3) there are clear eschatological themes that emerge in some texts that reveal an anticipation of what God will do, thus allowing for the possibility of cosmogenic development. More specifically, I identified this development had three discernible trajectories. First, I identified texts that presented the Spirit as integral to creation. As my exegesis revealed, while there are texts where ‫רוח‬/πνεῦμα is translated best as breath or wind, Jewish thought also presents the Spirit in far more substantial term as God’s personal Spirit, actively involved as an agent of God’s creative work. The initial cosmogony of Gen. 1:1-2 and 2:7 included both cosmic and anthropological creation. This fundamental relationship continued to shape STJ accounts of the Spirit in relation to creation.211 As I pointed out in Chapter 1,212 this diversification initially involved a trajectory from the universal creation of cosmos and humanity toward the establishment of the people of God in the form the covenant made with Abraham; something that will later prove important to other STJ thinkers and Paul’s own thought. This informs a second trajectory where other STJ texts began to envision the reestablishment of the covenant through the restoration and recreation of Israel. Interestingly, where the original cosmogony was universal in scope, later texts began to discuss this recreation in far more nationalistic terms, which I argue, the breathof-life tradition became a subset of the covenantal motif that included both a sociocommunal renewal within which anthropological renewal was situated.213 Neve, Spirit of God, 59; 61–7. See also, Andrew Chester, “Resurrection and Transformation,” in Auferstehung—Resurrection, ed. Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger, WUNT 135 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 49. 212 See Figure 1. §1.2. 213 Drawing on the work of Sjöberg, Hoover emphasizes that, while the actual terminology of new creation seldom occurs in Judaism, the concept of a new creation is present more often than the lack of terminology would suggest. Herbert J. Hoover, “The Concept of New Creation in the Letters of Paul” (PhD University of Iowa, 1979), 8; Erik Sjöberg, “Wiedergeburt und Neuschöpfung im Palästinischen Judentum,” ST 4, no. 1 (1950). 211

Generative Cosmogonies

51

A third trajectory was the development from a rehearsal of the original creation cosmogony toward an eschatological vision of a new creation that in some texts was far more universal in scope. As my exegesis revealed there is sufficient evidence that these three trajectories, whether explicitly or implicitly, viewed the Spirit as integral to the (re)creation process. Each of these trajectories, therefore, highlights the diversity of STJ thought and mitigates against suggesting any mono-vocal, unified pneumatology.214 This diversity also reflects the hermeneutical milieu in which Paul was situated. My exegesis of Galatians that follows reveals that the core concepts of these three trajectories are also present in Paul’s thought. In Galatians, Paul creatively draws on his tradition and presents the Spirit as the active agent in the anthropological creation/ renewal of the Galatian believers into a new socio-communal identity as children of God. This new community that is grounded in the covenantal promises of God to Abraham ultimately exists within a new creation; one resulting from the Christ-event and transformed and enlivened by the Spirit. Ultimately for Paul, the experience of what God has done in Christ through sending the promised Spirit is the fulfillment of the future expectations expressed in these antecedent texts. As a result, Paul views this new reality as nothing short of a reordering of the cosmos that now also includes Gentiles as full family members—truly part of the people of God. We now turn to explore how these themes unfold in the argument of Galatians.

See further, William E. Kaufman, Contemporary Jewish Philosophies (Detroit, IL: Wayne State University Press, 1992), 21; Aaron W. Hughes, Defining Judaism: A Reader, Critical Categories in the Study of Religion (London: Equinox, 2010), 8; Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38, no. 4–5 (2007), 459.

214

52

­3

Gal. 3:1-5 This One Thing

3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 Overview of the Next Four Chapters In Chapter 2, I explored a selection of Jewish biblical and extra-biblical texts to identify the connection made between the agency of the Spirit of God and the work of creation and renewal. My survey revealed evidence of this connection in several texts. I argued that the diverse accounts of the relationship between the Spirit and (new) creation within this literature can be explained by reference to the historical and contextual circumstances of the authors that necessitated rearticulation of a theme initially developed in the Genesis creation narratives of Gen. 1:1-2 and 2:7. This rearticulation highlighted generative trajectories of exilic, post-exilic, and STJ cosmogony and pneumatology. In the remaining chapters I explore Paul’s own creation and Spirit language in Galatians. I argue that his articulation of new creation and account of the presence and work of Spirit constitute a similar development of, or at the least, can be located within, the same generative and fluid hermeneutical frameworks inherent in STJ thought.1 Consequently, Paul’s concepts of new creation and Spirit were fashioned from the seedbed of earlier Jewish thought, but dynamically reconfigured by his experience of the risen Messiah and his resulting Christological and pneumatological convictions. It was this experience that was the catalyst for Paul’s unique trajectory. Furthermore, I argue that Paul’s pneumatology, derived from his reconfigured Jewish cosmology, is vital to the interpretation of Galatians 3–6, and especially his reference to the new creation motif in 6:15. In Chapters 3–6 an exegesis of key passages in Gal. 3:1–6:17 helps identify this trajectory. Specific focus is given to those passages that include explicit mention of the Spirit or where an implicit pneumatology is present. This exegesis identifies a prevalence of Spirit language and associated motifs throughout 3:1–6:17. This highlights the importance of the Spirit for Paul’s argument. Furthermore, what becomes clear is that Paul’s pneumatology and his account of Christian identity do not describe On locating Paul’s argument within a diverse Jewish hermeneutic, see, e.g., Ambrose, Jew among Jews; Nanos, “Paul and Judaism”; Ehrensperger, Searching Paul.

1

54

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

an exclusively anthropological, individualized internal experience of transformation. Instead, in ways reflective of some pneumatological trajectories in STJ thought, Paul presents a broader cosmic picture of what the presence of the Spirit represents. In this fresh cosmogenic trajectory, pneumatological presence and transformation affect the cosmos in a way that includes anthropological transformation; however, such anthropological transformation is embedded within a transformed community that ultimately exists for Paul within a reconfigured cosmic framework. The Spirit brings about a new social transformation and corporate identity that Paul considers signifies a new cosmos—albeit not yet complete. In other words, Paul’s new creation and Spirit language in Galatians appear to present an overarching picture of what I call a sociocosmic renewal. Paul’s understanding of this socio-cosmic renewal is the result of an epistemological shift for him regarding the Spirit and new creation; one that radically effects how social and cosmic reality is now understood. This involves, firstly, a new understanding of the Abrahamic covenant and “the radically unexpected and new way” in which this “has come to fruition.”2 Secondly, because of the presence of the Spirit in the Galatians, it involves a redefinition of what delineates the people of God.3 Finally, it involves a fresh understanding of what constitutes covenant faithfulness.4 One consequence of this epistemological shift is a redefined Jewish eschatology. The presence of the Spirit within the Gentile community is closely related to Paul’s reconfigured eschatological timeline. His understanding of what God is doing presently leads him to rearticulate what God had somehow intended all along.5 Rather than anticipating God’s Spirit poured out on the righteous Jew at the end of the present age sometime in the future, the presence of the Spirit in the Galatian community redefines who the righteous are now.6 The Spirit is the “agent” of the new creation/cosmic order, actualizing this transformed reality of the cosmos within the community now, thus shaping identity and praxis.

3.1.2 Aim and Outline This chapter provides a detailed exegesis of Gal. 3:1-5. My exegesis begins with 3:2 as the key verse for understanding 3:1-5, and then considers the rest of the passage, including 3:1. The importance of 3:1-5 to the overall argument of Galatians has been recognized by only a minority of scholars. What I aim to show, however, is that it is

Michael J. Gorman, Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019), 97. 3 This will be the focus of Chapter 4. 4 Gorman, Participating, 98. This will be the focus of Chapter 5. 5 According to N. T. Wright, a question that drives Paul’s theology is “what time is it?” Faithfulness of God, 550–62. Contra Sigurd Grindheim, “Not Salvation History, But Salvation Territory: The Main Subject Matter of Galatians,” NTS 59, no. 1 (2013), 107–8. 6 On this see, e.g., I. Howard Marshall, “A New Understanding of the Present and the Future: Paul and Eschatology,” in The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), esp. 57; N. T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspectives (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2005), 136. 2

Galatians 3:1-5

55

not only vital to Paul’s overall argument, but foundational to any understanding of the rest of Galatians—especially regards Paul’s Spirit language throughout 3:1–6:17, and his new creation language in 6:15.7 Exegesis of key words and phrases will help situate Paul’s discussion in the passage and provide important cues to understanding his intent overall. I draw attention to the dominant role given to the Spirit in Paul’s account of the Galatians’ coming to faith. I also identify where Paul’s pneumatology parallels with or diverges from the accounts that we identified in the literature surveyed in Chapter 2. A key finding is that contrary to many interpretations of 3:15, the Spirit is central and important to Paul’s argument in this passage and that the Spirit’s work is not merely a consequence of justification by faith. Furthermore, this will highlight that Paul’s reference to the Spirit does not merely represent an occasional ecstatic event. Instead, Paul presents the Spirit as the experienced, transformative reality of God, present in the believer and believing community.8 Consequently, the experience of the Spirit as a presence who reconstitutes both identity and ultimate reality is the very thing Paul exhorts the Galatian believers to remember is their own experience.

­3.2 Gal. 3:1-5: A Starting Point According to Richard Longenecker, Gal. 3:1-18 “is one of the most familiar and closely studied portions of Paul’s letters … [due to] the concentration of themes central to the Christian gospel.”9 These themes include Jesus Christ (3:1, 13, 14, 16), Abraham (3:6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18), law/works of the law (ἔργα νόμου: 3:2, 5, 10),10 faith/faithfulness (πίστις/πίστεως: 3:2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14), righteousness/justification (δικαιοσύνη/ δίκαιος: 3:6, 11), promise (ἐπαγγελία: 3:14, 16, 17, 18 x2) and, of course, the Spirit (3:2, 3, 5, 14). These themes in the latter part of Galatians 3 cannot be understood, however, without firstly understanding how they relate to Paul’s appeal to the Galatians in 3:1-5.

Gal. 6:15 will be a key focus in Chapter 6. I do not support the idea of a material spirit concomitant with mystical readings of Paul, or Stoic thought. The Spirit is, however, something more than just a life-force or ecstatic medium. For similar conclusions see David John Lull, The Spirit in Galatia: Paul’s Interpretation of Pneuma as Divine Power, Dissertation Series—SBL 49 (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 197–9; Sam K. Williams, Galatians, ANTC (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997). Similar to myself, Lull views the contrast between the Spirit and the flesh as cosmic powers in Galatians 5 and highlights the cosmological nature of new creation in 6:15. Lull, however, constrains any cosmological function of the Spirit to what he terms “the metaphysical opponent of the flesh.” Consequently, the Spirit is “a special act of God with a soteriological purpose for a particular period of history.” Thus, the Spirit is not the same Spirit that presided over the primordial creation (160–1). Although Lull does consider the Spirit as a discrete entity (197), his emphasis on the Spirit as divine power contrasts with my understanding of the Spirit as God’s personal presence. For a mystical reading of the Spirit in Paul see, e.g., Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (New York: Seabury Press, 1968). 9 Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990), 98. 10 For discussion of this, see the discussion and supporting scholarship on p. 60–1 below. 7 8

56

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

3.2.1 A Lens for Interpreting Gal. 3:1-5 Although Gal. 2:15 can be viewed as the beginning of the broader literary context of 3:1-5, where Paul firstly introduces the theme of justification and faith, there is a discernible shift in the intensity of Paul’s argumentation beginning at 3:1. Furthermore, 2:15-21 properly belongs to the narration of Galatians 1–2, and clearly focuses on the Antioch and Jerusalem situations. Although 2:15-21 presents themes that are discussed explicitly in relation to the Galatians, it is at 3:1 that Paul turns decisively to address the main issue at hand that directly concerns the Galatian believers. His highly personal polemic in 3:1-2 challenges the Galatians to remember their reception of his preaching and the consequential reception of the Spirit. It is this reception and experience of the Spirit that provides a basis for the argument Paul is about to launch into. Gal. 3:2 includes the first explicit mention of the Spirit in the letter. Before I exegete 3:2, however, I will firstly consider what the focus and subject of 3:1-5 should be. The prominent place the Spirit has in 3:1-5 appears to have had minimal influence on the conclusions of some recent interpretations of the passage, or in what follows in 3:6-18. What follows highlights the impact that ignoring the central place the Spirit has in the interpretation of this passage and Paul’s subsequent argument throughout Galatians, especially seen in a tendency to relegate the Spirit to a minor, secondary place within his argument. This greatly influences how the rest of Paul’s argument is interpreted. I briefly consider two key topics other than the Spirit—justification and faith—that are often considered the primary lens for interpreting Gal. 3:1-5, and then present an argument for why the Spirit should be used as a hermeneutical key to understand the passage.

Justification Some view Gal. 3:1-5 as an excursus from the main flow of Paul’s argument beginning in 2:15 and picked up again in 3:6. While all acknowledge the presence of the Spirit in 3:1-5, many discuss this as a proof of justification alongside miracles (3:5), or overlook and fail to recognize its significance to the rest of Galatians 3.11 In this view, based on 2:16, the central concern for Paul throughout the letter is justification by faith as a discrete, abstract concept. This, then, becomes the key lens through which 3:1-5 is interpreted.12 As Cosgrove characterizes this position, “at issue is said to be how a person finds justification: on the basis of works or faith. On this assumption 3:1-5 is construed as an oblique introductory attack in service of the thesis that justification is So, e.g., Ernest DeWitt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921), 142; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 147–9; Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 130–3; Donald Guthrie, Galatians, NCBC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), 91–4; J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Galatians: With Introduction, Notes and Dissertations (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), 133–6; Frank J. Matera, Galatians, SP (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 113–17; Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953), 111–16. 12 What Campbell terms “motif reading”—taking a presupposed idea and reading everything else through that lens. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 837. 11

Galatians 3:1-5

57

based on faith alone.”13 Consequently, 3:1-5 is considered to be only indirectly associated with the Galatian controversy, and “is often quickly passed over by [modern] readers of Galatians who are eager to get on to Paul’s ‘Scripture arguments’ in 3:6ff.”14 Kwon, for example, argues that “despite a few dissenting voices, the centrality of justification in Galatians cannot be denied.”15 He later argues that “from 2:15 onward the theme is justification throughout. In 3:1-5 [Paul] narrows down to the issue of the Spirit, but he does so because the Spirit is essential in proving his case of ‘justification by faith.’”16 While there is justification language throughout Galatians 3–4, Kwon wrongly assumes that this is a Paul’s main concern in 3:1-5.17 Similarly, Chee-Chiew Lee acknowledges that “justification by faith cannot be understood and experienced apart from the Spirit,” but maintains that it is justification and not the Spirit which takes prime place within Gal. 2:15 and, therefore, what follows in 3:1-5.18 This common predisposition to interpret Galatians through the lens of justification overlooks the role the Spirit plays in Paul’s discussion in 3:1-5 and obscures the importance of 3:1-5 to the letter as a whole.19 Justification by faith is an important aspect of Paul’s theology, and 3:1-5 does sit within a broader discussion beginning earlier in 2:15-21 that includes justification.20 But the theme of justification by faith should not be considered the exclusive guiding paradigm for Paul’s argument in Galatians. If justification by faith is Paul’s main intent, then a lot of exegetical bungee-jumping is required to accommodate Paul’s argument prior to 2:15, and in Galatians 5–6, where, apart from 5:4-5, justification language is noticeably lacking.21 In addition, and as we shall see, those who argue that Galatians is all about justification by faith have a hard time explaining 3:1-5; a text in which δικ– terms never appear.22 As Campbell argues, the text “does not deliver Justification theory at any point explicitly and comprehensively … there is no stretch of the text … that locks interpretation into the conventional reading.”23 Charles H. Cosgrove, The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians (Louvain; Macon, GA: Peeters; Mercer, 1988), 40, emphasis original. Cosgrove only cites Heinrich Schlier, Der Brief an die Galater, 5th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971). To this we can add Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979), 130; Bernard H. Brinsmead, Galatians, Dialogical Response to Opponents (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 52; Yon-Gyong Kwon, Eschatology in Galatians: Rethinking Paul’s Response to the Crisis in Galatia, WUNT 2/183 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 85, n.26. 14 Cosgrove, Cross, 2. 15 Kwon, Eschatology, 51. 16 Kwon, Eschatology, 85, n.26. 17 As we will see below, Gal. 3:14 is key to his argument. Kwon rightly identifies the promised Spirit in 3:14 is the gift given at the time of the Galatians’ conversion, but then proposes that “in Galatians Paul never specifies the Spirit as concomitant of justification.” Eschatology, 62–3. In my view, Gal. 3:2 clearly presents such a connection. 18 Chee-Chiew Lee, Blessing of Abraham, the Spirit, and Justification in Galatians: Their Relationship and Significance for Understanding Paul’s Theology (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013), 23. 19 Cosgrove, Cross, 40. 20 Das, Galatians, 282. 21 Exegetical bungee-jumping is a play on Gilbert Bilezikian, “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead,” JETS 40, no. 1 (1997). 22 If justification by faith as a discrete concept is Paul’s main focus, then why did he ask about the reception of the Spirit in 3:2 and not justification per se? In other words, why did he not ask in 3:2, “ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν· ἐξ ἔργων νόμου τὸν δικαιοσύνην ἐλάβετε ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως;” 23 Campbell, Deliverance, 837. This lack of explicitness, however, is not reflected in recent commentaries. 13

58

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

Hearing of Faith Others argue that the main emphasis in 3:1-5 is faith, and that Paul is establishing his faith–law (πίστις/νόμος) dichotomy prevalent throughout the rest of his argument. Hays, for example, correctly identifies the centrality of this passage for Paul’s overall argumentation, with 3:2 the “linchpin of Paul’s argument.”24 He then proceeds to discuss ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως as the hermeneutical key for understanding 3:2-5, with minimal discussion on the importance of the Spirit to Paul’s argument. Similarly, Fung argues that Paul’s central thesis is “the superiority of the gospel doctrine of faith” compared with the “agitator’s law-oriented version of Christianity.”25 Regardless of Campbell’s push for a Pneumatological Participatory Martyrological Eschatology Model for reading Paul, there is a surprising lack of focus on Paul’s pneumatology in his discussion of 3:1-5. He, instead, also argues that Galatians “turns out to be all about ‘faith.’”26

­Spirit As important as these motifs are to Paul’s argument in Galatians, they remain problematic for a coherent and consistent reading of the letter if they are utilized as the primary hermeneutical lens for understanding 3:1-5. I argue that the Spirit is also an important lens for understanding Paul’s intent in 3:1-5 and needs to be highlighted as such. A focus on the reception of the Spirit in 3:1-5 is evident in the terms ἐλάβετε, ἐναρξάμενοι, ἐπάθετε, ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν. These terms indicate that by responding to the gospel message of Christ-crucified, the Galatians somehow experienced an indwelling presence of the Spirit. While the text itself does not reveal exactly what this reception entails, the evidence from 3:5 (and possibly 5:22-23) reveals that it was a powerful, dynamic experience that transformed their lives.27 Thus it was more than merely the message they responded to, it was also an existential event that impacted the community.28 By highlighting their current experience (indicated by the present participles in 3:5: ὁ ἐπιχορηγῶν—“the one who is lavishing,” and ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις—“the one who is working miracles”),29 Paul clearly intends to draw the Galatians into his concerns about covenant belonging and Christian identity. In framing the rhetorical question in 3:2 at the start of his main argument, Paul seems to imply that the reception and ongoing experience of the Spirit is the basis for any justification of their new identity. Hays, Faith of Jesus, 124–32. I am not criticizing Hay’s overall thesis. Because his work explores the faith of Jesus Christ, his focus on faith in 3:1-5 is appropriate. I merely highlight how his argument is representative of how such approaches can obscure the centrality of the Spirit. 25 Fung, Galatians, 128. Fung wrongly asserts that Paul “argues from various directions which ‘tumble over one another’.” 26 Campbell, Deliverance, 838. For his PPME model see Douglas A. Campbell, The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 24. Campbell’s critique of Justification Theory has merit but there is a surprising lack of explicit focus on pneumatology in his discussion. See, however, his recent attempt to rectify this: Douglas A. Campbell, “The Trinity in Paul: From Confession to Ethics,” in Essays on the Trinity, ed. Lincoln Harvey (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2018). 27 Fee, Empowering, 382. 28 DeSilva, Galatians, 270. 29 See Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 181. Note the shift from a punctiliar past in 3:1-2, to the continuous present in 3:5. 24

Galatians 3:1-5

59

Furthermore, notwithstanding the prevalence of faith language in Galatians, given numerous references to the Spirit in the argument of Galatians 3–6,30 interpretation of 3:1-5 must consider the reception and experience of the Spirit, leading us to explore whether this emphasis is sustained in the rest of Paul’s argument.31 Consequently, taking the Spirit as an important hermeneutical key for the argument of Galatians, what follows is an exegesis of 3:1-5, with a specific focus on the pneumatology of the passage.

3.3 Gal. 3:1-5 3.3.1 Galatians 3:2 Gal. 3:2 includes the second of several rhetorical questions in 3:1-5. The first in 3:1 is considered below. However, the question in 3:2 is vital to Paul’s argument. Because it provides the first explicit mention of the Spirit in Galatians, it is the appropriate starting point for our exegesis of this passage. Rather than seeking to obtain understanding or knowledge, the question Paul asks in 3:2 is rhetorical—the Galatians already know the answer:32 “This one thing I wish to know from you: did you receive the Spirit from works of law or from [the] hearing of faith?” (τοῦτο μόνον θέλω μαθεῖν ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν· ἐξ ἔργων νόμου τὸ πνεῦμα ἐλάβετε ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως.) Aimed to facilitate interaction between Paul and his audience, the term “one thing” (μόνον) does not mean the only thing, but the main issue Paul wants them to consider.33 While the one thing may have to do with the reception medium (the hearing of faith), the content of the reception (the Spirit) makes better sense of the broader context of Paul’s argument.34 As Barclay argues, Paul’s “real emphasis here lies not in the content of the preaching but on its experiential result.”35 Not only does Gal. 3:2 include the first mention of the Spirit in Galatians, it also evokes intense debate. Consensus is that the aorist ἐλάβετε infers the Galatians have already received the Spirit and, consequently, already are accepted by God. Furthermore, this reception did not occur as a result of any work of law (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) on their part, but from [the] hearing of faith (ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως). This highlights that the emphasis in 3:2 is not on justification but on the reception of the Spirit.36 Cosgrove Twelve times: 3:2, 3, 5, 14; 4:6, 29; 5:5, 16, 17 (2x); 6:8 (2x). See Fee, Empowering, 369. Fee notes that Gal. 6:1 may also be included in this list, and that 2:2 “seems to reflect the Spirit’s activity” (although he may be stretching his exegesis here). I agree, however, that the reference to life in 2:20, while expressed Christologically, “also reflects the Spirit’s activity in the believer.” 31 So also, Das, Galatians, 280–1. 32 So Hietanen, Argumentation, 85–6. 33 Hietanen, Argumentation, 86. Contra de Boer, Galatians, 173. 34 Das, Galatians, 281–2. 35 John M. G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (Vancouver: Regent College, 1988), 83–4. 36 Moo, Galatians, 182. I argue that, in light of 3:2, pneumatology should determine and delineate justification in Galatians, not the other way round. Unless of course, justification by faith involves the reception of the Spirit. So, e.g., Peter J. Leithart, Delivered from the Elements of the World: Atonement, Justification, Mission (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 196, esp. n.3; Macchia, Justified, 8–9. Contra e.g., Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 179, n.1. 30

60

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

concurs. Paul “does not ask whether his preaching [found] immediate confirmation in the coming of the Spirit; he inquires after the conditions of the Galatians’ reception of the Spirit.”37 The fact the Galatian believers already have the Spirit, apparently readily accepted by all parties inferred or otherwise, led Paul to argue that this was the experiential evidence needed to counter any bewitching or foolish abdication of his message (3:1). What Paul means by ἔργων νόμου here, in 2:16 and 3:10, also evokes wide debate.38 I constrain my discussion primarily to how this phrase operates within the argument in 3:1-5. To date, the exact phrase ἔργα νόμου is not found in extant Jewish texts.39 While this may be absent in earlier writings, the concept is not. It appears that the meaning of the concept came to include “doing” what the law required and represented something that was determinative of faithful praxis and Jewish identity.40 Paul picks this idea up again in 3:10. Whereas STJ thought traditionally viewed Abraham as the ultimate Torah-observant Jew, the argument in 3:6-29 relates a different story through a contrast between “doing” the law as a sign of covenant faithfulness, with Abraham who is the exemplar of faithful hearing rather than a works-of-the-law adherent.41 Consequently, it is not surprising that obedience to the Jewish law would be promoted by those other than Paul who are promulgating another gospel (1:6). This suggests that ἔργα νόμου, taken as a genitive of source, may denote the place from which the Galatians are being coerced to source their new life and their understanding of identity and praxis.42 What

Cosgrove, Cross, 43. A detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this book. See further: Dunn, Theology, 354–85; Paul and the Mosaic Law, WUNT 89 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1996); James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990); Debbie Hunn, “Christ versus the Law: Issues in Galatians 2:17-18,” CBQ 72, no. 3 (2010), 537–55; Douglas J. Moo, “‘Law’, ‘Works of the Law’, and Legalism in Paul,” WTJ 45, no. 1 (1983), 73–100; Paul L. Owen, “The ‘Works of the Law’ in Romans and Galatians: A New Defense of the Subjective Genitive,” JBL 126, no. 3 (2007), 533–57; Brian S. Rosner, Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God, NSBT 31 (Nottingham; Downers Grove, IL: Apollos; Inter Varsity Press, 2013), 119–44; Todd Scacewater, “Galatians 2:1121 and the Interpretive Context of ‘Works of the Law,’” JETS 56, no. 2 (2013), 307–23; Thomas R. Schreiner, “‘Works of law’ in Paul,” NovT 33, no. 3 (1991), 217–44; Frank Thielman, Paul & the Law: A Contextual Approach (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994). 39 Moo, “Law,” 91. A similar phrase is found in 2 Bar. 57:2; Sir 19:20; 1 Macc. 2:57 and in the DSS: 4QFlor (4Q174.1.7) and 4QMMT (4Q399.2.2-3). For discussion of these texts in relation to Galatians, see, e.g., Martin G. Abegg, “4QMMT C 27, 31 and ‘Works Righteousness’,” DSD 6, no. 2 (1999), 332–55; James D. G. Dunn, “4QMMT and Galatians,” NTS 43, no. 1 (1997); James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul, Rev. ed., WUNT (Grand Rapid, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 339–45; J. C. O’Neill, “‘Did You Receive the Spirit by the Works of the Law?’ (Galatians 3:2): The Works of the Law in Judaism and the Pauline Corpus,” ABR 46 (1998); N. T. Wright, Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul 1978–2013 (London: SPCK, 2013), 332–55; Wright, Faithfulness of God, 1.184–6; Lee Yongbom, “Getting In and Staying In: Another Look at 4QMMT and Galatians,” EQ 88, no. 2 (2016). 40 O’Neill, “Spirit,” 72. 41 See Keener, Galatians, 226–7. 42 Owen, “Works,” 570, emphasis added. While Owen, and Gaston before him, have their critics, τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός in Gal. 5:19 supports their thesis. Lloyd Gaston, “Works of Law as a Subjective Genitive,” SR 13, no. 1 (1984). Contra e.g., Schreiner, “Works,” 220–1. See further, Anderson, Perspective, 228–44; John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015), 373–5; 406, n.40; Nijay K. Gupta, Paul and the Language of Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2020), 143. 37 38

Galatians 3:1-5

61

Paul suggests in 3:2, however, is that something else has taken the place of law in allowing the Galatians to enter and belong to this new identity. In other words, what did the Galatian believers do to receive the Spirit prior to doing anything the law required? To this we now turn. Based on grammatical parallels between 2:16 and 3:2, some argue that justification by faith is implicit in 3:2.43 Looking at the content and context of 3:2, however, there are noticeable differences between the two passages. Most importantly, 2:16 focuses on justification while 3:2 focuses on the reception of the Spirit. The contrast in 3:2 is not between πίστις and ἔργα or νόμοϛ as discrete concepts. The contrast is between ἔργα νόμου and ἀκοή πίστεως as distinct ways for the reception of the Spirit. There are inherent difficulties in the interpretation of ἀκοῆς πίστεως. This is not merely due to “the ambiguity of the genitive case.”44 It is also because there are at least two ways both ἀκοή and πίστις can be interpreted. Ἀκοῆ can mean the action of hearing or what is heard, while πίστις can mean the act or content of belief/believing. Consequently, ἀκοῆς πίστεως can have six possible meanings:45 Table 1  Six possible meanings of ἀκοῆς πίστεως.

­

1. ἀκοή as “hearing”

a.

b.

πίστις = “believing”

πίστις = “the faith”

By hearing with faith/belief—a faithful hearing46

Genitive of quality

A hearing that comes of faith47

Subjective genitive

By hearing, that is, by faith48

Genitive of apposition or content

By hearing “the faith” = by hearing the Gospel.49

Objective Genitive

2. ἀκοή as the message/proclamation heard a.

πίστις = “believing”

The message that elicits faith50

Genitive of goal or purpose

b.

πίστις = “the faith”

“From the message of ‘the faith’” = “the gospel message”51

Objective genitive or genitive of apposition

See e.g., Betz, Galatians, 130; Fung, Galatians, 132; Lee, Blessing, 59–60. Hays, Faith of Jesus, 125. 45 Adapted from Hays, Faith of Jesus, 126 and Das, Galatians, 289–93. Note, however, DeSilva’s caution to avoid interpreting the phrase by separating it into its individual elements. Global Readings: A Sri Lankan Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), 151, n.129. 46 Moo, Galatians, 183; Franz Mußner, Der Galaterbrief, HThKNT (Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1974), 207; Schlier, Galater, 142–3. 47 Lightfoot, Galatians, 134. 48 Burton, Galatians, 147. 49 Bruce, Galatians, 149. 50 DeSilva, Galatians, 269; Keener, Galatians, 217. 51 Hays, Faith of Jesus, 126–7; Martyn, Galatians, 288–9. 43 44

62

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

In classical and koine Greek, ἀκοή predominantly denoted the content of what is heard, and so some adopt 2.b as the correct interpretation—“the faith” refers to the message of the gospel.52 This is because the linguistic point is sometimes accompanied by theological wariness about attributing human agency to the event of salvation. However, Paul is not discounting human activity in toto, but is challenging a specific type of activity.53 Given its context in 3:2, it may correct to consider interpreting ἀκοή πίστεως as a faithful hearing as in 1a—a faithful response conducive to what the Galatians heard and saw in Paul’s preaching.54 Several things support this interpretation. Firstly, Paul seldom presents πίστις as mere cognitive assent (faith as belief).55 In most cases, there is always an expectation of human agency associated with the idea of faith in the form of faithful response to hearing from God; something in keeping with Paul’s Jewish tradition.56 While the contrast in 3:2 “is between faith and Law and not between hearing and doing,” there is still human agency associated with both works, and hearing.57 Thus, in this context, hearing “conveys something of the connotation of the equivalent Hebrew word: faithful receptivity, an ‘attentiveness’ to the word of God that includes both trust in its content and giver and the disposition to obey.”58 Secondly, when discussing ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως many fail to consider the broader literary context of 3:2 and the overall flow of Paul’s argument—especially what follows in 3:6-13. The nature of Paul’s argumentation and the way he utilizes the Abrahamic narrative in 3:6-13 make it likely that Paul has a hearing-response dynamic in mind: (a) like Abraham, the Galatians responded by faith and faithfully to what they heard and saw; (b) while the Spirit was received through Abraham and Abraham’s seed, Jesus, in Galatians both Jesus and Abraham also represent prototypical faithful humans who, like Paul in 2:19-20, live faithfully in response to God. Consequently, while both Abraham and Jesus are instrumental agents through whom the Spirit comes to the Galatians, they also stand as exemplars, or prototypes for the Galatians of faithfulness and what identifies God’s people as Spirit-people.59 Thirdly, the paraenesis later in Galatians 5–6, where faithful human agency in the form of walking by the Spirit and all that entails is expected, suggests an active response is inherent in ἀκοή πίστεως. Therefore, ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως infers both entrance language (the faithful response that initiated the Galatians’ reception of the Spirit) and continuation language (living rightly/faithfully in the new identity having the Spirit now requires, as children of God).60

E.g., de Boer, Galatians, 175; Longenecker, Galatians, 203. Wright suggests 2a or b is the best option. Faithfulness of God, 920. 53 Hansen, Abraham, 110. Also, Gupta, Language of Faith, 143. 54 Das, Galatians, 292. 55 Gupta, Language of Faith, 9–10. 56 Gupta, Language of Faith, 137. Also Peter Oakes, “Pistis as Relational Way of Life in Galatians,” JSNT 40, no. 3 (2018). 57 Witherington, Galatians, 212–13. 58 Moo, Galatians, 183, emphasis added. 59 Shaules, Identity esp. 159–80; 207–12. 60 See, e.g., Oakes, “Relational Way,” 267. 52

Galatians 3:1-5

63

Summary of Gal. 3:2 In 3:2, Paul presents the contrast between works of the law and faithful hearing, because the reception of the Spirit is conceived in 3:2 as the basis of the Galatians’ identity (as unpacked in 3:6–5:1). By contrasting ἔργα νόμου with ἀκοή πίστεως in relation to the Spirit, it may be that Paul is pointing to two possible agents who affect what the Galatians are required to “do” to belong to God’s family: on the one hand, the content of the message of the “who has bewitched you” in 3.1—which we discuss below—and on the other, the Spirit, given to them in the initial act of believing.61 To “seek any other method [other than faith] to receive the Spirit … was to deny their own conversion experience.”62 A correct reading of 3:2, therefore, establishes why the Spirit continues to be a key focus of Paul’s subsequent argument. It further highlights the importance Paul places on the lived experience of the Galatian believers and their status as children of God. Having established 3:2 as the foundation for what follows in Galatians, we can now consider how 3:1 prepares for and supports this argument.

3.3.2 Gal. 3:1 A discursive shift in Paul’s argument occurs at 3:1.63 Compared with the tone of 2:1521, the berating vocative phrase “O foolish Galatians!” in 3:1 reveals the intensity and focus of this shift. This berating reflects Paul’s exasperation over the current situation among the Galatian believers due to their “lack of wisdom” (ἀνόητος) for denying their current experience.64 The adjective ἀνόητοι, used sarcastically or ironically here,65 denotes “not thinking”66 or “illogical,”67 rather than ignorance, or lacking in mental ability or understanding.68 They appear to have forgotten what they experienced when they accepted the message of Christ-crucified.69 Based on their experience of the Spirit, Paul expects the Galatian believers to understand what has occurred.70 The presence of the Spirit affirms their belief in Christ and resulting new identity. Consequently, Paul is challenging their lack of spiritual discernment—they should know better!71 This ironic rebuke echoes Paul’s intense criticism in 1:6, of their “speedy departure” or defection (ταχέως μετατίθεσθε) from his gospel to another gospel (ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον,

Cosgrove, Cross, 43. Keener, Galatians, 215. 63 DeSilva, Galatians, 265–6. 64 Martyn, Galatians, 282. 65 Twice here and only two other times in the NT: Luke 24:25 and Tit. 3:3. On irony in ancient rhetoric, see, Nanos, Irony. 66 de Boer, Galatians, 170. 67 Bruce, Galatians, 148. 68 Moo, Galatians, 181. 69 Paul’s use of συνεσταύρωμαι in 2:20 and ἐσταυρωμένος in 3:1 emphasizes continuity of his argument and highlights the importance of Christ to the reception of the Spirit in 3:1-5. 70 Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings, AGJU (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 374. 71 Longenecker, Galatians, 99. 61 62

64

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

1:6)—which is not really another gospel at all (ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο; 1:7). Because he states it explicitly in 3:2, Paul’s expectation is that the experience of the Spirit should be enough evidence to what or who now defines acceptance by God. Paul’s rebuke in 3:1 suggests otherwise; the Galatian believers appear to have forgotten this. The rebuke in 1:6, presented as μετατίθεσθε, is now restated as τίς … ἐβάσκανεν. There is, however, a distinct difference in the agency behind these two concepts. In 1:6, the Galatians are willingly turning away (active),72 whereas in 3:1, their eyes have been deflected or blinded from the truth (passive) by something external to themselves. Both instances represent something of a challenge to what the Galatians are believing and the subsequent actions resulting from that challenge.73 Where previously they actively and positively responded to Paul’s message resulting in their reception of the Spirit, in accepting the opponents’ message, they are effectively being blinded and, ultimately, enslaved (again). The implication is that allowing an alternative external agency other than Christ and the Spirit to determine their identity and praxis serves to undermine the agency of the Spirit and to place them back into an old reality of slavery from which they have been transferred. Their stupidity or lack of discernment is in direct contradiction to the clarity in which the message was portrayed before their very eyes (οἷς κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς), as substantiated by the presence of the Spirit and “mighty works” (δύναμις) among them (3:5). This suggests a possible pneumatological inference in Paul’s use of the accusation “foolish.” Because there is no direct pneumatological referent to ἀνόητος in 3:1, it is difficult to argue for an explicit antithetical correlation between the Galatian’s stupidity and the Spirit. What is possible, however, is that ἀνόητος also correlates to the prepositional clauses of 3:2, which in turn suggests that their foolishness of thinking includes ideas that the Spirit was somehow received by means of lawobservance. According to Paul in 3:2, the Galatians’ “foolishness” is somehow linked to their experience of the Spirit. In other words, if the Spirit is the experiential result of their active turning towards Paul’s gospel, then their foolishness and, by inference, their desertion away from this gospel are both effectively a rejection of the Spirit. The foolishness is, therefore, a result of the Galatians not being able to discern the work of the Spirit among them. Consideration of Paul’s lexical choice of the verb βασκαίνω in 3:1 further supports this.

βασκαίνω The hapax legomenon βασκαίνω (bewitched) has been interpreted several ways, including (a) witchcraft, (b) as a metaphor and (c) envy.74 I will discuss each Given the context and subject of 1:6 (the second person plural indicates the Galatians are in view), μετατίθεσθε is a reflexive middle, denoting personal agency, rather than a passive verb. See, e.g., Longenecker, Galatians, 14. Contra Bruce, Galatians, 80. 73 Moo notes that μετατίθημι in 1:6 “was occasionally used to refer to a change of philosophical or political belief,” Galatians, 77. 74 BAG, βασκαίνω, 136; Delling, TDNT, 594–5. For a history of βασκαίνω, see John H. Elliott, Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World, 4 vols. (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2015–17). On this passage, see 3.212–237. 72

Galatians 3:1-5

65

of these and then consider how contextual contingencies may in fact suggest a mixture of all three in the text.

βασκαίνω as Witchcraft Neyrey suggests that βασκαίνω infers witchcraft or demonic influence. Far from speaking of normal sorcery, βασκαίνω is grounded in a “social phenomenon of an accusation that one’s enemy or rival is the devil himself or someone acting under the devil’s power … [an] accusation of demon possession.”75 Consequently, “this term [is] a genuine accusation by Paul that the churches in Galatia have been attacked by an evil figure—e.g., Satan, or one of his minions.”76 While this idea may be supported by cultural–anthropological research, the text itself offers little as way of proof that this was necessarily Paul’s intent. However, acknowledging a worldview prevalent at the time of Galatians, where life was controlled by unseen powers and spiritual deities,77 may support aspects of this idea, albeit with some modification.

­βασκαίνω as Metaphor While affirming Neyrey’s methodology and the value of placing Paul’s terminology within his own social and cosmological milieu, J. Elliott opposes any use of “magic theory” to interpret βασκαίνω. Instead, he argues that “the ancients, when speaking of humans casting an Evil Eye, regarded the Evil Eye as a dangerous yet natural phenomenon and as a physical conveyor of negative emotions arising in the human heart.”78 Consequently, Elliot considers the efficacy of employing βασκαίνεν “as an informal but effective social mechanism for marshalling public opinion against [a] person, discrediting [their] honor and credibility, censuring [their] behavior and ostracising [them] as a social deviant.”79 Rather than focusing on theological or mystical

Jerome. H. Neyrey, “Bewitched in Galatia: Paul in Social Science Perspective,” CBQ 50 (1988), 91. Also John Anthony Dunne, Persecution and Participation in Galatians, WUNT 2/454 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 54. 76 Neyrey, “Bewitched,” 96. Also Martyn, Galatians, 282–3. There is a possible textual link with ἐκπυρόω (“to spit out”) in 4:14. Ἐκπυρόω was considered to negate any curse or influence of demonic spirits. Witherington, Galatians, 203. Susan Elliot suggests a divine element underlies the term, but relates this to the galli and the Cybelene, Mother–God cult. Susan argues “the ancient understanding [was] that the eye projects power.” This power was assumed to be derived from the deities and curses were a way of enforcing deities’ powers. Susan, M. Elliot, Cutting Too Close for Comfort: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians in Its Anatolian Cultic Context (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 253; 335–7. James Edwards suggests this is the background to Paul’s sarcastic remark about castration in 5:12. “Galatians 5:12: Circumcision, the Mother Goddess, and the Scandal of the Cross,” NovT 53, no. 4 (2011). 77 For recent research into the prevalence of magical/superstitious worldviews common within STJ literature, see Allan. S. Berger, “The Evil Eye—An Ancient Superstition,” JRH 51, no. 4 (2012), 1098– 103; John H. Elliott, “Socialscientific Criticism: Perspective, Process and Payoff. Evil Eye Accusation at Galatia as Illustration of the Method,” HTS 67, no. 1 (2011), 1–10; Brigitte Kern-Ulmer, “The Power of the Evil Eye and the Good Eye in Midrashic Literature,” Judaism 40, no. 3 (1991); Nili Wazana, “A Case of the Evil Eye: Qohelet 4:4-8,” JBL 126, no. 4 (2007), 685–702. 78 Elliott, Evil Eye, 3.223, n.365, emphasis original. 79 John H. Elliott, “Paul, Galatians, and the Evil Eye,” CurTM 17 (1990), 266, emphasis added. 75

66

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

elements within Galatians, in order to elicit a deep response from his audience, Paul is utilizing terminology and concepts in a metaphorical way that would fit their culture and belief system.80 Similarly, others suggest βασκαίνω is purely rhetorical; a device used to stigmatize those who are leading the Galatians away from Paul’s gospel. For example, Betz argues that “while the term originated in primitive superstition, it later became more or less identical with ‘despise.’”81 Burton, who suggests Paul uses the term “tropically,” argues that “it would be over-pressing the facts to infer from Paul’s use of this word that he necessarily believed in the reality of magical powers.”82 Hietanen argues similarly: “βασκαίνω … was often used figuratively in the rhetoric of the day. It was used for characterising opponents and their sophist strategies. Thus, there is no reason to draw the conclusion that the Galatians really had fallen under a spell of magicians or magic of any sort.”83 Notwithstanding the strength of these arguments, they dismiss too quickly the dualistic worldview present in Paul’s context that considered spiritual influences behind natural phenomena. While I agree that Paul may not be contrasting the reception of the Spirit to some demonic or magical deception (pace Neyrey), given Jewish and Graeco-Roman cosmogonies that viewed the physical world as determined by the spiritual world, Paul’s use of βασκαίνω would most likely include both rhetorical and spiritual dimensions.

βασκαίνω as Envy Representing a third position, Nanos suggests the primary meaning of βασκαίνω is envy.84 Many “anthropologists conclude that the evil eye belief system is based upon a communal understanding of the dynamics of envy, and intimately connected with social control.”85 This, Nanos argues, applies to the issues in Galatia. The influencers are “holding onto what [they] regard as their own, what they believe they have a right to.”86 By exerting envy, they are preventing the Galatians from experiencing the same good fortune. Using shame, the influencers deceived the Galatian believers into adopting a system of belief that distorts and deceives; this, ultimately, to gain honor for themselves (6:12-13). Notwithstanding that envy is part of the repertoire of βασκαίνω, and that this may have impacted the listeners and their actions in response to an “evil eye” incidence, Elsewhere Elliott suggests a reading of “who has injured you with an (envious) Evil eye.” Evil Eye, 3.232. See also Stephen Kerry, “An Exegetical Analysis of Galatians 3:1-5, with Particular Reference to Pneumatological Themes that Relate to the Onset and Continuation of Christian Identity, with Respect to Law and Gospel,” JBPR 2 (2010). 81 Betz, Galatians, 225, also n.62. 82 Burton, Galatians, 144. 83 Hietanen, Argumentation, 14, emphasis added. 84 Mark D. Nanos, “The Social Context and Message of Galatians in View of Paul’s Evil Eye Warning (Gal 3:1)” (paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting: Social Science Criticism of the NT Section, Boston, 1999), 18. 85 Nanos, “Social Context,” 18, emphasis added. Also, Elliott, “Galatians Evil Eye,” 266. 86 Nanos, “Social Context,” 19. 80

Galatians 3:1-5

67

I am not fully convinced by Nanos’ argument. Firstly, Nanos begins with an idea— βασκαίνεν primarily denotes envy—and then proceeds to force everything through that lens. Secondly, he presumes that the so-called influencers are jealous of the Galatian freedom rather than trying to dominate or control them. The desire to change is from the Galatians to take on the influencers’ worldview rather than vice versa. Thirdly, his argument is based primarily on a social reading of the situation with little consideration of the cosmological worldview of the audience at the time. While J. Elliot accepts envy as one of the meanings of βασκαίνω, it is not the main meaning but an aspect of “the Evil Eye repertoire.”87 Finally, while Nanos rightly considers the reading and rhetorical conventions that were in place for the original addressees, he presumes these conventions influenced Paul’s argumentation more than broader theological concerns that included underlying spiritual ideals that also permeated social constructs of the time.88

βασκαίνω in Context Clearly, these alternative proposals are not mutually exclusive. A more nuanced reading of βασκαίνω is necessary. Given Paul’s argumentation and his regular use of terminology that aligns with prevalent contemporary cosmological worldviews, I propose the intended meaning of βασκαίνω is a mix of rhetoric and cosmology. This includes belief that spiritual influences are behind the agitators who are imposing the Evil Eye on the Galatian believers. This allows for prevailing cosmologies to impact the meaning of words such as βασκαίνω, without ignoring other rhetorical or social aspects also present in the terminology.89 βασκαίνω has rhetorical effect for the very reason that the cosmological worldviews prevalent at the time impact the use and understanding of the term. Thus, Paul’s hearers would have recognized rhetorical and spiritual–mystical elements encapsulated within βασκαίνω. Consequently, a combination of the proposals of Neyrey and Elliot fits best the context from within which Paul is writing, and the purpose for which his use of the metaphor challenges the existing worldview and pending decisions of the Galatians.

προεγράφη Paul’s use of προεγράφη may also contain a pneumatological inference. Kwon aptly notes that “the tragic irony of the Galatian crisis is that there is now an incredible disjuncture where there should be continuity … between their conversion/‘knowledge of God’ (past) and their defection (present).”90 The public display of Christ-crucified (προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος) was a defining moment in the conversion of the Galatian believers. This, as Paul states it here, is primarily because the result of their faithresponse to the message they heard was the reception of the Spirit. Elliott, “Galatians Evil Eye,” 268, emphasis added. Nanos, “Social Context,” 28. 89 So also, Moo, Galatians, 181. 90 Kwon, Eschatology, 39. 87 88

68

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

Crucifixion is central to Paul’s gospel message in Galatians.91 Some consider Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος as the content of ἢ ἀκοῆς πίστεως in 3:2. They argue this is because Paul always presents the Spirit through the lens of Christcrucified.92 Clearly Paul does argue that the reception of the Spirit came when the Galatians responded positively to the message of Christ-crucified. However, noting the shift in Paul’s argumentation in this passage, while Christ is central to Paul’s thought and message in Galatians, the change of emphasis from Christ to the Spirit in 3:1-5 is more significant than often considered.93 The rhetorical question in 3:2, “did you receive the Spirit …?,” then, may have greater impact on the interpretation of ἐβάσκανεν and ὀφθαλμούς than if these terms are interpreted primarily in relationship to Christ. In other words, what the Galatians should see is that the Spirit is never merely a subsequent evidential proof of his argument regarding Christ and justification. Instead, it may be the inverse. As Kwon argues, Paul’s appeal to Christ in this passage is “in order to speak of the Spirit … [Paul’s] main interest here.”94 The following may bear this out. Προεγράφη can be interpreted temporally (lit. “written before,” where προ- denotes temporality).95 However, here in 3:1, it is most likely spatial/locative (placarded/publicly displayed).96 While a temporal reading (preached beforehand: at the time of Paul’s preaching) is possible, given the adverbial modifier οἷς κατ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς, a spatial, or locative reading is preferable.97 The emphatic placement of οἷς at the beginning of the clause supports this. “The Galatians have themselves been witnesses.”98 Although verbal proclamation was a prime medium for Paul, focusing only on the verbal and metaphorical aspect of προεγράφη “fails to account for Paul’s overt emphasis … on the visual element in 3.1.”99 In other words, Paul’s presentation of Christ-crucified to the Galatians possibly included “vivid word pictures … a ‘vivid verbal description.’”100 This may have included two things. Firstly, a practical display of cruciformity—i.e., a clear embodied manifestation of Christ-crucified as modeled by Paul’s own life and suffering that ratified his message.101 Paul had already stated in 2:19 that he had been co-crucified with Christ (Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι), which possibly refers to the sufferings and the branding (τὰ στίγματα) of Jesus in his body (6:17).102 As Keener 2:20; 3:1, 13[?]; 6:14. Jervis calls this the “determining feature” of Paul’s gospel. Galatians (Peabody, MA; Carlisle: Hendrickson; Paternoster Press, 1999), 78. 93 Das, Galatians, 280–1. 94 Kwon, Eschatology, 178. 95 As in Rom. 15:4. 96 Das, Galatians, 286–7. 97 Further support for the locative/spatial use may be the inclusion in some lesser witnesses of ἐν ὑμῖν: D06 E06abs1 F010 G012 K018 L020 P025 d e g vgcle fu* demid harl go syrp Ps-Ath391. 98 Das, Galatians, 287. 99 Basil S. Davis, “The Meaning of Proegraphe in the Context of Galatians 3.1,” NTS 45, no. 2 (1999), 194–212 (here 205). 100 Moo, Galatians, 182, emphasis added. 101 On cruciformity in Paul, see Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), esp. 59. 102 For Paul as a model of co-crucified suffering, see Karl Olav Sandnes, Paul Perceived: An Interactionist Perspective on Paul and the Law, WUNT 412 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 86. Elsewhere Paul speaks of carrying the body of the dying Christ (τὴν νέκρωσιν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ 91 92

Galatians 3:1-5

69

states, “Speakers sometimes showed their wounds to display their loyalty … Vivid portrayal was meant to arouse emotion, and Paul’s suffering apparently did so.”103 Thus, it is probable that many of the Galatians witnessed Paul’s suffering. Paul is describing himself as the canvas upon which the crucified Christ was publicly displayed. Hence the crucified Christ was evident to all who saw the apostle and heard his message … Paul’s proclamation [was] an official public announcement whose effectiveness lay not in its rhetoric, but in the authenticity of the messenger’s own way of life.104

Secondly, this “evidence” and “authenticity” possibly included the manifestation of the active presence of the Spirit in Paul’s own life. In 3:4, Paul speaks of the sufferings the Galatians experienced as a result of accepting the Christ message, while later in 5:11, he speaks of his own persecution because of the message he preached. In 6:17 he even speaks of the “stigmata of Christ I bear in my body” (τὰ στίγματα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματί μου βαστάζω). Each of these includes the Spirit as a result and characteristic of those who accept the message of Christ-crucified.

­Summary of Gal. 3:1 Our discussion of Gal. 3:1 has provided important insight into Paul’s argument and his concerns. Paul has employed vivid sight-language as preparation for his exhortation in 3:2-5 to the Galatian believers to remember what they had seen, experienced, and are still experiencing. An exegesis of βασκαίνω and προεγράφη revealed that Paul employs these terms creatively to emphasize the current situation he is addressing. Firstly, notwithstanding the ambiguity of βασκαίνω, Paul clearly employs it to shame the opponents, undermine their message and to highlight to the Galatians the importance of his argument. Although the accusation is aimed at the inferred opponents,105 by employing βασκαίνω as both a rhetorical and a spiritual concept, in one rhetorical sweep, Paul challenges his rivals and highlights the foolishness of the Galatians for accepting their message.106 Paul also sets them up for understanding the cosmic consequences this decision will have on their lives. The Galatians have gained freedom through “seeing” the truth before them in the form of Christ-crucified, possibly as embodied by Paul.107 Now they are being effectively blinded again through

σώματι περιφέροντες.; 2 Cor. 4:10). See further, Dunn, Theology, 400–1; Gorman, Participating, 109; Kahl, Re-Imagined, 280, 284–5. Contra Lull, Spirit, 55. The concept of an embodied display is also seen in 2 Cor. 4:10. There, Paul argues that the display of God’s power is clearly seen in the lives of the minsters of the gospel. Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 242–53; 358–60 (and associated bibliography). 103 Keener, Galatians, 214. 104 Davis, “Proegraphe,” 208–9. 105 Paul is referring to the influence from real “Evil-eyed Humans.” So, Elliott, Evil Eye, 3.218. 106 Elliot, Evil Eye, 3.214–15. 107 See n.102 above.

