The Oxford Bible Commentary

This page intentionally left blank

the oxford bible commentary

The Pauline
Epistles
edited by
JOH N M U DDIM AN
and
JOH N BART ON
associate editors
Dr Loveday Alexander
Dom Henry Wansborough, OSB

1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
# Oxford University Press 2001
First published in this updated selection 2010
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published in this updated selection 2010
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Data available
Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by
Clays Ltd., St Ives plc

ISBN 978–0–19–958026–2

1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
 LIST OF CONTENTS

List of Contributors vi
Abbreviations vii

1. General Introduction 1
2. Introduction to the New Testament 7
3. Introduction to the Pauline Corpus 27
4. Romans 57
5. 1 Corinthians 91
6. 2 Corinthians 126
7. Galatians 151
8. Ephesians 170
9. Philippians 189
10. Colossians 204
11. 1 Thessalonians 216
12. 2 Thessalonians 235
13. The Pastoral Epistles 244
14. Philemon 263

Bibliographical Guide 268

Index 273
 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Leslie Houlden, formerly Professor of Theology, King’s College, London

Terence L. Donaldson, Professor of New Testament Studies, Wycliffe College,
Toronto
Craig C. Hill, Professor of New Testament, Wesley Theological Seminary,
Washington DC
John Barclay, Professor, Department of Religion and Theology, University of
Durham
Margaret MacDonald, Professor, Department of Religious Studies, Francis
Xavier University, Nova Scotia
G. N. Stanton, formerly Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity and Fellow of
Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge
J. D. G. Dunn, Emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity, University of Durham
Robert Murray, SJ, formerly University of London
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Professor of New Testament, École Biblique et
Archéologique Française, Jerusalem
Philip F. Esler, Professor of Biblical Criticism, University of St Andrews
Clare Drury, formerly University of Cambridge
Craig S. Wansink, Associate professor of Religious Studies, Virginia Wesleyan
College, Norfolk, Virginia
 ABBREVIATIONS

GENERAL

AB Anchor Bible
ABD D. N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; New York:
Doubleday, 1992)
AnBib Analecta biblica
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt

b. Babylonian Talmud
BAGD W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker, Greek–English
Lexicon of the NT and other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: Univ of
Chicago Press, 1979 rev. edn.)
BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BCE Before Common Era
BDF F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New
Testament (Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press, 1961)
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
Bib. Biblica
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
BNTC Black’s New Testament Commentaries
BR Biblical Research
BZNW Beihefte zur ZNW

CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CD Cairo Geniza, Damascus Document
CE Common Era
CGTC Cambridge Greek Testament Commentaries

Ebib Études bibliques

EDNT H. Balz and G. Schneider (eds.), Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
(3 vols.: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990)
EKKNT Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
ET English Translation
ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses

FBBS Facet Books, Biblical Series

FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
abbreviations viii

Gk. Greek
GNB Good News Bible
GNS Good News Series

HB Hebrew Bible
HBC J. L. Mays et al. (eds.), Harper’s Bible Commentary (San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1988)
Heb. Hebrew
HTR Harvard Theological Review

ICC International Critical Commentary

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament—Supplement Series
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JTS Journal of Theological Studies

LCL Loeb Classical Library

LXX Septuagint

MeyerK H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue

Testament
MLB Modern Language Bible
MNTC Moffatt New Testament Commentary
MS Monograph Series; manuscript
Mt. Mount

NCB New Century Bible

NIBC New International Bible Commentary
NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIV New International Version
NJB H. Wansbrough (ed.), New Jerusalem Bible
NJBC R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer, and R. E. Murphy (eds.), The New Jerome
Biblical Commentary (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1989)
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum, Supplements
NTS New Testament Studies

OCB Oxford Companion to the Bible

PG J. Migne, Patrologia graeca

QD Quaestiones disputatae
 ix abbreviations

RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum

RB Revue biblique
RTR Reformed Theological Review

SBL Society of Biblical Literature

SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series
SBLSBS SBL Sources for Biblical Study
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SCM Student Christian Movement
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Study Monograph Series
SNTW Studies of the New Testament and its World
SP Sacra Pagina
SPCK Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
ST Studia theologica
SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments
S.V. Sub vide

t. Tosefta
TDNT G. W. Bromiley (ed. and trans.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
(10 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–78)
TU Texte und Untersuchungen

v. versus

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CLASSICAL

Ap. Apuleius
Met. Metamorphoses
Apoc. Abr. Apocalypse of Abraham

Did. Didache

Ep. Arist. Epistle of Aristeas

Ign. Ignatius
Eph. Ephesians
Magn. Letter to the Magnesians
Trall. Letter to the Trallians
abbreviations x

Jos. Josephus
Ag. Ap. Against Apion
Ant. Antiquities of the Jews
J.W. Jewish War
Jub. Jubilees

Mart. Pol. Martyrdom of Polycarp

Pal. Tg. Palestinian Targum

Phil. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians
Philo Philo Judaeus
Conf. Ling. De confusione linguarum
Flacc. In Flaccum
Pliny
Ep. Epistulae
Nat. Hist. Natural History
Plut. Plutarch
Mor. Moralia
Polycarp
Phil. Letter to the Philippians

1QpHab Qumran Cave 1, Pesher on Habakkuk

1QS Qumran Cave 1, Serek hayyahad (Rule of the Community, Manual of Discipline)
[2h dot]
4QpNah Qumran Cave 4, Pesher on Nahum
11QTemple Qumran Cave 11, Temple Scroll

Šabb. Šabbat
Sanh. Sanhedrin
Strabo
Geog. Geographical Sketches

Tac. Tacitus
Ann. Annales
Hist. Historia
Tert. Tertullian
Adv. Marc. Adversus Marcionem
Apol. Apologeticus
T. Judah Testament of Judah
T. Naph. Testament of Naphtali
tr(s). translation(s), translated (by)

v. versus
 1. General Introduction

A. Studying the Bible. 1. People’s reasons for of the whole Bible before going on to use more
studying the Bible—and therefore for using a advanced individual commentaries on particu-
biblical commentary—are many and various. lar biblical books.
The great majority of Bible readers have a reli- 3. Finally, there are many Bible readers who
gious motivation. They believe that the Bible are committed neither to a religious quest of
contains the ‘words of life’, and that to study it their own nor to the study of religion, but who
is a means of deepening their understanding of are drawn by the literary quality of much of the
the ways of God. They turn to the Bible to Bible to want to know more about it. For them
inform them about how God desires human it is a major classic of Western—indeed, of
beings to live, and about what God has done world—literature, whose influence on other lit-
for the human race. They expect to be both erature, ancient and modern, requires that it
challenged and helped by what they read, and should be taken seriously and studied in
to gain clearer guidance for living as religious depth. A generation ago ‘the Bible as literature’
believers. Such people will use a commentary to was regarded by many students of the Bible,
help them understand the small print of what especially those with a religious commitment
has been disclosed about the nature and pur- to it, as a somewhat dilettante interest, insuffi-
poses of God. The editors’ hope is that those ciently alert to the Bible’s spiritual challenge.
who turn to the Bible for such religious reasons Nowadays, however, a great deal of serious
will find that the biblical text is here explained in scholarly work is being done on literary aspects
ways that make it easier to understand its con- of the Bible, and many commentaries are writ-
tent and meaning. We envisage that the Com- ten with the needs of a literary, rather than a
mentary will be used by pastors preparing religious, readership in mind. We think that
sermons, by groups of people reading the Bible those who approach the Bible in such a way
together in study or discussion groups, and by will find much in this Commentary to stimulate
anyone who seeks a clearer perspective on a text their interest further.
that they hold in reverence as religiously inspir-
ing. Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox B. Biblical Criticism. 1. The individual authors
Christians have different expectations of the of commentaries have been free to treat the
Bible, but we hope that all will find the Com- biblical books as they see fit, and there has been
mentary useful in elucidating the text. no imposition of a common editorial perspec-
2. A somewhat smaller group of readers stud- tive. They are, however, united by an approach
ies the Bible as a monument to important that we have called ‘chastened historical criti-
movements of religious thought in the past, cism’. This is what is traditionally known as a
whether or not they themselves have any per- critical commentary, but the authors are aware
sonal commitment to the religious systems it of recent challenges to what is generally called
represents. One of the most striking develop- biblical criticism and have sought (to a greater or
ments of recent decades has been the growth of lesser extent) to take account of these in their
interest in the Bible by those who have no work. Some explanation of these terms is neces-
religious commitment to it, but for whom it is sary if the reader is to understand what this book
a highly significant document from the ancient seeks to offer.
world. Students who take university or college 2. Biblical criticism, sometimes known as his-
courses in theology or religious or biblical stud- torical criticism of the Bible or as the historical-
ies will often wish to understand the origins and critical method, is the attempt to understand
meaning of the biblical text so as to gain a the Bible by setting it in the context of its time
clearer insight into the beginnings of two of writing, and by asking how it came into
major world religions, Judaism and Christianity, existence and what were the purposes of its
and into the classic texts that these religions authors. The term ‘historical’ is not used because
regard as central to their life. We hope that such criticism is necessarily interested in recon-
such people will find here the kinds of informa- structing history, though sometimes it may
tion they need in order to understand this com- be, but because biblical books are being studied
plex and many-faceted work. The one-volume as anchored in their own time, not as freely
format makes it possible to obtain an overview floating texts which we can read as though
general introduction 2

they were contemporary with us. It starts case of some books in the Bible it is suspected
with the acknowledgement that the Bible is an by scholars that such a process of production
ancient text. However much the questions has resulted in the texts as we now have them.
with which it deals may be of perennial interest Such hypotheses have been particularly preva-
to human beings (and perhaps no one would lent in the case of the Pentateuch (Genesis–
study it so seriously if they were not), they arose Deuteronomy) and of the Synoptic Gospels
within a particular historical (and geographical) (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The attempt to dis-
setting. Biblical criticism uses all available cover the underlying sources is nowadays usu-
means of access to information about the text ally called ‘source criticism’, though older books
and its context, in order to discover what it may sometimes call it ‘literary criticism’ (from
have meant when it or its component parts German Literarkritik, but confusing in that ‘liter-
were written. ary criticism’ usually means something else in
3. One precondition for a critical understand- modern English), or ‘higher criticism’—by con-
ing of any text is a knowledge of the language in trast with ‘lower’, that is, textual criticism. It is
which it is written, and accordingly of what important to see that biblical critics are not
individual words and expressions were capable committed to believing that this or that biblical
of meaning at the time of the text’s compos- book is in fact the result of the interweaving
ition. The critical reader is always on guard of sources (R. N. Whybray’s commentary on
against the danger of anachronism, of reading Genesis in this volume argues against such a
later meanings of words into their use in an hypothesis), but only to being open to the pos-
earlier period. Frequently, therefore, commen- sibility.
tators draw attention to problems in under- 5. A further hypothesis that has had a long
standing particular words and phrases, and and fruitful history in the study of both Testa-
cite evidence for how such words are used else- ments is that our present written texts may rest
where in contemporary texts. A second pre- on materials that were originally transmitted
requisite is that the text itself shall be an orally. Before the biblical books were written,
accurate version of what the author actually the stories or other units of which they are
wrote. In the case of any ancient text this is an composed may have had an independent life,
extremely difficult thing to ensure, because of circulating orally and being handed on from
the vagaries of the transmission of manuscripts parent to child, or in circles where stories were
down the centuries. Copying by hand always told and retold, such as a ‘camp-fire’ or a litur-
introduces errors into texts, even though bib- gical context. The attempt to isolate and study
lical texts were often copied with special care such underlying oral units is known as form
because of their perceived sacred status. In all criticism, and it has been much practised in
the individual commentaries here there are dis- the case of the gospels, the stories in the Penta-
cussions of how accurately the original text is teuch and in the early historical books of the
available to us, and what contribution is made Old Testament, and the prophetic books. Again,
to our knowledge of this by various manu- by no means all critics think that these books do
scripts or ancient translations. The art of textual in fact rest on oral tradition, but all regard the
criticism seeks to explain the evolution of texts, question whether or not they do so as import-
to understand how they become corrupted ant because it is relevant to understanding their
(through miscopying), and how their original original context.
form can be rediscovered. 6. Where texts are composite, that is, the
4. In reading any piece of text, ancient or result of weaving together earlier written or
modern, one needs to be aware of the possibil- oral sources, it makes sense to investigate the
ity that it may not be a unity. Some documents techniques and intentions of those who carried
in our own day come into existence through the out the weaving. We should now call such
work of several different authors, which some- people ‘editors’, but in biblical studies the tech-
one else then edits into a reasonably unified nical term ‘redactor’ tends to be preferred, and
whole: such is the case, for example, with docu- this branch of biblical criticism is thus known
ments produced by committees. In the ancient as ‘redaction criticism’. Once we know what
world it was not uncommon for books to be were a biblical redactor’s raw materials—
produced by joining together, and sometimes which source and form criticism may be able
even interweaving, several already existing to disclose to us—we can go on to ask about the
shorter texts, which are then referred to as the aims the redactor must have had. Thus we can
‘sources’ of the resulting single document. In the enquire into the intentions (and hence the
 3 general introduction

thought or the ‘theology’) of Matthew or Luke, and have contributed materially to the work of
or of the editor of the book of Isaiah. Redaction biblical study. Hence our adoption of a critical
criticism has been a particular interest in mod- stance is ‘chastened’ by an awareness that new
ern German-speaking biblical study, but it is questions are in the air, and that biblical criti-
also still widely practised in the English-speaking cism itself is now subject to critical questioning.
world. It is always open to the critic to argue 2. One important style of newer approaches
that a given book is not composite in any case to the Bible challenges the assumption that
and therefore never had a redactor, only an critical work should (or can) proceed from a
author. Most scholars probably think this is position of neutrality. Those who write from
true of some of the shorter tales of the Old feminist and liberationist perspectives often
Testament, such as Jonah or Ruth, or of many argue that the older critical style of study pre-
of Paul’s epistles. Here too what makes study sented itself as studiedly uncommitted to any
critical is not a commitment to a particular particular programme: it was simply concerned,
outcome, but a willingness to engage in the so its practitioners held, to understand the bib-
investigation. It is always possible that there is lical text in its original setting. In fact (so it is
simply not enough evidence to resolve the mat- now argued) there was often a deeply conserva-
ter, as R. Coggins argues in the case of Isaiah. tive agenda at work in biblical criticism. By
This conclusion does not make such a com- distancing the text as the product of an ancient
mentary ‘non-critical’, but is arrived at by care- culture, critics managed to evade its challenges
fully sifting the various critical hypotheses that to themselves, and they signally failed to see
have been presented by previous scholars. An how subversive of established attitudes much
uncritical commentary would be one that was of the Bible really was. What is needed, it is said,
unaware of such issues, or unwilling to engage is a more engaged style of biblical study in
with them. which the agenda is set by the need for human
7. Form and redaction criticism inevitably liberation from oppressive political forces,
lead to questions about the social setting of whether these constrain the poor or some
the underlying units that make up biblical other particular group such as women. The
books and of the redactors who put them into text must be read not only in its reconstructed
their finished form. In recent years historical ‘original’ context but also as relevant to modern
criticism has expanded to include a consider- concerns: only then will justice be done to the
able interest in the contribution the social sci- fact that it exercises an existential claim upon its
ences can make to understanding the Bible’s readers, and it will cease to be seen as the
provenance. The backgrounds of the gospels preserve of the scholar in his (sic) study.
and of Paul’s letters have been studied with a 3. Such a critique of traditional biblical criti-
view to discovering more about the social con- cism calls attention to some of the unspoken
text of early Christianity: see, for example, the assumptions with which scholars have some-
commentary here on 1 Thessalonians by Philip times worked, and can have the effect of
Esler. In the study of the Old Testament also deconstructing conventional commentaries
much attention has been directed to questions by uncovering their unconscious bias. Many
of social context, and this interest can be seen of the commentators in this volume are aware
especially in D. L. Smith-Christopher’s com- of such dangers in biblical criticism, and seek
mentary on Ezra–Nehemiah. to redress the balance by asking about the
contribution of the books on which they com-
C. Post-Critical Movements. 1. In the last few ment to contemporary concerns. They are also
decades biblical studies has developed in many more willing than critics have often been to
and varied directions, and has thrown up a ‘criticize’ the text in the ordinary sense of that
number of movements that regard themselves word, that is, to question its assumptions and
as ‘post-critical’. Some take critical study of the commitments. This can be seen, for example,
Bible as a given, but then seek to move on to ask in J. Galambush’s commentary on Ezekiel,
further questions not part of the traditional where misogynist tendencies are identified in
historical-critical enterprise. Others are frankly the text.
hostile to historical criticism, regarding it as 4. A second recent development has been an
misguided or as outdated. Though the general interest in literary aspects of the biblical texts.
tone of this commentary continues to be crit- Where much biblical criticism has been con-
ical, most of its contributors believe that these cerned with underlying strata and their combin-
newer movements have raised important issues, ation to make the finished books we now have,
general introduction 4

some students of the Bible have come to think criticism. Such criticism began, after all, in a
that such ‘excavative’ work (to use a phrase of conviction that the Bible was open to investiga-
Robert Alter’s) is at best only preparatory to a tion by everyone, and was not the preserve of
reading of the texts as finished wholes, at worst ecclesiastical authorities: it appealed to evidence
a distraction from a proper appreciation of in the text rather than to external sources of
them as great literature just as they stand. The validation. It is important that this insight is not
narrative books in particular (the Pentateuch lost by starting to treat the Bible as the posses-
and ‘historical’ books of the Old Testament, sion of a different set of authorities, namely
the gospels and Acts in the New) have come historical-critical scholars! Canonical approaches
to be interpreted by means of a ‘narrative criti- emphasize that religious believers are entitled
cism’, akin to much close reading of modern to put their own questions to the text, and this
novels and other narrative texts, which is alert must be correct, though it would be a disaster if
to complex literary structure and to such elem- such a conviction were to result in the outlaw-
ents as plot, characterization, and closure. It is ing of historical-critical method in its turn. Con-
argued that at the very least readers of the Bible tributors to this volume, however, are certainly
ought to be aware of such issues as well as those not interested only in the genesis of the biblical
of the genesis and formation of the text, and books but are also concerned to delineate their
many would contend, indeed, that they are overall religious content, and to show how
actually of considerably more importance for a one book relates to others within the canon of
fruitful appropriation of biblical texts than is Scripture.
the classic agenda of critical study. Many of 6. Thus the historical-critical approach may
the commentaries in this volume (such as be chastened by an awareness that its sphere of
those on Matthew and Philippians) show an operations, though vital, is not exhaustive, and
awareness of such aesthetic issues in reading that other questions too may reasonably be on
the Bible, and claim that the books they study the agenda of students of the Bible. In particu-
are literary texts to be read alongside other great lar, a concern for the finished form of biblical
works of world literature. This interest in things books, however that came into existence, unites
literary is related to the growing interest in the both literary and canonical approaches. Few
Bible by people who do not go to it for religious scholars nowadays believe that they have fin-
illumination so much as for its character as ished their work when they have given an
classic literature, and it is a trend that seems account of how a given book came into being:
likely to continue. the total effect (literary and theological) made
5. Thirdly, there is now a large body of work by the final form is also an important question.
in biblical studies arguing that traditional bib- The contributors to this volume seek to engage
lical criticism paid insufficient attention not with it.
only to literary but also to theological features
of the text. Here the interest in establishing the D. The Biblical Canon. 1. Among the various
text’s original context and meaning is felt to be religious groups that recognize the Bible as
essentially an antiquarian interest, which gives a authoritative there are some differences of
position of privilege to ‘what the text meant’ opinion about precisely which books it should
over ‘what the text means’. One important rep- contain. In the case of the New Testament all
resentative of this point of view is the ‘canonical Christians share a common list, though in the
approach’, sometimes also known as ‘canonical centuries of the Christian era a few other books
criticism’, in which biblical interpreters ask were sometimes included (notably The Shep-
not about the origins of biblical books but herd of Hermas, which appears in some major
about their integration into Scripture taken as New Testament manuscripts), and some of
a finished whole. This is part of an attempt to those now in the canon were at times regarded
reclaim the Bible for religious believers, on the as of doubtful status (e.g. Hebrews, Revelation, 2
hypothesis that traditional historical criticism and 3 John, 2 Peter, and Jude). The extent of the
has alienated it from them and located it in Old Testament varies much more seriously.
the study rather than in the pulpit or in the Protestants and Jews alike accept only the
devotional context of individual Bible-reading. books now extant in Hebrew as fully authorita-
While this volume assumes the continuing tive, but Catholics and Orthodox Christians
validity of historical-critical study, many contri- recognize a longer canon: on this, see the
butors are alive to this issue, and are anxious Introduction to the Old Testament. The Ethi-
not to make imperialistic claims for historical opic and Coptic churches accept also Enoch and
 5 general introduction

Jubilees, as well as having minor variations in the the original texts, because it has no particular
other books of the Old Testament. confessional allegiance, and because it holds the
2. In this Commentary we have included all balance between accuracy and intelligibility,
the books that appear in the NRSV—that is, all avoiding paraphrase on the one hand and liter-
the books recognized as canonical in any of the alism on the other. But comparison between
Western churches (both Catholic and Protest- different English translations, particularly
ant) and in the Greek and Russian Orthodox for the reader who does not know Hebrew
churches and those in communion with them. or Greek, is often instructive and serves as a
We have not included the books found only in reminder that any translation is itself already
the Ethiopic or Coptic canons, though some an interpretation.
extracts appear in the article Essay with Com- 3. The Oxford Annotated Bible, based on the
mentary on Post-Biblical Jewish Literature. NRSV, is particularly useful for those who
3. It is important to see that it is only at the wish to gain a quick overview of the larger
periphery that the biblical canon is blurred. context before consulting this Commentary on
There is a great core of central books whose a particular passage of special interest. It is
status has never been seriously in doubt: the useful in another way too: its introductions
Pentateuch and Prophets in the Old Testament, and notes represent a moderate consensus in
the gospels and major Pauline epistles in the contemporary biblical scholarship with which
New. Few of the deutero-canonical books of the often more innovative views of the contri-
the Old Testament have ever been of major butors to this Commentary may be measured.
importance to Christians—a possible exception 4. When a commentator wishes to draw
is the Wisdom of Solomon, so well respected attention to a passage or parallel in the Bible,
that it was occasionally regarded by early Chris- the standard NRSV abbreviations apply. But
tians as a New Testament book. There is when the reference is to a fuller discussion to
nowadays comparatively little discussion be found in the Commentary itself, small cap-
among different kinds of Christian about the itals are used. Thus (cf. Gen 1:1) signifies the
correct extent of the biblical canon (which at biblical text, while GEN 1:1 refers to the commen-
the Reformation was a major area of disagree- tary on it. In the same way GEN A etc. refers to the
ment), and our intention has been to cover introductory paragraphs of the article on Gen-
most of the books regarded as canonical in esis. The conventions for transliteration of the
major churches without expressing any opinion biblical languages into the English alphabet are
about whether or not they should have canonical the same as those used by The Oxford Companion
status. to the Bible (ed. B. M. Metzger and M. Coogan,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).
E. How to Use this Commentary. 1. A com- 5. The traditional kind of verse-by-verse com-
mentary is an aid towards informed reading of a mentary has in recent times come under attack
text, and not a substitute for it. The contributors as a ‘disintegrating’ approach that diverts the
to this volume have written on the assumption attention of the reader from the natural flow
that the Bible is open before the reader all the of the text. The paragraph or longer section, so
while, whether in hard copy or electronic form. it is argued, is the real unit of thought, not the
The NRSV is the normal or ‘default’ version. verse. However, certain commentators com-
When other versions or the commentator’s menting on certain texts would still defend the
own renderings are preferred this is indicated; traditional approach, since they claim that
often this is because some nuance in the ori- readers chiefly need to be provided with back-
ginal has been lost in the NRSV (no translation ground information necessary to the proper
can do full justice to all the possible meanings historical interpretation of the text, rather than
of a text in another language) or because some a more discursive exposition which they could
ambiguity (and these abound in the text of the work out for themselves. Examples of both the
Bible) has been resolved in a way that differs older and newer methods are to be found in the
from the judgement of the commentator. commentaries below. But even when a particu-
2. The NRSV is the latest in a long line of lar commentator offers observations on indi-
translations that go back to the version author- vidual verses, we would recommend readers to
ized by King James I of England in 1611. It is read the whole paragraph or section and not
increasingly recognized as the most suitable for just the comment on the verse that interests
the purposes of serious study, because it is them, so as to gain a more rounded picture.
based on the best available critical editions of And to encourage this we have not peppered
general introduction 6

the page with indications of new verses in cap- simple conventions, without prejudice to the
itals (V.1) or bold type (v.1), but mark the start of serious issues that underlie these differences. A
a new comment less obtrusively in lower case particular problem of a similar kind was
(v.1). whether or not to offer some assistance with a
6. The one-volume Bible commentary, as this welter of texts, dating from the late biblical
genre developed through the twentieth century, period up to 200 CE, which, while not biblical
aimed to put into the hands of readers every- on any definition, are nevertheless relevant to
thing they needed for the study of the biblical the serious study of the Bible: these are the Dead
text. Alongside commentaries on the individual Sea scrolls, the Old Testament pseudepigrapha,
books, it often included a host of general art- and the apocryphal New Testament. The com-
icles ranging from ‘Biblical Weights and Meas- promise solution we have reached is to offer not
ures’ to ‘The Doctrine of the Person of Christ’. In exactly commentary, but two more summariz-
effect, it tried to be a Commentary, Bible Dic- ing articles on this literature (chs. 55 and 82)
tionary, Introduction (in the technical sense, i.e. which, however, still focus on the texts them-
an analysis of evidence for date, authorship, selves in a way consistent with the commentary
sources, etc.) and Biblical Theology all rolled format. Some readers may wish to distinguish
into one. But it is no longer possible, given the sharply between the status of this material and
sheer bulk and variety of modern scholarship, that in the Bible; others will see it as merging
even to attempt this multipurpose approach: into the latter.
nor indeed is it desirable since it distracts atten- 9. In addition to the overall introductions to
tion from the proper task of a commentary the three main subdivisions of the commen-
which is the elucidation of the text itself. tary, there are other articles that attempt to
Readers who need more background informa- approach certain texts not individually but as
tion on a particular issue are recommended to sets. The Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses
consult The Oxford Companion to the Bible or the functions not only doctrinally but also in
six volumes of The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ed. terms of its literary history as one five-part
D. N. Freedman, New York: Doubleday, 1992), work. Similarly, the letters of Paul were once
though older bible dictionaries may be used a distinct corpus of writings before they were
instead: the basic factual information they con- expanded and added to the growing canon
tain remains largely reliable and relatively stable of the New Testament. The four gospels
over time. may properly be studied separately, but, both
7. Each article concludes with a bibliography as historical and theological documents,
of works cited. But in addition at the end of the may also be read profitably ‘in synopsis’. No
volume there is an aggregated bibliography that attempt has been made by the editors to make
points the reader towards the most important these additional articles that group certain
specialist works in English on the separate texts together entirely consistent with the
books of the Bible, and also major reference individual commentaries on them, for the dif-
works, introductions, theologies, and so forth. ferences are entirely legitimate. The index of
8. The contributors to The Oxford Bible subjects at the end of the volume relates only
Commentary—and this will probably apply to to this introductory material and not to the
its users as well—belong to different faith tra- commentaries themselves. To locate discus-
ditions or none. They have brought to their task sions of biblical characters, places, ideas etc.
a variety of methods and perspectives, and this the reader is recommended to consult a con-
lends richness and depth to the work as a cordance first and then to look up the com-
whole. But it also creates problems in coming mentary on the passages where the key words
to an agreed common terminology. As we have occur.
noted already, the definition of what is to be The Bible is a vast treasury of prose and
included in the Bible, the extent of the canon, is poetry, of history and folklore, of spirituality
disputed. Further, should we refer to the Old and ethics; it has inspired great art and archi-
and New Testaments, or to the scriptures of tecture, literature and music down the centur-
Israel and of early Christianity; to the Apoc- ies. It invites the reader into its own ancient and
rypha or the deutero-canonical literature? mysterious world, and yet at the same time can
How should dates be indicated, with BC and AD often surprise us by its contemporary relevance.
in the traditional manner or with BCE and CE in It deserves and repays all the efforts of critical
reference to the Common Era? The usages we and attentive reading which the Oxford Bible
have actually adopted should be understood as Commentary is designed to assist.
 2. Introduction to the New Testament
LESLIE HOULDEN

A. Introduction. 1. This article sets out to discontent, so that the New Testament may
‘introduce’ the New Testament. But in literature continue to fascinate as well as edify its readers.
as in life, introductions may be of two kinds. At
a formal lecture or public meeting, the speaker B. The Idea of the New Testament. 1. It is
is usually introduced with a factual account of natural to suppose that the NT is virtually as
career and achievements. We receive in effect old as Christianity itself. It is equally natural to
the speaker’s credentials, flattering him or her assume that the NT has always been part and
and reassuring the audience as it settles to what parcel of Christianity, integral to its very being.
lies ahead. Such introductions, with their bat- It is refreshing to the mind to recognize that the
tery of facts, generally bear no close relation to truth is not so simple. We shall list some of the
the substance of the ensuing utterance, except facts that cast doubt on those assumptions
that they lead the listener to expect a display of about the NT.
some competence in, say, economics, but none 2. But first we should identify what we have
in civil engineering. in mind when we think of ‘the NT’. Most people
2. Introductions at social gatherings are of a will visualize a slim volume containing twenty-
different character. When we are introduced to seven writings from early Christianity, or else
someone, we do not expect a monologue of think of the second part of the Christian Bible,
information about our new acquaintance to most of it occupied by the OT. These writings
flow from the introducer, still less from the per- vary in type (though most are either gospels
son who faces us. No, introduction is a mere or letters) and in length (from the 28 chapters
beginning. It offers the prospect of conversation of Matthew’s gospel and Acts to the few lines of
where we shall range around for points of con- the 2nd and 3rd Letters of John). Though there
tact and explore possible features of character are connections between some of them, by way
and opinion; so that gradually, but quite unsys- of authorship (e.g. the letters of Paul) or in a
tematically, we may build up a picture of the one literary way (dependence among the first three
who has been introduced to us. If the introduc- gospels and common material in Colossians
tion leads to sufficient interest, we shall hope and Ephesians), each is in origin a separate
that it leads to further meetings, so that our work, composed in its own time and place for
sketchy picture may become fuller and more its own particular purpose.
exact. We shall take steps to ensure that the 3. These writings differ also in accessibility:
process continues from this propitious begin- we are likely to feel most at home with the
ning. We shall certainly not expect that the first gospels and Acts, with their strong story-line,
encounter provides more than a few unrelated much less at home with some of the letters and
bits of information and half-formed impressions. the Revelation of John; and when we survey the
Loose ends will not worry us in the least. list, there may be some titles that we have
3. This Introduction is of this second kind. At scarcely heard of. It is interesting then how
many points, the reader who is new to the rapidly diversity among these writings forces
subject will wish to question and clarify, and itself on our attention, even though we are
may even be frustrated by the incompleteness attending to the NT as a single entity. Clearly
of what is provided. The aim, however, is to this is not a single entity at all in some senses of
open subjects rather than to close them. More- that term, either in itself or in our awareness of
over, though a range of ideas on a particular its contents.
subject will often be given, to indicate that it is 4. The NT we think of is probably in the
not all plain sailing and where the rocks and English language. But every bit of it began in
shoals lie, this Introduction represents only one the Greek language of the first century of our
among the many possible perspectives on its era (apart from a handful of words taken over
subject. Further information on many topics from Hebrew, Aramaic, or Latin); so what we
comes in the detailed articles that follow, or have is a translation, never a simple operation
else in other works of reference, such as Bible and always involving decisions that amount
dictionaries or encyclopedias or in fuller com- to interpretation. Until fairly recently, it would
mentaries on particular NT books. The aim have been overwhelmingly likely that the NT in
here is to stimulate curiosity, even to incite to our hand or in our memory was the translation
introduction to the new testament 8

issued in England in 1611, usually known simply a single book with a name of its own. This is not
(and confidently) as ‘The Authorised Version’, the place to go into details of the process
or sometimes as the King James Version, after whereby this came about (von Campenhausen
James I in whose reign and by whose authority 1972; Metzger 1987). Suffice it to say that a
the work was done. collection of Paul’s letters was probably made
5. In the last fifty years, however, a plethora before the end of the first century; that the idea
of different translations has appeared, each of Christians needing both a gospel (i.e. the
attempting the task in a particular way or even story of Jesus) and Paul’s letters caught on
looking at the NT from a particular doctrinal soon after; that the end of the second century
standpoint. Most aim to give a more modern saw the acceptance in a number of major Chris-
English version than that of 1611: old words have tian centres (e.g. Rome, Alexandria) of some-
changed sense or gone out of use, new ways of thing close to the present collection (four
putting things have come in. Some recent ver- gospels, Acts, Paul’s and other letters; but that
sions do their modernizing in a way that stays it was four centuries before most churches
close to the old version (e.g. the RS Version), accepted more or less the set of writings that
others break right away from it (e.g. the NEB have remained to this day as those authorized
and the GNB). In a determination to make the for official use—it is a list that has survived
NT speak today, they may go so far as to amend (despite occasional marginal hesitations) all
the strong masculine assumptions of former the great divisions of the church, the same for
times, embodied in the Bible, by producing all. The negative corollary of this progressivist
gender-neutral renderings simply absent from way of putting things is of course that the
the original. Churches, using the NT in worship church, viewed as a whole, managed for four
or for study by their members, take varying centuries or so without the NT as we know it.
views about new versions, some favouring the 8. Again it cannot be our concern here, but it
resonance and familiarity of traditional lan- is worth recognizing that there was no discern-
guage, others seeing it as an obstacle to the ible inner drive towards the production of such
use of the NT by modern people. a thing as the NT: that makes it sound much too
6. It is not just a question of modernizing the purposive. Historically speaking, it was all more
English or not, though often the subject is dis- haphazard. It is more realistic to look at it this
cussed as if it were. There are also issues of way: the Christian communities, widely scat-
accuracy. For one thing, because of the discovery tered around the Mediterranean within a few
since the seventeenth century of numerous very decades of Jesus’ lifetime, had certain needs
old manuscripts of the NT, some going back to that had to be met if their life and mission
within a hundred years or so of the original were to flourish and if they were to have any
writing, we have a better idea of the NT authors’ coherence as (despite their plurality) a single
precise wording than was available to our ances- phenomenon—the Christian church, or even
tors (Metzger 1964; Birdsall 1970). (Never lose ‘Christianity’. They needed first to communicate
sight of it: until the invention of printing, every with each other and to profit from one
copy of the NT was made by hand, with all the another’s experience and wisdom, not to speak
inevitable slips and blunders, and even the alter- of bringing one another into line. Hence the
ation of the text to bring it into line with what early importance of letters. Even if these origin-
the copyist believed the scriptural writer ‘must’ ally addressed passing situations and had no
or ‘should’ have put.) Despite this opportunity eye on the long term, they might profitably be
for a better informed judgement about the text preserved against future crises or simply for
itself, however, there remain numerous places encouragement and edification. Inevitably,
of disagreement; and translations differ as they they would be circulated and acquire authority,
reflect differences of judgement in what are often both forming and buttressing church leaders in
nicely balanced decisions. All this is in addition their work.
to unavoidable variations of style and emphasis 9. The Christian communities also needed to
as translators view the text before them. Again, have ways of recalling Jesus, both in his time on
the NT is far from the stable entity that it appears earth and in terms of present relationship with
at first sight. his heavenly reality. The content of the letters
7. And there is more to come. Look at the NT (e.g. of Paul) might often help with the second,
historically. Only gradually did these writings as did the eucharistic worship and prayers of
come to be accepted in the Christian churches the church; the gospels were essential for the
in such a way that they could begin to be seen as first. There is a question about how early this
 9 introduction to the new testament

need came to be strongly felt; but soon the church, came into being within the already
gospels were used as tools for teaching and, existing life and work of the Christian commu-
from at least the middle of the second century nities. In so far as the church had a Bible from
but probably earlier, as an element in the Chris- the start, it consisted of the Jewish Scriptures,
tian gatherings for worship, where extracts eventually designated by Christians ‘the Old
were read to the community and were no Testament’, which it interpreted in the light of
doubt the subject of preaching. In this way, the career and person of Jesus, seen as its fulfil-
the parts of the NT were prior to the whole— ment. More will be said about this at the end of
that is, in the church’s use of these writings. The this section.
more one looks at the matter from the point of 12. If the church managed without a fully
view of use, the more the final production of a formed and authorized NT for its first few cen-
single entity, ‘the NT’, appears to be an after- turies, it is equally true that, in a contrary move-
thought, a tidying up. ment, the NT has undergone a disintegrative
10. That is was more than this is to do with process in the last three or four centuries. This
the fact that an element of selection entered into has not occurred primarily (often scarcely at all)
the matter. The NT is far from containing the in the official life of the churches, but in the
whole of early Christian literature (Schneemel- realm of scholarship, itself church sponsored
cher (ed.) 1991, 1992; Staniforth and Louth (eds.) (especially in mainstream Protestantism) if not
1987). We know there were numerous other church endorsed in many of its results (Houlden
writings, from the second century if not from 1986; Carroll 1991). During that period, the NT
the first, because copies of them have survived, writings have been subjected to all kinds of
often in fragments and extracts. Some of them analytical procedures. Almost all of these have
indeed are as old as at least the later of the involved treating them as separate units, often
writings included in the NT itself. It is apparent indeed identifying possible sources behind
then that the authorized collection did not come them (notably in the case of the gospels) or
together simply on the basis of antiquity—it was possible earlier units that have gone to form
not just the early church’s archives. It looks as if them as composite wholes (some of the letters,
a number of factors played a part: simply, popu- e.g. 2 Cor). Mostly, it has been a matter of
larity and usefulness on a sufficiently wide scale; attempting to suggest the original form, setting,
but also the attachment of an apostolic name, and intention of each of the writings by the use
that is the name of one of the earliest Christian of informed historical imagination and literary
leaders, increasingly venerated as authorities, observation. Nearly always the effect has been
perhaps as martyrs, certainly as close to Jesus. to break down in the reader’s mind the sense of
These two factors were not wholly distinct: in- NT as a whole, which was so laboriously built
deed it looks as if a bid could be made for the up in the early centuries. The NT comes to be
authoritativeness of a writing by attaching to it seen very much as a collection of independent,
an apostle’s name, whether Paul or Peter or John. or semi-independent, works, each to be exam-
It is not clear how far this was done in what we ined in its own right as well as in relevant wider
should regard as a deliberately fraudulent way contexts.
and how far it was a matter of claiming the 13. The upshot is that, in the strict sense, the
revered figure’s patronage—this is what he heyday of the NT as a compact entity (the book
would have written if he had been in our within the covers) was in the middle millen-
shoes. Both strategies can be paralleled in the nium of the church’s 2,000-year history; even
relevant parts of the ancient world. It is not even then, its most characteristic use, the form in
wholly clear whether it is legitimate to draw a which it was mainly experienced, was in bits—
sharp distinction between them (‘Pseudonym- sometimes as little as a few words, that would
ity’, in A B D 5). However that may be (and support a doctrinal or ethical point, more
modern literary ethics are surely inappropriate), often a longer section recited in liturgy or,
there was a Christian literature far larger than especially in the later part of the period, used
the NT itself that failed to win general endorse- in private meditative prayer. It is interesting to
ment. note that for much of that middle period,
11. In any case, it is evident that the NT grew Christian imagination was filled not only with
piecemeal, both in its parts and as a whole. material derived from Scripture but with
Evident too that it is an instrument of the legendary stories that the church had specific-
church, which for all the authority that, in ally rejected from the authorized canon. In for
whole and in parts, it came to have in the example, the sequence of windows at Chartres
introduction to the new testament 10

Cathedral, details of Jesus’ family, birth, and interest, is bound to recognize that they repre-
childhood drawn from the Protevangelium of sent different viewpoints in the early church,
James (2 cent.) figure alongside those drawn and even that some of them look as if they
from the gospels. were written to correct and refute others. For
14. At the same time, in whole or in substan- instance, it is likely that the Gospels of Matthew
tial parts, ‘the NT’ played a recognized part in and Luke were designed, not simply to amplify
Christian life. The NT as a volume came in but rather to improve on the Gospel of Mark,
medieval times to carry the sacred weight of eradicating what were seen as its inadequacies.
an icon, as did the gospels, bound separately— The formal opening of Luke, the first four
to be reverenced, viewed with awe, even feared, verses, seems to suggest as much. And the Pas-
as charged with numinous power. The ceremo- toral Epistles (1 and 2 Tim, Titus) and perhaps
nial carrying of the book of the gospels in Ephesians (as well as the latter half of Acts) were
Eastern Orthodoxy and (much less often now) probably designed to put Paul in a different
in the Western eucharistic liturgy retains this light from that in which his letters had come
sense. So, at a more mundane level, still some- to place him: they smooth out the sense of him
times tinged with superstition, does the use of as a strident and pugnacious figure, ready to
the NT in courts of law in some countries for take on esteemed church leaders when in his
the swearing of oaths. More grandly, the British view the gospel dictated it. The Letter of James
coronation ritual includes the monarch’s oath- seems to subvert one of the crucial emphases of
taking on the fifth-century NT manuscript (ac- Paul’s teaching. The NT does not support the
tually far from complete), the Codex Bezae. In view that the early church enjoyed harmonious
these residual uses, ‘the NT’ survives in a way unanimity of opinion or homogeneity of teach-
that our medieval ancestors saw as wholly nor- ing. Their disputes may often have related to
mal: and notice, this use of it did not necessitate issues long since dead, so that we tend to dis-
its being opened or read at all. Of course, for the count them, but the battles were real enough in
many Christians who remain immune to the their day, sometimes have modern counter-
analytical endeavours of scholarship, the NT, parts, and in any case caution us against over-
in whole and in parts, retains its verbal author- ready adoption of a particular idea or teaching
ity, speaking to the reader as God’s very utter- as the NT view of the subject in question. On
ance, with Paul and his fellow-writers as no almost every topic of importance, there was
more than instruments. There are of course diversity and conflict.
many intermediate stages between such literal- 16. There is one more important point.
ism and the recognition of variety within the Throughout this section we have had in mind
NT, understood in the light of the diverse set- the NT as a self-contained work, bound in its
tings of the various writings (Houlden (ed.) own covers, albeit a collection of twenty-seven
1995). distinct writings. But more often that not, we
15. This brings us to the final recognition that encounter the NT as the second (and much the
tends towards the breaking up of the NT as we smaller) part of the Bible: in sheer prominence,
may now read it. Once we attend to the likely it can even look like a sort of adjunct to the
origins of the various writings, we find that they OT. From the fourth century, Bibles have been
do not all sing the same tune. Certainly, we produced by Christians consisting of these two
must abandon any idea that they were the result parts, and both parts have been in constant use
of some kind of collaborative exercise—an im- in Christian worship and Christian study. This
pression that the single, tightly bound volume combination of the NT with the OT compels
easily creates. It may be retorted that divine us to consider the relation between the two. It
inspiration—the idea that, through the various is impossible here to detail the many different
human agents, the one divine ‘pen’ is at work— ways in which that relation has been seen. But,
implies a transcending singleness of mind. But despite the comparative brevity of the NT,
it is not wholly transparent that, even on such a Christians have always seen it as the climax
strong view of inspiration, God necessarily fa- and goal of the Bible as a whole. Most com-
vours singleness of statement at the expense of monly (as was hinted earlier), they have seen
(for example) the emergence of truth by way of the NT as fulfilling the OT; or, more precisely,
dialogue or controversy, even in early Christian- Jesus as fulfilling the old Scriptures and the NT
ity whose memorial the NT is. At all events, a as commenting on the manner of that fulfil-
candid historical view of the NT writings, while ment. In the NT’s own terms, the fulfilment
recognizing their overall unity of purpose and was expressed by way of OT images and
 11 introduction to the new testament

themes which were taken up and applied to the gospels renderings of Jesus’ words into a
him (e.g. king of Israel, son of God, lamb), foreign tongue—with the distortions that trans-
often with startling paradox and originality; lation cannot but entail.
also by way of statements in the OT which 3. It is worth noting at this point that, apart
were read through fresh eyes and seen as rele- from a few words and references to a few mili-
vant to some aspect or detail of Jesus’ life or tary or legal institutions, Latin culture has left
teaching. Most NT books, most obviously the little mark on the NT: these writings reflect life
Gospels of Matthew (e.g. 1–2) and John, con- in the eastern half of the Mediterranean world,
tain many such applications of OT quotations parts of the Roman empire with their own
to Jesus (Lindars 1961). The modern reader who strong and often mixed cultures, with Greek as
looks up the original OT context will often see the dominant force in many areas of life. True,
audacity (or even fraudulence) in many of descendants of Roman army veterans with
these applications—a difficulty removed or at Latin names (e.g. Tertius, Rom 16:22) appear in
least alleviated once it is understood that the the church at Corinth; Roman officials are not
NT writers are using techniques of scriptural inconspicuous in Acts, Pilate is a key figure in
interpretation current in Judaism at the time, the gospel story, and the empire sometimes
and applying them creatively to their own sub- broods over the scene, as in Revelation, or is
ject-matter. Again from a modern point of an acknowledged presence, as in 1 Peter and
view, it is necessary to recognize that they Philippians; but even so, Roman cultural pene-
were reading Scripture as sheer words, God- tration is not deep in the circles from which the
given, with only a minimal sense of historical NT comes.
context such as modern scholarship has so 4. Yet the obstacle referred to above is modi-
vigorously pursued. So words that originally fied once we realize that in the first century
related to the birth of a child in the royal house there was no impenetrable wall between Greek
in Jerusalem in the late eighth century BCE (Isa language and Jewishness, or indeed between
7:14) are applied to the birth of Jesus many Jewish and Greek cultures. It is only fair to say
centuries later and taken to illuminate its char- that some aspects of the first-century situation,
acter (Mt 1:23; Brown 1993). even quite important ones, remain obscure and
contentionus. But two major facts are clear.
C. The Background of the New Testament. 1. First, Palestine, at least as far as the towns were
So far we have considered the idea of the NT. In concerned, had become deeply affected by
terms of introduction, this has been the stage of Greek culture during the three centuries before
sizing up the new acquaintance. Another im- the time of Jesus. It showed itself in public
portant aspect of introduction lies a little be- matters such as civic architecture (e.g. Herod’s
hind the scenes and is often slow to emerge. It Temple in Jerusalem, built just before Jesus’
concerns the world and the culture from which time), leisure provision (amphitheatres, games),
the new acquaintance comes. Only if we find commerce and language (Greek inscriptions on
out about that will the introduction progress buildings and burial urns); in matters of the
and lead to understanding. mind, so that for example the old Jewish trad-
2. As we face this matter, we immediately ition of wisdom writing (classically represented
encounter what can seem a puzzling fact. All in Proverbs) seems to have absorbed elements
the NT books were written in Greek (though of Greek thought (e.g. in Job and Eccesiasticus).
just possibly Hebrew sources lie somewhere While politically the area that would later be
behind one or two of them), but their culture called Syria Palestina was, in Jesus’ day, part of
is chiefly Jewish. There are in these writings the Roman empire, its Herodian rulers and
only occasional instances of Hebrew or Ara- many aspects of the Jewish life over which
maic (the Semitic vernacular of the area), the they presided were in practice deeply affected
words of Jesus from the cross in Mk 15:34 (Ara- by Hellenistic culture especially in the upper
maic ¼ Mt 27:46 Hebrew) being much the most reaches of Jewish society. It is much less clear
extensive. In one way this creates an obstacle— how far the countryside was affected: through-
when for example we hope to read the very out the Mediterranean world, old indigenous
words of Jesus. While (as we shall see) there is cultures tended to survive intact outside the
a chance that Jesus knew some Greek, the over- limits of the towns and cities. The town of
whelming probability is that the main vehicle of Sepphoris, only a few miles from Nazareth,
his teaching was Aramaic. Therefore, at best (i.e. was being rebuilt along Hellenistic lines in the
even if no other factors are involved) we have in years of Jesus’ youth, but it is impossible to be
introduction to the new testament 12

sure how far such a place would radiate its Platonist kind; and though current opinion
influence and in exactly what respects. Certainly tends to the former opinion, the matter is im-
it is never referred to in the gospels. We mediately complicated by the understanding
shall discuss the setting of Jesus’ own life later: that the wisdom tradition itself had already
suffice it to say here that the extent of his been open to strands of Platonist thinking (Hen-
exposure to things Greek may have been min- gel 1974; Meyers and Strange 1981).
imal. 6. Attempts to produce more exotic sources
5. Secondly, in the Diaspora (i.e. among the for central early Christian ways of thinking or
Jews living in the cities of the Mediterranean behaving have failed to earn a permanent place
world), Greek was the predominant medium— in our picture of the time. The suggestion is made
even the Scriptures had been translated (the that Paul’s ideas on baptism, seeing it in terms
Septuagint); and it is this more firmly Hellen- of dying and rising with Christ (Rom 6:3–11),
ized Judaism that forms the background for and perhaps John’s on the eucharist, in terms
most, perhaps all, the NT writers and their of eating and drinking Christ’s flesh and blood
books. That does not imply total cultural (6: 51–8), have links to supposed beliefs of mys-
homogeneity: there were many styles and tery cults or other esoteric sects, but the
grades of the conditioning of Judaism by Hel- chronological difficulties in making some of
lenistic thought and Greek language, and the these connections (especially if gnostic links
early Christians whose outlook is encountered are introduced) can scarcely be removed and
through the books of the NT differ a good deal the match of mental worlds is a long way
along these lines. None of them displays more from being exact (Wagner 1967; Wedderburn
than a perfunctory acquaintance with Greek 1987). At points like these, there must be space
literature (Acts 17:28; 1 Cor 15:33): overwhelm- for real Christian originality. On any showing,
ingly their literary formation comes from the Paul and John were figures of great creativity.
Jewish Scriptures, mostly in their Greek form, Equally, whatever the roots and affinities of his
and often with emphasis on some parts more teaching, the impact of Jesus and his followers
than others—depending perhaps on the avail- in the years following his lifetime was so great
ability of expensive and cumbersome scrolls. and so novel that it is vain to hope that every
On the other hand, some of them show aspect of thought about him, every item of
knowledge of Greek literary forms. Thus, there Christian observance, can be shown to be derived
is a good case for saying that the gospels have easily and directly from phenomena already
affinities with Roman and Greek lives of cele- present in one circle or another in the vastly
brated figures (Burridge 1992). To judge from diverse religious scene of the first-century Medi-
books of the period, Luke’s preface (1:1–4) indi- terranean world. Jesus, the new, unique factor,
cates that he saw himself as providing a kind of produced new patterns, new ways of looking at
handbook about Jesus, whether for the Chris- the world. In the gospel’s own words, it really
tian community or for a wider public (Alexan- was a case of new wine even when there might
der 1993). Mark shows signs of a degree of be old bottles to contain it.
training in rhetoric as taught in the Greek 7. Let us look a little more closely at some of
schools of the period (Beavis 1989), and the the varieties of Hellenized Jewishness, now
same may be true of Paul (Betz 1979). These Christianized, that are visible to us in the NT.
writers, for all the Jewishness of their thought With the possible exception of the author of
and culture, were dependent also on the Greek Luke–Acts (and even he was imbued with Jew-
culture of the setting in which they had been ish lore and culture), every one of the main NT
formed—and unselfconsciously so. In their very writers was almost certainly Jewish in birth and
different ways—and the same variety is found upbringing. But they exhibit a variety of styles
among Jewish writers of the period—they drew of Jewishness as currently found in various
upon Greek models. They were part and parcel parts of the Jewish world. None of them
of their habitat. Partly because of this close matches the sophisticated Platonized mentality
interweaving of Judaism and Hellenism by this that Philo of Alexandria was bringing to bear on
time, it is not always easy to assign a given traditional Jewish themes and biblical texts at
feature of a NT book to Jewish or Greek influ- precisely the time of Christianity’s birth. But
ence. It can still be discussed, for example, Matthew’s gospel, for example, with its many
whether the prologue of the Gospel of John scriptural quotations, is the work of someone
owes more to the Jewish tradition of ‘wisdom’ skilled in the contemporary scribal techniques
writing or to Greek philosophical discourse of a of biblical interpretation, as abundant examples
 13 introduction to the new testament

in the Dead Sea scrolls have demonstrated 11. The Jewish background of the NT writings
(Stendahl 1968; Goulder 1974). The kind of comes out as clearly and distinctively as any-
training to which they testify, in a work written where in the cosmic framework within which
in Greek, comes most naturally from a Syrian their reflection on Jesus and his achievement is
context, affected by the methods elaborated in set. It is true that much Jewish religious energy
nearby Palestine and by issues (of law obser- went into the minutiae of the application of
vance) that were hotly debated in the sectarian the Law to daily living, both in spheres that we
life of the Jewish heartland in the period should call secular and in matters of plain reli-
(Sanders 1992). Paul and John show similar gious observance: Judaism drew no line be-
expertise in the handling of scriptural texts, tween the two as far as the applicability of the
and the former tells of his background in Phari- Law was concerned. In other words, Judaism
saism (Phil 3:5), which operated in a thought- was (and is) a faith and a lifestyle that viewed
world of such interpretation. John’s gospel can the present with intense seriousness and sub-
be seen as a thoroughgoing reworking of scrip- jected daily conduct to the closest scrutiny
tural themes and symbols (light, life, bread, (Sanders 1985, 1992).
shepherd, lamb), applying them to the deter- 12. But alongside this concern with the details
minative figure of Jesus. of present living, and to our eyes perhaps at
8. Luke’s reliance on the traditional Scrip- variance with it, we find, sometimes (as at Qum-
tures comes out in an ability to write in a ran) in the same circles, an equally intense inter-
Septuagintal style where the context demands est in the future destiny of the individual, of
it. So, while the stories of the birth of John Israel, and indeed of the world as a whole.
Baptist and Jesus (1–2) contain no biblical This concern with the future and with the cos-
quotations, their language is biblical from end mic dimension is part and parcel of the Jewish
to end, and the characters they depict evoke mentality which the first Christians inherited,
familiar scriptural figures, most obviously Han- and both in many of its characteristics and in
nah (1 Sam 2) in the case of Mary, but also its strength it differentiated Judaism from other
couples such as Abraham and Sarah and Man- speculative systems and ‘end-expectations’ of
oah and his wife (Jdt 13), who serve to create an the time. This strength is generally thought to
ethos of profound biblical piety and solid be closely related to the cohesiveness of the
embeddedness in history for the life of Jesus Jewish people (despite geographical dispersion)
which follows. Luke is deeply imbued with and to the many national catastrophes and dis-
biblical language and the biblical story. appointments they had endured. These pres-
9. The latter comes out in passages such as sures gave rise to extravagant and even
Stephen’s speech (Acts 7), with its survey of desperate hopes of divine intervention and the
Jewish history presented in a manner reminis- restoration of Israel. But the power and grand-
cent of numerous Jewish writings (most notably eur of this understanding was enhanced by the
and extensively the contemporary historian strong underlying tradition of monotheism. It
Josephus), including its mixture of example was the one God of the universe whose purpose
and warning. In the NT, the same feature ap- would soon be fulfilled (Rowland 1982).
pears in Hebrews, most explicitly in ch. 11. 13. Christian expressions of this world-outlook,
10. In the NT it is plain that we are reading centring on the figure of Jesus as God’s agent in
the work of people soaked in the stories, im- the hoped-for intervention, are to be found in
ages, themes and language of the Jewish Scrip- one form or another in most of the NT books,
tures (chiefly in their Greek translation). This most notably in the Revelation, a work that
sense of thorough permeation comes across is (apart from the letters in chs. 2–3) wholly
nowhere more strongly than in the Revelation couched in the idiom of apocalyptic, focused on
of John, where there are no quotations yet the heavenly realities and the consummation
almost everything is owed to a disciplined re- about to be revealed.
flection on the books of Ezekiel, Zechariah, 14. But this perspective is by no means con-
and Daniel in their own symbolic and linguis- fined to Revelation. Jesus himself is depicted as
tic terms. To call it pastiche would be to under- imbued with it in all the gospels, but especially
value the degree of ingenuity and visionary in the first three (Mk 13; Mt 24; Lk 17, 21; but also
creativity displayed in this reminting of old Jn 5:24–7). Not only does it therefore carry his
motifs in the light of Jesus and beliefs about authority, but its presence as an important con-
his person and significance (Farrer 1949; Sweet stituent in these works lends to each of them as
1979). a whole an apocalyptic character: if the modern
introduction to the new testament 14

reader is inclined to skip over these passages, some decades to be widely manifest and insti-
that is simply a symptom of the gap between tutionally plain, but from our earliest source
then and now. Moreover, the actual expression (the letters of Paul) the Christian movement
of this feature goes well beyond the chapters was on its own new path. From a Jewish
that are formally labelled ‘apocalyptic’, extend- point of view, this was a fatal distortion of the
ing, for example, to parables which look for- heritage—especially when, already for Paul, it
ward to cosmic judgement (eg Mt 13:36–43; involved the free inclusion of Gentiles within
25:1–46; Lk 12:35–40). This placing of apocalyp- the new people of God. From the Christian side,
tic material cheek by jowl with narrative is it is the goal to which all has tended. No wonder
already found in Jewish models such as Daniel Christians immediately had to set about the
and serves to place the story as a whole against appropriation of the old Scriptures—the agreed
a cosmic backcloth: we may seem to be reading data—to their picture of things; no wonder the
about events in Galilean villages, but in fact the Scriptures were the battleground in the struggle
story is set in the context of the whole universe, to decide whose right it was to inherit the man-
heaven and earth and Hades. What is being tle of Israel’s history and God-given privileges.
described has a meaning far beyond that of 17. The attaching of a hitherto future hope to
earthly events and words, however impressive the career of Jesus, now past, and to the life of
or profound. Further, while the Gospel of John the church, the people that stemmed from him,
has little explicit apocalyptic material in a for- was a decisive shift; all the more so when (as
mal sense, and its precise literary background is we shall see) that career was by no means the
not easily defined, there is a good case for say- obvious match to the terms of that hope. In
ing that in this work Jesus is seen in his entire order to accomplish the shift, the apparatus or
career as a manifestation of the divine from imagery of apocalyptic was the most readily
heaven—with the consummation of God’s pur- available tool. So: Jesus was cast (and had per-
poses both embodied and so concretely antici- haps cast himself) in the role of instigator of the
pated in his life and death. It is a revelatory fulfilment of God’s purpose; the resurrection
work par excellence (Meeks in Ashton (ed.) 1986; process began in his own rising on the third
Ashton 1991). day; the Spirit of God, whose outpouring in a
15. Paul too clearly works within an eschato- new God-given vitality was associated with the
logical framework that is apocalyptic or revela- coming consummation, was already experi-
tory in character, that is, he sees history, under enced in the Christian groups (1 Cor 12:1–13;
God’s energetic providence, moving rapidly to a Rom 8); judgement could be seen as linked to
climax of judgement and of renewal for his the act of adherence to Jesus or the refusal to
people; and in expressing this conviction he make that act—to accept the shelter of his gift
uses the revelatory imagery familiar, in various of overwhelming grace was to come safely to
forms and combinations, in Judaism. There will the far side of judgement and into a state of
be judgement according to moral deserts (2 Cor reconciliation with God (Rom 5:1–11; 2 Cor 5:17–
5:10; Rom 2:16); there will be a resurrection seen 21; Jn 5:24). It made a breathtaking offer and no
as the transformation of God’s faithful ones into wonder it was put in the most audacious terms.
the form of spiritual bodies (1 Cor 15:35–56); 18. Paul and John saw the implications of this
there will even be what amounts to a new reworking of old categories more clearly than
creation (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). others: it is certainly carried through in their
16. For both Paul and John, especially, this work more thoroughly than in any other of
picture is linked strikingly to the coming of the NT writings. For both of them, concentra-
Jesus and in effect given a new shape as a result tion on the decisiveness of Jesus is combined
of the conviction that the fulfilment of God’s with a sense of driving on towards an assured
purpose centres on him. This conviction neces- end. The Jewish framework of the one God of
sitates an intensifying of the apocalyptic sense the universe, the achieving of whose purpose of
and a shift in its temporal framework. If Jesus is salvation will assuredly be realized, is preserved
the decisive revelation of God and agent of his intact. What is new is, first, that it centres on
purpose, then the process of cosmic consum- Jesus and is seen as visibly guaranteed by his life,
mation is already under way and those who death, and resurrection (and that very attach-
adhere to him embody the fulfilment of Israel’s ment to an actual human career, capable inev-
hope. Here is the essential (and radical) amend- itably of numerous assessments, opened the
ment to the Jewish picture of things that makes door immediately to controversy); and, second,
for Christian distinctiveness. It may have taken that the fulfilment now has both an urgency
 15 introduction to the new testament

and an institutional frame (the church). Only have occurred. All we get then is perhaps a
the Qumran sect could rival it in Judaism in few scraps of Stoicism, possibly affecting
this sense of urgency and expectancy, and that Paul’s teaching on ‘nature’ in Rom 1 and 2:14–
group lacked universality of vision and mission- 15, and showing itself in the discussion of the
ary drive, so that its failure to survive the Jewish divine in Acts 17:22–31, and in a few other fea-
rebellion of 66–73 CE is in no way surprising. By tures; and, a subject of much current discussion,
that time, the followers of Jesus, with their Cynic moral wisdom as a factor behind some
openness to all-comers, Jew and Gentile alike, aspects of Jesus’ teaching. It is a disputed ques-
were well established in the main towns and tion, not so much whether parallels can be
cities of the Mediterranean world. identified, as whether, in the circumstances of
19. Only in some of the later books of the NT Jesus’ Galilee (or indeed of the evangelists),
(1 and 2 Tim, Titus, 2 Pet) do we begin to get a Cynic influence is at all probable. The day was
sense of the slackening of the kind of dynamism not far distant, however, when philosophy
we have been noticing, a loss of the creative (chiefly Platonist and Stoic) was to provide a
theological vision which had set the people of framework of thought in which Christian
Jesus on their own distinctive path. The church thinkers sought to operate. Within a few years
is here just beginning to be the defender of of the writing of the last books to find a place in
a system, of both thought and organization, the NT (120 CE?), such attempts were beginning
rather than the originator of a novel response to get into their stride.
to God’s action in the world. Sociology teaches
us to see such a development as inevitable (von D. The Church of the New Testament. 1. The
Campenhausen 1969; Holmberg 1990). It is a Christian church is both depicted in most of the
remarkable fact about the Gospel of John that, books of the NT and presupposed by all of
in these same last years of the first century, it is them. Every one of them is the product of one
able to produce a more thoroughly creative setting or another in the early Christian com-
reworking of the traditional Jewish pattern of munities. Sometimes the location of that setting
history, in the light of Jesus, than any other early is actually stated; in other cases it is not hard to
Christian writing. Anyone inclined to think in see a good deal about its character. Though
terms of single-track, linear development most of the books bear the name of a single
should reflect that, with regard to the basic author, there is good reason to think that, even
perspectives that we have been discussing, we if those ascriptions were in fact accurate (and
find an essential community of mind between most of them probably are not), we ought to see
Paul, the first Christian writer of all, and John, these writings partly as productions of the
writing towards the end of the period. church. While they reflect the thought of some
20. Anyone who knows about the ancient single mind—a genuine author—they were not
world will wish to raise questions about this written in isolation in some equivalent of a
account of the NT’s cultural milieu. The perva- modern author’s secluded retreat, but from the
sive Hellenizing of the life of the societies midst of a particular group of Christians with
around the Mediterranean, especially in the whom the author was in close interaction. Even
East, must surely point to certain influences the author of Revelation, shut away on Patmos,
on which nothing has been said. Was this not has his mind on the fellow-Christians from
a world in which the great philosophical whom he is separated.
achievements of Plato and Aristotle, not to 2. But, as we saw earlier, churches were not
speak of Stoics, Cynics, and Pythagoreans, all of one kind or, in many matters, of a single
were currents in the prevailing air? It has to be mind. They differed in geographical location; in
said that the great philosophies have left little exposure to some of the cultural features that
trace in these writings. This is not wholly have been described; in their relation to Jewish
explained by their dominant Jewishness, for, as observances and the local Jewish community; in
the case of Philo shows, Judaism was not in attitudes to leading Christian figures such as
itself inimical to the Platonist idiom of thought. Peter and Paul; in social composition (Jews,
It is more a matter of the social strata from Gentiles, rich, poor); in the handling of moral
which the NT writers came. They were, by def- problems, such as divorce and the scope of
inition, not illiterate, but either their education generosity. While the Christian churches were
was scriptural or scribal in content and manner a far closer network than any other organiza-
or it stopped at a stage on the ladder below that tion of the time that is at all comparable (and
where serious philosophical teaching would this is surely a major factor in their success,
introduction to the new testament 16

both now and later), held together by visits, already, largely a Gentile community, and
letters, and a measure of supervisory responsi- most of its problems sprang from overexuber-
bility felt by founders and leaders and by one ant and élitist religiosity on the part of the most
church for another, they were nevertheless articulate and wealthy members. More clearly
often strung out across great distances and than any other NT writings, these letters give
surely were compelled to engage in much inde- evidence of a church whose cohesion was made
pendent decision-making. As letters such as precarious by the dominance of these religious
Galatians and 1 Corinthians show very well, ‘experts’. Precarious, that is, in the eyes of Paul,
the independence and the supervision could who insists that all-embracing dependence on
find themselves on a collision course. Many of Christ implies the transcending of social and
the NT writings were indeed both an instru- racial divisions (1 Cor 1–4; 12:13) and the giving
ment of cohesion (as in due course they recom- of full honour and consideration to the simpler
mended themselves to a variety of communities) and poorer members (11:17–34; 12:1–13). In Paul’s
and a product of difference (in so far as they perception, the Lord’s supper was to be the
were designed to meet local and transient outward manifestation of this basic equality of
needs, or to counter or correct lines taken in generous love, rather than the focus of social
other writings and places). division that it had become in Corinthian prac-
3. If our interest is in the churches within or tice. They were simply continuing to run their
for whom the NT books were produced, then meetings along the hierarchical lines taken for
the most obvious place to begin—and the place granted in a place such as Corinth in house-
where we shall get the most direct results—is holds and in guilds and associations of various
the corpus of genuine letters by the apostle kinds.
Paul. Here is the most transparent (or at any 5. Galatians gives evidence of a different situ-
rate the least opaque) window available to us as ation. Here it is indeed the implications of
we seek to look at the life of early Christian Christ for the adherence of his followers to
communities. That immediately creates nar- Jewish observance that is in question, in par-
rowness, for they cover only a limited range of ticular the traditional Jewish identity-markers of
churches—in Greece and Macedonia (1 and 2 circumcision, sabbath, and food rules. This let-
Cor, 1 and 2 Thess, Phil), Asia Minor (Gal, Col, ter gives a vivid picture of the bitterness caused
Philem), and Italy (Rom). (Other letters are of by this issue (1–2 especially). Whether or not
uncertain Pauline authorship or unclear geo- Paul was the first to see adherence to Christ as
graphical destination: Eph, 1 and 2 Tim, Titus.) transcending this observance, and so as elimin-
Moreover, they vary a great deal in the degree to ating it at least as far as Gentile Christians were
which they illuminate for us the lives of those to concerned (and therefore in effect dethroning it
whom they are addressed—as distinct from the for all Christians), he it was who gave a ration-
thought and interests of Paul who addresses ale, scripturally based at that, for resistance to
them. Clearest of all is the church in Corinth, the imposition of the old Jewish marks of valid
where we have the two NT letters (the first of membership of God’s people (3–4; see also
them directly concerned with a welter of prac- Rom 4).
tical problems) and personal information from 6. Some writings point to there being group-
Rom 16, written at Corinth and including greet- ings of churches, whether on a geographical
ings from members of the Corinthian church. basis, or in relation to a shared missionary-
And Acts 18 gives an account of Paul’s initial founder. There would often be a shared
mission in the city. There is also archaeological language—a particular idiom or set of ideas in
and literary material shedding light on the Cor- which to express Christian belief. This is most
inthian background (Theissen 1982; Meeks 1983; easily seen in the case of the communities vis-
Murphy-O’Connor 1983). ible in the Johannine Epistles. Here we have
4. What is perhaps most surprising about evidence of a number of Christian groups (it is
this community, established in the early 50s, is unclear how many), where there is a limited
the small degree to which its manifold prob- degree of common acquaintance (3 Jn) and so
lems appear to reflect difficulties that are related perhaps a fairly wide geographical spread, but
to Christianity’s Jewish origins. There were, it all sharing some sort of organizational unity
appears, some Jewish members, but what one (2 Jn 1)—and having to struggle to maintain it
might expect to be their concerns (Law obser- (3 Jn). The basis of this unity, fragile as it was,
vance, relations to Gentile members, and scrip- was the form of Christian belief whose classic
tural interpretation) scarcely figure. This was, expression was in the Gospel of John, with its
 17 introduction to the new testament

distinctive, finely tuned vocabulary of key Galilean ministry by Jesus and a small group of
words (light, life, truth, word), endlessly rewo- adherents, supported from time to time by tran-
ven like elements in a complex fugue. But it is sient and anonymous crowds. It was marked by
plain that there was no machinery for the exert- constant movement, and a few references to
ing of rigid discipline among these Johannine Jesus’ home (Mk 2:1, 15) scarcely modify this
Christians: the occasion for the first two letters picture of endless mobility. The fact that the
is the emergence of division about the interpret- dominant mode of Christian life soon came to
ation of their manner of belief concerning the be settled and static speaks for the accuracy of
person of Jesus. It is also plain that, even in the this picture: any temptation to redescribe Jesus’
short time that must have elapsed between circumstances in the light of later times has
the writing of the gospel and the letters, some been resisted.
of the key words changed subtly in sense, in 10. This time was also marked by the rural
response to the quarrels. ‘Love’, for example, character of its setting: the big urban centres of
becomes a duty confined to the like-minded Galilee in Jesus’ day, notably Sepphoris and
(Brown 1979). Tiberias, are conspicuous by their absence,
7. The Revelation of John, with its letters to even though the former was only a few miles
seven churches in Asia Minor (chs. 2–3), may from Nazareth where Jesus was brought up.
again testify to some kind of group conscious- There are of course numerous references to
ness among a set of congregations, though it is ‘cities’; in general and by name, but none of
unclear whether the admonitory role adopted them is much more than a village or small
by the seer is self-appointed or represents a town in modern terms. They were small settle-
formal acceptance by these churches of a spe- ments in an overwhelmingly peasant-dominated
cial relationship. That such groupings might and agriculture-centred world. We have already
not be tight or exclusive is suggested by the seen that, in congruity with this mode of life, this
fact that the church in the major centre of was a setting where Aramaic was the dominant
Ephesus appears in three different sets: the language and where literacy and a wider culture
seven churches of Revelation, the largely differ- were almost certainly rare. While, like the wan-
ent seven churches who received letters from dering character of Jesus’ ministry, the rural
Ignatius of Antioch (c.110 CE), and the Pauline setting has amply survived any attempt the
foundations (Acts 19). The speed with which the evangelists might have been expected to make
main NT writings seem to have circulated itself to conform their account of Jesus’ activities to
suggests the effectiveness of at least informal the urban setting of the churches of their own
ties among the churches, as does such a project experience, the Semitic speech has been almost
as the collecting of Paul’s letters, presumably totally obliterated (Mk 5:41; 7:34; 14:36—all
from the churches which had initially received dropped by Matthew and Luke in their parallel
them, a process perhaps concluded by the end passages), and Jesus is depicted as possessing
of the first century. both scriptural knowledge and technical inter-
8. What has been said so far about the early pretative skill, including the ability to read
Christian communities may seem to point to (Lk 4:17), and even perhaps some acquaintance
virtual simultaneity among the situations with current popular moral teaching with Cynic
depicted; and it may seem that as, at the outside, affinities. The question attributed to the people
the time-span of their composition was no in the synagogue (Mk 6:2), ‘Where did this
more than seventy years (say, 50–120 CE), and man get all this?’ has never been satisfactorily
as the period is so distant and obscure, there is answered, except in the terms of supernatural
little scope for attempts to refine that approach. endowment—which the evangelist is no doubt
But we are not entirely without the possibility content for us to entertain. However, it has to be
of identifying developments even within that said that evidence about synagogues in Galilee in
relatively short period, though certainty very this precise period (as distinct from a little later)
often eludes us. and about educational opportunities at village
9. The first development was the shift in the level is practically non-existent and intelligent
character of the Christian movement from the guesses vary, some more optimistic than the
period of Jesus’ ministry to the subsequent mis- tone adopted here (Freyne 1988).
sion and the living of the Christian life. Our 11. Leaving these matters aside, we do not
written sources in the NT itself, the gospels have to look for the reason behind the original
and Acts, present it as the smoothest of transi- organizational simplicity, even indifference, of
tions. At first there was, it seems, a brief time of the movement that centred on Jesus. It lay
introduction to the new testament 18

surely in the vivid sense of God’s imminent established themselves in Jerusalem, where they
fulfilment of his saving purpose—to which, as happened to be, and started preaching.
we have seen, the gospels (not to speak of Paul 13. In fact it was remarkable that, in institu-
and most other early Christian writers) bear tional terms, the Christian movement survived
witness. True, in the Qumran sect we have a the crisis. It was done at the cost of severe
Jewish group that combined such a sense (des- changes to some of its central attributes and
pite their existence for two centuries without its perspectives. Most obviously, there was a shift
realization) with the most meticulous rules and from rural to urban settings, probably first in
observance covering every aspect of the com- Jerusalem, as Acts says, but soon in other major
mon life. But in the case of both John Baptist cities—Antioch (one of the largest cities of the
and Jesus, the policy is different: open not ancient world) and then, in due course, in Asia
secluded, of mass appeal not separatist, per- Minor, Greece, and Rome, in the 40s and 50s.
sonal not immediately communal in its effects. The world of Galilee was left behind. Indeed,
There is not much sign in the gospels (and again with the exception of a single allusion in Acts
the resistance of inevitable pressure to conform 9:31, we have no clear evidence of Christian
the story to later situations is impressive) of any activity there after Jesus left for Jerusalem. For
attempt by either of these charismatic figures to all we can tell, his work there was without
ensure the survival and stability of a movement, trace—a passing whirlwind. (References to
with the structural provision which that re- appearances of the risen Jesus there, in Mt 28
quires. What there is, for example the commis- and Jn 21, are of uncertain value in this regard
sion to Peter (Mt 16:17–19), has all the marks of and nothing visible follows from them.)
coming from later times: in this example, the 14. There was a shift too (and necessarily,
words are added by Matthew to Mark’s narra- given the urban locations) from itinerant to set-
tive, reducing it to confusion when we read on tled life, with missions undertaken from perman-
to ‘Get behind me, Satan’, addressed now to one ent urban centres. The result of this shift was
just assured of the most crucial role in the that tensions arose between the more mobile
church. Even when such material is taken into missioners and the members of Christian con-
account, it does not amount to a blueprint: in gregations who did not normally reckon to leave
the later first century, when the gospels were their city boundaries and whose Christian life
written, the church had still not reached a Qum- soon expressed also a change from a movement
ran-like point, where every detail of life should of unorganized individual adherents, many of
be provided for by rule. The strong eschato- them perhaps transiently impressed by the
logical impulse from Jesus had not exhausted preaching of Jesus (the ‘crowds’ of the gospels),
itself, despite the great changes which had to one of tightly knit congregations, many of
nevertheless occurred. their members belonging probably to a small
12. Those changes were indeed momentous. number of households in a given place and living
Almost all the features of Jesus’ ministry that quite circumscribed lives, marked in all kinds of
have been described were replaced by their ways by their Christian allegiance. We have seen
contraries. Mesmerized by the smoothness of that the letters of Paul testify amply to some of
the transition as described by Luke, as we move the problems resulting from this new allegiance,
from his gospel to the beginning of Acts, working its way within the social framework
readers have been reluctant to grasp how in- of such cities of the Graeco-Roman world as
congruous are the ‘before’ and the ‘after’. Much Corinth and Thessalonica.
attention has long been given to the question of 15. We said that the strong sense of an immi-
how and why the Christian movement survived nent manifestation of God’s power, to judge
the death of its founder and the seeming failure and then to save his own, survived the lifetime
of all his hopes and promises; and in answering of Jesus—it is the framework of Paul’s faith—
that question, attention has focused chiefly and the shift to a more organized mode of
on the resurrection of Jesus as offering, some- existence. But certain of its concomitants in
how, the key to the problem’s solution. But the earlier phase are no longer prominent. It
there is the at least equally fascinating institu- was not practicable in the circumstances of an
tional problem. Evidence to shed light on it is urban institution to follow the pattern of aban-
almost non-existent, and Luke has thrown us donment of family and property which is so
off any scent there might be, encouraging us to strong in the preaching of Jesus. No doubt,
see the move as the most natural thing you with the exception of Jesus’ immediate circle of
could imagine: of course, Jesus’ followers simply itinerant preachers, there was always a measure
 19 introduction to the new testament

of metaphor in the interpretation of this local leaders became more prominent, and in
theme: Peter was married when he ‘forsook all more and more places, a single ‘supervisor’ (epis-
and followed’ Jesus (Mk 1:16–20, 29–31), and kopos, later acquiring the status of a Christian
remained so (1 Cor 9:5), and indeed Mark studi- technical term, ‘bishop’) came into being as the
ously omits wives from the list of relations to chief officer of the Christian community. As a
be left behind (10:29–31; cf. the prohibition of matter of history, he probably arose from
divorce in 10:1–12)—though Luke (looking back among the natural leaders of household-
through ascetic rose-tinted spectacles?) does churches in a given place, but some bishops at
not (18:29). The message might be interiorized least soon came to see their role in much more
into attitudes of single-mindedness and self- lofty terms: as representatives of God the Father
abnegation, or modified to spur Christians into and vehicles of the Spirit’s utterance. The letters
generosity (forsaking not all wealth but cer- of Ignatius of Antioch (c.110 CE; Staniforth and
tainly some), whether to the needy of the Chris- Louth 1987) show us a man whose high sense of
tian group or to outsiders (Lk 10:25–37). There is his place in the Christian scheme of things
astonishingly little on these themes in the eth- makes Paul’s idea of an apostle pale by com-
ical sections of the letters of Paul (Rom 12:13; parison (Campbell 1994).
16:1–2 on giving; and 1 Cor 7:12–16 on marital 18. There is little surviving evidence, but it is
problems in relation to conversion); though it is likely that forms of worship came to be formu-
hard to believe that passages such as Mk 1:16–20 lated in the same period. The Didache (not in
did not resonate with people whose Christian the NT and unknown until a single manuscript
decision cost them dear in terms of family rela- came to light in 1873) contains forms of euchar-
tionships and inheritance (cf. Jn 9). istic prayer from Syria, probably from the late
16. Christian family life, with its development first century. There are signs too of an increas-
of injuction and advice for its regulation, was ing concern with conformity to whatever in a
not long in becoming a primary concern in the particular place was seen as orthodoxy: both
urban congregations. It had soon become an the Johannine and the Pastoral Epistles show
institution in its own right, and it figures in this trait, and in the latter case, there is more
one form or another in many of the NT letters interest in urging such conformity than in elab-
(1 Cor 7; Col 3:18–4:1; Eph 5:21–6:9; 1 Pet 2:18– orating on the beliefs actually involved. These
3:7), in terms much like those found in both pseudonymously Pauline letters are also insist-
Jewish and Greek compendia dealing with the ent on the need for respectable behaviour,
same themes. The church had become domes- acceptable to society at large, and on the sober
ticated. The note of abandonment, as a constant qualities required in church leaders (1 Tim 2:1–4;
sound in the Christian ear, was muted, as em- 3:1–11). It is all a far cry from the exuberance and
phasis shifted to the maintenance of church life. brave independence of mind that mark the mis-
17. It has become common to give more sion of Paul half a century before.
attention to a second transition in church life 19. All the same, it does not do to paint too
during the period in which the NT books were sharp a contrast between the solid and perhaps
written, and sometimes it has been exaggerated unexciting interests visible in some of the late
or misleadingly described, perhaps in surrender NT writings and the enthusiasm and innovation
to the impulse to contrast an early golden age of earlier days. If Paul is aware of the inspir-
with subsequent decline. This is the develop- ational force of the Spirit in himself and among
ment in the later years of the first century and his converts, Ignatius shows comparable assur-
the earlier years of the second, of a greater ance, speaking with the voice of God. He is no
concern to formalize and legitimate Christian mere ecclesiastical official, basing his position
institutions of many kinds. The first moves to- on human legitimation and just, as it were,
wards an authorized body of Christian writings doing a job for the church. On the other hand,
probably belong to this time and are one mark Paul himself is far from being uninterested in
of this trend. Others include the final replace- due order in his Christian communities. It may
ment of itinerant missionaries (such as Paul and sometimes have been hard to achieve or, as in
his associates) by the leaders of local churches, Corinth, power had come to be concentrated in
so that the churches now bear the weight of persons he disapproved of—even if they were
Christian organization and authority: there is themselves, it appears, claiming charismatic in-
no outside body to turn to, except other spiration. But the whole tone of his correspond-
churches comparable to one’s own. Despite ence shows an acute concern for properly
the emergence of networks and groupings, accredited leadership, as 1 Cor 16:15–17 tactfully
introduction to the new testament 20

indicates. He was no lover of spiritual anarchy be little doubt that, even if he did not establish
(Holmberg 1978). ‘cells’ of followers in the Galilean countryside
20. However the matter is analysed in and villages (and there is no sign of such
detail—and there is room for difference of groups), his preaching of the dawn of God’s
opinion—it is evident that the churches under- kingdom, his visible and effective sovereignty,
went considerable changes, even within the involved communal assumptions. What was to
relatively brief period to which the NT testifies emerge was a purified and rejuvenated ‘people
and even to the extent of producing contradict- of God’—some sort of ‘Israel’.
ory opinions and policies (for example on eth- 23. The urbanizing of Christianity, visible in
ical questions such as the continuing role of the Paul and elsewhere, brought no break in this
Jewish Law in daily life, Houlden 1973). ‘Israel-consciousness’. Above all in Rom 9–11,
21. It is to be noted that all this took place Paul produced a complex and ingenious theory
among a still obscure body of people—spreading to demonstrate the continuity between the
rapidly across the Mediterranean map and Israel of the Scriptures and the Christian com-
growing in numbers right through the century, munity, made up of Jews and Gentiles on equal
but, in the writings available to us, showing terms (at least in Paul’s determined view). But
little awareness of the world of the history text- Paul also saw the church in a quite different
book. There are, however, some marks of that perspective, one that was in tension, if not con-
world: the author of Revelation has his eyes on tradiction, with the idea of continuity which his
the fate of the Roman Empire and is aware of Jewish roots and his sense of the one God of
the rise and fall of emperors; Luke knows about history would not allow him to forgo. This
Roman governors and other officials in the ter- other perspective, for which he also argued
ritories he describes, as well as something of the with great skill and passion, centred on Christ
system they operate (Sherwin-White 1963; and the sheer novelty that had come on the
Lentz 1993). Yet the events that might be scene with him. It was nothing less than a new
expected to have made an impact on the late creation (2 Cor 5:17), with Jesus as a new Adam,
first-century writings of a religious group with starting the human journey off all over again
Jewish antecedents—the Jewish rebellion in (Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:22). In him, the human
Judea, the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple race was created afresh. Paul’s highly concen-
at Roman hands, and the mass suicide at trated image of the church as Christ’s body
Masada—have left only oblique traces, such as encapsulates this consciousness, in which the
elements in a parable (Mt 22:7) and symbol- Jew–Gentile divide is not so much overcome as
laden prophecies on Jesus’ lips (Lk 21:20–4). undermined and rendered irrelevant (1 Cor 12;
On the face of it, this is astonishing, so much Rom 12; Gal 3:28). By clever scriptural argu-
so that some critics have been led (in the teeth ments, chiefly involving the figure of Abraham
of all other considerations) to date the NT (Gal 3; Rom 4), Paul sought to reconcile these
books well before those happenings of 66–73 two perspectives. They did not convince Jews,
CE (Robinson 1976). It may be better to see this and while Christians mostly maintained that
silence as evidence of the degree to which the they were the true heirs of the old Israel, it was
Christian communities responsible for these the idea of their membership ‘in Christ’, ex-
books had by the time of writing abandoned pressed in baptism and eucharist, and worked
their Palestinian and, in many cases, their Jewish out in following his teaching as found in the
roots, at least in social and institutional terms. gospels, that chiefly occupied their practical
These events impinged, on people whose loyal- consciousness. John’s gospel systematically
ties and interests now lay elsewhere and who shows Jesus, and then those attached to him as
were removed from the immediate scene, less branches to vine and as sheep to shepherd (15;
than seems to modern people to be credible. 10), as embodying and absorbing all the great
22. Finally, part of the explanation lies also in attributes and properties that had belonged to
the high concentration that marked the self- Judaism and the people of Israel. They belonged
understanding of the Christian communities: now to the people of Jesus.
they had strongly formed beliefs not just
about God and Jesus, but also about the church E. Jesus and the New Testament. 1. It might
itself. In other words, the detached and analyt- be expected that an introduction to the NT
ical terms in which the church has been dis- would open with an account of Jesus rather
cussed in this article would have been wholly than delay the subject to the end. After all,
alien to them. In Jesus’ own preaching, there can directly or obliquely, Jesus is the subject of
 21 introduction to the new testament

most of the NT books, and is the most signifi- accomplice (Mt 27:24; Lk 23:22). There is good
cant factor in their ever having been written at reason to suppose that this is unlikely to repre-
all. There are, however, good reasons for the sent the truth of the matter and that it reflects
roundabout approach to the heart of the mat- instead the increasing tension between Chris-
ter. For, despite all his prominence, Jesus is in tians and (other) Jews, as the former were virtu-
the NT a figure to be approached with caution. ally compelled to define themselves over
For one thing, much depends on the reader’s against the latter. Historically, the probability
interest: whether, for example, you are keen to is that, at a time of governmental nervousness
find out about the facts and circumstances of in a Jerusalem crowded for Passover, the Roman
Jesus’ life, personality, and teaching, or about authorities combined with the Jewish priestly
the origins and terms of faith in him. There is a aristocracy who administered the Temple to
well-grounded distinction between Jesus as a remove one whom they perceived to be a pos-
figure of early first-century Jewish history and sible occasion of civil disorder. His execution
Jesus as the object of devotion and faith, pre- was, after all, by the Roman method in such
supposed by all the NT writers; with the resur- cases, that is crucifixion (Rivkin 1984; Brown
rection (that most difficult of phenomena to pin 1994).
down) as the hinge between the two. 4. But this is only the most spectacular in-
2. It is a basic truth that, whatever the claims stance of a pervasive principle, often hard to
and the appearances, Jesus is never encountered identify with assurance. Take, for example, the
‘neat’ in the NT. Apart from the fact that the matter of Jesus’ attitude to the Jewish Law. Did
gospels are unlikely to be the work of steno- he simply take it for granted as the air he
graphers who hung on Jesus’ every word and of breathed, perhaps taking one side or another
adherents who witnessed his every act, those on subjects of current dispute, but not stepping
brief books have all the inevitable distortion outside the limits, as currently seen, of legitim-
that goes with selectivity; moreover, it is appar- ate debate? His society did not, it seems, operate
ent that the selectivity was not unprincipled or under a rigid orthodoxy and there was much
merely random. It worked by way of filters, diversity of interpretation about such matters as
some obvious, others more hypothetical, by sabbath observance and tithing of produce. Or
which material was affected on its way into did he go beyond such bounds, offering a rad-
the gospels we read. We have already referred ical critique of the Law’s very foundations? If so,
to the frequently ignored filter of translation of it is puzzling that none of the gospels offers this
speech from Aramaic into Greek. It is accom- as the reason for his final condemnation
panied by the equally frequently ignored filter (though he is attacked for it in the course of
by which the material moves from an originally the story, e.g. Mk 3:1–6). But the gospels differ in
uneducated Galilean and rural setting to more their presentation of Jesus’ teaching on this
sophisticated urban settings, in Syria, Asia subject in the course of his ministry.
Minor, or elsewhere, where much vital original 5. In brief, Mark depicts him as radical,
colouring must have been invisible. Sometimes marginalizing food taboos and the priority of
the provision of new colouring is obvious sabbath observance (7:19; 2:23–3:6) and down-
enough: the well-known example of the tile- playing the sacrificial system in favour of an
roofed Hellenistic town house described in ethic of active love (12:28–34); while John
Luke’s version of the healing of the paralytic shows him superseding the Law in his own
(5:19; contrast the Palestinian house in Mk 2:4). person as the medium of God’s disclosure to
For all we know, there are many details, large his people (1:17; 2:21; 7:37–8). Matthew, by con-
and small, in the gospels that are both harder to trast, has Jesus endorse and intensify the
spot and more significant for the general pic- requirements of the Law (5:17–20; 23:23), while
ture than that. he takes a humane view on certain currently
3. Equally important as a distorting factor is disputed issues (12:1–14; 19:1–9; adapting Mark).
the effect of developing convictions and atti- And Luke places his attitude somewhere be-
tudes in the church in the years following tween Mark and Matthew, rather in the spirit
Jesus’ lifetime. Some instances have proved dev- of the compromise he shows the Jerusalem
astating in their results, above all the way the church arriving at later in the light of substan-
gospels (increasingly as one succeeds another) tial Gentile conversions to the church (Acts 15).
place responsibility for Jesus’ death on Jewish It is hard to avoid the conclusion that all these
heads (on all Jewish heads, Mt 27:25), with Pon- presentations have been affected by the diverse
tius Pilate as their pliable but scarcely guilty resolutions of this problem, both pressing and
introduction to the new testament 22

practical in the first decades of the Christian 9. The faith in Jesus which prevents the gos-
movement, that were adopted in various differ- pels being neutral records (whatever that might
ent quarters of the church. mean) was largely articulated by means of ma-
6. Moreover, all the evangelists were writing terial drawn from Judaism, and especially from
after the shock of Paul’s strong stand on this the old Scriptures. This was partly for purposes
very matter, releasing Gentile converts from of Christian self-understanding (to what other
the adoption of the key marks of Jewish medium could the first Christians practically
identity—sabbath observance, food laws, and turn?) and partly for purposes of self-definition
circumcision—and thereby implicitly placing in relation to (other) Jews who did not share
allegiance to Christ as the sole identity marker their assessment of Jesus and adherence to him.
for all Christians. It appears that the whole But this appeal to Scripture, which pervades the
subject remained contentious for some time, gospels, makes yet another screen between us
with a variety of positions being taken (though and the realities of Jesus’ historical life. It is an
it remains a puzzle that neither radical nor interpretative tool that was certainly used, in
conservative presentations in the gospels refer one form or another, by all schools of thought
to the matter of circumcision on whose irrele- in the early church, but, when it comes to the
vance Paul was so insistent, as Galatians in gospels, we are faced with the question of
particular demonstrates). The upshot of all this whether Jesus himself initiated the process—as
is that we really cannot tell with certainty in the depiction that is before us. Did he not,
exactly what Jesus himself taught or practised, inevitably, interpret his own mission and per-
and scholarly opinion remains divided. Careful son in scriptural terms? If so, to which models
analyses of crucial sayings, fitting them plaus- did he appeal? And to what extent did the
ibly into the setting of his time and place, al- amplifying of this mode of thought in the
ways remain open to alternative interpretations church, as evidenced in the gospels and else-
which see them as reflections of the particular where, merely build upon his foundations and
evangelists’ views (Harvey 1982; Sanders 1993). continue along lines he laid down, as distinct
7. Jesus is obscured too by the fact that, by the from moving along altogether more ambitious
time the gospels were written, interest in the paths? For example, when the Gospel of John
sheer preservation of his words and ideas was views Jesus under the image of God’s pre-existent
overshadowed by his being the object of faith— Word, his copartner in the work of creation
and by the consequent need to make a case for itself (1:1–18), thus drawing on a symbol current
that faith, which saw him not simply as a figure in Judaism (e.g. Ps 33:6; Wis 9:1), there is nothing
of the past who had once revealed God and his to suggest that Jesus himself made use of that
saving purposes and whose death and resurrec- category of thought. It is quite otherwise with
tion had given new insight into those purposes Jewish terms such as Messiah, son of God, or
or marked their realization; but as the present son of man. These appear on his lips or are
heavenly Lord who enjoyed supreme triumph inseparable from the tradition about him.
as God’s co-regent and would soon return in the None of them is easy to interpret, and if Jesus
public display of that reality. used them, it is as likely that they received, by
8. The scriptural text that seemed best to the very fact of their application to him if not
epitomize that faith was ‘The Lord said unto from his explicit teaching, twists of sense, per-
my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make your haps to the extent of sheer paradox, that were
enemies your footstool’ (Ps 110:1). This text is novel. Jesus was, after all, on any showing a
quoted more widely across the gamut of NT most un-messianic Messiah, given the national-
authors than any other—closely followed by istic associations of the term—if indeed he did
‘Thou art my son, this day I have begotten make any such claim. And the same would be
thee’ (Ps 2:7), less precise but not dissimilar in true even if in reality the claim derives from his
import. It is impossible to believe that this faith followers after his lifetime rather than from
failed to colour the memory of Jesus’ earthly himself.
life, even if there had been in the churches a 10. None of this caution, this indirectness, is
strongly archival sense, or, more likely, a rever- designed to say that the gospels merely obscure
ence for Jesus’ words and the stories of his the figure of Jesus or tell us nothing of value
deeds, which could stand alongside that faith: about him. There are certain features of his life
argument ranges back and forth on the balance and teaching that not only come across loud
of effect of these various aspects of the situation and clear but were less than wholly welcome in
(Gerhardsson 1961; Stanton 1974; Meier 1991). the early church—and would not therefore
 23 introduction to the new testament

have survived if the church, like a traumatized is all in all. Such people rarely get much of a
individual, simply eliminated that which it no hearing: often their day is brief or they are
longer approved of or no longer served its pur- snuffed out by authorities who feel endangered
poses. We have seen that the renunciatory by them. First-century Galilee, somewhat re-
teachings of Jesus the Galilean charismatic moved from the centre of power in Jerusalem
preacher were toned down or repackaged and probably unstable in its rural economy,
quite rapidly in the more settled life of the spawned several such figures, most of them
urban churches. Yet we see them prominently leaving practically no trace. John Baptist had
displayed in the first three gospels. Much has more identifiable effects: he comes into the
been made (Hengel 1981) of the saying in Mt story of Jesus, and the late first-century Jewish
8:22 (‘Follow me, and let the dead bury their historian Josephus (like Mark and Matthew but
own dead’), advocating, in the name of the in somewhat different terms) tells of his execu-
extreme urgency of God’s call and of his king- tion for his righteous meddling in the affairs of
dom, a stance of provocative immorality by the the great ones in the land—a classic prophet’s
standards of virtually any culture and soon predicament. Moreover (and somewhat mys-
abandoned in the family ethic of the church, teriously), like Jesus, he gave rise to a group of
as Eph 6:4 demonstrates. It is these harder, more followers who, according to Acts 18:24–19:6,
uncomfortable elements in the story of Jesus had spread to Ephesus in the later years of the
which, however they may sometimes visibly, century—thereafter they fade from view.
as one evangelist modifies another, have been 13. Much of the broad picture of Jesus in the
modified by the church, speak most powerfully gospels coheres with this identification of his
for the tenacity and authority of Jesus’ vision, social role: the radical, shocking teaching about
simply because it was his (Harvey 1990). ties to family and property; the call to ‘follow’
11. A promising line of enquiry begins by that brooks no delay, no appeal to prudence;
bypassing the gospels altogether. We know the ready challenge to established religious
when and where Jesus lived: what then can we groups, even the most pious, for their routines
learn from a knowledge of the times derived and their self-satisfaction; the challenge to cen-
from other sources, such as archaeology and tral authority—if that is how we are to construe
histories of the period? We have already made the incident in the Temple (Mk 11:15–17) which
reference to evidence of this kind: the Qumran probably precipitated the perception of Jesus as
sect and the Dead Sea scrolls left by them a breacher of the peace and his speedy elimin-
(Vermes 1977, 1995); the probabilities about the ation; above all, the sense of the imminent
circumstances of Jesus’ death; the mixed culture realization of God’s rule.
of Galilee with its peasant countryside and Hel- 14. However, other readings are possible and
lenistic cities. But can this approach bring us win some support, even within the method we
nearer to a realistic view of Jesus himself, at any have been describing. The picture of Jesus as
rate to a view of his role in the society of his charismatic leader or prophet, once put forward,
time—what sort of part he played, how he may seems obvious: it makes best sense of the most
have fitted into its structure and been perceived basic recognition of modern scholarship—that
(Finegan 1992; Stanton 1995)? Jesus was a Jew of his time. It brings it into sharp
12. This more detached and wider-ranging focus and takes us behind some of the other
approach does not yield unquestioned results, characterizations of Jesus (for example, as the
but many would agree that it places Jesus in a heavenly one come to earth) that soon came to
category of persons recognizable in the period dominate Christian accounts of him (Rom 1:3;
(Vermes 1973). In traditional terms, such per- Gal 4:4). But it does less than justice to certain
sons have affinities with the prophets of former other aspects of the gospel material: such as the
centuries, men who stood out from the prevail- teaching about there being no need for anxiety,
ing religious culture and social system, declar- no need for complexity of lifestyle (Mt 6:25–34);
ing the will of God and the imminence of his or the picture of Jesus and his followers as a
judgement. More sociologically, we can refer to band of brothers espousing freedom and sim-
them as charismatics, that is people whose mes- plicity of life under God’s heaven, somewhat
sage threatens to turn the world upside down, after the manner of modern opters-out from
challenging conventional values—even those society. Jesus’ common meals with his followers
whose morality seems unimpeachable—and (specially emphasized in Luke) were then the
looking towards an order of things where life central symbol of this lifestyle, focused on the
is lived at a new level of righteousness and God present.
introduction to the new testament 24

15. This is a distinctly non-apocalyptic pic- 19. The two perspectives meet, however, pre-
ture of Jesus and, in terms of Jewish heritage, cisely in the death and resurrection, and the
seems to owe more to some facets of Jewish latter in particular may be seen as the junction
‘wisdom’ tradition, with its provision for moral between them (Evans 1970; Marxsen 1970).
life here and now. But its associations and prov- Luke’s two-volume work (Gospel and Acts)
enance may lie more in the teaching of Cynic comes nearest to meeting the need to unite
philosophers who adopted values of this kind Jesus’ life before the resurrection and the life
and whose influence had perhaps penetrated of the church after it—though even this narra-
into northern Palestine. The straightforward tive probably ends before the time of writing,
view is of course, that Jesus himself sensed a and so, like the gospels, looks back from the
directness and simplicity of filial relationship Christian present to an (albeit longer) norma-
with God—it was his stance in daily life (‘father’ tive history. On the other hand, though the
e.g. Mt 6:7–14). Alternatively, this picture may gospels do indeed describe a past that culmin-
represent one style among others of church ates in Jesus’ death and resurrection, they are
reflection on Jesus, as the tradition about him nevertheless imbued with a present faith in the
was exposed to the variegated culture of the living Christ who, in his heavenly rule, may still
Graeco-Roman world (Crossan 1991; 1994). be said to inspire his people and even to dwell
16. This discussion started, somewhat nega- in and among them: perhaps especially in Mark
tively, under the injunction to approach the and John, the backdrop is that of Jesus’ past life
figure of Jesus with caution: the nature of our but he addresses the present of the gospels’
evidence, literary and circumstantial, dictates it. readers. So much is this the case that, as we
But (to repeat) it would be a mistake to let have seen, we must be alert to the effects of
caution lead to the conclusion that Jesus is a this factor as we read the gospels with a view
mere enigma, lost in the mists of time or a to discovering simply what happened and how
welter of church obfuscation of whatever clarity things were in Jesus’ lifetime.
there might otherwise have been. As we have 20. To take a small example, but significant
seen, some features are unmistakable and their for that very reason (and capable of being par-
strength shines through. But the equally unmis- alleled almost limitlessly): Mk 9:40 (‘Whoever is
takable effects of church interpretation of vari- not against us is for us’) suggests that Jesus
ous kinds are there in the gospels, and they lead urged on his followers an open, expansive atti-
us to our final topic: Jesus as the object of faith. tude to possible supporters and deflects them
17. If we had only the letters of Paul, we should from any narrowness or the erection of barriers
think that all that really mattered about Jesus’ and the application of tests. This is, in the words
career was his death and resurrection: that is, its of the church poster, a case of ‘All welcome’.
importance centred almost wholly on a period But Mt 12:30 (‘He who is not with me is against
of some forty-eight hours—and if more than me’) reflects the precise opposite. Jesus makes
that, then what followed it (his heavenly rule stringent demands on potential followers and
and presence in his adherents) was more notable there is no easy entry to their company: adher-
than what preceded it. That is the earliest Chris- ing is sharply distinguished from remaining
tian perspective of which we have evidence. outside. The boundary wall is high. Must we
18. How different it is from the picture we get not see here the effects of two different out-
from the gospels. There, though the death and looks in different parts of the early church,
resurrection are plainly the climax of the narra- both equally comprehensible, but contrasting
tive and occupy a disproportionate place from a in their policies—and far-reaching in their
purely biographical point of view, these elem- twin visions of Christian life? It does not take
ents are nevertheless parts of a much greater much imagination to see that the two state-
whole. To put it more succinctly, they form the ments betoken two very different ways of be-
end of a story, where in Paul they acted much lieving in Jesus’ significance and the scope of his
more as the inauguration of a continuing state work, as they also may be seen as the founts of
of affairs. It is not wholly satisfying simply to two different traditions in Christian life down to
point out that these are different genres of writ- our own day. The gospels, accounts of the pre-
ing and so naturally differ in their perspective. resurrection life of Jesus, then reflect the faith of
After all, none of these writers was compelled the post-resurrection church, in small ways as
to write as he did, and each wrote in a particular in great. These considerations go some way to
way because, presumably, it reflected the ‘shape’ mitigate the contrast that we drew between the
of his convictions about Jesus. perspectives of Paul and the gospels.
 25 introduction to the new testament

21. From another point of view, we may crucial opening scene, establishing Jesus’ identity,
indeed say that these writings—and indeed it is joined with the words of Ps 2:7, ‘Thou art my
almost all the NT books (the Letter of James is son’, probably seen as messianic in import in the
a strange exception)—testify to a remarkably Jewish background upon which Mark draws.
homogeneous faith in the centrality of Jesus as 24. In Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ sonship is for
the agent of God’s saving purpose. True, they the first time linked to his conception and birth,
differ in certain respects, in emphasis and ter- but even here the focus is not on physiology but
minology, but the unanimity is striking. To on scriptural texts and models which are seen to
return to the obvious: it is this common con- foreshadow Jesus and to authenticate his role.
viction about Jesus as the one who ‘makes all In Matthew, for example, Isa 7:14 plays a crucial
the difference’ that holds together the early role (cf. 1:23). In Luke, the whole narrative of
Christian movement, and so the NT as its liter- chs. 1 and 2 is couched in language that echoes
ary deposit—whatever other factors loomed the old stories of providential births, such as
large in its life and whatever the problems to those of Isaac, Samson or Samuel.
which it had to attend. 25. In John, the sonship of Jesus in relation to
22. Yet we may observe interesting variations God is taken further still. Partly by way of its
of resonance even in the use of certain terms to associations with other terms and models, it
express this conviction about Jesus. For example, now describes a relationship that does not
many early Christian writers speak of him as ‘son begin at Jesus’ baptism or conception, but exists
of God’. But what associations did this expression from all eternity. Jesus’ relationship with God,
have for them? It is not, after all, an expression as Father, is, for the Gospel of John, anchored at
that simply comes out of the blue: it has numer- that most fundamental level. From the vantage
ous antecedents in Judaism, and without recog- point of this climax in the development of the
nizable resonances it could scarcely have been model (soon to be taken up in a more philo-
used at all in its new context. In Paul, the earliest sophical idiom), we can see how Jesus’ repre-
writer to use it, it is not altogether clear what is in sentation of God comes to be seen in more and
mind, for he gives it multiple applications. In more extensive terms, until it operates on the
Rom 9:4, it receives one of its traditional applica- scale of the cosmos itself.
tions, to Israel as a people (cf. Ex 4:22; Hos 11:1); in 26. This example of development and of
Gal 3:26 and Rom 8:14, it denotes Christian many-sidedness could be paralleled for other
believers—a usage paralleled in Jewish wisdom expressions and ideas in which the Christians
writing (Wis 2:18), where it is applied to righteous of the NT period clothed their belief in Jesus.
servants of God. Yet clearly, for Paul, this appli- Typically, it is based on a variety of scriptural
cation to Christians is now closely related (but passages, each pointing to its own associations
exactly how?) to its central use for Jesus himself; and concepts. Typically too, even within the
just as God’s ‘fatherhood’ of Jesus is related to narrow temporal confines of the NT period, it
their right to claim that same fatherhood (Gal is neither static nor universal. It is symptomatic
4:4–6; Rom 8:14–17). Paul perhaps comes nearest of the explosion of symbolic energy which so
to showing his mind in Rom 8:32, where he imaginatively produced the new devotion that
appeals to the giving by Abraham of his son saw in Jesus the key to everything.
Isaac to death (narrowly averted, Gen 22) as a
parallel to God’s giving of Jesus: ‘God did not
REFERENCES
spare his only son’ (cf. Gen 22:16). That model
of sonship splendidly and appropriately illumin- Alexander, L. (1993), The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary
ates the death of Jesus and is an important ingre- Convention and Social Context in Luke 1:1–4 and Acts 1:1
dient in the quest for scriptural texts that could (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
put that otherwise catastrophic event, as far as Ashton, J. (1991), Understanding the Fourth Gospel
the hopes of Jesus’ followers were concerned, in a (Oxford: Clarendon).
positive light. Here was a case where the giving of Beavis, M. A. (1989), Mark’s Audience: The Literary and
a son by a father was the seed of total good—the Social Setting of Mark 4:1–12 (Sheffield, JSOT).
establishing of the people of Israel (Byrne 1979). Betz, H. D. (1979), Galatians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia:
23. The same model may play a part in the Fortress).
Markan story of Jesus’ baptism, where his sonship Birdsall, J. N. (1970), ‘The New Testament Text’,
is announced by God himself: the word ‘beloved’ in P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (eds.), Cambridge
in 1:11 is the Septuagint’s repeated adjective for History of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge
Isaac in Gen 22. But here, in what is for Mark the University Press), i. 308–77.
introduction to the new testament 26

Brown, R. E. (1979), The Community of the Beloved —— (1990), Sociology and the New Testament: An
Disciple: The Life, Loves and Hates of an Individual Appraisal (Minneapolis: Fortress).
Church in New Testament Times (London: Geoffrey Houlden, J. L. (1973), Ethics and the New Testament
Chapman). (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
—— (1993), The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on —— (1986), Connections (London: SCM).
the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and —— (ed.) (1995), The Interpretation of the Bible in the
Luke (London: Geoffrey Chapman). Church (London: SCM).
—— (1994), The Death of the Messiah: A Commentary on Lentz, J. C. (1993), Luke’s Portrait of Paul (Cambridge:
the Passion Narratives (London: Geoffrey Chapman). Cambridge University Press).
Burridge, R. A. (1992), What Are the Gospels? A Com- Lindars, B. (1961), New Testament Apologetic: The Doc-
parison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Cambridge: trinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations
Cambridge University Press). (London: SCM).
Byrne, B. (1979), ‘Sons of God’—‘Seed of Abraham’: A Marxsen, W. (1970), The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians (London: SCM).
in Paul against the Jewish Background (Rome: Biblical Meeks, W. A. (1983), The First Urban Christians: The
Institute Press). Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale
Campbell, R. A. (1994), The Elders: Seniority within University Press).
Earliest Christianity (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark), 1994. —— (1986), ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine
Campenhausen, H. von (1969), Ecclesiastical Authority Sectarianism’, in J. Ashton (ed.), The Interpretation
and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three of John (London: SPCK), 141–73.
Centuries (London: A. & C. Black). Meier, J. P. (1991), A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the His-
—— (1972), The Formation of the Christian Bible (Lon- torical Jesus (New York: Doubleday).
don: A. & C. Black). Metzger, B. M. (1964), The Text of the New Testament: Its
Carroll, R. P. (1991), Wolf in the Sheepfold: The Bible as a Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford:
Problem for Christianity (London: SPCK). Clarendon).
Crossan, J. D. (1991), The Historical Jesus: The Life of a —— (1987), The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin,
Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (Edinburgh: T. & T. Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon).
Clark). Meyers, E. M., and Strange, J. F. (1981), Archaeology, the
—— (1994), Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (London: Rabbis and Early Christianity (London: SCM).
HarperCollins). Murphy-O’Connor, J. (1983), St Paul’s Corinth: Texts and
Evans, C. F. (1970), Resurrection and the New Testament Archaeology (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier).
(London: SCM). Rivkin, E. (1984), What Crucified Jesus (London: SCM).
Farrer, A. M. (1949), A Rebirth of Images: The Making of Robinson, J. A. T. (1976), Redating the New Testament
St. John’s Apocalypse (Westminster: Dacre). (London: SCM).
Finegan, J. (1992), The Archeology of the New Testament: Rowland, C. C. (1982), The Open Heaven: A Study of
The Life of Jesus and the Beginning of the Early Church Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London:
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). SPCK).
Freyne, S. (1988), Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels: Literary Sanders, E. P. (1985), Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM).
Approaches and Historical Investigations (Dublin: Gill —— (1992), Judaism, Practice and Belief, 63BCE–66CE
& Macmillan). (London: SCM).
Gerhardsson, B. (1961), Memory and Manuscript: Oral —— (1993), The Historical Figure of Jesus (London:
Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism Allen Lane, Penguin).
and Early Christianity (Lund: Gleerup). Schneemelcher, W. (ed.), (1991; 1992), New Testament
Goulder, M. D. (1974), Midrash and Lection in Matthew Apocrypha (Cambridge: James Clarke), i and ii.
(London: SPCK). Sherwin-White, A. N. (1963), Roman Society and Roman
Harvey, A. E. (1982), Jesus and the Constraints of History Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon).
(London: Duckworth). Staniforth, M., and Louth, A. (eds.) (1987), Early Chris-
—— (1990), Strenuous Commands: The Ethics of Jesus tian Writings (Harmondsworth: Penguin).
(London: SCM). Stanton, G. N. (1974), Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament
Hengel, M. (1974), Judaism and Hellenism (London: Preaching (Cambridge: Cambridge University
SCM). Press).
—— (1981), The Charismatic Leader and his Followers —— (1995), Gospel Truth? New Light on Jesus and the
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Gospels (London: HarperCollins).
Holmberg, B. (1978), Paul and Power: The Structure of Stendahl, K. (1968), The School of St Matthew and its Use
Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Pauline Epistles (Lund: Gleerup). Sweet, J. P. M. (1979), Revelation (London: SCM).
 27 introduction to the pauline corpus

Theissen, G. (1982), The Social Context of Pauline Chris- —— (1995), The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 4th edn.
tianity (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). (Harmondsworth: Penguin).
Vermes, G. (1973), Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of Wagner, G. (1967), Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mys-
the Gospels (London: Collins). teries (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
—— (1977), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective Wedderburn, A. J. M. (1987), Baptism and Resurrection
(London: Collins). (Tübingen: Mohr).