70

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

accepting a deception—the result of the evil eye. One eye, the one released through faith, sees and receives life and freedom in the Spirit; the other eye, βασκαίνω, is seen by the believers but incurs a destructive curse that enslaves and, as Paul argues later, is anti-spirit and therefore “anti-life.”108 Secondly, if προεγράφη represents a vivid, embodied proclamation of Christcrucified, suffering and Spirit, then, based on the flow of Paul’s argument in 3:1-5 (especially in his questions in 3:2 and 3:5), part of this vivid expression is the experience and manifestation of the Spirit. This is in line with other texts which reveal that Paul’s practice of preaching was often accompanied by some form of manifestation of the Spirit’s power (1 Cor. 2:4). Thus, Paul’s embodiment of Christ’s suffering is somehow a manifestation of the Spirit’s power, to the extent that, by their own acceptance of the crucified Messiah, it also enabled the Galatians themselves to receive the Spirit. Allowing προεγράφη to include such an embodied display with an associated Spirit dimension coheres well with Paul’s later exhortations in 5:1, 5:13–6:10. As our discussion of these passages will reveal, Paul continues to encourage an embodied, transformational mediation of the Spirit in the Galatians themselves. In these later passages the indicatives—being “of ” the Spirit—naturally precedes the imperatives— “therefore walk by this source” (5:5).109 In other words, because the Galatians share the same Spirit, they should reflect the same embodied cruciform life that they witnessed in Paul and subsequently responded to.

3.3.3 Gal. 3:3 The third rhetorical question in 3:3 continues Paul’s pneumatological argument. “Having begun in the Spirit” (ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι) refers to the reception of the Spirit at the point of the Galatian’s conversion.110 The adverbial participle ἐναρξάμενοι indicates that “the beginning of the Christian life and the reception of God’s Spirit are coterminous.”111 Prior to this question, however, Paul repeats his rebuke from 3:1, but this time in the form of a question: “are you so foolish (οὕτως ἀνόητοί ἐστε)?” The adverb, oὕτως, can either connect with the preceding thought (“thus, you are foolish?”), or with what follows (“thus, you are being foolish in this way”).112 Here

“Anti-life” is my term. This compares with the contrast in Galatians 5 between a life of freedom determined by the Spirit and that of not-life outside of the Spirit. See, e.g., Eastman, “Evil Eye.” Eastman’s discussion on the intertextual link between Gal. 3:1 and Deut. 28:53-7 imports into the passage the idea of blessing that brings life and curse that leads ultimately to death, reminiscent of the Deuteronomist stream of Judaic theology. She highlights a contrast between the blessing and generosity of the “good eye” compared with the envious, greed of the “evil eye.” She further highlights Paul’s frequent use of Deuteronomy in Galatians and elsewhere (e.g., Romans 9–15; Gal. 3:10). His utilization of Old Testament narratives without further explanation suggests that the Galatians were familiar with these texts (79). See also Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 29–32. 109 Bruce, Galatians, 257. 110 Moo, Galatians, 184. Ἐναρξάμενοι is a deponent middle. See also, Phil. 1:6. 111 Longenecker, Galatians, 103. 112 Moo, Galatians, 183–4. 108

Galatians 3:1-5

71

it most likely modifies ἀνόητοί ἐστε.113 This is important to the integrity of Paul’s argument. Firstly, while many take οὕτως ἀνόητοί ἐστε as a distinct question distinct from what follows (“Are you so foolish? Having begun …”),114 it is probably more correct to view it as an adverb of degree,115 setting up the rest of the question that follows (“are you so foolish [that] having begun in the Spirit, you are now ending in the flesh?”). Accordingly, as an adverb of degree,116 it further develops the intensity of Paul’s existing diatribe and rebuke, building on the vocative retort of 3:1. The contrast between pairs of oppositions throughout 2:16–5:26, such as law (works)/faith and Spirit/flesh, etc., highlights the unequivocal concern Paul has for the issues in the Galatian church and the impact these issues have and will continue to have on their lives if not addressed. Taking οὕτως as adverbial retains the emphatic nature of Paul’s argumentation here and in the other passages where oppositional pairs are contrasted, and further reiterates the active way the Galatians are involved in the present concerns Paul is addressing. Gal. 3:3 includes a chiastic antitheton—a proof for an argument using two contradicting points—comparing the Spirit and flesh.117 A Having begun [ἐναρξάμενοι] B with the Spirit [πνεύματι] C now [νῦν] B′ with the flesh [σαρκί] A′ are you ending [ἐπιτελεῖσθε]118

This chiasm emphasizes the self-contradiction of the Galatian’s potential desertion of their new life.119 Paul’s use of σάρξ in 3:3 is important. Some think σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε refers specifically to the rite of circumcision as a covenantal sign of the Mosaic Law.120 Burton, for example, argues that, because the “judaisers” (aka the false teachers or Paul’s opponents) are attempting to “induce the Galatians to be circumcised, reference to the flesh” would be the natural understanding, “and no other meaning would be likely to occur to them.”121 Burton then discusses why σάρξ cannot denote some form of other See, e.g., Das, Galatians, 293. See, Keener, Galatians, 218. 115 BAG, οὕτω and οὕτως, 602. 116 See, Das, Galatians, 293. Martyn calls this “a sarcastic question.” Galatians, 289. 117 A contrast that will be developed further by Paul in Galatians 4 and 5. De Boer states that the “two verbs ‘begin’ and ‘end’ form a natural contrasting pair … as do ‘Spirit’ … and ‘flesh’” Galatians, 177. 118 Das, Galatians, 293. 119 Betz, Galatians, 133. 120 See, e.g., Witherington, Galatians, 214. The physical act of circumcision is used by Paul to represent the demarcating rite of Jewishness. On circumcision in Galatians and its importance to Jewish identity and covenantal belonging see e.g., Barclay, Obeying, 45–60; Sandnes, Paul Perceived, 86; 130–44. On circumcision as a premier mark specifically for conversion to Judaism, see J. D. Shaye Cohen, “Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew,” HTR 82, no. 1 (1989), 26–7; Paula Fredriksen, “Judaism, The Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another look at Galatians 1 and 2,” in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 238. 121 Burton, Galatians, 148, emphasis added. 113 114

72

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

order of natural power compared with πνεύμα. Martyn concurs, suggesting Paul’s opposing teachers were referring to the akrobystia (foreskin).122 Susan Elliott considers σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε stemming from a broader cultic context. She suggests Paul’s sarcastic question would evoke reference to the castration of the galli who served the Cybelene Mother-god cult in Anatolia. “To evoke the image of [the galli] casting off more vital pieces of male genitalia than the foreskin certainly provides a vivid fleshly contrast to maintain a life in the spirit!”123 While such interpretations are possible, there is a further use of σάρξ that may be what Paul intends. Within contemporary Judaic and Graeco-Roman thought σάρξ also denoted a realm of existence or aeon.124 Notwithstanding the ambiguity and diversity of Paul’s use of σάρξ throughout his corpus, over two-thirds of the time when σάρξ is correlated to πνεῦμα it denotes humanity enslaved under Sin.125 Considering the overall argument of Galatians, Paul may be highlighting the dominion of σάρξ as a power in contrast with that of Spirit, rather than representing two aspects of an individual’s nature under God.126 As Eduard Schweizer argues, in relation to Gal. 3:3 and 4:8ff., σάρξ “as norm becomes the sárx [sic] as power … Legal observance … is itself a manifestation of the sárx;” where humanity trusts in σάρξ, “it becomes a power that opposes the working of the Spirit.”127 Susan Eastman concurs. She argues that flesh denotes “both a realm and a mode of embodied interpersonal existence that at the very least are limited to the ‘present evil age’ under the sentence of death, and at their worst tend to oppose and destroy God’s new creation—that is, God’s new community.”128 While in some passages in Galatians σάρξ is related to circumcision and the Mosaic Law, Paul appears to have σάρξ as “realm” in mind here in 3:1-5.129 The shift from a contrast between works of the law and the hearing from faith/faithfulness in 3:2, to a contrast between Spirit and flesh here in 3:3, supports this interpretation.130 Thus, because circumcision as an identity marker of those who seek to follow the Mosaic law represents only one manifestation of the cultic idea of σάρξ, we must be cautious about limiting Paul’s

Martyn, Galatians, 290–1. De Boer argues similarly, but also critically discusses other possible options. Galatians, 177–80. 123 Elliott, Cutting, 340. 124 DeSilva, Galatians, 274–5. 125 Capitalization intended. For Paul, Sin often represents the alter-power in conflict with Spirit. 126 J. Richard Erickson, “Flesh,” in DPL, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne; Ralph P. Martin; Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 304; Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 115; Ferguson, Relational Anthropology, 105–8. 127 Schweizer, TDNT, 1005, emphasis added. See also, Grant Buchanan, “Identity and Human Agency in Galatians 5–6,” ABR 68 (2020); Walter B. Russell, The Flesh/Spirit Conflict in Galatians (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1997), 124. Contra, Ferguson, Relational Anthropology, 106. 128 Susan Grove Eastman, Paul and the Person: Reframing Paul’s Anthropology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 157. See also, Gordon D. Fee, Galatians: Pentecostal Commentary (Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2007), 108. Translating σάρξ as “realm” coheres with Paul’s discussion in Galatians 5 and 6, where law and flesh represent dominating authorities that contrast with the Spirit. Barclay, Obeying, 110–19. 129 Das, Galatians, 294–5. Contra DeSilva, Galatians. 130 So rightly, Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 100–1. 122

Galatians 3:1-5

73

language of σάρξ in 3:3 to purely anthropological or individualistic meanings such as human nature or physical flesh.131 Rather than represent sinful human nature or human flesh, therefore, Paul’s use of σάρξ in 3:3 is eschatological and cosmic in character. It represents “the era of the flesh, that is, the old covenant/old creation.”132 Consequently, Paul argues that the Spirit rather than σάρξ should delineate the beginning and future completion of the Galatians’ new existence.133 Therefore, “now” (νῦν) correlates to ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι, rather than σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε. This is because “νύν in Paul is characteristically eschatological, signifying the onset of the new age … the Galatians have already begun, and are therefore, now in the era of the end-time manifestation of God’s ‘grace.’”134 Completing in σάρξ presents a threat to this existence. Thus, rather than σάρξ, the Spirit represents for Paul both the primary datum of proof, and the primary agent of both the source and sustaining power of the Galatians’ new identity. Consequently, in 3:3, the contrast between Spirit and σάρξ describes a superior beginning with a potentially inferior ending (“the lower plane of the ‘flesh’”),135 should the Galatian church choose wrongly. The cultic background of the Galatian’s previous existence in paganism may be influencing Paul’s language here.136 This, along with the dualistic worldview generally associated with Graeco-Roman cultic thought, makes the Galatians’ reversion more plausible. Crucially, Paul is trying to insist on the incompatibility of the two realms of existence. Consequently, moving from the realm of Spirit—that which represents perfection—back into the realm of imperfect fleshly existence would be ludicrous, even if it is connected to Jewish law.137 As Silva argues, “linking the πίστις/ἔργα νόμου contrast with the πνεῦμα/σάρξ antithesis, Paul unmistakably locates the Judaizers’ message in a bygone stage of redemptive history … the Holy Spirit is the clearest evidence that the time of fulfilment, the new aeon, has arrived.” 138 Thus, any move See, e.g., DeSilva, Galatians, 274; Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 49–166; esp. 99–100. Jewett acknowledges a cosmic aspect inherent in Paul’s use of σάρξ in Galatians, especially later in 5–6 (110, 115). However, his predominant interpretation concerns the individual and the “circumcised flesh.” While the latter is present in Galatians, the issue with reading 3:1-5 and Galatians 5–6 in terms of individual believers obscures the socio-cosmic dimension of σάρξ in these passages. Although see his discussion on Gal. 4:21-31, where he acknowledges that Paul presents flesh in terms of the old aeon and Spirit with the new, suggesting “a development in the term [σάρξ] … in contrast to traditional apocalyptic usage” (113). I contend that this development is present in 3:3 as well. For σάρξ in the Pauline corpus in general, see Dunn, Theology, 62–70, esp. 64–6; Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 49–166. For critique of Paul and traditional Jewish apocalyptic see, e.g., A. J. D. Aymer, Paul’s Understanding of Kaine Ktisis. Continuity and Discontinuity in Pauline Eschatology (Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest UMI Dissertation Publishing, 1983); Davies, Apocalyptic Paul; Ernst Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today, NTL (London: SCM Press, 1969); J. Louis Martyn, “Apocalyptic Antinomies in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” NTS 31, no. 3 (1985). 132 Don B. Garlington, “Role Reversal and Paul’s Use of Scripture in Galatians 3.10-13,” JSNT 65 (1997), 93. 133 Longenecker, Galatians, 103. 134 Garlington, “Role Reversal,” 93. For νύν as eschatological, see, e.g., Rom. 3.31; 5.10; 6.22; 7.6, 17; 8.1. 135 Bruce, Galatians, 149. 136 See, Clinton E. Arnold, “‘I am Astonished That You Are so Quickly Turning Away!’ (Galatians 1.6): Paul and Anatolian Folk Belief,” NTS 51, no. 3 (2005); Elliott, Cutting. 137 Betz, Galatians, 133, n.57. 138 Moisés Silva, Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 176. 131

74

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

“away from [Paul’s] gospel signifies a return to the old aeon, that is, the present evil age (1:4) the age of the flesh.”139 Later in Galatians 5 Paul will show this to effectively be a movement from Spirit-freedom back into flesh-slavery. The verb ἐπιτελεῖσθε, denoting completion, also requires scrutiny.140 Debate concerns whether ἐπιτελεῖσθε is passive (are you now being perfected/made complete), or middle (are you now completing). Interpreting ἐπιτελεῖσθε as a passive, Martyn presents his usual imaginative rendition of what Paul’s opponents were attempting to achieve among the Galatian believers. According to Martyn, they are standing in the Qumranic tradition where circumcision of the “impulsive desire of the flesh” was a rite that represented of perfection.141 While coherent, his argument requires high levels of mirror-reading.142 A better argument for taking ἐπιτελεῖσθε as passive concerns what happened to the Galatians at their conversion (ἐναρξάμενοι). What happened to the Galatian believers resulting from their faithful hearing was the reception of Spirit, sent by God, effecting change in them rather than anything they did.143 Others take ἐπιτελεῖσθε as a middle.144 Preferable to a reflexive middle (“are you trying to perfect yourselves [in the flesh]?”), ἐπιτελεῖσθε is better translated as an intransitive middle (“are you ending or completing [in the flesh]?”). Translating ἐπιτελεῖσθε as an intransitive middle coheres better with the broader context of Paul’s regular charge against the Galatians regarding their own agency in their decisions. For example, like his charge in 3:3, even in their foolishness, they are actively choosing to desert Paul’s gospel (μετατίθεσθε, a middle reflexive verb in 1:6) and presently turning back to something else (the present indicative ἐπιστρέφετε in 4:9). These reflexive verbs, along with the participatory imperative later in 5:1 of the believers to “stand firm” (στήκετε) in their freedom, and the imperatives throughout 5:13–6:10 suggest that Paul does not view the Galatians as unwilling or passive spectators—even given the inference of passivity inherent in the idea of βασκαίνω in 3:1. Instead, he is rebuking and exhorting a group that are actively choosing who they want or do not want to be. Consequently, Paul uses this question in 3:3 to remind them of their present experience of the Spirit and to walk opposite to the way which they appear to be currently going by listening to another gospel.145

Silva, Interpreting Galatians, 176. The present indicative ἐπιτελεῖσθε is preferred over the infinitive ἐπιτελεῖσθαι. Stephen C. Carlson, The Text of Galatians and Its History, WUNT 2/385 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 158. 141 Martyn, Galatians, 292–3. Martyn cites CD 2:14 and 1 QS 5.5 as evidence. 142 Regarding mirror-reading, see John M. G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemic Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” JSNT 31 (1987), 73–93; Nijay K. Gupta, “Mirror-Reading Moral Issues in Paul’s Letters,” JSNT 34, no. 4 (2012), 361–81. Contra Justin K. Hardin, “Galatians 1-2 without a Mirror: Reflections on Paul’s Conflict with the Agitators,” TynBul 65, no. 2 (2014). 143 For the same term elsewhere in Paul, see Phil. 1:6. 144 So DeSilva, Galatians; Dunn, Galatians; Hans-Joachim Eckstein, Verheissung und Gesetz: Eine Exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2,15-4,7, WUNT 86 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996). 145 Moo, Galatians, 185.

139 140

Galatians 3:1-5

75

Once again, the Spirit is a central in 3:3. Thus, 3:3 is about “the Galatians’ pneumatological experiences [seen] on a temporal continuum whose only boundaries are ‘onset’ and ‘completion.’”146 The appearance of Paul’s opponents and their message that focused on circumcision opens up a rhetorical plea by Paul that not only rebukes the Galatians again, but also encourages them to reflect on their experience of the Spirit. They need to consider what they are actively choosing to do and the ultimate consequences of these choices. While his opponents may be using σάρξ language to represent circumcision, in the hands of Paul, σάρξ has a broader meaning and, consequently, far more dire consequences should the Galatians accept his opponent’s message. Viewing the Spirit/flesh language as realm-language representing a contrast of two cosmic powers, along with the cultic verbs, ἐνάρχομαι and ἐπιτελέω, suggests that he is setting the Galatians’ experience in a broader socio-cosmic framework that contrasts their previous experience in paganism with their present experience of the Spirit.

­3.3.4 Gal. 3:4 Although there is no reference to the Spirit in 3:4, a consideration of πάσχω invites comment. Debate surrounds whether πάσχω should be translated as simply “experience” (experiencing the positive reception and activity of the Spirit) or, more specifically, “suffering” in the more traditional sense of the word.147 Fee, for example, suggests that the only thing supporting a reference to actual suffering is that this is most commonly how πάσχω is translated in the Pauline corpus. Instead, Fee argues that τοσαῦτα (“so much” or “greatly”), placed in the emphatic position here (thus referring back to the experiences of 3:2-3), and δυνάμεις in 3:5, adds weight to a translation of positive “experiences” that come from receiving the Spirit.148 Although Keener accepts that suffering is a possible translation, considering the positive nature of the experiences in 3:2 and 3:5, he also suggests that the demonstrative τοσαῦτα refers to the many positive things the Galatians have experienced since they followed Christ and received the Spirit, and which they are now potentially giving up.149 Although the ambiguity of the verse makes consensus unlikely, interpreting πάσχω as actual suffering has merit. The embodied experience of the Spirit in 3:2 and the reference to suffering by persecution of the children of the Spirit (τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα) in 4:29 supports the traditional interpretation of πάσχω as actual suffering.150 Several Kerry, “Exegetical Analysis,” 79. For πάσχω as a positive reception of the Spirit or as suffering see the citations in Dunne, Persecution. 70, n.112 and n.115, respectively. 148 Fee Empowering, 387. For πάσχω as experience, see Das, Galatians, 296–7; Eckstein, Verheissung, 90–1. 149 Keener, Galatians, 219. 150 So, John Anthony Dunne, “Suffering in Vain: A Study of the Interpretation of ΠΑΣΧΩ in Galatians 3.4,” JSNT 36, no. 1 (2013), 10; Dunne, “Suffering and Covenantal Hope in Galatians: A Critique of the ‘Apocalyptic Reading’ and Its Proponents,” SJT 68, no. 1 (2015), 10; Dunne, Persecution, 73–4; Gorman, Participating, 110; Hubing, New Creation, 169–73; Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, TVG (Zürich: Brockhaus, 1990), 146. 146 147

76

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

things support such an interpretation. Firstly, clearly from 3:2, there is no question that the Galatians have experienced the Spirit. It would seem redundant, therefore, to argue from a position of experience then create doubt about the experience with such a question in 3:4. Secondly, few consider social challenges inherent in the social, cultural, and religious milieu of the time associated with changing gods/faiths.151 Changing one’s allegiance to another god (in the case of the Galatians, to the God of Christ) effectively meant giving up one’s place in their own community and ultimately relinquishing their familial identity.152 Some of this change would, like Paul, mean rethinking some of the cultic and social rituals or identity boundary markers that delineated their previous lives. Consequently, if as Paul states in 6:15, a new creation is now present along with its associated new ordering of relationships and culture, then the social suffering and persecution present in shifting allegiances and changing worldviews may be what Paul has in mind.153 This would have meant believers experienced not only an internal struggle with identity, but also external persecution from others.154 Paul’s own life reflects such persecution. While Christ-crucified may be the content of the spoken message, the way Christ is represented through Paul’s life on display leads to Paul’s own persecution and suffering effectively from his own people.155 Consequently, “the association of the Sprit with weakness and suffering, and particularly the cross, should not be ignored.”156 Thus, given the flow of Paul’s argument in 3:1-5 and the connection of this suffering to the reception of the Spirit in 3:4, both Paul’s and the Galatians’ suffering was real.157

3.3.5 Gal. 3:5 “Therefore” (οὖν) in 3:5 introduces what is effectively a summary statement of 3:1-4.158 The implied “who” in this verse is important. While not directly named, from the broader context clearly God is the intended referent. This is the God of both Christ and the Spirit.159 The two substantival participles in verse 5a, ἐπιχορηγῶν and ἐνεργῶν, reflect the provision of both the initial presence and ongoing action of the Spirit within the community. The Spirit and the “works of power” (ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις), therefore, do not represent the same experience. Instead, the second participle ἐνεργῶν relates to works of power which is a subsequent activity of the received Spirit.160 For Paul, the

With exception of, e.g., Bruce, Galatians, 152; Dunne, Persecution; Elliott, Cutting. Also inferred by Neil Martin, Regression, 171, 176, 182. 152 See, e.g., Philo, Virtues, 102. 153 Similarly, Gorman, Participating, 110. 154 Paul R. Trebilco, Self-designations and Group Identity in the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 42–3. 155 This is inferred in 5:11. 156 Dunne, Persecution, 72. 157 Dunne, Persecution, 72. 158 Betz, Galatians, 135. 159 Eckstein, Verheissung, 92. See also Gal. 4:6 (and possibly 1:1, 3); 1 Thes, 4:8; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Rom. 5:5, 15, etc. 160 Burton, Galatians, 155. 151

Galatians 3:1-5

77

experience of the Spirit represents more than mere manifestations of God’s works of power; it signifies the actual presence of God in the Galatians.161 As if to emphasize what has already been said in 3:2, the idea that God continues to furnish the Galatians with the Spirit reiterates the reality that God is still working in the community, as a direct consequence of their ἀκοῆν πίστεως. The final rhetorical question in 3:5 provides the foundation for what follows in 3:6–4:7. While the issue of faith is emphasized here, and reiterates what was asked in 3:2, it is incorrect to suggest that faith is the primary focus of Paul’s point.162 Instead, 3:5 reiterates that the question at stake is that of the presence and activity of the Spirit in the Galatian community.163 This experience of the Spirit continues to be of major importance to Paul.

3.4 Conclusion A careful exegesis of Gal. 3:1-5 highlighted how a focus on the importance of the Spirit in the passage helps to clarify Paul’s rhetorical purposes and provides a coherent indication of the argument that unfolds. I argued that Paul’s explicit mention of the Spirit in 3:2 as a primary datum of the experience of the Galatians, in turn, informs our understanding of what is at stake in his accusation of foolishness in 3:1, as well as the subsequent articulation of the fundamental choice facing the Galatians in the light of the arrival of rival teachers. Given that Paul’s argument in much of Galatians 3–6 is intended to counter the teaching of his rivals, it is likely that 3:1-5 provides us with an important lens through which we can and, I suggest, should read the rest of Paul’s argument. My exegesis challenges a common tendency to interpret 3:1-5 in ways that collapse Paul’s argument into the category of justification by faith. While 3:1-5 relates closely to the discussion of justification in 2:15-16, it is crucial to note that Paul can articulate the Galatians’ response to the proclamation of the gospel of the crucified Messiah in terms of the reception of the Spirit. Therefore, justification is not attained prior to a reception of the Spirit. The presence of the Spirit within and among the believers constitutes what Paul elsewhere can call “justification.” I also highlighted that the language of 3:1-5 is experiential and participatory, suggesting that Paul’s understanding of the Spirit relates to wider questions about the Galatians’ new identity and praxis. The theology that emerges here is eschatological, but not in a narrow nationalistic or hyper-apocalyptic futuristic sense. It is eschatological in that it is grounded in Jewish expectations of what God and God’s Spirit would do in the future; apocalyptic because “Paul’s apocalyptic experience … shaped his apocalyptic theology … and his apocalyptic theology helped him to interpret, and likely

As Gal. 4:7 confirms. Examples of those who relegate the Spirit to a manifestation in 3:5 include: Ashton, Religion; Lull, Spirit, 53–95; Colleen Shantz, Paul in Ecstasy: The Neurobiology of the Apostle’s Life and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 162 Contra Martyn, Galatians, 288. 163 Contra Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 179; Eckstein, Verheissung, 93. 161

78

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

also shaped, his apocalyptic experience.”164 But it differs from his received tradition in that it is not purely a futuristic eschatology; something is happening now in and to the Galatian believers. As Bird notes, while Paul may have “a two-stage eschatology,” he departs from the standard dualistic scheme of other apocalyptic literature that separated the old-age from the new. Instead, Paul’s two-stage eschatology is grounded in the fact that “God has already launched the new age in the midst of the old one in Jesus’ resurrection.”165 This is why Paul’s emphatic challenge to the Galatians is about the Spirit. God has already provided his Spirit to the Galatians; they do not need to do any more to receive it. This is further demonstrated throughout the rest of Paul’s argument. My investigation into Paul’s pneumatology in 3:1-5 has highlighted its importance for understanding his argument. While this passage presents the first use of the Spirit in the letter, this does not indicate that the Spirit is subordinate to his main argument. As I demonstrate below, just as the Spirit is an important hermeneutical lens for coherence in 3:1-5, the Spirit is also vital to Paul’s discussion regarding the identity of the Galatian believers in what follows in 3:6–6:17. Consequently, 3:1-5 is an anchoring text for his argument. As DeSilva states, authors “who regard 3:1-5 as a digression or interlude … miss the importance of this passage, as well as the decisive importance of the reception of the Holy Spirit for Paul’s theology.”166 Paul’s pneumatology in 3:1-5 also reveals a rearticulated Jewish tradition. The reception of the Spirit in 3:2, along with the “he” in 3:5 representing God, reveals that Paul understood something unique had happened in light of the Christ-event that took Paul’s trajectory of the Spirit beyond his received tradition—but not in a disjunctive way. As Chapter 2 highlighted, within STJ thought the Spirit would be conferred on, or given to the righteous Jew at the eschaton.167 Paul takes these traditions about the future bestowal of the Spirit and connects them explicitly to the proclamation of the crucified Christ, leading to the bestowal of the Spirit in the present. The presence of the Spirit in the believing Galatians, therefore, becomes a determining factor for the rearticulation of Paul’s theological narrative in the letter. If the Spirit is now present in the gentile Christians, and if it is God who is working this new thing, then two things are evident. Firstly, those who are righteous are so, not according to traditional Jewish metrics where covenantal belonging was based primarily on ethnicity, but because they have received the eschatological gift of the Spirit. Secondly, this gift is

Gorman, Participating, 97. See his discussion on what he calls “the apocalyptic new covenant” in relation to the Spirit in Galatians (96–114). On various approaches to an apocalyptic reading in Paul, see Davies, Apocalyptic Paul, esp., 75–113. 165 Bird, An Anomalous Jew: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 129. 166 DeSilva, Galatians, 269, n.14. 167 See also Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 215, n.44. For detailed discussion on the various attitudes and responses of Jew to Gentiles prior to and contemporary with Paul, see Terence L. Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1997), 51–78. 164

Galatians 3:1-5

79

present in a more dynamic way than traditional Jewish theology expected.168 As Scott argues, although most of the experiences of Paul and his converts are “interpreted in the context of the traditional Jewish-Christian narrative … the undeniable reality of uncircumcised Gentiles having received that Spirit forces a re-evaluation of the whole prior story.”169 These assertions are further tested in my exegesis of the rest of Gal. 3:6–6:17.

Philip, Origins, 120. Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 173.

168 169

80

­4

Gal. 3:6–4:11 The Blessing of the Promise

4.1 Introduction In Chapter 3, I exegeted Gal. 3:1-5. Based on Paul’s question in 3:2, I argued that the reference to the Spirit throughout the passage is key for understanding his argument in that section. This in turn raises the question of the extent of the emphasis that Paul places on the Spirit in the overall argument of Galatians 3–6. In order to begin to answer this, in this chapter I exegete select passages in 3:6–4:11, especially those that explicitly mention the Spirit in 3:14 and 4:6. The focus of Chapter 4 is threefold. Firstly, I explore explicit Spirit language and implicit pneumatology present in Gal. 3:6–4:11 and consider further its importance to Paul’s argument. Secondly, I highlight the importance of the explicit references to the Spirit in 3:14 and 4:6 to Paul’s pneumatology and argument in Galatians. Thirdly, I identify how Paul draws from Jewish traditions about Abraham and covenant and reconfigures these concepts for the purpose of addressing the Galatian context. I argue that the introduction of Abraham—as both a prototype of those who by faith receive the promised blessing and the one through whom the blessing comes to the Gentiles—is vital to Paul’s argument throughout 3:6–4:11. To achieve these aims, I firstly begin with an exegesis of 3:6-9. I discuss 3:6 as bridging 3:1-5 and 3:7–4:11. I then consider Paul’s hermeneutical approach throughout 3:6–9—especially his use of Abraham—to identify its impact on the interpretation of 3:14, where the Spirit is explicitly mentioned. A more detailed exegesis of 3:7-9 with an emphasis on 3:8 reveals several important concepts which point to the possibility of a pneumatological reading of this section. These concepts are key to recognizing the generative nature of Paul’s theology. I highlight that, although the Spirit is not mentioned in 3:6-13, the coherent link to Paul’s previous discussion in 3:1-5, and the later revelation that the Spirit is the content of the promise in 3:14, suggests an implicit pneumatology. I then consider the importance of 3:10-13 to the immediate context of 3:14. A more detailed exegesis of 3:14 follows, including possible interpretations of the two ἵνα clauses in 3:14. I argue that 3:14 is a linchpin verse to the whole of 3:1–4:7. An exegesis of 4:1-11 continues to identify Paul’s Spirit language in this passage, especially in 4:6, and his emphasis on identity.

82

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

­4.2 Gal. 3:6-9 Just Like Abraham 4.2.1 Gal. 3:6 Gal. 3:6 represents a noticeable change in subject from 3:1-5; from the Galatians’ experience of the Spirit to the person of Abraham. While 3:6-29 introduces Abraham as a key figure in Paul’s argument, the change in subject does not denote a major departure from Paul’s previous argument in 3:1-5. From 3:6 on, Paul continues to articulate concerns that resulted from his question in 3:2 about the Galatians’ reception of the Spirit and the emphasis on faith as the basis for understanding that reception.1 In 3:6, καθώς highlights this link looking “backwards as well as forwards, implying that what follows corresponds to what has just been described.”2 Καθώς normally indicates a comparison between two things. However, in 3:6 Paul uses it to prepare the readers for a concrete example from Jewish Scripture that ratifies the Galatians’ own experience.3 Abrahams’s faithful response was the medium through which the promise was given and received.4 In the same way, the Galatians’ faith/faithfulness elicited the reception and manifestation of the Spirit.5 Importantly, because of the connection between faith and Spirit reception 3:1-5, mention of Abraham’s faith in 3:6 invites a potential connection to the Spirit in 3:7-13. As 3:7 will reveal, those who believe like Abraham are his descendants. Consequently, Paul equates “Abraham being reckoned righteous with believers receiving the Spirit (c.f. 4:6-7), since God’s promise of the Spirit was for God’s righteous eschatological people.”6 If these faithful people are actually of Abraham (3:7-9) and receive the promised Spirit as a result (3:14),7 then Paul not only connects the Spirit to justification,8 but in doing so creatively connects the story of faithful Abraham to the experience of the Galatian believers and, consequently, to the Spirit as well.9 This continuity between the experience of the Galatians and Abraham supports the argument that 3:6 acts as a bridge between 3:1-5 and what follows in 3:7-14.10

DeSilva, Galatians, 277–8. Brendan Byrne, Sons of God, Seed of Abraham: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background, AnBib (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979), 148, n.36. Contra e.g., Betz, Galatians, 140; Colin G. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification (Leicester: Apollos, 1996), 77. Some suggest that καθώς is an abbreviation of the introductory formula καθὼς γέγραπται, but this is questionable. While some manuscripts add γέγραπται, the text as it stands provides a suitable segue between 3:1-5 and 3:6-13. 3 DeSilva, Galatians, 277: “Καθώς introduces Abraham as an analogous historical situation to the one being considered in 3:2–5.” 4 On faith as faithfulness here, see, e.g., DeSilva, Galatians, 277; Gupta, Language of Faith, 152. 5 Byrne, Sons, 148; Sam K. Williams, “Justification and the Spirit in Galatians,” JSNT, no. 29 (1987), 95–6. 6 Keener, Galatians, 221. 7 Keener, Galatians, 221. 8 Andrew K. Boakye, Death and Life: Resurrection, Restoration, and Rectification in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2017), 137. 9 Note, however, Keener’s caution: Galatians, 221, n.159. 10 Silva, Interpreting, 219–20. 1 2

Galatians 3:6–4:11

83

Who Introduced Abraham to the Galatians? An important question at this juncture is why Paul introduces and discusses Abraham. Abraham is a Jewish historical figure and the one through whom the rite of circumcision as a covenant identification marker was passed down to Israel. Therefore, why does Paul focus so much on this Jewish person, especially with a Gentile audience? Clearly by the time of writing Galatians, Abraham was known to the Galatian community. To answer the first question then, a further question is, who first preached and taught about Abraham from Genesis 12? Was it Paul’s opponents, or Paul himself? Many suggest that Paul is correcting the exegesis of the Abrahamic covenant used by his opponents.11 This is based on the premise that these opponents believed and taught that the sign of covenant fidelity and inclusion given to Abraham as the father of Israel was circumcision. If circumcision functions as a central tenet of Torah obedience and, consequently, as a sign of covenant fidelity, then the Galatian believers not only need to acknowledge Christ, but they also need to follow Torah and be circumcised to be acceptable to God as members of the Abrahamic covenant. If the opponents preached this “other gospel,” then the Galatians would understand the story of Abraham. While plausible, and the polemical tone throughout the letter may support such an argument,12 the passage itself offers an alternative interpretation. The engagement with the Abrahamic story in 3:6–4:31 without any further commentary or elaboration from Paul may suggest the Galatians were already familiar with the story on its own terms. Given the centrality of Abraham to the Jewish tradition, it is possible, even likely, that Paul had already engaged the Abrahamic narrative previously with the Galatians.13 Paul’s inclusion of ἡ γραφή in 3:8 implies that the Jewish Scriptures were used in the Galatian congregation for teaching and exhortation. Furthermore, even though Paul directly addresses those who were once enslaved by pagan gods (4:8), some of Paul’s early converts may have also been Jews and/or Gentiles sympathetic to the Jewish faith who would have been familiar with the Jewish Scriptures.14 So rather than viewing Paul’s argument specifically as a polemic against the opponents’ message, the Abrahamic narrative may have already been familiar to the Galatian church. Otherwise, the import of Paul’s and his opponent’s arguments would have been lost on his audience. While Paul’s particular emphasis on belonging to Abraham’s covenant in 3:6-29, and later in 4:21-31, may have been sparked by the influence of the teaching from his opponents,15 there is no need to suggest that they introduced Abraham to the Galatians. See Das, Galatians, 8. The emphatic nature of the imperative γινώσκετε in 3:7 highlights the polemical tone of the passage. The designator “sons of Abraham” is possibly also indicative of this polemic. This can be inferred by the contrast between 3:6 and 29, in comparison to 3:26. 13 Keener, Galatians, 223. 14 Keener, Galatians, 13. Although see Nanos, Irony, 77. I acknowledge caution here. It is uncertain whether or to what extent Pauline communities understood the depth and the nuances of the various narratives and scriptural texts as Paul uses them. See Christopher D. Stanley, “Paul’s ‘Use’ of Scripture: Why the Audience Matters,” in As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2008), 133–4. 15 Keener, Galatians, 223. 11 12

84

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

I suggest Paul introduced Abraham to the Galatians prior to his opponents as part of his involvement in the establishment of, and potential ongoing involvement with the community that included, among other things, “Jewish communal norms” and “Jewish thought and Scripture.”16 More specifically in reference to 3:6-29, this would mean Paul’s initial gospel message may have also included the Abrahamic narrative because of Paul’s belief that the Galatians’ reception of Spirit, occasioned by his own proclamation and their response, was the reception of the promise of blessing given to Abraham in Genesis 12. In other words, Paul preached the crucified Christ from within his own traditional covenantal framework; as a result the Galatians believed and received the Spirit, which Paul saw as the sign of covenant inclusion. In Paul’s argument, therefore, the presence of the Spirit represents the eschatological fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham, through Christ to the believers in Galatia.

The Importance of Abraham to Paul’s Argument Within STJ thought, Abraham was considered as the exemplar of perfect obedience to Torah; “the chief of all righteous men.”17 For some, therefore, “being a descendent of Abraham would mean precisely to be a faithful Jew.”18 Furthermore, the promise of blessing in Gen. 15:6 was coupled with the rite of circumcision in Gen. 17:4-17. It was this connection that identified covenant fidelity—i.e., covenant obedience—as a matter of belief in God and faithfully keeping Torah.19 Additionally, Abraham was considered by some as the prototype of a genuine convert to Judaism.20 In contrast, in Gal. 3:6 and 9, Paul presents Abraham as a prototype of the faithful believer and not just the faithful Jew. As Scott argues: ­ braham represents the paradigm of exactly the same path taken by those in the A Apostle’s present who “believe”—a path which calls not for obedience to Torah but for “faith” in God’s action. In this sense the Galatians are already “descendants of Abraham,” those who live according to his paradigm.21

Some suggest that Paul’s use of the Abrahamic narrative is arbitrary.22 Accepting, however, that the criterion Paul employed when he uses a particular text is not based on conformity to a literal reading and recitation of the original text but on the relevance of the text to Paul’s own contextual situation reveals that he is deliberate in what he includes, adjusts, or leaves out of an original narrative. Consequently, the references to Scripture in Galatians 3 should not be considered merely as “proof Nanos, Irony, 77. Cant. Rab. 1.13, as quoted in Longenecker, Galatians, 110. See also Jub. 23:10; CD 3; Sir. 44:19-22. Sirach highlights the connection between obedience and circumcision often found in STJ literature. For Abraham in Philo see esp., Abr.; Her.; Migr. 18 Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 200. 19 See further, Hansen, Abraham, 175–99. 20 For example, Jub. 12; Apoc Ab. 1–8; Philo, Abr. 60–88; Josephus, A.J. 1.155. 21 Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 200. 22 Betz, Galatians, 137. 16 17

Galatians 3:6–4:11

85

texts,” or as “freestanding arguments from Scripture which have the argumentative weight independent of the ‘argument from experience.’”23 Instead, Paul presents “a reconfiguration of Israel’s story which allows one to take seriously … the surprising new events which the Galatians have experienced in the Messiah’s shameful death.”24 This reconfiguration inverts standard Jewish interpretations that argue for righteous living with an emphasis on obedience to Torah that leads to acceptance by God, to a new understanding on Paul’s part, whereby the act of faith/faithfulness toward God’s faithful action precedes any sense of law-obedience on the part of the believer.25 Paul’s argument reflects his commitment to the Abrahamic descent; but Paul “has pioneered for his Gentile converts an entirely new kinship-based religious identity.”26 This is achieved “through a rigorous and counterintuitive exegetical reinterpretation of Israel’s founding etiology as narrated in Genesis.”27 The core narrative remains the same but, reflective of 3:1-5, and anticipating what is made clear later in 3:14–4:7, the presence of the Spirit allows Paul to include the Gentiles into the story of Abraham without having to affirm traditional requirements of Jewish law in such a way that does not contravene the central principles expressed within the original narrative.28

4.2.2 Gal. 3:7-9 Whatever reasons Paul has for employing the Abrahamic narrative, the citation of Gen. 12:3 in Gal. 3:8 is vital to his argument.29 The explicit mention of those who are from faith/faithfulness (οἱ ἐκ πίστεως) in 3:7 and 9 provides coherence with Paul’s previous discussion in 3:1-5, while the inclusion of reference to blessing (εὐλογία) prepares for what follows—specifically in 3:14, and also in 4:7.

προευαγγελίζομαι and ἐνευλογέω The hapax legomenon προευαγγελίζομαι and ἐνευλογέω are key terms in 3:8. Paul speaks about the Scripture (γραφή) preaching the good news/gospel beforehand (προευαγγελίζομαι) to Abraham. Significantly, because προευαγγελίζομαι is only found here in biblical Greek, it is possible Paul deliberately employs this construction because his opponents used it in their presentation of their “other gospel” (1:6). Furthermore, because this is the only instance where Paul “explicitly uses the term ‘gospel’ to designate the message that Abraham heard from God,”30 προευαγγελίζομαι

Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 202. Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 202, emphasis added. 25 Longenecker, Galatians, 111–12. 26 Foster, Renaming, 62. 27 Foster, Renaming, 62. 28 Foster, Renaming, 64, n.55. 29 Because Genesis is the first book of the Jewish law and Gen. 15:6 is also the first use of pistis language in the Bible (LXX), another possible reason that Paul uses the law itself is to refute and defeat the Judaisers who are so intent on the law. I acknowledge Dr. Mark Keown for this insight here. 30 Jason C. Meyer, The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009), 143, n.89. 23 24

86

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

must be considered in the context of what Paul is arguing. As Moo argues, Paul’s claim in 3:8, that the scripture preaches ahead of time, is “striking because he usually connects the gospel message firmly to the new era of salvation history inaugurated” by Christ.31 As such, προευαγγελίζομαι deserves attention. Although in 1:6-7 the gospel concerns Jesus Christ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ), in 3:8 the term does not have the same Christological focus. Furthermore, there is no indication that προευαγγελίζομαι specifically refers to justification by faith, as some suggest.32 On the contrary, although Jesus is central in Paul’s gospel message, the context of 3:8 suggests that the content of προευαγγελίζομαι is found in the latter part of the verse—that the ἔθνη will be blessed (ἐνευλογηθήσονται) through Abraham and his seed.33 While 3:8a does include δικαι- language, this is not the subject of προευηγγελίσατο and nor is it the subject of what scripture foresees (προϊδοῦσα). What the scripture foresees is who the blessing will be given to. As such, the subject of 3:8b: all (πάντα) the ἔθνη who will be blessed is the focus of προευαγγελίζομαι.34 In other words, Paul is focusing on the recipients of the blessing of Abraham.

ἔθνη What Paul means by ἔθνη, and what his intent of its use here in 3:8 is also debated.35 Paul appears to use it in a totalizing way to include all those who are not Jewish.36 By including πάντα in 3:8b and the reiteration of ἐνευλογέωo and its correlation to faith and Abraham in 3:9, Paul modifies and expands the priority of election prevalent in STJ literature (Israel first and foremost will receive Abraham’s blessing).37 Instead, he includes non-Jewish people equally alongside Israel in the Abrahamic blessing, so that any differentiation between Jew and Gentile, such as in 1:16; 2:15, 3:14, etc., represents only a temporal and mediatory priority, where the message comes through the Jewish nation to the nations, as was always intended.38 Accordingly, προευαγγελίζομαι “indicates that Paul virtually equates ‘the gospel’ with the proclamation that the

Moo, Galatians, 199. So, Ernst Käsemann, Perspectives on Paul, NTL (London: SCM Press, 1971), 90; Moo, Galatians, 199. 33 See, e.g., Mußner, Galaterbrief, 221. Gal. 3:16 further supports this reading. Leaving ἔθνη untranslated here is deliberate. 34 DeSilva, Galatians, 283. Contra, Das, Galatians, 309. 35 See, Denise Kimber Buell and Caroline Johnson Hodge, “The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul,” Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 2 (2004); Kathy Ehrensperger, “The Question(s) of Gender: Relocating Paul in Relation to Judaism,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle, ed. Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015), 245–76; esp. 261–7; Paula Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017), 114; Ishay Rosen-Zvi and Adi Ophir, “Paul and the Invention of the Gentiles,” JQR 105, no. 1 (2015), 189–94; Christopher D. Stanley, “The Ethnic Contexts of Paul’s Letters,” in Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, ed. Andrew W. Pitts and Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2012). 36 What Buell and Johnson Hodge call “totalizing dichotomies” to define “others.” “Politics,” 244. 37 Terence L. Donaldson, Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE) (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 505. 38 Donaldson, Gentiles, 240. 31 32

Galatians 3:6–4:11

87

Gentiles are to be blessed and included among God’s people.”39 Because the Galatians have already received the Spirit, they are representative of τὰ ἔθνη who will be blessed through Abraham.40 These correlations in 3:8 anticipate what Paul explicitly states later in 3:14 regarding the promised Spirit.41

Which Narrative from Genesis? By presenting Scripture as a personified agent who proclaims the good news to Abraham,42 prior to any requirements of the law or covenant rites, Paul is appropriating the traditional narrative in a radical way. Consensus is that linguistic parallels between Galatians and Genesis suggest Paul draws on Gen. 12:3 LXX for his citation about the blessing.43 Not certain, however, is why Paul changes “tribes” in Gen. 12:3 (αἱ φυλαί) to “nations” (τὰ ἔθνη), found in the later blessing announcements.44 It is possible he conflates the stated blessing formula from Gen. 12:3 with later blessing announcements in the likes of Gen. 18:18, to show that the promised blessing is universal in scope (although in Gen. 12:3 it is all the tribes of the earth that will be blessed, so in one sense this idea is redundant).45 However, there are difficulties with this proposal. Especially the hesitancy of choosing Gen. 18:18 as an antecedent passage for Paul’s discussion because it speaks of a blessing after the rite of circumcision was imposed. Because Paul explicitly states that the promise was given beforehand to Abraham, this criterion “effectively eliminates Genesis 18:18 from consideration.”46 Trick argues instead that Gen. 22:18 provides a better source text for Paul’s citation.47 While his discussion is robust, a major issue of choosing Gen. 22:18 is that it represents a much later narrative than 18:18!48 Furthermore, the fact that Paul includes the Gentiles (the un-circumcised) in the blessing further strengthens the argument that it is most likely the earlier blessing in Gen. 12:3 that Paul has in mind.49

Hays, Faith of Jesus, 173, emphasis added. See further, Bradley R. Trick, “Sons, Seed, and Children of Promise in Galatians: Discerning the Coherence in Paul’s Model of Abrahamic Descent,” (PhD Duke University, 2010), 98–112. 40 As 3:9 states. Note Paul uses σύν– “with,” and not “in,” or the genitival format denoting “of.” 41 de Boer, Galatians, 195–6. 42 Note it is not angels or God who preaches “beforehand,” but the scripture. On this see DeSilva, Galatians, 283. Paul’s use of ἡ γραφή is most likely rhetorically motivated. de Boer, Galatians, 194. Also, Scripture is obedient to the will and purposes of God and is not a law unto itself. 43 ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ; Gal 3:8; c.f. εὐλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς. Gen. 12:3 LXX. 44 Gen. 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14. See Das, Galatians, 307–9. 45 Note the change of emphasis from “clans/tribes” (‫הָ אֲדָ מָ ה ִמ ְׁשּפְ חֹ ת ּכֹ ל‬/πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς [LXX]) in Gen. 12:3, to “all people/nations” (‫ ּכֹ ל ּגֹויֵי הָ אָ ֶרץ‬/ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς [LXX]) in the later verses. de Boer, Galatians, 195, n.282. 46 Trick, “Sons,” 101. 47 Trick, “Sons,” 101. 48 See also, Buell and Hodge, “Politics,” 246. 49 So, Das, Galatians, 309. Regarding the eternal covenant in Genesis 17 representing Jewish identity and understood nationalistically and, therefore, ethnically rather than universalistically see, Ellen J. Christiansen, The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Markers (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 39, emphasis original. 39

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

88

4.2.3 Summary of 3:6-9 My discussion makes clear that Paul differs from other Jewish re-tellings of the Abraham story by disassociating “the Abrahamic promise and its blessing from the law.”50 As 3:15-29 later highlights, this “disassociation is designed to explode any attempt to use Abraham as an example for circumcision and law-observance.”51 In the same way, this disassociation also allows Paul in 3:14 to creatively connect the blessing received by faith to the Spirit. In rearticulating the Abrahamic tradition, Paul places the emphasis on the nations who will be blessed rather than the narrower promise that later Jewish interpreters often viewed in distinctly nationalistic, exclusivist ways.52 As Gen. 15:4 states, the blessing of the nations would come through Abraham’s heir, and to heirs of that heir.53 For Paul, this was extended to the Galatians and other Christian ἔθνη because they have the Spirit. Thus, Paul no longer views the promises through such a narrow, Israel-centric lens. Already in 3:7 Paul has shown that those of faith are counted as Abraham’s children.54 He will later argue that the inherited blessing is through “Abraham’s seed” (τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ, 3:16), which, according to Paul, is Christ. While Christ is considered to be descended from Abraham, the promise received is not based on a physical seed per se, but on those who are of faith (ἐκ πίστεως, 3:7, 9) and who are, consequently, also spiritual descendants of Abraham. The main focus in 3:6-9 is, therefore, not specifically on justification by faith, but on the claim that the Gentile nations—inferring the Galatian believers—will receive the blessing that was pre-proclaimed to Abraham (3:8).55 This blessing is the result of belonging to Abraham (3:6, 9) through expressing the same Abraham-faith seen in Genesis (3:7, 9); the blessing which, we will see, consists of the Spirit (3:14).

4.3 Gal. 3:10-14 Curse, and the Spirit as Promised Blessing 4.3.1 Gal. 3:10-13 Gal. 3:14 provides the next mention of the Spirit in Galatians. Before I explore 3:14, I first consider its immediate, preceding literary context in 3:10-13.

Hansen, Abraham, 99. Hansen, Abraham, 99. 52 Donaldson, Judaism, 500. 53 ἀλλ᾽ ὃς ἐξελεύσεται ἐκ σοῦ οὗτος κληρονομήσει σε (Gen. 15:4) “but the one from out of your own body shall be your heir.” See also the promise to Jacob in Gen. 28:13–14. 54 3:7; also 3:19; 29. On ἐκ πίστεως, see Teresa Morgan, Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and Early Churches (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 275–8. 55 Paul is clearly using corporate terms here. Gal. 3:16 reinforces that Paul is speaking in terms of corporate identity in 3:8; already made explicit in 3:7. On this see Esler, Galatians, 173; Foster, Renaming, 54. 50 51

Galatians 3:6–4:11

89

­Gal. 3:10 In 3:10, Paul shifts the focus from Abraham, to contrast law (νόμος) and faith (πίστις) in more general terms. The causal nature of the particle γάρ in 3:10 connects what Paul states positively in 3:6-9 to the antithetical argument of 3:10-13.56 Γάρ is not necessarily “introducing the strict logical basis for 3:9.”57 Instead, it acts as “a ‘marker of clarification’ … which introduces the next step in [Paul’s] … discussion without specifying a tight causal connection.”58 Galatians 3:10-13 contrasts those who are from/ of the “works-of-the-law” group (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν), with those of the faith group (οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, 3:6-9).59 As these two phrases reveal, the issue in this passage is not so much about what an individual does or does not do to be justified or saved, but about who belongs to whom; i.e., who are the true children of Abraham and God?60 The third mention of “works of law” in Galatians 3 occurs in 3:10. This occurrence highlights the continuity this section has with what precedes it in 3:1-5. The curse associated with doing the works of the law in 3:10 is a restatement of Deut. 27:26. Paul reworks this OT passage so that, in contrast to the curse being on those who do not obey the law, it instead presents a curse on those doing the law.61 The term ἐπικατάρατος has its roots in the idea of bewitchment, and, therefore, may allude to Paul’s use of βασκαίνω back in 3:1.62 This would suggest that if the Galatians become law-people as opposed to faith-people, this would render them susceptible to the evil eye in 3:1. Notwithstanding such an allusion, because of its relationship with the quote from Deut. 27:26, the verb in 3:10 carries the import of the curses found in Deut. 27:11–26 (and also possibly Deut. 28:58 and 30:10), thus broadening the scope of the curse of the original text.63

Gal. 3:11-12 In 3:12, Paul quotes Lev.18:5 LXX in relation to the doing of the law.64 The verb ποιέω in the LXX translates the Hebrew ‎‫עשה‬. In the context of Torah, this suggests that “doing” Don B. Garlington, “Paul’s ‘Partisan ek’ and the Question of Justification in Galatians,” JBL 127, no. 3 (2008), 582. Also, Eckstein, Verheissung, 121. 57 Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 210, n.35. 58 Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 210, n.35, emphasis added. On the other hand, Scott suggests that ὅτι in 3:11b should be taken as causal, not just for 3:11a, but for the whole of 3:10-13. For γάρ as a “marker of clarification” (explanatory), see BDAG, 152 [2]. 59 Keener calls them “law-works people” and “faith-people.” Commentary, 231. 60 Taken adjectively, ἐκ πίστεως specifies identity. Peter Oakes, Galatians, Paideia (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015), Loc 123. 61 Deut 27:26 LXX: ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ὃς οὐκ ἐμμενεῖ ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόμου τούτου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτούς. “Cursed is the person who does not confirm all the words of the law by doing them.” 62 Elliott, Evil Eye, 3:262, 283. 63 DeSilva, Galatians, 286. On the way Paul diverges from and inverts the original text, see Das, Galatians, 311–13. 64 καὶ φυλάξεσθε πάντα τὰ προστάγματά μου καὶ πάντα τὰ κρίματά μου καὶ ποιήσετε αὐτά ἃ ποιήσας ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς (Lev 18:5) “… and does them, the [person] who does them shall live in them.” Translation mine. See also, Exod. 18:20; Duet. 27:26. 56

90

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

the law was considered a sign of covenant fidelity and would somehow bring life.65 Paul now recognizes that the very thing that Israel believed would be life for them, turned out to bring about the very curse faithful Jews sought to avoid. Rather than effecting life, adherence to the law instead somehow leads to bondage.66 Why? Because, according to Paul, the law was in fact never intended to bring life (3:21, 24). Consequently, in 3:10, in contradistinction to those who argue that ἐξ ἔργων νόμου means “those who rely on works of the law,”67 where ἐξ ἔργων νόμου is taken adverbially, implying the practices of those who pursue law for salvation or righteousness,68 it is better taken adjectively, denoting Paul’s nomenclature for the antithetical group he is challenging.69 This idea has had some traction in recent scholarship and fits well with Paul’s emphasis on belonging and identity throughout Galatians. Shaules, for example, considers that in 3:10, law (νόμος) is used to designate a group prototype that includes a certain way of life to belong to that group.70 Esler suggests that it designates what Paul would consider the “outgroup”; i.e., those outside of the blessing.71 Hence, according to Martyn, the group Paul is naming here are “those whose identity is derived from observance to the law.”72 Some brief comments about the law in Judaism are worth noting at this stage. In the wake of Sanders’s thesis, it is now widely accepted that within Judaism, obeying the Jewish law was not entrance language—somehow “getting in” to God’s family or “getting saved.”73 Instead, keeping the law was inherently connected to covenantal faithfulness and fidelity and, therefore, primarily about how Israel lived as God’s faithful people.74 If this is the case, Paul is not so much presenting “competing claims for how one gains life.”75 Rather, Ephraim Radner, Leviticus, BTCB (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2008), 229. This was also evident in Qumran literature: e.g., 4QMMT; 1QS 5.20–21. 66 Barclay, Gift, 405, 407. 67 Longenecker, Galatians, 116. 68 So, e.g., Bruce, Galatians, 157; James D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), 170; In-Gyu Hong, The Law in Galatians, JSNTSup 81 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 235. 69 Das, Galatians, 310; Keener, Galatians, 232. 70 Shaules, Identity, 147. 71 Esler, Galatians, 184–5. 72 Martyn, Galatians, 308, emphasis added. 73 “Getting in” and “staying in” are Sanders’s terms. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977), 17, 70, 212, 425, 548; also inferred: 178, 236–8. See also, Yongbom, “Getting In,” 127–30. For overview and critique of the major emphases of law and salvation in the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), see among others: Anderson, Perspective, 15–56; Robert J. Cara, Cracking the Foundation of the New Perspective on Paul: Covenantal Nomism versus Reformed Covenantal Theology (Tain: Mentor, 2017); Dunn, New Perspective, 99–120; Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 178–200; N. T. Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters (London: SPCK, 2015), 64–87; Magnus Zetterholm, Approaches to Paul: A Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009), 95–126. 74 Wright, Interpreters, 72. See also, Karin Hedner Zetterholm, “The Question of Assumptions: Torah Observance in the First Century,” in Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle, ed. Magnus Zetterholm and Mark D. Nanos (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015), 79–103. 75 Andrew H. Wakefield, Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul’s Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3:1-14 (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2003), 176, emphasis added. Also, Boakye, Death Life, 135. Contra Wright, Climax, 149. 65

Galatians 3:6–4:11

91

given his overall argument, Paul is contrasting two systems of life.76 The juxtaposition of Hab. 2:4 and Lev. 18:5 in Gal. 3:11 and 12, respectively, suggests as such.77 By including this juxtaposition, Paul is not offering “differing answers … to the question ‘how will one live?’ but rather to the question ‘who shall live?’”78 Because only faith leads to life (3:11b), and the law is not faith (3:12)—nor, as 3:21 explicitly states, it cannot give life—it must, therefore, lead instead to something else. Consequently, those who seek to adhere to be law-people do not find freedom and life (aka the Spirit); instead, they find themselves under the curse of law; something which, Paul argues, is bondage. Although the Spirit is not mentioned in 3:10-13, the fact that this section culminates in 3:14 with reference to the promised Spirit suggests an underlying pneumatological dimension to Paul’s contrast between two groups. In addition, the inclusion of ζάω language in 3:11-12 anticipates Paul’s explicit identification of the Spirit as the one who gives life to the son of promise in 4:29.79

The Emphasis of Gal. 3:13 Gal. 3:13-14 is a discreet unit within the argument of 3:10-14 and completes Paul’s thought in this passage. As I have been arguing, the focus throughout 3:10-12 is clearly on identity rather than primarily on an explicit soteriology. Nevertheless, soteriology comes to the fore in 3:13: “Christ redeemed us” (Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν). Reading 3:13 as determining a soteriological emphasis of 3:10-14, however, often misses what Paul has been discussing. If Paul is arguing for a way to get in to God’s family, then an argument must be provided as to why Paul engages scriptures about the requirements of the Jewish law that determine covenant faithfulness.80 If, however, 3:13 continues to explore the idea of identity in relation to faith and the reception and life of the Spirit, then its purpose is far broader. This is not to deny that 3:13 lacks any soteriological focus; it is clearly there. However, within its broader literary context, including the two ἵνα clauses in 3:14 which introduce 3:14 as the complement to 3:13 and the conclusion to 3:10–14, it appears that Paul’s emphasis lies elsewhere. Before we consider this emphasis and 3:14, some summary conclusions to 3:10-13 are necessary.

Summary of Gal. 3:10-13 Paul has been consistently promoting the idea of identity throughout the letter; the idea that who one “is,” is determined by who one is “of.”81 As Paul states in 3:10, living Beker asserts that “Paul almost slides into a dualism between two antithetical powers.” Paul, 53. However, while Paul’s argument throughout 3:1–4:7 does reflect a form of dualism, I argue this is rhetorical rather than ontological dualism. I develop this further below. 77 Das, Galatians, 319. 78 Das, Galatians, 319, emphasis added. 79 Boakye, Death Life, 137. 80 In light of Christ, a more appropriate question is why engage with the Jewish law at all?!? 81 In 2:14, Paul challenged Peter for being hypocritical and for compelling (ἀναγκάζεις) the Gentile believers to live or act Jewishly (Ἰουδαΐζειν). The term Ἰουδαΐζειν appears to be a term used to represent the actions of an exclusive “in-group” who, through the promotion of demarcating boundary markers that include certain practices and rites of Jewish Law, determine who is in and 76

92

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

under Torah requires a person to fulfill all its stipulations,82 an exclusivity recognized back in 2:14. Such obedience is the very thing that makes living under Torah antithetical to life in the Spirit. Consequently, the sphere of faith/Spirit compared with law will later be shown to “affirm two mutually exclusive convictions”: Paul’s position—“neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything” (5:6; 6:15); and his opponents’ position: “circumcision and uncircumcision means everything.”83 But, for Paul, this latter position leads ultimately to curse and bondage.84 It is not surprising then that in 3:10-13 Paul presents such a negative polemic against coming under law. The law has a positive role, but only when it is correctly subordinated to the purposes of God, and only if it is never considered as something through which life/freedom is found or effected. However, any attempt to identify oneself under the sphere of law is incompatible and contradictory to being faith-people, now inaugurated in and through Christ and effected by the Spirit. The implication of this antithetical perspective is that the blessing of covenant belonging that is the consequential reality of the giving of the Spirit comes only through faith observance. For Paul, therefore, the sphere of law identified with a curse is to be rejected in favor of the promised Abrahamic blessing. This sets the scene for our analysis of 3:14.

4.3.2 Galatians 3:14 Gal. 3:14 is a key to my argument for forefronting Paul’s pneumatology in the interpretation of 3:1–6:17. The explicit reference to the Spirit and its location at the center of Paul’s discussion in Galatians 3 suggests that it is vital to Paul’s overall argument. To interpret 3:14 within its broader literary setting, this section proceeds as follows. Firstly, I discuss the relationship between 3:13 and 3:14. Secondly, I consider the two ἵνα clauses in 3:14, and what the relationship is between the blessing and promise that these two clauses introduce. Thirdly, I consider various interpretations of the genitival phrase ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος. Finally, I consider how 3:14 contributes to the overall argument of 3:1-29.

who is not. For Paul, any attempt to make a law the criterion for who is “in,” is contradictory to what the Gentile believers have already experienced in their lives—the Spirit (3:2). On the use of Ιουδαΐζω and its cognates see Matthew Novenson, “Paul’s Former Occupation in Ioudaismos,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letters, ed. Mark W. Elliot, Scott J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and John Frederick (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 24–39. 82 While Paul is most likely primarily challenging the Jewish law and its requirements, there is the possibility he is referring to any law outside of the Spirit (such as τὰ στοιχεῖα in 4:3). So Elliott, Cutting, 131–9. 83 Timothy G. Gombis, “Arguing with Scripture in Galatia,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letters, ed. Mark W. Elliot, Scott J. Haffemann, N. T. Wright, and John Frederick (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 85. 84 Notice Paul does not mention death in relation to the subjugating nature of the law here. The only mention of death is found in 3:13, which specifically relates to what Christ has done to overcome the curse of the law (τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου); something, Paul argues, is bondage, not death.

Galatians 3:6–4:11

93

Literary Setting of Gal. 3:14 In 3:14, Paul brings together two key themes of blessing and promise. The explicit reference to the Spirit indicates that 3:14 is linked to Paul’s statements in 3:2 and 4:6, suggesting that the blessing of Abraham is not simply related to Paul’s arguments around justification and salvation-history, but also to his account of the Galatians’ past and present experience of the Spirit.85 Gal. 3:14 describes the positive consequence of what Paul presented in 3:13. The two ἵνα clauses in 3:14, dependent on the main clause in verse 13, express the outcome of Christ becoming a curse.86 3:13-14 states that “Christ redeemed us (ἡμᾶς) from the curse of the law (κατάρας τοῦ νόμου), so that (ἵνα) the blessing of Abraham (ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ) might come to the Gentiles, so that (ἵνα) we might receive (λάβωμεν) the promised Spirit (τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος).”87 Although “we” in verse 14 could correspond to the “we Jews” in 2:15, it most likely refers here to Paul, Jewish Christians, and Gentile believers.88 In the context of 3:1–4:7, 3:14 articulates the present effect—the received Spirit—of what Christ has done in verse 13 (3:2, 5, 14). Consequently, the main point in 3:14 is not only derived from its immediate context in verse 13, but also from what Paul has already argued in 3:1-13. More specifically, 3:14 reiterates what was said in 3:2.89 Anticipating what I demonstrate below, Hays’s point is cogent here: Once we see that Paul assumes an identification between the Spirit and the blessing of Abraham, we are able to grasp more clearly the coherence of Gal 3:1–14. In particular, the transition between verses 1–5 and 6–9 becomes clearer in light of this assumption, and we can see that verse 14 closes the circle of ideas that began in verse 2.90

The flow of Paul’s argument supports this pneumatological emphasis. First, 3:14 tells us that it is in Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησου) that the blessing/promise comes. Here ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησου can be understood locatively (in the sphere of Christ/being “in” Christ), or instrumentally (“through Christ”).91 While technically it is usually one or the other, Paul here appears to present Christ in both senses. Christ represents the one in whom the blessing comes and toward whom faithful allegiance is expressed to receive the blessing. Yet Christ is also the instrumental agent through whom the promised blessing is given.92 A discussion on the two ἵνα clauses in 3:14 helps clarify this point further. Hays, Faith of Jesus, 182. Terence L. Donaldson, “The ‘Curse of the Law’ and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3. 13–14,” NTS 32, no. 1 (1986). 87 Although some manuscripts replace ἐπαγγελίαν with εὐλογίαν, the majority prefer the former. 88 DeSilva, Galatians, 296–302. 89 Fee, Galatians, 123. 90 Hays, Faith of Jesus, 183, emphasis added. See also, Hansen, Abraham, 122. 91 I am applying these terms differently than the usual way they are applied to Greek verbs. For the locative use, see Moo, Galatians, 215; for the instrumental use, see Longenecker, Galatians, 123; de Boer, Galatians, 215. 92 Hays, Faith of Jesus, 183. Contra Williams, “Justification,” 712. n.10. 85 86

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

94

ἵνα … ἵνα … A lack of consensus exists regarding how to interpret the double ἵνα clauses in 3:14. The two clauses express the result of what is presented in 3:13a. However, while 3:13a may appear straightforward, the meaning of the two clauses in 3:14 is not. 14a. ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γένηται ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 14b. ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως. 14a. in order that, in Christ Jesus, the blessing of Abraham might come to the ἔθνη, 14b. in order that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith/faithfulness.

3:14 can be arranged in a purpose–result pattern. In this scenario, the second clause, 14b, is dependent on or subordinate to the first clause in 14a. This makes 14a the main consequence of 13a. That is, 14a is the purpose clause (“in order that”) and 14b is the result of 14a (“with the result that”). According to this interpretation, the blessing and the promise are distinct concepts.93 They even relate to two distinct groups of recipients: 14a, the Gentiles; 14b, Jewish Christians.94 Two recent works are indicative of those who adopt this schema. Yon-Gyong Kwon, for example, suggests that the blessing in 3:14 is justification, which he argues is primarily future. While Spirit and promise are linked in 3:14, Kwon contends that they are not equated; the promise is only related to the Spirit.95 Blessing and promise are, therefore, not the same thing.96 Kwon argues that “Paul never specifies the Spirit as a concomitant of justification … equating justification/blessing with the gift of the Spirit creates more problems than it solves.”97 Instead, inheritance as υἱοθεσία in Gal. 4:5 is the content of the promise. In other words, Paul draws on the Abrahamic story to show the Galatians how God is powerfully creating heirs just as he (God) did in fulfilling the promise of Isaac.98 This analogy, however, is not literal but is a “dynamic equivalence.” As such, the Spirit is not the promised inheritance but the one who produces heirs.99 Because Paul’s discussion of sonship is primarily about inheritance; it is, according to Kwon, about a future event rather than a present state. So, Betz, Galatians; Kwon, Eschatology; Lee, Blessing. According to Fung, the blessing = justification by faith, while the promise = the Spirit. Galatians, 151. Although he suggests a close relationship between the two concepts, he creates too much of a disjuncture between them. 94 The change of person in 3:13–14 is often given as textual support for this position. Morales, Restoration, 114. 95 Kwon, Eschatology, 62–4; 102–7. 96 “[T]he ‘blessing’ is not to be conflated with the ‘promise’ to produce the composite notion of ‘the promise of the blessing’.” Kwon, Eschatology, 107. 97 Kwon, 63. I am not convinced Kwon’s proposal solves the issue either. Note Dunn’s caution: “That the gift of the Spirit received through faith (3:2) can equally be regarded as the blessing of Abraham, together with or as a variant on being justified through faith, is a warning to later theologians not to put these two aspects of the saving power of the gospel into quite distinct and separate categories.” “Galatians,” in A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit, ed. Trevor J. Burke and Keith Warrington (London: SPCK, 2014), 180, emphasis added. 98 Kwon, Eschatology, 112. 99 Kwon, Eschatology, 113. 93

Galatians 3:6–4:11

95

Similarly, Chee-Chiew Lee argues that justification is Paul’s main concern. Because the Spirit continues to bring the effect of the fruit of justification to bear, it cannot be contingent in the initial act of justification. This is because the act of justification is “forensic and declarative, but is not inclusive of transformation.”100 Regarding the ἵνα clauses in 3:14, and considering how other Pauline texts utilize these clauses,101 Lee concludes that, although there is some relationship between the two clauses, they are “not likely equated.”102 Similar to Kwon, the blessing has to do with sonship and inheritance, rather than the promised Spirit.103 While Lee acknowledges that reception of the Spirit and the conferring of Abrahamic sonship occur simultaneously, she does not accept that the former is the cause or substance of the latter.104 Furthermore, according to Lee, the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham is Christ and not the Spirit.105 I am not persuaded by either argument. Firstly, within the framework of Paul’s wider theology, clearly the Spirit is not merely a by-product of, or secondary to justification by faith. Because the Spirit is the Spirit of God (or in Gal. 4:6, the Spirit of God’s son), then it has ontological precedence over any justifying work of God.106 Any attempt, therefore, to separate the role of the Spirit from the initial salvific work of God in Christ, by locating it as a consequence of that work, is theologically misleading. Secondly, justification for Paul is about present experience, and this is precisely where the work of the Spirit is evident.107 For Paul, the Spirit does not belong only to a future eschatological possibility but to a present reality.108 The Galatians are already “sons” of Abraham by/through faith because they already have the Spirit.109 The existence of

Lee, Blessing, 205, n.88, emphasis added. Rom. 7:13; 1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Cor. 12:7b; Gal. 4:4-5; Eph. 5:25-27a; Tit. 2:3-5. 102 Lee, Blessing, 56. 103 Which Lee stresses, the original inheritance promised to Abraham was land and offspring—not the Spirit (57, 60). 104 Lee, Blessing, 58. For example, in Ezek. 36:26-27, the Spirit is linked to the promise of the Spirit as an eschatologically future fulfillment. In Ezekiel 36, restoration of covenant blessing includes an empowerment to live in obedience to Torah. According to Lee (180), the eschatological nature of STJ texts such as these looks beyond present struggles and suffering and emphasizes sectarian community values. As with earlier prophetic literature, the presence of the Spirit in these texts denotes obedience and belonging, where “the Spirit is understood as a mark of membership of the people of God” (emphasis added). See, e.g., 4Q504 1–2 recto V, 15–16; 1QS III, 6–12; 4Q504–506; Jos. Asen. 8:9; 15:5-7. According to Lee, this does not mean, however, that the Spirit and blessing are linked. “The bestowal of the Spirit and the salvation of the Gentiles are not related to the Abrahamic blessing for the nations” (181, emphasis added). 105 Lee, 57. Strangely, Lee considers both Jesus and justification by faith are the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. 106 See further, David A. DeSilva, Transformation: The Heart of Paul’s Gospel (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), 23, n.16; Macchia, Justified, 295; Amos Yong, Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015), 8. 107 Leithart, Delivered, 195–204; Sam K. Williams, “Promise in Galatians: A Reading of Paul’s Reading of Scripture,” JBL 107, no. 4 (1988). 108 Meyer: “Paul addresses readers standing in the age of fulfilment.” End, 155. 109 Because Kwon makes justification by faith Paul’s main concern, he contends that “Paul is not making an affirmation concerning the Galatians believers’ status as Abraham’s sons. His affirmation of the Galatian believer’s sonship turns out to be an exegetical devise to establish the truth of justification by faith.” Eschatology, 85–6, emphasis original. At this point Kwon’s argument becomes unclear. If sonship is not a present reality, then why does Paul include present indicatives in 3:7, 26 and 4:5-7? 100 101

96

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

a present justification indicated by the Spirit in 3:2 and 5, without any justification language, is therefore not the same as adopting a fully realized eschatology.

The Promised Spirit Most scholarship now consider the two ἵνα clauses in 3:14 to be coordinate and correlated to each other—14a and 14b articulate the same event but in a different way.110 Both clauses, therefore, present purpose and result. The second clause clarifies the first: the promise in 14b clarifies what the blessing of 14a is. As DeSilva states, there is a “careful parallelism of the components” highlighting “their mutually interpreting quality: they give expression to the same spiritual reality, the second giving more specific definition to the first.”111 The two clauses, therefore, stand in apposition to each other. Paul is providing a textual bridge between curse and blessing, and blessing as promise.112 If the promise elaborates on or redefines what the blessing is, then the Spirit not only represents the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham but is also the actual substance of that blessing/promise. Thus, τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος should be read epexegetically: “the promised Spirit.”113 A potential objection to interpreting τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος epexegetically is that in the OT the Spirit is never commensurate with the promise given to Abraham.114 Taken at face value, Paul appears to have moved well beyond Jewish expectations of what the promise of Abraham would entail. But as I have consistently argued, while Paul embraces the story of Abraham, he is retelling that tradition. As I highlighted in the exegesis of 3:8, Paul does not dispense with the original story but reinterprets it in light of current circumstances and his wider eschatological convictions.115 Therefore, while the original Genesis narrative provides no connection of the Spirit to the promise or the blessing, what Paul is stating is not without precedent, including what he has related already regarding Abraham in 3:6-9.116 In addition to the main texts that discussed the Spirit in relation to creation, explored in Chapter 2 above, there are antecedent texts that also connect blessing with the Spirit (e.g., Isa. 44:3—which explicitly connects the two concepts; 4Q504 V 15–16; T. Jud. 24:2). There is also ample evidence linking the presence of the Spirit to a future fulfillment and reestablishment of God’s people (e.g., Isa. 32:15; Ezek. 37:4-14; Joel 2:28-29. Also 1 QS 4.21; 1 QH 12.12; 14:13; 16:12—although these texts suggest the Spirit is already present in the Qumran community).117 As Scott notes, however, while the presence of the Spirit See Das, Galatians, 334–5; Eckstein, Verheissung, 167–8; Fee, Galatians, 122–3; Hong, Law, 131; Jarvis J. Williams, Galatians, NCCS (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2020), 110. 111 DeSilva, Galatians, 303. 112 de Boer, Galatians, 214. 113 DeSilva, Galatians, 303, n.116. Also called an adjectival genitive or a genitive of apposition. C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 175–6. BDF §167. 114 Hays, Faith of Jesus, 181. 115 See also Das, Galatians, 334, esp. n.18, 19. 116 Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 215, n.44. 117 See Dunn, Galatians, 154, and Das, Galatians, 334, for these references.

110

Galatians 3:6–4:11

97

“was widely assumed to be a sign of the more general eschatological blessing,” this blessing was perceived in nationalistic terms; “the blessing as a whole was generally understood as the inheritance of righteous Israel [as] Abraham’s heirs.”118 There was also an expectation that the presence of God’s eschatological Spirit would signal the inauguration and presence of the new age of God’s rule.119 Gal. 3:1-14 suggests that Paul recognizes this fulfillment has now taken place; something that is reiterated further in 3:15-29. In a trajectory divergent to ideas from other STJ texts,120 the promise now also positively includes the Gentiles believers. God’s Spirit in the Gentile believers, therefore, “institutes and constitutes a new state of affairs.”121 Thus, “by describing the Spirit as the ‘promise’ … Paul shows that the powerful endowment of the Spirit is epochal in character.”122 Stanley concurs: “the Galatians’ experience of receiving the Spirit by faith is a sign that God’s promise to bless the Gentiles through Abraham has now become a reality in their midst … [and] is definitive proof that they have now entered the full ‘blessing’ promised by God to his people.”123

4.3.3 Summary of Gal. 3:10-14 As my exegesis has shown, Paul’s creative reinterpretation of the Abraham narrative, concluding with his reshaping of the promised blessing in 3:10-14, is pneumatologically informed. His argument regarding Abraham’s faith and the blessing on his descendants leads to the emphatic conclusion in 3:14. These verses are, therefore, all about identity. The question at hand in 3:10-14 is not how one “gets saved,” but “to whom do the promises really belong? Who are the children of Abraham?”124 And, consequently, how do we know? Paul is thus not speaking in abstract terms concerning general salvation. Instead, his whole discussion in Gal. 3:6-14 is embedded in concepts of promise, covenant, and Spirit, all grounded in the story of Israel and the family of Abraham.125 In this reading, if those of the works-of-law people are under a curse, then by Paul’s reckoning they have not received the blessing. The curse/blessing contrast in this passage explains this issue. If the blessing correlates to the Spirit in 3:14, then there is a clear role of curse and law in Paul’s argument here to deny the Spirit’s connection to the message of his opponents. As such, Paul is inferring the opponents themselves lack the Spirit and, therefore, lack the blessing.126 Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 215, n.44, emphasis added. Isa. 4:2-6; 11:1-9; 32:15-17; 44:1-5; 59:21; Joel 2:28-29 (MT) 3:1-2. These all reference the Spirit in relation to either the anointed one or the new age. See further, Das, Galatians, 334, esp. n.318, 319. 120 1QSa 1.21; 1QM 16.1; 12QpHab 5.3-4, Odes Sol. 10.5; 29.8. 121 Martyn, Galatians, 323. 122 Anderson, Perspective, 233, n.18, emphasis added. Contra e.g., Kwon, Eschatology, esp. 141–3. 123 Christopher D. Stanley, “‘Under a Curse’: a Fresh Reading of Gal. 3:10-14,” NTS 36, no. 4 (1990), 495, emphasis added. Space does not permit a detailed analysis of the personal pronouns in 3:13-14, suffice to say I consider these inclusive of both Jewish and Gentile believers. See further, DeSilva, Galatians, 298. Contra Garlington, “Role Reversal,” 117; Morales, Restoration 113. 124 Wright, Climax, 144. 125 Wright, Climax, 144. 126 This may be why later in Gal. 4:3, Paul effectively connects both Jew and gentile alike to a previous life under the elemental spirits. 118 119

98

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

My discussion has confirmed that the focus of 3:10-14 is “not on the redemption from the curse” per se,127 but rather on what this act of redemption through Christ has made available to all—the reception of the promised Spirit. According to Paul, both Jew and Gentile are now equal in how they receive this new state of reality, and what determines their status as God’s people. The now-present promised blessing in the form of the Spirit prepares any believer to receive blessing. This is why in Galatians Paul regards the Spirit not as subsequent to the blessing of Abraham; it is the blessing.128 The location of reference to the Spirit at the center and forefront of Paul’s discussion of Abrahamic identity is, therefore, intentional.129 Having argued this point, we can now continue with an exegesis of the rest of 3:15–4:11, to see how this interpretation of 3:14 impacts what follows and whether there are further indications that the Spirit remains central to Paul’s argument throughout the rest of Galatians.

4.4 Gal. 3:15-29 Promise and Inheritance Prioritizing Paul’s pneumatology in 3:14 and viewing this verse as a linchpin for understanding 3:1-29 has major implications for how we interpret Paul’s argument throughout this passage and the rest of Galatians 4–6. If the Spirit is the content of the promised blessing in 3:14, then we must take seriously the importance of Paul’s pneumatology in Galatians. If this is the case, can we discern any pneumatological inferences in what follows 3:14? I suggest we can. Gal. 3:15-29 in many ways continues to unpack the themes of blessing, promise, and the Spirit. Although not always explicit, considering our findings in 3:14, I suggest an implicit pneumatology influences Paul’s argument throughout 3:15-29 as well. Because these themes intersect across this passage and are influential in understanding it, I discuss it as a whole. The concept of promise is related to the notion of inheritance (κληρονομία) in 3:15-18. What was inferred in 3:7-9 about Abrahamic descent is now made explicit in 3:18 and later in 3:29. Inheritance depends on promise (3:18), and those who are of Abraham (τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα, 3:29) are inheritors according to [the] promise (κατ᾿ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι, 3:29) given to Abraham. Although there is no explicit mention of the Spirit in 3:15-29, having already established that the content of the blessing in 3:14 is the promised Spirit, then the inheritance of the promise in 3:18 and 29 must refer to the same subject, the Spirit. Morales concurs. He states that because “Paul uses the terms ‘promise’ and ‘Spirit’ interchangeably later in Galatians, and the use of promise so close to 3:14, it is reasonable to argue here that the inheritance is the Spirit.”130 Clearly the inheritance Paul discusses relates to the “of Abraham” in Wakefield, Where to Live, 181. See Eckstein, Verheissung, 168; Hays, Faith of Jesus, 182. Contra Kwon, Eschatology; Lee, Blessing. Paul presents the blessing differently elsewhere. For example, in Rom. 4:7, the blessing includes forgiveness and the overlooking of sin. Further on in Rom. 4:14, the blessing and promise include the inheritance of the cosmos by the descendants of Abraham. In both cases the Spirit is not mentioned. I acknowledge Mark Keown for these parallels. 129 So also, Abera Mitiku Mengestu, God as Father in Paul: Kinship Language and Identity Formation in Early Christianity (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013); Frey, “Paul’s View,” 245. 130 Morales, Restoration, 154. 127 128

Galatians 3:6–4:11

99

3:7—those belonging to the family of Abraham (οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν Ἀβραάμ.)—and ultimately, membership in God’s family (3:26, 29; 4:5-7). The significance of Paul’s redevelopment of the Abrahamic narrative is seen in the way he redefines the timeline of traditional Jewish eschatology by arguing that this incorporation of the Gentiles is now present. The perfect κεχάρισται in 3:18, suggesting a gift given in the past that still has continuing effect in the present, supports this interpretation.131 In 3:21, Paul asks a very important question regarding the purpose of the law: “Is the law then (ὁ οὖν νόμος) contrary to the promises of God (κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ)?” Given Paul’s previous argument, some may respond with a resounding, “Yes!” Paul responds with an emphatic “No!” (μὴ γένοιτο). Instead, in response to what he has just said about the provision of the law—that it was mediated (διαταγείς) through the agency of a mediator (χειρὶ μεσίτου)—Paul redefines what the mediated law becomes in light of the given promise, which was given by God’s grace (χαρίζομαι; 3:18). Consequently, “the law’s mediation reduces its claim to authority.”132 Therefore, contrary to what many consider a negative assessment of the law in Galatians compared with a more positive discussion in Romans,133 Paul is not dismissing or abrogating the law. Instead, he is putting it in its proper, soteriological place.134 The law, Paul argues, is not something abhorrent to faith, but it is soteriologically impotent due to its inability to impart life (ζωοποιέω). As a soteriological term, ζῳοποιέω infers the realm of God and, therefore, the realm of the Spirit.135 As I noted in Chapter 2, the Spirit was considered the life-giving agent of God in relation to creation and humanity in Judaism.136 Eventually, this role was transferred to the law.137 In Galatians, as elsewhere, Paul shifts this life-giving role back to the Spirit.138 As Boakye notes, wherever “Paul depicts the agency of ζωοποιέω, the enlivening agency is always God, Jesus or Spirit.”139 Given the centrality of the Spirit in Paul’s argument

Moo, Galatians, 231. Keener, Galatians, 283. 133 See Hans Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought, SNTW (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984), 36, 27. 134 On the positive purpose of the law in Galatians, see Kruse, Law and Justification, 90–6; 108–9. 135 DeSilva, Galatians, 320–1. 136 Gen. 1:1-2; 2:7; Ezek. 37:1-15. 137 See Sir. 17:11; 45:5; Bar. 3:9; 4:1; m. ‘Aboth 2:7-8; 6:7; 4 Ezra 17:7, 21; 14:30, Pss. Sol 14:2, etc. See further, Das, Galatians, 399. Although there is evidence for a life-giving role of the law in Qumran, the idea was not universal. Furthermore, the giving of the commandments in the OT, seen within the context of when it was given (Exodus) and the way in which it was to be adhered by the community of Israel (Deuteronomy), reflects God’s framework for a faithful life—never as the source of life itself. Israel came to know their god through meditating on the words of God, and by faithful praxis of these words. Israel would only find life when they lived faithfully toward God [note, not Torah] and not toward other gods, primarily because only Yahweh was the lifegiving creator. Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 599. See also Goldingay, OTT, 2.187. I acknowledge that this was not consistent in STJ thought. For some, an emphasis on “correct” doing of Torah had definitely become enshrined as a source of life. I am, however, cautioning against a tendency to overlook positive aspects of the law in Galatians. 138 See Richard B. Gaffin, “‘Life-Giving Spirit’: Probing the Center of Paul’s Pneumatology,” JETS 41, no. 4 (1998). 139 Boakye, Death and Life, 145. 131 132

100

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

so far, the inclusion of ζῳοποιέω in 3:21 thus infers this attribution of life to the Spirit. Therefore, although there is no explicit mention of the Spirit “the language and the implied contrasts … indicate that the Spirit is not only hovering above nearby in Paul’s thinking, but actually lies behind the language ‘to give life’ and ‘the promise.’”140 The law was thus never meant to be life or bring life—nor could it (3:21)! The lack of a definite article with both uses of νόμος in 3:21b (c.f. ὁ νόμος in 21a.) is significant. This renders verse 21b: “for if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by a law” (or, just “law”; so, e.g., NASB).141 Avoiding inserting the definite article may be a way Paul further emphasizes that nothing other than God and God’s Spirit can actually effect life. The imperfect ἐφρουρούμεθα (3:23), and the description of the law as a παιδαγωγὸς in 3:24, suggests that Paul considered the law’s purpose was always subordinate and temporally limited in God’s purposes.142 The phrases γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν (3:24) and ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς πίστεως (3:25) emphasize such temporality.143 As Barclay notes, “If the Law is timelimited at one end (it came after the patriarchal covenant), it is also, for Paul, timelimited at the other: its period of office lasts only until the ‘promise’ is fulfilled.”144 Consequently, “The Torah is an interlude in the history of the promise; it is neither the rubric for, nor the centrepiece of, God’s ordering of the world.”145 Paul argues that unlike the fulfillment of the work of Christ and the presence of life-giving Spirit, the law’s role was merely implemented to delineate the boundaries of life lived by faith as God’s people toward God. As such there is no rivalry between role and purpose, it is just outdated.146 It, thus, had a positive role, albeit with potential negative results if the coming of Christ and the Spirit was not acknowledged.147 Most importantly, according to 3:17, Abraham was justified and given the promise well before the coming of the now past-due-date law.148 Any consequential requirement of this law that proves faithfulness and covenant acceptance is, therefore, no longer necessary as it has been superseded by the fulfillment of what was promised. Similar to Abraham, the Galatians’ faith also evoked God’s gift of acceptance in the

Fee, Empowering, 397. Contra Burton, Galatians, 193–4. 142 Note Paul’s use of temporal language regarding the law in 3:19, 23a, 23c, 24, and 25. This appears “at odds with Jewish affirmations of the Law’s eternal purposes and significance.” Das, Galatians, 357. See, e.g., Wis. 18:4; 1 En. 99:2; Jub. 3:31, etc. 143 Note the temporal force of εἰς in 3:23: “until Christ.” Bruce, Galatians, 183. 144 Barclay, Gift, 402. Paul’s use of the metaphor παιδαγωγὸς further emphasizes the time-limited nature of the law. The idea of the law as eternal is both explicit and implicit in biblical and Second Temple literature: e.g., Exod. 28:43; 29:28; Lev. 7:34, 36; Num. 18:19 [perpetual ordinance: νόμιμον αἰώνιον LXX/‫ ;]לחק־עולם‬Wis. 18:4; 4 Ezra 9.37; 1 En. 99:2; Jub. 3:31; 6:17; Bar. 4:1; 2 Bar. 77:15. See Keener, Galatians, 275, n.608. 145 Barclay, Gift, 403. 146 Bruce W. Longenecker, The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998), 120. Also, Boakye, Death Life, 143. This is lacking in Westerholm’s thesis. I suggest he incorrectly reads the role of law in Paul through a later perspective of “works–righteousness.” Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 142ff. 147 DeSilva, Galatians, 332, n.209. 148 On the connection of Abraham to the Sainaic covenant, see Christiansen, Covenant, 74–6; 78–9. 140 141

Galatians 3:6–4:11

101

fulfillment of the promise, made available through the faithfulness of Abraham’s seed (σπέρμα, 3:16).149 This was not by observing the “non-life giving” guardian law, but, as with Abraham, through faith in, and faithfulness toward the life-giving God. As de Boer states, “God did not ‘give’ a life-giving law … but God does ‘give’ a life-giving Spirit.”150 What Galatians 5–6 will later make clear is that this is a life, not of bondage or curse, but of freedom in the Spirit; a freedom that is defined in relational terms as children of God (υἱοὶ θεοῦ; 3:26). Here again, blessing and promise cohere within a pneumatological framework of identity. The climactic summary of Paul’s rearticulation of the Abraham story in 3:29 reiterates what Paul said in 3:18, 25-26. If anyone belongs to Christ, then the/a law no longer has control or authority over believers (3:25). Those “in Christ” have come of age and are, consequently, no longer under the constraints or training of the Father’s pedagogue/custodian (οὐκέτι ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν). This is because believers now live in a new age of “faith” as ratified by the Spirit. Like Christ the faithful son, those of faith are all children of God (υἱοὶ θεοῦ; 3:26)—both Jew and Gentile (3:28). An intertextual resonance exists between 3:28 and Gen. 1:27, calling “to mind the original act of creation.”151 Boakye considers 3:28 representative of the new creation community that “bears witness to the creative action of the Spirit within the wider establishment of a rectified people.”152 If they are one in Christ then, by corollary, they are in/of the seed of Abraham and, therefore, descendants of Abraham (3:29). If descendants, then already heirs—already inheritors of the promised Spirit.153 This flow of argument extends into Paul’s treatment of the theme of inheritance in the early part of 4:1-11.

4.5 Gal. 4:1-11 Sonship and Spirit The theme of inheritance provides cohesion for much of 4:1-11. I focus my discussion primarily on 4:1-7 and treat 4:8-11 separately. I, firstly, discuss the value of reading 4:1-7 pneumatologically, before considering some of the specifics of the passage.

4.5.1 Gal. 4:1-7 Continuing Paul’s discussion from Galatians 3, the convergence of the language in 4:1-7, including inheritance (κληρονόμος; 4:1), adoption (υἱοθεσία; 4:5), and the Barclay connects 3:22 and 3:14. “The promised Spirit (3:14) is also received by believers as a gift.” Gift, 332. Paul already makes clear in 3:16 that the “seed” (singular) through whom the blessing came to the Galatians is Christ (καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός). See further, Keener, Galatians, 266–70. This supports my contention that Paul’s Christology in Galatians serves his pneumatology. 150 de Boer, Galatians, 235. 151 Boakye, Death and Life, 53. 152 Boakye, Death and Life, 53. If this is the case, then this supports my contention for an implicit pneumatology throughout Paul’s argument and also a fresh trajectory of his Jewish tradition. 153 Martyn, Galatians, 342–3. 149

102

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

Spirit (4:6), clarifies further Paul’s argument from Galatians 3 about identity and the Spirit, and brings it to a logical conclusion.154 While a majority of scholarship focus on the Christological aspects of inheritance and sonship in this passage, the explicit mention of the Spirit in 4:6 suggests an important referent back to 3:1-5 and 3:14, as well as highlighting the importance of pneumatology to Paul’s argument throughout this section or the letter. As de Boer argues, this connection draws together a “single unifying theme … the gift and reception of the promised Spirit.”155 According to 4:1-7, inheritance and the promised Spirit represent the same thing.156 Taking a particular position for understanding of the intent and purpose of Paul’s argument in Galatians clearly influences which themes are given prominence in exegesis. For example, if the antithesis between justification by faith vs. (works of) the law is considered Paul’s central concern in 3:1–4:7, then the lack of reference to this theme in 4:1-7 needs to be explained. Like 3:1-5, there is no mention of justification in 4:1-7. There is, however, mention of the Spirit, suggesting that the reception of the Spirit is for Paul a key category for understanding the Galatians’ experience and identity. If Galatians is a letter addressing issues of identity and belonging—specifically those relating to Gentile inclusion within the family of God—then a pneumatological reading of the passage is plausible. While Christology pervades 4:1-5, this does not negate the implicit pneumatology in Paul’s inheritance language. The explicit presence of the Spirit, evidenced in the αββα cry (4:6-7), is not merely the consequence of prior adoption (υἱοθεσία)—“the ‘crowning gift’ of sonship”157—nor of a self-contained inheritance of the promised blessing. The Spirit is present in the actualization of both adoption and inheritance, and “any chronological order or logical priority into Paul’s wording in 4.6” is, therefore, misleading.158 Before we discuss 4:6 in more detail in our exegesis of 4:4-7 below, some preliminary comments about 4:1-3 are in order.

Gal. 4:1-3 τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου Gal. 4:1-3 continues Paul’s emphasis on inheritance. It also sets up the discussion that follows, regarding the contrast between on the one hand, subordinate masters or guardians under whom immature minors (νήπιοι) are effectively enslaved (expanding on the metaphor from 3:23-25) and, on the other hand, children who are, by inference, free

For the parallels between 4:1-7 and 3:28-29, see Das, Galatians, 402. While some consider 4:6 as the conclusion to Paul’s argument here, 4:7 provides a better conclusion as it acts as a segue between two distinct, yet coherent arguments. 155 de Boer, Galatians, 249–50. 156 On connection between inheritance and promise in Galatians see Keesmaat, Paul and His Story: (Re)interpreting the Exodus Tradition, JSNTsupp (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 183–8. The inclusion of slave (δοῦλος) with law (νόμος) provides further thematic links back to Galatians 3, as well as pointing forward to Galatians 5. James Scott notes that κληρονόμος and δοῦλος in 4:1 and 7 create an inclusion, binding the section together. Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of YIOƟEΣIA In The Pauline Corpus, WUNT 2/48 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992), 121. 157 Byrne, Sons, 184, n.177. 158 Hubbard, New Creation, 204, emphasis original. 154

Galatians 3:6–4:11

103

(something explicitly established later in 4:29-31).159 While there is no mention of the Spirit in 4:1-3, the explicit cosmological language of the passage provides a counterpoint and context to Paul’s pneumatology. We can better grasp the importance and function of the Spirit in 4:6 if we explore the language of τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in 4:3.160 In Greek literature, τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου primarily denoted the material that made up the universe. In some cosmogonies these elements also determined the movement and flow of life.161 Thus, the στοιχεῖα were endowed with power that determined all aspects of life.162 Some scholars contend Paul views the τὰ στοιχεῖα similarly without any cosmic-spiritual connotations.163 For example, Luther took the phrase to refer directly to the Mosaic Law.164 After considering the various interpretations, Burton takes the phrase to “reference the elementary and imperfect teachings of religion.”165 Martyn argues that Paul is speaking primarily of the “religious pairs of opposites, circumcision/uncircumcision, Jew/Gentile, Law/Not-Law.”166 While Paul might be utilizing τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου for rhetorical purposes relating to issues of law-observance, acknowledging implicit cosmological connotations present in the phrase supports a pneumatological reading of 4:1-7. Like Providence and Fate in Graeco-Roman and some Stoic cosmogonies, the στοιχεῖα were believed to influence both the physical and cosmic-spiritual dimensions.167

On the positive place of subordinate guardians, see John K. Goodrich, “Guardians, Not Taskmasters: The Cultural Resonances of Paul’s Metaphor in Galatians 4.1-2,” JSNT 32, no. 3 (2010), esp. 271–3. 160 Leaving τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου untranslated here maintains the idiomacy of the term and minimizes anachronistic interpretation of the phrase. 161 On στοιχεῖα in extant and biblical use see Delling, TDNT VII, 670–87; Leithart, Delivered, 29–36; Eduard Schweizer, “Slaves of the Elements and Worshipers of Angels: Galatians 4:3, 9 and Col 2:8, 18, 20,” JBL 107, no. 3 (1988). For various interpretations of τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in Galatians see David R. Bundrick, “Ta Stoicheia Tou Kosmou (Gal 4:3),” JETS 34, no. 3 (1991); John Byron, Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity: A Traditio-Historical and Exegetical Examination, WUNT 2/162 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 157–60; 190–1; Martinus C. de Boer, “The Meaning of the Phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in Galatians,” NTS 53, no. 2 (2007); Eckstein, Verheissung, 229–33; J. Louis Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 127–8. 162 DeSilva, Galatians, 352. In contrast to Paul, Philo φύσις (nature) controls and directs the cosmic order. Jos. 28; Spec. 2.231. On this see Charles A. Anderson, Philo of Alexandria’s Views of the Physical World, WUNT 2 309 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 129–47. Philo also views the elements as immortal (Aet.110, 111). Elsewhere, Philo connects Israel’s temple with the elements (Mos. 2.24.117–126). See Leithart, Delivered, 33, 36. 163 See the discussion in Martin, Regression, 112–39. 164 Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1979), 228. On other historical interpretations, see John Kenneth Riches, Galatians through the Centuries, BBC (Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2007), 215–26. 165 Burton, Galatians, 518. 166 Martyn, Galatians, 398. 167 For Stoic and Plutarch’s ideas of fate and providence see: Keimpe Algra, “Plutarch and the Stoic Theory of Providence,” in Fate, Providence and Moral Responsibility in Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Thought (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2014); Josiah B. Gould, “The Stoic Conception of Fate,” JHI 35, no. 1 (1974). While in general τὰ στοιχεῖα tended to be viewed as deterministic, not all Stoic thinkers viewed fate in strict deterministic and compatibilist ways. See Robert W. Sharples, “The Stoic Background to the Middle Platonist Discussion of Fate,” in Platonic Stoicism— Stoic Platonism: The Dialogue between Platonism and Stoicism in Antiquity, ed. Mauro Bonazzi and Christoph Helmig (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2008); Sophie Botros, “Freedom, Causality, Fatalism and Early Stoic Philosophy,” Phronesis 30, no. 3 (1985). 159

104

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

In the context of 4:1-7, the preposition ὑπό denotes being under the power of something. Thus, according to Paul in 4:2-6, anything connected with ὑπό (4:2, 3, 4, 5) is antithetical to being sons (υἱοί,) of God.168 As rare as a construction of ὑπό is in Paul, it “studs his argument” here in Galatians.169 The status of being enslaved ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου reveals that Paul personifies τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, suggesting that the phrase denotes something more than just the material elements of the universe. As Moo notes, it “almost certainly include[s] some reference to the deities … who were closely associated with the elements.”170 Such an inclusive interpretation fits well with a pagan cosmology that viewed these elements as the building blocks of life as determined and influenced by deities. This is further inferred in 4:8-9. While Paul argues there that the Galatians are returning to things that are by nature were “not gods,” this does not imply that, prior to accepting Christ, the Galatian believers themselves understood this.171 Thus, Paul presents “a summary description of ” the Galatian believers’ “former religious beliefs and practices [which] involved venerating the stoicheia as gods.”172 In 4:3-5, Paul deliberately intends his readers to correlate τὰ στοιχεῖα with the law, and contrast these with the Christ/Spirit relationship. By doing so, Paul adds his own meaning to the term.173 Given the way in which the law and τὰ στοιχεῖα are both presented as obsolete powers in Galatians, and, as I have sufficiently argued previously, that the Galatian worldview included a spiritual dimension, we cannot eliminate such possible cosmic allusions here either. Thus, as Adams argues, Paul uses the phrase to denote “the malevolent spiritual forces which from Paul’s apocalyptic perspective, operate behind pagan religion.”174 They may be “cosmic lightweights” according to Paul,175 and “the God of Israel is not one god among many, for the pagan deities do not belong on the same ontological plane as God.”176 Nevertheless, considering Paul’s argument so far, and the Galatians’ own cosmological context, “the ‘so-called’ gods of paganism cannot simply be dismissed as non-existent and therefore irrelevant.”177 By considering the cosmology inherent in τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in 4:3, it coheres well with Paul’s cosmological presentation of the Spirit, and it becomes clear why Paul includes it here in 4:3 in preparation for what he will say of the Spirit in 4:6 and the στοιχεῖα in 4:8-9.

ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστὶν καὶ οἰκονόμους (4:2; which may be perceived to have some positive value to a child); ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (4:3); ὑπὸ νόμον (4:4, 5). 169 Campbell, Deliverance, 864. 170 Moo, Galatians, 262. See also, Hong, Law, 77; 146; 165. 171 Keener, Galatians, 332. 172 de Boer, Galatians, 256. 173 Adams, Constructing, 230. 174 Adams, Constructing, 230. See also, Byrne, Sons, 176, esp. n.146; Eckstein, Verheissung, 230. 175 Fredriksen, Pagans’ Apostle, 89. 176 Robert Ewusie Moses, Practices of Power: Revisiting the Principalities and Powers in the Pauline Letters (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2014), 151. 177 Moses, Practices of Power, 151. 168

Galatians 3:6–4:11

105

ἡμεῖς in Gal. 4:3 The first-person plurals ἡμεῖς, ἦμεν, and ἤμεθα in 4:3 are most likely inclusive, suggesting both Jewish and Gentiles in a pre-Christian state.178 Paul’s use of νήπιος in 4:3 (and 4:1) supports this.179 This indicates that prior to Christ, Gentile believers were under (ὑπὸ) τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου as immature children (νήπιοι), in the exact same way the Jews who were held in custody (ἐφρουρούμεθα; 3:23) under law (ὑπὸ νόμον) were also immature children (νήπιοι, 4:1). Consequently, according to Paul, being under a tutor (παιδαγωγὸς; 3:24), guardians, and trustees (ἐπιτρόπους … καὶ οἰκονόμους; 4:2), or τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, reflects the same pre-Christ/Spirit condition. All metaphors represent a status of being bound, or enslaved, by their past—as indicated in 4:3 by the imperfects ἦμεν and ἤμεθα, modifying νήπιοι and δεδουλωμένοι, respectively. The υἱοί on the other hand are those who have come of age to a place of freedom (a.k.a. maturity), as οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος in 4:7 indicates. By bringing together τὰ στοιχεῖα and law, Paul introduces a new way of considering both.180 Both Jews and Gentiles were enslaved to elements that did not bring life.181 Any attempt to return to these past lives, therefore, will ultimately return both groups to an enslaved existence and, consequently, death.182 Consequently, although Arnold incorrectly argues that the στοιχεῖα in Galatians represent “demonic powers,” his reasoning for such an interpretation is relevant: “This interpretation thus finds Paul using an important apocalyptic category—precisely what we might expect given the two-age emphasis in his letter opening—to characterise life in the present evil age.”183 Thus, by introducing the στοιχεῖα at this stage in his argument in correlation with the anthropological and socio-communal transformation effected by the presence of the Spirit, and his comparison of this to the law, Paul not only draws a parallel between the experience of the Galatians and Jewish Christians prior to Christ, but also introduces a cosmic element to his argument about law, Spirit, and identity— something that will be reiterated throughout the rest of the letter.

Gal. 4:4-7 A concern for Paul throughout 3:1–4:7 has been to reiterate the themes of identity and covenant belonging. These themes become explicit in the adoption language of 4:4-6. Gal. 4:4-5 again contrasts the old life and identity as slaves under law—and now also τὰ στοιχεῖα—and the new Spirit-life. 4:5 includes two parallel coordinating statements concerning the purpose of redemption. Similar to the flow of thought in 3:13-14, in So, Betz, Galatians, 294; Byrne, Sons, 177; DeSilva, Galatians, 346–7. Contra, e.g., Dunn, Galatians, 212; Scott, Adoption, 155. 179 c.f. υἱός and τέκνον elsewhere in Galatians 3 and 4. 180 de Boer, Galatians, 260. 181 Erin Heim, Adoption in Galatians and Romans: Contemporary Metaphor Theories and the Pauline Huiothesia Metaphors (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 165–7. 182 Hong, Law, 82, emphasis original. 183 Clinton E. Arnold, “Returning to the Domain of the Powers: Stoicheia as Evil Spirits in Galatians 4:3, 9,” NovT 38, no. 1 (1996), 57. Note in 1 Cor. 10:20-21, Paul does call pagan gods “demons.” 178

106

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

4:4-5 God’s Son (ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ) is sent to (ἵνα) redeem those under law (ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ), and simultaneously, so that (ἵνα) we might receive adoption (τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν). This reinforces what Paul previously established in 3:29 concerning identity, inheritance, and promise. A few observations are important. Firstly, the eschatological flavor of 4:4 is evident in τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (the fulfillment/fullness of time). As such, “Paul’s language reflects apocalyptic interpretation of history rather than sociological analysis.”184 Secondly, the cosmic nature of the passage is evidenced in the phrase ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ. Many here note possible intertextual parallels to Wis. 9:9-10 where wisdom is sent from “the holy heavens” (ἐξ ἁγίων οὐρανῶν).185 Although possible, it is actually the broader context of Galatians 4 that allows for such a cosmic reading. As I discussed above, Paul’s use of τὰ στοιχεῖα in 4:3 includes cosmic inferences, something that Paul returns to in 4:8-10. Thirdly, the purpose of sending God’s son alongside the adoption motif continues Paul’s emphasis on establishing God as the source of identity for God’s children. What is more significant is the close correlation between this and the reception of the Spirit in 4:6. Thus, as we saw in 3:13-14, the presence of the two ἵνα clauses in 4:6 helps locate what Paul wants to say about the Spirit in this verse. Once again, we see that Paul’s explicit Christological discussion is closely followed by intentional Spirit-language. With explicit mention of the Spirit, 4:6 confirms what Paul wants to say about the realization and fulfillment of the purpose of God’s sending.