3. Introduction to the Pauline Corpus

TERENCE L . DONALDSON

A. Overview. 1. No less than thirteen of the who subsequently read, as it were, over their
twenty-seven writings of the New Testament shoulders—and thereby helping to shape the
are letters attributed to the Apostle Paul. They history of Christianity and of Western culture
constitute fully one-quarter of the New Testa- as a whole. The Epistle to the Romans, for
ment’s bulk; if one adds to this the portion of instance, has had a striking chain of influence—
the Acts of the Apostles where Paul is the main from the unknown early readers who, for
character, Paul’s proportion of the New Testa- whatever reason, preserved the letter in the
ment climbs to almost a third. The proportion first place; to Augustine’s conversion, precipi-
devoted to the life and ministry of Jesus (i.e. the tated by the random reading in a moment of
four gospels) is higher, but not by much. crisis of a particularly pertinent passage (13:13–
2. The significance of Paul’s literary legacy, 14); to Martin Luther’s rediscovery of Augustine
of course, is not simply a matter of its quantity. and his own experience of spiritual release
His letters (at least those that can be attributed to while wrestling with the phrase, ‘the just shall
him with some certainty) represent the earliest live by faith’ (1:17) as he prepared lectures on the
extant writings of the Christian movement. epistle; to John Wesley’s experience of a heart
Further, they are real letters, written to actual ‘strangely warmed’ while listening to a reading
congregations whose life circumstances are of the Preface to Luther’s commentary; to Karl
reflected, albeit with some ambiguity, in the Barth and his own commentary on the epistle,
texts themselves. In addition, they are at times which represented a dramatic break with the
highly personal letters, at least in the sense that sunny liberalism in which he had been nurtured
the desires, emotions, thinking processes, and and a rediscovery and reworking of Reforma-
very personality of their author are vividly tion themes. This chain of influence, of course,
portrayed. Moreover, their author was no mar- represents a particular strand of Christianity,
ginal figure. While his place within the early one in which Paul has been especially revered.
Christian movement needs to be determined But Paul’s influence has by no means been
with care, it is clear on any reading of Christian limited to the Reformed segment of Christen-
origins that, by virtue of the groundbreaking dom. Hymnody, homilies, iconography and
nature of his missionary activity among the other forms of aesthetic representation, across
Gentiles and the intellectual vitality that he the Christian spectrum and down through the
brought to bear on the defence and nurture of centuries; the nineteenth-century missionary
his young congregations, Paul was a major movement; the ‘introspective conscience of the
player in the first, formative generation of the west’ (Stendahl 1976: 78–96); popular idiom
movement. In sum, then, Paul’s letters represent (‘all things to all people’; ‘thorn in the flesh’;
a window into nascent Christianity of inestim- ‘charisma’); contemporary Jewish–Christian dia-
able value. logue; social-scientific models of conversion—
3. The significance of the Pauline corpus is the influence of Paul has been pervasive and
not restricted to its value as source material for far-reaching.
the reconstruction of Christian origins, how- 4. For these reasons and more, Paul’s letters
ever. The letters not only play a passive role, are significant and deserve the careful attention
providing a window into the circumstances not only of Christian readers but also of all who
lying behind them; they have also been agents aspire to an informed perspective on the West-
in their own right, affecting the lives of their ern cultural inheritance. But the very things that
readers—both the original readers and those make for Paul’s significance also bring with
introduction to the pauline corpus 28

them various problems that feed into and affect 7. The very factors making for Paul’s signifi-
the experience of reading him. cance, then, also serve to condition our percep-
5. For one thing, the sheer bulk of Pauline tion of his writings, interposing between the
material in the NT can easily lead readers to modern reader and the letters themselves a set
overestimate his place and significance in early of lenses and filters that shape the reading pro-
Christianity. Evidence even from his own letters cess. These interposed optical paraphernalia
indicates that Paul was somewhat of a maverick, should not be seen simply as an obstruction;
operating for the most part outside the main the history of the effects of Paul’s letters in the
circle of earliest Christianity and relating only centuries between their time of writing and our
awkwardly to its original leaders. He may well own day is an important part of the overall
have represented the wave of the future: since significance of the letters themselves. Still, the
the middle of the second century those charac- first step in coming to terms with the letters is
teristic elements that it took all his formidable to try to bridge the intervening distance and to
resources to establish and defend—full and read the letters directly and on their own terms;
equal membership for Gentile believers, no put differently, to bracket out the particularities
obligation to adhere to the law of Moses, and of our own contemporary perspectives and
so on—have simply been taken for granted as attempt to read the letters as they would have
basic elements of the Christian faith. But the been understood by their original intended
very success of Gentile Christianity can serve readers.
to obscure the degree to which Paul’s mission 8. This is a laudable goal, towards which a
represented radical innovation in his own day, formidable array of Pauline scholars have bent
and this in turn can result in misperceptions of their collective energies over the past two cen-
the nature of his thought and rhetoric. turies of historical-critical investigation. But
6. In addition, and partly for this reason, here we encounter a second set of problems,
Paul has not always fared well at the hands arising from the letters themselves: as the
of his interpreters—admirers and champions author of 2 Peter observed long ago, many
included. To cite one particular example, the aspects of Paul’s letters are ‘difficult to under-
Reformation reading of Paul, in which the stand’ (2 Pet 3:16). In part, the difficulties are due
theme of justification by faith is identified as to the fact that we are dealing with letters per se;
the heart of his gospel and the interpretative in part, they derive from the particular way in
centre of his thought, is increasingly being which Paul writes letters. But in each case, the
seen as a misreading; to approach Paul with nature of these writings means that in order to
the assumption that his concerns and conten- understand them we need to go beyond them,
tions were analogous to those of a Luther or a to interpret them in the framework of at least
Calvin is to look at him through a distorting three hypothetical scholarly reconstructions.
lens that skews some aspects of his theological 9. First, there are the individual contexts pre-
discourse and leaves others in obscurity. Fur- supposed by the letters themselves. As Roetzel
ther, the interpretation of a normative text in a (1998) has reminded us, Paul’s letters are ‘con-
religious culture inevitably has social effects. versations in context’; more to the point, in
Thus Paul’s name has come to be associated reading these letters we are hearing only one
with developments in Western society that side of the conversation, with no clear indica-
many have found undesirable: for example, tion of the context. As in any conversation, the
the treatment of Jews and Judaism as a people epistolary author as conversation partner can
rejected by God; the institution of slavery in simply take for granted a whole set of details
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; the crucial to the meaning of the letter but so well
colonialization of Africa and the Far East, to known to the intended readers that they require
which the activity of Christian missionaries no explicit mention. Who, to take one simple
was a contributing factor; patriarchal struc- example, was the ‘famous brother’ (2 Cor 8:17)
tures and the exclusion of women from full who accompanied Titus in the delivery of 2
participation in church and society; intolerant Corinthians 8 and so could remain unnamed
attitudes towards those of homosexual orien- in the letter? Or with what strand of early Chris-
tation. Also, Paul has sometimes been blamed tianity can we identify those who were ‘unset-
for constructing a complex religion centred on tling’ the Galatians (Gal 5:12), and what were
sin, guilt, and death, far removed from the life- their motives? Later readers like ourselves,
affirming message of Jesus (cf. Muggeridge and who are not privy to the whole conversation
Vidler 1972: 11–16). and its context, are forced to draw out from
 29 introduction to the pauline corpus

whatever slender clues the text affords a sense in the life of Paul and his communities, it is
of these contextual taken-for-granteds, as an also evident that to deal with these various
essential first step in the determination of contingent situations Paul engaged in a style of
meaning. theological argumentation that drew on already-
10. Such reconstruction of provenance and existing vocabulary, structures, and patterns of
life setting forms part of the interpretative task thought. As Dunn (1998: 15) has observed with
for any individual letter from antiquity (and— reference to the search for the theology of Paul,
mutatis mutandis—for any ancient text at all). But ‘the letters themselves indicate the need to go
in the case of Paul we are dealing not simply behind the letters themselves’. Again, however,
with one individual letter, but with a whole the interpreter is faced with a difficult task.
series of letters that evidently had an integral Partly because of the sheer fecundity of Paul’s
role to play in an extended missionary agenda. agile mind, and partly because the letters use and
A proper understanding of any one of them, allude to his ‘theology’ without ever laying it out
then, will depend to a certain extent on a sec- in any systematic way, it has been notoriously
ond scholarly reconstruction, namely, the larger difficult to discern the central element or essen-
sequential framework of Paul’s own life and tial structure of his theological thought.
activity within which the individual letter finds 12. A proper understanding of Paul’s letters,
its place. Here the reconstructive task is both then, necessarily involves us in substantial pro-
aided and complicated by the existence of the jects of contextual reconstruction. In turn, these
Acts of the Apostles, with its connected narra- projects depend for their success on a larger
tive of Paul’s missionary activity. Aided, in that engineering project, that of bridging the social
Acts deliberately sets out to provide us with the and cultural gap between the modern reader
kind of sequential account that is glimpsed only and the first-century Graeco-Roman world. To
occasionally, and with difficulty, in the letters. a modern reader, for example, Paul’s language
Complicated, in that the Acts account, partly of ‘bewitchment’ in Gal 3:1 may seem quaintly
because of the author’s own purposes and metaphorical. But in a culture where the power
partly because of the limitations within which of the evil eye was widely feared, the text would
the author did his work, is not infrequently at have had quite a different impact (Elliott 1990).
variance with the picture emerging from the Likewise, ancient and modern readers would
letters themselves. Perhaps this is the place to bring distinctly different cultural assumptions
mention the additional fact that several of the to a reading of 2 Cor 8–9, in which Paul is
letters bearing Paul’s name also bear character- encouraging the Corinthian Christians to con-
istics that make it difficult to understand them tribute to his collection for the Jerusalem
as written by Paul himself. In at least some of church. In contrast to modern readers in the
these cases it is best to understand them as the Western world, who tend to see charitable giv-
product of a Pauline school carrying on his ing as a universal obligation, Paul’s Corinthian
legacy into a subsequent generation. Further, a converts would have understood benefaction to
tradition going back as far as the second cen- be the domain of the wealthy, who themselves
tury sees the epistle to the Hebrews as written would assume the role of benefactor less out of
by Paul as well. While there is no scholarly a sense of moral obligation than in expectation
justification for the attribution, the reference of public honour. What we think we know is
to ‘our brother Timothy’ in Heb 13:23 serves to often a greater barrier to understanding than
situate this epistle somewhere in the larger Paul- what we do not know, and this is as true of
ine circle. In any case, the reconstruction of the the cultural assumptions we bring to a reading
nature, modus operandi, sequence, chronology, of the NT as of any other area of life.
and aftermath of Paul’s missionary enterprise 13. The foregoing is not meant to discourage
is another requisite element of the interpret- the casual or novice reader from reading Paul, as
ative task. if one has to acquire a massive body of back-
11. Thirdly, there is an inherently theological ground and contextual knowledge before being
dimension to the rhetoric of these letters. To be able to approach the letters themselves. The
sure, the letters are not to be read as if they were process is spiral: initial familiarization with
theological treatises; a recognition of the essen- the text raises questions of interpretation and
tially occasional and situational nature of the meaning that can be answered only on the basis
letters was a decisive step forward in Pauline of further information about the text’s original
scholarship. Nevertheless, while the letters must context; increasing awareness of contextual
be seen as responses to particular circumstances background precipitates further questions that
introduction to the pauline corpus 30

can be answered only on the basis of a more able to combine two complementary sources to
careful and critical reading of the text; and so construct a full picture.
on. Further, the process is ongoing and open- 2. As has already been observed, however, the
ended. It is not as if the range of questions use of Acts as a source for Paul is not without
diminishes as knowledge increases. As will problems. For one thing, despite the impression
become apparent not only in this introductory given by the author of Acts (let us for conveni-
essay but also in the commentaries on the indi- ence call him Luke) that he is providing us with
vidual letters to follow, there is a great deal a full and continuous account of Paul’s itiner-
of disagreement and debate among Pauline ary. Paul himself makes reference to details—
scholars at almost every point. One enters this for example, trips (the hasty and painful visit to
interpretative spiral, then, not so much to arrive Corinth in 2 Cor 2:1) and various incidents of
at a definitive interpretation as to become a hardship (2 Cor 11:23–7, especially the references
participant in an ongoing process of discussion, to shipwrecks, synagogue discipline, and
debate, and new insight. imprisonments)—about which Luke seems
14. The process may be ongoing, but it is not unable to tell us anything.
without its key moments and fresh phases. Further, at points where the two accounts do
Indeed, this is a particularly exciting time to be overlap, they are sometimes strikingly at odds.
engaged in the discussion of Paul and his letters. The parade example of this is the narration of
The previous three decades have seen some Paul’s first post-conversion visit to Jerusalem in
significant developments: richer descriptions Gal 1:18–24 and Acts 9:26–30. In Acts, it is a
of Paul’s cultural environment, both Jewish high-profile visit. Although the disciples were
and Graeco-Roman; fundamental shifts in the ‘all afraid of him’, after Barnabas had convinced
way his thought is perceived and put together, ‘the apostles’ of the reality of his new-found
especially with reference to his Jewish upbring- faith, Paul ‘went in and out among them in
ing and ‘conversion’; fruitful application of Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the
methods and insights drawn from the social Lord’, at least until opposition from the (non-
sciences: increased appreciation of the rhet- Christian) Hellenists increased to the point that
orical and epistolary conventions at work in the ‘brothers’ felt it necessary to escort him to
the letters; and so on. safety in Caesarea. In Galatians, by contrast, the
The purpose of this introductory essay is visit is a much less public affair. Paul’s purpose
to lead readers into the interpretative spiral in going up to Jerusalem was ‘to visit Cephas’,
described above and to convey some sense of which he did for fifteen days, not seeing ‘any
the current state of the discussion. To do this, other apostle except James the Lord’s brother’.
the material will be organized as follows. Even after his departure, he was ‘still unknown
by sight to the churches of Judea that are in
B. The Sources. 1. Our two main sources of Christ’, who simply had oral reports that their
biographical information concerning Paul are former persecutor was now ‘proclaiming the
the Acts of the Apostles and the letters them- faith he once tried to destroy’.
selves. There are some additional snippets in Even when one gives full weight to the diver-
later Christian writings—e.g., a stylized descrip- ging purposes of Luke (who wants to empha-
tive portrait in Acts of Paul 3.1; accounts of his size harmony in the early church and the
martyrdom under Nero (1 Clem. 5.5–7; 6.1; Euse- smooth progression of the faith outwards
bius Hist. Eccl. 2.25). But even if we were to from Jerusalem) and Paul (who wants to down-
exploit them to the full (e.g. Riesner 1998), we play his contacts with Jerusalem and to defend
would simply be adding minor embellishments his independence as an apostle), the differences
to a portrait based primarily on our two main between the two accounts are substantial. Acts
sources. and the letters are not to be treated simply as
At first glance these two sources seem to equal and complementary sources. Paul’s own
complement each other neatly. Acts provides testimony needs to be given primacy. The let-
us with biographical information on Paul’s life ters represent our primary source for his life
and ministry, and the circumstances in which and thought.
the individual churches were founded; the let- 3. Nevertheless, Acts is not simply to be dis-
ters provide us with direct information on his missed; Luke clearly has independent access to
thought and his interaction with churches after information about Paul’s career. He displays
he had moved on to new fields of mission. We no awareness of Paul as a letter-writer, which
might seem to be in the happy position of being means that Acts cannot be seen merely as an
 31 introduction to the pauline corpus

embellished narrative presentation of details 2. To reconstruct Paul’s biography, then, it is

gleaned from the letters. Further, there are fre- necessary to begin with his Damascus experi-
quent points of contact, in details of itinerary, ence. To reconstruct it accurately, however, it
between Acts and the letters (see the list in is necessary to understand the nature of the
Brown 1997: 424). Even the accounts in Gal 1 experience. It was an event that divided Paul’s
and Acts 9, as discussed above, despite their life into a ‘before’—‘my earlier life in Judaism’
differences in detail and emphasis, contain a (Gal 1:13)—and an ‘after’—‘an apostle’ (Gal 1:1)
similar sequence: conversion near Damascus ‘entrusted with the gospel for the uncircum-
(Gal 1:15–17; Acts 9:1–19); subsequent trip to Jeru- cised’ (Gal 2:7); a proper understanding of
salem (Gal 1:18: Acts 9:26); time spent in Cilicia/ Paul depends on how we correlate these
Tarsus (Gal 1:21; Acts 9:30) and Syria/Antioch three biographical points. More specifically,
(Gal 1:21; Acts 11:25–6). Moving out from Gal- the characteristic features of Paul’s apostolic
atians but still within the same sequence of self-understanding stand in such patent con-
events, the account of Paul’s flight from Damas- trast to the typical ‘life in Judaism’ that one
cus in Acts 9:23–5 has its first-person counterpart cannot really understand the later Paul without
in 2 Cor 11:32–3. Similar observations could be understanding how the transformation worked
made about Paul’s progression down the Greek itself out. How was it that a self-proclaimed
peninsula (1 Thess 2–3; cf. Acts 16–18) or his final ‘zealot for the traditions of [his] ancestors’
trip to Jerusalem with the collection money (Gal 1:14) was transformed into a zealous advo-
(1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor 7–9; Rom 15:25–9; cf. Acts cate of a mission to Gentiles, offering them a
19:21–21:19). Thus while Acts and the letters are righteous status before God not by adherence to
not simply to be interlaced, critical and cautious the Torah but by faith in Christ?
use can be made of the Acts account to supple- 3. It was mentioned above that there have
ment the information on Paul’s life and activity been some significant shifts in Pauline scholar-
contained in the letters. ship in recent years; one such has to do with the
understanding of Paul’s Damascus transform-
C. Paul’s ‘Conversion’. 1. Any biographical ation. Older scholarship tended to understand
accounting of Paul needs to begin with what this transformation as involving a perception
in popular parlance is called his ‘conversion’. on Paul’s part of some fundamental deficiency
The appropriateness of the term is debated, in Judaism and his consequent abandonment of
and will be discussed a little later. Without Judaism for a different religion that was able to
foreclosing on the debate, we will refer to the offer what Judaism lacked. In this family of
eventas Paul’s Damascus transformation or interpretations the appropriateness of the term
Damascus experience. This experience—which ‘conversion’ is assumed. There are several
Paul understands as an encounter with the risen branches of the family. One, stemming from
Christ—is not only foundational for everything the Reformation, emphasizes Paul’s polemical
that follows, it is the perspective from which contrast between justification by works and
our sources present what they do about any- justification by faith. It is assumed that this
thing that precedes. Luke does not seem to tire works/faith contrast represented Paul’s funda-
of the story; after providing a full narrative in mental critique of Judaism; he understood
Acts 9, he repeats it (with some interesting Judaism to be a legalistic religion, one in which
variations in detail) on no less than two other a person’s status with God was something
occasions (22:3–21; 26:2–18). Modern readers earned through meritorious Torah observance
might wish that he had used this space instead (works) rather than something offered freely by
to fill in some of the gaps in his narrative—the God in divine grace, to be received in humble
activity of Peter, for example, or the origins of faith. The essence of Paul’s conversion is under-
the church in Rome. Paul is somewhat more stood, in this reading of it, to consist in the
reticent, speaking of it on three occasions (Gal recognition that Judaism was a works-religion
1:15–16; 1 Cor 9:1; 1 Cor 15:8–10; perhaps also 2 that did not work, and the correlative discovery
Cor 4:6), but always in the context of some that Christianity offered freely, on the basis of
other issue. Still, the consequences of the faith, the righteous status that Torah-religion
experience—the conviction that God had raised was not able to provide. Sometimes such a rec-
Jesus, making him Christ and Lord; the convic- ognition of the futility of Judaism is understood
tion that God had commissioned Paul, making to be the essence of the Damascus experience
him apostle to the Gentiles—are everywhere itself; in encountering the risen Jesus Paul saw
present, as assumption or as theme. Judaism for the inferior and inadequate religion
introduction to the pauline corpus 32

that it was. Often, however, the recognition J. Parkes), had already pointed out that Judaism
is shifted further back, Paul’s problem with was not the legalistic religion of meritorious
Judaism seen as something emerging during achievement that it had often been made out
his upbringing. It is argued, usually with appeal to be. Jewish religion, they objected, started
to Rom 7, that Paul’s experience of Judaism was not with the Torah but with the covenant, a
one of frustration and despair. He had tried hard relationship between God and Israel established
to gain God’s approval by keeping the law in a entirely on the basis of divine grace. The Torah
zealous fashion, but found that no matter how was given as a means not of earning a relation-
hard he tried he always fell short. In this reading, ship with God, but rather of responding in
his conversion is seen as fundamentally the dis- gratitude to God and of maintaining the rela-
covery that Christ provided the solution to an tionship already established by God’s gracious
existential problem that he had already experi- election of Israel. Further, Jewish religion did
enced in his Jewish upbringing. not require flawless performance of the law, as
4. This is not the only way in which Paul’s Paul’s argument in Romans and Galatians
Damascus transformation is perceived as essen- seems to assume. The law itself recognized the
tially an abandonment of Judaism. Another inevitability of sin, making provision, in the
interpretation takes its point of departure not sacrificial system, for repentance, atonement,
from Paul’s faith/works contrast but from his and forgiveness—an aspect of Torah-religion
universal gospel. How is Paul’s interest in Gen- that Paul studiously avoids in the pertinent pas-
tiles to be accounted for? The answer, it is sages. This more accurate depiction of Judaism
suggested, is that Paul came to abandon a has been most convincingly developed and
frame of reference in which the distinction demonstrated by E. P. Sanders (see Sanders
between Jew and Gentile is central, for one in 1977), who terms it a religion of ‘covenantal
which that distinction is abolished, one in nomism’ rather than of legalism. Prior to San-
which ‘there is no longer Jew or Greek’ (Gal ders’s work, however, the conclusion often
3:28). Again, such an exchange of one type of drawn from this argument about the true nature
religion (this time a particularistic one) for of Judaism has been that if the traditional read-
another (a universalistic one) is sometimes seen ing of Paul is accurate, then Paul must have
as the essence of the Damascus experience itself. seriously misunderstood Judaism. If Paul really
Just as often, however, it is rooted in the idea perceived Judaism as a religion of meritorious
that already in his upbringing Paul had experi- achievement requiring perfect performance,
enced frustration with Jewish particularism and, then his critique of Judaism is badly off-target
in some interpretations, had struggled, valiantly from the outset.
but vainly, to suppress an attraction to the wider 6. One way of explaining this supposed mis-
Hellenistic world. understanding of Judaism is to lay it at the door
5. Such interpretations, in which Paul’s of Paul’s diaspora upbringing; if Paul had been
Damascus experience is seen as essentially an raised in Judea, closer to the source, he would
abandonment of a Jewish context for some- have experienced a truer form of the faith and
thing different, have had a long and successful thus would have depicted it more accurately
history, at least in part because they seem to (Montefiore 1914: 14–101; Schoeps 1961:173). But
provide a coherent explanation of central this leads to a second way in which the trad-
elements in Paul’s post-Damascus frame of itional interpretations of Paul fail to integrate
reference—especially his role as apostle to the what we know about his earlier life in Judaism.
Gentiles, and the gospel he preached to Gen- Not only is it recognized that no sharp distinc-
tiles, offering them a righteous status before tion can be drawn between Hellenistic and
God without demanding adherence to the Palestinian Judaism, the idea that Paul funda-
Torah. But more recent study of Paul has tended mentally misunderstood Judaism does not
to demonstrate that such coherence is pur- square well with his own comments about his
chased at a high price, specifically, an unaccept- earlier life. For one thing, he locates himself
able level of incoherence with respect to the within a traditional, covenant-centred form of
first of the three biographical points—Paul’s the faith. He is a Hebrew of the Hebrews (Phil
earlier life in Judaism. 3:5; cf. 2 Cor 11:22); a zealot for the traditions of
By the early part of the twentieth century his ancestors (Gal 1:14); a Pharisee, a group for
Jewish scholars (e.g. C. Montefiore, S. Schechter, which we have only Palestinian evidence (Phil
and later H.-J. Schoeps), along with Christians 3:5; see Hengel and Schwemer 1997:36). Further,
sympathetic to Judaism (e.g. G. F. Moore, whenever he looks back on this period of his
 33 introduction to the pauline corpus

life, he does so with a great deal of pride and in a moment. But reconfiguration is quite a
satisfaction (Gal 1:13–14; Phil 3:4b–6: 2 Cor 11:22). different thing from abandonment.
Phil 3:6 is particularly instructive; as one of the For this reason, ‘conversion’ has been seen as
grounds for which he might have confidence in perhaps not the best term to use to describe
the flesh, he points to the fact that ‘as to right- Paul’s experience. Both in popular parlance
eousness under the law, [he was] blameless’. and in much social-scientific study, ‘conversion’
The statement resonates with the pride of implies a transformation that is more radical,
accomplishment (blameless!) rather than despair more discontinuous with the convert’s past, and
over the impossibility of the law’s demands. more driven by psychological imbalance, than
With the recognition that the ‘I’ of Romans 7 was the case with Paul. At the same time, to
is not autobiographical (Kümmel 1929), the way describe the experience as a ‘call’, as Stendahl
has been cleared to ask whether instead of Paul does (Stendahl 1976: 7–23), is not a fully satis-
misunderstanding Judaism, Paul’s interpreters factory alternative either, even when one gives
have misunderstood him. full value to Paul’s use of prophetic call lan-
7. This question has been posed most force- guage in Gal 1:15 (cf. Isa 49:1; Jer 1:5). This term
fully by E. P. Sanders in his epoch-making fails to do justice to the fact that Paul’s experi-
book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977). In the ence represented a much more decisive shift, a
book Sanders demonstrates convincingly that more sharply demarcated before and after
Paul can be much better understood if we (cf. Phil 3:4–11), than was ever the case with an
assume (1) that in his upbringing he had Isaiah or a Jeremiah. While Paul continued to
experienced Judaism as a religion of coven- worship and serve the same God, his framework
antal nomism, but that (2) in his Damascus of service shifted decisively from one organiz-
experience he had come to believe that God ing centre (Torah) to another (Christ). What
had provided Christ as a means of salvation for term to use, then, for this decisive shift? One
all on equal terms, and that (3) since entrance alternative is to return to ‘conversion’, redefin-
into the community of salvation was through ing it so that both continuity and discontinuity
Christ, Torah-observance could not be imposed are preserved (Segal 1990). Such an approach
as a condition of membership. Anticipating can claim support from more recent social-
some discussion to follow, we need to observe scientific studies (e.g. Rambo 1993), which rec-
that Sanders leaves a number of loose ends and ognize a much broader range of conversion
logical disjunctions; in particular: why ‘for all’? types. Perhaps the safer approach, however, is
Why ‘on equal terms’? Why are Christ and to choose less loaded terms, such as transform-
Torah mutually exclusive? But for present pur- ation or reconfiguration.
poses, the significant point of Sanders’s work is 9. But why was the reconfiguration so sharply
that it opens up the possibility of seeing Paul’s polarized? Why were the two organizing
Damascus experience as primarily the accept- centres—Torah and Christ—set over against
ance of a new set of convictions about Jesus each other in such an antithetical way? Or to
rather than the abandonment of an old set of pose the question with respect to the compara-
convictions about Judaism. The way is open to tive biographies of Paul and James, who both
see Paul not as a frustrated Jew, nor as one became leaders in the church as the result of an
who fundamentally misunderstood the religion experience understood to be an encounter with
of his ancestors and contemporaries, but as a the risen Christ (for James, see 1 Cor 15:7): why
covenantal nomist who had an experience con- did the experience lead in Paul’s case to a
vincing him that the God of Israel had raised Christ–Torah antithesis while in the case of
Jesus from death. James of Jerusalem, who seemed to be able to
8. What emerges, then, is an understanding of combine Christ-faith and Torah-religion in a
Paul’s Damascus experience in which it is seen much more harmonious way, it led rather to a
not as the solution to an already-perceived prob- Christ–Torah synthesis?
lem with Judaism, nor as the abandonment of 10. In contrast to Paul’s conversion per se, the
one religion (Judaism) for another (Christianity). answer to this question does seem to lie in his
Instead, the outcome of the experience was in pre-Damascus experience. Even prior to his
the first instance a new estimation of the person own experience of Christ, Paul had already
and significance of Jesus in the purposes of come to some conclusions about the incompat-
the God of Israel. This led to an unprecedented ability of Christ-faith and Torah-religion. What
reconfiguration of the constituent elements is important here is not simply that Paul perse-
of Judaism, for reasons that we will explore cuted the church, but that he understood it as
introduction to the pauline corpus 34

an expression of zeal (Phil 3:6; cf. Gal 1:14). In the to be righteous; it was the community of the
context of Torah-piety, zeal implies more than righteous as demarcated by the Torah in this
simply fervour. At least since the time of the age that could expect to be vindicated by God in
Maccabees, zeal and zealotry referred to the the age to come, when the Messiah appeared.
willingness to use force to defend Torah-religion There was thus no confusion of roles: the Torah
from some perceived threat (e.g. 1 Macc 2:24, 26, served to determine the identity of the people
27, 50; Jub. 30.18; Jdt 9:2–4; see Donaldson 1997: whom the Messiah would come to deliver; put
285–6; Dunn 1998: 350–2). If Paul’s persecution differently, the Messiah did not function as a
of the church was an act of zeal, then he boundary marker or badge of membership.
must, even at this early stage, have seen Christ- 13. But the Christian message—that God had
religion and Torah-religion as mutually exclu- revealed the identity of the coming Messiah by
sive. Further, since even after his Damascus raising Jesus from death—had the effect of blur-
experience this in-compatability between Christ ring this neat distinction. The Christ who would
and Torah seems to have remained (even if come to redeem the righteous in the age to
transformed), the conflict between the two come had already appeared before this age
must have been of such a nature that it could was at an end. How, then, was the community
not be resolved simply by changing his estima- of the righteous to be determined in the period
tion of Jesus. The Christ–Torah antithesis must between the resurrection and the end? Was it
have been perceived as a more fundamental defined by adherence to Torah or to Christ?
incompatibility. Would the community redeemed by Christ
11. What, then, was the nature of this incom- at the eschaton be one demarcated by Torah-
patibility? Several possibilities have been explored observance or by Christ-adherence? The unpre-
in scholarly discussion (Donaldson 1997: 169–72). cedented two-stage appearance of the Messiah
Some suggest that the idea of a suffering and in Christian belief had the effect of putting
dying Messiah was in itself an affront to Jewish Christ and Torah in tension with each other,
expectation and thus incompatible with Torah- as rival boundary markers for the people of
religion. Others focus on the specific means of God. The overlapping of the ages in Christian
Jesus’ death—crucifixion—noting that the Torah proclamation brought Christ and Torah into
itself sees as cursed ‘anyone hung on a tree’ (Deut conflict.
21:22–3), a text that by the first century was being 14. My suggestion is that because of his per-
interpreted with respect to crucifixion (4QpNah spective as an outsider, the pre-Christian Paul
1.7–8; 11QTemple 64.12; cf. Gal 3:13). Still others perceived this rivalry and conflict much more
suggest that Paul’s estimation of the Torah had clearly than those inside. He was a faithful
been deeply affected by the fact that it was pre- observer of the Torah, ‘as to righteousness
cisely his zeal for the law that had led him to under the law, blameless’ (Phil 3:6). But the
persecute Christ’s church. But none of these sug- Christian message as he heard it implied that
gestions seem to produce a tension between this was not enough; to truly belong to the
Christ and Torah so intractable that a well-motiv- community of the righteous, he had to believe
ated Jewish believer could not have found a way in Christ. He also observed that the church was
to resolve it. prepared to admit as full members many who,
12. My suggestion moves in a different direc- ‘as to righteousness under the law’, were far
tion, and builds on two more fundamental from ‘blameless’. Torah observance, it appeared,
aspects of Jewish and Jewish-Christian belief: was also unnecessary. Undergirding his perse-
(1) the relationship between Torah and Messiah cution of the church, then, was a fundamental
in Jewish expectation; and (2) the unpreced- perception that—whether the early Christians
ented ‘already/not yet’ shape of early Christian recognized it fully or not—the Christ they
belief. In Jewish patterns of thought (at least preached represented a categorical rival to the
those that included the concept of a Messiah), Torah in its community-defining role. Since this
the respective functions of Torah and Messiah rivalry was rooted not simply in Paul’s lack of
were neatly differentiated by the distinction be- belief in Christ but in the nature of the Christian
tween this age and the age to come. In this age, message itself, it did not disappear with his new
the Torah functioned as a badge of membership belief in Christ. The Christ–Torah antithesis
or a boundary marker for the covenant people remained, even though his perception of its
of God. To live a life of loyalty to the Torah was implications shifted dramatically.
a mark of membership in the covenant com- 15. One final element of Paul’s Damascus
munity; to be a member in good standing was experience requires mention here, though we
 35 introduction to the pauline corpus

can deal with it only briefly. In the discussion from among the nations for a special cove-
carried out above concerning Paul’s description nanted relationship), Judaism also had its own
of his experience as a ‘call’, we did not pay much forms of universalism. That is, by Paul’s day
attention to the focus of the call—‘to proclaim Judaism had developed ways of finding a place
[God’s Son] among the Gentiles’ (Gal 1:16). At for Gentiles within God’s saving purposes for
least in retrospect, then, Paul sees his role as the world, ways that offered Gentiles a share in
‘apostle to the Gentiles’ (Rom 11:13) as the direct salvation without denying the special nature of
outcome and inner meaning of his Damascus Israel’s own covenant relationship. One of these
experience. But how are we to understand his patterns of universalism, of course, was pros-
all-embracing concern for the salvation of the elytism; the community of Israel was willing to
Gentiles? accept as full members of the family of Abra-
This question, too, has been altered by the ham those Gentiles who embraced the Torah
interpretative shift described above. In older and its way of life (e.g. Jdt 14:10; Tacitus, Hist.
patterns of interpretation, Paul’s interest in the 5.5.2). Another pattern, based on a quite differ-
Gentiles has been understood as entailing, or as ent perception of things, was prepared to see
the result of, an abandonment of Judaism. In his the possibility of Gentiles being accounted
conversion experience, it was argued, Paul left righteous and having a share in the age to
behind a world where the distinction between come as Gentiles, without having to accept
Jew and Gentile was fundamental, and entered a those aspects of the Torah that differentiated
wider world where there was no differentiation. Gentiles from Jews (e.g. Jos. Ant. 20.34–48;
The ways in which this line of interpretation t. Sanh. 13.2). A third looked to the future, and
were worked out varied with the ways in which expected that as one of the consequences of
the process of abandonment was reconstructed Israel’s end-time redemption, many Gentiles
(see above, and also Donaldson 1997: 18–27). But would finally acknowledge the God of Israel
the heart of the matter in each case was that and thus be granted a share in the blessings of
Paul’s ‘universalism’ (i.e. his concern for Gentile the age to come (e.g. Isa 2:2–4; Tob 14:5–7).
salvation) was tied up with a rejection of Jewish 18. This is not the place to survey the pertin-
particularism. ent Jewish material in any detail (see Donaldson
16. More recent study, however, has brought 2007). Nor is it possible here to explore Paul’s
to the fore two things that suggest a different conceptions concerning the Gentiles and their
explanation. The first has to do with Paul him- place ‘in Christ’ against this background (see
self, the second with Jewish attitudes towards Donaldson 1997). For present purposes it is suf-
Gentile salvation. First, it is clear that ‘Jew’ and ficient to say that Paul’s Gentile mission is best
‘Gentile’ continue to be important categories understood as a Christ-centred reinterpretation
for Paul. While he insists that there is no dis- of one of these Israel-centred patterns of uni-
tinction with respect to sin (‘all, both Jews and versalism. That is, Paul’s concern for the Gen-
Greeks, are under . . . sin’, Rom 3:9) or salvation tiles had its origin in attitudes already present in
(‘for there is no distinction between Jew and Judaism, even though with his Damascus
Greek’, Rom 10:12), this does not mean that experience they came to be oriented around a
Jewishness has lost all theological significance different centre. His call ‘to proclaim [God’s
for Paul. Indeed, by describing himself as apos- Son] among the Gentiles’ results not from a
tle to the Gentiles, he indicates that he continues rejection of Jewish particularism but from a
to inhabit a world where the distinction between reinterpretation, from his standpoint ‘in Christ’,
Jew and Gentile is operative. Paul sees himself as of some aspect of Jewish universalism.
a Jew (Rom 11:1), commissioned by the God of Later on in this introductory essay we will
Israel to bring a message of salvation, not to an return to the matter of Paul’s thought and its
undifferentiated mass of generic humanity, but characteristic themes and structure. For the pre-
to Gentiles, that part of humanity that exists in sent, however, we need to discuss the temporal
distinction from Israel. Further, the ultimate and geographical framework of his life.
goal of this mission is the final salvation of ‘all
Israel’ (Rom 11:26). What is needed, then, is a D. Paul’s Formative Years. 1. ‘My earlier life in
much more Israel-centred understanding of Judaism’ (Gal 1:13): Paul does not tell us a great deal
Paul’s interest in the Gentiles. about his Jewish upbringing and pre-Christian
17. This brings us to the second point. While activities. This is not due to reticence; when it
Jewish self-understanding is undeniably parti- serves his purposes, he can parade his creden-
cularistic (the one God of all has chosen Israel tials and accomplishments with great flourish
introduction to the pauline corpus 36

(esp. Gal 1:13–15; 1 Cor 15:9; Phil 3:4–6; 2 Cor however, full weight needs to be given to two
11:22; Rom 11:1). But his purposes are never additional items of information. First, Paul him-
purely biographical; what he tells us and how self nowhere alludes to Roman citizenship, des-
is determined by the rhetorical needs of the pite his readiness to boast about other items on
moment. In addition to the explicit information his curriculum vitae when it served his pur-
he does convey in passing, of course, the letters poses. Second, Paul’s Roman citizenship could
also contain a wealth of implicit evidence— be seen as too neatly consistent with one of
familiarity with the Mediterranean world, facil- Luke’s major themes—namely, that Roman
ity in Greek, knowledge of the Septuagint and officials repeatedly took the Christians’ side, or at
of Jewish interpretative tradition, and so on. least demonstrated that they considered the
Still, the information conveyed to us by Paul movement to be no real threat to the order of
himself is much less specific than that contained the empire. But on the other hand, the sole
in the Acts account, where it appears both in premiss of Paul’s final trip to Rome, as it is
the narration of his persecuting activity (7:58– narrated in Acts, is his Roman citizenship,
8:3; 9:1–3) and in the speeches of self-defence with the concomitant right of appeal to the
made after his final arrest (22:1–5, 19–20; 23:6; imperial tribunal (Acts 25:10–12, 21; 26:32). Unless
26:4–12). But while its secondary status needs to we are prepared to dismiss this whole account,
be remembered, the information in Acts, with despite the verisimilitude of its first-person
only two or three exceptions, is both consistent narration (27:1–28:16), we need to give at least
with Paul’s own statements and not so patently some credence to Luke’s statements about Paul’s
in keeping with Luke’s special purposes as to citizenship.
come under suspicion. 3. As we have already observed, how-
2. According to Luke, Paul was a diaspora ever, Paul’s own self-description places more
Jew—specifically, a native of Tarsus, the pros- emphasis on his Jewish identity and credentials.
perous chief city of the region of Cilicia (21:39; To put this information into its proper perspec-
22:3). The letters certainly confirm the general tive, we need to keep in mind the extent and
identification; even without Acts, Paul’s facility significance of the Jewish diaspora. By the
in Greek and the ease with which he navigated beginning of the first century, as was observed
the Hellenistic world identify him as a diaspora by the geographer and historian Strabo, ‘this
Jew. With respect to the more specific reference people [i.e. of Judea] has already made its
to Tarsus, the only evidence in the letters with a way into every city, and it is not easy to find
bearing on the matter is Paul’s statement that any place in the habitable world which has
after his first visit to Jerusalem he ‘went into the not received this nation and in which it has
regions of Syria and Cilicia’ (Gal 1:21). Syria is not made its power felt’ (quoted by Jos. Ant.
understandable; someone who had spent time 14.114–18). Of interest in this statement is not
in Damascus (Gal 1:17) could readily gravitate to only the geographical spread of Jewish commu-
Antioch, an important centre of the Jewish dias- nities (also Jos. J. W. 2.399; Ag. Ap. 2.38–9; Philo,
pora. But Cilicia is less to be expected, unless, Flacc. 7.45; Acts 2:5–11), but also what this trans-
as Luke indicates. Paul had a special personal lation calls their ‘power’, rendering a Greek verb
affinity for the area. This detail in Galatians, that usually has the sense ‘to gain the mastery
then, lends a definite plausibility to Luke’s iden- of, to prevail over’. The word is not to be taken
tification of Tarsus as Paul’s home city. literally, as if Jews had become dominant in any
Luke goes further, however, to identify Paul as a of the cities where they had taken up residence.
citizen both of Tarsus (21:39) and of Rome But it does describe the fact that in city after city
(16:37–9; 22:25–9; 23:27), the latter by birth. This Jews had been able to create and maintain
is not outside the realm of possibility. Jews cer- Torah-centred islands in the midst of the larger
tainly could be Roman citizens without com- Hellenistic sea. And perhaps this image distorts
promising their traditional observances (e.g. Jos. things somewhat, in that Jewish communities
Ant. 14.228–37). Tarsus itself was lavishly rewarded were by no means sealed off from the life and
for services rendered, both by Mark Antony culture of the cities that sustained them. The
after the death of Cassius and Brutus (Appian, example of Sardis, where the Jewish community
Historia, 5.1.7), and by Octavian after the battle was able to acquire space for their synagogue in
of Actium (Dio Chrysostom, Orationes, 34.8). the central civic edifice that also housed the
One could readily imagine circumstances in bath and gymnasium, is perhaps a little late
which even a Jewish family would have been (3rd cent. CE) to be directly relevant. But
able to share in this largesse. At the same time, any difference between this example and the
 37 introduction to the pauline corpus

circumstances of diaspora Jews in the first cen- 5. But is it consistent with Paul’s own state-
tury in Sardis and elsewhere is one of degree, ments about Jerusalem? There is a significant
not of kind. Diaspora realities can also be seen body of scholarship that rejects wholesale
reflected in the long list, compiled by Josephus, Luke’s identification of Jerusalem as the locale
of decrees issued by Julius Caesar and his suc- for both Paul’s education and his persecuting
cessors which defined and protected the rights activity (e.g. Knox 1950: 34–6; Haenchen 1971:
of the Jewish communities in various cities of 297, 625). This rejection is based partly on a
Asia and elsewhere (Jos. Ant. 14.186–264). While consideration of Luke’s purposes: it is in keep-
not as much is known of the Jewish community ing with his interpretative programme (cf. Acts
in Tarsus as in some other cities, a Jewish pres- 1:8) to have the apostle responsible for taking
ence in the first century is nevertheless ‘well the gospel ‘to the ends of the earth’ to be linked
attested’ (Murphy-O’Connor 1996: 33). closely with Jerusalem. But further, it is based
4. Paul’s biographical statements, then, brief more fundamentally on Paul’s own statement
and tangential though they may be, come more that even after his conversion and first visit to
vividly to life when placed in the context of this Jerusalem, he ‘was still unknown by sight to the
vibrant diaspora reality. It was in one of these churches of Judea’ (Gal 1:22). Surely, it is argued,
Greek-speaking Jewish communities, integrated the Jerusalem church would have known its
into the life of the larger city but without chief persecutor.
wholesale assimilation, that he was born 6. In the context of Galatians, however, Paul is
(perhaps in the first decade of the century) talking about his contacts with Jerusalem as
and nurtured in the ancestral faith. There were a Christian: apart from Cephas and James, he
inevitably different degrees of Hellenization declares, the church in Jerusalem and Judea had
within the diaspora, but Paul locates his origins not seen the transformed Paul with their own
at the more rigorously observant end of the eyes. With respect to the possibility of a period
spectrum. While most (male) Jews could pre- of residence in Jerusalem, then, Paul’s statement
sumably describe themselves, as Paul does in that he was a Pharisee weighs in more heavily
Phil 3:5, as ‘circumcised on the eighth day’, and than does his comment about the churches in
‘a member of the people of Israel’, not all would Judea (Murphy-O’Connor 1996: 52–4). This does
be able to name their tribe (Benjamin), or— not mean, however, that Luke’s depiction is to
since the term probably indicates facility in be accepted in toto. Surely if Paul had had any
Hebrew or Aramaic—to categorize themselves meaningful association with Gamaliel it would
as ‘a Hebrew born of Hebrews’ (cf. 2 Cor 11:22). have been included in one of his catalogues
The next item in the Philippian catalogue—‘as of Jewish credentials. The claim to be a ‘son
to the law, a Pharisee’ (Phil 3:5)—is a little harder of Pharisees’ probably belongs to a similar
to envisage in a diaspora setting, however. While category.
Jews everywhere were identified by their adher- 7. In all probability, then, Paul journeyed to
ence to the law, the only evidence we have for Jerusalem as a young man, where he joined the
Pharisees as a specific group stems from Judea. Pharisees, pursuing his ‘zeal for the traditions of
Here the information from Acts is relevant, for his ancestors’, and ‘advancing in Judaism beyond
Luke identifies Jerusalem as the place of Paul’s many of [his] people of the same age’ (Gal 1:14).
education. Speaking to the Jerusalem crowd after Probably we are to see him as attached to one of
his arrest, Paul is depicted as saying: ‘I am a Jew, the Hellenistic synagogues in Jerusalem, perhaps
born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this even the ‘Synagogue of the Freedmen’ (Hengel
city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated strictly 1991: 69), which included in its membership
according to our ancestral law’ (Acts 22:3). This expatriates of Cilicia (Acts 6:9). It is also possible
reading of the verse takes the latter two partici- that during this period he took a special interest
pial clauses (brought up, educated) as referring to in Gentile proselytes. In Gal 5:11 he refers to a
the same process—study under Gamaliel. It is time when he ‘was preaching circumcision’. In
possible, however, to read the verse as referring the context of Galatians, this statement means
to two stages—primary nurture (brought up in more than simply that he himself was once
this city) and secondary training (educated strictly a Torah-observer; it means that he once was en-
at the feet of Gamaliel according to our ancestral gaged in encouraging Gentiles to be circumcised
law). This latter reading, which suggests that Paul and thus to become full adherents of Torah-
moved to Jerusalem as a child, is probably more religion (cf. Gal 5:3). When was this? It is unlikely
consistent with the comment in Acts 23:6 that he that there was a period after his Damascus experi-
was also the ‘son of Pharisees’. ence where he preached a kind of Judaizing
introduction to the pauline corpus 38

gospel to Gentiles. The statement more likely in general to reduce religious experience to
refers to his pre-Damascus period, where we non-religious categories.
might envisage him as playing the same sort of Paul, of course, understood this experience as
role with Gentile synagogue-adherents as Eleazar an encounter with the risen Christ (Gal 1:15–16;
did with King Izates of Adiabene (Jos. Ant. 20.43– 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8–9) and, moreover, as belonging to
5), namely, insisting that only by becoming full the same set of experiences as had brought the
proselytes would they be pleasing to God. movement into being in the first place (1 Cor
8. It is also during this period that Paul’s zeal 15:5–8). But the reality of a religious experience
‘for the traditions of [his] ancestors’ (Gal 1:14) is one thing, the interpretation placed on it by
took particular expression in his persecution of the subject quite another. Any attempt to assess
the nascent Christian movement (Gal 1:14, 23; the reality lying behind the statement, ‘Christ
Phil 3:6; 1 Cor 15:9). As has been noted already, appeared to me’, belongs in a book whose pur-
there is no need to set Gal 1:22 over against the poses are quite different from those of a com-
Acts account, and to restrict Paul’s persecuting mentary such as this.
activity to an area outside Judea (Damascus). 10. To understand Paul and his letters, how-
We can accept the Acts account at least to this ever, it is necessary to recognize that he saw no
point, that it was in Jerusalem that Paul gap or caesura between the experience and the
took offence at the activity of the early Chris- interpretation. For him the subjective experi-
tians, particularly the Greek-speaking ‘Hellen- ence (‘God . . . was pleased to reveal his Son in
ists’ (Acts 6) who formulated their message in me’, Gal 1:15–16, my lit. tr.) and the objective
a manner that was much more critical of the reality (‘[Christ] appeared . . . to me’; 1 Cor 15:8)
temple and much less acquiescent to the Jewish were a seamless unity.
religious establishment (cf. Acts 7) than the Further, to understand Paul it is necessary
‘Hebrews’. Perceiving the activity of the Hellen- to recognize two things that flowed from
istic Jewish Christians as a threat to the well- this experience. One was a reconfiguration of
being of the Torah-centred way of life, and also his basic, world-ordering convictions. Paul had
at a deeper level perceiving their basic message already come to some conclusions about how
as setting Christ over against the Torah, he the message of a crucified and risen Messiah
engaged in ‘zealous’ repression of the move- related to the basic convictions of covenantal
ment. When this resulted in the flight of Chris- nomism. His previous perceptions of Christ
tians from Jerusalem to other Jewish centres, ‘according to the flesh’ (2 Cor 5:16) produced the
Paul became involved in attempts to repress conviction that Christ and Torah were mutually
the activity of the new movement in Damascus. exclusive; they were rival ways of marking the
That is, we can accept the basic itinerary of Acts community of the righteous. Consequently his
8 and 9, though some of the details (the ferocity new conviction—that God had raised Jesus
of Saul’s own activity, imprisonment rather and that the claims made about him in Christian
than simple disciplinary action, official letters preaching were thus grounded in God’s action—
from the high priest) may well be the result of was not a simple, self-contained conviction;
Lukan exaggeration. rather, it set in motion a thoroughgoing pro-
9. ‘When God was pleased to reveal his Son to cess of convictional restructuring. Not that his
(in) me’ (Gal 1:15–16): Somewhere near Damascus new convictions were simply the inversion of
(cf.‘returned’, Gal 1:17), Paul had an experience the old. He continued to believe in the God of
that led to a radical reassessment of the person Israel, in Israel’s election, even in the divine
of Jesus and a thoroughgoing reconfiguration of origin of the Torah. But these native convictions
his foundational convictions. In the history of were redrawn around a new centre, the founda-
interpretation, various attempts have been tional conviction that the crucified Jesus had been
made to account for this experience without raised by God.
remainder by appealing to psychological pre- 11. The second thing that flowed from Paul’s
conditioning or even physiological manifest- Damascus experience was that it was also and at
ations (e.g. an epileptic seizure). But to reduce the same time a call to be an apostle. Despite
the range of possible explanations in this way the chronological gap between the first experi-
is to fail to recognize the reality of religious ences recounted in 1 Cor 15:5–7 and Paul’s
experience, on the phenomenological level at own—a gap alluded to in v. 8 (‘last of all, as to
the very least. Religious phenomena certainly someone untimely born’) but ultimately dis-
have their psychological and physiological dimen- missed as inconsequential—Paul claims that it
sions, but it is unfair to religious communities constituted him an apostle on an equal basis
 39 introduction to the pauline corpus

with the others (vv. 10–11; cf. Gal 1:1). One can Damascus (Gal 1:17), which in turn became too
readily imagine how this claim would have hot for him to remain once Aretas had gained
sounded to those ‘who were already apostles control of the city. This evidence suggests, then,
before [him]’ (Gal 1:17) and their Jerusalem fol- that Paul’s statement in Gal 1:16 should be taken
lowers, especially when this johnny-come-lately at its temporal face value: right from the begin-
began to insist on a law-free mission to Gentiles ning, he felt himself called as an apostle with a
with Paul himself as its divinely commissioned special commission for the Gentiles.
apostle. An uneasy relationship with the Jerusa- 14. ‘Up to Jerusalem . . . into the regions of Syria and
lem church marked Paul’s ministry from the Cilicia . . . Antioch’ (Gal 1:18, 21; 2:11): Of the other
outset. events in the period between his Damascus
12. ‘So that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles’ experience and the start of the missionary
(Gal 1:16): Looking back, Paul locates the origin of activity reflected in the letters, Paul tells us
his Gentile mission in the Damascus experience very little. ‘After three years’ he journeyed
itself. Some interpreters have argued that this is to Jerusalem, with the specific intention of ‘get-
just a matter of retrospect, Paul here collapsing a ting to know’ Cephas/Peter, or of ‘making his
process that might have taken years, into the acquaintance’ (Gal 1:18; on this sense of the verb
event that set the process in motion in the first historein, see Jos. J. W. 6.81). Paul’s larger purpose
place (e.g. Watson 1986: 28–38). But not only is in Galatians 1 and 2 is to minimize his contacts
there no evidence for such an intervening phase with ‘those who were already apostles before
of any length, Paul’s statements relating to his [him]’ (Gal 1:17), in order to establish the point
activity in Arabia suggest that from the very that he ‘did not receive [his gospel] from a
beginning he saw himself as commissioned to human source, nor was [he] taught it, but [he]
carry the gospel to Gentiles. Paul’s sojourn in received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ’
Arabia (Gal 1:17) is sometimes seen as a period (Gal 1:12). While this statement underlines the
of quiet reflection, where he contemplated the centrality of the Damascus experience for Paul’s
significance of his experience and worked out new commitment to Christ and the gospel,
its theological implications. No doubt there it should not be interpreted as implying that
was a period of time in which such reflection his early Christian experience was isolated
took place; certainly his new theological frame- and individual and that other Christians played
work did not emerge instantaneously. But Paul’s no part in his formation. Presumably he did
time in Arabia seems to have attracted the not baptize himself (Rom 6:3). Likewise, he
unfavourable attention of King Aretas himself was able to count on friends—Christians, in
(2 Cor 11:32). One does not usually arouse the all probability—to help him over the city wall
ire of a ruling monarch by engaging in solitary in Damascus (note the passive in 2 Cor 11:33:
theological reflection. Paul’s Arabian experience ‘I was let down’). Even before his first visit to
suggests that he attempted to carry out an apos- Jerusalem, then, he had been incorporated into
tolic ministry among non-Jews at a very early a Christian community as a new convert, with
date. If there was a period of reflection, we should all the socialization that would have entailed.
think in terms of weeks, not years. Further, he describes such central Christian
13. From a first-century Judean perspective, elements as the facts of the gospel itself
Arabia was the kingdom of the Nabataeans, (1 Cor 15:1–7) and the narrative of the last supper
with its capital in Petra (Jos. J.W.1.125: ‘the (1 Cor 11:23) as material that he had ‘received’ and
capital of the Arabian kingdom, called Petra’). then ‘handed on’, using the accepted, formal
This means that Paul’s sojourn in Arabia in Gal vocabulary for the transmission of tradition. It
1:17 needs to be co-ordinated with the account is probably not without significance that the
of his escape from the agents of King Aretas in two proper names mentioned in the summary
Damascus (2 Cor 11:30–3). The reference here is of the gospel in 1 Cor 15:3–7 (Cephas, James) are
to Aretas IV, king of the Nabataeans from about precisely the two people that he met on his first
9 BCE to 39 CE. Murphy-O’Connor (1996: 5–7) Jerusalem visit (Gal 1:18–19). As C.H. Dodd is
argues that Damascus came under Nabataean famously reported to have said, surely in two
control in 37 CE, which would then have been weeks Paul and Peter found more to talk about
when Paul’s departure from Damascus took than simply the weather.
place, though certainty is not possible (cf. Ries- 15. Of Paul’s time in ‘the regions of Syria and
ner 1998: 84–9). Presumably Paul had created Cilicia’ (Gal 1:21), very little can be said, unless
enough of a disturbance through his evangeliz- we disregard the order in which these two
ing activity in Arabia that he had to return to geographical regions are listed and understand
introduction to the pauline corpus 40

‘Syria’ to refer to the kind of scenario recounted Visit 3: Jerusalem Council visit
in Acts 11:25–6, where Paul was engaged as (15:1–30)
Barnabas’s junior partner in a ministry of teach- Intervening activity: Mission activity in Macedonia
ing and church leadership in Antioch. Be that as and Achaia (16:1–18:17)
it may, other statements of Paul confirm the Visit 4: Unspecified visit (18:18–23)
general picture arising from the Acts account: Intervening activity: Mission activity in Ephesus
he was resident for a time in Antioch (both and Asia (18:24–19:41)
Cephas and James’s delegation ‘came’ to Anti- Visit 5: Collection visit (20:1–21:26)
och, while Paul and Barnabas were already Subsequent events: Arrest, hearings, journey to
there; Gal 2:11–12); and he was associated with Rome (21:27–28:31)
Barnabas in the earlier part of his known min-
istry but probably not later (the only evidence Two preliminary observations should be made
for direct association appears in Gal 2:1, 9, 13; cf. about the final two visits. First, while Luke
1 Cor 9:6). Paul’s arrival in Antioch brings his presents the fourth visit as a matter of some
formative period to an end and sets the stage for urgency to Paul (cf. 18:20–1), he provides no
the more public ministry narrated in Acts and information at all about either the reason for
reflected in his letters. the journey or its outcome. Second, while Luke
is aware of the fact that the fifth visit was for the
E. The Chronology and Sequence of Paul’s purpose of delivering collection money to Jeru-
Mission. 1. Any full chronological reconstruc- salem (24:17), this aspect of the final journey is
tion of Paul’s active ministry requires the very much played down in Acts in comparison
co-ordination of three interdependent lines of to the letters.
investigation: (1) discerning the relative chrono- 3. In the letters themselves, by contrast, there
logy of the different geographical stages of his is evidence of only three visits:
mission; (2) identifying some fixed dates as Visit A. Post-conversion visit (Gal 1:18)
anchor points for an absolute chronology; and Visit B. Jerusalem consultation (Gal 2:1–10)
(3) placing the letters at their appropriate points Visit C. Collection visit (1 Cor 16:1–4; Rom 15:25;
within this chronological framework. This is cf. 2 Cor 8–9).
not the place, of course, to attempt any such
reconstruction. Even if it were possible to do Several preliminary observations should be
so in a reasonably concise way, it would be made about this list as well. To start with, the
inappropriate here; the authors of each of the first two visits are presented in conjunction
sections to follow must be allowed the freedom with some additional chronological informa-
to interpret their assigned segment of the Paul- tion: the first visit occurred three years after
ine corpus within their own reconstruction of Paul’s Damascus experience (Gal 1:18), and the
Paul’s career. What is required at this point is second visit took place ‘after fourteen years’
a more general introduction to the problems (Gal 2:1)—though whether the fourteen-year
inhering in the evidence, the points at which period begins with the first visit or with the
crucial decisions need to be made, and the Damascus experience is not specified in the
resultant range of reconstructions. text and is a matter of some scholarly dispute.
2. As might well be expected, the role of Acts Further, since Paul’s purpose in this section of
is once again a key factor in the discussion. In Galatians is to make the point that his contacts
both Acts and the letters Paul’s mission activity with Jerusalem were minimal, the context
is punctuated by visits to Jerusalem, and the requires that the list is complete. That is, the
main reconstructions of Pauline chronology cogency of his argument would have been in
are differentiated by their approach to these jeopardy if he had failed to mention a visit; thus
visits. Acts recounts no less than five such visits: prior to the writing of Galatians, Paul had made
two, and only two, visits to Jerusalem. Finally,
Visit 1: Post-conversion visit (9:26–30) the third visit, to deliver the ‘collection for the
Intervening activity: Time spent in Tarsus and saints’ (1 Cor 16:1), appears only in prospect; in
Antioch (9:30; 11:25–6) all the references it is still a journey that lies in
Visit 2: Famine relief visit (11:27–9; the future.
12:25) Of these two sets of visits, the first and the
Intervening activity: Mission activity in Cyprus last in each case obviously correspond with
and southern Asia Minor each other, despite differences in detail. It is
(13:1–14:28) more difficult, however, to make sense of what
 41 introduction to the pauline corpus

comes in between. There are evident similarities and absence of Timothy; the absence of any
between the meetings recounted in Acts 15 and explicit mention of the collection project or
Gal 2:1–10: the same participants (Paul, Barna- injunctions to contribute; the restriction of his
bas, Peter, James), dealing with the same issue whereabouts between the first two visits to the
(circumcision of Gentile converts), coming to regions of Syria and Cilicia).
the same general decision (legitimacy of the 5. The other minority viewpoint, pioneered
Gentile mission). The majority of interpreters by John Knox (1950), attempts to build a chron-
take these two passages as variant accounts of ology almost entirely on the basis of informa-
the same event (i.e. B ¼ 3), and develop a tion in the letters. In addition to the Jerusalem
chronological framework on the basis of this visits, there are three chronological seque-
and other evident points of contact between nces appearing explicitly in the letters: (1) from
Acts and the letters (with varying estimations Damascus to the confrontation with Peter (Gal);
of the reliability of information found only in (2) missionary activity in the Greek peninsula
Acts). (1 Thess); (3) travels in connection with the
4. In addition to this majority position, how- collection (1 Cor, 2 Cor, Rom). Knox, followed
ever, there are two other minority approaches by a number of others (e.g. Hurd 1965;
to Paul’s chronological framework that need to Lüdemann 1984), have argued that according to
be mentioned. One of them originated with the Paul’s own statements there could not have been
work of William Ramsay (1907), who was par- any more than three visits to Jerusalem. The key
ticularly concerned to demonstrate the histor- to this reconstruction is the injunction in Gal
ical reliability of Acts. The majority viewpoint 2:10 that Paul ‘remember the poor’, which is
described above tends towards the conclusion understood to mark the inception of the collec-
that Luke was mistaken in recounting an inter- tion project. That is, at the Jerusalem Council, in
vening visit between the post-conversion visit return for the recognition of his Gentile mission,
and that of the Jerusalem Council (i.e. the fam- Paul undertook a project to raise money from
ine relief visit), since Paul’s argument in Gal- his Gentile churches as a sign of good faith
atians leaves no room for it. In the position towards the Jerusalem church. Since this was
developed by Ramsay and followed by a num- the project that occupied much of his time dur-
ber of others (e.g. Bruce 1977), it is argued ing the final, Ephesus-based phase of his known
instead that the consultation described in missionary activity, the founding of churches
Gal 2:1–10 took place during the famine relief in Galatia, Macedonia, and Achaia must have
visit (i.e. B ¼ 2). They argue that the private happened prior to the Jerusalem Council; that
nature of this consultation (Gal 2:2) is more in is, this missionary activity is located in the
keeping with Acts 11 than with Acts 15, and that fourteen-year period mentioned in Gal 2:1. This
Paul’s statement of his eagerness to remember reconstruction has the effect (though not the
the poor (Gal 2:10) can readily be correlated intent) of placing the Jerusalem Council at
with the famine relief project. Essential to a point in the sequence corresponding to the
this approach are two assumptions about the unspecified visit of Acts 18:18–23.
letter to the Galatians: first, that Galatians 6. To this point, the discussion has had to do
was written prior to the Jerusalem Council of with relative chronology. In order to develop an
Acts 15—perhaps the same delegation from absolute chronology, it is necessary to deter-
Jerusalem that was creating dissension in Anti- mine some fixed dates. Paul himself is not all
och (Acts 15:1) was pressuring the Galatian that helpful in this regard. The reference to King
churches as well; and second, that the ‘churches Aretas in 2 Cor 11:32 is the only instance where
of Galatia’ were those founded by Paul and he names an otherwise identifiable secular fig-
Barnabas in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Derbe, ure. Still, one reference is better than none. As
and Lystra during the so-called first missionary observed above, Murphy-O’Connor (1996: 5–7)
journey (Acts 13 and 14), cities that were located has argued that Paul’s departure from Damascus
in the southern part of the Roman province can be dated to about 37 CE; while this may
of Galatia (though the region of the ethnic represent more precision than the evidence
Galatians lay further to the north). While this allows, at least one can say that the event had
approach is often dismissed as special pleading to have taken place before Aretas’s death in 39
in defence of Acts, there is a case that could or 40 (Riesner 1998: 84–9). The other possible
be made on the basis of Galatians itself, which anchor-point is provided by the reference to
contains details that might suggest an early date Paul’s appearance before Gallio, the proconsul
for the letter (e.g. the prominence of Barnabas of Achaia (Acts 18:12). In 1905 an inscription
introduction to the pauline corpus 42

was discovered at Delphi containing the text of Jerusalem Council 50

a letter from Claudius to the city, which also Ephesus and environs 51–3
referred to Gallio as proconsul. Since the term Collection visit 55
of office for a proconsular governor of a prov-
ince was normally one year, commencing on (Lüdemann also offers an alternative set of
the first of July, it is possible to fix Paul’s dates, not reproduced here, based on a date for
appearance before Gallio to some time in the crucifixion of 27 CE rather than 30).
the latter part of 51 CE (Murphy-O’Connor
8. The final aspect of any chronological
1996: 15–22; Riesner 202–11). This, of course,
reconstruction is the placement of the letters
assumes that Luke’s report is reliable; advocates
within the larger chronological framework.
of a letters-based chronology place Paul’s time
Again we can leave these discussions for the
in Corinth much earlier, and thus are required
commentaries on the individual letters that fol-
to dismiss the Acts account entirely.
low. Here only brief comments are necessary.
7. To illustrate how the different approaches
There is little uncertainty about the relative
to Paul’s chronology work out in practice, it will
position of 1 Thessalonians, the two Corinthian
be useful to compare three chronologies—that
epistles, and Romans; in each case internal evi-
of Murphy-O’Connor (1996), representing an
dence provides reasonably clear indications of
approach that makes significant, albeit critical,
relative date (though the issue of the Corinthian
use of Acts; Bruce’s framework based primarily
correspondence is complicated by the probabil-
on Acts (Bruce 1977); and Lüdemann’s letters-
ity that at least 2 Corinthians is a composite
based chronology (1984). Note the significant
document). If 2 Thessalonians is authentic,
variations in the events lying in between the
then it is probably to be dated shortly after 1
post-conversion visit and the Jerusalem Council.
Thessalonians, though some interpreters argue
for an inverted sequence. Most commentators
Murphy-O’Connor: place Galatians prior to Romans and in the
Conversion 33 same general time-frame as the Corinthian
Post-conversion visit 37 correspondence, though as has already been
Syria and Cilicia 37–? observed there is a minority view that holds it
Cyprus, S. Asia Minor ?–45 to be the earliest of the letters. As for the ‘prison
Antioch 45–6 epistles’—Philippians, Philemon, and Colos-
Galatia, Macedonia, Corinth 46–51 sians (if authentic)—while traditionally they
Jerusalem Conference 51 have been seen as written during Paul’s Roman
Antioch 51–2 imprisonment, there is a growing body of opinion
Ephesus and environs 52–6 that would place some or all of them earlier,
Collection visit 56 perhaps in an Ephesian imprisonment between
Arrival in Rome 62 1 and 2 Corinthians (see 2 Cor 1:8; note the refer-
Bruce: ence to many imprisonments in 2 Cor 11:23).
Conversion 33
Post-conversion visit 35 F. Paul’s Apostolic Modus Operandi. 1. The
Syria and Cilicia 35–46 number of churches addressed or referred to
Famine relief visit 46 in the letters suggests that Paul was strikingly
Cyprus, ‘Galatia’ 47–8 successful in gaining converts and founding
Jerusalem Council 49 new congregations. The letters provide us with
Macedonia, Achaia 49–52 very little direct information, however, on how
Unspecified visit 52 he went about the process. Once again, the lack
Ephesus and environs 52–7 might seem to be supplied by the Acts account.
Collection visit 57 Here Paul’s activity in founding new churches
Arrival in Rome 60 tends to follow a recognizable pattern. He
Lüdemann begins in the synagogue, where he takes advan-
Conversion 33 tage of opportunities to proclaim the gospel in
Post-conversion visit 36 a public forum (e.g. Acts 13:5, 14; 14:1; 16:13; 17:1–
Syria and Cilicia 2, 10; 18:4). The preaching meets with a mixed
S. Asia Minor response—a positive reception by some of the
Macedonia (Galatia?) Jews and many of the Gentile proselytes and
Arrival in Corinth 41 ‘God-fearers’ (13:43; 14:1; 17:4), but a hostile
 43 introduction to the pauline corpus

response by the larger proportion of the Jewish more fully developed but nevertheless schema-
community (13:45; 14:2; 17:5–9, 13; 18:6). This tized picture in Acts to control or over-
opposition leads Paul to withdraw from the shadow the information emerging from the
synagogue with his small group of converts, letters themselves. Further, the task of setting
who become the nucleus of a separate commu- the information from both Acts and the letters
nity with a growing number of Gentile mem- into a richer description of Paul’s mission
bers (13:46–9; 14:3–4; 18:6–11), and an appointed has been aided of late by more sociologically
body of leaders (‘elders’, 14:23; 20:17). Eventually informed studies—both those that draw on
local opposition or other considerations force models of how new religions grow and develop
Paul to depart and to move to a different city, (on the Christian mission generally, see Stark
where the process is invariably repeated. 1996) and those that attempt detailed descri-
2. Again, however, the Acts material should ptions of Paul’s social context (e.g. Meeks
be used with caution; for when Paul describes 1983). One emphasis arising from both types
his mission field, Jewish synagogues are nowhere of study is the importance of various social
in sight. While preaching to Jews is not categor- networks in the spread of a new religious move-
ically eliminated (1 Cor 9:20), Paul invariably ment. While the role of public preaching and
characterizes his apostolic mission as directed teaching should not be eliminated entirely,
towards Gentiles (1 Thess 2:16; Gal 2:2; Rom 1:5; more emphasis should be placed on family net-
11:13; 15:16; Col 1:24–9); indeed, this was preci- works (e.g. 1 Cor 7:13–16), on the extended
sely the division of labour agreed to with household with its various networks of slaves,
Peter (Gal 2:7–9). Likewise, when he addresses freedmen, tenants, clients, and so on (e.g. 1 Cor
his readers, he refers to them as Gentiles (1 Cor 1:16), and on the networks involved in the carry-
12:2). In neither case is there any hint of a mixed ing out of a trade (Hock 1980). Indeed, the
group of Jews and Gentiles. Further, when he frequency of references to house-churches
describes his Thessalonian converts as people (1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:3–5, 23; Philem 1; Col 4:15)
who had ‘turned to God from idols, to serve suggests that households provided the primary
a living and true God’ (1 Thess 1:9), he does social context in which Paul’s churches were
not seem to leave room for the possibility that embedded (though other models such as volun-
adherence to the synagogue had been for any of tary associations may have helped shape the
them a half-way house on the path from idolatry new communities as well; see Ascough 1997).
to their new faith, in contrast to Acts 17:4. 5. It is not easy to discern the shape of Paul’s
3. Still, the differences between Paul and Acts original preaching. The basic elements are clear
should not be exaggerated. For one thing, if enough; the summary in 1 Cor 15:3–8, with its
some of his converts indeed had first been focus on Christ’s death and resurrection as a
‘God-fearers’ and synagogue adherents, Paul saving event, is reflected in other references
would have had his own reasons to play down sprinkled through the letters (e.g. 1 Cor 2:1–5;
this fact, not wanting his mission to be seen as 1 Thess 1:9–10). But it is more difficult to discern
dependent in any way on the synagogue; he is, how these basic elements were fleshed out. To
after all, not a disinterested observer of his own take one sharply debated issue, how much bio-
mission. Further, the ease with which he can graphical information about Jesus’ life and
quote and allude to Scripture in his letters sug- teaching was included (Dunn 1998: 183–206)?
gests a real familiarity with Jewish Scripture and Or, how central was Israel to Paul’s preaching?
tradition on the part of his Gentile readers, a Did he, for example, lead his converts to believe
fact not inconsistent with the idea that some of that they were full members of Abraham’s
them had had a prior association with the syna- family (Gal 3:29) or that they had been grafted
gogue. In addition, Paul’s statement in 1 Cor into Israel’s stock (Rom 11:17–24), or did these
9:20 that ‘to the Jews I became as a Jew, in Israel-centred themes emerge only later and in
order to win Jews’, indicates that he did not response to external influences (see Donaldson
consider Jews to be out of bounds for him. 1994)?
Indeed, given the evidence for Jewish commu- 6. In any case, after his initial preaching Paul
nities in most of the cities where he worked, it spent a period of time consolidating his evan-
would be difficult to imagine that he could have gelistic gains and establishing a self-sufficient
carried on a mission that did not impinge on community. Most of his letters contain
the synagogue community in some way. passing references back to this initial period of
4. Nevertheless, Paul’s letters represent our community-formation (e.g. 1 Cor 1:14–16; 2:1–5;
primary source, and we should not allow the 2 Cor 1:19; 12:12–13; Gal 4:13–15; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess
introduction to the pauline corpus 44

2:9–12; 2 Thess 3:7–10). During this period he in Gal 2:9—‘that we should go to the Gentiles and
did not request or accept financial support from they to the circumcised’—is at least open to a
the congregation, preferring to support himself territorial (rather than solely ethnic) interpret-
through his own work (1 Cor 9:3–18; 1 Thess 2:9; ation. (5) The geographical context in 2 Cor
2 Thess 3:7–10) and contributions from already- 10:12–18 suggests a territorial element in Paul’s
founded congregations (2 Cor 11:7–11; Phil 4:15–16). statement that ‘we . . . will keep within the field
With the exception of Phil 1:1, there seems to be that God has assigned to us’ (v. 13). (6) Paul’s
little evidence of the kind of appointed ‘elders’ statement in Rom 15:19, 24, to the effect that
referred to in Acts (e.g. Acts 14:23). Indeed, a he is now free to travel to Rome because he
striking feature of the letters is that in dealing has ‘fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ’ ‘from
with local conflicts Paul does not bring local Jerusalem and as far around as Illyricum’, seems to
office-holders into the picture, either to instruct suggest not only a notion of territoriality but
them or to encourage his readers to submit to also of a specific evangelizing agenda within that
them. He tended to operate more on the basis of territory. Since there was still plenty of scope
a charismatic, gift-based leadership (Rom 12:4–7; 1 for preaching, not only in untouched cities but
Cor 12: 1–31; cf. Eph 4: 11–16), though one should even in the cities where churches had been
not underestimate the de facto leadership role planted, his statement that his work was finished
played by the head of the household in which in this area must suggest that he was operating
the church met. according to some more specific strategy than
7. After leaving the congregation and moving simply preaching to as many Gentiles as he
on to another city, Paul continued to feel ‘daily could wherever he might find them. (7) Finally,
pressure because of [his] anxiety for all the the statement that the conversion of the ‘full
churches’ (2 Cor 11:28). His anxiety took the number of the Gentiles’ would be the thing to
positive form of an ongoing pastoral responsi- trigger the coming of the End and the salvation
bility, exercised not only through his own of ‘all Israel’ (Rom 11:25–6), sets the whole
follow-up visits (Phil 1:27; 2:24; 1 Cor 4:18–21), mission within an eschatological framework:
but also by means of appointed emissaries—for when the gospel was ‘fully preached’, not simply
example, Timothy (1 Cor 4:16; 16:10–11; Phil from Jerusalem to Illyricum but from Jerusalem to
2:19–23) and Titus (2 Cor 7:6–16; 8:16–24)—and X (X being wherever he considered the end of
by means of the letters themselves. Through the territory to be), then the parousia would
these agencies Paul extended his apostolic acti- take place.
vity and authority; both emissaries (1 Cor 4:17) 9. While these pieces of evidence seem to add
and letters (Gal 4:20) functioned as proxies— up to a geographical strategy of some kind, it
and sometimes as precursors—for his own is not any easy matter to discern what it
apostolic presence (Funk 1967). might have been. The popular notion that Paul
8. Paul founded self-sustaining congregations engaged in ‘missionary journeys’, with Jerusa-
and then moved on. But where, and why? How lem as his point of departure and return, owes
did he decide which city he would move to more to Luke than to Paul—and actually owes
next? More specifically, did Paul operate from more to the modern missionary movement
some sense of a geographical plan or strategy? than to Luke: as Townsend (1985) has observed,
A number of pieces of evidence seem to suggest it was not until the onset of the missionary
that he did. (1) Not only did he concentrate on movement in the eighteenth century that
cities, but the cities he chose to work in tended anyone thought to describe Paul’s apostolic
to be prominent ones, provincial capitals and activity in terms of ‘three missionary journeys’.
the like. (2) He seems to have thought of these Another notion influenced by more modern
cities in terms of the provinces in which they Christian missionary strategy—namely, that
were found, preferring to refer to his churches Paul intended each of his churches to be centres
with provincial rather than city names; e.g. of evangelism for the whole province of which
Achaia and Macedonia (Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:1; it was a part (e.g. Dunn 1988: ii. 869)—founders
9:2), Asia (Rom 16:5), Illyricum (Rom 15:19), on the fact that Paul nowhere urges his congre-
Spain (Rom 15:24), and (probably) Galatia (Gal gations to carry out the task of evangelism;
1:2). (3) For years, he says, he had a desire to strangely, his letters contain no injunctions to
proclaim the gospel in Rome (Rom 1:10–13; evangelize at all. Somehow he seems to con-
15:23), which he then wanted to use as a staging- sider his churches as representative of the prov-
post for a journey to Spain (Rom 15:24, 28). (4) inces in which they are located, so that once a
The agreement between Peter and Paul recounted church was founded within a province, he could
 45 introduction to the pauline corpus

say that the gospel had been ‘fully preached’ in letter-writing conventions that were present in
that province. the Graeco-Roman world. Fortunately, we are
10. But how did he determine which prov- the beneficiaries of a century of careful com-
inces in which to work? Knox has suggested parative study, with the result that the shape
that the word kuklō in Rom 15:19 (‘from Jerusa- and texture of Paul’s letters are being brought
lem and kuklō as far as Illyricum’) should be ever more clearly into focus.
translated ‘in a circular manner’, arguing on 2. It is customary in discussions of the literary
this basis that Paul’s plan was to work his way features of Paul’s letters to begin with Adolf
through a string of provinces circling the Medi- Deissmann and his work on the papyri that
terranean and ending up in Egypt (Knox 1964). were coming to light in the latter part of the
Others have attempted to find a geographical tem- nineteenth century (Deissmann 1910). And with
plate in Israel’s Scriptures—either the sequence of good reason. Deissmann was the first to realize
nations listed in Isa 66:18–21 (Riesner 1998: 245–53) the significance of these papyri for the study of
or the various ‘tables of the nations’ in Gen 10 Paul’s letters, and his own observations have
and elsewhere (Scott 1995). Each proposal has continued to shape the discussion. In contrast
its difficulties, however, not the least of which to the more literary epistles that had been pre-
is the fact that there were many provinces served in the classical corpus, which were gen-
between Jerusalem and Rome or Spain which erally written for a wider reading public and
Paul did not seem compelled to visit. The state- with a view to preservation (e.g. those of Cicero
ment that he chose to work only where Christ had or Seneca), the letters contained among the
not ‘already been named’ (Rom 15:20) might papyri findings were truly occasional writings.
suggest that he avoided other provinces because That is, they were addressed to the immediate
they had already been evangelized. But this situation that had prompted their writing, and
would hardly have been true of Thrace, Moesia, they tended to be artless, spontaneous, and per-
or Gaul, to name only a few of the provinces sonal. On the basis of such a distinction
in which he did no work. Moreover, Rom 15:20 between literary ‘epistles’ (‘products of literary
cannot be pressed too hard, in that Paul was art’) and real ‘letters’ (‘documents of life’; ibid.
quite prepared to preach the gospel in Rome 218), Deissmann argued that Paul’s writings
(Rom 1:13) and to consider it as part of his apostolic should be classed among the latter. That is,
turf (Rom 1:5–6; 15:14–16) even though a church they are occasional writings, written ‘not for
already existed there. the public and posterity, but for the persons to
Perhaps the most that can be said is that whom they are addressed’ (ibid. 225), written
Spain, considered by the ancients to be the not as the careful formulations of a systematic
‘end of the earth’, represented for Paul the goal theologian but out of the pressing urgency of a
of his ever westerly-pressing mission. In this pastoral situation.
connection, it is worth noting that Paul seems 3. As a first approximation, Deissmann’s
to have conceived of his apostolic task in the analysis is valid and perceptive, highlighting as
light of the Servant passages of Isaiah (see the it does the immediacy and situation-driven
citations or allusions in Gal 1:15; 2 Cor 6:2; Rom character of the letters. Even the Epistle to the
15:21) and that the Servant’s task was to bring Romans, containing the most sustained and
God’s salvation ‘to the end of the earth’ (Isa systematic argumentation in the corpus and
49:6; see further Donaldson 2006). traditionally understood as a ‘compendium of
In all probability, however, Paul never made Christian Doctrine’ (Melanchthon), should be
it to the ‘end of the earth’. He journeyed to understood instead as written out of specific
Rome not in apostolic freedom but as a pris- circumstances (Paul’s planned trip to Rome)
oner. While it is possible that his Roman hear- and shaped in accordance with specific pur-
ing resulted in release (Murphy-O’Connor 1996: poses (to win the acceptance of the Roman
359–63), it is more likely that it resulted, even- Christians by addressing their concerns about
tually, in his execution. his Gentile mission). But Deissmann’s categor-
ies are too crudely drawn and need to be
G. The Letters. 1. Paul wrote neither theo- significantly revised. For one thing, Paul’s
logical treatises nor narratives but letters, and letters are not simply personal and private; he
a proper understanding of his literary legacy writes to whole congregations, even in such
requires that we take seriously its epistolary a ‘personal’ letter as Philemon (Philem 2), and
character. To do this, we must look not only addresses his readers from a self-conscious pos-
at the letters themselves, but also at the ition of authority. Nor are they as brief, rough,
introduction to the pauline corpus 46

and artless as many of the papyri letters In 1 Corinthians, it is the recipients who are
on which Deissmann based his categories; described more fully (1:2). Here the emphasis
while they may not display evidence of formal on their status as saints and on their member-
rhetorical training, they are nevertheless well- ship in a wider community of Christians is an
structured and carefully composed. In addition, appropriate opening note to a letter addressed
further study of letters in antiquity has revealed to a community marked by decidedly unsaintly
a wide variety of different types of letter (Stow- behaviour (e.g. 5:1) and smug self-sufficiency
ers 1986), from letters of rebuke (cf. Galatians) (4:8; cf. 11:16). Finally, Paul ends the prescript
to letters of mediation (cf. Philemon), as well as with a salutation distinctively his own (‘Grace
a wider range of relationships between sender to you and peace from God our Father and the
and recipient. With respect to the latter point, Lord Jesus Christ’; minor variations in Colos-
Aune has suggested a similarity between Paul’s sians and 1 Thessalonians), yet adapted from
letters and ‘official letters’ sent from govern- current patterns. ‘Grace’ (charis), while part of
ment officials to those under their authority Paul’s characteristic Christian vocabulary, is close
(Aune 1987: 164–5). enough to chairein to be heard as an edifying
4. Still, private letters provide the basic form wordplay; ‘peace’ is typical of Jewish letter-writing
on which all letters in Graeco-Roman antiquity patterns.
were based, and a comparison between Paul 5. The prescript in Graeco-Roman letters was
and the epistolary papyri is very illuminating. frequently followed by a section in which the
Paul’s letters are composed according to the writer expressed wishes for the good health of
conventional pattern of the day, although he the recipient, often couched in the form of a
adapted it in ways that made his letters particu- prayer, and/or offered thanksgiving to the gods
larly effective means of extending and reinfor- for some benefit received. To illustrate, the let-
cing his apostolic activity. ter cited above continues: ‘First of all, I pray that
Letters typically began with a prescript, con- you are in good health, and that you continue to
sisting of the name of the sender, the name of prosper and fare well, with my sister and her
the recipient, and a salutation. To use one of daughter and my brother. I give thanks to the
Deissmann’s (1910: 167–72) examples, a second- Lord Serapis that when I was in danger in the
century letter from a young Egyptian just arrived sea he saved me immediately.’ Again this has its
in Italy after having enlisted in the army begins counterpart in Paul, though where in conven-
this way: ‘Apion to Epimachus his father and tional letters it tended to be formulaic and
lord, many greetings.’ The word ‘greetings’ perfunctory, in Paul each prayer/thanksgiving
(chairein) is a customary form of salutation in section is freshly composed for each letter,
Hellenistic letters, though Jewish letters some- complimentary to the readers, and tailored
times replace it with ‘peace’ (šālôm, eirēnē). Paul’s in evident ways to the concerns of the letter.
letters follow the same format (A to B, greet- In 1 Corinthians, to take a particularly striking
ings), but with several characteristic adaptations, example, Paul gives thanks for characteristics in
some of them more or less the same from letter his readers that he will later scold them for
to letter, others particularly tailored to the needs not displaying: their richness (cf. 4:8) in speech
of the situation. First, he usually adds a term (cf. ch. 14), in knowledge (cf. ch. 8), and in
descriptive of his own role and status, most spiritual gifts (cf. chs. 12, 14). In Philemon,
frequently ‘apostle’ but also ‘servant’ or ‘pris- before pressing his request that Philemon
oner’, completed in each case by ‘of Christ receive Onesimus back with love (v. 16) and so
Jesus’. Then he often names a co-sender refresh Paul’s heart (v. 20), he gives thanks for
(Romans being the only exception among the Philemon’s demonstrated ‘love for all the saints’
certainly authentic epistles), even though the (v. 5) and for the way in which ‘the hearts of the
letter itself is usually couched in the first saints have been refreshed’ already through
person singular (e.g. Philemon). Then, where it Philemon. In less capable hands, this section
suits his purposes, he will considerably expand would have been crudely manipulative. In Paul’s
either the sender or the recipient portion more subtle and even elegant phrasing, however,
of the prescript. In Romans and Galatians, for this section functions as a kind of overture, intro-
example, where his own status as an apostle is ducing the themes to follow and predisposing
in need of defence, he uses this portion of the recipients to a receptive reading of the letter
the letter to make an aggressive (Galatians) as a whole. The one exception is Galatians,
or subtle and extended (Romans; 6 verses) tde- where Paul moves straight from the prescript
claration of his apostolic status and authority. (concluded, unusually, with a doxology) to an
 47 introduction to the pauline corpus

expression of astonishment at the culpable folly together with an injunction to ‘greet one another
of the readers. Here the prayer/thanksgiving with a holy kiss’ (Rom 16:16; also 1 Cor 16:20; 2
section is omitted for effect, or one could even Cor 13:12, 1 Thess 5:26); (4) an autograph (explicit
argue that it has been replaced with a curse in 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; 2 Thess 3:17; Philem 19;
section (Gal 1:6–9). Col 4:18); (5) a grace benediction, in the form ‘the
6. At this point in both Graeco-Roman letters grace of the Lord Jesus be with you’. The one
and in Paul we move into the body of the letter, fixed element, found in all the letters, is the
where the sender sets out to accomplish the closing grace benediction, which taken in com-
purpose for which the letter was being written. bination with the prescript means that each
Here, the sheer variety of purposes and forms letter is framed with the wish for grace. In addi-
means that it is not as easy to identify epistolary tion, each closing contains a selection of the
patterns at work in letter bodies as a whole. other elements, with a tendency towards the
Still, comparative work has by no means been order in which they were listed above.
fruitless (White 1972). For one thing, many of 8. In more recent years, epistolary analysis
the formulae by which Paul introduces his has been supplemented—or even rivalled—by a
subject-matter or takes up new themes are fre- second type of analysis to which the letters have
quently found elsewhere: e.g. ‘I am astonished been subjected, that of rhetorical criticism. The
that’; ‘I want you to know that’; ‘I beseech/appeal pejorative overtones associated with the term
to you’; ‘I rejoice that’; ‘I am confident that’—all ‘rhetoric’ in popular parlance (e.g. mere or
are frequent in Paul and richly documented in empty rhetoric) is a measure of how far this
Graeco-Roman sources (Aune 1987: 188; Long- once highly prized declamatory skill has fallen
enecker 1990: pp. cv–cviii). As observed already, in esteem. In antiquity, however, rhetoric was
letter bodies can be further categorized accord- one of the two possible capstones of an educa-
ing to the particular function intended for the tion (philosophy being the other) and the basic
letter (Stowers 1986). Also, as will be picked up prerequisite for a public career. Shorn of its
in more detail below, considerable new light negative connotations, ‘rhetoric’ simply denotes
has been shed on the letters, particularly on the ‘art of persuasion’, and more recent study
the letter bodies, by analysing them in terms of has recovered a sense of its place in antiquity
the conventions of ancient rhetoric. Finally, it and its potential for New Testament interpret-
is possible in at least some of the letters to ation (Kennedy 1984).
identify a section of parenaesis at the end of 9. Rhetorical criticism looks at argument in
the body proper (Rom 12:1–15:13; Gal 5:1–6:10; the NT from several angles (see Mack 1990),
1 Thess 4:1–5:22), i.e., a combination of instruc- each of which can be fruitfully applied to the
tion and encouragement, no doubt related to body of Paul’s letters. One has to do with classi-
the particular circumstances prompting the fication of argument types. Ancient rhetoricians
letter, but in ways that are not always readily divided argument into three categories—judicial
discerned. (rendering verdicts on past actions), delibe-
7. Letter closings display less of a fixed form rative (making decisions about future courses of
and have not been nearly as well studied, at least action), and epideictic (bestowing praise or
until recently (Weima 1994). Instead of essential blame)—and these have been brought to bear
elements, there appear to have been a number on Paul’s letters. A second approach has to do
of conventions from which letter writers could with the classification of different elements
make a selection according to preference or within an argument. Aristotle distinguished
need: ‘a farewell wish, a health wish, secondary between ethos (the establishment of the speaker’s
greetings, an autograph, an illiteracy formula [i. relationship with the audience and the basis
e. indicating that the note had of necessity been of the speaker’s authority), logos (the substance,
written by a secretary], the date, and a post- structure and arrangement of the argument
script’ (ibid. 55). Again Paul’s usage both reflects itself), and pathos (the ways in which the emotions
current conventions and displays a Christian of the audience are elicited and engaged
adaptation of them. His letters contain the fol- in the service of the argument). These three
lowing closing elements (ibid. 77–155): (1) a categories can readily be applied to each of
peace benediction, often a variation on the Paul’s letters, with immediate and fruitful results.
form ‘may the God of peace be with you’ (e.g. A third aspect of rhetorical criticism is conc-
Rom 15:33; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 4:9); (2) a final ex- erned with the logos itself, especially with
hortation (e.g. 1 Cor 16:13–16; Phil 4:8–9); (3) structures of ancient rhetoric as prescribed
greetings (first-, second-, and third-person), in the handbooks of Quintilian and others. In
introduction to the pauline corpus 48

his work on Galatians, for example, Betz (1979) metaphor by borrowing a phrase from Beker
attempts to demonstrate that the argument in (1980)—was to direct a ‘word on target’ to the
this epistle unfolds according to the prescribed situation of his readers, to bring the ‘coherent
sequence of the exordium (introductory section), core’ of his gospel to bear on the ‘contingent
the narratio (recitation of the facts of the case), circumstances’ to which the letter was addr-
the propositio (thesis to be demonstrated), the essed. Paul’s ultimate aim, in person or by letter,
probatio (specific arguments or proofs), and the was to create and maintain for his converts
concluding exhortatio. a new world in which they might live and
10. Occasionally one gets the sense in reading find meaning, a world grounded on the death
rhetorical criticism that text is being eclipsed by and resurrection of Christ and the victory over
pattern; that is, that the text is being squeezed the forces of evil and death that these had
to fit a prescribed rhetorical pattern, or at least signalled.
that demonstrating the pattern has taken pre- 13. This brings us close to the matter of Paul’s
cedence over revealing the text. Further, it is ‘theology’, to which we will turn our attention
doubtful that Paul himself would have been in a moment. But first, two final items concern-
exposed in an explicit way to the type of rhet- ing the letters themselves. One of these has to
orical training prescribed by the handbooks. do with two other agents with roles to play in
Still, since rhetoric itself permeated the cultural the process of communication carried out by a
air he breathed, he would have been deeply letter. As was customary in a culture where the
affected by rhetorical patterns and conventions means of letter production were not readily
at least in a secondary way. Moreover, any available to all, Paul made use of a secretary to
approach that encourages readers to attend do the actual pen and papyrus work. This is
carefully to the actual functioning of a text as implied by the autograph section in many of
it works its persuasive power on a reader is to the letter closings, where Paul himself takes up
be warmly welcomed. the pen ‘to write this greeting with [his] own
11. Any discussion of the actual functioning hand’ (1 Cor 16:21). It is stated explicitly in Rom
of the individual letters themselves or of the 16:22 where, in the midst of a series of third-
ends to which their particular persuasive party greetings, the secretary breaks into the
powers are turned is best left to the individual conversation to add his own word of greeting:
commentaries to follow. More generally, how- ‘I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in
ever, one can say that what Paul intends to the Lord.’
accomplish by means of his letters is what he What was the role of the secretary in the
himself would do if he were there. As he says production of Paul’s letters? There is a range of
towards the end of his troubled correspondence possibilities, from simply producing a good
with the Corinthians: ‘So I write these things copy from Paul’s corrected first draft to actually
while I am away from you, so that when I come, composing the substance of the letter under
I may not have to be severe in using the author- Paul’s general direction. The oral quality that
ity that the Lord has given me for building up comes through at many points, however, espe-
and not for tearing down’ (2 Cor 13:10). Or a cially where sentences are broken off or new
little earlier in the same letter: ‘Let such people thoughts begun before old ones are fully com-
understand that what we say by letter when pleted (e.g. Rom 5:12; 8:3) or where verbs of
absent, we do when present’ (2 Cor 10:11). Fur- speaking are used with respect to what is
ther, the promise (threat?) of a visit in many of being said in the letter (Rom 11:13; 2 Cor 12:19),
the letters (1 Cor 4:18–21; 16:5–9; 2 Cor 9:4; 13:1, seems to suggest that Paul dictated his letters.
10; Phil 2:24; Philem 22) serves to reinforce the This is also confirmed by a general evenness in
connection between action by letter and action style among the certainly authentic letters.
in person (Funk 1967). 14. Perhaps more important for the process
12. Of course the Corinthians themselves felt of communication was the role played by an-
that, at least as far as the exercise of forceful other agent—the person delivering the letter. In
discipline was concerned, Paul’s letters were an era where there was organized postal service
more effective than his presence! ‘His letters only for Roman imperial business, individual
are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence arrangements had to be made for the delivery
is weak and his speech contemptible’ (2 Cor of letters, preferably by someone known to the
10:10). But discipline was only one arrow in his sender. Presumably the ‘tearful letter’ referred to
epistolary quiver. What Paul was attempting in 2 Corinthians (2:3–4, 9; 7:8, 12) had the posi-
to do in his letters—to continue the archery tive effect that it did (7:6–16) at least in part
 49 introduction to the pauline corpus

because Titus (who probably delivered the let- composition of the letters in question. Still
ter) had been present to interpret it, to ensure others—the majority in the case of Ephesians
that it was being heard correctly, to mollify any and the Pastoral epistles—believe that letters
who were upset by it, and perhaps even to were written by former associates or later
negotiate a more positive response than if Paul admirers of Paul some time after his death,
had delivered his message in person. The role of written to bring the voice and authority of
the letter carrier also comes up in Col 4:7–9 Paul to bear on pressing circumstances in the
where Paul (if Colossians is directly from Paul) real author’s own day.
commends Tychicus, again the probable letter 17. Readers who encounter this discussion for
carrier, who ‘will tell you all the news about me’. the first time often interpret the latter sugges-
Later readers, who have to piece together infor- tion as implying deliberate deception on the
mation about Paul’s ‘news’ like a detective in a part of the real author. But even in our own
P. D. James novel, might wish that Paul had not day we are familiar with situations where it is
left so much to the letter carrier, but had put considered quite appropriate for texts that have
more of the actual detail of his life and circum- been written by one person to be attributed to
stances into the letters. another—political speeches, for example, or ‘as
15. The reference in the previous paragraph told to’ autobiographies, or unfinished manu-
to the disputed authenticity of Colossians scripts published posthumously after being edi-
brings us to the final item to be touched on in ted and completed by a colleague or admirer of
this section. Fully six of the thirteen letters that the deceased. Furthermore, the ancients tended
bear Paul’s name display characteristics that to have different attitudes towards authorship
have led many scholars to conclude that some than are standard in our own culture, with
or all of the six were not written directly by its notions of copyright and intellectual prop-
Paul. While the details need to be left for the erty. Take, for example, this statement by the late
individual commentaries to follow, the charac- second-century Christian writer Tertullian: ‘[The
teristics are a combination of elements: differ- Gospel] which was published by Mark may be
ences in vocabulary and style, differences in maintained to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark
theological outlook, reflections of contextual was, just as the narrative of Luke is generally
circumstances that probably emerged only ascribed to Paul. For it is allowable that that
later, and so on. These characteristics are not which disciples publish should be regarded as
uniformly present in the six letters: 2 Thessa- their master’s work’ (Adv. Marc. 6.5). Certainly
lonians, Colossians, and Ephesians are much cases of deception were known in antiquity, no
more Pauline in their vocabulary, style, and less than in our own day. But there is a much
theology than are the Pastorals (1 and 2 Tim- broader range of options to be put into play in
othy, Titus). There are also variations within the discussion.
these two groups. Ephesians, with its long sen- One of the factors in the discussion of authenti-
tences and its piling up of synonyms and geni- city, however, and one of the keys to Paul’s
tive constructions (e.g. ‘the working of the enduring significance, is the presence in the
power of his strength’, 1:19), sounds less Pauline certainly authentic letters of a distinctive set of
than does Colossians or 2 Thessalonians. With theological themes and structures. To this we
respect to the Pastorals, some of the features will now turn our attention.
that set these writings apart from the rest of
the Pauline corpus (the concern for church H. The Thought within and beneath the
order; the stiff and formal tone out of keeping Letters. 1. One cannot read through Paul’s letters
with letters ostensibly written to close associ- without being struck by the dazzling array of
ates) are absent from 2 Timothy. images, metaphors, terms, concepts, and typolo-
16. In each case scholars have entertained a gies that he uses to describe the human situation
range of possibilities. Some have defended au- and the work of Christ and its consequences.
thenticity by appealing to special circumstances A classroom of even beginner-level students can
that might account for the observed deviations quickly fill up a whole blackboard. In an order as
from the norm. Others have pointed to the way random as a classroom brainstorming session:
in which Paul included others within his sphere justification; sin; redemption; judgement; flesh;
of apostolic authority—those mentioned as Spirit; spirit; body; law; works of the law;
co-senders of letters, for example—in order to faith; grace; boasting; Christ; Lord; the first/last
argue that Paul may have given a secretary Adam; Son of God; sons of God; sons of Abra-
or co-worker greater latitude in the actual ham; righteousness; reconciliation; adoption;
introduction to the pauline corpus 50

freedom; slavery; expiation; sanctification; enemy; can be plotted and patterned. Others have
wrath; love; for us; for our sins; blood; gospel; looked to his conversion (as has already been
preaching; body of Christ; in Christ; putting on observed), hoping to find a biographical and ex-
Christ; in the Spirit; crucified with Christ; dying periential paradigm that might have generated—
with Christ; rising with Christ; walking; called; and thus might make sense of—his later argu-
being one; bought and sold; first fruits; wisdom; mentation. Still others have attempted to select
glory; living sacrifice; faith, hope, and love; from the larger set of terms and metaphors a
triumph; dying to the law; dying to sin; principal- primary image or a central theme around which
ities and powers; elemental spirits; condemnation; the remainder can be arranged. ‘Justification
fellowship—not to mention ‘things that are not by faith not works’ is probably the best-known
to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat’ example of such an attempt. These approaches
(2 Cor 12:4). have been supplemented from time to time
2. The list is a testimony to the vigour and by various developmental schemes, which try
vitality of Paul’s mind. His was an active intel- to discern a substantial progression of Paul’s
lect, throwing off metaphors and ideas as a theology as he matured.
grindstone throws off sparks. Yet the very kal- 5. Perhaps the most promising approach,
eidoscopic dazzle of his language makes it dif- however, is one that sees Paul’s ‘theology’ as a
ficult to read him well, especially since his cumulative activity taking place between two
statements on some topics (the law, in particu- other levels of cognition and perception. The
lar) seem to be in considerable tension with foundational level, located in structures beneath
each other. Is there a discernible pattern or an the surface of the text, consists of Paul’s set of
underlying structure that will help us make basic convictions, things that he took to be
coherent sense of this welter of theological lan- axiomatic or self-evident. Some of these were
guage? What, in other words, is the basic shape native convictions, stemming from his primary
of Paul’s theology? formation in Judaism; others were secondary
3. The task is by no means easy. The puzzle- and reconstitutive, stemming from his Damas-
ment expressed by the author of 2 Peter, noted cus experience. We have already discussed the
at the outset of this essay (2 Pet 3:16), is echoed way in which Paul’s ‘conversion’ experience can
by modern readers as well. In Franz Over-beck’s be seen as a redrawing of his primary Jewish
delightfully paradoxical way of putting it: ‘No convictions around the new belief that God had
one has ever understood Paul, except Marcion; raised Jesus from death and thus made him
and even he misunderstood him.’ Or, in more Saviour and Christ.
expanded form: ‘[Paul’s] greatness is shown in By contrast, the uppermost level, encoun-
the very fact that he has found no congenial tered at the rhetorical surface of the letters, is
interpreter and probably never will. From Mar- much more contingent, in that it is related
cion to Karl Barth, from Augustine to Luther, to the specific situations that prompted Paul’s
Schweitzer or Bultmann, he has ever been mis- epistolary response. This level is not to be
understood or partially understood, one aspect simply identified with either the actual circum-
of his work being thrown into relief while stances themselves or Paul’s actual response,
others have been misunderstood and neglected’ though both are involved. Rather, it is to be
(Schoeps 1961: 13). located in Paul’s perception of the situation, as
4. Some have decided that the very attempt he views it through the lens of his basic gospel
to find a coherent pattern of thought in Paul is convictions.
misdirected, either because Paul’s significance is 6. What is commonly thought of as Paul’s
to be found instead in his spirituality or his theology, then, can be seen as lying in between
exercise of pastoral care, or because his thinking these two levels and produced by the dynamic
contains an irreducible element of incoherence. interaction between them. New and unforeseen
Among those who think that the quest for co- circumstances in his churches force Paul to
herence is worth pursuing, there have been develop the implications of his core convictions
several different ways of formulating the prob- in order to be able to address them. Questions
lem, or several different places in which the raised by opponents or sceptical hearers of his
interpretative key has been sought. Some have message raise to the surface tensions inherent in
looked to Paul’s ‘background’, hoping to find in his new set of convictions, tensions that he
Paul’s Jewish formation or Hellenistic environ- needs to resolve if his message is to be heard.
ment (or a combination of the two) the grid- Especially prominent in this regard are those
points around which his theological discourse tensions arising from his new belief that Christ,
 51 introduction to the pauline corpus

not Torah, is the true badge of membership in the God’s righteousness required that sin be pun-
family of Abraham. Paul’s theology, then, is that ished. In his death—so runs this ‘penal substi-
developing body of thought that exists in between tutionary’ view of the atonement—Christ
conviction and circumstance, driven in different functioned as a substitute, experiencing death
ways by both and by the dynamic interaction as the punishment for sin, even though he was
between them. not guilty of sin. With the penalty paid, God is
7. This is obviously not the place to try to then free to overlook sin, ‘imputing’ Christ’s
develop any full-scale description of this devel- righteous status to those who believe.
oping body of thought. The most recent (and 9. If guilt and its consequence—condemna-
highly successful) attempt to do this (Dunn tion—constitute the nub of the human plight,
1998) ran to some 800 pages! But for present then the heart of salvation for Paul is to be
purposes, in addition to this suggestion of a found in its opposite, justification. Christ’s fun-
multilevel approach to Paul’s theology, it will damental accomplishment in this older view,
be helpful to make a few further comments then, was seen as opening up the possibility of
about the shift that is currently underway with justification, a new status attributed to the be-
respect to a central aspect of his thought, liever on the basis of faith. What gave Paul’s
namely, the nature of the human plight and of doctrine of justification by faith its particular
the solution provided by God in Christ. An spin in the traditional line of interpretation was
older pattern, shaped in large measure by the the way it was defined in contrast to ‘works’.
controversies of the Reformation era (though Faith and works were taken to be fundamental
constructed from elements in existence ever categories for Paul, representing two mutually
since the church had become a distinctly Gen- exclusive personal stances or attitudes vis-à-vis
tile institution), has been increasingly displaced God. ‘Works’ is understood as an attitude of
by a new pattern owing much to a new appre- self-confidence based on meritorious achieve-
ciation of the Jewish context in which Paul ment, where one attempts to earn acceptance
carried out his apostolic mission. Of course, to and standing before God on the basis of moral
reduce the complex field of Pauline interpret- and religious accomplishment. While such
ation to two ‘patterns’ is a considerable over- standing might be theoretically possible, the
simplification; reality is much more complex pervasiveness of sin, it is argued, made it
than that. Still, it is often helpful to paint with impossible in reality. Thus Paul’s language of
broad strokes before working on the fine justification by faith is interpreted within the
details, so there is value in a simplified sketch. framework of two mutually exclusive religious
In any case, both patterns deal with the central frameworks—one operating on the basis of
themes of sin and salvation, but in strikingly divine grace humbly accepted, the other on
different ways. the basis of human achievement boastfully put
8. The older approach assumes that for Paul forward.
the fundamental problem posed by sin was In this reading of Paul, Judaism comes into
essentially that it left human beings guilty be- the picture essentially as an example of a works
fore a righteous God. God demands righteous- religion—the one with which Paul was most
ness first and foremost, but humans are familiar, but nevertheless just a particular
universally sinful and thus under divine con- example of a more general human tendency.
demnation. Christ’s role, then, is conceived pri- Paul’s interest in the Gentiles is taken for
marily as a way of removing this guilty verdict. granted, in that it is assumed that he begins
His death makes it possible for God, though with a generically human problem—how can
righteous, to forgive sin, and for humans, a sinful human being find acceptance before a
though sinful, to be considered righteous. In righteous God?
this ‘objective’ view of the atonement (the pro- 10. In this way of construing Paul’s thought,
cess by which Christ overcomes the problem it can readily be seen how the distance between
posed by sin and effects a reconciliation be- Luther and Paul has been collapsed, so that
tween God and humankind), the problem Paul’s problem and solution are understood to
posed by human sin is located ultimately with replicate those of Luther himself. We have
God; even though God might be willing to already seen one difficulty with this reading of
forgive, the standards of divine righteousness Paul—the fact that its legalistic interpretation of
make this impossible. There are various ways Judaism represents a fundamental misunder-
in which this ‘impossibility’ has been under- standing of how the law functioned with
stood. The most common, however, is that respect to the covenant. But there are other
introduction to the pauline corpus 52

difficulties as well. One has to do with sin. It is simply as culpable wrongdoing, but more fun-
hard to imagine how someone who read in his damentally as a power, a kind of force-field that
Scriptures that God was ‘merciful and gracious, ‘has come into the world through one man’
slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love’ (Rom 5:12), bringing death in its train and hold-
(Ps 103:8) could have believed that human guilt ing the whole of humankind under its sway.
for sin was a fundamental obstacle to divine Those in its power commit sins and incur
forgiveness. Another has to do with justification guilt, of course, but precisely because of the
by faith. While juridical language (justification, power of sin already at work in them: ‘If I do
etc.) looms large in Galatians and Romans, what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it
when one looks at the letters as a whole one is but sin that dwells within me’ (Rom 7:20). The
struck by the limited role it plays. Outside Gal- problem posed by sin, then, is only secondarily
atians and Romans (and Phil 3) Paul never uses one of guilt; more fundamentally, the problem
this doctrine as a fundamental first principle to is bondage. What is needed is not forgiveness
be brought to bear on problems, in Corinth, say, per se; until the power of sin is nullified, forgive-
or Thessalonica. Moreover, he quite happily ness does not get at the root of the problem.
issues all sorts of commands and injunctions What is needed, rather, is liberation.
to his congregations concerning ‘works’ they 12. Christ’s accomplishment, then, is to be
are to perform, without feeling any apparent seen more fundamentally in terms of a confron-
compunction to warn them of the dangers of tation with sin, breaking its power and opening
legalism. In fact, the only ‘works’ that Paul gets up a new sphere in which life can be lived. What
upset about are those that would turn Gentiles Christ has done in the flesh is to ‘condemn sin’
into Jews—circumcision, food laws, sabbath (v. 3). In context, this must mean more than
observance, and other Torah regulations. Since simply to declare sin to be deserving of con-
Romans and Galatians are written precisely for demnation; the law was very good at doing this
the purpose of defending the equal status of (ch. 7), but what Christ has done is something
Gentile believers as Gentiles, against those that the law ‘could not do’ (v. 3). Christ, for Paul,
who would in effect have them become Jews, has not only pronounced the verdict but also
it can be argued that instead of being his central carried out the sentence; he has won a victory
theme, justification by faith is a particular line over sin and emptied it of its power—at least
of argument developed for this purpose. for those who are ‘in Christ’ (v. 1) and who ‘walk
11. These observations could be developed at according to the Spirit’ (v. 4).
much greater length. But for present purposes 13. While Christ’s death makes possible a new
this will suffice as an introduction to an alter- objective status (of which justification is one
native way of construing Paul’s central story of metaphor), this is not the heart of salvation for
plight and salvation, again sketched out in Paul. Instead, salvation has to do with the real
broad strokes. Rom 8:1–4 provides us with a subjective experience of being liberated from
convenient set of paints and brushes: sin’s power and transferred to a sphere in
which a different power is at work, the power
There is therefore now no condemnation for those
who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life of the Spirit. Those who are empowered by the
in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and Spirit—who ‘walk according to the Spirit’ (v. 4)—
of death. For God has done what the law, weakened are thereby ‘of Christ’ (Rom 8:9) or ‘in Christ’
by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in (v. 1) or have Christ in them (Rom 8:10). This
the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he language is part of a larger complex in Paul
condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just require- in which the Christian experience is described
ment of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not in participatory terms—i.e. as an experience of
according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. sharing with Christ in the process of dying to
At this point in Romans, Paul is bringing the this age, an age in which sin and death are the
argument of chs. 1–8 to a conclusion. He returns regnant powers, and rising to the life of the age
to the theme of justification: there is no con- to come, where sin and death are finally
demnation—that is, there is justification—for defeated (Rom 6:1–11). While the process will
those in Christ Jesus. Why? Not because Christ not be complete until the End, believers even
has endured a penalty that had to be meted out, now experience the Spirit as a kind of first fruits
but because Christ has performed an act of (Rom 8:23) of the full harvest to come. Just as
liberation: he has liberated you from the law those under the power of sin were bound to
of sin and death. For Paul, sin is conceived not transgress the law (Rom 7:14–20), so those who
 53 introduction to the pauline corpus

‘walk according to the Spirit’ are enabled to ‘fulfil’ letters at all is purely due to happenstances of
‘the just requirement of the law’ (v. 4). survival and discovery—the favourable Egyptian
In contrast to the juridical language of justi- climate and the chancy circumstances of arch-
fication by faith, this language of participation aeological investigation. Paul’s letters, by con-
in Christ permeates the letters, functioning as trast, have been deliberately preserved by
the touchstone for ethics (e.g. Rom 6:1–11; Gal generations of reading communities that have
5:16–26) and the fundamental first principle for continued to find them meaningful and have
dealing with community problems (e.g. 1 Cor each taken great care to preserve them and
6:15–20; 10:14–22). If we begin here, we will be hand them on to the next. Consequently the
able to make much better sense of Paul than if ‘meaning’ of these texts cannot be restricted to
we take justification by faith as the centre and the limited confines of the original reading event.
starting-point. Faith is still fundamental, though These texts have had a significant afterlife, con-
what it does in the first instance is to open the tinuing to speak in fresh ways to new situations,
door for the believer’s incorporation into and this afterlife has added its own successive
Christ. layers of meaning that hover like an aura around
14. In this portrayal of Paul’s thought, Judaism the texts as we read them today.
comes into the picture not as an example of the 2. The actual process by which Paul’s letters
wrong kind of religion: rather, in Paul’s reinter- were collected in the first place can be only
pretation of Torah-religion, Israel becomes the dimly discerned (Gamble 1975; 1985). That they
place where the nature of the human plight was have survived at all seems to indicate that they
clarified and the decisive act of God’s solution were preserved by their original recipients; the
was carried out. Israel’s role, as Paul understands only other option—that Paul and his associates
it, was to be a kind of representative sample of the preserved a ‘master file’ of letters—is ruled out
whole of humankind, in both plight and salva- both by the absence of some letters (e.g. the one
tion. Within Israel, the Torah functioned to mentioned in 1 Cor 5:9) and by evidence that
define and reveal sin (Rom 5:20; 7:7, 13), so that suggests the gradual emergence of a standard
it could be clearly seen that all were under its collection rather than the existence of a fixed
power and subject to death; within Israel, Christ corpus of letters from the outset (Gamble 1975).
appeared to confront and defeat sin, so that all The reference in 2 Pet 3:16, along with the writ-
could be liberated from its power and share in the ings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Poly-
glory of the age to come. As a representative carp, indicate that by the late first and early
(Rom 11:1–6) of this representative sample, Paul second centuries most of Paul’s letters were
felt himself called to announce this liberation to known and were being cited as authoritative
the nations out of which Israel had been called in texts, though there is no indication of the
the first place. shape or extent of the collection. The first extant
This is far from being even a sketch of Paul’s list of Pauline writings is that of the ‘heretic’
theology; a rough outline of one section of a Marcion in the mid-second century, a list con-
sketch would be more accurate. Still, if the taining all but the Pastorals. The Pastorals are
letters cannot be understood without some included, however, in lists drawn up later in the
sense of the convictional and theological levels century by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of
operating beneath the surface, this sketch of a Alexandria. These three authors also contrib-
sketch might provide the reader with a bit of a uted significantly to the concept of a Christian
glimpse of what might be going on beneath the canon of scripture, consisting of a set of ‘apos-
surface and giving shape to what appears above. tolic’ writings existing alongside the Scriptures
originating with Israel; the terms ‘Old’ and ‘New
I. The Collection and Enduring Significance of Testament’ (the Latin equivalent of ‘covenant’)
the Letters. 1. It was observed above that we were contributed by the Latin writer Tertullian.
have been able to arrive at a better understanding By the end of the second century, then, the
of Paul’s letters by comparing them with ordinary thirteen letters contained in our New Testament
letters of his own day, noting not only the simi- had been collected into a single Pauline corpus
larities but also the differences. In addition to the that formed part of a larger (though still some-
differences already discussed, there is one further what fluid) collection of authoritative Christian
difference between Philemon, say, and Apion’s Scripture.
letter to his father Epimachus (discussed above) 3. This process of canonization represents a
that deserves reflection. The issue is that of pre- dramatic shift in the context within which these
servation. That we are able to read the papyri letters were read. At the outset, neither Paul nor
introduction to the pauline corpus 54

his intended readers saw the letters as ‘Scripture’, 5. The first is the canonical context. While
even though Paul wrote both out of the convic- the letters were first written as individual items
tion that God had ‘spoken’ in a new way in of communication—part of an ongoing dia-
Christ (revelation being one component in the logue between Paul and the community in
concept of ‘Scripture’), and with a sense of div- question, to be sure, but to be read independ-
inely granted authority (a second component). ently of any other letter from Paul—they have
No doubt these were factors in the initial preser- been preserved in a canonical collection of
vation of the letters. But what happened next? In which they are an integral part (Childs 1984).
the absence of any hard data between the 50s and At least in the context of the church, then, one
the 90s of the first century, there is room for a cannot read Galatians, say, with its polemical
variety of possibilities. Some argue for a Pauline and extreme language about (some aspects of)
school—associates and later followers of Paul, Torah-centred religion, without reference to
who made collections of the letters in order to the more tempered and generous language
study the thought of the master, producing new of Romans. Likewise, the negative view of
letters to synthesize his thought (e.g. Ephesians) marriage in 1 Cor 7 has to be read alongside
or to bring his voice to bear on new situations the more positive depiction in Eph 5; even if
(the Pastorals). Others suggest that it was the Ephesians is not by Paul himself, these texts
publication of the Acts of the Apostles that pro- have been preserved for us by a tradition that
duced a renewed interest in Paul and led churches makes no distinction whatsoever between
to dig the letters out of the archives and copy Pauline and Deutero-Pauline or post-Pauline
them for circulation. Edgar Goodspeed and his literature.
followers (e.g. Knox 1959) link this with the im- 6. To say this, of course, is to say nothing
aginative idea that the one primarily responsible about how one goes about resolving tensions
for the collection was none other than Onesimus, among the members of the collection; there are
the slave for whose benefit the letter to Philemon no rules to say that Romans trumps Galatians
was written. This theory rests on two (not com- or that Eph 5 is to be preferred over 1 Cor 7 (or
pletely implausible) suppositions: that the One- vice versa in either case). Tension and interpret-
simus of Philemon is the same person referred to ative difficulty come with the canonical terri-
by Ignatius (c.110CE) as bishop of Ephesus; and tory, even more so when the rest of the canon is
that the inclusion of the short, semi-personal brought into play (as indeed it should be). Of
letter to Philemon in the Pauline corpus requires course, we can read the letters in isolation from
some explanation. It is more probable, however, each other if we choose to do so. But they have
that the process of collection was both a more been preserved only as part of a collection
continuous and a more haphazard affair, with where they are presented to us as ‘the epistles
different collections emerging in different of Saint Paul’. This process of canonization,
local settings through the latter part of the first then, is not simply the ecclesiastical equivalent
century. of the dry sands of Egypt—a historical happen-
4. In any case, the basic fact is clear that the stance that has effected the preservation of
letters survived not because the early church these letters but that is extrinsic to their mean-
was interested in preserving an archival record ing. Intrinsic to the process of preservation is
of its origins, but because those who first read the development of a framework of meaning
the letters over the shoulders, as it were, of the within which the letters have been handed on to
original recipients felt that the letters trans- subsequent generations.
cended their original settings and had continu- 7. This leads to a second ‘value-added’ stage
ing meaning for readers and situations beyond in the process. Subsequent generations have not
the original context. While our understanding simply handed on the texts in their canonical
of the letters has been richly enhanced by care- framework of meaning. Each generation of
ful scholarly reconstruction of their original Christian readers has engaged in the process of
contexts, it should not therefore be supposed scriptural interpretation—of reading these let-
(though a perusal of much scholarly literature ters within this framework in order both to
suggests that it often has been supposed) that enter more deeply into the text and to bring it
the question of the meaning of these texts is to bear on the situations and circumstances of
exhausted when a full recovery of this ‘original their own day. Scriptural interpretation is of
meaning’ is attained. At least three additional necessity a collaborative and corporate exercise,
layers or dimensions of meaning need to be but one that is impoverished when the voices of
recognized. previous generations of interpreters are left out
 55 introduction to the pauline corpus

of the discussion. Recently there has been a state considered disruptive enough to justify
revival of interest in the history of interpretation, his arrest and imprisonment (2 Cor 11:23)—in
evidenced for example by the series Ancient no way diminishes the point.
Christian Commentary on Scripture (Inter Varsity 10. The point could be elaborated at great
Press) and Pilgrim Classic Commentaries (Pilgrim length, and there is much interesting work wait-
Press), and this is helping to bring these voices ing to be done on the epistles of Paul as factors
back to the interpretative table. in social history. But the most important thing
8. But this is not the only way in which the to be said about the letters as subjects, as agents
transmission of Paul’s letters through the years accomplishing effects, is that the potential for
has generated levels of meaning that accom- their functioning in this way is present every
pany them into the present. The Bible has time they are read anew. In any fresh encounter
existed not simply as an interpretative object; with these texts they bring to the event the
it has been a kind of subject or agent as well, evocative power of their rhetorical voice,
impacting—indeed, shaping in fundamental along with the reverberating echoes of the pro-
ways—the culture in which it has been trans- cesses of meaning-production that have pre-
mitted to us. One cannot come to a full under- served them and brought them to us. We
standing of Paul’s letters without recognizing bring to the event our own personal subjectiv-
the social and cultural effects they have had. ities, along with whatever we have come to
This type of study is still in its early stages (see, know about the texts themselves, the circum-
e.g., the series Romans through History and Culture, stances lying behind them, the structures of
T & T Clark) but examples spring readily to thought and conviction lying beneath them,
mind. We have already observed at the outset and the history of preservation, interpretation,
of this essay the role played by the Epistle to the and effective agency opening up in front of
Romans in the conversions of Augustine, Mar- them. What comes out of the encounter, hap-
tin Luther, and John Wesley. These conversions pily, has often been unpredictable and full of
are significant not only for their own sake, but rich surprise. Paul would call it grace.
also for their farreaching social and historical
consequences—Augustine and the ‘introspect-
REFERENCES
ive conscience of the West’ (Stendahl 1976),
Luther and the Reformation, Wesley and the Ascough, R. S. (1997), What Are They Saying About the
evangelical revivals in Great Britain and the Formation of Pauline Churches? (New York: Paulist).
New World. It would take whole volumes of Aune, D. E. (1987), The New Testament in its Literary
books to trace the historical consequences of Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster).
Paul and his letters in these events alone. Beker, C. (1980), Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in
9. To take another, quite different, example: Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress).
during archaeological excavation of the city of Betz, H. D. (1979). Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s
Caesarea Maritima, a mosaic floor was discov- Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia (Phila-
ered in a building dating from the Byzantine delphia: Fortress).
period (6th cent. CE) that originally served Bockmuehl, M. (1995), ‘A Commentator’s Approach
some public and bureaucratic function. The to the ‘‘Effective History’’ of Phillipians’, JSNT 60:
mosaic contained the text of Rom 13:3: ‘Do 57–88.
you wish to have no reason to fear the author- Brown, R. E. (1997), An Introduction to the New Testa-
ity? Then do what is good, and you will received ment (New York: Doubleday).
its approval.’ Here, probably not for the first Bruce, F. F. (1977), Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free
time and certainly not the last, statements (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
from Paul’s letter to the church in Rome were Childs, B. S. (1984), The New Testament as Canon: An
used by ruling powers to encourage submission Introduction (London: SCM).
to the state. The role of this text in eliciting Deissmann, A. (1910), Light from the Ancient East: The
and reinforcing the church’s acquiescence to New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts
the policies of the Nazi regime in Germany of the Graeco-Roman World (London: Hodder &
is a more extreme example of the same power Stoughton).
of texts to shape social realities, for good or Donaldson, T. L. (1994), ‘ ‘‘The Gospel that I Proclaim
ill. The fact that the text was being misinter- among the Gentiles’’ (Gal 2:2): Universalistic or
preted in the process—what he said to the Israel-Centred?’, in L. Ann Jervis and Peter
Roman Christians notwithstanding, Paul was Richardson (eds.), Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corin-
quite prepared to engage in activity that the thians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker,
introduction to the pauline corpus 56

JSNTSup 108 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press), Lüdemann, G. (1984), Paul Apostle to the Gentiles: Stud-
166–93. ies in Chronology (London: SCM).
—— (1997), Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apos- Mack, B. L. (1990), Rhetoric and the New Testament
tle’s Convictional World (Minneapolis: Fortress). (Minneapolis: Fortress).
—— (2006), ‘ ‘‘The Field God Has Assigned’’: Geog- Meeks, W. A. (1983), The First Urban Christians: The
raphy and Mission in Paul’, in Leif Vaage (ed.), Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale
Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the University Press).
Rise of Christianity, (ESCJ 18; Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Montefiore, C. (1914), Judaism and St. Paul: Two Essays
Laurier University Press), pp. 109–37. (London: Max Goschen).
—— (2007), Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of Muggeridge, M., and Vidler, A. (1972), Paul: Envoy
Universalism (to 135 CE), (Waco, TX: Baylor Univer- Extraordinary (London: Collins).
sity Press). Murphy-O’Connor, J. (1996), Paul: A Critical Life
Dunn, J. D. G. (1988), Romans, WBC (2 vols: Waco, (Oxford: Clarendon).
Tex.: Word). Rambo, L. R. (1993), Understanding Religious Conversion
—— (1998), The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand (New Haven: Yale University Press).
Rapids: Eerdmans). Ramsay, W. M. (1907), St. Paul the Traveller and the
Elliott, J. H. (1990), ‘Paul, Galatians and the Evil Eye’. Roman Citizen, 9th edn. (London: Hodder &
CurTM 17:262–73. Stoughton).
Funk, R. W. (1967), ‘The Apostolic Parousia: Form Riesner, R. (1998), Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mis-
and Significance’, in W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, sion, Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
and R. R. Niebuhr (eds.), Christian History and Inter- Roetzel, C. J. (1998), The Letters of Paul: Conversations in
pretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (Cambridge: Context, 4th edn. (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/
Cambridge University Press), 249–68. John Knox).
Gamble, H. (1975), ‘The Redaction of the Pauline Sanders, E. P. (1977), Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A
Letters and the Formation of the Pauline Corpus’, Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia:
JBL 94: 403–18. Fortress).
—— (1985), The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Schoeps, H.-J. (1961), Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in
Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress). the Light of Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia:
Haenchen, E. (1971), The Acts of the Apostles: A Com- Westminster).
mentary (Philadelphia: Westminster). Scott, J. M. (1995), Paul and the Nations, WUNT 84
Hengel, M. (1991), The Pre-Christian Paul (London: (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck]).
SCM). Segal, A. F. (1990), Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and
Hengel, M., and Schwemer, A. M. (1997), Paul between Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale
Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years (Louis- University Press).
ville, KY.: Westminster/John Knox). Stark, R. (1996), The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist
Hock, R. F. (1980), The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Reconsiders History (Princeton: Princeton University
Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress). Press).
Hurd, J. C. (1965), The Origin of 1 Corinthians (New Stendahl, K. (1976), Paul among Jews and Gentiles, and
York: Seabury). other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Kennedy, G. A. (1984), New Testament Interpretation Stowers, S. K. (1986), Letter Writing in Greco-Roman
through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill, NC: Univer- Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster).
sity of North Carolina Press). Townsend, J. T. (1985), ‘Missionary Journeys in Acts
Knox, J. (1950), Chapters in a Life of Paul (New York/ and European Missionary Societies’, Society of Bib-
Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury). lical Literature Seminar Papers, 433–7.
—— (1959), Philemon among the Letters of Paul (Nash- Watson, F. (1986), Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles,
ville, Tenn.: Abingdon). SNTSMS 56 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
—— (1964), ‘Romans 15:14–33 and Paul’s Conception Press).
of His Apostolic Mission’, JBL 83: 1–11. Weima, J. A. D. (1994), Neglected Endings: The Signifi-
Kümmel, W. G. (1929), Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des cance of the Pauline Letter Closings, JSNTSup 101 (Shef-
Paulus (Leipzig: Hinrichs). field: Sheffield Academic Press).
Longenecker, R. N. (1990), Galatians, WBC (Waco, White, J. L. (1972), The Form and Function of the Body of
Tex.: Word). the Greek Letter (Missoula, Mont.: SBL).
 4. Romans
CRAIG C . HILL

INTRODUCTION this view is not compelling, as is noted in the

commentary on ch. 16.
A. Significance. Romans is one of the eminent
2. Romans was probably composed in Cor-
texts of Western history. From Augustine to
inth during Paul’s final visit. Gaius, ‘whose hos-
Luther, from Wesley to Barth, Christian thinkers
pitality I and the whole church here enjoy’
of every era have been shaped profoundly by this,
(16:23, NIV), is presumably the same figure
the longest Pauline epistle. Romans is commonly
mentioned in 1 Cor 1:14. In 15:23–33, Paul antici-
regarded as Paul’s supreme work, the consum-
pates an imminent journey to Jerusalem, an
mate expression of his mature theology. Among
itinerary that corresponds broadly to Acts
Protestants in particular, no book has been more
20:1–21:17. Thus, widespread consensus exists
highly esteemed or carefully scrutinized. Above
for dating Romans in the mid-50s CE, making
all, Romans influenced the Reformation vision of
it one of Paul’s final letters (at least subsequent
true religion as the reception of God’s grace
to his Thessalonian, Galatian, and Corinthian
through faith. In equal and opposite reaction,
correspondence).
however, Romans has unwittingly encouraged
3. The letter is written ‘to all God’s beloved in
generations of readers from Marcion onwards
Rome’ (1:7). The city of Rome was the seat
to regard Judaism as the exemplarily false religion,
of government of the Roman republic (?5th
a creed of merit and system of works unworthy
cent.–31 BCE) and empire until 330 CE, when
of devotion or even of toleration. The first of
Constantine moved the capital to Constantin-
these conclusions lies at the heart of Protestant–
ople. During the second and first centuries BCE,
Catholic debate, the second at the centre of
Rome gradually came to dominate the coun-
Jewish–Christian controversy. Not surprisingly,
tries of the Mediterranean basin, including
Roman Catholics have long questioned Protest-
Judea, which was conquered in 63 BCE by the
ant readings of Romans (paralleling in some ways
Roman general Pompey. The city of Rome was
the canonical protest of Jas 2:14–26), as Jews have
vast, home to approximately 1 million persons.
long challenged the epistle’s characterization of
Augustus and subsequent emperors erected
their theology. Only recently, as a consequence of
monumental public works, including amphi-
post-Vatican II ecumenicity and post-Holocaust
theatres, squares, temples, forums, and libraries.
interreligious awareness, have the earlier inter-
Although the wealthy inhabited comfortable
pretative models begun to break apart. The will-
villas, the great majority of people were poor
ingness of major scholars to cross traditional
and lived in large tenement houses, some as tall
boundaries and weigh old criticisms with new
as six storeys (HBC 882). The Jewish community
seriousness is undoubtedly the most important
of Rome was substantial; it is estimated that
development in modern Pauline studies.
between 20,000 and 50,000 Jews lived in the
Thus, now as in the past, Romans is at the fore-
city by the beginning of the first century CE
front of Christian theological reflection and self-
(ABD 1048). How or when Christianity came
understanding.
to Rome is unknown. By mid-century, when
Paul wrote Romans, the church already enjoyed
B. Provenance. 1. The Pauline authorship of a substantial reputation (1:8). A dispute within
Romans is not in doubt. Indeed, one might the Jewish community over Christian claims
say that Romans is the ‘most Pauline’ epistle, appears to stand behind the Emperor Claudius’s
since it most influences scholarly construals of expulsion of the Jews from Rome in 49 CE (see
Paul and most frequently is referenced in Acts 18:2). According to Suetonius (Claudius,
arguments about the (in)authenticity of the 25.4), ‘the Jews constantly made disturbances
Deutero-Pauline letters. Also, compared to at the instigation of Chrestus’, probably a mis-
other Pauline epistles (notably Philippians taken form of the word Christus (Christ). Local
and 2 Corinthians), few doubts arise concern- Christians were sufficient in number and repu-
ing the literary integrity of Romans. The unity tation in 64 CE that Nero could scapegoat them
of the letter is seriously questioned only at ch. for the fire of Rome. ‘Nero fastened the guilt and
16, which some regard as the remnant of a afflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class
separate Pauline letter, appended to Romans’ hated for their abominations, called Christians
original conclusion in 15:33. The evidence for by the populace’ (Tacitus, Annals, 15.44.2).
romans 58

C. Literary Genre. Formally, Romans is identi- service of the gospel of God, so that the offering
cal to most other Pauline letters, including a of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by
salutation (identifying sender and recipients), a the Holy Spirit.’ In 15:23–9, Paul informs his
thanksgiving (clarifying the relationship readers of his travel plans: he soon will deliver
between writer and reader and previewing the the collection to ‘the saints at Jerusalem’ and
contents of the letter), a body (offering the sub- then visit Rome on his way to Spain, where he
stance of Paul’s communication), and a farewell will engage in further missionary work (v. 20).
(including a final blessing and, if ch. 16 is genu- He hopes not only to see the Roman Christians
ine, personal greetings). In numerous other but also ‘to be sent on by you, once I have
ways, however, Romans is different—as one enjoyed your company for a little while’
might expect, knowing that it is the only Paul- (v. 24). Similarly, in vv. 28–9, Paul states that ‘I
ine letter written to a church neither founded by know that when I come to you, I will come in
the apostle or his assistants, nor visited by him the fullness of the blessing of Christ.’ In 15:30–1,
(note e.g. the lengthy self-descriptions in 1:1–6 Paul urges his readers to pray for the success of
and 15:16–21, and the deferential language of his impending trip to Jerusalem, ‘so that by
1:11–13 and 15:22–4). The hallmark of Paul’s God’s will I may come to you with joy and be
other letters is their contingency; characteristic- refreshed in your company.’ Taken together,
ally, they deal with specific issues that arose these statements probably indicate that Paul
within a particular Pauline church (e.g. 1 Cor hoped to win the support of the Roman church
1:11: ‘For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s for his missionary venture in Spain, and that as
people that there are quarrels among you’; 1 Cor ‘minister to the Gentiles’ (Gal 2:7), he assumed a
7:1: ‘Now concerning the matters about which measure of pastoral responsibility for the Gen-
you wrote . . . ’). Reading these letters is not tile Christians in what was, after all, the greatest
unlike overhearing one side of a conversation. city of the known world. The letter thus would
Clearly, this analogy does not apply to Romans, have both strategic and didactic functions, to
which is more declamation than dialogue. The introduce and recommend Paul, and to teach
letter does not address in any obvious way the and exhort his readers in the Christian faith, as
Roman church’s own problems. It is a single, Paul understood it.
extended theological argument, not a seriatim 2. Could not Paul have met these objectives in
discussion of pastoral concerns. It thus is a fewer than the 7,000 words of Romans? Was
letter more in form than in function. For this there some larger task, demanding a more
reason, Romans is categorized as, for example, extensive response? The traditional explanation
an ‘epistle’ (as distinct, according to Deissmann is to regard Romans as Paul’s theological ‘last
(1927: 220), from a non-literary ‘letter’), a ‘Greek will and testament’, a summary of his theology
letter-essay’ (Stirewalt 1977), an ‘essay-letter’ composed near the end of his career. But Paul
(Fitzmyer 1993), or an ‘ambassadorial letter’ expected both an ongoing apostolic occupation
(Jewett, cited by Fitzmyer 1993: 68–9). All such and an approaching eschatological consumma-
labels make the point that Romans was com- tion (13:11–12). Moreover, Romans is not a good
missioned to a somewhat different service than compendium of Pauline teaching; much that is
the other Pauline letters. To what service, contained in Paul’s other letters is absent. Why
exactly, is one of the perennial issues of Pauline did Paul write at such length about these par-
scholarship. ticular issues, most notably, the law and Juda-
ism? Scholars have looked both to Paul’s own
D. Purpose. 1. Paul offers few clues as to his circumstances and to the circumstances of the
purpose in writing to the church at Rome. He Roman church for answers.
states in 1:10–11 that he prays for the Roman 3.1. What do we know about Paul’s situation
Christians and longs to see them, ‘that I may that might be relevant to the composition of
share with you some spiritual gift to strengthen Romans? Surely the most important datum is
you—or rather so that we may be mutually the recent, bitter controversy at Galatia; the
encouraged by each other’s faith . . . [and] that I letter to the Galatians includes most of the
may reap some harvest among you as I have primary topics and much of the key language
among the rest of the Gentiles.’ In 15:15, he states of Romans. Many scholars date Philippians
that ‘on some points I have written to you even closer to Romans (55 CE, according to Jew-
rather boldly by way of reminder, because of ett 1979). Phil 3 (probably a warning based on
the grace given me by God to be a minister Paul’s Galatian experience; see Hill 1992: 155–8)
of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly is reminiscent of both Galatians and Romans
 59 romans

(‘flesh . . . circumcision . . . zeal . . . righteousness the lone champion of Christian freedom.

under the Law’, etc.). Thus the theology of Despite its popularity, this hypothesis is not
Romans does not appear ex nihilo. Paul had corroborated by the New Testament. The only
ample cause to weigh these matters and to substantial evidence strongly supports the con-
regard them as both important and urgent. trary view, that the Jerusalem church accepted
3.2. A second key factor is Paul’s awareness of Gentiles qua Gentiles as Christian believers (e.g.
the relative failure of the church’s ‘Jewish mis- Gal. 2:1–10; Acts 15; see Hill 1992: 103–92). This
sion’ (Gal 2:7–8). Paul speaks of his ‘sorrow and does not mean that there was no disagreement
unceasing anguish’ for his ‘kindred according to between Paul and other Jewish–Christian lead-
the flesh’ (9:2). It is clear that Jewish unbelief is a ers. Paul sanctioned disobedience by Jews of
theological and not just a personal problem for certain Jewish (particularly food) laws (see 1
Paul. God acted in Christ to fulfil divine prom- Cor 9:20–1), an attitude that did not endear
ises to Israel, but the concrete result is a Gentile him to many in Israel, Christian or otherwise.
church. Can God be righteous, faithful to God’s It is instructive that it was over food laws that
own nature and commitments, and not save Paul confronted Peter at Antioch (Gal 2:11–14);
Israel? (Indeed, God’s righteousness is the uni- it was not the circumcising of Gentiles that
fying theme of the entire letter. See ROM 1:16–17.) precipitated the crisis but the observing of diet-
In the face of his impending trip to Jerusalem, ary laws that, in Paul’s mind, recreated the
the problem must have appeared acute. Has distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Like-
God failed? And is not Paul, who calls Gentiles wise, it is the issue of law observance on the
‘children of Abraham’ (4:16) and who says that part of Jewish Christians that is mentioned in as-
‘Christ is the end of the law’ (10:4), the enemy of sociation with Paul’s final visit to Jerusalem in
Israel? Is Paul’s a righteous gospel? Hays (1989: 35) Acts (21:21, 28). Also, one should bear in mind
has noted with insight that Romans is ‘an inter- that Paul was bidding for the practical support
textual conversation between Paul and the of the Roman church. Interjecting a dispute
voice of Scripture’ in which the apostle ‘labors with the mother church (whose authority Paul
to win the blessing of Moses and the prophets’. himself acknowledged; e.g. Gal 2:2) hardly
Gentile biblical scholarship has tended to de- seems politic. Moreover, any such self-defence
Judaize Paul, thereby trivializing these struggles is subtle to the point of invisibility (cf., by
and rendering the central place of Rom 9–11 (on contrast, the defence of 2 Cor 11–13 or the re-
the fate of Israel) nonsensical. cord of his public confrontation in Gal 2:11–14).
3.3. A number of scholars have argued that it Therefore, while Paul’s impending Jerusalem
is Paul’s impending trip to Jerusalem that most visit may have been a factor in his composition
influenced his writing of Romans (e.g. Manson of Romans (as in ROM D.3.1), it is highly doubtful
1948, Jervell 1971). It is evident from 15:30–2 that that Romans originated as an apologia directed
Paul himself anticipated trouble in Jerusalem. at the Jerusalem church.
Accordingly, Romans is often seen as a rehe- 4. The other approach is to look to the
arsal of the arguments that Paul would make on circumstances of the letter’s recipients for
his own behalf in Jerusalem. The shape of this explanations. How much Paul knew about the
theory varies from scholar to scholar, depend- situation in Rome is the subject of considerable
ing mostly upon prior conclusions about the debate. His most likely source of information
relationship between Paul and other Jewish was Priscilla and Aquila, who, according to
Christians. Does 15:31 indicate that Paul would Acts 18:2, came to Corinth from Rome as a
have to defend himself to the church as well as consequence of Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews
to the Jewish authorities of Jerusalem? If so, (49 CE). They are mentioned by Paul himself in
on what issues? F. C. Baur (1873–5: i. 109–51) 1 Cor 16:19 and (if authentic) Rom 16:3. Also
asserted a century and a half ago that the leaders mentioned in ch. 16 are several other Roman
of the Jerusalem church (notably, Peter and Christians. Still, it is not obvious how Paul’s
James) actively opposed Paul for admitting acquaintance with such persons might have
uncircumcised Gentiles into the church. It is shaped this letter. Paul made a considerable
the heirs of Baur today who make the most of effort to introduce himself and his gospel to
Paul’s conflict with the Jerusalem church. By the Roman church, a clear signal that he
their reading, Paul’s defence in Romans of the regarded his audience as strangers. Many
equality of Jew and Gentile is aimed squarely scholars attempt to link the epistle’s contents
at the Jerusalem Christians. This presents a to a Roman context by suggesting that the Jew-
heroic, classically Protestant portrait of Paul as ish believers who returned to Rome following
romans 60