­Interpretation of ὅτι in Gal. 4:6 An exegetical concern in 4:6 is how to interpret the conjunction ὅτι. Ὅτι can be causal (because) or declarative (that). A causal interpretation (“because you are sons”) would suggest that Paul views the reception of the Spirit as subsequent to sonship. Thus, the Spirit is sent into the hearts of believers, post-adoption, to confirm the earlier soteriological transaction.186 Although a causal ὅτι may grammatically fit the flow of the argument, as with any exegesis, context should determine interpretation.187 While the flow of thought in 4:6 may suggest such a chronological sequence, Paul’s articulation of the Spirit in 3:1-5 cautions us against this. It also cautions against reducing the Spirit to either Christ himself, or to an impersonal force of God or Jesus. Hill concurs, arguing that while “specification of the Spirit’s identity” in Galatians involves a referent “back to God and Jesus,” Paul does not “picture God and Jesus as enjoying a priority to which the Spirit is then added as a supplementary afterthought.”188 Paul clearly sees the Spirit active both prior to and concomitant with the conversion experience of the believer. Consequently, just as 3:3 mitigates against any such “subjective ordo salutis” where adoption precedes “the giving of the Spirit,”189 in 4:4-7, “the Spirit belongs with the Son and the Father prior to their sending and … belongs with them in the effects which that Keener, Galatians, 335. DeSilva, Galatians, 354–5. 186 So, Fung, Galatians, 184. 187 Moule, Idiom, 147. 188 Hill, Trinity, 142, emphasis original. 189 Hill, Trinity, 143.

184 185

Galatians 3:6–4:11

107

sending was intended to accomplish [υἱοθεσία].”190 Interpreting ὅτι as causal in verse 6 only makes sense to the overall argument in Galatians if the Spirit is considered as the experiential confirmation—“the indicator of the status of sonship”191—rather than a subsequent proof of adoption. Interpreting ὅτι as declarative (“that you are sons is clear by the fact that God sent his Spirit”) removes the tension created by a causal interpretation.192 Furthermore, it reiterates what has already been stated about the Spirit in 3:3, and 5. In these passages, the Spirit is integral to the moment of conversion and not subsequent to it.193 In other words, a declarative ὅτι “brings out that the reason Christians in Galatia have proof they [are] ‘sons’”; they already have the Spirit of God’s Son in them.194 If this is the case, 4:6 has nothing to do with logical priority and, consequently, any chronological sequence should be avoided.195

The Sending Motif in Gal. 4:4-6 The sending motif in 4:4-6 further supports an argument for accepting a declarative ὅτι. The emphasis on the priority of God (ὁ θεὸς/ὁ πατήρ) as the sender rather than Christ is important to this reading for two reasons. Firstly, it reiterates the familial and inheritance language that has been used throughout Galatians 3–4. At the start of the letter, God is already established as the paternal head over the Galatian community (1:1, 2, 3 [x2]).196 This relationship is explicit in 4:2-7. Secondly, for Paul, this priority maintains the primacy of God as the initiator and agency from whom comes everything that Paul and the believers have received and experienced, including both Christ and the Spirit. In 4:4, God sends (ἐξαπέστειλεν) his Son (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ), while in 4:6, God sends (ἐξαπέστειλεν) the Spirit of his Son (τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτου).197 I take this reference to the Spirit as representing the Spirit of God who now mediates the same character of sonship as that of Jesus in the lives of the believers.198 The distinctive cry (κράζω) of Abba—the Son’s own personal address to the Father—confirms the believers are already “sons” just like Jesus.199 Hill, Trinity, 143, emphasis added. Byrne, Sons, 184, n.177. 192 Lull, Spirit, 106. 193 Rom. 8:15 appears to make the priority the Spirit—ἀλλ᾽ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας. A declarative ὅτι in Gal. 4:6 supports what Paul says of the Spirit and adoption in Rom. 8:15-16; a causal ὅτι that denotes some sort of chronological priority of sonship would conflict with it. Moo, Galatians, 269. 194 Lull, Spirit, 106. 195 Moo, Galatians, 269. 196 Russell, Conflict, 21. Also, David M. Rhoads, “Children of Abraham, Children of God: Metaphorical Kinship in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” CurTM 31, no. 4 (2004). 197 On the unique use of τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱου, see Fatehi, Spirit’s Relation, 215–20. 198 Scott, Adoption, 261. Contra those who argue that it is Christ himself who is somehow mystically mediated in the hearts of believers. See, e.g., Byrne, Sons, 101; Fatehi, Spirit’s Relation, 220. To do so implies a form of subordination of the Spirit that contradicts what Paul says elsewhere. 199 Dunn, Theology, 437. The parallel between this passage and Rom. 8:15 has already been noted above. In Galatians, it is the Spirit who cries out, whereas in Romans, it is the believers who cry out. Ultimately, the difference is not so strong as to suggest a shift in Paul’s thinking. This highlights that context and audience determine the interpretation of Paul’s argument. See, e.g., Cosgrove, Cross, 74, n.62. 190 191

108

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

The Spirit that is sent forth (ἐξαποστέλλω) from God is God and is therefore the very presence that effects υἱοθεσία. It is God who enacts both the sending of Christ and the sending of the Spirit.200 The aorist verb ἐξαπστειλεν most likely refers to the moment that Paul indicates in 3:3: the Galatians believers had begun in the Spirit (ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι). This reiterates that, in Galatians, God’s sending of the Spirit occurs at the same time as their adoption, not subsequent to it.201 Longenecker concurs: “For Paul, sonship and receiving the Spirit are so intimately related that one can speak of them in either order;” highlighting “the reciprocal [and] correlational nature” of these two concepts.202 From this we can deduce that, for Paul, the Spirit is the presence of God effecting both the moment of conversion drawing people to respond to the redemptive Christ-event and the current familial reality for the believing community.203 Paul’s use of ἐξαποστέλλω and καρδία supports my contention that that he draws on his own Jewish tradition and creatively rearticulates it in light of Christ and the Spirit. I have already noted that the language of “life” in 3:21 has possible allusions to Ezek. 37:1-15. Here in 4:6, the language of God sending (ἐξαποστέλλω) the Spirit into the hearts (καρδία) echoes the language of Ezek. 36:26-27, where God places his Spirit into the hearts of Israel.204 As I indicated in my exegesis of this passage, God’s Spirit in the people represented an infusion of the people with the Creator Spirit resulting in a transformed life, the restoration of the covenant people; a restoration which included a reaffirmed covenant identity and a consequential new ethical fidelity. These elements are echoed in Galatians: the connection of the Spirit to the Galatians as adopted children of God in 4:6-7, the emphasis on ethical fidelity, clearly outlined in 5:13–6:10, along with an explicit direct relation to the Spirit. The connection of Spirit/heart/covenant people in 4:6-7 is further evidence that Paul instinctively connects Abraham with the Spirit and further reiterates my contention that Paul’s thought about the Spirit is grounded in his own tradition. Already in 3:29 Paul connects the Galatians to Christ and, accordingly, to Abraham as his offspring. While Abraham is not mentioned in the Ezekiel passages, given his status as the father of the nation of Israel, any renewal or restoration indicated within the prophetic passages also infers a connection back to Abraham. With this in mind, we should not presume that Paul’s discussion in Galatians 3 has little to do with his statements in 4:6-7. According to Paul, adoption as children of God is equated with membership of Abraham’s family. Consequently, we see across Galatians 3–4 a continuous argument that focuses on Spirit and identity. de Boer, Galatians, 265. de Boer, Galatians, 265. 202 Longenecker, Galatians, 173. 203 Trevor J. Burke, Adopted into God’s Family: Exploring a Pauline Metaphor, NSBT (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 128. 204 Morales, Restoration, 127. Morales also suggests Isa. 63:10-19 is a possible antecedent. Of the support that Morales provides (128), three are relevant to our discussion. Firstly, God places the Holy Spirit within Israel; secondly, the text calls God “father”; thirdly, the inclusion of Abraham and inheritance in Isaiah 63 suggests a potential echo for the wider context of 4:6. See also, Jer. 31:33-34 (38:33 LXX). Dunne connects the cry in 4:6 to the Exodus motif in Exod. 2:23; 3:7, 9. Persecution, 82–6. As does Keesmaat, Paul, 155–67. Other STJ texts that express similar ideas include Jub. 1:22-25 and T. Jud. 24:1-6. 200 201

Galatians 3:6–4:11

109

4.5.2 Gal. 4:8-11 Although 4:7 could act as an appropriate bookend to Paul’s argument beginning at 3:6, 4:8-11 caps off the preceding argument about the στοιχεῖα. Although Paul argues the στοιχεῖα are not really gods (τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς), as already noted this would not necessarily have been the Galatians’ previous understanding. In a similar rhetorical flourish to his preceding argument, Paul puts these elements in their place by describing them as weak (ἀσθενῆ) and worthless or impotent (πτωχά), compared to the fact that the Galatians are now known by God (γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ) as Father (picking up the emphasis from 4:6). While ignorance of God may have been part of the old life (as τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν infers), knowledge of God and being known by God effectively voids any veneration or efficacy of the στοιχεῖα. To turn or return to anything other than the source of their new life and status as children, whether to law or pagan roots, is a return to slavery (4:9).205 Three observations relevant to our discussion can be made. Firstly, while Paul’s focus here is on the Galatian’s previous experience, the motif of slavery and calendrical observations continues to reinforce the fact that he effectively subsumes law into στοιχεῖα, so that turning to Jewish Torah is no different than returning to their old past of idolatry.206 As de Boer argues, “despite appearances to the contrary, the στοιχεῖα are ineffectual for salvation, just like the Law which was unable to give life (3.21).”207 Even more than ineffectual for salvation, without the Spirit, the στοιχεῖα and law are “effete [weak] and impotent,”208 and cannot effect new life. Secondly, the language of ignorance in 4:8 (οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν) and knowing God in 4:9 (γνόντες θεόν) reflects a common theme in both Paul’s thought and Jewish tradition.209 This again, further, exemplifies the way in which Paul draws on and rearticulates his tradition. Being known by God is reflected in the fact that the new identity as children is God’s initiative,210 indicative of the presence of the Spirit in the Galatian believers.211 Consequently, and finally, this reiterates the cosmic nature and scope of Paul’s argument. The apocalyptic nature of the Christ-event and the reception of the Spirit that has driven his argument, the nature of his discussion in 4:8-11 (where he speaks of the στοιχεῖα in cosmic terms), and his continued emphasis on the agency of God in this passage highlight such scope. While Paul is drawing on the subjective experience in which human transformation has taken place, and the intimacy of relationship with Keener, Galatians, 354. For a similar idea in STJ thought, see Wis. 13:17-19. DeSilva, Galatians, 365. Because calendrical observations mentioned in 4:10 were indicative of both Jewish and pagan rituals, it is unnecessary to argue that 4:8 and 4:10 represent two separate groups. Martin, Regression, 127–8. Paul’s language is “deliberately vague and open-ended.” Moo, Galatians, 278. Contra Wasserman, who argues these primarily represent pagan ritual observances. Emma Wasserman, Apocalypse as Holy War: Divine Politics and Polemics in the Letters of Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), 153. 207 de Boer, “στοιχεῖα,” 215. 208 Das, Galatians, 421, emphasis added. 209 Das, Galatians, 420. 210 Das, Galatians, 420. 211 DeSilva, Galatians, 364. 205 206

110

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

God that the covenantal and sonship language connotes, all this is situated in a far broader, apocalyptic-eschatological, and cosmic upheaval that Paul now sees in play.212 Furthermore, while Spirit language is not present in 4:8-11, this does not mean any talk of the Spirit is irrelevant to these verses. On the contrary, as I have consistently argued, Paul’s pneumatology continues to inform his thinking about God, sonship, and the Galatian’s identity in 4:1-7. Therefore, because 4:8-11 continues Paul’s argument from 4:1-7 in which the Spirit ties the believers to God as father and challenges their understanding of the potency of either law or στοιχεῖα (which Paul continually contrasts with the Spirit),213 it is possible that the Spirit remains implicit in 4:8-11 as well.

4.6 Conclusion In this chapter, I exegeted key verses in Gal. 3:6–4:11. My exegesis of key terms and themes throughout this section of Galatians led to some important findings that support my main aims. Gal. 3:6-9 includes the first retelling of the Abrahamic narrative in the letter. Through his rehearsal of this narrative, Paul presents Abraham as the exemplar of faith/faithfulness and the one to whom the promise of blessing is given and through whom the promised blessing will be available to the Gentiles (3:8, 3:14). Discussion of 3:8 highlighted that the content of the gospel preached to Abraham “beforehand” (προευαγγελίζομαι) was not Jesus. Instead, it was that, in Abraham, the Gentiles (τὰ ἔθνη) would be blessed (ἐνευλογέω). While Christ is later identified as the one in whom the Galatians believers locate their inherited status as children, at this point in Paul’s argument, Christ, like Abraham, is the instrumental agent through whom the promised blessing comes to the Galatians. This is explicitly stated in 3:13 where Christ faithfully becomes a curse “for us,” so that the promised blessing of the Spirit may be available to all who respond likewise in faith—Jew and Gentile. This correlation and, even more specifically, colocation between Christ-crucified and pneumatology in 3:10-14 is a common theme that appears at key junctures throughout Paul’s argument.214 I further argued that the focus of 3:6-13 was not on soteriology per se (how one gets saved), but on the requirements for inheritance; more specifically, the question of who the inheritors are. Paul contrasts those who are with/in Abraham with those who are of “works of the law.” Thus, the inclusion of ἔργων νόμου in 3:10 does not represent a works-righteousness motif for salvation. Instead, it represents a nomenclature for those who belong to or support the antithetical group Paul has been challenging and to those who are not of Spirit-people. This contrast prepared us for the next part of Paul’s argument regarding Christ, and the promised Spirit in 3:13-14. I then explored the explicit mention of the Spirit in 3:14 and 4:6. I argued that these two verses highlight the importance of the Spirit to Paul’s argument throughout Noting Wasserman’s caution against viewing this shift as “the reversal or collapse of the existing cosmic-political order.” Apocalypse, 155, emphasis added. 213 Heim, Adoption, 182–3. 214 See 3:1-2, 4:4-7, and 6:14-16. 212

Galatians 3:6–4:11

111

3:6–4:11. They further reinforce the connection to his proceeding argument in 3:1-5. Gal. 3:2 and 4:6, therefore, act as significant thematic bookends to Paul’s argument thus far; with 3:14 providing a central linchpin around which the whole section revolves. My exegesis revealed that, for Paul, relationship with God is and always was grounded in faith. This faith involves both belief/trust and faithful obedience (fidelity/allegiance); the result of which was the reception of the Spirit (3:2) as the promised blessing (3:14). I argued that 3:14b reiterates the centrality of the Spirit for Paul’s argument. Rather than being subordinate to the previous clause in 3:14a, the Spirit in 3:14b is coordinate with the Abrahamic blessing. Consequently, the blessing and promise are the same, and τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος should be read epexegetically; a reference to the promised Spirit seen as the fulfillment of the blessing of inheritance to Abraham. Additionally, we saw that because 3:14b is coordinate with previous clause this reflects Paul’s creative way of including the Gentiles into the same eschatological hope present in Jewish theology. Thus, 3:14a reflects Paul’s ability to also bring the Jewish community into the same Galatian experience and story in direct opposition to his opponents.215 An exegesis of 3:15-29 supported my argument that 3:14b, rather than 3:14a, was the more important clause to interpreting the verse and Paul’s discussion. I noted that, even though the Spirit is not explicitly mentioned in 3:15-29, the theme of promise continues to infer the Spirit throughout. In 3:18, promise is connected to inheritance; later extended in 3:23 to inheritance and “sonship.” Throughout 3:19-29, the contrast between promise and identity as children of Abraham with that of subjugation of slavery under the law continues to be central to Paul’s discussion. The law represents an old age, whereas faith in Christ and the Spirit represents the new. Gal. 3:29 explicitly connects believers as children of God (υἱοὶ θεοῦ) and children of Abraham (υἱοὶ Ἀβραάμ). As a result, 3:29 affirms what was said about 3:14b regarding the Spirit as both promise and blessing. An exegesis of 4:1-11 further supported my claims about the centrality of the Spirit in Paul’s argument. The contrast between the Spirit and works of the Law now expands to include τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. I argued that the cosmological worldview of the Galatians would have influenced how they understood τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, and would most likely have included social, philosophical, spiritual, and cosmic dimensions. The fact that Paul connects these elements to his discussion on the law, slavery, and adoption as God’s children further highlights the continuity with his previous argument in 3:1-29. Consequently, while the Spirit is not mentioned in 4:1-5, given such a continuity, the Spirit is implicit. In my discussion of 4:4-6, I identified another explicit colocation between Christ and the presence of the Spirit. Not only does 4:6 reiterate the importance of the Spirit in Paul’s argument of 3:6–4:7, 4:4-7 also reflects how central the Spirit is to Paul’s understanding of the present status of Christian believers. Accepting ὅτι as declarative in 4:6, I argued that the Galatian believers did not receive the Spirit after they became Longenecker notes the way that Paul’s emphasis on being “in Christ” “absolutely negates the Judaizers’ attempt to relate Gentile Christians to Abraham by means of Torah observance.” Galatians, 123. I argue that being “in Christ” is expressly manifest in believer’s lives as ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός (Gal. 5:22), which reiterates the ἐν ὑμῖν in 3:5.

215

112

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

sons; the Spirit confirmed their sonship by evoking the Abba cry of the Son. The allusion in 4:6 to Ezekiel 36, similar to other STJ texts that allude to Ezekiel 36 and connect the Spirit with covenantal belonging, reveals how Paul continues to draw on his tradition to explain what God is doing in the present. By extending the parameters of the passage to 4:7 as I have done here, then the Spirit is seen to be a central key to everything Paul is discussing. Thus, the language of sonship here is effectively a language of identity—a language that pervades the whole argument in 3:6–4:11—and is infused with an underlying pneumatology. My discussion of 4:8-11 revealed that, rather than starting a new argument, Paul continued to reiterate the subjection and inadequacy of the στοιχεῖα—and by inference, the law—to the fact of being known by God. This reveals the apocalyptic, eschatological, and cosmic scope of Paul’s argumentation and further highlights how Paul continues to draw on his tradition but reconfigure it in light of the present Galatian situation, highlighting, again, the generative nature of his theology. Given the colocation of this passage to Paul’s preceding discussion I argued that, even though the Spirit is not mentioned explicitly, this does not mean his pneumatology has not influenced his thought. As Chapters 5 and 6 below reveal, many of these findings continue to be present in Paul’s subsequent discussion throughout Galatians 4–6.

­5

Gal. 4:12–6:10 The Spirit, Freedom, Identity, and Praxis

5.1 Introduction In Chapters 3 and 4, I analyzed Paul’s argument in Gal. 3:1–4:11. This revealed the central place these verses have in the argument in which they are situated. Consequently, the Spirit is a central and guiding motif within Paul’s argument. Having established the importance and centrality of the Spirit to Paul’s argument up to this point, I now consider how this influences Paul’s argument in 4:21–6:10. The task of this chapter is to outline that argument with special reference to the role of the Spirit in this section of Galatians. Gal. 4:12–6:10 follows on from Paul’s previous argument in 3:1–4:11. Many of the key themes present in 3:1–4:11 are also found in 4:12–6:10. These include faith,1 righteousness,2 circumcision,3 works,4 inheritance,5 promise,6 Christ, and the Spirit.7 The aim of this chapter is to show that, while Paul presents a concentrated discussion concerning the Spirit in the later section of 5:16-25, the Spirit is vital to understanding the preceding argument in 4:21–5:15, as well as the material that follows in 5:26–6:10. This chapter proceeds as follows. Firstly, I briefly discuss the importance of 4:1220 to what follows in 4:21–5:25. Secondly, I discuss the contrast between slavery and freedom, and the connection of Spirit, freedom, and promise in 4:21–5:1. This includes discussing the themes of identity, freedom, and the Spirit in 4:28-31. Thirdly, I exegete 5:2-12 and consider the place the Spirit has in the outworking of faith/faithfulness in 5:5-6. Fourthly, an exegesis of 5:13-25 identifies the role the Spirit has in the practical outworking of the new identity in the life of the community. Here I consider the contrast between “works of the flesh” and the “fruit of the Spirit,” inheritance language, and the importance Paul places on appropriate human agency within a Christologically 3 4 5 6 7 1 2

3:2; 6, 7, 9, 23, 24, 25, 26, 5:5, 6; 6:7. 3:6, 21; 5:5. 5:2, 6, 11, 16; 6:12, 13. 3:2; 5:19. 3:18, 29; 4:1, 7, 30; 5:21. 3:14, 29; 4:23, 28. Christ: 3:1, 13, 16, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29; 4:14, 19; 5:1, 4, 6, 24; 6:2, 12, 14, 17. Spirit: 3:2, 3, 5, 14; 4:7, 29; 5:5, 16, 18, 22, 25; 6:1, 8.

114

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

inaugurated and pneumatologically defined community. Fifthly, my discussion and exegesis of 5:26–6:10 considers potential interpretations of 6:8, including what “sowing in the Spirit” represents in light of Paul’s overall argument. Finally, I highlight the creative way Paul continues to engage his Jewish tradition and antecedent texts in further developing his pneumatology throughout Galatians.

5.2 Gal. 4:12-20 While I pick up my analysis of the Spirit at 4:21, a brief note about 4:12-20 is in order. Gal. 4:12-20 contains key themes that continue from 3:1–4:11. These include: something done in vain (εἰκῆ, 4:11—this time by Paul; c.f. 3:4), gospel (4:13), and Christ (4:14, 19). These highlight the continuity of argument, albeit with a shift in tone and argumentation as noted above. In 4:12-20, Paul appeals to the Galatians to consider his own life as an example among them.8 Although there is no explicit Spirit-language in 4:12-20, Paul’s terminology in 4:19, “until Christ is formed in you” (μέχρις οὗ μορφωθῇ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν), is grounded in his pneumatology;9 especially given the parallel concepts of the “Spirit-of-hisson in them” language of 4:6, and his later emphasis on the pneumatological ethic grounded in the fruit of the Spirit in 5:22-25.10 As Longenecker notes, “at stake, in Paul’s mind, is Christian character enlivened by the Spirit and evidenced within human relationships.”11 Consequently, “the coherence of 4:12-20 lies in Paul’s consideration of the Spirit’s activity in relation to the Galatians.”12

5.3 Gal. 4:21–5:1 Children of Promise and Freedom As we saw in Chapter 4 above, prior to 4:21, Paul highlights that those who adhere to the Jewish law and those who adhere to τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου are in fact slaves together in an old aeon. The “law” as παιδαγωγός (3:24) is itself merely a slave in service of God. Its purpose was to contain or guard (φρουρέω/συγκλείω) the Jewish people as an educator or harsh instructor and constraining disciplinarian, until “faith” (πίστις) was revealed (3:23). While Paul relegates the law to an old age of slavery, suggesting a negative view of the law, the language of 3:23-24 may actually ascribe a positive role to the law as providing protection and discipline.13 Even so, it is still located in the old aeon ruled by τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου and as such, choosing to stay under the

DeSilva, Galatians, 386. Keener rightly highlights the deliberative nature of Paul’s rhetoric in this passage (365). 9 DeSilva, Galatians, 387. 10 Bruce W. Longenecker, “‘Until Christ Is Formed in You’: Suprahuman Forces and Moral Character in Galatians,” CBQ 61, no. 1 (1999), 101. 11 Longenecker, Galatians, 106. 12 Longenecker, Galatians, 107. 13 Keener, Galatians, 290–3. 8

Galatians 4:12–6:10

115

law has negative consequences—including a return to some form of slavery.14 Prior to knowing God the Galatians were slaves to gods who are in fact weak (ἀσθενῆ: lifeless) and impotent (πτωχά) (4:9),15 just as Paul now views the law.16 Consequently, unlike the life-giving Spirit which the Galatians now experience, neither law nor στοιχεῖα can impart life, nor could they ever do so. In 4:21–31 Paul continues this contrast between slavery and sonship in relation to identity with an allegorical interpretation of the Abrahamic narrative.17 However, in contrast to 3:6-29, Abraham is not the focus of Paul’s discussion in 4:21-31. Instead, the focus is on the two mothers of Abraham’s sons—the slave woman, Hagar, and the free woman (not named)—and their sons, Isaac, and Ishmael, and what these two sons represent. The comparison between these two groups proves vital to Paul’s argument later in the letter.18 The creativity with which he interprets the original text from Genesis,19 and even inverts its literal sense, in order to apply it to the present Galatian context, further highlights the generative nature of his hermeneutic. The theological significance of key OT motifs and allusions in this passage has been adequately discussed elsewhere,20 however, a few comments are in order.

­5.3.1 ἐλευθερία A significant motif throughout 4:21–6:10 is freedom (ἐλευθερία), introduced here in 4:21–5:1. Although the theme of freedom has not been explicitly contrasted with slavery prior to 4:21, it has already been inferred. In 4:22 it becomes explicit. Throughout 4:2229, Paul contrasts the child of a slave, born according to or of flesh (κατὰ σάρκα), with the child of a free woman, born through promise (δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας). While there is some tension in this pericope in assigning the promise to Isaac as Abraham’s seed, who came after Ishmael, and the law and Moses both of which came after Isaac, yet are somehow related to Ishmael in this passage, this is exactly what Paul does. In keeping with his tradition, “slavery, either physical or spiritual, was viewed as inconsistent with

In one sense the law is at the same time an enslaving agent as well itself being enslaved by/under Flesh/Sin, etc. This highlights the ambiguity and fluidity in the way these terms are interrelated and used by Paul. 15 Keener, Galatians, 358. 16 DeSilva, Galatians, 365. 17 On Paul’s use of allegory here, see: Steven Di Mattei, “Paul’s Allegory of the Two Covenants (Galatians 4.21-31) in Light of First-Century Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics,” NTS 52, no. 1 (2006). Within the Graeco-Roman context of Galatians, the themes of slavery and adoption would have been very apparent to Paul’s Gentile and Jewish audience. On slavery, see Byron, Metaphors. For adoption in Paul, see, e.g., Burke, Adopted; Byrne, Sons; Heim, Adoption; Scott, Adoption. For comparison between adoption and guardianship in a Graeco-Roman context as potential background to Paul’s usage in Galatians, see Das, Galatians, 427–38. 18 Trick suggests, “the argument essentially contrasts two means of establishing Abrahamic descent.” “Sons,” 445–6. See, also, Graham Stanton, “The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ: Galatians 3:1–6:2,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 109. 19 Byrne suggests Paul “exploits” the traditional narrative. Sons, 188. 20 See, e.g., Byrne, Sons; Hansen, Abraham; Rhoads, “Children.”; Trick, “Sons.” 14

116

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

one’s status as an heir of Abraham.”21 Consequently, while both “sons” may claim their heritage from Abraham, only one is considered the true heir (4:30). This develops how Paul views the Spirit and the law. On the one hand, in 3:14, the Spirit which comes through Abraham is the promised blessing and the sign of true inheritance. On the other hand, given its intermediary role, the law which came after Abraham through Moses can now be seen to be aligned with slavery and, therefore, is not a basis for claim to legitimate inheritance. The following exegesis bears this out.

5.3.2 Born κατὰ σάρκα or δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας In 4:22-23 Paul presents two sets of antithetical, parallel terms: 1. Slavery/flesh: the son of the maidservant (ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης) = the son born of the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται). 2. freedom/promise: the child of the free woman (ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας) = the child born “through promise” (δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας).

The first set of terms contrasts with the second. In 4:29 Paul repeats this contrast: those born as slaves are born according to or “of ” the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα), while those who are free are born according to or “of ” the Spirit (τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα). The preposition κατά in 4:23 and 4:29 (twice) represents the sense of establishing “the norm, similarity, or homogeneity” of that which it is associated with.22 Although there is no explicit mention of the Spirit or the usual promise language in the original narratives of Genesis 16 (the birth of Ishmael) and Genesis 21 (the birth of Isaac),23 Paul inserts these concepts into his rearticulation of the Genesis narrative because they represent core concepts in his own generative understanding of identity as developed here in Galatians. Given the flow of Paul’s argument since 3:1 and the importance of exactly what, or more precisely, who determines identity throughout Galatians 3–4, the inclusion of these two motifs is perfectly natural. In 4:22 and 29, σάρξ can merely represent natural birth—Ishmael was born (γεγέννηται/γεννηθείς) through natural means via Abraham and Hagar. In light of our foregoing discussion, however, Paul clearly intends the term to have a double meaning going beyond the natural birth process to that of adopted, even spiritual birth. As I consistently argue, Paul uses σάρξ to connote not only that which is intrinsic to a person’s physicality or nature, but also—and possibly, predominantly in Galatians— the notion of a competing power against the Spirit and something external to a person. On this basis, σάρξ here represents the prefigurement of what it means to be of the flesh compared with being of the Spirit. Whichever way we interpret σάρξ, the argument itself presents two ways of being: Spirit or flesh; a contrast that continues to be of central importance throughout the rest of Paul’s argument in 4:21–5:1. Byron, Metaphors, 196. Russell, Conflict, 132. 23 Das, Galatians, 492. 21 22

Galatians 4:12–6:10

117

The perfect tense of the verb γεγέννηται, denoting a continuing reality in the present, suggests that “birth of the two sons are not merely historical facts for Paul … they have contemporary relevance.”24 The contrast between being born κατὰ σάρκα from the slave woman (ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης) and being born δι᾿ ἐπαγγελίας from the free woman (ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας) highlights the way the Galatian believers can confidently accept their new status as Spirit-people, and therefore, heirs like Isaac. Paul’s inclusion of δι᾽ ἐπαγγελίας (through promise) in 4:23 without the article is also significant.25 This language of promise in 4:23 parallels the language of the Spirit in 4:29. This explicitly connects the Sarah-Hagar narrative to the central claim of Paul’s first rearticulation of the Abrahamic narrative in 3:14; namely that the child of the free woman born of promise is connected to the Spirit, the promised blessing. As I noted above, the connection of the Spirit to promise in 3:14 and later in 4:29 is not present in the original Genesis narrative. The reason for Paul making that connection implicitly in 4:23 and later explicitly in 4:29 may be threefold. Firstly, even though it is not specifically mentioned until 4:29, Paul does not want his readers to miss the importance of the Spirit in his argument. Secondly, Paul may be drawing on an earlier Jewish tradition that connects the Spirit to creation and to a renewed people.26 As I highlighted in Chapter 2, the Spirit is understood as both the creative source and the animating Spirit of God in relation to Israel. Furthermore, in Ezek. 36–37, the Spirit and not the law is the agent responsible for the establishment, or, more correctly, the reestablishment of the people of God. If this is the case, then here in Galatians 4, Paul is creatively adapting these antecedent traditions through the allegory of Isaac and Ishmael, especially in the idea of being born of slavery or of promise. Thirdly, Paul has already argued for the relationship between Spirit, promise, and inheritance in 3:14, 29, and 4:6. Therefore, the allegory used to provide scriptural legitimation makes these connections clear by allocating to the agency of the Spirit to the creation of that inheritance and family through Isaac. Those born of Spirit/promise are, like Isaac, born of God’s power (i.e., born of the Spirit in the case of Galatians) and not through any natural means (a.k.a. adherence to the law, as the imagery of Jerusalem as mother in 4:25 infers).27 I discuss this further below.

5.3.3 The New Jerusalem The connection of the new covenant to the new Jerusalem in 4:26 is a clear allusion to the Isaianic vision of new creation in Isa. 65:17-25 in which the new Jerusalem is established. Whereas the slave woman Hagar relates to Mt Sinai, the earthly Jerusalem and, by inference, the old covenant and the flesh of 4:23 (inferred by

de Boer, Galatians, 293. Although some witnesses do supply an article: δια της B D F G K L P 062. 0278. 365. 630. 1175. 1505. 1739. 1881. 𝔐. 26 E.g., Gen. 1:1-2, 2:7, Psalms 33 or 104, Ezek. 36, 37; 4Q422. See Chapter 2 above. 27 This echoes Paul’s assertion in Gal. 1:12 that his gospel was not given by natural or traditional means. Barclay, Gift, 417, n.64. 24 25

118

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

reference to slavery), the new Jerusalem of above (ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ) is associated with the free woman (Sarah, “our mother”—μήτηρ ἡμῶν·μῶ).28 This analogy again reflects a fresh trajectory that Paul brings to his tradition. While the existing Jerusalem was sometimes called Israel’s mother to designate citizenship,29 Paul locates this imagery and the Galatians’ posterity with the Jerusalem from above.30 Furthermore, whereas in STJ thought the expectations that a Jerusalem from above related to God’s eschatological new creation,31 for Paul, the new Jerusalem exists now (as the double ἐστίν in verse 26 suggests). Thus both “Jerusalem now and above exist, in allegory, simultaneously.”32 While some argue that Paul may be anticipating a future eschatological reality, the present tense verbs, the analogous nature of this passage, and the overall argument that the Galatians already have the Spirit suggest that Paul employs this terminology to continue to emphasize their present status, citizenship, and identity.33 The colocation of this analogy in 4:24-26 to language of promise in 4:23 and Spirit in 4:29 not only suggests that Paul is hinting at the new creation language of Isaiah (Isa. 65:17-18), but also to which he now connects the agency of the Spirit. If Isa. 65:17-18 is an antecedent text, Paul creatively brings together covenantal language (who belongs to Abraham), and socio-cosmic renewal (the new creation of Isaiah with its associated new Jerusalem motif) with the Spirit.34 Thus, the reference to the Jerusalem from above as a present reality may also allude to the true Spirit-people, inclusive of the spiritual Israel and the Gentiles believers, thus anticipating what Paul says in 6:15-16 regarding socio-cosmic renewal and the Israel of God.35

While most commentators identify the free woman as Sarah and the child of the slave woman as Ishmael, Only the servant, Hagar, and Isaac are named throughout this passage. This may be deliberate on Paul’s part to ensure the universal character of the slave/free motif is maintained throughout the argument. Oakes, Galatians, 176. While the passage infers the Abrahamic covenant, it is possibly left unspecified so Paul can define the contrasting covenant in Christological and pneumatological terms. This would make sense of the naming of Isaac as the true son of Abraham— as the promised heir through whom the promise given to Abraham is further actualized—and as an example of a promise realized through supernatural means outside of law. See Longenecker, Galatians, 200–6. 29 Isa. 1:26; 66:8-11; Psalm 87; 4 Ezra 9:38-10:59; 2 Bar. 3:1-3. On Philo’s designator as μητρόπολις (mother-city), see, e.g., Flacc. 46; Gai 249; Legat. 281. Although note the challenge in Sarah Pearce, “Jerusalem as ‘Mother-city’ in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria,” in Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire, ed. John M. G. Barclay (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 19–36. 30 DeSilva, Galatians, 400. 31 Keener, Galatians, 425–6. For an anticipated heavenly or revitalized Jerusalem see, e.g., 4 Ezra 7:26; 8:52; 13:36; 2 Bar. 4:2-6. 32 Michael B. Cover, “‘Now and Above; Then and Now’ (Gal 4:21–31),” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, The Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s letter, ed. Mark W. Elliott et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 228. 33 Das, Galatians, 500. Contra, DeSilva, Galatians, 400. 34 DeSilva, Galatians, 400. 35 Adams suggests the cosmic duality in Gal. 4:25-26 is indicative of Paul’s cosmogony of 6:14-16. Constructing, 224. 28

Galatians 4:12–6:10

119

5.3.4 Just Like Isaac In 4:28, the connective δέ with ἀδελφοί represents a noticeable shift in Paul’s argumentation.36 Paul reiterates his earlier point from 3:29. Just like Isaac, the Galatian believers are children (τέκνα) of the promise (ἐπαγγελίας),37 or as Byrne states taking ἐπαγγελίας as a genitive of source, “you, brethren, are ‘in Isaac fashion’ … ‘promise children’.”38 This is further developed in 4:31. More significantly, the explicit connection of promise in 4:28 to Spirit in 4:29 continues to highlight the importance of the Spirit to Paul’s argument. In 4:29, Paul reiterates again the contrast made in 4:23 between the children born of the flesh (ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς) and those [born] of the Spirit (τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα). Just as the unnamed Ishmael persecuted Isaac, by inference, the Jewish opponents are now (νῦν) persecuting the Galatian believers.39 This may be an allusion back to the suffering Paul referred to in 3:4. Even so, it continues to highlight the disjuncture Paul is arguing for in relation to the Galatians’ new status compared with that of anything or anyone that or who would determine otherwise. By drawing attention to both the original relationship of Abraham’s sons and the current situation within the Galatian community, Paul draws the Galatian believers into the original narrative to highlight that birth order does not dictate inheritance. In other words, just like Isaac, it was not the child born earlier to the slave woman who inherits the promise, but the son born later of promise (4:30). In 4:31, freedom replaces promise, but the inference is the same: those of freedom are identical with those of promise; those of freedom/promise, in Christ, are therefore also those of the Spirit. By introducing the Spirit into the Hagar/Sarah narrative, Paul connects that same story to the present experience and identity of the Galatians. They, like Isaac, may have come to the promise after the Jewish people (those born of flesh), but they are no less inheritors of that promise. Boakye notes the unusual way Paul argues his point in 4:30-31. The reference in 4:30 taken from Gen. 21:10, about expelling the slave woman and her son, would better support an argument from Paul’s opponents in that it is “the gentile Hagar” who was expelled.40 Instead, by connecting the fleshchildren to the slave woman, “when Paul refers to the way that the flesh-children persecute the Spirit-children,”41 he is effectively referring to the same activity of his According to Das, this is only ever used to denote a fresh departure of an argument. Galatians, 507. Also note the reversion to second-person plurals, further highlighting a shift in argumentation. 37 So DeSilva, Galatians, 42. 38 Byrne, Sons, 187–8. 39 Most note the deliberate shift that Paul makes in identifying Ishmael’s relationship with Isaac as one of persecution. As Keener notes, “Paul was probably aware of tradition to the effect that Ishmael did not oppress Isaac.” Commentary, 431. Clearly, Paul creatively adapts the Ishmael/Isaac relationship to emphasize the Spirit/promise/inheritance relationship. Regarding persecution in this passage, see Dunne, Persecution, 47–56; 61–3; 179–91. Dunne argues that here, “Paul reads Genesis Isaianically when he speaks of Ishmael’s behavior against Isaac as persecution” (188). Dunne suggests that because Paul quotes from Isa. 54:1 in Gal. 4:27, he intends the suffering servant motif in Isaiah 53–54 to be the guiding pretext for understanding this argument. See also Matthew S. Harmon, She Must and Shall Go Free: Paul’s Isaianic Gospel in Galatians, BZNW (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 176–85. 40 Boakye, Death Life, 153–4. Boakye draws attention to Gen. 16:6 rather than 21:10. 41 Dunne, Persecution, 61. 36

120

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

opponents toward the Galatians who are seeking them to adopt their message. As Dunne notes, “The point for Paul is that the agitators are [by their very actions] among the ‘outsiders’ characterised by the flesh,” and not by Spirit; they should, therefore, be rejected.42 Turned the other way, the Galatians should ignore the other gospel of Paul’s opponents, because they (the Galatians) are not of the earlier flesh/Torah group but of the later Spirit/promise group.

5.3.5 Gal. 5:1 Scholarship remains divided over how 5:1 relates to 4:21-31 and to what follows in 5:2-12.43 Notwithstanding the uniqueness of Paul’s argument in 5:2-12, the recurring theme of freedom, and the consistency and flow of his argument throughout 4:21–5:15, suggests 5:1 is part of a cohesive whole; albeit as a transitional verse connecting the two arguments. Gal. 5:1 acts, therefore, as a segue between the Spirit-freedom motif in Galatians 4 and the Spirit–circumcision/flesh dichotomy in what follows, reiterating what Paul has been arguing all along—following Torah and submitting to circumcision does not lead to freedom, belonging, or inheritance; only the Spirit provides these.

5.3.6 Summary of Gal. 4:21–5:1 Throughout Galatians 3–6, and specifically in 4:21–5:1, freedom in correlation with adoption is a defining paradigm of what it means to be an heir—freedom based on who one is “of.” In 4:21–5:1, Paul presents the stark contrast between slavery and freedom by drawing on and generatively rearticulating the identity-defining Abrahamic narrative for his own contemporary context. For Paul, slaves as slaves will not inherit anything because slaves do not, in fact, cannot inherit.44 This is because slaves are of a source or master who is not their father. Only those who are free and are true children inherit. This is because freedom is something that defines what it means to be a true child, and therefore, a true heir.45 This is why in 5:1 Paul emphatically exhorts the Galatians to “stand firm therefore” (στήκετε οὖν) in their freedom as children—their new identity as Spirit-people, not slaves. What Paul continues to highlight throughout 4:21–5:1 is that Christian identity is not shaped by natural birth but by the Spirit. This identity determines who inherits the promise. The connection between Spirit and promise in 4:21–5:1 “makes even clearer, the work of creating sons of Abraham is the work of the Spirit.”46 The explicit

Dunne, Persecution, 61. On this, see Matera, “The Culmination of Paul’s Argument to the Galatians: Gal 5:1-6:17,” JSNT 32 (1988), 81. 44 Note the inclusion of the double negative οὐ … μὴ (“not indeed,” or “never”) in 4:30. Oὐ … μὴ with an aorist subjunctive or a future indicative (as in 4:30) expresses “an emphatic denial of the future” Moule, Idiom 156; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 466; BADG, 517; BDF §365. Gen. 21:10 LXX only has οὐ, suggesting Paul inserts μὴ as extra emphasis to his assertion. 45 Byrne, Sons, 189. 46 Williams, “Promise,” 715. 42 43

Galatians 4:12–6:10

121

connection here, as well as in 3:14 and 4:23, reiterates the centrality of the Spirit in Paul’s argument.47 The creativity in which Paul utilizes OT texts here further shows both his commitment to his tradition and the freedom he possesses to generatively realign these traditions according to present circumstances. Furthermore, 5:1 anticipates parenetical material in which the Spirit and not the law is at the forefront of Paul’s argument. This contrast between law/flesh and Spirit/promise in 4:21–5:1 is preparatory for his ethical discussion in 5:2–6:10, to which we now turn.

5.4 Gal. 5:2-12 Through the Spirit 5.4.1 Gal. 5:2-6 In 5:2-6, Paul returns to a previous point made in 2:16 and 3:2: it is through faith and not adherence to law, that one receives the Spirit and is, consequently, justified. The contrast between freedom and slavery is still very much at the forefront of Paul’s discussion. Galatians 5:2-3 not only represents another shift in tone in Paul’s argumentation,48 it also reiterates what he has said previously regarding the Spirit, justification, inheritance, and law. It emphatically outlines the negative consequences if the Galatians return into slavery by adhering to the Mosaic law through circumcision: Christ will be of no benefit to them (οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει).49 The new identity and freedom they now have in Christ will be destroyed if they continue in their desertion by accepting to be circumcised.50 Reiterating his point from 2:16, that “no flesh-people” (οὐ … πᾶσα σάρξ) will be justified (δικαιωθήσεται) through works of the law, Paul states in 5:4 that any attempt to do so will not gain God’s “favour” (τῆς χάριτος). Instead, the Galatians will fall away from it.51 This is another way of describing the consequence from 5:2 about Christ being of no value. The present tenses in both 2:16 and 5:4 suggest that Paul has in mind both a present possibility and an eschatological reality.52 This clearly echoes 2:21 where Paul connects grace, Christ’s death, and justification. There, as in here in 5:4, God’s grace is clearly located in Christ’s death. In 5:4, “they are logically merged: to lose one is to lose the other.”53 Given the continual colocation of Christ’s death, crucifixion language (both Christ’s and Paul’s)54 with Spirit reception so far, however, it is possible that the grace (τῆς χάριτος) that can be lost is the new identity constituted in and by the Spirit—especially given that in 4:6 the Spirit of God’s Son

Harmon, She Must Go Free, 201. Indicated by the imperative ἴδε. 49 οὐδὲν is an accusative of extent. DeSilva, Galatians, 415, n.28. 50 As a subjunctive construction, ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε suggests the Galatians haven’t yet fully deserted. 51 Barclay, Gift, 387. 52 Barclay, Gift, 376. 53 Barclay, Gift, 332. 54 On Paul and crucifixion, see Gal. 2:20 and, later, 6:14 and 17. Later, in 5:24, it is the crucifixion enacted by believers that is collocated with the Spirit. 47 48

122

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

is what constitutes the experiential content of God’s adoption.55 We must, therefore, challenge any depersonalized idea of grace as a concept, “sphere or domain,”56 unless it refers to “a relational space” that has its existence only in God “who is graciously disposed.”57 Thus, “the grace” from God spoken of here is both the sent Son and the sent Spirit that establishes the relationship with God that the Galatians now experience.58 In 5:5, Paul reinforces the warning of 5:4, with further reference to the Spirit—now connected to the language of faith and righteousness. Consensus accepts that in 5:5, the Spirit and future righteousness/justification are closely related to each other but are not equivalent.59 The dative πνεύματι without the article proves difficult to interpret, however. Because both πνεύματι and ἐκ πίστεως modify ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, there is a lack of consensus regarding the relationship between them. Does Paul have in mind what he previously referred to in 3:2? This interprets the prepositional phrase ἐκ πίστεως adjectivally which modifies the substantive it relates to: “the Spirit which is from/of faith.”60 Or does ἐκ πίστεως, taken adverbially, denote the activity of hopeful waiting on the part of the believers? This modifies ἡμεῖς γὰρ … ἀπεκδεχόμεθα: “by the Spirit and on the basis of faith we eagerly hope (ἐλπίδα).”61 If the Spirit is the unifying theme throughout 3:1–4:11, following the logic of 3:2 as I have interpreted it, in 5:5, the first option is preferred. This means that the present identity of the Galatians makes them those who anticipate future justification as marked by the Spirit, which was received on the basis of faith, not works of the law. This again reiterates that Paul aligns the Spirit with faith and justification. It further highlights the centrality of the Spirit in Paul’s account of the Galatians’ identity. The meaning of “waiting for the hope of righteousness” (ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης) also evokes debate. The genitive, δικαιοσύνης, presents two possibilities: “the righteousness for which we hope,” or “the hope that our justification by faith in Christ and that the Spirit has secured.”62 Although the first interpretation reflects aspects of Pauline theology, the context suggests the latter. The context and emphasis of 5:5 clearly infers current circumstances and a present reality. However, noting again Barclay’s point above, the eschatological anticipation inherent in language of waiting also suggests a future prospect. If the Galatians’ present status is that they are already justified, then ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα most likely relates to a future fulfillment or vindication of this present reality. According to Fee, “our present justification/righteousness based

See also, DeSilva, Galatians, 419. Fung, Galatians, 223. 57 DeSilva, Galatians, 419. 58 Note the same correlation in Rom. 5:1-5. 59 Kwon, Eschatology, 63. 60 According to Das, Paul “places the adjectival prepositional phrase [ἐκ πίστεως] in the predicate position (‘The Spirit, which is from faith’).” Galatians, 528. Some suggest that an adjectival ἐκ πίστεως relates to Christ’s faithfulness. So, e.g., de Boer, Galatians, 317. Contra, Keener, Galatians, 456. 61 Das, Galatians, 528. 62 On the various interpretations, see H. S. Choi, “ΠίΣΤΙΣ in Galatians 5:5-6: Neglected Evidence for the Faithfulness of Christ,” JBL 124, no. 3 (2005), 479; Das, Galatians, 526–30. 55 56

Galatians 4:12–6:10

123

on the work of Christ in the Spirit is what will be [fully] realised” in the future.63 This interpretation includes both present and future aspects of justification/righteousness common to Paul. It does, however, carry with it the potential that this reality can somehow be lost; an echo of 3:3 regarding beginnings and endings. Just as it is only the presence of the Spirit that transforms the present, and “gives believers confidence about salvation because the Spirit marks them out as God’s people,”64 so also it is only the Spirit’s presence that guarantees the eschatological future—the hope of righteousness. This is clarified in 5:6. Δικαιοσύνη is no longer determined by circumcision or uncircumcision that distinguish Jews from non-Jews, but faith (πίστις) energized (ἐνεργουμένη) by/through love (δι’ ἀγάπης).65 Even though the Spirit is not mentioned in 5:6, it is most likely inferred. Three things support this. Firstly, the focus on ἀγάπη in 5:6 and its close context with the Spirit in 5:5 suggests that it is in the Spirit that faith/ faithfulness is energized through ἀγάπη.66 Furthermore, as 5:21 will reveal, ἀγάπη is the first, if not defining aspect of the fruit of the Spirit. Consequently, “faithfulness energised by love” infers the agency of the Spirit.67 Secondly, based on further arguments yet to be substantiated, the possible inference of the comparison between works (ἔργα) of flesh and the agency of the Spirit in 5:13-25, and the new creation motif of 6:15 (where the same contrast between circumcision and uncircumcision is stated) also suggest that the agency of the Spirit in 5:6 is inferred.68

5.4.2 Gal. 5:7-12 Before we explore 5:13-25, a brief discussion of 5:7-12 is appropriate. While 5:7-12 appears to diverge from the main argument, it in fact continues the emphatic tone that was evident in 5:2-6 and develops further the concerns Paul has for the Galatians, including expressing potential (and desired) consequences for the actions of his opponents. As in 3:1, Paul asks a question of his audience, this time using an image drawn from the sporting arena:69 “Who (τίς) cut in on you to stop you obeying the truth?” It is clear from 5:8 that such persuasion to prevent them from obeying the truth—or for that matter, to desert in 1:6; or be bewitched in 3:1—is definitely not from the one who called them (τοῦ καλοῦντος) in 1:6, the same one who set (ὁ ἀφορίσας) Paul apart in 1:15;70 and the one who supplies (ὁ οὖν ἐπιχορηγῶν) the Spirit in 3:5. In contrast, in 5:7, by inference τίς represents those who preached another gospel (1:6), who have bewitched the Galatians (3:1), and who seek to make much of them, Fee, Empowering, 419, emphasis added. Fee takes the subjective genitive (“the hope that comes from righteousness”). Contra DeSilva, Galatians, 423, n.55. For righteousness/justification in this passage as a purely future event (“the hope that is righteousness”), see Kwon, Eschatology, 65–9. 64 Boakye, Death and Life, 200, emphasis original. 65 In this instance, I take πίστις as the believer’s faith/faithfulness. See Debbie Hunn, “Πίστις in Galatians 5.5-6: Neglected Evidence for ‘Faith in Christ,’” NTS 62, no. 3 (2016); Hodge, If Sons, 82–6; Contra Choi, who argues that faith here refers exclusively to Christ’s faithfulness. “Neglected,” esp. 489. 66 DeSilva, Galatians, 424–5; Lull, Spirit, 74. 67 Williams, Galatians, NCCS, 155. 68 DeSilva, Galatians, 425. 69 Keener, Galatians, 461. 70 Some variants include ὁ θεὸς. 63

124

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

“but not for good” (οὐ καλῶς, 4:17). Consequently, distinct from the correct “one” who should be the agent of persuasion (God), these people, “whoever they are” (ὅστις ἐὰν ᾖ), will pay for this intrusion (5:10). In 5:12 Paul even hopes that these agitators (οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες) will follow through with their “concern for circumcision” and take the cut further by castrating (ἀποκόψονται) themselves!71 According to Das, the “irony of this challenge, along with the mention of circumcision in 5:11, would not have been lost on the Galatians. The connection that Paul makes between circumcision and castration emphasises the connection he makes between circumcision as a justifying rite under Jewish law, and castration as a cultic rite of belonging to the Cybelene religion.”72 Such a cultic connection supports Paul’s argument that any movement away from the gospel of Christ in which the Spirit is present is a movement back into slavery. The challenge of this passage lies in the fact the Galatian’s should consider their past “hearing of faith” and their consequential new identity, and how they should live this out in the present by resisting Paul’s opponents and being obedient (πείθω) to the truth (ἀλήθεια)—as inferred in 5:2; all of which anticipates the imperative tone and challenge of what follows in 5:13–6:10.

5.5 Gal. 5:13-25 The Agency of the Spirit and the Believer Having considered Paul’s discussion to this point, including his challenge to the Galatians to be aware of what they will lose if they choose to follow the message and call of his opponents, we can now consider the parenesis outlined in 5:13-25.

5.5.1 The Imperatival Shape of Gal. 5:13-25 Gal. 5:13-14 and 5:25 bracket the most extensive pneumatological discussion in Paul’s argument. The recurrence of the terms freedom (ἐλευθερία), love (ἀγάπη), and call (καλέω) in 5:13, along with the conjunction γάρ used in a continuative sense,73 connects what follows in 5:13-25 to the preceding discussion in 5:1-12. Thus, 5:13-14 acts as a segue between these two sections. There is, however, a shift in Paul’s argumentation evidenced in the imperatives in 5:13-25.74 Two imperatival statements in 5:13: “do not allow” (μόνον μὴ; “only … not”),75 and “through love be slaves to one another” (δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις),76 along with a third imperatival construction in 5:14: “you shall love your neighbour” (Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς ἑαυτόν), are followed by eleven imperatival and hortatory subjunctive verbs in 5:15–6.10 outlined in table 2 below: Oakes, Galatians, Loc 189. Das, Galatians, 542–3. On castration and the Galli, see Elliott, Cutting, 162–3. 73 Longenecker, Galatians, 238–9. 74 The following is a revision of my “Identity and Agency.” 75 The lack of the verb in verse 13a requires one to be inserted. 76 Ὑμεῖς is emphatic; the negative μή “is used here as an abrupt expression without a verb … The present tense [of δουλεύετε] suggests persistent activity, hence ‘keep serving,’ ‘keep offering yourselves as slaves,’ ‘make it your habit to serve one another.’” David A. DeSilva, Galatians: A Handbook on the Greek Text, BHGNT (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 114–16. 71 72

Galatians 4:12–6:10

125

Table 2  Imperatival and Hortatory Subjunctive Verbs in 5:15–6.10.77 5:15

βλέπετε

Take care

5:16

περιπατεῖτε

Walk

5:25

στοιχῶμεν

Keep in step

5:26

μὴ γινώμεθα κενόδοξοι

Do not think of yourself as better

6:1

καταρτίζετε

Restore

6:2

βαστάζετε

Bear

6:4

δοκιμαζέτω

Consider

6:6

κοινωνείτω

Share goods

6:7

μὴ πλανᾶσθε

Do not be deceived

6:9

μὴ ἐκκακῶμεν

Do not become weary

6:10

ἐργαζώμεθα

Let us work

Similar to 5:1, these verbs indicate a shift in the tenor of Paul’s argument, to include a clear appeal for human agency, but they do not signify a radical disjuncture with what was previously discussed. Paul has already brought indicative and imperative together in 4:31–5:1.78 An emphasis of imperatives in this section should not, therefore, suggest any disjuncture from Paul’s previous argument in Galatians 3–4 that had a predominance of indicatives. Nevertheless, debate continues over the connection between the so-called paraenetic section of Gal. 5:13–6:10 with what precedes it. Two main interpretations are proposed.79 First, an older position considers that 5:13 represents the beginning of a new section of Galatians that provides paraenetic material distinct from the previous “theological” material.80 This is “partly related to judgements on the structure of the letter, but chiefly concerns [the] more fundamental question of the relevance of this material to the foregoing arguments in Galatians 1–4.”81 Current

Adapted from Martyn, Galatians, 481. Keener, Galatians, 439. See also, Volker Rabens, “‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’ as the Substructure of Paul’s Theology-and-Ethics in Galatians?,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, ed. Mark W. Elliott, Scott J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright and John Frederick, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 285–305. 79 For a useful summary, see Barclay, Obeying, 9–26. 80 See, e.g., Burton, Galatians, 290; Fung, Galatians, 243; James Hardy Ropes, The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians, HTS (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press; Oxford University Press, 1929), 23; W. Lütgert, Gesetz und Geist: Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des Galaterbriefes (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1919), 15. O’Neill considers the whole passage to be an interpolation and un-Pauline. The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (London: S.P.C.K., 1972), 65–71. With some modification, Mußner affirms those who interpret Galatians using the two-front theory (Zweifrontentheorie): Judaisers vs Gnosticising (gnostizierende) Libertines (a.k.a. Pneumatiker). Consequently, he considers 5:13–6:10 a separate argument. Galaterbrief, 367. 81 Barclay, Obeying, 9. 77

78

126

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

consensus considers this section as integral to the whole letter.82 Gal. 5:13 may mark a distinct shift in Paul’s argumentation but not his argument. Suggesting any break between the two sections further contributes to an impoverished understanding of the place of the Spirit in Paul’s argument in Galatians.

5.5.2 Gal. 5:13-15 The abruptness of the phrase “to freedom” (ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθερίᾳ) in 5:13 suggests that freedom is a major goal of life under the Spirit.83 Freedom, contrasted here with slavery under σάρξ, is presented as “life experienced under the realm or sphere of the Spirit into which the Galatians have been called, and incorporated.”84 From 5:13 on, Paul is describing two ways of being community. “When Paul employs the language of ‘flesh’ in Galatians 5, he is not endorsing an anthropological dualism which human flesh is devalued as matter and human spirit upheld as immaterial … the flesh … is a quasi-personified power that sets itself up against God.”85 Even though the Spirit is not mentioned in 5:13, the contrast between freedom and σάρξ relates back to what Paul has already said about the Spirit in 4:21–5:12.86 This contrast also anticipates what he argues later regarding the Spirit, flesh, and love in 5:16-25.87 It is freedom grounded in the new identity as children of God that Paul reiterates in 5:13; and it is only in or through the Spirit that the ethical imperatives of this freedom expressed throughout Galatians 5–6 can be achieved. The apparent paradox in 5:13b, which requires a willing enslavement (δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις) of believers to each other, highlights Paul’s intentional use of ἀγάπη in Galatians. Ἀγάπη represents the energizing love already identified in 5:6 (ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη), and indicative of those who are of the Spirit (5:22). The apparent paradox of enslavement becomes less so when the meaning of ἀγάπη is considered. Although used infrequently in extant Greek literature,88 rather than carrying the meaning of passion or desire for self-fulfillment, its primary meaning was one of

So, Barclay, Obeying, 216; Das, Galatians, 545–8. Sandnes argues that this section is specifically designed to counter Paul’s opponents. Paul Perceived, 76–9. For variations on this idea see, e.g., Brinsmead, Dialogical, 81; Lull, Spirit, 114–30; Walter Schmithals, “Die Häretiker in Galatien,” ZNW 47 (1956), 55–9. 83 Matera, Galatians, 192. 84 Buchanan, “Identity and Agency,” 54. On Paul’s use of σάρξ in Galatians, see Boakye, Death Life, 159–64; Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 95–116. Jewett focuses primarily on the anthropological emphasis of σάρξ but acknowledges that Paul does at times present σάρξ in cosmic terms. Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 114, 453. 85 Das, Galatians, 549. A major concern of some with this interpretation of σάρξ is that it appears to support a form of Greek dualism quite foreign to Paul. Both cosmic and anthropological interpretations can infer dualism. The dualism Paul presents here is rhetorical rather than ontological or mystical. 86 Buchanan, “Identity and Agency,” 54, n.11. 87 Fee, Empowering, 426. It also echoes what Paul says of Christ and love in 2:20 (the first time love is used in Galatians). There Christ gave himself up for Paul so he could live. In the same way, in 5:13 believers give up their freedom for others. 88 Das, Galatians, 531. 82

Galatians 4:12–6:10

127

serving an “other.” Consequently, ἀγάπη is always others-focused; a self-sacrificial love given for the sake of the other, irrespective of their worth, or their ability to reciprocate in kind.89 For Paul, it represents a dynamic expression of the character and presence of God.90 The citation of Lev. 19:18 in Gal. 5:14 highlights the importance of Jewish tradition in Paul’s ethics; it is also highly surprising given what Paul has said about the law up until now in the letter. Significant is the way he has positively employs the passage here to suit his context.91 Where Jewish contemporaries of Paul would have agreed with his summation that “the whole law is fulfilled in this statement” (ὁ γὰρ πᾶς νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήρωται),92 they would have disagreed with the context in which he made this assertion.93 Suggesting that freedom and fulfillment are not located under the yoke of the law (5:1, 3) but in the Spirit, is in contradistinction to contemporary Jewish thought. What 5:13-14 highlights is that freedom from the law’s enslavement does not mean freedom from work.94 Instead, it is love toward others that determines right action and right response—faithfulness energized by love (5:5); and, as 5:22 will show, the love is the core characteristic of the Spirit. Therefore, even when Paul is not talking about the Spirit, the Spirit’s agency in the life of the believer and the community is implied.

5.5.3 Gal. 5:16-25 While there is no mention of the Spirit in 5:13-14, this is not so in 5:16-25. The imperative in 5:16, along with the hortatory subjunctive στοιχῶμεν in 5:25, acts as bookends to a discussion that emphasizes the important distinctives of life under two realms of Spirit and flesh.95 The mention of the Spirit is significant in both verses. The imperatives employed are given to those whose identity is grounded in the Spirit. What was implicit prior to 5:16 becomes explicit in 5:16-25. The Spirit represents the active presence of God in believers, and the one who defines this transformed identity.96 On the self-giving sense of ἀγάπη as a Christian development see DeSilva, Galatians, 466. “Love of God”: Rom. 5:5; 8:39; 2 Cor. 13:11, 14; “love of Christ”: Rom. 8:35; “love of the Spirit”: Rom. 15:30; “love” as the defining virtue of Christian Community: 1 Cor. 13. See Verlyn D. Verbrugge, “Agapaō,” in TDNTW (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 25–31. 91 Bruce, Galatians, 241–2. C.f. Rom. 13:9 and the context in which Paul utilizes the same passage. See Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 980. Within some STJ thought, Lev.19:18 was considered to be the fulfillment of the law. 92 As we saw in Chapter 2, a usual expectation in Qumran literature was that covenant belonging required faithful adherence to Torah. 93 Barclay, Obeying, 136. 94 Such a “Lutheran” looking Paul is not the Paul of Galatians. Wright, Interpreters, 116. “Lutheran Paul” is Westerholm’s term. Perspectives, 257–8. 95 While this section of Paul’s argument begins at 5:13, the common theme of walking/keeping in step with the Spirit in 5:16, 25, syntactically delineates Paul’s discussion at this point. 96 Whether πνεύματι in 5:16 and 25 is a dative of agency or means is debated, Das suggests it could also be a “dative of sphere” Galatians, 561, n.26. DeSilva suggests a “dative of rule or standard.” Galatians, 453, n.38. Both align with my interpretation. 89 90

128

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

A major emphasis since 3:2 is the contrast between Spirit and an alliance of Sin/ Flesh/Law (ἁμαρτία/σάρξ/νόμος).97 The language employed in the anthithesis of Spirit and Flesh in 5:16-25 suggests the notion of realms or spheres of power, thus highlighting the cosmic nature of Paul’s argument. As Brinsmead states, this contrast between “two ways of existence … [epitomizes] the whole debate.”98 In this passage, therefore, the Spirit is in conflict with σάρξ as the “meta-personal, meta-cultural power of Sin.”99 Consequently, the struggle that Paul presents here “is not within oneself, but has to do with which power one … belongs to.”100 Life in the realm of the Spirit operates differently from life under the control of σάρξ. The use of realms to describe these two ruling agencies is supported by Paul’s later comparison between “the works of the flesh” (τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός) in 5:19-21, and “the fruit of the Spirit” (δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός) in 5:22-23.101 The former, life lived under σάρξ, is one of bondage; the latter, the natural result of a life lived out of freedom in the Spirit. The inclusion of ἀφορμη (“operations”) in 5:13 further supports this idea of realm/power language in Paul’s ethics here. Literally meaning “a starting point or base of operations for an expedition,” ἀφορμη relates directly to the idea of an external control that determines praxis.102 Consequently, reading σάρξ and Spirit as rulers of two separate realms or spheres of power coheres with the broader argument in Galatians. This contrast continues the “slavery vs. freedom” motif that has underpinned much of Paul’s discussion since 3:1. Under the Spirit, people are not bought and sold at the whim of a malevolent impersonal master; nor are they passive workers dominated and driven by the master who owns them. On the contrary, life under the Spirit is one of adoption (υἱοθεσίαν; 4:5), where believers are now free children (υἱοί lit. “sons;” 4:6), and, consequently, free to choose to enslave themselves to one another (4:31; 5:1, 13), just as Jesus, the Son, did for the Galatians (3:10-13). The implications of this emphasis in 5:16-25 cannot be overstated. In Galatians, Paul clearly shifts ethical responsibility away from the fatalistic determinism of life under slavery, whether the law or the στοιχεῖα, represented as σάρξ here, and onto the Spirit-filled community who, as Spirit-people, lead Spirit-shaped lives. Consequently, those of the Spirit are responsible as free children, and have an active part to play in the ongoing life and development of their community.

Capitalization intentional. “When Paul speaks of the conflict between ‘spirit’ and ‘flesh’ (Gal. 5:16–25) it would be better to capitalise the two words. The conflict is between God’s Spirit and the Flesh, the power which opposes God.” Sanders, Palestinian, 553–4. 98 Brinsmead, Dialogical, 81, emphasis added. 99 Jackson, New Creation, 85, n.13. Also Martyn: σάρξ is a “supra-human power, indeed an inimical, martial power seeking to establish a military base of operations.” Galatians, 483. Note, however, Barclay, Gift, 427. 100 Sanders, Palestinian, 554. 101 For use of realm language see Matera, Galatians, 199. Lull uses “sphere” to describe the flesh as a cosmic power. Spirit, 173. See, further, Barclay, Gift, 427–8; de Boer, Galatians, 335–9. A possible antecedent is the concept of the evil inclination (yēṣer bāśār) from Qumran. See 1QH 18.22-23; 1QS 11.9. However, as with many of terms and concepts, Paul develops the meaning of σάρξ beyond its usual use and meaning. Both here and in Romans, Paul personifies it as a power that opposes the Spirit. Eastman, Person, 159–60. 102 Buchanan, “Identity and Agency,” 54. n.17. 97

Galatians 4:12–6:10

129

Gal. 5:16-18 As I have argued elsewhere, “the imperative περιπατεῖτε in 5:16 [emphasizes] this agency.”103 Linked with a dative, περιπατέω means to be “attentive to the circumstances, the manner and kind of life one leads.”104 Along with the aorist subjunctive phrase, οὐ μὴ τελέσητε, περιπατέω points to an active agency on the part of the believing community. The agents of these imperatives are the believers who are responsible to walk in/with the Spirit (πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε). Paul returns to something similar in 5:25. Gal. 5:17a reiterates the incompatibility between σάρξ and Spirit. While some consider this contrast as an individualistic internal ethical struggle,105 most now recognize the unique way in which Paul continues to present Spirit and σάρξ here as two opposing forces, within which the individual is caught up.106 Even Jewett, who adopts Paul’s emphasis on anthropological uses of σάρξ elsewhere, accepts that here in 5:17 (and in 5:13-25 in general), σάρξ is “clearly an extra-personal power” which holds people captive.107 Consequently, reading this contrast within the broader socio-cosmic framework that I am proposing maintains consistency with Paul’s broader argument. This includes continuity with what Paul has already highlighted in the duality that exists between the Spirit and σάρξ as represented by the two Jerusalems in 4:25-26,108 and is further emphasized in the contrast between works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit in 5:19-23. Gal. 5:17b appears to suggest that a believer is caught between two opposing forces in such a way that cripples them even from desiring what they want to do (ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε). While it is true that “one is either in the domain of the flesh or in the domain of the Spirit,”109 care must be taken to avoid seeing this conflict as a dualism of two equally opposing forces.110 Instead, believers are “caught up in an uneven apocalyptic struggle and will be on either one side or the other;”111 but only if they choose to be so.112 Paul envisages that, in light of the Spirit, only if the Galatian believers choose to return to the enslaving powers of law (a.k.a. flesh) will they find themselves caught in between these two opposing forces and unable to live effectively in either. If, however, they enact 5:16, then the Spirit as the ruling power will enable them to walk in freedom and oppose σάρξ.113 Buchanan, “Identity and Agency,” 57. BDAG, 649 [2.a.β]. 105 See, e.g., Burton, Galatians, 300; Dunn, Galatians, 297–300; Jervis, Galatians, 143–4. 106 Moo, Galatians, 354. As Keener notes, Paul is not presenting “an anthropological dualism,” Commentary, 502. 107 Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 102. 108 Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 102. 109 Das, Galatians, 566. 110 DeSilva, Galatians, 455–6. 111 Das, Galatians, 566, emphasis added. Philo considers a similar tension that humanity has to confront. For Philo, however, this tension is between body and soul. 112 Thus, ἵνα in 5:17 introduces a result/telic clause. DeSilva, Handbook, 119. 113 Where οὐ μὴ indicates a promise (“you will not”), rather than a command (“do not!”). Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 212, n.6. 103 104

130

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

This freedom experienced under the Spirit is further highlighted in 5:18. Whereas in 5:16 the Galatians are to walk in/with the Spirit, in 5:18 the Spirit is the one who leads (πνεύματι ἄγεσθε).114 This does not mean, however, that 5:18 contradicts 5:16. The present passive verb ἄγεσθε “suggests the idea of being continually influenced by and directed by the Spirit.”115 Considering the broader context, “being led by the Spirit, places the Spirit as the governing partner in the relationship.”116 This governance is not one of domination indicative of being under law or σάρξ. Instead, it is one of freedom within which the same willing agency of believers who choose to be led by the Spirit (and do so as free children as in 4:31), and walk in the Spirit (5:16), also willingly choose to enslave themselves to each other in 5:13; all this symptomatic of “the nature and praxis indicative of their new identity.”117

Gal. 5:19-24 The emphasis on the Spirit continues in 5:19-23 by means of two contrasting lists. The works of the flesh (τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός) in 5:19-21 represent deeds that are the result of captivity to σάρξ. This list comprises things that cause personal (internal), and corporate factions. For those controlled by σάρξ, relationship with self, others, and God are fractured and lead ultimately to death—as implied by verse 21 which warns that the Kingdom of God cannot be inherited by those who “continually do such things” (οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες).118 This is not because inheriting the Kingdom of God is about ritual purity or piety, or performance by obedience to a law such as Torah;119 to suggest so makes no sense of Paul’s previous emphatic challenge against the law. Instead, it is because those who continually do such things show by their very actions that they are not people who are being led by the Spirit and are, therefore, not of the Spirit; and, within the logic of Paul’s argument, not υἱοὶ θεοῦ.120 The language of inheritance serves to connect the works-of-flesh vice and Spirit-fruit lists to the argument about Abraham in Galatians 4. In 5:21b, this point is made clear. Because a father’s inheritance is only available to their own children, the βασιλείαν θεοῦ (kingdom of God) is, by inference, only available to those who are children of God—those who are in/of Christ have the Spirit and call God “Abba” (4:6-7)—and

As Beale notes, “Paul’s language of being ‘led by the Spirit’ … is unparalleled in the Greek OT (ἄγω + πνεύμα), except in Isa 63:11-15.” G. K. Beale, “The Old Testament Background of Paul’s Reference to ‘the Fruit of the Spirit’ in Galatians 5:22,” BBR 15, no. 1 (2005), 12. Note especially, Beale’s discussion on the similarity of 5:22-23 with Qumran and other STJ texts (16–20). 115 Moo, Galatians, 356–7, emphasis added. 116 Buchanan, “Identity and Agency,” 57. 117 Buchanan, “Identity and Agency,” 57. 118 As a present active participle, πράσσοντες suggests an ongoing action. 119 See, e.g., 2 En. 9; T. Dan 6; 11Q19; 4QMMT. See Mark A. Jason, Repentance at Qumran: The Penitential Framework of Religious Experience in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015), 212, 218. 120 On inheriting the Kingdom, see René López, “The Pauline Vice list and Inheriting the Kingdom” (PhD Dallas Theological Seminary, 2010), 227–59; René López, “A Study of Pauline Passages on Inheriting the Kingdom,” BSac 168, no. 672 (2011). 114

Galatians 4:12–6:10

131

who reflect this relationship by their chosen praxis of continually doing the opposite of “such things” (τὰ τοιαῦτα, 5:21) by walking in the Spirit.121 Having presented an indicative list of terms that reflect a life of bondage to the flesh, in 5:22-23, Paul now presents the characteristics indicative of life in the Spirit. Where a slave is driven by works controlled by σάρξ, those of the Spirit express the transformative “work” indicative of the agency of the Spirit. The shift from “works” plural to “fruit” singular (καρπὸς) in 5:22 highlights this divine agency and is vital to Paul’s argument.122 Given the emphasis of ἀγάπη in Galatians 5,123 it may be that his inclusion of the singular καρπός at the beginning of the list in 5:23 is deliberate. This would suggest that ἀγάπη represents the primary or summative virtue of which the others in the list that follows are manifestations of ἀγάπη.124 The specifics of the fruit mentioned in 5:22-23 is not as important to our discussion as what they represent. Where the works in 5:19-21 represent an expression of life under bondage to σάρξ,125 they also represent the character or nature of the source of these works. In similar fashion, the fruit of the Spirit represents the character of the source of the believers’ new life (God their father, Christ, their Lord, and God’s Spirit).126 The inferred corollary to the non-inheritance of 5:21b is that those who continually walk in the Spirit will inherit God’s kingdom. This is because their faithful lives will show they are God’s children by their character revealed in the way they live toward others.127 As Keener states, “those born of the Spirit … will share the divine nature (morally) just as any offspring bears the genetic character of its parent.”128 To act toward another in a way that expresses to the fruit is to embody the theology of ἀγάπη and ἐλευθερία of 5:13-14. To not act so will bring into effect what Paul cautions against in 5:15, and states explicitly in 5:19-21. Ultimately, in 5:23b, acting in accordance with the fruit of the Spirit—especially in love toward others—incurs no legal bondage, and in fact, as Paul later states in 6:2, fulfils the law of Christ (τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ), which I argue is indicative of the Spirit of the character of the Son received in 4:6. This affirms the idea that ἀγάπη represents the primary or summative virtue and, considering the freedom motif explicit in 5:13 and implicit in 5:23b, further reiterates the Spirit’s agency.

As I have stated elsewhere, “in Galatians 4, inheritance is linked to ‘sonship’ of promise (Gal 4:26–29) and the Spirit, which leads into an expected sonship-like ethical behaviour in Gal 5 & 6.” “Identity and human Agency,” 59. See also Stephen E. Fowl, “Who Can Read Abraham’s Story? Allegory and Interpretive Power in Galatians,” JSNT 17, no. 55 (1995), 89–90. 122 For possible antecedent texts that may have informed Paul’s use of “the fruit of the Spirit,” see, e.g., Beale, “Fruit of the Spirit”; Morales, Restoration 155–9. 123 5:5, 13, 14, 23. Apart from the Johannine literature, Paul uses ἀγάπη (75x) and ἀγαπάω (34x) more than any other NT author. Das, Galatians, 578. 124 Das, Galatians, 578. 125 At this point, based on Paul’s previous argument, we could easily include Law, Sin, τὰ στοιχεῖα, etc. 126 On πνεύματι as representing the Spirit of God in Galatians, see K. H. Easley, “The Pauline Usage of Pneumati as a Reference to the Spirit of God,” JETS 27, no. 3 (1984), esp. 309–10. 127 Already adequately argued in Rabens, Ethics. Also, Fee, Galatians, 218. 128 Keener, Galatians, 516–17. 121

132

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

Gal. 5:25 Gal. 5:25 acts as the other bookend to the discussion that frames the σάρξ/Spirit contrast that began in 5:16.129 It also acts as a segue to what follows.130 As Martyn eloquently states, 5:25 “casts its beneficent shadow over the whole of 5:25–6:10, indicating that all the exhortations are intended by Paul to reflect the character of a community in which the Spirit is decisively active.”131 This is indicative of much of the letter. Aletti concurs. “Paul’s admonitions [in Galatians] are not a question of specific exhortations touching on particular sectors of life, but of a radical attitude on which all concrete decisions depend.”132 This emphasis is evident by the lack of any verbs in Gal. 5:16-25 in which the Galatians are the active subjects. Aletti concludes that “this obviously shows that Paul wants to emphasise how ethical behaviour is conditioned by one’s salvific status: a doing by being.”133 Significantly for our discussion, this being is grounded in the Spirit, therefore, any “doing” should be ordered by the Spirit, not Torah.134 Paul’s choice of verbs in 5:25 is instructive. Paul states “if (εἰ) we live (ζῶμεν) by, or are of [the] Spirit (πνεύματι), [let us] keep in step (στοιχῶμεν) [with] the Spirit.” While some translate εἰ as “since,”135 Moo argues that Paul uses the “first-class form of εἰ,” expressing conditionality. In doing so Paul wants the Galatian believers “to ask themselves, ‘Is this really true of me?’”136 Gal. 5:25 also reiterates the appeal of 5:16, now employing the active verb στοιχέω instead of περιπατέω. As a hortatory subjunctive, στοιχῶμεν suggests possibility not actuality. That is, something can happen but it requires agency. Originally meaning “to be drawn up in line” or to “keep rank,” στοιχέω came to mean “agree with” or to “keep step with.”137 As I mentioned above, this falling-in-line is not slavish adherence to an external master, but an action from choice that is grounded in identity. Just as in 5:1, 5:25 includes an indicative/ethicalimperatival partnership; believers are to consider who they are of (implicit indicative) and act accordingly (imperative).138 Taking πνεύματι as a dative of association, Paul exhorts the Galatian believers that if they are of the Spirit (πνεύματι), then their lives should align with the character and activity of the Spirit. The inclusion of στοιχέω here

See Mußner, Galaterbrief, 391. “Den Vers nimmt man besser zum vorausgehenden, mit 5.16 beginnenden Abschnitt; er wirkt darin wie eine inclusion.” 130 Zahn, Galater, 269. Zahn suggests that 5:25 is the basic idea (Grundgedanken) for the whole of 5:13–6:10. Zahn, 268. 131 Martyn, Galatians, 542–3, emphasis added. 132 J.-N. Aletti, “Paul’s Exhortations in Galatians 5:16–25,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s letter, ed. Mark W. Elliott, Scott J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright and John Frederick, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 332. 133 Aletti, “Paul’s Exhortations in Galatians 5:16–25,” 332–3. Rabens suggests something similar. Ethics, 250–1. 134 DeSilva, Galatians, 473. 135 Fee, Galatians, 227. 136 Moo, Galatians, 371–2. 137 Delling, “στοιχέω,” 667–8. Generally, στοιχέω is considered a synonym for περιπατέω. The NT usage of στοιχέω is unique. It occurs always with the dative, whereas of the fifty-two occurrences of other verbs for walking, only five appear with a dative. 138 Das, Galatians, 587. 129

Galatians 4:12–6:10

133

is, therefore, deliberate. It may be alluding to 4:3139 and will inform the interpretation of 6:16, where the same verbal root is used. Paul argues that under the old aeon people serve the στοιχεῖα as slaves. By contrast, in the new age of the Spirit,140 believers are now to στοιχέω the Spirit—freely keep in step with the Spirit by choice.141

5.5.4 Summary of Gal. 5:13-25 Gal. 5:13-25 represents the most mentions of the work of the Spirit in Galatians. As such, there is little need to argue that the Spirit is central in Paul’s argument here. What my discussion has highlighted is the emphasis Paul places on the character of the Spirit-transformed community as free children of God. When one is walking in the Spirit, then it will be the character and desire of God—seen in the character and agency of the Spirit, not σάρξ—that will be the guiding framework from which choice and action are sourced, shaped, and expressed. This is developed further by Paul in 5:26–6:10.

5.6 Gal. 5:26–6:10 Spiritual People Sowing to the Spirit Three further instances of the Spirit occur in Gal. 5:26–6:10. This passage continues to emphasize the kind of Spirit-led, human agency articulated in Galatians 5 as an expression of Christian identity. In Galatians 6, there is no scarcity of verbs where believers are the active subjects. Gal. 5:26–6:10 provides concrete examples of what being “of ” the Spirit entails.142 While the Spirit is only mentioned three times throughout this section, in the context of Paul’s overall argument, the placement of these is important.

5.6.1 Gal. 6:1 In Gal. 6:1, those of the Spirit (ὑμεῖς οἱ πνευματικοι—“you who are the Spirit-people”) are called to restore those who are caught in a transgression. The literal translation of οἱ πνευματικοι is “the spiritual ones,” where the adjectival form modifies ὑμεῖς. It is also translated: “you who have received the Spirit” (NRSV), or “you who live by the Spirit” (NIV). These interpretations are valid. The first echoes Paul’s earlier argument in 3:1-5, 4:6, and 4:29.143 The second fits better with Paul’s preceding argument in 5:16-25. An DeSilva, Galatians, 472. The instrumental nature of the Spirit in this verse supports my contention that a suitable translation is “those who are of the Spirit.” 141 de Boer, Galatians, 372. 142 While most commentators treat 5:26 with what precedes it, others argue that 5:26 fits better with what follows in 6:1-10. So, e.g., Keener, Galatians, 527. In contrast others suggest 5:25 is the transition into what follows. Both de Boer, Galatians, 370–5; Moo, Galatians, 373. The merit of this is that with 5:25, it summarizes what has previously been argued: live as Spirit-people (5:25), not as σάρξ-people (5:26); act as Spirit-people (6:1). 143 Keener, Galatians, 530. See also 1 Cor. 3:1. There Paul uses the term differently, with a more ironic tone. 139 140

134

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

even better interpretation may be the substantive, “Spirit-People” (you who are Spiritpeople).144 According to Fee, translating it as “those who are spiritual” undermines its meaning “for a contemporary English speaker, but also leads to connotations that are precisely the opposite of Paul’s intent.”145 Such a lowercase rendering infers a contrast between those who may be spiritual and those who are not. Paul is not addressing such groups in the Galatian community. The plural ὑμεῖς indicates the whole Galatian church is in view rather than a select few who may be more spiritual than others.146 Furthermore, this title is not being used ironically but is intentional on Paul’s part.147 He is addressing the Galatian believers who already have the Spirit and exhorts them together to concrete action, indicative of the fruit of the Spirit as those who walk in accordance with 5:16, 18, and 25.148 Accordingly, “the title [οἱ πνευματικοι] befits them best because of Paul’s constant emphasis upon the Spirit … which they possess.”149 This is further emphasized by the imperative καταρτίζετε.150 While it refers to the act of restoration, it also correlates to the exhortatory nature of 5:13-14—with the imperative to love one’s neighbor—and the imperatival nature of 5:25 of keeping in step with the Spirit. In other words, in contradistinction to the selfish character indicative of 5:15 and 26, it exhorts the Galatian community to act in accordance with the Spiritcharacter (ἐν πνεύματι) they now possess.151 Although an emphasis on human agency is explicit in 6:2, such human agency cannot be achieved without the agency of the Spirit that defines and empowers those who are Spirit-people.

5.6.2 Gal. 6:2-10 Paul continues to expound the Spirit-defined human agency throughout the rest of 6:2-5, and again in 6:9-10. While there is no explicit mention of the Spirit in 6:2-5 and 6:9-10, considering what I have argued above, however, it is evident that the parenetical nature of 6:2-10 continues to reflect characteristics of those who are Spiritpeople, which, in turn, suggests the Spirit is implicit in Paul’s argument. 6:7-8 supports this assertion. The incursion and abruptness of 6:7 is noted by most. Nevertheless, Paul’s exhortation in these verses reminds his audience of the importance of what has been argued throughout the letter.152 Similar to the previous military and the halakhic-style metaphors evident in 5:1, 16, and 25, the agricultural metaphor of sowing (σπείρω) and reaping (θερίζω) in 6:7-8 adds another dimension in promoting human agency within life under the Spirit. Fee, Empowering, 461. Fee, Empowering, 461. 146 DeSilva, Galatians, 481–2; Contra Schlier, Galater, 351. 147 Betz, Galatians, 296–7. 148 Russell, Conflict, 174. Paul uses the indicative πνευματικοι in 6:1 to ground and necessitate the imperative. Barclay, Obeying, 157. 149 Betz, Galatians, 296–7. 150 As opposed to the indicative. See DeSilva, Handbook, 130. 151 Das, Galatians, 605. For πνεύματι representing the Holy Spirit, see Keener, Galatians, 530. 152 Das, Galatians, 619; A. H. Snyman, “Modes of Persuasion in Galatians 6:7-10,” Neot 26, no. 2 (1992). 144 145

Galatians 4:12–6:10

135

In 6:8, Paul takes a familiar proverb and adapts it for his own use.153 Paul interprets the proverb by means of the same Spirit/σάρξ contrast deployed throughout 5:13–6:10. The way Paul applies this contrast is significant. The contrast of Spirit and σάρξ in the preceding argument as two spheres of power is now represented as two soils into which the Galatian believers can sow their lives. The first, life sown to the flesh, will reap destruction (θερίσει φθοράν), indicative of the works of the flesh in 5:1921a and the destructive nature indicative of 5:15 and 26; the second, life sown to the Spirit, will from the Spirit (ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος) reap eternal life (θερίσει ζωὴν αἰώνιον). Consequently, sowing the seed represents the believer’s agency in placing themselves in the realm of the Spirit. In the context in which 6:7-8 is located, it also represents how life is lived toward others, including God. This relational emphasis and agency include two positive activities expected of those who are of the Spirit: “doing good” (καλὸν ποιοῦντες, 6:9), and “working for the good of all” (ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας, 6:10). In 6:8, the Spirit clearly represents the sphere in which and from which life in the Spirit is lived. The meaning of the two mentions of σάρξ in 6:8 is not as clear. The sentence itself is a little awkward: “If you sow into your own flesh (εἰς τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτου), from the flesh (ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς) you will reap (θερίσει) destruction.” The question is whether the two σάρξ represent the same thing (“if you sow to your own flesh, from that flesh you will reap destruction”),154 or denote two distinct referents. The associated reflexive pronoun ἑαυτοῦ suggests that the first σάρξ clearly represents an individual’s own flesh. What Paul means, however, is not clear. It is commonly considered the non-spiritual physical person, or the corrupted human nature. Burton, for example, argues that the phrase means “the body, or, by metonymy, the bodily desires.”155 The corollary to this, therefore, is that, in order for the antithetical chiasm to work in this verse, “spirit” must represent the spirit of the individual, or “the nonmaterial, intellectual, spiritual side of a man’s [sic] being, which is the seat of the religious life,” and which survives death.156 Such an interpretation is based on a misconstrued literal reading of the text, filtered through an anthropological dualism, more indicative of later Evangelical individualistic theology than of Paul.157 Consideration of the second σάρξ in 6:8a may help interpretation. While syntactically the two mentions of σάρξ can represent the same thing, the rhetorical way Paul engages the Spirit/σάρξ contrast throughout 5:16–6:10 may suggest otherwise. If the Spirit retains its cosmic sense from Galatians 5, as a sphere of power, then Paul

On sowing and reaping in non-biblical traditions, see Plato, Phdr., 260d; Aristotle, Rhet. 3.3.4; Demosthenes, Cor., 159; Cicero, Orat., 2.65; Hesiod, Megala Erga, 1; Paultus, Mer. 71; Philo: Virt. 293 Conf. 21, 152; Mut., 268–9; Som. 2.76; In the LXX: Job 4:8; Ps. 126:5; Prov. 22:8; Hos. 8:7; 10:12-13; in other STJ texts: Sir. 7:3; T. Levi 13.6, etc.; in Paul: 1 Cor. 9:11; 2 Cor. 9:6. See further, Barclay, Obeying, 164, n.63; J. L. North, “Sowing and Reaping (Galatians 6: 7b): More Examples of a Classical Maxim,” JTS 43, no. 2 (1992). 154 Moo, Galatians, 385. 155 Burton, Galatians, 342. 156 Burton, Galatians, 342. 157 E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2012), esp. 95–112. 153

136

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

may, rhetorically speaking, intend the second σάρξ in 8a to also include this sense. Consequently, 6:8a would read: The one who sows to their own individual flesh (i.e., living a selfish, self-centered life indicative of the “works of the flesh” in 5:19-21)158 from The Flesh (the malevolent cosmic power)159 they will reap corruption (with the result that, eschatologically, they will die and not inherit the kingdom of God).

­Allowing for these two meanings of σάρξ to be present in 6:8 retains the coherence of Paul’s argument throughout Galatians 3–5—especially his emphasis on freedom/ slavery motifs, and the consistency of his argument regarding the relationship between human and Spirit agency throughout 5:1–6:10. It also continues to emphasize the sociocosmic transformation that Paul now recognizes has occurred with the coming of the Spirit.160 Thus, when believers sow to their own σάρξ, they are submitting to the works of The flesh—the cosmic sphere of power 5:16-25—and will reap the consequences of this choice because they will effectively be turning back to slavery under The flesh.161 Interpreting the second σάρξ in terms of cosmic power also brings greater focus to the Spirit—especially in 6:8b, where the destruction as a consequence of sowing to the flesh in 6:8a is contrasted with the cosmic and eschatological life-giving consequence of sowing to the Spirit in 6:8b. This interpretation is consistent with Paul’s eschatology in Galatians.162 I acknowledge that my proposal represents a minority scholarly position,163 but, as I stated above, it highlights well the nuances of the Spirit/σάρξ dichotomy and human agency present throughout 5:16–6:10. A major challenge to this proposal is how we can speak of two σάρκαι, yet only one Spirit. Cleary in Galatians, outside of the Spirit, one’s own σάρξ is subject as a slave to the realm of σάρξ as power. In contrast, the Spirit Paul speaks of here in 6:8 is the Spirit of God and Christ in which and from which the Galatians believers walk and live (5:16, 25). Paul has already argued that those who are of the Spirit have, like Paul, already crucified flesh (2:19-20; 5:24) and are already experiencing the life of the Spirit (3:5; 4:6-7; 5:25).164 Sowing to the Spirit is, therefore, both sowing to the one who is their new life source as the one who is in them effecting their very being as children of God, and developing the fruit indicative of their transformed identity.

The broader context of this passage—especially 6:12-13—may suggest circumcision is part of “sowing to one’s own flesh.” Considering 5:19-21, however, pace Martyn, Galatians, 553, such a specific interpretation may be unnecessary. So, Moo, Galatians, 386. 159 De Boer, Galatians, 388. 160 Barclay, Obeying, 164. 161 Williams, Galatians, 173. 162 Morales, Restoration, 162. 163 Although see Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 195; Russell, Conflict, 185. 164 Boakye, Death and Life, 194. 158

Galatians 4:12–6:10

137

5.7 Conclusion In this chapter, I have shown that the emphasis on the Spirit in Gal. 4:21–6:10 continues to underlie the whole of Paul’s argument. Reading 4:21–6:10 with attention to Paul’s Spirit language provides coherence across the various pericopes, as well as coherence with Paul’s previous argument in Galatians 3–4. The connection between the Spirit and promise, as well as concepts of freedom and inheritance in 4:21-29, echoes much of what Paul had outlined previously in 3:14 and the early part of 4:1-7. The contrast of the Spirit/freedom with the motif of flesh/slavery in 4:31–5:1 coheres with similar motifs in 3:1–4:29. This contrast also is preparatory to what follows in 5:2–6:10. Consequently, rather than viewing 5:2–6:10 as a discrete passage and unrelated paraenesis, it presents a further development in Paul’s discussion of identity in Christ and of the Spirit. The explicit mentions of the Spirit in 5:16–6:10 highlights the centrality of the Spirit to the life of the Christian community. The Spirit is the central subject around whom life is lived, and from whom the characteristics of God are developed within believers as children of God. Furthermore, the consistent emphasis on shared agency of Spirit and believer, seen in the imperatives employed throughout 5:2–6:10, whereby the Galatians are exhorted to live according to who they are and who they are “of” (expressed as the fruit of the Spirit toward others in the community), reiterates Paul’s focus on the Galatians’ new identity. Here indicative precedes imperative. In other words, the Galatians will know what to do because they will know what they are (children, not slaves), in light of who they are of (God/Christ/Spirit). This can be represented as: Source of life σάρξ

→ →

Identity Slaves

God/Christ/Spirit

→

Children of God

→ Resulting Praxis → Works of σάρξ, biting and devouring, envy, etc. → Fruit of the Spirit, bearing, doing good, etc.

Consistent with the rest of Galatians, in 4:21–6:10 Paul continues to rearticulate his Jewish traditions according to the needs of the context in which he writes. His use of the Abrahamic narrative in 4:21-29, and his adaption of the Levitical command in 5:14 to love one’s neighbor, points to this.165 Making the Spirit rather than Torah the central point from which this imperative is enacted, and by redefining the children of the free woman in 4:21-31 as children of this same Spirit, Paul distinguishes himself from his contemporaries and his tradition.166 This consistent rearticulation of the Jewish narratives, and the apparent freedom with which Paul appears to make such changes, continues to reveal the generative nature of his theology.

Stanton, “Law of Moses,” 109. Stanton, “Law of Moses,” 106.

165 166

138

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

Finally, considering the Spirit/flesh dichotomy in 5:16–6:10 in terms of two spheres of power under which the Galatians live or are controlled reveals the way that Paul now views the socio-cosmic shift that has happened with the giving of the Spirit, and the consequential praxis expected of Spirit people. This pneumatologically defined sociocosmic motif is important in what follows in 6:11-17. Based on these factors, in the following chapter I explore possible pneumatological underpinnings in the concluding section of Galatians, especially as it relates to the new creation language in 6:14-16.

­6

Pneumatological Undertones in Gal. 6:11-17

6.1 Introduction In Chapters 3–5, I exegeted key passages from Gal. 3:1–6:10, to highlight the centrality of the Spirit in Paul’s argument. As my exegesis in this section has shown, in light of the Christ-event Paul adapted and rearticulated his Jewish tradition in order to address the issues current in the Galatian church. Central to this was the way he consistently employs covenantal identity and Spirit language throughout his argument. The mention of the Spirit at key points throughout Paul’s argument indicates that the Spirit is not secondary to other major themes in Galatians. Instead, it represents an important motif and something Paul wants his readers to keep in mind throughout the whole argument. I further argued that even when there is no explicit mention of the Spirit, several key themes in Paul’s discussion throughout 3:1–6:10 relate directly to the work of Spirit. Thus, the Spirit is never far from the surface of Paul’s thought. These two considerations—the centrality of Spirit language in the argument thus far, and the implicit relationship between pneumatology and other significant themes in Paul’s argument—help guide our discussion in this chapter. An exegesis of 6:11-17 plays a crucial part in establishing my argument about the importance of the Spirit in Galatians. I argue that, although there is no explicit mention of the Spirit in 6:11-17, the work of the Spirit is implicit in the body closing of Paul’s discussion, especially in 6:14-16 which, I propose, presents the crux of his argument. I base this proposal on two things: firstly, an understanding of the summative nature of 6:11-17 in relation to the preceding argument beginning at 3:1; and, secondly, on identification of textual parallels between 6:11-17 and other passages and themes throughout 3:1–6:10. Central to this reading is the interpretation of Paul’s new creation (καινὴ κτίσις) language in 6:15. The interpretation of καινὴ κτίσις influences our understanding of Paul’s generative theology and his consequent pneumatology and ethics. I argue, firstly, that καινὴ κτίσις in 6:15 represents a key concept for understanding Paul’s cosmogony and, as such, reciprocally informs and is informed by his pneumatology. Secondly, I argue that Paul’s new creation language reflects a similar trajectory described in Figure 1 in Chapter 1 above, and that was identified in the various cosmogenic and pneumatological trajectories that were identified and outlined throughout Chapter 2. Thus, Paul’s new creation language represents a similar cosmogenic trajectory, present in Isaiah 65, Ezekiel 37, and other STJ texts that

140

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

expressed new- and re-creation themes in terms of a new socio-cosmic reality in which anthropological transformation and covenantal renewal is located. This social, anthropological, and covenantal recreations were all encompassed within an expectation of an eschatological cosmic renewal in which the Spirit of God is the active agent. My exegesis of 6:11-17, and specifically 6:14-16, will show that Paul shares many of these assumptions and expectations. To achieve this, I firstly discuss the structure of 6:11-17 and its purpose in Paul’s argument. I argue that interpretation of the closing verses of Galatians is dependent on how this section of the letter is rhetorically understood. Drawing on the recent work of Jeff Hubing,1 I consider 6:11-17 as the closing of Paul’s argument in the letter body, and not merely as a summary post-script as is commonly assumed. Following a brief overview of Paul’s pneumatological discussion to this point, I discuss the meaning of his own signature in 6:11 located within the body-closing section, and the mention of circumcision and flesh language in 6:12-13. Both passages provide important information for setting up my claim that Paul’s main discussion has not yet come to completion. I then exegete 6:14-16 and highlight potential pneumatological undertones present in the passage. This includes a discussion of the cosmic language in 6:14 that prepares for my exegesis of 6:15. My exegesis of 6:15 considers various interpretations of καινὴ κτίσις and my own proposal for a socio-cosmic and pneumatological interpretation of the phrase. I then discuss the relevance of Paul’s use of στοιχέω in 6:16 and its relationship to the usage in 5:25. Finally, I consider interpretations of the phrase τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ (this rule), and the enigmatic reference to τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ (the Israel of God). I aim to show that a pneumatological, socio-cosmic interpretation of καινὴ κτίσις is consistent with Paul’s Spirit and identity language throughout the letter. This supports my assertion that the Spirit is central to Paul’s argument and is a suitable hermeneutical lens through which we can view the coherence of his rhetoric and theology throughout Gal. 3:1–6:17.

6.2 Gal. 6:11-17 An Epistolary or Body Closing? Some consider 5:13–6:10 to be the conclusion to or essence of Paul’s argument in the letter body. On this reading, 6:11-18 becomes a postscript to his main argument, where Paul’s autograph in 6:11 indicates the closing of his argument and the shift from the body of the letter to its closing. Consequently, the verses that follow do not formally belong to the main argument of the letter body.2 This position tends to view 6:11-18 through Hellenistic letter-closing conventions indicative of the time.3 While there are some parallels to these conventions, including Paul’s personal signature in 6:11 and his blessing in 6:18, the structure of the section, a lack of closing greetings, the recurrence Hubing, New Creation. So, e.g., Betz, Galatians, 312; Burton, Galatians, 347–8; Lightfoot, Galatians, 220; Martyn, Galatians, 559–60; Mußner, Galaterbrief, 409. 3 Witherington, Galatians, 443–5. 1 2

Galatians 6:11-17

141

of themes already present throughout the rest of the letter, and the inclusion of new information (such as reference to the stigmata in 6:17), all deviate from standard letter closing conventions. Consequently, such interpretations have to surmise why Paul would deviate so far from these conventions.4 The general approach is to argue that either the issues and strained relationship Paul has with the Galatians cause him to provide such a piecemeal conclusion,5 or that, in usual fashion, Paul breaks with rhetorical or epistolary standards.6 Alternatively, others view 6:18 as the formal epistolary closing blessing of Galatians, with 6:12-17 representing the body-closing section continuing what has been previously argued.7 In other words, 6:11-17 is the climax of Paul’s argument toward which the whole of the letter has been heading.8 Accordingly, Hubing argues that given the unusual way Paul concludes his letter: The advantage of understanding this passage as a body-closing is that we come to see it not as Paul’s résumé of points previously made, or a postscript conceived of after the real message of the letter has been finished, but as the logical conclusion of an argument Paul has been crafting throughout the letter.9

Hubing’s thesis has merit. Firstly, it provides better coherence with the rest of Paul’s argument to this point. Secondly, it removes many of the tensions arising from attempts to view this passage through traditional rhetorical frameworks of epistolary closing conventions.10 Consequently, many of the issues concerning what is included or excluded in such conventions become irrelevant. To these arguments about structure and coherence, I add a third. As a passage that reflects continuity with the preceding argument, we face the possibility that there are pneumatological undertones to Paul’s language in 6:14-16. Anticipating my conclusions below, this is most evident in Paul’s understanding of καινὴ κτίσις in 6:15. While καινὴ κτίσις is clearly inaugurated through the crucified Christ, its substance, and its realization in the

For example, in order for Galatians to fit standard conventions, Weima argues for epistolary and grammatical inclusions in the text that are unique to Galatians. Jeffrey A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings, JSNT Sup (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 157. Witherington suggests, “it is much more likely that Paul is following rhetorical than epistolary conventions in what follows 6.11.” Galatians, 440. 5 So, Lightfoot, Galatians, 220: Paul sums “up the main lessons of the epistle in terse eager disjointed sentences.” 6 See Das, Galatians, 630–1; Thompson, Persuasion, 183–4. Longenecker challenges Betz’s rhetorical structure and instead suggests that Paul is employing both Graeco-Roman and Jewish forms of argument here. Galatians, 287. 7 So, Hubing, New Creation, 264; Keener, Galatians, 576; Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 264, n.1. Although I had not considered the difference between letter-closing and body-closing passages prior to Hubing’s work, I had come to similar conclusions about 6:11-17 and 18. 8 Hubing, New Creation, 258. 9 Hubing, New Creation, 257, emphasis added. 10 For example, Hubing’s critique adequately answers Weima’s concern about “the strikingly unique character of Gal 6:11-18,” compared with Paul’s other letter closings. See Jeffrey A. D. Weima, “Gal 6:11-18: A Hermeneutical Key to the Galatian Letter,” CTJ 28, no. 1 (1993), 90–107, here, 90. For Hubing’s critique of Weima, see Hubing, New Creation, 35–42. 4

142

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

lives of the Galatian believers, consists of the now-present Spirit. In order to recognize an implicit pneumatology in this body-closing section of Galatians, it is worth briefly revisiting Paul’s pneumatological argument so far.

6.3 Paul’s Pneumatological Argument so Far Gal. 3:1-5 revealed that the Galatians received the Spirit as a direct consequence of their acceptance (ἀκοῆς πίστεως, 3:2) of Paul’s gospel message. In 3:14, Paul argued that the Spirit is the content of the Abrahamic blessing given to the Galatians on the basis of Christ becoming a curse—an inference to his crucifixion—on their behalf (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν; 3:13). In 3:16-29, Paul focuses on the Galatians’ identity, exploring questions of identity, covenantal belonging, and inheritance. This passage outlines who the true progeny of Abraham are and, consequently, who inherits the promise given to Abraham. Paul states that believers who are now of Christ are Abraham’s true offspring, and are, therefore, heirs according to “the promise” (κατ᾽ ἐπαγγελία). In light of 3:14, the content of this inheritance and promise has to be the Spirit. In 4:4-7, a passage that clearly echoes the people-of-God language of Ezek. 36:26-28 and Ezek. 37:1-15, the purpose of God sending his son (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ), is to redeem those under the law to establish them as children of God. This is actualized through the Spirit (4:6). In other words, the Spirit is the presence of God who enables and empowers the recipients to be children of God. For Paul, therefore, it is not Jewish law or any other enslaving powers that demarcate the children of God, but the Spirit. As Pretorius states, “The πνεῦμα is the One who makes people true children of God, who can freely call on his name as Father.”11 This means that “there can be no more talk of ‘second class’ children in the house of God. The πνεῦμα is par excellence the breaker down of barriers between God’s people, whatever their origin or descent.”12 Paul returns to Abraham again in 4:22-31, with a contrast between Abraham’s two sons: on the one hand, the child of a slave woman (ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης)—those born of the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα); on the other hand, the child of the free woman (τῆς ἐλευθέρας)—born of the Spirit (κατὰ πνεῦμα). Paul’s terminology here “further illustrates the synonymity involved in [his] promise/Spirit language in Galatians and again raises the question of the relationship between God’s promise to Abraham and God’s promise of the Spirit.”13 This introduces the themes of freedom and agency from which Paul’s ethics in 5:13–6:10 are developed. Those born in freedom—i.e., in Christ and of the Spirit—are now expected to live in a way that reflects this new Spirit-empowered and defined life. This life flows from a new frame of reference and a consequential new understanding of reality. Paul articulates this new reality in 5:6 using a stark dualism: it is defined by neither the delineating Jewish rite of circumcision, nor by the uncircumcision of Jewish-defined Gentile identity (both flesh constructs), E. A. C. Pretorius, “The Opposition πνεῦμα and σάρξ as Persuasive Summons (Galatians 5:13-6:10),” Neot 26, no. 2 (1992), 459. 12 Pretorius, “Opposition,” 459. 13 Hubbard, New Creation, 206. 11

Galatians 6:11-17

143

but is, instead, a reality of faith/faithfulness working through love (πίστις δι᾽ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη). While this mantra is situated “in” Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ), given the flow of Paul’s argument throughout the rest of Galatians 5, “faith/faithfulness working through love” is now defined primarily by walking (περιπατέω) and keeping in step with (στοιχέω) the Spirit (5:16, 25). While faith is a primary motif in 5:6, this must not be considered in isolation. As Moo notes, “It is both ‘by faith’ and ‘by the Spirit’ that believers await God’s ultimate righteous verdict … Galatians 5:5-6 is a key hinge in the argument of Galatians, bringing together faith … the Spirit and love.”14 Throughout the rest of Galatians 5–6, the Spirit takes center stage as the divine agent in the lives of the believers, and the presence of the Spirit in the believers provides the shape and wherewithal for them to live as children of God. The centrality of the Spirit in Paul’s account of the identity and praxis of the Galatians to this point leads us in what follows to consider a crucial question: How does Paul’s climactic affirmation about the new creation in 6:15 connect to this pneumatological emphasis?

6.4 Gal. 6:11-13 In the broader context of Paul’s argument, 6:11-13 continues the emphatic and terse tone consistently evident throughout Galatians.15 It provides important material for the crux of Paul’s argument and prepares readers for what he says about crucifixion, cosmos, circumcision, and new creation in 6:14-17. It also includes further engagement with the issue of circumcision and flesh. These themes in relation to boasting (καυχάομαι) provide an important textual link between what Paul has previously argued and what he develops further in his concluding statements in 6:14-17.