Claudius’ death were not accorded due respect by tradition that extended from Augustine to Bult-
their Gentile coreligionists, who even went so mann and Barth. Whatever consensus might
far as to deny positions of authority to returning have existed prior to 1977 was fractured by the
Jewish leaders (Marxsen 1968: 95–104; Beker publication that year of E. P. Sanders’s Paul and
1980: 69–74). Hearing of the Gentile Christians’ Palestinian Judaism (see Räisänen 1983: 1–15; Dunn
conduct, Paul composed this letter, at least in part 1988: i. pp. lxiii–lxxii). Sanders offered a critique
as an attempt to unify the Roman church. Pas- of Pauline scholarship based on two methodo-
sages such as 11:17–21 (‘do not vaunt yourselves logical assumptions: (1) a religion ought to be
over the branches [the Jews]’) were written understood in its own terms through an analy-
to teach the Gentile believers proper humility. sis of its own primary sources; and (2) an
(In tension with this purpose is the tendency of author’s argumentation must not be unnatur-
these same scholars to equate the ‘weak’ of ch. 14 ally synthesized by later expositors; contradict-
with returning Jewish believers who continued to ory statements and approaches, where they
observe food laws: see Dunn 1988: ii. 798; cf. the occur, should be allowed to remain (Sanders
counter-argument in Nanos 1996: 85–165.) This 1977: 12). Application of the first assumption
reconstruction, while not impossible, is open to leads one to question any construal of Judaism
question at every point (see e.g. the strong chal- based on the often polemical references to it in
lenge of Stowers 1994). The most that can be said Christian writings, including the NT. The popu-
with certainty is that Paul wanted to demonstrate lar picture of first-century Judaism as a religion
that the Gentile church had not supplanted Israel, of sterile legalism, supercilious piety, and
and therefore that Gentiles had no reason to haughty self-righteousness is not supported by
boast in their present status (11:17–36). The argu- Jewish documents. When allowed to speak for
ment could have been formulated in response to themselves, first-century Jews are not heard ad-
a Jewish–Gentile conflict in the Roman church, vocating a religion of merit, the photo-negative
but such a conflict is not required to explain it. of a uniquely Christian notion of salvation by
Perhaps Gentile Christians in the capital city grace. Functionally, Judaism and Christianity
faced special temptations to triumphalism, but are quite similar: one ‘gets in’ by means of
that tendency could hardly have been unique, as God’s gracious calling; one then is obligated
subsequent history thoroughly demonstrates. (not least by gratitude) to obey the will of
5. Knowing the context of a statement is of God, however defined. Obviously, regarding
first importance in determining its meaning; Judaism in this way necessitates a rethinking
unfortunately, such contextual data are sub- of Paul. For example, earlier interpreters could
stantially lacking with respect to Romans. assume that Paul had formulated his ideas about
Consequently, the inherently conjectural na- the law in response to the legalism of normative
ture of one’s interpretation should be acknow- Judaism. One school saw Paul’s response as a
ledged. Sufficient evidence exists to allow for correction of Jewish abuses; the law, no longer
the formation of fairly detailed hypotheses; ‘misused’, was still valid (Cranfield 1979: 862).
sufficient gaps in that evidence ensure that Others believed that Paul rejected out of hand
even careful hypotheses will be substantially any notion of the law’s validity since he recog-
speculative. To a large degree, we do not know nized that the law itself was a primary source of
why this epistle was written, and any interpret- human alienation (Bultmann 1952–5: i. 247).
ation based upon the presumption of such Unfortunately, both approaches account
knowledge will be inherently circular. Because for Paul’s position by making reference to a
the commentary below assumes no single ‘rea- Judaism that never existed. A popular counter-
son for Romans’, it will not attempt to advance proposal suggests that Paul’s target was
one interpretation against all others. Instead, it not works righteousness at all but ‘Jewish na-
will seek to delineate the plausible range of tional [self-]righteousness’ (e.g. Dunn 1988:
interpretation. This is an admittedly confined i. pp. lxxi–lxxii, 42–3, etc.). This move appears
ambition, but one that corresponds to the real to vindicate Paul—he is still right about what is
limitations within which any interpreter of wrong about Judaism—but it misses the point
Romans labours. of Sanders’s critique. In effect, it substitutes a
new bad Judaism for the old, now discredited
E. Issues of Interpretation. 1. A generation bad Judaism of traditional interpretation. But
ago, one might have asserted that the exe- the problem is not in our (previously) faulty
gesis of Romans was complete in its essen- identification of Judaism’s deficiency (whose
tials, pointing to the common interpretative depiction in Paul varies and so is infinitely
 61 romans

interpretable); the problem is in Paul’s either/or participation in God’s covenant. For him cir-
reasoning that requires that Judaism be nullified cumcision would therefore become a work,
for Christ to be necessitated (see ROM E.6). Were and Judaism a religion of works righteous-
the disorder Jewish pride, the remedy would be ness. (The same dilemma occurs when an
Jewish humility. But for Paul the only adequate adult Christian joins a denomination that
curative is Christian faith, which means that does not recognize his or her baptism. For
the only actual complaint is Jewish unbelief, that person, baptism becomes an entry re-
however variously it may be explained or char- quirement, an indispensable ‘work’, however
acterized from the Christian side (see ROM 2). it may be construed theologically by existing
2. It is at this point that the second methodo- church members.) Paul’s argument, including
logical principle, that of taking apparently con- his tendency to oppose the law and Christian
tradictory material at face value, has been faith as antithetical religious systems, makes a
fruitfully applied. What does it mean if Paul’s good deal more sense when viewed in this
arguments about the law do not entirely way. This does require, however, that we
cohere? Among other things, it may indicate no longer regard Paul as an objective, disin-
that Paul did not think his way to Christian terested observer of Judaism.
faith, that his conclusions about the law are 4. Other distinctive aspects of Paul’s thought
not the result of his own pre-Christian wrestling bear significantly on our understanding of
with its supposed inadequacies. As Sanders Romans. The first concerns Pauline eschat-
(1977: 442–7) put it, Paul ‘reasoned backwards’. ology. In general, Paul has a decidedly future
He did not move from consideration of the law or ‘not yet’ orientation, reminiscent of the Gos-
to Christian faith; instead, having come to faith pel of Mark. In the undisputed Pauline epistles,
in Christ, Paul attempted to understand as a salvation is always a future category; the para-
Jewish Christian the Judaism in which he had digm of present Christian life is the cross, not
been raised. Thus Paul never was entirely able to the resurrection (e.g. 1 Cor 1:18; 2:2; Rom 6:5;
repudiate the law. It was, after all, God’s law and 8:18). Present experience of the Spirit is a fore-
as such must serve a divine, albeit negative, taste or seal (2 Cor 1:22) of what is to come
purpose. Two fundamental convictions, that (1 Cor 13:8–12). There is one very important
God is the God of Israel and that God provides exception, however, one issue in relation to
salvation only in Christ, were thus held together which Paul consistently invokes a realized
in uneasy tension, and most of what is com- eschatology: the Gentiles. For Paul, the proph-
monly considered under the rubric ‘Paul and the etic expectation that Gentiles would be incorp-
Law’ can be understood as part of an ongoing orated into Israel in the last days is already
attempt to effect a reconciliation between the being fulfilled, not least in his own ministry.
two. (Note, for example, how Paul’s description
3. If Judaism was not the false religion of in Rom 15:25–6—see also the quotations in
works righteousness, if the law did not func- vv. 9–12—draws on Isa 66:18–22.) In Rom
tion within Judaism as a means to salvation, 11:25–7 Paul explains this ‘mystery’: present Jew-
what are we to make of Paul’s argument? It ish unbelief has effected a reversal of the
may be claimed that Paul has set up Judaism as eschatological timetable; contrary to expect-
a straw man, the foil to all that is deemed ation, it is the Gentiles who will enter first,
good and true in Christianity. It seems more after which God will act to save ‘all Israel’.
reasonable, however, to think that Paul is Much of what is peculiar to Pauline theology
describing something quite real: not Judaism is derived from this perspective: admission
as non-Christian Jews knew it but Judaism as of Gentiles is not foreshadow; it is substance.
it would be experienced by Paul’s Gentile- That puts Pauline theology on a fundamentally
Christian converts. Within Judaism, one was different footing from that of other Jewish-
not circumcised to earn membership in the Christian leaders, and it explains how both
people of God. Instead, circumcision marked Paul and the ‘pillar apostles’ (James, Cephas,
a son of Israel’s participation in God’s gra- and John: Gal 2:9) could have agreed to the
cious, pre-existing covenant. The situation is practice of Gentile admission while utterly dis-
wholly different, however, if the subject is an agreeing as to its consequences. If there is now
adult Gentile Christian. If he accepted circum- one people in Christ, without distinction be-
cision under compulsion, he would, by impli- tween Jew and Gentile (Gal 3:28), then the
cation, be saying that his faith in Christ is church exists in a radically new age, from
insufficient to save, an inadequate basis for which one can radically critique what went
romans 62

before—especially the law, whose very stipula- Christian ambivalence—even animosity—

tions drew the boundaries between Jew and Gen- towards the Hebrew Bible would have been
tile. (An inevitable consequence of a realized lessened had Paul taken such a course.
eschatology is an increased sense of theological 6. Finally, it is vital to understand that Paul
distance between insiders and outsiders, espe- consistently organized the relationship between
cially between Christians and (non-Christian) Judaism and Christianity in such a way that non-
Jews; note the many pejorative references to ‘the Christian Judaism must be negated. Gal 2:21
Jews’ and ‘the world’ in Johannine literature.) The reveals a great deal about the working of Paul’s
categories of Paul’s thought that are derivative of mind: ‘I do not nullify the grace of God; for if
the ‘Gentile issue’ share in the same logic, e.g. justification comes through the law, then Christ
Paul’s idealized Christian anthropology, accord- died for nothing.’ In other words, it is a zero-sum
ing to which believers are essentially different from game. If God intended to save through Christ, it
other people: they ‘walk in the Spirit’ and so fulfil must have been necessary; therefore, one could
the ‘just requirements of the law’ (Rom 8:4). It is not be saved apart from Christ, that is to say,
always worth asking what reality Paul presup- through the regular practice of Jewish religion.
poses within a given argument. When a question The either/or structure of Paul’s argument
relates in some way to Gentile admission, Paul’s explains an otherwise astonishing fact: were
thinking shifts towards realized eschatological Romans our only source, we might well conclude
categories, a fact that explains many of the ambi- that Jewish theology knew nothing of mercy,
guities within Pauline theology and the tensions grace, love, forgiveness, or atonement. As the
between Pauline theory and practice. logic stands, these necessarily become Christian
5. It is important to note that Paul worked categories (as do ‘grace and truth’ in Jn 1:17). It is
with the concepts available to him. Chief among interesting to note that Paul cited God’s accept-
these is the idea that the law is a single entity, ance of Abraham on the basis of faith in both Gal
given by God. This presents Paul with an 3 and Rom 4 and then passed in silence over
insuperable difficulty. He knows by God’s virtually all subsequent Jewish history (the men-
acceptance of Gentiles (demonstrated by gifts tion of David in Rom 4:6 being a rare exception).
of the Spirit; Gal 3:2–5) that obedience to laws Needless to say, the existence of any pre- or non-
that distinguish Jews from Gentiles (namely cir- Christian Judaism in which one might find right
cumcision, food laws, sabbath and other ‘days’) relationship with God creates a severe problem
is no longer required. However, the law being a for Paul. On the one hand, he wants to argue that
unity, it is necessary to challenge it in toto. In God saves only in Christ and that Judaism,
theory, this is no problem, because Christians apart from Christ, is a way of ‘sin’ and ‘death’
possess the Spirit and have no need for a ‘writ- (Rom 7:9–11); on the other hand, Paul feels com-
ten code’ (2:27). In practice, what Paul expects of pelled to cite precedents in Judaism for God’s
his converts is a fairly typical Jewish morality, saving modus operandi. The question is, can one
which he can assume for himself but which have it both ways? Paul might have argued on the
comes less naturally to his Gentile associates. basis of essential continuity: the God of the Jews,
Consequently, Paul is put in the awkward pos- always a God of salvation, has worked this saving
ition of legislating rules of behaviour ad hoc, purpose ultimately in Christ (an argument some-
since he no longer has the law to draw upon what similar to that of Hebrews). Instead, Paul’s
for authorization. Therefore, he is forced, in argument traces the line of essential discontinu-
effect, to reinstitute Jewish laws with Christian ity, which is precisely what Marcion and other
warrants (e.g. see Rom 1:20; 1 Cor 6:15–17; and despisers of Judaism have found congenial in his
10:20–1). Thus it is erroneous to suppose that thinking. One must ask if it is possible to affirm
Paul created a law-free religion. Christianity, like what Paul affirms (the religion of grace) without
Judaism, has always had norms (again, mostly necessarily denying what Paul implicitly denies
Jewish); for that reason, Christians, as much (that Judaism itself is such a religion).
as Jews, can be guilty of reducing religion to
rule-keeping. In short, it is quite possible that
the argument of Romans would have looked COMMENTARY
very different had Paul been able to divide the
law explicitly into categories (clarifying what is Salutation (1:1–17)
rejected and what is retained), as Christians ever Although the basic shape of the salutation is the
since the second century (e.g. Epistle of Barnabas) same in all Paul’s letters (an indication of the
have attempted to do. Certainly, subsequent sender(s) and recipient(s) followed by a short
 63 romans

blessing), the form is flexible and was adapted Sam 7:11–16; Davidic lineage is a staple of
by Paul to each letter’s purpose. For example, messianic texts: Isa 11; Jer 23:5–6; Ezek 34:23–
Paul wrote Galatians in part as a defence of his 4; etc.) is mentioned only here in Paul’s writ-
divinely sanctioned apostolic authority; thus he ings but figures prominently elsewhere in the
identifies himself as ‘an apostle neither by NT (e.g. Mt 1:1; 9:27; Mk 11:10; 12:35; Lk 1:27, 32;
human commission nor from human author- 2:4; 2 Tim 2:8; Rev 3:7; 5:5). Also lacking sup-
ities’ (Gal 1:1). The salutation in Romans is dis- port elsewhere in Paul is the early Christian
tinguished by its lengthy description of ‘the idea that Jesus was appointed or designated
gospel of God’ for which Paul was set apart (horisthentos; see TDNTv. 450–1) Son of God at
(vv. 2–6). Such details establish Paul’s creden- the resurrection (v. 4; cf. Acts 2:36; 5:30–1;
tials and identify common ground with his 13:33). ‘With power’ (whether traditional or
audience. Pauline) probably modifies the title ‘Son of
As in Phil 1:1, Paul refers to himself as a ‘slave’ God’ and not the verb ‘declared’ (Fitzmyer
or ‘servant’ (doulos) of Jesus Christ (a designation 1993: 235; Cranfield 1979: 62; contra NIV
paralleled, for example, in Jas 1:1, 2 Pet 1:1, Jude 1). ‘declared with power’), emphasizing Jesus’
It was customary for Jews to regard themselves exalted status. (‘According to the spirit of holi-
or their leaders as ‘servants of God’ (Ps 19:11; 27:9; ness’ is a Semitism; cf. Ps 51:11.) It also might
Neh 1:6; 2 Kings 18:12; Isa 20:3; Jer 7:25; Deut indicate that, at least for Paul, the resurrection
32:36; etc.), and Israel itself is frequently identi- enhanced an already existing sonship (Dunn
fied as God’s servant (Jer 46:27; Ezek 28:25; 1988: i. 14). In citing Jesus’ twofold pedigree,
Isa 44:1, 45:4; etc.) (Dunn 1988: i. 7). The Christo- in flesh and in spirit, Paul makes the claim that
logical appropriation of OT language about God Jesus is the anticipated Jewish Messiah—and
is a consistent and revealing feature of the NT more (as in Mk 1:1). It is Paul’s expectation that
writings (e.g. cf. Phil 2:10–11; Isa 45:23). Also these common (and apparently longstanding)
noteworthy is Paul’s tendency to balance a state- Christian affirmations will be shared by his
ment about Christ with a statement about God. readers.
He wished the Romans ‘grace . . . and peace from The phrase ‘obedience of faith’ (also men-
[both] God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’ tioned in 16:26) is ambiguous. It may refer
(v. 7); likewise, Paul mentioned that he was ‘set either to faith that is an expression of obedi-
apart for the gospel of God . . . [which is] con- ence or to obedience that is an expression of
cerning his Son’ (vv. 1, 3) and offered thanks faith. Possibly, Paul intended both meanings.
to ‘God through Jesus Christ for all of you’ Clearly it is the bringing of persons to faith in
(v. 8; cf. Rom 8:9: ‘Spirit of God . . . Spirit of Christ that is the primary goal of the Pauline
Christ’). mission. It is no coincidence that Paul can refer
The mention of prophets, scriptures, and synonymously to the Jews’ unbelief in 11:20
David (vv. 2–3) sounds a deliberate note of and to their disobedience in 11:31 (Cranfield
continuity with Israel’s past. The connection 1979: 66). Elsewhere in Romans, however,
between Paul’s contemporary proclamation to Paul uses ‘obedience’ in the more conventional
Gentiles and God’s ancient promises to Israel sense (5:19; 6:16; 15:18; 16:19). An interesting
is of central importance in Romans (see esp. parallel occurs in 2 Cor 9:13, where Paul says
chs. 9–11). (On the plural ‘scriptures’, see Hays that the Corinthians’ generosity is an expres-
1989: 34). sion of their ‘obedience to the confession of
Many scholars think that the core of vv. 3–4 the Gospel of Christ’. The fact that Paul incl-
came from pre-Pauline Christian tradition, pos- udes in this mission the Roman Christians
sibly in the form of an early Christological for- themselves (v. 6) indicates at the very least
mulation (Byrne 1996: 43; Dodd 1932: 4–5). A that he is talking about more than the evangel-
pair of descriptions of the Son are set in parallel, ization of Gentiles.
distinguished by the contrasting Pauline terms ‘Grace to you and peace’ is the typical Pauline
‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’: greeting (1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; etc.; it is
also used in 1 and 2 Pet 1:2 and Rev 1:4). It
who was descended from David according to the flesh
and was declared to be Son of God with power according
elegantly combines the Christian word ‘grace’,
to the spirit of holiness charis (replacing the similar Greek greeting chair-
by resurrection from the dead ein; cf. Acts 15:23; 23:26; Jas 1:1), and the Jewish
greeting ‘peace’ (šālôm). It thus incorporates
Jesus’ human or earthly (‘according to the both Gentile and Semitic as well as Christian
flesh’) status as a descendant of David (see 2 and Jewish elements.
romans 64

Thanksgiving (1:8–17) and foolish’ directly parallels ‘Greeks and bar-

The thanksgiving is used here, as in Paul’s barians’ (cf. the opposing conclusions of Cran-
other letters, to express goodwill towards his field 1979: 83; Fitzmyer 1993: 251). In either case,
audience and to remind them of (or, in the the point is made that the gospel transcends
case of Romans, to establish) the terms of such distinctions. Paul is a ‘debtor’ (i.e. ‘one
their association, matters that fall broadly under obligation’), presumably by his calling,
under the heading of ‘relationship mainten- to proclaim the gospel to all Gentiles, includ-
ance’. The thanksgiving also serves to intro- ing, of course, the Romans themselves. It is less
duce the reader to key ideas and terminology, likely that Paul also meant to express his per-
deliberately signalling the letter’s overarching sonal indebtedness to individual Gentiles (Mor-
themes (see e.g. 1 Cor 1:4–9; Phil 1:3–11; 1 Thess ris 1988: 63). A further point is that even the
1:2–3:13; Philem 4–7). It is to the thanksgiving most cultured among the Gentiles is in need of
that one should look first for an indication the gospel and (in the light of v. 16, immedi-
of Paul’s own sense of purpose in writing. ately following) that the gospel is in no way
(The exception is Galatians, which—not sur- threatened by human wisdom. (The contrast
prisingly, given its polemical edge—contains between earthly wisdom and divine power
no thanksgiving.) (v. 16) is especially prominent in 1 Corinthians,
e.g. 1:18–19; 2:4–5.)
(1:8–15) Relationship Maintenance Strictly spe-
aking, Paul is establishing, not maintaining, his (1:16–17) Theme Paul advances now to a state-
relationship with the Roman Christians; never- ment of his theme: God saves all (both Jew and
theless, he stresses that his interest in and con- Greek) in the same way (by faith) by the same
cern for them are not new. He has long known means (the gospel), thus demonstrating God’s
of and prayed for the church at Rome and has righteousness (God’s fairness and fidelity). As
been encouraged by reports of its faithfulness. this statement indicates, ‘righteousness’ denotes
Paul indicates his hope that he ‘might at last something more than ‘justice’ (see Stuhlmacher
succeed in coming’ to Rome (v. 10). In v. 13 he 1994: 29–32). Dunn (1988: i. 41) terms it ‘coven-
states that ‘I have often intended to come to ant faithfulness’ and traces the idea to the
you (but thus far have been prevented)’. Paul’s Psalms (e.g. 31:1; 51:14; 98:2) and Deutero-Isaiah
journey to Rome is not an after thought; his (e.g. 45:8, 21; 46:13; 62:1–2) (cf. Hays, below). In
readers should not feel slighted. The reason for Rom 3:21–6, Paul returns to the idea that ‘the
the delay is spelled out in 15:22–4: Paul’s mis- righteousness of God [now] has been disclosed’
sionary activity in Asia and Greece (that is, (v. 21). How? Not by condemning sinners, as
amongst ‘the rest of the Gentiles’, v. 13) had justice demands, but by justifying them, as
only recently been completed. Rome, the nat- God’s character requires. In view particularly is
ural destination of the ‘apostle to the Gentiles’ God’s covenant obligation to Israel (see 11:27,
(Gal 2:7), is now fully in view. 29: ‘And this is my covenant with them, when
The language of 1:1–15 is highly diplomatic. I take away their sins . . . for the gifts and the
Paul balances assertions of his apostolic author- calling of God are irrevocable’). The question of
ity with statements concerning his regard for God’s faithfulness (one might even say ‘God’s
and reciprocity with the Roman Christians. Paul consistency’) is at stake. God has worked salva-
is not the founder of Roman Christianity and so tion in Christ ‘first’ for the Jews (v. 16); never-
cannot assume charge over it. It is worth noting, theless, many Jews have not believed. Does the
however, that even in Paul’s own churches he fact of an increasingly Gentile church demon-
had no real power. Paul could exercise authority strate either that God’s plan has been thwarted
only in so far as he could persuade his audience or that God’s people have been rejected? For
of his right to do so (the rhetoric of Galatians Paul, neither conclusion is possible. Instead, he
and 2 Corinthians providing the best examples; sets out to demonstrate that the righteousness
see Holmberg 1978: 193–204). of God is evident precisely in God’s acceptance
v. 14, instead of dividing humanity into ‘Jew of Gentiles (chs. 1–8), and that the inclusion of
and Gentile’ (or ‘Jew and Greek’, v. 16), on this Gentiles does not invalidate God’s election of
one occasion Paul uses the standard Hellenistic Israel (chs. 9–11).
categories ‘Greeks and barbarians’ (TDNT i. The question, ‘Has God abandoned Israel?’, is
546–53), which by this time had come to refer long familiar to Judaism. At root, it is the ques-
to ‘all races and classes within the Gentile world’ tion of theodicy, in this case, of the evident gap
(Dunn 1988: i. 33). It is not clear whether ‘wise between God’s promises and Israel’s reality, felt
 65 romans

most acutely in time of national defeat and Isa 28:16 (quoted in Rom 9:33); and, of particular
occupation. Richard Hays (1989: 34–83) has note, 50:7–8: ‘I know that I shall not be put to
demonstrated powerfully that Paul used as shame; he who vindicates me is near’ (also
source for his reflections in Romans the recalled in 8:31–9).
prophets and lament psalms that dealt with v. 17, ‘through faith for faith’ (ek pisteōs eis
God’s apparent abandonment of Israel. It is pistin) is a difficult phrase to interpret. Most
striking that these materials are laden with ref- often, it is taken to refer to the exclusiveness
erences both to God’s righteousness and to of the requirement of faith (sola fide); hence the
God’s universal salvation (e.g. Ps 97:3 (LXX); NIV’s ‘faith from first to last’. Because pistis can
Isa 51:4–5; 52:10). It should therefore come as also mean ‘faithfulness’ (as in 3:3, its next occur-
no surprise that Paul initiates the argument of ence beyond this section), it is possible that Paul
Romans with a quotation from Hab 2:4, which had in mind God’s pistis (faithfulness) which
not only supplies key terminology for the letter engenders, is manifest in, or is recognized by
(ROM 1:17) but does so in the context of a hard- (eis, unto) human pistis (faith) (cf. Barth 1933: 41;
won prophetic affirmation of God’s paradoxical Edwards 1992: 42–3). In support of this reading,
faithfulness. one should note that the repetition of a word to
The link to the remaining, paraenetic section play on its double meaning is a popular con-
of Romans (chs. 12–15) has been obscured by the vention and that ek (from) used with the verb
Protestant inclination to consider justification ‘reveal’ is most readily ‘understood as denoting
in exclusively juridical terms. The notion that the source of the revelation’ (Dunn 1988: i. 44).
Christians are different from others primarily in An even more important consideration is the
their legal standing before God owes much to a content of the revelation: God’s righteousness.
traditional (Augustinian/Lutheran) (mis)reading Given the full sense of the term ‘righteousness’
of Rom 7–8. The Pauline meaning of ‘justifica- (above), it is reasonable to imagine Paul saying
tion’ is much broader and evidences a quite that God’s righteousness is revealed in (God’s)
different eschatological orientation (see ROM 8). faithfulness to (human) faith. ‘The one who is
The word dikaioun (‘to justify’; first used in 2:13 righteous will live by faith’ is a quotation from
and then repeatedly throughout chs. 2–10) means Hab 2:4. Here Paul made use of one of only two
literally ‘to righteous’; it comes from the same verses in the HB that link ‘faith’ and ‘righteous
root as dikaiosunē, ‘righteousness.’ It means both (ness)’. (The other is Gen 15:6, another of Paul’s
‘to treat as righteous’ and ‘to make righteous’ crucial proof texts; see 4:3; Gal 3:6.) Although
(Käsemann 1980: 25). In other words, God both many commentators support the NRSV’s ren-
forgives sin and converts sinners in ‘righteous- dering, in which ek pisteōs (‘by faith’) modifies
ing’ the unrighteous. The relational character of the verb ‘live’ (Murray 1979: 33; Fitzmyer 1993:
righteousness (e.g. seen as God’s faithfulness to 265), an equally strong argument can be made
Israel, above) covers both being established and for the translation, ‘The one who is righteous by
being equipped as a fit partner in right relation- faith will live’ (see e.g. Käsemann 1980: 32;
ship (e.g. in 8:2–4). The same point is made by Sanders 1977: 484; Cranfield 1979: 101–2). (‘Live’
calling the gospel ‘the power of God for salvation’. here, in contrast to Habakkuk, would refer to
Thus, the entirety of Romans may be seen to be resurrection life.) After all, Paul speaks in Phil
centred, in three parts, on the theme of God’s 3:6 of a contrasting ‘righteousness under (en) the
righteousness: law.’ Similarly, it is possible that pistis here, as in
the previous verse (and the LXX of Hab 2:4, ‘my
Chs. 1–8 God’s righteousness evident in the treat-
faithfulness’), refers to ‘(God’s) faithfulness’.
ment of Jew and Gentile.
Again, the double meaning may be deliberate.
Chs. 9–11 God’s righteousness evident in the treat-
ment of Israel. God’s Righteousness Evident in the
Chs. 12–15 God’s righteousness evident in the lives Treatment of Jew and Gentile (1:18–8:39)
of believers.
Surprisingly, Christ is mentioned only once
It is not required that one probe Paul’s psyche to (2:16, on the future judgement) in 1:18–3:20.
explain the statement in v. 16 that he is ‘not Indeed, almost nothing is distinctly Christian
ashamed’ of the gospel. These words echo ‘the in the remainder of the first and the whole of
very same prophecies and lament psalms from the second chapter of Romans. The back-
which Paul’s righteousness terminology is also ground to these materials is Hellenistic Juda-
drawn’ (Hays 1989:38), e.g. Ps 24:2; 43:10 (LXX); ism; unquestionably, Paul’s description of the
romans 66

human condition in vv. 18–32 borrows heavily the golden calf (and perhaps the Israelites’ sub-
from popular Hellenistic-Jewish descriptions of sequent revelry) of Ex 32 is in view. In Acts 7:41,
Gentiles. (The highest concentration of parallels Stephen referred to that incident and con-
occurs in the Wisdom of Solomon, almost cer- cluded, ‘God . . . handed them over to worship the
tainly known to Paul.) Like Paul, Jewish apolo- host of heaven’. Paradidōmi (‘handed over’) is the
gists characteristically attacked Gentile idolatry same verb used by Paul in vv. 24, 26, and 28 in
and sexual misconduct. (‘For the idea of making reference to God’s judgement. (The idea might
idols was the beginning of fornication’, Wis go back to the OT passage quoted in the subse-
14:12; cf. vv. 22–7.) Some also claim that behind quent verses of Acts 7 (42–3), Am 5:25–7, which
ch. 2 lies an otherwise unknown Hellenistic criticizes Jewish idolatry in the wilderness and
synagogue sermon (see below). It is reasonable speaks of God ‘deporting/sending away’ (metoi-
to suppose that Paul used stock materials to kizō) the Jews to Damascus.) Also, Paul borrows
construct a foundation upon which the more language from Ps 106:20 and Jer 2:11, both of
distinctive elements of his argument would be which deal with Israelite idolatry. Pious readers
built. This strategy is reminiscent of his citation might accept God’s judgement on conduct such
of the Christological formulae in 1:3–4, which as Paul describes, not realizing that they them-
served to establish common ground with his selves stand under the same condemnation.
readers. Ch. 2 is written to make this point explicit.
Beginning in 3:21–6, Paul returns to an expli- v. 18, ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from
citly Christian vantage point. Interestingly, the heaven against . . . those who . . . suppress the
same paragraph reintroduces the theme of truth’. For Paul, the problem is not that God is
righteousness (vv. 21, 22, 25, and 26; like ‘Christ’, unknowable; the problem is that humanity
‘righteousness’ is mentioned only once in pass- does not want to know God (cf. Wis 13:1–9).
ing (3:5) in the previous chapter and a half). Accordingly, the idol worshipper does not
God’s righteousness has been disclosed seek to do the will of God; he seeks a god to
‘through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe’ do his will. Creature dethrones creator, and
(v. 22). The work of Christ is characterized as ‘a cosmic order is turned upside down (v. 24).
sacrifice of atonement by his blood’ that brings ‘Three times (vv. 23, 25, 26) human beings are
‘redemption’ to those who believe (vv. 24–5). said to have ‘‘exchanged’’ or ‘‘substituted’’ one
But why is such a disclosure, such an atone- reality for another’ (HBC 1136). God’s response
ment, such a redemption necessary? If Christ is in each case is to ‘give up’ or ‘hand over’
the solution, what precisely is the problem? humanity to its own desires (vv. 24, 26, 28).
Clearly, it is the job of 1:18–3:20 to inform us. For Paul, sin carries within itself its own pun-
Specifically, this section functions to justify ishment (Achtemeier 1985: 40), and the sinner’s
Paul’s own summary in 3:22b–23: ‘For there is most terrible judgement is to be left alone. vv.
no distinction, since all have sinned and fall 26–31, while it is true that Paul saw the reversal
short of the glory of God.’ of the created order manifest in homosexual
relations, it is notable that his list also included
1:18–32 All are without Excuse The structure such transgressions as covetousness, envy,
of the argument in 1:18–3:20 is not obvious. boastfulness, and gossip. It would be difficult
Commonly, 1:18–32 is read as an indictment of not to locate oneself somewhere in this cata-
Gentile wickedness and 2:1–3:20 as the exten- logue—which, of course, is just the point. The
sion of that indictment to the Jews (Fitzmyer knowledge of God that humanity suppresses is
1992: 269–71). Paul’s approach is probably more a moral knowledge. They ‘know God’s decree,
subtle. In a sense, 1:18–32 sets a trap for the that those who practise such things deserve to
imaginary Jewish interlocutor introduced in die’, and still they disobey and even applaud
2:2. The description of human wickedness the disobedience of others (v. 27). Humanity is
seems to be aimed exclusively at Gentiles; it utterly ‘without excuse’ (v. 20), especially the
appears to assume the typical contrast between excuse of ignorance.
Jewish probity and Gentile depravity. Neverthe- Of course, Paul’s fictive conversation partner
less, nowhere does Paul indicate that he is (see below) would not plead ignorance. But
describing only Gentiles; indeed, the Jewish/ does a Jew’s knowledge of God put him or her
Gentile distinction is not made explicit until in a superior position? Can knowledge of God’s
2:9. Moreover, elements of vv. 18–31 hark back law deliver from God’s judgement? It is to such
to the darker moments and practices of Israel’s questions that Paul’s description of the human
past. It is especially likely that the worship of condition in vv. 18–32 has been leading.
 67 romans

(2:1–3:20) The Impartiality of God Scholars bear significantly upon one’s understanding
since Bultmann have made much of the simi- and evaluation of the entire letter. The first,
larities between Paul’s rhetoric in Romans and most glaring problem is the repeated assertion
the diatribe, a form of argumentation in which a that one is justified (v. 13) or receives eternal life
Cynic or Stoic philosopher taught students by (v. 7) on the basis of one’s deeds. (The notion
‘debating’ an imaginary opponent (Bultmann that God equitably judges people according to
1910; Stowers, 1981). Although some scholars their works is common in the HB; however,
question whether or to what extent the diatribe such passages do not have in view the issue of
was an established rhetorical form, there can be eternal destiny. In v. 5, Paul specifically quotes
no doubt that diatribe style is present in Romans the LXX of Ps 61 (62):13 and Prov. 24:12.) This
(Fitzmyer 1993: 91). At numerous points begin- idea appears flatly to contradict Paul’s numer-
ning in ch. 2 (also 3:1–9; 3:27–4:25; 9:19–21; ous other statements that one cannot be saved
10:14–21; 11:17–24; 14:4–12), Paul addresses and by one’s works (e.g. 3:20; 4:2; 9:32; 11:6). One
even responds to the objections of an inter- way out of the dilemma is to say that Paul wrote
locutor (most often with an impassioned ‘By only of a theoretical justification; in fact, he
no means!’ (mē genoito); 3:4, 6, 31; 6:2, 15; 7:7, 13; realized that no one actually measures up to
9:14; 11:1, 11). The effect is to pull the reader into the proposed standard. Others reason that
the ‘conversation’ on Paul’s side. Rhetorically, when speaking of those who ‘do good’ (etc.),
the diatribe confers argumentative dynamism Paul ‘is implicitly referring to Christians’
without ceding authorial control. It remains in (Fitzmyer 1993: 297). The first proposal seems
the rhetor’s power to choose what questions to heavy-handed; in effect, it trades coherence for
ask and what answers to accept. consistency. The second notion, that the chap-
Because Paul’s dialogue partner of 2:1–16 is ter approves only Christian good works, is
not identified explicitly, some commentators certainly possible, although it does little to
have isolated this section from 2:17–3:20, in commend Paul as a fair-minded observer of
which Paul plainly addresses a Jewish interlocu- human behaviour. Alternatively, Hays (1989:
tor (Barrett 1957: 43; Morris 1988: 107; Ziesler 42) has suggested that Rom 2 be read in the
1989: 80–1). It is more likely that the whole of larger context of Ps 61 (quoted in v. 5), which
2:1–3:20 speaks to perceived Jewish attitudes ‘renders an account of God fully consonant
and that any ambiguity as to the object of 2:1– with Paul’s emphasis on God’s kindness and
16 is expressly eliminated by the direct address forebearance’. An entirely different approach is
of v. 17. Stuhlmacher (1994: 39) made the intri- advocated by E. P. Sanders (1983: 123), who
guing suggestion that Paul delayed identifying thinks that Paul made use of a source or sources
the interlocutor for dramatic effect; 2:17 thus (‘homiletical material from Diaspora Judaism’)
functions like Nathan’s statement to David in that contributed the desired argument for God’s
2 Sam 12:7: ‘You are the man!’ (In fact, Ps 51, impartiality (and Jewish sinfulness) but included
understood to be David’s penitential prayer, is elements strikingly at odds with Pauline the-
quoted in Rom 3:4.) ology (ibid. 123–35). In general, Rom 2 reads
The juxtaposition in vv. 28–9 of the mere out- well as a sermon preached to Jews to encourage
ward and the true inward practice of Judaism is a higher standard of Jewish conduct. (Indeed,
precedented in passages such as Deut 10:16, 30:6, change ‘Jew’ to ‘Christian’ and ‘circumcision’ to
and Jer 4:4, 9:26, which use the ‘circumcision of ‘baptism’, and the text reads like a sermon
the heart’ metaphor to describe those whose exhorting church members to live up to their
inner commitments are consistent with their calling; cf. Mt 7:21–3.) It is noteworthy that Rom
(outwardly obvious in the case of males) status 2 deals with matters known to be at issue within
as God’s covenant people. The truly surprising first-century Judaism, such as the question of
employment of Scripture comes in v. 24, which ‘righteous Gentiles’ and the nature of true
uses Isa 52:5 to argue that Israel itself is so dis- obedience (ibid. 134).
obedient as to be the cause of Gentile blasphemy. A second problem concerns the description
This is ‘a stunning misreading of the text’ (Hays of Jewish sinfulness in Rom 2. In 3:9, Paul states
1989: 45). In fact, Isa 52 celebrates Israel’s rescue that ‘we have already charged that all, both Jews
from the injustices of the nations. (Israel has been and Greeks, are under the power of sin’. Paul
‘oppressed without cause’; ‘my people are taken concludes that since Jews share the same plight
away without cause’, Isa 52:4, 5.) as Gentiles, they require the same solution,
Numerous other difficulties are associated with namely, Christ (3:21–6). How does Paul make
the interpretation of Rom 2, some of which his case? Given the longstanding tendency of
romans 68

interpreters to read Paul as if he were an exist- claim demonstrates how Paul’s thinking could
entialist—that is, one concerned with internal at times steer him in the direction of a realized
states and interior conflicts (see Stendahl eschatology (see ROM E. 4); Christians are now ‘in
1963)—the actual argument of Rom 2 is surpris- the Spirit’ and please God while others remain
ing. Paul does not say that while most Jews ‘in the flesh’ and cannot please God (8:3–8). This
most of the time meet the external demands approach equalizes Jew and Gentile and so
of the law (cf. Paul’s larger claim for himself makes Christ necessary. One might object that
in Phil 3:6), they nevertheless continue to sin this line of reasoning succeeds only by overstat-
inwardly, for example, by being proud of their ing the differences between believers and unbe-
obedience. Such a critique would not be entirely lievers, in particular, between Christians and
new; something like it existed in the Jesus tra- Jews. Is it really the case, either in outward
ditions (e.g. Mt 5:21–4, 27–30; 6:1–5; 23:25–8; Lk behaviour or inward disposition, that Christians
11:37–44). That argument would put Jews and as a group sin less than Jews? Are the rules of
Gentiles on equal footing without necessitating the church experienced so differently from the
that all Jews (or even hypothetical, representa- laws of the synagogue? Certainly, it would have
tive Jews) be shown to be as badly behaved as been possible to argue for the necessity of
Gentiles, which seems to be the point of 2:21–4. Christ without negating Judaism as an instru-
The lack of a clear conception or language of ment (or at least a prior instrument) of God’s
interiority is consistently problematic for Paul. grace. Despite the demurral of 3:1–2, Paul’s
Even Rom 7, which is usually read in this way, point is that with respect to the actual state of
speaks of sin as an external power that causes their relationship to God, Jews enjoy no advan-
one to do or not do what is right (7:15). Surely, tage over Gentiles. One must ask, ‘What then
the Jews of Paul’s day were not characteristically was the point of Judaism?’ That question, in one
thieves, adulterers, and temple robbers. form or another, is the central concern of the
A third difficulty is that the obvious solution next several chapters.
to the problems posed in 2:1–29 is that Jews
simply become better Jews. If Jews commit sin- (3:21–31) The Revelation of God’s Righteous-
ful acts, repentance and atonement are available ness vv. 21–6 are the capstone of Paul’s
to them within Judaism. Damnation is neither introductory argument; Stuhlmacher (1994: 57)
the sole nor the expected alternative to perfect refers to the paragraph as ‘the heart of the letter
obedience. In this context it is worth noting that to the Romans’. Here Paul revisits the grand
when all is said and done, Paul’s one substantial theme introduced in the Thanksgiving: the
and consistent accusation is that the Jews have righteousness of God. The divine character—
rejected their Christ. What confuses are the faithful, gracious, forgiving, and merciful—has
numerous ways such rejection can be charac- been disclosed in Christ, specifically in Christ’s
terized (as disobedience, unbelief, works right- death, a sacrifice for sin ‘effective through
eousness, etc.) and the numerous deficiencies to faith’. Altogether apart from human initiative,
which it can be attributed (hardheartedness, God has done what God always intended to do
pride, self-assertion, etc.). Apart from faith in (‘attested by the law and the prophets’) and so is
Christ, no amount of Jewish obedience, faith, proved righteous. It is instructive that Ps 143,
or humility is going to satisfy. However it is quoted (v. 2, significantly emended) in Paul’s
described, this by definition is a problem that statement of judgement in Rom 3:20, main-
cannot have a (non-Christian) Jewish solution. tains that one is preserved by God’s righteous-
The ground shifts in 3:9, where Paul states ness (Ps 143:1, 11–12), the very subject of vv. 21–6
that ‘both Jews and Greeks are under the (see Hays 1989: 51–2). Paul is deeply conscious
power of sin’. This statement removes the pos- of the interplay of God’s condemning justice
sibility that, unaided by God, either Gentile or and God’s justifying righteousness, already evi-
Jew could be righteous (contra 2:7, 13, etc., but dent in Scripture.
consistent with 7:7–24). A compilation of OT That the death of Jesus decisively altered the
proof-texts in 3:10–18 then describes humanity’s human situation (described in 1:18–3:20) is
utter depravity (Eccl 7:20; Ps 5:10; 10:7; 14:1–3/ assumed but not explained. Almost certainly,
53:2–4; 36:2; 140:4; Isa 59:7–8/Prov 1:16). Thus the language Paul used concerning Christ’s
the problem is not so much that humans sin as atonement was common to first-century Chris-
that humans are incapable of not sinning. tianity and required little elucidation. (See 1 Cor
Christ is necessary for Jew as well as Gentile 15:3, where the statement that ‘Christ died for
because only he can break sin’s power. This our sins according to the scriptures’ is included
 69 romans

in the tradition that Paul himself received.) v. 25, generally) is specifically ‘faith in Christ’ (see also
‘expiation’ (hilastērion: ‘sacrifice of atonement’, 4:23–4). Although Paul may contrast works with
NRSV) probably has in view the Jewish sacrifi- faith and unbelief with faith, the unspoken and
cial system. In the LXX, the same word is used to yet insistent polarity is between Jewish faith in
refer to the ‘mercy seat’, the top of the ark of the God apart from belief in Christ and Christian
covenant, on which the blood of the sin offering (whether Jewish or Gentile) faith in God includ-
was sprinkled annually on the Day of Atone- ing belief in Christ. In other words, it is one’s
ment. It might (also) have as background the response to Jesus that ultimately is at issue, how-
notion of the efficacious sacrifice of martyrs, as ever the argument may be framed. Paul believed
one finds in 4 Macc 17:22. ‘Redemption’ (apolu- that God was in Christ and that to believe in God
trōsis) originally connoted ‘freedom by ransom’. now means perforce to believe in Christ; the two
In the NT, the word is used to emphasize a ‘faiths’ are inseparable. Accordingly, it is only
change in one’s position that is effected entirely Christian faith that is legitimated as faith. (One
at God’s initiative and expense. It does not re- can observe the same dynamic clearly at work
quire a literal ‘payment’ by God (e.g. to the devil), in Johannine literature, e.g. in Jn 5:23 and 1 Jn
as sometimes featured in later soteriological 5:10–12.) Logically, this move eliminates the prob-
speculation (EDNT 138–40). lem of present Jewish (but non-Christian) belief
v. 24, which states that believers are ‘justified in God; it is not actual (one might say ‘sufficient’)
by his [God’s] grace as a gift’, captures a great deal faith. Thus Paul can speak of faith in God as if it
of Pauline theology in a few words. Quintessen- were a uniquely Christian attribute. At the same
tially for Paul, justification is gift, not reward (see time, this approach introduces a problem: what
4:1–4; 5:15–17). It originates in God’s mind, is to do with pre-Christian Jewish faith (that is,
motivated by God’s character, and is ‘purchased’ unless one claims that those such as Abraham
by God’s work in Christ. It is neither human and David, both commended in Romans, already
invention nor human achievement; hence, it is believed in Christ). The press of this difficulty
gracious, unmerited. Obviously, it occasions no may well account for Paul’s statement in v. 25
opportunity for human boasting (v. 27; see 2:17, (above) concerning God’s former dispensation of
23; 4:2; cf. the ‘positive boasting’ in 5:2–3, 11; 15:17); forgiveness.
one may as well boast of being born as boast of In v. 27 Paul contrasts a law ‘of works’ with a
being justified. (Not surprisingly, boasting is a ‘law of faith’. The shift in the use of nomos (law)
prominent Pauline theme, especially in 1 and 2 is curious and has led many to translate the
Corinthians, e.g. 1 Cor 1:29–31; 3:21; 4:7; 5:6; 2 Cor word in this instance as ‘principle’ (i.e. the prin-
11:12, 16–18, 30; 12:1, 5–6; cf. the favourable boast- ciple of faith by which boasting is excluded).
ing in 1 Cor 9:15–16; 15:31; 2 Cor 1:12; 5:12; 7:4, 14; Barrett (1957: 83) has argued convincingly that,
8:24; 9:2–3; 10:8, 13, 15–17; 11:10; 12:30.) v. 25, the for Paul, nomos occasionally ‘means something
statement that God, in ‘divine forbearance’, like ‘‘religious system’’, often . . . but not always,
‘passed over the sins previously committed’ raises the religious system of Judaism’. Such an inter-
many questions. What does it mean to ‘pass over’ pretation makes sense both here and at numer-
sin (from paresis; lit. the ‘passing by’ ¼ ‘letting go ous other points in Romans. v. 31, Paul asks, ‘Do
unpunished’; see BAGD 626), and whose sins we then overthrow the law by this faith?’ As a
specifically have been passed over? Did God sim- Jew himself, Paul cannot answer, ‘Yes’. The law
ply not judge former sins, or was their judgement is still God’s law. There must be some sense in
postponed, perhaps until the cross? What evalu- which Paul’s teachings (which, let us not forget,
ation of Judaism and of its sacrificial system lies abrogate certain specific commandments; e.g.
behind this verse? Commentators have ventured Rom 14:14) actually ‘uphold the law’, perhaps
answers to these and related questions, but no the law rightly understood or the law in its
one account of the passage has proved persua- deeper purpose. We do not have to wait long
sive. It is clear at least that Paul regarded the death to discover something of what the apostle had
of Christ as the one final and essential sacrifice, in mind.
the basis for all human salvation. Paul does not
provide us with enough information to judge (4:1–25) The Example of Abraham Paul has
how, to what extent, and on what basis he con- just stated that he upholds the law (3:31) and
sidered such salvation to have been operative in that the righteousness of God, which he pro-
the past. claims, is attested in ‘the law and the prophets’
v. 26, it is essential to note that the faith of (3:21). It is time to make good on these claims.
which Paul speaks in vv. 27–31 (and in Romans Religious arguments, like legal arguments, often
romans 70

begin with an appeal to precedent. In most may have been formulated to counter (possibly
democracies, a lawyer can do no better than to second-generation) abuses of Pauline theology.
appeal to the nation’s constitution (and, The two sides actually make different, not
thereby, to its founders). Constitutional inter- opposite, points. Essentially, Paul uses the Abra-
pretation is both the most basic and the most ham story to answer the question, How does
consequential matter of law. Generations of one get ‘in’ (e.g. right relationship with God)?
case law can be overturned by a single ruling Much more characteristically, the story is used
of unconstitutionality. Paul makes his first and in James to exhort believers (those already ‘in’)
strongest argument by appealing to the found- to behave in a certain way, in this case to dem-
ing figure of Judaism, Abraham. What goes onstrate their faith by their actions. It is entirely
for Abraham, he can assume, goes for all. possible to laud Abraham’s good behaviour (e.g.
God’s covenant with Abraham is the core of in obeying God’s command to leave his home,
the Jewish ‘constitution’, subsequent ‘amend- Gen 12:1) without implying that Abraham was
ments’ notwithstanding. Summoning Abraham thereby sinless or perfectly righteous, which
to his defence is both an inspired and (in the issue was not under consideration. In fact,
light of the controversy in Galatia, which many contemporary Jews could have accepted
seemed to revolve around the interpretation of Paul’s basic point: like Abraham, one enters into
the Abraham story, especially the command- covenant with God at God’s initiative and by
ment of circumcision in Gen 17:10; see Gal 3) means of God’s grace. The doctrine of justifica-
probably necessary strategy. The appeal to tion by faith is not without Jewish antecedents;
Abraham has the added benefit of pre-empting the real controversy concerns, not the necessity
an opponent’s appeal to Moses (see Gal 3:17). of faith, but the content or object of faith.
‘The promise . . . did not come to Abraham or The fact that Abraham had not yet been
his descendants through the law’ (4:13). Accord- circumcised (that comes two chapters later, in
ing to one possible interpretation, Paul (see ROM Gen 17) allows Paul to claim that Abraham is
10:5) effectively rules ‘unconstitutional’ Moses’ exemplar to and ancestor of all faithful persons,
later understanding of the relationship between both Jews and Gentiles (3:9–12). As proof-text,
the law and eternal life (e.g. that ‘the person Paul cites Gen 17:5 (‘I have made you the father
who does these things will live by them’, Lev of many nations’, vv. 17–18). Gentile Christians
18:5, my emphasis). were for Paul (and probably for most other
The basic argument of Rom 4 is compara- Jewish Christians) ‘children of Abraham’. It is
tively simple and direct. According to Gen 15:6, not difficult to imagine how such claims might
Abraham ‘believed the Lord; and the Lord reck- have rankled with non-Christian Jews, how they
oned it to him as righteousness’. (What Abra- could have been seen to threaten the integrity,
ham actually believed—namely, God’s promise ultimately even the existence, of Israel. It is
that he would have offspring—is not in view likely that such claims underlie many of the
nor, naturally, is a consideration of what ‘reck- instances of persecution recorded in the NT
oning righteousness’ might have meant in its (see Gal 5:11 and 6:12).
original context.) Abraham was not, of himself, v. 15, the sentiment ‘the law brings wrath; but
righteous; instead, because of his faith, he was where there is no law, neither is there violation’
treated (elogisthē: ‘was credited’; a ‘bookkeeping is echoed in 5:13: ‘sin was indeed in the world
term figuratively applied to human conduct’ as before the law, but sin is not reckoned when
in Ps 106:31; 1 Macc 2:52; and Philem 18; there is no law’ (cf. the ‘passing over’ of sins
Fitzmyer 1993: 373) as though he were righteous. prior to Christ in 3:25). It also anticipates the
His standing before God was a gift, not an argument of 7:7–24 (‘if it had not been for the
attainment (see ROM 3:24). This occurred prior law, I would not have known sin, v. 7). Presum-
to the giving of the law, prior even to the ably, the point is that ‘law makes sin into trans-
requirement of circumcision. This first instance gression’ (Byrne 1996: 158). Under the law, one
of human righteousness thus becomes the para- not only sins, one sins with explicit knowledge
digm for all subsequent instances. It is very that one is sinning. Paul makes no attempt to
likely that Paul wrote Rom 4 with a view to co-ordinate these statements with the earlier
popular Jewish treatments of the Abraham argument that Gentiles are fairly judged by
story that focused on the patriarch’s obedient God, having ‘what the law requires written on
example, which in some cases even argued for their hearts’ (2:15).
his attainment of merit (e.g. 4 Ezra 9:7; 13:23). A vv. 19–21, the quality of Abraham’s faith is
similar reading is present in Jas 2:18–26, which vividly described. Abraham believed God against
 71 romans

all opposing considerations and contrary appear- pretensions of the so-called ‘super-apostles’ at
ances. The final reality was God’s fidelity: God Corinth, Paul wrote, ‘If I must boast, I will boast
would do what God had promised. The character of the things that show my weakness’ (2 Cor
of faith as trust is nowhere more clearly depicted 11:30). Putting the cross at the centre of his
in Paul’s writings. vv. 23–4, the content of justify- thinking (the gospel is characterized as ‘the
ing faith is spelled out more fully: belief in God word of the cross’ in 1 Cor 1:18), set Paul outside
who ‘raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who normal religious expectation, including the ex-
was handed over (paredothē) to death for our tres- pectations of many of his converts. To Paul,
passes and was raised for our justification’. This religion was not a means by which to manipu-
description of Jesus sounds formulaic and there- late heavenly powers to earthly ends. God’s
fore traditional; ultimately, it is dependent upon locus in this world is disclosed in the cross,
Isa 52:13–53:12 (LXX), which tells of the Suffering which is foolishness and weakness in human
Servant, on whom ‘the LORD laid (paredōken) our eyes (1 Cor 1:17–19). Therefore, Paul can boast
sins’ (53:6), who ‘bore (paredothē) their sin’ (53: 12), in his sufferings, in the very absence of earthly
who will ‘justify many’ (v. 11) (see Cranfield 1979: rescue, in the knowledge that he travels in the
251–2). footsteps of the crucified messiah, and that he
will arrive someday at the place of Christ’s res-
(5:1–11) God’s Reconciling Love as the Foun- urrection (where ‘hope does not disappoint’,
dation for Legitimate Boasting Two verbs v. 5). It is consistent with this perspective that
dominate this section: ‘boast’ and ‘reconcile’. reconciliation is a present reality (v. 10: ‘we were
We were told in 4:2 that Abraham had no reconciled’ to God, aorist tense), but salvation
ground for boasting before God. Similarly, 3:27 itself remains a future hope (vv. 9–10, ‘we will be
made the point that boasting is excluded (see saved’). (The two are related by means of an a
also 2:17, 23). In Rom 5, however, boasting is minori ad maius argument: if God has reconciled,
neither groundless nor excluded: Paul boasts ‘in how much more will God save.)
the hope of sharing the glory of God’ (v. 2), in In their unreconciled state, humans are de-
‘sufferings’ (v. 3), and ‘in God’ (v. 11). The differ- scribed as ‘weak’, ‘ungodly’, ‘sinners’, and ‘en-
ence, of course, is that here Paul is not, as in 2 emies’ of God (vv. 6, 8, 10), a portrayal that
Cor 10:13–15, ‘boasting beyond limits’, claiming recalls the description in 1:18–32. That Paul
as his own achievement something achieved by would, by implication, refer to himself and to
others. It is perfectly proper to boast in what all other Jews as ungodly and enemies of God is
God has done, rather than in what one has done astounding. A less pointed description, how-
for God (see ROM 3:24). And what God has done ever, might undermine his argument concern-
in Christ, according to Rom 5:1–11, is to recon- ing the absolute necessity of the atonement. It is
cile (katallassein) humanity with God. ‘Reconcili- because reconciliation with God is so entirely
ation’ is return from alienation, the restoration necessary and yet so utterly unattainable from
of relationship. Its use here puts the divine– the human side that it is so highly prized.
human rift in deeply personal (as opposed to
exclusively forensic) terms, an estrangement (5:12–21) Adam and Christ Paul found a
that yields only to the prevailing power of prototype for the doctrine of justification by
God’s love (v. 8). The state of reconciliation is faith in the story of Abraham (ch. 4). He then
described in v. 1 as ‘peace with God’. Because characterized the justification won by Christ’s
reconciliation is achieved from God’s side and death as reconciliation with God (5:1–11). But
offered when most undeserved (v. 8), the be- how can Christ’s work, however meritorious
liever possesses security in the hope of eternal in itself, save others? Can the actions of one
life (vv. 2, 5) and confidence in the midst of individual affect the standing of all other per-
earthly trials (vv. 3–4). Reconciliation is some- sons? Yes, indeed, if that individual happens to
thing about which to boast. be the archetype for subsequent humanity. In
The claim to ‘boast in . . . sufferings’ (v. 3) is vv. 12–21, Paul turns to Adam as precedent
distinctly ironic and distinctively Pauline. For (that is, by way of counterexample) for the
Paul, the paradigm of Christian existence, of universality of Christ’s atonement. If all of
Christian reality, is the cross (see ROM E. 4). humanity shared in Adam’s disobedience,
One’s faithfulness to the crucified messiah is how much more (note, again, the a minori ad
measured, not in gifts of power or wisdom, maius structure) may all humanity share in the
but in degrees of sacrifice and suffering (1 Cor obedience of Jesus, the very Son of God (v. 19;
4:8–13; 2 Cor. 6:3–10; 11:21–12:21). Against the see also 1 Cor 15:45–9).
romans 72

Paul argues on the basis of Gen 3 only that could object that the law did function for many
‘sin came into the world through one man’. as a positive corrective and guide. A larger
(There were of course two human players in problem is that belief in eternal life post-dates
the Garden drama. Eve has gone missing.) He Torah. If one enquires, like the ‘rich young
does not propound a theory (‘original sin’) con- ruler’, ‘What must I do to inherit eternal life?’
cerning the conveyance of sin, biological or (Lk 10:25), one asks a question that the law is
otherwise, from one generation to the next. unequipped to answer. (Note that Jesus’ own
The proof of the ubiquity of sin is the univer- answer concerned doing, not merely believing,
sality of its consequence: death (v. 12; Gen 3:3). certain things.) A typical Jewish approach
The resurrection of Christ thus overturns death would be to assume that those remaining in
introduced by Adam: ‘For since death came covenant with God will inherit eternal life.
through a human being, the resurrection of Paul’s answer really is no different, but the ob-
the dead has also come through a human ligatory covenant is (i.e. the new covenant of
being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6, 14, etc.).
made alive in Christ’ (1 Cor 15:21–2). The proper
order of creation, lost in the Fall, is thus in the (6:1–23) Dead to Sin and Alive to God Paul
process of being restored (8:18–25). This two- has just introduced the notion that there are two
part story is complicated by the mention of the dominions, one of death, whose head is Adam,
law in vv. 13–14 and 20. Sin existed prior to the and one of life, whose head is Christ (5:21). The
giving of the law, but it was not like Adam’s obvious conclusion is that believers now dwell
transgression, that is, disobedience of an expli- with Christ in the dominion of life. But this
cit commandment. The law given through cannot be the whole truth: believers sometimes
Moses served to increase culpability; humans disobey, and all believers die. In what sense and
again could transgress as Adam had trans- to what extent Christ’s dominion is a present
gressed (vv. 13–14; see 4:15). (One might note reality is the underlying issue in Rom 6. Paul’s
that, among other things, Paul’s argument argument is organized around two questions:
‘passes over the so-called Noachic legislation ‘Should we continue in sin in order that grace
(Gen 9:4–6)’; Fitzmyer 1993: 418.) And, whereas may abound?’ (v. 1), and ‘Should we sin because
Adam had to obey only one commandment, we are not under law but under grace?’ (v. 15).
those living under the law have six hundred Paul’s response is by now anticipated: ‘By no
and thirteen times the opportunity for trans- means!’ (mē genoito; see ROM 2:1–3:20). The first
gression: ‘law came in, with the result that the question is answered ontologically: ‘How can
trespass multiplied’ (v. 20). In the light of 7:5–12, we who died to sin go on living in it?’ (v. 2).
a minority of commentators have interpreted The believer has already died and ‘walks in new-
v. 20 to mean that the law was given for the ness of life’. How? By identification with the
express purpose (hina) of increasing (and not death of Jesus in baptism (vv. 3–4). It is important
merely increasing the guilt of) sin (Murray to note that this identification is substantial, not
1979: 208). This would involve God in the moralistic; one actually participates with Jesus
deliberate promotion of sin which is, needless in his death: ‘We know that our old self was
to say, a problematic assertion (cf. the relation- crucified with him so that the body of sin
ship between the law and sin in 7:11–12). might be destroyed, and we might no longer be
Moses is a not accidental omission on Paul’s enslaved to sin’ (v. 6). Believers are a ‘new cre-
short-list of human archetypes. By situating ation’ (2 Cor 5:17), a new kind of person who has
the law where he does (v. 20, it ‘slipped in’— the power not to sin (vv. 12–14, 18, etc.). (How this
pareisēlthen—between Adam and Christ; see Gal portrayal meshes with the description of the
3:17), Paul indicates that Moses was not the an- ‘wretched self’ in 7:14–25 is a major problem;
swer to Adam. The law did not provide a way see ROM 7:14–25.)
out of the human dilemma; quite to the contrary, Of all NT writings, Paul’s letters most point-
it made an already bad situation worse. Whether edly exhibit the eschatological tension between
or not it increased the incidence of sin (a debat- the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’. The obvious coun-
able point, both exegetically and practically), it terpart to ‘we have been buried’ with Christ ‘in his
heightened sin’s sinfulness by exposing the death’ (v. 4), would be ‘and we have been raised
deliberateness of human disobedience. The law with Christ in his resurrection’. This may be the
could not give (eternal) life; it was participant in viewpoint of Ephesians (e.g. 2:1–6), but it is not
and not victor over Adam’s ‘dominion of death’ the perspective of Romans. Although the situ-
(vv. 20–1). In the face of this stark portrayal, one ation of the believer has changed considerably,
 73 romans

it has not changed entirely. With respect to the (7:1–25) The Law and Sin A connection
individual Christian, all references to resurrec- between law and sin was posited in 3:20, 4:15,
tion and eternal life are future tense (vv. 5, 8). 5:13, and 5:20. This is one of the most surprising
Believers ‘walk in newness of life’ (v. 4) and are and controversial claims encountered in Paul’s
‘alive to God’ (v. 11); nevertheless, their experi- letter, and it demands elaboration. The discus-
ence of the ‘dominion of life’ is proleptic, not sion in ch. 6, especially the concluding section
fully realized. Although they have ‘died to sin’ on slavery and freedom, provides an opportun-
(v. 2), they may yet submit themselves ‘to sin as ity for the reintroduction of the subject of the
its instruments’ (v. 13), may once again come law and sin. The previous paragraphs consid-
under the dominion of sin (v. 12). The tension ered reasons why believers should not sin. In vv.
between the two realities remains unresolved: 1–6, Paul offers another: the believer has died
humans by nature sin; believers by (their new) not only to sin (6:3) but also to the law (vv. 1–4),
nature do not sin (cf. 1 Jn 1:7–2:1 with 3:6, 8–9; which is itself a cause of sin (vv. 5–12). (On the
5:18). Believers are human, but believers also question, ‘Of what law does Paul speak?’, see
represent a new (or ‘renewed’) type of humanity. Fitzmyer 1993: 455.)
One could lower the tension by diminishing the The marriage metaphor Paul employs is
status of believers (that is, by moving towards a somewhat forced. The statement that ‘the law
more exclusively future eschatology); however, is binding on a person only during a person’s
such a change would thoroughly undermine lifetime’ (v. 1) aligns with the conclusion ‘you
Pauline theology. Paul sets the law and Christ [therefore] have died to the law through
as opposite means: what the law could not do, the body of Christ’ (v. 4). But the one who dies
Christ has done (8:3). But if believers (Christians) in vv. 2–3 is the husband, not the wife (the
are not substantially different from those ‘under believer). Is the law the husband who dies, the
the law’ (non-Christian Jews), then (by Paul’s ‘law’ that governs the wife’s relationship
reasoning) Christ has failed. Why frame the to the husband, or both? Despite the confusion,
argument in this way? Because of Paul’s one the point of vv. 2–3 appears straightforward:
overriding concern: the present equality of Jew one who simply disregards the law (e.g. a mar-
and Gentile (see ROM E.4). ried person who has an affair) may be judged a
Paul’s second question also concerns the sinner (‘an adulterer’, v. 3), but one who is no
relationship between believers and sin. To longer subject to the law (a widow[er]) may not
paraphrase v. 15, Why not sin if sin is not be judged by the law (may not be called an
judged? Are those set free from sin thereby adulterer when remarrying). Someone reading
free to sin? Paul answers that such ‘freedom’ ‘you have died to the law . . . so that you may
is illusory. People are not transferred from belong to another’ might well ask, ‘Who was the
slavery to sin into neutral, non-allied auton- first partner—the law?’ On one level, Dunn
omy. Instead, they pass from one allegiance, (1988: 369) is correct to say that the question is
one ‘slavery’ (to speak ‘in human terms’, v. 19), ‘over-fussy’. The analogy makes a basic point
to another. Believers are slaves ‘of obedience’ and should not be pushed beyond it. On
(v. 16), ‘slaves of righteousness’ (vv. 18–19), another level, however, the question is quite
‘enslaved to God’ (v. 22). There can be no valid and reveals much about Paul’s view of
‘freedom’ to sin, since sin itself is slavery. Judaism. Whose were those who lived under
‘Grace and sin are to one another as ‘‘either’’ the law? Although the language is covenantal
is to ‘‘or’’ ’ (Barth 1933: 217). (i.e. concerning marriage), the prior covenant
Paul stated earlier that death came through partner is not God. It is as though the Sinai
Adam’s sin (5:12). vv. 20–3 make clear that all covenant was made with the law itself.
sinners earn death as their fitting ‘wages’ (opsō- The mention of bearing fruit in v. 4 fills out
nion, v. 23). The language used to describe sin the idea in ch. 6 that believers have become
(‘things of which you are now ashamed’, v. 21) is ‘instruments of righteousness’ (v. 13), experien-
reminiscent of the description of human wick- cing ‘sanctification’ to God (v. 22). God’s will
edness in 1:18–32 (‘shameless acts’, 1:27). The is not only the absence of evil but also the
alternative is holiness (‘sanctification’, NRSV) presence of good. Although some commenta-
that leads to eternal life (v. 22). Something tors have argued that ‘bearing fruit for God’
‘holy’ is pure, consisting of only one thing (e.g. means ‘begetting spiritual children’, it is more
‘pure gold’). That believers are to be holy (or likely that Paul is referring to the generation
sanctified), to be one thing, is the point of the of good character and/or works (cf. Gal 5:22;
entire chapter. Cranfield 1979: 336–7). Correspondingly, Paul
romans 74

refers to ‘fruit for death’ as the product of ‘sinful v. 6, the contrast between ‘the old written
passions’ ‘at work in our members’ (v. 5). code’ and ‘the new life of the Spirit’ seems to
v. 5, two new and very important ideas are be dependent particularly upon the prophecy of
introduced. The first concerns life ‘in the flesh’. the future covenant in Jer 31:31–4. In contrast
Up until now, ‘flesh’ (sarx) has been used to to the Sinai covenant (‘which they broke’, v. 32),
refer to physicality: Jesus was descended from in the new order the law will not be taught
David ‘according to the flesh’ (1:3); Abraham is but rather will be written ‘on the hearts’ of
‘our ancestor according to the flesh’ (4:1; Paul God’s people (v. 33). Paul calls the law, literally,
returns to this usage in 9:3, 5). Now the term an ‘old/aged letter’ (palaiotēti grammatos), a title
takes on board a decidedly pejorative nuance. conveying (in line with the treatment of the old
(Paul’s use of sarx is the subject of numerous covenant in Jer 31) both decrepitude and exter-
scholarly studies; summaries may be found in nality. But that’s not all: the metaphor of slavery
TDNT vii. 98–151; Spicq 1994: 3:231–41; EDNT is picked up from the previous chapter and
3:230–3.) Being ‘in the flesh’ means being in the applied, not to sin, but to the law itself (see
(ordinary if not ‘natural’) state of human alien- Gal 4:22–31). vv. 4–6 ratchet up by several
ation from God. The one in the flesh here is notches Paul’s already negative treatment of
roughly equivalent to the ‘the old self’ of 6:6. the law. The law is no longer just an inadequate
While ‘fleshliness’ does include carnality (i.e. solution to the problem of sin; the law itself is
improper sensuality), its meaning is broader. the problem. Has not Paul come to the point
‘Flesh’ symbolizes ‘the weakness and appetites of equating the law, God’s law, with sin? He
of ‘‘the mortal body’’ ’ that were the causes of answers, ‘By no means!’ (v. 7). It is not really
sin (Dunn 1988: 370; cf. ‘sinful passions’ here). the law’s fault; sin is to blame. (That sin could be
The juxtaposition of flesh and Spirit (v. 6) does a responsible ‘party’ evidences a decided shift in
not evidence a true matter/spirit dualism, nor terminology.)
does it demonstrate that Paul was an ascetic The argument of v. 7 is familiar: the law
(see Käsemann 1980: 188–9). With respect to makes known, discloses, sin as sin (4:15; 5:13,
the last point, one might note that while Paul 20). The selection of the tenth commandment
himself was unmarried, he did not prohibit (against coveting, see 13:9) is intriguing since it
marriage, and at one point he even com- is one of the few OT commandments to pro-
manded married believers to continue sexual hibit an attitude. It is here that Paul comes
relations (1 Cor 7:3–5). Nevertheless, it would closest to locating sin in one’s internal states
be fair to say that physicality was, if not deni- (e.g. one sins by obeying the law for the wrong
grated, then at least held in some suspicion by reasons or by being proud of one’s obedi-
Paul (cf. Rom 8:10). He might have allowed for ence)—an attitude that generations of com-
Christian marriage, but 1 Cor 7:7–9, 28 is hardly mentators have attributed to him. It may be
a ringing endorsement. The second idea to be that Paul’s intuition drew him in this direction,
introduced in v. 5 is the notion that the law but that he lacked the conceptual tools that
causes (not only exposes or increases the culp- would have allowed him to construct such an
ability of) sin (see ROM 5:13–14). The contention argument. Such speculation should be tem-
that dormant passions are ‘aroused by the law’ pered by the fact that the idea, if present, is
anticipates (one might say, necessitates) the dropped in the next verse: sin now is an external
discussion in 7:7–20. Much the same idea has power that acts on the individual. The ‘wretched
appeared before, in 1 Cor 15:56: ‘The sting of self’ of vv. 14–25 is faulted for wrongful (in)
death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.’ action, not for wrongful thinking or feeling:
Law is the parental command not to raid the ‘I can will what is right, but I cannot do it . . . the
biscuit tin, an injunction that draws attention evil I do not want is what I do’ (vv. 18–19).
to and makes all the more desirable the very A more likely explanation is that Paul quoted
thing it prohibits. As the saying goes, stolen the coveting prohibition because he had in
fruit is sweetest. Nevertheless, one might dis- mind the temptation in the Garden (Gen 3:5–6;
pute whether law and sin are always thus re- see the discussion of Adam below): ‘ ‘‘For God
lated. Does prohibition inevitably increase knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be
desire, and does ‘sinful passion’ require a com- opened, and you will be like God, knowing
mandment to be stirred up? Moreover, are the good and evil.’’ So when the woman saw that
commands that Paul so often includes in his the tree was good for food, and that it was a
letters (as in Rom 12–14) somehow excluded delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be
from this dynamic? desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit
 75 romans

and ate.’ In Rom 6, sin was objectified as a The man who wrote, ‘as to righteousness
power to which one could yield (v. 13) and be under the law, [I was] blameless’ (Phil 3:6)
enslaved by (v. 16). The anthropomorphizing of and ‘I am not aware of anything against my-
sin is extended in 7:8–23. Twice sin is said to self’ (1 Cor 4:4) did not suffer from existential
have ‘seized an opportunity in the command- angst. The assignment for Rom 7 must have
ment’ (vv. 8, 11). The ultimate expression comes been something other than autobiography.
in v. 17: ‘It is no longer I that do it, but sin that The one character who qualifies on all counts
dwells within me’ (repeated in v. 20). It is as to be the speaker in 7:7–26 is Adam (see Stuhl-
though sin were a demonic being that over- macher 1994: 106–7), the archetypal human in
powers and possesses humans. The effect is to whom all others sinned (5:12–21). Speaking as
exonerate the law: it is not the law itself that Adam, Paul can return to the initiation of ‘law’,
provokes transgression, it is sin’s fault. Sin the giving of ‘the commandment’ (v. 9) in the
wrests control of the law and uses it as an Garden: ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the
instrument of death. The ‘I’ (as in ‘it is no longer tree . . . or you shall die’ (Gen 3:3). Writes Paul,
I that do it’), being ‘in the flesh’, is helpless ‘The very commandment that promised life
before such an onslaught. In 7:14–8:8, it is this proved death to me’ (v. 10). Instead of saving
weakness (and not the law, which is ‘holy, just, them from death, the prohibition was used to
and good’) that is the problem. The solution? lure them to death. The identification with
Believers are empowered to fulfil ‘the just re- Adam also explains the radical anthropo-
quirement of the law’ as they walk ‘not accord- morphizing of sin in this same section: sin
ing to the flesh but according to the Spirit’ (8:4; is like the serpent that ‘deceived’ Adam and
recall again Jer 31). Eve (v. 11; Gen 3:1, 4), enticing them to covet
Regarding Paul’s treatment of the law in the forbidden fruit. (They ate, desiring to be ‘as
Romans, Sanders comments (1983: 76) insight- God’, Gen 3:5. Note the description of Eve’s
fully that there is ‘an organic development with response in Gen 3:6.)
a momentum towards more and more negative vv. 14–24, if Paul is speaking in the place of
statements until there is a recoil in Romans 7, a unregenerate humanity, especially from the
recoil which produces other problems’. Among perspective of Adam, it follows that these verses
the difficulties: ‘The law could no longer be said do not describe the situation of believers. This is
to produce sin or to multiply transgression as not the way the passage is read by many
part of God’s overall plan [the typical view in scholars (e.g. Schlatter 1995: 160; Barrett 1957:
both Romans and Galatians], since the realm of 151–3), but it is the only interpretation that suits
sin is now considered entirely outside that plan’ the chapter’s larger context (cf. Dunn’s (1988:
(ibid. 73). Moreover, God is now credited with 387–99) attempt to resolve the conflict in
having provided a means for attaining life (v. 10; terms of eschatological tension). The status of
see 10:5) that was incapable of succeeding. In the individual in Rom 5:12–7:6 is either/or:
other words, if the law was given to produce either dead to sin or enslaved to sin, either in
transgression, the law is linked to sin (against the dominion of life or in the dominion of
which Paul ‘recoils’ in v. 7); however, if the law death. The same situation prevails in Rom 8:
was given by God to produce eternal life, it was either one is in the Spirit or one is in the flesh (v.
doomed to failure by human weakness (or sin’s 9). The Christian anthropology of Romans is
power). But how could God’s plan fail? not an essay in grey. The fault of the law in
There are good reasons for thinking that Paul Rom 7 is that it is powerless (as 8:8: ‘those in
himself is not the implied subject, the ‘I’, in 7:7–26. the flesh cannot please God’); it makes no sense
(Compare the universalized ‘I’ in e.g. 1 Cor 13). in the context of this argument that Paul would
Paul never lived ‘apart from the law’, ‘the describe believers in terms of the problem and
commandment’ did not ‘come’ in his lifetime not in terms of the solution. If 7:14–24 is a
(v. 9), nor was he ‘killed’ by sin (v. 11). More- description of believers, then what is 8:1–17?
over (and of considerable importance for the There is indeed a future ‘edge’ to Paul’s eschato-
interpretation of Paul), vv. 14–25 describe a logical perspective, but it is located elsewhere:
self-perception nearly the antithesis of Paul’s the expectation of 8:10–11 and 18–39 has noth-
own as evidenced in his letters (see ROM 2; ing to do with freedom from sin (already avail-
Stendahl 1963; Sanders 1983: 76–81). The state- able to believers); Paul awaits freedom from
ment of Acts 23:1, ‘up to this day I have lived sin’s corporeal and cosmic effects.
my life with a clear conscience before God’, is v. 25, the final sentence (‘So then . . . ’) makes
echoed in passages such as 2 Cor 1:12 and 4:2. the best claim to be a description of believers
romans 76

since it comes after Paul’s Christian thanksgiv- that Paul’s first argument against the Galatian
ing (v. 24). Some have argued that the verse is Judaizers concerns the presence of such charis-
simply out of order or that it was originally a mata amongst the Galatian converts prior to any
marginal gloss. ‘For it is scarcely conceivable law observance (Gal 3:1–5). (Note that Paul refers
that, after giving thanks to God for deliverance, synonymously to ‘the Spirit of God’ and ‘the
Paul should describe himself as being in exactly Spirit of Christ’ in v. 9. See ROM 1:1 above.)
the same position as before’ (Dodd 1932: 114–15). v. 3, the idea of Christ’s atonement, already
It is striking that the individual is characterized present in 3:24–5 and 5:6–9, is reintroduced.
as being a ‘slave’ to the law and to (‘the law of’) God ‘dealt with sin’, something that law, allied
sin, both ‘pre-Christian’ categories in Rom 5–6. to weak human ‘flesh’ (i.e. the powerless human
Moffatt paraphrases the verse: ‘Thus, left to my- will, as in 7:14–25), was incapable of doing. In
self, I serve . . . ’, which may capture Paul’s mean- the death of Jesus, God ‘condemned sin in the
ing. At very least, one’s assessment of v. 25 must flesh’, that is, the condemnation of v. 1 was
take account of 8:1–7. The person in ch. 7 is executed on Jesus, the only human (one ‘in . . .
‘with [the] flesh’ ‘a slave to the law of sin’, but flesh’) who was undeserving of such judgement.
the believer in ch. 8 is ‘not in the flesh’ (v. 9) and (He was ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’, that is, he
is ‘set free from the law of sin’ (v. 2)! Therefore, it was human without sinning. Cf. 2 Cor 5:21: ‘For
is possible in v. 25 that Paul describes a state to our sake he made him to be sin who knew no
which believers may revert; it is clear that it is sin, so that in him we might become the right-
not the state in which he expects believers to eousness of God.’ See also Phil 2:5–11.) As be-
remain. fore, Paul is more interested in celebrating the
atonement than in explaining its mechanics.
(8:1–17) The Law of the Spirit Having de- The difference between the two types of
scribed the dominion of death from which the existence is explained from the human side as
law offers no rescue, Paul turns his attention to a difference of fundamental disposition or dir-
the alternative existence previewed in 7:6, ‘the ection (vv. 5–11). One who lives ‘according to
new life of the Spirit’ experienced by those the flesh’ (vv. 5, 12; returning to the meaning of
‘discharged from the law’. The description in 7:14) has a mind set ‘on the things of the flesh’
8:1–17 is rich and densely packed, containing (vv. 5–6). What constitutes ‘the things of the
numerous themes that figure prominently in flesh’ is not specified, but it must mean some-
other Pauline texts. Freed from the law, one thing more than ‘earthly concerns’, such as the
lives beyond the reach of law’s penalty: con- provision of food and clothing (cf. ‘the deeds of
demnation (v. 1, as in 7:3). A new system or the body’ in v. 13). Such a mindset is ‘hostile to
principle, ‘the law of the Spirit of life in Christ God’; it does not—it cannot—‘submit to God’s
Jesus’ (in contrast to the old system, ‘the law of law’ or ‘please God’ (vv. 7–8). (As in v. 4, Paul
sin and of death’), now governs the believer’s assumes that believers are the only ones who
existence. ‘Life’ has a double meaning that cor- ‘do’ the law.) The best explication of the phrase
responds to the two ends of the eschatological is found in Rom 1:18–32, which vividly describes
spectrum: it is a new quality of existence already human nature at war with God. The essential
enjoyed (v. 10), and it is future, eternal existence sin is idolatry, the devotion to something as god
with God (vv. 11, 13). The Spirit effectuates both that is not God. Again, there is no middle
forms of life: in the present, the Spirit dwells in ground, no accommodation, no compromise.
believers (v. 9) and empowers them to fulfil ‘the Believers are on one side of the line and unbe-
just requirement of the law’ (v. 4) and to ‘put to lievers the other.
death the deeds of the body’ (v. 14); the Spirit By the logic of Paul’s argument, believers
leads believers (v. 14), witnesses to them that should now have the power to do what the
they are God’s children (v. 16), and ‘intercedes’ ‘wretched self’ of Rom 7 could not, namely,
for them ‘with sighs too deep for words’ (v. 26). obey the law. Nevertheless, the ‘just require-
In the future, God will raise believers to eternal ment of the law’ (equivalent to ‘the law of
life through the same Spirit (v. 11). More than God’ in v. 7) that they fulfil cannot be precisely
anything else, it is the Spirit that marks the equivalent to Torah since it does not include
dawning of the new age (the ‘dominion’ of such ‘optional extras’ as circumcision (1 Cor
grace; 5:21). According to Acts (10:44–11:18), the 7:19). The use of the singular (to dikaiōma) ‘brings
presence of spiritual gifts amongst Gentile out the fact that the law’s requirements are
Christians was the decisive consideration in essentially a unity’ (Cranfield 1979: 384). For
their admission to the church. It is instructive Paul, the will of God is present in but not
 77 romans

circumscribed by Torah. The commonplace dis- According to Gen 3:14–19, nature itself was
tinction between ‘the spirit’ and ‘the letter’ of corrupted by human sin and suffers sin’s
the law is not far from what Paul had in mind mournful consequences (see 4 Ezra 7:10–14).
(Rom 7:6). The ‘peaceable kingdom’ of Eden is no more.
v. 15, the mention of slavery recalls the dis- The poetry and power of 8:18–39 betoken the
cussion in 6:16–23 but also, more fully, Gal 4:1–9 magnitude of Paul’s discovery: no less than
and, especially with its connection to parentage, Paradise returned. God in Christ is not saving
21–31. ‘Abba’ (in Aramaic, an affectionate word individuals only; God is at the task of saving
for father) is associated with the prayer of Jesus creation, of swallowing up Adam’s entire loss in
(Mk 14:36); its presence in the Pauline epistles Christ’s complete victory. What is the source of
(here and Gal 4:6) is noteworthy. vv. 15–16 were Paul’s confidence? Christ’s resurrection (of
key to Wesley’s doctrine of ‘Christian assur- which Paul himself is a witness; Gal 1:16; 1 Cor
ance’, the idea that believers need not doubt 15:8), which is no less than the end of history
their standing with God, being inwardly assured placarded in the midst of history (1 Cor 15:20–6).
by the Spirit of their adoption (see also 9:1). Paul The Garden curse, death, has been broken and
is careful to show that adoption does not imply remains only to be shattered.
an ‘also-ran’ or second-class birthright; on the As already noted, the reader comes upon the
contrary, believers are fully ‘heirs of God’ and idea of suffering abruptly in v. 17, like fine print
even ‘joint heirs with Christ’ (v. 17; cf. v. 29); that at the end of a contract. He or she may be left
is, by identifying with Christ, they participate second-guessing: Is this ‘inheritance’ worth its
fully in the benefits won by Christ. Paul does price? Paul is quick to put matters into perspec-
not mean to imply that believers are equal in tive: seen aright, present suffering is impropor-
every way to Christ. tionate to future glory. To know things as they
v. 17, the section concludes quite unexpectedly: are one must recognize the scope of the drama
[we are] ‘heirs . . . if . . . we suffer’. This sudden shift in which one participates and the scale of the
to minor key signals the presence of the antag- denouement for which one hopes. Present suf-
onist, death. Although sin has been overcome, its fering is not merely local; it is cosmic. Future
ravages, its legacy remain. (‘The present time’—ho glory is not merely personal; it is universal. All
nun kairos, v. 18—is the label Paul gives to this history turns on the events of recent years, all
‘time between the times’.) The comments made in creation awaits their completion, and Paul and
connection with 5:3 (‘we . . . boast in our suffer- his readers are at the epicentre of both. In one
ings’), apply here: for Paul, the shape of Christian sense, the weight of the entire cosmos is on
life was cruciform (‘we suffer with him’; see also their shoulders; in another, the entire cosmos
ROM E.4). True spirituality is dangerous and costly cheers them on. Thus Rom 8:18–39 provides
(1 Thess 3:4). Paul’s difficult experiences with the both explanation and incentive. One may better
church at Corinth (where he now writes) may accept suffering if one knows its origin and
well have prompted the inclusion of this amend- anticipates its cessation. All the more, one
ment (cf. 1 Cor 4:8–13). ‘Glory’ and its cognates are may accept (even ‘boast of’, 5:3) suffering that
used 180 times in the NT (cf. 1:23; 2:7, 10; 3:7, 23; advances some great cause. Rhetorically, 8:18–
4:20; 5:2; 6:4; 8:18, 21; 9:4, 23; 11:36; 15:6–9; 16:27; 39 is not unlike the stirring speech delivered by
see TDNT ii. 247–54; EDNT 1:344–9). The linkage (Shakespeare’s) King Henry V to encourage his
between suffering and glory is typically Jewish outnumbered troops to face the French at Agin-
(Stuhlmacher 1994: 132) and is made in a number court (‘We few, we happy few, we band of
of other NT writings (e.g. Lk 24:26; Eph 3:13; Heb brothers’, Henry V, 1v. iii).
2:9–10; 1 Pet 1:11; 4:13; 5:1, 10). Paul says that creation (the natural world) is
‘groaning in labour pains’, an image that evokes
(8:18–39) The Creation’s Eager Longing To both the curse (in God’s words to Eve) and the
the woman . . . [God] said,j ‘I will greatly increase promise of its reversal (new life). v. 23 captures
your pangs in childbearing;j in pain you shall the resultant eschatological tension: ‘we . . . who
bring forth childrenj . . . ’ And to the man . . . [God] have the first fruits of the Spirit [the Spirit’s
said, j’ ‘ . . . cursed is the ground because of you; j in many benefits, mentioned above], groan in-
toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; wardly’. Believers are now children of God
j thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; j (v. 14), possessing ‘a spirit of adoption’ (v. 15),
and you shall eat the plants of the field. j By the yet they must ‘wait for adoption, the redemp-
sweat of your face you shall eat bread j . . . you are tion of . . . [their] bodies’ (v. 23). It is interesting
dust, and to dust you shall return.’ that v. 24 contains the only past tense form of
romans 78

the verb ‘to save’ (esōthēmen) in any of the undis- present age, and the suffering of persecution
puted Pauline epistles: literally, ‘we were saved in particular, cannot thwart God, who uses
in hope.’ Hope requires both object and absence. even these to accomplish the divine purpose.
vv. 18–25 testify to a profound hope fuelled by Paradoxically, Paul assumes both that God
the certainty and desirability of its object and predestined humans to a certain fate and that
the profundity of its absence. humans are responsible for that fate. Rom 9:14–
v. 20, the identity of ‘the one who subjected’ 26 shows that he knows the obvious objection—
the creation to futility is the topic of intense how can humans be held responsible for God’s
debate. The likely candidate is again Adam, the actions?—and that he does not possess a rational
consequences of whose sin surely underlie the answer. Instead, he responds, ‘Who are you, a
reflections of the entire paragraph. But did human being, to argue with God?’ (9:20). Here as
Adam subject the creation to futility ‘in hope’? elsewhere in the NT, predestination is not men-
A variety of attempts have been made to get to tioned abstractly; it usually functions either
grips with this odd phrase. For example, Cran- as assurance (as in Rom 8) or as theodicy (as in
field (1979: 414) wrote that ‘The creation was not Rom 9; really another form of assurance). The
subjected to frustration without any hope . . . essential point is that, despite all appearances to
Paul possibly had in mind the promise in Gen the contrary (the ‘all things’ of v. 28), God has
3.15 that the woman’s seed would bruise the everything under control.
serpent’s head (cf. Rom 16.20)’. An alternative As was mentioned in connection with ROM
solution is to regard the entire phrase ‘for the 1:16, ‘justification’ in Romans combines two
creation . . . who subjected it’ as a parenthesis, ideas: that God credits to believers the status
and attach the final two words of v. 20, ‘in of righteousness and that God empowers be-
hope’, to the next phrase, as does NRSV (the lievers to live righteously. Both meanings may
original Greek text did not contain punctu- be present in v. 29: it is God’s purpose that
ation; where phrases or even sentences begin believers ‘be conformed to the image of his
and end is by no means certain). Thus, v. 21 may Son’. Certainly, this means sharing in future
complete the thought of v. 19: ‘For the creation glory, being one ‘within a large family’ (cf. 1
waits . . . in hope that [‘or because’] the creation Cor 15:20). ‘Image’ (eikōn), echoing the creation
itself will be set free . . . ’ account of Gen 1 (v. 26), invites an additional
It is possible that the phenomenon described and fuller interpretation, that believers already
in vv. 26–7 is the gift of tongues, which Paul share the character of Christ.
describes in 1 Cor 14:15 as ‘praying with the The entirety of Rom 1–8 reaches its climax in
spirit’. The statement that ‘God . . . knows what vv. 31–9. Paul’s speech is fittingly dramatic,
is the mind of the Spirit’ could refer to the fact harking back again (ROM 1:16) to Isa 50:7–8
that tongues were unintelligible to the human (LXX; trans. Hays 1989: 59–60): ‘I know that I
speaker. (According to 1 Cor 14:3, the one speak- shall by no means be put to shame, j Because
ing in tongues ‘utters mysteries with his [her] the One who justified me draws near. j Who
spirit’.) It is also possible that ‘untterable groan- enters into judgment with me? j Let him con-
ings’ (stenagmois alalētois, v. 26) refers, literally, to front me. j Indeed, who enters into judgment
inarticulate moans. This interpretation takes with me? j Let him draw near to me. j Behold,
into account the fact that vv. 26–7 assume uni- the Lord helps me. j Who will do me harm?’ By
versal applicability, whereas, by Paul’s own way of encouragement to his readers, Paul
account, all did not speak in tongues (1 Cor wrote earlier of the disproportion between pre-
12:4–11). On the other hand, it should be said sent tribulation and future glory (vv. 18–25). To
that the second reading has more difficulty the same end, he now writes of the dispropor-
explaining the repeated assertion that the Spirit tion between earthly appearance and spiritual
‘intercedes’ on behalf of the saints. An unrelated reality. For believers, the one true indicator of
issue concerns the degree of separation between their position is the love of God demonstrated
God and Spirit in Paul’s description (e.g. ‘God in the cross of Christ. (v. 32 is especially poign-
knows what is the mind of the Spirit’; see Dunn ant because it borrows language from the story
1988: 479–80). of the binding of Isaac in Gen 22: ‘you have not
v. 28 does not promise that only good things withheld your son, your only son’ (v. 12); Cran-
will happen to ‘those who love God’. In the field 1979: 436. In Rom 8:32, God makes the
larger context of vv. 18–39, and the immediate sacrifice that even Abraham was ‘spared’; note
context of vv. 29–30, the sentence probably the verbal echoes of Gen 22:12 in Rom 8:32.)
means that the woes that characterize the With this datum, the ‘everything else’ of v. 32 is
 79 romans

assured. No condemnation is more persuasive Israel. It is evident that this answer was not fully
than Christ’s intercession, no deprivation, no persuasive even to Paul. The word of God might
sovereignty, no distance a greater reality. ‘In all not entirely have ‘failed’ (v. 6), but Jewish Chris-
these things we are more than conquerors tianity remained a disconcertingly small suc-
through him who loved us.’ It is a glorious cess. Paul’s second answer locates the solution
vision. outside present history (and therefore beyond
the thwarted historical means of the Church’s
God’s Righteousness Evident in the Treatment Jewish mission): at the return of Christ, ‘all Is-
of Israel (9:1–11:36) rael’, even ‘disobedient’ Israel, will be saved
(11:25–36). In this belief, Paul finds a solution to
(9:1–5) Paul’s Lament over Israel In first eight the problem of God’s apparent unrighteous-
chapters of Romans the Protestant Reformers ness: God, being God, must save Israel.
found the answer to their urgent question, ‘How Paul’s remarks in vv. 1–5 appear to reflect Ex
shall we be saved?’ Ironically, their close identi- 32:30–4, Moses’ offer to be ‘blotted out of the
fication with Paul worked both to popularize book’ for the sake of the Israelites, who had
and to obscure Paul’s distinctive theological ‘sinned a great sin’ in constructing the golden
contribution. In assuming common cause with calf at Sinai. (The Sinai incident also might be in
Paul, they tended to project onto Paul their own view in Paul’s description of human idolatry
struggles with disconsolate conscience and dis- and rebellion in ROM 1:18–32). Not long before,
approving Catholicism. So Romans came to be in 2 Cor 3:4–11, Paul explicitly contrasted (his)
viewed as a kind of personal salvation manual, a Christian ministry with that of Moses at Sinai.
road-map for guilty, lost souls in search of a This same historical referent might have en-
forgiving, gracious God. One consequence was couraged Paul to begin speaking of the ‘Israel-
the orphaning of the remainder of the epistle, ites’ (v. 4 and more generally in these three
especially chs. 9–11, whose interest in the fate of chapters) instead of the ‘Jews’. ‘Israel’ and ‘Israel-
Israel was scarcely an ongoing or pivotal Chris- ite’ are in any case the terms better suited to his
tian concern. Recent biblical scholarship has argument; they allow Paul to treat past and
been more successful at placing Rom 9–11 present Judaism as a whole, they signal continu-
where it properly belongs, at the centre (or, ity with previous ‘covenant communities’, and
rhetorically, at the climax) of Paul’s argument. they provide the common conceptual thread
The concern of Romans is not so much to that runs through a series of arguments con-
explain justification by faith in Christ as to cerning the identity of God’s true people.
explain how such a soteriological system up- In 3:1, Paul asked, ‘Then what advantage has
holds God’s righteousness, especially God’s the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?’
righteousness towards non-Christian Israel. His answer, ‘Much in every way,’ was ambigu-
Thus, deprived of chs. 9–11 Romans would be ous. The only specific instantiation was Israel’s
gravely deficient; indeed, without reading to the entrustment with ‘the oracles of God’ (3:2).
section’s surprising conclusion in 11:25–36, one In vv. 4–5, Paul returns to the question, this
might wonder truly if unbelieving Israel’s pre- time offering a significantly longer list of priv-
sent status does not expose ‘unrighteousness on ileges, the ultimate of which is to provide (by
God’s part’ (9:14). earthly descent, ‘according to the flesh’) the
Moving from 8:39 to 9:1 is like walking off a world with its Messiah. The most unexpected
precipice; having scaled the resplendent heights item in the list is ‘adoption’, which in just
of ch. 8, one drops by a single step to the the previous chapter had a distinctly—and
shadowy depths of ch. 9. ‘I have great sorrow uniquely—Christian nuance (8:15, 23; cf. Gal 4:5).
and unceasing anguish in my heart’ (v. 2). Why Presumably, Paul now refers to something differ-
sorrow if nothing is able ‘to separate us from ent, most likely to God’s ‘adoption’ of Israel in the
the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (8:39)? Exodus (as in Ex 4:22; Hos 11:1). It is interesting to
Because it appears that Israel is not among the note how such points of continuity both
‘us’, that Israel is alienated from God’s love. This strengthen and weaken Paul’s argument. On the
is an intolerable conclusion against which Paul one hand, God’s work of universal adoption in
mobilizes two basic arguments. First, he con- Christ may be seen to be consistent with (and
tends that now as in the past, only a portion of therefore made credible by) God’s previous action
Israel has been elect or faithful; therefore, one in adopting Israel; on the other hand, to the extent
ought not to regard the present case as being that Israel already is adopted, it ought not to
exceptional either from the side of God or of require readoption. For this reason, when Paul
romans 80

defends the necessity of Christ, as logically he is to recognize that Paul does not maintain this
forced to do, his argument must lean heavily to position unvaryingly; in 11:25–32, he will argue
the side of discontinuity. Jews cannot have any for the salvation of unbelieving Israel based
actual advantage with respect to salvation if Jews upon its continued election. (‘For the gifts and
and Gentiles are both equally in need of Christ. calling of God are irrevocable’, 11:29.)
The enumeration of divine blessings leads Paul is not making the point that physical
Paul into doxology: ‘God, who is over all, is descent from Abraham in itself is insufficient
blessed forever. Amen’ (v. 5). The original to save. For Paul, lineage is simply irrelevant to
Greek text did not include punctuation, which salvation. Rom 9 harks back to the argument of
makes it possible to translate the phrase appo- Rom 4, where Paul stated that Abraham’s true
sitionally, i.e. as an explanatory remark con- descendants are not the ‘adherents of the law’
cerning Christ (e.g. the NRSV’s ‘ . . . the Messiah, but those who ‘share in the faith of Abraham’
who is over all, God blessed forever’). Despite (4:14–16). The contrast between ‘children of the
Paul’s generally high Christology (ROM 1:1–5), it is flesh’ and ‘children of the promise’ in v. 8 sets up
very unlikely that he would have referred to an analogous human-way v God’s-way dichot-
Christ as ‘God over all’. Some commentators omy. The major difference is that Paul’s argu-
note by way of contrast 1 Cor 15:24–8, in ment in vv. 6–13 only indirectly concerns
which Paul states that Christ himself ‘will also Gentiles. (In v. 24, he will again include Gentiles
be subjected to the one who put all things in explicitly as part of God’s people, although he
subjection under him, so that God may be all in all’ does not employ the idea of ‘promise’, as he did
(my emphasis; Dunn 1988: 535–6). in Rom 4.) The issue is whether ‘fleshly’ Israel in
toto is the Israel for and in whom God must be
(9:6–29) God’s Consistency Evident in the shown to have acted faithfully. For Paul, at least
Election of True Israel Once again, the issue in the context of this argument, it is not.
of God’s righteousness is front and centre. ‘It is v. 13, the severe statement ‘I have loved Jacob,
not as though the word of God had failed’ (v. but I have hated Esau’ (Mal 1:2–3; see HBC 1155,
6). The ‘word of God’ refers broadly to God’s on the original, probably less extreme, sense of
promises to Abraham and through him to his this verse) pointedly raises the question of God’s
descendants (see 4:13–25). Why might one justice (vv. 14–29). Paul’s first answer (citing Ex
argue that this ‘word’ had failed? Because com- 33:19) is that it is no injustice to be merciful, to
paratively few who now recognize and experi- treat some people better than they deserve. The
ence its fulfilment in Christ are Abraham’s issue is not God’s just or unjust response to
offspring. The Jews, who ought to be first human goodness (v. 16); election is a gracious
and foremost, appear to be last and least (cf. gift, not an achievable reward. Even the hard-
1:16). Has God’s plan for Israel been thwarted? ening of Pharaoh’s heart (vv. 17–18) was done to
It cannot be so. Paul argues that the divine advance the cause of God’s salvation (Ex 9:16).
promises to Abraham were fulfilled by Of course, things might look different from the
the election of only a portion of Abraham’s perspective of Pharaoh or Ishmael or Esau.
natural descendants. God chose Isaac over Ish- Granted that election is undeserved, why elect
mael, Abraham’s first born. One might object some and not others? The problem is intensified
that of the two sons only Isaac had the right by positing a ‘reverse election’ in which God
of succession, being the sole child of Sarah, hardens the hearts of the wicked. How can
Abraham’s wife. Such a protest is impossible, God find fault for what God has caused (vv.
however, in the case of Abraham’s grandson 18–19)? This is a problem with a very long his-
Jacob, whose elder brother was his twin (see tory in Judaism. The belief in the omnipotence
Gen 25:19–34). The word of God was not frus- of the one true God may lead to (or, inversely,
trated by the ‘failure’ of Ishmael and Esau to may be guided by) the conviction that God
obtain their natural birthright. It was through exerts control over all human circumstances.
the second born, the true ‘children of promise’, Thus the Exodus narrative states repeatedly
Isaac and Jacob, that God’s plan was fulfilled. both that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex
The reference in vv. 27–9 to the remnant of 8:14, 32; 9:34; etc.) and that God hardened Phar-
Israel (Isa 10:22–3) makes much the same point aoh’s heart (4:21; 7:3; 9:12; etc.). The same per-
(see 11:1–5): God’s choice of a part of Israel is spective is evidenced in passages such as Deut
well precedented; so among contemporary 2:30, Josh 11:20, 1 Sam 6:6, and—most poign-
Jews it is the Christian believers who are the antly in reference to Israel itself—Isa 63:17:
elect descendants of Abraham. It is important ‘Why, O LORD, do you make us stray from
 81 romans

your ways and harden our heart, so that we do Paul it is a transfer term . . . Thus when Paul says that one
not fear you?’ cannot be made righteous by works of law, he means
God’s omnipotence is affirmed by means of that one cannot, by works of law, ‘transfer to the body
of the saved.’ When Judaism said that one is righteous
the potter metaphor (Isa 29:16; 45:9–13; Jer 18:6;
who obeys the law, the meaning is that one thereby
Wis 15:7). The potter has sovereign right over stays in the covenant.
the clay, not the reverse. It is significant that
Paul links this idea to a statement about God’s Within Judaism, one did not obey the law in the
unexpected patience towards the wicked (vv. hope of transferring from one people (unright-
22–3; see Wis 11:21–12:22). If God is both just eous, unsaved) to another (righteous, saved).
and powerful (as powerful as a potter over a Paul’s faith/law antithesis presupposes that
lump of clay), why do the wicked exist, much Jews were trying (and failing) by means of the
less flourish? The assertion of God’s omnipo- law to attain a status (‘righteous’ ¼ being
tence underlies all theodicy; if God controls ‘saved’) that could be conferred only by faith
human action, then human evil itself must ori- in Christ. Thus the juxtaposition of law and
ginate in God. Negating this conclusion re- Christ as rival means of salvation is problem-
quires a limiting of God’s omnipotence (often atic; normally, the two serve different functions
imagined as a divine self-limitation: here, for in different systems. From the side of Judaism, it
example, judgement is forestalled temporarily is an apples-and-oranges comparison; however,
by God’s patience; see also 2:4; Neh 9:30; 1 Pet from Paul’s side, with the controversy at Galatia
3:17; and 2 Pet 3:9, 15). The problem is as old as fresh in mind, the opposition between faith in
the book of Job and remains as intractable. Christ and works of the law was as straightfor-
Paul’s answer is reminiscent of that of Job’s ward as the distinction between chalk and
latter chapters: ‘Who indeed are you, a human cheese (see ROM E.3). One should note how read-
being, to argue with God?’ Logically, this is no ily and frequently a difference in theological
answer at all; instead, it is a roundabout affirm- nuance or emphasis is transformed polemically
ation that God can be trusted. This faithful God into an antithesis. A modern example is the
indeed has done what was promised, calling a contention on the part of some conservative
people out from among Gentiles (vv. 25–6) and Christians that unlike other churchgoers, they
Jews (vv. 27–9) alike. In sum, if much of ‘natural’ do not practise ‘religion’ but rather experience a
Israel is not included in true Israel, it cannot ‘relationship’ with God. Outsiders might regard
mean that God has failed. Then whose fault the religion/relationship antithesis as quite odd:
is it? even the most experientially oriented Christian-
ity is still a religion; certainly others (including
(9:30–10:21) Israel’s Failure Explained In a other Christians) affirm relationship with God.
sense, 9:6–29 explained Jewish unbelief ‘from For insiders, however, the dichotomy helps to
above’, that is, from the perspective of God’s account for the existence of (so-called) Chris-
purpose and election. What follows is an ex- tians who reject the group’s distinctive claims.
planation ‘from below’, an account of Israel’s Such persons can be dismissed as ‘unbelievers’
response and hence responsibility. Several of who strive misguidedly through ‘religion’ to
Paul’s statements in this section are difficult to know God. Similarly, Jews who for varying
untangle, but the essential point seems clear reasons reject Christian claims can be depicted
enough: Gentiles happened effortlessly upon as formalistic law-keepers without faith. In
righteousness by believing the proclamation either case, what is offered is an insider’s acc-
concerning Christ. Jews, who had worked dili- ount of the rejection of those outsiders who
gently to be righteous, have rejected faith in ought to know better.
Christ, the only thing able to make them truly Paul’s first explanation of Israel’s fault, in vv.
righteous. For this error they have no excuse. 31–2, is notoriously ambiguous. One might have
The meaning of ‘righteousness’ is fundamen- expected Paul to say that ‘Israel had pursued but
tal to this passage and has been the subject of did not achieve righteousness’ (Cranfield 1979:
intense debate (see Ziesler 1989: 251–2). In large 507). Instead, Paul wrote that Israel ‘pursued a
part, the problem arises because Paul uses the law of righteousness’ but ‘did not arrive at’ (or
term in a distinctly new, Christian sense, even in ‘attain’) ‘law’. The meaning of ‘law’, ‘righteous-
reference to Judaism. Writes Sanders (1977: 544), ness’, ‘law of righteousness’, and ‘attain law’ in
v. 31 have been debated extensively with no
Righteousness in Judaism is a term which implies the resulting consensus. It is not even clear whether
maintenance of status among the group of the elect; in it was the ‘pursuit’ of law itself or the inability to
romans 82

‘attain’ (‘catch up with’, Fitzmyer 1993: 577) law on the force of de (‘but’) at the beginning of the
that Paul faults. If the former, Paul might be second sentence. If de signals a strong contrast
saying that Israel’s pursuit of ‘legal righteous- (again, between two forms of righteousness),
ness’ could not lead them to the law’s true goal then Paul is stating quite boldly that Moses
(as possibly in 10:4). If the latter, Paul might was wrong to assert that one could ‘live’ (in
mean that Israel attempted but failed to live Paul’s usage, the word probably refers to resur-
righteously according to the precepts of the rection life; see ROM 1:17) by doing the law. In
law. In either case, succeeding verses make favour of this interpretation one may cite Gal
clear that the actual fault of the Jews is their 3:12, which quotes Lev 18:5 to similar effect:
unbelief in Christ, whom they insensibly over- Moses’ words prove that ‘the law does not rest
looked (10:2–3), over whom they have stum- on faith’ but on ‘works’. One way of diminish-
bled (9:32–3, a combination of Isa 8:14 and ing the contrast between the two verses is to
28:16; the same idea is repeated in 11:9–12; 1 take the reference to ‘live’ in v. 5 in its original
Cor 1:23; and 1 Pet 2:6–8). As a result, they are sense, referring not to eternal life but rather to
characterized as being unsaved (10:1), ‘disobedi- ‘life sustained by God . . . in accordance with
ent and contrary’ (10:21), ‘broken off’, ‘cut off’, the . . . law’ (Dunn 1988: 612). But Rom 7:10
‘fallen’ (11:19, 22), and ‘hardened’ (11:7, 25). Their speaks of the commandment ‘that promised’
only hope is to ‘submit to God’s righteousness’ but could not deliver ‘life’; there (as possibly in
(10:3), which means specifically to believe in 10:5–6) it is not a question of two kinds of life
(10:4, 9, 11; 11:20, 23), call upon (10:13), and but of two means, one failed and the other
confess (10:9–10) Christ. successful, of attaining the one true, eternal
Phil 3:2–9 is a close parallel to Rom 10:1–4 life. Other interpreters find continuity, not con-
and helps to clarify Paul’s distinction between trast, in Paul’s statements. For example, Hays
the Jews’ ‘own righteousness’ and the righteous- (1989: 75–7) has argued that vv. 6–13 explain v.
ness imparted by God through Christ. In Phil 5 by indicating what ‘things’ one must do in
3:6, Paul says that ‘as to righteousness under the obedience to the law to find eternal life: namely,
law’, he was ‘blameless’, a statement in tension confessing, believing, and calling upon Christ.
with the interpretation of 9:31 that suggests that This view may be supported by the fact that
the Jews erred by failing to attain just such a Paul’s second quotation, which helps to estab-
status. In Phil 3, ‘one’s own’ righteousness lish the principle that ‘righteousness comes
‘under the law’ is rejected not because of its from faith’, is also from ‘Moses’ (Deut 30:12–14,
unattainability but because of its inferiority. followed by citations of Isa 28:16 and Joel 2:32).
Rom 10:1–4 may be much closer to this senti- It is instructive that those who do and those
ment than is Rom 1–7. While it is not stated who do not see a contrast between vv. 5 and 6
whether persons may succeed at ‘establishing link Paul’s argument to v. 4 (Christ as telos) in
their own’ righteousness, it is clear that their essentially opposite ways: the former empha-
attempt to do so misses the point. Another, sizes Christ as the law’s termination, the latter
superior kind of righteousness exists, in the Christ as the law’s goal.
face of which the lesser righteousness is only a Paul’s first two elaborations on Deut 30:12–14
distraction. Put differently, the problem is this: (‘that is, to bring Christ down’, ‘that is, to bring
Judaism is experienced as a complete, self-con- Christ up from the dead’, 10:6–7) provide ‘a
tained religious system that does not appear to scriptural exclusion of any contemplation of
require faith in Christ. One can be a superlative the kind of human effort the rival mode of
(‘zealous’, Phil 3:6; Gal 1:14; Rom 10:2) Jew—the righteousness would involve’ (Byrne 1996: 318).
pre-Christian Paul is Paul’s own pre-eminent One need not, indeed cannot, do what God has
example—and still be on the wrong side of done in Christ. The common obligation of Jews
the line. Essential for Paul is the belief that and Greeks is only to ‘believe’, ‘confess’, and ‘call
Judaism without Christ is unfinished, that the on the name of the Lord’.
law itself points to Christ as its ultimate goal 10:14–17, Paul returns to the matter of Israel’s
and fulfilment (v. 4, telos, probably in the sense fault. Can it be that Israel’s unbelief is occa-
both of intention and termination; Barrett 1957: sioned by simple ignorance? Do they fail to
197). Paul’s characterization of Judaism’s incom- call on Christ because they have not heard ‘the
pleteness varies; Paul’s conviction of its incom- word of Christ’ (vv. 17–18)? The ‘good news’ (Isa
pleteness does not. 52:7) has been delivered to them, but the report
Considerable debate has arisen over the rela- has not been received (also precedented
tionship between the key vv. 5 and 6, focusing in Isaiah: the nearby 53:2). Paul concludes his
 83 romans

argument by offering scriptural warrant for the ‘mystery’ (v. 25): Jewish obduracy has led to a
situation described in 9:30–1. Gentiles ‘who are reversal of the eschatological timetable. Now
not a nation’, ‘who did not seek’ God, have is the period of Gentile inclusion: ‘through
found God (Deut 32:21; Isa 65:1). By contrast, their stumbling salvation has come to the
Israel is a ‘disobedient and contrary people’ to Gentiles’ (v. 11); ‘their stumbling means riches
whom God’s hands have been extended in vain for the world’ (v. 12); ‘their rejection is the
(Isa 65:2). Thus, Paul would lay Israel’s fault, its reconciliation of the world’ (v. 15); ‘you (Gen-
unbelief in Christ, at Israel’s own feet. tiles) were once disobedient to God but have
now received mercy because of their [the Jews’]
(11:1–36) God’s Plan for Israel Once again, disobedience’ (v. 30, my emphasis). Precisely
Paul advances his argument with a rhetorical what Paul believed happened (or could have
question concerning God’s faithfulness and happened in its place) is not clear. He might
constancy. ‘Has God rejected his people?’ have imagined that Christ would have
vv. 1–10 reiterate the answers provided in returned already had the mission to Israel suc-
ch. 9. That only a remnant of physical Israel is ceeded. It is worth noting that the same train
true Israel is precedented in Jewish history, in of thought is evident in Acts: the Jews are
this case, in the example of Elijah and the seven given a chance to repent with the promise of
thousand (1 Kings 19). God has not spurned this Christ’s return (e.g. 3:17–21); increasingly, they
Israel, that is, the portion of Israel ‘whom he reject the apostles’ message, resulting ultim-
foreknew’ (v. 2) and elected (v. 7). Again, Paul ately in the martyrdom of Stephen (ch. 7), a
speaks of God graciously choosing some and of direct consequence of which is the spread of
God hardening others (vv. 5–7; see 9:6–18), Christianity to the Gentiles (11:19–26). This
which Paul again defends by means of scrip- same pattern—Jewish rejection leading to
tural citation (vv. 8–10; Deut 29:4; Isa 29:10; Gentile opportunity—occurs repeatedly in
Ps 69:22–3; see 9:17, 25–9; cf. the similar use of the accounts of Paul’s missionary activity in
Isa 6:9–11 in both the synoptic tradition, e.g. Mk Acts (e.g. 13:13–52; 18:1–8; 28:17–28).
4:12, and John, e.g. Jn 12:40). v. 25, the period of Gentile evangelization is
v. 11, the shift in Paul’s argument here is impermanent: ‘a hardening has come upon part
immensely important. Imagine that chs. 9–11 of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles
had ended at 11:10: ‘let their eyes be darkened has come in’. After the mission to the Gentiles is
so that they cannot see, and keep their backs complete, God will act to bring faith to Israel
forever bent’. In that case, Paul might with good and to complete the eschatological drama: ‘So
reason be regarded as a thoroughgoing Chris- all Israel will be saved; as it is written, ‘‘The
tian supersessionist. ‘Israel failed to obtain what Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish
it was seeking’ (v. 7), and so Israel has been set ungodliness from Jacob’’; ‘‘and this will be my
aside in favour of the church. The fact that Paul covenant with them when I take away their
has been read this way for centuries amply sins’’ ’ (vv. 26–7, quoting Isa 59:20–1; 27:9).
demonstrates that Rom 11:11–36 has not been ‘What will their acceptance be but life from
given its due weight as the conclusion and cli- the dead!’ (v. 15). Interestingly, the author of
max, not only of Rom 9–11, but of the argument Luke–Acts also maintains the expectation of a
begun in 1:16–17 concerning the righteousness Jewish restoration following the Gentile mis-
of God. Paul asks, ‘Have they stumbled so as to sion (e.g. Acts 1:6–7; cf. the periodization of
fall?’ For the first time, the possibility is raised of history in Lk 21:24: ‘Jerusalem will be trampled
a future change in Israel’s status. Their present on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are
‘stumbling’ is not to be interpreted as a perman- fulfilled,’ my emphasis). Unfortunately, NT schol-
ent ‘fall’. As much as Paul wanted to justify the arship often has overlooked the presence of
present reality (e.g. through talk of an elect these ideas in Romans as well as in Luke–Acts.
remnant), he could not accept that reality as So, when all is said and done, God’s election
permanently justifiable. Here at last Paul offers of ‘all Israel’ stands (cf. ‘full inclusion’ in v. 12),
a strong answer to the persistent question con- and God’s righteousness is vindicated (vv. 29–
cerning God’s faithfulness towards Israel. 32). No details are offered concerning the con-
In conventional Jewish eschatological ex- stitution of ‘all Israel’. (All Jews at all times? All
pectation, Israel would first be restored, and Jews present at Christ’s return? Cf. Sanday and
then into that redeemed Israel would stream Headlam (1980: 335): ‘ ‘‘Israel as a whole, Israel
believing Gentiles (e.g. Isa 2:1–4; 42:1–9; 49; as a nation,’’ and not . . . necessarily including
55:4–5; 60:1–7; 66:18–23). Paul reveals this every individual Israelite.’) At very least, it is
romans 84

clear that this group includes many if not all trust in God’s trustworthiness. Disputation at
who are now, from Paul’s perspective, ‘disobedi- an end, Paul points to God’s future, believes in
ent’ (vv. 30–1) ‘ungodly’ (v. 26, a stunning char- God’s triumph, and worships.
acterization), and even ‘enemies of God’ (v. 28).
Unlike Gal 6:16, there is no possibility here that The Righteousness of God Evident in the Lives
Paul is referring to the church as (‘spiritual’) of Believers (12:1–15:13)
Israel. Ch. 11 contains two hints as to the (12:1–2) Introduction: The Renewal of Your
means of Israel’s eventual salvation. In vv. 11 Minds At 12:1, Romans turns from the con-
and 14 Paul returns to a point made by his ceptual and argumentative to the practical and
earlier quotation of Deut 32:21 (10:19): Israel didactic. This is a shift towards more typical
will become jealous of the Gentile believers Pauline content; anyone familiar with Paul’s
and repent. Perhaps this is sufficient means to Corinthian, Philippian, or Thessalonian corres-
win some to faith in Christ (11:13–14)—but ‘all pondence should feel at home in the ethical
Israel’? That will be accomplished by God dir- exhortations of chs. 12–15. Of course, Paul here
ectly (v. 23), apparently in anticipation or con- writes to a church that he neither founded nor
sequence of Christ’s return (v. 26; note the visited, a fact evidenced by the fairly general
eschatologically oriented vv. 12 and 15). More nature of his paraenesis (see ROM C, on the lack
than that Paul does not say. of contingency in Romans).
vv. 17–24, Paul’s understanding of the rela- Paul has laboured to defend God’s righteous-
tionship between Gentile believers and Israel is ness, in part through attributing to believers a
explicated by means of the olive tree metaphor. righteousness unrealized by the now antiquated
The Gentiles have no true root in themselves; means of law obedience. But it is one thing to
they are wild branches grafted into an already speak loftily of fulfilling ‘the just requirement of
existing, carefully cultivated olive tree. True, the law’ by ‘walking according to the Spirit’
they now occupy the place of natural olive (8:2–4); it is quite another to mark out the
branches (Jews) pruned because of their fruit- steps for such a journey. What does this new
lessness (their unbelief), but they have no cause righteousness look like in everyday practice?
to be proud. The present situation is temporary: Paul provides an illustrative, not exhaustive,
natural branches will be grafted back in, and answer in these few chapters.
some wild branches may yet be ‘broken off’. God’s extraordinary mercy was described in
It should be said that the ‘mystery’ revealed in 11:30–2. What then is the fitting (‘logical’, logikos)
11:11–32 does not follow logically from 1:1–11:10. human response (‘service’ or ‘worship’, latreia,
Stopping at 11:10, one would conclude that only 12:1)? It is to present oneself wholly to God,
a small remnant of Israel is or ever will be saved. from whom and through whom and in whom
The church’s mission to the Jews failed, and that are all things (11:36). Offering ‘your bodies a
is that. But present appearances belie ultimate living sacrifice’ connotes giving oneself con-
realities (cf. 8:31–9). The resolution to Paul’s tinuously and entirely. Any lesser response mis-
‘sorrow and unceasing anguish’ (9:2) is found prizes the greatness of God’s own offering.
at length in his trust in the eschatological tri- The eschatological context of Pauline ethics
umph of God’s righteousness. The issue finally is immediately evident. v. 2 begins, literally, ‘Do
is decided, not by reason, but by faith. not be conformed to this age.’ Paul vividly char-
Fittingly, Paul’s disclosure of the divine plan acterized the old order in Rom 1:18–32; humans
leads him to doxology (vv. 33–6), an expression had ‘became futile in their thinking, and their
of awe at the greatness of God who uses even senseless minds were darkened’ (1:21). The new,
‘disobedience’ to produce ‘mercy’ (vv. 30–1). Of eschatological righteousness overmasters
course, it is not God’s inscrutability or power humanity’s ancient, fallen nature: believers
alone that compels Paul’s adoration; above all, it experience a ‘renewal of . . . [their] minds, so
is God’s righteousness that is proved in God’s that . . . [they] may discern what is the will of
‘ways’ and ‘judgments’. In coming to understand God—what is good and acceptable and per-
God’s mysterious plan for Israel, Paul has fect’ (12:2b). For Paul, it is no less than a return,
looked behind the veil and glimpsed ‘riches’, a ‘conforming’ to the original order, the re-
‘wisdom’, and ‘knowledge’ beyond human cal- creation of human minds not ‘subjected
culation. Paul’s ‘hymn of adoration’ (Dunn 1988: to futility’ (8:20; cf. ‘new creation’ in Gal 6:15;
697) crowns chs. 9–11 in much the way that 2 Cor 5:17). Paul does not expect his readers to
8:31–9 concluded chs. 1–8. Both passages affirm obtain such an exalted capability on their own.
with rhetorical beauty and force the apostle’s Rather, he believes that as possessors of the
 85 romans

Spirit, they are already equipped to live lives and to ‘live peaceably with all’; immediately
‘holy and acceptable to God’ (12:1; see 8:1–17). after, he adjured them not to seek revenge
Paul asks only that they be what they truly are: (12:16, 18–19). A discussion of civil authority
righteous. follows naturally if not necessarily from these
remarks. It may be that Paul’s comments reflect
(12:3–21) Exhortations for the Christian Com- concern over behaviour that had contributed to
munity It is obvious that the recent Galatian the expulsion of the Jews (including Christian
controversy influenced Paul’s discussion of the Jews; see Acts 18:2) from Rome only a few years
law in Rom 1–8. Less noticed is the impact of before (see ROM B. 3).
Paul’s difficulties with the church at Corinth upon Does Christian conversion, the submission to
Rom 12–15. Note that Paul’s first exhortation is to God’s rule, release one from civil authority? It is
humility and Christian unity—not surprising, as reasonable to suppose that one who lives in a
he writes from Corinth, the native habitat of new age is free of the old age. But one cannot
spiritual pride and factional division (see 1 Cor live only in the new aeon; on earth the ages
1–4). It is a sermon well rehearsed: vv. 3–8 are overlap. God’s dominion is not entirely real-
closely paralleled by 1 Cor 12:12–28. A major ized; believers’ hearts are not wholly submitted
difference is the list of gifts in vv. 6–8, which is (hence Paul’s admonishment in 12:2). One might
more mundane than that found in 1 Cor 12:28. regard government as an expedient necessitated
(Rom 12 includes gifts of exhortation, generosity, by human sin; even so, it is apparent that Chris-
and compassion but not deeds of power, heal- tians do not yet live so distant from the Fall as
ings, and tongues. In Romans the gifts are not to make obsolete government’s corrective func-
linked specifically to the activity of the Spirit, and tion. And predating the fallen, evil order is the
the corporation of Christians is not referred to as original, beneficent order of creation (see Rom
‘the body of Christ.’) Paul again counters disunity 1:18–20). Is government a temporarily sanc-
by challenging individual status seeking, but, out- tioned accommodation or an eternally man-
side of Corinth, he does not locate the problem dated institution? Like Jesus in Mk 12:17, Paul
specifically in the flaunting of spiritual gifts. does not deal explicitly with these questions;
The listing of maxims, as in vv. 9–21, is charac- nevertheless, his words invalidate some an-
teristic of ancient paraenesis and is a feature com- swers, such as regarding government as
monly found near the conclusion of Paul’s letters human invention or satanic usurpation.
(e.g. 1 Thess 5:12–22; Phil 4:4–9). Probably Paul Few if any passages in the Pauline corpus
draws from no one source but rather from the have been more subject to abuse than vv. 1–7.
broad stream of Christian ethical teaching, Paul does not indicate that one is required to
incorporating elements of the Jesus tradition, obey public officials under all circumstances,
Jewish wisdom literature, and Graeco-Roman nor does he say that every exercise of civil
philosophy (Byrne 1996: 375). A unifying element authority is sanctioned by God. No particular
is supplied by v. 9a: ‘love is genuine’ (anupokritos; government is authorized; no universal aut-
lit. unhypocritical). (Contrary to NRSV, there is archy is legitimated. Instead, Paul reiterates the
no imperative verb.) The discussion of the body common Jewish view that human governance
of Christ in 1 Cor 12 was also followed (in the operates under God’s superintendency (Jn 19:11;
justly celebrated ch. 13) by an appeal to agapē, love. Dan 2:21; Prov 8:15–16; Isa 45:1–3; Wis 6:3), that
It is love alone that curbs self-assertion and so it is part of the divine order and so is meant for
makes unity possible (Phil 2:2; 1 Pet 3:8). Accord- human good (1 Pet 2:13–14; Ep. Arist. 291–2).
ingly, the whole of vv. 9b–13 is sometimes read as Paul’s view of and desire for order is also paral-
a description of ‘unhypocritical love in action’ leled in 1 Corinthians. Paul responded to the
(Achtemeier 1985: 198). Perhaps this is too tidy a chaos of Corinthian worship by arguing that
summarization of Paul’s wide-ranging admon- ‘God is a God not of disorder but of peace’
itions; nevertheless, it is certain that Paul regarded (14:33) and so commended his followers to do
love as the pre-eminent and finally only necessary ‘all things’ ‘decently and in order’ (14:40). Here
command, a point he makes explicitly in 13:8–10 Paul advises a new group of readers to find
(and in continuity with passages such as Mk peace by submitting to proper order (cf. 1 Cor
12:28–34; Mt 5:43–8; 19:19; Jn 13:34–5; 15:12–17; Jas 16:16). It is striking that Paul treated with such
2:8; 1 Jn 3:11, 23; 4:21; and 2 Jn 5). optimism the very Roman authority by which
he himself was eventually martyred. The pre-
(13:1–7) Christians and Civil Authority Paul sentation in Rom 13 has often been contrasted
commended his readers to ‘live in harmony’ with that of Rev 13, in which Rome is portrayed
romans 86

as a diabolical beast whose ‘authority’ is exer- darkness preceding the dawn. Recognizing
cised in making ‘war on the saints’ (v. 7). Rom 13 that ‘the night is far gone’ (v. 12), one rouses
and Rev 13 are not quite opposites; Paul is not oneself, lays aside the secret, shameful ‘works
attempting to account for the reality depicted in of darkness’ (detailed in v. 13), dresses in
Revelation. Nevertheless, the near demoniza- ‘the armour of light’ (v. 12, i.e. by behaving
tion of the state in Revelation may be a healthy righteously), and stands ready before the app-
canonical counterbalance to its near idealiza- roaching day.
tion in Romans. But both Paul and the author In 12:2, Paul asked his readers to act as those
of Revelation share common ground in assert- already inhabiting a new age, to live up to their
ing God’s final authority over human affairs, high spiritual standing in Christ. The argument
humanity’s ultimate allegiance to God, and is reminiscent of 6:1–5: Christians are in a fun-
God’s eventual victory over every opposing damentally new position, already having died to
‘ruler, authority, and power’ (1 Cor 15:24–5). sin. So, ‘How can we who died to sin go on
Rom 13:1–7 is not easy to live with, but neither living in it?’ (6:2). In vv. 11–14 we find much the
would the opposing alternative be. same idea. One who lives ‘as in the day’ makes
‘no provision for the flesh’, gives no quarter to
(13:8–10) ‘Love is the Fulfilling of the Law’ In the ‘works of darkness’ (v. 12). To be holy is to be
Rom 12:9, Paul offered a theme for the ethical unmixed, entirely sanctified to God (12:1). The
instruction to follow: ‘love is genuine.’ He temptation is to view the eschatological ethic
neatly closes this paraenetic section by return- partly as a future demand, to split the difference
ing to the subject of love. The segue in vv. 7–8 is between old and new orders, to contrive a half-
artful: ‘Pay to all what is due (opheilas) . . . Owe in, half-out moral standard. For Paul, such un-
(opheilete) no one anything, except to love’. In holiness is neither permissible nor sensible.
other words, while civic obligations can and The phrase ‘put on the Lord Jesus Christ’ (v. 14)
should be fulfilled, the obligation to love can appears to have originated in Christian baptismal
never be fully discharged. The primacy of the liturgy. Compare Gal 3:27: ‘As many of you as
love commandment is a NT commonplace and were baptized into Christ have clothed your-
almost certainly goes back to Jesus himself (see selves with Christ.’ ‘Taking off’ (or ‘laying aside’,
ROM 12:9a). In Mk 12:28–34 and parallels, Jesus v. 12) and ‘putting on’ is the nomenclature of
cites a twofold commandment, love of God repentance, intrinsic to baptism (cf. the idea of
(Deut 6:4–5) and love of neighbour (Lev 19:18). the ‘wedding garment’ in Mt 22:11–14). To say that
Paul refers only to the latter. Perhaps he did not one ‘puts on Christ’ adds to repentance the con-
know the double formula, or perhaps his im- cepts of spiritual identification and empower-
mediate concern led him to quote only the ment (cf. Gal 2:19–20). In 6:3–4 Paul wrote that
Leviticus passage. (The four commandments ‘all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus
listed are all from the ‘second table’ of the Deca- were baptized into his death . . . we have been
logue, which deals with social relationships; buried with him by baptism into death, so that,
Deut 5:17–18.) To be children of God is pre- just as Christ was raised from the dead by the
eminently to have the character of God, and glory of the Father, so we too might walk in
the pre-eminent attribute of God’s character is newness of life’. In baptism, one participates in
love (Mt 5:43–8). Such love issues from the giver the death and, proleptically, in the resurrection of
irrespective of the recipient’s merit: ‘God proves Christ. The believer puts on the clothing, not
his love for us in that while we still were sinners merely of a new self, but of Christ’s own right-
Christ died for us’ (5:8). So no fault in the neigh- eousness, power, and victory. This high ‘Christian
bour and no sufficiency in the self excuses one anthropology’ is in keeping with Paul’s thought
from love. And if one shares the character of elsewhere in Romans (ROM E.2; ROM 8, etc.).
God, then indeed God’s law is fulfilled.
(14:1–15:13) ‘Pursue What Makes for Peace
(13:11–14) The Eschatological Context Paul and for Mutual Edification’ Paul began this
completes a second inclusio by returning to section of Romans with an exhortation to
the eschatological theme introduced in 12:2 Christian unity (12:3–8), modelled on his recent
(‘Do not be conformed to this age . . . ’). The Corinthian correspondence. By way of conclu-
present is characterized as a time between the sion, he returns to the same idea and source.
times, expressed eloquently in the metaphor Controversy had arisen at Corinth over the
of night turning to day. Now is still a time of practice by some of eating meat that had been
darkness, but the believer knows it to be the sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 8:1–13; 10:12–33). In
 87 romans

theory, Paul was on their side: ‘We are no worse pass judgement on servants of another?’ is rem-
off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do’ iniscent of that most-cited biblical quotation,
(8:8). But theory is not principle, privileges are Mt 7:1, ‘Judge not, lest you be judged.’ As a
not rights, and ‘knowledge’ (8:1) is not wisdom. matter of perspective, one should bear in mind
The prerogative of the ‘strong’ (15:1) does not that neither Paul nor Jesus taught that one
outweigh the church’s need for unity and the ought simply to ‘behave and let behave’. The
individual’s need for integrity. Simply put, it is sphere of activity within which Paul allowed
wrong to encourage another to violate con- disagreement was significant but still restricted
science. ‘Therefore, if food is a cause of their in size. Essentially, it consisted of matters
falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not regarded by Paul as morally indifferent (14:1:
cause one of them to fall’ (8:13). The scope and ‘opinions’, see 1 Cor 9). ‘The kingdom of God
application of Paul’s ‘community ethic’ are no- is not food and drink’ (14:17), but it is ‘walking in
where more clearly articulated than in 1 Cor 8 love’ (14:15). Then as now, conflict arose because
and Rom 14. of discrepant calculations of moral gravity. In-
As we have seen (e.g. in 12:4–7), Paul general- evitably, it is easier for the ‘strong’ (the less
izes the argument of 1 Corinthians when adapt- observant) to be tolerant of the ‘weak’ (the
ing it to Romans. The identity of ‘the weak’ is more observant) than the reverse. At what
no longer clear; Paul does not mention food point does moral allowance turn the corner to
sacrificed to idols, nor do his statements about moral abdication? Were Jewish Christians
eating meat and drinking wine (v. 21) refer self- intolerant who continued to require sabbath
evidently to Jewish practice (although the men- observance (which is, after all, the fourth com-
tion of ‘one day . . . better than another’ in v. 5 mandment of the Decalogue; see Mt 24:20)? In
probably has in view the Jewish sabbath). the first as in the twenty-first century, tolerance
Rather than respond to any one practice, Paul is in the eye of the beholder.
formulates a rule of conduct that may be In 15:1, Paul explicitly identified himself with
applied in a variety of circumstances (which, ‘the strong’ (‘in faith’, 14:1), a designation that
by way of example, include controversies sur- he assumes rhetorically for most if not all of
rounding eating, drinking, and sabbath obser- his audience. (What reader would want
vance). One is to live before God with faith to identify with the community of the weak-
(14:5–9, 22–3) and before others with consider- but-tolerated?) The NRSV translation, ‘We who
ation (14:1–5, 13–21). Do not look to the example are strong ought to put up with the failings of
of those who offend; do not be an example to the weak,’ is unfortunate. Literally, the strong
those who would be offended. are instructed to ‘carry’, ‘support’, or (by exten-
Paul’s ethical thinking inhabits the ground sion) ‘tolerate’ (bastazō) ‘the weaknesses (asthenē-
between individualism and communitarianism. mata) of the weak’. To judge the actions of the
It is somewhat individualistic: each person weak as ‘failings’ is to commit the very error
stands or falls before God alone (14:4); each described by Paul in ch. 14.
must be ‘fully convinced’ in his or her ‘own Paul caps his exhortation to unity and mu-
mind’ (v. 5); each is accountable to the dictates tual concern by referring to the example
of his or her ‘own conviction’ (v. 22). But the of Christ, ‘who did not please himself’ (15:3).
community has moral priority. Recognition of ‘Welcome’ (or ‘accept’, ‘receive’, proslambanomai)
individual differences is meant to foster unity ‘one another . . . just as Christ has welcomed
(as in the body metaphor); ironically, it is those you’ (15:7). The passage is similar to Phil 2:1–11,
who demand absolute conformity that ‘pass where Paul charges his readers:
judgement’ (v. 4) and so create division. The
individual is constrained both by God’s judge- Be of the same mind, having the same love, being in
ment (vv. 7–12) and by the needs of others full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish
ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as
(vv. 13–23). One ought to please God (v. 18)
better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to
and one’s neighbour (15:1–2), not oneself. This your own interests, but to the interests of others.
is not self-annihilation; this is mutuality, the Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ
dance of reciprocating love. Jesus . . . (vv. 2–5)
The tolerant attitude evidenced in this pas-
sage belies the oft-popular image of Paul as What follows is the well-known ‘Christ hymn’, a
narrow-minded traditionalist. (14:14, ‘nothing is poetic description of Jesus’ self-abnegation and
unclean in itself’, attests to the radical inclin- subsequent exaltation. Rom 15:3 is somewhat
ation of Paul’s thought.) v. 4, ‘Who are you to different: Paul refers only obliquely to Christ’s
romans 88

passion, quoting the lament of the righteous suf- appears to echo Isa 66:18–23, a prophetic
ferer in Ps 69:9, ‘The insults of those who insult description of the eschatological incorporation
you [God] have fallen on me.’ (Psalm 69 was of Gentiles into Israel (see also Isa 2:1–4; 42:1–9;
widely cited in early Christianity; Cranfield 49; 55:4–5; 60:1–7). The ‘offering of the Gentiles’
(1979: 733n. 1) lists 18 other NT ‘quotations and (v. 16), an idea borrowed from Isa 66:20, prob-
echoes’.) Christ’s identification with God (15:3) ably consists of the Gentiles themselves (in the
and with humanity (15:8) cost him honour and person of the church leaders who would accom-
status, the same currency that Paul would require pany Paul to Jerusalem; see Barrett 1957: 275)
his readers to expend for one another (12:3–5). as well as the money gathered from their con-
Rom 15:7–13 completes the discussion of gregations (vv. 25–8; Gal 2:10; 1 Cor 16:1–4; 2 Cor
Christian life begun in 12:1. More importantly, it 8, 9). Possibly Paul entertained the idea that the
brings to a close the larger argument begun in impending trip to Jerusalem might prove to be
1:16. ‘Christ has become a servant in order that the ‘pilgrimage of the nations’ to ‘the mountain
he might confirm the promises given to the of the Lord’ (Isa 2:3; as in Isa 66) that would
patriarchs’ (v. 8) thus proving God righteous. precipitate the coming of ‘the Deliverer’ to Zion
Christ came both for Jews (v. 8) and for Gentiles (11:26 ¼ Isa 59:20–1). This hope might account
(vv. 9–12), a reiteration of Paul’s ‘thesis statement’ for the statement in v. 19 that Paul had ‘fully
in 1:16–17. As he has done repeatedly before, Paul proclaimed’ the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyr-
cites scriptural evidence validating the inclusion icum. The conversion of a representative group
of Gentiles in the people of God (Ps 18:49; Deut from the nations (equivalent to ‘the full number
32:43 (LXX); Ps 117:1; Isa 11:10 (LXX) ). In conclu- of the Gentiles’ in 11:25) might signal the fulfil-
sion, Paul again shifts from argumentative to ment of Isaiah’s prophecy and precipitate
sacral address (cf. Rom 8:31–9; 11:33–6), now, Christ’s return (note 16:20). An obvious objection
appropriately, in the form of a benediction. The is that Paul planned to go on from Jerusalem to
phrases ‘God of hope’ and ‘abound in hope’ Rome and then to Spain (v. 28). Still, hoping for
evoke the eschatological expectation that the eschaton and planning for its delay are not
grounds the believer’s everyday experience. mutually exclusive activities. As a Christian mis-
In 14:17, Paul wrote that ‘the kingdom of God is sionary, Paul had done both for years.
not food and drink but righteousness and peace The legitimacy of Paul’s apostolic authority
and joy in the Holy Spirit’. So Paul concludes was disputed at Corinth as well as Galatia, and
by wishing his readers nothing less than God’s faint aftershocks of those controversies can be
dominion, both now and future. felt in vv. 17–19. As a Christian leader, Paul had
a number of liabilities: for example, he had not
known nor was he commissioned by the his-
Conclusion (15:14–16:27) torical Jesus; he had persecuted the church; his
(15:14–33) The Apostle’s Plans Paul began the physical appearance was ‘weak’, and he was
epistle by introducing himself and his apostolic comparatively ‘unskilled in speaking’ (2 Cor
credentials to the Roman Christians and by 10:10; 11:6). Paul acknowledged other leading
explaining his intention to visit them in the apostles but claimed to have ‘outworked them
near future (1:1–15). His language was highly all’ (1 Cor 15:10). He pointed repeatedly to his
diplomatic; he praised the Romans for their ceaseless labours and continual suffering for
faith and offered that he himself would be bene- the sake of the gospel as primary validation
fited spiritually by them. v. 14 picks up where for his ministry. He articulated this claim in
1:15 left off. The audience again is lauded: ‘you passages that are among the most dramatic
yourselves are full of goodness, filled with and powerful in all of his letters (e.g. 1 Cor
all knowledge’. The apostle again is politic: he 4:8–13; 2 Cor 6:3–10; 11:21–12:21). Here in Rom
acknowledges that the recipients themselves are 15, he emphasized not only the extent but also
‘able to instruct one another’. Yes, Paul has the success of his evangelistic effort. By such a
written rather boldly, but only by way of measure, his ministry may be peerless.
reminder (v. 15). Besides, his boldness is com- Paul’s statement of purpose in vv. 20–9 serves
mensurate with his authority in Christ, carefully a variety of functions. First, it explains why it
detailed in vv. 16–21. has taken him so long to come to Rome. Paul’s
Several aspects of Paul’s self-description merit job is the founding of pioneer churches (v. 20);
attention. The use of sacerdotal imagery to his assignment had been the field from Jerusa-
describe his ministry (‘priestly service . . . the off- lem to Illyricum (v. 19). Having now completed
ering of the Gentiles’) is telling. Paul’s language that task (v. 23), he is prepared to advance to
 89 romans

Spain. Second, it details the reason for Paul’s (e.g. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi,
trip to Rome and makes clear that his stay there etc.). According to Origen, Marcion dissemin-
will not be permanent. (In other words, he is ated a version of Romans that ended at ch. 14.
not coming to ‘take over’ the Roman church.) The likeliest account is that the missing pas-
Third, it lets the Romans know both that he sages were gradually reattached to truncated
expects to be welcomed (vv. 24, 29) and that copies of Romans, the benediction being
he hopes to be supported by them in his mis- added first at the end of ch. 14 (see Stuhlma-
sion to Spain (v. 24). cher’s valuable discussion, 1994: 244–6).
Paul asks for prayer ‘that I may be rescued The authenticity of ch. 16 also has been
from the unbelievers in Judea’. It is a poignant questioned because of the extensive greetings
request; according to Acts 21:27–36, Paul was (twenty-six people in all) in vv. 3–15. Could
arrested soon after his arrival in Jerusalem. The Paul have known so many Roman Christians?
additional intercession, that ‘my ministry to Some scholars have suggested that all or part
Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints’, has of ch. 16 was a separate letter, possibly writ-
been seen by some as an indication that the ten to commend Phoebe to the church at
Jerusalem church opposed the Gentile mission Ephesus. It is an intriguing but unconvincing
and so would reject the collection. Cranfield’s suggestion. Rom 16 by itself hardly consti-
(1979: 778) judgement is on target: ‘[It would] be tutes an independent letter; moreover, we
more likely to recognize in these words evi- are scarcely in a position to judge whom
dence of Paul’s spiritual and human sensitivity Paul could not have known. Clearly, it
and freedom from self-centred complacency would have been to his advantage to identify
than to draw from them any confident conclu- as many Roman confederates as possible.
sions about the tensions between the Jerusalem (Note that he first greets Prisca and Aquila,
church and Paul.’ (See also Fitzmyer 1993:726.) who left Rome under Claudius’ edict and who
Contrary to the assertions of the Tübingen may have returned following its suspension;
School, it is extremely improbable that the lead- Acts 18:2–3.) Finally, one may cite again the
ers of the Jerusalem church opposed the inclu- compelling textual evidence for the original-
sion of uncircumcised Gentiles (see ROM D.3.3, ity of ch. 16.
above; cf. Gal 2:1–10; Acts 15:1–29). However, it Rom 16 differs from other Pauline epistolary
is entirely likely that they took issue with Paul’s conclusions primarily in the length of its greet-
conclusion that Jews no longer need obey cer- ings (vv. 3–16) and its blessing (vv. 23–7; see
tain parts of the law. (It is instructive that the below). Each of its elements is common to
charge raised in connection with Paul’s arrival other Pauline closings:
in Jerusalem concerned Jewish—not Gentile—
law observance, Acts 21:21). For most Jewish Personal recommendation (vv. 1–2) 1 Cor
Christians (e.g. the author of the Gospel of Mat- 16:10–11, 15–18; 1 Thess 5:12–13 (cf. Phil 4:2–3);
thew), the key issue apparently was not the Philem 17
Judaizing of Gentiles but the Gentilizing of Personal greetings (vv. 3–16) Philem 23–4
Jews. It also is worth noting that Phil 4:18 uses Final admonition (vv. 17–20a) 1 Cor 16:13–14; 2
similar priestly language in reference to the Cor 13:11–12; Gal 6:12–17; Phil 4:4–9; 1 Thess
‘acceptability’ of a monetary offering, but no 5:14–22
interpreter suggests that the status of the Phil- Grace (v. 20b (¼24) ) 1 Cor 16:23; 2 Cor 13:13;
ippians’ gift was ever in question. (See Hill 1992: Gal 6:18; Phil 4:23; 1 Thess 5:28; Philem 25
175–8, for further discussion of the interpret- Greetings from companions (vv. 21–3) 1 Cor
ation of Rom 15:31). 16:19–20; Phil 4:21–2
Identification of writer/amanuensis (v. 22) 1 Cor
(16:1–27) Personal Greetings and Final 16:21; Gal 6:11
Remarks Was ch. 16 part of Paul’s original Blessing (vv. 25–7) 2 Cor 13:11b; Gal 6:16; Phil
letter to Rome? The question arises in part 4:19–20; 1 Thess 5:23–4.
because of discrepancies in the textual trad- The frequent mention of women in vv. 1–15 is
ition. One early manuscript (P46, c.200) appears impressive. Writes Beverly Gaventa (in Newson
originally to have omitted 16:1–23. Other ver- and Ringe 1992: 320) ‘Nothing in Paul’s com-
sions contain ch. 16 but locate the letter’s bene- ments justifies the conclusion that these
diction (16:25–7) at the end of ch. 14. women worked in ways that differed either
Nevertheless, the manuscript evidence for in kind or in quality from the ways in which
the literary integrity of Rom 1–16 is quite strong men worked.’ Phoebe, probably the bearer of
romans 90

the letter, is referred to as a deacon (not ‘deacon- Bultmann, R. (1910), Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und
ess’, as in the RSV and MLB) and patron of the die kynischstoische Diatribe, FRLANT 13 (Göttingen:
church. Nine other women are included in vv. 3– Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
15, several of whom are commended for their —— (1952–5) Theology of the New Testament, trans.
ministry. Of particular interest is Junia (v. 7), K. Grobel (2 vols.; London: SCM).
who together with Andronicus (probably her Byrne, B. (1996), Romans, SP 6 (Collegeville, Minn.:
husband) is said to be ‘prominent among the Liturgical Press).
apostles’. Almost certainly, the phrasing identi- Cranfield, C. E. B. (1979), Romans, ICC (2 vols.; Edin-
fies both as apostles. For that reason, many trans- burgh: T. & T. Clark).
lators assumed that lounian must be a contracted Deissmann, A. (1927), Light from the Ancient East, 2nd
form of the masculine Junianus. In effect, they edn. (London: Hodder & Stoughton).
masculinized the name Junia, rendering it ‘Junias’ Dodd, C. H. (1932), The Epistle to the Romans, MNTC
(e.g. RSV, NIV, NJB, NEB). But the pairing of (London: Hodder & Stoughton).
names (as with Prisca and Aquila in v. 3) usually Donfried, K. P. (1991) (ed.), The Romans Debate, rev.
indicates a husband and wife; moreover, no cor- edn. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson).
roborating example has been found for the sup- Dunn, J. D. G. (1988), Romans, i. chs. 1–8; ii. chs. 9–16,
posed masculine form, while the feminine usage WBC 38A–B (Dallas: Word).
is very well attested (see the fine overview of the Edwards, J. R. (1992), Romans, NIBC (Peabody, Mass.:
question in Dunn 1988: 894–5). In short, ‘Junias’ Hendrickson).
is a scandalous mistranslation. Fitzmyer, J. A. (1993), Romans, AB 33 (New York:
Paul’s letters often include final words of ad- Doubleday).
monition (see table above). The exhortation in Hays, R. B. (1989), Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul
vv. 17–20 recalls the teaching in 12–15:13 con- (New Haven: Yale University Press).
cerning Christian unity, whose background was Hill, C. C. (1992), Hellenists and Hebrews (Minneapolis:
the recent controversy at Corinth (and second- Fortress).
arily at Galatia). The description of those who Holmberg, B. (1978), Paul and Power: The Structure of
serve ‘their own appetites’ and deceive others by Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the
‘flattery’ is reminiscent of Paul’s account of Pauline Epistles (Lund: Student-litteratur AB).
fallen humanity in 1:18–32. On behalf of his Jervell, J. (1971), ‘The Letter to Jerusalem’, ST 25. ET,
readers, Paul assumes the best but cautions Donfried (1991: 61–74).
against the worst. Jewett, R. (1979), A Chronology of Paul’s Life (Phila-
The stately prescript that began Romans (1:1–7) delphia: Fortress).
is echoed in the formal benediction in vv. 25–7. —— (1982), ‘Romans as an Ambassadorial Letter’,
Paul again refers to his ministry of the ‘gospel’ Interpretation, 36: 5–20.
(v. 25¼1:1), mentions the testimony of the proph- Käsemann, E. (1980), Commentary on Romans, trans.
etic writings (v. 26¼1:2), and speaks of winning and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids:
the Gentiles’ ‘obedience of faith’ (v. 26¼1:5). As he Eerdmans).
did in 11:36, Paul concludes with doxology, glori- Manson, T. W. (1948), ‘St Paul’s Letter to the
fying God in whose mysterious plan and by Romans—and Others’, BJRL 21: 224–40. Repr. in
whose eternal command the Gentiles have been Donfried (1991: 1–16).
brought into the communion of faith. It is a Marxsen, W. (1968), Introduction to the New Testament
majestic crown to an extraordinary letter. (Oxford: Blackwell).
Morris, L. (1988), The Epistle to the Romans (Grand
Rapids: Eerdman).
REFERENCES
Murray, J. (1979), The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT
Achtemeier, P. J. (1985) (ed.), Harper’s Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Eerdman).
(San Francisco: Harper). Nanos, M. D. (1996), The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish
Barrett, C. K. (1957), A Commentary on the Epistle to the Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress).
Romans, BNTC (London: A. & C. Black). Newson, C. A., and Ringe, S. H. (1992) (eds.), The
Barth, K. (1933), The Epistle to the Romans, trans. E. C. Women’s Bible Commentary (London: SPCK).
Hoskyns (London: Oxford University Press). Räisänen, H. (1983), Paul and the Law (Tübingen:
Baur, F. C. (1873–5), Paul, The Apostle of Jesus Christ, Mohr).
trans. A. P. (vol. i), and A. Menzies (vol. ii) (2 vols.; Sanday, W., and Headlam, A. C. (1980), A Critical and
London: Williams & Norgate). Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 5th
Beker, C. (1980), Paul the Apostle (Philadelphia: Fortress). edn., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
 91 1 corinthians

Sanders, E. P. (1977), Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Phila- Stowers, S. K. (1981), The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to
delphia: Fortress). the Romans, SBLDS 57 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars
—— (1983), Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Phila- Press).
delphia: Fortress). —— (1994), A Rereading of Romans (New Haven: Yale
Schlatter, A. (1995), Romans: The Righteousness of God, University Press).
trans. S. Schatzmann (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson). Stuhlmacher, P. (1994), Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A
Spicq, C. (1994), Theological Lexicon of the New Testa- Commentary, trans. S. J. Hafemann (Louisville, Ky.:
ment, trans. and ed. J. D. Ernest (3 vols.; Peabody, Westminster/John Knox).
Mass.: Hendrickson). Wedderburn, A. J. M. (1988), The Reasons for Romans,
Stendahl, K. (1963), ‘The Apostle Paul and the Intro- SNTW (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
spective Conscience of the West’, HTR 56: 199–215. Ziesler, J. (1989), Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Trinity
Stirewalt, L. M. Jr. (1977), ‘The Form and Function of Press International New Testament Commentaries
the Greek Letter-Essay’, in Donfried (1991). (London: SCM).

5. 1 Corinthians
JOHN BARCLAY

INTRODUCTION propounded of two, four, or more original

letters which have been stitched together into
A. Authorship. The letter claims to be written
our 1 Corinthians (see details in ABD i. 1142–3).
by Paul and Sosthenes (1:1) and there is no reason
Such hypotheses are plausible in the case of 2
to doubt this ascription. As in other cases of
Corinthians, but Paul’s varying rhetorical pur-
supposedly joint authorship (e.g. 2 Cor 1:1),
poses can probably explain all the inconsist-
Paul probably took the sole responsibility
encies in this letter. Thus we may take 1
(16:21). Clement accepted the letter as Paul’s at
Corinthians as a single and unified whole.
the end of the first century CE (1 Clem 47) and
all modern scholars concur, with doubts sur-
C. Date. The letter is written from Ephesus
rounding only certain sections (see on 11:2–16
in the spring (before Pentecost, 16:8–9). If we
and 14:34–5).
accept the chronology of Acts (see below), Paul
founded the church in Corinth in 50–1 CE (Acts
B. Integrity. Our earliest papyri preserve the 18:1–7) and was in Ephesus two or three years
letter whole (e.g. P46, from c.200 CE), but a later (Acts 19:1–10); thus the date of compos-
number of scholars have argued that it is in ition of this letter is some time in the period
fact a compound of several letters. Thus it has 52–5 CE.
been suggested that 1 Cor 1–4 is a self-contained
letter, closing in 4:14–21 with the typical close- D. Paul’s Previous Dealings with the Corinthian
of-letter formulae (see de Boer 1994). It is Church. 1. It was of immense importance to
strange that the named party divisions which Paul that he was the founder of the church in
Paul repeatedly criticizes in chs. 1–4 are never Corinth, the one who laid their foundation, how-
mentioned in chs. 5–16. It is possible that the ever many supplementary builders they may
Corinthians’ letter to Paul (7:1) and disturbing have had (3:10). As his ‘work in the Lord’, the
news about their behaviour (5:1) arrived after existence of the Corinthian church is, for Paul,
the initial drafting of chs. 1–4 but before they proof enough of his apostleship (9: 1–2), even if it
were sent to Corinth. However, the opening is clear from chs. 1–4 and 9 that not all the
thanksgiving section (1:4–9) seems to anticipate Corinthians are willing to recognize his status
themes which surface in later chapters (e.g. or authority. Paul recalls bringing the gospel
spiritual gifts in 1:7 and chs. 12–14), and the to Corinth at a time which was fraught with
theme of unity (1:10) pervades the whole letter ‘weakness, fear and trembling’ (2:1–3). Some of
(see Mitchell 1992). Inconsistencies have been the details which we may piece together from
found within later chapters, for instance 1 Corinthians accord well with the narrative of
between an apparently softer stance on sacrifi- this founding visit in Acts 18:1–17, for instance
cial food in 8:1–13 and 10:22–11:1, and a harder the conversion of Crispus (1 Cor 1:14; Acts 18:8),
line in 10:1–22. Complex theories have been the contact with Prisca and Aquila (1 Cor 16:19;
1 corinthians 92

Acts 18:2–3) and his labour in Corinth with his 3. The first signs of conflict between Paul and
own hands (1 Cor 4:12; Acts 18:3). Paul’s own the Corinthian church are preserved in Paul’s
comments do not allow us to date this found- reference to their reception of an earlier letter
ing visit, but Acts connects it (at its close, after he had sent (5:9–11). This letter is now lost, but it
18 months) with a trial before the proconsul of seems to have urged a moral discipline on the
Achaia, Gallio. By good fortune, an inscription church which was not well received. Perhaps in
enables us to date Gallio’s period of office to response to that letter, the Corinthians wrote a
50–1 CE, thus giving helpfully precise param- letter referred to in 7:1. It is possible to suggest
eters to the date of Paul’s time in the city. Acts some of the topics on which the Corinthians
also mentions, as a prelude to Paul’s visit, wrote to Paul: many may be introduced by the
Claudius’ expulsion of Jews from Rome (Acts formula ‘now concerning’, which occurs not
18:2). Conflicting evidence in our sources leads only in 7:1, but also in 7:25 (on the topic of
some scholars to think that that expulsion virgins), 8:1 (on food offered to idols), 12:1 (on
took place in 41 CE, and it has been proposed spiritual gifts), 16:1 (on the collection), and 16:12
that Acts 18 actually combines the accounts of (on Apollos). Moreover, with the aid of a little
two separate visits by Paul to Corinth, one in imagination, we may even reconstruct what the
41 and one in 50/51 CE (see Lüdemann 1984: Corinthians thought about some of the issues
157–77). However, Jews were probably not ex- Paul addresses: in some cases Paul seems to cite
pelled from Rome until 49 CE (see Barclay back at them their own formulae, such as ‘all
1996: 303–6), and there is thus no reason to things are lawful for me’ (6:12; 10:23), ‘it is well
doubt the integrity of the account in Acts 18 for a man not to touch a woman’ (7:1), and ‘all of
or the dating of Paul’s initial visit to 50/51 CE. us possess knowledge’ (8.1). (For a full recon-
2. Corinth was a cosmopolitan city, refounded struction of this interchange see Hurd 1965; for
as a Roman colony in 46 BCE, a seaport exposed to an imaginative exercise see Frör 1995.) 1 Corin-
multiple influences from East and West (see ABD thians thus represents part of a dialogue
i. 1134–9 s. v. Corinth). According to Acts, Paul between Paul and the Corinthians, a dialogue
spent longer here than in most cities (at least 18 which, as 2 Corinthians indicates, caused con-
months, Acts 18:11, 18), a fact at least partly siderable pain to both parties for years to come.
explained by the comparative lack of opposition 4. As well as the Corinthian letter, Paul has
he encountered in the city. The birth of the received oral reports about affairs in the church,
church also seems to have been unusually peace- for instance from Chloe’s people (1:11) and from
ful: Paul nowhere indicates any experience of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus who may
harassment (see Barclay 1992). Paul established a have brought the letter from Corinth (16:17–18).
core of believers, both Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor Some of the oral reports have caused Paul great
1:22–4; 7:18), who were baptized in the name concern (1:11–13; 5:1). Now, in response to both
of Christ (1:13), received the Spirit (12:13) and written and oral information, Paul writes our 1
started to meet for meals and worship in homes Corinthians hoping that it, and Timothy’s visit
(11:17–34; Rom 16:23). Paul bequeathed to them a (4:17), will induce the necessary changes in the
variety of credal traditions and practical instruc- church before he has to correct them in person
tions (15:3–5; 11:2, 23) but two factors combined to (4:21). It is clear from 2 Corinthians that that
lessen his influence on the church once he had hope was not fulfilled.
left the city. First, some of his own or subsequent
converts were people of education and high so- E. The Corinthian Church. 1. Recent scholar-
cial standing (see E.1) who developed independ- ship has highlighted the importance of the
ent views about the meaning of the Christian social divisions in the church in Corinth and
message (e.g. in relation to the resurrection of has posited the disproportionate influence of
the body and sexual behaviour) and whose inte- a small élite group within the church, whose
gration in Corinthian society made them reluc- attitude to their social inferiors and whose
tant to accept Paul’s more sectarian social class-determined interpretations of the Chris-
practices (e.g. in relation to sacrificial food). Sec- tian faith underlie many of the issues addressed
ondly, situated at an international crossroads, the in this letter (see esp. Theissen 1982; Chow 1992;
church in Corinth was visited by a variety of Clarke 1993; Martin 1995; more generally on
Christian leaders, some of whom won converts Pauline Christians, Meeks 1983; see, however,
of their own and assisted the church to develop the strong arguments to the contrary by Meggitt
in ways of which Paul disapproved (e.g. Apollos 1998). Paul’s statement about the generally
and, probably, Peter/Cephas, 1:12; 9:4–5). lowly make-up of the church in 1:26–8 none
 93 1 corinthians

the less indicates that there were some members the church (Jews and Gentiles) or to different
of education, power, or noble birth, and some opinions about sexual activity (contrast the
named individuals seem to belong to such an ascetic Corinthian statement in 7:1 with the
upper stratum. For instance, Gaius (1:14) must apparently libertine one in 6:12).
be a man of some wealth to be able to house the 3. The leaders of the church in Corinth seem
whole church (Rom 16:23, written from Cor- to have prided themselves on their status as
inth); some think the church may have grown ‘spiritual people’ (3:1–3; 14:37). That involved a
to fifty or more members. If Crispus and particular eagerness for spiritual gifts (12:1;
Sosthenes were rulers of the synagogue, as 14:12), but also a high evaluation of ‘wisdom’
Acts 18 indicates, they must have been from and ‘knowledge’ (2:6; 8:1–3) which included the
wealthy families (the title normally designates appreciation of mysteries (2:6–16; 13:1–2) and
financial patronage). Moreover, the Erastus who the conviction that others’ so-called ‘gods’ are
sends greetings from Corinth in Rom 16:23 is really shadows (‘idols’, 8:4–6). Their ‘spiritual’
there listed as ‘city treasurer’. The title might status also encouraged a sense of ‘authority’—
designate a lowly office, but it is extremely particularly the permission to eat whatever they
rare for Paul to mention the occupations of wished and to use their bodies however they
Christians and he would probably do so only liked (6:12; 10:23). Such an emphasis on spiritual
if they were of social importance. It is tantaliz- knowledge seems to have reinforced and even
ing that an inscription from Corinth from extended the common Greek disparagement of
around the middle of the first century CE men- the body as a paltry piece of material; as a result,
tions one Erastus (a very rare name in Corinth) there are partial parallels with the later phenom-
as paying for a piece of pavement after his enon of Christian ‘Gnosticism’, though not to
appointment as aedile. It is possible that this is the extent some have claimed (e.g. Schmithals
the same Erastus as the one mentioned by Paul, 1971). In any case, some Corinthian believers
at a subsequent and more exalted rung up the appear to have balked at Paul’s notion of a
social ladder (aediles were among the highest resurrected body (15:12, 35–57) and others under-
civic leaders in Corinth; Theissen 1982: 75–83). stood their new possession by the Spirit to
2. Thus the church in Corinth covered a require complete sexual abstinence (7:1, 25–39).
broad social spectrum, with a few highly placed Paul finds the claims being made by the Corin-
individuals who probably played a major role in thians absurdly inflated, tantamount to claiming
shaping the life of the church and its relations exemption from all the inevitable weaknesses and
with wider Corinthian society. The divisions at imperfections of the present (4:8–13; 13:8–13). It is
the Corinthian Lord’s Supper (11:17–34) indicate not clear whether the Corinthians thought
the problems inherent in staging communal themselves already ‘resurrected’ in some final
meals across such a spectrum, and the ‘know- sense, or whether that is merely Paul’s carica-
ledgeable’ who cared little for the scruples of ture of their position (4:8; cf. 1 Tim 2:18;
their ‘weaker brothers’ in relation to sacrificial Thiselton 1977–8). Paul attempts throughout
food (1 Cor 8–10) may have been those of higher the letter to puncture their pride and to
status whose contacts with their social equals redirect their sense of honour towards mutual
would have been greatly disrupted by taking a service in the community.
scrupulous stance on this matter. Other topics
raised in this letter may also be related to wealth F. Outline.
and status. The Corinthian Christians who took Prescript (1:1–3)
each other to court (6:1–8) might have been Thanksgiving (1:4–9)
wealthy (court cases were often expensive) and Appeal for Unity and for Re-evaluation of Paul’s Min-
were perhaps engaged in a power-struggle istry (1:10–4:21)
within the church. Speaking in tongues (1 Cor The Absurdity of Party Groups (1:10–17)
12–14) was possibly an élitist activity (Martin The Message of the Cross, its Recipients and
1991) and the whole spirituality of the Corinth- Proper Medium (1:18–2:5)
ian church probably reflects the confidence of True Wisdom for Spiritual, not Bickering,
those who accommodated their faith to their Christians (2:6–3:4)
social aspirations (4:6–13). The party groupings Models of Leadership in the Church (3:5–4:5)
mentioned in 1:12 may represent splits among Paul’s Apostolic Style and Authority (4:6–21)
the social élite who competed for patronage in Sexual and Related Issues (5:1–7:40)
the church. It is harder to discern how such Expulsion of an Immoral Member of the
social divisions related to the ethnic mix of Church (5:1–13)
1 corinthians 94

The Absurdity of Using Corinthian Courts of God’s activity and compliments the believers
(6:1–11) on their progress thus far. Despite the problems
Immorality and the Significance of the Body which this church poses, Paul appears genuinely
(6:12–20) grateful for its lively success, so long as it is
Celibacy and Marriage (7:1–40) attributed to ‘the grace of God’ (v. 4) by which
Sacrificial Food and the Dangers of Idolatry (8:1–11:1) they have been ‘enriched’ (v. 5). Later he will
Debate with the ‘Knowledgeable’ concerning criticize the Corinthians for boasting in their
their ‘Right’ to Eat (8:1–13) spiritual virtuosity as if they had made themselves
Paul’s Example in Renouncing the ‘Right’ to rich (vv. 7–8). Their God-given riches include
Financial Support (9:1–23) every form of ‘speech’ and ‘knowledge’ (v. 5)—
The Dangers of Complacency in relation to topics which will recur at several points in the
Idolatry (9:24–10:22) letter (notably 1:18–3:5; 8:1–13; 13:1–2; 14:1–40),
Practical Guidelines on Eating and Avoiding where Paul’s appreciation is tempered with cau-
Offence (10:23–11:1) tion about the uses of such gifts in the commu-
Issues Relating to Communal Meetings (11:2–14:40) nity. In v. 6—which is probably best translated
Praying and Prophesying with Proper Head- ‘just as the testimony to Christ was confirmed
Covering (11:2–16) among you’—Paul points forward to his discus-
Humiliation of Church Members at the Lord’s sion of the terms in which he first testified to
Supper (11:17–34) Christ in Corinth (1:18–2:5), reminding his so-
The Distribution of Spiritual Gifts in the cially comfortable converts that all they have is
Body of Christ (12:1–31) based on the subversive message of Christ cruci-
The Superior and Critical Demands of Love fied. Their speech and knowledge are part of
(13:1–13) their enjoyment of every ‘spritiual gift’ (charisma,
The Superiority of Prophecy over Tongues v. 7), a theme which comes to full (though again
(14:1–40) critical) expression in chs. 12–14. Notable at the
The Resurrection of Christ and the Resurrection Body end of this section are references to the future:
(15:1–58) for all their present abundance, the Corinthians
Letter Closing, with Travel Plans, Final Instructions, still await ‘the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ’
and Greetings (16:1–24) (v. 7) and the judgement which will take place on
‘the day of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (v. 8). Through-
out this letter Paul will point forward to that
COMMENTARY
future, to forestall premature judgements of his
Prescript (1:1–3) own or anyone else’s ministry (v. 5), to warn
against complacency in the race still unfinished
This follows the form typical in the Pauline
(9:24–7; 10:12), and to moderate the exaggerated
letters; sender, addressees, and greeting (cf. Gal
claims that were being made for knowledge
1:1–3). Paul mentions his apostolic calling since
and other spiritual gifts (13:8–13). Their only
some in Corinth doubted this (9:1–2) and associ-
ground for confidence can be the faithfulness
ates with himself Sosthenes, perhaps the syna-
of God (v. 9; cf. 10:13), who has called them to
gogue leader mentioned in Acts 18:17, who must
participate in Christ (cf. 1:30–1). It is only
have been converted after the events narrated
by continuing in that ‘fellowship’ with Christ
there. In referring to the church in Corinth Paul
that they can face the end with confidence
emphasizes their purity (‘sanctified’, ‘saints’, v. 2),
(cf. 16:22–4).
a theme which he will later employ to reinforce
the boundaries between the community and
outsiders and to outlaw behaviour which soils Appeal for Unity and for Re-evaluation of
the church (e.g. 5:6–8; 6:9–11). He also pointedly Paul’s Ministry (1:10–4:21)
associates them with all other Christians else- (1:10–17) The Absurdity of Party Groups v. 10
where (v. 3). He will not allow the Corinthian encapsulates the core of Paul’s appeal which
Christians to exalt themselves over others (4:7), covers not only chs. 1–4, but also many other
to neglect their needs (16:1–4), or to develop parts of the letter which appeal for mutual care
idiosyncratic patterns of church life (4:17; 11:16). within the church (e.g. 6:1–8; 8:1–3; 12:12–26).
The ‘divisions’ spoken of here do not seem to
Thanksgiving (1:4–9) prevent the church gathering together (Rom
Paul’s letters generally begin with a thanksgiving, 16:23), but they damage its life, preventing its
which places the life of the church in the context maturation (3:1–4) and negating its calling to
 95 1 corinthians

love (13:1–13). Paul is responding in the first such party splits threaten to dismember Christ
instance to oral reports from ‘Chloe’s people’ (v. 13). Tactfully using the Paul party as his
(v. 11), probably the slaves of one of the mem- prime target, Paul insists that he is neither the
bers of the church. The quarrels they report origin of their salvation nor the one to whom
concern the forming of party-groups in which they belong. Reference in v. 13 to baptism ‘in
members of the Corinthian church line up, in [lit. into] the name of Paul’ indicates that bap-
quasi-political fashion, behind Paul, Apollos, tism was usually performed in Pauline churches
Cephas, or (apparently) Christ (v. 12). The last ‘into the name of Christ’ (cf. 12:12–13; Gal 3:27). It
grouping receives no further mention in 1 appears that the person of the baptizer is being
Corinthians, except in Paul’s insistence that all given special significance in Corinth and Paul
belong to Christ (3:22). Perhaps the statement thus deliberately plays down his role in this
here represents a claim by some Corinthians to regard: he can think of very few whom he has
a more direct allegiance to Christ. Apollos is baptized (vv. 14–16; on Crispus and Gaius see 1
repeatedly named in the following chapters, COR E.1). The sudden remembering of Stephanas’
and his followers may have been converted household (v. 16) underlines the insignificance
through him, since we know he was in Corinth of Paul’s role in this matter; the initial lapse of
after Paul (3:6; Acts 18:24–19:1). It has often been memory might be genuine, but it also serves
suggested that Paul’s critical words about an obvious rhetorical role. Stephanas seems to
eloquence in 1:18–2:5 may be directed against have played some leadership role in the Cor-
admiration of Apollos’ rhetorical prowess inthian church (see 1 COR 16:15–18). Paul insists
(according to Acts 18:24 he was ‘an eloquent that his commission was to ‘proclaim the gos-
man’). Therein may lie some truth, though pel’, not to baptize (v. 17). This does not mean
Paul is careful never to criticize Apollos directly he considered baptism insignificant: he assumes
in this letter and says he has encouraged him to that all believers have been baptized (1 Cor 6:11;
return to Corinth (16:12). 12:13) and elsewhere spells out its theological
The Cephas party remains a matter of con- significance (Rom 6:1–11). But he had a different
troversy. Had Cephas (Peter) visited Corinth, and specialized role: to preach the gospel of
like Paul and Apollos, and thus played some Christ crucified. By immediately disowning an
role in shaping the Corinthian church? Some interest in ‘eloquent wisdom’ (v. 17) he prepares
think that 9:5 suggests as much, others that the way for the next section of the letter.
Cephas’ reputation was high enough for him
to have attracted a following in Corinth without (1:18–2:5) The Message of the Cross, its
a personal presence (cf. 15:5 and Barrett 1982: Recipients and Proper Medium At first glance,
28–39). Either way, it is difficult to know what this section might appear a digression from the
the Cephas party stood for. An old scholarly topic of party divisions, a subject which does
tradition (arising in the 19th cent. in the Tübin- not recur till 3:4. But the conjunction of the
gen school and revived by Goulder 1991) takes themes of wisdom and party boasts in 3:18–23
the Peter party to represent a conservative form indicates that the two are closely related. It
of Jewish Christianity, which took the Jewish is possible that wisdom (and specifically
law as its continuing standard. However, evi- eloquence) was one of the bases on which Cor-
dence for this standpoint in Corinth is hard to inthian Christians were lining up behind differ-
find and the character and influence of the ent leaders (see above, on Apollos). But, more
Cephas party remain an enigma. What is reveal- generally, Paul discerns in the claim of alle-
ing, however, is that those who say they belong giance to vaunted leaders a fundamental misap-
to Paul are only one segment of the Corinthian prehension of the gospel, whose value-system is
congregation. Without wanting to foster a Paul wholly opposed to the values of power and
party in Corinth, Paul clearly needs to re-estab- wisdom which the Corinthian competitiveness
lish his authority over the whole church. 1 Cor exhibits. Thus, typically, Paul attacks the disease
1–4 is thus characterized by a delicate balance which has brought about the worrying symp-
between Paul’s self-effacement, as he points to toms, and forces the Corinthians to recognize
Christ and the cross, and his self-promotion as the counter-cultural impact of the gospel
the ‘father’ of the Corinthian church and the of Christ crucified, in its message (1:18–25),
model of Christian discipleship (cf. Dahl 1967). its chosen recipients (1:26–31), and its proper
Paul’s first move is to ridicule the creation of medium (2:1–5).
such groups. Since the whole church belongs to The message of the cross is portrayed as an
Christ and constitutes his body (12:12–27) any uncompromising indictment of human values
1 corinthians 96

of wisdom and power, since it reverses their could claim status by education (‘wise’), political
standards and undermines their pretensions. In influence (‘powerful’), or ancestry (‘of noble
1:18 Paul introduces the twin antitheses of wis- birth’, 1:26). Although this observation plays a
dom/foolishness and power/weakness, which rhetorical function here, it must also be broadly
undergird this whole section, and he embraces true (for a social profile of the church, see 1 COR
the apparent absurdity of his message of Christ E.1–2). For Paul, the predominantly low-status
crucified—absurd, however, only to those ‘who composition of the church is no accident: it
are perishing’. The division of humanity into indicates precisely God’s choice which aggres-
two groups—‘those perishing’ and ‘those being sively ‘shames’ the wise and powerful in the
saved’ (he never says believers have been saved)— world. To creat a rhetorical tricolon, Paul adds
is similar to the dualistic spirit of apocalyptic to his earlier twin motifs of wisdom and power
literature, as also are the pejorative nuances in a third category, the low (lit. ignoble) and des-
phrases like ‘this age’ (1:20) and ‘the world’ (1:21). pised (1:28) who shame those ‘of noble birth’
For Paul, the turning-point of the ages is pre- (1:26). He then expands this category to its full-
cisely in the death (and resurrection) of Christ (cf. est possible generalization: God chose the
15:20–8). The cross of Christ marks the final things that are not, to bring to nothing the
indictment of vaunted human ‘wisdom’, the ful- things that are (1:28). The phrase ‘the nobodies’
filment of the prediction of Isa 29:14, cited in 1:19. depicts then, as now, those of no social signifi-
With rhetorical questions, Paul calls for those cance, but it also evokes notions of God’s cre-
reputed to be wise (‘scribes’ are those so reputed ative role in bringing creation out of nothing
in the Jewish world) and declares that God has (cf. Rom 4:17; Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17). And if salva-
not just bypassed ‘the wisdom of the world’ but tion is entirely the creation of God, no human
utterly subverted it (1:20). The failure of human- being can claim credit or rest confidence in any
kind to know God according to its own system human attributes of status or significance (1:29).
of wisdom triggers a divine plan springing from Theologically this line of thought is parallel to
a deeper ‘wisdom of God’ (1:21; cf. Rom 1:18–23). Paul’s assault on Jewish boasting in Rom 2–4,
In Jewish fashion, Paul divides humankind into but here it is widened to embrace the whole
two: Jews and Greeks/Gentiles (the two latter are human race. It is precisely the Corinthians’
synonymous in 1:22–4, but the term ‘Greek’ is boasting and concomitant arrogance which
particularly well suited for association with wis- Paul opposes throughout this letter (cf. 4:18;
dom). The distinction between their desires (Jews 5:2; 8:1; 13:4), and it is here exposed in its
want ‘signs’—that is, demonstrations of divine absurdity. All that salvation means in Christ
power—and Greeks want ‘wisdom’) is rhetoric- (the list of abstract nouns in 1:30 sums up its
ally over-schematized, since Jews were also inter- meaning by reference to the core metaphors in
ested in wisdom (e.g. the Jewish wisdom Pauline theology) is possible only from God (so
material) and Greeks were also interested runs the Greek behind ‘he is the source of your
in supernatural power (e.g. in healing). But it life’, 1:30). And here Paul can rightly claim to be
enables Paul to present the message of Christ in continuity with the prophetic warning
crucified as the inverse of all human values. It is against self-confidence, citing (1:31) Jer 9:24,
‘a stumbling-block’ to Jews (cf. Gal 5:11; 6:12–14), whose context warns against glorying in wis-
particularly because of the scriptural association dom, power, and wealth.
between ‘hanging on a tree’ and being accursed Finally, Paul addresses the question of the
by God (Deut 21:22–3, cited in Gal 3:13); it is medium by which this message is conveyed
‘foolishness’ to Gentiles, since this Roman pun- (2:1–5) recalling the terms in which he first com-
ishment was universally feared as a hideously municated the gospel. Here he pointedly
cruel and shameful death (the shame of pro- eschews rhetorical ability, despite the fact that
longed, helpless, and public death being as dev- this passage, 1:18–2:5, is one of the most rhet-
astating as its pain). But to those who are ‘called’ orically effective in the New Testament! In the
this ultimate symbol of weakness and absurdity Graeco-Roman world ‘wisdom’ was closely
represents, paradoxically, the precise locale associated with rhetorical skill (‘lofty’ or ‘plaus-
where God displays his power and wisdom ible’ words, 2:1, 4), which was a central element
(1:24–5). in ‘secondary’ education and was highly prized
This negation of the human value-system is by a public which enjoyed listening to finely
matched by God’s call of believers (1:26–31). The crafted speeches in the courtroom, assembly,
social make-up of the Corinthian church proves or theatre (see Litfin 1994). Paul claims that his
Paul’s point since few Corinthian Christians message was so completely focused on Christ
 97 1 corinthians

crucified (2:2) that any decorative oratory would he argues that their behaviour in fact disqualifies
have been utterly inconsistent. His own weakness their claim to be ‘spiritual’!
as messenger (2:3) matched the ‘weakness’ of the Paul first refers to a ‘wisdom’ communicated
message, so that its powerful effect in evoking among the ‘mature’, which is hidden and
faith might be identified unmistakably as the decreed from eternity ‘for our glory’ (2:6–7).
power of the Spirit of God, not any human That may seem to confirm the élitist claims of
achievement (2:4–5). Paul here anticipates his the leaders of the Corinthian church who act as
later self-depiction as a figure of weakness and though they were already rich and filled (4:8).
humiliation (4:9–13), characteristics which match But Paul makes clear that he understands such
the message of the cross (cf. 2 Cor 4:7–15; 11:21– concepts in an apocalyptic framework in which
12:10). Though they admired his letters (2 Cor God’s wisdom is precisely opposite to the wis-
10:10), the élite Corinthian Christians clearly des- dom claimed by ‘the world’, especially that
pised Paul’s speaking abilities (2 Cor 11:6); but espoused by the élite (‘the rulers of this age’);
Paul regards his ‘disability’ here as precisely mak- similarly, the ‘glory’ to which we are destined is
ing visible the only ‘ability’ that counts, the power not a present but a future possession (2:9). It has
of God. often been thought that ‘the rulers of this age’
referred to in 2:6 and 2:8 are the supernatural
(2:6–3:4) True Wisdom for Spiritual, not Bick- forces of evil which Paul elsewhere calls
ering, Christians At first sight 2:6–16 seems ‘powers’ and ‘authorities’ (e.g. 1 Cor 15:24; Rom
to shift into a different gear. After denigrating 8:38; cf. Col 2:15). But the precise term he uses
wisdom in 1:18–2:5, Paul suddenly claims to im- here (archontes) is more naturally taken to refer
part wisdom, and in doing so changes from the to (human) ‘political authorities’ (cf. Rom 13:3)
first person singular (I) to the first person plural and their responsibility for the crucifixion (2:8)
(we)—a change then reversed in 3:1 ff. What is strongly suggests that Paul is thinking primarily
more, the claim to privilege the ‘mature’ (2:6; the of earthly political powers. The notion that
Greek could be translated ‘perfect’) looks out of these powers are ‘doomed to perish’ matches
step with the notion that the cross subverts the thought of 1:28 (where the same Gk. verb is
human hierarchies (1:26–9), while several terms used): those considered ‘something’ are shamed
in this section of the letter are unusual or even through the cross, while the ‘nothings’ in this
unique in Pauline literature (e.g. ‘the depths world are destined for ‘glory’/honour (2:7). The
of God’, 2:10, and the contrast between the ‘spir- shamed Crucified One turns out to be—by the
itual’ and the ‘unspiritual’, 2:13–15; cf. 15:44–6 and same paradox as 1:25—the ‘Lord of glory’ (2:8).
Pearson 1973). Is Paul claiming access to a higher The ‘glory’ which is destined for believers (2:7)
wisdom than the folly of Christ crucified? Does is defined in 2:9 as indescribably beyond human
this passage reveal an esoteric or mystical side to imagination by means of a pastiche of scriptural
Pauline theology not witnessed elsewhere? phrases, drawn principally from Isa 64:4 and
The best explanation is that Paul is not out- 65:17. The point here, developed in 2:10–16, is
lining a new or more esoteric form of wisdom, that the Spirit gives access to a realm of know-
but spelling out the implications of his gospel ledge, and a language in which to communicate
in terms that partially reflect the vocabulary it, quite beyond normal human knowledge and
and concepts of the leaders of the church in communication. This is not to suggest that the
Corinth, but also in such a way that he can gospel is inherently irrational, but that its content
spring a rhetorical trap on his dialogue partners and what it reveals about God’s paradoxical pur-
in 3:1–5. Although we cannot be fully confident poses go well beyond the frame of reference in
in this matter, it is very likely that Paul picks up which human language operates. As suggested
and reuses elements of the theological vocabu- above, some of the vocabulary here might reflect
lary of the Corinthian élite in this passage, for the terms in which the ‘spiritual’ people in Cor-
instance, their claim to be recipients of the inth distinguished themselves from those who
revelation of the Spirit, to be ‘spiritual’ and had merely normal human abilities, the psychikoi
not just in possession of ordinary, natural life (those with merely natural human life, psychē)
(the ‘unspiritual’ of v. 14), to speak in Spirit- translated in 2:14 as ‘unspiritual’. However, by
inspired terms to one another (2:13), and to be using the ‘we’ form throughout (e.g. ‘we have
above critical scrutiny in such matters (2:15). received . . . the Spirit that is from God’, 2:12),
Paul’s skill in this passage is to accept and Paul suggests that these special attributes are
rework this pattern of vocabulary and then to applicable to all believers. Those who ‘love God’
turn it against the Corinthian élite in 3:1–5 when (2:9; cf. 8:3) are gifted with ‘the gifts of God’s
1 corinthians 98

Spirit’ (2:14; cf. 12:1–11), which, like the cross, they are, operating on the level of mere squab-
appear foolish by worldly standards (2:14). The bling humans rather than as gifted and
Spirit therefore enables an understanding much inspired people of the Spirit. Thus it appears
deeper than mere human knowledge (2:15). that the party claims (‘I belong to Paul’ etc.)
Indeed, Paul can even claim in 2:16 that the rhet- which seemed to disappear from sight after 1:18
orical question of Isa 40:13 (originally phrased were actually in the background all along. For
to expect the answer ‘no one’) can be used to Paul they represent a mindset determined by
describe a position filled by believers, who really the values of ‘this age’ which have been funda-
have ‘the mind of the Lord’ (here taken to refer mentally subverted by the message of the cross
to Christ). Such bold claims indicate that Paul (1:18–2:5) and superseded by the new depths of
regards Christian faith as opening a dimension understanding afforded by the Spirit (2:6–16).
of understanding far more profound than any-
thing offered by non-believing perspectives; this (3:5–4:5) Models of Leadership in the Church
is of a piece with his assertion that the cosmos, Now that he has returned to the topic of party
and time, and life, and death ‘belong to’ believers, groups in the Corinthian church (3:4), Paul con-
inasmuch as they belong to Christ (3:21–3). structs another line of argument against such
But Paul’s dialogue with the élite in Corinth factionalism, this time focused on leadership
cannot rest here. He now springs on them a and its evaluation. To align oneself with one
rhetorical trap which denies to them the very or another leader is, for Paul, to commit three
spiritual superiority he had described in such cardinal errors: (1) to place leaders on a pedestal,
glowing terms in 2:6–16. If what he has just where they do not belong; (2) to play them off
described is the condition of the ‘spiritual’, let inappropriately against one another; and (3) to
the Corinthians know that Paul could not ini- reward them with human praise rather than
tially impart such spiritual knowledge to them leaving to God the assessment of their work.
since they were merely ‘people of the flesh, These three themes are the principal elements
infants in Christ’ (3:1). They cannot here be in the discussion of leadership in 3:5–4:5, which
described as ‘unspiritual’ (2:14), since they Paul develops by using metaphors drawn from
had, as believers, received the Spirit (12:12–13); agriculture (3:5–9), building (3:9–17), and house-
yet at the start of their Christian lives they were hold slavery (4:1–5). 3:18–23 forms an interlude
hardly spiritual in the terms they now claim, which links this section back to 1:18–31 and
only ‘of the flesh’—that is, ensnared in merely points to the folly of the boasting which takes
human patterns of thought and behaviour place in leadership competitions.
(cf. the flesh–Spirit antithesis in Gal 5 and The agricultural metaphors in 3:5–9 emphasize
Rom 8). At that stage, they could only take the subordinate nature of Christian leadership
milk and were not ready to be weaned (3:2). as a task fulfilled only at the bidding of the Lord
But now comes Paul’s really devastating blow: (3:5, 8) and in utter dependence on God’s cre-
‘even now you are still not ready, for you are still ative activity (3:6–7, 9). Paul and Apollos are no
of the flesh’ (3:2–3, emphasis added). In other more than servants through whom (not in
words, all that Paul has been saying about ‘the whom) the Corinthians believed (3:5). Paul, as
spiritual’ and their understanding of the mys- founder of the church (a role he recalls fre-
teries of God cannot really be applied to the quently in this letter, cf. 3:10; 4:15; 9:2), may be
Corinthians: he has built up the mystique of said to have been its planter; Apollos’ subse-
this category only to deny that the Corinthians quent activity was to water the plants (3:6). But
can fit it! This is the first of many attempts in neither role is of any value without the gift of
this letter to puncture the pride of the Corinth- growth to the plants, a gift which only God can
ian Christians, but there is none more devas- bestow (3:6–7). The Corinthians belong to the
tating. The basis of Paul’s claim that they are church by God’s calling (1:2, 26–7), and it is God
still of the flesh is where the trap really bites: alone who is ‘the source of your life in Christ
the jealousy and quarrelling evidenced in their Jesus’ (1:30): thus it is absurd to use slogans
claims of belonging to rival leaders (3:3–4) which suggest that their leaders were them-
reveal precisely how immature they are! The selves the creators, rather than simply the in-
party-groupings which set up rival claims to struments, of the church’s life. Moreover, the
status in wisdom or in the excellence of the two tasks of planting and watering cannot be
chosen leader indicate not how mature but played off against one another: the two workers
how immature the Corinthian church is: their ‘have a common purpose’ (2:8; lit. ‘are one’), so
bids for superiority show just how inferior it is senseless to claim to belong to one and not
 99 1 corinthians

to the other. They are ‘working together’ in an Indeed the seriousness of the building work
agricultural project planned and owned by God being undertaken in Corinth is underlined in the
(3:9). And they will receive their reward not extension of the metaphor to the church as a
through human adulation but by God’s assess- temple (3:16–17). Elsewhere, each Christian’s
ment of their labour (3:8). body is described as a temple of the Holy Spirit
The end of 3:9 switches the metaphor to that (6:19), but here (as in 2 Cor 6:16) the church as a
of building, an image which governs collective is so described. This is a striking trans-
the discussion of leadership in 3:10–15 and is fer of terminology and allegiance from the Jeru-
then extended with reference to the temple salem temple, which was still standing at this
(3:16–17). Paul the planter in 3:6 is now Paul time and was the object of reverence by Jews
the master builder, who laid the foundation of both in Palestine and in the Diaspora. Paul’s
the church in Corinth (3:10). In this case refer- Gentile converts were never instructed to pay
ence is made not to Apollos, but to ‘someone any attention, or contribute any taxes, to that
else’ who is building on that foundation. Since building; nor, of course, did they construct any
within this metaphor God is less clearly the ‘temples’ of their own. They were encouraged,
means of growth, the spotlight falls on human rather, to think of themselves as a temple, the
beings with responsibility for building, with a locus of God’s holy presence. Thus, to inflict
none-too-veiled threat that they may be per- damage on a church community is to touch
forming their task badly (3:10, 12–13). The God’s precious sanctuary, inviting his immedi-
aggressive tone in Paul’s voice has led many ate judgement (3:17). Builders in Corinth should
commentators to suspect that he is attacking beware that they really build and do not destroy
some specific individual(s) in the church (e.g. (cf. 8:10–11).
Barrett 1971: 87–8). Moreover, it is tempting to 3:18–23 briefly interrupts the sequence of
take 3:11 as a rebuke of those who claim to metaphors to underline once more the coun-
belong to Cephas, on the basis of the famous ter-cultural character of Christian commitment
rock prediction: ‘You are Peter and on this (3:18–19 echoes themes from 1:18–31). Expanding
rock I will build my church’ (Mt 16:18). It is quotes from Job 5:12 and Ps 94:11, Paul empha-
just possible that Paul is here attacking Peter sizes again God’s opposition to the worldly
and his influence in Corinth, though elsewhere standards of evaluation which undergird the
in the letter he speaks of Peter in unpolemical Corinthians’ rivalry as they boast in competing
terms (9:5; 15:5) and we do not know if the leaders (3:19–21). In fact, their slogans suggest a
rock saying, which is found only in Matthew, fundamental misapprehension of themselves
was known in Corinth at this date. Paul is and of the relationship between church and
concerned at the direction of the current lead- leader. Instead of saying ‘I belong to Paul’
ership of the church, and reveals those anxie- (or whomever), they should recognize rather
ties by warning of the consequences of that Paul (or Apollos or Cephas) ‘belong to’
building with worthless materials (3:12–15). them (3:21–2). Although God’s servants may
Again the test of value comes not from present play important roles in founding and encour-
human assessment but from God’s definitive aging the church, their purpose is not to win
judgement which will operate on ‘the Day’. admirers or adherents but to serve the church to
Building on traditional images of ‘the Day of which they belong. By placing leaders on a
the Lord’ as a fiery event (e.g. Mal 3:2–3; 4:1; cf. pedestal the Corinthian church actually de-
2 Thess 1:7–8), Paul suggests that all worthless means itself: the leaders are there for the sake
building materials will be consumed and the of the church, not the other way around. And
builder rewarded or punished (‘suffer loss’, Paul can expand this principle rhetorically with
3:15) on the basis of what survives. The context the claim that the world, life, death, and time are
suggests that he is referring specifically to at the service of the church, because this com-
those with leadership responsibilities, rather munity is not some mere club or social gather-
than to each individual believer. His basis for ing but the centre of God’s plan for the world
confidence that the builder will survive, even if and history (3:22; cf.6:2–3 and the expansion of
his work is destroyed, is that God’s grace has a this theme in Colossians and Ephesians). At
secure grasp of those in Christ (cf. 5:5; 11:32). least, the church has that role inasmuch as
However, that does not negate the possibility (and only inasmuch as) it belongs to Christ
that believers may somehow prise themselves (that is the one slogan from 1:12 which Paul
away from Christ by continual and deliberate does not here reverse); and Christ himself
disloyalty (cf. 9:27; 10:6–12). belongs to God (cf. 11:3; 15:28). As the token of
1 corinthians 100

the new creation in the midst of ‘this age’, the back on 3:5–4:5, Paul says he has ‘applied
church has a significance far greater than the all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit’
leaders God uses to serve it. But its significance (v. 6). The Greek here is slightly obscure and
lies only in the fact that it belongs and bears might mean simply that he has put his discussion
witness to Christ, the agent of God’s re-creative in the form of analogies (relating to Apollos and
power in the universe. himself) rather than using literal speech, or that
The third metaphor of leadership is that of he has changed the analogies from one meta-
household slaves, specifically stewards (4:1–5). phor to another (gardener, builder, steward) to
Again it is implied that such figures should not make his points as clear as possible. Another
be the objects of praise (they are only agents of possible nuance is that he has disguised his
Christ, or of ‘the mysteries of God’); but the meaning, making explicit reference to Apollos
emphasis here falls on the assessment of their and himself, but really referring to other people
work. Stewards are held accountable as to their (e.g. Cephas?). But it is unnecessary to attribute to
trustworthiness (4:2), but by their masters, not by Paul some subtle encoding of his message. He
those they encounter in the course of their work is simply drawing attention to his use of meta-
(cf. Rom 14:4). At this point, Paul becomes dir- phor to indicate that he has set out these various
ectly personal, applying the metaphor specific- leadership models in order to undercut the rival-
ally to himself as one who might come under the ries which afflict the Corinthian church. It is very
Corinthians’ scrutiny (4:3) but who prefers to hard to discern the source or meaning of the
leave the judgement to his master (4:4; ‘the saying Paul cites in this context, ‘Nothing beyond
Lord’, kyrios, means also ‘the master’ of a slave). what is written’ (v. 6; some suspect that the text is
Here then emerges, what we might have sus- corrupt at this point). This looks like a slogan,
pected all along, that the party divisions in Cor- but whose is it, and does it refer to Scripture or to
inth represent a critical evaluation of Paul’s something else that was ‘written’ (see Hooker
apostleship, inasmuch as some claim to belong 1963; Fee 1987: 166–9)? Few scholars claim to
to others and not to Paul (1:12). As in 9:3, Paul hints understand the allusion, which one imagines
at a body of opposition to his authority, but made more sense to the Corinthians than it
he attempts to defuse it by insisting that it is does to us.
inappropriate for the Corinthians to judge his Paul regards Corinthian pride as manifest in a
behaviour, and premature as well: when the sense of special achievement and perfection.
Lord comes (and not before), he will give full Their giftedness, which he recognized in 1:4–7,
and final judgement (4:4–5). What will count led to a sense of distinction, which easily oblit-
then is commendation from God (4:5), not the erated gratitude for gifts received (v. 7). They
measure of praise (or criticism) leaders currently have been enriched (by God, 1:5), but imagine
receive from members of the church. themselves simply rich (v. 8); their notions of
fullness and royal authority might be related to
(4:6–21) Paul’s Apostolic Style and Authority the Stoic notion of the self-sufficiency of the
The personal turn taken in Paul’s final leader- perfectly wise man. The sarcasm of v. 8 is an
ship metaphor (4:1–5) indicates the progression attempt to puncture that pride, and the follow-
of the argument towards self-defence. It now ing verses deflate it by depicting the life of the
becomes clear that Paul is under attack in Cor- apostles (supposedly the models of the church)
inth, unfavourably compared with other leaders as the very opposite of the honour and victory
and criticized specifically for the poor figure he which the Corinthians expect for themselves.
cuts and for his long absence from the scene. Like those under a sentence of death, who are
Paul’s response requires him to confront and brought on at the end of a public spectacle to
ridicule Corinthian pride (vv. 6–8), to describe, entertain the masses by their gruesome deaths,
by contrast, his own highly vulnerable ministry the apostles are a despicable sight, watched only
(vv. 9–13), and finally to assert his fatherly to be ridiculed (v. 9). Their reputations match
authority in Corinth and announce his forth- the folly, powerlessness, and shame of the cross
coming visit (vv. 14–21). (v. 10 echoes the themes of 1:18–25), and vv. 11–13
Paul’s first target is the inflated sense of spell this out in practical terms, with some
importance in the Corinthian church, which he intriguing echoes of the ethos of the gospels
regards as the cause of their party rivalries: they (e.g. Mk 6:7–12; Lk 6:24–31). Included in this
are puffed up in comparing one leader with list of demeaning conditions of life is the fact
another, congratulating themselves on their that Paul works with his own hands (v. 12). That
chosen objects of allegiance (v. 6). Looking suggests that he is combating an ethos fostered
 101 1 corinthians

by the social élite (who alone looked down what follows in chs. 5–16 would cut any ice in
on manual labour); in deliberate and perhaps Corinth unless the members of the church were
exaggerated contrast, Paul presents himself as prepared to reconsider their canons of ‘wisdom’
the scum of the earth (v. 13; cf. 1:28–9). and to listen to their ‘father’ in Christ.
The polemical purpose of this self-portrait is The oral information to which Paul responds
evident when Paul declares his aim to be to here was apparently rather more damning than
‘admonish’ his ‘children’ (v. 14); he denies that what the Corinthians had divulged in their letter
he wants to shame them (cf. however 6:5), but (7:1). Paul is shocked that they have tolerated a
that cannot be ruled out as a proper result. form of sexual liaison which he considers scan-
It now becomes clear that Paul’s role as foun- dalous even among ‘pagans’, whom he takes to
der of the church is crucial to his present bid to have minimal moral standards (cf. 1 Thess 4:5).
correct them. However many teachers and The ‘immorality’ (porneia) concerns a prolonged
leaders may have operated in Corinth, they relationship between a man and his father’s wife,
can have no status higher than ‘guardian’ (lit. probably his stepmother and probably after the
childminder—the slave employed by parents death of his father. We cannot say more about
to guard the safety of their children), whereas the figures involved (Clarke 1993 suggests that the
Paul is unique as their ‘father’ (v. 15). Paul wants man may have had financial interests in such a
to claim this role even in relation to those who relationship, e.g. to secure his inheritance), except
were converted through other evangelists (e.g. that Paul’s chastisement of the man alone sug-
after his departure from Corinth) and he uses gests that the woman was not a Christian (cf.
it, as fathers often did in the ancient world, to vv. 12–13). Sexual relations between a man and
require that his ‘children’ imitate his pattern of his stepmother were generally considered inces-
life and thought (v. 16). He is dispatching Tim- tuous, both in Judaism (e.g. Lev 18:8) and in the
othy (perhaps with this letter) to reinforce his Graeco-Roman world (Ap. Met. 10.2–12), and it is
point, but also now promises to come in per- therefore surprising that this Corinthian believer
son (vv. 17–21). It appears that his long absence had got away with such behaviour thus far. It is
from Corinth has been criticized, or at least possible that he was too important socially to be
exploited, by those who think Paul’s opinion subject to criticism, and that he justified his
about their affairs is insignificant (v. 18). With a behaviour specifically on the basis of the Chris-
final rhetorical flourish (still utilized by par- tian ethos of liberty. The latter may be hinted at
ents!) Paul offers them a choice: it is up to by Paul’s expostulation: ‘And you are arrogant!’
them whether he comes with gentleness or (v. 2). That arrogance may exist despite such
punishment (v. 21). This threat proved to be a sexual activity, but it might also flourish because
fatal mistake, since Paul, when he finally did of the claim to freedom from taboos which Chris-
visit Corinth, found himself facing stiffer tian faith was understood to entail: in 6:12 (and
opposition than he had anticipated, and his 10:23) Paul will cite a Corinthian slogan which
stay proved extremely painful (2 Cor 2:1–2). suggests a conscious embracing of liberty, even in
The assertion of authority was to backfire in sexual conduct (6:13). For the rest of this chapter
outright repudiation of Paul and still harsher Paul simply assumes that this behaviour is
criticisms of his ministry: in 2 Corinthians we wrong; its perpetrator must therefore, he insists,
can watch him trying to patch up a now deeply be expelled. Later, however, in 6:12–20, he gives
uneasy relationship. some reasons why he thinks a Christian must be
responsible in the use of his/her body.
Sexual and Related Issues (5:1–7:40) In vv. 2–5 Paul portrays an act of expulsion
(excommunication) which may owe something
(5:1–13) Expulsion of an Immoral Member of to synagogue practices known to him. He
the Church The abruptness with which this imagines the church gathering like a court, to
chapter begins has led some to wonder whether pronounce judgement ‘with the power of our
it starts a new letter or is occasioned by some Lord Jesus’. Such is his own strength of feeling,
fresh news. But there are good reasons why Paul and his lack of confidence in the moral values of
should have delayed treating such matters until the Corinthian Christians, that he imagines
now. The first four chapters of the letter, which himself present ‘in spirit’ and declares already
undercut the Corinthians’ pride and reassert what verdict the church court will reach: they
Paul’s authority, form the necessary platform are to ‘hand this man over to Satan for the
for Paul to launch his specific assaults on destruction of the flesh’ (v. 5). Handing over to
behaviour in the Corinthian church. None of Satan (cf. 1 Tim 1:20) probably means expulsion,
1 corinthians 102

on the understanding that the world outside he is unhappy with the degree of social integra-
the church is in the grip of Satan (‘the god of tion which the Corinthian Christians enjoy (6:1;
this world’, 2 Cor 4:4), but it is unclear whether 10:14–22). He has no principled objection to
‘the destruction of the flesh’ implies physical social intercourse with unbelievers, even if
harm (cf. 2 Cor 12:7), even death (cf. 1 Cor they be immoral or ‘idolatrous’: the danger lies
11:30), or, more benignly, the suppression of in association with those who have been
the man’s fleshly nature, that is, his propensity accepted into the church as ‘brothers’ or ‘sisters’.
to sin (cf. 3:3; Gal 5:19–21). In any case, Paul Paul assumes that the Corinthians will know for
regards the final result of this action as in sure who are ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ (5:12–13),
some way salvific: ‘his spirit’ (the Greek lacks probably on the basis of whether or not they
‘his’ and might conceivably mean ‘the spirit of have received baptism (6:9–11; 12:12–13). He
the church’) will be saved in the final judge- regards it as far more dangerous to associate
ment. The connection between destruction with immoral insiders than immoral outsiders,
of the ‘flesh’ and salvation of the ‘spirit’ is presumably because the example of the insider
obscure, and depends on the meaning of will be more influential on the rest of the con-
each term. Does physical suffering chasten, gregation. Perhaps the Corinthians did not
or death make atonement for sin, or moral understand themselves to be committed to a
correction purify the individual’s spirit (see common lifestyle or to be bound as tightly to
Fee 1987: 208–13)? 1 Cor 11:32 might suggest each other as Paul here assumes. They may
some chastening process. have thought of ‘religion’ as quite separate
vv. 6–8 highlight the danger of the Corinthians’ from ‘ethics’ and their relationships with social
nonchalant attitude in this matter, drawing on equals more important than their fellowship
purity metaphors associated with Passover. v. 6 with other believers. Paul’s instruction here
contains a proverb (cf. Gal 5:9 and Mt 13:33) con- requires that they regard moral behaviour with
cerning the disproportionate influence of a tiny the utmost seriousness and that they under-
substance—in this case, clearly, the single indi- stand themselves as a community whose inten-
vidual in the corporate body of the church. But sity of involvement with one another renders
yeast leads Paul to think of Passover, and the need them vulnerable to internal corruption (v. 13
before Passover to clear out all traces of the cites from a parallel theme in Deut 17; see
substance (Ex 12:15). The church is to become Rosner 1994). The harsh measures advocated
unleavened (that is, without sin) because it is, in (‘not even to eat with such a one’, v. 11) would
principle, a new, unleavened substance (v. 7); Paul debar the offender from the communal Lord’s
often calls on his converts to become in practice Supper, which, like meals generally in antiquity,
what they already are. They are a part of the was an important token of association.
Passover feast founded on the sacrifice of Christ,
the lamb (an unparalleled use of such imagery in (6:1–11) The Absurdity of Using Corinthian
Paul). Then, in v. 8, the church shifts within the Courts The theme of judging insiders rather
metaphor from the unleavened dough to par- than outsiders (5:12–13) leads Paul into a short
takers of the festival: the Corinthians’ church life digression. He will return to the topic of sexual
may be considered a permanent Passover meal, morality at the end of ch. 6, but for now uses
which must be kept free from the impurities of this opportunity to register his disapproval of
‘malice and evil’ such as the sexual sin presently Corinthian Christians who are settling their
tolerated in their midst. disputes with one another in the civil courts
Thus the final paragraph of this chapter of Corinth. We do not know how many such
(vv. 9–13) underlines the need for the church cases there had been (perhaps only one), or
to condemn and expel the bad influence pres- precisely what they concerned, though the ref-
ently festering in its midst. In v. 9 Paul refers to erence to ‘defrauding’ in v. 7 suggests financial
his earlier letter as already issuing instruction disputes, which indeed were the most com-
to dissociate with the ‘immoral’—an instruction mon cause of litigation in the Graeco-Roman
which seems to have been objected to in Cor- world. Paul is affronted that the Corinthian
inth as implying complete social withdrawal, Christians seem incapable of resolving their
but which Paul here insists meant only separ- internal disputes without resorting to the
ation from immoral members of the church. judgement of ‘unbelievers’. His objection lies
He now makes clear that he does not require not so much in his fear lest the community
a sectarian retreat (‘going out of the world’, wash its dirty linen in public (he shows no
v. 10), although later chapters will indicate that concern here that it will be discredited), but
 103 1 corinthians

in the absurdity of asking for judgement from vv. 9–11 follow straight on: the wrongdoing
people far less capable than believers. Those which has given rise to the litigation threatens
who sit in the Corinthian courts are described to place those responsible in the category of
as ‘the unrighteous’ (v. 1) and ‘unbelievers’ ‘the wrongdoers’ who will be excluded from
(v. 6), and Paul’s objection to resorting to the kingdom of God (v. 9). The theme of the
their judgement is not simply that they are kingdom of God features very rarely in Paul’s
liable to be corrupt (though, arguably, justice theology, and is chiefly found in association
was a rare commodity; see Winter 1991) but with traditional formulae, as here where it is
that they represent ‘the world’ (v. 2), the realm linked to a list of excluded persons (vv. 9–10;
of unbelief which is by definition inferior in cf. Gal 5:19–21). The list here expands that
understanding and integrity to the circle of ‘the offered in 5:10 and its opening with sexual
saints’. Here the apocalyptic dualism between sins and idolatry is parallel to Jews’ denunci-
‘church’ and ‘world’ which underlay Paul’s ations of the sins they considered typical of the
whole discourse in chs. 1–4 has its social appli- Gentile world (cf. Rom 1:18–31). The two terms
cation in his insistence that the Corinthian translated (NRSV) as ‘male prostitutes’ and
Christians are in a wholly different category to ‘sodomites’ (v. 9) have been the subject of
outsiders (cf. esp. 2:6–8). The influence of this some debate. The first (lit. soft people) could
world-view is further evident in Paul’s appeal refer to ‘womanizers’ (i.e. those involved in
to the apocalyptic notion that God’s elect are heterosexual profligacy) but could also mean
destined to judge (or rule) the world in the end- the passive partner in male homosexual acts;
time (v. 2; cf. Dan 7:22; 1 Enoch 1:9; Rev 2:26–7). the second is a rare term (lit. sleeper with
As in 3:21–3, Paul cleverly portrays the Corinth- males) which probably designates the pene-
ian Christians as underestimating their own trating partner in male-with-male sex. Paul,
importance. If they remembered their destiny like other Jews, considered either role in
in judging the world, even angels, they would homosexual acts disgraceful (cf. Rom 1:26–7).
not consider themselves incompetent to judge The list also includes two terms for financial
the trivial matters which they now ask others to fraudulence (‘thieves’, ‘robbers’), perhaps
decide (vv. 2–4). In reality, the Christian parties to reflecting the character of the disputes just
these disputes probably failed to see the church as discussed. Such behaviour, Paul insists, cannot
a juridical entity and looked to Corinthian judges now characterize their Christian lives (v. 11).
to provide publicly recognized verdicts which They have been washed, sanctified, and justi-
would restore their social honour. In Paul’s fied—a transformation whose description here
view, such outside authorities ‘have no standing probably alludes to the event of baptism. At
in the church’ (v. 4; lit. are despised by the church, that point they came under the authority of a
contrast Rom 13:1–7!). As a withering rebuke, he new master (‘in the name of the Lord Jesus
asks whether there is really no one in this com- Christ’, cf. 1:13–15) and received a new identity
munity which so values wisdom who is ‘in the Spirit of our God’ (cf. 12:13).
wise enough to deal with this matter (v. 5)! The
language here is reminiscent of Deut 1:16 (Moses’ (6:12–20) Immorality and the Significance of
creation of courts in Israel), and the whole pas- the Body The Corinthians would have agreed
sage may reflect the operation of internal courts with Paul that their receipt of the Spirit gave
in some Diaspora Jewish communities. them a new identity as ‘spiritual people’ (cf. 2:6–
In vv. 7–8 Paul steps onto a higher moral 16). But Paul thinks that they have failed to
plane and asks how these lawsuits have arisen grasp the implications of that change of iden-
in the first place: to have them is already to tity, in particular the limits it sets on the use of
lose them (‘a defeat for you’, v. 7). He hints at their bodies. In v. 12 he twice cites a formula,
an ethic of non-retaliation reminiscent of the ‘all things are lawful for me’ (cf. 10:23), which
Sermon on the Mount, without invalidating appears to be current in the Corinthian church
the lesser solution of internal adjudication. It and suggests a confident appropriation of Paul’s
is best to accept injustice, and permissible to gospel of ‘freedom’. Paul does not reject it out
seek its rectification through an internal court, of hand, but cautions lest its individualist
but it is inappropriate to ask ‘the unrighteous’ emphasis (‘all things are lawful for me’) prove
to judge such matters and utterly scandalous detrimental to the church as a whole: not all
that Christians are themselves responsible for things are beneficial (i.e. to others). That insist-
injustice in the first place—even against their ence on considering the good of others will be
fellow Christians (v. 8). the cornerstone of his argument concerning
1 corinthians 104

food in chs. 8–10 and spiritual gifts in chs. 12–14. is not altogether clear why this sin is here
Here Paul is also aware of how freedom can taken to be uniquely ‘against the body itself’,
become a new slavery (‘I will not be dominated but Paul may be hinting at the way in which
by anything’); he has a lively sense of the power sexual activity affects (and therefore poten-
of sin (cf. Rom 6; Gal 5:13–24). tially corrupts) the whole person at the deepest
But Paul is most anxious lest this sense of point of our identity. Two final arguments
freedom create a carelessness regarding bodily underline the significance of the body for a
behaviour. The first part of 6:13 might again be a believer. First, the body is indwelt by the Spirit
citation from the Corinthian church: ‘ ‘‘food is of God, and thus has the sanctity of a temple
meant for the stomach and the stomach for (v. 19); and one does not treat a temple in a
food’’, and God will destroy both one and the cavalier fashion (cf. 3:17). Secondly, believers
other’. The reference to food anticipates the come under an ownership: like slaves bought
discussion of chs. 8–10, where Paul challenges at a market (v. 20), they are answerable in
the ‘knowledgeable’ who consider themselves totality to a master, and that includes their
immune to corruption by such a paltry phe- bodies (slaves were sometimes known simply
nomenon as food. In Paul’s eyes this betrays as ‘bodies’; cf. Rev 18:13).
a dangerously dualistic notion of the human
person as possessing a spirit/soul in principle (7:1–40) Celibacy and Marriage Paul now
separable from the body. He fears that this mentions the letter he has received from the
might lead (or had already led) to the justifica- Corinthians (v. 1), which may set the agenda
tion of sexual freedom on the basis that the for most of the rest of this letter. It is often
satisfaction of sexual appetites was as insignifi- supposed that the Corinthians meekly asked
cant as the assuaging of hunger. Thus he insists Paul’s opinion on these matters, but the signs
that ‘the body is not for porneia but for the Lord of tension in his relationship with them suggest
and the Lord for the body’ (v:13). Porneia was that their approach might not have been so
used in the Jewish tradition to refer to any deferential. The subject-matter for this chapter
sexual activity judged immoral (NRSV trans- is their statement (NRSV rightly uses inverted
lates here ‘fornication’). Paul will later talk commas), ‘It is well for a man not to touch a
about a sex with a prostitute (pornē, v. 15), but woman’ (7:1). ‘Touch’ is a euphemism for sexual
porneia could refer to anything he considered relations, and the statement seems to represent
illicit (it is used also in 5:1 and 7:2). ‘The body’ a principled rejection of all sexual activity. The
(sōma) must here include the material/physical position of those who held this view in Corinth
expression of our selves. In ch. 15 Paul will draw may be deduced as: (1) Those who are single
a distinction between the ‘natural body’ which should avoid marriage (see 7:1, 8–9); (2) Those
cannot inherit the kingdom of God and the who are married should refrain from sex with
‘spiritual body’ which will be the form of resur- their partners (see 7:3–6); (3) Those who are
rection life (15:42–50). That complication, in the married should seek divorce (see 7:10–11), espe-
existence of two kinds of body, perhaps ex- cially if they are married to an unbeliever (see
plains why Paul says here (v. 14) that God who 7:12–16); (4) Those who are engaged should not
raised the Lord will raise us up (not ‘will raise our proceed to marriage (see 7:36–8). We cannot be
bodies up’, as the line of argument might other- sure why some Corinthians took this appar-
wise suggest). ently ascetic stance. Early Christianity spawned
None the less, Paul cannot concede that our many kinds of asceticism (Brown 1988), but
present ‘natural bodies’ are irrelevant to Chris- here there may have been some denigration of
tian commitment. On the contrary, they are the body arising from the exuberance of experi-
‘members’—literally, limbs—of Christ (v. 15), ence in the Spirit, combined with the assump-
so that the way we handle them inevitably tion (widespread in antiquity) that prophecy
draws Christ into our activities. Paul exploits and other activities involving special receptivity
this notion as far as possible by a novel appli- to God required withdrawal from the ‘pollution’
cation of Gen 2:24 (‘the two shall become one of sex. If some of the Corinthians were particu-
flesh’) to all sexual unions, not just marriage. larly ‘eager for spiritual gifts’ (14:12), ‘anxious
The physical joining in sex with a prostitute about the affairs of the Lord, that they may be
actually links Christ’s body with that of a repre- holy in body and spirit’ (v. 34), they may have
sentative of sin—a union which Paul finds regarded it as necessary to avoid sexual activity
utterly scandalous. Hence the conclusion: ‘Flee and advantageous to withdraw from, or to
immorality’ (v. 18; NRSV ‘Shun fornication!’). It refuse to enter, marriage.
 105 1 corinthians

Paul begins his response to the Corinthians by Neither party is here allowed to make unilateral
dealing with the first three points in the sum- decisions: any period of sexual abstinence must
mary above (vv. 1–16). He then draws back to be by agreement and of limited duration, lest the
illustrate his principle that believers should sexual urge (Satan’s tempting) prove too strong
remain in the condition in which they were (v. 5). Such a period of abstinence may enable
called, with reference to circumcision and slavery a Christian couple to devote themselves to
(vv. 17–24). When broaching the question prayer, a notion with some parallels in Judaism
of ‘virgins’ (unmarried persons eligible for mar- (e.g. T. Naph. 8:8).
riage), he first expounds the advantages of At v. 6 is the first of many indications in this
detachment (vv. 25–31) and single-mindedness chapter that Paul is careful not to establish rules or
(vv. 32–5), before discussing the position of speak more confidently than is his right (cf. vv. 25,
such virgins, together with the case of the eligible 40). The ‘this’ which he here concedes may be
widow (vv. 36–40). Throughout he insists that marriage, but more probably refers to temporary
marriage is not sin, and sex within marriage abstinence from sex within marriage. Then v. 7
wholly appropriate (even necessary), but always means: I would like everyone to be sexually con-
with an unmistakable coolness. He consistently tinent like myself, but recognize that some
maintains that it is better, if possible, to be have this gift and can remain unmarried, while
unmarried, provided that this does not (1) involve others do not, needing to marry and to fulfil the
initiating a divorce, an action forbidden by the sexual obligations of that state. The ‘gift from
Lord (v. 10), or (2) subject the believer to irresist- God’ (charisma) represents the ability to remain
ible passions, leading to sex outside marriage celibate without succumbing to sexual desire.
(vv. 2, 9). The lack of enthusiasm for marriage vv. 8–9 turn directly to the unmarried and
in its own right, for the procreation of children, widowed. Paul himself is unmarried, perhaps
or for the establishment of a Christian family because his conversion disrupted his life-
(contrast Eph 5:21–6:4) is notable. plans so severely. The unmarried state is his
Paul starts by citing the Corinthian statement preference for all (for reasons he will detail in
that ‘it is well for a man not to touch a woman’, vv. 25–35), but he is worried again by the power
but he cannot accept it fully, at least not within of sexual passion (likened here to a fire), which
marriage. v. 2 could refer to men and women in some need to tame, or quench, within marriage.
general and their acquisition of marriage part- What about those who are already married
ners: ‘each man should have his own wife’ etc. and are tempted to escape from marriage? Here
(NRSV). But, in view of the following verses, it is Paul for once gives a command (cf. v. 6), though
perhaps more likely that it refers to married men not on his own authority but on that of the
and women who should ‘have’ (in the sense of Lord (v. 10). This is one of those very few places
‘have sexual relations with’) their partners: thus, (9:14 is another) where Paul refers explicitly to
‘each husband should have sex with his own wife’ the teaching of Jesus. He here cites a saying also
etc. (Fee 1987: 277–80). The reason for Paul’s attested (with some variations) in the Synoptics,
advice is his concern with immoralities, perhaps in which Jesus declared divorce to be illegitim-
with specific ‘cases of immorality’ (NRSV) in ate (Mk 10:2–11; Mt 19:3–9; Lk 16:18). In the case
mind, such as those alluded to in chs. 5 and 6. of a wife he imagines a second-best option
Lurking throughout this chapter is Paul’s fear of whereby she separates/divorces (vv. 13–15 sug-
the power of sexual desire, which, if not fulfilled gest that these may be synonyms for Paul) but
(or neutralized) within marriage, is likely to lead does not marry again (v. 11). Some think that his
to sin. vv. 3–4 indicate the obligations and privil- special concentration on the woman might re-
eges of both marriage partners in sexual matters, flect a specific case, or growing tendency, in
with a degree of reciprocity highly unusual in Corinth (Wire 1990). The acceptance of this
antiquity; indeed almost every point in the chap- second best (‘if she does separate . . . ’) shows
ter is discussed from both male and female that Paul does not regard the teaching of Jesus
angles. Nowhere is this more radical in effect as legislation; it sets some parameters, but
than in the second half of v. 4. The first half, allows for differences of situation. He will later
detailing the husband’s authority over his wife’s acknowledge that a Christian may have to
body, is a standard assumption in antiquity (and accept divorce at the hands of a non-Christian
all other patriarchal societies). But the second, by partner (v. 15), taking Jesus’ principle to rule out
putting the matter the other way around, under- only the initiation of divorce proceedings.
cuts assumptions of male privilege at their most vv. 12–16 deal with the case of Christians
sensitive point: the male body and its use in sex. already married to unbelievers. Paul does not
1 corinthians 106

recommend entering into such a partnership terms for conversion, and he seems to be talking
(7:39; cf. 2 Cor 6:14–16), but seems to envisage here of the state in which one becomes a Chris-
here the conversion of one partner in a marriage, tian, not a vocation to which one is summoned
a situation which could be fraught with difficulty (NRSV rightly translates at vv. 20, 24, but not at
if the Christian spouse disdained household v. 17). Such a policy of ‘stay as you are’ is indeed
idolatry (cf. 1 Pet 3:1–6). Such verses make his general advice in this chapter (if married,
clear that it was not always whole households don’t divorce; if single, remain so), with some
which converted (cf. 1:16). In this case, Paul exceptions allowed. It is now illustrated with
has no direct teaching from Jesus (v. 12), but regard to ethnic identity and social status
adapts what he knows to fit the social neces- (cf. the three categories in Gal 3:28). Circumci-
sities. He recommends staying in the marriage sion, the sign of male Jewish identity, should not
if at all possible and seems to be responding be reversed (as could be done by surgery or
to fears that the believer is somehow defiled by stretching and pinning what remains of the
by this intimate contact with the ‘unholy’. foreskin); similarly the foreskin should not be
If the marriage is to be maintained, and if removed for the sake of adopting Jewish identity.
holiness or defilement are in some sense con- Here Paul summarizes the theme of his letter to
tagious, logic propels Paul to insist that the the Galatians, insisting on the relativization of
unbelieving spouse is actually made ‘holy’ such cultural markers. Accordingly v. 19 echoes
through the believer, just as are the children statements in Galatians (5:6; 6:15), though with a
of even one Christian parent (v. 14). This different and extremely puzzling conclusion.
description of persons as being ‘holy’ or ‘sanc- ‘Keeping the commandments of God’ in any
tified’ is normally used by Paul only in rela- normal Jewish sense would include the practice
tion to believers in Christ (e.g. 1:2; 6:11); it is of circumcision; Paul has somehow redefined the
strange to find it used here of unbelievers, notion to filter out certain commands which he
whose future salvation is uncertain (v. 16). considers unnecessary in a multi-ethnic church
Children are mentioned here for the only (cf. 9:19–21).
time in the chapter and only as a supporting The second illustration concerns social iden-
argument, and it is unclear what, if anything, tity, as slave or free person (vv. 21–4). Here the
is implied by their designation as ‘holy’ (v. 14). same ‘stay as you are’ principle is applied as a
The verse has been used with equal force general rule, with legal status similarly relativ-
in arguments both for and against infant bap- ized. Christian slaves can consider themselves
tism, about which Paul never speaks explicitly. ‘freed persons belonging to the Lord’ (freed per-
v. 15 recognizes that the non-Christian partner sons usually had continuing obligations to their
may not wish to continue a marriage with a former owners), while Christians who are free
spouse whose recent conversion creates tension are really ‘slaves of Christ’ (vv. 22–3). This com-
in the marriage, and in this case Paul recom- pensatory redescription of reality renders social
mends allowing divorce for the sake of peace. location irrelevant to Christian obligation (and
Nothing here rules out remarriage, though the perhaps even inverts the assumed hierarchy of
possibility is not mentioned. v. 16 could be slave and free, see Martin 1990: 63–8), enabling
translated in either an optimistic or a pessimis- Paul to tell those in slavery not to mind about it
tic sense. Optimistically (‘who knows, you (v. 21). However, the second half of v. 21 con-
might save your spouse’), it undergirds the tains an ambiguity which has been the focus of
main thrust of the paragraph, urging a Christian some debate. The Greek could be taken to urge
to remain in a mixed marriage (so NRSV; REB; accepting slavery, even if there is an opportun-
cf. 1 Pet 3:1–2). Translated in a pessimistic sense ity of gaining freedom (so NRSV). However, it
(‘how do you know whether you will ever save could equally, and perhaps better, be taken in
your spouse?’), it discourages hopes of benefit an opposite sense, providing a partial exception
from remaining in such a marriage and thus to the general rule of the paragraph: ‘but if you
supports the concession of v. 15 that one may can gain your freedom, be sure to use that
withdraw from a hopeless situation (so RSV; opportunity’ (so RSV). In most cases, as Bartchy
NIV). The former is slightly more likely. (1973) pointed out, slaves would have no choice
The question of change of status leads Paul to in this matter: if an owner wished to free a slave,
formulate a general principle (v. 17): that you it would happen whether the slave wished it
should lead whatever life is apportioned by the or not. Since the chapter does contain other
Lord, which is taken to be that state in which you exceptions to the rule of ‘stay as you are’,
were called. ‘Called’ is one of Paul’s common and since v. 23 suggests that Paul considered
 107 1 corinthians

freedom a better condition than slavery, the sec- to mention children), regarding these as ‘the
ond, more positive, reading is to be preferred. affairs of the world’ which constitute a distrac-
None the less, the main thrust of the paragraph tion from ‘the affairs of the Lord’. For him, mar-
illustrates the rule of status-retention, which riage and family life are not part of a believer’s
v. 24 reiterates. service to the Lord but a competing interest
In v. 25 Paul turns to the specific case of which prevents ‘unhindered devotion to the
‘virgins’, that is, those not yet married. Girls Lord’ (v. 35; cf. v. 34: ‘his interests are divided’).
were typically married off by their parents at or The specific reference to the woman’s concern
very soon after puberty to men who were usually ‘to be holy in body and spirit’ (v. 34) may allude
several years older. Marriage and the subsequent to the concerns of particular Corinthian women,
raising of children was taken to be a civic duty who operated as prophets (11:2–16). Once again,
(to ensure future generations), but some radical Paul is cautious not to side too strongly with
philosophers (Cynics) took it to be a distraction those who forbid marriage (v. 35), but it is clear
from their philosophical calling. In what follows, that he considers ‘good order’ and ‘devotion to
Paul will mix some such Cynic motifs with his the Lord’ better served by singleness. It is pos-
own apocalyptic reasoning about the end of sible that he considers himself in this respect a
the world (see Deming 1995). In the first instance better ‘worker’ than other apostles who were
(vv. 25–31) he applies the principle of ‘stay as you accompanied by their wives (9:3–6; 15:10).
are’ on the grounds of the ‘impending crisis’ The next paragraph (vv. 36–8) returns to the
(v. 26). What he has in mind is made clearer in practical matter of virgins, first signalled in
v. 29 (‘the appointed time has grown short’) and v. 25. Unfortunately, the paragraph could be
v. 31 (‘the present form of this world is passing read in a number of different ways (see Fee
away’). Paul is convinced that he lives in the last 1987: 349–55). Some interpret it as concerning
generation (cf. 1 Thess 4:15 and 1 Cor 15:52). He a young girl’s father, who is responsible for
thus harbours the apocalyptic belief that all pre- marrying off his daughter: the verb used for
sent social structures will be dissolved, and also ‘he who marries his virgin’ (v. 38) normally
that the time preceding the ‘end’ will be charac- means ‘he who marries her off’, i.e. arranges
terized by acute distress (‘the impending crisis’). her marriage. Then the Greek could be taken
Under such circumstances it is clear that mar- to refer to a father anxious about his treatment
riage is of little value and the raising of future of his daughter, if she is getting over-age (the
generations an irrelevance. Paul cannot advocate Greek translated in NRSV ‘if his passions are
being rid of marriage relationships already strong’ could be taken in this quite different
entered, since he has the Lord’s word forbidding sense; a girl might be considered ‘overripe’ in
divorce (v. 10). But neither can he recommend her early twenties!); then it is no sin for him to
marriage for those as yet unmarried: it would not allow and arrange her marriage. The more usual
be morally wrong (vv. 28–9) but it would only interpretation of the text (adopted by the NRSV
make one more vulnerable to the distress of and by most commentators) takes it to speak of
social breakdown. In fact, even for those who an unmarried man and his desire to marry, or
are married, Paul advocates an ‘eschatological his control over this desire. Oddly, in either
detachment’: let them live ‘as though they had case, the girl’s wishes in this matter are entirely
no wives’, like all dealings with the world must ignored. Whether Paul envisages some sort of
be conducted on the basis of ‘as if not’ (vv. 29–31). permanent ‘engagement’ is unclear. As through-
This sentiment is paralleled in Jewish apocalyptic out the chapter, Paul allows marriage (‘it is
documents (e.g. 2 Esd 16:40 ff.). It is not entirely no sin’) but considers it a second-best option
clear what it would mean for married men to live (v. 38).
‘as though they had no wives’ (vv. 2–5 suggest it That principle is finally applied to the case
cannot mean a withdrawal from sex), but in of a widow (vv. 39–40; many girls were
some general sense marriage is relativized here widowed quite young). By the rule of ‘no di-
as an institution hardly worth investing in. vorce’ (v. 10) a woman can consider remar-
The second reason for Paul’s coolness riage only on the death of her husband
regarding marriage is spelt out in vv. 32–5. (cf. Rom 7:1–4); then she may remarry ‘in the
Paul wishes his converts to be ‘free from anx- Lord’ (the choice cannot have been great in a
ieties’, or more precisely, free from competing small congregation). But Paul’s preference for
anxieties. Like the Cynics, Paul is impressed by singleness is again evident (v. 40). His final
the amount of attention to the marriage part- sentence sums up his surprising hesitancy on
ner required by marriage (again he oddly fails this matter, unless there is irony in his claim
1 corinthians 108

that he too (as much as the ‘spiritual people’ in settings, or liquids poured out as a libation
Corinth) has access to the wisdom of the Spirit (see Willis 1985; P.D. Gooch 1993). Paul seems
(cf. 2:14–16). to be particularly concerned here with meat
(8:13). Wealthy individuals or clubs often
Sacrificial Food and the Dangers of Idolatry brought animals for slaughter at a temple, one
(8:1–11:1) portion being reserved for the deity (i.e. the
8:1 opens a new section of the letter, on ‘food priests), with the rest consumed in an ordinary
sacrificed to idols’, perhaps another issue meal either on the site (many temples had din-
raised in the Corinthian letter. At first sight, ing rooms) or in a private setting. Even meat
the content of ch. 9 appears out of place in this sold in the meat market might have been
section. However, as we shall see, it actually fits offered to a deity, so a believer anxious to
perfectly as an illustration of what Paul req- avoid any contact with idolatry might balk at
uires of the ‘people of knowledge’: that they the purchase of meat there and at the fare
renounce their ‘rights’ for the sake of others. It provided in taverns or in an unbeliever’s
has often been noted that Paul’s softer tone on house. On the other hand, dinner invitations,
the consumption of sacrificial food in 8:1–13 club meetings, family celebrations, and civic
and 10:23–11:1 appears inconsistent with his festivals were such an important part of social
hard-line attitude to idolatry in 10:1–22; some life that some Christians might be reluctant to
have even suspected the combination of two adopt a rigorous stance on this issue; that
or more letters at this point. There is indeed a would certainly affect the lives and prospects
certain dialectic in Paul’s position regarding of such socially significant believers as Gaius
such food, which might mask inconsistency: and Erastus (see E.1).
he himself calls attention to this dialectic Many ambiguities surrounded the issue of
in 10:19–20. But the distinctions he draws sacrificial food. Was all the meat idolatrous or
between the different contexts in which sacri- only those portions specifically reserved for the
ficial food is eaten, and the different intents deity? Was one tainted by association with idol-
such eating represents, make it possible for aters at occasions when they committed idolatry,
him to give such a nuanced response. More- or not? What, in any case, constituted ‘idolatry’
over, it is quite like Paul to advance an argu- and how were the images to be regarded?
ment by a range of different strategies which In Graeco-Roman culture, general reverence for
may not cohere perfectly with one another the images of the deities included a range of
(cf. his response to ‘speaking in tongues’ in attitudes to their relation to reality: some consid-
chs. 12–14). ered the gods to be present within the images,
The issue of ‘sacrificial food’ arises from the others that they merely represented some divine
fact that food consumption was frequently attribute. In these chapters Paul is in dialogue
associated with the deities, whether by prayer, with a group within the Corinthian church who
libation, or sacrifice, and that the slaughter of considered themselves knowledgeable in such
animals often took place in the context of tem- matters (‘we all possess knowledge’, 8:1). It
ple worship. Jews, who were notoriously averse appears that these are an educated élite: in a spirit
to ‘alien’ religious practices, abstained from of confident monotheism they take idols to rep-
food and wine which had become tainted by resent nothing at all (8:4), and reason that partici-
association with gods other than their own. The pation in idolatrous meals, even in idolatrous
early Christian movement was generally Jewish worship, was a meaningless and harmless activ-
in ethos, but in many places attracted a majority ity. This stance was probably bolstered by social
of Gentile members in churches which were convenience, but Paul takes it seriously as a theo-
prepared to abandon some distinctive Jewish logical position which was not entirely incorrect
practices (such as circumcision and Sabbath but which could have dangerous effects both on
observance). It was thus possible for uncertainty themselves and on other, ‘weaker’, Christians.
to arise as to the proper Christian stance
towards Greek and Roman deities (which Jews (8:1–13) Debate with the ‘Knowledgeable’
called ‘idols’), or at least towards the meals, concerning their ‘Right’ to Eat As in ch. 7,
festivals, club-dinners, and parties which were Paul starts by citing a phrase used in the Cor-
generally accompanied by some sort of reli- inthian letter: ‘all of us possess knowledge’ (8:1).
gious activity. Many kinds of food might be He will shortly deny this claim, since he is aware
considered to be affected: portions could of vulnerable Christians in Corinth unable to
be offered on an altar in domestic or public take this knowing stance towards ‘idols’ (v. 7).
 109 1 corinthians

But his first reaction is against the spirit of the Before proceeding further on this theological
assertion. Although he recognizes knowledge tack, Paul reminds the élite that they are not as
as a gift of the Spirit (1:5; 12:8), he senses here representative of the church as they think (v. 7)
the dangers of pride and self-interest, which and that they have responsibilities to fellow
subordinate care for others to the acquisition believers which override their ‘right’ to eat
and display of one’s own knowledge. Thus, whatever food they wish. Paul knows that,
once again, he warns against becoming ‘puffed after a lifetime of worship of ‘so-called gods’,
up’ (cf. 4:6 and the same verb, translated as ‘to converts are apt to be uneasy about contact
be arrogant’, in 4:19, 5:2, and 13:4) and sets with religious practices which they consider
the priority on the constructive capability of themselves to have renounced; if they were to
love (v. 2; cf. chs. 12–14). In the very claim to eat such food again, their vulnerable self-image
knowledge Paul fears the corrupting power as Christians (their ‘conscience’) would be
of arrogance which needs to be humbled by ‘defiled’ (v. 7). In itself, food is not of decisive
recognizing the inadequacy of our present significance in our relationship to God (v. 8,
‘knowledge’ and the far greater value of being possibly, but not certainly, another Corinthian
‘known by’ God (vv. 2–3; cf. 13:8–13). statement). Therefore, Paul insists, nothing fun-
On the basis of this caution Paul addresses damental is lost by declining to eat certain
the knowledge in question (vv. 4–6). Again he foods; he deliberately overlooks the social loss
quotes Corinthian statements that ‘no idol in which might result from scrupulosity regarding
the world really exists’ (or, ‘the idol-image rep- ‘idolatrous food’. Since the ‘knowledgeable’
resents nothing in the world’) and that ‘there is people have no grounds for insisting on such
no God but one’ (v. 4). Paul can readily agree eating, Paul is entitled to warn them lest their
with the second statement, a cardinal tenet of ‘liberty’ (v. 9, or ‘right’; the noun echoes the
Judaism. The first contains some ambiguity (see slogan of 6:12) cause disaster for more vulner-
the alternative translations just offered) and it is able Christians. The ‘stumbling-block’ referred
possible that Paul and the Corinthians under- to here (cf. Rom 14) signals much more than
stood it in different senses. Paul could accept ‘offence’ or ‘shock’: it suggests causing others to
that the image is insignificant, but, as the next fall catastrophically, resulting in their ‘destruc-
verse and 10:19–20 make clear, he does not tion’ (v. 11). The danger Paul has in mind is that
doubt the reality of the spiritual beings which ‘the weak’ (those whose self-image as Christians
were the object of worship in Graeco-Roman is vulnerable) will be encouraged, or pressur-
religion. If the Corinthian élite think there are ized, by the example of ‘the knowledgeable’ to
no such beings (and thus participate in pagan eat food which they know, or suspect, has been
worship as a harmless inanity), Paul will have to sacrificed to idols. While such eating may not
reprimand them severely (10:1–22). Even here he cause the knowledgeable to falter in their Chris-
insists on the exclusivity of Christian commit- tian commitment (since they regard the idol as a
ment (vv. 5–6). Whatever deities others might ‘nothing’), it could disastrously compromise the
worship—and Paul insists that they are only ‘so- commitment of weaker Christians, who might
called gods’ (cf. Gal 4:8)—‘yet for us there is one now view themselves as having reversed their
God . . . and one Lord . . . ’ The confessional and decision to renounce idolatry. Paul imagines
formulaic character of v. 6 suggests the pres- this happening if the knowledgeable are seen
ence here of a credal statement in which we see ‘eating in the temple of an idol’ (v. 10). Later
Christology coming to birth. The Jewish Shemaʿ (10:14–22) he will advance other reasons for
(‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord’, caution about such behaviour, but here he
Deut 6:4) is here split apart into a statement maintains his focus on the effect which this
about God, the creator of the world and goal of display of superior knowledge could have on
salvation, and a matching statement about the the weak: in their uncertainty of self-image as
Lord, now taken to mean Jesus Christ, the medium Christians, they may be ‘encouraged’ (Paul says
of creation and redemption. The two are clearly ‘built up’, with conscious irony) to follow suit,
distinguished (cf. 3:23; 11:3; 15:27–8) but the way in with disastrous consequences. Damage against
which Paul reads them both out of the Jewish believers for whom Christ died diminishes his
declaration of monotheism is suggestive of the work and thus constitutes sin against Christ
ways in which Christian theology will struggle (vv. 11–12). Rather than looking down on the
to define Christ’s exalted status without falling weak with the disdain typical of élite classes
into ditheism (see further Hurtado 1988 and in Graeco-Roman society, the people of know-
Dunn 1991). ledge are here required to take them with full
1 corinthians 110

seriousness, as fellow Christians (cf. 11:17–22; churches (vv. 1–2). He hopes that the Corin-
12:14–26): love is more important than know- thians will recognize at least this second claim,
ledge (vv. 1–3). Thus, to use himself as an but has to counter immediately a prejudice
example, Paul renounces his right to eat meat, against his apostleship which has taken root
in case it causes the collapse of another’s faith- precisely in Corinth.
commitment (v. 13). While staying in Corinth, Paul had appar-
ently supported himself entirely by his own
(9:1–23) Paul’s Example in Renouncing the labour (according to Acts 18:3, as a leather
‘Right’ to Financial Support Ch. 9 appears to worker), and even when the church he founded
veer off in a different direction from the topic of had offered him financial support he had
food offered to idols. Here we have Paul’s impas- refused to take it (cf. 2 Cor 11:7–11). It is not
sioned plea to be regarded as an apostle in Cor- entirely clear why this became a matter of prin-
inth (vv. 1–2), a long series of arguments ciple for him in Corinth; elsewhere he acknow-
concerning his right to receive support (vv. 3– ledges receiving support from Macedonian
14), and then his declaration that his boast lies churches (2 Cor 11:9; Phil 4:10–20). Perhaps he
precisely in making no use of this right (vv. 15–18) feared lest wealthy Christians in Corinth might
and in offering himself, although free, as a slave of wish to use their financial patronage to influ-
all (vv. 19–23). All this is not, however, as irrele- ence his preaching or control his movements.
vant as it might seem. Paul finished ch. 8 by In any case, the fact that he did not accept
offering himself as an example of willingness to support from Corinth turned out to be a bone
renounce his right to eat meat, if that was neces- of contention. Other ‘apostles’, whom the
sary for the sake of others. That leads him to Corinthians knew about or met, received sup-
present himself as an example on a wider plane port, probably appealing to the words of Jesus
of this principle of renunciation of rights. He has and the example of travelling missionaries in
the right as an apostle to be given his material Judea and Galilee (see Theissen 1982: 27–67). To
upkeep, but for the sake of the gospel he has forgo this right might thus appear to place Paul
renounced this: although ‘free’ and entitled to at a lower level than ‘real’ apostles, and for Paul
exercise certain rights, he has chosen to make to support himself by manual labour was
himself a slave (v. 19). But this illustration is not to demean himself in the eyes of wealthier
unproblematic, because it is precisely his refusal Christians (cf. 4:12).
to accept financial support from the Corinthians Thus Paul confronts directly those who
which has led some to doubt whether he is an ‘examine’ him (v. 3; the same verb is used in
apostle at all. It is because he knows that his status 2:15 and 4:3). He declares his entitlement to the
is questioned by some in Corinth that Paul same forms of material support as other apos-
chooses to use this controversial matter as his tles (vv. 4–6), making special mention of ‘the
illustration: thereby he can defend himself, re- brothers of the Lord’ (e.g. James, 15:7), and
assert his apostleship, and present himself as the Cephas, the hero of the Cephas group, 1:12).
Corinthians’ model (cf. 11:1) all at the same time. He then strings together an impressive collec-
This means that it is some time before Paul re- tion of arguments for this entitlement (vv. 7–
turns explicitly to the subject of sacrificial food, 14). He appeals first to human parallels (sol-
but such apparent digressions which actually ad- diers, vineyard workers, and shepherds), where
vance the argument at a deeper level are typical of workers expect some return for their labour
Paul’s rhetoric (cf. ch. 13 between chs. 12 and 14). (v. 7). He then turns to the Scriptures for the
‘Freedom’ may have been the watchword of same principle, offering an allegorical reading
the ‘people of knowledge’ in Corinth: it sums up of Moses’ law about the threshing ox (vv. 8–11;
their assertion of rights and that ‘all things are see Deut 25:4). It is not often that Paul appeals
lawful’ (6:12; 8:9; 10:23). Hence Paul declares that directly to ‘the law of Moses’ for moral guid-
he, too, is ‘free’—in particular, endowed with ance (his letters to the Galatians and Romans
the ‘rights’ of an apostle. His claim to apostle- show what an ambiguous entity ‘the law’
ship was heavily contested in his generation, has become for him). Nor does he usually em-
since he had not been a disciple of Jesus, had ploy allegory in his interpretation of the Scrip-
persecuted the church, and was often at odds tures (Gal 4:21–31 is the only other example),
with the ‘mother church’ in Jerusalem. Paul here although it was a technique long-established
rehearses the grounds for his claim: that he saw among Hellenized Jews. In his concern to find
(and was commissioned by) the risen Christ a moral lesson in the law, Paul insists that
(cf. 15:3–11) and that he has successfully founded Moses really speaks only about human welfare,
 111 1 corinthians

not about oxen. Allegorists such as the Jewish But he is not a free agent, he is ‘entrusted with a
philosopher Philo sometimes took both literal commission’, that is, working for Christ as his
and allegorical meanings as valid, but some- slave-steward (v. 17; the same metaphor as in
times, like here, considered only the allegorical 4:1–2). Slaves do not get pay (‘reward’) just for
worthy of God. Paul applies this verse to his doing what their owners tell them to do. Paul’s
situation by a double transference: in talking of ‘reward’ (pay) is to do what he has been
oxen, God is talking about human ploughers instructed to do under very special conditions:
and reapers (v.10); and this principle can be to make the gospel ‘free of charge’. Ironically,
applied to those who sow spiritually, and may then, his spiritual pay is to receive no financial
expect to reap in exchange (v. 11). Paul can also pay for the fulfilment of his task (v. 18).
appeal to the benefits enjoyed by priests in a This might look like a form of self-interest, to
temple (v. 13) and, finally, to the direct instruc- get some reward out of what he does, if Paul did
tion of the Lord (v. 14; cf. Mt 10:10; Lk 10:7–8; 1 not go on to explain his motivation in vv. 19–23.
Tim 5:18). It is intriguing that this should be His goal is not self-gratification but the interests
mentioned last, and without any special em- of the gospel, and in particular the desire to
phasis or priority over the previous arguments. ‘win’ converts. Like a demagogue who enslaves
That may be related to the fact that Paul cites himself to the populace to campaign for their
this command only to declare that it does not rights, Paul has deliberately renounced rights
apply to him! and demeaned himself to advance the cause
Before finishing this chain of argumentation, of the gospel (v. 19). His self-sacrifice is first
Paul had anticipated his conclusion (v. 12): he has illustrated by the chief characteristic of his mis-
the rights to which he appeals but has opted not sion, his cross-cultural adaptability (vv. 20–1).
to make use of them, if to do so would place Among Jews he could live like a Jew: that is,
an obstacle in the way of the gospel. Now among the law-observant he observes the law,
it becomes clear how this whole discussion although not considering himself utterly bound
relates to Paul’s instruction to ‘the people of to it (v. 20). The purpose is to win Jews for the
knowledge’ in ch. 8. In 8:9 he had warned them gospel; for, although his call was ‘to the Gen-
that their ‘right’ (NRSV: ‘liberty’) could be a stum- tiles’ (Rom 1:5), Paul still associated with Jews, as
bling-block to the weak and should be waived if it his synagogue visits testify (2 Cor 11:24). Simi-
proved to be so. Here he presents himself as a larly, for Gentiles ‘outside the law’ Paul lived in a
model of such voluntary renunciation of rights, Gentile fashion, although in truth not lawless
for the sake of the gospel. In his case, too, Paul has before God, but under full obligation to Christ
the ‘weak’ especially in mind (v. 22 highlights his (v. 21, ‘under Christ’s law’; no code of teaching is
accommodation to the weak, not the strong). By here envisaged). Again the purpose is to win
refusing to accept support, Paul ensures that he is Gentiles, the task in which Paul was so success-
not a burden on those with little to spare: he ful, though at the cost of his reputation among
works with his hands and thereby identifies most fellow Jews, who took his adaptability to
with those who are socially and economically be merely opportunism (Gal 1:10). This loss of
weak, even at the risk of offending the wealthier clear-cut cultural identity is paralleled by his
converts who would like Paul to accept their loss of honour in ‘becoming weak’ (v. 22), iden-
patronage and quit his embarrassing mode of tifying with those who possessed less know-
work (Martin 1990: 117–35). ledge and less social significance than the élite
vv. 15–18 explain further this renunciation of leaders of the Corinthian church. Paul is pre-
rights and its importance for Paul. Preaching the pared to give up cultural and social rights for
gospel ‘free of charge’ was an important and the sake of the gospel, and hints that only by so
distinctive feature of Paul’s ministry: indeed, doing will he share its blessings (v. 23). Thus he
the sentence structure breaks down in v. 15 to is entitled to challenge the ‘people of know-
reveal how emotionally significant is this ledge’ in Corinth as to their willingness to do
‘ground for boasting’. He now plays with the the same. If they are not willing, he suggests,
theme of employment and ‘pay’ (the Gk. word they may forfeit its blessings and lose out on the
misthos means both ‘pay’ and ‘reward’). The fact salvation which they take for granted. Such is
that he preaches the gospel is not for Paul a the turn his argument now takes in 9:24–10:22.
matter of choice, but of necessity (v. 16; cf. Gal
1:15–16). If it were a matter of choice, he would (9:24–10:22) The Dangers of Complacency in
be a free agent, and like any other free man relation to Idolatry While 9:24–7 still takes
would expect pay (‘reward’) for work completed. the form of discourse about himself, Paul now
1 corinthians 112

begins to turn his own example into challenge superior status and sealed their immortality. It is
to his Corinthian audience. He uses images probably for this reason that Paul describes the
from the games which would be particularly Israelites’ experience in terms which match Chris-
vivid in their imagination, since Corinth hosted tian rites. As they went under the cloud and
the biennial Isthmian games, drawing partici- through the (Red) Sea, the Israelites were ‘bap-
pants from all over the Graeco-Roman world. tized into Moses’ (10:2), just as Christians were
Entering the race is not the same as winning it: baptized into Christ (1 Cor 12:12–13; Gal 3:27);
the Corinthians still have to make sure they similarly, as they ate the manna and drank from
‘run’ successfully (9:24). Sporting heroes were the rock in the desert, they partook of ‘spiritual’
extremely famous in antiquity and it was well- food and drink like that enjoyed in the Lord’s
known that they underwent very rigorous train- Supper (10:3–4). Indeed, Paul even claims that
ing in order to win a garland. That was a motif the Israelites drew nourishment, in a sense, from
often used in popular philosophy to indicate Christ himself, who is identified with the rock
the seriousness of a moral lifestyle, and Paul from which the water issued (10:4). He here
employs it here to urge self-discipline for draws on Jewish exegesis which reflected on the
the sake of a far more valuable prize, salvation fact that the Pentateuchal narratives place
(9:25). Practice, discipline, and self-control were this rock in different locations: had it therefore
all essential for an athlete’s success, whether the ‘followed’ the Israelites through the desert? In
sport was running or boxing (9:26). Without some quarters this rock had also been allegorized
them, a promising career would easily be as ‘Wisdom’, from which the righteous drew spir-
spoiled, and Paul takes seriously the possibility itual nourishment, and Paul may be drawing on
that he himself might be ‘disqualified’ by God, an early Christian identification between Christ
excluded from salvation (or at least from its and Wisdom (cf. 1:30 and 8:6). None the less—
‘reward’, cf. 3:14–15) even after having brought and this is the point of the illustration—despite
others into it (9:27). having access to all the same privileges as the
The note of warning to the Corinthians is Corinthian Christians (baptism, ‘spiritual’ food
becoming louder, but before turning the spot- and drink, and even Christ himself), the Israelites
light directly back on to them Paul invokes a were not immune from God’s punishment when
cautionary tale from the Scriptures (10:1–13). He they went astray: in fact, most of them were
finds no difficulty in using scriptural narratives destroyed (10:5).
to illustrate God’s dealings with the church, In 10:6 and 10:11 Paul explains the principle
since he regards the Israelites in the desert as by which he interprets the Israelites’ story: these
‘our ancestors’ (10:1) even though the church he events are an example, and were written down
is writing to is mostly Gentile (see further Hays as a warning, indicating the dangers for God’s
1989). Paul recounts the story of Israel’s dis- people if they entertain evil desires. Indeed, 10:11
obedience in the wilderness because it illus- suggests that they were written specifically for
trates precisely what he wants to warn the ‘us’, that is, the Christians who live in the final
Corinthians about: that even those chosen by generation, the climactic junction of time Paul
God can go badly astray; and if they do, what- calls ‘the ends of the ages’ (cf. 7:29–31; cf. Rom
ever their privileges, they are liable to destruc- 15:4). 10:7–8 runs through a list of Israel’s errors,
tion. The fact that the story concerns idolatry perhaps a stock résumé of the wilderness sins:
and sexual immorality makes it immediately idolatry, in the worship of the golden calf (10:7,
relevant to a church which worries Paul on citing Ex 32:6); ‘sexual immorality’ (porneia, see 1
both these scores. COR 5:1), in forging illicit marriages with Midia-
Paul detects among the Corinthian Chris- nite women (10:8, alluding to Num 25, where,
tians a sense of privileged security in which however, the casualty figure is 24,000); putting
they consider themselves immune to danger. Christ to the test (10:9, alluding to Num 21;
Perhaps it is on this basis that the people some texts read ‘the Lord’, which is how the
of knowledge have the confidence to attend scriptural narrative puts it, but generally Paul
idolatrous events, reckoning that nothing can takes ‘the Lord’ in the Scriptures to refer to
harm their status as spiritual people. They may Christ); and finally, complaining, in grumbling
have taken particular pride in their baptism as about God’s purposes or Moses’ leadership
ensuring salvation and in the Lord’s Supper (probably alluding to Num 14 or Num 16, with
as replenishing their spiritual resources. Both the notion of the ‘destroyer’ transferred from Ex
would therefore constitute rites which, like 12:23). In each case, the outcome is the same: the
some Graeco-Roman mysteries, confirmed their ‘destruction’ of the sinners. If such stories are of
 113 1 corinthians

immediate relevance to the Corinthians as 10:11 he set out in ch. 8: it is not that the food is
suggests, then the warning is clear: they are in as significant in itself (thus the act of eating is not
much danger as the Israelites in the desert. Paul so much the problem), nor that the ‘idol’ (i.e. the
turns directly against the confidence of the Cor- image) is itself of importance (its presence or
inthian leaders with the warning of 10:12. No proximity at a meal is not problematic); rather,
situation is uniquely difficult or inescapable, in the act of sacrifice, Gentiles devote themselves
and they cannot claim to be helpless or faultless to ‘demons’ and thus create a ‘partnership’ with
if they sin: God will enable them to endure beings which are wholly out of bounds for a
temptation (cf. 1:8–9) and will always provide believer. Paul here uses the word daimonion,
an escape route (10:13). The question is whether which refers in normal Greek to a supernatural
the Corinthians will be willing to take it and the being of lesser significance and more ambiguous
social inconvenience it may cause. virtue than a full god, but one not necessarily
The notion of ‘escape’ leads into Paul’s direct evil; in time, however, Jewish and Christian
instruction: ‘flee from the worship of idols’ usage was literally to ‘demonize’ all such beings.
(10:14). Of the wilderness sins recounted in The point here is that such a partnership is
10:7–8, it is idolatry which is Paul’s most imme- incompatible with belonging to Christ, on the
diate concern. He has still to confront the Jewish principle that God is jealous of all rivals
people of knowledge concerning their easy dis- (10:22, echoing Deut 32:21). The people of know-
missal of the significance of ‘idols’ (8:4), since he ledge may be strong compared with the weak in
fears (or knows) that this attitude will justify conscience, but they are not ‘stronger than’ God
their convenient participation in acts of wor- (10:22), that is, strong enough to withstand the
ship to idols. Addressing them, with slight con- sort of judgement which the wilderness stories
descension, as ‘sensible people’ (they boast of have threatened.
their ‘knowledge’, 8:1), he urges them to con- Paul thus issues a ban on actions which
sider what sorts of ‘partnerships’ (or ‘sharing’, constitute personal involvement in idolatry
Gk. koinōnia) they are undertaking. At the Lord’s (worship of idols). The following paragraph
Supper, the cup (known as ‘the cup of blessing’ (10:23–11:1) will show greater latitude regarding
because of the prayer, blessing God, which is situations where there is no personal partici-
spoken over it) is a ‘partnership’ in the blood of pation in idolatry. The hard line he takes here
Christ. Similarly, the bread which is broken is a may appear to go further than the argument he
‘partnership’ in the body of Christ (10:16). It is employed in 8:4–13, where his concern was the
difficult to determine what sort of ‘sacramental effect of eating sacrificial food on others,
theology’ undergirds these statements. Is the rather than its threat to one’s own partnership
‘partnership’ merely represented by the cup and with Christ; but the difference is one of focus
bread, or actually effected by it? And what is the rather than substance. In practice, it may have
relationship between the cup and blood, and been difficult to define, or to anticipate, where
between the bread and body (cf. 11:24–5)? But a believer was implicated in acts of idolatry, for
what is clear, and what Paul is concerned to instance, when attendance at a meal in a tem-
stress, is that participation in this meal signals ple or in the presence of an idol might involve
a bond between the participant and Christ, a the banqueters in sacrifice or other acts of
bond which must be exclusive of all others (10:21– worship. Perhaps Paul underestimated the
2; cf. the parallel argumentation in 6:15–17). complexity of such situations, but it is clear
The reference to the ‘bread’ and the ‘body’ at least that he cannot tolerate the forging of a
leads Paul into a brief aside concerning the link to alien entities, which, though they may
‘one body’ of the church (10:17, anticipating not be gods, are none the less potent rivals to
11:17–34 and 12:12–31), a motif which should en- Christ (cf. 15:24–8).
courage the people of knowledge to take more
care of their fellow ‘limbs’ who have weaker (10:23–11:1) Practical Guidelines on Eating
consciences (cf. 10:23–4). But the main point of and Avoiding Offence The ban on participa-
the paragraph is pursued again in 10:18 with tion in ‘idolatry’ has not yet resolved all the
reference to Jewish sacrificial practice, where practical issues, since there are places and occa-
partaking in sacrificial victims joins an individ- sions where sacrificial food may be on offer
ual to the worship offered at the altar. Paul without involving the believer in idolatry. In
considers that the same applies to worship and such matters, again the crucial issue is the effect
sacrifice in Graeco-Roman religion. 10:19 makes of one’s actions on other people, particularly
clear that he has not revoked the convictions other believers: we have returned full circle to
1 corinthians 114

the concerns of ch. 8, since Paul still maintains of this discussion (10:31–11:1) sum up its prin-
that love is a more valuable criterion than ciples. Eating and drinking are to be done ‘to
knowledge (8:1–3). Thus, while citing again in the glory of God’, without compromise of
10:23 the Corinthian principle of freedom (cf. that glory by idolatry. At the same time, no
6:12), Paul insists on modifying it with reference stumbling-block (the Greek echoes 8:9 and is
to what ‘builds up’, that is, what is beneficial to much stronger than NRSV ‘offence’) is to be
others (cf. 8:1). The tendencies of the élite are placed in the path of Jews or Greeks or the
to protect their own interests in such matters, church (10:32). The goal should be not one’s
advancing their social position by minimum own advantage, but that of others, that they
abstentions from sacrificial food; but Paul calls be saved and maintained in salvation (10:33, i.
them to seek, first of all, the advantage of others e. not ‘destroyed’ by selfish use of ‘know-
(10:24). In the case of food sold in the meat ledge’; cf. 8:11). And, finally, Paul reminds
market (which might or might not have passed them of the example he has described in
through a temple in the process of slaughter), ch. 9, not ultimately because of his own
Paul encourages complete freedom: ignorance importance (he does not want a ‘Paul party’)
as to the history of the food means that no one’s but because he believes he thereby imitates
conscience (identity as a Christian) is affected by Christ (11:1; cf. Rom 15:1–3).
eating this food. Most Jews were more anxious
about avoiding food possibly tainted by idol- Issues Relating to Communal Meetings
atry, but Paul overrules this scruple since eating (11:2–14:40)
such food from a market risks no personal Paul now turns to a number of topics which
participation in idolatry, and since the food relate to the conduct of worship and communal
itself is a part of God’s good creation (10:25–6, meetings in the Corinthian church. The bulk of
boldly citing Ps 24:1 in support). In the case of a this new section concerns the exercise of spirit-
meal at an unbeliever’s house, ignorance is ual gifts (chs. 12–14), but that is prefaced with
again encouraged for the same reasons (10:27), discussion of two topics also related to worship,
but here complications may arise from the head-covering of women in prayer and proph-
involvement of other people in the meal. Paul ecy (11:2–16) and the Lord’s Supper (11:17–34).
is concerned for the ‘conscience’ of someone Paul’s initial word of commendation (11:2) is
else who declares the food to have been probably meant to preface the whole section,
involved in sacrifice (10:28). Because the phrase, since the Lord’s Supper and the gifts of the
‘This has been offered in sacrifice’, does not use Spirit were part of his legacy to the church.
the Jewish/Christian term ‘idolatrous’, many But on many issues, in fact, he has more criti-
interpreters take this informant to be a non- cism to offer than praise (cf. 11:22).
believer (either fellow-guest or host; e.g. Fee
1987: 483–5). But it is hard to see why Paul (11:2–16) Praying and Prophesying with
would be concerned with an unbeliever’s con- Proper Head-Covering This passage, with its
science in this matter, and it is better to see here hierarchical ordering of male and female, has
the same weak Christians as were in view in ch. had a fateful influence through the centuries
8 (Barrett 1971: 239–40). For their sake, i.e. lest and has not enhanced Paul’s reputation. It is
they be pressurized into compromising their full of awkward argumentation, so awkward
faith, knowledgeable Christians should refrain that a few scholars even consider it a later
from such food (10:28–29a). But otherwise the addition to the letter by another hand. The
basic principle remains: so long as one can give issue concerns men and women who pray
thanks with integrity, that is, eat the food as part and prophesy in the church (vv. 4–5). Paul
of a relationship with God (uncompromised by takes it for granted that both genders will par-
partnership with demons), one should do so ticipate in such important acts of church lead-
freely, even if others are critical (10:29b–30). ership (on prophecy, see ch. 14); how this
On this reading of the argument, 10:28–9a tallies with the apparent ban on women’s
forms a digression, citing an exceptional case speech in church in 14:33–6 is not clear (see
when liberty is to be constrained, while 10:29b– 1 COR 14:33–6). Most commentators rightly take
30 gives the general rule. If this is right, Paul the topic to be the covering of the head (Theis-
agrees with the knowledgeable about their free- sen 1987: 158–75), while a few scholars construe
dom to a large degree, but checks them at the the Greek differently to refer to tying up
point where their freedom causes real damage (or letting loose) of hair (Murphy-O’Connor
to others (cf. Rom 14:1–15:6). The last few verses 1980). Men and women wore the same sort of
 115 1 corinthians

outer garment (Gk. himation), which could be case the chain suggests subordination (on Christ’s
drawn forward from behind the neck to cover subordination to God, cf. 3:23 and 15:28). The use
the crown of the head, or even further forward of ‘head’ language enables Paul to draw on both
over the face as well. In normal circumstances literal and metaphorical senses; the male with
men did not draw the himation forward, covered head disgraces his head (physical head
although Romans did in offering sacrifice at and/or Christ), the female with uncovered head
an altar. The typical customs for women are disgraces hers (physical and/or man, vv. 4–5). The
more difficult to discern, and probably varied cultural assumptions concerning ‘shame’ in this
over time and in different cultural contexts matter are clear in the parallels Paul draws with a
within the Graeco-Roman world (on Corinth woman whose hair is cut short or shaven (vv. 5–
see Thompson 1988). However, a variety of 6): in both cases she was considered demeaned as
evidence suggests that, in public and in the a woman (cf. v. 15) and her femininity denied.
presence of men other than family members, Paul is concerned throughout this passage that
married women frequently covered their heads genders should not be confused or rendered
and even their faces, as a sign of modesty and ambiguous.
as a protective barrier in the force-field of lust- v. 7 suggests a natural distinction between
ful stares. Young unmarried girls did not usu- man (as image and glory/reflection of God) and
ally cover or veil themselves, but for a mature/ woman (as glory/reflection of man). This repre-
married woman (girls were normally married sents a tendentious reading of Gen 1:26–7 (where
at puberty) to be seen uncovered might suggest male and female are created ‘in the image of God’).
that she was somewhat ‘forward’, thus bringing The logic of the verse is obscure, but perhaps
shame both on herself and on her husband. suggests that in worship of God the man’s head
Thus head-covering functioned both to differ- should not be covered (since it brings glory to
entiate women from men and to subordinate God), while the woman’s should (since it brings
them. glory to man). vv. 8–9 draw from Genesis 2
This passage suggests that there are some (Eve’s creation from and for Adam) in order to
women in the Corinthian church who are leading reinforce the hierarchy suggested by the open-
worship in prayer and prophecy with their heads ing chain (v. 3). Thus a woman is required to
uncovered. We can only speculate about the have, literally, ‘authority on her head’ (v. 10). This
reasons for this behaviour. It is possible that the must refer to the head-covering, but it is unclear
causes were quite mundane, for instance, that whether it is a symbol of her authority to pray
they felt the house-church a sufficiently ‘private’ and prophesy (Hooker 1964), or of her submis-
context not to require head-covering, or that the sion to male authority. The reference to the
ecstasy of Spirit-inspiration caused head-cover- angels in this verse is puzzling. Some take
ings to slip. It is normally suggested, however, these as the angels who protect the orders of
that there stands some theological principle be- creation and are present at Corinthian worship
hind their activity, for instance some appeal to to ensure order (there are some parallels to this
the baptismal formula that ‘there is neither male notion at Qumran). Others regard them in a
nor female’ (Gal 3:28) in order to justify the abo- more sinister light as the successors to the
lition of gender distinctions. It is also possible ‘sons of God’ (Gen 6:1–4) who are liable to lust
that the practice was particularly sponsored by after unveiled women (Gen 6 was much dis-
those ‘virgins’ Paul addresses in ch. 7, who as cussed in Jewish apocalyptic circles, cf. 1 Enoch
unmarried women may have wished to demon- 14–16). In vv. 11–12 Paul moves to moderate some
strate their special relationship to God (7:34) by of what he has asserted by pointing to the inter-
renouncing a common token of relatedness to a dependence (not equality) of women and men in
husband (see later, Tertullian, On the Veiling of the cycle of life, but ‘in the Lord’ suggests some
Virgins). Whatever the cause, the practice brings specifically Christian reality. Finally, he appeals
to the surface deep anxieties in Paul concerning to reason (vv. 13–16). The Corinthians should
gender distinction, and he employs a battery of know what is ‘proper’ in the matter of hair and
arguments from theology, Scripture, custom, and head-covering. The appeal to ‘nature’ in v. 14
‘reason’ to reimpose what he insists is the univer- with reference to the degradation of long hair
sal Christian custom (v. 16). shows how disastrously Paul has confused
His first move is to set up a hierarchy of ‘heads’, ‘nature’ and ‘custom’, a confusion which has
involving God, Christ, man, and woman (v. 3). led him to support cultural norms with argu-
‘Head’ (Gk. kephalē) probably indicates ‘authority’; ments from ‘creation’. He may realize that his
some have taken it to mean ‘source’, but in either arguments are not likely to persuade and thus
1 corinthians 116

resorts finally to an abrupt dismissal of ‘conten- understood the identification between ‘the bread’
tiousness’, refusing to allow further discussion and ‘the body’ (v. 24) or between ‘the cup’ (note,
on this matter (v. 16). not ‘the wine’) and ‘the blood’ (v. 25), though the
reference to the new covenant and the notion of
(11:17–34) Humiliation of Church Members at ‘remembrance’ seem to place greater emphasis
the Lord’s Supper Paul now turns to a topic on on the relationship forged between the partici-
which reports have suggested a fundamental pant and the Lord than on the essence of the
dysfunction in the church in relation to a rite, elements themselves. v. 26 seems to be Paul’s
the Lord’s Supper, which should constitute the own interpretation of the significance of the
core of church life and enact the proclamation meal: through it the participants ‘proclaim the
of the gospel. The seriousness with which he Lord’s death’. In the light of 1:18–2:5 it is
takes this issue is indicated by his claim that not surprising that he finds the élitism and self-
their present form of gathering is positively centredness of the higher-status Christians in
harmful (v. 17), by his suggestion that the Corinth constituting a denial of the message of
behaviour of some might mark them out as Christ crucified.
false Christians (v. 19; cf. 9:27), and by his warn- Returning to the Corinthians’ conduct, Paul
ing that their mishandling of the Supper could warns them against eating and drinking ‘in an
lead—in fact already had led—to illness and unworthy manner’ (v. 27). The context suggests
death as divine judgement (vv. 27–32). The divi- that such carelessness about partaking in bread
sions that he hears about (v. 18) appear to be and wine includes the scandalous behaviour of
primarily social, between the élite members of those who humiliate other Christians at the Sup-
the church and lower-class Christians. The per (vv. 20–2). Hence, the call to ‘examine your-
‘Lord’s Supper’ (v. 20) was a full meal, incorp- selves’ (v. 28) must signal primarily a scrutiny of
orating the sharing of bread and wine but not one’s behaviour towards others in the church, not
restricted to those foodstuffs. Paul is scandal- a general moral scrutiny of one’s ‘worthiness’ to
ized that what was meant to be a common meal partake in a sacred meal. Eating and drinking
has become a display of disunity in the church. requires ‘discerning the body’ (v. 29), discerning
It appears that wealthier members have been that the bread ‘is’ the body of Christ, but also that
bringing their own supplies for the meal, start- the church constitutes the body of Christ as it
ing the meal before all had arrived and keeping partakes of this ‘one bread’ (10:17; cf. 12:12–27). To
their own food largely, if not entirely, for them- defile the Supper is to show contempt for the
selves, so that they consume more (and perhaps church, and thus to invite the sort of judgement
better quality) food than poorer members which God metes out to those who damage his
(vv. 20–2). It was common at dinner-parties temple (v. 29; 3:16–17). Such ‘unworthy’ eating
in the Graeco-Roman world for the host to makes one accountable for the body and blood
give more and better food to his more distin- of Christ (v. 27), in the sense that, rather than
guished guests, and perhaps Gaius, the host to benefiting from the death of Christ, one is actu-
the whole church (Rom 16:23), has simply fol- ally placed among his enemies and murderers
lowed cultural habits unthinkingly (Theissen (like ‘the rulers of this age’, 2:6–8). That would
1982: 145–74). Thus Paul once again has to be to invite God’s judgement (v. 29). Paul reckons
remind the wealthier members of the church some have already experienced this in illness and
of their responsibilities to their fellow Chris- death (v. 30; cf. 5:5), though it is better to be
tians of lower status: by humiliating them in judged in this way as a discipline than to be
this fashion they are showing contempt for condemned utterly, like ‘the world’ (cf. 1:18; 3:15).
the church of God (v. 22; cf. 3:16–17 and 8:12). The final instructions (vv. 33–4) show that the
To correct such abuse Paul first reminds them humiliation of the poorer members is still his
of the tradition he passed to them (vv. 23–6). chief concern: the ‘brothers and sisters’ should
These verses are actually our first witness to the wait for one another and not indulge in grossly
form and understanding of the Lord’s Supper in unequal feasts. The advice to satisfy hunger ‘at
the early church, being earlier than the gospel home’ (v. 34) might constitute a step towards
accounts (Mk 14:22–4; Mt 26:26–8; Lk 22:17–20). separating the meal from the ritual sharing of
This is the only incident in the life of Jesus that bread and wine.
Paul ever recounts (apart from his crucifixion)
and it seems to have become fixed relatively (12:1–31) The Distribution of Spiritual Gifts in
early as the founding narrative for an important the Body of Christ At v. 1 Paul turns directly to
Christian rite. We cannot tell precisely how Paul the issue of ‘spiritual gifts’ (the Greek could also
 117 1 corinthians

mean ‘spiritual people’). As ch. 14 will show, he (cf. 4:7). Moreover, the gifts are given not for
is particularly concerned with their exercise in individual satisfaction or pride, but ‘for the
worship (a topic already touched on in 11:2–16). common good’ (v. 7). Thus Paul again signals
That chapter also indicates that the heart of the the criterion of ‘benefit to others’ which he has
issue is the use of ‘tongues’, a gift of humanly appealed to throughout (6:12; 8:1–3; 10:23–4,
incomprehensible speech which some Corinth- etc.) and which will form the theme of ch. 13
ian Christians apparently rate far higher than as the basis for ch. 14.
does Paul. The highly charged enthusiasm of the To illustrate the ‘varieties of gifts’, Paul gives
Corinthian church has led to an energetic use of a representative list in vv. 8–10. Parallel lists in
the gifts of the Spirit (cf. 1:7) and a sense of v. 28 and in Rom 12:6–8 (cf. Eph 4:11) suggest
fullness which Paul considers dangerously that this is not meant to be an exhaustive
close to self-satisfaction (4:8). Here he is con- inventory, but a display of the diversity which
cerned lest the variety of gifts lead to disunity the Corinthians will recognize as operative
within the church, and create a hierarchy in among themselves. Some appear to overlap
which certain ‘gifted’ Christians despise others. (e.g. utterance of wisdom and utterance of
The gift of tongues may be specially conducive knowledge) or to be closely linked to others
to this sense of superiority, since it represents (‘faith’ in this context means the special exer-
a dramatic and complete ‘possession’ by the cise of faith required for the ‘working of mir-
Spirit of God, the gifted individual being con- acles’, vv. 9–10; cf. 13:2). It is no accident that
sidered to speak ‘mysteries’ (14:2) in ‘the tongues the gifts of tongues and their interpretation are
of angels’ (13:1). There is some evidence to sug- placed at the bottom of the list (as also in
gest that such esoteric speech might be culti- v. 28). While not wishing to endorse explicitly
vated particularly by higher-status individuals, a gift-hierarchy, Paul does want to demote
so that this gift might reinforce the status dif- tongues from the exalted position it holds in
ferentials which we have found to be operative the estimation of some Corinthian Christians.
in other issues addressed by Paul (Martin 1991). In v. 12 Paul introduces the metaphor of the
Paul’s first warning is against naı̈vety (vv. 1–3). body, which will dominate the rest of this chap-
Not every form of ‘possession’ is God-inspired: ter. The statement in v. 27 that ‘you are the body
the Corinthians should not assume that the of Christ’ does not mean that the church con-
more dramatic the ‘ecstasy’, the better the gift. stitutes, in some literal sense, the presence of
In their religious past they experienced ‘ecstasy’ Christ in the world; rather, the church is (like) a
(v. 2; NRSV ‘enticed’ would be better translated body which belongs to Christ, identified with
‘moved’), but that was erroneous, inducing only the risen Christ (‘so it is with Christ’, v.12) but
worship of speechless ‘idols’. The gift has to be not identical to him. The body was commonly
tested by its result (v. 3): clearly the Spirit of God used in antiquity as a metaphor for human
cannot inspire someone to say ‘Jesus be cursed’, society (or for the whole cosmos), as a varie-
while the basic Christian confession ‘Jesus is gated organism whose diverse parts are interde-
Lord’ is attributable only to the Spirit (cf. Rom pendent. It was an image that could easily be
10:9; Phil 2:11). The point may seem obvious, but exploited by élite classes to justify inequality, on
‘inspiration’ was (and is) a problematic claim the basis that it was necessary for inferior
and needed to be tested by its effects (cf. 14:29; groups to play their part for the good of all
1 Thess 5:19–21). (the Roman historian Livy uses it in this way).
But there is another and larger point to One of the striking aspects of Paul’s use of the
be made: that no one gift should be regarded metaphor is that, in his hands, it not only justi-
as of unique importance or played off against fies diversity in the church, but also works spe-
others (vv. 4–11). In a formulation which points cifically against hierarchical notions of honour
towards later trinitarian doctrine, Paul insists and differential importance.
that the varieties of gifts and services can be The combination of diversity and unity—
traced to the same Spirit/Lord/God (vv. 4–6). many limbs in one body—is the first point to
v. 11 will re-emphasize this point, while suggest- be established (vv. 12–20). Baptismal formulae
ing that the Spirit distributes gifts to every in v. 13 remind the Corinthians of their cultural
believer (‘to each one individually’) and accord- and social diversity but also of their common
ing to the Spirit’s choice, not his/her own (but access to the Spirit (cf. Gal 3:28, whose ‘male
cf. 12:31; 14:1). Thus none can boast of having a and female’ pairing is conspicuously absent
gift, which is precisely a gift (charisma means ‘gift here). vv. 14–19 illustrate the fact that a body,
of grace’), not a possession or an achievement properly understood, must be a differentiated
1 corinthians 118

organism: it cannot all be of one part. Paul facilitate the supreme virtue which Paul will
notably presents this fact from the point of now describe.
view of a member which feels itself excluded
because it is not something else (vv. 15–16). He (13:1–13) The Superior and Critical Demands
thus identifies with the position of members of of Love This chapter has sometimes been con-
the church who are being made to feel inferior sidered a self-contained ‘love-hymn’, pre-pre-
or marginalized, and insists on their rightful pared by Paul, whose present positioning
place within the body. creates a somewhat disappointing descent to
In vv. 21–6 Paul then develops this perspec- the practicalities of ch. 14. But in fact this
tive by confronting the superior attitudes of the prioritizing of love fits its present literary con-
‘stronger’ or more prominent Corinthian Chris- text and the precise needs of the Corinthian
tians. No member can dismiss others as dis- church exceptionally well, and in its sharp
pensable (v. 21) because those which are criticism of the values current among the Co-
apparently ‘weaker’ or less ‘honourable’ are in rinthians it is hardly an anodyne ‘ode to love’.
fact of crucial significance and accorded very It is written in prose, not verse, but it clearly has
great ‘respect’ by the rest of the body. He is poetic qualities both in the level of language and
thinking no doubt of the attitude we adopt to in its structural shaping. It falls naturally into
the vulnerable organs of the body and the geni- three sections (vv. 1–3, 4–7, 8–13): the first and
talia, but his point is clearly meant to apply to third match one another in their comparative
the less ‘honourable’ members of the Corinthian evaluations of love, while the central section
church. We have noted at many points how the consists of thirteen simple verbs, arranged in
‘weaker’ members in the church are being trea- order positive–negative–positive.
ted with less than full respect by higher-status The first section (vv. 1–3) is made up of three
Corinthian Christians (1:26–8; 8:1–13; 11:20–2). conditional clauses, each complemented by a
Paul here uses the body metaphor to overturn devastating statement of worthlessness. The
such attitudes, pointing out that the less first imagines the possession of all the possible
‘respectable’ are in fact accorded great respect, gifts of speech which were so highly prized in
and that God has so designed this (vv. 22–4). Corinth, ‘tongues of angels’ perhaps describing
This attribution of greater honour to the ‘lesser’ the imagined content of ‘speaking in tongues’.
individual is based on the same principle as Paul Without love, which can make such commu-
had found in the message of the cross (1:18–2:5), nication purposeful and beneficial to others,
where human values of power and wisdom are all such gifts, although genuinely gifts of the
overturned. As in that passage, Paul finds here Spirit, are mere noise (‘noisy gong’ refers to
the solution to those pride-induced ‘dissen- the bronze products for which Corinth was
sions’ which are springing up in the Corinthian famous). Similarly the powers of prophecy,
church (v. 25; the same word is translated ‘divi- knowledge, and faith (cf. 12:8–10; Mk 11:20–4)
sions’ in 1:10). The mutuality of care for one are valueless without love (v. 2). In fact, most
another’s interests which Paul had taught in challenging of all, even apparent acts of charity
chs. 8–10 (10:24, 32) is here illustrated by the and self-sacrifice gain nothing at all, unless
concern of all the body’s parts for the health they are motivated and controlled by love (v.
and welfare of the rest (vv. 25–6). 3). A tiny textual variant could alter the sense
The chapter is completed by making explicit in v. 3 from delivering the body ‘that I may
the relevance of the metaphor to the Christians boast’ to delivering it ‘to be burned’. Commen-
in Corinth (v. 27) and by another list of ‘gifts’ or tators are evenly divided on the best reading
‘appointments’ (v. 28). Here some value distinc- here. It was perhaps unnecessary still to criti-
tions are introduced (‘first apostles’ etc.) since cize boasting (cf. 4:7), so the reading ‘to be
Paul does regard some gifts as more conducive burned’ (e.g. in martyrdom) may be preferred.
to the welfare of the body than others (as ch. 14 Even martyrdom is valueless unless it is
will illustrate); again tongues is last in the list! founded on love.
The point about necessary diversity in the body The central stanza (vv. 4–7) provides a pen-
is finally driven home with a series of rhetorical portrait of ‘love’ (agapē), a term not coined in
questions (vv. 29–30) designed to undercut the early Christianity but given special prominence
notion that any one gift should be possessed by and reshaped to express its peculiar ethos of self-
all, or that anyone is deficient in not possessing sacrifice. The paragraph is made up of simple
it. There is a sense in which some gifts are verbs or short clauses which define the quality
‘greater’ (v. 31), but that is only because they of love, mostly by the attitudes it eschews. Two
 119 1 corinthians

positive verbs open the list, which then contrasts ‘builds up’ the church (v. 12; cf. 8:1). ‘Building up’
love with a catalogue of spiritual failures in the constitutes one of the two guiding principles of
Corinthian church: love is not envious (cf. 3:3), it Paul’s instructions concerning worship, the other
is not boastful or arrogant (cf. 4:6, 18–19; 5:2; 8:1, being that which is ‘decent’ and ‘orderly’ (vv. 33,
etc.), it does not insist on its own way (cf. 10:24), 40). The first part of this chapter is made up of
nor rejoice in wrongdoing (cf. 5:1–2). The final four overlapping arguments for the superiority of
four positive verbs (v. 7) expand the field of love’s prophecy over tongues (vv. 1–25). ‘Prophecy’ is
operation as widely as possible. Their link never defined, but seems to constitute speech
between love, faith, endurance, and hope which instructs, encourages, consoles, or chal-
matches the conglomerate of Christian virtues lenges its hearers (vv. 3, 24–5, 31). ‘Tongues’ are
which Paul elsewhere uses to sum up the essence not foreign languages intelligible to native
of Christian commitment (cf. v. 13; 1 Thess 1:3). speakers (as are portrayed in Acts 2), but speech
In the final paragraph (vv. 8–13) Paul returns which is humanly unintelligible, being addressed
to demonstrate the supreme value of love, now primarily to God (v. 2). The phenomenon of such
stressing not so much its indispensability ‘ecstatic speech’ is quite widely attested in a var-
(vv. 1–3) as its eternal worth. Paul is ever con- iety of religions, though in antiquity it may have
scious of the provisional character of Christian been specially prized by the social élite.
existence before the parousia (cf. 15:19), and he The first argument for the greater value of
cannot share the Corinthian sense of fullness prophecy is that it strengthens the whole
(4:8). For him, the only characteristic of the church, whereas tongues benefit only the indi-
present which is final and complete is love: vidual gifted with them (vv. 1–5). Once again,
‘love never ends’ (v. 8). All other Christian Paul places a premium on what benefits the
qualities, even genuine gifts of the Spirit, are whole community (cf. 10:23–4), even if it be a
provisional and imperfect. The Corinthians less spectacular or mysterious gift than tongues.
value prophecy, tongues, and knowledge Their ‘mysteries in the Spirit’ (v. 2) are not
(cf. chs. 8–10 and 14), but all these, Paul insists, understood even by fellow ‘spiritual people’,
are only temporary phenomena (v. 8). For now, unless someone exercises the gift of interpret-
knowledge (and prophecy) are inescapably ation (v. 5). Paul’s wish that all speak in tongues
partial (v. 9), not only in the sense that they or prophesy (v. 5) must be hypothetical (in the
are incomplete (we know only some things) light of 12:29–30), but he simultaneously insists
but also because they are imperfect (even that what the Corinthians value most highly is
what we ‘know’, we only partly comprehend; actually of inferior value. Prophecy may be
see P. W. Gooch 1987: 142–61). Like a child transitory and imperfect (13:8–10), but at least
whose knowledge not only grows but also for the present it can be well used in the service
matures, so our present state of knowledge of love.
will appear ‘childish’ from the perspective of The second argument develops the first by
the final revelation (v. 11). Or, to use a different contrasting the unintelligibility of tongues—
image, our present perception is inevitably in- and therefore its worthlessness for others—
direct and distorted—in a mirror and ‘dim’— with the intelligibility of prophecy (vv. 6–13).
while in the future we will see direct and clear, Again, the question is what benefit the speech
as clearly as we are already seen and known by has for others (v. 6). Tongues are as indistinct
God (v. 12; cf. 8:3). The abiding qualities, which and incomprehensible as a musical instrument
already have a firm purchase on eternal truths, whose notes signify nothing to the hearer (vv.
are faith, hope, and love (not the Corinthians’ 7–8) or as a foreign language whose meaning
vaunted ‘knowledge’). But the greatest of these, we cannot grasp (v. 11). Paul recognizes and
as the reflection of God’s own character, is love affirms the Corinthian ‘zeal’ for spiritual gifts
(v. 13; cf. Rom 5:8). (v. 12); nothing in this passage discourages the
use of gifts as such. He simply wants the most
(14:1–40) The Superiority of Prophecy over useful (upbuilding) gifts to be regarded as of
Tongues As the first phrase makes clear, ch. 14 higher value, a recognition which will force
draws its inspiration from the preceding eulogy the Corinthians to view themselves as a commu-
of love, which is not a digression from the topic nity, not as a collection of gifted individuals.
of spiritual gifts but an exposition of the virtue Paul is careful not to go so far as to ban the
which enables the church to evaluate and pri- use of tongues, but he requires that their users
oritize those gifts. As concerns various forms of should expect them to be turned into some-
speech, love sets the priority as that which thing beneficial through interpretation (v. 13).
1 corinthians 120