­6.4.1 Gal. 6:11 There is a clear shift of Paul’s argumentation at 6:11 that is commonly considered the transition to his letter closing.16 Autobiographical signatures were a common feature in some letter writing conventions of the time, and often represented the authentication of the letter’s author, or as a reference to indicate that the main argument or discussion had concluded.17 Furthermore, it was not uncommon for some letters to include a postscript following the signature that either summarized the main points or provided other material not necessary to the specific content of the letter.18 Paul has used this elsewhere.19 Consequently, it is plausible that Paul’s signature 6:11 represents Douglas J. Moo, “Creation and New Creation,” BBR 20, no. 1 (2010), 48. 1:6-10; 3:1-5; and, less so, 4:12-20. 16 Betz, Galatians, 312. 17 Longenecker, Galatians, 289. On the use of personal autographs in ancient writing, see Gordon J. Bahr, “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters,” JBL 87, no. 1 (1968), 27–41; Chris Keith, “‘In My Own Hand’: Grapho-Literacy and the Apostle Paul,” Biblica 89, no. 1 (2008), 39–58. 18 Richards, First-Century Letter Writing, 171. 19 1 Cor. 16:21. 14 15

144

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

his authentication, and that what follows in 6:12-18 could represent a postscript. If, however, what follows in 6:12-17 is actually an important part of the body of his argument, and 6:18 represents the epistolary closing and benediction, then the inclusion and purpose of 6:11 needs to be reconsidered. While most consider the inclusion of the epistolary aorist ἔγραψα represents an important shift in what Paul wants to say, it may not represent the common transition from a body closing to an epistolary closing as noted above. Instead, the awkward inclusion, “see what large letters I use to write to you” (Ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα), reveals Paul has something more in mind. Instead of it merely representing Paul’s personal authentication, the attention to the large size of the letters may rather emphasize the importance and seriousness of what he is about to discuss in his body closing,20 in order to indicate that what follows has “fundamental implications of what he has previously written.”21

6.4.2 Gal. 6:12-13 As he did in 5:2, 6, and 11, in 6:12-13 Paul again challenges any notion that circumcision, correlated here with flesh, has any value to the Galatians. Even the already circumcised opponents of Paul (οἱ περιτεμνόμενοι) cannot achieve what they are exhorting the Galatians to do.22 Consequently, in light of the crucified Christ, law obedience or circumcision cannot be means for boasting in status before God or others. This reiterates what Paul has said previously about the impossibility of achieving righteousness by pursuing the law, seen here through accepting the rite of circumcision (2:16; 3:21; 5:3-4). Once again, Paul confronts the issue of σάρξ in 6:12-13. In contrast to its ethical and cosmic meaning throughout the preceding argument in 5:13–6:10,23 in 6:12, σάρξ could represent the actual rite of circumcision, as suggested by “making a good showing in the flesh” (εὐπροσωπῆσαι ἐν σαρκι) and “in order to boast in your flesh” (ἵνα ἐν τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ σαρκὶ καυχήσωνται).24 Given the adjective ὑμέτερα (your), that modifies σάρξ, 6:13 certainly has this in mind. However, similarly to 6:8, the reference to σάρξ in 6:12 could also retain a broader cosmic sense I have consistently argued.25 The opponents are attempting to enforce an old-age rite of cutting flesh (circumcision) to avoid persecution under Flesh’s rule.

Das, Galatians, 633. Hubing, New Creation, 78, emphasis added. 22 The substantival participle περιτεμνόμενοι is the preferred variant here (‫א‬‎ A C D (F G) K P 0278; 33; 81; 104; 1241; 1505; 1739; 2464 pm ar f vg sy sa?). The perfective variant, περιτετμημενοι (“those who have been circumcised”: 𝔓46 B L Ψ 6. 365. 614. 630. 1175 pm b d r sa? bo; Ambst), is possible. This may represent a scribal view that the agitators as Jewish teachers are in mind (so Das, Galatians, 628), or may refer to Galatian believers who have already been circumcised (see Betz, Galatians, 316). Either way the overall intent of Paul’s concern is not affected. For other options, see Longenecker, Galatians, 292; Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 271–5. 23 With the exception of 6:9. 24 Longenecker, Galatians, 291. 25 Moo argues that both physical and theological senses are present. Galatians, 395. 20 21

Galatians 6:11-17

145

However we interpret these instances, Paul utilizes irony and sarcasm in 6:11-13 as an effective rhetorical tool to contrast his view of reality with that of his opponents. Paul’s ironic and sarcastic statements highlight the level of absurdity he considers pursuing circumcision is as a way of achieving acceptance by God. This is also one final opportunity for Paul to undermine his opposition by exposing their own selfish motivations which are twofold: firstly, the opponents want the Galatians’ circumcision to boast in the Galatians’ flesh (τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ σαρκὶ) and not their own (6:12); so that, secondly, the opponents will not be persecuted (μὴ διώκωνται) for the cross of Christ (6:13).26 The language of σάρξ and the mention of the cross relate to themes Paul has previously articulated in 5:16–6:10 with relation to the Spirit: flesh as the antithetical realm to that of the Spirit, and the bestowal of the Spirit as the consequence of Christ’s death. In the terms set out in 5:16–6:10, the opponents are those who do not have the Spirit in mind. Their imposition of circumcision reveals that they are not keeping the commandment of love for one’s neighbor which clearly reveals that their motives and actions are not Spirit based and they are, therefore, not Spirit-people.27 Consequently, “the agitators, in taking pride in physical flesh, are also and ironically allying themselves with the power of the old age”—aka, “the Flesh”.28 By exposing the wrong motives of the opponents at this point in his argument, and highlighting their inability to themselves fulfill what they desire of the Galatian believers, Paul is using his cutting remarks to highlight the weakness in their own argument. As Nanos states, “Paul approaches his addressees with the ‘surprising’ dissociating accusation that while these influencers, who seem to generously offer inclusion through proselyte identity, and may appear to be role models with regard to Torah (which defines the righteous ones in the present age), their motives are really at odds with the intentions of Torah.”29 By pointing out the irony of this, Paul hopes this will deter the Galatians from following suit. Hence, Paul offers the opponents as negative examples in contrast with his own positive example of boasting and action in 6:14 and 17.30 The reiteration of themes, such as Christ, σάρξ, circumcision, crucifixion, law, and persecution, reinforces my assertion that 6:12-17 is no postscript to Paul’s previous argument. Instead, Paul’s challenge in 6:12-13 restates some of the core issues and

This clearly refers to Paul’s own question back in 5:11: If Paul was also condoning circumcision, then why was he being persecuted (τί ἔτι διώκομαι)? As de Boer notes, within the chiasm of 6:12-13 “the subjects of the six clauses (‘those who,’ ‘these,’ ‘they’) all have ostensibly the same referent: the new preachers active in Galatia.” Galatians, 396. That these people are attempting to avoid persecution on the basis of the cross of Christ suggests that they were Jewish Christian believers rather than nonbelieving Jews. See Das, Galatians, 637. Contra, Nanos, Irony, 217–25. The themes of persecution and cross are inherently linked throughout Galatians and, within context of the Galatian crisis, persecution for the sake of the cross appears to be a present reality for both Paul and the Galatians. On this, see Dunne, Persecution; G. M. H. Loubser, “Paul’s Ethic of Freedom: No Flash in the Galatian Pan,” Neot 39, no. 2 (2005), 319. 27 Das, Galatians, 640. 28 Moo, Galatians, 395. 29 Nanos, Irony, 233. 30 Das suggests that Paul presents “himself as a model for every Christian in relation to the old-age.” Galatians, 642, emphasis added. 26

146

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

concerns in Galatians and readies his readers for the pièce de résistance of his argument in 6:14-17. Furthermore, the colocation throughout Galatians of crucifixion language with Spirit language, along with Paul’s consistent challenge that obedience to law, does not create covenant belonging, also collocated with Spirit language, suggests that the Spirit is not far beneath Paul’s argument here in 6:11-13 as well. The final thoughts of Paul in 6:14-17 bear this out.

6.5 Pneumatological Undertones in Gal. 6:14-16 6.5.1 Introduction Gal. 6:14-16 contains some of the most important and profound elements of Paul’s soteriology and new creation language. Given the prominence of the Spirit throughout Paul’s preceding argument in 3:1–6:10, a major question driving my argument has been: are there pneumatological undertones present in 6:14-16? The lack of any explicit reference to the Spirit in 6:11-17 may suggest not. This lack presents a major challenge to a pneumatological reading of the text. In the brief outline above of Paul’s argument in 3:1–6:10, however, I have proposed that, in Galatians, proclamation of the Crucified culminates in, and is inextricably related to, the reception of the Spirit.31 Furthermore, given that Cross-of-Christ language in Galatians is always correlated with Spirit-incommunity language, I have also argued that the Spirit is inherent to Paul’s argument even if the Spirit is not mentioned.32 Based on my research in Chapter 2, this is in keeping with the trajectory of STJ thinking that reconfigured the connection of the Holy Spirit and creation found in Genesis, Psalms, and some Second Temple rehearsals of Genesis, to new creation language and motifs in the likes of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the various STJ texts we discussed. As I noted in Figure 1, Chapter 1, the trajectory from cosmic creation, through anthropological creation to covenant creation, and then to new creation motifs, became one in which personal renewal and covenant renewal are embedded within a socio-cosmic renewal. In Chapter 2, I was able to show that this trajectory was evident in the diverse and generative cosmogenic rearticulations of earlier texts by later STJ thinkers. Central to these generative rearticulations was the expectation that any eschatological new-/re-creation would result in an expectation of a renewed covenant people and renewed ethic; often correlated with the sending and co-agency of the Spirit.33 In other words, the cosmic and new creation language that Paul uses here in Galatians, specifically in 6:14-16, is in keeping with the tradition in which and from which he reinterprets the present activity of God and the Spirit. As we saw in Chapter 5, Paul’s ethic in 5:13–6:10 represents a major innovation within this trajectory. This is especially seen in the way he moves beyond an emphasis on

See 3:1-2, 3:10-14; 4:4-6. See also Kwon, Eschatology, 178. Also inferred by Kwon, Eschatology, 183. 33 See Rabens, Ethics, 146–70; esp. 163–7. 31 32

Galatians 6:11-17

147

a ritualized religious ethic—where the focus is primarily on obeying the law as a way for individuals and community to rightly consider God—to a socially focused ethic in which the transformed individual loves one’s neighbor as oneself; all because of the crucified Christ and the presence of the Spirit. I propose, therefore, that we acknowledge the presence of pneumatological undertones in the body closing of Galatians, and that this can be applied to the interpretation of Paul’s discussion in 6:14-16, which I argue is the intended telos of his argument.

6.5.2 Gal. 6:14 Echoing what he stated in 2:19-20—that true life only results from a faithful response to the gospel of the Crucified Christ through active participation in the symbolic crucifying of oneself with Christ—in 6:14, Paul makes it clear that his example of this and his underlying motives for the Galatians stand in direct contrast with those who oppose him.34 In 6:14, Paul states: “But may it never be (μὴ γένοιτο) that I boast (καυχᾶσθαι), if not in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the cosmos has been crucified to me, and I to the cosmos” (δι᾽ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ). In contrast to those who read this text with a focus on a transformed “I” rather than the transformed “world” taken from 6:15, where new creation language refers to a new individual in Christ, Paul’s use of κόσμος here in 6:14 is cosmic—it represents everything of the old age, including an old-age worldview, that Paul has been contrasting with the Spirit throughout his argument. Unlike his opponents, Paul has already shown he has a different motivation for boasting. In Galatians 1, he highlighted that his previous life (1:11-14)—a life that possibly mirrored that of his opponents (1:23)—was turned around by the realization of the crucified and resurrected Christ, away from what Paul once considered important, to a new cruciform life (2:19-20). Furthermore, in 4:12, Paul’s exhortation for the Galatians to “become like me (γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ) just as I became like you (ὅτι κἀγὼ ὡς ὑμεῖς,)” is not due to any motive for personal boasting. Instead, Paul presents himself as the paradigm for the Galatians to follow.35 He represents a freed son who in Christ, and of the Spirit, is co-crucified with Christ to the cosmos, representative of the old age.36 Paul has actively endured persecution and suffering for their sake (5:11, 6:18) and, by inference, has actively and freely enslaved himself to the Galatian believers for their sake, so that they too would receive the Spirit that has empowered them to experience that same freedom.37

The personal pronouns (εμοί … ἐμοί … κἀγώ) contrast Paul with his opponents. Jackson, New Creation, 88, n.30, 89. 35 Oakes, Galatians, 189. 36 Eckstein, Verheissung, 230: “Dieser Welt, die dem >alten Äon, enspricht.” 37 See G. Walter Hansen, “A Paradigm of the Apocalypse: The Gospel in the Light of Epistolary Analysis,” in The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical And Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), esp. 146–7. I have not found many who make this paradigmatic link. See, however, Das, Galatians, 642. Paul’s stigmata in 6:17 further supports this idea. See Betz, Galatians, 324–5; Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 269–70. C.f. Das, Galatians, 652–5. 34

148

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

Thus, in direct contrast to the opponents who desire their own selfish motives, in 6:14 Paul by implication presents himself as the one who has the Galatians’ best interests in mind.38 As De Boer rightly notes that “both Paul’s nomistic self and the nomistic world that he once inhabited have been painfully put to death by his participation in the crucifixion of Christ.”39 By stating that he and the world are crucified to each other,40 Paul is willing to present himself for potential shame and persecution; but he does so in order to highlight the radical disjunction that exists between new creation life under the Spirit and life under the old age.41

The Cross or the Spirit? For Paul, in keeping with Jewish thinking, one should only boast in God and God’s work.42 In contrast to Paul, however, many Jewish thinkers considered that, because the law was eternal43 and because it was given by God, one could (and possibly should) boast in it.44 In contrast, Paul has shown the temporality of the law and its relation to the old age now that Christ has come (3:17, 19, 26). Consequently, it is not something to boast in; especially if to define one’s exclusive status before God.45 Given that Paul now sees the temporal redundancy of the law in light of the Christ-event and the presence of the Spirit, being crucified to the world means rejecting any other way of defining or seeking life.46 Furthermore, Paul presents crucifixion here in positive terms as a motif of radical disjunction from the old way of life. As Moo states, “The image is intended to highlight a decisive and total transfer from one state to another.”47 Das

Used adversatively, the particle δὲ sets up this contrast. Mußner, Galaterbrief, 414; D. F. Tolmie, Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter, Wunt 2/190 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 223. 39 de Boer, Galatians, 402. 40 The perfect of σταυρόω in both 2:19 (συνεσταύρωμαι) and 6:14 (ἐσταύρωται) represents past action with continuing results. C.f. the indicative aorist active ἐσταύρωσαν in 5:24. Longenecker, Galatians, 92, 295. 41 This contrast of ages is further emphasized when “κόσμος and κόσμῳ without the article [as per the majority reading] gives to both words a qualitative emphasis.” Burton, Galatians, 355. 42 Deut. 33:29; Psalms. 5:11; 32:11; Jer. 9:23-24. 43 Philo Opif. 1:3 “The Cosmos is in Harmony with the Law in the Law the Cosmos, and the man who observes the law is at once a Citizen of the Cosmos.” Translation from David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses, PACS (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 47. Philo appears to understand cosmos as the completed world or universe that began in Gen. 2:1. Jonathan D. Worthington, Creation in Paul and Philo: The Beginning and Before, WUNT 2/317 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 33. Furthermore, as Anderson notes, “Philo repeatedly puts humanity and the cosmos and a microcosm-macrocosm relationship.” But he diverges from the normal practice of ascribing divinity to the cosmos “in order to preserve the ontological primacy and uniqueness of God.” Anderson, Physical World, 96. Philo also viewed the law as the foundation of the world and of society. Moses 2:51. Whether Paul knew of Philo or not, Paul’s use of cosmos is distinct. While he would concur with Philo on the first two points, Paul would disagree with the last two. It is God’s creative Spirit who is the active agent in the creation and sustenance of the cosmos. 44 See Sir. 39:8. 45 Note a similar challenge to boasting in Rom. 2:17–3:27. 46 Jackson, New Creation, 94. 47 Moo, Galatians, 171. 38

Galatians 6:11-17

149

concurs. With Christ’s coming into the cosmos, “one world and its value system are being upended by a new order and a new value system.”48 The contrast between circumcision, cosmos, and crucifixion in 6:14 highlights the importance of the cross of Christ to Paul’s soteriology.49 In Galatians, apart from a mention of Christ being raised from the dead in 1:1, Paul does not focus on the resurrection in relation to the Spirit as he does elsewhere.50 Instead it is the death of Jesus that is the recurring theme.51 However, it is not the form of death itself—the “that” of the cross—that makes this motif an important and central concept to his theology. Instead, the direct correlation between the crucified Christ and the giving of the Spirit evident throughout 3:1–6:1052 suggests that it is the “who” on this particular cross (Jesus the crucified Messiah who, for Paul, is also the Son of God!), and the consequential result from that person’s crucifixion—the presence of the eschatological Spirit—that determines the value of speaking about and boasting in crucifixion and co-crucifixion as God’s work for Paul.53 Because Paul understands the giving of the Spirit as fulfillment of the prophetic vision in Ezek. 36:26-27 (Gal. 4:6),54 he can now directly connect this gift of the Spirit with Christ and his crucifixion, and consider it God’s work. Consequently, while scholarship often focuses on Christological emphases in 6:14-16, I contend that it is the resulting consequence of Christ’s death—the presence of the Spirit and the consequential new creation—that is just as important and vital to understanding this passage. In other words, Paul’s willingness to boast in crucifixion in 6:14, along with the terms of circumcision/uncircumcision (περιτομή/ἀκροβυστία), new creation language (καινὴ κτίσις), “this rule” (τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ) and “the Israel of God” (τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ) in 6:15-16, cannot not be fully understood exclusively through a Christological lens. The reality of the Spirit as the sign and experience of the new creation in 6:15 is vital to fully understand these concepts and grasp Paul’s argument in this final section of the letter-body. The exegesis that follows bears this claim out.

6.5.3 Gal. 6:15 Circumcision, Uncircumcision, and New Creation οΰτε γαρ περιτομή τί έστιν ούτε άκροβυστία άλλα καινή κτίσις

Gal. 6:15-16 is key to my proposal. Having already stated his position in relation to the cosmos in 6:14, in 6:15 Paul repeats what was he said in 5:6, but with an important modification. Circumcision and uncircumcision still mean nothing, but now what matters is new creation (καινή κτίσις). Most note the abrupt way in which Paul Das, Galatians, 642, emphasis added. As adequately discussed by Cosgrove, Cross, 171–94. 50 See Rom. 1:4; 8:11. 51 1:4; 2:19-21; 3:1, 13; 5:11, 24; 6:12, 14, 17. The resurrection is only mentioned once in 1:1. 52 3:1-2, 13-14; 4:4-6; 5:24. Contra Cosgrove, 178–9. 53 See 1:6, 12; 2:16, 17, 20; 3:1, 26-29; 4:6, 19; 5:6, 24; 6:18. The theme of crucifixion provides a textual cohesion between 2:19 and 6:14-16. See the excellent discussion on crucifixion in Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015), 72–98. 54 And possibly Jer. 31:31-34. 48 49

150

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

presents this concept. This abruptness may indicate an importance and emphasis that Paul places on this concept. This has led some to argue that καινὴ κτίσις is the guiding paradigm for the whole letter.55 Before we discuss this, a brief discussion of circumcision and uncircumcision is important.

Circumcision and Uncircumcision The terms “circumcision” and “uncircumcision” in 5:6 and 6:15 are not just intended to be understood merely in terms of physiology, even though Paul does interact with this idea throughout the letter.56 These two opposing concepts instead represent identity markers indicative of a Jewish worldview that denote social and religious exclusiveness within the sociological framework of Jewish covenant theology—an exclusivity that Paul believes belongs to the sphere of the cosmos that, in turn, belongs to the old age; the age of Flesh rather than Spirit.57 Because new creation represents a Spiritdefined transvaluation of reality,58 on “the new world’s valuation, circumcision or lack thereof no longer are of significance in light of what God has done in Christ … fleshly concerns belong to the period of minority.”59 Consequently, the presence of the eschatological Spirit in the Galatians without circumcision suggests that circumcision no longer determined identity and was no longer necessary to covenant belonging in the new creation.60 Even at this point in the body closing of the letter, this epistemological shift for Paul and the Galatian believers—seen here in Paul’s rejection of a key Jewish concept of what it means to be of God—highlights the generative nature of his thinking. While antecedent and coterminous Jewish eschatology did discuss new creation, this was mainly focused on a coming new world (Isa. 65:17; 66:22). Some even connected the Spirit with a new heart (Ezek. 36:26; Jub. 1:20-21, etc.). None went as far as Paul who viewed the inauguration of the new age as the result of the death and resurrection of the Messiah; or by suggesting that belief in the crucified Christ and the giving of the eschatological Spirit to non-Jewish believers would represent a subjugation of the law or circumcision in the way he does. In other words, what matters soteriologically for Paul is καινὴ κτίσις, and all that entails. The phrase τί έστιν in 6:15, associated with circumcision and un-circumcision, literally means “is something/anything.” Although περιτομή appears naturally in

See Longenecker, Galatians, 615 and inferred by de Boer, Galatians, 403. Especially in 6:13. 57 See however, Anderson’s caution about the incorrect use of “exclusivity” and “ethno-centrism” to describe what Paul opposes in Galatians (which Anderson suggests is a mischaracterization). Anderson argues that “it is not the exclusivity of the covenant that concerns Paul’s opponents but rather its integrity.” Perspective, 229, n.227. Although I agree that interpreters are often driven by such mischaracterizations, contra Anderson, I do not think we should completely avoid using terms such as “exclusivity.” There is sufficient evidence in Galatians, and in extant STJ literature, to suggest that in some Jewish thought exclusivity was integral for covenant integrity. 58 Moo, “Creation,” 47. 59 Keener, Galatians, 573. See also Foster, Renaming, 61. 60 Keener, Galatians, 447. 55 56

Galatians 6:11-17

151

the sentence as the nominative subject of έστιν, έστιν also relates to ἀκροβυστία, where both nouns are found in a correlative structure.61 Thus, 6:15a, οὔτε περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία, could be translated: “for (γάρ) [relating 6:15 back to what Paul has just said in 6:14] neither (οὔτε) circumcision is anything (τί ἐστιν) nor (οὔτε) uncircumcision [is anything (τί ἐστιν)], but (ἀλλά) …” The inclusion of γάρ as a connecting conjunction acts to connect 6:15 back to 6:14, and, by inference, to what Paul has argued in 6:12-13. This further reiterates that Paul views circumcision and uncircumcision as old cosmos/aeon terms that have become impotent and lost their importance and value in a cruciform new creation. Additionally, the singular construction of τί έστιν parallels the singular καινή κτίσις in 6:15b.62 Thus, even though there is a lack of verb associated with καινή κτίσις in 6:15b, τί έστιν most likely refers to that as well. The inference is that, while περιτομή and ἀκροβυστία are not anything, καινή κτίσις “is indeed something,”63 if not for Paul, everything! What is left to consider is whether we can find any connection of καινὴ κτίσις to the Spirit.

καινὴ κτίσις Although there has been an increase in scholarship that discusses Paul’s pneumatology as well as his use of new creation language, few consider καινὴ κτίσις in light of his pneumatology. If καινὴ κτίσις is a guiding paradigm that defines the epistemological shift in Paul’s thinking regarding reality, as I have been consistently alluding to, and if it is the “nub” that sums up his purpose for writing Galatians,64 then understanding what καινὴ κτίσις means in 6:15 is vital if we are to appreciate Paul’s overall argument. Furthermore, understanding it in light of Paul’s pneumatology is just as important, especially if his pneumatology is an important hermeneutical lens for understanding the whole of his argument in 3:1–6:18. The interpretation of καινὴ κτίσις in Pauline literature has primarily been understood in either anthropological, cosmic, or ecclesiological terms. Etymologically καινὴ κτίσις can mean “new creature” (an anthropological transformation, intra nos),65 or “new creation” (either a cosmological apocalyptic renewal of the heavens and the earth, or a cosmic change of rule that reconstitutes life).66 Because at times Paul speaks of the transformed individual, some argue that the first option is best.67 Others opt for the second option. This is based on the immediate context that views a contrast between DeSilva, Handbook, 114. DeSilva, Galatians, 510. 63 DeSilva, Galatians, 510, n.32, emphasis added. 64 Longenecker, Galatians, 295. 65 Hubbard, New Creation, 236. 66 See, Gerhard Schneider, “Die Idee der Neuschöpfung beim Apostel Paulus und ihr religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund,” TTZ 68, no. 5 (1959); Peter Stuhlmacher, “Erwägungen zum ontologischen Charakter der CHAINĒ CHTIDIZ bei Paulus,” EvT 27, no. 1 (1967); Hoover, “New Creation”; Aymer, “Kaine Ktisis”; Hubbard, New Creation; Jackson, New Creation; Owens, As It Was. The verbal form, κτίζω, can also denote the act or action of creating. Foerster, κτίζω, TNDT III, 1000–35 [1028]. For κτίσις as a creative act in STJ literature, see: Ps. 73:1; Jdt. 16:14; Wis. 2:6; 16:24; 19:6; Sir. 16:17; 49:16; 3 Macc. 2:2, 7; 6:2. 67 Hubbard, New Creation, 236; Schneider, “Neuschöpfung,” 269–70. 61 62

152

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

καινὴ κτίσις in 6:15 with κόσμος in 6:14, and the communal ethic outlined in 5:13–6:10 that results from the transition from old to new creation life.68 Still others argue for an additional ecclesiological dimension.69 The key is how we define ecclesiological, cosmic, and anthropological. In what follows, I briefly discuss these in reverse order.

Καινὴ κτίσις as Anthropological Renewal An anthropological interpretation of καινή κτίσις (new creature), denoting internal and individual renewal, is valid. In the wider context of Galatians 5 and 6, Paul does infer that new creation includes the internal transformation of believers70 that leads to transformed ethical praxis and promotes individual agency.71 The use of second-person plural and third-person singular verbs and pronouns in 5:3-4 points to such agency. For example, those who let themselves be circumcised are obliged to obey the whole law; while those individuals who want to be justified by the law have cut themselves off in Christ. In 6:1, each person (σεαυτόν) must be careful not to be tempted, while in 6:5, each must carry their own load (τὸ ἴδιον φορτίον βαστάσει). Reference to one’s own flesh (τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτου) in 6:8 is related to the previous discussion regarding an ethic of those who are led by and walk in the Spirit. Even the immediate context of 6:12-13 may be read as having the individual in view.72 Consequently, several scholars promote an anthropological interpretation of καινή κτίσις in 6:15. Longenecker is representative: “It is simply this: that all external expressions of the Christian faith are to be understood as culturally relevant but not spiritually necessitated, for all that really matters is that the Christian be ‘a new creation’ and that he or she expressed that new work of God and ways reflective of being ‘in Christ’ and directed by ‘the Spirit.’”73 Hubbard argues similarly. Although he notes that “as an eschatological theme, new creation has both a cosmological and an anthropological nuance in apocalyptic Judaism, and any alleged traditionsgeschichtliche evaluation of this motif in Paul’s letter must take both into account,” he nevertheless adopts a primarily anthropological interpretation.74 He argues that “it is less accurate to speak of the believer entering the new age than it is to speak of the new age entering the believer.”75 Consequently, his engagement with Gal. 6:15 interprets the text through a predominantly individualistic, salvation-transformational lens.76 Aymer, “Kaine Ktisis,” 24–8; Das, Galatians; Moo, “Creation”; Moo, Galatians; Martyn, “Apocalyptic Antinomies”; Martyn, Galatians. Contra Hubbard who suggests that ἐγώ in verse 14 corresponds to κόσμος and not καινὴ κτίσις. New Creation, 223. 69 Owens, As It Was. The interpretation of καινή κτίσις in 2 Cor. 5:17 evokes similar debate to Gal. 6:15. 70 What Anderson calls the “intensive” aspect of Pauline soteriology. Perspective, 389. 71 See the sustained discussions in Aymer, “Kaine Ktisis,” 17–20; Hubbard, New Creation, 192–225. 72 Even Gal. 5:6 can be viewed individualistically. On the alternation between communal identity and personal responsibility in Gal. 5:25–6:10, see Barclay, Obeying, 155–70. 73 Longenecker, Galatians, 296, emphasis added. 74 Hubbard, New Creation, 52. 75 Hubbard, New Creation, 224, emphasis original. 76 Also referred to as a soterio-anthropological lens. This is partly because Hubbard begins his discussion of Paul’s new creation language with 2 Cor. 5:17, which informs his anthropological reading of Galatians. 68

Galatians 6:11-17

153

Καινὴ κτίσις as Cosmic Renewal While an anthropological interpretation is valid, interpreting καινή κτίσις primarily this way does not fully consider Paul’s broader argument.77 Anthropological transformation in Galatians is one element of the broader vision that Paul offers. Interpreting καινή κτίσις this way is problematic because it neglects the corporate and cosmic nature of Paul’s understanding of the individual in community and cosmos.78 Little of Paul’s Spirit- and ethical language is purely individualistic. Even if Paul does at times indicate individual transformation and agency, this is predominantly located in corporate language that refers to the community in which individuals belong and act.79 Furthermore, considering the apocalyptic and cosmic nature of his argument in the Spirit /flesh contrast throughout Gal. 3:1–6:10 and again in 6:14-17, both individual and communal transformation, and the resulting ethic, are all embedded within concepts that are presented in cosmic terms. This suggests, therefore, that interpreting καινή κτίσις in cosmic terms is also valid, if not more appropriate. For example, both Jackson80 and Owens81 acknowledge anthropological elements are present in Paul’s concept of new creation, but maintain that cosmology dominates the phrase. Betz also acknowledges that the recreation occurs within the individual, but this is outworked in a broader setting of the “old world.” Thus, new creation amounts “to the replacement of the old world.”82 Mell is also representative of this view. Mell locates Paul’s understanding of the term clearly within his Jewish tradition but suggests that his own context impacts the way he reappraises and applies it.83 The cross of Christ reflects a new reality in which the world (welt) belongs to a pre-Christian (vorchristlichen), God-hostile (gottfeindlichen) soteriology.84 According to Mell, the new creation for Paul impacts more than just ecclesial realities (a breakdown of the exclusivity of synagogue, etc.),85 but also social contexts (how community and social relationships are developed and maintained).86 Furthermore, when Paul lets the crucified cosmos function as a counter-concept to new creation in Gal. 6:14c, he removes καινὴ κτίσις from its usual ecclesiological framework and adds a cosmic dimension.87 The eschatological Christ-event signifies a cosmic-soteriological turning point for the whole world and not just an anthropological or ecclesial renewal.88 Thus, καινὴ κτίσις represents a new eschatological-soteriological ordering (eschatologisch-soteriologischen Ordnung),89 where the Christ-event has It is also more indicative of later Christian, individualistic soteriology. See, Eastman, Person, 176; Ferguson, Relational Anthropology, 97–132. 79 Williams, Galatians, ANTC, 166. 80 Jackson, New Creation, 113. 81 Owens, As It Was, 87. 82 Betz, Galatians, 320. Contra Sejong Chun, “Paul’s New Creation: Vision for a New World and Community in the Midst of Empires” (PhD, Vanderbilt, 2012), 20. 83 Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 35. 84 Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 297. 85 Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 303–15. 86 Both concepts are grounded in the universalizing impact of the relationships of Gal. 3:28. 87 Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 316. 88 Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 316–17; 324. 89 Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 317. 77 78

154

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

brought about a new eschatological and universal constitution of the world in which believers, through baptism, now participate in the new Christian community. Mell’s interpretation of new creation language in Galatians is sensitive to the theological dynamics that lie behind Paul’s use of the term, and his consequential emphasis on cosmic transformation.90 As Chapter 2 revealed, there is ample evidence in OT biblical and extra-biblical texts that there are distinct cosmic aspects within creation and new creation language, and that also include the Spirit’s agency in this activity. Thus, a broader reading of the context of Paul’s argument in Galatians, and possible antecedent traditions that he drew on in developing his thinking, supports a cosmological reading here in Galatians.91 While a cosmic interpretation of καινή κτίσις may be preferred over an anthropological one, there are limitations to utilizing this framework as the primary lens to interpret the meaning and scope of the term. A major concern for adopting a cosmological reading is that Paul does not present a total rupture and replacement of the cosmos as was evident in some Jewish apocalyptic texts.92 In other words, within Paul’s apocalyptic and eschatological language in Galatians, new creation does not mean the whole of the cosmos has somehow been replaced.93 Consequently, the idea of a cosmic reading of καινὴ κτίσις must be nuanced to include anthropological and ecclesiological dimensions also present in the concept.94

Both Anthropological and Cosmological Renewal Hoover argues that because “Paul thinks in apocalyptic terms” where the present age “was ended by the crucifixion of Christ,” new creation language in Galatians must include cosmic renewal.95 Nevertheless, the existing tension between flesh (which Hoover interprets anthropologically) and Spirit, and the continuing demand of law, and calendrical observances which were determined by the outmoded στοιχεῖα Mell, Neue Schöpfung, 324. Similarly, Moo, “Creation.” Moo calls Paul’s concept of new creation a “new state of affairs” representing a “cosmic renovation” (51). This new state of affairs, located within an “apocalyptic-oriented argument of Galatians,” has a thoroughgoing relationship to Jewish apocalyptic thought. 91 Apart from Gal. 6:14, see also Gal. 4:3 which retains this nuance. Adams argues that “Paul employs κόσμος and καινὴ κτίσις within an apocalyptic framework. The terms express the spatio-temporal dualism of ‘this world’ and ‘the new creation’” Constructing, 231. Contra Hubing, who opts for an anthropological reading. Hubing states that “Paul never refers in this letter (or any other letters for that matter) to anything like a new cosmos that has been introduced outside of those who have believed the gospel as an object reality.” New Creation, 244, emphasis added. A lack of an explicit concept, however, does not negate possible implicit inferences in the language and motifs Paul uses throughout his argument. Nor does it negate an implied presence of a preexistent cosmology; something that does not require such explicit mention. 92 Bird, Anomalous, 162. The apocalyptic eschatology of some later STJ texts included ideas that the present age would be destroyed, and that the cosmos—the heavens and earth—would be decisively and radically transformed, if not replaced. According to this scenario, those considered “the righteous” will experience this transformation and receive God’s Spirit within a replaced cosmos. 93 Also true of 2 Cor. 5:17. 94 Chun, “New Creation,” 5–19. 95 Hoover, “New Creation,” 139. 90

Galatians 6:11-17

155

suggest that there is an anthropological aspect to the term. Any talk of cosmic new creation must, therefore, acknowledge this tension.96 The way Hoover overcomes this is to suggest that, while aspects of the present evil age still exist, “this tension does not mean that the new creation is present only in some inner, subjective way while the oldage continues unabated in the outer realm. In Paul’s thought it is impossible to separate these two areas.”97 The presence of the Spirit enabling inner renewal life in the Spirit “is possible only because of the cosmic change wrought by Christ.”98 More recently, Jackson argues that many, including Hubbard, fall into a “false dichotomy” between anthropology and cosmology.99 For Jackson καινὴ κτίσις includes both anthropological and cosmological soteriology.100 While there are aspects of both in Paul’s thought, it is unlikely that he would have divided these two concepts into isolated categories.101 In contrast to Hubbard, Jackson begins his exegetical discussion with Gal. 6:15.102 This is after considerable discussion on the background to new creation language in the Old Testament,103 early Jewish literature,104 and a comparison between Roman imperial ideology and Paul’s concept of new creation.105 In doing so Jackson reiterates the chronological primacy of the term in Paul’s thought.

Καινὴ κτίσις as an Ecclesiological Concept As noted, opting for either a primarily anthropological or cosmic focus of καινή κτίσις has limitations. Recent scholarship has tended to hold one or other of these positions when attempting to interpret καινή κτίσις in context. In doing so, certain aspects inherent in the phrase are often ignored or minimized.106 In seeking to overcome some of the tensions present in such binary interpretations such as these, some argue for an additional ecclesiological dimension.107 For example, Owens argues that the strong emphasis throughout Galatians on the corporate and communal impact the new creation motif evokes, even in 6:15, suggests καινὴ κτίσις should also be viewed ecclesiologically.108 While this is more reflective of Ephesians, where new creation language is implicit in the new humanity and building motifs in Ephesians1–2,109 there are definite ecclesiological inferences in Galatians as well. Support for adding Hoover, “New Creation,” 137. Hoover, “New Creation,” 137–8. 98 Hoover, “New Creation,” 138. 99 Jackson, New Creation, 4. 100 What Hubbard calls “soterio-anthropology” and “soterio-cosmology,” New Creation, 222. 101 Jackson, New Creation, 173. 102 Jackson, New Creation, 83–114. 103 Jackson, New Creation, 17–32. 104 Jackson, New Creation, 33–59. 105 Jackson, New Creation, 60–80. 106 Chun, “New Creation,” 31. 107 E.g., Owens, As It Was. Inclusion of an ecclesial dimension highlights the corporate and communal emphases I see present in Paul’s ecclesiology and ethics in Galatians. 108 Owens, As It Was, 86. This correlates with Hubbard’s third category, soterio-ecclesial. New Creation, 222. 109 Owens, As It Was, 121–70. 96 97

156

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

an ecclesial dimension to καινή κτίσις in Gal. 6:15 includes the presence of ritualistic language of circumcision, and a key focus throughout Galatians on the community of the people of God. Thus, Owens asserts: [F]or Paul to assert “there is no longer Jew or Greek” in Christ (Gal 3:28) is to speak not only of the inauguration of a New World, but also … to express the fundamental eradication of ecclesiological distinctions which divided the old-age. Furthermore … the closely related declaration οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ultimately points to the abrogation of the law and cannot be separated from Paul’s large ecclesiological interest in explaining the redefinition of the people of God that has transpired with the dawn of the new age.110

For Owens, both κόσμῳ and οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει, οὔτε ἀκροβυστία “must be read in light of the complex interaction between eschatology and soteriology that Paul outlines in the main body” of Galatians111; which, for Owens, also includes ecclesial dimensions.112

­ oward a Possible Solution: καινή κτίσις as a Pneumatologically Defined, T Socio-Cosmic Renewal Irrespective of which position is taken, common exegetical discussions of 6:15 place an emphasis on interpreting καινή κτίσις as an abstract concept, rather than allowing the context to help identify the emphasis and meaning Paul places on the term. In other words, the context in which Paul uses new creation language in Galatians must inform our interpretation of καινή κτίσις. Based on the broader context and Paul’s argumentation throughout Galatians, I see all three aspects—cosmological, anthropological, and ecclesiological—are equally present in the concept of καινή κτίσις, and all three motifs are evident in Galatians.113 Neither are these views mutually exclusive, as I have adequately discussed. Jackson concurs. In relation to καινή κτίσις in 6:15, Jackson argues that this represents Paul’s soteriology which “should not be spoken of in isolation as cosmological, anthropological or ecclesiological.”114 According to Paul an individual cannot be a creaturely new Owens, As It Was, 85, emphasis added. Owens, As It Was, 85. 112 For other important works, see: Edward Adams, “Paul’s Story of God and Creation: The Story of How God Fulfils His Purposes in Creation,” in Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, ed. Bruce W. Longenecker (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002); Aymer, “Kaine Ktisis”; Chun, “New Creation”; Caroline Schleier Cutler, “New Creation and Inheritance: Inclusion and Full Participation in Paul’s Letters to the Galatians and Romans,” Priscilla Papers 30, no. 2 (2016). 113 Owens points to “an interrelationship between anthropology, cosmology and ecclesiology” in 1:4; 2:1-3, 7, 21; 3:6-14, 27; 4:6; 5:4-6. As It Was, 86, n.87. To which I would add the covenantal language that includes the Jerusalem motifs in 4:24-26. 114 Jackson, New Creation, 114, emphasis added. However, apart from this statement and reference to an ecclesiological interpretation of new creation in 2 Cor. 5:17 (144), Jackson’s discussion surprisingly explores no ecclesiological elements in Galatians. Furthermore, where he suggests that these “mutually inclusive” emphases are held together by “a Christological focus” (114), I argue that it is both Christological and pneumatological at the same time. 110 111

Galatians 6:11-17

157

creation (anthropological renewal) until an eschatological socio-cosmic renewal occurs—which the Christ-event and present Spirit represent for him. In other words, cosmic renewal in Paul precedes anthropological transformation. As Keener rightly notes, “the biblical background, which was certainly available and widely evoked in Paul’s day, includes individual transformation but as part of a wider transformation of the world.”115 Furthermore, and ever present in Paul’s discussion, the Galatian Christian community is in view. The transformed Galatian community are now incorporated into the covenantal children of God, reflecting a shift in the fabric of social and community relationships, and thus inferring an ecclesiological dimension in Paul’s use of καινή κτίσις.116 This ecclesiological renewal also requires a socio-cosmic renewal. Thus, the Christian community is not itself the new creation but belongs to it.117 My analysis in Chapter 2 evidenced an interaction between cosmic, corporate, and individual creation and new creation ideas that included the agency of the Spirit. What this revealed was that prior to Paul, there existed a common Jewish understanding of the role of the Spirit in creation, new creation, and the covenantal people of YHWH. As my discussion so far has revealed, for Paul, the Spirit’s work relates to the cosmic, corporate, and individual aspects of the Galatians’ experience. Anthropological, social, and ecclesial transformation occurs within a broader cosmic renewal inaugurated by Christ and effected by the agency of the Spirit. In most of the scholarship that discusses καινή κτίσις in Galatians, reference to the Spirit is noticeably secondary, if not absent.118 While this is likely due to the lack of explicit Spirit language in 6:14-16, given the implicit pneumatology evident throughout Paul’s argument, I argue that understanding καινή κτίσις through a pneumatological lens adds a further dimension to the interpretation of this key phrase and serves to connect Paul’s statement to the overall argument of Galatians 3–6. Paul’s understanding is that the Spirit is the life-giving presence of God within the believing community and the agent of the new creation. Reading Paul’s new creation language in relation to the Spirit in Galatians is also consistent with the correlation between crucifixion, cosmos, and Spirit that I have argued is evident in earlier passages. Keener, Galatians, 574, emphasis added. A possible parallel may exist between the establishment of the New Jerusalem of Isaiah and Paul’s use of καινὴ κτίσις. In early Greek usage, κτίσις sometimes denoted the establishment of cities or an authoritative governing body. Adams, Constructing, 77. Three things in Galatians may infer such an allusion. Firstly, the contrast between περιτομή and ἀκροβυστία as two competing oldworld designators representing two governing bodies (the “former things” of Isaiah) compared with καινὴ κτίσις as the new defining socio-cosmic order (6:15). Secondly, the cosmic content of 6:14-16 (κόσμος in v. 14 and τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν in v. 16). Thirdly, reading Galatians 3–6 as presenting a contrast of life within two realms—that of the cosmos under sin/flesh compared to freedom under the Spirit. Paul may be utilizing καινὴ κτίσις in 6:15 to reinforce what Isaiah 65–66 was alluding to, where God’s new creation will be seen in the establishment of God’s new eschatological people, represented by the New Jerusalem (The Israel of God in Gal. 6:16?), who are governed by a new ethic. All of these aspects of new creation are ratified by the presence of the Spirit. The Spirit inaugurates and continually transforms this new people. Gal. 3:28 may also inform this social understanding of κτίσις. On this, see Gesila Nneka Uzukwu, The Unity of Male and Female in Jesus Christ: An Exegetical Study of Galatians 3.28c in Light of Paul’s Theology of Promise, LNTS (London: Bloomsbury, 2015). 117 Adams, Constructing, 228. 118 See, however, Yates, Creation, 121. 115 116

158

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

Clearly for Paul, the resurrection of Christ has radically changed the eschatological fabric of his thinking. What has occurred is a change in the state of the cosmos, evidenced by the presence of the eschatological Spirit in both the believer (3:2, 14; 4:6) and community (3:5).119 The Spirit is the agent and manifestation of this new state of affairs. Keener concurs. “This new creation life involves a revolution in new perspective on everything, viewing this age from the standpoint of Christ’s eschatological act in history and its consequences for eternity. Although the old age continues, Paul belongs to the world to come which is already invaded history in Jesus Christ through the power of the Spirit.”120 I argue, therefore, that for Paul καινή κτίσις represents a pneumatologically empowered and shaped socio-cosmic renewal that involves spiritual transformation with a consequential radical epistemological shift, resulting in an individual, communal, and cosmic new creation.121

Summary Conclusion to καινὴ κτίσις as a Pneumatological Concept As I have consistently argued, Paul’s understanding of the Spirit in Galatians, grounded in his received Jewish tradition, is generatively re-presented by him as the presence of God in the form of the Spirit of God’s Son, who is the agent reconstituting a new creation reality for the Galatian believers. The Spirit is central to Paul’s argument in Galatians because it is central to Jewish understandings of God’s creative power in relation to the cosmos and humanity. Understanding how the Spirit functions in the rest of the letter, therefore, allows us to acknowledge an implicit presence of the Spirit in Paul’s new creation language here in 6:14-16. As Paul draws together his arguments about the Galatians’ Abrahamic identity and its ethical consequences, the language of new creation points to the Spirit’s work of cosmic and personal transformation. Consequently, the Spirit is implicit within, and constitutive of Paul’s pneumatologically empowered and defined socio-cosmic καινή κτίσις. The presence of God’s Spirit then represents an eschatological renewal and perspective of reality that includes the individual experience of transformation and reorients what community and life looks like “in Christ” and “of ” the Spirit, as opposed to being under Law, flesh, or Sin in the old cosmos. While this renewal may possibly result in the total renewal of the physical cosmos in the future, this is not explicit here. For the meantime, the present cosmos is experiencing the realization of the children of God in the form of both redeemed Jews and Gentiles who have the Spirit. It is plausible, therefore, that for Paul, καινή κτίσις represents a new cosmos—one ruled by the Spirit, seen as the antithesis of the old cosmos that he and, hopefully, also the Moo, “Creation,” 51; Robert Tannehill, Dying and Rising with Christ. A Study in Pauline Theology, BZNW (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967), 64. 120 Keener, Galatians, 572–3. 121 A socio-cosmic motif can include the idea of an apocalyptic renewal. This term aligns closely with an ecclesiological understanding of the term, but also involves much more. See also, Wright, Faithfulness of God, 2.756. According to Wright, in light of the Christ-event, the whole soteriological agenda is both personal and cosmic for Paul. It deals with sin in the human person as well as dealing with “the larger problem of ‘Sin’ as a supra-human power, and ‘Death’ as it’s equally powerful consequence … within the larger problem of the cosmos as a whole.”

119

Galatians 6:11-17

159

Galatians believers have now been crucified to.122 While the tension of the old is still present, given that God’s eschatological Spirit is now present, Paul now anticipates that those in Christ and of the Spirit will, in freedom, choose to live within the καινή κτίσις through keeping in step with the Spirit through expressing the characteristics indicative of this new existence and identity—to each other in the Spirit-community, and beyond to the crucified cosmos; something that 6:16 confirms.

­6.5.4 Gal. 6:16 This Rule, and the Israel of God στοιχήσουσιν and τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ Some final comments about 6:16 support my argument for a pneumatological reading of καινή κτίσις and Paul’s discussion since 3:1. In 6:16, Paul evokes “peace and mercy on (εἰρήνη ἐπ᾿ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος) as many who (ὅσοι) keep in step (στοιχήσουσιν) with this rule (τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ).” The phrase “this rule” most likely refers to what Paul has just summed up in the term καινὴ κτίσις.123 The verb Στοιχέω is rarely used in the New Testament and only four times by Paul.124 As I noted in Chapter 5, it had military origins and originally meant “to be drawn up in line” or to “keep rank” but eventually came to mean “be in agreement with” or to “keep step with.” Previously in 4:9, Paul contrasted the new status of believers in Christ—children who have received the Spirit of God’s son—with their previous status as slaves under τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. In the argument of Galatians 4, the weak and worthless, enslaving στοιχεῖα offers no comparison to the freedom that is found being born according to the Spirit (4:7, 29). In 5:25, the verb στοιχέω, employed as a hortatory subjunctive, encouraged agency on the part of the believer in freely choosing to keep in step with the Spirit (πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν); believers choose to align their lives in such a way that reflects their new identity as Spirit-people. This same sense is retained in 6:16.125 There is a standard or way of living within new creation that is expected of believers, for which the Spirit’s continued presence is necessary. Given these parallels, Paul deliberately employs στοιχέω instead of the more common περιπατέω in 6:16 because of its inclusion in the preceding argument. Paul’s return to the language of 4:9 and 5:25 infers the connection of the Spirit to the new creation rule.126

ὁ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ Following his encouragement of peace and mercy, Paul includes the enigmatic phrase: καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ (and upon the Israel of God). The phrase ὁ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ is widely debated, especially regarding how it may or may not relate to those who Note the passive tense of ἐσταύρωται in 6:14. Keener, Galatians, 575–6. 124 Rom. 4:12; Gal. 5:25; 6:16; Phil. 3:16. 125 Whereas Gal. 5:25 has the subjunctive στοιχῶμεν, 6:16 has the future active, στοιχήσουσιν. This does not affect my argument here. See further, Hubing, New Creation, 246. 126 See also, Boakye, Death Life, 166; 205. 122 123

160

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

follow “this rule.” The phrase is not found elsewhere in Paul or extant intertestamental writings to date.127 Interpretations of ὁ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ include:128 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

The larger church made up of Jews and Gentiles who adhere to the rule in 6:15, The Jewish people, Jewish Christians who adhere to the rule in 6:15, Law-observant Jews who are Christ followers, The historic Israel, A portion of Israel (God’s own Israel) within the whole of Israel.

The argument for and against each position has strengths and weaknesses.129 The main difficultly lies with the inclusion of καί at the beginning of the phrase (καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ).130 That is, does καί introduce a coordinate phrase to those who adhere to the rule in 16a?131 Or does it introduce a subsequent phrase where Paul is evoking the blessing on a separate group?132 There is no consensus of the correct interpretation and space does not permit a full exploration of the various positions.133 Taking into consideration what I have argued so far, however, a brief note is on order. If contextual matters determine the intent and meaning of an expression, then the broader context of this passage and Paul’s previous discussion on the identity of the Galatian believers may help. Given the foregoing discussion, and Paul’s argumentation throughout Galatians surrounding identity, it may be that Paul is emphasizing who exactly God’s true Israel is, in contrast to those who suggest otherwise (his opponents).134 Because there is little evidence of the use of the phrase elsewhere, two views are currently considered. On the one hand, Longenecker argues that Paul was using it because it was “a selfdesignation of his Jewish Christian opponents in Galatia—one they used to identify their type of fulfilled Judaism.”135 Thus, Paul was appropriating it for his own argument and including the Galatian audience in his view of what constitutes the true Israel of God. Alternatively, while Das agrees with Longenecker that, to date, there is no evidence of the term “Israel of God” in extant STJ or Rabbinic literature, he argues that this “lack of any parallel mitigates against the notion that Paul is drawing on the Jewish rivals’ language. It is most likely his own ironic formulation.”136

Longenecker, Galatians, 299. 1–4 is from de Boer, Galatians, 405–8. Matera includes 5–6 and separates #1 into 2 groups: The church made up of Jews and Gentiles, and those who adhere to “this rule.” Galatians, 232. Betz opts for #3. Galatians, 323. 129 See further Das, Galatians, 645–52; Susan Grove Eastman, “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9-11,” NTS 56, no. 3 (2010), 369, n.6. 130 For discussion, see the relevant commentaries. Most note the puzzling syntax in verse 16. See Eastman, “Re-reading,” 371. 131 This reads καί epexegetically. Das, Galatians, 647–52. Contra, Bruce, Galatians, 274–5. 132 de Boer, Galatians, 406. 133 See further Keener, Galatians, 575–82. 134 Foster, Renaming, 61. 135 Longenecker, Galatians, 298–9. 136 Das, Galatians, 647.

127 128

Galatians 6:11-17

161

Paul has already made it clear throughout Galatians 3 and 4, that he “defines God’s Israel in terms of those who adhere to his Gospel message,”137 and have the Spirit as a result. These are Abraham’s true descendants and, therefore, God’s children.138 Throughout his argument in 3:1–6:17, Paul continually emphasizes that the presence of the Spirit in the Galatians indicates they are already experiencing the blessing of God—not as converted proselytes, or slaves to another regime, but drawn into covenant relationship with God through faith and experiencing the status of fully fledged children.139 As such they are experiencing now the partial yet real fulfillment of God’s eschatological new creation in which they and faithful Israel now participate. If this is the case, then Paul utilizes ὁ Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ himself, to emphasize to his readers who they are, and reiterate again what or who determines identity in a new creation setting.140 Owens’s argument is, therefore, compelling. He promotes an inclusive interpretation along ecclesiological lines, suggesting that the phrase points “to the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ,” and thus, “forms an integral aspect of Paul’s new creation theology.”141 This supports a modified position #1 where the second καὶ ἐπὶ acts epexegetically to restate in broader terms who the “they” represent (ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς) in the first clause: the Galatian believers and all “who, like them, conduct themselves according to the rule of the new creation”; Jew and Gentile alike.142 As Paul draws his exhortation to a close, he reminds his readers that it is not exclusively those of a circumcision-defined Torah-people who are God’s true people—God’s true children—but those who through faith are of the Spirit and live accordingly; a fitting conclusion to a dynamic letter.