The third argument (vv. 14–19) provides a the whole church speaking in tongues will not
different rationale for the superiority of proph- be attracted to the faith, but simply conclude
ecy: it involves both spirit and mind, whereas that it is a form of madness (v. 23); while if they
the gift of tongues engages only the spirit. Paul encounter prophecy in the church, they will be
is probably speaking here of ‘spirit’ in the sense led to faith by a conviction of sin, a revealing
of human spirit, though it is closely linked with, of heart-secrets, and a recognition of God’s
and inspired by, the Spirit of God. We might presence in the church (vv. 24–5). This is a
expect this contrast to imply a higher evalu- rare depiction of what Paul imagines to be
ation of rationality, the engagement of the the ingredients of ‘conversion’, indicating the
mind being exalted over ‘irrational’ speech. But importance for him of sin and judgement
it would be hard to argue that the human mind (cf. 4:4–5) and of the powerful presence of
was a higher faculty than the Spirit-inspired God (cf. Gal 3:2–5). His own experience in his
spirit, and Paul’s cherishing of the ‘mind’ turns call/conversion may also be reflected here in
out to be not on account of its rationality so some measure.
much as its intelligibility to others, the goal The discussion can now broaden out to take
being once again the ‘upbuilding’ or instruction in wider aspects of worship (vv. 26–40). This is
of the hearers (vv. 17–19). This point is made by the most complete image we get of earliest
reference to prayer, singing, and the offering of Christian worship, though we cannot tell
thanksgiving to God, as the discussion broadens whether Paul’s prescription matches reality in
to cover wider aspects of worship (cf. v. 6). Thus the Corinthian church, or in any other. Paul
Paul forces the Corinthians to consider what is certainly imagines the participation of any
appropriate ‘in church’, as opposed to in pri- member of the community (there are no desig-
vate. In a communal setting, intelligible words nated ‘ministerial’ roles), bringing whatever gifts
count for everything (v. 19). Again, Paul does they have, provided, once again, that they con-
not discredit tongues absolutely (he claims to be tribute to the task of ‘building up’ (v. 26). The
even more gifted than the Corinthians, 14:18!), ‘lesson’ here (v. 26) means teaching, not a read-
but requires them to reconsider their appropri- ing from Scripture, an activity which is strik-
ateness with a view to others’ needs. He is chal- ingly absent from this list of worship activities.
lenging the same unconcern for others which The theme of the chapter makes the spotlight
had manifested itself at the Lord’s Supper fall particularly on tongues and prophecy. The
(11:20–2). former are not banned, but restricted in number
The final argument (vv. 20–5) is prefaced by and admissible only if interpreted. The latter
a stinging rebuke of the Corinthians, who seem also is not to become a virtuoso performance:
to have prided themselves on their maturity (v. a number of prophets should be allowed to
20, whose last phrase reads literally, ‘in your speak, their speech weighed as to its validity
minds be mature’; cf. 2:6–3:4). Paul turns to the (cf. 2:15; 12:3), and room made for new speakers,
only passage in ‘the law’ (here meaning the whose prophecy is sparked by a further ‘revela-
Scriptures as a whole) which might be relevant tion’ (vv. 29–31). Paul is striving to control the
to the subject of ‘tongues’, a warning in Isa exuberance of the worship meetings, but also to
28:11–12 about God speaking to his disobedient prevent their domination by any one figure or
people through foreigners. At first sight, the clique: each member of the body has its part to
lesson Paul draws from this passage in v. 22 play and none is entitled to dismiss the contri-
(tongues are a sign for unbelievers, prophecy bution of others as inconvenient or unnecessary
for believers) seems to be the reverse of his (cf. 12:14–26).
illustration in vv. 23–5, where he imagines the The next paragraph (14:33b–36) has been the
negative effects of tongues on ‘outsiders’ or subject of intense debate. It seems to place a
‘unbelievers’ (the two terms are probably syn- total ban on women’s speech in church, which
onyms) and the positive effects of prophecy. is strangely inconsistent with Paul’s permission
The clue probably lies back in the quotation in 11:2–16 that (veiled) women could pray and
itself, which Paul has slightly modified (adding prophesy. Also the argument depends on a
‘even then’) to suggest that the ‘tongues’ actu- vague and uncharacteristic appeal to ‘the law’
ally bring about, or confirm, unbelief. Thus the (v. 34) and appears to assume that all the
‘sign for’ phrases in v. 22 should probably be women will have husbands to ask ‘at home’
taken to mean that tongues serve to strengthen (v. 35), despite Paul’s acceptance that the single
unbelief, while prophecy serves to strengthen, and celibate option is prudent for both women
or bring about, belief. Thus outsiders viewing and men (ch. 7). Such facts prompt one of two
 121 1 corinthians

conclusions. Either Paul is truly inconsistent resurrection because they considered them-
here, reacting against a threat of ‘unruly’ selves already ‘raised’ (cf. 4:8; 1 Tim 2:18)?
women by forbidding their verbal participation, Or did they disbelieve any future life after
despite what he had earlier allowed. Or this death? In fact, the main focus of the chapter
passage is an interpolation into the letter by a (at least from v. 35 onwards) is the notion of a
later editor, one who took the opportunity of the resurrection body, and it is most likely that the
surrounding context to introduce the restrictive Corinthians believed in the existence of some
ethos of the Pastoral letters (e.g. 1 Tim 2:8–15, post-mortem state, but one free from the res-
part of a letter generally regarded as written by a trictions of the body. Their belief in some form
later Paulinist, not by Paul himself). This latter of afterlife seems implied by their practice of
option is favoured by many commentators, and vicarious baptism for the dead (v. 29), but it
it is given slight textual support by the fact that was common in Hellenized circles (both Greek
some manuscripts place vv. 34–5 at the end of and Jewish) to consider the body an encum-
the chapter, rather than in their present location; brance which the soul will gladly shed after
that might indicate that they were once a mar- death. For Paul, their doubt about the sense or
ginal gloss which was inserted by scribes at value of a ‘resurrection body’ suggests that they
varying points into the original text (see Fee are beginning to question an essential element
1987: 699–708). There have been numerous of their faith, the resurrection of Christ; it also
speculations about a particular local problem indicates a lack of trust in God’s creative power
in Corinth (e.g. women who rudely interrupted to bring life out of death in whatever form he
prophecy, or questioned their husbands in chooses. Thus he insists on the apocalyptic
‘weighing’ their prophecies, see Jervis 1995) notion of a final battle against the powers of
which might or might not explain this outburst death (vv. 20–8) and defends the idea of a
if it is genuinely from Paul. But as it stands the resurrection body, though dispelling crude no-
passage seems to presuppose that women in all tions of physical identity between the present
Paul’s churches were wholly silent, which hardly and the future body (vv. 35–57).
fits what we know of women leaders in Pauline Paul begins by pointedly reminding them of
congregations (e.g. Rom 16:1–2, 3–5, 7; Phil 4:2). the terms on which they entered the faith—
Paul closes the discussion with a strong terms which they must continue to accept if
assertion of his authority (derived from the they are to remain secure (vv. 1–2). The import-
Lord) and a refusal to countenance contrary ant point is that these terms included belief in
opinions even from prophets or so-called ‘spir- the resurrection of Jesus, and it is this topic
itual’ people (vv. 37–8). The strength of his tone which Paul emphasizes in citing a foundational
suggests that the whole chapter is directed credal statement (vv. 3–7). This creed is intro-
against a dominant individual or group duced in v. 3 in technical terms signifying the
whose use of gifts is stifling the life of the transmission of tradition, one which Paul must
congregation. The final verses (39–40) sum- have inherited (in Antioch?) before he founded
marize the priorities set by the chapter and the church in Corinth (50–1 CE). It thus consti-
highlight the need for order; disorder is easily tutes the earliest known Christian creed. Its
exploited by the strong. structure is clear: two main ‘that’ clauses con-
cerning, respectively, the death and the resur-
The Resurrection of Christ and the rection of Christ, each backed by reference to
Resurrection Body (15:1–58) the Scriptures, and two supplementary ‘that’
This chapter stands somewhat alone in the flow clauses about the burial (reinforcing the death)
of topics in the letter and it may appear odd and the appearances (supporting the resurrec-
that the heavy emphasis on the cross as the tion). It is not clear precisely what scriptures are
heart of the gospel in chs. 1–2 should be diluted alluded to in this formula nor is it obvious
by the equal insistence here on the centrality of where the original creed ceased: some think it
the resurrection (2:2 is somewhat contradicted ran no further than v. 5, others as far as v. 7.
by 15:3–5). Yet the discussion of the body in This creed constitutes our earliest literary evi-
6:12–20 gave an indication that Paul considered dence to belief in the resurrection of Christ, and
the Corinthians’ understanding of resurrection it is often remarked that it makes no mention of
to lie at the root of other problems in their the empty tomb or of the women who wit-
church (see esp. 6:12–14). It is difficult to be nessed the scene (and the risen Christ) accord-
sure how the Corinthians did understand res- ing to the stories in the gospels. That silence has
urrection. Were they uninterested in a future suggested to some the late emergence of the
1 corinthians 122

story of the empty tomb (first attested in Mk 16, your faith is futile and ‘you are still in your sins’
in the late 60s CE), though others consider the (vv. 16–17)—that is, you cannot depend on the
silence merely accidental. In any case, it is strik- other part of the creed, that ‘Christ died for our
ing that Paul supports the notion of the resur- sins’ (v. 3). That means all grounds of hope are
rection of Jesus purely on the grounds of the destroyed. As far as Paul is concerned, the
resurrection appearances. Those appearances future hope is such a necessary counterweight
he lists are not all easily correlated with the to the difficulties of the ‘present evil age’ (Gal
gospel stories, which also differ among them- 1:4) that, if it were proved to be groundless,
selves, though the appearance to Cephas may Christians would turn out to be especially piti-
correspond to Lk 24:34, and the appearance to able. The Corinthians may not have denied all
‘the twelve’ with stories in Lk 24 and Jn 20. future hope, but Paul insists on depicting the
One reason for Paul’s concentration on these whole of the slippery slope which he thinks
appearances is that he can add his own testi- they have started to descend.
mony at the end of the list (v. 8). He took his Corinthian doubts have challenged a basic
commissioning to his apostleship to be the final element in Paul’s theology and he now dem-
resurrection appearance, although Luke placed onstrates the pivotal significance of the resur-
it in a quite different category in the narrative of rection of Jesus within the scheme of salvation
the book of Acts. This claim to a vision of Christ (vv. 20–8). This scheme is founded on an apoca-
was crucial to Paul’s self-belief as an apostle (cf. lyptic notion of the age of death being succeeded
9:1), and it leads him into a brief digression and overcome by an age of life, the latter being
about his apostleship (vv. 9–10), which reveals ushered in by a cosmic act of resurrection (de
much about his sense of inferiority (as a former Boer 1988). For Paul, the resurrection of Christ
persecutor), his radical appreciation of grace, constitutes the ‘first fruits’ of that cosmic act
and his hope of outdoing other apostles (cf. (vv. 20, 23), the beginning of the harvest which
9:3–18). Returning to the topic (v. 11), he insists heralds the proximity of the rest. Pairing Christ
that the same resurrection-centred message was with Adam (cf. Rom 5:12–20), Paul finds in Christ
taught by all the apostles and was the basis of the start of a new humanity, in which the failures
the Corinthians’ faith. of the present (encapsulated in death) are
The next paragraph (vv. 12–19) unearths the replaced by the possibilities of the future (resur-
reason for Paul’s concern that the Corinthians rection and life). The key text in vv. 27–8 is Ps 8:6,
‘hold firm’ to the message he delivered: he which concerns the intended dignity of human-
thinks they are beginning to waver in their kind: that role is now fulfilled in the ‘final Adam’
faith in the resurrection of Jesus since some (cf. v. 45) and made possible through him for all
say ‘there is no resurrection of the dead’ (v. (v. 22). That ‘all’ could be taken to mean ‘the
12). As noted above, the Corinthians’ doubts whole of humanity’, thus implying a kind of
probably concerned the notion of a bodily universalism (cf. Rom 5:18; 11:32), though the
resurrection, as indeed the phrase ‘the resur- subsequent reference to ‘those who belong to
rection of the dead’ (which could be taken Christ’ (v. 23) and the earlier dismissals of non-
literally as ‘the raising of corpses’) might sug- believers (e.g. 1:18; 6:9–10) suggest that Paul did
gest a crude notion of physical reconstitution not carry through its universalistic potential. The
after death. Paul himself does not envisage cosmic transformation thus takes place in suc-
resurrection in such crude terms, but his first cessive phases: first, the resurrection of Christ,
reaction is to insist that to doubt the notion of then, at his coming, those who belong to him;
a resurrection of the dead is to doubt the res- ‘then’ (meaning probably, ‘at that same moment’,
urrection of Christ, which was a cardinal tenet though some see here a further phase), it will be
of their creed. He now runs through a logical ‘the end’ when God’s kingdom is complete and
argument twice (vv. 13–15 and 16–19) with all the enemies of his rule are defeated. In this
slight variations in emphasis. First: if there is apocalyptic scenario the risen Christ plays a cru-
no resurrection, then Christ has not been cial role: it is through his present reign that God’s
raised, then our preaching of that fact was enemies are being defeated (v. 25), as God puts
worthless and so is your faith, which is based them in subjection to him (vv. 27–8). Even so,
on that fact (vv. 13–14); indeed, the apostles are Paul insists that Christ is ultimately subordinate
then vulnerable to the charge of lying about to God, who is not himself, of course, subject to
God, for claiming he raised Christ from Christ (v. 27) but is the one to whom Christ
the dead (v. 15). Secondly: if the dead are not is subject in ‘handing over the kingdom’ (v. 24;
raised, then Christ has not been raised, then cf. 3:23; Rom 11:36).
 123 1 corinthians

The next section of the chapter (vv. 29–34) very different ‘bodies’ either side of death, and the
contains miscellaneous arguments which indi- insistence that ‘God gives the seed a body as he
cate the significance of belief in life beyond has chosen’ (v. 38) places the emphasis on God’s
death. The reference to baptism ‘on behalf of re-creative power. The Corinthians’ doubts indi-
the dead’ (v. 29) has been the subject of multiple cate that they have placed their confidence in the
interpretations (some of which construe the continuation of their ‘spiritual’ selves beyond
Greek quite differently). It probably refers to death, rather than in God, whose future act of
a rite in which a few Corinthian believers under- resurrection will demonstrate his sole power over
went a vicarious baptism in the place of those the forces of sin and death (cf. 1:30–1). The ana-
(believers?) who had died either unbaptized or logy also indicates the variety of different ‘bodies’
‘improperly’ baptized. 1:12–17 suggests that resulting from seeds, which is further illustrated
some Corinthians regarded baptism by certain by reference to the varieties of ‘flesh’ and the
figures as of great significance, and they may difference between ‘heavenly’ and ‘earthly’ bodies
have wished to make up for a ‘lack’ in the case (vv. 39–41). In antiquity the stars and planets were
of those who were baptized by different leaders generally considered to be living matter with a
or in a different way. Paul does not condemn constitution much more glorious and ethereal
such a practice, and he is willing to use it to than that of earthbound creatures. Paul is thus
show that the Corinthians themselves entertain suggesting that a resurrection body could be a
hopes for an existence beyond death. body of a much higher order than our present
Turning to himself, he indicates how his own physical condition, though the point hardly
life is founded on the same principle of hope works for us who know that the stars are not
(vv. 30–2). It is only because his investments lie a different order of creation, but as physical,
beyond his present physical existence that he material, and destructible as ourselves.
is prepared to take such risks with his life— vv. 42–50 apply the illustrations to the topic
exposed daily to the threat of death. Indeed, he in hand. What is ‘sown’ (in death) is one kind of
has recently undergone some specially danger- body—perishable, inglorious, and weak—but
ous experience in Ephesus (v. 32); here ‘fighting what is raised can be a body of a wholly differ-
with wild beasts’ must be a metaphor, or he ent kind. One is a ‘physical body’: the Greek
would not have lived to tell the tale, but it is psychikon sōma means a body animated by a
not clear what sort of crisis it refers to. The soul (psychē), which is here taken to be mortal
Corinthians need to be warned and shamed and temporary. The other is a ‘spiritual body’:
(vv. 32–4; cf. 4:14; 6:5). If they lose their faith in the Greek pneumatikon sōma indicates a body
the resurrection of the dead, they have lapsed inhabited by spirit (pneuma), here perhaps the
into mere hedonism (v. 32, citing Isa 22:13) and Spirit of God. Paul thus wishes to preserve the
will end up corrupting their morals (v. 33, citing a term ‘body’ but only when it is shorn of its
popular proverb originating with the poet connotations of physicality and mortality.
Menander). The final comment, that some have The impersonal statements, ‘it is sown a phys-
‘no knowledge of God’ (v. 34) is particularly ical body, it is raised a spiritual body’, leave
biting considering the Corinthians’ boast of unclear whether the physical body is itself
‘knowledge’ (8:1, 4). reused in the resurrection or whether the self
In v. 35 Paul reaches what is probably the heart gains a new body quite distinct from the old.
of his dispute with the Corinthians: the means This ambiguity matches Paul’s silence as to
and meaning of a resurrection body. On this what happened to the body of Jesus and
topic he attempts to preserve a fine and difficult whether his tomb was empty. At least v. 50
balance. He insists on keeping the term ‘body’ makes clear that the present physical body
(Gk. sōma) in describing the future state, but also (‘flesh and blood’) is quite unfit for ‘the king-
stresses the discontinuity between the present and dom of God’, though whether entry into that
the future body, leaving somewhat ambiguous kingdom involves the transformation of the pre-
the relation between the two. The first stage sent body or the granting of an essentially new
of his argument (vv. 36–41) is the insistence that body is left undefined in this chapter and is not
there are many types of ‘body’, each with variant consistently dealt with elsewhere (cf. Rom 8:11;
degrees of ‘glory’: in talking about the resurrec- Phil 3:21; 2 Cor 5:1–11). vv. 45–9 develop the
tion of the dead our minds should not be contrast between the psychikon sōma and the
restricted by what we presently experience as pneumatikon sōma by reference to their two
‘body’ with its rather limited glory. The analogy prototypes: Adam, the first man, made from
of the seed (vv. 36–8) illustrates the possibility of the dust, who became a living (but mortal)
1 corinthians 124

psychē (Gen 2:7) and Christ, the final Adam, sudden and potentially embarrassing demand for
whose origin is heaven, and who is a life-giving money when he arrives in Corinth. He also sug-
(and immortal) pneuma. Our present bodies are gests that the Corinthians participate in its deliv-
as perishable as Adam’s (‘we bear the image of ery, to offset suspicions about its destination. It is
the man of dust’), but the future resurrection clear from 2 Cor 8 and 9 that this advice went
body will bear the image of Christ (v. 49). unheeded and the Corinthians proved extremely
Thus the chapter finishes with a triumphant unwilling to contribute to the collection (cf. 2 Cor
declaration of the hope on which the whole 12:14–18). However, Rom 15:25–7 suggests that
Christian faith depends, a ‘mystery’ which makes Paul was eventually successful, if the reference
sense of the present in the light of the future to Achaia there includes the church at Corinth
(vv. 51–8; cf. 2:9–10). Although not all will die (the capital of the province).
first (‘sleep’), it is certainly the case that all will Paul’s description of his travel plans (vv. 5–9)
be changed, that is, our perishable selves seems designed to explain why he is unable to
will become imperishable and fit for the ‘king- visit Corinth immediately: he is detained in Eph-
dom of God’ (v. 50). Using traditional apocalyptic esus for the sake of the gospel and wants to wait
imagery, Paul imagines this great change taking till he can pay more than a fleeting visit to Cor-
place ‘at the last trumpet’ (v. 52; cf. 1 Thess 4:16; inth. 4:18–19 indicated that Paul was criticized for
Rev 8:6). Since he supposes here that he and his absence from Corinth, but the promises he
his generation will be alive at this end-point in now makes proved to be fateful. He subsequently
history (cf. 7:29–31; 1 Thess 4:15, 17), he distin- decided to visit them on his way both to and from
guishes between ‘the dead’ who will be raised in Macedonia, and then had such a painful time in
the new imperishable state and ‘we’ who will be Corinth that he did not come back (2 Cor 1:15–
changed from a mortal life to a new immortal 2:2). As 2 Corinthians shows, this constant shift-
state (vv. 52–4). At that moment the final enemy, ing of plans exposed Paul to acute criticism from
death, will be destroyed (cf. v. 26), and Paul cele- certain figures in the church, and undermined the
brates with two Scripture citations, one (v. 54) church’s confidence in his word.
from Isa 25:8, a passage full of eschatological Meanwhile, Paul is sending Timothy as his
promises, the other (v. 55) from Hos 13:14, a pas- delegate (vv. 10–11). It is unclear why that visit,
sage which he wilfully reads against its grain: the promised in 4:17, is now somewhat indefinite,
prophet invited death to wield its sting, but Paul but the note of fear concerning his reception in
employs his words to taunt death with its ultim- Corinth is revealing: if Paul’s assistant is likely to
ate powerlessness. Death’s sting is already at work be ‘despised’ in Corinth, Paul’s own standing
in the power of sin, a power derived from the law cannot be very secure. As for Apollos (v. 12),
(v. 56; the themes are elaborated in Rom 6–7); but we can only speculate why Paul wanted him
we are granted victory over both by God (cf. Rom in Corinth (where he was the figurehead of a
8:37–9). That means for now persistence in faith ‘rival’ party, 1:12) and why he was unwilling to
and action, since ‘the work of the Lord’ is of go (v. 12). As in 3:5–9, Paul seems anxious to
ultimate and lasting significance (v. 58), like love, show that he and Apollos are not at odds nor
which is its chief characteristic (13:13; 16:14). wishing to undermine each other’s work.
The general instructions of vv. 13–14 (cf. 15:58
Letter Closing, with Travel Plans, Final and ch. 13) lead into a specific recommendation
Instructions, and Greetings (16:1–24) of the household of Stephanas (vv. 15–18). Their
This final chapter covers a range of topics which ‘service of the saints’ (v. 15) probably consisted
bear on Paul’s relationship to the church in Cor- of financial support of the church in Corinth.
inth, issues which either had already become Given what we have glimpsed of leadership
problematic or would soon become so. The ‘col- contests in the church, this strong recommen-
lection for the saints’ (vv. 1–4) is the collection dation constitutes Paul’s bid to ensure that lead-
Paul had agreed to gather for the church in Jeru- ership remains in (or reverts to) this household:
salem (Gal 2:10). His problem was in persuading their presence with Paul at the time of writing
his churches to support this project, since his has given him the opportunity to hear about the
intentions for this money were open to question situation in Corinth and to mould the thinking
and the necessity of the collection was not obvi- of people who he hopes will influence the rest
ous to all. Paul here suggests a mechanism for of the church. We cannot tell what relationship
regular storing of money on ‘the first day of the Fortunatus and Achaicus had to Stephanas;
week’, that is, Sunday; nothing is implied here they perhaps belonged to his ‘household’, as
about worship on Sundays. He is trying to avoid a slaves, freedmen, or free dependants.
 125 1 corinthians

The final greetings (vv. 19–24) are distinguished Dunn, J. D. G. (1991), The Partings of the Ways between
by special reference to Aquila and Prisca, the Christianity and Judaism (London: SCM).
couple who had hosted Paul in Corinth at the Fee, G. D. (1987), The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New
foundation of the church (Acts 18:2–3). The ‘holy International Commentary on the New Testa-
kiss’ (v. 20) may have been a common sign of ment, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans).
recognition among Christian believers (cf. 1 Thess Frör, H. (1995), You Wretched Corinthians! (London:
5:26) and is here contrasted with a curse on any SCM).
who ‘has no love for the Lord’ (v. 22). This is Gooch, P. D. (1993), Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8–10
perhaps a formulaic phrase defining Christian in Its Context (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier Uni-
identity (cf. 12:3), while the last words of v. 22 versity Press).
are a Greek transliteration of an Aramaic acclam- Gooch, P. W. (1987), Partial Knowledge: Philosophical
ation (‘Marana tha’) which must derive from early Studies in Paul (Notre Dame: University of Notre
Jewish Christianity. Paul’s own handwriting (v. 21; Dame Press).
cf. Gal 6:11) gives a personal tone to the close of Goulder, M. D. (1991), ‘SOPHIA in 1 Corinthians’, NTS
the letter, which has been calculated throughout 37: 516–34.
to restore the allegiance of the Corinthians to Hays, R. B. (1989), Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul
himself, though not for his own sake, only in (New Haven: Yale University Press).
order to ensure their continuance ‘in Christ Hooker, M. D. (1963) ‘ ‘‘Beyond the things which are
Jesus’ (v. 24; cf. 1:9). written’’: An Examination of 1 Cor iv. 6’, NTS 10:
127–32, repr. in From Adam to Christ: Essays on
Paul, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press),
REFERENCES
106–12.
Barclay, J. M. G. (1992), ‘Thessalonica and Corinth: —— (1964), ‘Authority on her Head: An Examination
Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity’, JSNT 47: of 1 Cor. 11.10’, NTS 10: 410–16, repr. in From Adam
49–74. to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
—— (1996), Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from versity Press), 113–20.
Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Edinburgh: Hurd, J. C. (1965), The Origin of 1 Corinthians (London:
T. & T. Clark). SPCK).
Barrett, C. K. (1971), A Commentary on the First Epistle to Hurtado, L. W. (1988), One God, One Lord: Early Chris-
the Corinthians, 2nd edn. (London: A. & C. Black). tian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Lon-
—— (1982), Essays on Paul (London: SPCK). don: SCM).
Bartchy, S. S. (1973), MALLON CHRESAI: First-Century Jervis, L. A. (1995), ‘1 Corinthians 14.34–35: A Recon-
Slavery and 1 Corinthians 7.21 (Missoula: Scholars sideration of Paul’s Limitation of the Free Speech
Press). of Some Corinthian Women’, JSNT 58: 51–74.
Brown, P. (1988), The Body and Society: Men, Women and Litfin, D. (1994), St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation: 1
Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (London: Corinthians 1–4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric (Cam-
Faber & Faber). bridge: Cambridge University Press).
Chow, J. K. (1992), Patronage and Power: A Study of Lüdemann, G. (1984), Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Stud-
Social Networks in Corinth (Sheffield: JSOT). ies in Chronology (London: SCM).
Clarke, A. D. (1993), Secular and Christian Leadership in Martin, D. B. (1990), Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor
Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale
Corinthians 1–6 (Leiden: Brill). University Press).
Dahl, N. A. (1967), ‘Paul and the Church at Corinth —— (1991), ‘Tongues of Angels and Other Status
according to 1 Corinthians 1–4’, in W. R. Farmer Indicators’, AAR 59: 547–89.
et al. (eds.), Christian History and Interpretation: Studies —— (1995), The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale
Presented to John Knox (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- University Press).
versity Press), 313–35. Meeks, W. A. (1983), The First Urban Christians: The
de Boer, M. C. (1988), The Defeat of Death: Apocalyptic Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale
Eschatology in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 (Sheffield: University Press).
JSOT). Meggitt, J. J. (1998), Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edin-
—— (1994), ‘The Composition of 1 Corinthians’, burgh: T. & T. Clark).
NTS 40: 229–45. Mitchell, M. M. (1992), Paul and the Rhetoric of Recon-
Deming, W. (1995), Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The ciliation, (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox).
Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7 (Cambridge: Murphy-O’Connor, J. (1980), ‘Sex and Logic in 1
Cambridge University Press). Corinthians 11.2–16’, CBQ 42: 482–500.
2 corinthians 126

Pearson, B. A. (1973), The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Thompson, C. L. (1988), ‘Hairstyles, Head-coverings

Terminology in 1 Corinthians (Missoula: Scholars Press). and St. Paul: Portraits from Roman Corinth’,
Rosner, B. S. (1994), Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of Biblical Archaeologist, 51: 99–115.
1 Corinthians 5–7 (Leiden: Brill). Willis, W. L. (1985), Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline
Schmithals, W. (1971), Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville: Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (Chico, Calif.:
Abingdon). Scholars Press).
Theissen, G. (1982), The Social Setting of Pauline Winter, B. (1991), ‘Civil Litigation in Secular Corinth
Christianity (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). and the Church: The Forensic Background to 1
—— (1987), Psychological Aspects of Pauline Christianity Corinthians 6.1–8’, NTS 37: 559–72.
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Wire, A. C. (1990), The Corinthian Women Prophets
Thiselton, A. C. (1977–8), ‘Realized Eschatology at (Minneapolis: Fortress).
Corinth’, NTS 24: 510–26.

6. 2 Corinthians
MARGARET MACDONALD

INTRODUCTION 2. In form and style 2 Corinthians closely

resembles Paul’s other works, and its authenti-
A. Literary Structure. 1. It is a generally held
city has not been questioned. However, the
view today that 2 Corinthians is made up of
language and content of 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 have
more than one of Paul’s letters. Although there
struck many as being difficult to reconcile with
is no MS evidence to support this theory, there
Paul’s other writings and, therefore, this passage
are several problems in the text as we have it
has often been viewed as an interpolation.
which raise the question of its unity. Among the
more serious difficulties is the sharp break
between the conciliatory tone of chs. 1–9 and B. Date and Social Setting. 1. In addition to
the harsh, sarcastic tone of chs. 10–13. Several the correspondence which was included in
partition theories have been developed in order the NT, the Corinthian letters themselves bear
to explain these difficulties, and these theories witness to additional writings which are either
may be divided into two major schools. (1) non-extant or have been subsumed along with
Some scholars divide the text into five or six other letters within the body of 2 Corinthians
fragments and then reconstruct the chronology (see 2 COR A.1). 1 Cor 5:9 demonstrates that Paul
of Paul’s dealings with the Corinthians on the basis wrote a letter prior to 1 Corinthians, probably
of these units (e.g. 2:14–6:13; 7:2–4 þ 10:1–13:10 þ concerning the immoral behaviour of church
1:1–2:13; 7:5–16; 13:11–13 þ ch. 8 þ ch. 9 þ members. Some have identified this letter with
6:14–7:1; Betz 1992: 1149–50). (2) Other scholars 2 Cor 6:14–7:1. 1 Corinthians was written around
do not view the points of discontinuity in chs. 54 CE in response to a letter from the Corin-
1–9 as being severe enough to warrant theories thians which had raised several questions. The
of partition of those chapters, but nevertheless events which precipitated the correspondence
see a significant break between chs. 1–9 and chs. known as 2 Corinthians are a subject of great
10–13. Therefore, they argue in favour of a two- debate and we are limited to conjecture con-
letter hypothesis. This is the position adopted cerning them. One possible reconstruction of
here (cf. Furnish 1984: 35–41). Whether chs. 1–9 events is as follows. It appears that between the
came before or after chs. 10–13 is a further time of the composition of 1 Corinthians and 2
subject for debate, but more scholars seem to Corinthians (or fragments thereof), Paul paid an
be in favour of the priority of chs. 1–9. Accord- emergency ‘sorrowful visit’ to Corinth (2 Cor
ing to the proponents of the various partition 2:1). This probably was the apostle’s second
theories, the NT work called 2 Corinthians is visit to the community (cf. 2 Cor 12:14; 13:1),
the product of an early editor who combined the first being the occasion of the founding of
two or more fragments drawn from originally the community in 50 or 51 CE. It seems that this
independent letters. However, some scholars second visit did not go well (2 Cor 2:1–11; 7:12)
continue to defend the integrity of the letter and Paul followed it up with a ‘tearful letter’
(e.g. Witherington 1995: 328–39). (2 Cor 2:4; 2:2–11; 7:5–12). Although some have
 127 2 corinthians

identified this letter with 2 Cor 10–13, it is more divine mandate has also been of considerable
likely that it has been lost. A subsequent report interest.
to Paul that his ‘tearful letter’ had produced the 3. Corinth became a Roman colony in 44 BCE
desired effect in the community led to the com- and architectural, artefactual, and inscriptional
position in Macedonia in 55–6 CE of 2 Cor 1–9 evidence points to a strong Romanizing influ-
(2 Cor 7:5; cf. 2 Cor 2:12–13; 8:1; 9:2). Titus ence in this old Hellenistic city (Witherington
apparently delivered this letter to the congrega- 1995: 6–7). The growing awareness of the need
tion (2 Cor 7:4–16; cf. 2 Cor 8:17–18). However, to understand NT groups in the light of the
the situation deteriorated again. Some months context of Graeco-Roman society has had an
later Paul wrote 2 Cor 10–13, also probably from important effect on the study of 2 Corinthians.
Macedonia. In this letter he stated his intention For example, comparison of 2 Cor 8–9 to
to come to the community a third time (2 Cor administrative correspondence in the empire
12:14; 13:1). (This reconstruction follows Furnish has shed light upon the form and purpose of
1988: 1191–2 closely and is based on the two-letter these chapters (Betz 1985). Increasingly, scholars
hypothesis. For an alternative reconstruction are examining the influence of Greek rhetorical
based upon the five-(or six-)letter hypothesis style upon Paul. The obvious use of such rhet-
see Betz 1992: 1149–52.) orical devices as parody in 2 Cor 10–13 has
2. When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, he respon- invited further probing on the way Paul forms
ded to problems involving community division and develops his arguments in 2 Corinthians. It
and behaviour, problems he felt were incompat- is now possible to say that rhetorical analysis of
ible with membership in Christ’s body. By the 2 Corinthians represents an important meth-
time of the composition of 2 Corinthians (or odological approach, one which complements
various letter fragments), community problems more traditional exercises in historical criticism.
extended to include the nature of the apostle’s Rhetorical analysis sheds light on questions
relationship with the Corinthians. Indeed, ranging from the purpose of the letter to its
some wonder whether the harsh, critical—even literary integrity (e.g. Young and Ford 1987;
sardonic—tone of 1 Corinthians may have alien- Marshall 1987; Crafton 1990; Witherington 1995).
ated its recipients to the extent that a second, The recognition of the importance of rhetoric in
more conciliatory letter was required. Convinced the ancient world and in the letters of Paul has
that the relationship was severely threatened, and also contributed to a further understanding of
of the need for reconciliation, Paul set out to Paul’s emphasis on boasting and self-praise
defend his apostolic authority. By the time that in 2 Corinthians. Public demonstrations of self-
2 Cor 10–13 was composed (See 2 COR A.1) the worth (which included performances of rhet-
situation had become acute, due to the influence oric) were a central means of establishing one’s
of apostolic rivals in the community. Throughout authority in a society which had an honour/
2 Cor 10–13 Paul’s preoccupation with these rivals shame orientation (Witherington 1995: 6,
is evident, but there are also insinuations in earl- 432–7; 2 COR 1:12–14; 2 COR 4:1–6). Investigation
ier chapters of threats by opponents to Paul’s of the structures of the patron–client relation-
apostleship (e.g. 2 Cor 3:1–6). The nature of ship in the ancient world has also shed light on
Paul’s authority is a theme which runs through- Paul’s interaction with the Corinthians (Marshall
out 2 Corinthians, and this text has therefore 1987; Chow 1992; Witherington 1995; 2 COR
been of great interest to scholars concerned 5:11–19; 2 COR 8:16–24; 2 COR 10:12–18).
with the general question of how Paul exercised
authority and distributed power in the commu- C. Opponents. There has been extensive
nity (Schütz 1975; Holmberg 1980; Meeks 1983; discussion concerning the identity of Paul’s
MacDonald 1988). Often these scholars draw opponents in 2 Corinthians (e.g. Barrett 1971;
upon social-scientific insights such as the foun- Thrall 1980; Georgi 1986). The consensus is
dational theories of the sociologist Max Weber that the problems concerning opponents in 2
on charisma and authority. Some of the specific Corinthians must be distinguished from the fac-
issues under investigation include Paul’s apos- tions and opposition apparent in 1 Corinthians,
tolic credentials and talents, his involvement in even though there may have been some con-
the collection for the Jerusalem church, and his nection between the two. In contrast to 1
attitude towards receiving material support from Corinthians, in 2 Corinthians it is clear that the
the congregation. Paul’s use of a ‘theology of the opponents were intruders, that is, they came
cross’ (which locates power in weakness; 2 COR from outside the community (2 Cor 10:13–16;
4:7–15) to anchor his apostolic authority in a 11:4, 19–20). It is also clear that they were Jewish
2 corinthians 128

(2 Cor 11:22). But there has been no general 1:1–3). Timothy is listed as the co-author.
agreement on the nature of their Jewish teach- Although Sosthenes and Silvanus are also
ing (Murphy-O’Connor 1990: 817). Some have given this role in other letters, Timothy is
viewed the opponents as Judaizers who were most frequently mentioned (cf. Phil 1:1–2; Col
connected to the Jerusalem church (Barrett 1:1–2; 1 Thess 1:1–2; Thess 1:1–2). It is not easy to
1971). Others have understood their spirituality evaluate the significance of this joint enterprise
in light of diaspora Judaism and their mission as in modern terms. On the one hand, it is clear
based in the demonstration of ecstatic experi- that Timothy’s authority in the church was not
ences and the performance of miracles. Hellen- equal to that of Paul; he was dependent upon
istic Jewish missionaries may have propounded Paul. On the other hand, Paul worked very
notions of Jesus as the ‘divine man’ (Georgi closely with associates and they were instru-
1986: 246–83). There are several difficulties mental to the success of his mission. Paul exer-
associated with extracting information concern- cised his leadership as part of a team and it is
ing these opponents and their influence in the misleading to think of the relationship between
community. It is sometimes difficult to know Paul and his fellow-workers as unilaterally hier-
whether Paul is responding directly to new archical. In fact, the importance of the role of
problems created by the opponents who have Paul’s associates emerges especially clearly in 2
penetrated the community from the outside, or Corinthians (2 Cor 2:13; 7:6–16; 8:6, 16–24). At
to more general tendencies in Corinth which the very least we may say that Timothy is men-
have been exacerbated by his rivals. How one tioned because he is with Paul and his presence
interprets the evidence is determined to a sig- serves to bolster the authority of Paul’s message.
nificant extent by what one makes of possible In particular Timothy’s previous work with the
thematic connections between 1 and 2 Corin- Corinthians means that his influence could
thians (Matthews 1994: 199–200). In addition, enhance (or likewise detract from) Paul’s position.
although Paul sometimes quotes his rivals Along with Silvanus he was involved in the
directly, his polemical stance makes it difficult establishment of the church in Corinth (2 Cor
to extract accurate information concerning 1:19; cf. 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10–11). The addressees are
their teaching. The apostle’s use of various labels described in such a way as to further corroborate
for his opponents, such as ‘super-apostles’ this image of a network of relationships. They
(2 Cor 11:5; 12:11) and ‘false apostles’ (2 Cor are described as the church of God in Corinth,
11:13), has also led to discussion of whether one including the ‘saints’ (a general term in the NT for
or more groups of opponents are in view (see 2 believers, see OCB s.v.) throughout Achaia (the
COR 11:5–15). Roman province with Corinth as its capital). The
church in Corinth belongs to a wider community
D. Outline. held together by emissaries, letters, and hospital-
Introduction (1:1–11) ity. 2 Cor 1–9 and possibly also 2 Cor 10–13
Address (1:1–2) were written from Macedonia (2 Cor 2:12–13; 7:5;
Blessing (1:3–11) 8:1; 9:2).
Paul the Conciliator (1:12–9:15)
Explanations and Future Plans (1:12–2:13) (1:3–11) Blessing As is usually the case in Paul’s
The Authority of the Apostle (2:14–5:19) letters, a blessing or thanksgiving follows the
Appeals for Reconciliation with the Apostle greeting. Typically, the community is praised
(5:20–7:16) and their past relationship with the apostle is
Appeals about the Collection (8:1–9:15) recalled. Themes to be developed at a later point
Paul on the Attack (10:1–13:10) are introduced. In this text the solidarity of the
Preliminary Defence (10:1–18) Corinthians with Paul in affliction is empha-
The Fool’s Speech (11:1–12:13) sized. Likewise, community and apostle share
Concluding Defence (12:14–13:10) the hope of consolation. Implicitly, church
Conclusion: Greetings and Benediction (13:11–13) members are being praised for their strength in
the face of suffering. Particularly striking is the
repetition of the term ‘consolation’ and its cog-
COMMENTARY nates (paraklēsis). It is a notion that is especially
prominent in 2 Corinthians. For example, it is
Introduction (1:1–11) taken up again in 2 Cor 7:4–13, a passage illus-
(1:1–2) Address The address is in keeping with trating that the affliction/consolation oppos-
the normal pattern of Paul’s letters (e.g. 1 Cor ition must be understood in the light of the
 129 2 corinthians

difficult relations and complicated exchanges ‘on the day of the Lord we are your boast even
between Paul and the Corinthians. Within the as you are our boast’. The reference to the ‘day
Pauline corpus, the term ‘affliction’ (thlipsis) of the Lord’ (cf. 1 Cor 5:5; Phil 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1
occurs most frequently in 2 Corinthians. It is a Thess 5:2) suggests that Paul is convinced that
term that can carry a wide variety of meanings his relationship with the Corinthians is funda-
(Garrett 1995), ranging from the apostle’s own mental to the participation of both parties in
physical (?) sufferings (2 Cor 1:8), to the pain of a the culmination of the Christ event. On that day
broken relationship with the Corinthians that all will be judged and the apostle is confident
inspired the ‘severe letter’ (2 Cor 2:4; cf. 7:7–8), that his conduct will be shown to be above
to impoverishment (2 Cor 8:13). The affliction in reproach. Moreover, the parallelism in the
Asia of which Paul speaks in 2 Cor 1:8 seems phrase implies mutual dependence between
to have been so devastating that he narrowly the two parties. The meaning of Paul’s apostle-
escaped with his life. While other explanations ship is fundamentally related to the fruit of his
cannot be ruled out entirely, some type of phys- labours. A similar sentiment surfaces in Rom
ical suffering is probably in view, brought about 15:22–33 where acceptance of the collection
by persecution (perhaps in Ephesus, cf. 1 Cor (and ultimately of his Gentile mission) by the
15:32) or disease. Recalling Christ’s suffering in Jerusalem church appears to be fundamental
2 Cor 1:5 serves the apostle’s purposes well in to Paul’s confidence in the legitimacy of his
order to convey the hope of comfort in the midst apostleship. In 2 Corinthians, the body of the
of affliction; as members of Christ’s body, belie- Corinthian community (the church which Paul
vers continue to share in his afflictions (cf. Col founded) is his boast: this is the manifestation of
1:24), but will also be comforted through him. his apostleship. The boast of the Corinthian
The consolation/affliction opposition is one community, however, is also rooted in their
of many rhetorical strategies Paul employs to connection, and no doubt loyalty, to Paul (cf.
reinforce his authority in Corinth. The apostle’s 5:12). Closely related to the theme of boasting is
leadership clearly recalls the suffering Christ. Paul’s claim of having behaved in the world
Like Christ’s authority, the apostle’s authority with ‘frankness’ (haplotēs). Although there is
is articulated in an unexpected way—through strong MS evidence for the alternative reading
affliction. But this affliction carries the promise of ‘holiness’, the immediate and broader context
of consolation. It is meaningful because it leads suggests that ‘frankness’ (cf. 2:17) is the most
to the consolation of believers, relating Paul’s likely possibility (for a summary of the evidence
(and ultimately Christ’s) life intimately to the see Furnish 1984: 127). The reference to frank-
circumstances of the Corinthians. The associ- ness reflects the ancient Greek notion of the
ation of the consolation/affliction opposition rights of citizens to speak freely and to be
with expressions of confidence (e.g. 2 Cor 1:7; open, even generous, in mutual dealings. It is a
7:4) makes its function as an assertion of author- term which Paul uses to describe the nature of
ity especially clear (Meeks 1983: 123). his ministry along with the synonym ‘sincerity’;
this language resembles notions found else-
Paul the Conciliator (1:12–9:15) where in 2 Corinthians (2:17; 3:12; 10:2). Frank-
ness, boldness, confidence, and the act of
(1:12–2:13) Explanations and Future Plans boasting are expressions of the value placed
(1:12–14) The Community as Paul’s Boast on assertiveness in the ancient Mediterranean
Paul begins with a declaration of the signifi- world. Assertiveness, especially among men,
cance of his relationship with the Corinthians was a means of preserving one’s honour—
before he offers the explanation of the events one’s reputation—and was integral to claims
that have caused the Corinthians to doubt his of authority. Especially in Acts the assertiveness
sincerity and authority. Although it implies of the apostles functions as a means of reinfor-
assertiveness, it is misleading to think of boast- cing the validity of their message (e.g. Acts 4:13,
ing as a type of bragging. Rather, it is a term 29, 31; 9:27–9; Reese 1993: 9–11).
that Paul employs to communicate his ultimate
priorities as an apostle and to express his con- (1:15–22) Change of Travel Plans Here Paul
fidence in his mission. It is a notion that appears is apparently responding to some charge of
frequently in 2 Corinthians. Not surprisingly, inconsistency based on a change of plan. It
Paul also speaks of his ground for boasting is impossible to be precise about the actual
when he defines his rights as an apostle in 1 circumstances, but it seems that Paul’s plans
Cor 9:15–16. Particularly intriguing is the phrase, had changed at least twice. In 1 Cor 16:5–7 Paul
2 corinthians 130

announced his intention to visit Corinth briefly composition of 2 Corinthians (or any segment
before going on to Macedonia. However, the of this document), Paul paid a visit to the
plan he is accused of forfeiting here involved a Corinthians (cf. 2 Cor 12:14; 13:1). This may well
visit both on the way to Macedonia and after have been an emergency visit (perhaps from
leaving Macedonia; he would then have gone Ephesus) brought about by a report of trouble
on from Corinth to Judea (probably bearing in the community. It is to be distinguished from
the collection). (See reconstructions of Paul’s the cancelled visit described in 1:16 (cf. 1:23). The
itinerary in Betz 1992: 1151; Furnish 1984: 143–4.) ‘painful visit’ probably involved a conflict with
Although it is possible that Paul cancelled only an individual and a resulting lack of support
the return phase of the anticipated double visit, from the community. Paul’s language calls to
most commentators believe the entire visit mind broken relationships and betrayal but
was cancelled (1:23). The reference to a double also great love (2:4); it seems that he felt his
favour (v. 15) has a somewhat sarcastic ring. It place among the Corinthians was jeopardized
may be in response to those who accused Paul severely (2:5–11; 7:8–12). His visit was apparently
of using flattery to win his audience; he had followed by a ‘tearful letter’ which was probably
flattered the Corinthians with promises of a brought to the community by Titus and which
double visit (setting them above the Macedo- was interpreted by some as being unduly severe
nians?) when he really had no intention of (7:8). It was Titus who brought news of the
going twice (Furnish 1984: 144). Paul’s response turnaround in events after the community had
is unequivocal. He has not been fickle, answer- received the letter (7:6–8). Some have identified
ing yes and no in the same breath. In keeping the ‘tearful letter’ with chs. 10–13. However,
with points he has made earlier in the chapter because the problem mentioned in 2:5–11 con-
(1:12), he stresses that his actions as an apostle cerns an individual offender and not ‘super-
are based not on a human agenda but on divine apostles’ as in chs. 10–13, others believe that
initiative. He uses his critics’ accusation of the ‘painful letter’ no longer exists. Although
vacillation as an invitation to meditate on the the incest case of 1 Cor 5 which Paul discusses
absolute consistency of God and complete in uncompromising terms might lead to the
obedience of Jesus to God’s will. In other suggestion that the ‘tearful letter’ is in fact 1
words, since God is on Paul’s side, inconsistency Corinthians, few hold this point of view today.
is ruled out. The place of Paul and the Corinth- We are limited to conjecture, but these verses
ian community in God’s plan is announced in offer information about Paul’s comings and
vv. 21–2. As the one appointed by God to bring goings, and hints about the setting of the com-
the gospel to the Corinthians, Paul in essence position of 2 Corinthians (or parts thereof). It
facilitates their joining with him as members of seems that from Ephesus (1 Cor 16:5–8) Paul
Christ’s body. Their mutual relationship with travelled to the seaport of Troas where he hoped
Christ is so close that they have been anointed; to find his ‘brother’ Titus (for other brother-
they are now ‘in Christ’, incorporated into the helpers, cf. Phil 2:25; Philem 16). Paul’s longing
Messiah, the anointed one. Receipt of the Spirit for Titus offers us a poignant glimpse into
is also in keeping with messianic identity (cf. 1 the significance of Paul’s relationship with his
Sam 16:13; Isa 61:1). Paul’s arguments are not fellow-workers (2 COR 7:5–7). In Troas, Paul had
confined to doctrine. He also appeals to litur- considerable missionary success. The metaphor
gical experiences, in his reference to the com- he uses calls to mind the importance of the
munity’s usual manner of giving assent: ‘amen’ household and workshop as an arena for con-
(v. 20; cf. 1 Cor 14:16). He also recalls the experi- version in the ancient world (see Hock 1980;
ence of baptism by referring to the ‘seal’ and MacMullen 1984: 25–42). Evangelical opportun-
the Spirit as the first instalment of the divine ity is described as a door being opened for him
promises (cf. Eph 1:13–14). In Colossians and in the Lord (2:12). From Troas, Paul set out for
Ephesians, remembrances of baptism play a cen- Macedonia where he met up with (Titus 7:6). It
tral role in encouraging appropriate communal is probable that it was from Macedonia that
behaviour. Paul wrote 2 Corinthians (or parts thereof). It
is clear that by the time of the composition of
(1:23–2:13) The Painful Visit and the Letter of these verses the problem of breakdown in rela-
Tears Paul explains that it was to spare the tions between Paul and the Corinthians, caused
Corinthians that he did not make another visit. by the case of the offender, had been resolved.
We are probably to understand that between The nature of the offence is to be distinguished
the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians and the from that discussed in 1 Cor 5 where Paul insists
 131 2 corinthians

that the wicked person be driven out from the 1990: 819). In the accounts of martyrdom in
community like a malady that must be purged later church literature, beautiful fragrance was
from the body (1 Cor 5:13; on the differences a sign of God’s presence and that God was on
between 1 Cor 5:1–5 and 2 Cor 2:5–11 see detailed the side of the Christians (see Mart. Pol. 15). First
discussion in Furnish 1984: 164–6). In the case of the gospel and then the apostles are compared
2 Corinthians, the offender has been punished to a fragrance. The fragrance spreads through-
by the community enough and now should be out the world by means of the apostles and
forgiven and consoled. Is Paul’s leniency rooted for some represents life, but for others, death.
in the nature of the offence, i.e. a challenge to This black-and-white language offers a good
his authority and not a case of immorality example of ‘language of belonging’ and ‘language
which is worse even than that found among of separation’ which demarcates the boundaries
the pagans (1 Cor 5:1)? It has been suggested of the community (Meeks 1983: 85–96). Here
that this offender was someone external to the the negative perception of the outside society
community (see Barrett 1973: 212), but this the- is particularly evident. But the fragrance is
ory has not gained wide acceptance. The pain/ also said to spread ‘in every place’, implying a
consolation opposition throughout the text universal mission. There is a certain tension
is in keeping with the suffering/consolation in Paul’s letters between openness to the
opposition in 1:3–11. Paul uses language of con- external society in the hope of winning new
trast to move the discussion from a previously members and a strong desire to remain separate
painful situation to a celebration of the nature of (MacDonald 1988: 32–42). In 2:16 the tone changes
the reconciliation and love that now exists. But abruptly from thanksgiving to interrogation of
the frequently attested theme of the apostle who the community concerning the specifics of their
suffers unjustly surfaces here as well (2:3). Des- relationship with Paul. Before Paul engages in
pite the presence of Christ, Paul and the com- a dialogue concerning the objections raised
munity members will remain vulnerable to the against his apostleship, he raises a question
intervention of evil until the day of the Lord. designed to lead believers to the conclusion
Satan can interfere with community matters and that apostolic claims must ultimately rest only
with the apostle’s agenda (2:11; 11:3, 14–15; 12:7; in God. With the question ‘Who is sufficient
cf. 1 Thess 2:18). He can cause innumerable mis- for these things?’ he hopes to make them see
fortunes and suffering and one must always be the error of the presumption that an apostle’s
watchful of his designs (Neyrey 1990: 176). superior personal attributes are responsible for
success in carrying out God’s plan. The same
(2:14–5:19) The Authority of the Apostle idea is repeated in 3:5. Perhaps distinguishing
(2:14–3:6) The Legitimacy of Paul’s Apostle- himself from others who claim superior attri-
ship This section opens with a formula of butes, he makes the point emphatically that he
thanksgiving which has perhaps been inspired is not a charlatan. The language is very strong
by the good news brought by Titus of the com- and, given the suspicions about Paul’s financial
munity’s compliance with the apostle’s wishes arrangements which are echoed later in the
(7:6–7; Thrall 1965: 129). Rich imagery is used to work, it is tempting to conclude that this label
communicate what God has accomplished in had been applied to him. Paul speaks literally of
Christ. Believers are described as being led in those who hawk (kapēleuein) the word of God.
the manner of the triumphal procession of the The Greek term occurs nowhere else in the NT
general who returns victorious from battle. The but was employed by ancient critics of itinerant
notion of triumph in weakness which is so teachers to speak of the ‘huckstering of wisdom’
central to Paul’s theology in 2 Corinthians may (Furnish 1984:178). To those who would rebuke
be in view here. It is important to note that it him for his lack of letters of recommendation,
was the prisoners-of-war who were paraded Paul replies that nothing could compare with
through the streets during such processions the proof of commendation that lies in their
and Paul may be identifying the apostles with existence as a church: the Corinthians them-
them (Furnish 1988: 1194). ‘Fragrance’ refers to selves are the letter. Letters of recommendation
the odour of incense in sacrifice. Paul may be were an accepted means of ensuring hospitality
thinking of rituals associated with Roman and receipt of some favour in the ancient world
celebrations of triumph or with Jewish temple (cf. Acts 9:2; 22:5). One of the benefits that a
practice. The image may also have been influ- patron might extend to his client was such a
enced by Sir 24:15 where fragrance is a sign of the letter. Rom 16:1–2 makes it clear that Paul him-
presence of God/Wisdom (Murphy-O’Connor self could make use of such letters in order to
2 corinthians 132

introduce a church member to the community; thought and language proceeded from his
but in his personal dealings with the Corin- conviction about Christ as the centre of salva-
thians such tools were not necessary. Perhaps tion and it developed in very black-and-white
the letters in question came from the Jerusalem terms: ‘I cannot see how the development could
church or from a patron thought to be more have run the other way, from an initial convic-
impressive than Paul. We are left to wonder tion that the Law only condemns and kills, to a
whether the tendency to peddle God’s word search for something which gives life, to the
and/or the absence of letters of recommenda- conviction that life comes by faith in Christ, to
tion were accusations made by the offender the statement that the Law lost its glory because
(2:5–11) against Paul which found support a new dispensation surpasses it in glory’ (Sanders
among others in Corinth. What is clear is that 1983: 138). But there remains some ambiguity in
Paul thinks such problems do exist with other Paul’s thought (ibid. 138–9). On the one hand,
would-be apostles. In response to possible the law has been set aside and does not save. But
objections Paul does two things: (1) he reminds on the other hand, the old covenant may still be
the Corinthians that apostleship makes sense read profitably by members of the church:
only if it comes from God (ultimately, Paul’s when Jews who are not members of the church
only patron). Paul’s ministry is a ministry of a read it, it is veiled, but when believers read it, it
‘new covenant’, a theme developed in depth in is unveiled (vv. 14–16). The reference to veiling
3:7–18; (2) he appeals to his confidence, sincer- recalls the covering that Moses placed over
ity, and forthrightness which are important his face during his descent from Mt. Sinai (Ex
means of establishing his credibility as an au- 34:33–5; cf. 34:29–35). Some have understood
thoritative teacher in the ancient world (2:17; the comparison between Paul’s ministry and
3:4–6; 4:1–4; 5:6–8; cf. 2 COR 1:12–14). Moses’ ministry that runs throughout vv. 7–18
in terms of a response to Paul’s adversaries
(3:7–18) A Minister of the New Covenant By (Murphy-O’Connor 1990: 819). It has even been
playing with various contrasting notions such suggested that the source of the conflict is a
as ‘letter of law/Spirit,’ ‘death/life’, ‘old coven- midrashic document on Ex 34:29–35 that was
ant/new covenant’, Paul compares the old rela- composed by Paul’s opponents and which
tionship between God and his people with the Paul modified in these verses in the hope of
new relationship established by God through correcting a mistaken view of Moses and the
Christ (on covenant, see ABD i. 1197–202). The Mosaic covenant (Georgi 1986: 264–71). There
issue of the letters of recommendation in 3:1–6 has been considerable interest in Paul’s use of
allows him to introduce the issue of the letter of Scripture here, including his dependence on
the Jewish law. Beginning in 3:6, and continuing the LXX and extra-biblical sources (Belleville
to v. 11, the law—the centre of the old coven- 1993: 165–85; Stockhausen 1993: 143–64). The
ant—is depicted in categorically negative terms. emphasis in vv. 7–18 is on freedom from
The letter kills and ministry based on letters the law (cf. Gal 5:18) and the transformation of
chiselled on stone tablets (Ex 24:12; 31:18) leads believers. The believer’s image, reflected in a
to death (on death and the law, see ABD ii. mirror, becomes that of Christ (cf. 4:6; 1 Cor
110–11; iv. 254–65). A very strong statement of 11:7); and salvation involves increasing con-
the law’s inadequacy for salvation is also found formity to him (Murphy-O’Connor 1990: 820).
in v. 11 where the law is described as ‘what The identification of Spirit with Lord (in Paul’s
was set aside’ (cf. v. 7). Paul admits that the letters usually referring to Christ) has raised
old covenant was glorious, but it has been far doctrinal questions, but many commentators
surpassed in glory (vv. 7–11). These verses have believe ‘Lord’ in vv. 16–18 refers directly to
been judged as shedding light on Paul’s view of God (Thrall 1965: 136–7; Furnish 1984: 234–6).
life under the law and generally as important for
understanding the birth of the church in a Jew- (4:1–6) The Honourable Apostle Paul appar-
ish context. Stressing that Paul’s conviction that ently responds to those who are denigrating his
the law condemns and kills is based on his post- ministry by setting himself apart from his rivals.
conversion understanding, and is not rooted in Paul’s ministry is characterized by the persist-
particular personal experiences of the law’s ence and boldness that are qualities of an hon-
limitations for Jewish life, E. P. Sanders has ourable apostle (2 COR 1:12–14). The values of
argued that the apostle represented the Mosaic honour (public acknowledgement of worth)
covenant as less glorious simply because he had and shame (public denial of worth) frame the
found in Christ something more glorious. Paul’s text. Shame also can have a positive value in the
 133 2 corinthians

ancient world in the sense of ‘having shame’: theological importance of the metaphor is
that is, having appropriate concern for one’s especially visible here. Paul’s self-abasement,
reputation. In this text what is shameful refers communicated through the image of slavery,
to the absence or loss of honour (on honour is closely associated with the theology of the
and shame see Plevnik 1993: 95–104). The cross (4:13–18): humiliation is followed by exalt-
shameful things that Paul has renounced are ation. It has been suggested that the effective-
clearly negative: literally, ‘the things of shame ness of the metaphorical representation of
that one hides’. Has Paul been accused of slavery as salvation is related to the fact that in
dishonourable activity which is sequestered Graeco-Roman society, slavery was an ambigu-
and secretive? The setting of the churches in ous and multifaceted concept, carrying conno-
private homes could certainly have fostered tations both of abasement and upward mobility
that impression. Paul believes that to act in a (Martin 1990: 129–32). There is very strong lan-
shameful manner is to display cunning and to guage of separation here which is reinforced by
falsify God’s word (cf. 2:17). Behind Paul’s dec- an allusion to Gen 1:3 (v. 6, cf. 2 COR 2:14–3:6);
laration that he refuses to adopt shameful church members see, but unbelievers are blind
tactics probably lies an attempt to distance and perishing. The light of the gospel (v. 4)
himself from rival apostles who mislead and shines through Paul in a world that is otherwise
exploit the congregation (cf. 11:20). Language of dark and still very much influenced by evil.
honour and shame is useful in communicating
what should be valued most, i.e. what is the (4:7–15) Power in Weakness Paul’s theology
basis of true apostleship. Because honour and of the cross is proclaimed throughout 4:7–18
shame are rooted in the importance in the (cf. 1 Cor 1:17–2:5). The event of the death and
ancient Mediterranean world placed on public resurrection of Christ means that the appear-
appraisal, these concepts also are useful in con- ance of weakness and humiliation can carry the
veying the scope of evangelical mission. The promise of power and exaltation (v. 14). Paul’s
central message is that the Corinthians have theology of the cross (and statements about
come to know the light of the gospel only suffering) in 2 Corinthians must be understood
through Paul’s preaching (Furnish 1988: 1194). in the light of a particular polemical context
The reference to the veil is in keeping with where Paul seeks to undermine the position of
3:12–18 but gains further nuance in relation to rivals who make too much of their personal
the themes of secrecy and openness introduced superiority in relation to Paul’s weakness. More-
here. The image of the sometimes blinding veil over, the theology of the cross is not about
is part of Paul’s admission that his preaching is passivity in suffering, but about power in suf-
not always successful: public acknowledgement fering. With sometimes biting irony, Paul
which should follow honourable display and protests against his rivals who find God on
open statement of the truth is not always the side of strength and power (10:10–11). In 2
quickly forthcoming. The blindness of unbe- Corinthians the paradox of the crucified Messiah
lievers, however, is not the result of Paul’s is proclaimed boldly. The ambiguous symbol of
tactics as an apostle but has been caused by the a suffering saviour offers Paul many possibilities
god of this world: Satan or Beliar (2 COR 6:14– to expose the folly of those who would attack
7:1). The frequent notion of Paul’s apostleship him. Paul’s theology of the cross has been of
having purely divine origins is found again in interest to feminist biblical commentators, who
vv. 5–6. In response to competitors who would warn of the dangers of lifting Paul’s message out
‘preach themselves’ (seek to gain acceptance by of context and using it to advocate passivity and
drawing upon personal attributes), Paul argues meekness in the face of suffering and oppres-
that he proclaims only ‘Christ as Lord’ (a con- sion (Matthews 1994: 214–15). But there is no
fessional formula, Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil doubt that the symbol locates God on the side
2:10–11). The description of Paul as the Corin- of the suffering, the weak, and the oppressed
thians’ slave for Jesus’ sake is in keeping with (vv. 8–10, cf. 1 Cor 1:18–31; Bassler 1992: 331–2).
the frequent use of slavery as a metaphor in In these verses the focus is on power in physical
Pauline Christianity (cf. 1 Cor 9:16–23). Paul’s weakness. This notion is communicated through
self-enslavement has been recognized as a prac- the beautiful image of the fragile clay pots which
tical strategy for evangelization (low-status contain hidden treasure. It is also conveyed
persons may be won through the evangelist’s through the catalogue of hardships (vv. 8–9).
self-lowering) and as a rhetorical strategy for Similar lists are found throughout 2 Corinthians
conveying the nature of his leadership. But the and elsewhere in Paul’s letters (6:4–5; 11:23–9;
2 corinthians 134

12:10; Rom 8:35; 1 Cor 4:9–13). Scholars have Often Paul has been understood as referring to
examined the literary relationships between the the new spiritual body which will be given to
lists within 2 Corinthians and have even specu- believers (1 Cor 15:51–4). Others have argued
lated about what these relationships might that the text should be read in the light of Jewish
reveal about the literary integrity of the work and early Christian apocalyptic traditions which
(Witherington 1995: 398–9). The tribulations are include the notion of an eschatological temple
described with vivid language which is reminis- and new Jerusalem (2 Apoc. Bar. 4:3; 2 Esd
cent of the terms employed by philosophers in 10:40–57; cf. Mk 14:58). Parallels between this
the ancient world who described their struggles passage and Phil 3:12–21 have been noted. The
in the overcoming of passion and search for symbol of the heavenly commonwealth in
wisdom (Fitzgerald 1988: 65–70; 148–201). Phil 3:20 resembles the heavenly dwelling of
Suffering is not glorified; on the contrary, it is 5:1. If this interpretation is accepted, 5:1 should
experienced by the apostle as unjust (Neyrey be understood as speaking primarily about
1990: 177–9); yet it is given meaning in two believers as already belonging to another age
ways. First, suffering allows for identification and as having a new existence, rather than as
with Jesus and, ultimately, resurrection with addressing specifically the issue of the new spirit-
Jesus (vv. 10–14). Secondly, Paul’s suffering ual body (Furnish 1984: 294–5; Murphy-O’Connor
mirrors Jesus’ suffering and hence makes Jesus’ 1990: 821). A similar conflation of body imagery
life visible in the world. ‘Flesh’ (sarx) in v. 11 is a with architectural imagery occurs in Eph
synonym for ‘body’ (sōma) in v. 10, but the term 2:19–22, but there the focus is clearly ecclesio-
‘flesh’ (see OCB 231) places more emphasis on logical. Although many commentators have
physical existence, a connotation which is high- understood 5:1 as introducing a new subject, it
lighted throughout this text (Murphy-O’Connor has been included in this section because it acts
1990: 821) Because his suffering bears witness as the climax of 4:16–18 which emphasizes the
to Jesus, Paul is able to argue that his suffering temporality and fragility of mortal existence
is for the sake of the Corinthian church which (Furnish 1984: 291).
he founded and more broadly for the sake of his
evangelical mission. The reference to Ps 116:10 (5:2–10) Present Existence and Future Fulfil-
in v. 13 allows him to link preaching (speaking) ment The emphasis shifts somewhat from the
with proclamation of faith in the midst of limits of mortality to the ultimate shape of life
suffering. with God and the nature of existence in this
new eschatological age. It has been said that
(4:16–5:1) The Fragility of Mortal Existence 5:1–10 is one of the most difficult passages in
Interest in the limited nature of physical exist- all of Paul’s letters to explain adequately (Thrall
ence is maintained throughout these verses. 1965: 142). It has often been thought that Paul’s
Paul is strikingly honest about his own frailty recent escape from death (1:9) led him to doubt
(perhaps in response to those who would claim his previous belief that he and others would
that physical weakness is incompatible with be alive at the Parousia (1 Thess 4:13–18; 1 Cor
apostleship; cf. 10:10). He uses the contrast 15:51–2). The reference to nakedness in v. 3 has
between his outer nature (his visible body) and been instrumental to the theory that Paul is
inner nature (the faith and commitment to responding to fear surrounding an interim
Christ which cannot be seen) to point to ultim- period between death of the physical body and
ate reality: that which is eternal and transcends resurrection of a new spiritual body. But this
physical existence. While in other places Paul theory has also been disputed (Furnish 1984:
gives the impression that he expects to live until 292–3). Paul does not really seem to be deliber-
Christ’s return (1 Thess 4:15, 17), here Paul con- ately responding to a problem in the way that is
fronts the harsh reality of death (5:1). Several so evident in 1 Thess 4:13–18. The fear of being
architectural images are conflated to convey naked may indeed refer to concern about an
the notion of heavenly existence. The literary- intermediate state between life and the adop-
historical background of these images has been tion of the spiritual body (1 Cor 15:37–8; Barrett
of considerable interest. It has been noted 1973: 154–5). Paul may be expressing his prefer-
that the use of the image of a tent to refer to ence to avoid the intermediate condition
the mortal body occurs in many Hellenistic altogether: that is, to live on earth until the
religious and ethical texts (Furnish 1984: 293). resurrection (Witherington 1995: 391). But the
There has been extensive discussion of the reference to nakedness may also be a reminder
meaning of the ‘house not made with hands’. of the harsh reality of final judgement (cf. 2 Cor
 135 2 corinthians

5:10) when a person’s culpability will be house: literally it refers to the act of leaving
exposed (Isa 47:3; Ezek 23:28–9; Murphy- one’s country or going on a long journey
O’Connor 1991: 52). An awareness of the (BAGD 238). Paul’s present life is shaped by
importance of the values of honour and shame Christ whom one must continue to please
in the ancient Mediterranean world may also until one enters the heavenly commonwealth
prove useful here (2 COR 4:1–6). In the HB naked- (cf. Phil 3:20). The presence of the Spirit acts as a
ness is strongly associated with shame and sin. foretaste of future fulfilment.
To be shamed is to be involuntarily stripped
naked (Neyrey 1993: 119–21). Presence before an (5:11–19) Warnings against Reliance on Exter-
honourable God requires that one may not be nal Appearances This text relates Paul’s minis-
found naked, but have put on the heavenly try to a reversal of earthly standards and the
garment/tent (ibid. 122). Although the NRSV dawning of a new creation. The reference to
translation ‘when we have taken it off’ fits best ‘persuasion’ has been understood as a reference
with the theory that Paul is referring to an to rhetoric, the art of persuasion. Paul is acting
interim period between death and adoption of like an ancient rhetor who will be judged by the
a new spiritual body, there is good reason to Corinthians according to their consciences.
adopt the strongly attested alternative reading The picture of the ambassador who entreats
‘when we have put it on’ (Furnish 1984: 268). An the assembly (5:20) also fits with this context.
understanding of the values of honour and Paul presents God as his ultimate judge, but this
shame may also help explain how this text fits passage functions as an indirect acknowledge-
within the broader discussion of apostolic suf- ment of the fact that the Corinthians have put
fering and authority. When the Corinthians Paul on trial, and of how important it is to Paul
turn against Paul might they be stripping him that the Corinthians recognize his authority
naked and/or rendering themselves exposed (v. 11; Witherington 1995: 392–3). Paul says that
before a God who makes believers accountable he is not going to commend himself to the
for what has been done ‘in the body’ (v. 10)? Corinthians again (v. 11), but in fact this is exactly
That questions about Paul’s apostleship are not what he does. In saying that he will not com-
far removed from the main argument here is mend himself he means that he will not adopt
made clear by the double assertion of confi- the self-aggrandizing tactics of his rivals who
dence by which Paul reinforces his role as boast in outward appearances. Paul may be dis-
an honourable apostle (vv. 6–8; 2 COR 1:12–14). tinguishing himself from apostolic rivals whom
Some have viewed the merger of the images of he feels adopt the disreputable tactics of soph-
‘dwelling’ and ‘clothing’ (cf. 1 Cor 15:53–4; Gal ists. Sophists were commonly accused of paying
3:27; Rom 13:14) to be somewhat awkward on too much attention to external forms (appear-
Paul’s part. However, they actually work well ance, clothing, delivery) at the expense of con-
for Paul’s purposes since they tie personal affili- tent (Witherington 1995: 393–4; 348–50). In v. 13
ation (the garment which must be put on) Paul offers an interesting insight into the nature
closely with communal commitment (the of the comparisons the Corinthians were mak-
household that must be joined, the dwelling ing. ‘Madness’ here perhaps refers to religious
that must be entered). The main purpose of ecstasy (Furnish 1984: 308). His rivals probably
the imagery is to announce the nature of the displayed ecstatic experiences in public, and
new mode of existence: real life that ‘swallows accused Paul of failing to produce these experi-
up’ (katapiein; v. 4) all that is mortal. Comparison ences as evidence of his apostleship. Paul seems
with Rom 8:18–27 is especially useful since it to be claiming that ecstatic experiences should
also refers to ‘groaning’ (Rom 8:23, 26) and be reserved for private worship (cf. 12:1–7). The
highlights the role of the Spirit, as creation text invites comparison with 1 Cor 14:18–19
waits to be released from futility and suffering. where Paul claims to speak in tongues fre-
Continuing to be plagued by limitations, groan- quently, but where he also makes it clear that
ing under his ‘burdens’ (cf. 1:6; 4:8, 17), Paul is in the public arena of the ekklēsia he prefers
moving towards his ultimate goal. The contrast understandable speech (which can include
between being ‘at home’ in the body and ‘at tongues if they are interpreted) to ecstatic speak-
home’ with the Lord in vv. 6–10 reflects the ing. In 1 Cor 14:23–5 he even expresses his fear
tension between present salvation and future that non-believers (potential converts) might
fulfilment that is characteristic of Paul’s thought. witness uncontrolled glossolalia and assume
The term for being away from home (ekdēmein), that church members are mad! Warnings against
has a wider significance than leaving one’s reliance on external appearance, form, and
2 corinthians 136

display also underlie the statement that Paul no Paul authority and in fact speaks through him. It
longer makes judgements from a human point is God who appeals through Paul to the Corin-
of view. Paul admits that before his acceptance thians. The move from doctrinal affirmation to
of Christ he judged Christ by worldly standards, ethical imperative in this text makes Paul’s con-
perhaps according to the pathetic image of a viction explicit: the act of reconciliation which
crucified messianic impostor (v. 16). This passage overcomes humanity’s estrangement from God
offers an excellent illustration of how Paul’s is played out on the societal level in the recon-
theological thought is fundamentally tied to ciliation which must occur between Paul and
the interpersonal struggles of human communi- the Corinthians. As in the related text of Rom
ties. It is reflection on the misguided nature of his 5:1–11, language of justification (righteousness,
rivals that leads him to locate his own priorities OCB s.v.; ABD v. 757–68) is combined with
in the love of Christ and to articulate one of the language of reconciliation (Meeks 1983: 186).
strongest statements of universal salvation in his The appeal is very strong, linking a broken
epistles (vv. 14–15; as reflecting credal affirm- relationship with God to a broken relationship
ations cf. 1 Cor 15:3). By means of the doctrine with the Corinthians. Paul may even have feared
of ‘reconciliation’ in vv. 18–19 Paul presents that the Corinthians were in danger of commit-
God’s initiative, Christ’s role, and his own mis- ting apostasy (Witherington 1995: 397). The
sion (Paul is a minister of ‘reconciliation’). Here citation from Isa 49:8 emphasizes the present
Paul also may be drawing on a traditional for- nature of salvation, but also reinforces the
mula (cf. Col 1:19–20; Eph 2:13–16) which he urgency of the situation. The reference to the
interprets in a new way. Given the predomin- one who knew no sin having been made sin
ance of the structures of patronage in the ancient (v. 21) may refer to the sinless Christ taking on
world, however, it has been suggested that Paul sin as a burden or being treated as a sinner for
may be casting God here as the great benefactor, the sake of humanity (Gal 3:13); sin may also
Christ as the means of benefaction, and Paul as refer to a sin-offering here (Rom 8:3; cf. Isa
the human agent (or broker) of the stores of 53:4–10).
salvation: Paul is the one who serves (Danker
1989: 82–3; Witherington 1995: 396). In order to (6:3–13) Commendation through Hardships
justify his mission and break with worldly stand- A common goal of ancient rhetoric was to
ards, Paul ultimately relies on support for his establish the speaker’s ethos or character
conviction that God has transformed the world (Witherington 1995: 44, 398). Paul begins with
radically through Christ. The emphasis on new- assurances that he has placed no ‘obstacle’ before
ness and the proclamation in v. 17 ‘there is a new the Corinthians. He seems to have believed that
creation’—although some would translate this ministers were very influential in facilitating or
as ‘he/she is a new creation’ (see Witherington preventing access to salvation (Murphy-O’Con-
1995: 395)—function as justifications of the birth nor 1990: 822). Paul presents eloquent wisdom
of a new religious movement. (rhetoric devoid of content) as being able to
empty the cross of its power in 1 Cor 1:17. In
(5:20–7:16) Appeals for Reconciliation with contrast to the self-commendations adopted by
the Apostle others, Paul has commended himself as a servant
(5:20–6:2) God Speaks through Paul This pas- of God (2 COR 4:1–6). As elsewhere in 2 Corin-
sage is thematically very closely related to the thians the metaphor of slavery, the theology of
previous section. However, it introduces a new the cross, and the list of apostolic hardships
type of exhortation. As is frequently the case in work together to communicate the notion of a
Paul’s letters, an appeal (v. 20; parakaleō) follows reversal of norms for judging claims of authority
an affirmation (v. 19), the imperative follows the (2 COR 4:7–15). Paul’s listing of a catalogue of
indicative. In fact, v. 20 sets in motion a series sufferings is in keeping with the Stoic and
of appeals (appeals for reconciliation with Cynic theme that the hardships of the sage dem-
Paul and concerning the collection) which con- onstrate virtue and character (Fitzgerald 1988:
tinue until 9:15 (Furnish 1988: 1196). Here, Paul’s 199–201). Paul gives these traditional elements
apostolic authority is expressed in the very distinctive meaning in relation to the Christ
strongest of terms. Paul’s human powers (his event (Witherington 1995: 400). The stress on
ability as a teacher or sage to influence an audi- reputation and recognition in vv. 8–9 illustrates
ence in antiquity) are secondary at this point; the importance of public acknowledgement of
what is important is that God has conveyed worth in the ‘honour and shame’ societies of
legitimacy upon his mission. God has granted the ancient world. But here Paul is willing to
 137 2 corinthians

entertain the reversal even of these most basic threaten to bring impurity into the community
cultural values. The military metaphor in v. 7 is should be treated as outsiders (1 Cor 5:1–5;
developed further in 10:3–5 and even more Newton 1985: 110–14). On the question of main-
extensively by the author of Ephesians (Eph taining community boundaries, it is also useful
6:11–17). The inclusion of poverty in the list of to compare this passage to 1 Cor 8 and 10
hardships (v. 10) is especially intriguing given the where the problem of food sacrificed to idols
concerns about the collection which underlie is discussed. Beliar is a name for Satan (or an
chs. 8–9, and the fact that questions about Paul’s evil spirit under Satan) which occurs frequently
acceptance and/or refusal of support from in Jewish intertestamental literature.
church members was at the heart of confronta-
tion with opponents (11:7–11; 12:14–18; cf. 1 Cor (7:2–16) Restoration of Good Relations The
9:1–18). In vv. 11–13 Paul repeats that he has dem- appeals of 6:11–13 are resumed in vv. 2–4. Many
onstrated the open speech and boldness which of the concepts related to the honour of Paul’s
are the hallmarks of an honourable apostle (2 COR apostleship such as ‘boasting’ and ‘confidence’
1:12–14) and he characterizes his relationship with are reiterated (2 COR 1:12–14). The nature of the
the Corinthians as resembling the exchange intimate connection between apostle and com-
between a father and his children (cf. 12:14). munity and the theme of comfort and affliction
(2 COR 1:3–11) are developed further in vv. 5–16.
(6:14–7:1) Warnings against Contact with Many commentators have understood v. 5 as a
Unbelievers This text seems to interrupt the resumption of the comments in 2:12–13, and this
appeals of 6:11–13 which are resumed at 7:2–3. view figures prominently in theories about the
A large number of occurrences of hapax lego- partitioning of the letter (1:1–2:13; 7:5–16; 13:11–13
mena have been noted. The stringing together have been described as a ‘letter of reconcili-
of a series of citations from Scripture which ation’; Betz 1992: 1149–50). But these theories
are not found elsewhere in Paul’s letters (the have also been disputed. It is also possible to
allusions in 6:16–18 include Lev 26:12; Isa 52:11; understand the narrative beginning at v. 5 as an
Ezek 20:34; 2 Sam 7:14) has invited discussion. example of the comfort that occurs in affliction
The vocabulary and ideas, especially the dualism, (v. 4); a comfort that is ultimately divine con-
have been judged to be closer to the Qumran solation (v. 6; Murphy-O’Connor 1990: 823).
community than to Paul. Thus a great deal of Without going so far as a theory of partition,
doubt has been raised about the authenticity of it has been argued from a rhetorical perspective
these verses. There have been theories ranging that vv. 5–16 constitute an amplification of
from an ‘anti-Pauline fragment’ (Betz 1973: 88– some of the things mentioned in the narratio
108) to a ‘Pauline interpolation of non-Pauline (explaining the disputed matter) of chs. 1 and
material’ (Furnish 1984: 383), to a ‘deliberative 2. In other words, these verses represent a kind
digression’ which fits well within the present of retelling in a manner that would help Paul
context of 2 Corinthians (Witherington 1995: make his case as convincing as possible. The
402). Some have understood this section to recapitulation may offer an indication that Paul
be part of the letter to the Corinthians men- was very concerned about the fact that he was
tioned in 1 Cor 5:9–11. In addition to the many being perceived as inconsistent with respect to
literary problems this passage raises, the his travel plans and about the results of the
uncompromising distinction between believers ‘tearful letter’ (2 COR 1:23–2:13; Witherington
and unbelievers (which seems to leave little 1995: 407). Paul informs listeners that the setting
room for the winning of new members) is sur- of the events where he experienced comfort in
prising. It is difficult, for example, to harmonize affliction was Macedonia. The afflictions from
the strong statement that one should not be which his body had no rest are described as
mismatched with unbelievers (apistoi) with Paul’s coming from ‘within’ and from ‘without’. It is
allowance for marriages between believers and possible that he is referring to bodily suffering
non-believers to continue because of their evan- in the form of internal anguish and external
gelizing potential (1 Cor 7:12–16). However, malady (cf. 4:16). But the terms might also
there are points of contact between this text have communal connotations, referring to suf-
and others in Paul’s letters where the church is fering resulting from encounters with those
envisioned as the temple of God made up of outside the body of Christ (cf. 1 Tim 3:7) and
sanctified believers (1 Cor 3:16, 19) which must from problems within the church community
be kept pure. The corollary of this notion of (or a combination of community difficulties and
holy temple is the view that members who physical afflictions, such as suffering resulting
2 corinthians 138

from contacts with non-believers and those in the construction and maintenance of the
occurring as a result of disease). With related ‘symbolic universe’ (MacDonald 1988: 16, 10–11).
terminology, Paul refers throughout his corres- Opposition, deviance, or heresy can give
pondence to those on the outside as non- impetus to theorizing about the symbolic uni-
believers (1 Cor 5:12, 13; Col 4:5; 1 Thess 4:12). verse. The development of theological thought
In v. 5 Paul may be continuing to speak with an is accelerated by challenges posed to the trad-
uncompromising voice towards non-believers ition by opponents, deviants, or heretics. In the
as he did in 6:14–7:1. In discussing the arrival process of theorizing, new implications of the
of Titus, Paul fills in many details which are tradition emerge and the symbolic universe is
alluded to in 2 Cor 2. Paul was consoled by transformed (Berger and Luckmann 1981: 125).
Titus’ arrival and by the news that issues con- Paul’s evocative theology of comfort in afflic-
cerning the offender (2:6–8) had been resolved. tion is articulated by means of this process. The
The ‘letter of tears’ (2:3–4) had apparently pro- information about Titus in this passages offers
duced the desired effect of instilling repentance a good example of the importance of Paul’s
(v. 10). Paul describes the Corinthians as having co-workers to his mission. Titus may be
proved themselves to be guiltless (v. 11): they counted as a member of the small group of
exonerated themselves by dealing appropriately Paul’s closest co-workers who were clearly sub-
with the offender and by showing that they did ject to Paul but also could act as his representa-
not have misplaced loyalties (vv. 11–12). ‘The one tives (Holmberg 1980: 57–67). An important
who did wrong’ refers to the offender (2 COR companion of Paul, Titus was taken along to
1:23–2:13) and ‘the one who was wronged’ refers Jerusalem where he was the focus of a dispute
to Paul (v. 12). That what is at stake transcends about whether Gentiles needed to be circum-
the particular events of the dispute and involves cised. Paul vigorously resisted the appeal that
the fundamental nature of Paul’s relationship his Greek co-worker be circumcised (Gal 2:1–3).
with the Corinthians is made clear by Paul’s Although he had apparently not met the
description of the consolation which has Corinthians previously, Titus became Paul’s
occurred as a longing, mourning, and zeal for representative in an attempt to bring about a
the apostle (v. 7; cf. v. 12; 11:2). It is interesting to reconciliation (v. 14). It is indicated at 8:6, 16–24,
note that although Paul seeks concrete expres- that Titus was sent to Corinth a second time to
sions of his authority by calling for loyalty to conduct work in support of the collection for
his position and by insisting that the offender Jerusalem (cf. 2 Cor 12:18). The close relation-
be punished, at the same time he denies the ship between Paul and Titus is made clear by the
ultimate importance of his personal authority; fact that Titus’ very presence is a comfort to
rather, the ‘tearful letter’ precipitated a rediscov- Paul (vv. 6–7). Titus’ connection with the Cor-
ery of the inseparable link between loyalty to inthian community is also cast in personal and
Paul and loyalty to God (vv. 12–13). The contrast emotional terms (vv. 13–15). He somehow par-
between godly grief and worldly grief in vv. 9–11 ticipates in Paul’s apostleship. It is useful to view
also represents a bestowing of salvific meaning Titus as a broker of Paul’s authority. The atti-
upon the dispute. The painful experience (the tude of the Corinthians with respect to Titus is
Corinthians were grieved by Paul’s letter, v. 8) one of obedience and they welcome him with
was in actual fact the kind of godly grief which fear and trembling (v. 15). An understanding of
leads to ‘repentance’ (metanoia, vv. 9–10; see OCB the centrality of the values of honour and
646–7; ABD v. 672–3). This is one of the few shame in first-century society can shed light
places where Paul employs the term (Rom 2:4; upon what was at stake in Titus’ visit to Corinth.
cf. 12:21; 2 Tim 2:25). Here it does not refer to Because Paul has previously ‘boasted’ to Titus
repentance prior to entry into the church, but to about the model behaviour of the Corinthians,
believers repenting of some sin; it involves the community can strip Paul of all honour if it
rediscovery of commitment to Paul, his gospel, fails to live up to its reputation; the community
and ultimately to God (Witherington 1995: 409). has the power to revoke all public recognition
The subordination or denial of the obvious or of the apostle’s worth. How they treat Titus has
earthly significance of the events in favour of an a direct bearing upon their patron (v. 14).
argument about divine purpose is an example
of what sociologists of knowledge have called (8:1–9:15) Appeals about the Collection
‘legitimation’: the means by which the institu- (8:1–15) A Call to Fulfil Previous Commitment
tional world is explained and justified (Berger Chs. 8–9 have figured prominently in theories
and Luckmann 1981: 79). Legitimation is involved about the fragmentation of 2 Corinthians. It
 139 2 corinthians

has been argued that ch. 8 constitutes an (v. 9). But when Paul develops the implications
‘administrative letter’ which was delivered to of this theology for life in the community, the
Corinth by Titus and two ‘brothers’ (8:18–23). results are surprising (vv. 10–15). We do not hear
Comparison with literary parallels has revealed a call to imitate Christ in the radical manner of
similarity to letters of appointment given to pol- the gospel invitations to give up all to follow
itical or administrative emissaries (Betz 1985: him. Rather the focus is one of equity, balance,
37–86, 131–9). Ch. 9 has also been viewed as an reciprocity, and accommodation. Gifts should be
administrative letter. It may have had an advisory according to one’s means (v. 11). Relief for the
purpose: enlisting the help of the Achaians in Jerusalem church should not cause strife for the
bringing the collection in Corinth to fruition Corinthians (v. 13). The Jerusalem church’s abun-
(ibid. 87–128, 139–40). Such partition theories dance (spiritual benefits, Rom 15:26–7, or future
have not seemed convincing to everyone. The monetary surplus) may in turn come to address
mention of Macedonia and Titus, for example, the Corinthians’ need (v. 14). This call for fair
in ch. 7 may prepare the way for the issues in chs. balance and partnership is supported by a cit-
8–9 and might be taken as a sign of literary ation from the LXX (Ex 16:18). Paul operates upon
integrity (Witherington 1995: 410, 413). While the premiss that believers should not be in need.
there is some disjunction suggested, for example, He calls for generosity, but it is important to note
by the break in subject between 8:24 and 9:1 (with that he does not call for a radical redistribution of
the usual formula: ‘peri de’, ‘now concerning’, e.g. 1 wealth here. Paul’s attitude to wealth has some-
Cor 7:1; 8:1, 4; 12:1; 16:1), the evidence has some- times been judged as one of ‘love-patriarchalism’:
times been judged as insufficient to demand that social differences are allowed to continue but
ch. 9 be viewed as a separate letter (Murphy- relationships must nevertheless be transformed
O’Connor 1990: 823; Witherington 1995: 413). by concern and respect. This attitude may have
These chapters have been called an example of contributed to the organizational effectiveness
deliberative rhetoric (persuasion or dissuasion of the Pauline churches in integrating members
with a future orientation) designed to ensure from different strata in an urban environment
that the audience fulfil a commitment previously (Theissen 1982: 107–8). A second aspect of Paul’s
made concerning the collection, and to illustrate approach in governing his churches is detectable
that the apostle’s behaviour with respect to the in the statement that ‘he does not say this as a
collection has been above reproach (Witherington command’ (cf. 1 Cor 7:6). The respect for the
1995: 411). 1 Cor 16:1–4 provides the background autonomy of the congregation and their free-
illustrating that the collection for the relief of the dom in decision-making is a striking feature of
Jerusalem church is something that had been some of Paul’s exhortations (Meeks 1983: 138–9).
initiated previously. It appears that Titus had This type of assertion of authority may be con-
made some progress in reviving the commit- trasted with the rule-like statements which emerge
ment to the collection and was being sent back in household codes of the Deutero-Pauline letters
to complete the task (7:6). Perhaps he used the (Col 3:18–4:1; Eph 5:21–6:9).
atmosphere of reconciliation as an opportunity
to invite the Corinthians to demonstrate the (8:16–24) Recommendation of Titus and the
honour of their community by means of fulfill- Brothers Here Paul explains the specific
ing their commitment to the collection (7:7–8, arrangements he has made in order to bring
10–11). In order to persuade the Corinthians, Paul the collection to completion. In vv. 16–17 he
appeals to the example of the Macedonians highlights the independence of his co-worker
(including the Thessalonians and Philippians) Titus: a close relationship between Titus and the
who exceeded Paul’s expectations in their gener- Corinthians is presupposed and the fact that he
osity despite their extreme poverty (vv. 1–5). The is going to Corinth of his own accord is stressed
Corinthians, in contrast, are described as having (cf. 8:6; 12:18; 2 COR 7:2–16). Paul appears to be
a surplus (v. 14). The implicit argument might be setting in motion mechanisms to distance him-
stated as follows: ‘If the Macedonians in their self from the process of gathering the collection
extreme need are capable of such generosity, in Corinth even though he clearly believes that
surely you are capable of as much!’ Paul supports the activity has divine sanction (8:8–15). This
his argument with Christological thought. In a ‘distancing’ can be further detected in the
manner which recalls Phil 2:6–11, Paul speaks of exhortation concerning the brother in vv.
Christ who was rich (perhaps a reference to pre- 18–20. Paul refers to the first individual who
existence) becoming poor in order that the is to accompany Titus as ‘the brother’ (v. 18),
Corinthians might benefit from spiritual wealth while the second individual is described as ‘our
2 corinthians 140

brother’ (v. 22). The possessive suggests a more establishing the credibility of Titus and the
personal relationship with the apostle: the per- brothers, they are brokers of his apostolic
son probably was a regular member of Paul’s authority. He is their patron and the patron of
entourage (Furnish 1988: 1197). Paul presents the the Corinthians, but their success as his agents in
first brother’s initiative as being tied to the mis- winning the Corinthians is crucial to protecting
sion of the delegation and appears to take com- his honour. In order to encourage success, Paul
fort from the fact that this brother is famous in calls the Corinthians to live up to their reputa-
all the churches for proclaiming the good news tion, to demonstrate the reason Paul boasted
(v. 18). But he also discloses that this brother has about them to Titus (7:14). The implication is
been ‘appointed by the churches’ and implies the same as in 7:14: if they fail to live up to
that serious difficulties have dictated the neces- their reputation, Paul will be disgraced—he will
sity of an ‘external auditor’ of Paul’s initiatives be shamed. The emotional pleas of v. 24 thus
(vv. 19–20). Paul clearly attaches special signifi- become more easily explained in the light of
cance to the involvement of Titus in the dele- what is at stake. The Corinthians must prove
gation; he is described as Paul’s partner and their love openly for the delegation (love for
co-worker. In addition, the two unnamed indi- them is love for Paul).
viduals are described with the Greek term apos-
tolos, a term which conveys leadership and (9:1–5) An Appeal to Community Honour
authority, often translated as ‘apostle’ in Paul’s Although it is by no means a unanimous opin-
letters (see OCB 41–2). But apostolos has a fluid ion, ch. 9 has sometimes been judged to be a
meaning in the Pauline correspondence and in fragment of a separate letter (cf. 2 COR 8:1–15).
this case it seems to be a designation for an One feature which appears to support the frag-
official messenger or envoy (vv. 18–19; cf. Phil ment theory is that in v. 2 Corinth is the subject
2:25). vv. 20–1 offer a very strong indication that of praise in relation to Macedonia, while in 8:2
Paul was suspected of wrongdoing with respect the situation is reversed. However, there is no
to the collection and that he understood the real contradiction here since Paul is referring to
involvement of the delegation as an integral what the Macedonians have been told about the
part of his defence (cf. 12:14–18). It has been Corinthians’ commitment to the collection, a
suggested that the complicated relationship commitment which they have as yet to fulfil.
between Paul and the Corinthians can be under- Both the argument about the Macedonian
stood in terms of a struggle to establish patron- generosity and the point about the zeal of the
age, and the collection issue probably played Corinthians inspiring the Macedonians work
an important part in that struggle. While the together to galvanize the community into
securing of support from a wealthy patron was action. It is somewhat surprising that the focus
a usual means that itinerant teachers used to in v. 2 is on Achaia while the focus in ch. 8 has
earn a living, it was a means that Paul resisted been specifically on Corinth. But such a shift
for many reasons including fear that it would from the specific to the broader context of the
contribute to factions in Corinth. Instead the province in which Corinth was located is in
apostle continued to insist that he would earn keeping with the opening of the letter (1:1).
his own living (cf. 1 Cor 9:12, 18). Some Corin- The reference to the brothers in v. 3 presup-
thians probably wished to act as Paul’s patron poses the discussion in 8:18–23. The emphasis
and subjected him to attack because of his on Paul’s boasting about the Corinthians in vv.
departure from normal social conventions. 2–4 is designed to repeat the same warning that
The attack seems to have included, ironically, has been articulated previously: the Corinthians
accusations of greed and back-handed dealings must live up to their reputation. The import-
concerning money (cf. 2:17; 4:2; 6:3; 7:2; 12:16–17). ance of the values of honour and shame in
Paul, in turn, sought to reverse the situation and shaping ethical injunctions and community
place himself clearly in the position of patron life in general is clearly evident in v. 4. If Paul
(or agent of Christ, their ultimate benefactor; brings some of the Macedonians with him to
Witherington 1995: 417–19). Against such a Corinth and the community members have not
background, the collection emerges as a par- as yet fulfilled their commitment, both the
ticularly thorny issue, for it must be accepted apostle and the Corinthian church will be hu-
by Paul in a way that does not diminish his miliated; that is, shamed. As is also the case with
status as a patron and does not put him in the arrival of Titus and the brothers, the arrival
the position of being the Corinthians’ client. of the Macedonians offers a potential occasion
vv. 23–4 illustrate that while he is interested in for the shaming of Paul and the Corinthian
 141 2 corinthians

community, and this dishonour must be avoided poor (as in the psalm), but as a reference to
at all costs (cf. 7:14; 8:24). Suspicions surround- God’s righteousness (Furnish 1988: 1198). There
ing Paul’s handling of the collection emerge are allusions to Isa 55:10 and Hos 10:12 in v. 10
once again in v. 5 (cf. 8:20–1). Once again Paul which also support the notion of divine initia-
gives the impression that he wants to distance tive. The images of harvest, growth, and plenty
himself from the process of gathering the col- prepare the way for the announcement that the
lection by insisting that the delegation bring one who gives will be enriched even more (v. 11).
matters to a close before he arrives in Corinth vv. 11–13 make it clear, however, that generosity
(cf. 2 COR 8:16–24). Paul wishes the collection to has more than the immediate effect of satisfying
be perceived as a voluntary gift and not as an the need of the Jerusalem poor; it allows the
‘extortion’. The Greek term translated as extor- Corinthians to contribute actively to the wor-
tion (pleonexia) occurs in the list of vices in Rom ship of God. The result of their giving is an
1:29, referring to covetousness (cf. 1 Cor 5:10, 11; abundance of thanksgivings to God. An alter-
6:10). Related terminology also occurs in 2 native translation of dokimē in v. 13 as ‘proof’
Corinthians (2:11; 7:2; 12:17–18). No doubt is left rather than ‘testing’ (cf. 8:2, 8, 22) makes the
by 12:17–18 that Paul was accused of fraudulent connection with the sentiments expressed in
activity with respect to the collection (Furnish 8:24 stand out more clearly. The collection
1984: 428). allows for an open demonstration of their love
and of their glorification of God. It is funda-
(9:6–15) Appeals to Scripture In this passage mentally an expression of their obedience to the
Paul justifies his exhortation in 9:1–5 on the gospel of Christ. Paul explains further that the
basis of Scripture and with broad concepts of generosity of the Corinthians will result in
the significance of God’s gracious actions in the Jerusalem Christians praying for them and
the world. A citation of the LXX (Ps 112:9) is expressing their love for them (v. 14). Rom 15:31
included in v. 9, but there are many other allu- makes it clear that the apostle associates the
sions to Scripture throughout. The statement acceptance of the collection for the Jerusalem
that ‘one reaps what one sows’ in v. 6 closely church with the acceptance by the authorities
resembles Gal 6:7–9, but is based on a maxim there of what God has accomplished through
which pervades the Wisdom tradition (e.g. Job Paul’s ministry among the Gentiles (cf. Rom
4:8; Prov 11:18, 24; 22:8; Sir 7:3; Furnish 1988: 15:31; Murphy-O’Connor 1990: 825). Perhaps
1198). That the community’s giving should not Paul has these associations in mind when he
be under compulsion is in keeping with Paul’s joyously gives thanks to God for his indescrib-
desire to respect the freedom of the congrega- able gift (v. 15).
tion (cf. 8:8; Philem 8–14; 2 COR 8:1–8). Paul
justifies his statement with a slightly modified Paul on the Attack (10:1–13:10)
reference to the LXX (Prov 22:8–9) in the proc- Chs. 1–9 reflect some problems in the commu-
lamation that God loves the cheerful giver nity, but their tone is nevertheless often hopeful
(cf. Rom 12:8). The premiss announced loudly and conciliatory (e.g. 7:4–16). In contrast, the tone
in v. 8 and which underlies many of these verses of chs. 10–13 is consistently harsh, anxious, and
is that God is the giver who makes all things sarcastic. Therefore, most biblical scholars have
possible (cf. v. 15). For the one who has received— accepted the theory that they originally consti-
the believer—giving in return becomes a nat- tuted a separate letter. There is significant debate,
ural expression of one’s participation in God’s however, as to where they fit in the chronology of
bounty. To communicate the notion of the letter fragments. They have frequently been iden-
believer’s state as ‘having enough of everything’, tified with the ‘tearful letter’ mentioned in 2:3–4,
Paul uses the term autarkeia which expresses 9, which means that the letter would have been
the Greek ideal of self-sufficiency, the precon- written prior to chs. 1–9. Paul’s more optimistic
dition for human freedom. Paul modifies trad- tone in the earlier chapters would then be under-
itional notions, however, with his insistence stood as stemming from the resolution of most
that self-sufficiency is not a purely human of the difficulties in the community. But several
accomplishment but is made possible by God’s objections have been raised against this theory,
beneficence (Betz 1985: 110). The emphasis on based upon both the chronology of events sug-
divine initiative continues with the citation of gested by the content of 2 Corinthians and the
Ps 112:9 where Paul probably means us to under- nature of the problem which is explicitly related
stand ‘his righteousness’ not as a reference to to the ‘tearful letter’. The suggestion of 7:4–16 is
the righteousness of the person who helps the that at the time of composition of chs. 1–9, Titus
2 corinthians 142

had been to Corinth only once, while it appears Paul reveals further information about the nature
that by the time 12:14–18 was composed he had of the case against him in the reference to
been there twice. This implies that chs. 10–13 opponents who accuse him of ‘acting according
came later. Moreover, the case of the lapsed Cor- to human standards’ (lit. acting according to the
inthian brother dominates the concern in chs. 1–9 flesh; v. 2). Paul previously stated that his actions
about the ‘tearful letter’ (2:3–11; cf. 7:8–12), but are not according to human standards (1:17; cf.
nowhere do we read about him in chs. 10–13. In 1:12). Many commentators believe that Paul
fact, when Paul refers to the effect of the ‘tearful was rebuked on account of a lack of charismatic
letter’ in 7:5–12, there is no explicit interest in the performances and ecstatic experiences (12:1–10;
topic which so clearly dominates chs. 10–13: the 5:11–13). This is quite ironic given the charismatic
threat of the rival apostles. Thus it seems best basis of his ministry. The work of the sociologist
to consider chs. 10–13 as distinct from the ‘letter Max Weber on charisma has been employed by
of tears’ and as having been composed at some biblical scholars in order to shed light on Paul’s
point following chs. 1–9 (Furnish 1988: 1198–9). apostleship (MacDonald 1988: 47–9). Paul can be
Paul’s harsher approach in chs. 10–13 is the result understood as claiming ‘charismatic authority’ in
of his struggle with apostolic rivals who have the sense that he views his powers and qualities
gained tremendous influence over the Corin- as stemming directly from divine origins and as
thians in the interim and whom Paul considers not accessible to everyone. This attitude can be
as intruders. He may be revealing his awareness seen for example in Paul’s descriptions of his
of the threat of ‘false apostles’ in 3:1–6, but by the divine commission (1 Cor 15:8–9; Gal 1:15–16)
time of composition of chs. 10–13 the situation and when he expresses his confidence that
has clearly become much worse. when he preaches it is as if God were the speaker
(5:18–20). He proclaims his gospel not only ver-
(10:1–18) Preliminary Defence bally, but also through various ‘charismatic’ acts
(10:1–6) Claims of Divine Power These verses (e.g. 12:12; Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 2:4; 1 Thess 1:5). Paul’s
and indeed all of chs. 10–13 set the stage for Paul’s charismatic authority can be seen very clearly in
impending visit (12:14; 13:1). Paul begins with an vv. 3–6, for in this text the apostle’s very human-
appeal to the example of the meekness and ity is qualified by a claim to divine power. The
gentleness of Christ (v. 1). This may be his way military imagery serves Paul well here, because it
of communicating that in his approach he is communicates his belief that he is empowered
emulating the way Jesus conducted his earthly by forces which are beyond this world to con-
ministry. It seems more likely, however, that he quer this world (cf. 6:7). Throughout the text Paul
is referring to Christ’s voluntary debasement for sends the message that he will not be intimi-
the sake of salvation, revealed through the cross dated. When the Corinthians have demonstrated
(cf. 8:9; Phil 2:6–11). In obeying Christ (v. 5), Paul their loyalty to him, he will be ready to deal
participates in Christ’s power in weakness. firmly with his opponents (v. 6).
Although Paul perhaps expresses it most clearly
in 13:3–4, all of chs. 10–13 is based upon one (10:7–11) Accusations against Paul Denied
central conviction: the apostle’s authority is The call to recognize what is plainly evident
rooted in the fact that his personal strength/ is designed to alert the community to danger.
weakness echoes the strength/weakness of the Behind the appeal is probably an accusation
crucified/resurrected Christ. v. 1 contains a made by the intruders which has won support
sarcastic reformulation of the accusation quoted among the Corinthians. The opponents appear
in 10:10 about strong letters, but weak presence to have based their authority on a special con-
and speech. Paul is attacking those who evaluate nection to Christ (implied in ‘belonging to
him according to the criteria sophists use to Christ’; cf. 11:4, 13, 23). They may have claimed
judge rhetoric (Witherington 1995: 433; Furnish access to special visionary experiences of the
1984: 462). In the process, he displays his own resurrected Christ (12:1–10; 5:11–13). But since
rhetorical skill in ‘destroying arguments’ and Paul’s commission as an apostle was also
‘taking thoughts captive’ in the hope of remov- based on such experiences (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8; Gal
ing obstacles which stand in the way of spread- 1:12) yet the basis of his authority was being
ing the gospel, here described as the knowledge judged as inadequate, it is more likely that the
of God (v. 5; cf. 2:14). A similar use of the imagery claim concerned a special connection to the
of siege warfare in conjunction with philosoph- historical Jesus or to his followers, perhaps
ical argumentation is made by Philo Conf. Ling. those connected with the Jerusalem church
128–31; cf. Prov 21:22; Furnish 1984: 458, 462). (cf. 11:22). The fact that Paul did not know the
 143 2 corinthians

historical Jesus, had initially persecuted the perhaps relying too heavily on his talent as a
church, and had entered the circle of apostles letter-writer and on fellow-workers to act as his
late in the game proclaiming that he had delegates.
received a revelation of Christ, seems to have led
to widespread questions and suspicions about (10:12–18) Opponents Accused of Interfer-
his apostolic status (1 Cor 15:7–9). If the question ence In this section Paul moves from respond-
of connection with the historical Jesus is ing to accusations made against him to launching
involved in his battle with the Corinthian some attacks of his own upon his opponents
opponents, it is a matter of charismatic authority (Furnish 1988: 1199). In v. 12 he is clearly being
versus tradition. Given the importance of the sarcastic: he would not even presume to com-
appeal to tradition in Jewish teaching, it is not pare himself with those who commend them-
surprising that tension between charismatic selves! He probably has in mind here the use
authority and tradition can be detected in the of letters of recommendation by his rivals (cf.
attempts to organize the early church (Rowland 3:1–3). He rejects both the self-commendation
1985: 266–7). Paul is unequivocal, however, in v. of his opponents and the nature of their com-
8. His authority is charismatic (2 COR 10:1–6); it parisons with one another as completely
was given to him by the Lord (i.e. the resur- misguided. They act according to worldly com-
rected Christ; cf. 13:10). The concept of boasting mendations, when only commendation by the
which permeates (2 Corinthians 2 COR 1:12–14) is Lord is relevant (vv. 17–18). To make his point
employed in an interesting way here and forcefully, he draws upon the contentious
throughout chs. 10–13; its use is characterized notion of boasting (citing Jer 9:23–4) in order
by ambivalence and irony which becomes even to call for a return to central priorities: boast-
more pronounced in the fool’s speech of 11:1– ing should be done only in the Lord (v. 17; cf. 1
12:13. The opponents may have accused him of Cor 1:31; Phil 3:3). The exact meaning of vv. 13–16
boasting too much of his authority, but Paul is not always clear and there are severe prob-
admits that such extremes are necessary for lems in translating (esp. v. 13; see Barrett 1973:
the health of the Corinthians. Boasting and 263–6). However, the main point is clear: Paul’s
self-promotion were the conventional means mission to the Corinthians has divine author-
of articulating where honour and shame ization; his opponents have not respected his
were to be found in Graeco-Roman society prerogatives as the founder of the community
(With-erington 1995: 432). Paul is faced with and have interfered in his ‘sphere of action’
the difficulty of harmonizing his conviction (v. 16). These verses reveal the somewhat curi-
that in the early church many of the usual ous preoccupation (at least from a modern
criteria for determining honour have been perspective) of divisions of missionary labour.
abandoned (e.g. skill in rhetorical performance), Paul’s principle was that he would bring the
with the necessity of communicating priorities good news only to communities where it had
in a cultural context which demanded public never been preached. ‘Boasting of work already
demonstrations of worth. It sometimes seems done in someone else’s sphere of action’ (v. 16)
to Paul that in communicating his priorities he was ‘building on someone else’s foundation’
is resorting to worldly standards: he boasts a (Rom 15:20). An understanding of the dynamics
little too much! In v. 10 Paul quotes an accus- of patronage can shed light on Paul’s exclusive
ation made against him directly (cf. 10:1). He has claims and jealousy. Paul refers to himself as the
been accused of weak physical presence and Corinthians’ spiritual parent in a way that con-
poor oral performance of rhetoric. It seems veys the nature of his relationship with them
that even his critics acknowledge his skill in as their benefactor (12:14; Witherington 1995:
writing rhetorical pieces (Witherington 1995: 418; cf. 1 Cor 4:14–16). He endowed them with
433). In vv. 9–11 Paul admits that his letters are the gift of salvation and, in turning to other
strong, but instead of declaring that he is apostles, they betray the loyalty that should
equally strong in speech, he uses the opportun- exist between patron and client and fail to
ity to bring the focus of community back to honour him as clients should. Paul’s desire for
the content of his letters. The true nature of an increasing sphere of action expressed in vv.
his strength will be made clear through his 15–16 is a means of calling for a strengthened
actions when he comes to Corinth and does relationship with the Corinthian community as
what he has said in his letters. Underlying their patron which will free him to move on,
these verses may be the suspicion that Paul is and bring the good news to new territories
avoiding direct contact with the Corinthians, (cf. Rom 15:23–4).
2 corinthians 144

(11:1–12:13) The Fool’s Speech of the community with the divine draws upon
(11:1–4) The Threat of Corruption The whole the traditional notion of marriage as a meta-
of 11:1–12:13 is dominated by the concept phor for YHWH’s relationship to Israel (e.g. Hos
that Paul is speaking like a fool. To a certain 2:19–20). The image of the virgin (community)
extent, Paul engages in parody in this section: joining together with the bridegroom (Christ) is
he imitates the tactics (sophistic eloquence developed further in Eph 5:21–33. The reference
and rhetorical self-praise) of his opponents to Eve being deceived by the serpent presup-
(Witherington 1995: 436). But the reference to poses the temptation story (Gen 3:1–24). In
foolishness in the context of v. 1 makes it clear Jewish tradition the serpent became identified
that he is not altogether comfortable with the with the devil (Sir 2:24; cf. Rev 20:2). Paul’s
measures he has adopted. He is in fact engaging interpretation here, with its overtones of seduc-
in the kind of comparison which he has just tion and sexual conquest, may reflect know-
rejected as ultimately irrelevant, and he there- ledge of a Jewish legend contained in the
fore risks giving the impression that he shares pseudepigrapha (2 Enoch, 31:6; cf. 1 Tim 2:13–14)
the preoccupations of his opponents (10:12–18). where the serpent is identified with Satan
One can appreciate the difficulty of Paul’s and Eve’s deception involves sexual seduction
position; he lives in a society which demands (Murphy-O’Connor 1990: 826).
public display of its itinerant teachers (cf. 2 COR
10:7–11). Yet there is a desperate and sometimes (11:5–15) The Super-Apostles The transition
almost tragic sound to Paul’s words, as he lam- from 11:4 to 11:5 implies that those who come
ents about an apostleship whose strength has into Corinth are described sarcastically by
not been recognized in weakness. In vv. 1–4 Paul as ‘super-apostles’, tōn hyperlian apostolōn
Paul makes use of a marriage metaphor to com- (cf. 12:11). It has also been suggested, however,
municate the seriousness of the threat which that these super-apostles are not the intruders
has penetrated the community from the that Paul labels so negatively as ‘false apostles’,
outside. The gravity of the situation as Paul pseudapostoloi, in v. 13 (e.g. Barrett 1971: 249–53).
perceived it would not have been missed by an Paul’s qualified admission that the status of
audience of the time, for he appeals to the core the super-apostles equals his own (cf. 12:11) has
values of honour and shame. Paul places him- sometimes led to the conclusion that they were
self in the role of father (cf. 12:14) of a virgin (the leaders of the Jerusalem church (cf. Gal 2:9); the
community) who is giving her in marriage to false apostles may then have been their envoys,
her one true husband (Christ). It is the father’s whom Paul condemns categorically as intruders
duty to protect the honour of the virgin; and it (v. 13; for a full summary of the debate concern-
is the virgin daughter’s duty to remain chaste, ing identity of super-apostles, see Furnish 1984:
symbolizing her shame (concern for reputation) 502–5). But the emphasis on rhetorical perform-
and the shame of her whole household. But Paul ance in oral delivery (v. 6) seems to support the
fears that the virgin daughter will be violated by notion that these super-apostles are themselves
a seducer. The image of the corruption of the the intruders, who not only rate themselves
internal sanctity of the virgin daughter is a highly, but have probably also gained consider-
powerful means of communicating the nature able prestige in the community (Georgi 1986:
of the threat which comes from the outside. 39). v. 6 has been judged to be a frank admission
Indisputable evidence is offered in v. 4 that the by Paul of a liability (Witherington 1995: 435). In
problem in the community is not only internal, these earliest stages of church development,
but involves teachers from the outside who norms are being institutionalized with respect
preach a message that Paul understands to be to judgement of apostolic legitimacy and talent,
in contradiction to his own. The reference to and Paul is not always able to meet group
proclamation of another Jesus may imply an expectations. He calls for a realignment of com-
appeal on the part of the ‘false apostles’ to munity norms based on true knowledge of
greater continuity with the historical Jesus (cf. God (v. 6; cf. 10:5). Paul’s shifting of labels
10:7; 2 COR 10:7–11). vv. 2–3 are dense in allusions from super-apostles to false apostles does not
to Scripture and traditional notions of marriage. necessarily imply that two different groups are
The role of the father in giving his virgin daugh- in view, but may stem from Paul’s shifting
ter in marriage is reflected in such texts as perspectives. According to some standards
Gen 29:23 and Deut 22:13–21. The use of the (which he himself rejects) these apostles are
marriage metaphor to address the relationship powerful leaders. But according to the ultimate
 145 2 corinthians

standard of God, they are merely disguising light echoes 11:3 and reflects Jewish legends
themselves as apostles of Christ (v. 13). In about the deception of Eve by the devil (Apoc.
vv. 7–11 Paul offers a specific example of his Mos. 17.1–2; Adam and Eve 9.1 [Latin]; Adam
behaviour in order to defend himself against and Eve 38.1 [Slavonic]; Furnish 1984: 494–5).
accusations concerning his authority and cred- The use of the terms ‘apostle’ and ‘minister’
ibility. The Corinthians may have harboured (diakonos) (terms Paul applies to himself) in the
suspicions about Paul’s attitudes to money and condemnation of the intruders suggests that,
dealings with the collection, and these ideas despite the polemic and the parody, the threat
may have left the opportunity ripe for the to Paul’s apostolic authority cuts to the heart.
intruders to gain support. Paul has refused
financial support from the Corinthians and refers (11:16–21a) The ‘Wise’ Corinthians In v. 16
to his principle ironically and with exaggeration Paul repeats the appeal of 11:1 to bear with him
by speaking of committing sin (v. 7), and as he plays the part of the fool. It is almost as if
robbing from other churches for the Corin- he is aware that he has been digressing from his
thians’ sake (v. 8). Paul continued to work as main speech in 11:2–15. He explicitly states in vv.
an artisan while he conducted his missionary 17–18 that he is speaking not with the Lord’s
work (1 Cor 4:12; 1 Thess 2:9), apparently refus- authority, but boasting (2 COR 1:12–14) according
ing the support to which other apostles were to the human standards of his opponents. In vv.
entitled (1 Cor 9:12, 15–18). This refusal to accept 19–21a the apostle employs irony and engages
living expenses may have been related to the in extreme sarcasm. He draws upon the com-
desire to avoid being a client of Corinthian munity’s reputation for thinking itself wise
patrons, and to the fear of contributing to the (1 Cor 2:6–16; 4:10; 6:4–5) and ironically refers
already serious problem of community factions to their willingness to entertain fools (the false
(2 COR 8:16–24). But it may also have led to apostles). The implication is that now that he
frustration among the Corinthians who may counts himself as a fool, they will surely enter-
have argued that Paul abrogated societal con- tain him! Paul denigrates the false apostles in
ventions with respect to itinerant teachers and v. 20 in a manner that implies their charlatan-
degraded himself (and them) with manual labour. ism and recalls the differing attitudes towards
Paul makes it abundantly clear, however, in community support which divide Paul from his
v. 10, that he has no intention of changing his opponents (11:7–15). He sarcastically proclaims
approach. The reference to friends from Mace- that he was simply too weak to adopt the belit-
donia in v. 9 may be in response to the charge tling tactics of his opponents (v. 21a). This is, of
that he has allowed himself to become a client course, an ironic jibe at the Corinthians’ blind-
of the Macedonians. Paul reveals that he did ness in recognizing the strength of true apostle-
accept special gifts from the Philippian church ship, a blindness which is made especially
in Macedonia (Phil 4:10–20), but was apparently evident by the accusation that Paul’s bodily
unwilling to accept such support in Corinth. presence is weak (10:10). What appears to be
The question also arises as to whether Macedo- his shame (weakness) he hopes to prove is in
nian generosity in the collection (8:1–5) was fact his honour (power; cf. 1 Cor 12:9).
related to the nature of the patronage relation-
ship he had with them. But Paul continues to (11:21b–33) The Self-Designations of Paul’s
have confidence in his boast, making it clear Opponents The passage 11:21b–12:10 includes
that his attitude towards support from the Cor- the heart of the ‘fool’s speech’. Declaring that he
inthian church is a public demonstration of his is engaging in foolishness, Paul nevertheless
honour (v. 10) and is motivated by his love for boasts in the same terms as his opponents
the community (v. 11). In vv. 12–15 the accus- and insists that he shares all of their claims to
ation made against Paul concerning his refusal authority. In the process he reveals the self-desig-
to accept financial support from the Corin- nations of his opponents. ‘Hebrews,’ ‘Israelites’,
thians is transformed by him into an indication and ‘descendants of Abraham’ are three closely
of the false apostles’ inadequacy and dishonesty. related labels pointing to a special claim of Jewish
Only by accepting the same attitude to support heritage (cf. Phil 3:5). It is impossible to attach a
as does Paul, might these apostles show them- distinct significance to each term, but there
selves to be Paul’s equal (v. 12). The implication may be differences of nuance. ‘Hebrews’ may
is clearly that these false apostles have been refer primarily to ethnic descent, but also to geo-
taking advantage of the Corinthians. The descrip- graphical origin and familiarity with Hebrew or
tion of Satan disguising himself as an angel of Aramaic (cf. Acts 6:1). With ‘Israelites’ the
2 corinthians 146

focus may be somewhat more upon a religious of Paul’s life: work as an artisan (vv. 23, 27),
past, heritage, and tradition (Georgi 1986: 46). The travel (vv. 25–6), persecution (vv. 23–6), church
conflict between Paul and the opponents in life (vv. 26, 28). Particularly intriguing is the
Corinth probably involves the question of reference to ‘false brethren’ in v. 26. The same
whether the charismatic basis of the apostle’s term is used by Paul to describe those who
authority (a direct appeal to divine experience) is seek to impose the law on Gentile Christians
sufficient in the light of the greater appeal made in Gal 2:4 (Murphy-O’Connor 1990: 827). The
to tradition by the false apostles (2 COR 10:1–6). list offers evidence of persecution at the hands
‘Descendants of Abraham’ may function to legit- of both Jews and Gentiles. The legal basis for
imate the authority they claim in propounding the ‘forty lashes’ is found in Deut 25:1–3. Being
their particular understanding of the mission they ‘beaten with a rod’ was a Roman punishment.
undertake among the Gentiles: Abraham’s prom- Although a law prohibited the imposition of
ise was to be the father of many nations (cf. Rom this punishment on Roman citizens, it was
4:13–18; 9:6–8; Gal 3:16–18). The title ‘ministers frequently ignored; Paul protests this punish-
[or servants] of Christ’ (diakonoi Christou), v. 23, is ment in Acts 16:37 (cf. Acts 16:22; 1 Thess 2:2;
especially important because it represents a direct Furnish 1984: 516). In fact, the reference to the
quotation of a designation that moves beyond beatings offers evidence of one of many points
claims concerning heritage and identity to give of contact between this text and accounts in
us a sense of how the opponents understood Acts. However, as is illustrated by comparing
what they were doing (Georgi 1986: 32). The the reference to the narrow escape from
seriousness of the threat posed by the opponents Damascus (vv. 32–3) with the account in Acts
may have been related to an approach and self- 9:23–5, the stories do not always present the
understanding which in many ways may have same picture of the apostle. While in 2 Corin-
been quite similar to Paul’s mission to be a minis- thians the story illustrates Paul’s humiliation
ter of Christ Jesus (e.g. Rom 15:16). This is sup- and weakness, in Acts it communicates the
ported by the frequent use of the terms diakonos apostle’s bravery and invincible mission
and diakonia throughout 2 Corinthians (on dea- (Furnish 1988: 1201).
con, see OCB s.v.). The opponents’ understanding
of their connection with Christ may have differed (12:1–10) Visions and Revelations of the Lord
from that of Paul, however, with respect to Paul continues his inappropriate boasting—his
claims of a special relationship with the historical speaking like a fool (11:21)—by once again argu-
Jesus (2 COR 10:7–11; vv. 1–4, 5–15). Paul illustrates ing that he can match any claims of status that
that he is a better minister/servant of Christ by his opponents might have. In v. 1 he gives the
describing a ministry of suffering and humiliation. impression that he is ready to discuss the last
He appeals once again to a catalogue of hardships contentious issue; he moves on to visions and
(v. 23) which functions in 2 Corinthians in con- revelations ‘of the Lord’ (probably to be under-
junction with the apostle’s theology of the cross stood as ‘granted by the Lord’: a genitive of
(vv. 30–1). This catalogue recalls the terms used origin; Furnish 1984: 524). That his reluctance
by philosophers in the ancient world to describe to engage in this type of discourse is particularly
their struggles in the overcoming of passion great, however, is suggested by his description
and in the search for wisdom (2 COR 4:7–15). of his experience in the third person: ‘I know a
But there is no heroism in Paul’s attitude person in Christ . . . ’ (v. 2). Probably because of
towards his troubles; v. 29 in fact records the the importance attached to visions and revela-
sentiment of injustice in suffering. Yet suffering tions by his opponents, Paul wishes to convey
is far from meaningless; it offers demonstrative the impression that such ecstatic experiences
proof of Paul’s weakness (v. 30), which is a sign are relatively unimportant and even of no real
of his identification with Christ (12:9). Because significance for ministry. Paul’s mission is based
Paul appeals to the extent of his hardships to on what is seen concretely in the apostle and
respond directly to the claims of superiority what is heard from the apostle (vv. 6–7). Paul
made by his opponents (v. 23), and because emphasizes the nature of his dealings with
the theme of inappropriate boasting permeates church communities and his preaching of the
the discussion (vv. 16–23), it is tempting to gospel as definitive signs of his apostleship. But
conclude that the opponents viewed their own he nevertheless unwittingly offers here an indi-
apostolic struggles as heroic or as signs of their cation of the significance of ecstatic religious
‘strength’ of character. The sufferings mentioned experience for an early church group. The atti-
in the catalogue of hardships cover many aspects tude towards it in this text appears to be more
 147 2 corinthians

negative than that revealed by 5:13, where Paul apparently prayed three times to the
competition concerning ecstatic experience Lord to have the thorn removed (v. 8). The
may also be in view (2 COR 5:11–19). Moreover, Lord responded by means of an oracle (v. 9).
while Paul clearly sees a great difference Grace is equated with power in v. 9 and refers to
between the revelation of the Lord he describes the force which sustains Paul and is disclosed in
in vv. 2–4 and the revelation of God’s Son his weakness. Paul announces that it is his
which led to his becoming an apostle (Gal weakness that is the authentic source of his
1:15–16), the distinction may be less apparent boasting, for it is a sign of the power of Christ
to his audience. Ultimately Paul’s apostleship dwelling within him. He offers a summary
is based upon revelation, but given the situation (v. 10) of the long catalogue of hardships in
in Corinth he obviously feels that it is prudent 11:23–8, but now explicitly states that he is con-
instead to stress his physical (and earthly) weak- tent in his sufferings: these make known the
ness which discloses the power accorded to him paradox of his life as an apostle in imitation of
by the Lord. In Paul’s dispute with the oppon- Christ.
ents we can perhaps sense a trace of the diffi-
culty of determining which charismatic (12:11–13) The Signs of a True Apostle These
experience of an apostle is authentic. In the verses are usually understood as the epilogue of
early church writing, the Didache, attitudes the fool’s speech (11:1–12:13). Paul takes up the
towards riches on the part of itinerant charis- voice of the fool once again. He has had to
matics became an important guide to determin- defend his own honour, since the Corinthians
ing which teachers were truly gifted (Did. 11–13). have not been commending him. This is the
Paul tells us very little about the shape of his voice of a patron who feels he has not received
revelatory experience or what it meant; but the honour which is his due. Maintaining the
he does announce that it could have led to ironic tone which dominates chs. 10–13, Paul
elation (v. 7). He tells us he was caught up (cf. admits that he is weak (he is nothing), but at
1 Thess 4:17) to the third heaven (here equated the same time he is not at all inferior to the
with Paradise, see vv. 2, 4; cf. 2 Enoch 7 and Apoc. super-apostles whom the Corinthians admire so
Mos. 37.5; Murphy-O’Connor 1990: 828). Other- much (11:5; 2 COR 11:5–15). Paul tells the Corin-
worldly journeys were commonly described in thians that they have no reason to complain
ancient apocalyptic literature (Furnish 1984: since ‘the signs of a true apostle’ were performed
525–6). The mysterious quality that one would adequately among them (v. 12). The reference
expect of such an experience is disclosed by to ‘signs’ (sēmeia) offers evidence of the exis-
Paul in the admission that he does not know tence of institutionalized norms in the commu-
whether the experience was in the body or out nity for determining true apostleship (2 COR
of the body (v. 3). His reference to a lack of 10:7–11). A similar focus on charismatic per-
knowledge about the event, however, may also formance in the process of evangelization
be a way of communicating its relative unim- occurs in Rom 15:19 and in Gal 3:5. But Paul’s
portance. Similarly, Paul’s announcement that admission of the importance of ‘signs and won-
he heard things that should never be told could ders and mighty works’ is intriguing, given his
be in keeping with the notion of a sealed reve- previous attempt to play down the importance
lation (Dan 12:4; Rev 10:4), but could also be a of visions and revelations to his mission (12:1–
means of pointing to irrelevance of the event 10). Paul is speaking like a fool in vv. 11–13, but
for the essence of his apostleship (Murphy- he nevertheless may be offering an indication
O’Connor 1990: 828). Having abandoned the that charismatic phenomena were central to
role of the fool (and the parody of his oppon- Paul’s initial acceptance in a community, even
ents’ tactics), Paul admits that he was prevented though such wondrous deeds were subsumed
from boasting (or being too elated) by a thorn by the apostle within the larger purpose of
in the flesh, a messenger from Satan (v. 7). Most preaching the gospel of Christ (Rom 15:18–19).
commentators have seen here a reference to a In v. 13 Paul returns to the complaint made by
physical ailment (physical suffering is under- the Corinthians of unfair treatment in compari-
stood by Paul as a sign that Satan’s power con- son to other churches. This complaint involved
tinues to influence the world; cf. 4:4; see Neyrey the apostle’s refusal to accept material support
1990: 167–80), but others have argued that from the Corinthians (his refusal to become
Paul has an external enemy in mind, a non- their client). The Corinthians argued that he
believer or an opponent in the church (cf. 2 did not adopt the same attitude in other
Cor 11:14–15; Murphy-O’Connor 1990: 828). places (notably Macedonia: 11:7–11; 2 COR 11:5–15).
2 corinthians 148

With biting sarcasm, Paul pleads for the Corin- with respect to the collection and his delicate
thians’ forgiveness for not burdening them. handling of the situation in chs. 8–9 should
be read in that light. But the manner in which
(12:14–13:10) Concluding Defence reference to the collection is fused with suspi-
(12:14–18) Suspicions of Wrongdoing concern- cions concerning Paul’s refusal to accept material
ing the Collection Having appealed to the support in vv. 14–18 leads to further information
Corinthians for obedience in 10:1–18, and having about the precise nature of the suspicions of
supported that appeal with the ‘fool’s speech’ in the Corinthians concerning Paul and money.
11:1–12:13, Paul now states his intention to come Paul was probably suspected of keeping for him-
to Corinth a third time and offers further argu- self some of the money that he is collecting for
ments in support of his position. These verses Jerusalem. In short, he was being accused of
have played a part in theories concerning the fraud (Furnish 1988: 1202). Paul brings the discus-
chronology of the letter fragments of 2 Corin- sion of the matter to a close with rhetorical
thians. The passage 7:4–16 suggests that at the questions which he is sure will highlight his
time of composition of chs. 1–9, Titus had only innocence (v. 18).
been to Corinth once, while it appears that by the
time vv. 14–18 were composed he had made a (12:19–21) The Motives of Paul’s Defence Paul
second visit. This implies that chs. 10–13 came now seeks to counter the impression that
later. Paul’s third visit (v. 14; cf. 13:1) appears to be he has been engaging solely in a personal
the visit that he had planned (1:16) but had post- defence based on past events and has not been
poned after the second painful visit (2:1; cf. 9:4). addressing important matters of community
During the first visit the community was well-being. He insists that he has in fact been
founded. In vv. 14–16 Paul restates a principle working for the sake of building up the com-
that he defended vigorously in 11:7–11 and alluded munity because he fears that a complete break-
to sarcastically in 12:13: he will continue to sup- down of the relationship between himself and
port himself while he is with the Corinthians the community will occur when he arrives
(2 COR 11:5–15). Paul presents this as the natural (vv. 19–20). Given that Paul has been respond-
consequence of his parental relationship with the ing to specific problems having to do with the
Corinthians and of his great love for them false apostles and with community loyalty from
(vv. 14–15; cf. 1 Cor 4:15). But the practical appli- 10:1 until now, it is surprising to hear him frame
cation of this principle in the community the situation in terms of a general problem with
involves the acceptance of Paul as patron of the improper behaviour ranging from quarrelling
community and the obligation to honour him to sexual immorality (vv. 20–1). The list of
with their love. There were probably Corinthians vices in v. 20 appears to be conventional
who felt that the reverse should take place; they (cf. Gal 5:20; Murphy-O’Connor 1990: 828).
wished Paul to act as their client and accept their While Corinth has a history of sexual immoral-
gifts of material support (2 COR 8:16–24). But Paul ity (1 Cor 5:1–5; cf. 1 Cor 6:15–16), the problem
feels that this would be as ridiculous a scenario as does not surface elsewhere in 2 Corinthians.
children ‘lay[ing] up’ (saving) for their parents. However, Jews in the Roman world frequently
In vv. 16–18 Paul repeats a charge of deceitful drew attention to sexual immorality in attempts
trickery brought against him by the Corinthians to describe the sin and alienation in the pagan
and defends himself against it (cf. 2 Cor 4:2). world (Newton 1985: 102–3). It may be that Paul
The discussion of the trip made by Titus and is aiming to cast the sin of the Corinthians in
the brother recalls the description of the arrange- the most negative terms. Behind vv. 20–1 may
ments made by Paul for the impending visit in lie an attempt on the part of the apostle to
chs. 8–9. Because Paul seems so confident of his describe the consequences of the community’s
loyalty as a co-worker who accompanied Titus, alienation from him as devastating. With all
the brother mentioned in v. 18 is most likely hope lost, there will be nothing left to do but
Paul’s representative referred to in 8:22 and not mourn.
the brother who was apparently appointed by
the churches to oversee the handling of the (13:1–4) The Serious Consequences of
collection as a kind of external auditor (8:18–19; Disobedience At first glance it may appear
2 COR 8:16–24). vv. 14–18 present information that the legal statement requiring two or
which acts as an important complement to three witnesses for a charge refers to require-
the material in chs. 8–9: it offers unmistakable ments to substantiate charges against Paul
evidence that Paul was suspected of wrongdoing (12:16). However, the rule—a citation of Deut
 149 2 corinthians

19:15—concerns the establishment of proper there had been a tearing down (or destruction,
criteria for conviction and punishment (cf. kathairesis; cf. 10:4). There are, in fact, several
Deut 19:15–21; Mt 18:16), and this fits equally indications throughout vv. 5–9 that Paul’s
well with vv. 3–4 where Paul warns the commu- sense of his own apostleship is bound up with
nity of the possibility of punitive action. the behaviour of the Corinthians. In an atmos-
Moreover, in non-diaspora Judaism the rule phere of comparisons between apostles and
was often used to support the requirement challenges to apostolic authority, Paul invites
that those suspected of wrongdoing were to the Corinthians to test themselves: have they
be warned carefully of the possibility of punish- displayed the faith that flows from the presence
ment (van Vliet 1958: 53–62; Furnish 1984: 575). of Jesus among them? The implication seems to
In stressing his multiple previous warnings, be that if they pass the test, Paul will also avoid
Paul apparently feels that he has met the criteria failure (vv. 5–6). Nevertheless, to the end, Paul
of the rule. There is an element of foreboding in insists that what is most important is not the
his warning that he will not be lenient. He visibility of his apostolic credentials but the fact
promises proof of Christ speaking in him (2:17; that he has acted in accordance with the truth of
5:20; 12:19) in the form of punishment of the the gospel (vv. 7–8; cf. 4:2; 6:7). The apostle
Corinthians. The explanation of the meaning of may be weak, and the Corinthians may even
the Christ event in v. 4 is in keeping with credal continue to view him as weak, as long as the
statements in Paul’s other letters (e.g. Rom 1:4): Corinthians are strong; that is, strong in faith
Christ was crucified in weakness but raised up but not strong in self-importance. The relation-
to live by the power of God. Paul’s union with ship between apostle and community reflects
Christ means that his life is shaped by the power the meaning of the cross. In weakness and suf-
of God in the same way. He shares Christ’s fering, strength and salvation are revealed. The
weakness, but in dealing with the Corinthians, announcement of the purpose of Paul’s letter
he will ‘live with him’ by the power of God. in v. 10 seems incompatible with chs. 1–9 and is
vv. 3–4 offer a good illustration of theology often viewed as an indication that chs. 10–13
finding expression in concrete human inter- should be viewed as a separate letter. The
action. The theology of the cross functions to third visit (12:14; 13:1) seems to be the one Paul
support censure in community ethics and intended to make after the Corinthians’ contri-
discipline (2 COR 4:7–15). bution to the collection had been gathered
(9:3–5). By the time of composition of chs. 10–
(13:5–10) The Purpose of Paul’s Letter Paul’s 13 the relationship between the Corinthians and
tone in this section is more conciliatory than the community had deteriorated to such an
in the exhortations in 13:1–4, but v. 10 makes extent that Paul probably wondered whether
it clear that the same message frames both the church would make a contribution at all
passages: severe discipline of the Corinthian and he felt a harsh letter was required to set
community is a distinct possibility. Paul states, matters straight. The reference to the people of
however, that he hopes that drastic measures both Macedonia and Achaia (Corinth was the
will not be necessary and locates the purpose of capital of this province) making a generous
his letter in the prevention of such measures. contribution to the poor in Jerusalem (Rom
Paul certainly feels that he has been endowed 15:25–6) suggests that the letter did indeed
with divine power in his dealings with the achieve its purpose (Furnish 1988: 1202).
Corinthians (13:4), but qualifies the authority
given to him by Christ in a way that ties his Conclusion: Greetings and Benediction (13:11–13)
treatment of the Corinthians to the central goal Assuming the generally held view that 2
of his mission. Paul has been given authority to Corinthians harmonizes at least two separate
build up (v. 10; cf. 12:19) and not to tear it down letters (chs. 1–9; 10–13), it is not clear which
(an almost identical phrase is found in 10:8; cf. 2 of the fragments originally included these
COR 10:7–11). The notion of ‘upbuilding’ (oiko- verses. In addition, different translations reflect
domē) occurs frequently in the Corinthian cor- a slightly different numbering of verses. The
respondence and refers to the harmonious NRSV has three verses, but some translations
development of the church in accordance with break the passage down into four verses, num-
God’s designs (e.g. 1 Cor 3:9 and 14:26). We can bering ‘All the saints greet you’ as v. 13. ‘Saints’
only imagine the great sense of failure and de- is a general term for believers (cf. 2 COR 1:1–2),
feat that Paul would have experienced if things but here probably refers to the saints of Mace-
did not turn out as he had hoped in Corinth and donia, the place where 2 Corinthians (or much
2 corinthians 150

of the letter) was composed (7:5; cf. 2:12–13; 8:1; Hock, R. F. (1980), The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry:
9:2). The call to greet one another with a holy Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress).
kiss occurs several times in Paul’s letters (e.g. Holmberg, B. (1980), Paul and Power: The Structure of
Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 1 Thess 5:26). It recalls Authority in the Primitive Church as Reflected in the
the ritual kiss during church gatherings, which Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress).
was an intimate expression of the fellowship MacDonald, M. Y. (1988), The Pauline Churches: A Socio-
experienced in early church groups (Meeks Historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and
1984: 109). The benediction in v. 13 is longer Deutero-Pauline Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge
than usual and resembles Eph 6:23–4. The University Press).
reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, God, and MacMullen, R. (1984), Christianizing the Roman Empire:
the Holy Spirit should not be understood as A. D. 100–400 (New Haven: Yale University Press).
a presentation of the formal doctrine of the Marshall, P. (1987), Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions
trinity (Thrall 1965: 183). in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians (Tübingen:
Mohr).
REFERENCES Martin, D. B. (1990), Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor
of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale
Barrett, C. K. (1971), ‘Paul’s Opponents in II Corin- University Press).
thians’, NTS 17: 233–54. Matthews, S. (1994), ‘2 Corinthians’, in E. S. Fiorenza
—— (1973), A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the (ed.), Searching the Scriptures, ii. A Feminist Commen-
Corinthians (London: A. & C. Black). tary (New York: Crossroad), 196–217.
Bassler, J. M. (1992), ‘2 Corinthians’, in C. Newsom Meeks, W. (1983), The First Urban Christians (New
and S. Ringe (eds.), The Women’s Bible Commentary Haven: Yale University Press).
(Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox), 330–2. Mitchell, M. M. (1991), Paul and the Rhetoric of Recon-
Belleville, L. L. (1993), ‘Tradition or Creation? Paul’s ciliation (Tübingen: Mohr).
Use of the Exodus 34 Tradition in 2 Corinthians Murphy-O’Connor, J. (1990), ‘The Second Letter to
3.7–18’, in C. Evans and J. Sanders (eds.), Paul and the Corinthians’, NJBC 816–29.
the Scriptures of Israel (Sheffield: JSOT), 165–85. —— (1991), The Theology of the Second Letter to the
Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T. (1981), The Social Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Construction of Reality (Harmondsworth: Penguin). Press).
Betz, H. D. (1973), ‘2 Cor 6:14–7:1: An Anti-Pauline Newton, M. (1985), The Concept of Purity at Qumran and
Fragment?’ JBL 92: 88–108. in the Letters of Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
—— (1985), 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two versity Press).
Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul, Hermeneia Neyrey, J. H. (1990), Paul, in Other Words: A Cultural
(Philadelphia: Fortress). Reading of his Letters (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/
—— (1992), D. Freedman (ed.), ‘Second Epistle to the John Knox).
Corinthians’, ABD, i. 1148–54. —— (1993), ‘Nudity’, in J. Pilch and B. Malina (eds.),
Chow, J. K. (1992), Patronage and Power: A Study of Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning (Peabody,
Social Networks in Corinth (Sheffield: JSOT). Mass.: Hendrickson), 119–25.
Crafton, J. A. (1990), The Agency of the Apostle: A Plevnik, J. (1993), ‘Honour/Shame’, in J. Pilch and
Dramatistic Analysis of Paul’s Response to Conflict in 2 B. Malina (eds.), Biblical Social Values and Their Mean-
Corinthians (Sheffield: JSOT). ing (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson), 95–104.
Danker, F. W. (1989), II Corinthians (Minneapolis: Reese, J. M. (1993), ‘Assertiveness’, in J. Pilch and
Augsburg). B. Malina (eds.), Biblical Social Values and Their
Fitzgerald, J. T. (1988), Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Meaning (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson), 9–11.
Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships in the Sanders, E. P. (1983), Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People
Corinthian Correspondence (Atlanta: Scholars Press). (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Furnish, V. P. (1984), II Corinthians, AB (Garden City Schütz, J. H. (1975), Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic
NY: Doubleday). Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
—— (1988), ‘2 Corinthians’, J. L. Mays (ed.), HBC (San Stockhausen, C. K. (1993), ‘2 Corinthians 3 and the
Francisco: Harper & Row), 1190–203. Principles of Pauline Exegesis’, in C. Evans and
Garrett, S. R. (1995), ‘Paul’s Thorn and Cultural Models J. Sanders (eds.), Paul and the Scriptures of Israel
of Affliction’, in L. White and O. Yarbrough (eds.), (Sheffield: JSOT), 143–64.
The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honour Theissen, G. (1982), The Social Setting of Pauline Chris-
of Wayne Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress), 82–99. tianity: Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Georgi, D. (1986), The Opponents of Paul in Second Thrall, M. E. (1965), I and II Corinthians, CBC (Cambridge:
Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress). Cambridge University Press).
 151 galatians

—— (1980), ‘Super-Apostles, Servants of Christ, and Witherington III, B. (1995), Conflict and Community in
Servants of Satan’, JSNT 6: 42–57. Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corin-
van Vliet, H. (1958), No Single Testimony: A Study on the thians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans).
Adoption of the Law of Deut. 19:15 Par. into the New Young, F., and Ford, D. F. (1987), Meaning and Truth
Testament, Studia Theologica Rheno-Traiectina, 4 in 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William
(Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon). B. Eerdmans).

7. Galatians
G . N . STANTON

INTRODUCTION 3. Galatians was written to quite specific

circumstances which are difficult to reconstruct
A. Paul and the Galatian Churches. 1. Galatians
in detail, though the main issues at stake are
was sent as a circular letter to a group of churches
clear. Paul’s dispute with the agitators elicited
in Galatia, where it would have been read aloud,
some of his most profound theological state-
perhaps on several occasions in the context of
ments. Only Romans has made a greater impact
worship (1:2). This is the most passionate of
on later Christian thinkers and believers. In
Paul’s letters; only 2 Cor 10–13 is partly compar-
modern times Galatians has surpassed even
able. There has never been any doubt about the
Romans in the role it has played in reconstruc-
authorship of Galatians: here we meet Paul’s
tions of the history of earliest Christianity. In-
pugnacious defence of ‘the truth of the gospel’
terpretation of Paul’s accounts of the Jerusalem
(2:5), as well as his exposition of the significance
‘council’ (2:1–10) and of his clash with Peter at
of God’s disclosure of Jesus Christ (1:12). Paul’s
Antioch (2:11–14) is always prominent in discus-
letter is carefully crafted, though in places the
sion of the tensions within early Christianity.
modern reader wishes he had clarified some of
his statements. We do not know whether Paul’s
B. The Galatian Crisis. 1. In order to unravel
attempt to fend off the threat of the agitators who
Paul’s main lines of argument in this letter, it is
had infiltrated the Galatian churches met with
necessary to have some appreciation of the
immediate success. In the long run, however,
circumstances that led to its composition. Paul
Paul was successful: his insistence that Gentiles
had preached in Galatia once (or possibly
need not observe the whole Mosaic law (including
twice—see 4:13) before he wrote this letter. His
circumcision) as an integral part of their commit-
initial visit was related to ‘a physical infirmity’
ment to Christ won the day, but the debates on
he experienced (4:13). Probably as the result of
this issue rumbled on in some circles well into
his ministry, house-churches were established.
the latter part of the second century (cf. Justin
In spite of Paul’s displeasure at the later turn of
Martyr, Dialogue, 47), and even occasionally
events, the warmth of his initial relationship
thereafter.
with the Galatian Christians is reflected in sev-
2. In places Paul uses strong language which
eral passages (e.g. 3:15; 4:12–20; 6:1).
must have made some of the first listeners to
2. At some point after Paul had left Galatia,
this letter wince (cf. 3:1; 4:30; 5:12). Occasional
agitators from elsewhere had undermined some
scholarly attempts to ‘improve’ Paul’s line of
of his central convictions by confusing the Gal-
argument by removing some verses as later
atians and ‘pervert[ing] the gospel of Christ’
non-Pauline additions have not won support.
(1:7). The clearest statements concerning the
We can be confident that the letter we have is
agitators’ ‘false teaching’ are in 4:10, 5:7–12, and
very similar to the letter Paul dictated to an
6:12–13, though parts of those verses are difficult
amanuensis before adding the final section in
to interpret. The agitators are encouraging the
his own handwriting (cf. 6:11). In view of the
Galatian Christians to observe the Jewish ‘spe-
extent to which some of Paul’s key points are
cial days, and months, and seasons, and years’
expressed more judiciously in some of his later
(4:10). They themselves are Jews who have
letters, it is perhaps surprising that the early
become Christians; they have been urging the
scribes who copied it did not make more
Galatian Gentile Christians to be circumcised,
strenuous efforts to harmonize it with the
i.e. to become full proselytes to Judaism as part
‘later’, more moderate Paul.
of their commitment to the gospel of Christ
galatians 152

(6:12–13). Paul believes that they have been not for the interpretation of this letter.
selective in their approach, i.e. they have not See Longenecker (1990: lxiii–lxviii), for a full
insisted that the Galatians observe all the discussion.
Mosaic commandments (4:3).
3. It is possible to glean a little more about D. Date. Dates proposed range from 49 to 58 CE.
the claims of the agitators by ‘mirror-reading’ If Paul wrote in 49 or 50, Galatians would be the
some passages in Galatians. But as Barclay earliest of his letters. If Paul wrote towards the
(1987) has rightly emphasized, mirror-reading end of the 50s, Galatians was written not long
is a hazardous operation. Not all Paul’s state- before Romans. Dating Galatians is closely
ments are necessarily direct refutations of the related to a decision on two major questions:
claims of the agitators, though some scholars the location of the Galatian churches, and the
have assumed too readily that this is the case. relationship of Gal 2:1–10 to Acts. If, as seems
Hence many questions have to be left open. For likely, Paul’s account of his visit to Jerusalem in
example, it is difficult to be confident about 2:1–10 is his equivalent of Luke’s account of the
the relationship of the agitators to the ‘false Jerusalem council in Acts 15, then Galatians was
believers’ who caused havoc among the Jerusa- written at some point after that event which is
lem Christians (2:3–6) and to ‘the certain people usually dated to between 49 and 51 CE. (See
from James’ (2:12). further GAL 2:1–10 and IPC B1.4.) The extent of
4. Since Paul and the agitators shared a num- the development in Paul’s thinking between
ber of convictions, it is inappropriate to refer to Galatians and Romans is only one of several
them as Paul’s ‘opponents’. They both seem to issues that depend on the date one assigns to
have used the term ‘gospel’ to refer to Christian this letter. However, a decision cannot be made
proclamation (1:6–7). Like Paul, they believed with any degree of confidence.
that Jesus the Messiah was the fulfilment of
the promises of Scripture. In all probability, in E. Genre. Of rather more importance for the
4:21–31 Paul is responding to their interpret- exegesis of this letter is its literary genre, a
ation of key passages in Genesis. question that has been prominent in recent
5. By mirror-reading 5:13–6:10 some scholars discussion. Betz’s theory that Galatians is an
have claimed that Paul is opposing a second apologetic letter that presupposes the real or
group in the Galatian churches, antinomians fictitious situation of the court of law has pro-
or Gnostics who have distorted Paul’s proclam- voked lively debate. Betz (1979: 15) claims that
ation of Christian freedom. However, in this the epistolary framework can be separated so
section of his letter, Paul is far more concerned easily ‘that it appears almost as a kind of exter-
with general ethical principles than with false nal bracket for the body of the letter’. Paul is
views. Paul is underlining two convictions: faith defending himself against the accusations of his
must be worked out in love (5:6); freedom is not accusers before the jury that is to decide the
an opportunity for self-indulgence, but for love case, i.e. the Galatians. Betz’s critics acknow-
of one another which is a bond as close as ledge that this forensic rhetorical pattern of
slavery (5:13). persuasion can be discerned in parts of chs. 1
and 2, but hardly in the letter as a whole. Some
C. The Recipients. 1. Where were the Galatian claim that Galatians is an example of delibera-
churches located? Scholarly opinion continues tive rhetoric, i.e. that Paul is persuading the
to be evenly divided between advocates of the Galatians not to accept the claims of the agita-
‘north’ and the ‘south’ Galatia theories. The for- tors. While this is clearly the case in 1:6–9 and
mer defend the traditional view that the recipi- 6:12–16, this reading does not do justice to many
ents of this letter were ethnic Galatians (Galatai, other parts of the letter. The debate has been
Celts, see 3.1) who lived in the north of the assessed critically by Kern (1998) who calls in
Roman province; the Galatian churches were question the various attempts to interpret Gal-
near modern Ankara. The latter note that in atians in the light of Graeco-Roman rhetorical
Paul’s day the Roman province of Galatia handbooks. Paul uses several Graeco-Roman
stretched from Pontus on the Black Sea to Pam- and Jewish patterns of persuasion in what is,
phylia on the Mediterranean coast, and insist after all, an impassioned letter rather than a
that Paul wrote to churches at Antioch, Lystra, rhetorical discourse.
and Derbe in the south.
2. A decision is important for reconstruction F. Structure. The introduction (1:1–9) and the
of Paul’s missionary journeys and career, but conclusion (6:11–18) are clearly marked. There are
 153 galatians

three main sections in the letter. From 1:10 to was intended to be a circular letter to a group
2:21 Paul relates the parts of his own story that of churches probably scattered over a wide
are relevant to his overall purposes. The central area.
arguments of the letter start at 3:1, but it is not easy In v. 4 Paul makes three comments about the
to decide whether they end at 4:11, 4:30, or 5:1. The significance of the death of Christ. (1) In Paul’s
ethical exhortations in the third main section end day many Jews believed that the death of a
at 6:10. righteous man as a martyr would expiate the
sins of others (see especially 4 Macc). Here the
death of Christ is linked to this conviction in
COMMENTARY what several scholars have claimed is a pre-
Introduction (1:1–9) Pauline formula. The strongest indication that
this may have been the case is the use of ‘sins’,
(1:1–5) Opening Greetings The literary form whereas Paul himself prefers the singular, ‘sin’.
of the opening words is found in nearly all NT (2) In what may be Paul’s own filling out of an
and early Christian letters: ‘writer to addressees, early credal statement, the death of Christ is
greetings’: ‘Paul . . . to the churches of Galatia, seen as a release ‘from the present evil age’.
grace to you and peace . . . ’ As in his other Paul implies that there is a ‘coming age’ which
letters, Paul elaborates this opening formula, he refers to in 6:15 as ‘the new creation’. This
but only in Romans 1:1–6 is this done at greater contrast between two ‘ages’ is characteristic of
length than in Galatians. apocalyptic thought. (3) Christ’s giving up of his
Paul’s comments on his apostleship are strik- life for our release is in accordance with the will
ing. In numerous passages in his letters Paul of God. ‘The death of the Son is therefore a
refers to himself in positive terms as an apostle sacrifice enacted both by him and by God; and
(‘one who has been sent’). In v. 1, however, Paul as such it breaks the mold of the old sacrificial
stresses that his apostleship is not based on a system. The cross, that is to say, is not a sacrifice
‘human commission’, nor has he been sent human beings make to God; it is fundamentally
‘from human authorities’. Is this a direct God’s act, and as such the inversion of the
response to his opponents in Galatia right at sacrificial system.’ (Martyn 1997: 91)
the outset of the letter? Have they been under- Paul concludes his extended opening greet-
mining Paul’s authority by referring to its purely ings with a traditional doxology (v. 5). He does
human origin, perhaps stressing that Paul had not do this in his other letters. Perhaps he does
been sent as an apostle (merely) by the church so here in the knowledge that his circular letter
at Antioch (Acts 13:1–3)? This may be the case, will be read in the churches in Galatia in the
but as we noted above, Paul’s forceful state- context of worship.
ments are not all to be read as direct responses
to the jibes of his opponents. Paul emphasizes (1:6–9) Rebuke Immediately after the opening
that he has been sent to the Galatian churches greetings in all Paul’s other letters a thanksgiv-
as an apostle by Jesus Christ and God the Father. ing to God for the readers is included. Thanks-
God has shown that he is the Father of Jesus giving is mentioned by Paul more often, line for
Christ by raising him to life; in vv. 3–4 God is line, than by any other Hellenistic author, pagan
the Father of Christians (‘our Father’). or Christian (O’Brien 1977). In stark contrast to
In the opening phrases of several of his letters Paul’s other letters, however, there is not even a
Paul refers to individual co-workers; see, for hint of a note of thanksgiving in Galatians. But
example 1 Cor 1:1, Sosthenes; 2 Cor 1:1, Timothy. there is one important point of similarity here
In v. 2 Paul refers to an unnamed group of with the other letters: here too the main theme
co-workers. The phrase, ‘God’s family’, correctly of Galatians is introduced in the sentences that
alludes to the presence of men and women in follow the opening greetings.
the group, for in a context such as this, the Paul’s first word after the initial greetings,
Greek word adelphoi, literally ‘brothers’, includes thaumazō, ‘I am astonished’ must have sent a
‘sisters’. shudder through the Galatian congregations
Paul states that he is writing to the churches of when they heard it read, for they would have
Galatia. As noted above, it is not easy to be expected a thanksgiving. v. 6 includes Paul’s
certain about their precise geographical location. only use of the verb metatithēmi, ‘desert’; the
Paul’s other letters were written to individual closest parallels in Hellenistic writers refer to
churches, though they may soon have circulated the desertion of one philosophical school for
more widely. Like 1 Peter (cf. 1:1), Galatians another. Here, however, the context is different:
galatians 154

Paul is amazed that the Galatians are deserting undermined by others. The verb ‘receive’ is used
‘the one who called you’, clearly not Paul him- here (and in 1 Cor 15:3) in a technical sense to
self, but God whose call is ‘in grace’. Although refer to the careful transmission of tradition. In
NRSV reads ‘in the grace of Christ’, ‘of Christ’ is 1:12 Paul seems to contradict himself when he
not found in some early MSS; it is more likely to insists that he received the gospel through a
have been a later scribal explanatory addition revelation of Christ and not as transmitted trad-
than an omission. The Galatians’ desertion has ition. But the contradiction is more apparent
happened ‘quickly’, perhaps soon after the arrival than real: the gospel does have central themes
of the agitators. The verbs in vv. 6–7 are in the which can be passed on from one person to
present tense, confirming that the Galatians’ another (cf. 1 Cor 15:3–5), but ultimately it is
apostasy is still happening as Paul writes. God’s act of disclosure or revelation.
Paul claims that the Galatians are ‘turning to
a different gospel’, but he immediately denies
Paul’s Story (1:10–2:21)
that there is another gospel. The term ‘gospel’
has deep roots both in the Graeco-Roman (1:10–12) Proclamation of the Gospel Does
world and in Isaiah. It may have been associated v. 10 belong with vv. 8–9? The word ‘for’ (gar)
by the Galatians with the ‘glad tidings’ brought in the Greek suggests this; Dunn (1993: 48)
by a military victory or the birth of an emperor. (among others) takes v. 10 in this way. However,
In several key passages in Isaiah 40:9, 52:7, 61:1) gar is often so weak that it need not be trans-
the verb ‘to proclaim good news’ is used. Jesus lated—it is ignored in the NRSV. If so, then v. 10
seems to have applied the same phraseology to may be read as the beginning of a lengthy
his own proclamation of God’s coming kingly section of the letter which runs as far as 2:21.
rule (e.g. Mt 11:5 11 Lk 7:22; Lk 4:16–21). Soon The NRSV translation of v. 10 implies a strong
after Easter the noun is used as a Christian contrast between the accusation against Paul
technical term for ‘God’s good news about that he uses rhetoric to curry favour with his
Jesus Christ’. For Paul, there can be only one audience, and Paul’s own claim that in his proc-
gospel (though see GAL 2:7); if his opponents use lamation of the gospel he seeks only God’s
that term, they are perverting God’s good news. approval. This interpretation seems to be con-
In v. 7 Paul speaks openly about the agitators firmed by the strikingly similar line of argument
for the first time. Instead of naming them, he in 1 Thess 2:4–6. However, some commentators
refers to them with disdain as ‘some people’. translate the Greek verb peithō in its literal
‘There are some who are confusing you’ is too sense as ‘persuade’, and take both parts of the
weak, as is REB’s ‘there are some who unsettle opening sentence of v. 10 in a negative sense:
your minds’. The same verb tarassō is used in Gal Paul is rejecting his opponents’ suggestion that
5:10 (cf. also Acts 15:24) with the sense ‘intimi- he seeks to persuade his audience by the force
date’: the Galatians are being frightened out of of his rhetoric, and also their claim that he is
their wits by the troublemakers who, from persuading God to accept Gentiles on easier
Paul’s perspective, want to pervert the gospel. terms. The final sentence of v. 10 underlines
In the opening phrase of v. 8 (and again in v. 9) Paul’s rejection of crowd-pleasing rhetoric.
Paul uses the plural ‘we’. While this could be an Paul’s many references to enslavement in this
editorial ‘we’, and simply a reference to Paul letter are usually negative, but this first refer-
himself, Paul is probably associating his co- ence is positive: Paul insists that he is a slave of
workers with his proclamation (cf. Gal 1:2). Christ.
Paul is speaking hypothetically: he is prepared ‘For I want you to know’ at the beginning of
to pronounce an anathema, God’s curse, on v. 11 is a formula Paul uses elsewhere (e.g. 1 Cor
himself (and his circle) and even on an angel- 12:3; 15:1) to underline the importance of what
messenger from heaven if any of them should follows. In spite of the strongly polemical tone
dare to proclaim a different gospel. of this letter, Paul refers here to the recipients as
In v. 9 Paul throws caution to the winds and ‘brothers and sisters’, perhaps as a conciliatory
calls down an anathema on those who are now gesture. Paul’s firm threefold denial in 11c and 12
proclaiming a different gospel. The phrase, ‘so I that his gospel has merely human origins is a
now repeat’ may simply refer back to v. 8; more filling out of 1:1, and probably a direct response
probably it is intended as a reminder that to the jibes of his opponents. Paul’s positive
when he was last with the Galatians, Paul had statement about the origin of his gospel at the
solemnly warned them of the real risk that end of v. 12 is one of the most important in the
the gospel received by the Galatians might be whole letter: it is expanded and expounded in
 155 galatians

the autobiographical sketch that follows. Paul followers of Christ roused Paul’s ire? Some
insists that he received the gospel ‘through a scholars have claimed that it was lax observance
revelation (apokalypsis) of Jesus Christ’. This of the law by Christians that provoked Paul, but
translation preserves the ambiguity of the Paul himself does not say this. Were there Chris-
Greek which can be construed either as ‘Jesus tians in the period between the Resurrection
Christ’s disclosure of the gospel’ or as ‘God’s and Paul’s call who did not keep the law
disclosure of Jesus Christ as the content of the fully? From his letters it is difficult to discern
gospel’. The latter is preferable, especially in at what point Paul changed his mind about
view of the filling out of v. 12 in vv. 15–16. The law observance; this does not seem to have
key noun in v. 12, apokalypsis is usually under- happened immediately after his call on the road
stood in the light of apocalyptic writings where to Damascus. Luke does provide some relevant
it often refers to the unveiling of something or evidence in Acts, but it is difficult to interpret: in
someone previously hidden, i.e. the ‘revelation’ Luke’s perspective the claim that Stephen and
or ‘disclosure’ of Jesus Christ. While not deny- the Hellenists attacked the law before Paul’s call
ing the validity of this traditional interpretation, was mischievous (see Acts 6:11, 13–14). So it is
Martyn (1997: 144) has argued forcefully that not as easy as some have supposed to argue
God’s unveiling of Christ is ‘basically qualified that before his call Paul was in contact with
by the assertion that apocalypse is the invasive Christians who did not observe the law.
act that was carried out by God when he sent It is more likely that early Christological
Christ and Christ’s Spirit into the world and into claims, especially concerning the Messiahship
human hearts’ (3:23; 4:4, 6). of Jesus, were the trigger for the violence Paul
used against ‘the church of God’. Christians
(1:13–17) Paul’s Story, Part I When had the were claiming that a man crucified recently as
Galatians heard about Paul’s pre-Christian way a criminal was God’s Messiah, but Paul knew all
of life (v. 13)? We can only guess. Perhaps Paul too well that such a person stood under the
had spoken about it on his initial visit to the curse of the law (Gal 3:13). Hence Paul discerned
Galatian churches. Or perhaps Paul knew that that proclamation of a crucified Messiah was
some information about his former life had implicitly a threat to the law, though even
circulated far and wide—well beyond the after his call as apostle to the Gentiles it seems
reports that had reached the churches of Judea to have taken him some time to work out the
to which he refers in 1:22–3. Or perhaps Paul radical implications of this conclusion.
had guessed or was aware that his opponents Paul does not tell his readers the location of
had used an account of his former way of life to the churches he persecuted. The phrase, ‘the
undermine his authority and proclamation. church (assembly) of God’ is striking. This very
Paul’s two references in vv. 13 and 14 to his early Christian self-designation echoes the OT
way of life in Judaism are the only two references references to Israel as ‘the assembly of Yahweh’.
to Judaism in the NT. Not until the writings of Although both synagōgē and ekklēsia are used in
Ignatius half a century later do we find ‘Judaism’ the LXX to translate the Hebrew phrase, there is
and ‘Christianity’ contrasted as two ‘religions’. no evidence that ekklēsia was ever applied to the
In earlier Jewish writings (2 and 4 Macc) ‘Juda- Jewish community in a given place (Meeks 1983:
ism’ is used to contrast the distinctive Jewish 80). So the early Christian use of the term ekklē-
way of life with Hellenism. In v. 14 Paul under- sia was one way Christians differentiated them-
lines twice over the ‘out of the ordinary’ zeal selves from local Jewish communities. In
with which he observed the ‘traditions of his retaining the phrase ‘of God’, Paul concedes
ancestors’, i.e. traditional Pharisaic interpret- that his persecution of the church was an attack
ation of the law. Perhaps Paul is glancing side- on God.
ways at the insistence of his opponents in In vv. 15–17 a single, long, rather complicated
Galatia on law observance: Paul concedes that Greek sentence is retained as one sentence in
formerly he himself had made the same claims the NRSV; it fills out the argument of 1:11–12
concerning the law. considerably. Paul’s two main points are clear,
Paul’s zeal had led him ‘to persecute the even though, as we shall see below, some of the
church of God violently and to try to destroy details leave questions unanswered. He empha-
it’ (my tr.) The verbs are strong and in the sizes that his dramatic call to proclaim God’s
imperfect tense: Paul’s hounding of the church Son among the Gentiles was on God’s initiative
was not a one-off outburst, but a sustained as a revelation or disclosure of his Son (see A4
attack which included violence. Why had above); he did not make contact with any other
galatians 156

Christians in order to seek their advice or doubt during the period Paul spent as Cephas’s
instructions, but went off on his own to Arabia. house guest in Jerusalem he did gain some infor-
Although it has often been customary to refer mation about the life and teaching of Jesus, but
to Paul’s conversion experience, and thereby to from Paul’s perspective that did not mean that he
imply a conversion from Judaism to Christian- was dependent on Cephas for his understanding
ity, Paul’s carefully chosen phrases here indicate of the gospel. Some scholars have suggested that
that he himself saw matters very differently. He during this visit to Jerusalem Paul reached the
did not decide to convert from one religion to agreement with Peter that is referred to in 2:7,
another; in God’s own time (‘when it pleased but that is unlikely.
God’), God called Paul to be an apostle to Paul is adamant about his independence from
the Gentiles. Paul deliberately echoes phrases the leaders of the Jerusalem church. In v. 20 he
from Jer 1:4–5 and Isa 49:1, 6 to refer to his confirms the accuracy of his autobiographical
call, thereby aligning himself with the Hebrew sketch with an oath. None the less it is import-
prophets. ant to bear in mind that Paul’s purpose is not
Paul acknowledges that there were apostles primarily to set out his story with chronological
in Jerusalem before his call, but stresses that he precision. His sketch is selective, for it is designed
felt no need to defer to their authority. Instead, to rebut the claims of his opponents. Hence his
immediately after his call he went off to ‘Ara- repeated insistence (cf. vv. 17, 19) that with the
bia’, the kingdom of Nabataea south of Damas- exception of Cephas, he did not meet any of the
cus. Betz (1979: 73) notes (with references) that other Jerusalem apostles. In 19b Paul adds a fur-
recent excavations have brought to light a pros- ther exception, James the Lord’s brother who is
perous civilization with strong Hellenistic influ- almost certainly referred to here as an apostle.
ences that was at its peak by the time of Paul’s However, the Greek may mean that Paul did not
visit. Paul may have stayed in this area for up to see any apostle (apart from Cephas)—though he
two years, perhaps preaching in cities such as did see James.
Petra to Gentiles already sympathetic to Juda- In order to underline his independence of the
ism (so-called ‘God-fearers’) (so Hengel and Jerusalem authorities Paul mentions in v. 21 that
Schwemer 1997: 127). This is a plausible histor- after his short visit to Cephas he then went well
ical reconstruction, but Paul tells us much less to the north and north-west of Jerusalem, to
about his visit to Arabia than we would like to places in Syria (presumably including Antioch)
know. and in neighbouring Cilicia. Defenders of the
At the end of v. 17 Paul reveals that he returned south Galatia theory believe that Paul’s first
to Damascus following his stay in Arabia, thus visit to Galatia took place during this journey.
implying that it was in or near Damascus that he Martyn, a defender of the north Galatia theory,
experienced God’s call. Although readers of Acts believes that v. 21 tells strongly against the
are told three times and with vivid details (9:3; south Galatian theory; he notes that if Paul
22:6; 26:12) that Paul experienced God’s call near had visited the cities of (south) Galatia at this
Damascus, Paul himself tells us much less in vv. point, it would have suited his argument to
15–17, for his concerns in this letter are different. have said so (1997: 184).
He focuses on his call to be an apostle to the In vv. 22–3 Paul goes still further: at this
Gentiles as God’s initiative, and on his avoidance time he certainly was not in contact with the
of those who might have been ‘human sources’ Jerusalem authorities, for he was not known
(cf. 1:12) for his gospel. personally by the churches in Judea, including
Jerusalem. In that area stories had circulated
(1:18–24) Paul’s Story, Part II: Visit to Jerusalem about his volte-face from persecutor to pro-
When did Paul go up to Jerusalem—three years claimer, but he himself was not there, but far
after his return to Damascus, or three years after to the north. In v. 23 Paul quotes the report
his initial call? Most scholars prefer the latter, about him which had reached the Judean
though the former is not impossible. The NRSV churches and had been received with thanksgiv-
translates the key verb historēsai which refers to the ing to God (v. 24). No doubt only a summary is
purpose of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem as ‘visit’, while included, but some of the phrases seem to come
the GNB translates ‘obtain information from’. directly from the report rather than from Paul
From the context ‘visit’ is preferable; if Paul himself. For example, Paul does not refer to the
had conceded that he obtained information content of the Christian message as ‘the faith’,
from Cephas (the Aramaic form of Peter) he and he prefers the noun ‘gospel/good news’ to
would have offered a hostage to fortune. No the verb ‘proclaim good news’.
 157 galatians

(2:1–10) Paul’s Story, Part III: Conference in the requirement of circumcision be called in
Jerusalem The meeting between Paul and Bar- question or even rejected outright (2b). In v. 3
nabas and Christians in Jerusalem was one of it becomes clear that Paul and Barnabas had
the most momentous events in the develop- taken Titus with them to Jerusalem (v. 1) as a
ment of earliest Christianity. Was it intended test case. At first there is no dissension: the
to defuse a major crisis and to reconcile deep- Gentile Titus was not compelled to be circum-
seated differences? What were the main issues cised (v. 3). At this point the link between Paul’s
at stake? Although some details are unclear, the story in chs. 1 and 2 and the crisis in Galatia
main points can be set out confidently. would have become crystal clear to those who
The relationship of Paul’s account in these heard this letter read aloud in churches in Gal-
verses of a conference in Jerusalem to Acts atia many hundreds of miles from Jerusalem. In
11:29–30 and 15:1–29 has baffled scholars for chs. 1 and 2 Paul is narrating selected past events
many decades. A minority insists that the ‘apos- in his life not because he believed that his auto-
tolic council’ recorded in Acts 15 took place after biography was interesting, but because he was
Galatians was written. This would account for convinced that his story was directly relevant to
Paul’s failure to refer in ch. 2 to the ‘apostolic the disputes in Galatia. The phrase ‘compelled
decree’ (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) which, according to be circumcised’ which is used in v. 3 with
to Luke, encapsulated the decisions reached at reference to Titus, recurs in Gal 6:12 with refer-
the ‘apostolic council’. On this view the events ence to the Galatian Christians. In v. 5 Paul
recorded here are to be equated with Acts insists that the stand he took on principle in
11:29–30. However, most scholars accept that Jerusalem was ‘so that the truth of the gospel
in spite of some glaring differences, there are might always remain with you [Galatian
enough similarities between the two passages to Christians]’.
conclude that they record the same event from Paul’s fury at the ‘false believers’ who had
different perspectives. Even if Acts 15 draws on sneaked in like spies to ‘enslave us’ is not dis-
earlier sources, Luke wrote some three decades guised; it is reflected in emotive language in
after Paul wrote Galatians—and, unlike Paul, vv. 4–5 and in the tangled grammar, which the
Luke makes no claim to have been present NRSV partly unravels. Where did this attempt
himself. So Acts 15 should be used with great to thwart ‘the freedom we have in Christ Jesus’
care by the interpreter of Gal 2:1–10. take place? Some scholars posit an earlier occa-
‘After 14 years’ probably refers to Paul’s call sion in Antioch, partly on the basis of Acts 15:1,
(1:15–16) rather than his visit to Cephas (1:18–19). while others believe that the disruption took
Paul is accompanied by Barnabas who is place in Jerusalem itself. Who are the ‘false
portrayed in 2:13 as a leader in the church at believers’ who posed such a threat? Paul con-
Antioch, as he is in Acts 14:26–8. So Paul and cedes that they are ‘believers’ (‘brothers’ in the
Barnabas probably travelled to Jerusalem as Greek), but is adamant that he did not yield to
leaders of the church in Antioch, even though, their demand that Gentile Christians should be
for whatever reason, Paul does not state this circumcised. Like the agitators in Galatia, they
explicitly. Paul emphasizes that the journey are perverting the gospel of Christ (1:6–7). The
was undertaken at God’s behest, ‘in response to ‘false believers’ are probably not identical with
a revelation’ (v. 2), i.e. not as the result of the ‘the certain people from James’ referred to in
anxieties or the decision of the church in 2:12.
Antioch. In v. 6 Paul insists that the Jerusalem leaders
With whom in Jerusalem did Paul discuss his made no demands on Paul: ‘they imparted noth-
convictions concerning the gospel he was pro- ing further to me’ (REB). Here, as elsewhere
claiming to Gentiles (v. 2)? The NRSV and the in this passage, Paul is ambivalent about the
REB refer to one ‘private’ meeting with the Jerusalem leadership. He recognizes that they
leaders of the Jerusalem church who play a are the ‘acknowledged leaders’ (2:2, 6, 9) of the
prominent part in vv. 6–10. Some commenta- Jerusalem church, though he himself is unim-
tors (including Betz 1979 and Martyn 1997) con- pressed by their status, for they have no special
clude (probably correctly) that two meetings are standing in God’s eyes.
referred to in the Greek of v. 2, one with the In vv. 7–9 Paul spells out the agreement that
whole church in Jerusalem, followed by one was reached, one which in Paul’s eyes was a
with the leaders. victory, not a compromise. The Jerusalem lead-
Paul is anxious lest his fundamental convic- ers recognized that Paul had been entrusted by
tion that Gentiles should be accepted without God with the gospel ‘for the uncircumcised’, just
galatians 158

as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel ‘for unlikely to have reversed the chronology, and
the circumcised’. Most scholars now accept in 2:1–10 there is no reference to food laws, the
that Paul is referring here to a division of labour central issue at stake in Paul’s clash with Peter.
along ethnic (Jew/Gentile) rather than geo- Paul’s failure to record the outcome of his
graphical (Israel/diaspora) lines. Paul is not re- face-to-face dispute with Peter is related to his
ferring to ‘two gospels’, one for each ethnic primary concern to show that this incident has
group; the very idea would have appalled him, a direct bearing on the tensions in the Galatian
as 1:7 confirms. The recognition that God was at churches. Even though the text gives no explicit
work in making Peter ‘an apostle to the circum- indication of a change of scene from Antioch
cised’ is in stark contrast to the reference to to Galatia at v. 14, most modern translations
Peter in the account of the ‘incident at Antioch’ assume rather too readily that there is a major
which follows in 2:10–14. break at this point. However, the NRSV’s foot-
At last Paul names the leaders of the Jerusa- note is helpful, and points the reader in the
lem church: James, Cephas, and John (v. 9). They right direction: ‘Some interpreters hold that
are referred to as ‘pillars’, as in supports for a the quotation extends into the following para-
building. Agreement is sealed by giving ‘the graph.’ If so, then in 2:15–21 Paul is still address-
right hand of fellowship’, an act that had the ing Peter in Antioch—but for the benefit of the
same meaning in antiquity as it does today. ‘By troublemakers in Galatia. It is preferable to read
implication, the agreement sets up two coop- the record of the incident at Antioch as under-
erative but independent missionary efforts’ going a subtle metamorphosis in vv. 15–21 as
(Betz 1979: 100). The only request made by the Paul switches the focus of his attention from
Jerusalem leaders to Paul and Barnabas was that Antioch to Galatia.
they should remember ‘the poor’, i.e. they In v. 11 Paul does not tell the reader why Peter
(probably the Antioch church) should support came to Antioch (presumably from Jerusalem),
the Jerusalem church financially. Paul had no nor does he give the reason for the dramatic
hesitation in accepting this request. We know confrontation. Only after the bald summary is
from 1 Cor 16:1–3 that the Galatian churches given do the details emerge in vv. 12 and 13.
did make weekly collections for the Jerusalem Peter had been fully accustomed to eating with
church (cf. also Rom 15:25–6). Gentiles in the church at Antioch; he was thor-
What is left unsaid in vv. 1–10 must not be oughly at home in the mixed congregation
forgotten. The ‘false believers’ fade completely there of Jews and Gentiles. But when ‘certain
from the scene at v. 5. There is not even a hint people came from James’, Peter backtracked.
that they accepted the agreement. And if, as Presumably the visitors came at the behest of
most scholars think, Acts 15 records a different James to express the concerns of the Jerusalem
version of the discussions in Jerusalem, Paul’s church. If they were the false believers of 2:4–5,
failure to mention the ‘apostolic decree’ is surely Paul would have said so. They were not
significant: either Luke has anachronistically urging abandonment of the Jerusalem accord
added the decree to his account of the apostolic over separate missions to Jews and to Gentiles,
council, or it was such an embarrassment to but raising concerns over Peter’s regular prac-
Paul that he could not bring himself to mention tice of eating with Gentiles, a matter apparently
it here. not discussed in Jerusalem. Paul does not tell us
whether the meals in question were regular
(2:11–14) Paul’s Story, Part IV: Incident at meals, or the Lord’s supper, or both. At this
Antioch The clash between Peter and Paul time Jews and Gentiles regularly had contact
recorded in these verses is in sharp contrast to with one another, but there were differing atti-
the amicable agreement reached at Jerusalem. In tudes to table fellowship. Peter and other Jewish
the earlier parts of Paul’s story an indication of believers seem to have been welcoming Gen-
the chronology is given, but there is none here. tiles to their tables, probably on Jewish terms.
This is one of the reasons why some scholars They are likely to have been ‘accepting invita-
reverse the order of the two events narrated in tions to Gentile tables without asking too many
ch. 2: the crisis that arose in Antioch (vv. 11–14) questions (cf. 1 Cor 10:27), though presumably
was resolved by the agreement reached in Jeru- on the assumption that the Gentile believers
salem (vv. 1–10). This reconstruction avoids the would have been mindful of the basic food
difficulty that in ch. 2 Paul does not indicate the rules’ (Dunn 1993: 121).
outcome of his dispute with Peter at Antioch. The verbs in v. 12b imply that Peter began to
But in such a carefully argued letter Paul is draw back and refrain from table fellowship
 159 galatians

over a period of time. Who was applying the Paul’. That is a possible, but not a necessary
pressure, and why was Peter afraid? The NRSV reading of the text. Perhaps Paul was more
refers to ‘fear of the circumcision faction’; this concerned to press home the theological issues
phrase is usually understood to refer to Jewish at stake, as he does in the following verses, than
Christians who came from James and who were to record the outcome of a painful episode.
uneasy about what were perceived to be Anti-
och’s lax attitudes to table fellowship with Gen- (2:15–21) Works of the Law or Faith? Paul
tiles. The REB interprets the Greek quite expounds vigorously the theological issues at
differently: Peter ‘was afraid of the Jews’. The stake in his dispute with Peter. He probably
Jews may have been non-Christians. Longe- intends these verses (or at least vv. 15–18) to be
necker (1990) and others accept R. Jewett’s the- part of his reply to Peter. Paul is unlikely to be
ory that at the time of the Antioch incident a recalling some seven years later the very words
rising tide of Jewish nationalism had provoked he used; no doubt these verses incorporate
Jewish antagonism towards Jews who were some of Paul’s later reflections on the issues at
thought to be adopting lax attitudes towards stake. We do not know whether Paul formu-
association with Gentiles. Under this political lated his convictions about ‘justification by
pressure, the Jerusalem Christians were ‘trying faith’ in the light of his dispute with Peter, or
to take measures to keep Gentile Christians whether he had developed them at an earlier
from needlessly off ending Jewish sensibilities’. point.
Hence the concerns of the Jersualem church vv. 15 and 16 contain a set of programmatic
were triggered by political rather than theo- statements that are expounded and underlined
logical concerns. in the sections of Galatians that follow. In v. 15
These verses can be plausibly interpreted in Paul reminds Peter that both of them are Jews
several ways. Perhaps we have to accept that we by birth, and hence view Gentiles as outside the
do not know precisely why Peter acted in a way law and therefore as sinners. Here Paul is echo-
that led Paul to charge him with hypocrisy twice ing traditional views; perhaps he is even echo-
over in v. 13. What is clear is that Peter did not ing the language used by the ‘certain people
act impulsively and without support from other from James’ (v. 12). In the next verse Paul expl-
Jewish Christians. Even Barnabas, Paul’s closest ains that v. 15 is by no means the end of the
colleague (2:2, 9) ‘was led astray’. It was Paul matter! In the lengthy v. 16 the phrase ‘works of
who was isolated, hence the emotive language the law’ is used three times and contrasted
(and perhaps even the lack of clarity) in vv. 11–14. sharply with ‘faith’. What does the former
Paul’s own position becomes clear in v. 14. He phrase refer to? Paul is refuting the claim
believes that Peter (and Barnabas and all the made by the agitators in Galatia (and implicitly
other Jewish Christians) were ‘not acting con- by Peter when he ‘compel[led] the Gentiles to
sistently with the truth of the gospel’ when they live like Jews’, v. 14) that one’s standing before
compelled Gentiles to live like Jews, i.e. to share God is dependent on carrying out the require-
table fellowship with Gentiles only when meals ments of the Mosaic law. ‘Works of the law’ is
had been prepared in accordance with Jewish taken by some scholars to refer to the Jewish
dietary laws. (‘Living like Jews’ did not necessar- ‘identity markers’ of sabbath, circumcision, and
ily include circumcision; there is no indication dietary laws, rather than to the Mosaic law per se,
that Peter was insisting that Gentile believers but the negative comments on the law that
should be circumcised.) For Paul, a fundamental follow in ch. 3 make this unlikely.
principle was at stake: Gentiles were being com- Paul insists that a person is ‘reckoned as
pelled to live like Jews in order to be accepted as righteous’ by God (NRSV n.) on the basis of
members of the Antioch church. Hence Paul ‘faith in Christ’. The meaning of the latter phrase
rounded on Peter in front of all those lined up is keenly discussed. It has traditionally been
against him. It is often pointed out that Paul’s taken by translators and commentators to
attack on Peter is at odds with his own exhort- refer to the believer’s faith in Christ, but a grow-
ation in 6:1 to use a ‘spirit of gentleness’ when a ing number of scholars insist that Paul is refer-
fellow Christian is ‘detected in transgression’. ring to Christ’s own faithfulness to God, as in
Paul says nothing about Peter’s response, and the NRSV footnote. The future tense ‘will be
nothing about the outcome of the confronta- justified’ at the end of v. 16 is important; Paul
tion. Martyn (1997: 240), concludes that ‘the is referring to the believer’s ultimate standing
Antioch incident ended in political defeat for before God.
galatians 160

Once again Paul includes Peter with his use of the ‘works of the law’, v. 16) but through faith
‘we’ / ‘our’ in v. 17. Paul seems to be referring to in Christ (v. 16) whose death was not in vain
the stand he and Peter took before Peter back- (v. 21c) but was an act of self-giving love for us
tracked: they had sought to base their standing (v. 20c).
before God solely on the basis of faith—and in
so doing they had been dubbed ‘sinners’ by some.
Paul’s Central Arguments (3:1–5:1)
Paul vigorously refutes this criticism, and espe-
cially the inference that Christ has become a (3:1–5) How Did You Receive the Spirit? Paul
servant of sin. In v. 18 Paul refers directly to continues the argument of the preceding verses
the incident at Antioch: he would show himself and asks pointedly whether the Galatians rec-
to be a transgressor if he were to backtrack (as eived the Spirit by ‘works of the law’ or by
Peter did) and ‘rebuild the walls of the Law that I ‘believing what you heard’ (v. 2). Attention is
have torn down’ (Martyn 1997: 256). now focused directly on the Galatians who are
In vv. 19 and 20 Paul’s statements about the roundly rebuked for the second time (cf. 1:6–19).
Christian life are positive: both the incident at Peter and the incident at Antioch are left far
Antioch and the crisis in Galatia slip into the behind as Paul grapples vigorously with the
background. Although Paul repeatedly refers to issues at stake in the crisis in the Galatian
himself in the first person singular, he is speak- churches. At nearly all the key points in ch. 3
ing on behalf of all Christian believers. ‘Dying to Paul’s argument is grounded on Scripture, but
the law’ (v. 19) means being separated radically in this opening section Paul’s appeal is to the
from it. For Paul ‘dying to the law’ takes place Galatians’ initial reception and continuing ex-
through identification with Christ’s own cruci- perience of the Spirit. The Galatian Christians
fixion and death (v. 19c). When this happens the are upbraided twice for their foolishness (vv. 1, 3);
believer’s life is no longer self-centred, but it is not their lack of intelligence that riles Paul,
Christ-centred (v. 20). but their lack of discernment. Paul draws on
The phrase ‘Christ who lives in me’ is rarer in contemporary patterns of polemical argument
Paul than reference to the Spirit who indwells in suggesting that the Galatians have been
the believer. Both phrases are less common ‘bewitched’ by the agitators. To use a modern-
than Paul’s references to Christian experience day equivalent, they have had the wool pulled
as ‘in Christ’ (e.g. 5:6), ‘in him’, ‘in the Lord’, or over their eyes. In fact Paul reminds the Gal-
‘in the Spirit’ (e.g. 5:25). In v. 20b the NRSV’s ‘in atians that he used visual imagery in his initial
the flesh’ is misleading, especially in view of preaching: Jesus Christ was ‘publicly exhibited
Paul’s strongly negative use of ‘the flesh’ in 3:3 as crucified’. As in 1 Cor 1:23; 2:2, Paul contrasts
and 5:13, 16–22. Here ‘flesh’ is neutral; it refers to his preaching of the crucified Christ with the
the believer’s ‘present mortal life’ (REB). rhetorical sophistry of his opponents.
Paul does not often refer to Christ as ‘Son’ or v. 3 is particularly important for Paul’s argu-
‘Son of God’. When he does so, it is usually in a ment. The Galatians have received the Spirit as
particularly rich theological context, as in Gal the basis of their Christian experience, and they
1:16, 2: 20c, and 4:4–6. Both the latter passages ought to continue in the Spirit (cf. 5:25). Instead,
refer to the Son’s self-giving ‘for us’, ‘for our they are ‘now ending with the flesh’. Paul
redemption’, a note first sounded in Galatians believes that some of the Galatians have suc-
in the opening greeting at 1:4. Once again there cumbed (and others may follow) to the agita-
is a division of opinion over ‘faith’. Does Paul tors’ demands that circumcision is the mark of
refer to the believer’s faith in the Son of God, or Christian identity. Paul returns to this topic
to the Son’s own faith (NRSV f.) or faithfulness? more fully at 5:2–12; 6:12–13. Paul underlines
v. 21 is a summary of the whole of vv. 15–21; and extends his central point in this section by
in particular it underlines some of the key asking a rhetorical question in v. 5 to which he
points of v. 16. Paul is probably responding expects a resounding ‘no’ as an answer. The
directly to the claims of the agitators; the inci- tense of the verbs is important: God continues
dent at Antioch has now faded from view. The to sustain the Galatians with the Spirit; God
agitators have claimed (or perhaps Paul thinks continues to ‘work miracles’ among them. We
they have claimed) that Paul has wrenched do not know what form the miracles took,
asunder God’s grace and the law. For Paul a but Paul’s main point is clear: God’s Spirit con-
person is reckoned as righteous in God’s sight tinues to be experienced powerfully in the
not through the law (synonymous in v. 20 with Galatian churches. For Paul, one’s standing
 161 galatians

before God (past, present, and future) is not on side of the coin is expressed positively in
the basis of carrying out the requirements of vv. 13–14: ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse
the law. of the law . . . so that we might receive the prom-
ise of the Spirit through faith.’ This section ends
(3:6–14) Abraham Believed God In v. 6 Abra- where it began (vv. 2–5) with a reference to the
ham is introduced for the first time; he remains importance of God’s bestowal of the Spirit. But
on stage until 5:1, though in some sections he what does ‘Christ became a curse for us’ mean
lurks in the background. Given the prominence (v. 13)? ‘The thought is of Jesus acting in a
of Abraham in numerous early Jewish writings, representative capacity . . . the law printing its
it is not surprising that Paul also should appeal curse on Jesus, as it were, so that in his death
to parts of the story of Abraham. Paul takes his the force of the curse was exhausted, and those
listeners immediately to Gen 15:6 in order to held under its power were liberated’ (Dunn
argue that ‘those who believe’ (including Gen- 1993: 177, who rightly refers to 2 Cor 5:21 as an
tiles) (vv. 7–8) are descendants of Abraham. important parallel).
Paul is probably refuting the agitators’ ver-
sion of traditions about Abraham. They are (3:15–29) Abraham’s Offspring Paul seems to
likely to have appealed to the reference to sense that the argument of the previous verses
Abraham’s meritorious deeds in Gen 14 and to has been complex. So he pauses, and in contrast
Abraham’s acceptance of circumcision in Gen to 3:1, addresses the Galatians in endearing
17:4–14 as the basis of his acceptance by God. terms in order to secure their attention. He
Paul, however, focuses solely on Gen 15:6 with then provides an illustration from everyday
its reference to Abraham’s faith in God as the life: one cannot annul or add to a ratified will
basis of his standing before God. He develops (by means of a codicil). Paul uses a form of
his argument from Scripture in v. 8, claiming argument found in other Jewish writers of the
that through Scripture (in phrases from Gen 12:3 time: in order to make a particular point he
and 18:18) God ‘declared the gospel beforehand rejects the accepted meaning of Gen 17:8 as a
to Abraham’. God’s justification of the Gentiles reference to the promises given to Abraham
by faith and his bestowal of his grace, peace, and the generations of his descendants. He
and favour upon them (i.e. his blessing of them, takes ‘offspring’ (‘seed’ in the Greek) in its literal
vv. 8 and 9) is nothing new: it is anchored sense in the singular to refer to one person,
in Scripture, and it was always part of God’s Christ. So God’s promises were given only to
purposes. Abraham and to Christ; in vv. 26–9 Paul will
It is difficult to be certain about Paul’s line of insist that those who belong to Christ are Abra-
argument in vv. 10–12. He claims that reliance ham’s offspring, not Abraham’s physical, i.e.
on observance of the law brings a curse, not a ethnic, descendants.
blessing, and quotes Deut 27:26 in support. In v. 17 Paul returns to his illustration of v. 15,
Why does the law bring a curse? Paul seems to but he now uses the term diathēkē, which can
be implying that it is impossible to carry out the mean either ‘will’ or ‘covenant’ to refer to God’s
requirements of the law: since those who try to covenant with Abraham. The law came into
do so fail to keep the law completely, they are existence 430 years after God’s covenant-promise
accursed. There is a solemn warning to the to Abraham. There is no hint here that the law
Galatians here: beware of the law’s siren voice, was God-given; indeed Paul’s point is that as the
for it brings a curse, not a blessing. If this is law came later than the covenant ratified by
Paul’s main point in v. 10, then vv. 11 and 12 God, it could neither nullify nor modify the
make a rather different point: they are con- promise to Abraham. The latter point is only
cerned once again with the contrast between implicit: in v. 15 Paul has explained that one
faith and keeping the law as the basis of one’s cannot add a codicil to a will. The agitators in
standing before God. In v. 11, Hab 2:4 underpins Galatia may well have argued along totally
Paul’s argument concerning faith; in v. 12, Lev different lines: Gen 17 confirms that Abraham
18:5 is cited to confirm that the law has to do observed the law even before it was given by
with carrying out the requirements of the law God to Moses at Sinai. Paul presses home his
and living by them. Living by faith (v. 11) leaves argument in v. 18. ‘The law’ and ‘the promise’
no room for living by the requirements of the are set in antithetical opposition: ‘the inherit-
law (v. 12). Paul’s comments on the law in ance’ given to Abraham comes via the latter,
vv. 10–12 are negative and harsh. The other not the former. What is ‘the inheritance’ granted
galatians 162

by God? It ‘is the church-creating Spirit of that case, Paul readily admits, God’s ‘rightwis-
Christ’ (Martyn 1997: 343). ing’ activity (‘righteousness’) on our behalf
The obvious question now has to be faced would be on the basis of the law. But since the
(v. 19). If the law came into existence much later law did not bring life, righteousness does not
than the promise to Abraham, and is therefore come as the result of keeping the law. Once
secondary, why was it given at all? Answer: it again the careful listener will recall 2:16, where
was added as a supplement to the promises this theme rings out for the first time. vv. 22 and
(this is the force of the verb used) ‘because of 23 are partly similar: both use the verb ‘imp-
transgressions’, a phrase which has evoked rison’, and both conclude with a reference to
much comment. Was the law added to bring faith. But Paul does not simply repeat himself.
about a knowledge of transgressions, or even to In v. 22 he refers to the way Scripture has
provide some sort of remedy for them? While imprisoned the whole of humanity, indeed the
the Greek can be construed in this way, in view whole of creation (‘all things’) under the power
of the negative comments on the law that follow, of sin. ‘Scripture’ probably refers to Deut 27:26
this interpretation is unlikely. Paul probably which Paul cited in 3:11; ‘under the power of sin’
states that the law was given ‘to cause or increase is synonymous with ‘under a curse’ in 3:11a. This
transgressions’. The next phrase ‘until the off- negative role played by the law had a positive
spring would come’ confirms that the law’s role outcome: so that the promise might be given to
is limited to the period between Moses and Christ. those who believe. In v. 23 Paul uses the pro-
In nearly all strands of Jewish thought, and noun ‘we’ for the first time since 3:13. The verses
presumably in the view of the agitators, the law that follow confirm that Paul has in mind the
had been given by God permanently. Galatian Christians as well as himself. ‘We’ were
The law’s secondary role is underlined by the imprisoned by the law; in the preceding verse
claim that it was ‘promulgated through angels’ sin plays this role. But the dark night did not last
(v. 19d). The NRSV’s ‘ordained through angels’ forever, with God’s disclosure of Christ (cf. 1:12,
implies a more positive sense than the context 16) faith was revealed.
allows. The first listeners were bound to notice Paul clarifies his main point with an illustra-
the absence of explicit reference to the involve- tion in vv. 24–5. The law was our paidagōgos
ment of God in the giving of the law by God. until Christ came, but with the coming of faith
The silence is telling, especially in view of the we are no longer under a paidagōgos. In many
way God’s involvement in the giving of the families in the Graeco-Roman world the paida-
promise to Abraham is underlined in the Greek gōgos, often a slave, played an important part in
by the placing of ‘God’ at the end of v. 18. Paul caring for children. Sometimes this person
concedes that a mediator was involved in the acted primarily as a teacher (hence ‘pedagogue’),
promulgation of the law (v. 19d). The statement sometimes as a disciplinarian. What would this
that follows (v. 20) is one of the most puzzling metaphor have meant to the listeners in Galatia
in Paul’s letters, but its gist is clear. A mediator, when they first heard Paul’s letter read aloud?
Moses, was involved. But since God is one and The context confirms that Paul had a negative
needs no mediator between himself and his connotation in mind: the law, like the paidagō-
people, God was not involved at Mt Sinai! gos, provided unpleasant restraint for a limited
This is indeed a radical rejection of Jewish period—until Christ came.
views about the giving of the law, but it is In v. 26 and in the grand finale to this section
in line with the preceding and the following in v. 29 Paul brings discussion of who are true
comments about the role of the law. ‘children of Abraham’ back onto the agenda (cf.
An obvious objection is faced squarely in the 3:16–19). In v. 26 those who are ‘in Christ Jesus’
verses which follow (cf. 3:19). In the light of the are God’s children, while in v. 29 those who
negative comments about the law that have ‘belong to Christ’ are Abraham’s offspring; the
been made in the preceding verses, some listen- expressions are synonymous. By now the lis-
ers might have concluded that the law and the tener will be well aware that one’s standing
promise were fundamentally opposed to one before God is not grounded on law observance,
another (v. 21a). Paul adamantly resists this con- but on faith. vv. 27–8 interrupt the argument of
clusion, and then proceeds to spell out what vv. 26 and 29 with a reference to baptism. Some
continuing function the law has (vv. 22–5). of the phrases in these verses are found else-
First of all the hypothetical possibility that the where in early Christian writings (see especially
law might have brought life is considered. In 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:11); only the first pairing in
 163 galatians

v. 28, ‘Jew or Greek’, is relevant to the immediate of a woman’ does not refer to the virginal con-
context. Hence several scholars conclude that ception of Jesus, but to his birth as a human
Paul is here citing an early baptismal liturgy. being. ‘Born under the law’ may mean no more
The person who is about to be baptized removes than ‘born as a Jew’, but in view of all the
clothing, symbolizing the old order, and in preceding negative statements about the law,
baptism is ‘clothed with Christ’ (v. 27). In bap- ‘under the law’ probably includes a negative
tism all the social distinctions that lay at the connotation.
heart of the society of the day are abolished. The precise background to Paul’s reference to
‘Religious, social, and sexual pairs of opposites believers’ ‘adoption as children’ (v. 5) has been
are not replaced by equality, but rather by a keenly debated. Is this phrase to be understood
newly created unity’ in Christ Jesus (Martyn in the light of Graeco-Roman practices con-
1997: 377). Whether this radical vision was put cerning the adoption of children? Or is there
fully into practice by Paul himself, and in the an OT/Jewish background? If the latter, then, as
churches he founded, is another question. Scott (1992) has argued, Paul may have in mind
an analogy with God’s adoption/redemption of
(4:1–7) The Sending of the Son As at 3:15, Paul Israel from slavery in Egypt: believers were
opens this section with an illustration from redeemed to adoption as sons of God from
daily life (vv. 1–2). In this case he modifies the slavery under the ‘elemental spirits of the
illustration to suit his present purposes. The world’ (GAL 4:3). v. 4 refers to God’s sending of
heir to an estate is in fact in a better position his Son; in v. 6 God ‘has sent the Spirit of his
than a slave, for, unlike a slave, he knows that Son’: for Paul, ‘Christ/Son’ and ‘Spirit’ are closely
one day he will inherit his father’s property. The related and in some passages almost synonym-
date at which the son received his inheritance ous. In v. 6 it is the Spirit who cries out to God
was probably fixed by law, rather than by an on behalf of the believer and calls God, ‘Abba’,
individual father. Nonetheless Paul’s main points Father. The retention of the Aramaic word
in vv. 3–4 are well supported by the illustration. ‘Abba’ in a letter to Greek-speaking Christians
While waiting to receive the inheritance is striking; it almost certainly reflects Jesus’ own
(cf. 3:18), ‘we were enslaved’. But in God’s own preferred way of referring to God (Mk 14:36;
time, freedom was made possible through Lk 11:2).
the sending of his Son (vv. 3–4). Paul takes the The argument of vv. 1–7 is brought to a cli-
‘enslavement’ theme further in vv. 8–9: the max in v. 7: the believer’s adoption as a child of
Galatians, having been freed from slavery, now God means (negatively) release from enslave-
want to be enslaved all over again. ment to the ‘elemental spirits of the world’ and
What are the ‘elemental spirits of the world’ (positively) acceptance as an heir to God’s
(v. 3; cf. 4:8–9) which enslaved believers before promises to Abraham.
their redemption, and which now attract the
Galatians? The phrase probably refers to the (4:8–11) Why Do You Want to be Enslaved
basic materials or principles that lie at the heart Again? Paul once again speaks directly and
of the cosmos. For a Jew, the law fulfilled that forcefully to the Galatian Christians (cf. 3:1–5),
function. In any case, the context (cf. especially and develops several of the themes of 4:1–7
4:5, 10) strongly suggests that Paul includes further. Before they became Christians, Gal-
the law as an essential part of the ‘elemental atians were enslaved to ‘beings that by nature
spirits’. are not gods’, i.e. to idols (cf. 1 Cor 8:5; 12.2).
vv. 4–5 contain one of Paul’s richest Christo- Now as believers they have come to know, i.e.
logical statements. Several scholars have to experience, God’s Spirit (cf. 3:1–5; 4:6). Paul
claimed that it is a pre-Pauline confessional immediately modifies this statement in v. 9b
formula, partly because some phrases are not by emphasizing yet again God’s initiative in
common elsewhere in Paul’s writings, and redemption from enslavement to ‘the weak
partly because of its similarity to ‘sending for- and beggarly elemental spirits’ (GAL 4:3): ‘you
mulae’ in Rom 8:3; Jn 3:17; 1 Jn 4:9 (and cf. Mk have come . . . to be known by God’.
12:6). Here Paul develops the theme of God’s In v. 10 the link between the elemental spirits
sending of the prophets to Israel: Jesus as and the law becomes explicit. What are the
God’s Son is sent to redeem those ‘under the special ‘days, and months, and seasons, and
law’, i.e. Jews, so that ‘we’, all who are ‘in Christ years’ that the Galatians now want to observe
Jesus’ (cf. 3:26–9) might receive adoption. ‘Born closely, probably under the influence of the
galatians 164

agitators? Although v. 9c, ‘you want to be ensl- planned. The reference to Paul’s ‘first’ proclam-
aved’ may suggest that the Galatians have not ation of the gospel may imply a second visit, but
yet succumbed to meticulous observance of the surely Paul would have referred to any second
Jewish calendar, v. 10 implies that they have visit in this extended discussion of his relation-
done so. There is general agreement that Paul ship with the Galatians. Paul’s illness put the
is referring to observance of the Jewish sabbath Galatian Christians ‘to the test’ (v. 14a), probably
and festivals. Observance of ‘months’ probably because their pre-Christian beliefs would have
refers to observance of the new moon which tempted them to draw the inference that Paul’s
marked the beginning of each month; precisely illness was the result of demon possession. In
what is meant by ‘years’ is uncertain. Martyn fact, the welcome Paul originally received could
correctly notes that Paul’s argument here is not hardly have been more enthusiastic: he was wel-
even partly anti-Jewish (1997: 417–18): God’s comed as ‘an angel of God’, as a representative of
new creation in Christ (cf. 6:15) marks the end Christ Jesus himself. The latter phrase parallels
of the distinction between ‘holy times’ and ‘pro- the similar idea in Matt 10:40, where Jesus
fane times’ that is basic to all peoples—one of assures his disciples that whoever welcomes
the pattern of ‘elemental pairs of opposites’ them, welcomes Jesus himself. vv. 15–16 express
to which the Galatians were enslaved (3:28; the breakdown of Paul’s warm relationship with
4:3, 8–9). the Galatians. Although v. 15b is often taken to
imply that Paul’s illness was ophthalmic, it may
(4:12–20) Paul’s Perplexity Longenecker (1990: be no more than a vivid expression of the Gal-
184–7), has argued that v. 12 marks the opening of atians’ initial willingness to do almost anything
the final major section of the letter, the transition in their support of Paul. v. 16 is taken as a rhet-
from the ‘rebuke’ section (3:1–4:11) to the ‘request’ orical question in NRSV and some other trans-
section (4:12–6:10). However, the link between lations, but the Greek can equally well be
the emotional personal appeals of v. 11 and the construed as an indignant expression of Paul’s
entreaties in vv. 12 and 19–20 makes it preferable frustration at the Galatians’ about turn. In vv. 17–
to align 4:12–20 closely with the preceding verses. 18 the agitators are referred to explicitly, but as
In v. 12 Paul opens this section with a term of elsewhere, they are not named (cf. 1:7). The
endearment, ‘friends’, which he has not used NRSV’s ‘they make much of you . . . so that you
since 3:15; in v. 19 he refers to the Galatians as may make much of them’ is too bland: the REB’s
his ‘little children’. Although vv. 12–20 have been double reference to ‘lavishing attention’ is pref-
dubbed an erratic and emotional aside, these erable. Paul even claims that the agitators want
verses make explicit Paul’s passionate concern to ‘exclude you’, i.e. to drive a wedge between
for the Galatians, a concern that begins at 1:6 Paul himself and the Galatians. The first half of
with Paul’s expression of astonishment at the v. 18 is probably an aphorism or proverb which
Galatians’ behaviour. Paul expands in order to press home his point:
Paul’s opening plea, ‘become as I am’, recalls Paul had hoped that his absence from the Gal-
the earlier autobiographical sections of the let- atian churches would not impair his relationship
ter, from 1:11 to 2:14 (or even 2:18). As in several with them.
other passages in his letters (e.g. 1 Cor 4:16–17; 1 The poignant expression in v. 19 of Paul’s
Thess 1:6; Phil 4:9), Paul refers to his own exa- perplexity and pain has no close parallel in his
mple as a model of Christian discipleship. To other letters: Paul likens himself to a pregnant
modern readers this smacks of bragging, but it mother ‘in the pain of childbirth’. His concern
was a conventional mode of instruction used by for the Galatians could not have been expressed
philosopher-teachers in Paul’s day. The phrase more powerfully. Paul probably continues with
‘I . . . have become as you’ is an expression of the imagery of pregnancy in the final clause
Paul’s friendship and solidarity with the Gal- where he speaks of his hope that Christ will be
atians. In spite of the pain the Galatians have ‘formed’, i.e. like an embryo or foetus, among
caused Paul, he does not consider that he him- the Galatians. In v. 20 Paul concludes this sec-
self has been wronged (v. 12c); the implication is tion with his wish to be present personally with
that they have wronged God or Christ. the Galatians in the hope that their warm rela-
The Galatians know more about Paul’s illness tionship might be restored. Paul knows that his
than we do (v. 13)! Presumably an illness led to letter will have to substitute for his presence.
Paul’s initial visit to the Galatian churches—or There is no confident expectation here (or else-
perhaps it detained him there longer than where) that this letter will be more effective
 165 galatians

than the agitators who are still personally are ‘two covenants’ (v. 24) even though Gen
present in the Galatian churches. 17:21 refers to only one covenant, the one that
God promises to establish with Isaac, whom
(4:21–5:1) The Hagar and Sarah Allegory Sarah will bear to Abraham. In fact Paul does
There is no agreement on the reason for the not refer explicitly to the Sarah covenant, and
inclusion of these verses at this point in the does not even name her. Paul focuses on Hagar,
letter. Some scholars suggest that they are an who is said to come from Mount Sinai, a detail
afterthought, or have even been displaced from not mentioned in Genesis. Paul’s further com-
elsewhere. Others link them to the exhortation ment about Hagar in v. 25 led to several
of the final main section of the letter. The trad- attempts by scribes to clarify his point. The
itional and preferable view is to take them as NRSV provides the more difficult and therefore
Paul’s striking final argument in his sustained probably original reading; a note in the NRSV
exposition that starts at 3:1. provides an equally well-attested reading, ‘For
Right up until v. 21b Paul speaks negatively Sinai is a mountain in Arabia.’
about the law—32 times in all; in every case he The verb sustoixeō ‘corresponds to’ in v. 25 is
has the law of Moses in mind. It is no exagger- the key to these verses. The verb was used to
ation to claim that from 2:16 to v. 21a Paul’s view refer to soldiers standing in the same line; it
of the law is ‘consistently malignant’ (Martyn came to refer to the correspondence of categor-
1997: 37). In v. 21b, however, Paul’s tone changes ies in lists. Paul lines up in the same column, as
dramatically: nomos (law) is used positively for the it were, Hagar, Mount Sinai, children being born
first time in this letter. In this verse Paul speaks (even now) into slavery, the present Jerusalem
with heavy irony: you Galatians who desire ‘to be who is in slavery with her children (vv. 24–5). In
subject to the law’, listen to what the law really the other column Paul places the free woman
says, for it does have positive things to say. This (the unnamed Sarah), the Jerusalem above who
verse must have focused the minds of the Gal- is free, and who is our mother (v. 26). Paul does
atians sharply on Paul’s central concern: heard not take pains to balance the two columns
aright, the law bears witness to the gospel, as in precisely, for his main interest is in the contrast
the allegory of Hagar and Sarah that follows. between two ‘Jerusalems’.
In vv. 22 and 23 Paul summarizes parts of the Earlier in his letter Paul has been at pains to
Hagar–Sarah traditions from Gen 16–21. In v. 22 stress his independence from the Jerusalem
the reference to ‘a slave woman’ and ‘a free Christian leaders (1:18–20); in 25b a further step
woman’ echo the language (but not the is taken: the church of Jerusalem to whose auth-
thought) of 3:28, and especially the opening ority the agitators appealed ‘is in slavery with
sections of ch. 4. In v. 23 a contrast is drawn her children’. Paul’s polemic could hardly be
between the child ‘born according to the flesh’, more acute. In stark contrast stands ‘the Jerusa-
i.e. conceived naturally, and the child born lem above, our mother’; here Paul draws on a
‘through the promise’, i.e. following God’s theme found in several OT passages (e.g. Ps 87;
promise to Abraham that his aged and barren Isa 50:1; 66:7–11) and in Jewish writings (e.g. 4
wife Sarah would bear him a son. Paul’s sum- Ezra 10:25–57). The phrase ‘our mother’ is surely
mary is terse: neither the mothers nor the chil- intended to include both Jewish and Gentile
dren are named. Barrett (1982: 161) has argued Christians. In v. 27 Paul appeals to Scripture
convincingly that Paul is responding to the agi- (‘it is written’) to sustain his point. The preced-
tators’ interpretation of the Hagar–Sarah tradi- ing verses make it clear that Paul interprets Isa
tions. ‘The wording implies that the story is 54:1 as a reference to Sarah: her barrenness and
already before the Galatians; they will know desolation will be reversed, for she will bear
that the slave is Hagar, the free woman Sarah’. more children than ‘the one who is married’,
Paul explains that this is an allegory, a form of i.e. Hagar.
interpretation in which individuals and key det- In v. 28 Paul’s earlier frustration with the
ails in a narrative all represent someone or Galatians 4:19–21) gives way once again to ende-
something else. Allegorical interpretation was arment, ‘my friends, you are children of the
used by Philo of Alexandria, a slightly earlier promise, like Isaac’, who is now named for
contemporary of Paul’s, as well as by some the first time. The contrast between Isaac and
rabbis. Philo’s allegories were more elaborate Ishmael (not named) becomes even sharper in
and less related to the original context than v. 29. Paul draws attention to Ishmael’s perse-
Paul’s. Paul states boldly that the two women cution of Isaac, a tradition not found in the OT
galatians 166

itself, though several Jewish sources do mention are on the point of succumbing to the agitators’
an argument between the two. A parallel is insistence that they should be circumcised if
drawn with the agitators’ ‘persecution’ of the they wish to become true children of Abraham;
Galatian Christians: ‘so it is now also’. v. 29 v. 3 implies that some have already done so.
sets out a further vivid contrast: whereas Ish- Paul is adamant that two corollaries follow:
mael and the agitators were ‘according to the Christ will benefit them no more, and they will
flesh’, Isaac and the Galatians were born be obliged to keep the whole law of Moses.
‘according to the Spirit’. The Galatians’ experi- Perhaps the agitators had not been frank about
ence of the Spirit has been prominent in several the latter point. There is plenty of evidence to
earlier passages (3:1–5, 14; 4:6); the contrast confirm that Paul is not misrepresenting Jewish
between flesh and Spirit will be developed teaching in his insistence that the Galatians
further in 5:5, 16–26. cannot pick and choose which parts of the law
Paul relentlessly pursues his case against the they will observe.
agitators with a further citation of Scripture in vv. 4 and 5 summarize many of Paul’s key
v. 30, where Gen 21:10 is adapted slightly to fit points: most of the phrases occur in 2:15–21,
the present context. The argument reaches its Paul’s opening exposition of the chasm between
climax in v. 31. By now the listeners in the being justified by the law and living by faith,
Galatian churches should have been able to through the Spirit. ‘Hope’ is not used elsewhere
draw the conclusion themselves: they are chil- in this letter, though the general theme of wait-
dren of the free woman, Sarah, and so are the ing for future salvation is prominent. In v. 6
true children of Abraham. The strong language Paul quotes a formula that he himself has prob-
of the citation, ‘Drive out the slave and her ably coined. The first half, ‘neither circumcision
child’, should not be read as an attack on Juda- nor uncircumcision counts for anything’, is
ism: Paul’s attention is focused sharply on the repeated almost verbatim in 6:15 and in 1 Cor
agitators and their claims. 7:19, though in each case the positive statement
Gal 5:1 has baffled commentators in ancient that follows is expressed differently. In 6b faith
as well as modern times. There are two related and love are related more closely than else-
difficulties. Although the Greek of v. 1a is so where in Paul’s letters. ‘Faith working through
awkward that early scribes made several atte- love’ rules out any suggestion that Paul’s ethical
mpts to tidy it up, there is now general agree- teaching has no moral demands.
ment that the NRSV and similar translations are vv. 7–12 are linked together more loosely
appropriate. Opinion is still keenly divided, than vv. 2–6. Here Paul rattles off several differ-
however, on the relationship of v. 1 to its con- ent images, though they are all related to the
text. NRSV, REB, and many other translators overall argument. vv. 7 and 8 recall Paul’s open-
and commentators appeal to the contrast ing appeal in 1:6–9. The reference to Christian
between slavery and freedom as an obvious living as a running race echoes 2:2. The ques-
link to the preceding verses: v. 1 is taken as a tion, ‘who prevented you?’ probably also refers
ringing conclusion to the Hagar–Sarah allegory. to running races: Who cut in on you, or who
Others, including NIV, see it as the opening of a side-tracked you? Since God (‘the one who calls
new section in which Paul turns to exhortation, you’) is in no way responsible for this, the agi-
and note the link with 5:13. Still others take it tators are responsible (v. 8). They are likened in
as a short independent paragraph that acts as v. 9 to a little yeast which leavens the whole
a bridge between the allegory and the new batch of dough, a well-known image in anti-
themes of chs. 5 and 6. On balance, the NRSV’s quity for the power of evil. v. 10b is taken by
punctuation is to be preferred. Martyn (1997: 475), as a reference to the leader of
the agitators, ‘the man who is disturbing your
minds’. This is not impossible, but the NRSV’s
Exhortations (5:2–6:10) ‘whoever it is that is confusing you’ is prefer-
(5:2–12) Neither Circumcision nor Uncircum- able; as in 1:7, the reference is general. Why does
cision Paul opens this section with a solemn Paul claim in v. 11 that he is still being perse-
appeal to the Galatians: ‘Mark my words’ (REB). cuted? And when did Paul ever ‘preach circum-
In these verses with their repeated references to cision’? This verse is one of the most puzzling in
circumcision, the central issue at stake in Paul’s this letter. Elsewhere in his letters (e.g. 1 Thess
dispute with the agitators is brought out into 2:16; 2 Cor 11:23–9) Paul mentions the persecu-
the open. v. 2 implies that some of the Galatians tion he received at the hands of his non-Christian
 167 galatians

opponents, but that is not in view here. In 4:29 law has consistently been referred to negatively.
Paul refers to the agitators as ‘persecutors’, and The NRSV’s ‘the whole law is summed up’ is
it is their actions which are referred to again misleading, for the verb means ‘fulfil’. What
here. They seem to have claimed mischievously then is intended by ‘fulfilling the whole law’?
or mistakenly that at some stage following his Barclay’s comment is apt: it describes ‘the total
call to proclaim Christ to the Gentiles (1:15–16), realization of God’s will in line with the
Paul did ‘preach circumcision’. How or why eschatological fulness of time in the coming of
they gained that information, we do not know. Christ’ (1988: 40). Paul uses withering sarcasm in
Perhaps they had received a false rumour con- v. 15 to denounce in-fighting in the Galatian
cerning the circumcision of Titus (2:3). Paul’s churches. This may perhaps have been sparked
logic is clear: the agitators still claim that he is off by differing attitudes to the agitators’ claims,
‘preaching circumcision’. If that were the case, but we cannot be sure.
Paul insists, then the agitators’ persecution of ‘Living by the Spirit’ and ‘gratifying the desi-
him would have ceased. But since it has not res of the flesh’ are set in opposition to one
ceased, it must be based on misinformation. another in v. 16 which acts as a heading to vv.
Paul is so angry with the agitators that in v. 12 17–24. The bald statement of v. 16 is expounded
he makes ‘the crudest and rudest of all his extant in v. 17: the two ways of living are ‘at war with
statements’ (Longenecker 1990: 234). Attempts one another’ (Martyn 1997: 493). The final clause
to soften Paul’s plain speaking, either by of v. 17 has long baffled exegetes. A plausible
euphemisms or by interpreting these hash interpretation envisages that the battle between
words figuratively as ‘let them excommunicate ‘Spirit’ and ‘flesh’ frustrates the wishes of the
themselves’, are unconvincing. believer. In v. 18 being ‘led by the Spirit’ is con-
trasted with being ‘subject to the law’, themes
(5:13–26) Living by the Spirit Paul now turns prominent in several passages earlier in the
to general exhortations which are not directly letter (e.g. 2:16; 3:1–5; 4:6–7). In vv. 19–21 Paul
related to the crisis in Galatia, though there are sets out a list of ‘the works of the flesh’ (NRSV)
numerous linguistic links with the preceding or ‘the behaviour that belongs to the unspiritual
sections. This is clearly the case in v. 13: its nature’ (REB). In vv. 22–3 there is a list of the
ringing reference to God’s call to freedom is in virtues that are the fruit of the Spirit. Lists of
contrast to the ‘yoke of slavery’ the agitators are virtues and vices were well known in the Hel-
imposing (cf. 5:1). As in 5:6b, Paul is aware that lenistic world; there are partial parallels in Jew-
unbridled freedom can lead to antinomianism; ish ‘two ways’ traditions. While there are
hence Paul’s insistence on loving commitment numerous lists of vices in the NT writings,
to one another which is as strong a bond as there is no comparable juxtaposition of sub-
slavery. stantial lists of virtues and vices; perhaps the
In v. 13 Paul uses the word ‘flesh’ (sarx), one closest NT parallel is Jas 3:13–17. Although some
of the most problematic words for the trans- translations list the vices of vv. 19–21 in groups,
lator of his letters. Earlier in Galatians ‘flesh’ is NRSV correctly treats them as a random list of
used in a purely neutral sense to refer to 15 items. Paul rounds off the list with a solemn
human or physical nature, but in vv. 13, 16, 17 warning, which he says, repeats teaching he
(twice), 19, 24, and 6:8, ‘flesh’ is used in a gave them earlier—presumably when he was
negative, ethical sense to refer to a person’s present with them: ‘those who do such things
sinful or corrupt nature. Should the translator will not inherit the kingdom of God’. Here
attempt to replicate the quite different ways in Paul may be using a common early Christian
which the word is used? REB uses ‘unspiritual catechetical formula, for the wording is not
nature’ or ‘old nature’ for the negative refer- characteristically Pauline.
ences to sarx, and several different phrases for The phrase ‘fruit of the Spirit’ (v. 22) is evoca-
the ‘neutral’ uses. NRSV signals the different tive: ‘the fruit’ is not the result of the believer’s
way in which Paul uses sarx in this section by effort, but of the gift of the Spirit. The nine
translating it as ‘self-indulgence’ in v. 13, before items in the list of virtues are often grouped
reverting to ‘flesh’ in the remainder of the into three groups of three, though it is doubtful
section. whether this was Paul’s intention. In the light of
As in 4:21b, Paul speaks about the law of the opening verses of this section (vv. 13, 14) we
Moses positively in v. 14, and cites Lev 19:18, can be more confident that Paul deliberately
‘love your neighbour’. Earlier in the letter the placed ‘love’ at the head of the list.
galatians 168

vv. 24 and 25 bring the argument of this sec- related to weaknesses Paul is aware of in the
tion to a climax. Believers who identify with the Galatian churches. Or perhaps they are general
crucifixion of Christ (cf. 2:19) have ‘crucified the maxims which have their place in nearly every
old nature’ (REB). v. 25 explains how this is community setting.
possible: by living by the Spirit. Although this NRSV places v. 6 in a paragraph on its own,
is taken by some as the beginning of the next for this exhortation does not seem to be related
section of Paul’s exhortations, it is better to either to those that precede or to those that
interpret this verse (with NRSV) in conjunction follow. In 1 Cor 9:14 the right of preachers to
with v. 24: these two verses focus on the chasm be supported financially is asserted. This verse is
between ‘flesh’ and ‘Spirit’, the theme first set out rather different. It refers in general terms to the
in the ‘headline’ in v. 16. v. 26 is a rather bland support (which surely included financial sup-
exhortation, though v. 15 confirms that it was port) to be given by those under instruction in
sorely needed in the Galatian churches. the faith to their teachers. In vv. 7–8 Paul adapts
proverbial statements well known in antiquity,
(6:1–10) Let us Work for the Good of All adding his own distinctive theological emph-
Nearly every verse in this section includes an ases. The sharp contrast between ‘flesh’ and
explicit exhortation, but the links between them ‘Spirit’ in v. 8 is in effect a summary of 5:16–25.
are loose. Even more problematic is the extent The eschatological warning of 5:21c is echoed in
to which these exhortations are related to the the future tenses in v. 8, ‘you will reap corrup-
specific needs of the Galatian churches. Some tion/eternal life’, and in the reference to reaping
insist that they are very general and quite unre- at harvest-time in v. 9.
lated to the main arguments of the letter, while By using the phrase ‘so then’, Paul indicates
others discern close links at almost every point. that v. 10 rounds off the series of exhortations
A mediating position is more plausible than which began at 5:13. The encouragement to
either extreme: Paul has adapted well-known the Galatian Christians to ‘work for the good
ethical maxims to meet the needs of the Gal- of all’ encapsulates a bold vision. The churches
atian Christians. Many of the maxims in this in Galatia were tiny minorities in the societies
section can be read as extended expositions of in which they lived. As this letter emphasizes
several of the fruits of the Spirit listed in 5:22–3. repeatedly, they had their own internal ten-
As we shall see below, there are further import- sions and conflicts. But here they are urged
ant links between this section and the latter half to strive for the well-being of all without
of ch. 5. distinction. That special concern should be
The opening maxim in v. 1 is very general. shown for those of the ‘household of faith’ is
Translated literally, the Greek reads, ‘you who understandable.
are spiritual’; this is taken by some to refer to a
specific group within the Galatian churches. But Conclusion (6:11–18)
earlier in the letter Paul has insisted that all The final sentences of Paul’s letters usually
Christians have received the Spirit (e.g. 3:1–5; summarize and press home its key points.
4:6), so the NRSV is appropriate: ‘You who Galatians is no exception. Betz (1979: 313) cor-
have received the Spirit’. The ‘spirit of gentle- rectly notes that these verses are the hermen-
ness’ enjoined recalls ‘gentleness’, one of the eutical key to the whole letter. Unlike Paul’s
fruits of the Spirit (5:23). Paul’s concern for the other letters, there are no personal greetings.
erring believer is paralleled in Mt 18:15 and Jas This is as significant as the absence of the
5:19. What is the law of Christ which is to be expected thanksgiving at 1:6 (GAL 1:6). In both
fulfilled (v. 2)? Since ‘fulfilling the law’ in 5:14 cases a ready explanation is provided by the
refers to the law of Moses, the use of the similar strained relationships between Paul and the
verb here strongly suggests that ‘law’ here also Galatians.
refers to the law of Moses—as ‘redefined and Paul takes over from his amanuensis for the
fulfilled by Christ in love’ (Barclay 1988:134, 141). final sentences (cf. also 1 Cor 16:21; Col 4:18; 2
Dunn (1993:323) is even more specific: ‘it means Thess 3:17; Philem 19). The reference to the ‘large
that law (Torah) as interpreted by the love com- letters’ he makes when writing himself is prob-
mand in the light of the Jesus-tradition and the ably not a reference to his clumsy handwriting.
Christ-event’. The maxims in vv. 3–5 come as When this letter was read aloud in the Galatian
something of an anticlimax after the rich exho- churches (1:2), the listeners would not have been
rtations of vv. 1–2. Perhaps they are partly aware of the change in handwriting. ‘Large let-
 169 galatians

ters’ probably signals the importance of the believers as the Israel of God? If so, the ‘and’ is
words which follow. understood as explanatory: ‘that is to say’, or
In vv. 12–13 Paul attacks the agitators expli- ‘namely’. The latter interpretation is now widely
citly and provides his own reasons for their accepted. If Paul does refer here to Christians as
insistence on circumcision. In claiming that the Israel of God, what becomes of non-believing
they ‘want to make a good showing in the Israel? This issue does not surface in Galatians,
flesh’ Paul may be employing ‘barbed humor, though in due course Paul did grapple with it in
inviting the Galatians to laugh at the Teachers’ Rom 9–11. In v. 17 Paul refers to the marks
(Martyn 1997: 561). It is not easy to see why an (stigmata) he bore on his body as a result of the
insistence on circumcision would enable them hostility he experienced as an apostle of Christ
to avoid persecution. Were they currying favour (cf. 2 Cor 11:23–30). There may be an undercur-
with a powerful ultra-conservative group in the rent of irony: it is ‘the marks of Jesus’ rather
Jerusalem church (ibid. 562), or with a group of than the mark of circumcision which Paul bears
non-believing Jews who were incensed at the proudly. Although the final verse is similar to
way Gentiles were being accepted into the the final benedictions found at the end of all
‘people of God’, i.e. as proselytes, without cir- Paul’s letters, the reference to the grace of Christ
cumcision? We do not know. Paul claims that is particularly poignant in view of the content
the agitators do not themselves obey the law of the letter as a whole; it echoes the opening
(13a): they cannot pick and choose which parts reference in 1:6 to God’s call ‘in the grace of
of the law to observe (cf. also 5:3). Paul’s final Christ’.
jibe is that his opponents are boasting about
their success in persuading some of the Gal-
REFERENCES
atians to undergo circumcision (13c). There is
an appropriate form of boasting, however: Barclay, J. M. G. (1987), ‘Mirror Reading a Polemical
Christ crucified (14a; cf 3:1). For Paul the cross Letter: Galatians as a Test Case’, JSNT 3: 73–93.
of Christ entails a radical break with ‘the world’. —— (1988), Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in
Paul is not advocating a sectarian separation Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
from the world, as 6:10 confirms; living by the Barrett, C. K. (1982), Essays on Paul (London: SPCK).
Spirit entails the crucifixion of the flesh with its Betz, H. D. (1979), Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s
passions and desires (5:16, 24). Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Phila-
v. 15 is one of several very rich theological delphia: Fortress).
statements in the letter. It echoes 5:6, but caps Dunn, J. D. G. (1993), The Epistle to the Galatians, BNTC
the earlier verse with the claim that in Christ (London: A. & C. Black).
God is bringing about a new creation. The terse Hengel, M., and Schwemer, A. M. (1997), Paul Between
phrase, ‘there is a new creation’ is expounded in Damascus and Antioch: the Unkown Years (London:
2 Cor 5:17: the old order has passed away, every- SCM).
thing has become new. In v. 16 Paul extends the Kern, P. H. (1998), Rhetoric and Galatians, SNTSMS 101
blessing of God’s peace and mercy upon those (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
who follow this standard or rule, i.e. that there Longenecker, R. N. (1990), Galatians, WBC 41 (Dallas:
is a new creation in which the distinction be- Word).
tween circumcised and uncircumcised is abol- Martyn, J. L. (1997), Galatians, AB 33A (New York:
ished. Doubleday).
The final phrase of v. 16 has evoked consid- Meeks, W. (1983), The First Urban Christians: the Social
erable discussion. Does Paul call down God’s World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale Univer-
blessing upon a second group, ‘the Israel of sity Press).
God’, as well as upon those who follow the O’Brien, P. T. (1977), Introductory Thanksgivings in the
rule he has just enunciated? This interpretation Letters of Paul, NovTSup 49 (Leiden: Brill).
is adopted by the NRSV: ‘and upon the Israel of Scott, J. M. (1992), Adoption as Sons of God, WUNT 2/48
God’. Or does Paul refer boldly to Christian (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck]).
 8. Ephesians
j. d. g. dunn
INTRODUCTION Eph. Col. Eph. Col.
1:15–17 1:3–4, 9–10 5:5–6 3:5–6
The letter to the Ephesians is one of the most
2:5 2:13 5:19–20 3:16
attractive documents in the NT and one to
2:16 1:20–2 5:22, 25 3:18–19
which many Christians turn when low in spirit.
4:2 3:12 6:5–9 3:22–4:1
Its mood of elevated composure, sustained
4:16 2:19 6:21–2 4:7.
prayer, and uninhibited confidence in God (par-
4:31–2 3:8, 12
ticularly chs. 1 and 3), and its vision of the
church, united, growing to maturity and loved Such identical phraseology can be explained
(chs. 2, 4, 5) have been uplifting and inspiring only if both letters were written at the same
for countless individuals and communities over time, or, more likely (given the differences alr-
the centuries. This character and quality of the eady noted), by one letter deliberately drawing
letter is unaffected by the disputes over its upon the other. Most scholars have concluded
authorship and purpose. that the character of the interdependence is best
explained as Ephesians using Colossians, in part
A. Distinctive Features of Ephesians. 1. In at least, as a model.
comparison with the other Pauline letters, how- Given such features, it is hard to avoid the
ever, Ephesians is something of a puzzle. Unlike question: is Ephesians really a letter? Or is it
all the others, it is not directed to a particular better explained as a meditative and expansive
church or situation or person. The words ‘in summary of what Paul stood for, with his char-
Ephesus’ (1:1), which most modern translations acteristic letter openings and closings added to
still include, are not present in the earliest and preserve this homage to Paul appropriately in
best MSS; and second-century references to the the most characteristic Pauline form?
letter do not know it as sent to Ephesus (see Best
1987). The lack of specified addressees in the B. Was the Letter Written by Paul? 1. The
original text and absence of Paul’s normal list of traditional view, from the second century
greetings are confirmed by the absence of refer- onwards, is certainly in the affirmative. The
ence to particular situations or problems known writer names himself as Paul in both 1:1 and
or reported to the author. This raises the question 3:1. But for the past 200 years the issue has
whether it was intended as a circular or catholic been disputed, and though several prominent
letter, rather like James and 1 Peter, though in contemporary scholars still hold to Pauline
these cases particular recipients are still specified. authorship (e.g. Barth 1974 and Bruce 1984),
2. The style of the letter (particularly chs. 1–3) the majority have concluded that it was most
is pleonastic, that is, marked by repetitions and probably written by someone else. In addition
redundancies. Note for example the long sen- to the considerations already noted, two other
tences which constitute 1:3–14 and 4:11–16 (sin- features have carried weight.
gle sentences in Greek), and the repetition and 2. The perspective seems to be second gen-
piling up of adjectives, phrases, and clauses eration: ‘the apostles’ are looked back to as the
such as we find in 1:17–19, 2:13–18, and 3:14–19. foundation period (2:20) and designated as es-
Anyone familiar with the other Pauline letters pecially ‘holy’ (3:5). The self-reference in 3:1–13 at
will recognize that Ephesians is exceptional on first looks to be strong evidence of Pauline
this point. If written at the same time as the authorship, but as we read through the para-
other ‘prison epistles’ (including Philippians and graph the measure of boasting goes well be-
Philemon), these differences become all the yond what Paul had previously claimed for his
more striking. And if written by an unnamed own role, and sounds more and more like a
amanuensis or secretary, the latter had far more eulogy penned by an ardent admirer (cf. 1 Tim
scope for free composition than any of Paul’s 1:15–16). Even with 3:1 and 4:1, the addition of
previous secretaries. the definite article turns the humble self-
3. In some way most striking of all is the designation of Philem 1 and 9 (‘a prisoner of
exceptionally close relationship between Ephe- Christ Jesus’) into something more like a title
sians and Colossians (see Mitton 1951: 279–315). (‘the prisoner of Christ Jesus’, ‘the prisoner in
Compare particularly: the Lord’).
 171 ephesians

3. The theological perspective also seems to ership of a piece of writing. Once written, a
have moved beyond that of the earlier Paulines, document was in the public domain and could
and even that of Colossians. In particular, the be used and reused, excerpted and expanded
cosmic Christology of Col 1:17–19 seems to have without attribution of source and without any
developed into the cosmic ecclesiology of Eph thought of wrongdoing. In the NT itself we may
1:22–3. The ‘church’, characteristically the local cite Matthew’s use of Mark or 2 Peter’s use of
church (in house, city, or region) in the earlier Jude.
Paulines, is now (for the first time) understood 3. More to the point, the history of the for-
consistently as the universal church. The talk of mation of the biblical books themselves is a clear
grace and faith in 2:5, 8–9, certainly has a Pauline indication that disciples and successors of the
ring, but the characteristic Pauline concern originator of highly valued tradition were able
regarding the law in such talk is missing: the to develop that tradition in the name of its ori-
reference in 2:9 is to ‘works’, not ‘works of the ginator. Writings such as the Pentateuch and
law’; the law is mentioned only briefly in 2:15. Isaiah are generally recognized to be the work
And the eschatology is more consistently ‘real- of several hands over a lengthy period. The Wis-
ized’: ‘salvation’ is an accomplished act (2:5, 8; dom of Solomon and the corpus known as 1
6:17); they are already raised and seated with Enoch could be attributed to those named as
Christ ‘in the heavenly places’ (2:6); there is no authors long after their death, without any
reference to Christ’s coming again (contrast 4:15). thought of deceit. The teaching of Jesus could
4. All in all, the evidence is most consistent be elaborated differently by the different Evan-
with the hypothesis that the letter was written by gelists without any sense of impropriety.
a disciple of Paul some time after Paul’s death, 4. Ephesians makes best sense within this
presumably writing to celebrate Paul’s faith and tradition. A close associate or disciple of Paul,
apostolic achievement and using Colossians in who stood within the tradition begun by Paul
part as a kind of template. If, alternatively, it was and was recognized to do so, was seen to rep-
Paul who composed it, we would have to envis- resent the Pauline tradition after Paul’s death
age a Paul who had so modified his perspective and was able to re-express it in some measure
and style that it comes to the same thing; that is, in his own terms. And he did so in Paul’s name,
in effect, ‘the late Paul’ is little different from ‘the without deceit; his words were acknowledged
disciple of Paul’. to be appropriate sentiments to ascribe to Paul.
In other words, Ephesians probably represents
C. The Issue of Pseudepigraphy. 1. Many feel the Pauline heritage some little time after Paul’s
uncomfortable with the view that the letter was death as seen from within. It expresses, we may
not composed by Paul himself. Since the letter say, the transition from Paul to Pauline.
claims to be written by Paul, does the denial of
Pauline authorship not amount to a questioning D. To Whom, From Where, When, and Why. 1.
of the letter’s integrity? And does an author Were the letter written by Paul we could date it
who falsely claims to be someone else not for- firmly to the early 60s, presumably from his
feit our confidence in what he has written? The imprisonment in Rome, and not long before
issue of pseudepigraphy (falsely attributed writ- his death. Would it then have been a general
ing) seems to undermine any claim to inspir- letter to his churches? If so, why should that
ation or canonical authority for the letter. purpose not be indicated? And if it was a final
2. The problem is serious for today’s use of summation of his message we might have
such a letter since it seems to attribute an im- expected it to come more in the form of a
moral motive to the real author. We today take final testament (cf. Acts 20:18–35).
for granted the conventions of copyright and 2. In the light of the above conclusions, how-
that plagiarism is unacceptable. When someone ever, the more obvious answer is that Ephesians
writes in another’s name, therefore, we natur- is a meditative tract on Paul’s theology, teach-
ally assume an intention on his part to deceive, ing, and significance in the form of a Pauline
to claim falsely an authority for his writing letter; for unspecified use, but probably to be
which he himself did not possess. It needs to read in church gatherings for worship and
be remembered, however, that the conventions teaching; and written some time after Paul’s
of copyright are a relatively recent formulation death, but by someone close to him, and so
(a consequence of the invention of printing). At within ten or so years of his death (that is,
the time when Ephesians was written there was some time in the 70s or 80s). The close link
no clear or legal conception of authorial own- with Colossians, the mention of Tychicus in
ephesians 172

particular (6:21–2), and the fact that the world and walking in the light, with all the
churches of the province of Asia attracted specific moral commitment, both positive and
other letters over the following decades (Rev negative, implied. Conduct and relationships
2–3; Ignatius) suggests that it was written in modelled on those of Christ are also part of
Asia, and in the event became most closely the restoration of creation to serve its original
associated with Ephesus in particular. purpose. The enabling of the Spirit in shared
3. More specific purposes have been sug- worship remains indispensable (4:17–5:20).
gested: for example, an early attempt to draw 4. Particularly important, as the basic unit of
in Gnostic ideas, or to provide a covering letter society, are households and their several rela-
for an early collection of Paul’s letters. However, tionships; here too Christian households should
nothing in the letter itself gives any real support have Christ as model and resource and thus
to such views. At best we can deduce that the provide a test bed for society in re-creation. At
churches addressed continued to be concerned no time should they forget that they were in-
about Christianity’s identity as Israel’s heir and volved in a spiritual warfare nor fail to maintain
about the proper integration of Jews and Gen- the appropriate equipment and co-operation
tiles within the church. (chs. 5:21–6:20).