6­ .6 Conclusion I have argued in this chapter that there are indications to suggest that Gal. 6:11-17, and especially 6:14-16, includes pneumatological undertones, even if the Spirit is not mentioned in this passage. Through the crucified Christ, God has established a καινή Das, Galatians, 652. See, e.g., Rhoads, “Children,” 296: “Abraham is ‘Israel’—not the Israel of the flesh … but the Israel created by the Spirit and living by faith … The new community is the manifestation of the new creation. They are the children of Abraham, Judean and Gentile alike, who are ‘in Christ.’ They are therefore ‘the Israel of God’—the metaphorical Israel.” Contra Moo, Galatians, 400–3. 139 Williams, Galatians, NCCS, 177. 140 Contra, Philip la Grange Du Toit, “Reading Galatians 6:16 in Line with Paul’s Contrast between the New Aeon in Christ and the Old Aeon before the Christ-event,” STJ 2, no. 2 (2016), 218–20. 141 Owens, As It Was, 86. 142 Matera, Galatians, 232. See also, Bird, Anomalous, 163–4; Wright, Faithfulness of God, 1143–6. There is a danger of possible supersessionist implications of this claim, where the Christian community is seen to replace Israel as God’s chosen people. I do not think Paul has this in mind. He has already drawn from his own tradition that covenant inclusion (justification/righteousness) has to do with faith/faithfulness (Gal. 2:16 and 3:11 [citing Hab. 2:4]; see also Rom. 3:28). Paul will pick this idea up again in Rom. 2:28-29. There a person is not a Jew outwardly (relating to circumcision) but one inwardly (οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομή, ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος). Later in Romans 9–11, Paul grapples with the very issue of God’s faithfulness to his own Jewish people and concludes that a remnant will be saved alongside the ingrafted Gentiles (11:5, 26-32—although in 11:26 Paul implies all Israel will experience God’s mercy). See further Keener, Galatians, 580–2. 137 138

162

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

κτίσις; a new creation from which a new view of reality is understood, experienced, and expressed. In this new creation it is the Spirit of God that defines life under the leadership of the crucified Messiah. As I have continually asserted, the lack of explicit discussion on a given theme in Paul does not negate inferred or implicit knowledge, or intent.143 I have effectively highlighted in my exegesis of 3:1–6:10 that because the Spirit is mentioned at key points throughout Paul’s argument, even when there is no explicit mention of the Spirit, the Spirit is implicitly present. Additionally, wherever the crucifixion and/or the cosmos are mentioned throughout Galatians, there is a correlated mention of the Spirit. It is on this basis that I argue the Spirit is also implicit to Paul’s discussion in 6:11-16. Hubbard concurs. Because the Spirit is central to so much of Galatians, “it is utterly inconceivable that Paul could summarize this letter’s central themes and entirely omit any reference to the Spirit.”144 My exegesis of 6:11-17 provides several observations that support this assertion. I began by arguing that 6:11 does not represent Paul’s signature indicating the completion of his main argument or body closing, with 6:12-18 acting as a postscript, indicative of most of the scholarship. Instead, it prepares readers for the importance of what Paul is about to argue. Gal. 6:12-13 included a charge against Paul’s opponents that even they could not uphold what he believed they were compelling the Galatians to do. Furthermore, I noted that their selfish motivations revealed they were in fact not Spiritpeople. This set up for Paul’s argument in 6:14-17 where he contrasts his opponents’ motivation by, firstly, highlighting that his boast is focused elsewhere, in the very act of God’s new revelation—the cross of Christ, with a corresponding presence of the Holy Spirit. This event and Paul’s response reveal a change of cosmos and conviction. Just as he has been crucified to the cosmos so also the cosmos is crucified to him. This led to my main thesis in 6:15 that we should understand that καινή κτίσις represents for Paul a Christologically inaugurated and pneumatologically defined socio-cosmic new creation. My exegesis and discussion bore this out. Firstly, the cosmological terms used throughout 6:14-16 and the preceding argument suggest that Paul views καινή κτίσις as a cosmological shift rather than merely a narrower anthropological transformation. Secondly, exploration of the broader context prior to 6:14 highlighted that the contrasts between the Spirit and flesh (σάρξ), so central to Galatians 5, were continued into Galatians 6. Within the immediate context of 6:14-16, “the preceding verses (6:12-15a) virtually itemize the Spirit-contrasted ideas of the law, the flesh, and circumcision, to which καινὴ κτίσις is antithetically juxtaposed.”145 Taking this into consideration, therefore, I argued that the new creation language of καινὴ κτίσις in 6:15 becomes a term that encapsulates all that Paul has been arguing throughout Galatians. Consequently, καινὴ κτίσις is a phrase that not only delineates an ethical expression of life under the Spirit, but it also encapsulates everything Paul has been talking about regarding the Spirit and identity. On implicit and inferred knowledge in Paul, see, e.g., Keck, “Thinker,” 29; Scott, Paul’s Knowing, 10, n.13. 144 Hubbard, New Creation, 226, emphasis original. 145 Hubbard, New Creation, 226. 143

Galatians 6:11-17

163

I argue, therefore, that in Paul’s cosmogony in Galatians, καινή κτίσις represents a new pneumatologically configured socio-cosmic renewal and reality. This sociocosmic renewal is one that may be inaugurated by Christ’s life and death, but it is pneumatologically determined and shaped. It may be grounded in Paul’s tradition, but in his hands, it represents a fresh trajectory, borne out of experience of the Spirit— both his and the Galatians. As such, Paul’s use of καινή κτίσις in 6:15 provides a clear example of the generative nature of his theology—especially his cosmogeny and pneumatology—and, when allowed its proper place in a reading of Galatians, provides a suitable and valuable hermeneutical key for reading 3:1–6:17 pneumatologically.

164

­7

Conclusion

7.1 Summary Overview The aim of this book was to explore aspects of Paul’s cosmogony and pneumatology in Galatians and consider their importance for an understanding of his argument in the letter and, in particular, his use of the phrase καινὴ κτίσις in 6:15. In Chapter 2 I explored biblical and extra-biblical texts that draw on the creation narratives in Gen. 1:1-2 and 2:7 and adapt them into fresh cosmogenic expressions suited to the context of the respective authors. Utilizing language reminiscent of these creation narratives, later Jewish literature presents the Spirit as the creative force behind the creation and recreation of cosmic and human life. Notwithstanding the ambiguous nature of ‫רוח‬/πνεῦμα throughout the biblical and extra-biblical texts, what is significant in these reconstituted narratives is a developing understanding in which the Spirit of God is perceived in more personal and concrete terms. Furthermore, considering the challenges of their particular cultural and historic contexts such as exile and dominating empires, the authors of these texts began to envisage an eschatological future where God would renew the cosmos and transform the people (predominantly Israel) into the people of God. This renewal and transformation directly involve the agency of the Spirit. The diversity across this literature reveals trajectories of ongoing generative theology relating to the relationship between the Spirit and (re-)creation. The themes of Spirit, cosmos, humanity, and covenantal people-of-God language (expressed in Paul as children of God language) are expressed in ways reminiscent of the Genesis creation cosmogonies, but clearly re-presented in terms relevant to the current context. The trajectory is consistent with the flow of thought illustrated in Figure 1, Chapter 1.1 This led to a tentative conclusion, which I later ratified, that while both Paul and earlier STJ thinkers shared the same cosmology and cosmogenic antecedent traditions and texts, contextual exigencies led to distinct cosmogonies and pneumatologies. In Chapter 3 I exegeted Gal. 3:1-5. These brief verses include many of the key motifs that Paul draws on for his argument concerning the relationship between the Spirit, identity, and life. I argued that justification per se is not the main concern of Paul in this text. Instead, the reception of the Spirit, first noted in 3:2, is a suitable lens through See p. 3.

1

166

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

which the rest of the letter can be understood. My exegesis of this section revealed the potential centrality of the Spirit for Paul’s argument in Galatians 3–6. Once the importance of a pneumatological lens for understanding Paul’s argument had been established, in Chapter 4 I provided a careful exegesis of selected passages in Gal. 3:6–4:11. My exegesis highlighted again the centrality of the Spirit to his discussion; especially seen in the linchpin verses, 3:14 and 4:6. The placement of the Spirit at key points throughout this section is significant. The Spirit should not be viewed merely as an appendage to a Christological reading of these passages, even when the Spirit is not explicitly mentioned. In fact, wherever Christology is mentioned, I was able to show that this is shortly followed by Spirit language, supporting my argument the Spirit is important to Paul’s discussion. An important conclusion from 3:6–4:11 is that Paul views the Spirit as vital to the initiation and development of Galatian believers as children of God. In Chapter 5 I explored the role of the Spirit in Gal. 4:21–6:10, with a focus on 5:13-25. I highlighted, once again, that Paul’s Spirit language appears at key points throughout this section and impacts his discussion in important ways. I argued that σάρξ in this passage does not represent anthropological human nature or a sinful inclination that is antithetical to the Spirit. Instead, for Paul, it is a cosmic master who, like τὰ στοιχεῖα and Torah, controls those who adhere to its works—indicative of slavery, not of freedom and sonship under the Spirit. The contrast between works and fruit in 5:19-23, therefore, does not merely represent an internal battle within a believer, as is often suggested in modern interpretations of the text. Instead, this contrast represents the two lifestyles under the enslavement of σάρξ or under the lifegiving realm of the Spirit. Under Spirit rule, believers are not enslaved to the Spirit, but free to enact their own agency to walk in this freedom in and with the Spirit, expressing the Spirit’s fruit in their relationships to others. I concluded that, in keeping with Paul’s consistent emphasis throughout the previous argument, Spirit-empowered identity is the driving motivation of Paul’s argument in 4:21–6:10. Consistent with the centrality of the Spirit to Paul’s argument throughout 3:1–6:10, in Chapter 6 I argued that 6:11-17 is not just a postscript to his previous argument. It is, in fact, a continuation of the main body of his discussion and its intended telos. Even though there is no mention of the Spirit in 6:11-17, based on the consistent presence of the Spirit at key points throughout Paul’s preceding argument, I argued that pneumatological inferences are present and underpin his discussion in this passage as well. Given the Christological and cosmic emphases in 6:14, and the language of circumcision in 6:15, language that was previously contrasted with faithfulness and love (as the main substantive expression of the fruit of the Spirit in Gal. 5:22), I proposed that the creative, life-giving, identity forming work of the Spirit is implicit in Paul’s new creation language. I concluded that 6:14-16 reveals that structures that determined identity and covenantal belonging under an old cosmic system are now obsolete because of the καινὴ κτίσις: the new creation inaugurated by Christ but implemented and substantiated by the presence of the Holy Spirit. As such, καινὴ κτίσις represents for Paul, a pneumatologically defined socio-cosmic new creation that includes anthropological, cosmic, and ecclesiological dimensions.

Conclusion

167

Consequently, I concluded that, when 6:11-17 and specifically 6:14-16 is read pneumatologically, then 6:15 becomes the crux of Paul’s argument in Galatians. Furthermore, a pneumatological reading of this and Paul’s previous discussion in 3:1–6:10 reveals a consistency and coherence of Paul’s argument throughout Galatians 3–6.

­7.2 Reading Galatians through a Pneumatological Lens These exegetical discussions suggest that the new-creation life that Paul envisions may have been inaugurated by Christ but is pneumatologically determined. This understanding is likely the direct result of the encounter with the Spirit that both Paul and the Galatian church experienced. While some recent scholarship have suggested that this apocalyptic experience constitutes a radically new inbreaking of God into the cosmos and experience in the person of Christ, based on the terminology Paul employs, and his use of Jewish narratives, both implicit and explicit throughout Galatians, I conclude that his pneumatology reflects more continuity with his Jewish tradition. Paul’s God is the same God of his Jewish tradition; the God who created the cosmos and humanity through the agency of the Spirit, who established the covenant community; who gave the law and who promised the blessing of Abraham to Abraham’s seed (singular), which Paul now considered the reception of the Spirit. At the same time, Paul takes that traditional Jewish narrative on a fresh trajectory. The Spirit plays, for Paul, an even greater part in his reconfigured cosmogony grounded in Christ in two distinct ways. Firstly, the Spirit replaces the law as the ground of being and reality of a new creation. Secondly, we begin to see that Paul develops his pneumatology beyond merely being an attribute of God such as wisdom, or merely a servant of God. Instead, in Galatians, the Spirit is spoken of in far more personal terms than many of his predecessors did. Thus, the generative nature of Paul’s theological reflection is seen in the way he draws on the tradition and language of his Jewish past and his current context in order to present a fresh understanding of the person of the Holy Spirit and the place the Spirit has in the formation and transformation of both individual and community.2 Such a pneumatological reading that brings the Spirit to the forefront of the interpretation of Galatians provides a lens through which Paul’s argument and argumentation can be seen to be both coherent and consistent. The Spirit is the decisive evidence of God’s acceptance (justification/vindication) of Gentile believers. The Spirit confirms their status as God’s children and inheritors of a present-future existence—a new cosmos, a new identity, a new socio-cosmic existence, in which circumcision nor uncircumcision means nothing … only καινὴ κτίσις.

So also, Frey, “Paul’s View,” 244, n.20.

2

168

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

7.3 Paul’s Pneumatological Cosmogony So, what does Paul’s new cosmogony consist of? In contrast to some STJ thought, Paul’s new cosmogony is not strictly aligned with Jewish apocalyptic expectation that foresaw the destruction of the old world, along with the annihilation of the nonfaithful Jew and unrighteous Gentile.3 Instead, Paul’s cosmogony involves an epistemological revolution of reality; a shift in thinking to what God presently doing, as well as what God will do some time in the future. While for Paul, the coming of Christ inaugurated something new, this “new” thing is not necessarily a replacement of the old but is, in fact, a reconfiguration of what already existed, reshaped, and refocused by the Spirit. Paul recognizes that God is fulfilling antecedent promises and restoring true life to all by the Spirit—at least to all who respond in faith to his gospel of the crucified Christ. While Christ remains of central importance to Paul, in Galatians it is the presence of the Spirit that determines and substantiates the reality of this new creation and, subsequently, the new identity of the Galatian believers.4 For Paul, therefore, the Christian community is the living testimony of this Spirit-defined καινὴ κτίσις. While καινὴ κτίσις in Galatians includes anthropological transformation, this transformation is not restricted to the individual. Instead, anthrōpos exists within community; and both exist within cosmos. One influences and impacts the others. This socio-cosmic καινὴ κτίσις into which covenant people are included is only possible because of the Spirit.5 Καινὴ κτίσις, therefore, denotes a radically new way of living, where old binary ways of determining identity and covenantal belonging is now obsolete.6 Where once περιτομή and ἀκροβυστία provided important demarcation markers for Judaism, Paul now considers them old-cosmos or old age designators; derogatory and enemy-forming labels that no longer fit within God’s new order. As Longenecker states, Paul’s new creation “is a sphere of life wholly different from the cosmos that has been crucified to Paul, a domain where distinctive patterns of life are operative … Paul belongs to this new world, where different standards apply, different rules are followed, different habits formed, different ways of life practised, and a different ethos exists.”7 Individuals participate in this new creation insofar as they enact their For those who consider Jewish Apocalyptic as a primary theological focus of Paul’s thought, see the extended discussion in Davies, Apocalyptic Paul. Also, Beker, Triumph of God; Longenecker, Triumph; Jerry L. Sumney, “‘In Christ There Is a New Creation’: Apocalypticism in Paul,” PRSt 40, no. 1 (Spring 2013), 35–48; John K. Goodrich, Jason Maston, and Ben C. Blackwell, Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2016); Donald E. Gowan, “The Fall and Redemption of the Material World in Apocalyptic Literature,” HBT 7, no. 2 (1985), 83–103; Campbell, Deliverance. Loubser, “Ethic of Freedom,” esp. 316–19. 4 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 7, no. 15 (1999), 96. 5 Ferguson, Relational Anthropology, 244–6. 6 Gal. 3:28 reflects this. Although Gal. 3:28 does not contain all the binary social strata present in Paul’s day, it offers readers an opportunity to explore the impact of these and similar binary opposites within their own contexts. So, Marianne B. Kartzow, “Towards an Intersectional Hermeneutic: Constructing Meaning with and Not of Galatians 3–4,” in Pauline Hermeneutics: Exploring the “Power Of the Gospel,” ed. Eve-Marie Becker and Kenneth Mtata (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt GmbH, 2017), 96. 7 Longenecker, Triumph, 37. 3

Conclusion

169

agency within a renewed community, by becoming like Paul and dying to the cosmos, by walking with and keeping in step with the Spirit and enslaving themselves to others in love—irrespective of old social identity markers, gods or law.8

7.4 Further Research Firstly, throughout my research I identified a growing body of scholarship that considers Paul’s position within Second Temple Judaism (STJ). My work adds to this conversation in its claim that Paul is a generative theologian and that his pneumatology reflects a reconfigured cosmogony. My analysis has been focused on the relationship between Spirit and the new creation in Galatians. Further research might explore other dimensions of Pauline pneumatology in the argument of other letters and their relationship to pneumatological and cosmological traditions within STJ thought. Secondly, the evident colocation of Christ, crucifixion, and Spirit themes throughout Galatians provides impetus for exploration of similar connections in other Pauline texts, such as 2 Corinthians 3–6 and Romans 7–8. While the Christological and pneumatological themes in these passages have been much explored, little work has been done to consider how the colocation of the aforementioned themes interacts in similar ways to the pattern of thought I have identified here in Galatians. Consideration of these connections might offer new insights into how we interpret Paul’s discussion in these other letters. Finally, based on the identity-shaping nature of new creation language with respect to the Spirit, further research is needed into Paul’s understanding of what constitutes identity, the individual, and the community. This has pastoral implications for understanding the way that Paul’s letters help shape identity and praxis in the local church. Because Pauline thinking has a major impact on modern evangelical thought, considering the more embedded and socio-cosmic dynamic of καινὴ κτίσις as I have presented here, may help address some of the existential anxiety and ambiguity current in modern theological expressions of personal and Christian identity, and Christian vocation. An understanding of Paul’s presentation of the true freedom and status of Christian believers goes a long way to address potential distorted ideas and theologies current in Christian communities today of sin, salvation, and the redeemed person— especially around the ideas of identity, personhood, and human agency.

7.5 Final Thoughts A major motivation for this work was not only to give due consideration to how the biblical text is faithfully read, but also to how the Christian community faithfully implements what is learnt from reading Paul. The letter to the Galatians is less about Kern, Rhetoric, 138. Bertone states that “the Spirit which initiated and maintains believers’ vertical relationship with God [also] gives meaning and understanding to horizontal relationship with their surroundings and circumstances.” “Function,” 97.

8

170

The Spirit, New Creation, and Christian Identity

propositional orthodoxy (right theology), indicative of later Christian dogma. Instead, it constitutes an impassioned plea about identity, belonging, and consequential praxis—a plea situated within a fresh cosmogony that is generatively developed out of a central, historical narrative, and redefined in light of contextual realities. Just as Paul implores the Galatian believers to remember who they are because of who they are “of,” the interpretation of Paul’s thought has implications for current contexts as well. When Christians understand who they are (their identity/being) in light of Christ and the Spirit, then their “doing” (their Christian vocation and praxis) makes more sense. When people struggle to understand who they are, then other voices— other gospels—can easily sway them and lead them back into forms of psychological, emotional, and spiritual “slavery”; back to the very places from which God, in Christ and by the Spirit, has redeemed them. While individuals, society, and cosmos all still struggle under the shatteredness of sin and suffering, Galatians reveals that God’s revelation of Christ shows a glimpse of a new way of being—a new reality that flows from an apocalypse of a new possible future, toward which the cosmos under God’s Spirit is heading. Considering that the Spirit is already present in Christian believers and the Christian community, this new future is a new creation which they experience and participate in now. It is this understanding and experience that allows Christian believers to say with Paul and the Galatians, οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις. All to the glory of God, through Christ our Lord, in and by the power of the Holy Spirit.

B ­ ibliography Abegg, Martin G. “4QMMT C 27, 31 and ‘Works Righteousness.’” DSD 6, no. 2 (1999): 139–47. Adams, Edward. Constructing The World: A Study in Paul’s Cosmological Language. SNTW. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000. Adams, Edward. “Paul’s Story of God and Creation: The Story of How God Fulfils His Purposes in Creation.” In Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, edited by Bruce W. Longenecker, 2–43. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Aletti, J-N. “Paul’s Exhortations in Galatians 5: 16–25.” In Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, edited by Mark W. Elliott, Scott J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright and John Frederick, 318–34. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014. Algra, Keimpe. “Plutarch and the Stoic Theory of Providence.” In Fate, Providence and Moral Responsibility in Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Thought, 117–36. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2014. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 20-48. WBC 29. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990. Allen, Leslie C. Psalms 101-150. WBC. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983. Ambrose, Kimberly. Jew among Jews: Rehabilitating Paul. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015. Anderson, A. A. “The Use of ‘Ruah’ In 1QS, 1QH and 1QM.” JSS 7, no. 2 (1962): 293–303. Anderson, Charles A. Philo of Alexandria’s Views of the Physical World. WUNT 2 309. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Anderson, Garwood P. Paul’s New Perspective: Charting a Soteriological Journey. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016. Arnold, Clinton E. “‘I Am Astonished That You Are so Quickly Turning Away!’ (Gal 1.6): Paul and Anatolian Folk Belief.” NTS 51, no. 3 (2005): 429–49. Arnold, Clinton E. “Returning to the Domain of the Powers: Stoicheia as Evil Spirits in Galatians 4:3, 9.” NovT 38, no. 1 (1996): 55–76. Ashton, John. The Religion of Paul the Apostle. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. Attridge, Harold W, Torleif Elgvin, Jozf Milik, Saul Olyan, John Stugnell, Emanuel Tov, James Vanderkam, and Sidnie White. Qumran Cave 4 VIII, Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. DJD. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Averbeck, Richard E. “Breath, Wind, Spirit and the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament.” In Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, edited by David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, 25–37. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. Averbeck, Richard E. “Holy Spirit in the Hebrew Bible and Its Connections to the New Testament.” In Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit: An Investigation into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today, edited by Daniel B. Wallace and M. James Sawyer, 15–36. Dallas, TX: Biblical Studies Pr, 2005. Aymer, A. J. D. Paul’s Understanding of Kaine Ktisis. Continuity and Discontinuity in Pauline Eschatology. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest UMI Dissertation Publishing, 1983. Bahr, Gordon J. “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters.” JBL 87, no. 1 (1968): 27–41.

172

­Bibliograph

Baker, Christopher T. “The Identity of the Spirit in Paul: Did the Spirit Come to Possess a Distinct Identity within Paul’s Christian Monotheism?” PhD, Australian Catholic University, 2013. ­Barclay, John M. G. “Mirror-Reading a Polemic Letter: Galatians as a Test Case.” JSNT 31 (1987): 73–93. Barclay, John M. G. Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians. Vancouver: Regent College, 1988. Barclay, John M. G. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015. Barclay, John M. G. “Paul’s Story: Theology as Testimony.” In Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, edited by Bruce W. Longenecker, 133–56. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Barclay, John M. G. “Stoic Physics and the Christ-event: A Review of Troels EngbergPedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).” JSNT 33, no. 4 (2011): 406–14. Barclay, John M. G. “Πνευματικός in the Social Dialect of Pauline Christianity.” In The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn, edited by Graham Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker and Stephen C. Barton, 157–67. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics IV.3.1: The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Edited by Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Bates, Matthew W. “Beyond Hays’s Echoes of Scripture In the Letters of Paul: A Proposed Diachronic Intertextuality with Romans 10:16 as a Test Case.” In Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation, edited by Christopher D. Stanley, 263–91. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012. Batto, Bernard F. “The Covenant of Peace: A Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif.” CBQ 49, no. 2 (1987): 187–211. Bauckham, Richard. “When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered.” Review. JTS 51, no. 1 (2000): 226–8. Beale, G. K. “The Old Testament Background of Paul’s Reference to ‘the Fruit of the Spirit’ in Galatians 5:22.” BBR 15, no. 1 (2005): 1–38. Becker, Eve-Marie. “How and Why Paul Deals with Traditions.” In Pauline Hermeneutics: Exploring the “Power Of the Gospel,” edited by Eve-Marie Becker and Kenneth Mtata, 27–36. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt GmbH, 2017. Beker, Johan Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980. Beker, Johan Christiaan. The Triumph of God: The Essence of Paul’s Thought. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990. Benoit, Pierre. “Qumran and the New Testament.” In Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by J. Murphy-O’Connor, James H. Charlesworth and Pierre Benoit, 1–30. New York: Crossroad, 1990. Berger, Allan. S. “The Evil Eye—An Ancient Superstition.” JRH 51, no. 4 (2012): 1098–103. Bernstein, M. J. “The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the History of Early Biblical Interpretation.” In Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, edited by H. Najman, J. H. Newman, J. H. Monahan and Jan Just Witkam, 215–38. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Bernstein, M. J. Reading and Re-reading Scripture at Qumran: Genesis and Its Interpretation. STDJ. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2013. 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 7, no. 15 (1999): 75–97.

­Bibliograph

173

Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1979. ­Bilezikian, Gilbert. “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead.” JETS 40, no. 1 (1997): 57–68. Bird, Michael F. An Anomalous Jew: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016. Bird, Michael F. The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. Blackwell, Ben C., John K. Goodrich and J. Maston, eds. Reading Romans in Context: Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “The Cosmological and Protological Language of Deutero-Isaiah.” CBQ 73, no. 3 (2011): 493–510. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 56-66. AB. New York: Doubleday, 2003. Block, Daniel I. The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 25-48. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Block, Daniel I. “The Prophet of the Spirit: The Use of RWH in the Book of Ezekiel.” JETS 32, no. 1 (1989): 27–49. Boakye, Andrew K. Death and Life: Resurrection, Restoration, and Rectification in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2017. Botros, Sophie. “Freedom, Causality, Fatalism and Early Stoic Philosophy.” Phronesis 30, no. 3 (1985): 274–304. Briggs, Charles A. “The Use of Ruaḥ in the Old Testament.” JBL 19, no. 2 (1900): 132–45. Brinsmead, Bernard H. Galatians, Dialogical Response to Opponents. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Brooke, George J. “Qumran Pesher: Towards the Redefinition of a Genre.” RevQ 10, no. 4 (40) (1981): 483–503. Brooke, George J. “Shared Exegetical Traditions between the Scrolls and the New Testament.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by John J. Collins and Timothy H. Lim, 565–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Broyles, Craig C. Psalms. NIBC. Peabody, MA; Carlisle: Hendrickson; Paternoster Press, 1999. Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982. Bruce, F. F. “Holy Spirit in the Qumran Texts.” In The Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society Vol. 6, edited by J. MacDonald, 49–55. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005. Buchanan, Grant. “Identity and Human Agency in Galatians 5–6.” ABR 68 (2020): 50–62. Buell, Denise Kimber and Caroline Johnson Hodge. “The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 2 (2004): 235–51. Bundrick, David R. “Ta Stoicheia Tou Kosmou (Gal 4:3).” JETS 34, no. 3 (1991): 353–64. Burke, Trevor J. Adopted into God’s Family: Exploring a Pauline Metaphor. NSBT. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006. Burkes, Shannon. “Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Wisdom of Solomon.” HTR 95, no. 1 (2002): 21–44. Burton, Ernest DeWitt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921.

174

­Bibliograph

Byrne, Brendan. Sons of God, Seed of Abraham: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of all Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background. AnBib. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979. ­Byron, John. Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity: A TraditioHistorical and Exegetical Examination. WUNT 2/162. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Campbell, Douglas A. The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Campbell, Douglas A. “The Trinity in Paul: From Confession to Ethics.” In Essays on the Trinity, edited by Lincoln Harvey, 192–216. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2018. Cara, Robert J. Cracking the Foundation of the New Perspective On Paul: Covenantal Nomism Versus Reformed Covenantal Theology. Tain: Mentor, 2017. Carlson, Stephen C. The Text of Galatians and Its History. WUNT 2/385. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Charles, R. H. The Book of Jubilees; or The Little Genesis. London: SPCK; Macmillan, 1917. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Rule of the Community and Related Documents. 7 vols. Vol. 1, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Tübingen; Louisville: Mohr Siebeck; Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. Chesnutt, Randall D. “When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered.” Review. JBL 119, no. 4 (2000): 760–2. Chester, Andrew. “Resurrection and Transformation.” In Auferstehung—Resurrection, edited by Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger. WUNT 135, 47–77. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Cho, Youngmo. Spirit and Kingdom in the Writings of Luke and Paul: An Attempt to Reconcile These Concepts. Bletchley: Paternoster, 2005. Choi, H. S. “ΠίΣΤΙΣ in Galatians 5:5-6: Neglected Evidence for the Faithfulness of Christ.” JBL 124, no. 3 (2005): 467–90. Christiansen, Ellen J. The Covenant in Judaism and Paul: A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Markers. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Chun, Sejong “Paul’s New Creation: Vision for a New World and Community in the Midst of Empires.” PhD, Vanderbilt, 2012. Clifford, Richard J. “The Hebrew Scriptures and the Theology of Creation.” Theological Studies 46, no. 3 (1985): 507–23. Clifford, Richard J. “The Unity of the Book of Isaiah and Its Cosmogonic Language.” CBQ 55, no. 1 (1993): 1–17. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew.” HTR 82, no. 1 (1989): 13–33. Collins, John J. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. London: Routledge, 1997. Collins, John J. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. Collins, John J. The Scrolls and the Bible. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013. Cosgrove, Charles H. The Cross and the Spirit: A Study in the Argument and Theology of Galatians. Louvain. Macon, GA: Peeters; Mercer, 1988. Cover, Michael B. “‘Now and Above; Then and Now’ (Gal 4: 21–31).” In Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, The Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, edited by Mark W. Elliott, Scott J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and John Frederick, 220–9. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014.

­Bibliograph

175

Cox, Ronald R. By the Same Word: Creation and Salvation in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity. BZNW. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1-50. WBC 19. Waco, TX: Word, 1983. ­Crane, Ashley S. Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36-39. VTSup. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Cryer, Frederick H. “Genesis in Qumran.” In Qumran between the Old and New Testaments, edited by Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson. JSOT Sup, 98–112. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Cutler, Caroline Schleier. “New Creation and Inheritance: Inclusion and Full Participation in Paul’s Letters to the Galatians and Romans.” Priscilla Papers 30, no. 2 (2016): 21–9. Das, A. Andrew. Galatians. Concordia. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2014. Das, A. Andrew. Paul and the Stories of Israel: Grand Thematic Narratives in Galatians. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2016. Davidson, Richard M. “The Creation Theme in Psalm 104.” In The Genesis Creation Account and Its Reverberations in the Old Testament, edited by Gerald A. Klingbeil, 149–88. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2015. Davies, J. P. The Apocalyptic Paul: Retrospect and Prospect. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022. Davis, Basil S. “The Meaning of Proegraphe in the Context of Galatians 3.1.” NTS 45, no. 2 (1999): 194–212. Day, John. From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1-11. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014. de Boer, Martinus C. Galatians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. de Boer, Martinus C. “The Meaning of the Phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου in Galatians.” NTS 53, no. 2 (2007): 204–24. de Kock, W. J. Out of My Mind: Following the Trajectory of God’s Regenerative Story. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014. de Vries, Pieter. “The Relationship between the Glory of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH in Ezekiel 33-48.” OTE 28, no. 2 (2015): 326–50. Delling, Gerhard. “βασκαίνω.” In TDNT I, edited by Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley, Gerhard Friedrich and Ronald E. Pitkin. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964. Delling, Gerhard. “στοιχέω, συστοιχέω, στοιχεῖον.” In TDNT VII, edited by Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley, Gerhard Friedrich and Ronald E. Pitkin, 666–87. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964. Derrett, J. and M. Duncan. “New Creation: Qumran, Paul, The Church, and Jesus.” RevQ 13, no. 1/4 (49/52) (1988): 597–608. DeSilva, David A. Galatians: A Handbook on the Greek Text. BHGNT. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014. DeSilva, David A. Global Readings: A Sri Lankan Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011. DeSilva, David A. The Letter to the Galatians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018. DeSilva, David A. Transformation: The Heart of Paul’s Gospel. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014. Di Mattei, Steven. “Paul’s Allegory of the Two Covenants (Gal 4.21-31) in Light of FirstCentury Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics.” NTS 52, no. 1 (2006): 102–22. Donaldson, Terence L. “The ‘Curse of the Law’ and the Inclusion of the Gentiles: Galatians 3. 13–14.” NTS 32, no. 1 (1986): 94–112.

176

­Bibliograph

Donaldson, Terence L. Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Universalism (to 135 CE). Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. Donaldson, Terence L. Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1997. ­Donfried, Karl. “Paul the Jew and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures, edited by Matthias Weigold, Emanuel Tov, and Armin Lange. VTSup, 725–33. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Du, Toit and Philip la Grange. “Reading Galatians 6:16 in Line with Paul’s Contrast between the New Aeon in Christ and the Old Aeon before the Christ-event.” STJ2 2, no. 2 (2016): 203–25. Dunn, James D. G. “4QMMT and Galatians.” NTS 43, no. 1 (1997): 147–53. Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of The Incarnation. 2nd ed. London: SCM Press, 1989. Dunn, James D. G. The Epistle to the Galatians. BNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993. Dunn, James D. G. “Galatians.” Chap. 14. In A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit, edited by Trevor J. Burke and Keith Warrington, 175–86. London: SPCK, 2014. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. London: SPCK, 1990. Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul. WUNT. Rev. ed. Grand Rapid, MI: Eerdmans, 2008. Dunn, James D. G. Paul and the Mosaic Law. WUNT 89. Tübingen: Mohr, 1996. Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Dunne, John Anthony. Persecution and Participation in Galatians. WUNT 2/454. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Dunne, John Anthony. “Suffering and Covenantal Hope in Galatians: A Critique of the ‘Apocalyptic Reading’ and Its Proponents.” SJT 68, no. 1 (2015): 1–15. Dunne, John Anthony. “Suffering in Vain: A Study of the Interpretation of ΠΑΣΧΩ in Galatians 3.4.” JSNT 36, no. 1 (2013): 3–16. Easley, K. H. “The Pauline Usage of Pneumati as a Reference to the Spirit of God.” JETS 27, no. 3 (1984): 299–313. Eastman, Susan Grove. “The Evil Eye and the Curse of the Law: Galatians 3.1 Revisited.” Article. JSNT 24, no. 83 (2002): 69–87. Eastman, Susan Grove. “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9-11.” NTS 56, no. 3 (2010): 367–95. Eastman, Susan Grove. Paul and the Person: Reframing Paul’s Anthropology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017. Eckstein, Hans-Joachim. Verheissung und Gesetz: Eine Exegetische Untersuchung zu Galater 2,15-4,7. WUNT 86. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996. Edwards, James R. “Galatians 5:12: Circumcision, the Mother Goddess, and the Scandal of the Cross.” NovT 53, no. 4 (2011): 319–37. Edwards, Matthew. Pneuma and Realized Eschatology in the Book of Wisdom. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Ehrensperger, Kathy. Paul at the Crossroads of Cultures: Theologizing in the Space-Between. LNTS 456. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013.

­Bibliograph

177

Ehrensperger, Kathy. “The Question(s) of Gender: Relocating Paul in Relation to Judaism.” In Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle, edited by Mark D. Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm, 245–76. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. Ehrensperger, Kathy. Searching Paul: Conversations with the Jewish Apostle to the Nations. WUNT 429. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. ­Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. OTL. 2 vols. London: SCM Press, 1967. Elgvin, Torleif. “The Genesis Section of 4Q422 (4QParaGenExod).” DSD 1, no. 2 (1994): 180–96. Elliott, John H. Beware the Evil Eye: The Evil Eye in the Bible and the Ancient World. 4 vols. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2015–17. Elliott, John H. “Paul, Galatians, and the Evil Eye.” CurTM 17 (1990): 262–73. Elliott, John H. “Social-Scientific Criticism: Perspective, Process and Payoff. Evil Eye Accusation at Galatia as Illustration of the Method.” HTS 67, no. 1 (2011): 1–10. Elliott, Mark A. The Survivors of Israel: A Reconsideration of the Theology of Pre-Christian Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Elliott, Susan. Cutting Too Close for Comfort: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians in Its Anatolian Cultic Context. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels, ed. Paul in His Hellenistic Context. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. “Paul’s Body: A Response to Barclay and Levison.” JSNT 33, no. 4 (2011): 433–43. Erickson, Richard, J. “Flesh.” In DPL, edited by F. Gerald, Martin Hawthorne, P. Ralph and Daniel G. Reid, 303–6. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Esler, Philip F. Galatians. London: Routledge, 1998. Eslinger, Lyle. “Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category.” VT 42, no. 1 (1992): 47–58. Estes, Daniel J. “Creation Theology in Psalm 148.” BSac 171, no. 681 (2014): 30–41. Etheridge, J. W. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum [Tr.] from the Chaldee. London: Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts, 1862. Fatehi, Mehrdad. The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications. WUNT 2/128. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Fee, Gordon D. Galatians: Pentecostal Commentary. Blandford Forum: Deo Publishing, 2007. Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. Fee, Gordon D. Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson 1996. Fee, Gordon D. Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. Feldman, Ariel. “4Q422 (Paraphrase of Genesis and Exodus).” In Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts That Rework The Bible, edited by Devorah Dimant. BZAW, 81–129. Boston, MA: De Gruyter, 2014. Ferguson, Samuel D. The Spirit and Relational Anthropology in Paul. WUNT 2/520. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. Doi: 9783161590764. Firth, David G. “Spirit, Creation and Redemption in Isaiah.” In New Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Essays in Honor of Hallvard Hagelia, edited by Markus Zehnder. PHSC, 31–51. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2014.

178

­Bibliograph

Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Fishbane, Michael. “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner-Biblical Exegesis.” JBL 99, no. 3 (1980): 343. ­Fisk, Bruce N. “Paul among the Storytellers: Reading Romans 11 in the Context of Rewritten Bible.” In Paul and Scripture: Extending the Conversation, edited by Christopher D. Stanley, 55–94. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Semitic Background of the New Testament: Combined Edition of Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament and, a Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Foster, Robert B. Renaming Abraham’s Children: Election, Ethnicity, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 9. WUNT 2/421. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Fowl, Stephen E. “Who Can Read Abraham’s Story? Allegory and Interpretive Power in Galatians.” JSNT 17, no. 55 (1995): 77–95. Fredriksen, Paula. “Judaism, The Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2.” In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, edited by Mark D. Nanos, 235–60. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Fredriksen, Paula. Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017. Fretheim, Terence E. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2005. Frey, Jörg. “How Did the Spirit Become a Person?” In The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, edited by Jörg Frey and John R. Levison. Ekstasis, 343–71. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014. Frey, Jörg. “Investigation of the Scrolls and the New Testament.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Timothy H. Lim and John J. Collins, 517–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Frey, Jörg. “Paul’s View of the Spirit in the Light of Qumran.” In The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, edited by Jean-Sébastien Rey, 237–60. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Frey, Jörg and John R. Levison. “The Origins of Early Christian Pneumatology: On the Rediscovery and Reshaping of the History of Religion’s Quest.” In The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, edited by Jörg Frey and John R. Levison. Ekstasis, 1–37. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014. Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Gabriel, Andrew K. “Pauline Pneumatology and the Question of Trinitarian Presuppositions.” In Paul and His Theology, edited by Stanley E. Porter, 347–62. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Gaffin, Richard B. “‘Life-Giving Spirit’: Probing the Center of Paul’s Pneumatology.” JETS 41, no. 4 (1998): 573–89. Garlington, Don B. “Paul’s ‘Partisan ek’ and the Question of Justification in Galatians.” JBL 127, no. 3 (2008): 567–89. Garlington, Don B. “Role Reversal and Paul’s Use of Scripture in Galatians 3.10-13.” JSNT 65 (1997): 85–121. Gaston, Lloyd. “Works of Law as a Subjective Genitive.” SR 13, no. 1 (1984): 39–46. Gilbert, Maurice. La Sagesse de Salomon: Recueil d’études. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011. Goldingay, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 56-66. ICC. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.

­Bibliograph

179

Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology. 3 vols. Milton Keynes; Downers Grove, IL: Paternoster; InterVarsity Press, 2003–9. ­Gombis, Timothy G. “Arguing with Scripture in Galatia.” In Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letters, edited by Mark W. Elliot, Scott J. Haffemann, N. T. Wright, and John Frederick, 82–90. Grand Rapids. MI: Baker Academic, 2014. Goodrich, John K. “Guardians, Not Taskmasters: The Cultural Resonances of Paul’s Metaphor in Galatians 4.1-2.” JSNT 32, no. 3 (2010): 251–84. Goodrich, John K., Jason Maston, and Ben C. Blackwell. Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2016. Gorman, Michael J. Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Gorman, Michael J. Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019. Gottlieb, Fred. “The Creation Theme in Genesis 1, Psalm 104 and Job 38-42.” JBQ 44, no. 1 (2016): 29–36. Gould, Josiah B. “The Stoic Conception of Fate.” JHI 35, no. 1 (1974): 17–32. Gowan, Donald E. “The Fall and Redemption of the Material World in Apocalyptic Literature.” HBT 7, no. 2 (1985): 83–103. Gowan, Donald E. Theology of the Prophetic Books: The Death and Resurrection of Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. Grant, Jamie A. “Spirit and Presence in Psalm 139.” In Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, edited by David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, 136–46. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. Greene, Joseph R. “The Spirit in the Temple: Bridging the Gap between Old Testament Absence and New Testament Assumption.” JETS 55, no. 4 (2012): 717–42. Grindheim, Sigurd. “Not Salvation History, but Salvation Territory: The Main Subject Matter of Galatians.” NTS 59, no. 1 (2013): 91–108. Gunton, Colin E. The Promise of Trinitarian Theology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. Gupta, Nijay K. “Mirror-Reading Moral Issues in Paul’s Letters.” JSNT 34, no. 4 (2012): 361–81. Gupta, Nijay K. Paul and the Language of Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2020. Guthrie, Donald. Galatians. NCBC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981. Hals, Ronald M. Ezekiel. FOLT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989. Hamilton, Neill. The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957. Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990. Hansen, G. Walter. Abraham in Galatians: Epistolary and Rhetorical Contexts. JSNTSup 29. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Hansen, G. Walter. “A Paradigm of the Apocalypse: The Gospel in the Light of Epistolary Analysis.” In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, edited by Mark D. Nanos, 143–54. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Hardin, Justin K. “Galatians 1-2 without a Mirror: Reflections on Paul’s Conflict with the Agitators.” TynBul 65, no. 2 (2014): 275–303. Harmon, Matthew S. She Must and Shall Go Free: Paul’s Isaianic Gospel in Galatians. BZNW. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.

180

­Bibliograph

Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989. ­Hays, Richard B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3: 1–4:11.BRS. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. Hays, Richard B., Stefan Alkier, and Leroy Andrew Huizenga. Reading the Bible Intertextually. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Heger, Paul. “Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings.” In Dualism in Qumran, edited by Géza G. Xeravits. LSTS, 39–101. London: T&T Clark, 2010. Heim, Erin M. Adoption in Galatians and Romans: Contemporary Metaphor Theories and the Pauline Huiothesia Metaphors. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Hietanen, Mika. Paul’s Argumentation in Galatians: A Pragma-dialectical Analysis. LNTS 344. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Hildebrandt, Wilf. An Old Testament Theology of the Spirit of God. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Hill, Wesley. Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 2015. Hodge, Caroline E. Johnson. If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius, Adolf Jülicher and Walter Bauer. Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie. 2nd ed. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1911. Hong, In-Gyu. The Law in Galatians. JSNTSup 81. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Hoover, Herbert J. “The Concept of New Creation in the Letters of Paul.” PhD, University of Iowa, 1979. Horrell, David G. “Paul’s Narrative or Narrative Substructure?: The Significance of ‘Paul’s Story’.” In Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, edited by Bruce W. Longenecker, 157–71. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Hubbard, Moyer V. New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought. SNTSN 119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Hubbard, Robert L. “The Spirit and Creation.” In Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, edited by David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, 71–91. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. Hubing, Jeff. Crucifixion and New Creation: The Strategic Purpose of Galatians 6.11-17. LNTS. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Hübner, Hans. Law in Paul’s Thought. SNTW. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984. Hughes, Aaron W. Defining Judaism: A Reader. Critical Categories in the Study of Religion. London: Equinox, 2010. Hui, Archie. “The Spirit of Prophecy and Pauline Pneumatology.” TynBul 50, no. 1 (1999): 93–115. Hunn, Debbie. “Christ versus the Law: Issues in Galatians 2: 17-18.” CBQ 72, no. 3 (2010): 537–55. Hunn, Debbie. “Πίστις in Galatians 5.5-6: Neglected Evidence for ‘Faith in Christ’.” [In English]. NTS 62, no. 3 (2016): 477–83. Isaacs, Marie E. The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and Its Bearing on the New Testament. London: Heythrop College, 1976. Jackson, Kevin L. “The Intertextual Use of Genesis in Isaiah.” Unpublished PhD, MidAmerica Baptist Theological Seminary, 2017. Jackson, T. Ryan. New Creation in Paul’s Letters: A Study of the Historical and Social Setting of a Pauline Concept. WUNT 2/272. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Jason, Mark A. Repentance at Qumran: The Penitential Framework of Religious Experience in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015.

­Bibliograph

181

­Jassen, Alex P. Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism. STDJ. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Jervis, L. Ann. Galatians. Peabody, MA; Carlisle: Hendrickson; Paternoster Press, 1999. Jewett, Robert. Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings. AGJU. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Jokiranta, Jutta. Social Identity and Sectarianism in the Qumran Movement. STDJ. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Kahl, Brigitte. Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished. Paul in Critical Contexts. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010. Kaiser, Walter C. “The Pentateuch.” In A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit, edited by Trevor J. Burke and Keith Warrington, 1–11. London: SPCK, 2014. Kartzow, Marianne B. “Towards an Intersectional Hermeneutic: Constructing Meaning with and Not of Galatians 3–4.” In Pauline Hermeneutics: Exploring the “Power of the Gospel,” edited by Eve-Marie Becker and Kenneth Mtata, 85–97. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlangsanstalt GmbH, 2017. Käsemann, Ernst. New Testament Questions of Today. NTL. London: SCM Press, 1969. Käsemann, Ernst. Perspectives on Paul. NTL. London: SCM Press 1971. Kaufman, William E. Contemporary Jewish Philosophies. Detroit, IL: Wayne State University Press, 1992. Keck, Leander E. “Paul as Thinker.” Interpretation 47, no. 1 (1993): 27–38. Keener, Craig S. Galatians: A Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018. Keesmaat, Sylvia C. Paul and His Story: (Re)interpreting the Exodus Tradition. JSNTsupp. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Keith, Chris. “‘In My Own Hand’: Grapho-Literacy and the Apostle Paul.” Biblica 89, no. 1 (2008): 39–58. Kern, Philip H. Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Paul’s Epistle. SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Kern-Ulmer, Brigitte. “The Power of the Evil Eye and the Good Eye in Midrashic Literature.” Judaism 40, no. 3 (1991): 344. Kerry, Stephen. “An Exegetical Analysis of Galatians 3: 1-5, with Particular Reference to Pneumatological Themes That Relate to the Onset and Continuation of Christian Identity, with Respect to Law and Gospel.” JBPR 2 (2010): 57–86. Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982. Kittel, G. and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965. Kolarcik, Michael, S.J. “Sapiential Values and Apocalyptic Imagery.” In Studies in the Book of Wisdom, edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSupp, 23–36. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Konkel, Michael. “The Vision of the Dry Bones (Ezek. 37.1–14): Resurrection, Restoration or What?” In Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions, edited by William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter. FAT, 107–19. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Konsmo, Erik. The Pauline Metaphors of the Holy Spirit: The Intangible Spirit’s Tangible Presence in the Life of the Christian. StBibLit. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Kraemer, Ross Shepard. When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Kruse, Colin G. Paul, the Law and Justification. Leicester: Apollos, 1996. ­Kugel, James L. A Walk through Jubilees: Studies in the Book of Jubilees and the World of Its Creation. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

182

­Bibliograph

Kugler, Robert. “4Q225 2 i 1-2: A Possible Reconstruction and Explanation.” JBL 126, no. 1 (2007): 172–81. Kvalvaag, Robert W. “The Spirit in Human Beings in Some Qumran Non-biblical Texts.” In Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments, edited by Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson, 159–80. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Kwon, Yon-Gyong. Eschatology in Galatians: Rethinking Paul’s Response to the Crisis in Galatia. WUNT 2/183. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Lambert, David. “Did Israel Believe That Redemption Awaited Its Repentance? The Case of Jubilees 1.” CBQ 68, no. 4 (2006): 631–50. Lee, Chee-Chiew. Blessing of Abraham, the Spirit, and Justification in Galatians: Their Relationship and Significance for Understanding Paul’s Theology. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013. Leithart, Peter J. Delivered from the Elements of the World: Atonement, Justification, Mission. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016. Leonard, Jeffery. “Inner-Biblical Interpretation and Intertextuality.” In Literary Approaches to the Bible, edited by Douglas Mangum and Douglas Estes, 97–141. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017. Levenson, Jon D. “The Temple and the World.” JR 64, no. 3 (1984): 275–98. Levison, John R. Filled with the Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 2009. Levison, John R. The Holy Spirit Before Christianity. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019. Levison, John R. “Paul in the Stoa Poecile: A Response to Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit.” JSNT 33, no. 4 (2011): 415–32. Levison, John R. The Spirit in First Century Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Lightfoot, J. B. The Epistle of Saint Paul to the Galatians: With Introduction, Notes and Dissertations. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980. Lim, Timothy H. “Authoritative Scriptures and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by John J. Collins and Timothy H. Lim, 303–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Lim, Timothy H. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Authoritative Scriptures.” In The Formation of the Jewish Canon, edited by Timothy H. Lim, 119–47. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013. Lim, Timothy H. Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Lindeskog, Gösta. “The Theology of Creation in the Old and New Testaments.” In The Root of the Vine: Essays in Biblical Theology, edited by Anton Fridrichsen, 1–22. Westminster: Dacre Press, 1953. Lindeskog, Gösta. Studien Zum Neutestamentlichen Schöpfungsgedanken. UUA 1952:11. Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1952. Linebaugh, Jonathan A. God, Grace, and Righteousness in Wisdom of Solomon and Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Texts in Conversation. NovTSup. Boston, MA: Brill, 2013. Longenecker, Bruce W. Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. Longenecker, Bruce W. The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998. ­Longenecker, Bruce W. “‘Until Christ Is Formed in You’: Suprahuman Forces and Moral Character in Galatians.” CBQ 61, no. 1 (1999): 92–108.

­Bibliograph

183

Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. WBC. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990. López, René. “The Pauline Vice List and Inheriting the Kingdom.” PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2010. López, René. “A Study of Pauline Passages on Inheriting the Kingdom.” BSac 168, no. 672 (2011): 443–59. Loubser, G. M. H. “Paul’s Ethic of Freedom: No Flash in the Galatian Pan.” Neot 39, no. 2 (2005): 313–37. Lowther, Roland. J. Spirit and Life: The Holy Spirit and the Practice of Christian Living. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2016. Lull, David John. The Spirit in Galatia: Paul’s Interpretation of Pneuma as Divine Power. Dissertation Series—SBL 49. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006. Lütgert, W. Gesetz und Geist: Eine Untersuchung zur Vorgeschichte des Galaterbriefes. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1919. Luther, Martin. Commentary on Galatians. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1979. Ma, Wonsuk. Until the Spirit Comes: The Spirit of God in the Book of Isaiah. JSOTSup. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Macchia, Frank D. Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. Mandel, Paul. “Midrashic Exegesis and Its Precedents in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” DSD 8, no. 2 (2001): 149–68. Marshall, I. Howard. “A New Understanding of the Present and the Future: Paul and Eschatology.” In The Road From Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry, edited by Richard N. Longenecker, 43–61. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Martin, Neil. Regression in Galatians: Paul and the Gentile Response to Jewish Law. WUNT 2/530. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. Doi: 9783161597626. Martyn, J. Louis. “Apocalyptic Antinomies in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.” NTS 31, no. 3 (1985): 410–24. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Martyn, J. Louis. Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Mason, Steve. “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History.” JSJ 38, no. 4–5 (2007): 457–512. Matera, Frank J. “The Culmination of Paul’s Argument to the Galatians: Gal 5: 1-6:17.” JSNT 32 (1988): 79–91. Matera, Frank J. Galatians. SP. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007. Matlock, R. Barry. Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul’s Interpreters and the Rhetoric of Criticism. JSNTSup. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Mays, James L. “‘Maker of Heaven and Earth’ Creation in the Psalms.” In God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner, edited by S. Dean Mcbride and William P. Brown, 75–86. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000. Mays, James L. Psalms. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2011. McAuley, David. Paul’s Covert Use of Scripture: Intertextuality and Rhetorical Situation in Philippians 2: 10-16. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2015. ­McClellan, William H. “The Meaning of Ruaḥ ʾElohim in Genesis 1, 2.” Bib 15, no. 4 (1934): 517–27.

184

­Bibliograph

McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. 3rd ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. McGlynn, Moyna. Divine Judgement and Divine Benevolence in the Book of Wisdom. WUNT 2/139. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Mell, Ulrich. Neue Schöpfung: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Studie zu einem soteriologischen Grundsatz paulinischer Theologie. BZNW 56. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989. Mengestu, Abera Mitiku. God as Father in Paul: Kinship Language and Identity Formation in Early Christianity. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013. Menzies, Robert P. The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology with Special Reference to Luke–Acts. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Menzies, Robert P. Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Mermelstein, Ari J. Creation, Covenant, and the Beginnings of Judaism: Reconceiving Historical Time in the Second Temple Period. JSJSupp. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014. Mermelstein, Ari J. “The Genesis of Jewish History: Creation, Covenant, and Historical Consciousness in the Wisdom of Ben Sira and the Book of Jubilees.” PhD, New York University, 2011. Meyer, Jason C. The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009. Miller, Patrick D. Jr. “The Poetry of Creation: Psalm 104.” In God Who Creates: Essays in Honor of W. Sibley Towner, edited by S. Dean Mcbride and William P. Brown, 87–103. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Mitchell, T. C. “The Old Testament Usage of Nešāmâ.” VT 11, no. 2 (1961): 177–87. Moo, Douglas J. “Creation and New Creation.” BBR 20, no. 1 (2010): 39–60. Moo, Douglas J. Galatians. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013. Moo, Douglas J. “‘Law’, ‘Works of the Law’, and Legalism in Paul.” WTJ 45, no. 1 (1983): 73–100. Moore, George Foot. “Intermediaries in Jewish Theology: Memra, Shekinah, Metatron.” HTR 15, no. 1 (1922): 41–85. Morales, Rodrigo Jose. The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians. WUNT 2/282. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Morgan, Teresa. Roman Faith and Christian Faith: Pistis and Fides in the Early Roman Empire and Early Churches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Moses, Robert Ewusie. Practices of Power: Revisiting the Principalities and Powers in the Pauline Letters. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2014. Motyer, J. A. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993. Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Moyise, Steve. Evoking Scripture: Seeing the Old Testament in the New. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Mußner, Franz. Der Galaterbrief. HThKNT. Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1974. Nanos, Mark D. The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2002. Nanos, Mark D. “Paul and Judaism: Why Not Paul’s Judaism?”. In Paul Unbound: Other Perspectives on the Apostle, edited by Mark D. Given, 117–60. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010.

­Bibliograph

185

­Nanos, Mark D. “The Social Context and Message of Galatians in View of Paul’s Evil Eye Warning (Gal 3:1).” Paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting: Social Science Criticism of the NT Section, Boston, 1999. Neve, L. The Spirit of God in the Old Testament. Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2011. Neyrey, Jerome. H. “Bewitched in Galatia: Paul in Social Science Perspective.” CBQ 50 (1988): 72–100. North, J. L. “Sowing and Reaping (Galatians 6: 7b): More Examples of a Classical Maxim.” JTS 43, no. 2 (1992): 523–7. Novenson, Matthew. “Paul’s Former Occupation in Ioudaismos.” In Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letters, edited by Mark W. Elliot, Scott J. Haffemann, N. T. Wright and John Frederick, 24–39. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014. O’Neill, J. C. “‘Did You Receive the Spirit by the Works of the Law?’ (Gal 3:2): The Works of the Law in Judaism and the Pauline Corpus.” ABR 46 (1998): 70–84. O’Neill, J. C. The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. London: S.P.C.K., 1972. Oakes, Peter. Galatians. Paideia. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015. Oakes, Peter. “Pistis as Relational Way of Life in Galatians.” JSNT 40, no. 3 (2018): 255–75. Obenhaus, Stacy R. “The Creation Faith of the Psalmists.” TJ 21, no. 2 (2000): 131–42. Orlinsky, Harry M. “The Plain Meaning of Ruaḥ in Gen. 1.2.” JQR 48, no. 2 (1957): 174–82. Oropeza, B. J. and Steve Moyise, eds. Exploring Intertextuality: Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2016. Oswalt, John. The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 40-66. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Owen, Paul L. “The ‘Works of the Law’ in Romans and Galatians: A New Defense of the Subjective Genitive.” JBL 126, no. 3 (2007): 553–77. Owens, Mark D. As It Was in the Beginning: An Intertextual Analysis of New Creation in Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and Ephesians. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015. Passaro, Angelo. “Cosmology and Music. Wis 19:18 and the Concept of Creation in the Book of Wisdom.” In Studies in the Book of Wisdom, edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSupp, 101–23. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Pearce, Sarah. “Jerusalem as ‘Mother-city’ in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria.” In Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire, edited by John M. G Barclay, 19–36. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Philip, Finny. The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit upon Gentiles in Judaism and in the Early Development of Paul’s Theology. WUNT 2/194. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Pitts, Andrew W. and Seth Pollinger. “The Spirit in Second Temple Jewish Monotheism and the Origins of Early Christology.” In Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, edited by Andrew W. Pitts and Stanley E. Porter, 135–76. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Pretorius, E. A. C. “The Opposition πνεῦμα and σάρξ as Persuasive Summons (Galatians 5: 13-6:10).” Neot 26, no. 2 (1992): 441–60. Puech, Émile. “L’Esprit Saint À Qumrân.” LASBF 49 (1999): 283–97. Rabens, Volker. The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014. Rabens, Volker. “‘Indicative’ and ‘Imperative’ as the Substructure of Paul’s Theology-andEthics in Galatians?”. In Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and

186

­Bibliograph

Ethics in Paul’s Letter, edited by Mark W. Elliott, Scott J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright and John Frederick, 285–305. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014. Radner, Ephraim. Leviticus. BTCB. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2008. Reese, James M. Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences. AnBib. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “Philosophische Lehre und deren Wirkung aus der Sicht eines Weisheitslehrers. Untersuchung von Weish 1:1‐15.” In Studies in the Book of Wisdom, edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJSupp, 125–62. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Reumann, John Henry Paul. Creation & New Creation; The Past, Present, and Future of God’s Creative Activity. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1973. Rhoads, David M. “Children of Abraham, Children of God: Metaphorical Kinship in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.” CurTM 31, no. 4 (2004): 282–97. Richards, E. Randolph. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and Collection. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Richards E., Randolph and Brandon J. O’Brien. Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2012. Riches, John Kenneth. Galatians through the Centuries. BBC. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2007. Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953. Robbins, Vernon K. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996. Robson, James. “Ezekiel.” Chap. 6. In A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit, edited by Trevor J. Burke and Keith Warrington, 57–70. London: SPCK, 2014. Robson, James. Word and Spirit in Ezekiel. LHBOTS. New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Roetzel, Calvin J. The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context. 5th ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009. Ropes, James Hardy. The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians. HTS. Cambridge; London: Harvard University Press; Oxford University Press, 1929. Rosen-Zvi, Ishay and Adi Ophir. “Paul and the Invention of the Gentiles.” JQR 105, no. 1 (Winter 2015): 1–41. Rosner, Brian S. Paul and the Law: Keeping the Commandments of God. NSBT 31. Nottingham; Downers Grove, IL: Apollos; Inter Varsity Press, 2013. Rowe, C. Kavin. One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016. Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses. PACS. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Russell, Walter B. The Flesh/Spirit Conflict in Galatians. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1997. Rutledge, Fleming. The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1977. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” JBL 81, no. 1 (1962): 1–13. Sandnes, Karl Olav. Paul Perceived: An Interactionist Perspective on Paul and the Law. WUNT 412. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. Scacewater, Todd. “Galatians 2: 11-21 and the Interpretive Context of ‘Works of the Law’.” JETS 56, no. 2 (2013): 307–23.

­Bibliograph

187

­Schlier, Heinrich. Der Brief an die Galater. 5th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Schmid, Konrad. “New Creation Instead of New Exodus. The Inner Biblical Exegesis and Theological Transformations of Isaiah 65: 17–25.” In Continuity and Discontinuity: Chronological and Thematic Development in Isaiah 40-66, edited by Hans M. Barstad and Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. FRLANT. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Schmithals, Walter. “Die Häretiker in Galatien.” ZNW 47 (1956): 25–67. Schneider, Gerhard. “Die Idee der Neuschöpfung beim Apostel Paulus und ihr religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund.” TTZ 68, no. 5 (1959): 257–70. Schoemaker, William Ross. “The Use of RÛAḤ in the Old Testament, and of πνευμα in the New Testament.” JBL 23, no. 1 (1904): 13–67. Schreiner, Thomas R. “‘Works of law’ in Paul.” NovT 33, no. 3 (1991): 217–44. Schuele, Andreas. “The Spirit of YHWH and the Aura of Divine Presence.” Interpretation 66, no. 1 (2012): 16–28. Schuller, Eileen M. and Carol A. Newsom. The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms): A Study Edition of 1QHa. EJL. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012. Schumacher, Steffen G. The Spirit of God in the Torah: A Pentecostal Exploration. Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2021. Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. New York: Seabury Press, 1968. Schweizer, Eduard. “sárx.” In TDNT Abridged, edited by Geoffrey William Bromiley, 1000–7. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985. Schweizer, Eduard. “Slaves of the Elements and Worshipers of Angels: Gal 4:3, 9 and Col 2:8, 18, 20.” JBL 107, no. 3 (1988): 455–68. Scott, Ian W. Paul’s Way of Knowing: Story, Experience, and the Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009. Scott, James M. Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of YIOƟEΣIA in the Pauline Corpus. WUNT 2/48. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992. Segal, Alan F. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990. Segal, Michael. The Book of Jubilees: Rewritten Bible, Redaction, Ideology and Theology. JSJSup. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007. Sekki, Arthur Everett. The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran. SBLDS 110. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989. Shantz, Colleen. Paul in Ecstasy: The Neurobiology of the Apostle’s Life and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Sharples, Robert W. “The Stoic Background to the Middle Platonist Discussion of Fate.” In Platonic Stoicism—Stoic Platonism: The Dialogue between Platonism and Stoicism in Antiquity, edited by Mauro Bonazzi and Christoph Helmig, 169–88. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2008. Shaules, David Paul. Galatians and Social Identity Theory. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest, UMI Dissertation Publishing, 2011. Sidnie White, Crawford. “The Fluid Bible.” BR (June 1999): 34–9. Silva, Moisés. Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001. Sjöberg, Erik. “Wiedergeburt und Neuschöpfung im Palästinischen Judentum.” ST 4, no. 1 (1950): 44–85. Snyman, A. H. “Modes of Persuasion in Galatians 6: 7-10.” Neot 26, no. 2 (1992): 475–84. Sommer, Benjamin D. “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger.” VT 46, no. 4 (1996): 479–89.

188

­Bibliograph

­Speiser, E. A. Genesis. AB1. 3rd ed. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979. Sprinkle, Preston M. Paul and Judaism Revisited: A Study of Divine and Human Agency in Salvation. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. Stanley, Christopher D. “The Ethnic Contexts of Paul’s Letters.” In Christian Origins and Hellenistic Judaism: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, edited by Andrew W. Pitts and Stanley E. Porter, 177–201. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Stanley, Christopher D. “Paul’s ‘Use’ of Scripture: Why the Audience Matters.” In As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. SBL Symposium Series, 125–55. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2008. Stanley, Christopher D. “‘Under a Curse’: A Fresh Reading of Galatians 3: 10-14.”NTS 36, no. 4 (1990): 481–511. Stanton, Graham. “The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ: Galatians 3:1–6: 2.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 99–116. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Stone, Michael E. “Apocryphal Notes and Readings.” In IOS, vol. 1, 123–31. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1971. Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. LEC 5. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1986. Strong, John T. “Cosmic Re-Creation and Ezekiel’s Vocabulary.” In Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions, edited by William A. Tooman and Penelope Barter. FAT, 245–84. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Erwägungen zum ontologischen Charakter der CHAINĒ CHTIDIZ bei Paulus.” EvT 27, no. 1 (1967): 1–35. Stuhlmueller, Carroll. Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah. AnBib. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970. Sumney, Jerry L. “‘In Christ There Is a New Creation’: Apocalypticism in Paul.” PRSt 40, no. 1 (Spring 2013): 35–48. Tannehill, Robert C. Dying and Rising with Christ. A Study in Pauline Theology. BZNW. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967. Terrien, Samuel L. The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1978. Thielman, Frank. Paul & the Law: A Contextual Approach. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994. Thiselton, A. C. “Flesh.” In NIDNTT; A-F, edited by Colin Brown. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1975. Thompson, James. Apostle of Persuasion: Theology and Rhetoric in the Pauline letters. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2020. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “Historical Origins of the Early Christian Concept of the Holy Spirit: Perspectives from the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, edited by Jörg Frey and John R. Levison, 167–240. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2014. Tilling, Chris. “Paul the Trinitarian.” In Essays on the Trinity, edited by Lincoln Harvey, 36–62. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2018. Tilling, Chris. “Paul, the Trinity, and Contemporary Trinitarian Debates.” PJBR 11, no. 1 (2016): 19–43. Tolmie, D. F. Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline Letter. Wunt 2/190. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. ­Tov, Emanuel. “Rewritten Bible Compositions and Biblical Manuscripts, with Special Attention to the Samaritan Pentateuch.” DSD 5, no. 3 (1998): 334–54.

­Bibliograph

189

Trebilco, Paul R. Self-Designations and Group Identity in the New Testament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Trick, Bradley R. “Sons, Seed, and Children of Promise in Galatians: Discerning the Coherence in Paul’s Model of Abrahamic Descent.” PhD, Duke University, 2010. Turner, Max. The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: Then and Now. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1996. Turner, Max. Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in LukeActs. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Urbach, Efraim Elimelech. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1979. Uzukwu, Gesila Nneka. The Unity of Male and Female In Jesus Christ: An Exegetical Study of Galatians 3.28c in Light of Paul’s Theology of Promise. LNTS. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. van Wolde, Ellen. “Separation and Creation in Genesis 1 and Psalm 104, a Continuation of the Discussion of the Verb ‫ברא‬.” VT 67, no. 4 (2017): 611–47. VanderKam, James C. “The Angel of the Presence in the Book of Jubilees.” DSD 7, no. 3 (2000): 378–93. VanderKam, James C. The Book of Jubilees. GAP. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. VanderKam, James C. “Genesis 1 in Jubilees 2.” DSD 1, no. 3 (1994): 300–21. VanderKam, James C. Jubilees 1: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees Chapters 1-21. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2018. Verbrugge, Verlyn D. “Agapaō.” In TDNTW, 25–31. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000. Vermès, Géza. “Bible Interpretation at Qumran.” In Yigael Yadin Memorial Volume, edited by Yigael Yadin, Amnon Ben-Tor, Jonas C. Greenfield and Abraham Malamat. EretsYiśraʼel, 184–91. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989. Vermès, Géza. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. 3rd ed. London; New York: Penguin, 1987. Vos, J. S. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Paulinischen Pneumatologie. Assen: Von Gorcum, 1973. Wakefield, Andrew H. Where to Live: The Hermeneutical Significance of Paul’s Citations from Scripture in Galatians 3: 1-14. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2003. Wallace, Daniel B. The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Walton, John H. “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Spirit of the Lord in the Old Testament.” In Presence, Power, and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, edited by David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, 38–67. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. Walton, John H. Job. NIVApp. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012. Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. Wasserman, Emma. Apocalypse as Holy War: Divine Politics and Polemics in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018. Watson, Francis. “Is There a Story in These Texts?”. In Narrative Dynamics in Paul: A Critical Assessment, edited by Bruce W. Longenecker, 231–9. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002. ­Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016.

190

­Bibliograph

Watson, Francis. Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Watson, Francis. “The Triune Divine Identity: Reflections on Pauline God-language, in Disagreement with J. D. G. Dunn.” JSNT 80 (2000): 99–124. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 34-66. WBC 25. Waco, TX: Word 1987. Wazana, Nili. “A Case of the Evil Eye: Qohelet 4: 4-8.” JBL 126, no. 4 (2007): 685–702. Weima, Jeffrey A. D. “Gal 6: 11-18: A Hermeneutical Key to the Galatian Letter.” CTJ 28, no. 1 (1993): 90–107. Weima, Jeffrey A. D. Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings. JSNT Sup. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15. WBC 1. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Westall, Michael R. “Scope of the Term ‘Spirit of God’ in the Old Testament.” IJT 26, no. 1 (1977): 29–43. Westerholm, Stephen. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988. Westerholm, Stephen. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1969. Williams, David T. “The Spirit in Creation.” SJT 67, no. 1 (2014): 1–14. Williams, Jarvis J. Galatians. NCCS. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2020. Williams, Sam K. Galatians. ANTC. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997. Williams, Sam K. “Justification and the Spirit in Galatians.” JSNT 9, no. 29 (1987): 91–100. Williams, Sam K. “Promise in Galatians: A Reading of Paul’s Reading of Scripture.” JBL 107, no. 4 (1988): 709. Winston, David. “The Book of Wisdom ’s Theory of Cosmogony.” HR 11, no. 2 (1971): 185–202. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 43. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979. Wischmeyer, Oda. “ΦΥΣΙΣ und ΚΤΙΣΙΣ bei Paulus: Die paulinische Rede von Schöpfung und Natur.” ZTK 93, no. 3 (1996): 352–75. Witherington, Ben. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Work, Telford. Deuteronomy. BTCB. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2009. Worthington, Jonathan D. Creation in Paul and Philo: The Beginning and Before. WUNT 2/317. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992. Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992. Wright, N. T. Paul and His Recent Interpreters. London: SPCK, 2015. Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. 2 vols. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013. Wright, N. T. Paul: In Fresh Perspectives. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2005. Wright, N. T. Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul 1978–2013. London: SPCK, 2013. Yates, John. The Spirit and Creation in Paul. WUNT 2/251. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ­Yong, Amos. Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015.

­Bibliograph

191

Yongbom, Lee. “Getting In and Staying In: Another Look at 4QMMT and Galatians.” EQ 88, no. 2 (2016): 126–42. Zahn, Molly M. “The Forms and Methods of Early Jewish Reworkings of the Pentateuch in Light of 4Q158.” PhD, University of Notre Dame, 2009. Zahn, Molly M. “The Problem of Characterizing the 4QReworked Pentateuch Manuscripts: Bible, Rewritten Bible, or None of the Above?”. DSD 15, no. 3 (2008): 315–39. Zahn, Theodor. Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater. TVG. Zürich: Brockhaus, 1990. Zetterholm, Karin Hedner. “The Question of Assumptions: Torah Observance in the First Century.” In Paul within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle, edited by Magnus Zetterholm and Mark D. Nanos, 79–103. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015. Zetterholm, Magnus. Approaches to Paul: A Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009. Zetterholm, Magnus and Mark D. Nanos, eds. Paul within Judaism: Restoring the FirstCentury Context to the Apostle. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015. Ziesler, J. A. Pauline Christianity. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25–48. Hermeneia Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983.

Index of References Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Genesis 1 32, 38 1–2  2, 20–1, 25, 27, 47 1.1–2.9 44 1.1-2  3, 5, 16, 20–3, 26, 30, 40, 50, 53, 99, 117, 165 1.1  1, 4, 22, 30–1, 47–8 1.2 21–2, 24–5 1.26-7 48 1.27 101 2 33 2.1 148 2.7  1, 3, 4, 5, 16, 20–1, 23–5, 30, 34, 44, 47, 50, 53, 99, 117, 165 6.3 22, 24 6.17 22 7.15 22 7.22 22, 24 12 83–4 12.3 85, 87 15.4 88 15.6 84–5 16 116 16.6 119 17 87 17.4-17 84 18.18 87 21 116 21.10 119–20 22.18 87 26.4 87 28.13-14 88 28.14 87 32.8 24 42.38 22

Exodus 2.23 3.7 3.9 18.2 18.5 28.43 29.28 32-4 33.14

108 108 108 89 91 100 100 28 12, 28

Leviticus 17.34 17.36 18.5 19.18

100 100 89 127

Numbers 18.19

100

Deuteronomy 4.32 27: 11-26 27.26 28.53-7 28.58 30.6 30.10 32.10-14 32.11 33.29

48 89 89 70 89 42 89 22 22 148

1 Kings 19.11

23

Job 1.19 4.8 26.13 32.8 33.4

23 135 23 24 24

Index of References Psalms 5.11 8 17.6 LXX 18.6 19 24 29 32 LXX 32.6 LXX 32.6-7 LXX 32.6-9 LXX 32.6 LXX 32.9 LXX 32.11 33 33.6-9 33.6 LXX 33.8 LXX 33.9 LXX 44

148 25 26 26 25 25 25 26 27 27 26–7 26–7 26–7 148 25, 117 26, 38 23, 26 27 27 25

50.13 LXX 51 51.9-19 51.11 55 73.1 74 78 85.9 87 89 95 96 102 103 LXX 103.30 LXX 104 104.3-4 104.29 104.30 105.33 LXX 106.33 119 121 124 136 139

26 28 26 26 25 151 25 25 29 118 25 25 25 25 27 26–8 25, 27–8, 117 27 27 23, 28 26 26 25 25 25 25 28

193

139.7 142.10 143.10 LXX 146 148

26 26 26 25 25

Proverbs 22.8

135

Isaiah 1.26 2.2 2.4 4.2-6 4.5 11.1-9 11.2 11.6-9 11.10 30.28 32 32.15-17 32.15 35.1 34.16 40–48 40–66 40.7 40.13 42 42.1 42.5 42.9 43.15 43.18-19 44.1-5 44.3 45.18 45.21 48.3 48.6 48.6–8 50 53–54 59.21 60.3 63.9 63.10-19 63.10

118 32 32 97 48 97 29 30 32 29 30 97 29, 96 30 29 31 29 29 23, 29 31 29–30, 32 24, 29–30 31 30 30 97 29, 96 31 30 30 31 30 32 119 29, 97 32 12, 28 108 29

Index of References

194 63.11-15 63.11 62.14 65–66 65.00 65.14 65.17-25 65.17

130 29 29 157 139 29 1, 31, 117 3, 20, 29–31, 150

65.17-18 65.18 66.2 66.18 66.22-3 66.22

31, 118 30–1 29 32 1 150

Jeremiah 9.23 23.9 31.31-4 31.33 31.34

148 22 33, 108, 149 35 3

Ezekiel 1.12 1.20 2.2 3.2 3.12 3.14 3.24 8.3 11.1 11.5 11.9 11.20 11.19-20 11.24 36-7 36

29 29 29 32 29, 32 29, 32 29 29, 32 29, 32 29 39 32 33 29, 32 117 20, 32, 35, 42, 95, 112, 117 36.23 35 36.25-6 39 36.26-7  2, 3, 33–4, 39, 42, 95, 108, 149 46.26-8 142 36.26 33, 35, 150 36.27 29, 33, 35 36.28 35

37.35 37 37.1-10 37.1-14 37.1-15 37.1 37.4-9 37.4-14 37.5-6 37.5 37.6 37.8 37.9 37.12 37.14 37.27 39.29 43.5

34 20, 32, 34–5, 117, 139 35 33–4 2, 3, 99, 108, 142 32 34 96 34 32, 35 29, 32 32 32 35 29, 34–5 32 29 29, 32

Hosea 8.7 10.12-13

135 135

Joel 2.28-9 3.1-2 3.1 3.2 28.32

29, 96–7 97 29 29 2

Jonah 1.4

23

Micah 2.6

29

Habakkuk 2.4

91, 161

New Testament Luke 24.25

63

Romans 1–8 2.28-9 3.28 3.31

1 161 161 73

Index of References 4.7 98 4.12 159 4.14 98 5.5 76, 127 5.15 76 5.10 73 6.22 73 7–8 169 7.6 73 7.13 73, 95 8.1 73 8.15 107 8.39 127 9–11 161 9–15 70 11.5 161 11.26-32 161 11.26 161 12 40 13.9 127 15.4 68 1 Corinthians 3.1 133 4.6 95 6 40 9.11 135 10.20-1 105 15 25 16.21 143 2 Corinthians 1.22 76 3–6 169 4.1 69 5.5 76 5.17 1, 152, 154, 156 9.6 135 12 40 12.7 95 13.11 127 13.14 127 Galatians 1.1

14, 76, 107, 149

1.2 107 1.3 107 1.4 74, 76, 149, 156

195

1.6-7 86 1.6-10 143 1.6 13, 60, 63–4, 74, 85, 123, 149 1.7 14, 64 1.11-12 14 1.11-14 147 1.11 14 1.12 117, 149 1.13-14 14 1.15 14, 123 1.16 86 1.23 147 2.1-3 156 2.7 156 2.11-14 14 2.14 91–2 2.15–21 56–7, 63 2.15–16 77 2.15 56–7, 86, 93 2.16–5.26 71 2.16 56, 60–1, 121, 144, 149, 161 2.17 149 2.19-20 61, 147 2.19-21 149 2.19 68, 148–9 2.20 59, 63, 68, 121, 126, 149 2.21 156 3.1–4.7 81, 91, 93, 102, 105 3.1–4.11 113–14, 122 3.1–4.29 137 3.1–6.10 17, 139, 146, 149, 153, 162, 166–7 3.1–6.17 4, 14, 17. 53, 55, 92, 140, 161, 163 3.1–6.18 151 3.1-2 56, 58, 110, 146, 149 3.1-5 17, 53–9, 63, 68, 70, 72–3, 76–8, 81–2, 85, 89, 93, 102, 106, 111, 133, 142–3, 165 3.1-13 93 3.1-14 97 3.1-18 55 3.1-29 92, 98, 111 3.1 54–6, 59–60, 63–4, 68–71, 74, 77, 89, 113,

196

Index of References

123, 128, 139, 149, 159 3.2-3 75 3.2-5 58, 69 3.2 2, 17, 54–9, 61–4, 68, 70, 72, 75–8, 81, 92–4, 96, 111, 113, 121–2, 128, 142 3.3  2, 70–5, 107–8, 113, 123 3.4 69, 75–6, 114, 119 3.5  2, 55, 58–9, 64, 70, 75–8, 93, 95–6, 107, 111, 113, 123, 136, 158 3.6–4.7 17, 77, 111 3.6–4.11 81, 110–12, 166 3.6–4.31 83 3.6–5.1 63 3.6–6.17 78–9 3.6-9 81–2, 88–9, 93, 96 3.6-13 62, 81, 110 3.6-14 97, 156 3.6-18 56 3.6-29 60, 82–4, 115 3.6 55–7, 81–4, 109, 113 3.7–4.11 81 3.7-9 81, 85, 98 3.7-13 82 3.7-14 82 3.7  55, 82–3, 85, 88, 95, 99, 113 3.8 55, 83, 85–8, 96, 110 3.9 55, 85–8, 113 3.10-13 81, 88–9, 92, 128 3.10-14 88, 91, 97–8, 110, 146 3.10 60, 70, 89–91, 110 3.11-12 89, 91 3.11 89, 91, 161 3.12 91 3.13-14  91, 93–4, 97, 105–6, 110, 149 3.13  55, 68, 91–4, 110, 113, 142, 149 3.14–4.7 85 3.14 2, 17, 55, 57, 59, 81, 85, 87–8, 91–8, 101–2, 110–11, 113, 116–17, 121, 137, 142, 158, 166

3.15–4.11 98 3.15-19 88, 97–8, 101, 111 3.16-29 142 3.16 55, 86, 88, 101, 113 3.17 55, 100, 148 3.18 55, 98–9, 101, 113 3.19–29 111 3.19 88, 100, 148 3.21  90–1, 99–100, 108–9, 113, 144 3.22 101, 113 3.23-4 114 3.23-5 102 3.23 100, 113–14 3.24 90, 100, 113–14 3.25-6 101 3.25 100–1, 113 3.26-9 149 3.26 83, 99, 101, 113, 148 3.27 113, 121, 156 3.28-9 102, 106 3.28  101, 113, 153, 156–7, 168 3.29  83, 88, 98–9, 101, 108, 111, 113, 117, 119 4.1-3 102–3 4.1-5 111 4.1-7 101–4, 110, 137 4.1-11 101, 111 4.1 14, 101–2, 105, 113 4.2-6 104 4.2-7 107 4.2 104–5 4.3-5 104 4.3 97, 104–6, 133, 154 4.4-5 95, 105–6 4.4-6  105, 107, 111, 146, 149 4.4–7  102, 105–6, 110–11, 142 4.4 104, 106–7 4.5-7 95, 99 4.5 94, 101, 104–5, 128 4.6-7 82, 102, 108, 130, 136 4.6  2, 17, 35, 59, 76, 81, 93, 95, 102–4, 106–12, 114, 117, 128, 131–2, 142, 149, 156, 166 4.7  77, 85, 102, 105, 109, 112–13, 158–9

Index of References 4.8-9 104 4.8-10 106 4.8-11 101, 109–10, 112 4.8 72, 83, 109 4.9 74, 109, 115, 159 4.10 109 4.11 114 4.12–6.10 113 4.12-20 114, 143 4.12 147 4.13 114 4.14 65, 113–14 4.17 124 4.19 113–14, 149 4.21–5.1 113–16, 121 4.21–5.12 126 4.21–5.15 113, 120 4.21–6.10 113, 115, 137, 166 3.21-9 137 4.21-31 73, 83, 115, 120, 137 4.21 114–15 4.22-31 142 4.22-3 116 4.22-9 115 4.22 115–16 4.23 113, 117–19 4.24-6 118, 156 4.25-6 129 4.25 117 4.26-9 131 4.26 30, 117–18 4.28–6.10 17 4.28-31 113 4.28 113, 119 4.29-31 103 4.29  2, 59, 75, 91, 113, 116–19, 133, 159 4.30 113, 116, 119–20 4.31–5.1 125, 137 4.31 119, 128, 130 5.1  74, 113, 120–1, 125, 127–8, 132, 134 5.2–6.10 121, 137 5.2-6 121, 123 5.2-3 121 5.2–12 113, 121 5.2 113, 121, 124, 144 5.3 127 5.3-4 144, 152 5.4-5 57

197

5.4-6 156 5.4 113, 121–2 5.5-6 143 5.5  2, 59, 70, 113, 122, 127 5.6 92, 113, 123, 126, 144, 149–50, 152 5.7-12 123 5.7 14, 123 5.8 123 5.10 14, 124 5.11  69, 76, 113, 124, 144–5, 147, 149 5.12 5.13–6.10

14, 65, 124 70, 74, 108, 124–5, 132, 135, 142, 144, 146, 152 5:13–14 124, 127, 131, 134 5.13–15 126 5.13–25 113, 123–4, 129, 133, 166 5.13 124–8, 130 5.14 124, 127 5.15 125, 131, 135 5.16–6.10 124–5, 135–8, 145 5.16–18 129 5.16–5 113, 126–8 5.16-5 132, 136 5.16  2, 35, 59, 113, 125, 127, 129–30, 132–4, 136, 143 5.17 2, 59, 129 5.18 2, 113, 130, 134 5.19-21 130–1, 135–6 5.19-22 128 5.19-23 129–30, 166 5.19-24 130 5.19 113 5.21 113, 123, 130–1 5.22-3 58, 128, 130–1 5.22-5 114 5.22  2, 111, 113, 126–7, 131, 166 5.23 131 5.24 113, 121, 148–9 5.25–6.10 132, 152 5.25  2, 113, 125, 127, 129, 132–4, 136, 140, 143, 159

198

Index of References

5.26–6.10 113–14, 133 5.26 133, 134, 135 6.1-10 133 6.1 2, 113, 125, 133–4, 152 6.2–6.10 134 6.2-5 134 6.2 113, 125, 131, 134 6.4 125 6.5 152 6.6 125 6.7-8 134–5 6.7 2, 113, 125 6.8 2, 59, 113, 135–6, 144, 152 6.9-10 134 6.9 125, 135, 144 6.10 125, 135 6.11-13 143, 145–6 6.11-17 17, 138–41, 146, 161–2, 166–7 6.11-18 140 6.11 140, 143, 144, 162 6.12-13 66, 136, 140, 144–5, 151–2, 162 6.12-15 162 6.12-17 141, 144–5 6.12-18 144, 162 6.12 113, 144–5, 149 6.13 14, 113, 144–5, 150 6.14-16 17, 34, 110, 118, 138, 140–1, 146–7, 149, 157–8, 161–2, 167 6.14-17 4, 17, 143, 146, 153, 162 6.14 68, 113, 121, 140, 145, 147–9, 151–4, 157, 166 6.15-16 118, 149 6.15 1, 2, 3, 4, 17, 30, 53, 55, 76, 92, 123, 139–41, 143, 147, 149–52, 155–7, 160, 162–3, 165–7 6.16 140, 157, 159 6.17 68–9, 113, 121, 141, 145, 147, 149 6.18 141, 144, 147, 149

Ephesians 1–2 155 1.6 70, 74 5.25-7 95 Philippians 1.6 70, 74 3.16 159 Titus 95 3.3 63 Apocrypha Judith 16.14 151 Wisdom of Solomon 1.1-5 46 1.4 45–6 1.5-7 45 1.5 45–6 1.6 45–6 1.7 45–6 1.14 47 2.6 48, 151 2.23 47–8 2.24 47 7.6–7 47 7.22-5 45 7.22 46 7.24 46 7.25 46 9.9-10 106 9.9 47 9.17 45 10.1 47 11:15-16 47 11.17 47–8 12.1 45 13.17-19 109 15.11 45, 47 15.16 45 16.24 47–8, 151 18.4 100 19.6 48, 151 Sirach 7.3 135

Index of References 16.17 17.11 19.2 39.8 44.19-22 45.5 49.16

151 99 60 148 84 99 151

Baruch 3.9 4.1

99 100

I Maccabees 2.57

60

3 Maccabees 2.2

151

Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 84 2 Baruch 3.1-3 4.2-6 21.4 57.2 77.15

118 118 23, 31 60 100

1 Enoch 91.16 99.2

31 100

2 Enoch 9

130

4 Ezra 7.26 8.52 9.37 9.38–10.59 14.3 17.7 17.21

118 118 100 118 99 99 99

Joseph and Aseneth 8.9 95 15.5-7 95

Jubilees 1 1–2 1.20-1 1.22-5 1.23-5 1.23 1.24-5 1.29 2.1 2.19-20 4.26 12 23.1 3.31 6.17

199

42 41 150 108 42 42 42 42–3 12, 41, 43 42 42–3 84 84 100 100

Pseudo-Philo 21 3 Maccabees 2.2 2.7 6.2 Odes of Solomon 10.5 14.2 29.9 Testament of Dan 6

151 151 151 97 97 130

Testament of Judah 96 Testament of Levi 13.6 24.1–6

135 108

Targums Targum Onqelos 22 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 22 Targum Yerušalmi 22

Index of References

200 Other Jewish Texts Canticles Rabbah 1.13

84

Classical Literature Aristotle Rhetorica 3.3.4

135

Cicero De oratore 2.65

135

Demosthenes De Corona 159

135

Hesiod Megala Erga 1

135

Plato Phaedrus 260d

135

Plautus Menaechmi 135 Josephus

In Flaccum 46

118

Legatio ad Gaium 249 281

118 118

Ques Rerum Divinarum heres sit 84 De Josepho 28

De migration Abrahami 84 De vita Moses 2.24.117-26 2.51

De opificio mundi 1.3

148

De somniis 2.76

145

De specialibus legibus 2.231 103 De virtutibus 102 293

Philo

Dead Sea Scrolls 84

De aeternitate mundi 110 103 111 103 De confusione linguarum 21 135 152 135

103 148

De mutatione nominum 268-9 135

Antiquitates judaicae 84

De Abrahamo 60–88

103

CD 2.14 3

76 135

74 84

DSSIsa 29 1QH 1.27-9 5.25

24 37

Index of References 5.28 7.27 7.30 9.9 9.15 9.29 12.12 12.39 13.1 14.13 18.22-3

37 37 37 37 37 37 96 37 37 96 128

1QM 16.1

97

1QS 3.6-12 3 3.6–8 3.7 3.9 4 4.20-2 4.21 4.25 5.5 7 11.9

95 37–8 38 38–9 39 37–8 39 39, 96 39 74 38 128

1QSa 1.21

97

201

11QTemple (19)

130

29.7-10

37, 40

12QpHAb 5.3-4

97

4Q174 (4QFlor)

60

4Q216 7–8

43

4Q225 2.1

38, 43 39

4Q303

37

4Q304

37

4Q305

37

4Q399 (4QMMT) 2.2-3 60, 130 4Q422

26, 37–8, 117

4Q504-6

95

4Q504 1–2 5.15-16 15–16

95 96 95

4Q521

22

Author Index Abegg, M. G. 60 Adams, E. 6, 25, 48, 104, 118, 154, 156–7 Aletti, J-N. 132 Algra, K. 103 Alkier, S. 5, 16 Allen, L. C. 27–8, 34 Ambrose, K. 6, 8, 53 Anderson, C. A. 103, 148 Anderson, G. P. 10, 60, 90, 97, 150, 152 Arnold, C. E. 73, 105 Ashton, J. 77 Attridge, H. W. 38 Avemarie, F. 50 Averbeck, R. E. 12, 22, 23 Aymer, A. J. D. 73, 151–2, 156 Bahr, G. J. 143 Baker, C. T. 11–2, 46, 49 Barclay, J. M. G. 8–9, 15–16, 59–60, 71, 72, 74, 90, 100–1, 121, 125–8, 135, 136, 152 Barstad, H. M. 31 Barter, P. 32, 34 Barth, K. 11 Barton, S. C. 15 Bates, M. W. 15 Batto, B. F. 34 Bauckham, R. 21 Bauer, W. 6 Beale, G. K. 130–1 Becker, E-M. 9, 168 Beker, J. C. 10, 91, 168 Benoit, P. 36 Berger, A. S. 5, 65 Bernstein, M. J. 19–20, 38, 41 Bertone, J. A. 168–9 Betz, H. D. 57, 61, 66, 71, 76, 82, 84, 94, 105, 134, 140, 143, 144, 147, 153, 160 Bilezikian, G. 57 Bird, M. F. 8, 78, 154, 161

Blackwell, B. C. 15, 168 Blenkinsopp, J. 30–1, 44 Block, D. I. 32–3, 35 Boakye, A. K. D 82, 90–1, 99–101, 119, 123, 126, 136, 159 Bonazzi, M. 103 Botros, S. 103 Briggs, C. A. 173 Brinsmead, B. H. 57, 126, 128 Brooke, G. J. 40 Brown, W. P. 25, 27 Broyles, C. C. 26 Bruce, F. F. 56, 61, 63–4, 70, 73, 76, 90, 100, 127, 160 Brueggemann, W. 99 Buchanan, G. 72, 126, 128–9, 130 Buell, D. K. 86–7 Bundrick, D. R. 103 Burke, T. J. 35, 94, 108, 115 Burkes, S. 45 Burton, E. D. 56. 61, 66, 71, 76, 100, 103, 125, 129, 135, 140, 148 Byrne, B. 82, 102, 104–5, 107, 115, 120 Byron, J. 103, 115–16 Campbell, D. A. 56–8, 104, 168 Cara, R. J. 90 Carlson, S. C. 74 Charles, R. H. 42–3 Charlesworth, J. H. 36, 38–9 Chesnutt, R. D. 21 Chester, A. 50 Cho, Y. 10 Choi, H. S. 122–3 Christiansen, E. J. 87, 100 Chun, S. 153–6 Clifford, R. J. 2, 30–1 Cohen, S. J. D. 71 Collins, J. J. 36–7, 40–1, 44–5, 48–4 Cosgrove, C. H. 56–7, 60, 63, 149 Cover, M. B. 118

Author Index Cox, R. R. 45 Craigie, P. C. 26 Crane, A. S. 34 Cryer, F. H. 24, 37 Cutler, C. S. 156 Das, A. A. 19, 30, 57, 59, 62, 68, 71–2, 75, 83, 86–7, 89–91, 96–7, 99–100, 102, 109, 115–16, 118–19, 122, 124, 126, 132, 134, 141, 144–5, 147, 149, 152, 160–1 Davidson, R. M. 27 Davies, J. P. 21, 73, 78, 168 Davis, B. S. 68–9 Day, J. 23 de Boer, M. C. 58–9, 62, 63, 87, 93, 101–5, 108–9, 117, 122, 128–9, 133, 136, 145, 148, 150, 160 de Kock, W. J. 5 de Vries, P. 33 Delling, G. 64, 103, 132 Derrett, J. D. M. 37 DeSilva, D. A. 13–14, 16, 58, 61, 63, 72–4, 78, 82, 86–7, 89, 93, 95–7, 99–100, 103, 105–6, 109, 114–15, 118–19, 121–4, 127, 129, 132–3, 134, 151 Di Mattei, S. 115 Dimant, D. 38 Donaldson, T. L. 78, 86, 88, 93 Donfried, K. 37 Du Toit, P.L. G. 161 Dunn, J. D. G. 11, 60, 69, 73–4, 90, 94, 96, 105, 107, 115, 129 Dunne, J. A. 65, 75–6, 108, 119–20, 145 Easley, K. H. 131 Eastman, S. G. 16, 70, 72, 128, 153, 160 Eckstein, H-J. 74–7, 89, 96, 98, 103–4, 147 Edwards, J. R. 65 Edwards, M. 44–5, 47 Ehrensperger, K. 5–9, 86–7 Eichrodt, W. 5 Elgvin, T. 26, 38 Elliott, J. H. 64–7, 69, 73, 89 Elliott, M. W. 92, 118, 125 Elliott, S. 65, 72, 76, 92, 124 Engberg-Pedersen, T. 9 Erickson, R. J. 72 Esler, P. F. 15, 88, 90

203

Eslinger, L. 19–20 Estes, D. J. 16, 25 Etheridge, J. W. 22 Fatehi, M. 12–13, 107 Fee, G. D. 11–12, 14, 25, 58–9, 72, 75, 93, 96, 100, 123, 126, 132, 134 Feldman, A. 38 Ferguson, S. D. 40, 72, 153, 168 Firth, D. G. 12, 23, 28–30 Fishbane, M. 19, 34 Fisk, B. N. 8 Fitzmyer, J. A. 36 Foerster, W. 151 Foster, R. B. 10. 85, 88, 150, 160 Fowl, S. E. 131 Frederick, J. 92 Fredriksen, P. 71, 86, 104 Fretheim, T. E. 21 Frey, J. 11–12, 36, 39, 98, 167 Fridrichsen, A. 7 Fung, R. Y. K. 56, 58, 61, 94, 106, 122, 125 Gabriel, A. K. 12 Gaffin, R. B. 99 Garlington, D. B. 73, 89, 97 Gaston, L. 60 Gilbert, M. 47–9 Goldingay, J. A. 28, 31, 33, 99 Gombis, T. G. 92 Goodrich, J. K. 15, 103, 168 Gorman, M. J. 54, 68–9, 75–6, 78 Gottlieb, F. 27 Gould, J. B. 103 Gowan, D. E. 28, 168 Grant, J. A. 28 Greene, J. R. 40 Greenfield, J. C. 189 Grindheim, S. 54 Gunton, C. E. 10 Gupta, N. K. 60, 62, 74, 82 Guthrie, D. 56 Hafemann, S. J. 92, 125 Hals, R. M. 35 Hamilton, N. 10 Hamilton, V. P. 22–3 Hansen, G. W. 10, 62, 84, 88, 93, 115, 147 Hardin, J. K. 74

204

Author Index

Harmon, M. S. 119, 121 Harris, M. J. 69 Hawthorne, G. F. 72 Hays, R. B. 5, 16, 58, 61, 70, 87, 93, 96, 98 Heger, P. 39 Heim, E. M. 105, 110, 115 Helmig, C. 103 Hietanen, M. 16, 59, 66 Hildebrandt, W. 13, 23, 26–7, 35 Hill, W. 12, 106–7 Hodge, C. E. J. 86–7, 123 Holzmann, H. J. 6 Hong, I-G. 90, 96, 104–5 Hoover, H. J. 50, 151, 154–5 Horrell, D. G. 9 Hubbard, M. V. 21, 29, 31, 42, 10, 142, 151–2, 155, 162 Hubbard, R. L. 23 Hubing, J. 17, 75, 140–1, 144, 154, 159 Hübner, H. 99 Hughes, A. W. 51 Hui, A. 13, 39 Hunn, D. 5, 60, 123 Huizenga, L. A. 5, 16 Isaacs, M. E. 12, 20, 49 Jackson, K. L. 30 Jackson, T. R. 30–1, 35, 37, 128, 147, 148, 151, 153, 155–6 Jason, M. A. 130 Jassen, A. P. 37 Jervis, L. A. 68, 129 Jewett, R. 63, 72–3, 126, 129, 136 Jokiranta, J. 36 Jülicher, A. 6 Kahl, B. 16, 69 Kaiser, W. C. 22 Kartzow, M. B. 168 Käsemann, E. 73, 86 Kaufman, W. E. 51 Keck, L. E. 1, 162 Keener, C. S. 13–14, 60–1, 63, 68–9, 71, 75, 82–3, 89, 90, 99–101, 104, 106, 109, 114–15, 118–19, 122–3, 125, 133, 141, 150, 157, 159–60

Keesmaat, S. C. 102, 108 Keith, C. 143 Kern-Ulmer, B. 65 Kern, P. H. 16, 169 Kerry, S. 66, 75 Kim, S. 11 Klingbeil, G. A. 27 Kolarcik, M., S.J. 49 Konkel, M. 34 Konsmo, E. 11 Kraemer, R. S. 21 Kruse, C. G. 82, 99 Kugel, J. L. 41 Kugler, R. 38 Kvalvaag, R. W. 24, 37 Kwon, Y-G. 57, 67, 68, 94–5, 98, 122–3, 146 Lambert, D. 42, 44 Lange, A. 37 Lee, C-C. 57, 61, 94–5, 98 Leithart, P. J. 59, 95, 103 Leonard, J. 16 Levenson, J. D. 4–5, 40 Levison, J. R. 9, 11–13, 20, 26, 35–6, 42–4 Lichtenberger, H. 50 Lightfoot, J. B. 56, 61, 140–1 Lim, T. H. 36, 40–1 Lindeskog, G. 7 Linebaugh, J. A. 46 Longenecker, B. W. 8–9, 15, 100, 114, 156, 168–3 Longenecker, R. N. 54–5, 62–3, 64, 70, 73, 84–5, 90, 93, 108, 111, 114, 118, 124, 127, 141, 143–4, 148, 150–2, 160, 168 López, R. 130 Loubser, G. M. H. 145, 168 Lowther, R. J. 24, 168 Lull, D. J. 55, 69, 77, 107, 126, 128 Lütgert, W. 125 Luther, M. 103 Ma, W. 29 Macchia, F. D. 25, 59, 95 Mandel, P. 40

Author Index Mangum, D. 16 Marshall, I. H. 54 Martin, N. 13, 76, 103, 109 Martin, R. P. 72 Martyn, J. L. 10, 61, 63, 65, 71–4, 77, 90, 97, 101, 103, 125, 128, 132, 136, 140, 152 Mason, S. 51 Maston, J. 15 Matera, F. J. 56, 120, 126, 128, 160–1 Matlock, R. B. 16 Mays, J. L. 25, 27 McAuley, D. 6, 16 McArthur, H. K. 37 McBride, S. D. 25, 27 McClellan, W. H. 22 McDonald, J. 173 McGlynn, M. 44–5, 48–9 Mell, U. 21, 31, 37, 39–40, 43, 141, 144, 147, 153–4 Mengestu, A. M. 98 Menzies, R. P. 20, 23, 38, 41, 43, 49 Mermelstein, A. J. 41 Meyer, J. C. 85, 95 Milik, J. 171 Miller, P. D. Jr. 27 Mitchell, T. C. 24 Monahan, J. H. 5 Moo, D. J. 13, 59–64, 67–8, 70, 74, 86, 93, 99, 104, 107, 109, 130, 132–3, 135–6, 143–5, 148, 150, 152, 154, 158, 161 Moore, G. F. 12 Morales, R. J. 6, 42–3, 94, 97–8, 108, 136 Morgan, T. 88 Moses, R. E. 104 Motyer, J. A. 28, 30 Moule, C. F. D. 96, 106, 120 Moyise, S. 16 Mtata, K. 9, 168 Murphy-O’Connor, J. 36 Mußner, F. 61, 86, 125, 132, 140, 148 Najman, H. 5 Nanos, M. D. 6–7, 14, 63, 66–7, 71, 83–4, 86, 90, 145, 147 Neve, L. 13, 27, 50 Newman, J. H. 5 Newsom, C. A. 37 Neyrey, J. H. 65–6

North, J. L. 135 Novenson, M. 92 O’Brien, B. J. 135 O’Neill, J. C. 60, 125 Oakes, P. 62, 89, 118, 124, 147 Obenhaus, S. R. 25 Olyan, S. 171 Ophir. A. 86 Orlinsky, H. M. 22 Oropeza, B. J. 16 Oswalt, J. 28 Owen, P. L. 60 Owens, M. D. 1, 41, 151–3, 155–6, 161 Passaro, A. 45, 48 Pearce, S. 118 Philip, F. 21, 27, 45, 49, 78 Pitts, A. W. 37, 86 Pollinger, S. 37 Porter, S. E. 12, 37, 83, 86 Pretorius, E. A. C. 142 Puech, É. 185 Rabens, V. 21, 33, 125, 146 Radner, E. 90 Read, D. G. 72 Reese, J. M. 47 Reiterer, F. V. 46 Reumann, J. H. 7 Rey, S. 36 Rhoads, D. M. 107, 115, 161 Richards, E. R. 16, 135, 143 Riches, J. K. 103 Ridderbos, H. N. 56 Robbins, V. K. 16 Robson, J. 32, 34–5 Roetzel, C. J. 6, 10 Ropes, J. H. 125 Rosen-Zvi, I. 86 Rosner, B. S. 60 Rowe, C. K. 9 Runia, D. T. 148 Russell, W. B. 72, 107, 116, 134, 136 Rutledge, F. 149 Sanders, E. P. 90, 128 Sandmel, S. 15

205

206

Author Index

Sandnes, K. O. 68, 71, 126 Sawyer, M. J. 23 Scacewater, T. 60 Schlier, H. 57, 61, 134 Schmid, K. 31 Schmithals, W. 126 Schneider, G. 151 Schoemaker, W. R. 13 Schreiner, T. R. 60 Schuele, A. 28 Schuller, E. M. 37 Schumacher, S. G. 22, 24 Schweitzer, A. 55 Schweizer, E. 72, 72, 103 Scott, I. W. 1, 7–8, 10, 59, 77–9, 84–5, 89, 96, 97, 162 Scott, J. M. 102, 105, 107, 115 Segal, A. F. 11 Segal, M. 7, 41, 43–4 Sekki, A. E. 38 Shantz, C. 77 Sharples, R. W. 103 Shoemaker, W. R. 13 Shaules, D. P. 15, 62, 90 Silva, M. 73–4, 82 Sjöberg, E. 50 Snyman, A. H. 134 Sommer, B. D. 19 Speiser, E. A. 23 Sprinkle, P. M. 35 Stanley, C. D. 15, 83, 86, 97 Stanton, G. 15, 115, 137 Stendahl, K. 188 Stone, M. E. 43 Stowers, S. K. 16 Strong, J. T. 32–3 Stugnell, J. 171 Stuhlmacher, P. 151 Stuhlmueller, C. 29–30 Sumney, J. L. 168 Tannehill, R. C. 158 Terrien, S. L. 12 Thielman, F. 60 Thiselton, A. C. 188 Thompson, J. 7, 16, 141 Thompson, T. L. 24, 37 Tiemeyer, L-S. 31 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 36–7, 39

Tilling, C. 12 Tolmie, D. F. 148 Tooman, W. A. 32, 34 Torleif. E. 26 Tov, E. 36–8 Trebilco, P. R. 76 Trick, B. R. 87, 115 Turner, M. 13, 21 Urbach, E. E. 12 Uzukwu, G. N. 157 van Wolde, E. 22, 25, 28, 48 VanderKam, J. C. 41–4 Verbrugge, V. D. 127 Vermès, G. 39–40 Vos, J. S. 6, 11, 13, 21, 33, 49 Wakefield, A. H. 90, 98 Wallace, D. B. 23, 120 Walton, J. H. 24, 40 Warrington, K. 35, 94 Wasserman, E. 109–10 Watson, F. 8–9, 11, 19, 129 Watts, J. D. W. 29–30 Wazana, N. 65 Wegner, P. D. 12, 23, 28–80 Weigold, M. 37 Weima, J. A. D. 141 Wenham, G. J. 23 Westall, M. R. 22 Westerholm, S. 90, 100, 127 Westermann, C. 30 White, S. 36 Williams, D. T. 22, 24 Williams, J. J. 96, 161 Williams, S. K. 55, 82, 93, 95, 120, 123, 136, 153 Winston, D. 45, 47 Wischmeyer, O. 6 Witherington, B. 1, 62, 65, 71, 140 Witkam, J. J. 5 Work, T. 22 Worthington, J. D. 148 Wright, N. T. 5, 7–8, 54, 60, 62, 90, 92, 97, 125, 127, 158, 161 Xeravits, G. G. 39, 45–6, 49

Author Index Yadin, Y. 40 Yates, J. 5, 21–2, 24–5, 32, 157 Yong, A. 95 Yongbom, L. 60, 90 Zahn, M. M. 36 Zahn, T. 75, 132

Zehnder, M. 29 Zetterholm, K. H. 90 Zetterholm, M. 6–7, 86, 90 Ziesler, J. A. 8 Zimmerli, W. 32–34 Zsengellér, J. 45–6, 49

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214