E. The Message of Ephesians in Summary. 1. F. The structure of Ephesians.

The great theme of the first three chapters is Greeting (1:1–2)
God: God whose purpose embraces all time and The Great Prayer and Meditation (1:3–3:21)
space and comes to focus in Christ. It is because The Blessing of God (1:3–14)
the readers’ faith and life is centred in this Christ Paul’s Prayer (1:15–23)
(‘in Christ’ is a repeated theme) that they can A Reminder of What God Has Already Done
have such confidence in God, based as it is both in Them (2:1–10)
on God’s resurrection of Christ from the dead The New Humanity (2:11–22)
and their own experience of his Holy Spirit and Paul’s Stewardship of the Great Mystery
grace (ch. 1). (3:1–13)
2. At the heart of God’s universal purpose The Opening Prayer Resumed (3:14–21)
from eternity has been the retrieval of humanity The Exhortation (4:1–6:20)
from its state of death, the abolition of the The Church in its Calling and Confession
divided state of humanity, and the bringing of (4:1–6)
all things to unity in Christ. Seen from a Jewish The Character and Purpose of Ministry in the
perspective, that deadness and dividedness had Body of Christ (4:7–16)
its principal manifestation in the disadvantaged How to Live as the Church in the World
state of Gentiles as contrasted with Jews. But (4:17–32)
Christ’s death rendered that old division null Walking in the Light (5:1–20)
and void and has made possible a reconciled Household Rules (5:21–6:9)
and united community held together by Christ, Put on the Armour of God (6:10–20)
which as a whole enjoys the privileges previ- Conclusion and Benediction (6:21–4)
ously confined to Israel and so can function as
the household of God, the place where God
COMMENTARY
continues to meet with humankind (ch. 2).
This reconciliation of Jew and Gentile within (1:1–2) Greeting It is typical of Paul that he
the gracious purpose of God was at the heart adapts the normal letter address, ‘X to Y, greet-
of the divine mystery which Paul in particular ing’ (Gk.) or ‘peace’ (Jewish). He emphasizes his
had been given the commission to unveil to all apostleship (cf. 2 Cor 1:1; Col 1:1). He stresses the
(ch. 3). The fact that the church is so much the status of the recipients: they have been set apart
medium now for the outworking of this pur- for God (‘saints’) (cf. e.g. Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1) and
pose of God makes its unity and its proper live by trust in God (‘faithful’) (as in Col 1:2). He
working as facilitated by the ministry gifts transforms the Greek greeting (chairein) into the
given it all the more important. Only as it func- rich Christian term ‘grace’ (charis), and combines
tions as the body of Christ and grows up into it with the equally rich Jewish concept of peace,
Christ can it fulfil the universal and cosmic role wishing them the continued experience of
earlier ascribed to it (4:1–16). God’s generous favour (‘grace’) and all that
3. Right functioning of the church also de- makes for communal well-being (‘peace’). On
pends on believers living as the church in the ‘in Ephesus’ see EPH. A.1.
 173 ephesians

The Great Prayer and Meditation (1:3–3:21) sonal liberation (redemption) and the forgive-
ness for wrongs done had been genuinely
(1:3–14) The Blessing of God This is one of the
experienced (v. 7); that Jesus himself is the
most beautiful passages in the Bible. It is unlike
‘place’ in which the blessings of heaven and
anything else in the Pauline letters (the nearest
the Spirit are to be known in the here and
parallel is 2 Cor 1:3–11). In the Greek it can be
now, so that the very term ‘Christian’ denotes
punctuated as a single sentence. The repetition
a life (and death) bound up with his (vv. 3, 5,
of key words, the piling up of phrases, and the
13–14); and, not least, that Christ in a real sense
circling round and steady enrichment of the
constitutes the hope for the world and final
central theme gives it a depth and resonance
reconciliation, its climax and summation point
unsurpassed in Christian praise. It is a word to
(vv. 9–10).
return to, to rest upon, to rejoice in, and not
The blessings themselves are indicated in a
least, to enjoy. It should have been put to great
series of evocative phrases: ‘holy and blameless
music long before now.
before him in love’ (v. 4); adoption as God’s
It begins by sketching in the circle of blessing
children (cf. Gal 4:5–7), formerly estranged
(v. 3). That circle starts with God. The word for
(v. 5); ‘redemption’, the image of the costly
‘blessed’ (eulogētos) here is used only of God in
liberation of slave or captive (cf. Rom 3:24; 1
the NT (e.g. Mk 14:61; Rom 1:25); it indicates that
Cor 6:19–20), and the experience of forgiveness
nothing more wonderful can be imagined or
for conscience-nagging wrongs committed (v.
spoken of than God. Characteristic of this bless-
7; cf. Col 1:14); knowledge and sense of personal
edness is that it reaches out to embrace God’s
involvement in God’s purpose (v. 9); an aware-
human creatures (‘with every spiritual blessing’).
ness of being chosen by God (v. 11); a conviction
The circle is complete when those thus blessed
as to the truth of the gospel and of the ‘salva-
affirm its source and resource in God.
tion’ (wholeness) it brings (v. 13; cf. 1 Thess 1:5);
This blessing is four-dimensional. It reaches
and the experience of being marked out by the
from the beginning of time: chosen ‘before the
Spirit as belonging to God (the function of a
foundation of the world’ (v. 4); predestined in
‘seal’)—the reference will be to the impact made
love (v. 5; cf. Rom 8:29–30); the divine mystery
by the Spirit (as e.g. in Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 6:9–11),
(v. 9), that is, God’s original but hidden purpose,
rather than to baptism—and of the assurance
now revealed (see 3:3–6); predestined and
the Spirit brings (cf. Rom 8:14–16), as being the
appointed (v. 11). And it reaches to the end of
first instalment and guarantee of the complete
time: a plan for the fullness of time (God’s
redemption/liberation still to come (vv. 13–14;
appointed hour) to sum up everything in Christ
cf. Rom 8:23; 2 Cor 1:21–2).
(v. 10; see 1:20–3); the Spirit as the guarantee of
But the blessing is primarily directed to God.
the inheritance and the final redemption of
He is the subject of the main active verbs
God’s own possession (v. 14). Here again the
(‘blessed, chose, destined . . . ’). His love em-
stress is on God’s overarching purpose in con-
braces the trustful in the sonship of the Beloved
trol from the first—his good pleasure and will
(vv. 4–6; cf. Rom 8:15–17, 29). It is his grace (the
(vv. 5, 9), ‘according to [his] purpose . . . accord-
same word as in v. 2), the same outpouring of
ing to his counsel and will’ (v. 11).
divine generosity which is the fountainhead of
Spatial imagery is also prominent. The bless-
all human wellbeing (‘his grace with which he
ings in which believers already share are those
has engraced us . . . in accordance with the
‘in the heavenly places’ (v. 3), where the symbol-
riches of his grace which he has lavished upon
ism of higher (heavens above earth) denotes
us’, vv. 6–8, my tr.). He ‘accomplishes all things
greater bliss in a way more problematic for
according to his counsel and will’ (v. 11). And all
modern readers (see also 6:12). The final union
is ‘to the praise of his glory’ (vv. 6, 12, 14)—
will embrace everything in the heavens and in
human bliss from beginning to end dependent
the earth (v. 10). Most striking of all, however, is
on human recognition that God is the be-all
the repeated emphasis on the location and
and end-all.
means of this blessing as ‘in him (Christ)’, a
It is important to note how characteristically
phrase which occurs no less than ten times
Jewish is the language and thought. To begin a
(also ‘through Jesus Christ’—v. 5).
prayer to God with the evocation of his bless-
The conviction is clear: that the whole of
edness is distinctively Jewish (e.g. Ps 41:13; 72:18–
God’s purpose from the beginning focuses in
19; the great Jewish prayer, the Eighteen Bene-
and through Christ (vv. 4, 9, 11–12); that Jesus
dictions, ‘Blessed are you, O Lord . . . ’, go back to
and his death were the means by which per-
Jesus’ time). God’s unconditional choice (v. 4)
ephesians 174

was fundamental to Israel’s self-understanding (in Paul cf. particularly Rom 1:8–15; 1 Cor 1:4–9;
(e.g. Deut 7:6–8). ‘The Beloved’ (v. 6) was a Col 1:3–8). The opening words here (vv. 15–16)
favourite name for Israel (e.g. Deut 33:12; Isa are typical of Paul and may indeed be modelled
5:1). The time perspective of the benediction is on Philem 4–5 and Col 1:3–4. The thanksgiving
distinctive of Jewish apocalypses—the assur- had in view particularly the two-sidedness of
ance that God’s mysterious purpose is working the readers’ new relationships—faith in the
towards its climax despite all human failure and Lord Jesus and love for all the saints (the ‘all’
catastrophe (vv. 9–10; cf. e.g. Dan 2:21; Mk 1:15); might need some emphasis). Characteristic of
the Qumran community shared a similar con- Paul too was the habit of regular ‘mention’ of
viction that the hidden mysteries had been his converts in his prayers (Rom 1:9; Phil 1:3; 1
revealed to them (EPH 3:1–13). And not least, Thess 1:2).
there is the writer’s sense that he and his readers But the prayer which follows surpasses any-
(Gentiles included) had been embraced within thing else in Paul’s letters, as rich as the preced-
the divine purpose which began with and ing blessing and stretching the expectation of
worked through Israel: the purpose was that hope and the imagination of faith still further.
they should be numbered with the ‘saints’, the It is directed to God (not to Christ). He indeed
ones set apart to God (a title for Israel—e.g. Ps is described as ‘the God of our Lord Jesus Christ’
16:3; 34:9), and without blemish, like Israel’s (v. 17), with the recognition that Jesus, even
sacrifices (v. 4; cf. e.g. Lev 1:3, 10; Ps 15:2); they in the fullness of his exalted Lordship, still
had been appointed (lit. given a share) in Israel’s acknowledges God as his God (cf. 1 Cor 15:24–8).
‘inheritance’ (vv. 11, 14), two words which would This Christian faith, including the mind-
have evoked for any Jewish reader thought of blowing Christology of 1:22–3, is still monotheis-
the land, seed, and blessing promised to Abra- tic through and through. It is God who has done
ham (cf. Gen 12:2–3; Deut 32:9; Jer 10:16); they all the great work of salvation in Christ (vv. 19–23)
were God’s ‘possession’ (cf. Ex 19:5; Deut 14:2). and in whom hope is focused (vv. 17–18). He is
The difference is indicated, however, in the ‘the Father of glory’ (v. 17; cf. Acts 7:2; Rom 6:4);
repeated ‘in him’. This is the amazing feature of the phrase should not be reduced to ‘glorious
the benediction—the confidence and convic- Father’ but should be allowed to resonate with
tion that Jesus has been and is the key to unlock all the overtones of God as the progenitor of all
the mystery of God’s purpose and to bring it that is glorious and splendid (including v. 18). The
into effect, for Gentile as well as Jew. Christian- richness of this divine resource is a repeated
ity today, long heir of elaborate creeds and theme (vv. 7, 18–19; 2:4, 7; 3:8, 16).
dogmas regarding Christ, can scarcely appreci- The intercession falls into two parts. First for
ate what astounding claims were being made— knowledge (vv. 17–19), knowledge being funda-
that one who had lived only a generation or so mental to well-being. The very diversity of the
earlier could thus unfold and embody the won- language (wisdom, revelation, knowledge, illu-
der of God’s grace. So we find it equally hard to mination) is a reminder that there are different
appreciate the impact which Jesus and then the kinds of knowledge. Here most in view is the
message about Jesus must have made upon knowledge which comes through an experience
such hearers in the ancient Mediterranean of revelation, of eyes being opened, and
world. It was a conviction which was not through the experience of personal relationship
merely intellectual: the believing was matched with God (‘the eyes of your heart enlightened’ is
by an experience of forgiveness, of being a wonderfully evocative phrase). When know-
engraced, and of the Spirit beginning the pro- ledge is reduced to knowledge of facts or of
cess of reclamation of human life and commu- information which can be humanly discovered
nity for God (vv. 7–8, 13–14). But evidently the it will always be deficient for living (cf. Col. 1:9–
gospel thus focused on Jesus made such sense of 11). Only in its richer form, dependent on inspir-
reality, of the whole complex of time and space, ation from on high, does knowledge become
of cosmos and history, that he could be thus wisdom (the echo of Isa 11:2 will be deliberate).
seen at the centre of both cosmos and history, Here, however, the thought is directed more
as the one who explained the all, and always ‘to to the future: ‘the hope to which he [God] has
the praise of God’s glory’. called you’ (v. 18), a ‘calling’ (both invitation and
summons) elaborated in the talk of the rich
(1:15–23) Paul’s Prayer It was conventional in inheritance to be shared with the saints (see
ancient letters to add a thanksgiving and prayer v. 14). When hope is based on such knowledge
on behalf of those to whom the letter was sent it can indeed be firm and confident. As in Col
 175 ephesians

1:4–5, so here, hope is not far from faith and enabled to rise above all that threatened
love (cf. 1 Cor 13:13). human and social life.
The second part (vv. 20–3) reflects further on The chief problem is the final clause, what it
the working of this great might of God: hope means and how it relates to what has gone
can be confident (v. 18) because the power at before—‘the fullness of him who fills all in all’.
work in human experience (v. 19) is the same Does it refer to Christ or to the church? Does it
power which raised up Christ from the dead draw on ideas familiar from later Gnostic
and exalted him as God’s ‘right-hand man’. texts—Christ as a kind of cosmic being which
The language was already credal (e.g. Acts 3:15; comprises the totality of sentient reality? The
13:30; Rom 10:9; 1 Thess 1:10) and the use of Ps answer is probably that the writer has been
110:1 as a way of understanding what had hap- carried away by his language and imagery and
pened to the risen Christ was well-established is playing on the familiar Jewish thought of God
(e.g. Acts 2:34–5; Rom 8:34; 1 Pet 3:22). But it is or God’s Spirit as filling the cosmos (Jer 23:24;
here elaborated in an exceptional way. Wis 1:7; cf. Ps 139:7). Christ now embodies that
The thought that Christ was thus set ‘in the fullness (cf. Col 1:19; 2:9). And the church, his
heavenly places’ is peculiar to Ephesians (1:3, 20; body, is (or should be!) the place where God’s
2:6). But the further thought that he was already presence in and purpose for creation comes to
dominant over all powers, both present and its clearest expression. Would that it were so!
future, takes up Ps 110:1 combined with Ps 8:6
(1:20–2; a combination we find also in 1 Cor (2:1–10) A Reminder of What God Has
15:25–7 and Heb 1:12–2:8). The combination is Already Done in Them This is one of the
powerful since it links the idea of Jesus as the most forceful statements in the Bible regarding
man/son of man who fulfils God’s purpose for the human condition apart from God’s grace
humanity as the climax of creation (Ps 8:4–6; cf. and the way in which that grace operates for
Heb 2:6–9) with that of Jesus as David’s greater salvation.
son given a share in God’s sovereign rule (Ps The human condition apart from grace is
110:1; cf. Mk 12:35–7). The conviction obviously described in vv. 1–3 in a series of vivid clauses;
carried with it a psychological liberation from note the balance between a certain givenness of
fear of the nameless forces which shape human human character, social conditioning, and indi-
existence (see 2:2 and 6:10–20). What a one was vidual responsibility. (1) They had been ‘dead
this Jesus that the note struck by his life, death, through trespasses and sins’ (vv. 1, 5; cf. Col
and resurrection should have had such continu- 2:13). ‘Death’ is but one metaphor among
ing resonance and deepening reverberations in many; others include ‘weak’ and ‘enemies’
the subsequent decades. (Rom 5:6, 10; cf. EPH 2:14–16). And the experience
If that was a challenging enough linkage, the of grace (in conversion) can itself be likened to a
final clauses (vv. 22–3) almost baffle compre- dying (Rom 6:5–11). But a life enmeshed in its
hension (the major commentaries spend sev- breaches of the moral code (transgressions) and
eral pages discussing them). The climax of repeated failings (sins) can well be likened to a
what God did ‘in Christ’ (v. 20) was to give state of death, where promptings of divine
him as ‘head over all things for the church, grace and love evoke no real response (cf.
which is his body’ (vv. 22–3). The metaphor of Luke 15:24; Rom 7:7–11—‘I died’). (2) Their
the church as Christ’s body goes back to 1 Cor daily conduct had been determined by the
12 and Rom 12:4–8, and will later be elaborated standards of society (cf. Rom 12:2), the spirit of
with the idea of Christ as the head of the body the age (v. 2). The latter metaphor is unique in
(4:15–16). But here the thought is of Christ as the NT (‘the ruler of the power of the air’; cf. Jn
head of all reality, given by God to or for the 12:31 and Acts 26:18), and draws on the common
church (cf. Col 1:17–18). That would be a diffi- understanding of the day that hostile spiritual
cult enough thought, though ‘head’ can mean forces influenced or determined human behav-
both ‘ruler’ and ‘source’ (fountainhead), and so iour (hence 6:11–17). We still today speak, for
Christ could be portrayed as embodying or example, of a criminal ‘underworld’ and often
epitomizing the rationale and pattern of divine enough feel ourselves victims of forces, some
creation. ‘Given to/for the church’ could then apparently malevolent in character, that we
mean simply(!) that the church, here the uni- cannot control. (3) Human responsibility be-
versal church, had, through its faith in Christ comes more evident in the talk of a life con-
and the God who worked through Christ, been ducted ‘in the passions of our flesh, following
given the key to understanding reality and the desires of flesh and senses’ (v. 3; cf. Col 3:5, 7;
ephesians 176

Titus 3:3; 1 Pet 1:14). By ‘flesh’ Paul means the perhaps, to break the previous psychological
weakness of the physical constitution (flesh de- dependency. Implicit, then, is the conviction
cays); life lived at that level, devoted to feeding that their lives now focused in and through
human appetites (food, sex, power), is a life Christ had in effect risen above the old captiv-
lived apart from God, subject to the law of ating influences of the present world (cf. Gal
diminishing returns and the law of increasing 6:14; Col 2:15), or at least need have no fear of
subserviency to self-indulgent habit (cf. Gal any such power (Rom 8:31–9). But more explicit
5:16–21). According to Rom 1:18–32, this circle here is the thought that they (writer and readers)
of sin-begetting-sin is also an expression of were as it were trophies of grace to make clear
divine wrath just as is the final judgement to everyone the overwhelming generosity of
(Rom 2:5; cf. Col 3:6). To be noted is the fact God’s purpose and its most effective implemen-
that the writer no longer speaks of ‘you’, as in tation in and through Christ (v. 7).
2:2; Christian Jews as well as Christian Gentiles (3) The answer to lives dominated by human
are ‘by nature children of wrath’ (v. 3, ‘all of us’; weakness and self-indulgence is the recognition
v. 5, ‘we’), all equally dependent on the initiative that salvation is given by grace, through faith,
of divine grace (cf. 2:10). the very opposite of human contriving or ma-
Still more, however, is said about the way in nipulation—as a gift of God (v. 8). The language
which grace had worked to change both char- is very Pauline, but the thought has shifted
acter and context. Again, it should be noted, as somewhat from the earlier letters. (a) Salvation
throughout ch. 1, the initiative is God’s from is here spoken of as a completed act, whereas
start to finish: ‘But God . . . ’ (v. 4). It is his earlier on Paul spoke of it as future (Rom 5:9–10;
mercy, love—‘rich in mercy [cf. Rom 11:30–2], 13:11; 1 Cor 3:15), and of Christians as those ‘being
out of the great love with which he loved us’ (cf. saved’ (1 Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 2:15). There salvation
Rom 5:8)—and thrice-mentioned grace (vv. 5, 7, covered the whole process of renewal and final
8) which has been decisive. And the effective redemption (Rom 8:23); here the thought is of
medium of God’s action has been Christ—‘with the decisive character of what Christ has done
Christ’ (v. 5), ‘in Christ Jesus’ (vv. 6, 7, 10). The and of the commitment to him and bound-up-
three elements in the preceding analysis are in ness with him. (b) Earlier too the talk of ‘works’
effect taken up one by one, in each case empha- was always of ‘the works of the law’, that which
sizing the role of grace and of Christ. was obligatory upon Jews as members of the
(1) The state of deadness in trespasses and sins covenant people—the key question being
has been transformed—‘made alive with Christ’ whether and how much of these laws were
(v. 5). This is the language of resurrection (Jn obligatory for Gentile believers. To which Paul
5:21; 8:11; 1 Cor 15:22); the final proof of God’s had replied that only faith was necessary (Rom
creative power is that he overcomes death (Rom 3:19–20, 27–31; 9:30–2; Gal 2:15–16). Here the
4:17). The idea of conversion as being bound up thought is broadened, or deepened. By ‘works’
with Christ’s death, so that Christ through his the author here seems to mean any product of
death becomes as it were a passageway to new human effort: salvation is wholly and solely a
life, is prominent elsewhere in the NT (e.g. Gal ‘gift’ (v. 8). There is no scope for boasting in
2:19–20; 1 Tim 2:11; Heb 2:9–11). In the earlier oneself, only in God (v. 9); the ‘turned-in-upon-
Pauline letters the thought of sharing also in oneself-ness’ of the old life (v. 3) has been given
Christ’s resurrection is reserved for the ‘not a new focus and orientation. The outcome is a
yet’ future (Rom 6:5; 8:11), but here, as in Col complete contrast to the old way of life—God’s
2:13, that too is referred to the ‘already’ of con- handiwork, a new creation on the template of
version. It is a logical development to describe Christ, ‘good works’ such as God had made
the new life experienced through the Spirit (Jn humankind for in the beginning (v. 10; cf.
6:63; 2 Cor 3:6) as a sharing in Christ’s life, that 4:24; 1 Cor 3:10–15). There should be a contrast,
is, his risen life. Whatever the finer points of should there not, between a life lived by grace,
theology, however, conversion was evidently through faith, in Christ (v. 10), and a life deter-
experienced in the early days of Christianity as mined by the desires of flesh and mind (v. 3)?
life-giving, life-changing.
(2) Countering the captivity to ‘the ruler of (2:11–22) The New Humanity The same grou-
the power of the air’, God had not only raised nd is covered again in a second review of the
them with Christ to new life, but also raised readers’ transition from past to present (cf. 5:8).
them with Christ to the heavenly places (v. 6; This time, however, the review is not from the
see 1:3). The astonishing claim was necessary, more general perspective (death to life) but
 177 ephesians

from the Jewish perspective on Gentile disquali- (Gentiles). This is the subject of vv. 13–18, a
fication from grace. The assumption is that nicely structured passage (chiasmus) where the
God’s saving purpose for humankind had been repeated references to ‘far off/near’ and ‘peace’
worked out through Israel, that Gentiles had (vv. 13–14, 17; echoing Isa 57:19; see also 6:15)
hitherto been strangers to that promise, but bracket the central imagery of hostility recon-
that now through Christ the blessing of access ciled ‘in him’ (vv. 14–16; see Schnackenburg
to God and peace with God was open to all. The 1991: 106). The key to understanding the passage
resulting new reality (the ‘new humanity’, v. 15) is the recognition that the writer sees two hos-
is sometimes understood as a third race (Chris- tilities/antagonisms as interrelated. He assumes
tians) replacing the old division of the world the Jewish view (cf. 4:17–18) that Gentiles, by
into Jews and Gentiles (Lincoln 1990: 144). How- definition cut off from the grace given through
ever, it would be more in tune with the para- Israel’s God-given covenant(s), are distant from
graph to speak of the new humanity rather as God (cf. Isa 49:1; 66:18–19; Acts 2:39) and in
the Israel which no longer defined itself by need of reconciliation with God (cf. Rom 5:10;
separation from the other nations but which is Col 1:21). But that enmity had become entangled
redefined to embrace all who believe in (Israel’s) and confused with enmity between Jew and
God through Christ (cf. Rom 2:28–9; 4:11–12; Gentile. Both were expressed in ‘the dividing
Gal 3:28–9; Phil 3:3). Either way, fundamental wall’ (v. 14), possibly an allusion to the barrier
is the thought of Christianity as continuous which marked off ‘the court of the Gentiles’
with Israel of old and of being given to share from ‘the court of Israel’ in the Jerusalem tem-
in Israel’s blessings, and that this has only been ple, and which Gentiles could not breach except
possible in and through Christ—‘he is our on pain of death—symbolizing Gentile exclu-
peace’ (v. 14). That this new humanity also fulfils sion from the presence of God. But the main
God’s purpose in creating humankind in the barrier was formed by the law, with particular
first place will be indicated in 4:24. reference to the rules (especially purity and food
vv. 11–12 recall the former disqualification. rules) which reinforced the separation of Jew
Characteristic of Jewish self-understanding was from Gentile (v. 15; cf. Acts 10:9–16, 28, 34–5;
the conviction that circumcision was a positive Gal 2:11–16; Col 2:16, 21).
identity marker ‘in the flesh’ which set them Consequently, for easily understandable psy-
apart definitively from other nations as God’s chological and social, as well as religious
elect nation (Gen 17:9–14). So much so that the reasons, at the heart of Paul’s gospel (himself a
world could be divided from a Jewish perspec- Jew) was the claim that God in Christ had re-
tive into ‘the uncircumcision’ and ‘the circum- solved both antagonisms, and that the one
cision’—the whole range of differences focused could not be reconciled in isolation from the
in this one feature (as in Gal 2:7–9). Only Jews other. The two being made one was integral to
regarded lack of circumcision as something peace with God (vv. 14–15); reconciliation of
negative; in contrast, the typical Greek regarded either was possible only as reconciliation of
circumcision as a form of mutilation. The added both (v. 16). The theology of the cross at this
note that circumcision was ‘made . . . by human point is an elaboration of the earlier 2 Cor 5:17–
hands’ is an indication that the writer saw this 21 (cf. Col 1:22; 2:14). But it contains overtones of
evaluation of ‘circumcision . . . in the flesh’ as a a self-sacrifice acknowledged by both sides as
boundary separating Gentiles from God’s grace ending an ancient blood feud, and echoes of the
to be mistaken. sacrifice which bonded the parties to the cov-
v. 12 lists the blessings from which Gentiles enant in Gen 15:7–21. The difference is that the
had hitherto been disqualified in ascending one thus sacrificed continues to serve as and to
order of importance. Israel was not only a na- maintain the bond thus created ‘in him’ (vv. 13,
tion-state but a religious entity (a matter of 17). The final imagery of v. 18 is of the reconciled
continuing confusion from that day to this). peoples now able together to pass through the
‘The covenants of promise’ (as in Rom 9:4) barrier which had previously divided them and
either refer to the regularly renewed covenant together to celebrate their reconciliation in
with the patriarchs (starting with Gen 12:3) or joint worship made possible by their common
include such key promises as 2 Sam 7:12–14. The participation in the one Spirit (4:3–4; cf. again
worst state to be in is ‘having no hope [cf. 1 Phil 3:3); 3:12 says the same thing in comple-
Thess 4:13] and without God in the world’. mentary terms.
‘But now in Christ Jesus’ (v. 13) those disquali- The outcome is not a new national or inter-
fications have been removed from the nations national entity, but individuals of all nations
ephesians 178

now sharing in privileges previously thought to (3:1–13) Paul’s Stewardship of the Great
be limited to Israel as a nation (v. 19; 3:6)— Mystery A personal statement in self-defence
‘fellowcitizens with the saints [see 1:4; cf. Phil is quite a common feature in Paul’s letters—
3:20; Heb 12:22–3] and members of the house- earlier over his apostleship (Gal 1:1–2:10; 1 Cor
hold of God’ (RSV; cf. Gal 6:10; 1 Tim 3:15; Heb 15:8–11), or missionary practice (1 Cor 9; 2 Cor
3:5–6). Those who enjoyed security both of citi- 10–12), or regarding his travel plans (e.g. Rom
zenship and family/household membership 1:9–15). Initially ch. 3 looks like a further ex-
would have been in a minority in many ancient ample and provides one of the strongest sup-
cities. ports for the view that the letter was written by
The imagery of the last three verses (20–2) Paul himself. But as the paragraph unfolds, the
changes to that of a building, in particular a claims made move well beyond anything Paul
temple. The image was a natural one (cf. e.g. ever claimed for himself earlier—a sustained
Mt 7:24–7; 1 Cor 3:9–11, 16; 1 Pet 2:5). There are measure of boasting in spiritual insight and
three significant features here. First, the men- commission with which the earlier Paul would
tion of ‘the apostles and prophets’ as the foun- probably have been uncomfortable (contrast
dation (v. 20; contrast 1 Cor 3:11); given the e.g. Rom 11:13, 25; 16:25–6; 1 Cor 7:40; 14:37–8;
order, the ‘prophets’ are probably Christian 2 Cor 10:13–18; 12:1–13). It may thus ease the
prophets (cf. 3:5; 4:11; 1 Cor 12:28). The implica- problem and make for a more consistent pic-
tion seems to be that a foundation period is ture of Paul to conclude that these are the words
being looked back to (cf. Rev 21:14). Second, of a close, ardent disciple of Paul rather than of
Christ is the cornerstone; that is, either the Paul himself.
keystone or capstone, given that the role of The opening self-identification as ‘the pris-
foundation has already been filled (Lincoln oner of Christ’ (v. 1; also 4:1; but note the defin-
1990: 155–6); or the cornerstone, the first stone ite article) is paralleled only in Philem 1 and 9
laid in the foundation, in relation to which all (cf. also Phil 1:7); it thus reflects the mood of the
other parts of the foundation were aligned prison epistles, Paul’s imprisonment providing
(Schnackenburg 1991: 124). The metaphor was both opportunity to survey his previous minis-
drawn from Isa 28:16 (understood as founda- try and affording fresh opportunity for witness
tion) and in early Christian apologetic was (cf. Phil 1:13–17; Philem 10, 13). Characteristic of
often combined with Ps 118:22 (Mt 21:42; Rom Paul is his conviction that his calling was ‘for
9:33; 10:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 6–8). Third, bringing the the sake of the Gentiles’ (v. 1; Gal 1:16; Rom 11:13)
paragraph (vv. 11–22) to a climax is the emphasis and that he had been given a special engrace-
on the harmonious interrelatedness of the ment for the work (vv. 2, 7, 8; cf. Rom 1:5; 15:15–
whole structure (see also 4:16). To be noted is 16; 1 Cor 9:17; 15:10; Gal 2:7–9; Col 1:29). At the
the fact that it is conceived as a growing (not a end of the paragraph too (v. 13) there is an
static) unity, a growth dependent on harmoni- awkwardly compressed twin Pauline theme
ous working together (v. 21), an ongoing pro- that present sufferings foreshadow future glory
cess (the tenses are all present continuous) (Rom 5:2–5; 8:17–21; 2 Cor 4:16–17) and that
which can only happen and be maintained ‘in Paul’s sufferings work to his converts’ benefit
the Lord’. (2 Cor 1:6; 4:7–12; Gal 4:19; Col 1:24; 2 Tim 2:10).
The end result (3:22) will be a people—no But the main burden of the self-testimony
longer defined in national or ethnic terms— here is the revelation made known to Paul
which functions as ‘a dwelling place for God’. regarding ‘the mystery’ and Paul’s understand-
This is the hope which always lies behind the ing of it (vv. 3–4), to which he had previously
sacramental focus of God’s presence in briefly alluded (1:9–10). It had also been revealed
human-built temple or earthly grown bread to ‘his holy apostles and prophets’ (v. 5; see
and wine—a people as the mode of God’s 2:20). But the emphasis quickly reverts to the
presence and action in the world (cf. Ex 19:5– fact that it was Paul who, first and foremost, and
6; Lev 26:11–12; Ezek 37:27; 1 Pet 2:5)—but despite being ‘the very least of all the saints’ (cf. 1
which so often falls out of focus (cf. e.g. Isa Cor 15:9; on ‘saints’ see EPH 1:2), had been given
1:10–17; Acts 7:48–9; 1 Cor 10–11). The triadic the commission (3:7–8) to unveil this mystery
formulation—for God, in the Spirit, inter- (3:9–11).
locked through Christ and growing together ‘Mystery’ is a term which echoes the language
in Christ—reflects the theological logic which and perspective of Jewish apocalypses (already
led inexorably to the subsequent Trinitarian in Dan 2:18–19, 27–30; see e.g. Caragounis 1977).
understanding of God (cf. 1:3–14). Typically the thought is of the divine purpose: it
 179 ephesians

had been firm from the beginning (v. 11), but 2:5–16; 3:28). As Paul saw so clearly, it followed,
had been hidden through the generations (vv. as day follows night, that a gospel which failed
5, 9; Rom 16:25; Col 1:26), only to be revealed to preach that message was no gospel and a
now at the appointed time, at the climax of the church which failed to live that message was
ages (cf. 1 Cor 10:11; Gal 4:4). Jewish apocalypses no church. The Christ in whom such differences
and the Qumran community make similar are not wholly discounted is not the Christ of
claims regarding their own insights. God’s mystery.
The Christian insight, particularly of Paul, As at the end of ch. 1, the cosmic dimensions
however, is quite distinctive. The mystery as of the divine purpose are not overlooked. It is
now unfolded was different from the mysteries the plan of the Creator which is in view (v. 9);
perceived by their fellow Jews. It was to the there is no divorce between creation and salva-
effect that God’s purpose from the beginning tion here (cf. Col 1:20). The audience in view in
had been to give the Gentiles a share in the this unfolding of divine wisdom is not just every
same inheritance, the same body, the same person but every power that can be envisaged
promise (as Israel) ‘in Christ Jesus’ and ‘through or feared (v. 10; see 1:21). And as in 1:22–3, the
the gospel’ (v. 6). To make known this now church is the medium through which and stage
revealed mystery to the Gentiles and to every- on which this richly diverse wisdom of God is
one (but ‘everyone’ might not be part of the enacted (v. 10; cf. 3:21). At the very least that
original text) was Paul’s special commission should mean that the church is (or should be)
(vv. 8–9). the prototype and test bed for reconciliation
The thought is certainly consistent with between peoples and between humankind and
Paul’s earlier references to the divine mys- the creation of which it is part.
tery—particularly Paul’s first unveiling of the The thought unwinds with a reminder of the
mystery to resolve the excruciating problem of supreme gift which Christ has brought: that ‘in
Israel’s rejection of the gospel (Rom 11:25–32). him’ there can be a boldness and confidence of
That the mystery focuses on the Jew/Gentile access to God (v. 12; cf. 2:18; Heb 4:16; 7:25; 1 Pet
issue and involves the removal of the theo- 3:18), a boldness and confidence made possible
logical significance of that distinction is less to precisely because of the insight embodied in the
the fore in Col 1:27, but is clearly central here in gospel regarding God’s ‘unsearchable riches’
Ephesians (cf. 2:11–22). The language and im- and ‘many-sided wisdom’ (my tr.), concerning
agery underline how crucial the issue was at the character of creation and his purpose for all
the beginning of Christianity: the gospel as an humankind. In Christ it is given to know the
invitation to all to share in the special relation- character of God as nowhere else so clearly, and
ship with God which both the Jewish and the through the trust which Christ inspires, or
Christian Bible assumes to have been Israel’s ‘through faith in him’ (cf. 3:17), humankind in
special and distinctive prerogative, but only its rich diversity can draw near to this God with
(Christians add) prior to the coming of Messiah boldness (cf. Rom 8:15–16).
Jesus (cf. Gal 3:29). If a text like this still speaks,
then a sense of continuity with Israel, but trans- (3:14–21) The Opening Prayer Resumed In
posed into a different key, remains fundamental effect everything from 1:3 to 3:21 is an extended
for Christian self-understanding. prayer. The section 2:1–3:13 is as it were a medi-
As in Col 1:27, 2:2, and 4:3, the mystery is tative break within the prayer proper—on the
embodied, unveiled, and implemented in Christ effect of conversion (2:1–10), on the reconcili-
(vv. 4, 8–9, 11; cf. 5:32; 6:19). Inevitably and ation of former hostility between Jew and Gen-
unavoidably Christ is the key to and reason for tile (2:11–22), and on the divine mystery
the distinctiveness of the Christian mystery (cf. 1 committed to Paul (3:1–13). The meditation has
Cor 1:24—Christ ‘the wisdom of God’). Presum- been of such a lofty character, rising repeatedly
ably it was the impact Jesus made in his minis- to praise for the wonder of God’s purpose now
try (in regard to sinners discounted by ‘the enacted in Christ, that the spirit of prayer has
righteous’), and, in Paul’s case particularly the scarcely been diminished. But now the medita-
impact of Christ’s post-crucifixion encounter tion passes back to prayer proper and the
with Paul (the two cannot have been at odds prayer at the end of such a profound meditation
otherwise Christianity would have fallen apart), is drawn to a fitting conclusion.
which caused the first believers to see that God’s As throughout the preceding chapters,
grace was for all equally and without reference the object of the prayer and devotion is
to national, racial, or social identity (cf. Gal God alone. To kneel is the appropriate
ephesians 180

acknowledgement of humble submission before As in the first part of the prayer proper (1:15–
and dependence on such an overwhelming maj- 23), so here, the second petition pushes through
esty (v. 14; cf. Rom 14:11; Phil 2:10–11). At the same the constraints of human language and imagery
time, it is God experienced and approached as (3:18–19). It is a prayer once again for knowledge
Father (v. 14) which is the distinctive Christian (as in 1:17–19)—but such knowledge! (1) To com-
feature (Lk 11:2; Rom 8:15–16; Gal 4:6–7). And it prehend (impossible!) what we might describe
is no inconsistency for Christians to recognize as the four dimensions (a not uncommon meta-
that this same God is the source of every family phor—Lincoln 1990: 207–13; Schnackenburg
and nation’s identity (v. 15)—the name indicating 1991: 150–1) of God’s love (the Gk. sentence in
the character of the named (cf. Ps 147:4). v. 18 is incomplete); ‘with all the saints’ is a
The petition echoes the earlier prayer in 1:17– reminder that only a church conscious of its
19. But it falls more clearly into two parts. The own dimensions through time and space can
first (3:16–17) is a prayer for the addressees’ spir- even begin to hope for the realization of such a
itual condition. The source is again the riches of prayer. (2) To know (in experience) the love of
God’s glory: ‘glory’ here is almost synonymous Christ which goes beyond knowledge (v. 19),
with ‘grace’ as in 1:7; God’s grace is his glory. where words and metaphors and symbols are
The concern is that they should be strengthened inadequate to the task of describing such ex-
in their innermost being (cf. Rom 7:22; 2 Cor perience (cf. Col 2:2–3). (3) With the result that
4:16; 1 Pet 3:4); sustained firmness of conviction, they may be filled with all God’s fullness! What
commitment, and motivation will be in view Col 1:19 and 2:9 ascribed to Christ alone, Ephe-
(cf. Col 1:11). The means is God’s Spirit, as the sians prays may be true also of the church (1:23;
powerful presence of God at work within 3:19)! The goal for the church is nothing less
the depths of human discipleship and within than that it embody the presence and love of
the human situation. God in the way that Christ did (cf. 4:13). Here the
It may seem surprising that the prayer (v. 17) sequence of clauses implies that such a filling is
is for Christ to dwell in their hearts (the tense the effect of appreciating and experiencing the
denotes ‘come to dwell’ rather than ‘continue to mystery of God’s love.
dwell’). Had Christ not already come to dwell in The prayer is brought fittingly to an end by a
the hearts of believers, at their conversion (cf. benediction (vv. 20–1) whose enthusiastic lan-
Rom 8:10; Gal 2:20; Col 1:27)? But believers do guage matches the hyperbole of the preceding
often pray for something (e.g. the presence of petition (cf. Rom 11:33–6). Such a petition can be
God’s Spirit in their worship) which they be- put forward since it is addressed to a God whose
lieve or hope to be already the case. Such a goodwill and enabling grace far exceed human
prayer is a natural expression of concerned imagining (cf. Phil 4:7). He ‘is able to do beyond
piety. Here it reminds us that we should not everything, infinitely more than we ask or think’
transform such language (Christ indwelling the (v. 20, my tr.); as elsewhere in Ephesians, the
heart) into formal definitions or dogmas which language tumbles over itself in the attempt to
can then be used to classify ‘genuine’ conver- express the completeness of trust beyond vision
sion or faith. Or else we should say that the (cf. 1:19). To be noted, however, is that the en-
prayer is for believers to be converted afresh abling power is already ‘at work within us’.
every day. The ‘faith’ here refers back to the The final doxology, (v. 21) ascribes glory to
faith mentioned in 3:12. To be noted also is the God both in the church and in Christ Jesus,
overlap between the Spirit and Christ (vv. 16– since Christ in life, death, and resurrection is
17): being strengthened through the Spirit and the paradigm of the one who most fully ac-
Christ indwelling are not clearly distinct experi- knowledges God and the character of God,
ences (cf. Rom 8:9–11; 1 Cor 6:17; 12:4–6). and since the church is the body of people on
It is equally important to recognize that this earth whose commitment is precisely both to
spiritual strengthening and indwelling is ‘rooted live from and to live out that same acknow-
and founded in love’ (v. 17, my tr.; note the echo ledgement.
of Col 2:7). The double metaphor (a living plant,
a well-constructed building) was typical of Jere-
miah (e.g. 1:9–10; 18:7–9; 24:6; 31:28) and is used
The Exhortation (4:1–6:20)
by Paul in 1 Cor 3:10–14. The love will presum- (4:1–6) The Church in its Calling and Confes-
ably be God’s initiating love and the divinely sion Paul’s regular practice in his letters was to
enabled human love in response, directed both attach a sequence of appropriate exhortations
to God and to the neighbour (Mk 12:28–33). to the main body of his letter. Here, even
 181 ephesians

though chs. 1–3 have been more prayer than with this monotheism, or else Christian faith is
exposition, the same practice is followed. Chs. misconfessed (cf. 1 Cor 8:6; 15:24–8; Phil 2:9–11).
4–6 contain mostly instruction (1) on how The importance of this distinctively Jewish em-
Christians should understand their mutual phasis on God as one is a reminder that the
interdependence as the church (4:1–16) and (2) principal strains on Christian unity at this
how they should conduct themselves in their period came from the inclusion of Gentiles
lives within the world (4:17–5:20), (3) in their into Israel’s privileged status (2:11–22).
mutual responsibilities as households (5:21– That the ‘one Spirit’ gives the body its actual
6:9), and (4) in their battle against spiritual (as distinct from its confessional) oneness (v. 4),
forces (6:10–20). both as a shared experience (v. 3) and through
The exhortation begins with Paul’s character- the manifold workings of the Spirit’s engrace-
istic ‘I exhort you’ (v. 1; cf. Rom 12:1; 1 Thess 4:1), ments, is spelled out more fully in 1 Cor 12:13–26
here with the same recall to his status as ‘the and Rom 12:4–8 (see also EPH 4:7–16). The ‘call-
prisoner’ as in 3:1. The metaphor for daily con- ing’ is one, because it is common to all believers
duct (‘lead life’) is ‘to walk’, a metaphor Jewish in (1:18; 4:1), without respect to rank or ability. In
origin (halakh means ‘walk’; hence halakah, rules v. 5 the ‘one faith’ will have in mind in particular
for conduct), which presumably reflects the fact what was probably one of the earliest baptismal
that most moral issues arise from one’s various confessions, ‘Jesus is Lord’ (cf. Rom 10:9). The
contacts with others as one ‘walks about’. The focus of unity is not so much a common for-
thought is not so much that a particular lifestyle mulation or common ritual as a common Lord;
or career can be regarded as a ‘calling’, as that somewhat surprisingly, the Lord’s Supper is not
the whole of life should be lived as an expres- mentioned.
sion of and response to God’s summons to
live for him (cf. 1 Cor 1:26; 7:20; 1 Thess 2:12; 2 (4:7–16) The Character and Purpose of Minis-
Thess 1:11). try in the Body of Christ The paragraph is a
No first-century Christian would need rich elaboration of the earlier Rom 12:4–8 and
reminding that such a calling inevitably meant 1 Cor 12:4–31. Here too it is stressed at the points
working and co-operating with others, with all of emphasis (beginning and end, vv. 7, 16): (1) that
the strains, misunderstandings, hurt feelings, the effective functioning of the church as Christ’s
and irritations which that involved. The church body depends on the recognition that each
could never be reduced to a sequence of dispar- member has a function within the body and on
ate individuals. The key to effective mutual each exercising that function; and (2) that each
co-operation is given in 4:2–3: a proper hum- function is appointed and its exercise made ef-
bleness and meekness in self-esteem (very un- fective by the enabling (engracement) which
macho characteristics; cf. Phil 2:3 and Col 3:12); comes from Christ. The terms used are slightly
(2) patience and forbearance in love (cf. 1 Cor different: the earlier Paul had spoken of ‘charism’
13:4–5); and (3) an eager determination to main- (charisma) as the function exercised in accordance
tain the unity of the Spirit and the peace which with the ‘grace’ (charis) given (Rom 12: 6–8); here
benefits all. To be noted is the fact that this the talk is of ‘grace’ given in accordance with the
unity is given by the Spirit, arising out of the measure of Christ’s gift (v. 7). And in Rom 12 and
shared experience of the one Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 1 Cor 12 the head is simply another part of the
12:13; Phil 2:1); it is not created by Christians, but body, whereas here Christ is the head of the
can be destroyed by them! The peace of God (cf. body (v. 16; cf. 1:22). But the basic imagery is
2:14–15) can function as a bond when there is the same; that is, of the body as the model of a
genuine mutual respect (cf. Col 3:14–15). unity which is constituted by diversity, a unity
The confession of 4:4–6 reinforces this unity which actually depends on the reality of mutual
by recalling its scope. It has an unconscious interdependence being expressed through the
triadic structure—‘one Spirit, one Lord, one diverse engracements of its different members.
God’ (had it been more deliberate presumably ‘The gift of the Messiah’ (v. 7, my tr.) is elab-
‘one Spirit’ would have come first in 4:4). By orated in vv. 8–11. First (v. 8) by citing Ps 68:18, a
giving ‘one God’ the climactic position (4:6), passage lauding YHWH’s triumph over Israel’s
and attaching to it the four ‘all’s, the writer enemies. Here it is taken as a description of
reminds his readers that the ultimate founda- Christ’s exaltation, presumably in the same
tion of Christian unity is God both in his one- vein as 1 Cor 15:24–6 and Col 2:15. And the
ness and in his allness as Creator (cf. Rom 11:36). text speaks of him giving rather than receiving
The confession of Christ as ‘one Lord’ is in tune gifts—the character of Christ’s triumph! But we
ephesians 182

know of a Jewish targum (interpretative trans- (cf. 1 Cor 13:12; Phil 3:8, 10); experience does
lation) of the same passage which referred it to not render trust unnecessary (cf. 2 Cor 12:1–10;
Moses and read it in a very similar way—Moses Gal 4:9). The goal is maturity. The measure of
giving the law. So the reading here would have that maturity is the Christ (cf. Col 1:28). What is
been quite acceptable. in view, it should be noted, is a corporate ma-
The interpretation of the Psalm, which is turity: such maturity is not possible for the
appended (4:9–10), is probably a very early ex- individual; it is possible only for the church,
pression of the belief that Christ descended into and for the individual as part of the body of
the place of the dead (‘the lower parts of the Christ.
earth’; cf. Ps 63:9; Mt 12:40; 1 Pet 3:19) prior to his A negative measure of such maturity (v. 14) is
ascension ‘far above all the heavens’ (cf. 1:3, 20; the church’s ability to steer a straight course
2:6; Heb 4:14; 7:26). Some think a reference to when the winds and waves of doctrinal specu-
incarnation is intended by the talk of descent, lation beat upon it—an odd change of meta-
but the language and imagery are focused solely phor within the sustained metaphor of the body
on the benefits and universal effect (cf. 1:23) of (probably alluding to Isa 57:20; cf. Jas 1:6). The
Christ’s resurrection and exaltation triumph; threat is all the more serious when human de-
and a reference to Christ descending at Pentecost ceit (as in a dice game) and malice are involved,
would be exceptional (Dunn 1989: 186–7). deliberate attempts to promote discordant
‘The gift of the Messiah’ is elaborated, sec- views or counter ideologies, designed (we may
ondly, by itemizing the particular gifts given infer) to boost some individual’s or group’s sta-
to the church (v. 11). The sequence of ‘apo- tus or reputation. Here again, discernment as a
stles . . . prophets . . . teachers’ reflects the same gift to the congregation as a whole must nor-
evaluation as 1 Cor 12:28—apostles as church mally be given precedence over the claimed
founders (e.g. 1 Cor 9:2), prophets and teachers insight of one or two. This fear of false teaching
as the most vital ministries in a church (Acts arising within the church smacks very much of
13:1; Rom 12:6–7). Unexpected is the insertion of a second-generation concern (cf. 1 Tim 4:1; Heb
‘evangelists’ as the third item (cf. Acts 21:8), and 13:9).
the linking of the fourth item as ‘pastors and The final elaboration of the body metaphor
teachers’—presumably reflecting an under- (vv. 15–16) reverts to the imagery of growth,
standing of the church as both evangelistic with Christ as both the goal and the source of
and pastoral in concern. its enabling (cf. 2:21; Col 2:19). The physiology
The other major elaboration of the earlier implied is strange to modern ears, but the force
imagery of the church as Christ’s body (vv. 12– of the metaphor is clear. The antithesis to naı̈ve
16) is in terms of the purpose of these gifts and childish interest in alternative practices or views
the character of the body’s growth. Noteworthy (v. 14; cf. 1 Cor 14:20–5; Heb 5:13–14) is ‘speaking
is the fact that these ministries do not constitute the truth in love’ (v. 15), a balance easy to state
the whole of the body’s ministry, but are in- (truth and love) but hard to practise (cf. Gal 4:16).
tended ‘for the equipment or making ready of It will not be accidental that the last word (v. 16)
the saints: for the work of ministry, for the is ‘love’ (cf. 5:25).
building up of Christ’s body’ (v. 12, my tr.; the
punctuation is important here; otherwise Lin- (4:17–32) How to Live as the Church in the
coln 1990: 253). The ministry of the appointed World There follows a section of more general,
few is to facilitate the ministry of all. Only so, more or less all-purpose paraenesis, which
presumably, can all come to the unity of the faith stretches to 5:20. Unlike earlier Pauline letters,
(v. 13): the unity of the confession (4:3–6) de- there seems to be no particular situation (in the
pends on the interactive ministries of the many Ephesian church or elsewhere) in view. The first
(vv. 7, 16), in other words, a dynamic and not a part (vv. 17–24) parallels 2:1–10 in structure—a
static unity. The goal (and test—1 Cor 14:3–5, 12, reminder (1) of the readers’ Gentile past (vv. 17–
17, 26) is always the upbuilding of the body. 19), (2) of their conversion (vv. 20–1), and (3) of
Here the voice is indeed still the voice of Paul. God’s purpose for them (vv. 22–4).
This point is reinforced by the following de- As in 2:11–12, the warning presupposes a
scription of the unity of the body as a process, a Jewish perspective (vv. 17–19): that Gentile con-
process of growth, a unity to be attained (v. 13) duct was characterized by the futility of their
as well as maintained (4:3). Here it is character- vaunted reason and darkness of understanding,
ized as a unity of faith in and knowledge of alienation from the life of God by their
God’s son: trust does not exclude knowledge ignorance (cf. 1 Pet 1:14), and a hardness and
 183 ephesians

callousness expressed in and reinforced by their words of Zech 8:16). The proverb that anger
self-surrender to sexual excess, impurity and should not be retained beyond nightfall,
greed (cf. 5:3; Col 3:5). The judgement is harsh thereby giving scope to the devil, was a valuable
but reflects Jewish conviction that they had elaboration of the exhortation from Ps 4:4 (vv.
been privileged with fuller insight into God’s 26–7).
will for human conduct, and the generally The exhortation about the thief (v. 28) breaks
higher sexual standards of Jewish communities the sequence on speaking, but reminds of the
(cf. Rom 1:21–31). transformation brought about in some early
The recall to their conversion in this instance Christian conversions and of the need to re-
focuses on what they were then taught (vv. 20– inforce such a conversion by a determined
1). Notable here is the reference to the Christ as a change of motivation and lifestyle (cf. Rom
model for Christian conduct (cf. Rom 6:17; 15:1– 12:8; 1 Thess 4:11; Titus 3:14). To work in order
3; Col 2:6); the ‘truth in Jesus’ is a moral truth. to give indicates a very different set of values
The ‘if indeed’ which begins v. 21 (my tr.; ‘as- from those which normally govern society.
suming that’ RSV) is a typical Pauline caution- The final group of exhortations (vv. 29–32)
ary note (cf. Rom 8:9, 17; 1 Cor 15:2; Col 1:23). contrasts (in an a-b-a-b format) contributions to
The exhortation which follows (vv. 22–32) conversation which are bitter, undisciplined,
takes the classic form: put off (vices) and put angry, and malicious and thus grieve the Spirit
on (virtues) (see e.g. Schweizer 1979). The im- (which should distinguish them as believers,
agery is drawn from change of clothes, as indi- 1:13–14), with those which are beneficial, fitting,
cating a change of character and lifestyle, and and impart grace to the other, marked by sen-
was familiar in the ancient world (here cf. par- sitivity, thoughtfulness, and the forgiveness
ticularly Col 3:8–12); it does not necessarily which they themselves had experienced from
imply that a ritual change of clothes was already God in Christ (Col 3:13). The mature Christian
part of Christian baptism. Something of the community is one where the Lord’s Prayer pe-
moral transformation which Christian conver- tition about forgiveness can be prayed with
sion entailed is here indicated (cf. 1 Cor 6:9–11), complete sincerity.
but also the Christian perception of the result-
ing difference in ethical values. (5:1–20) Walking in the Light The final block
To be ‘put off ’ (cf. Rom 13:12; Jas 1:21; 1 Pet 2:1) of general exhortations develops the earlier an-
is a whole way of life characterized by ‘deceitful tithesis between the old life and the new (cf. 2:1–
desires’ (v. 22, my tr.), the desire which con- 10 and 4:17–24) in three sharply drawn con-
stantly promises but never fully satisfies, trasts. First, the contrast between a life modelled
which consumes but rarely fulfils; the ‘old na- on the love of God and Christ (vv. 1–2) and a life
ture’ (RSV) is marked by the twilight of desire. mismatched with the vices which warrant the
The antidote and alternative is a constant re- anger of God (vv. 3–7). Second, the repeated
newal in self-perception (v. 23; cf. Rom 12:2) and contrast between light and darkness, between
a daily assumption of and living out (‘put on’) a life in the light, open to and in turn reflecting
the humanness which God intended and cre- light’s searching rays, and a life full of hidden
ated, marked by the righteousness and holiness shamefulness (vv. 8–14). And finally, the con-
of God’s reality (v. 24). Implicit is the conviction trasts between unwisdom and wisdom, between
that Christ is the image of the new humanity, a life which characteristically gains its inspir-
the completion of God’s purpose in creating ation from strong drink and a life whose
humankind, and the template for the recreation character and direction is given by the Spirit
of the old humanity into the new (cf. 2:15; 4:13; (vv. 15–20).
Rom 13:14; Col 3:10). As the first sequence of general exhortations
The general exhortations which follow (vv. was marked by a recall to their discipleship of
25–32) focus particularly on personal relations Christ (4:20), so the second sequence begins
and underline the importance of conversation, with a striking double call to take both God
as a force for community building and as po- and Christ as the model for personal relation-
tentially destructive of community (cf. Jas 3:6– ships and conduct (vv. 1–2). Paul elsewhere
12). They are based on age-old proverbial wis- speaks of imitating Christ (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thess
dom, familiar among both Greek and Jewish 1:6), but not of imitating God. The thought
moralists, but of no less value for that. Members here, however, is of the child taking the loving
of a church (of one another) should be able to parent as a model, and alludes particularly to
speak the truth to each other (v. 25, using the God’s forgiveness (following from 4:32) and
ephesians 184

mercy (cf. Lk 6:36); see further Wild (1985). So The degenerative effect of promiscuous and
too their conduct (walk) is to be modelled on selfishly acquisitive company (v. 7) is contrasted
Christ’s self-giving (cf. 5:25; Gal 2:20) and sacri- with the opening call to unconditional and sac-
fice (cf. Phil 4:18 echoing Ex 29:18) as a govern- rificial love (vv. 1–2).
ing principle. The second set of contrasts are between light
Another vice list (vv. 3–5) warns against sex- and darkness (vv. 8–14), a common metaphor-
ual sins in particular, beginning with a repeti- ical usage in religions generally to express the
tion of the characterization of their former sharpness of the antithesis between new and
lifestyle (4:19) and adding porneia (illicit sexual old, between truth newly perceived and the
relations), one of the most regular members of old misconceptions. In the OT cf. e.g. Ps 36:9;
such lists (e.g. Mk 7:21; Gal 5:19; Col 3:5). Evi- 82:5; Prov 4:14–19; Eccl 2:13; a prominent con-
dently the exploitation and abuse of sex was as trast in the Dead Sea scrolls is between ‘the sons
seductive and as destructive then as now. Gos- of light’ (the Qumran covenanters) and ‘the sons
sip about such matters should be discouraged of darkness’ (the rest); in the NT see e.g. Mt
lest it promote any implication that they don’t 6:22–3; Acts 26:18; 2 Cor 4:6; Col 1:12–13; 1 Pet
matter. Conversation between close friends can 2:9; 1 Jn 1:6.
so easily degenerate into shaming and foolish The elaboration of the contrast here is a
talk, and become caught in the swamp between blend of the conventional and the more dis-
buffoonery and boorishness (where Aristotle tinctively Christian. All would agree that good-
located the uncommon third term in v. 4); this ness, righteousness, and truth are desirable
is a further reflection on the dangers of too virtues (v. 9), that a religious person will want
casual speech (4:29–32). Christian conversation to learn ‘what is pleasing’ to God (v. 10), and that
should be marked instead by a spirit of thank- part of the effectiveness of the imagery of light
fulness (v. 4). lies in the power of light to expose what would
The vice list is rounded off by a reminder that otherwise be hidden from sight (vv. 11–13). The
the sexually promiscuous, the dirty-minded, distinctive Christian claim is that the light (the
and the greedy or covetous person (but the real, most effective light) is ‘in the Lord’ (v. 8).
terms are masculine) will not share the inherit- Equally characteristic of Paul’s teaching is the
ance of God’s kingdom (v. 5). This talk about claim that discernment of what pleases the Lord
inheriting the kingdom was evidently fairly (v. 10) is given by renewal of the mind and
common in earliest Christianity (1 Cor 6:9–10; through the Spirit (Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 2:14–15;
Gal 5:21; cf. Rev 21:8; 22:15). It linked effectively Phil 1:9–10; 1 Thess 5:19–22). The power of
into the most prominent feature of Jesus’ proc- light to expose the unsavoury and shameful
lamation (about the kingdom of God, e.g. Mk recalls such passages as Jn 3:20 and 1 Cor
1:15), but here reflects also the developed under- 14:14–25 and echoes the warning notes of Mk
standing of the exalted Christ as sharing in 4:21–2 and Rom 13:11–14.
God’s kingly rule (cf. Lk 22:29–30; 1 Cor 15:24– v. 14 may be a snatch of an early hymn (such
8; Col 1:13). It also links further back into the as may be found under a heading such as ‘The
idea of Gentiles sharing in Israel’s inheritance Gospel’ in older hymn-books today). If sung by
(1:14, 18). The abhorrence of idolatry was par- early congregations it would function both as a
ticularly Jewish, both as a fundamental sin and recall to their conversion, as a reminder (like
as associated with the three sins just named. The Rom 13:11) that falling asleep is a constant threat
idolatry and debauchery of the golden calf epi- to be resisted, and as a promise of final waking
sode remained an unhealed sore in Israel’s con- from sleep, resurrection from death, and en-
science (e.g. 1 Cor 10:6–8). But the folly of taking lightenment from Christ.
another as god, rather than the one Lord God of In the final paragraph the contrast between
Israel, had been a lesson requiring frequent unwisdom and wisdom (vv. 15–17) in effect
repetition. draws upon the accumulated wisdom of Pro-
They should beware of empty and deceptive verbs, Ben Sira, the teaching of Jesus gathered in
words on this point (v. 6; cf. Rom 16:18; Col the Sermon on the Mount, and so on. But it
2:4, 8). The evident fact was that human society adds the ominous note recalled from 2:2 that
functioned in accord with the moral order in such wisdom is needed because the context of
which God had set it: as in Rom 1:18–32, the the life of faith is stamped by evil (v. 16). That is
wrath or anger of God can be understood in why conduct must be ‘careful’ (v. 15; still attract-
terms of the community-destructive outwork- ive is the older KJV translation, ‘walk circum-
ings of such self-indulgence (v. 6; cf. 2:2–3). spectly’) and the significant time (the sense of
 185 ephesians

the Gk. word used here) must be ‘bought up’ The structure is particularly close to that of
(v. 16). The latter exhortation is just the same in Col 3:18–4:1, which probably provided the pre-
Col 4:5, and the metaphor more evocative than cedent for those which followed (here and 1 Pet
clear, but the emphasis is presumably on dis- 2:18–3:7; cf. e.g. Titus 2:1–10; Didache 4:9–11; 1
cerning and acting upon all too scarce oppor- Clem 21:6–9). The core teaching is fairly conven-
tunities for good and the gospel in the midst of tional (good ethics are by no means exclusively
lives which are all too pressurized and con- Christian). But the conventional is transformed
stricted. v. 17 presumably says the same thing by the Christian sense that all relationships have
in terms closer to those already used in v. 10. to be lived ‘in the Lord’ and with the unselfish,
The last contrast vividly recalls Acts 2:1–4, 12– sacrificial love of Christ as the pattern and in-
16 and reminds us that many of the earliest spiration.
Christian gatherings for worship were marked In the first part of the rule (5:21–33) the trans-
by spiritual exuberance (vv. 18–20). As at Pente- formation begins at once. That wives should be
cost the effect of the Spirit could give an im- subject to their husbands (5:22; Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1)
pression of drunkenness. The difference is that accorded with the moral sensibilities of the time;
strong drink taken in excess resulted in de- here we need to recall that in the law and ethos
bauchery and dissipation (cf. again Rom 13:13). of the time households were patriarchal institu-
In contrast, fullness of the Spirit came to ex- tions and that the paterfamilias (father of the
pression most characteristically in various family) had absolute power over the other mem-
psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, by which bers of the family. But the rule is already softened
the congregation was instructed, God was by prefacing it with a call to be subject to one
praised from the heart, and life lived in a spirit another (5:21; cf. Gal 5:13; 1 Pet 5:5): in a Christian
of thankfulness to God. To be noted is the fact household the power of the paterfamilias was
that being filled with the Spirit is not regarded not absolute. And the reminder that wifely sub-
as a once-for-all event; the exhortation is to be mission is to be ‘as to the Lord’ (5:22) sets the
(constantly or repeatedly) filled with the Spirit whole relationship within the primary context of
(see further Fee 1994). The distinction between mutual disciple-ship (cf. Mk 10:42–5).
the various forms of song is unclear (as in Col It is true that the placing of the relationship
3:16), but presumably includes OT psalms, of husband and wife parallel to that of Christ
hymns which came to birth in Christianity and church (5:23–4) seems to set the wife in an
(such as Lk 1:46–55 and perhaps Phil 2:6–11), intrinsically inferior status (cf. 1 Cor 11:3). But
and spontaneous charismatic songs (cf. 1 Cor that again reflects the ethos of the time (the
14:15, 26). As elsewhere in Paul prayer is made marital law which treated wives as the property
not so much to Christ as to God the Father of their husbands was only changed in Britain in
through Christ (cf. Rom 7:25; 2 Cor 1:20; Col 3:17). the 19th cent.). And the main thrust of what
follows is clearly intended to transfuse and
(5:21–6:9) Household Rules What follows is transform that given relationship with the love
constructed on the framework of a table of of Christ. The paradigm for the husband is
rules for good management of the household Christ as lover and saviour, not as lord and
(Balch 1981). Household management was a master.
common concern of political theorists and ethi- The beautiful imagery of 5:25–7, so beloved at
cists in the ancient world. Naturally so, since the wedding ceremonies, has in view the purifica-
household was generally understood to be the tory bath which the bride took prior to and in
basic unit of the state or society. The health of preparation for the wedding ceremony; Christ’s
society and stability of the state therefore self-giving had an analogous cleansing in view
depended on the basic relationships within the (cf. Ezek 16:8–14). Perhaps there is a side glance
household—husband and wife, father and chil- at baptism, but the primary thought is of the
dren, master and slaves. The second and third (corporate) Christian life as equivalent to the
generation of Christians shared this concern: no time between betrothal and the wedding cere-
doubt partly to demonstrate the good citizen- mony, the marriage itself only taking place at
ship of small house churches which might the return of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Rev 19:7–8;
otherwise have seemed subversive of traditional 21:2, 9–10). The cleansing is evidently a spiritual
social values; but no doubt partly also as a cleansing, and it comes ‘by the word’ (5:26; cf. 1
means of bearing good witness to the quality Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5–6; Heb 10:22).
and character of the Christian household (see 5:28–33 develops a different aspect of the
Schweizer 1979). imagery, drawn from Gen 2:24 (5:31; cf. Mt
ephesians 186

19:4–6). The idea of ‘the two become one flesh’ The final pairing in the household code is
invites a twofold corollary: that a healthy love slaves and masters (6:5–9). The exhortation to
of the other is inseparable from a healthy re- slaves is closely modelled on Col 3:22–5. Again
spect for oneself (5:28–9; cf. Mk 12:31; Rom it is worth noting that they too are here recog-
13:8–10)—an important psychological insight; nized as full members of the congregation and
and that the love of Christ sustains the mutual having responsibilities as Christians to dis-
love of husband and wife within the corporate charge the duties which their status as slaves
context of the church, of their being individu- laid upon them (cf. 1 Tim 6:1–2; Titus 2:9–10). If
ally and jointly members of his body the church any are surprised that Paul did not question the
(5:30, 32; cf. Rom 12:5). morality of slavery, they should recall that slav-
The final exhortation (5:33) maintains the em- ery only became a moral issue as a result of the
phasis on each and every husband’s responsi- slave trade (only two centuries ago), and that in
bility to love his own wife. The wife is not so the ancient world slavery was simply an eco-
counselled, for the love in view is not marital or nomic phenomenon, slaves being essential to
family love so much as the sacrificial and non- the smooth running of the economy (though by
self-serving love of the more powerful for the no means solely on the bottom rung).
disadvantaged. In a situation of given inequality The exhortation recognizes the reality of
between husband and wife the appropriate re- slavery: obedience had to be unquestioning
sponse of the wife was to respect her husband. and orders carried out with fear and trembling
The second pairing within the household (many masters treated their slaves harshly). But
code (as in Col 3:20–1) is children and parents the thrust of the exhortation is to provide the
(6:1–4). As with the submissiveness of wives, so slaves with the right motivation, so that their
the obligation of obedience to parents (6:1) was service might lose its servile character and be-
a widely recognized virtue in the world of the come a way of serving the Lord with sincerity of
time. But again it is qualified by an ‘in the Lord’ heart (6:5), doing the will of God with a will, and
(though the phrase here is missing from some not (as we might say) as clock-watchers or
important MSS). And just as noteworthy is the solely to catch the master’s eye or to curry
unusual feature in such codes, of children being favour with him (6:7). Slavery too can be a
directly addressed; evidently they were regarded form of discipleship (cf. 1 Cor 7:20–4). At the
as responsible members of the house churches same time, they are reminded that their earthly
where such a letter as this would be read out. As masters are only that (6:5), and that both slave
in the case of the previous exhortation to hus- and free will receive from their heavenly Lord
bands (5:25–33), so here the basic exhortation of the appropriate recompense according to the
Col 3:20 is elaborated, on this occasion by draw- good they have done (6:8; cf. 2 Cor 5:10).
ing in the scriptural authority for it—Ex 20:12 In 6:9 the point is driven home directly to
and the slightly fuller version of Deut 5:16— those in the congregation who were slave-own-
with the exegetical note inserted to point out ing householders (the assumption is that the
that this was the first commandment with household as a whole is Christian). In the spirit
promise. As in other similar cases, the NT writer of OT slave legislation (Lev 25:43), they should
saw no difficulty in applying a promise relating forbear from threatening their slaves, remem-
to Israel’s prosperity in the promised land to bering that both they and their slaves have the
Gentile believers in another part of the Mediter- same Lord in the heavenly places, and that he is
ranean world. an impartial master—a common OT motif (e.g.
In contrast, the advice to fathers is left stark Deut 10:17; 2 Chr 19:7) echoed elsewhere in the
(6:4). Again it is fairly conventional. Only the NT (Acts 10:34; Rom 2:11; Col 3:25; Jas 2:1).
father is addressed: the paterfamilias had sole
legal authority over his children and primary (6:10–20) Put on the Armour of God The
responsibility for their paideia (training or dis- final strand of exhortation is one of the most
cipline; the classic word in this context) and vivid portrayals of the Christian life as a spirit-
instruction; at the same time it was recognized ual struggle, indicating the power of the hostile
that such power unwisely handled could easily forces (vv. 10–12), the means of withstanding
provoke or goad youths and young men to a them (vv. 13–17), and the need for co-operative
resentment which was destructive of household effort (vv. 18–20). The metaphor, be it noted, is
order and family. Again the Christian qualifica- of warfare, not of a school debate or of a
tion is added—‘the training and instruction of business enterprise. As a piece, it is clearly
the Lord’ (cf. Prov 3:11). constructed from a sequence of allusions to
 187 ephesians

well-established Jewish motifs, particularly that breastplate is faith). Nevertheless, the appropri-
of YHWH as the Divine Warrior (Isa 59:17; Wis ateness of this listing is notable.
5:17–20). The writer would no doubt be con-
1. Belt (v. 14). In a day when clothing was
scious of the fact that the armour he describes
much looser, it was necessary for the flowing
is depicted by Isaiah especially as YHWH’s own
cloak to be fastened firmly by a belt, otherwise
armour, armour which YHWH dons to effect
movement would be hindered and action im-
judgement on human sin and social injustice
peded (cf. Lk 12:37; 17:8). To be caught out in
(Isa 59:12–18).
deceit or falsification was like tripping over
The spiritual opposition is described both as
one’s own clothing; the belt of truth prevents
‘the devil’ (cf. 2:2; 4:27; Jas 4:7; 1 Pet 5:8–9), and
one being ‘caught with one’s pants down’.
as cosmic and spiritual powers in the heavenlies
2. Breastplate (v. 14). The metaphor draws dir-
(vv. 11–12; cf. Rom 8:38–9; Col 1:16; 2:15). With
ectly on Isa 59:17 (and Wis 5:18), describing
this information added to that of the earlier
YHWH’s breastplate. There it is the fact that
references to the heavenlies (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10),
what God does is right which makes his judge-
we are given a clearer picture of the heavenly
ment invulnerable to criticism (of partiality).
regions—presumably as a sequence of heavens
Here the thought is of God’s acceptance of
(cf. 2 Cor 12:2–3), in which the lower heavens
those who trust in him as their breastplate
(nearer to earth) are inhabited by hostile
which keeps them equally secure in the face of
powers, and the upper heavens are where Christ
hostile criticism (cf. Rom 5:1–2; 8:31–4).
is seated (1:20–1). Modern cosmology is very
3. Shoes (v. 15). This is a more original image,
different, and the extent to which such names
but no doubt adapted from Isa 52:7, a passage
(‘rulers, authorities, cosmic powers’) were al-
which is also echoed in Acts 10:36 and cited in
ready perceived to be metaphorical is unclear.
Rom 10:15. Why the word ‘preparation’ is added
What matters is the recognition that there are
is unclear, but it strengthens the impression that
forces active through human fear and greed
what is in view is the responsibility of the
which can captivate whole groups and even
church and believer to speak out the gospel of
societies and wreak all forms of evil, from the
peace with God. Mission is the best form of
most subtle (‘the wiles of the devil’; cf. 4:14) to
defence; the church on the move will be more
the most inhuman. Those who have lived
surefooted in face of the encroachments of evil.
through any three or four decades of the twen-
4. Shield (v. 16). Again the imagery is original;
tieth century should need no convincing on
more typically God is a shield (e.g. Gen 15:1; Ps
that score. To designate them as ‘spiritual
18:2, 30; 28:7); in Wis 5:19 the shield is ‘holiness’.
powers’ helps prevent such evil from being
But ‘faith’ is also appropriate (cf. 1 Pet 5:9). Faith
treated lightly or superficially (they are not
and righteousness are two sides of the one coin in
merely ‘flesh and blood’) (see e.g. Wink 1984:
Pauline thought (Rom 1:17), just as the breastplate
84–9).
and shield have a similarly defensive function
The appropriate and necessary response
(hence 1 Thess 5:8). Trust itself can be exposed
(given the character of this evil) is to seek a
to quite a battering, but trust sustained keeps
strength commensurate with and more power-
inviolate the one who so trusts (cf. Rom 4:16–22).
ful than that evil—a spiritual strength to match
5. Helmet (v. 17). Here we are back with famil-
a spiritual crisis (cf. Rom 4:20; 1 Cor 16:13), a
iar imagery (Isa 59:17; 1 Thess 5:8; though in Wis
strength from God, the strength of God himself
5:18 the helmet is ‘impartial justice’). In 1 Thess
(v. 10; the first OT echo—Isa 40:26). Correlated
5:8 the helmet is ‘the hope of salvation’, which
with (or an elaboration of) this strength is the
reflects the thought of the earlier Paulines that
equipment of the Divine Warrior, ‘the panoply
salvation is a still future goal (but ‘hope’ is
of God’ (vv. 11, 13). Only that equipment and
confident hope). Here, however, as in 2:5 and
empowering will provide the fortitude and the
8, the question is raised whether the perspective
means to withstand in a day when evil seems to
has changed: that which keeps the head of the
be rampant (cf. 5:16), and having done all within
body (cf. 4:15) safe is the security of salvation
one’s power, still to stand one’s ground; the sign
realized and not just the confident hope of it.
of God’s enabling is not so much clear-cut vic-
6. Sword (v. 17). Notably the one offensive
tory over evil, as the sustained will to resist evil,
weapon is doubly denoted as ‘of the Spirit’,
come what may.
and as ‘the word of God’. Again the imagery
The list of equipment is inspired by earlier,
reflects older usage (Isa 49:2; Hos 6:5; cf. Heb
briefer metaphors, and the metaphors them-
4:12). What is in mind is not just the written
selves are not fixed (e.g. in 1 Thess 5:8 the
ephesians 188

word, as though the thought was simply of the see also Acts 20:4) he probably emerged only
believer being well versed in scripture, able to in the Pauline circle at a late stage; like Epaph-
cite the appropriate passage for all occasions ras (Col 1:7) he is remembered as a beloved
(cf. Mt 4:1–11). The Spirit is here seen as an brother and faithful servant of Christ. What-
inspiring force, the Spirit that inspires the ever the precise historical circumstances, the
word from God appropriate to the occasion reference reminds us that there must have
(Mk 13:11; Rom 10:8–17; 1 Pet 1:25). It is no acci- been regular contacts between the Pauline
dent that the enabling of powerful speech is one churches.
of the most regular charisms and marks of the The final benediction (vv. 23–4) is unusual in
Spirit in the NT (e.g. Acts 4:8; 1 Cor 2:4–5; 12:8, Paul, but it strikes the regular notes of grace and
10); despite immense developments in commu- peace (1:2) and links them with two of the great
nication, the force of the spoken word is still Pauline words—love and faith (‘love with faith’).
immeasurable. Effective also is the final balance between divine
enabling (‘from [both] God the Father and the
The final stress is on prayer (vv. 18–20), not,
Lord Jesus Christ’) and human response (‘all
somewhat surprisingly, as part of the continuing
who have an undying love for our Lord Jesus
metaphor of spiritual armour, but emphasizing
Christ’).
none the less (by the greater elaboration given to
the request) its importance in the warfare just
described. Christian soldiers must never forget REFERENCES
that they need constant help from God. More-
Balch, D. (1981), Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic
over, since the previous imagery had been some-
Code in 1 Peter (Missoula; Scholars Press).
what individualistic (despite the plural verbs),
Barth, M. (1974), Ephesians (2 vols.; Garden City, NY:
this last addition helps underline the importance
Doubleday).
of co-operation and mutual support in the war-
Best, E. (1987), ‘Recipients and Title of the Letter to
fare. Like the speaking (v. 17), the praying should
the Ephesians: Why and When the Designation
look to the Spirit for inspiration (cf. Rom 8:26–7;
‘‘Ephesians’’ ’, ANRW 2. 25. 4 (Berlin: de Gruyter),
1 Cor 14:15; Jude 20); and the military mood is
3247–79.
retained in the calls for alertness and application
Bruce, F. F. (1984), The Epistles to the Colossians to
(6:18; cf. Lk 21:36).
Philemon and to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids:
The transition from exhortation to personal
Eerdmans).
request (vv. 18–20) seems to be modelled on Col
Caragounis, C. C. (1977), The Ephesian Mysterion (Lund:
4:2–4 (cf. Lk 21:15; Mk 14:38), with a final recap-
Gleerup).
itulation of the ‘mystery’ motif and play on the
Dunn, J. D. G. (1989), Christology in the Making, 2nd
contrast between Paul’s imprisonment and his
edn. (London: SCM).
boldness as commissioned by God (3:1–12; cf. 2
Fee, G. D. (1994), God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy
Cor 3:12; 5:20; Phil 1:20; 1 Thess 2:2).
Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, Mass.: Hen-
drickson), 658–733.
Conclusion and Benediction (6:21–4) Lincoln, A. T. (1990), Ephesians, WBC 42 (Dallas:
Most of vv. 21–2 is almost verbatim Col 4:7–8. It Word).
is of course conceivable that Paul wrote both Mitton, C. L. (1951), The Epistle to the Ephesians (Oxford:
letters at more or less the same time (thus un- Clarendon).
consciously or deliberately giving Tychicus pre- Schnackenburg, R. (1991), The Epistle to the Ephesians:
cisely the same commission each time). But the A Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
perspective of the letters is too different for that Schweizer, E. (1979), ‘Traditional Ethical Patterns in
to be the most obvious solution. And in a letter the Pauline and Post-Pauline Letters and their
thus far marked by its lack of specific reference Development (Lists of Vices and House-Tables)’,
to particular situations, this brief personal note in E. Best and R. McL. Wilson (eds.), Text and
rings somewhat oddly. It is more likely, then, Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University
that the author has drawn the language from Press), 195–209.
Colossians to indicate the very Pauline effect he Wild, R. A. (1985), ‘ ‘‘Be Imitators of God’’: Disciple-
hoped his letter would have, and as an expres- ship in the Letter to the Ephesians’, in F. Segovia
sion of what Paul would have wished to say had (ed.), Discipleship in the New Testament (Philadelphia:
he himself still been able to dictate such a letter. Fortress), 127–43.
Since Tychicus appears only in the later Wink, W. (1984), Naming the Powers (Philadelphia:
Pauline letters (Col 4:7; 2 Tim 4:12; Titus 3:12; Fortress).
 9. Philippians
robert murray, sj
INTRODUCTION 135–70). By the time of the letter it had officers
called episkopoi and diakonoi (1:1); presbuteroi are
A. Character and Main Concerns of the Letter. 1.
not mentioned. Paul refers to the Philippians’
Equalled only by Philemon, Philippians is the
suffering for Christ (1:27–30; 2:15–17) and refers
most personal of Paul’s letters. Among the cat-
to ‘opponents’ (1:28), but without identifying
egories listed by ancient theorists (Malherbe
them. Motives for hostility can be imagined
1988), it combines features of a hortatory ‘letter
on the part (respectively) of the civic authorities,
of friendship’ (Fee 1995: 214) with those of a ‘pat-
the pagan public, Jews opposed to Christians,
ronage letter’ (Bormann 1995: 161–205). Unusually
and Jewish Christians opposed to Paul.
for Paul, the OT is seldom cited; his argument is
3. The references to disunity have evoked
passionately centred on Christ, yet he often uses
many hypotheses (O’Brien 1991: 26–35). Theor-
Stoic language (see PHIL E).
ies of Gnostic opponents (Fee 1995: 19–32) are
2. Although the letter’s contents are condi-
unconvincing. Tellbe (1994) plausibly suggests a
tioned by practical matters, the main emphasis
crisis facing Gentile Christians unprotected by
is on strengthening the commitment and faith
Jewish exemption from Roman cult practices.
of the Philippian Christians, as was Paul’s regu-
Others propose grounds for the quarrel men-
lar aim (Meeks 1983: 84–107). He urges them to
tioned in 4:2, especially disagreement over
follow the example of Christ in union with him
financial support for Paul (Peterlin 1995: 101–
(repeatedly expressed by ‘sharing’, koinōnia and
32, 171–216). This letter of only rarely polemical
its compounds), so as to grow in a Christlike
tone is subjected by some to a process which
mindset guiding both belief and action. This is
Barclay (1987) calls ‘mirror-reading’; both the
expressed by several recurring verbs, especially
method and its criteria are open to criticism
phronein, ‘think’ or ‘feel’, which, together with
(Fee 1995: 7–10). Discord in the Philippian
‘rejoice’, chairein, virtually structures the letter,
church at this time is probably best explained
creating a major inclusio from beginning to end.
by the situation of Gentile converts vis-à-vis
Roman civic pride and official cult and a tempt-
B. The Addressees. 1. Philippi (Bormann 1995) ing compromise offered by Jewish Christians
stood on the plain of eastern Macedonia, about (Tellbe 1994).
16 km inland from its port Neapolis. It was
refounded as a city by Philip II of Macedon in C. Paul’s Situation. 1. The common view till
358–357 BCE. Prosperous from mineral deposits this century was that Paul wrote from Rome in
and its location on a main east–west route, Phil- the early 60s CE. Even if he was only under
ippi came under Roman rule in 167 BCE. Octavian, house-arrest (Acts 28:30), this could mean pain-
after gaining supreme power in 31 BCE, settled ful frustration. On this view ‘the (praetorium)
veterans here and gave the city the status of a imperial guard’ (1:13) and ‘the emperor’s [Cae-
colonia with citizenship by ius italicum. The popu- sar’s] household’ (4:22) would be in their regular
lation would have been mainly Macedonians, bases in Rome itself.
Greeks, and Romans. Acts 16:12–40 recounts 2. Many today favour an earlier imprison-
Paul’s visit with Silas (about 50 CE), conversion ment, most preferring Ephesus in the mid-50s,
of Lydia, and misfortunes before he revealed about the probable time when Paul wrote 1–2
his citizen status. The alarm of the city magis- Corinthians and Romans, to which Philippians
trates and their anxiety to see the last of Paul and is said to be close in doctrine. Though there is
Silas doubtless gave Christianity a prejudiced no direct evidence for such an imprisonment,
start. 1 Cor 15:32 and 2 Cor 1:8–10 might refer to it.
2. Apart from Acts, Philippians is our only Some epigraphic evidence is cited to argue
source for the origins of this church. Lydia had that ‘praetorium’ and ‘Caesar’s household’
been a Jewish God-fearer. All the people named could refer to a provincial governor’s establish-
in Philippians except Clement are Greek, but ment. Communication between Philippi and
this does not exclude their having become Ephesus would be easier and quicker than with
Christians via Judaism. The church was doubt- Rome.
less mixed in ethnic and social character. It 3. Evaluation: in 2 Cor 11:23 Paul looks back
probably met in house-groups (Peterlin 1995: on ‘many’ imprisonments, so that in theory any
philippians 190

of them could be possible. However, the case 5. Evaluation: whatever the origin of this
for Ephesus is linked to the doubtful theory that undeniably poetic passage, it actually exists
Philippians is an amalgam (see PHIL D.2); the only in Phil 2; the exegete must expound it in
fewer letters are posited, the less need there is that context. If Paul quoted an existing text, by
to suppose a shorter distance to be travelled. himself or another, it became part of his letter;
Similarities with Romans and 1–2 Corinthians any argument for its detachability raises similar
need not tell against Philippians being dated a problems to those for denying the letter’s integ-
few years later. The epigraphic evidence is rity (Hooker 1978). Arguments against Pauline
judged not relevant by Bruce (1980–1). In fine, authorship risk being circular (Fee 1995: 45).
the arguments for Ephesus have not overcome Hypotheses about the development of Christ-
those for Rome (Fee 1995: 34–7). ology have been allowed to determine the exe-
gesis of the passage, again producing circular
D. Critical Questions. 1. Pauline authorship of arguments. Heightened poetic style does not
Philippians is almost universally acknowledged, prove non-Pauline origin (Martin 1983: 57; Fee
apart from some theories about 2:6–11. 1992). Recent literary analysis emphasizes that
2. The letter’s unity and integrity have been the passage is integrally embedded in its context
challenged on grounds of apparent breaks in and the whole letter. Many of its keywords
coherence and an order thought to be unsuited recur, subtly transposed, in ch. 3 (Dalton 1979:
to its purpose (e.g. Collange 1979). Many hold 99–100; Garland 1985: 158–9). This does not
that it has been re-edited from two or three prove it was not an already existing text, but
letters by Paul, but disagree on where the cuts isolating it becomes increasingly problematic.
and rejoins are. The main reasons offered are an 6. These expressions of reserve, however, do
apparent ending and abrupt new start at 3:1, and not deny that the passage’s theological import-
the improbability that Paul left his thanks to the ance reaches wider than its immediate function
end. in Philippians, or that its pattern of Christ’s
3. Criticism (cf. O’Brien 1991: 10–18): no descent and ascent is paralleled in other early
manuscript evidence suggests disturbance of Christological statements in solemn style.
the text. Any theory that an existing text has
been rearranged by a redactor must show that it E. ‘Stoicism’ in Philippians. 1. The frequency
solves difficulties in the text better than main- of Stoic language in Philippians is emphasized
taining the traditional arrangement. For Philip- by Engberg-Pedersen (1994). The evidence is
pians it must explain credibly why and how the seldom noted even in larger commentaries.
supposed redactor wove several letters by Paul When compelling examples such as autarkēs
into a new composition. In fact the problem at (4:11) cannot be denied (e.g. Fee 1995: 427–35),
3:1 is not solved but shifted from Paul to an commentators insist that Paul radically trans-
unknown X with unknown motives. As for the forms Stoic themes, which are generally dispar-
postponement of thanks, Polycarp, writing to aged. Yet the use of Stoic ideas in Luke’s
the same church at twice the length, likewise account of Paul’s sermon in Athens (Acts
keeps business to the end (Phil. 13, see Lake 1912– 17:22–31) is matched by passages in Paul’s letters.
13: i). The strongest argument, however, for the In fact Stoicism had appeal for both Jewish and
integrity of Philippians rests on appreciation of Christian preachers. 1 Clement, which should be
the whole as a structured masterpiece (Garland dated not much later than 70 CE (Herron 1989),
1985; see PHIL F). that is, only about ten years after Philippians, is
4. The theory that 2:6–11 is an already exist- full of Stoic ideas and terms, all interwoven with
ing hymn that Paul quotes for his purpose, first biblical, Jewish, and Christian themes.
proposed by Lohmeyer (1928), has come to 2. Romans shows Paul readily adopting Stoic
dominate both exegesis of Philippians and language for his message (e.g. 1:28, 12:2);
study of early Christology and credal formulas, perhaps he did this whenever he addressed con-
though the term ‘hymn’ remains imprecisely verts with any degree of philosophical educa-
defined and the theory still takes various tion. Whatever the reason, in Philippians his use
forms, including earlier composition by Paul. of Stoic language is pervasive, serving most of
The literature is enormous; with the standard his main themes: the emphasis on keeping a
survey by Martin (1983); see now O’Brien (1991: right mind (phronein), discernment to choose
186–271). A rare voice questioning the theory’s the better (dokimazein ta diapheronta), aiming (sko-
solidity and value for exegesis is raised by Fee pein) at the right end (telos); seeking contentment
(1992; 1995). (autarkeia) in one’s state, with joy (chara) even
 191 philippians

when suffering; community (koinōnia) lived out ‘assistants’. The inclusion of these ministers, as
in good citizenship (politeuesthai) related to a well as the repeated ‘all’, five times from 1:1 to 1:8
state or model (politeuma), and still more. These (admittedly unusual for Paul), have been seen as
expressions prove serviceable to Paul, though a first hint of the disunity that Paul will address
only up to a point; the reality of Jesus and the more clearly later (Lightfoot 1879: 67; Peterlin
supreme value of knowing him in life and 1995). At this point, however, this can hardly do
death, through faith and hope, are grasped more than raise a suspicion. v. 2, ‘Grace to you
only by experience (3:8–11). Yet the paradox and peace’ slightly varies the word order of a
seems true that ‘it is when Paul is at his most formula Paul uses in opening and closing greet-
Stoic that he is also at his most Christian’ ings. The ‘grace’ formula is echoed in 4:23 to
(Engberg-Pedersen 1994: 280). Paul’s harnessing wrap up the whole letter. Though the Holy
of Stoic ideas to the gospel in Philippians does Spirit is expressly named only three times
not enter those areas where Christian Stoicism (1:19; 2:1; 3:3), here the formula can be called
was to reveal its dangers (e.g. excessive anthro- implicitly trinitarian (cf. 4:7; see Fee 1995: 48–9).
pocentrism and distortions of asceticism).
(1:3–11) Thanksgiving and prayer v. 3, Paul
F. The Structure of Philippians. The letter has begins every letter to a church (except Gal-
a ‘rondo’ structure; after an ‘overture’ (here atians) by thanking or blessing God for the
called 1B), comments on practical matters (sec- good he has heard about his addressees. Here
tions 2, 4, and 6C) alternate with two major he mingles these two reactions with his prayer
exhortations (sections 3 and 5) each centring for them (1:3–4) and with joy (1:5), a combination
on a narrative with a downward–upward move- he will recommend in 4:6, as in 1 Thess 5:16–18.
ment; the first about Christ (2:5–11), the second This paragraph is like a musical overture which
about Paul (3:4–14). These and their contexts are anticipates themes to be heard later (PHIL F). Joy
linked by many corresponding words and (chara) is the first of these; with its verb chairein it
phrases (Garland 1985: 158–9; Fee 1995: 314–15). runs right through the letter. The focus of Paul’s
Repetition of significant words or ideas occurs joy is the Philippians’ sharing (koinōnia) with
throughout the letter. Inclusio is used systemat- him in the gospel (1:5). Koinōnia is a keyword in
ically, both to articulate sections of the argu- the letter; aspects of it can be expressed by
ment and to make the letter’s closing sentences ‘partnership’, ‘fellowship’, ‘union’, and ‘commu-
echo keywords in the opening. The commen- nion’. It occurs again at 2:1 and 3:10. Koinōnos
tary notes these points in detail. (sharer, partner) occurs in the compound form
sunkoinōnos at 1:7 and the related verbs at 4:14, 15.
The prefix sun- (‘together’) occurs twelve times
COMMENTARY in the letter, compounded with eight nouns
or verbs; it serves to enhance Paul’s constant
Introduction (1:1–11) emphasis on relationship, unity and joy in com-
(1:1–2) Greeting Paul includes colleagues with munity, and in sharing with him. The Philip-
himself in seven letters, and Timothy most pians, of course, knew what the sharing had
often, but not as co-author; in 2:19–24 he occurs meant. For other readers Paul reveals it grad-
in the third person. Paul refers to them both as ually: work for the gospel (1:5); prayer for him in
‘slaves’ of Christ Jesus, as in Rom 1:1. Since this is his imprisonment and preaching, which he calls
an opening formula, it can hardly be a con- ‘shar[ing] in God’s grace’ with him (1:7); striving
scious anticipation of its application to Christ side by side (1:27; 4:3) a metaphor from athletics
in 2:7, though this may strike a reader today. that will recur, and finally their gifts of material
Paul uses the expression ‘the saints’ in six letters, support (4:15–18). v. 6, ‘I am confident’ (1:6): with
thus or in the formula ‘called [to be] saints’. this Paul passes from the Philippians’ action to
Modern versions often paraphrase it as ‘the God’s. (The verb recurs at 1:25, 2:24, and 3:3–4.)
holy people of God’; the phrase connotes the What Paul is confident about here is that their
Christian claim to have been brought through faith is God’s ‘good work’, from when he began
faith in Christ into God’s covenant people (Ex it till he brings it to completion ‘by the day of
19:6; 1 Pet 2:9–10). Though the words ‘bishops Jesus Christ’. Paul returns to the interplay of
and deacons’ come from the Greek (see PHIL B. 2), human effort and God’s work at 2:12–13. ‘The
their meanings have changed so much since day of Jesus Christ’ is the day of his expected
their NT use that it is less misleading to render return; the phrase occurs again at 1:10 and 2:16.
them by (e.g.) ‘pastors’ or ‘guardians’ and Paul refers to it as an assumed point of faith for
philippians 192

the Philippians, a future reality though of un- Such choices lived out will lead Christians to
known date; not a matter for overexcitement as such a state that Christ at his return will find
it had been in Thessalonica. (This may perhaps them to be ‘pure and blameless’. The former
lend some slight support for later dating of word probably refers especially to motives; the
Philippians.) latter (lit. with no stumbling) may refer both to
v. 7, the key word phronein (see PHIL E.2) appears moral steadiness and to not causing others to
for the first time. Here it expresses a warm per- stumble. All this will bear the ‘harvest of right-
sonal concern, based on mutual affection, to eousness’ through Christ’s gift and to God’s
‘hold’ others in one’s ‘heart’. Whose heart, hold- glory. Paul’s prayer contains a whole cluster
ing whom? Most older versions took it as Paul’s, of pregnant words concerned with moral
holding that of his friends. NRSV opts for the experience that develops character, and espe-
reverse. Both are grammatically possible; the cially the capacity for loving realistically. Cf.
emphasis may be on the comfort Paul receives Philem 4–7. The desired ‘knowledge’ is of God;
in his captivity and his service of the gospel from the ‘insight’ is experience that builds up that
the thought of them, or on their thought and knowledge; the testing of all things (1 Thess
prayer for him in his situation. It makes little 5:21) leads to knowledge of God’s will (Rom
difference, because the relationship is mutual; 12:2; Eph 5:10), with the purification of motives
they are sunkoinōnoi with Paul, they ‘share in and moral firmness; all add up to the global
God’s grace’ with him. To understand the heart moral term ‘righteousness’. These ideas, if not
as Paul’s perhaps makes the next sentence follow the same words, reappear in Paul’s central af-
more smoothly. v. 8, Paul says his feelings are firmation of his deepest values in 3:8–12. They
not merely his own. He lives in such union with are fundamental for the whole theory and
Christ (Gal 2:20) that he experiences Christ’s practice of discernment in Christian tradition;
compassion as his own. ‘Compassion’ renders yet it was Stoicism that provided Paul with
splagchna, literally ‘bowels’, an idiom borrowed many of the keywords: there is no need to
from Hebrew, which can relate strong emotions shy away from this conclusion.
to various internal organs.
v. 9, Paul circles back to what he began to
say in v. 3. He wants them to grow in agapē, the
Paul’s Situation and his Reactions to it (1:12–26)
kind of love he has described in 1 Cor 13, and (1:12–18) What has been Happening Two key-
will appeal to here in 2:1, 2. He does not say words mark off this section as another loose
love for whom, either for himself or for each inclusio. The first is ‘progress’ (prokopē, v. 12,
other; he simply prays that their capacity for obscured in NRSV’s ‘to spread the gospel’). This
loving may increase so that it overflows ever is picked up again in 1:25, where the progress is
more and more. But he wants it to be far more on the part of Paul’s addressees. The other key-
than mere feeling; rather, to be directed by word is ‘confidence’; it recurs in 1:14, of Christians
‘knowledge and full insight’. These words are heartened by Paul’s successful witness despite his
of great importance for understanding the let- imprisonment, and again in 1:25 of Paul trusting
ter; they spell out what Paul means by phronein. that he will remain some time longer for the
The word rendered ‘knowledge’ is epignōsis, encouragement of the Philippians. Other key-
probably in the sense of a knowledge trans- words in this section are ‘gospel’ (1:12, 16, 27)
cending ordinary cognition (gnōsis). This is best and ‘rejoice’/‘joy’ (chairō, chara, 1:18, 25).
illustrated by Paul’s use of the related verb in 1 In the first seven verses Paul assures his readers
Cor 13:12: ‘Now I know only in part; then I will that two aspects of his situation which might be
know fully, even as I have been fully known’ (em- expected to cause him pain and frustration have
phasis added); it is knowledge that at least rather had the opposite effect. The first is his
approaches the knowledge that God has of captivity. He does not describe his circumstances
us. ‘Insight’ renders aisthēsis which basically except by the conventional ‘chains’ and the im-
means perception, but the Stoics and other plication that it would be his guards who spread
moral philosophers used it for moral know- favourable impressions of him around the prae-
ledge gained by experience, and this is its prob- torium (1:13 probably in the regimental sense,
able meaning here (the only occurrence in the Lightfoot 1879: 99–104). On the alternative the-
NT). v. 10, the verb ‘determine’ (dokimazō) pri- ories based on Rome and Ephesus, see PHIL C. The
marily means the testing by which something traditional view, that Paul is writing from Rome,
comes to be approved. ‘What is best’ is literally naturally refers to Acts 28; he had come ‘in
‘the things that are different’ i.e. morally better. chains’ (28:17) with a soldier guarding him
 193 philippians

(28:16), temporarily in a ‘guesthouse’ (28:23) but pivotal, grounding both Paul’s joy in the situ-
then for two years in lodgings where he could ation just described and his confidence for the
receive visitors (28:30). Philippians, for all its future: ‘I know [the verb is repeated at v. 25]
reticence, implies severer conditions than this. that . . . this will result in my deliverance.’ Ver-
Perhaps after two years of waiting, on being bally this is one of the few OT allusions in
called to have his case heard, Paul came under Philippians; it reproduces the Greek of Job
regulations requiring prison custody. Apologia 13:16, in a passage that expresses Job’s invincible
(defence) in Phil 1:7 and 16 could refer to a formal trust in a transcendent justice. But in Paul’s very
hearing (cf. 2 Tim 4.6) but by reason both of its different situation he is hardly likely to be com-
range of meaning and of its context here it can paring himself with Job; the coincidence of
equally well refer to the ‘apologetic’ aspect of language could almost be accidental. ‘Deliver-
preaching. (Of course, such a series of events ance’ is sōtēria (salvation); the NRSV’s rendering
could have taken place in Ephesus, and no argu- seems to focus on Paul’s vindication and release,
ments seem decisive.) Paul does not explain how but this does not exclude an implicit eschato-
his imprisonment has encouraged Christians to logical sense, as is clear, with reference to the
witness to their faith more boldly (v. 14). Perhaps Philippians in 1:28 and 2:12. Paul’s first motive
they are saying ‘if Paul can do so much in chains, for confidence is his certainty that his friends
how much more should we dare to do in free- pray for him as he does for them (1:4), and that
dom?’ If his guards have played a part, this could their intercession is effective. Paul’s second
be cheering news also for his readers in a proud motive is revealed with the first of the three
Roman colonia (Tellbe 1994: 110–11). v. 15, Paul explicit references to the Holy Spirit in Philip-
sees two spirits at work in their activity, one of pians (see PHIL 1:2). ‘Help’ is epichorēgia, the act of
goodwill (eudokia) and love towards him, the supplying or providing for needs. Lightfoot
other of envy (phthonos), rivalry (eris), and selfish (1879: 91) discusses whether the Spirit is the
ambition (eritheia, v. 17; 2:2), making some act not giver or the gift, and concludes for both. Chōr-
with pure motives (hagiōs, purely), but to cause ēgia and the related verb could still retain a note
Paul distress (thlipsis, v. 17; 4:14). The latter group of generous bounty, from their origin in spon-
is not identified, but they seem to be a part of the sorship of civic celebrations by rich Athenians.
Christian community where Paul is. Clement of v. 20, ‘eager expectation’ (Gk. apokaradokia)
Rome, writing to Corinth not long afterwards evokes a picture of heads strained forward in
(PHIL E.2), says that Peter and Paul were hounded anticipation. The only other occurrence in the
to death by envy, jealousy, and rivalry (1 Clem. NT is in Rom 8:19, where Paul sees the whole of
5.2–5); see Brown and Meier (1983: 123–7; they creation thus longing ‘for the revealing of the
also favour Rome as where Paul wrote Philip- children of God’. Paul hopes that he, and still
pians, pp. 185–8). The trouble could well have more the gospel, will not be brought into public
begun with Jewish Christians who wanted the discredit, especially at his trial. In the biblical
church to remain within Judaism and saw Paul’s world ‘shame’ refers not so much to an emotion
policy as misguided. Paul, however, regards all as to public worsting and discrediting; the
negative factors with a sublime equanimity, be- psalmists often pray to be spared it (e.g. Ps
cause for him they are outweighed by his su- 71:1), but to see their enemies suffering it (e.g.
preme desire, to see Christ’s gospel spreading; Ps 70:2). Positively, Paul hopes to speak ‘with all
frustration and anger are simply overwhelmed boldness’: the last word is parrhēsia, which is
by joy (v. 18). what Peter and John showed before the Sanhed-
rin (Acts 4:13). It is contrasted with being put to
(1:19–26) Paul’s Hope and Confidence in shame also in 1 Jn 2:28, but at the eschatological
Christ Paul turns from his reactions to recent judgement, not a human trial. However, Paul’s
events to envisage the foreseeable future. Inclusio focus here, that ‘Christ will be exalted now as
markers are ‘joy’ (v. 26, picking up the related always in my body, whether by life or by death’
verb in v. 18), ‘progress’ (v. 25, from v. 12), and may have an overtone of the special sense of
‘trusting’ (v. 25, from v. 14). All three have now parrhēsia which developed in the NT. The word
changed their subjects (see PHIL 1:12 and 1:18; ‘joy’ was born in political and forensic contexts,
is now Paul’s wish for the Philippians). The meaning freedom of speech or outspokenness.
passage is full of the vocabulary of hope and It came to connote also courage in speaking
confidence and the motives for these, and of a out; finally in the NT it has a special sense of
peaceful yet passionate equanimity, based on confidence in God, a gift of the Holy Spirit to all
certainty of Christ’s love. v. 19, this verse is who become God’s children in union with
philippians 194

Christ, and through him have access (prosagōgē) especially by ‘gospel’ (1:12, 16, 27), ‘salvation’ (1:19,
to God. (See Rom 5:2; 2 Cor 3:12; Eph 3:12; Heb 28), and ‘faith’ (1:26, 29). v. 27, ‘conduct your-
4:16; 10:19; 1 Jn 3:21; 4:17; 5:14.) Paul need not selves’ translates the verb politeuesthai, ‘to act as a
have this sense fully in mind here, but he is citizen’ (Lightfoot 1879; Brewer 1954). NRSV
hardly thinking merely of speaking boldly at misses the political sense (important also in
his trial. He speaks from his awareness of con- Stoicism), though it keeps it when the related
stant union with Christ. If he is worsted, then noun politeuma ‘commonwealth’ or ‘citizenship’
Christ will be shamed in him; if he is enabled to occurs in 3:20. Miller (1982) shows that Judaism
speak well, Christ will be ‘exalted’ in him, and had appropriated this vocabulary, and argues
just as much if he dies as if he lives on, for that Paul follows this usage, implying that the
neither circumstance can separate him from church is the New Israel; but see Engberg-Ped-
Christ. v. 21, thus Paul’s thought flows straight ersen (1994: 263) and Fee (1995: 161–2). It makes a
into the third great expression of his spiritual difference whether Paul is urging the Philippians
equilibrium. First came prison or liberty; then to show their Christianity in good citizenship, or
being spoken of with love or with malice; now has transferred the verb to a purely Christian
death or life, because ‘to me, to live is Christ and context. His wish for their steadfast unity in
to die is gain’. A psychological state undisturbed fidelity to the gospel (rest of 1:27) might suggest
by fear or human attachments was the ideal for the latter, but bold resistance to their opponents
both Stoics and Epicureans; but for Paul, both (v. 28) implies the public forum. The exhortation
his emotional balance and his whole range of to unanimity in Christ already anticipates 2:1–5.
values are entirely governed by his union with Is then the ‘one spirit’ in 1:27 simply human
Christ, as he will make even clearer in 3:7–12. unanimity (as NRSV implies), or does it point
This serenity pervading Philippians, in contrast to the clearer reference to the Holy Spirit in 2:1?
to Galatians and 2 Corinthians, suggests a spir- Fee (1995: 164–6) argues plausibly for the latter.
itual state perhaps more appropriate to Paul’s For unanimity Paul could easily have used the
final years, and therefore to Rome. (‘Gain’, ker- Stoic homonoia (frequent in 1 Clement), just as his
dos, reappears with its related verb in 3:7–8, athletic metaphors (‘striving side by side’, v. 27,
referring to values which Paul has rejected and and ‘contest’, v. 30, NRSV ‘struggle’) are Stoic
replaced by new ones.) He cannot make a clichés (Tellbe 1994: 111). What is essentially
choice even between living and dying (even Christian is, of course, the hope of ‘salvation’
though the latter would lead to his being ‘with which ‘is God’s doing’ (v. 28), and the sense
Christ’ in the fullest sense) except by discerning that both faith in Christ and suffering for him
Christ’s will. This evidently leads him to decide are ‘graciously granted’ (echaristhē) as a privilege (v.
that he must stay (v. 24); then immediately he 29), which Paul sees as binding them more
says that he knows this with confidence (cf. 1:6, closely to himself in Christ, v. 30. Faith in
19), for the Philippians’ ‘progress and joy in Christ is again linked with the idea of suffering
faith’: (v. 25; cf. 2:17). Towards them, he is so in 2:17 and 3:9–10. The ‘opponents’ at whose
far from Stoic apatheia as to want to come ‘and hands suffering is expected probably refers to
share abundantly in your boasting in Christ political and social pressure to take part in
Jesus’ (v. 26). This is one of only three occur- the imperial cult (Tellbe 1994). If politeuesthe
rences in Philippians of the word-group of kau- indeed refers to good citizenship, Paul would
chaomai, commonly rendered ‘boast’, that is so be recommending this as the best defence
characteristic of Paul (55 of 59 instances in NT, (cf. Polycarp, Phil. 10.2). But the threat is also to
34 of them in 1–2 Corinthians; see TDNT iii. the Philippian church’s unity, and Paul is pas-
645–54). His repeated concern with having (or sionately concerned that this should be in and
not having) grounds for boasting is puzzling, with the suffering Christ as Paul has preached
especially given his teaching on ‘works’ in him.
Romans 3–4; one can only conclude that the
Greek words have a wider reference than self- (2:1–6) Unity of Minds and Hearts v. 1, the
glorification, and include joyful exultation for tone of appeal now rises to a more intense
and with others, as seems the case here. level of feeling through a series of ‘if’ clauses,
regular in the rhetoric of entreaty. This more
solemn tone tells against supposing a ‘hymnic’
First Exhortation on Discipleship (1:27–2:18) style only from v. 6 onwards. In prayers, the
(1:27–30) Steadfastness in the Face of Oppos- formula typically reminds a deity of past the-
ition This paragraph is linked to what precedes, ophanies; here the idiom implies something
 195 philippians

like ‘if x means anything to you, then prove it commentators, accepting a hymn theory, set
now’. Paul appeals to what he is sure the Phil- the passage out like verse. This displays its ele-
ippians have experienced: ‘encouragement in gant composition in short cola, as found in
Christ’, ‘consolation from love’, ‘sharing in the classical artistic prose, but does not prove it to
Spirit’, ‘compassion [see PHIL 1:8], and sympathy’. be a hymn in terms of either Semitic or Greek
Of these, sharing, koinōnia, is fundamental to all models. The wide and imprecise use of ‘hymn’
the others, above all since it is in (now certainly in modern discussion has not helped (O’Brien
the Holy) Spirit. At last (v. 2) comes the apo- 1991: 188). The opening exhortation follows
dosis to the four ‘ifs’: ‘make my joy complete’, the smoothly from the preceding sentences, points
joy which Paul has expressed for himself in 1:4 to Christ as model, and continues with a narra-
and 18, and wished for them in 1:25. The desired tive about him in language which is certainly
response is described by four phrases which all poetic and goes beyond Paul’s usual vocabulary,
express union of minds and hearts: two use the but not necessarily his capacity when moved.
keyword phronein (‘be of the same mind . . . of Many keywords are echoed later, especially in
one mind’); the others are ‘having the same ch. 3. The following exegesis takes the passage
love’ (agapē ) and ‘being in full accord’ (sumpsu- as it stands in its context. However, the possi-
choi, united in soul). The most important words bility that Paul is adopting the structure of an
here were already established in 1:4–9, together existing model for credal-type statements will
with words compounded with sun-, ‘together’, be considered in conclusion.
to intensify the sense of sharing. In v. 3 Paul v. 5, ‘Let the same mind be in you that [was]
continues his description of the attitudes he in Christ Jesus’: more literally, ‘be thus minded
desires by alternating dos and don’ts: not ‘selfish in/among yourselves as also in Christ Jesus’. The
ambition’, which he has been suffering (1:17), nor first ‘in’ is ambiguous in Greek; the context
conceit (kenodoxia, vainglory) but rather ‘humil- favours ‘among’, i.e. in interpersonal relations.
ity, regard[ing] others as better than yourselves’. The unexpressed verb has to be understood;
The last phrases are significant for the letter’s more complicated ellipses have been proposed,
unity, being echoed both in 2:7–8 and in ch. 3. v. e.g. ‘which you have by virtue of your [life] in
4, another do and don’t concerns looking to ‘the [union with]’; but ‘was’ is most satisfactory. Paul
interests of others’. The verb is skopeō, ‘to aim’ points to Jesus, as known on earth, as the
(like phronein, a Stoic word); it recurs (with its example for Christians in their relationships.
noun) in 3:14–17. In Paul’s present context, of This is rejected by some, for whom the hymn
course, phronein essentially involves a right sko- theory dictates their exegesis; they hold that the
pos of mind and heart, ‘as in Christ Jesus’ (v. 5). hymn was kerygmatic, proclaiming doctrinal
Do the attitudes (and perhaps activities) not truths about Jesus and that to make him a
commended in vv. 3–4 point to actual divisions mere ethical model is somehow an inferior use
within the Philippian church? Whether 1:1–4 of the hymn (cf. Martin 1983: 68–74, 84–8; Stan-
contains hints or not, the immediately preced- ton 1974: 99–110; O’Brien 1991: 253–62). v. 6,
ing exhortation in 1:27–30 now makes a refer- ‘who, though he was in the form of God’:
ence to disunity more likely, especially on such ‘though’ is an added interpretation; others sug-
grounds as Tellbe (1994) suggests. This will be gest ‘because’ (Moule 1970). The Greek for ‘was’
discussed later, where clearer indications occur. is not the simple verb, but the participle of
Here it is not certain how far breaches of unity a stronger verb, huparchōn, ‘existing’. Form
have actually gone. ‘Selfish ambition’ (2:3) could (morphē) has a complex history (Behm, TDNT
be in Paul’s mind because he has suffered from iv. 742–50). It connotes the outward aspect of
its effects (1:17). Other phrases he uses may well something but not mere appearance; it also
refer to the quarrel to be mentioned in 4:2, reflects the inward nature. Since God is incor-
especially if others had joined in; but surely poreal we must examine how Scripture de-
the main thrust of this appeal, as of the passage scribes theophanies. This suggests ‘glory’ as
into which it leads, is to focus the Philippians’ being what morphē implies, but this will not fit
minds on their relationship with Christ; refer- in v. 7, where morphē is that of a slave. It is
ences to human faults need to be clearer to desirable to keep one word in both places, and
prove an actual state of conflict. ‘form’ remains the least unsatisfactory. This
verse already raises the question whether it re-
(2:5–11) Christ, the Focus and Model for Dis- fers to Christ’s pre-existence or to his life on
cipleship The standpoint of the following earth, but first we must read further. Paul
comments is outlined in PHIL D. vv. 5–11, most has just used the verb ‘regard’ (hēgoumai) in
philippians 196

exhortation (2:3), and will use it thrice of his the negative as if it governed the verb ‘regard’,
own values in relation to Christ in 3:7–8. ‘Equal- and harpagmon as a prize to be won. To mention
ity with God’ seems like a repetition with vari- an agent and immediately characterize him as
ation of ‘being in the form of God’, but not all one who did not seek to usurp divine status
agree on this. Indeed, the meaning of this clause suggests a contrast with some figure who did
is the storm-centre of modern controversy on that; thus some have proposed historical rulers
Philippians. ‘Something to be exploited’ inter- (Seeley 1994); more have turned to the OT. Here
prets one word, harpagmon. It is important that lines diverge: one sees a contrast with rebellious
in the Greek the negative governs not the verb deities, as in the myths (applied to human kings)
‘regard’ but this noun (Carmignac 1971–2). The in Isa 14:12–21 and Ezek 28, or (as an aetiology of
actual order is: ‘not [as] harpagmos did he regard evil and also against the post-exilic Jerusalem
being equal to God’. The issue is not pedantic; it priesthood) in 1 Enoch (Sanders 1969). More
is between two alternative ‘stories’. These de- widely canvassed is a contrast with Adam, fol-
pend (1) on two possible senses of harpagmos lowing the tradition that he sinned by ambi-
and (2) on what is being contrasted with what. tious pride (hubris), wanting to become like
Harpagmos is a verbal noun from harpazō, to God (surveyed in O’Brien 1991: 263–8); Wright
seize or snatch. Its form raises problems (1992: 56–98) makes this integral to a compre-
(BAGD 108; Hoover 1971; O’Brien 1991: 211–16); hensive New Adam theology. But this reading
it can refer either to the act of seizing or the of v. 6 rests on two unsafe foundations: first,
thing seized, and the sentence does not indicate that morphē in the NT can be a synonym for
when in the ‘story’ either of these was contem- eikōn, the ‘image’ of God, as in Gen 1:26 (in
plated by Christ, in his ‘pre-existence’ or his favour, Martin 1983: 106–10; against, Behm in
earthly life. This question also affects how, in TDNT iv. 752: in Paul, Christ is the eikōn of God);
the next verse, we understand ‘he emptied him- and second, on an unverified assumption that
self’ and what follows; it is relevant also to the the tradition ascribing such hubris to Adam was
other Pauline passage which seems to parallel in existence by the time of Paul. It is not found
this passage most closely: ‘For you know the in the OT or pre-Pauline literature; it seems to
generous act [lit. grace] of our Lord Jesus Christ, have arisen (perhaps because of the obscure
that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he similarities between Ezek 28 and Gen 2–3) by
became poor, so that by his poverty you might ascribing to Adam the arrogant motives of the
become rich’ (2 Cor 8:9). figures in Isa 14 and Ezek 28. The earliest hint of
The two lines of exegesis may be summarized this is probably in Josephus, Ant. 1.47 (Procopé
as follows. First, most of the tradition, from the 1941–). The roles of Adam in Romans and 1–2
Greek fathers till recent times, assumes that vv. Corinthians are clear; proponents of a contrast
6–11 are integral to their context and also that with him in Phil 2 have yet to prove that Adam’s
Paul believed in Christ’s divinity and incarna- hubris was already a theme that could be referred
tion. Christ’s being ‘in the form of God’ and to by mere allusion. The most likely OT refer-
‘equality with God’ refer to his status ‘before’ ence is quite different (see below). These and
his incarnation, which is the subject of v. 7. other proposed backgrounds (Martin 1983: 74–
Christ, being by nature one with the Father, 93; O’Brien 1991: 193–7) which generally assume
regarded this status as no harpagmos, i.e. not the hymn theory as proved, mostly understand
like a prize which he had won (and might fear Christ’s position in v. 6 as referring to his life-
to lose, as a freed slave would jealously treasure time on earth, and harpagmos as an act of usurp-
his new status and refuse slavish work). Instead, ation which he renounced. Yet not all who
in trustful obedience to the Father, Christ ‘emp- interpret thus oppose pre-existence, indeed,
tied himself’ and became not only mortal but this is increasingly (and rightly) recognized as
actually like a slave, e.g. by washing feet, and Paul’s belief, expressed both here and elsewhere.
above all by suffering a slave’s death. The con- vv. 7–8, the older exegetical line (1) takes these
trast implied by the placing of the negative is verses as referring first to the incarnation, then to
between Christ’s status as Son of God and his its continuation in Jesus’ life and death. Some
acceptance of that of a slave. This summarizes proponents of a type (2) theory try to make them
the exegesis of Chrysostom (PG 62.217–37) and refer only to Jesus’ history, but the effort is
Isidore of Pelusium (PG 78.1071), both masters of forced. The last phrase, ‘even death on a cross’
Greek artistic prose as a living tradition. was declared by Lohmeyer a secondary ‘Pauline
The second line (or rather several lines, but all addition’ because it did not fit into the ‘hymn’
stemming from the same basic option) reads as reconstructed by him (O’Brien 1991: 230–1).
 197 philippians

Simply on a stylistic analysis, it crowns a series of himself’ gives the model for the humility recom-
steps as a climax (not of height but of depth), the mended in 2:3. The root occurs again, together
effect of which would strike ancient hearers with with words formed from morphē and schēma, in
the force of shocking paradox (Fee 1995: 217). Its 3:21. As the Son ‘was found’ in the human race
centrality for Paul is reflected in 3:10. (v. 7), so Paul hopes finally to ‘be found’ in him
A Christological complication was introduced (3:9). But these recurrences are transformed in a
by the Kenotic theory (Martin 1983: 66–8, 169– way that depends on the second part of the
72) which interpreted the ‘self-emptying’ as a real ‘story’ of Christ. The whole passage, 2:5–11, has
abandonment of the nature of God. This misses a downward–upward movement. The shameful
the metaphoric character of ‘he emptied’ (ekenōsen; death by the cross is the lowest point; vv. 9–11
for its probable OT source see below); Chrysos- are the upward-moving reversal, a second
tom (PG 62.229) realized this, as part of the stanza in terms of poetic structure.
parable of a self-humbling king’s son which he v. 9, ‘Therefore’ (dio) implies God’s acceptance
finds implicit in the the whole passage; it is of Christ’s self-offering, not necessarily a re-
explained by the following phrases in vv. 7–8. ward. The verb ‘highly exalted’ (huper-hupsoō)
These are admittedly difficult. They are not typ- expresses a superlative degree of honour. Paul
ical of Paul’s usage, and ‘form’, ‘likeness’, and delights in huper-compounds (Fee 1995: 221).
schēma all seem rather weak ways of expressing Those who take the passage primarily as a
the reality of Christ’s humanity, which Paul Christological statement find it strange that
surely wants to affirm as truly as his divinity. the resurrection is not explicitly mentioned,
Morphē in a human context balances its previous but it is implicit in ‘exalted’. ‘And gave him’
divine context, and (as we saw) implies more than (echarisato) is more accurately ‘graciously con-
mere outward shape; but schēma does mean shape ferred on him’; the verb used of God’s giving
(though NRSV loosely renders it ‘form’), while the Philippians the grace of suffering for Christ
‘likeness’ is also vague. And why is ‘slave’ men- (1:29). This echo, occurring in such close prox-
tioned before human status? The best answer lies imity, links their sufferings with Christ’s glorifi-
in recognizing an allusion to the Isaian ‘Servant’ cation after his passion; the upward movement
(Jeremias 1963; 1965). This is prima facie likely is for them too. What has been conferred is ‘the
because that figure was so important for NT name that is above every name’: in biblical
writers (Dodd 1952: 88–96). Though here all the idiom ‘name’ can be personal or titular; a
words that favour an allusion are different from name has meaning and is charged with power.
those usual in the NT, and imply the existence of What name is meant here? The choice is be-
a translation closer to the Hebrew (e.g. doulos, tween Jesus and Kurios, ‘Lord’. ‘[S]o that at the
‘slave’, instead of pais, ‘boy’), the cluster of signifi- name of Jesus every knee should bend’ (v. 10)
cant ideas could well form a recognizable way of might seem to favour ‘Jesus’, but the confession
hinting at the Isaian figure. Thus he ‘emptied that ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ (v. 11) points decisively
himself’ could evoke ‘he poured out himself’ (Isa to the latter. ‘Jesus’ is his human name; Kurios
53:12), morphē could allude to the Servant’s lost and Christos are conferred titles, as in Peter’s
beauty (Isa 52:14; 53:2), and he ‘humbled himself’ to proclamation ‘God has made him both Lord
Isa 53:4. This proposal has been unjustly op- and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified’
posed; it has more explanatory power than (Acts 2:36).
others. It illuminates the paradoxical choice of Christos (Heb. māšı̂ah) denotes the expected
morphē to connote both Christ’s divine nature and ‘Anointed one’; Kurios_ was the regular Greek
his acceptance of ‘slave’ status, especially if we rendering of ʾădōnāy, the reverent equivalent of
accept that behind the Isaian Servant lies the role YHWH, though it had many other uses, includ-
of the king in the pre-exilic cult (Eaton 1979: 75– ing for the emperor. But vv. 10–11 are an
84). Doulos is then not merely a slave as in the adapted quotation of Isa 45:23, the context of
Graeco-Roman world but the royal Son and Ser- which is that YHWH has proclaimed that he
vant of the divine King, living and dying in obedi- alone is God; there he says ‘To me every knee
ence (as in v. 8) as Chrysostom realized. Christ’s shall bow, every tongue shall swear.’ Paul vastly
‘self-emptying’, like that of the Isaian Servant, expands ‘every knee’, and changes ‘to me’ to ‘at
bears an implication of sacrificial self-giving, the name of Jesus’; then he changes ‘swear’ to
lived out physically on earth, but also revealing ‘confess’ adding the object clause ‘that Jesus
a quality intrinsic to divine love. Christ is Lord (Kurios).’ At the beginning of the
Several keywords here also help to anchor ‘story’ in 2:6 Jesus was ‘in the form of God’; now
the passage in the letter as a whole. ‘He humbled he is ‘hyper-exalted’ and Paul adapts a text that
philippians 198

denies that there is any God but YHWH, to say you have to suffer now, Christ is leading you to
that God has given Jesus the supreme name, so glory.’ Within the letter as a whole, the passage
that he may at last be adored by every being in is the climax of the first great exhortation. The
the threefold cosmos and universally acclaimed second climax, in ch. 3, balances the first, both
as Kurios. But in this acclamation does Kurios by verbal echoes and by repeating the down-
function as the name YHWH, so that, God hav- ward–upward movement, now with reference
ing conferred it on Jesus, a distinction is implied to Paul. The movement corresponds to a pat-
between God and YHWH? Or if Kurios functions tern found (with variations) in a number of
not as a name but as an ordinary predicate, early quasi-credal statements, some more poetic
what other value for it is high enough to meas- in style, others less. The pattern would have
ure up to Paul’s statements implying Jesus’ div- taken shape in early meditation on Jesus’ bap-
inity? (He must also have been aware of making tism, death, and resurrection in the light of OT
a politically dangerous claim contrary to the texts, as in Acts 2:22–36. Its skeleton is in 2 Cor
imperial cult (Tellbe 1994: 111–14), but Paul’s 8:9; freer variations appear in Col 1:15–20 and
primary focus is theological.) The above di- the Gospel of John, especially the prologue and
lemma seems inescapable: intolerable to Jews, the theme of lifting up and glorification. In early
and embarrassing to Christian exegetes who poetry we find it in the second-century Odes of
assume that rigorous monotheism was estab- Solomon, with typically Syrian emphasis on the
lished long before Jesus and Paul. This is why descent to Sheol, in Odes 17, 22 (which brings
theories of non-Jewish influences on early Jesus’ baptism into the pattern), 24, and 42.
Christology have proliferated, encouraging the- Since Paul was probably the earliest of all the
ories that the ‘hymn’ in ch. 2 is non-Pauline. writers involved, the variants of the pattern may
Recent research, however, is showing ever well issue out from him.
more clearly that, at least until the reconstruc-
tion of Judaism after 70 CE, Jewish theologizing (2:12–18) The Response Paul Desires from the
took many forms and at least some were far Philippians Paul returns to direct exhortation,
short of the eventual monotheism (Segal 1978; now illuminated by Christ’s example; ‘you have
Barker 1992). The total identification of YHWH always obeyed’ echoes ‘he became obedient’
with the High God ʾēl ʿelyôn, and the redefinition (2:8), and likewise has no named object, but
of the latter’s sons as angels, long remained implies primarily God (Lightfoot 1879: 115–16),
incomplete, and the memory of how the king rather than Paul (as NRSV). vv. 12–13, Paul has
had been enthroned as ‘Son of YHWH’ haunted mentioned salvation as his hope both for him-
minds disaffected towards the second temple. self (1:19) and for the Philippians, adding ‘this is
The varieties of pre-rabbinic Judaism already God’s doing’ (1:28). What is added now is em-
contained the materials for the Christian inter- phasis on human collaboration with God: ‘work
pretation of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection in out your own salvation . . . for it is God who is at
relation to the divine unity. It is no longer work’. It is not, of course, autonomous labour.
enough to say that in v. 11 Kurios is ‘the equiva- The force of 2:5–11 still directs the thought; the
lent of Yahweh’ and that ‘Paul’s monotheism is Christian’s personal effort is with and in Christ.
kept intact by the final phrase, ‘‘unto the glory ‘Fear and trembling’ was proverbial from the
of God the Father’’ ’ as in 1 Cor 8:6, ‘one God the OT; Paul usually uses it of human relations
Father . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ’ (Fee 1995: (1 Cor 2:3; 2 Cor 7:15; Eph 6:5), but here of a
222, 226); this only restates the dilemma above. stance before God. At 1:15 Paul uses ‘good pleas-
Paul’s faith can be understood only as already ure’ of attitudes favourable to himself, though
essentially trinitarian. usually in the NT it refers to God’s benevolent
In conclusion, vv. 5–11 are fully integrated in will towards humankind (e.g. Lk 2:14; Eph 1:5).
the letter. Paul introduces the ‘story’ of Jesus to vv. 12–13 became a key text in all discussions of
encourage the Philippians to humility and mu- grace and free will.
tual respect by looking at him. Within that v. 14, Paul echoes the Exodus story for both
context the upward movement, effected by warning and encouragement, alluding to the
God’s exalting of Christ, reminds them of the people’s repeated grumbling (Ex 15–17; Num
divine call behind the exhortation in 2:1–5, as if 14–17) and ‘arguing’: with divided minds, doubt-
to say ‘as disciples and members of Christ, you ing God’s providence. v. 15, phrases in Deut 32:5
do not need to think of your own interests or are turned from condemnation to encourage-
dignity—leave it all to God; just contemplate ment: ‘children of God without blemish’ is what
(phroneite) the whole story of Christ. Whatever Moses said the people no longer were; Paul
 199 philippians

promises the Philippians that they can become Epaphroditus, Paul calls him ‘brother’ and uses
so. A ‘crooked and perverse generation’ was two sun-words, ‘fellow-worker’ and ‘fellow-
said of the people; Paul applies it to the hostile soldier’ (v. 25). He had come with a gift (4:18)
environment in which the Philippians ‘shine like as the Philippians’ envoy (apostolos in the sense
stars’ (with perhaps a hint of Mt 5:14, 16). He uses of šaliah, the agent of a synagogue, and leitour-
the present tense to encourage them, but in v. 16 _
gos). Dissectors of Philippians argue that Paul
there is a hint of pleading; on their ‘holding fast would not have left his thanks to the end. Yet
to the word of life’ depends his hope of being his appreciation is certainly implicit in vv. 25
able to ‘boast [cf. 1:26] on the day of Christ [cf. and 30, where he uses leitourgia again in a ‘non-
1:10] that [he] did not run in vain’—again the liturgical’ sense, for their subvention which
athletic metaphor, used as in Gal 2:2; 4:11. v. 17, Epaphroditus, at risk to his life, has brought.
he changes to a metaphor of religious intensity: Admittedly his thanks are qualified; ‘services
‘even if I am being poured out as a libation that you could not give’ (NRSV) is more literally
[eight words for one in Greek, spendomai] over ‘your shortfall (husterēma) towards me’. See fur-
the sacrifice and the offering of your faith, I am ther PHIL 4:10–19. The Philippians had heard of
glad and rejoice’. Here the ‘priests’ are the Phil- Epaphroditus’ illness; Paul has sent him back to
ippians (cf. 4:18); he is ready to be part of their relieve their anxiety about him (vv. 25–8). He
offering. (Paul never uses cultic or priestly terms wants them to receive Epaphroditus with joy
in direct designation of his apostolic ministry, and hold people like him in honour (v. 29); he
but only by way of metaphor; this is true even hopes shortly to send Timothy for more news
of the concentrated cultic language in Rom and then soon to come himself (vv. 19–24).
15:16. Priestly and sacrificial language can be What lies behind these dealings? (See PHIL A.3.)
applied to all members of the church.) ‘Offering’ Peterlin (1995), analysing passages in Philippians
here renders leitourgia, see PHIL 1.19. It came to and other letters in sociological categories, sees a
refer to religious worship (hence ‘liturgy’), espe- community of house churches, differing in social
cially in the Greek Bible, but it retained its and financial status and not all equally enthusi-
financial connotations (Peterlin 1995: 195–9). astic about regularly supporting Paul. Epaphro-
Here it combines with ‘sacrifice’ in a cultic meta- ditus, he suggests, was well-off and willing to
phor, meaning the life of Christian faith. (In discharge a leitourgia, but not popular with all.
2:25, 30 the financial sense is more prominent.) This is a credible picture of relationships within
v. 18, Paul ends this section with a burst of joy (‘I the community but it neglects relevant external
am glad’) using not different words (as NRSV) factors. As for grounds of dissension, when Paul
but chairō four times, twice compounded with saw serious trouble he usually spoke out plainly.
sun-, to express his own joy and to call the The hints of discord or the grounds for suspect-
Philippians to the same. ing criticisms of Paul in Philippians cannot com-
pare with the evidence in 1–2 Corinthians.
Timothy and Epaphroditus, Paul’s Clearly he is anxious for the Philippians’ unity;
Go-Betweens (2:19–30) but he seems to see the trouble as healable by
This section introduces two of Paul’s helpers, recalling them to a right mind and renewed joy
but tells us more about his affection for them in Christ (cf. PHIL 4:8).
than the reasons for their journeys. On Timothy
see Acts 16:1–3; 17:14–15; 19:22; he is not named
in the account of Paul’s first visit to Philippi, but
Second Exhortation on Discipleship (3:1–4:1)
the Christians there know him (v. 22), doubtless (3:1–2) Transition These verses are widely held
from the time mentioned in Acts 20:4. Paul’s to belong to different letters (see PHIL D.2 and
praise of him as alone iso-psuchon (lit. equal- most commentaries). v. 1, the first phrase,
souled) echoes his wish that they should all be ‘Finally’ (to loipon, lit. for the rest) is often a
sumpsuchoi (2:2). Apparently speaking of his pre- closing formula but equally can be a mere link
sent circumstances, Paul excepts Timothy alone like ‘so’. The imperative chairete can mean ‘fare-
from a judgement more sweeping than he made well’ but can equally remain a real imperative,
in 1:15–17: ‘All . . . are seeking their own interests, ‘rejoice’ (as NRSV). Those who see vv. 1–2 as
not those of Jesus Christ’ (v. 21); he has urged the containing the end of a letter and the start of a
opposite attitude in 2:4. Timothy has ‘served’ fragment will take the first option in each case,
(edouleusen, v. 22) ‘the gospel’ with Paul, like a but the second pair of options is perfectly pos-
son to him, both of them being slaves (douloi, 1:1) sible and can support the case for the verse
of Christ who took the form of a slave. As for being a transition within one letter, as is
philippians 200

defended here, following Reed (1996). Either people regarded as enemies. A parallel occurs in
way, the second sentence in v. 1 is difficult, 3:17–19. The transition here remains arresting, but
because the three main terms in it are all ob- it can be seen to be bridged.
scure. (1) To what do ‘the same things’ refer,
which Paul speaks of writing? (2) What does (3:2–11) Paul’s ‘Transvaluation of Values’
he mean by saying that his writing is not through Christ Whatever personal tensions
‘troublesome’ for him? (3) What does he mean there are within the community, Paul wants to
by being ‘a safeguard’ for his addressees? (1) On draw their minds back to Christ as he did in ch.
the assumption of a plurality of sources, ‘the 2, but this time by telling them his own story,
same things’ are the various themes that Paul how he ‘emptied himself’ of secure pride so as
frequently addresses. On the ‘integrity view’, it to be with Christ, and how his only aim now is
means primarily rejoicing ( just commended for to follow the ‘upward call’ to the end. Judaism is
the twelfth time), and probably also the warn- where he started, but non-Christian Judaism
ing (v. 2) that Paul is about to express, as often would hardly be familiar to this church formed
before (cf. 3:18). (2) Paul says that repeating this mainly of Gentile converts. Yet they are being
is not ‘troublesome’ for him, or something simi- troubled by people urging circumcision, con-
lar according to most interpretations. But the trary to the Jerusalem decision (Acts 15) not to
verb from which this adjective (oknēron) is impose it on Gentile converts and Paul’s efforts
formed primarily means ‘to hesitate’ or ‘shrink’. to uphold this. This can account for Paul’s start-
Formulas using this word-group are common ing-point in v. 2 and (to some extent) moderate
in Hellenistic papyrus letters in many contexts, the shock of his strong language. He may be
e.g. of request or invitation: ‘I say without hesi- quoting expressions that he had used on previ-
tation . . . ’ or ‘Don’t hesitate to ask . . . ’ (Reed ous occasions (cf. 3:18) to raise his converts’
1996); polite, persuasive formulas used when a morale by mocking at opponents. The first
writer feels tact is called for, as Paul might well two could be turning back terms used by the
here. In contrast, to say that writing the same ‘enemy’; the third (katatomē ) is a sarcastic play
things is ‘not troublesome’ seems rather point- on ‘circumcision’ (peritomē ), changing the prefix
less. (3) For his addressees, he says, his repetition to one implying destruction. It is clear that
is a ‘safeguard’ (asphales). Against what? The circumcision is the issue, but not an attack on
word negates ideas of stumbling or going Jewish Christians as such, provided they do not
wrong. Though it usually means ‘safe’ in a ‘pas- deny that Gentile converts are true Christians
sive’ sense (from danger, error, etc.), Paul applies and heirs to the promises to Israel. v. 3, Paul
it to his own action (calling for rejoicing) with recalls his teaching on the ‘true circumcision’
reference to the effect he wants it to have on his through faith in Christ (Rom 2:25–9); now he
readers, namely to stabilize and confirm them adds the charismatic experience of Gentile
in faith and keep them from harm (what harm, Christians ‘who worship in the Spirit of God’.
we learn in v. 2). In conclusion, though the verse He wants them to remain content as they are;
marks a transition, it need not be an unintelli- but he does not explain why circumcision has
gibly harsh one: ‘So go on, brothers [and sis- been urged on them. He uses his regular antith-
ters], rejoicing in the Lord; I don’t hesitate to esis of ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’, but after 3:1 there is no
repeat this, while for you it is salutary.’ more anger like that in Galatians. The sugges-
v. 2, the question of continuity arises again: tion of Tellbe (1994: 116–20; PHIL B.3) is plausible:
there seems to be a sudden leap from gentleness all circumcised Jews could enjoy the exemp-
to anger. Yet how harsh this feels depends on how tions granted by Rome to Judaism as a permit-
one word is translated. The threefold ‘look’ (ble- ted religion, even if some were now also
pete) has often been taken as ‘beware of’ (as NRSV). Christians; but uncircumcised Gentile Chris-
But the latter sense normally requires a prepos- tians, even though recognized by Jewish Chris-
ition not used here; without it, the probable sense tians on the basis of Acts 15, could not. If they
is ‘look hard at’. The verse is still a warning, and the refused to take part in the imperial cult (surely
strong language and its objects still have to be important in a proud colonia), Paul’s converts
explained, but the tone now sounds less shrill. would be ‘disloyal citizens’ and incur persecu-
On a stylistic analysis (cf. Reed 1996: 84–8), the tion, as they already had (1:29). The Jewish
triple imperative balances the three imperatives in Christians offer a way out: join us and live at
the three previous verses: ‘receive’, ‘hold in hon- peace. They might insist that it would involve
our’, and ‘rejoice’ (2:29, 30; 3:1). The first three are no infidelity to Christ; but Paul could only see it
addressed to friends; the second three refer to as undermining his whole work of extending
 201 philippians

membership of God’s people on the sole basis cution, 3:6), ‘to grasp it (katalabō), as I have been
of faith in Christ crucified. grasped by Christ Jesus’ (my tr.). Though the
vv. 4–11, this may be why Paul leaves the words are different, the image stands in striking
circumcision issue, to tell (doubtless retell) his counterpoint to harpagmos in 2:6; NRSV ob-
personal story. He is a Jewish Christian, once scures this by using ‘make [one’s] own’. vv. 13–
proud of his birth, observance, and zeal (vv. 5– 14, Paul repeats the verb, merging his account-
6; cf. Acts 26:4–11). But he has undergone a ing metaphor into that of running a race, a
complete ‘transvaluation of values’, which in cliché of popular ethics that he has used before;
vv. 3–11 he expresses by a series of keywords ‘straining forward’ (epekteinomenos) renews the
with changed applications. He recalls his former image in ‘eager expectation’ (PHIL 1:20). See fur-
confidence in Jewish practice; we have seen at 1:6, ther Pfitzner (1967: 134–56). ‘The goal’ (skopos; its
25, and 2:24 that he now bases this only on verb skopeō occurs in 2:4 and 3:17) is anything
Christ. His righteousness was once based on aimed at, but ‘prize’ (brabeion) belongs to athlet-
the law (v. 6); now, solely on his faith in Christ ics. The aim and the prize are pursued in re-
(v. 9). In vv. 7–8 Paul plays on an accounting sponse to ‘the upward call’ (as NRSV fn.) of God
metaphor of gain (kerdos and verb kerdainō, cf. in Christ Jesus.
1:21) and loss (zēmia and verb zēmioumai); his v. 15, this completes Paul’s own downward–
assets have changed places by his new reckon- upward ‘story’, which corresponds to 2:6–11;
ing. Indeed, the metaphor of gain and loss, now he turns to his addressees, and first to
though quite different from that implicit in ‘those of us . . . who are mature’ (teleioi, lit. per-
2:6–8, corresponds in effect to Christ’s regard- fect). At v. 12 he has just disclaimed the related
ing his divine status as ‘no prize to be clung to’ verb for himself. The mystery cults used these
(oukh harpagmon) and, instead, ‘emptying him- terms to refer to grades of initiation, and Paul
self’ (cf. Fee 1995: 314–15). The allusion continues could on occasion draw on that vocabulary for
in Paul’s hope ‘that I may gain Christ and be a metaphor (e.g. 4:12); Gnostic sects used it
found in him’ (vv. 8–9), as Christ was found in systematically. Koester (1961–2) and others find
solidarity with the human race (2:7); when hints of Gnostic opponents here and elsewhere,
finally ‘the books are opened’, Paul hopes to but such theories go beyond exegesis. Neither is
be acknowledged as Christ’s, because he has there need to posit charismatics who have got
renounced all his assets to trust totally in him. above themselves, as in Corinth, where Paul
What he now calls them (skubala, ‘filth’) recalls refers, perhaps with irony, to ‘the perfect’ (1
the invective of v. 2. v. 9 succinctly summarizes Cor 2:6). Here Paul returns to his major theme
Paul’s teaching on justification (Fee 1995: 319– of a Christlike mindset (phronein); he is leading
26), which his converts would know well. v. 10 up to his concluding appeals in 4:2 and 4:8. He
corresponds to 2:6–9 at the turning-point from has held up the supreme model in 2:5–11 and
descent to ascent. ‘To know Christ’, implies in- told his own story; he seeks to persuade, not to
timate, experiential knowledge, cf. 1:9; this is bludgeon. He invites any who may ‘think differ-
why Paul does not keep the order of Christ’s ently’ to be attentive and receptive to God’s
crucifixion and exaltation, but interweaves interior revelation. ‘This is not the language or
them, just as the power of Christ’s resurrection, mode of polemics’ (Fee 1995: 353).
the sharing (koinōnia) of his sufferings, and be-
coming like him in his death are experienced as (3:17–4:1) Citizens of earth and heaven In
interwoven in Christian prayer, liturgy, and life. 3:17–19 Paul holds up examples and counter-
As Christ was in the form of God and took the examples. Obviously he has told his own story
form of a slave (2:6–7), so Paul wants only to be to invite imitation, but in calling the Philippians
‘con-formed’ (sum-morphizomenos), moulded into to be his ‘fellow-imitators’ (sum-mimētai) he puts
that morphē. (The vocabulary recurs in 3:21.) himself beside them, as in 3:15; Christ, not Paul,
is the model. Secondly, he tells them to ‘observe’
(3:12–16) Following the Upward Call with (skopeite) those who live according to the ‘ex-
Paul v. 12, Paul’s upward way (from v. 11) cor- ample (tupos) you have in us’; here speaks a
responds to 2:9–11, but glory is far ahead; to teacher, not one demanding a personality-cult.
‘attain the resurrection’ is an object of humble In contrast, in vv. 18–19 Paul renews past warn-
hope, desire, and effort. Paul knows that he has ings against ‘many’ whom (as his urgent tone
not ‘obtained’ (elabon) this or ‘been made perfect’ shows) he regards as a serious threat. Their ‘end
(as NRSV fn., cf. PHIL 3:15) ‘but I press on’ (diōkō, is destruction’ (apōleia); in 1:28 this fate awaits
lit. pursue; last used of his former zeal in perse- opponents who are probably persecutors, but
philippians 202

Paul’s tears suggest a group within the church. [doxa, cf. 2:11 and in contrast just above, 3:19],
They are ‘enemies of the cross of Christ’, yet by the power [energeia, cf. the twofold use of the
nothing marks them as Jewish Christians. related verb at 2:13] that also enables him to
‘Their god is their belly’ might refer to converts make all things subject to himself’. To savour
who, on the dietary issues discussed in 1 Cor 8, how these echoes work, and then to see how
allow themselves too much liberty. ‘Their minds 3:21 virtually sums up 1 Cor 15:20–8 and 2 Cor
are set (phronountes) on earthly things’ and ‘their 3:18–5:10, is better than any commentary, but
glory is in their shame’—these phrases are en- Fee (1995: 381–4) is good. 4:1 concludes the main
igmatic, but they could apply to Christians who, exhortation: ‘Therefore . . . stand firm in the
in face of the state cult and social pressures, Lord in this way’; for the rest, it overflows with
chose to enjoy the sense of civic glory but words of love and joy, among which one (epi-
with the shame of compromise, taking part in pothētoi, beloved) echoes Epaphroditus’ yearning
meals connected with public sacrifices and, in in 2:26.
Paul’s view, reducing Christianity to one among
other acceptable philosophies.
If something like this was the case, v. 20
Final Exhortation, Thanks for Support, and
follows appositely: it is right to want to be
Conclusion (4:2–23)
good citizens, ‘but our citizenship (politeuma) is (4:2–3) Last Appeal for Harmony As already
in heaven’. Politeuma recalls the related verb in noted, recent exegetes find hints of disunity,
1:27 and reinforces the case for taking it in civic and perhaps of different causes, in many pas-
terms, though many have understood both sages (PHIL B.3), but 4:2 is the first place where
words more loosely in terms of way of life. Paul comes to naming names. Yet even here the
The noun (often rendered ‘commonwealth’) trouble between Euodia and Syntyche is not
refers to the state of which one is a citizen, defined more than as a failure ‘to be of the
either directly or by citizenship of an enfran- same mind’ (to think, phronein, the same). Gar-
chised colony, as Philippi was of Rome. Paul land (1985: 172–3) sees the whole letter as lead-
valued Roman citizenship and readily appealed ing up to this; Peterlin (1995) constructs a total
to it at need; but just as humankind, created in picture, defining the roles of episkopoi, diakonoi,
God’s image, has authority only by that title, so and ‘co-workers’ (sunergoi, 2:25; 4:3); the two
has any state. Hence for Christians (as also for women are diakonoi, leaders of two house-
Jews), God’s politeuma is primary. Thus Paul’s groups in conflict, probably over material sup-
contemporary Philo, speaking of the patriarchs port of Paul. In contrast, Fee (1995: 385–400)
as ‘sojourners on earth’, says that heaven is their after a survey of theories concludes that none
native land, in which they have their citizenship is proven; we know neither the cause of the
(politeuontai, Philo, Conf. Ling. 78–9), and a sec- quarrel, nor the identity of the ‘loyal compan-
ond-century apologist says exactly the same of ion’, nor of the Clement named here, nor
Christians (Letter to Diognetus, 5). The heavenly whether Lydia (Acts 16:14) was still there (per-
politeuma is not merely an ideal; Christians’ haps identical with one or other of the women,
actually live in two orders, of which the earthly or the ‘companion’). The clearest indications of
is under the judgement of the heavenly. They trouble in Philippians point to persecution and
are related not only ‘vertically’ but also escha- the temptation of Jewish Christianity (Tellbe
tologically; ‘it is from there that we are expect- 1994), but there is no hint of these as the issue
ing a Saviour (sōtēr), the Lord Jesus Christ’. in 4:2. One thing seems clear: the quarrel is
‘Saviour’ contrasts with the ‘destruction’ facing serious and worries Paul; if 2:1–5 is related to
the ‘enemies of the cross’, as sōtēria and apōleia it, it seems to have divided the community.
are contrasted in 1:28. But sōtēr was also a title
used in the ruler-cult; applied to Christ it makes (4:4–9) Last Call to Joy, Peace, and ‘Right
a higher claim for him, just as ‘Christ is Kurios’ Thinking’ in Christ Yet whatever the trouble
does over against the emperor. 3:21 winds up is, Paul seems confident that the cure is to recall
the parallelism of chs. 2:1–18 and 3 with many the Philippians to the charismatic joy of their
significant echoes. ‘He will transform [metaschē- first coming to faith, exactly as he reminded
matisei, schēma, 2:8] the body of our humiliation’ their neighbours in Thessalonica how ‘in spite
(cf. ‘humility’, 2:3 and ‘he humbled himself’, 2:8, of persecutions you received the word with joy
all from the same root tapeinos ‘that it may be inspired by the Holy Spirit’ (1 Thess 1:6). His
conformed [sum-morphon, cf. morphê, divine and constant insistence on joy is not mere cheerful-
then human, 2:6–7] to the body of his glory ness; this and following Christ with a right
 203 philippians

mind are the keys to Paul’s strategy towards the content with whatever he has (vv. 11–13). Here
Philippians. In vv. 4–7 he invites them to share Paul shows the same equanimity as in 1:18 and
the spirit of his initial greeting and prayer for 22; perhaps with a touch of mock solemnity, he
them, with a few new touches. v. 5, ‘Let your uses the Stoic word autarkēs (‘self-sufficient’;
gentleness (epieikēs) be known to everyone’: NRSV ‘content’, v. 11) and a metaphor from the
most versions have something similar. But the mystery cults (lit. I am initiated into everything,
basic sense of epieikēs is ‘seemly’, decent or equit- v. 12). But then he fears that he may seem to be
able; the phrase could be a last word on good indifferent to the support which he actually
citizenship, much as in 1 Pet 3:16. ‘The Lord is needs. ‘Mirror-reading’ runs the risk of straying
near’: in joy or suffering, or if the latter leads to into imaginative fiction; but Paul’s words here,
death, all the nearer. v. 6, ‘Do not worry about almost as much as in 2 Corinthians, do suggest
anything’: as Paul has demonstrated regarding that he is facing several lines of criticism. Finally
liberty or captivity, life or death (and is about to he stops trying to explain, and turns to praising
add, plenty or hardship). The basis is a perfect their gift by describing it (by a metaphor already
trust in God, expressed in prayer like that in 1:3– used in 2:17) as a sacrifice pleasing to God (v. 18),
11 and here, which brings peace as in v. 7. Paul and praying that God will meet all their needs.
sums up his appeals for a right mind in Christ in The passage ends with a doxology. We do not
vv. 8–9, now using a synonym as in 3:13. Few know how successful this letter was in restoring
versions do justice to the heightened solemnity harmony. No evidence remains to the contrary,
of tone (reminiscent of 2:1–4) and of vocabulary, in contrast with what 1 Clement reveals about
which (like 2:6–11) includes several words be- Corinth some years after Paul’s letters.
yond Paul’s usual range. Neither there nor here The letter closes by sending usual affection-
need this point to a different author, despite the ate greetings and mentioning the emperor’s
fact that both the rhetoric and the content of v. household (v. 22), a hint (as 1:13) of successful
8 are typical both of popular (especially Stoic) influence on Paul’s part, perhaps through his
philosophy and of Hellenistic Judaism. This Praetorian contacts.
somewhat troubles Fee (1995: 413–19), but it
need not (cf. PHIL E). Paul could harness this
REFERENCES
language to his gospel when he found it appro-
priate. In v. 9, as in 3:17, he reminds his pupils of Barclay, J. M. G. (1987), ‘Mirror-reading a Polem-
what they have learned from him; he speaks ical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case’, JSNT 31:
with no arrogance but as a true teacher. 73–93.
Barker, M. (1992), The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s
(4:10–23) Paul’s Attitude to Gifts Received Second God (London: SPCK).
and Last Greetings The section composed of Bormann, L. (1995), Philippi. Stadt und Christengemeinde
vv. 10–19 takes up from that in 2:19–30, com- zur Zeit des Paulus, NovTSup 78 (Leiden: Brill).
pleting the rondo pattern in the letter (PHIL F); Brewer, R. R. (1954), ‘The Meaning of Politeuesthe in
the last appearance of several keywords also Philippians 1.27’, JBL 73: 76–83.
marks the overall inclusio: rejoice, v. 10; be con- Brown, R. E., and Meier, J. P. (1983), Antioch and Rome
cerned (phronein), v. 10; be humbled (tapei- (New York: Paulist).
nousthai, obscured in NRSV), v. 11; share Bruce, F. F. (1980–1), ‘St Paul in Macedonia: 3. The
(koinōnos words, but now in a financial idiom), Philippian Correspondence’, BJRL 63: 260–84.
vv. 14, 15; gospel, v. 15; glory, v. 20. A simple Carmignac, J. (1971–2), ‘L’importance de la place
reading may find behind this and 2:19–30 no d’une négation: OYX ARPAGMON HGHSATO
more than a simple story, to which Paul refers (Philippians 11.6)’, NTS 18: 131–66.
with modest and undemanding gratitude; but Collange, J.-F. (1979), The Epistle of Saint Paul to the
there are hints of more complicated feelings Philippians, tr. A. W. Heathcote (London: Epworth).
(Peterlin 1995: 209–16). The Philippian church Dalton, W. (1979), ‘The Integrity of Philippians’, Bib.
has supported Paul generously since the begin- 60: 97–102.
ning (vv. 15–16). Paul is, and wants to appear, Dodd, C. H. (1952), According to the Scriptures (Welwyn:
duly grateful, but in the embarrassment of need Nisbet).
(chreia, 2:25; v. 16) he has to speak of shortfall Eaton, J. (1979), Festal Drama in Deutero-Isaiah
(husterēma, 2:30; hustēresis, v. 11; NRSV conceals (London: SPCK).
this by a bland paraphrase both times). But Engberg-Pedersen, T. (1994), ‘Stoicism in Philip-
again, he wants not to seem demanding (v. 17); pians’, in idem (ed.), Paul in his Hellenistic Context
hence his assurances that he has learnt to be (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
colossians 204

Fee, G. (1992), ‘Philippians 2:5–11: Hymn or Exalted Meeks, W. A. (1983), The First Urban Christians: The
Pauline Prose?’, BBR 2: 9–46. Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale
—— (1995), Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, NICNT University Press).
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Miller, E. C. (1982), ‘Polite
yesue in Philippians 1.27:
Garland, D. E. (1985), ‘The Composition and Unity of Some Philological and Thematic Observations’,
Philippians’, NovT 27: 141–73. JSNT 15: 86–96.
Herron, T. J. (1989), ‘The Most Probable Date of the Moule, C. F. D. (1970), ‘Further Reflexions on Philip-
First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians’, Studia pians 2:5–11’, in W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin
Patristica, 21, ed. E. A. Livingstone (Leuven: Peters). (eds.), Apostolic History and the Gospel (Grand
Hooker, M. (1978), ‘Philippians 2.6–11’, in E. Ellis and Rapids: Eerdmans), 264–76.
E. Grasser (eds.), Jesus und Paulus, 2nd edn. (Göttin- O’Brien, P. T. (1991), The Epistle to the Philippians: A
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand
Hoover, R. W. (1971), ‘The HARPAGMOS Enigma: A Rapids: Eerdmans).
Philosophical Solution’, HTR 64: 95–119. Peterlin, D. (1995), Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Light
Jeremias, J. (1963), ’Zu Phil ii 7: ‘EAYTON of Disunity in the Church, NovTSup 79 (Leiden: Brill).
EKENVSEN’, NovT 6: 182–9. Pfitzner, V. C. (1967), Paul and the Agon Motif,
—— (1965), ‘The Servant of God in the New Testa- NovTSup 16 (Leiden: Brill).
ment’, in The Servant of God, SBT 20 (London: SCM), Procopé, J. (1941–), ‘Hochmut’, RAC xv. 795–858.
97–9. Reed, J. T. (1996), ‘Philippians 3:1 and the Epistolary
Koester, H. (1961–2), ‘The Purpose of the Polemic of a Hesitation Formulas’, JBL 115: 63–90.
Pauline Fragment (Philippians III)’, NTS 8: 317–32. Sanders, J. A. (1969), ‘Dissenting Deities and Philip-
Lake, K. (1912–13), (ed. and tr.), The Apostolic Fathers pians 2:1–11’, JBL 88: 279–90.
I–II, LCL (London: Loeb). Seeley, D. (1994), ‘The Background of the Philippians
Lightfoot, J. B. (1879), Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Corin- Hymn’, Journal of Higher Criticism, 1: 49–72.
thians, 4th edn. (London: Macmillan). Segal, A. (1978), Two Powers in Heaven (Leiden: Brill).
Lohmeyer, E. (1928), Kyrios Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zu Stanton, G. V. (1974), Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament
Phil. 2, 5–11 (Heidelberg: C. Winker). Preaching, SNTSMS 27 (Cambridge: Cambridge
Malherbe, A. J. (1988), Ancient Epistolary Theorists, University Press).
SBLSBS 19 (Atlanta: Scholars Press). Tellbe, M. (1994), ‘The Sociological Factors behind
Martin, R. P. (1983), Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5–11 Philippians 3:1–11 and the conflict at Philippi’, JSNT
in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early 55: 97–121.
Christian Worship, 2nd edn. (Grand Rapids: Eerd- Wright, N. T. (1992), The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and
mans). the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress).

10. Colossians
jerome murphy-o’connor, op
INTRODUCTION great ‘common highway’ linking Ephesus (120
miles west) with the Euphrates (ibid. 14.2.29).
A. Colossae. 1. The sparse unexcavated ruins
The population was mainly pagan but in 213
of what had been a large and prosperous Hel-
BCE, in order to enhance commerce and trade,
lenistic city are located in the valley of the river
Antiochus III installed 2,000 Jewish families
Lycus 12 miles east of Denzili in Turkey. Seleu-
from Mesopotamia (Josephus, Ant 12.148–53).
cid promotion of its neighbours Laodicea and
By 62 BCE the amount of the temple tax confis-
Hierapolis in the third pre-Christian century
cated by the Roman governor (20 pounds of
ended Colossae’s virtual monopoly of the
gold) reveals that there were at least 11,000
wool production of the valley. None the less
adult male Jews in the Lycus valley (Lightfoot
the cyclamen purple (colossinus) fleeces of Colos-
1904: 20).
sae (Pliny, Nat. Hist. 21.51) continued to rival the
2. The Lycus valley was evangelized by
glossy black wool of Laodicea (Strabo, Geog.
Epaphras (4:13), a native of Colossae (4:12),
12.8.6). They were the mainstay of the local
who had been commissioned by Paul (see COL
economy. Access to international markets was
1:7). Paul’s appreciation of the contrast between
facilitated by the location of the cities on the
his own arrival in Philippi and Thessalonica,
 205 colossians

where he had to start from scratch each time, responsibility in writing to a church that he
and his experience in Corinth (Acts 18:2–3) and did not found directly (2:1). It is also asserted
Ephesus (Acts 18:19; 1 Cor 16:19), where that Colossians gives Paul’s sufferings a vicari-
Prisca and Aquila furnished him with a well- ous value, whereas in the authentic letters they
established base, helped him to the realization are viewed kerygmatically. This argument has
that travellers returning home would be the no foundation. It is due to the mistranslation of
most effective apostles. They started with a key verse; see COL 1:24. The identification of
built-in advantages: they did not have to look the gospel as ‘the mystery’ (1:26–7; 2:2; 4:3) is a
for work, they were known and trusted, they Pauline paradox, since the whole point is that it
had networks of family, friends, and acquaint- is no longer a secret. It does not, therefore,
ances, who could be guaranteed to listen, at convey a different perspective on revelation.
least initially. Most, if not all, of the converts 4. The Christology of Colossians can be seen
made by Epaphras were pagans (1:21; 2:13). as fundamentally different from that of the au-
3. The volcanic springs and underground thentic letters only if it is assumed that Paul was
rivers alerted Strabo to the unstable character in full agreement with everything that appears
of the Lycus valley, ‘if any country is subject to in Colossians. In fact the situation is parallel to
earthquakes, Laodicea is’ (Geog. 12.8.16). A major that of 1 Corinthians where Paul quotes Cor-
earthquake hit in 60 CE (Tac., Ann. 14.27.1). Both inthian statements with which he is in flat dis-
Laodicea and Hierapolis were rebuilt, but Colos- agreement. The cosmic dimension, which is
sae never recovered; note the silence of Pliny most visible in 1:15–20, does not represent
(Nat. Hist. 5.105). Its long slide into oblivion Paul’s thought. It is quoted from a Colossian
terminated in the ninth century CE when the hymn, which Paul edits severely to incorporate
site was definitively abandoned. his own vision of Christ (see COL 1:15–20). His
adversaries ‘had done their best to give Christ a
B. Authenticity. 1. There is no consensus prominent place in the realm of cosmic specu-
regarding the authorship of Colossians. The lation. What they had not done, and the editor
case against authenticity has been most compre- now proceeds to do, is to recognize his earthly
hensively argued recently by Schenk (1987) and activity’ (Barrett 1994: 146). Contrast 1:19 with
Furnish (1992), but the reasons they assemble— 2:10, and note the stress on the crucifixion (1:20;
style, conception of Paul’s role, Christology, 2:14). The vision of the church as ‘the body of
eschatology, and literary dependence—are not Christ’ (1:18a; 2:19) is simply a more graphic
compelling. statement of the union of believers with Christ
2. Style was once thought to be the definitive and each other (Gal 2:20; 3:27–8). The distinc-
argument against Pauline origin (Bujard 1973), tion between the individual Jesus Christ (‘the
but when analysed in a more sophisticated way head’) and his ‘body’ was imposed on Paul by
it appears that Colossians is perfectly at home the circumstances at Colossae. It does not
among the accepted letters (Neumann 1990: appear in 1 Cor 12:12–27 or Rom 12:4–5 because
213). Moreover, the stylistic variations between the position of Christ was not an issue in those
all the Pauline letters are far from insignificant churches.
(Kenny 1986: 80), and the influence of co- 5. It is claimed that the realized eschatology
authors and secretaries can no longer be ig- of Colossians is incompatible with the future
nored (Murphy-O’Connor 1995a: 34). There is eschatology of the authentic letters. On only
no standard of Pauline style to which doubtful two occasions, however, is the resurrection of
letters can be compared. believers presented as a past fact (2:12; 3:1),
3. Paul, we are told, is presented as the peer- and in context this is nothing more than a
less, transcendent apostle. This is not in fact the vivid expression of their passage from ‘death’
case. The language of Colossians is certainly to ‘life’ (2:13; cf. Rom 6:11). Standard Pauline
universalist, e.g. ‘the gospel which you heard, future eschatology appears in 1:22–3, 28; 3:4,
which has been preached to every creature 6, 24–5.
under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a 6. The charge that Colossians is the work of a
minister’ (1:23; cf. 1:6, 28), but the lack of the secondary imitator, because it conflates phrases
article before ‘minister’ shows that Paul does from Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, and 1
not consider himself the unique agent, and the Thessalonians, exaggerates the import of verbal
hyperbole is precisely paralleled by 1 Thess 1:8, reminiscences, while at the same time failing to
both as regards tense and extension. Paul provide a justification for the proposed redac-
had to stress his universal, but not exclusive, tional technique in only parts of Colossians.
colossians 206

C. Date of Composition. 1. Of the six who 16–23 contains both direct and indirect refer-
send greetings to Colossae, five also salute Phi- ences to the content, function, and medium of
lemon (see COL 4:10–14). The names of Timothy revelation, as well as to the pre-requisites for its
(1:1; Philem 1) and Onesimus (4:9; Philem 10) attainment. Sappington (ibid. 170) concludes,
appear in both letters, as does that of Archippus ‘the Colossian error is strikingly similar to the
as one of the recipients (4:17; Philem 2). Oppon- ascetic-mystical piety of Jewish Apocalypticism.
ents of the authenticity of Colossians claim that The errorists sought out heavenly ascents by
its author borrowed the personalia from Phile- means of various ascetic practices involving
mon in order to give Pauline colouring to abstinence from eating and drinking, as well as
Colossians, but cite no evidence to show that careful observance of the Jewish festivals. These
this was a normal tactic to get a forgery experiences of heavenly ascent climaxed in a
accepted—it was not considered necessary by vision of the throne [of God] and in worship
the author of Ephesians—and fail to explain the offered by the heavenly hosts surrounding it. It
changes in order and qualifications. Hence, seems that these visions also pointed to the
Colossians must be dated to the same impris- importance of observing the Jewish festivals,
onment as Philemon 4:10, 18; Philem 1, 9, 23. probably as evidence of submission to the law
2. This incarceration took place at Ephesus of God.’ There is no evidence that this attitude
(1 Cor 15:32; 2 Cor 1:8) in the years 53–4, rather towards religious experience was systematically
than at Rome in the early 60s (contra Dunn 1996: propagated at Colossae. Some of the converted
41). When in Rome all Paul’s attention was fo- Gentiles must have been God-fearers, who
cused on Spain (Rom 15:24, 28), but Philem 22 brought it with them from the synagogue, and
and Phil 1:26; 2:24 reveal plans to visit Colossae proposed it as a supplement to the teaching of
and Philippi. The action of Onesimus is explic- Epaphras.
able only if Paul was in the vicinity of Colossae 2. This reconstruction implies that the prob-
(Lampe 1985). The speed of the contacts between lem with which Paul had to deal at Colossae was
Paul and Philippi (Phil 2:25–30) exclude Rome as in no way similar to the situation he had faced
the place of imprisonment. in Galatia. There he had to counter a direct
3. Assumptions regarding Paul’s theological attack on his authority, and a vision of Chris-
development cannot be given any weight in this tianity which in practice gave the law greater
discussion (against Bruce 1977: 411–12). Even if we importance than Christ. Here he has to deal
could be absolutely sure of the precise chrono- with a fashionable religious fad without intel-
logical order of the letters, it would mean little. lectual depth, whose proponents floated in a
The letters are not homogeneous segments of an fantasy world. His concern is to restore a sense
ongoing research project, each one building on of reality, to set the feet of the misguided on
its predecessor, but reactions to specific prob- solid ground. They grasped at shadows. He had
lems, in which what Paul says is conditioned by to show them that Christ was substance (2:17).
the needs of the recipients, and by his own esti- The approach adopted by Paul in Galatians
mate of what will be an effective response. would have been completely inappropriate at
Colossae. Understandably, therefore, the
D. The False Teaching. 1. Hooker’s (1973) view themes and terminology typical of Galatians
that there was no systematic false teaching at are lacking in Colossians.
Colossae does not really account for the lan-
guage of 2:8–23. Paul is reacting to a doctrinal
COMMENTARY
problem, which has been described in at least
forty-four different ways (Gunther 1973: 3–4)! (1:1–2) Greeting Prior to his break with Anti-
There is a useful survey of the more notable och (Gal 2:11–14; Acts 13:1–3) Paul had been
opinions in O’Brien 1982: xxx-xxxviii. A de- secure in his ecclesial identity (cf. 1–2 Thessa-
cisive breakthrough was made by Francis’s lonians). Subsequently he did not represent any
(Francis and Meeks 1973:163–207) lexicograph- church (1:25), and had to identify himself as a
ical work on tapeinophrosynê and embateuô in 2:18, Christ-commissioned missionary. The formula
which provided a basis for an understanding of used here is a simplification of that which he
the genitive in ‘worship of angels’ as subjective. adopted in Gal 1:1. The selection of Timothy
His outline of Jewish ascetic mysticism, which is from among the many with Paul (Col 4:7–14)
the socio-religious framework of his hypoth- for mention in the address suggests that he was
esis, has been developed thoroughly by Sap- co-author of the letter (Murphy-O’Connor
pington (1991). The polemic material in 2:8, 1995a: 16–34).
 207 colossians

Rather than address the church as such (cf. their love which reaches out to all (Philem 5),
1–2 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1–2 Corinthians) virtues which are inspired by their hope of a
Paul writes to its members as fellow-believers guaranteed heavenly reward (1 Thess 1:3). The
(cf. Rom 1:7; Phil 1:1). ‘Saints’ does not imply Colossians had been made aware of their as-
personal holiness. It reflects the usage of OT sured future by the preaching of Epaphras
where the ‘holy’ is that which is ‘set apart for (1:6–7), which was anterior to the false teaching.
God’ (Lev 11:44). Exceptionally, ‘saints’ is inter- The qualification of the gospel as ‘the word of
preted (the kai is explicative; BDF §442(9) ) by truth’ (1:5; cf. Gal 2:5, 14) is intended to underline
‘loyal’, because some at Colossae, e.g. Archippus its reliability (Ps 119:43) by contrast with the
(cf. COL 4:17), had been led astray by false teach- ‘empty deceit’ (2:8) of the false teaching. The
ing (2:8). sterility and parochialism of the latter is indir-
The opening greeting of the Pauline letters ectly stigmatized by the universal creativity of
normally mentions a double source of divine the word of God (1 Thess 2:13; 1 Cor 1:18; Rom
benefactions, ‘from God our/ the Father and the 1:16; cf. Isa 55:10–11), a dynamic force changing
Lord Jesus Christ’. The absence of the second the world as it is transforming the Colossians
element here may be due to the mention of ‘in (3:16). Their experience corroborates the true
Christ’ in the first part of the verse (Aletti 1993: 46). understanding of the message; the ‘grace of
God’ is not merely a favourable attitude on the
(1:3–8) Thanksgiving In all Pauline letters, part of the divinity but tangible benefaction.
with the exception of Galatians, 1 Timothy, It is typical of Paul that he evokes love a second
and Titus, the address is followed by a report time (1:8); the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), it is
on how Paul has thanked God for the recipients. the very being of the believer (1 Cor 13:2). This is
When the formula ‘I give thanks to the gods’ the only mention of the Holy Spirit in Colos-
appears in contemporary letters it is never a sians.
banal convention and always evokes what is
upmost in the writer’s mind (Schubert 1939: (1:9–11) Prayer for the Future Having compli-
173). Similarly in Paul. The thanksgiving is mented the Colossians, Paul now reveals his
designed to win the favour of the readers— attitude towards them (cf. 2:1). They have been
and so parallels the rhetorical exordium—but the object of his constant concern, but his status
the compliments carefully reflect Paul’s assess- as a prisoner (4:10) has meant that he can only
ment of the state of the community, and reveal pray for them. He begs God that they may know
his concerns (Murphy-O’Connor 1995a: 55–64). his will, that they may do good works, and that
The length of the thanksgiving here is dis- they may persevere. It is the responsibility of
puted, but even those who extend it to 1:14 believers to discern what God demands of them
(Moule 1968: 47), or even 1:23 (Aletti 1993: 49), (Phil 1:9–10). There is no longer a law to dictate
consider 1:3–8 a subsection in which Paul notes their actions. The emphasis on ‘wisdom,’
the reasons for his gratitude (Lohse 1968: 40; ‘understanding’, and ‘knowledge’ as divine gifts
O’Brien 1982: 7). with a purpose beyond themselves is designed
Paul’s knowledge of the believers at Colossae to counter the false teachers’ insistence on asce-
depends on the report of Epaphras (1:4, 8), who tical practices as prerequisites (2:16, 21–3) for
had been deputed by Paul to evangelize the visions which were an end in themselves (2:18).
Lycus valley (1:7). The NRSV reading ‘on your Paul does not exclude contemplative know-
behalf’ is to be rejected (cf. RSV, NJB). While ledge of God (1:10c), but it must be accompanied
the quality of its witnesses might seem worthy by fruitfulness in ‘good works’ (1:10b; cf. Eph
of confidence, the reading is excluded by the 2:10; Jn 15:16). A permanent lifestyle, different
titles given to Epaphras (Abbott 1897: 200). In from that of those who belong to the world
particular ‘servant of Christ’ suggests a duly (2:20; 2 Cor 4:7–11; Phil 2:14–16), and resistant
authorized missionary (cf. 2 Cor 11:25; Phil 1:1). to cowardice and a desire forvengeance, is made
Note that Tychicus is given the same titles (4:7), possible only by the power of God. His ‘glory’ is
and he is certainly Paul’s representative. The fact his visibility in history (1:27), which can only be
that Epaphras was imprisoned (4:12–13; Philem a display of ‘might’ (1:11; cf. Eph 1:19).
23), whereas Epaphroditus of Philippi was not
(Phil 2:25), indicates that the authorities under- (1:12–14) Conversion There is in fact no break
stood Epaphras to be Paul’s agent. in the sentence, but the importance of the con-
Among the virtues of the Colossians Paul tents merits a special heading. In order to mo-
singles out their Christian confidence, and tivate the thanksgiving of the Colossians Paul
colossians 208

describes the crucial change in their existence in (v. 15a) 1 Who is (the) image of the invisible God
terms and images drawn from the liturgy of (v. 15b) 2 Firstborn of all creation
baptism (Käsemann 1964: 160). The key sen- (v. 16a) 3 For in him were created all things
tence is 1:12, which is then explained in 1:13–14 (v. 16f ) 4 All things through him and to him
(cf. Acts 28:16). The combination of two virtual were created
synonyms, ‘the share of the portion’, is com- (v. 18b) 1 Who is (the) beginning
mon in the Essene hymns (Kuhn 1968: 117), (v. 18c) 2 Firstborn from the dead
which also attest a use of ‘saints’ encompassing (v. 19) 3 For in him was pleased all the Fullness
both angels and believers (1QS 11:7–8; Benoit to dwell
1982). The Colossians have already been (v. 20a) 4 And through him to reconcile all
empowered to live in the realm of light where things to him
God’s holiness is experienced. The implication
is that the ascetic practices and visions advo- The first lines of each strophe begin with ‘who
cated by the false teachers are unnecessary. 1:12– is’, and the second lines with ‘firstborn’. The
14 is the key to understanding 2:13–15 (Sapping- third lines commence with ‘for in him’, which
ton 1991: 203). is followed by a verb in the passive (‘were cre-
In 1 Thess 5:5 Paul contrasted the past and ated/was pleased’), whose subject is a universal
present of believers in terms of ‘darkness’ and (‘all things/all the Fullness’). The fourth lines
‘light’ (cf. Rom 13:12). His use of ‘power’ here contain three identical expressions, ‘all things’,
in conjunction with ‘darkness’ is meant to ‘through him’, and ‘to him’. So many corres-
evoke the societal constraints which promote pondences must be intentional. They are the
the inauthentic behaviour of non-believers; all result of careful planning to achieve perfect
are ‘under the power of sin’ (Rom 3:9). Deliver- balance between the two strophes. No one
ance is the transferral to an alternative environ- who had made such an effort would destroy
ment identified as ‘the kingdom of the son of the elegance of his or her creation. In conse-
God’s love’ (1:13; cf. 1 Cor 15:23–8). The genitive quence, the elements which break the pattern
of quality is a Semitism (‘beloved’; cf. BDF §165), (vv. 16bcde, 17, 18ad, 20bc) must have been added
but Paul chose the expression (contrast 1:7; 4:7, by another hand. It is theoretically possible that
9, 14) in order to give prominence to ‘love’, such redactional activity had taken place before
which stands at the beginning of the process Paul incorporated the hymn into his letter. It is
of salvation (Rom 5:8). In the form displayed by more probable, however, that the additions
Christ it is the basic characteristic of the believ- were made by Paul, because identical retouches
ing community (2:2; 3:11–14; cf. Gal 3:27–8: 1 Cor appear in the hymn in Phil 2:6–11 (Murphy-
13:2). The vague ‘redemption’ is clarified by ‘the O’Connor 1995b).
forgiveness of sins’. The formula is found in The basic theme of this hymn is the medi-
Paul only here (cf. 2:13; 3:13), and has a liturgical ation of Christ, first in creation, then in recon-
ring. By incorporation into Christ (‘in him’) in ciliation. The titles in the first two lines of each
baptism (cf. Acts 2:38) the structures of the strophe evoke the figure of Wisdom—‘image’
world are replaced by new values. (Wis 7:26), ‘beginning’ and ‘firstborn’ (Prov 8:22;
Sir 1:4)—who was present with God from eter-
(1:15–20) The Christological Hymn Note the nity (Wis 9:4, 9), and participant in creation
change in the layout of the Greek text in Nestle- (Prov 3:19; 8:30; Wis 8:5; Sir 1:9; 24:9; Ps
Aland, 27th edn. (1993). It is generally recog- 104:24). These titles are the reason why Paul
nized that Paul here offers a corrected version could not simply repudiate the hymn; they
of a hymn in circulation at Colossae (3:16; cf. were rooted in the revelation of his people.
Eph 5:19). Many efforts have been made to The titles are justified by the third and fourth
recreate the original form of this hymn, but lines of each strophe, which are introduced by
none has won significant support (Schmauch ‘because’. All efforts to determine in what pre-
1964: 48–52; Benoit 1975). The multiplicity of cise sense Christ can be said to be both the
hypotheses, however, underlines the reality of instrument and the end of all creation have
the problem, not the futility of the quest. No failed. That ambiguity, not clarity, was intended
serious exegesis is possible without a decision is underlined by the plethora of unsatisfying
regarding tradition and redaction. In my view explanations of the indwelling ‘Fullness’ (v. 19).
the ordered repetition of formal features recom- Only in 2:9 do we discover that ‘Fullness’ is a
mends the reconstruction of two four-line surrogate for God, who is said to ‘dwell in’ both
strophes: people (T. Zeb. 8:2; Jub. 1:17; 1 Enoch 49:2–3; cf. 2
 209 colossians

Cor 6:16) and places (LXX Ps 67:17). No Jew 1:3–4; 4:25; 8:34; 10:8–9; 1 Cor 15:2–7; Gal 1:3–4; 1
would have understood either as meaning intrin- Thess 1:10), he typically stresses the ‘blood’ of
sic divinization. It is simply a way of speaking Christ (Rom 3:25; 5:9; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:25, 27). With
about divine favour. What the Colossians would the exception of the gospels and Heb 6:6; 12:2;
have understood is an open question, as is the Rev 11:8, he alone in the NT uses ‘cross’ and
exact manner in which Christ can be both the ‘crucify’ (cf. 2:14).
instrument and end of reconciliation. In what Paul’s choice of the verb ‘to make peace’
possible sense can all creation, which includes probably has less to do with any supposed
inanimate beings, have offended Christ, thereby animosity between heavenly beings, or between
creating the need for reconcilation? celestials and terrestrials, than with the internal
Paul saw the hymn as a perfect example of situation of the Colossian church, whose unity
‘beguiling, persuasive speech’ (2:4). Formal per- had been compromised (cf. 2:2; 3:15). The theme
fection clothes an abstract vision of a cosmic of unity is fundamental to the additions in vv. 17
Christ. The phrases are redolent of profundity, and 18a. The former sums up the first strophe,
but yield no unambiguous understanding of by parodying it. ‘He is before all things’ echoes
Christ’s person and mission. The hymn could the ambiguity of ‘firstborn’ (temporal? qualita-
be sung or recited by all Colossian Christians in tive?). The assertion that ‘all things hold to-
the belief that they were articulating a mystery gether’ in a human being (v. 17b) gives an
beyond their comprehension. Initiates, on the impression of unity whose precise meaning
other hand, could debate endlessly the ques- evaporates on inspection. Lightfoot (1904: 154)
tions that still test the ingenuity of exegetes, or perfectly catches the spurious profundity of the
develop an interpretation only remotely related expression by commenting ‘He impresses upon
to the letter of the text, e.g. the creative power creation that unity and solidarity which makes
of God, once thought of as Wisdom, is now it a cosmos instead of a chaos’. How exactly is
thought of as Christ (see Dunn 1980: 187–94). this achieved? ‘The action of gravitation . . . is an
In addition to the truth of the titles given to expression of His mind’!
Christ, Paul had a second reason to retain the Paul becomes completely serious in his intro-
hymn. It could be turned against the false duction to the second strophe. The church must
teachers. By inserting v. 16b–e Paul restricts the be characterized by the organic unity of a living
meaning of ‘all things’ (v. 16a) to intelligent ‘body’ (v. 18a). The insight is but an extension
beings, and makes it explicit that the angelic and clarification of ‘you are all one person in
powers are inferior to Christ who, according Christ Jesus’ (Gal 3:28 ¼ Col 3:11). The distinc-
to the premiss of the hymn, brought them tion between ‘head’ and ‘body’ does not appear
into existence and to whom they are ordered. in 1 Cor 12:12–27 or Rom 12:4–5 because the
The ineffable names of the spirit powers are supremacy of Christ was not questioned at
drawn at random from Jewish tradition (details Rome or Corinth. In this instance ‘head’ would
in Schlier 1961). There is no intention to de- appear to mean both ‘superior’ (2:10) and
scribe grades of the celestial hierarchy (Light- ‘source’ (2:19). The cosmic dimension of the
foot 1904: 150). Paul further diminishes the original hymn has been reduced to ecclesiology.
attractiveness to the Colossians of such powers
by inserting 1:20c. Like humans (1:21; 2:13; 3:7, (1:21–3) The Thesis of the Letter These verses
13), angels also need reconciliation; ‘some of the both sum up what has been said, and enunciate
angels of heaven transgressed the word of the the major themes of the letter in inverse order.
Lord, and behold they commit sin and trans- Thus they function as the rhetorical partitio
gress the law’ (1 Enoch 106:13–14; cf. 2 Apoc. Bar. (Aletti 1993: 120). vv. 21–2 evoke the past, pre-
56:11–13). Manifestly only good angels can be sent, and future of the Colossians. The passive
effective mediators with God, but how are voice ‘having been alienated’ must be taken
mere terrestrials to know which is which? Paul seriously (v. 21; cf. 1:13; Phil 2:15); the Gentiles
allows the Colossians to draw their own con- had inherited their polytheism and their accept-
clusion regarding the futility of the exercise. ance of the false values of a corrupt society. To
Parallel to the addition of ‘death on a cross’ in extricate them from this situation divine inter-
Phil 2:8c, Paul here insists on the brutal modality vention was necessary, but it was not an act of
of Christ’s achievement by inserting, ‘making glorious triumph (v. 22). ‘Body of flesh’ distin-
peace by the blood of his cross’ (v. 20b). guishes the individual Jesus from incorporeal
Whereas the traditional teaching that Paul re- beings, but also hints that his death was the
ceived mentioned only the death of Christ (Rom result of something happening to his body, the
colossians 210

violence of the crucifixion (v. 20b). Reconcili- Hence all attention must be focused on him as
ation is presented as a past achievement, but the source of authentic, certain knowledge (2:3).
this does not imply a realized eschatology, since The acquisition of such knowledge is not a
its conditional aspect is immediately made clear matter of asceticism. They must be ‘instructed
(‘provided that’, v. 23). by love’ (against NRSV; cf. Spicq 1958–9:
The Colossians have been given the oppor- ii.202–8) in order to penetrate the riches of
tunity (1:12; cf. Gal 5:1) to appear guiltless at the wisdom and knowledge hidden in Christ (2:2),
final judgement. How precisely they must com- who ‘loved me, that is, gave himself for me’ (Gal
port themselves is outlined in 3:1–4:1. More fun- 2:20; BDF §442(9); cf. 1:22).
damentally, however, they must remain
committed to the salvific vision conveyed by (2:6–23) Warning against Errors The original
the gospel they initially accepted (1:5–6). The commitment of the Colossians was to the Christ
alternative against which they are warned is as Jesus the Lord (2:6; Lightfoot 1904: 174). Jesus
the theme of 2:6–23. The hyperbole of ‘preached is the truth of Christ (Eph 4:21). His historicity is
to every creature under heaven’ (v. 23b) echoes fundamental to salvation. The believers must
that of 1 Thess 1:8, and the lack of the definite not permit themselves to be returned to the
article before ‘servant’ underlines that Paul domain of darkness (cf. 1:13) by accepting
is not the sole apostle. 1:24–2:5 develops merely human speculation which, despite the
Paul’s own understanding of his service of the claims made for it, in fact regresses to the basic
mystery. religious perspectives common to (fallen) hu-
manity (‘elements of the world’, 2:8), e.g. the
(1:24–2:5) Servant of the Mystery The NRSV need for asceticism in order to advance in reli-
offers a widespread mistranslation of 1:24b, gious knowledge (v. 20; GAL 4:3); see Sappington
which has given rise to a series of false problems (1991: 169).
to which a variety of answers have been pro- ‘Elementary teaching’ (Heb 5:12) appears to be
posed, some of which are used to deny Pauline the best sense in this context of a term, stoicheion
authorship of Colossians (Kremer 1956). A lit- (element), which has a wide variety of meanings
eral translation, which respects the order of the according to the framework in which it is used
words, simplifies the matter considerably (Aletti (for a survey see Bandstra 1964: 5–30). Many
1993: 135): ‘I complete what is lacking in the scholars, however, prefer to understand ‘elem-
sufferings-of-Christ-in-my-flesh’ (cf. Gal 2:20; 2 ents of the world’ as the basic components of
Cor 4:10–11). There is no reference to the indi- the material universe—earth, water, air, and fire.
vidual Jesus Christ. Paul’s sufferings are those of This is certainly the best-documented meaning
Christ because Paul is a member of the body of in contemporary literature, but to make sense
Christ (cf. Phil 3:10), and because Paul’s suffer- here it has to be understood metaphorically of
ings reveal the present reality of grace as those (1) the basic factors in human existence, which
of Christ did (2 Cor 4:10–11). Paul has no choice for Paul were Law, Sin, Death, flesh, or (2) the
but to struggle on until all have heard the gospel planets which exercise control over humans
(cf. Rom 15:19; 2 Tim 4:17). He is a minister of the and determine the calendar; such astral beings
church (1:25), not in virtue of a human commis- are associated with angels. Neither of these us-
sion (1:1; cf. Gal 1:1), but in virtue of the stew- ages is attested at the time of Paul.
ardship entrusted to him by God in order to The function of the genitive ‘of deity’ (v. 9) is
further the economy of salvation (1 Cor 4:1; to explain ‘Fullness’, which 1:19 had left unspeci-
9:17). The ‘word of God’, which Paul preaches fied (Lohse 1968: 150; BDF §§165, 167). As in 1:19,
in word and deed, is now described as ‘the ‘indwelling’ here does not mean divinization.
mystery’ (1:26; cf. Eph 3:1–9). Divinely ordained ‘Bodily’ has been interpreted in at least five
future events (for the background see Brown different ways (Moule 1968: 92–3). The two
1968), which for the false teachers were still a most probable are ‘really’ (as opposed to seem-
secret to be penetrated laboriously, in fact have ingly; cf. v. 17) and ‘in physical form’. The two
already been made plain, not merely to a group are not incompatible. Divine favour and salvific
of initiates, but to all believers. ‘Glory’, the bril- action are concentrated exclusively in the hu-
liance of God’s action in history, is the antithesis manity of Christ. Necessarily, therefore, he is the
of secrecy. The content of the mystery is Christ sole source of fulfilment, and he has authority
precisely as present among the believers, no over all spirit forces (v. 10; Grudem 1985).
longer in Jerusalem, to which they must trek What has already been achieved for the
(Isa 60:1–7), but where they are (Aletti 1993: 143). Colossians should be a cause of thanksgiving
 211 colossians

(v. 7). To drive this home Paul employs a series certain foods (v. 21). They believed that obedi-
of five vivid, dramatic images (vv. 11–15), in ence won God’s favour, and that asceticism
which attempts have been made to find trad- purified the person (v. 23). Together these two
itional material (Lohse 1968: 160; Wengst 1972: constituted the ‘humility’ (v. 18), i.e. mortifica-
186–94). The results have been inconclusive. tion, that was the prerequisite for revelatory
Through Christ the whole body of flesh (and experiences (Sappington 1991: 163). The NRSV
not a mere symbolic token), i.e. the entire translation of v. 18a should be abandoned in
framework of habits and desires opposed to favour of ‘Let no one condemn you, delighting
God, has been removed (v. 11; cf. v. 18). This is in humility and the angelic worship [of God],
true only in theory; it must be made real in which he has seen upon entering’ (O’Brien 1982:
practice (cf. Gal 5:13–24). The active faith of 134). In visions the adept ‘entered’ the heavenly
the recipient is necessary for baptism to be a world (Francis and Meeks 1973: 163–207), and
dying and rising with Christ (v. 12; cf. Rom 10:9). participated in the worship offered by the an-
The realized eschatology of ‘you were co-raised’ gels assembled around the throne of God (Isa 6;
(cf. 3:1) must be read in the perspective of the Ezek 1; 1 Enoch 14). It was to this other world that
future eschatology of 1:22, 27; 3:4, 6, 15–16. It is the false teachers had relegated Christ.
simply a more graphic version of ‘God made This claim to religious superiority is brutally
alive’ (v. 13). ‘Life’ and ‘death’ are used here in dismissed by Paul as overweening conceit
their existential sense of the presence and rooted in silly ideas concocted by a fleshly in-
absence of virtue (cf. 2 Cor 2:16; Philo, Fug., 55). telligence (v. 18b). This fundamentally egocen-
With vivid imagination Paul presents humanity tric attitude is the antithesis of the sharing that
as having defaulted after signing an agreement to characterizes the Body of Christ and, in conse-
obey the will of God. The bond thus became an quence, separates those who persist in it from
accusation (v. 14). God, in his generosity, forgave Christ, the only source (‘head’; cf. 1 Cor 11:3) of
the fault and cancelled the debt. the Body’s vitality (v. 19). The being of a Chris-
The moment when this happened—‘nailing tian is to ‘belong’ to Christ (1 Cor 3:23).
it to the cross’—was the crucifixion of Christ. What the Colossians enjoy (cf. 1:12–14; 2:11–
The image is not totally consistent, and the 15) is not definitive. It can be lost. Through
metaphor must not be pressed too hard. For death in Christ (v. 12) they have been freed
other interpretative options see O’Brien (1982: from the religious perspectives of fallen human-
121–6). A new image, whose antithesis appears ity (v. 20; cf. v. 8), but they will return to a state
in 2 Cor 2:14, is introduced in v. 15. God (the of slavery if they again accept the values and
emperor) awards a Roman triumph to Christ standards of society (Gal 4:8–11). The emphasis
(his victorious general), who, having stripped on ascetic practices associated with Judaism (cf.
angelic beings of their power, led them in a LXX Isa 29:13) is due to the situation at Colossae
procession that normally ended in executions (vv. 21–2), but the principle is of wider applica-
(Hafemann 1986: 18–39). Some explain the sud- tion (Gal 5:1, 13). Such practices might appear to
den appearance of ‘principalities and powers’ exhibit spiritual strength and superiority, but in
by identifying them as the angels who recorded fact they indulge the egocentricity of fallen
the transgressions of humanity. In this case the humanity because they are ‘self-imposed’ (v. 23).
‘handwriting’ would be the book of life (Ps 56:8;
Isa 65:6; 1 Enoch 81:2–4; Sappington 1991: 208– (3:1–4:1) How the Colossians Ought to Live
23). The mention of spirit powers, however, Having brought out the implications of dying
could have been occasioned by the situation at with Christ (2:20–3), Paul now spells out the
Colossae to which Paul now turns. consequences of rising with Christ (3:1–4). If be-
The ‘therefore’ introducing v. 16 implies that lievers have been raised, then their concern must
the direct polemic against the false teachers (vv. be with ‘above’ not with ‘below’. The contrast is
16–23) stems from the doctrinal base established inspired by the characterization of the practices
in vv. 9–15. The reality of Christ highlights the of the false teachers in 2:23, and appears to forget
insubstantial nature of the proposed alternative that these were only means to reaching ‘the
(v. 17), which was rooted in ‘a quest for higher things that are above’ (cf. 2:18). For Paul, how-
religious experience through mystical-ascetical ever, the central figure in heaven is Christ, whose
piety’ (Carr 1973: 500). In addition to strict ob- authority is emphasized by his position at God’s
servance of the Jewish calendar (v. 16; cf. right hand (Ps 110:1; 1 Cor 15:25).
Isa 1:13–14; Ezek 46:4–11), the false teachers ‘Do not set your minds on things that are on
demanded fasting and/or the exclusion of earth’ (3:2; cf. Phil 3:19), if taken literally, would
colossians 212

negate the ethical directives which follow. Such (3:11), exemplifies the ideal of his self-sacrificing
imprecision regularly caused confusion in love, and enables the members to pattern their
Paul’s communities, e.g. his insistence that lives on his example (2 Cor 5: 14–15). Instead of
Christians were totally free of the Mosaic law the contempt that produced the divisions typ-
permitted the Corinthians to conclude that they ical of society—Jews despised pagans, who
could do what they liked (cf. 1 Cor 6:12; 10:23). looked down on barbarians (i.e. anyone who
Paul’s intention here was not to exclude in- did not speak Greek), who spurned Scythians
volvement with society (cf. 1 Cor 5:9–10), but as the epitome of human degradation (cf. 2
to prohibit acceptance of its values (cf. Rom Macc 4:47; 3 Macc 7:5)—the believers must
8:5–6). Believers no longer ‘belong to the make Christ present in the world by exhibiting
world’ (2:20). By contrast with the glorious reve- those virtues ‘which reduce or eliminate
lation at the parousia (3:4) of the intimate union friction: ready sympathy, a generous spirit, a
between Christ and believers (cf. Gal 2:20; Phil humble disposition, willingness to make con-
1:21), their new life can be considered ‘hidden’ cessions, patience, forbearance’ (Moule 1968:
(3:3), but this is relative, because the action of 123). Forgiven by God they must forgive.
grace must be seen if the gospel is to spread (1:6; Loved by God they must love. Unless sheathed
cf. 1 Thess 1:6–8; 4:12; 2 Cor 3:2, 18). in love no virtue can be perfect (3:14; cf. Spicq
‘Whatever in you is earthly’ (3:5) is literally 1958–9: i. 268–75). Love alone excludes pre-
‘the members on the earth’. Paul identifies the tence. Others (details in Schmauch 1964: 80–2)
parts of the body with the sins they commit (cf. translate ‘the bond of perfection’ and under-
Rom 6:13, 19; 2 Apoc. Bar. 49:3). The admonition stand the genitive as purposeful (‘the bond
does not parallel Mt 5:29–30. Lists of vices char- that leads to perfection’) or objective (‘the
acteristic of unredeemed pagan humanity (Wis bond that produces perfection’). These are less
14:22–9) have already appeared in 1 Thess 4:3–6; satisfactory, because for Paul there is no perfec-
Gal 5:19–21. The first five mentioned here (5:5) tion beyond love (1 Cor 13).
can be related to sexuality, thought the last- Fully aware of the tensions within the church
mentioned has a wider extension. The connec- at Colossae, Paul expresses a wish that peace
tion between greed, the original sin (Rom 7:7), may reign there. In society peace is often no
and idolatry is axiomatic in Judaism (cf. T. Judah, more than an uneasy truce to be abandoned the
19:1). Pagans are simply ‘those who covet’ (Pal. moment an advantage presents itself. The
Tg. on Ex 20:17; b. Šabb. 146a). The second five Colossians should be grateful that they are not
vices (5:8) all involve intemperate speech that in that situation. Authentic peace, which is de-
makes genuine communication impossible. The fined by reference to the self-sacrifice of Christ,
social consequences of lying (5:9a) are even is first a subjective attitude which then results in
more disastrous. Without trust there can be no a community of love (3:15; cf. 1 Cor 7:15; 14:33).
community. In a living body the hand cannot be at war with
To the Galatians Paul had said ‘you have put the foot. According to 1 Cor 6:7, members who
on Christ’ (Gal 3:27; cf. Rom 13:14). The image of sue one another are in fact suing themselves—a
putting on a person is without parallel in ridiculous situation.
antiquity, and owes its origin to the convert’s The ideal community is not merely an ab-
assumption of a new environment by entering sence of antagonism. There is a much more
the church, which is the body of Christ. The positive dimension (3:16). The expression
insight is developed here in a contrast between ‘word of Christ’ is unique, but synthesizes a
‘the old man’ and ‘the new man’ (5:9b–10). Both number of concepts found earlier in the letter;
are primarily social concepts. The ‘new man’ is ‘the word of the truth, the gospel’ (1:5) is ‘the
the sphere ‘where’ (3:11) the divisions which word of God’ (1:25), which is ‘God’s mystery,
characterize society (‘the old man’) no longer that is Christ’ (2:3). Its power within each one
exist (Gal 3:28). Just as society dictates the (1:6, 10) must find socially beneficial expression.
behaviour of its members, so the believing com- The emphasis on ‘teaching and admonishing’
munity is the source of authentic moral know- was demanded by the presence of false teachers
ledge. The goal of the ongoing renewal of the at Colossae, who taught some believers the
‘new man’ is a type of knowledge characterized hymn that Paul quotes in 1:15–20. In practice
by creativity. This can only be a knowledge ‘yourselves’ means ‘one another’ (NRSV; cf. 3:13)
born of love (Phil 1:9–10; contrast Rom 2:17– but heautous (cf. 1 Cor 6:7) was chosen to under-
18), which empowers the other not only to see line that believers are organically unified in a
but to act. The community, which is Christ single ‘body’, and thereby to remind them that
 213 colossians

their source of life is Christ (2:19). Theological another (3:14; cf. 1 Thess 4:9). The temptation to
development is part of the natural evolution of treat her harshly might be due to her refusal to
the community. In consequence, it must (a) be convert.
homogeneous with the gospel that brought the What is said to slaves stands out from the
community into being (1:6), and (b) take place in other admonitions both quantitatively and
a public context. ‘Psalms, hymns, and spiritual qualitatively (3:22–5). It is unlikely to have
songs’ suggest the liturgical assembly, in which been inspired by the case of Onesimus (4:9), or
inspired insights into the mystery of Christ by agitation among Christian slaves at Colossae
(1 Cor 14:26) were proffered for the consent of (Aletti 1993: 254). Rather it reflects Paul’s habit-
the community (1 Cor 14:16; cf. 1 Thess 5:21–2). ual attitude towards slaves who accepted Chris-
Such community singing must be an expression tianity. Within the community he took it for
of gratitude to God (3:16c), but so too must every granted that they would show and share the
other human activity (3:17). It is made possible love that was its most characteristic feature,
in, through, and by Christ; thus it must mirror but he made no effort to change the social
his comportment. But Jesus was sent because of order. Paul does not demand that Onesimus
God’s fatherly concern for humanity (1:12), and be manumitted, but that he be received ‘no
so in the last analysis gratitude must be directed longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a
to God. beloved brother’ (Philem 16; cf. 1 COR 7:17–24).
Generic directives are followed by three pairs Paul’s sole concern here is that slaves should not
of reciprocal admonitions dealing with the obey orders to the letter while their hearts
relations of wife–husband, child–father, and raged, and hate corroded their spirits. The in-
slave–master (3:18–4:1). The nature of the ternal tension had to be resolved in order to
socio-religious matrix in which such household permit the transforming effect of grace to be-
codes were formulated has occasioned vigorous come visible (4:5–6). The witness value of the
debate (Balch 1992), whose inconclusiveness is comportment of believers was always a major
the inevitable consequence of the wide vari- concern (cf. 1 Thess 1:6–8; 4:12; 2 Cor 4:10–11).
ations within the form. Conscious of a tradition The warning of a future judgement (3:24–5)
of sensible social management, Paul formulates underlines the seriousness of Paul’s concern.
a series of guidelines designed to persuade the Christian masters also have obligations to
Colossians to leave the mystical world of vi- their slaves (cf. Sir 7:20–1, 31–3). They are not
sions and angels, and to return to the real required to love them or to free them, but to
world where the fabric of daily life was woven treat them ‘justly’ and ‘fairly’ (4:1). The terms are
from a multitude of interpersonal relations, of related as ‘knowledge’ and ‘discernment’ in Phil
which the most basic were the three pairs listed 1:9. In each case the first deals with the obvious
here (Aristotle, Politics, 1.1253b7). The only really and clear, whereas the second comes into play
distinctive feature is the motivation by refer- when a sure feeling for what is appropriate is
ence to the Lord, which here means Christ required.
(Aletti 1993: 249). The social distinctions,
which are fundamental to these admonitions, (4:2–6) Concluding Exhortations As Paul had
can be reconciled with the abolition of such given thanks (1:3) and prayed for the Colossians
distinctions in 3:11 only on the assumption (1:9), so now they must do likewise (v. 2). The
that not all members of a family were converted prayer in question is primarily petition (O’Brien
to Christianity. 1982: 237) for the glorious return of Christ (3:4;
The literal translation of 3:18 is ‘women be cf. 1 Cor 16:22). Their incessant awareness of,
subject to men’, but the context demands limi- and orientation to, this goal is the best guaran-
tation to marriage, as some copyists have tried tee of the vigilance required of all believers if
to convey by various additions. The admonition they are to persevere (1:23). Gratitude for what
that a Christian woman be submissive to her they have already been given (1:12–14; 3:11–12)
non-believing husband (3:18) is to remind her should enhance their attentiveness. It is typical
that her new freedom (cf. Gal 5:1) does not of Paul to request prayers for himself (1 Thess
exempt her from the obligations she undertook 5:25; Philem 22). It is a means of participation in
in marriage. Such behaviour is ‘fitting’ for a the mission of the church (3:3; 2 Thess 3:1; Phil
Christian because of its missionary potential 1:19). The Colossians must beseech God (a) for
(cf. 1 Pet 3:1). The obligation to love laid on the Paul’s liberation from prison in order to con-
husband (3:19) indicates that the wife is a non- tinue his mission (cf. 1 Cor 16:9; 2 Cor 2:12),
believer, since Christians by definition love one and (b) for his ability to ‘reveal’ the mystery
colossians 214

effectively. ‘The divine passive of 1:26 finds its 27:2). Nothing is known of Jesus who, like
human herald in 4:4’ (Aletti 1993: 260). Despite Paul, had taken a similar-sounding Hellenistic
Paul’s emphasis on the verbal dimension of Roman name. It is unlikely that his name
such communication, it is likely that he also appears in Philem 23 (O’Brien 1982: 307). Mark
has in mind the existential aspect, in which his is mentioned in Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37–9, and in 2
comportment reveals Christ (2 Cor 4:10–11; cf. 1 Tim 4:11. In a poignant note Paul remarks that
Cor 2:1–5). these three are the only Christians of Jewish
It is to this aspect that Paul now alerts the origin to have stayed with him (3:11). Had they
Colossians. It is not enough to pray. They must come with him from Antioch? The implication
also exhibit a presence in society that will prove is that the following three collaborators are
attractive to non-believers (v. 5; cf. 1 Thess 4:12;Gentiles. Luke and Demas appear in 2 Tim
Phil 2:14–16). Every opportunity to induce them 4:9, 11. Despite his imprisonment, Epaphras,
to believe must be availed of. The speech of the apostle of Colossae (1:7), remains active on
Christians should be winning and witty, and behalf of his converts (3:12). He prays that they
tailored to the needs of each interlocutor (v. may be stable in their maturity (cf. 1:28–9), and
6). They must insinuate not dominate. be filled with ‘everything willed by God’ (Light-
foot 1904: 238), whose essence is spelt out in
(4:7–18) Final Greetings The two bearers of 2:2–3, 10. Paul’s independent knowledge of how
the letter are introduced in a chiastic pattern hard Epaphras had worked to establish the gos-
(vv. 7–9). Paul tactfully remains quiet regarding pel in the Lycus valley (v. 13) must have come
the personal history of Onesimus, simply not- from Onesimus (v. 9). The testimony would
ing that he has become a Christian (‘brother’; cf. have been all the more impressive coming
Philem 10), and has Paul’s respect and confi- from one who at that stage was a pagan (Philem
dence (‘faithful’). The same adjectives are ap- 10). The exclusive concentration on Laodicea in
plied to Tychicus, who in addition is called what follows suggests that Epaphras had not
‘minister’ and ‘fellow-servant in the Lord’, been successful in Hierapolis.
exactly as is Epaphras (1:7; 4:12). If the latter Paul sends his personal greetings to believers
was an official delegate of Paul to Colossae, in Laodicea, and in particular to the believers
Tychicus now enjoys the same status. He can who assembled in the home of Nympha (v. 15).
speak for Paul with authority, not only with The fact that he singles out a particular individ-
respect to personal news from Ephesus, but as ual confirms that he had never visited the Lycus
regards the interpretation of the letter in its valley (cf. 2:1; ROM 16). Nymphan could be the
impact on the growth of the community (2:2). accusative of the feminine name Nympha
Greetings are sent by six men with Paul, who (O’Brien 1982: 246) or of the masculine name
with one exception also appear in Philemon but Nymphas (Moule 1968: 28). There is little diffi-
in a different order (Murphy-O’Connor 2007). culty in deciding which of the accompanying
pronouns, ‘her’ or ‘him’, is original. No copyist
would change the masculine into the feminine,
Col 4:10–14 Remarks Philem 23–4 because of its implication regarding the status of
a woman. The contrary, however, is eminently
Aristarchus <– my fellow-pris- Aristarchus (3) probable, given the instinctive patriarchal bias of
oner copyists. Women were fully the equal of men in
Mark <– cousin of Barna- Mark (2) the Pauline communities (cf. 1 Cor 11:2–16), and
bas presided over house churches (cf. Rom 16:1–2).
Jesus <– called Justus For the public reading of the letter at Colos-
Epaphras <– one of you, a ser- Epaphras (1) sae (v. 16: cf. 1 Thess 5:27) the ‘whole’ commu-
vant of Christ Jesus nity (cf. Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 14:23) must have been
my fellow-prisoner – assembled from the various house churches in
> the city. The exchange of letters with Laodicea
Luke <– beloved physician Luke (5) implies that the differences between the two
Demas Demas (4) churches were significant, otherwise two letters
would be pointless. None the less the two com-
It is curious that Timothy, the co-author of both munities had enough in common to make the
letters (1:1; Philem 1), is not mentioned in either reading of the other’s letter worthwhile. The
list. Aristarchus of Thessalonica is well known letter sent by Paul to the Laodiceans has been
from several references in Acts (19:29; 20:4; the centre of a vigorous debate. The current
 215 colossians

consensus refuses to identify it with any known Bujard, W. (1973), Stilanalytische Untersuchungen zum
document (Anderson 1992). It has been con- Kolosserbrief als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachergleichen,
structed out of Colossians by Boismard (1999) SUNT 11 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
and much more successfully out of Ephesians Carr, W. (1973), ‘Two Notes on Colossians’, JTS 24:
by Muddiman (2001). 492–500.
Paul’s request that Archippus should be Dunn, J. D. G. (1980), Christology in the Making: An
informed of an admonition addressed to him Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation
(141:17) implies that Paul knew that he would (London: SCM).
not be present when the letter was read in —— (1996), The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon:
public (contrast 2 Thess 3:11–12; Phil 4:2–3), A Commentary on the Greek Text. Greek New Testa-
even though he was part of the leadership ment Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
group of a house church (Phlm 2). The most Francis, F. O., and Meeks, W. A. (1973) (eds.), Conflict
natural explanation is that Epaphras had at Colossae, SBLSBS 4 (Missoula: Scholar’s Press).
informed Paul that Archippus had been won Furnish, V. P. (1992), ‘Colossians, Epistle to the’, ABD
over by the false teachers. The desertion of a i. 1090–6.
leader of his status explains the urgency of the Grudem, W. (1985), ‘Does kephale (‘‘Head’’) Mean
letter. A response could not await the release of ‘‘Source’’ or ‘‘Authority’’ in Greek Literature? A
Paul or Epaphras. Had Archippus simply moved Survey of 2,336 Examples’, Trinity Journal, 6: 38–59.
to Laodicea (Lightfoot 1904: 242) the matter Gunther, J. J. (1973), St. Paul’s Opponents and Their
would have been dealt with in that letter. Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian
Paul regularly used secretaries (Rom 16:22), Teachings. NovTSup 35 (Leiden: Brill).
and thus had to write the last paragraph in his Hafemann, S. J. (1986), Suffering and the Spirit: An
own hand to authenticate the letter (4:18; cf. 2 Exegetical Study of II Cor. 2:14–3:3 within the Context
Thess 3:17; Gal 6:11; Philem 19; 1 Cor 16:21; of the Corinthian Correspondence, WUNT 2/19 (Tübin-
Richards 1991: 173–7). gen: Mohr [Siebeck]).
Hooker, M. D. (1973), ‘Were there False Teachers at
Colossae?’. in B. Lindars and S. Smalley (eds.),
REFERENCES
Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Hon-
Abbott, T. K. (1897), A Critical and Exegetical Commen- our of Charles Francis Digby Moule (Cambridge: Cam-
tary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colos- bridge University Press).
sians, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Käsemann, E. (1964), Essays on New Testament Themes.
Aletti, J.-N. (1993), Saint Paul: Épitre aux Colossiens, Ebib SBT 41 (London: SCM).
NS 20 (Paris: Gabalda). Kenny, A. (1986), A Stylometric Study of the New Testa-
Anderson, C. P. (1992), ‘Laodiceans, Epistle to’, ABD ment (Oxford: Clarendon).
iv. 231–3. Kremer, J. (1956), Was an den Leiden Christi noch man-
Balch, D. (1992), ‘Household Codes’, ABD iii. 318–20. gelt: Eine interpretationsgeschichtliche und exegetische
Bandstra, A. J. (1964), Law and the Elements (Kampen: Untersuchung zu Kol 1, 24b, BBB 12 (Bonn: Han-
Kok). stein).
Barrett, C. K. (1994), Paul: An Introduction to his Thought Kuhn, K. G. (1968), ‘The Epistle to the Ephesians in
(London: Chapman). the Light of the Qumran Texts’, in J. Murphy-
Benoit, P. (1975), ‘L’Hymne christologique de Col i, O’Connor (ed.), Paul and Qumran (London: Chap-
15–20: Jugement critique sur l’état des recherches’, man), 115–31.
in J. Neusner (ed.), Christianity, Judaism and Other Lampe, P. (1985), ‘Keine ‘‘Sklavenflucht’’ des Onesi-
Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. mus’, ZNW 76: 135–7.
SJLA 12/1 (Leiden: Brill), i. 226–63. Lightfoot, J. B. (1904), Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colos-
—— (1982), ‘Hagioi en Colossiens 1.12: Hommes ou sians and to Philemon (London: Macmillan).
Anges?’, in M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson (eds.), Lohse, E. (1968), Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon,
Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett MeyerK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
(London: SPCK), 83–101. Moule, C. F. D. (1968), The Epistles to the Colossians and
Boismard, M.-E. (1999), La Lettre de saint Paul au Laodic- to Philemon, CGTC (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
éens, Cahiers de la Revue Biblique (Paris: Gabalda). versity Press).
Brown, R. E. (1968), The Semitic Background of the Term Muddiman, J. (2001), A Commentary on the Epistle to the
‘Mystery’ in the New Testament, FBBS 21 (Philadelphia: Ephesians, Black’s NT Commentaries (London/New
Fortress). York: Continuum).
Bruce, F. F. (1977), Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit (Exeter: Murphy-O’Connor, J. (1995a), ‘Tradition and Redac-
Paternoster). tion in Col 1:15–20’, RB 102: 231–41.
1 thessalonians 216

—— (1995b), Paul the Letter Writer. GNS 41 (College- Schenk, W. (1987), ‘Der Kolosserbrief in der neueren
ville, Ind.: Liturgical Press). Forschung (1945–1985)’, ANRW 2. 25. 4 (Berlin: de
—— (2007), ‘Greeters in Col 4:10–14 and Phm 23–4’, Gruyter), 3327–64.
Revue Biblique, 114 (2007) 416–26. Schlier, H. (1961), Principalities and Powers in the New
Nestle-Aland (1993), Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Testament, QD 3 (Fribourg: Herder).
edn. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft). Schmauch, W. (1964), Beiheft zu E. Lohmeyer: Die Briefe
Neumann, K. J. (1990), The Authenticity of the Pauline an die Philipper, Kolosser und an Philemon, MeyerK
Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistic Analysis, SBLDS (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
120 (Atlanta: Scholars Press). Schubert, P. (1939), Form and Function of the Pauline
O’Brien, P. T. (1982), Colossians, Philemon, WBC 44 Thanksgivings, BZNW 20 (Berlin: Töpelmann).
(Waco: Word). Spicq, C. (1958–9), Agape dans le Nouveau Testament:
Richards, E. R. (1991), The Secretary in the Letters of Paul, Analyse des textes, Ebib (2 vols.; Paris: Gabalda).
WUNT 2/42 (Tübingen, Mohr [Siebeck]). Wengst, K. (1972), Christologische Formeln und Lieder
Sappington, T. J. (1991), Revelation and Redemption at (Gütersloh: Mohr).
Colossae, JSNTSup 53 (Sheffield: JSOT).

11. 1 Thessalonians
PHILIP F . ESLER

INTRODUCTION 3. An important insight of Robert Funk (1967)

is that the letter substitutes for the personal
A. Preliminary Issues. 1. Date Paul probably
presence of Paul. In this regard Funk accepts
wrote 1 Thessalonians from Corinth within
and develops the ideas of Koskenniemi (1956)
a matter of months after his initial visit to
that in the Greek world the letter was designed
Thessalonica, in about 50–51 CE (so Best 1972:
to extend the possibility of friendship between
7–13; Barclay 1993: 515). It is widely agreed
the parties after they had become separated—
that 1 Thessalonians is the earliest extant
that is why parousia (‘presence’ or ‘arrival’),
Christian text, a precious document which
philophronēsis (‘affectionate kind treatment’,
brilliantly illuminates one segment of the
‘friendship’), and homilia (‘being together’, ‘com-
Christ-movement less than twenty years after
munion’, ‘conversing’) are basic to the concep-
the death of Jesus.
tion of the Greek letter. ‘Absent in body, but
2. The Significance of the Epistolary Form
present through this letter’ is a common Greek
It can hardly be without significance that the
formula reflecting this phenomenon. Funk
earliest document extant from the followers of
(1967: 265) suggests that Paul must have thought
Christ takes the form of a letter. Much research
of his presence as the bearer of charismatic,
has been conducted recently which analyses the
even ‘eschatological’, power, even though he
formal structures of Graeco-Roman epistolo-
certainly does not equate his parousia with
graphy (Stowers 1986), and their relation to
that of Christ and this theme is more clearly
early Christian letters, including those of Paul
seen in 1 Cor 5:3–5 than in 1 Thessalonians.
(Doty 1973), and 1 Thessalonians in particular
4. It is uncertain if Paul is replying to a letter.
(Boers 1976). But we should be careful not to
Frame (1912: 157), Faw (1952: 220–2), and Mal-
miss the distinctiveness of 1 Thessalonians.
herbe (1990) think that he was, but most think
While it does have many of the features seen
that he was not. Paul could have learned of the
in Graeco-Roman letters, there is no extant
situation in Thessalonica from Timothy (so Best
letter like this from the surrounding context,
1972: 171 and Jewett 1986: 92).
in that it combines personal features (such as
5. Lastly, in this connection, it should be
the elaborate thanksgiving in 1:2–3:13) with in-
noted that most of the letters which survive
structions and end-time exhortation (Koester
from Graeco-Roman antiquity are from one
1979). 1 Thessalonians, a carefully composed
individual to another and Paul is usually writing
writing, ‘is an experiment in the composition
to a group or groups. We would expect this to
of literature which signals the momentous entry
make some difference. There is, indeed, some
of Christianity into the literary world of an-
interest in group-oriented letters, especially
tiquity’ (ibid. 33).
those to a family (Stowers 1986: 71–6). Most of
 217 1 thessalonians

our evidence on family letters comes not from criticized as lacking evidence and also as resting
Greek epistolary theorists (preoccupied with on the false assumption that an end-time ideol-
the concerns of free adult males) but from Egyp- ogy is necessarily founded on some form of
tian papyri. There is a letter from Cicero (in deprivation (Barclay 1993: 519–20).
exile) to his family in Stowers (1986: 74–6). 3. Social Status Recent research on the social
6. Context Thessalonica, located at the head structure of Pauline communities has tended to
of the Thermaic Gulf, was founded by Cassan- favour socially stratified congregations with
der in c. 316 BCE on the site of an older city. There wealthy members providing a house for the
is some archaeological and literary evidence for meetings of the community and virtually acting
the usual assemblage of Hellenistic features and as patrons to the members. But the fact that
buildings, such as an agora, a Serapaeum, a Paul does not mention the name of any person
gymnasium, and a stadium (Vickers 1972). In in Thessalonica raises the possibility that the
due course Thessalonica passed into Roman whole congregation came from the poor non-
hands, where its situation on the Via Egnatia, élite, living in tenements (Jewett 1993). De Vos
the great Roman road running from the Adri- (1999: 154) sees in Thessalonica an audience of
atic to the Black Sea, gave it great strategic and ‘free-born artisans and manual-workers’. Cor-
commercial significance. It is not surprising that inth and Thessalonica thus represent very dif-
it became the capital of the province of Mace- ferent types of the early Christ-movement
donia. From surviving inscriptions it seems to (Barclay 1992). The difficult life of an urban
have had a vibrant religious life, with numerous artisan has been well described by Hock (1980:
cults (Edson 1948; Donfried 1985; 1989). 31–47). The community may also have em-
7. There is little doubt that Thessalonica braced agricultural day labourers (Schöllgen
would have contained the same sharp division 1988: 73, 76).
between a small wealthy, aristocratic élite and a 4. Opposition to the Christ-Followers in
much larger non-élite characteristic of the Thessalonica Paul’s initial proclamation in
Graeco-Roman cities of the East. Jewett (1993) Thessalonica was attended by great conflict
has usefully pointed out that the dominant (agōn) in public (2:2). Furthermore, great afflic-
form of housing for the non-élite would have tion (thlipsis: 1:6) accompanied the reception of
been tenements, not the more spacious villa the word by the Thessalonians and, just as Paul
type houses. had warned them that they would continue to
be afflicted (3:4), so they are at the time he writes
B. The Nature of the Christ-Following the letter (3:3). They have suffered at the hands
Community in Thessalonica. 1. Jews or Gen- of their fellow Thessalonians (2:14).
tiles or Both? In 1 Thess 1:9 Paul tells his audi- 5. The best explanation for such opposition
ence they turned to God from idols to serve the lies in the more general issue raised by Paul’s
one true God. This strongly suggests they were aim of having the Thessalonians abandon their
idolatrous Gentiles prior to conversion, for he traditional gods in favour of the monotheistic
would not describe Jews as turning from idol- brand of faith he was preaching, an aim
atry (de Vos 1999: 146–7). Many scholars refuse achieved as far as his addressees were con-
to accept this conclusion, mainly because it is cerned, since they had turned to God from
contrary to what Acts 17:1–9 says, with its pic- idols (1:9). To appreciate what this means we
ture of Paul preaching in a synagogue and win- need to understand the everyday reality of pa-
ning converts among Jews, God-fearers, Greeks, ganism in this part of the empire (see MacMul-
and rich women. But Luke is probably just len 1981).
following his typical pattern here (Lührmann 6. Kinship, politics, economics, and religion
1990: 237–41), possibly based on his desire to were inextricably interrelated. Pagan rites were
depict an early movement of Christ-followers foci of economic and social interaction, playing
made up of Jews and Gentile God-fearers (Esler a key role in maintaining the local political and
1987: 36–45). economic system. The social dimension could
2. Exactly what sort of idolatry the Thessa- be seen in crowds in theatres attached to
lonians had previously engaged in is uncertain. shrines, with readings, music, and dancing
Jewett (1986: 127–32; 165–7) has mounted a sig- (ibid. 18–24); economic aspects included coins
nificant argument that Paul’s converts were im- minted and fairs attached to festivals (ibid.
poverished manual workers who had seen 25–7); and very important were meals at these
Cabirus, their saviour-god, hijacked by upper- festivals, generally involving meat not other-
class interests. This view has, however, been wise eaten and much wine and often partaken
1 thessalonians 218

by thiasoi in small groups of diners, where the as ‘emic’, a useful social-scientific term (derived
idea was found that the god might join those from ‘phonemic’) referring to insider, native, or
who were dining (cf. Plut. Mor. 1102A). Here indigenous points of view, as opposed to ‘etic’
gross indulgence often occurred (ibid. 36–40; (derived from ‘phonetic’), meaning the perspec-
cf. 1 Cor 8:10) in the eidoleion where the statue tive of an outsider trained in contemporary
of the deity was located. social-scientific ideas and approaches (see
7. Jews and Christ-followers who abstained Headland, Pike, and Harris 1990). One of the
from these celebrations were likely to be ac- fundamental insights of the social sciences
cused of misanthropy (MacMullen 1981: 40). If is the fundamental importance of the distinc-
people became Christ-followers in great num- tion between these two perspectives. Yet
bers the local temples would be less frequented modern persons trained in twentieth-century
and the meat trade could suffer (so it was in ideas who seek to understand—however
Bithynia before Pliny’s actions: Ep. 10.96; Mac- incompletely—a pre-industrial culture re-
Mullen 1981: 41). More dangerous was the moved from them in space or time will usually
charge of atheism, since the élite believed that find it necessary to employ both emic and etic
the hoi polloi needed to take part in the local perspectives in order to translate the experience
worship to ensure political stability (MacMullen of that culture into a framework they can
1981: 2–3). Later on there is explicit reference to understand (Esler 1995: 4–8). So, we will first
such behaviour as ‘godlessness’ (atheotēs), but consider some existing solutions to the nature
there is no reason such a charge could not of the letter from an emic point of view, and
have been made in Paul’s time (Barclay 1993: then briefly propose some etic perspectives
515). To be respectable and decent meant taking which will be employed in the Commentary.
part in the cult; old was good and new was bad. 2. The first emic perspective consists of those
Thus, religion served to strengthen the existing derived from the Hellenistic setting. Donfried
social order (MacMullen 1981: 57–8). To (1989) and Smith (1989: 170) regard the letter as
deny the reality of the gods was absolutely one of consolation, having as its main purpose
unacceptable—one would be ostracized for to console (paramuthein) the Thessalonians at a
that, even stoned in the streets (ibid. 62). time when they were suffering the effects of
8. The particular proposal that the conflict persecution. While 1 Thessalonians contains
centred on a charge that the Thessalonian fol- several consolatory elements (see Commen-
lowers of Jesus were contravening ‘the decrees tary), the existence of other dimensions, how-
of Caesar’ (explained by Judge 1971) rests on ever, raises some doubt as to whether
little but the historically dubious account of ‘consolation’ is appropriate as a general desig-
the Thessalonian mission in Acts 17:1–9 (also nation for the letter (Chapa 1994). One other
see de Vos 1999: 156–7). Nevertheless, as Don- dimension to the letter, most prominently ad-
fried (1985) has argued, any abandonment of the vocated by Malherbe (1989c), is that of exhort-
imperial cult as part of a general rejection of ation. Malherbe (1987: 68–78; 1989c) has argued
idols would not have been well received in that Paul’s aim in the letter is closely in tune
Thessalonica, where coins reveal signs of a with elements of Graeco-Roman moral philoso-
cultic devotion to the emperor as early as 27 BCE. phy dealing with how, in a context of friendship
between persons, one of them exhorted the
C. The Character of the Letter: Theology and others to maintain existing forms of behaviour,
Identity. 1. Established Suggestions as to the even though Paul modifies these traditions to
Character of the Letter There has been much accord with his own theology and interests.
interest among critics in seeking some broad Malherbe (1987: 74) recognizes that hortatory
description with which to characterize the na- themes are explicitly prominent only in 1
ture of 1 Thessalonians. The two most popular Thess 4–5, but argues that his self-description
sources for an overarching description are in chs. 1–3 serves a hortatory function by
popular Hellenistic philosophy and rhetoric reminding them of his example.
and Jewish biblical and extra-biblical traditions, 3. The second prominent emic perspective
since both areas, individually or jointly, have involves Jewish traditions, expressed in biblical
influenced what Paul has to say to his audience and extra-biblical literature, which speak of a
(Perkins 1989: 325–7). The numerous attempts decisive change in the cosmos which God is
to categorize 1 Thessalonians as a whole using going to bring about. The fact that such ideas,
the conceptual frameworks available to first- especially expressed in the notions of the com-
century Mediterranean persons can be referred ing parousia of Christ and the salvation and
 219 1 thessalonians

deliverance from wrath for his followers that are?’—which was expressed in the first-century
will result (1:6–10; 4:13–18), should figure so Mediterranean world most directly in dis-
prominently in a letter addressed largely if not courses of group-belonging derived from kin-
exclusively to former idolaters constitutes one ship or fictive kinship). Nevertheless, this theory
of the most remarkable features of 1 Thessalon- also finds a place for ethical norms (as helping
ians. This is especially surprising when one members maintain their sense of identity in
considers that other areas of Jewish tradition new and ambiguous situations) and narratives
play a fairly small part in Paul’s message, since of the past and future (as telling them who they
although some of his statements bear marks of are in relation both to where they have come
having originated in Israelite Scripture (as noted from and whither they are proceeding). Even a
in the Commentary), there is, as de Vos (1999: conceptual apparatus usually (and reasonably)
146–7) notes, no explicit quotation from the OT designated as ‘theological’ (and for 1 Thessalon-
and no reference to any OT figure (such as ians, see Marshall 1982) can serve a vital role in
Abraham, for example) or to cultic language. the processes of group differentiation and cat-
Moreover, nowhere else in Paul’s letters is the egorization which lie at the heart of this theory.
theme of dramatic future redemption so pro- Modern illustrations of the (often violent) dy-
nounced (Jewett 1986: 168). At a more general namics of social identity lie to hand in the
level, however, it has been reasonably argued, ethnic differentiation evident in Northern Ire-
by Perkins (1989) for example, that Paul’s desire land, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda, and Israel/
to install Jewish categories and images in Palestine.
the hearts and minds of his converts in 6. As will be noted in detail in the Commen-
Thessalonica—with its profusion of pagan tary, 1 Thessalonians can be interpreted as an
cults also competing for adherents (Donfried attempt by Paul to establish and maintain a
1985; 1989)—is a more prominent theme in desirable social identity for his Thessalonian
the letter than moral education of the sort ad- converts in the face of the allure and threats
vocated by Malherbe and others. This proposal posed by rival groups, and in relation to past,
seems to be more in tune with the markedly present, and future (Esler 2000). It is note-
non-élite status of the recipients of the letter. worthy, however, that in spite of Paul’s seeking
4. A Social Identity Approach to 1 Thessa- to nourish their group identity in a manner
lonians Alternative ways of characterizing 1 which includes pronounced outgroup stereo-
Thessalonians, which are capable of compre- typification, he does not recommend ill-
hending possibly a broader range of issues and treatment of outsiders (which is an all too com-
of facilitating useful contemporary applica- mon concomitant of such an attitude) but, on
tions, can be derived from the etic perspectives the contrary, actually advocates doing good to
developed by modern social scientists. outsiders (3:12; 4:12). There is a strong counter-
5. One promising approach is that offered by cultural dimension to Paul’s position here.
social identity theory, a flourishing area of so- 7. It is worth noting that proposing social
cial psychology developed by Henri Tajfel and identity as an overall framework for interpret-
others in the 1970s and 1980s (see Tajfel 1978; ing the letter, with issues traditionally referred
1981; Tajfel and Turner 1979; 1986; Brown 1988; to as ethical or theological here seen as contrib-
Robinson 1996) and utilized in a recent mono- uting to Paul’s overall task of strengthening the
graph on Galatians (Esler 1998, esp. at 40–57) Thessalonians’ sense of who they were, in no
and in Esler (2000) dealing with Galatians and 1 way forecloses on any claims his ethics and
Thessalonians. This theory explores the extent theology have to a privileged ontological status.
to which persons acquire and maintain a valued To suggest that resituating biblical data within
social identity, that is, that part of their sense of frameworks originating in the social sciences in
self which derives from belonging to one group some way prejudices Christian truth-claims is
rather than another, a process which is likely to an unfortunate misconception of the social-
be the focus of stereotypification and denigra- scientific approach to interpretation which is
tion. Social identity is more significant in still entertained in some quarters where the
group-oriented cultures (such as those present fact that every word in the New Testament is
in the first-century Mediterranean world) than socially embodied does not seem to be taken
in modern individualistic cultures (such as with sufficient seriousness.
those of northern Europe and North America). 8. While social identity theory exists at a fairly
Social identity theory always insists on the high level of abstraction, within its broad reach
primacy of the question ‘Who do we say we other areas of social-scientific research can be
1 thessalonians 220

used in relation to particular parts of 1 Thessa- mentioned again later (3:1–10). Paul does not
lonians. Chief among them are the bedrock real- describe himself in v. 1 as an apostle, although
ities of Mediterranean culture (as compellingly he does use that term of himself (and perhaps
modelled by Malina (1993) on the basis of the Silvanus and Timothy) at 2:7. The recipients are
work of social anthropologists in the last few ‘the congregation’ (ekklēsia; ‘church’ in NRSV
decades) and millennialism, the study of how seems a little anachronistic here) ‘of the Thessa-
certain contemporary pre-industrial peoples in lonians (which is) in God the Father and the
Africa, the Americas, and the South Pacific have Lord Jesus Christ’. With this expression, in the
responded to the disruption or destruction of very first verse, Paul inaugurates the issues of
their traditional life styles by European coloniza- identity through group-belonging which will
tion by generating myths of future deliverance fill this letter. Social identity embraces the
which describe the coming destruction of the mere fact of belonging to a group (the ‘cogni-
Europeans and the restoration of traditional life- tive’ aspect) and its ‘evaluative’ and ‘emotional’
styles, the return of the ancestors, the provision dimensions, that is, the positive or negative
of cargo, and so on (Esler 1994: 96–104; Duling connotations members have about belonging
1996). Jewett (1986) has applied such insights to and how they feel toward insiders and outsiders
both 1 and 2 Thessalonians. (Esler 1998: 42). Here the Thessalonians are in-
vited to assess their membership of the congre-
D. Outline. gation as extremely valuable through its close
The Prescript and Thanksgiving (1:1–10) (though unexplored) relationship with their div-
The Prescript (1:1) ine Father, an expression that constitutes the
The Thanksgiving (1:2–10) first of many instances of kinship language in
Paul’s Ministry in Thessalonica (2:1–16) the letter (Esler 2000), and the Lord Jesus. Al-
The Divine Basis for the Initial Visit (2:1–4) though other groups are not yet mentioned,
Their Behaviour and Example (2:5–12) theirs is one plainly worth belonging to.
The Response of the Thessalonians (2:13–16)
The Present Situation (2:17–3:13) (1:2–10) The Thanksgiving This section, con-
Paul’s Desire to Visit the Thessalonians sisting of one long sentence, comprises the
(2:17–20) thanksgiving that Paul includes in all his letters
Timothy’s Mission (3:1–5) except Galatians, after the address and greeting.
Thankful Receipt of Timothy’s Report For Pauline thanksgivings, see Schubert 1939.
(3:6–10) Some see this section as ending as late as 3:13,
Prayer for the Thessalonians (3:11–13) but this suggestion probably strains the notion
Living a Life Pleasing to God (4:1–12) of thanks beyond its breaking-point. v. 2, Paul
Keeping the Traditions (4:1–2) notes that he constantly thanks God for the
Purity (4:3–8) Thessalonians and mentions them in his
Brotherly Love (4:9–12) prayers. He is obviously happy with them. v. 3,
The Lord’s Coming (4:13–5:11) one reason for his positive regard now emerges:
The Circumstances of this Coming (4:13–18) his memory of their work of faith (pistis), labour
The Need for Wakefulness (5:1–11) of love (agapē) and steadfastness of hope (elpis) in
Final Exhortations and Greetings (5:12–28) ‘our Lord Jesus Christ’ before our God and
Honouring Leaders (5:12–13) Father. The triad of faith, love, and hope,
Christian Identity-Indicators (5:14–22) which is common in the Pauline corpus (1
Prayer for the Thessalonians (5:23–4) Thess 5:8; Rom 5:1–5; 1 Cor 13:13; Gal 5:5–6)
Closing Prayer and Instructions (5:25–8) and later NT documents (Eph 4:2–5; Col 1:4–5;
Heb 6:10–12; 10:22–4; 1 Pet 1:3–8), may well be
an invention of Paul himself (Best 1972: 67).
COMMENTARY These three characteristics of becoming a fol-
lower of Christ are not just theological virtues
The Prescript and Thanksgiving (1:1–10) but constitute distinctive badges of group iden-
(1:1) The Prescript Paul follows the form of tity. The Thessalonians, pushed to say who they
opening current in Graeco-Roman letters con- were, could have given the distinctive answer,
sisting of sender(s), recipient(s), a greeting, and ‘People characterized by faith (in Christ), love
sometimes a prayer for health or prosperity, in and hope’.
that order. Here the senders are himself, v. 4, Paul, describing them as ‘brothers’ (adel-
Silvanus, and Timothy, with Timothy being phoi; NRSV has ‘brothers and sisters’), says he
 221 1 thessalonians

knows of their election (eklogē). The notion of now brought again to mind by Paul, probably
election, with its long history antecedent to Paul strengthened their involvement with, and com-
of describing God’s choice of Israel as his own mitment to, the congregation. The ‘joy inspired
people, is now redirected to designate the ex- by the Holy Spirit’ probably extends to the
idolatrous Thessalonians as a group with an euphoria enjoyed by those who experience
extraordinary status and destiny as specially powerful dissociative states caused by divine
chosen by God. Here Paul both amplifies (or possession (Esler 1994: 42).
reiterates) their understanding of themselves vv. 7–9, they ‘became an example to all the
and also enhances the positive connotations of believers in Macedonia and Achaia’. In other
belonging to such a group. The use of adelphoi, words, they provided an admirable ensemble
the first of seventeen instances in the letter, of attributes of belonging to a Christ-believing
continues the kinship discourse already begun group which was recognized as applicable to
with the two references to the Father. The word other such groups in neighbouring areas. Paul
may include women (so Koester 1979: 36 and focuses on their faith (pistis) as the key feature
NRSV), as it must do in Galatians in the light of (it was mentioned first in v. 3), knowledge of
Gal 3:28, but it is possible that here it does not, which has now spread so far that he has no
even though some women may have been con- need to say anything about them, because
verted by Paul (see Fatum 1997). v. 5, this verse, others tell him what success he had among
in which Paul states how his gospel came the Thessalonians, how they turned from
among them not only in word, but in power idols ‘to serve a living and true God’ (cf. 1
and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction, THESS B.1). Archaeological, epigraphic, numis-
outlines either the occasion and manner of their matic, and literary evidence shows that a num-
election or the grounds by which Paul inferred ber of pagan cults were present in Thessalonica
the fact of their election. It is essential to give in Paul’s time, including those of the Egyptian
Paul’s reference to power and the Holy Spirit its goddesses Serapis and Isis (who offered salva-
full force and meaning. He is reminding tion and eternal life), Dionysus, Zeus, Ascle-
the Thessalonians of the miracles and other pius, Demeter, and, most importantly, Cabirus
charismatic phenomena (probably prophesy- (Edson 1948; Donfried 1985; Jewett 1986; Klop-
ing, glossolalia, visions, and auditions) which penborg 1993). This was not unusual in the
accompanied their reception of his preaching. empire which exhibited a pullulation of beliefs
Such ecstatic phenomena, although rare, if not (MacMullen 1981: 1). The pagan cults of Thes-
unheard of, in domestic settings in first-century salonica represent some of the outgroups
cities of the Graeco-Roman East, were charac- against whom the Thessalonians must now
teristic of Paul’s mission (Esler 1994: 40–51), as seek to distinguish themselves so as to build
he also later reminded the Galatians (Gal 3:1–5). and maintain a positive social identity. v. 10,
Charismatic phenomena created an exciting Paul concludes by mentioning that now they
zone of Spirit-filled experience unique to are waiting for his (i.e. God’s) son from heaven,
his congregations. Once again, the group- ‘whom he raised from the dead—Jesus who
differentiating element to this language should rescues us from the wrath that is coming’.
not be missed—another way of describing their Here we see that Paul has managed to persuade
identity was as a group actually filled by God. v. his Gentile converts to accept deeply Jewish
6, they became his and the Lord’s imitators in tradition relating to the Day of Anger when
the way they received the word in spite of the wicked will be condemned and the good
persecution (thlipsis) in the joy of the Holy saved. The notion of ‘the day (of judgement)’ is
Spirit. The difficulties experienced by the Thes- a common feature of Israelite end-time specu-
salonians, already implied by the reference to lation (see Joel 2:1–2; Zech 9:16; Mal 3:1–2; for
their endurance in 1:3, now surface openly in the last judgement, see 1 Enoch 1:1–9; 2 Esd
relation to their initial conversion. Possible 7.33–44; Apoc. Abr. 29.14–29). At the same time,
reasons for external opposition to the Thessa- this brief reference to what the future holds for
lonians turning to Christ, especially through them, although greatly developed later in the
neglect of cults considered vital to civic well- letter, further contributes to differentiating the
being, were considered above (cf. 1 THESS B 4). Thessalonians as a positively valued in-group
One insight of social identity theory is that from negatively valued outsiders (Esler 2000).
external opposition and persecution will often Myths of the future developed by millennial
encourage members to act in terms of their movements in modern pre-industrial settings
group membership, so that such past suffering, virtually always serve this function.
1 thessalonians 222

Paul’s Ministry in Thessalonica (2:1–16) his authority comes from God. He has been
approved by God to be entrusted to preach
(2:1–4) The Divine Basis for Paul’s Initial Visit
the gospel, and so he does, not to please men
vv. 1–2, addressing them again in the language
but the God who scrutinizes our hearts (see Jer
of fictive kinship as ‘brothers’, Paul reminds the
11:20; 1 Sam 16:7). In Mediterranean terms, Paul
Thessalonians how fruitful has been the work
presents himself as the loyal client of his divine
which he began among them (2:1). He then
patron, who knows him fully and has entrusted
offers some precise information about his in-
him to act as a broker to others, by distributing
auguration of his mission in Thessalonica, men-
his benefaction (the gospel) to people who will
tioning that, in spite of the suffering and abuse
become his clients, indeed his children.
he (and presumably Silvanus and Timothy) pre-
viously experienced (hubristhentes: physically
(2:5–12) Their Behaviour and Example vv.
assaulted and dishonoured) in Philippi, with
5–6, Paul did not flatter them, that is to say,
God’s aid (lit. in our God) he courageously
did not please the Thessalonians by attributing
preached God’s gospel to them in the midst of
to them honour they did not possess, nor try to
great conflict (agōn, ‘opposition’ NRSV). The ill-
exploit them for personal gain. Nor did he seek
treatment in Philippi may be the same as that
honour (doxa, ‘praise’ NRSV) from anyone at all.
recorded in Acts 16:19–24, where Paul and Silas
Again, it is unclear precisely from which figures
(i.e. Silvanus of 1 Thess 1:1) were dragged to the
Paul might be distancing himself here. One pos-
lawcourts, experienced hostility from the
sibility consists of the wandering philosophers,
crowd, and were then stripped, flogged, and
such as Cynics (Malherbe 1989b: 38–9) and ma-
thrown into prison on the order of the magis-
gicians of this period, whose sincerity was ques-
trates. Later they were delivered (Acts 16:25–40)
tionable (see Lucian, De morte Peregrini, 3, 13).
and moved on to inaugurate the mission in
Alternatively or in addition, Paul may have in
Thessalonica (Acts 17:1–9). In any event, the
mind other members of the Christ-movement,
Thessalonians must have known of the
such as the wandering apostles and prophets
events—which involved being grossly shamed
bent on living off congregations who are men-
in public in a culture where honour was the
tioned in the Didache (11.3–12), with something
primary virtue—to which Paul alludes. His
like the latter suggested by the next verse. v. 7,
point is that, in spite of this extreme type of
although as Christ’s authorized apostle, that is,
opposition, he persevered when he came to
emissary or broker (apostolos), he held a position
Thessalonica, even though there too he encoun-
of considerable honour in relation to the Thes-
tered conflict (agōn). Paul is not ‘boasting’ in our
salonians, he was gentle (that is, not insisting on
modern sense in saying this. He is doing what
the benefits which rightly belonged to such an
any honourable first-century Mediterranean
honourable position), like a wet-nurse or nurs-
man would do—setting out the foundation for
ing mother comforting her children. For the
his claim to respect and to authority. Moreover,
word translated here as ‘gentle’ (ēpioi) there is a
the references to conflict in Philippi and then in
variant, ‘infants’ (nēpioi), which is somewhat bet-
Thessalonica illustrate the extremely competi-
ter attested in the manuscript tradition, but the
tive, indeed violent, context in which Paul’s
total inversion of the imagery in the rest of the
efforts to establish in-groups of Christ-believers
verse which this reading would produce, with
had been conducted in the face of the actions of
the Thessalonians now the children, suggests
opposing out-groups.
‘gentle’ was the original form.
v. 3, Paul now begins to make more explicit
Malherbe (1989b) has drawn attention to the
the basis and nature of his activity and status.
similarity of Paul’s language in 2:1–12 to that
His appeal (paraklēsis) refers here to his initial
used of ideal Cynic philosophers (as opposed
preaching, whereas elsewhere in the letter para-
to money-grubbing charlatans) by Dio Chrysos-
klēsis relates to his exhortations contained
tom (40–120 CE), even to the extent of Dio’s
within it (so 4:1). Paul denies that the source of
using the image of the nurse to epitomize how
his preaching was error, impurity, or deception,
a good philosopher will treat his audience. Mal-
although he does not say precisely what charges
herbe’s (ibid. 46, 48) conclusion, however, that
against him led to this denial; presumably the
Paul’s use of such language suggests he need not
Thessalonians did know (Best 1972: 93–4). It is
have been replying to an attack on him, is
even unclear whether he is responding to at-
improbable. In this conflict-ridden and group-
tacks from outside or inside the Christ-
oriented culture it was inevitable that
movement, or from Israelites or Gentiles. v. 4,
Paul would be attacked (2:1–2) and not at all
 223 1 thessalonians

surprising that in reply he would avail himself letter as a whole. They emphasize the measure-
of a convenient stock discourse, in this case, less superiority of the Christ-believing ingroup
perhaps, that of genuine travelling philosophers to all out-groups in this environment.
versus false ones (Koester 1979: 42). This dis- The word peripatein in v. 12 is important (it
course had probably become conventional also appears at 4:1, twice, and 4:12). It also oc-
long before Dio, writing after Paul, had utilized curs in Romans (4 times), 1 Corinthians (twice),
it himself. 2 Corinthians (5 times), and Galatians (once). In
v. 8, the sentiment here builds on v. 7. the NT the verb can mean just ‘to walk around’
Because Paul cared so deeply for them (Mk 2:9), but Paul uses it for the ‘walk’ of life.
(homeiromenoi—a rare word; Koester 1979: 42) According to Seesemann (1967: 944–5), Paul
and they had become very dear (agapētoi) to relies on it in exhortatory contexts, particularly
him, he gladly decided to share with them not in the moral sense, a meaning which could only
only the gospel but his whole being. Paul is here have derived from the LXX, since it is unknown
drawing upon the strong bonds of love and in classical Greek. An LXX example of this
group solidarity that characterized family life meaning is at 2 Kings 20:3 (where Hezekiah
in this culture. v. 9 provides a specific interpret- says he has walked before God in truth and
ation of how Paul shared his whole being with with a perfect heart) and Eccl 11:9; Sir 13:13. Yet
them. He asks the Thessalonians, (his) ‘brothers’, a moral or ethical dimension alone is too nar-
to recall that while he preached the gospel of row for v. 12 (4:1 and 4:12); it essentially means
God to them he worked night and day so as not ‘to live’ or, within a social identity framework,
to be a burden on them. Paul here reveals that ‘to adopt a particular identity’.
he preached to the Thessalonians in a very low-
status occupation as a craftsman of some sort (2:13–16) The Response of the Thessalonians
(perhaps a tent-maker—Acts 18:3), not in the Dispute rages as to whether these verses are
context of a synagogue, thus providing further authentic to the letter or constitute a later in-
evidence for the Thessalonians being a Gentile sertion. The case for inauthenticity was argued
community (see 1 THESS 1:9). Hock (1980) has by Baur (1873–5), and has recently been sup-
amply described how a craftsman’s shop ported by many scholars including Pearson
would have functioned as a locus for Paul’s (1971), Boers (1976: 151–2), Koester (1979: 38),
evangelism. That Paul could celebrate manual and Schmidt (1983). A much more limited inter-
labour in this way suggests that his addressees polation theory regards 2:16c as a marginal gloss
also belonged to the non-élite in Thessalonica inserted into the text after the sack of Jerusalem
(Jewett 1993). This observation finds further in 70 CE. Typical reasons for inauthenticity (see
support in the fact that there is not a single Koester 1979: 38) include the unnecessary re-
member of this congregation socially promin- sumption of the thanksgiving at 2:13, interrup-
ent enough for Paul to address by name (unlike tion of the close connection between 2:12 and
the case in Corinth). v. 10, the Thessalonians are 2:17, alleged non-Pauline use of Pauline terms
witnesses that he worked among them in a (such as mimētai, ‘imitators’, in 2:14), the charac-
manner that was holy, just, and blameless. Be- terization of the Judeans in 2:14 as in conflict
hind this assertion may lie sentiments to the with Paul’s attitude in Rom 9–11, lack of a his-
contrary that Paul was aware were being ex- torical point of reference for the last phrase in
pressed about him in the city. 2:16 (‘the wrath to the end has come upon
vv. 11–12, once again Paul returns to the per- them’) before 70 CE, and the absence of any
vasive family imagery of the letter, although allusion to these verses in 2 Thessalonians. Koe-
now changing its gender, by saying that they ster also considers a polemic against a third
know he treated each one of them like a father party would destroy the writer-recipient rela-
his children (v. 11), urging (parakalein), encour- tionship he is trying to reshape.
aging (paramuthein), and offering witness (mar- It is submitted, however, that the better view
turein, ‘pleading’ NRSV) as to how they should is that 2:13–16 are authentic, as argued by Okeke
‘lead a life’ (lit. walk, peripatein) worthily of the (1980–1), Donfried (1984), Jewett (1986: 36–41),
God who called them into his kingdom and and Weatherly (1991), to name a few. There is no
glory (v. 12). At the end of v. 12 the reference reason in the textual tradition to doubt their
to God’s kingdom and glory reinforces the ele- authenticity and the arguments just mentioned
vated and honourable nature of the group to are unpersuasive. Thus, v. 13, beginning with
which they belong and the glorious destiny in a thanksgiving, marks a natural transition
store for them. These are central themes in the from Paul’s message to its impact on the
1 thessalonians 224

Thessalonians. As to mimētai, Paul uses the very to the Christ-movement, of the sort perhaps
word and in a very similar construction at 1 that had previously motivated Paul himself to
Thess 1:6 (and also at 1 Cor 4:16 and 11:1), so its try to destroy it (Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6).
use at 2:14 is Pauline. Okeke (1980–1) has offered v. 15, Paul now attacks the Judeans just as we
an explanation for why we should not expect would expect once we shed modern notions of
Paul to follow the same argument in this letter ethical behaviour and attempt to enter the
as when addressing the Romans. This particular harsh first-century Mediterranean world of vio-
point can be made more emphatically, how- lent sterotypification and vilification of out-
ever. A social-identity approach to Galatians groups. He denigrates the Judeans as those
has revealed how far Paul will go in stereotyp- who killed the Lord Jesus (even though he had
ing Israelites even when they are a part of his been crucified by the Romans) and the prophets
congregations (Esler 1998); we would expect and who persecuted him, acting in a way not
such attitudes to apply a fortiori when his audi- pleasing to God and opposed to all human
ence is Gentile, as in Thessalonica. Finally, there beings. In the last phrase Paul seems to go so
are other possible candidates for the catas- far as to pick up and mouth for the benefit of
trophe referred to in 2:16, such as the riot and his ex-idolatrous converts negative views on
massacre that occurred in Jerusalem in 48 CE Judeans current in certain Graeco-Roman cir-
(Jos. Ant. 20.112 and J.W. 2.224–7; Jewett 1986: cles (see Stern 1974–80; Esler 1987: 76–80). The
37–9). idea that the Judeans had killed the prophets
Even among the critics in favour of 2:13–16 was a common one among early Christ-
being authentic, however, one sometimes en- followers (see Lk 13:34; Mt 5:12; 23:31, 35, 37;
counters a wish that the verses were not Acts 7:52; Rom 11:3). References to killing
Pauline (see Jewett 1986: 41), perhaps reflecting prophets are found in Scripture (1 Kings 19:10)
a modern aversion to the powerful in-group/ and from extra-scriptural accounts, as in import-
out-group antipathies of the first-century Medi- ant texts such as the Lives of the Prophets and the
terranean world which are largely alien to mod- Martyrdom of Isaiah. v. 16, thus the Judeans have
ern North American and northern European hindered him from preaching to the Gentiles so
culture and which interpreters are often slow that they might be saved. A possible mechanism
to recognize in NT texts. for such hindrance emerges in the picture of how
v. 13, Paul thankfully recalls their acceptance of the Judeans interfered with Paul’s mission in
God’s word, which is active among those who Philippi as recounted in Acts 16:11–24, if that
believe. Here he again shows his closeness to account is historical. The result is that the Ju-
them and also reminds them of the nature of deans have always filled their sins to the brim,
the power present in this group, as already men- perhaps referring to the repeated failure of Israel
tioned in 1:4. The implication is that none of the during history, and the anger has finally caught
other groups in Thessalonica have anything like up with them. Although it is not easy to find an
this to offer. v. 14, his Thessalonian ‘brothers’ incident corresponding to the statement that the
became imitators of the Christ-following congre- anger has come upon the Judeans, one possibil-
gations (ekklēsiai) in Judea (who had been perse- ity is the riot and massacre which occurred in
cuted by other Judeans (Ioudaioi), because they Jerusalem in 48 CE (Jewett 1986: 37–8).
experienced just the same treatment at the
hands of their own fellow-countrymen. To trans- The Present Situation (2:17–3:13)
late Ioudaioi as ‘the Jews’ (with NRSV and most Paul recounts his long-standing desire to visit
other trs.) misses the extent to which this people them, and how he sent Timothy instead. Gen-
(whether living in Judea, Galilee, or further afield) erally, Funk (1967) argues that the traditional
were regarded by others (and saw themselves) as Greek epistolary topic of friendship (philophron-
oriented to Judea, and to Jerusalem and the tem- ēsis; see Koskenniemi 1956) has been trans-
ple within it. This point becomes very clear in formed into a new topic of the Christian letter,
Book 11 of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, when ‘apostolic parousia’.
Cyrus sends the Judeans home to Judea; there-
after in this text Josephus almost always refers to (2:17–20) Paul’s Desire to Visit the Thessalon-
them under this name. ians v. 17, Paul has previously described himself
For the nature of the opposition to the Thes- as a nursing mother (2:7) and as a father (2:11) to
salonians, cf. 1 THESS B.4. The opposition in Judea them; now he retains the familial imagery but
must have been somewhat different, as it would presents himself as (for a short period) having
have drawn upon peculiarly Israelite opposition become an orphan in relation to them—but
 225 1 thessalonians

physically, not emotionally. The notion of ‘ab- (3:6–10) Thankful Receipt of Timothy’s
sent in body but present in mind’ was a common Report v. 6, Timothy has recently returned to
topic in Graeco-Roman epistolography (Funk Paul bearing the good news of their faith (pistis)
1967: 264; Stowers 1986: 59). The expression of and love (agapē), that they always have a good
his eagerness to come to them, part of the memory of him and that they want to see him
friendly letter framework, is a fairly common as much as he wants to see them. The first
one in Paul’s letters (cf. Rom 1:11; 15:23; 2 Cor element of this good news is that the Thessa-
8:16–17; Phil 1:8). v. 18, yet although he earnestly lonians are preserving two parts of the (charac-
sought to be physically with them again and teristic) Pauline triad mentioned at 1 Thess 1:3,
wanted to come to them on a number of occa- namely, faith and love; these are vital attributes
sions, Satan prevented him. The idea of there of the group identity Paul has wanted
being a hindrance to his coming is one of the them to acquire. Nevertheless, Timothy’s (or
structural features Funk isolates as belonging to Paul’s) omission of any mention of the third
the apostolic parousia (also found at Rom 1:13; attribute—hope—may be deliberate, given
15:22). Moreover, the reference to Satan suggests what he will say to them later (4:10, 13). As the
Paul senses a supernatural force thwarting his founder of a congregation who wants them to
desired visit to the Thessalonians (Best 1972: imitate him, he naturally rejoices that he is still
126–7). vv. 19–20 provide the basis for Paul’s so warmly regarded by them. According to
missing the Thessalonians and desiring to be Funk, vv. 6–9 relate to the benefits which accrue
with them. For it is they who are his hope, joy, from the apostolic parousia—both to Paul and
and crown of his claim to honour; in the presence to his addressees (see also Rom 1:13; 15:32; 1 Cor
of his Lord Jesus at his parousia they will be his 4:18–19, 21; Phil 2:19). vv. 7–8, Paul states that
honour and his joy. Here the typical Mediterra- their faith has encouraged him in a time of
nean connection of the honour of the individual every distress (anagkē) and persecution (thlipsis);
and the publicly acknowledged worth of the if they stand firm he can go on living. Here
group to which he or she belongs comes through ‘faith’ is a very general word denoting their
loud and clear. At his parousia Jesus will reward whole identity as Christ-believers. Paul does
those who are his own, so that those responsible not specify the affliction and tribulation and it
for their conversion, here Paul, will earn a mas- is not possible to correlate this information
sive accretion of honour and joy from so public with the descriptions of his activity in Acts at
an acknowledgement. around this time, in either Beroea (Acts 17:10–
15), Athens (Acts 17:16–34), or Corinth (Acts
(3:1–5) Timothy’s Mission vv. 1–2a, because he 18:1–17). This is another reason against putting
was no longer able to endure (i.e. his separation too much reliance on Acts as a historical source
from them) he resolved to stay behind alone in for Paul’s experience at this time, a problem
Athens and send Timothy. In Acts, Paul moves discussed in 1 THESS B.1 in relation to the very
from Thessalonica to Athens (17:16–34), with different pictures given by Paul and Luke of the
a brief intervening stay in Beroea (17:9–15). vv. foundation of the congregation in Thessalonica.
2–5, according to Funk’s parousia schema, this vv. 9–10, because of the Thessalonians, Paul is
is the despatch of the emissary aspect (also see 1 able to offer joyful thanksgiving to God.
Cor 4:17; 16:12; 2 Cor 8:18–24; 9:3–5; 12:17–18; v. 10, day and night he prays most earnestly
Phil 2:19–23), usually containing (1) a statement to see them and—but now a darker note
that someone has been or will be sent, here 1 intrudes—to amend the shortcomings (husterē-
Thess 3:2a (just noted); (2) his credentials, here 1 mata) of their faith. Shortcomings? Hitherto
Thess 3.2b (Timothy is his brother and fellow- there has been no explicit mention of any defi-
worker in God for the proclamation of the ciency in their faith (which here has the same
gospel of Christ); and (3) purpose, here 1 Thess meaning of Christ-following identity as at 3:7),
3:2c–4 (Timothy was to strengthen and encour- even if a lack of hope was strongly implied at
age them in the faith, lest anyone be agitated by 3:6. Yet Paul is now opening up the theme that
the current tribulations, which they knew even among his splendid and beloved Thessa-
would come, just as he had foretold when he lonians there are problems. Timothy’s report
was with them). In v. 5, Paul offers a summary of could not, after all, have been a uniformly posi-
his purpose in sending Timothy: because he tive one. Accordingly, even if Funk (1967) is
could no longer endure, he sent Timothy to right to see in v. 10 an invocation for divine
learn about their faith, lest the tempter had approval and support for the apostolic parousia
been successful or his labour fruitless. (as also in Rom 1:10; 15:30–2; 1 Cor 4:19; 16:7), the
1 thessalonians 226

fact that an absent Paul might need to be pre- current status since the time of Kant (1724–1804).
sent in epistolary form to correct as well as to In the ancient world there was discussion of
praise must not be forgotten. appropriate ways to behave, but set within
wider frameworks of domestic or civic life.
(3:11–13) Prayer for the Thessalonians v. 11, From the perspective of social-identity theory,
Paul now begins the detailed text of a prayer on the other hand, norms for behaviour are
(especially signalled by verbs in the optative values which define acceptable and non-
mood in vv. 11, 12) which he had described in acceptable attitudes and behaviours for group
summary form in v. 10 and which continues members. Norms bring order and predictability
until the end of v. 13. The first invocation (as to the environment and thus assist in-group
in v. 10) is that God their Father and their Lord members to construe the world and to choose
Jesus might guide his way to them. v. 12, the appropriate behaviour in new and ambiguous
second invocation of the prayer begins to pick situations. Thus they maintain and enhance
up the shortcomings mentioned in v. 11: Paul group identity (Brown 1988: 42–8; Esler 1998:
prays that God may make them increase and 45). Even if critics are correct in seeing Israelite
abound in love (agapē) for one another and for tradition, such as that found in the so-called
all, just as Paul does for them. Although they are Holiness Code of Lev 17–26 (Hodgson 1982), as
characterized by love already (1 Thess 3:6), Paul lying behind some of what Paul says in 1 Thess
prays that they will show even more love. There 4:1–12, the usefulness of a social-identity ap-
is room for improvement. It is significant that proach to the material would persist. Throughout
this love must not only be directed to the mem- Israelite history norms, derived from the law and
bers of the congregation (a reality to be desig- its interpretation, served to differentiate Israel
nated, quite naturally, as philadelphia, ‘brotherly from other groups (Esler 1998: 82–6) and Paul’s
love’, at 4:9) but also to everyone, that is to all reappropriation of some of those norms within a
outside the congregation. This represents a sig- setting of the novel intergroup differentiation
nificant, indeed countercultural, modification inaugurated with the establishment of congrega-
of group-oriented ways of behaving which tions of Christ-followers is unsurprising.
were then the norm. The theme will be taken
up again later (4:12). (4:1–2) Keeping the Traditions v. 1, ‘Finally,
v. 13, thirdly, Paul prays that they (God and brothers’, says Paul, thus indicating that he is
Jesus) may strengthen the Thessalonians’ hearts moving on to a new series of points relating to
in holiness so that they may be blameless before the maintenance of their group identity which
their God and Father at the parousia of their he has just signalled (in 3:6–13) is not quite as
Lord Jesus with all his saints. This invocation good as it should be. He wants them to ‘walk’
directs the recipients of the letter to the future (peripatein: cf. 1 THESS 2:12) and to please God in
dimension of their existence, the return of Jesus. accordance with the traditions they had previ-
The omission of hope in 1 Thess 3:6 suggested ously received (parelabete) from him (no doubt
certain difficulties with their understanding of when he founded the congregation), and thus to
what the future held in store and, before pro- do better and better. Paul uses the word peripateō
ceeding to details (4:13–18), Paul reminds them to create an inclusio in 4:1–12, by placing it
in abbreviated form of the goal of their exist- (twice) at the beginning of the passage (v. 1)
ence. The Lord will return and they must be and once at the end (v. 12). We are justified in
blameless in holiness when he does. The word translating it broadly, ‘be of a particular iden-
‘holiness’ (hagiōsunē) refers to the Spirit-charged tity’, an identity which certainly includes moral
zone of existence they have entered by joining norms, rather than the narrower ‘behave in a
the congregation; its opposites are ‘impurity’ particular way’. The exhortation to ‘please God’,
(akatharsia, 4:7, and porneia, 4:3), the label for reminds us that a major foundation for norma-
the filthy world of idolatry and immorality tive behaviour among this group is the very
which they have left behind (see 1 THESS 4:3). personal one of pleasing their heavenly Father
(and patron). v. 2, Paul specifically reminds
Living a Life Pleasing to God (4:1–12) them of the existence of commands, that is,
Lührmann (1990: 245) refers to this material, the instructions relating to norms, which he
reflecting Paul’s initial preaching, as ‘ethics’. But had previously given ‘in our Lord Jesus Christ’.
‘ethics’ as a differentiated province of human The last phrase indicates that these are distinct-
activity with a heavily individualistic tendency ive to Christ-followers; they are emblems of
is quite a modern concept, having acquired its group-belonging.
 227 1 thessalonians

(4:3–8) Purity v. 3a, God’s will is their sancti- women—anthrōpoi—as in 1 Cor 7 (which as-
fication (hagiasmos). Koester (1979: 43) reason- sumes adelphos and philadelphia as used in 1 Thes-
ably moves away from too individualistic an salonians do cover both genders). This meaning
interpretation by suggesting that hagiasmos also seems far better adapted to the reference to
should not be understood as a task of moral sexual misconduct in the previous verse and to
perfection for the individual, but as the reassess- what follows in v. 6 (see below).
ment of the values for dealing with each other As to (2), there is a Jewish but not a Greek
in everyday life (i.e. it concerns relationships). background for calling a woman a vessel
Yet this really fails to bring out the full signifi- (Maurer 1971: 361–2: ‘to use as a vessel’, ‘to
cance of this word. As suggested elsewhere make one’s vessel’, are to be regarded as estab-
(Esler 1998: 157–8), sanctification language in 1 lished euphemisms for sexual intercourse). If so
Thessalonians (which covers hagios and hagiō- ktasthai (present tense) in an ingressive sense (‘to
sunē at 3:13, hagiasmos here and at 4:4 and 7, and gain’) would mean to marry (as a defence
hagiazō at 5:23) provides a semantic framework against fornication) and in a durative sense (‘to
for expressing the ideal identity of his Gentile possess’—which would normally require the
converts parallel to the language of righteous- perfect tense) would mean to hold their
ness which Paul reactively appropriates from own wives in esteem (as a defence against
Israelite tradition and deploys in Galatians and fornication—thus the phrase would correspond
Romans when the Christ-following groups he exactly to 1 Cor 7:2). This interpretation also fits
addresses also include Israelites (Esler 1998: 141– quite well with v. 6 which would then be a
77). This is vital language in the letter relating to warning against adultery with the wife of a
norms which serves to encapsulate the very member of the congregation. But this interpret-
distinctive identity of the Thessalonian in- ation involves an unpleasant nuance of skeuos
group in contrast to idolatrous out-groups. (women as containers for semen) which is un-
vv. 3b–6 list a number of aspects to this identity, known among Greek authors and is found only
with vv. 7–8 summarizing the position. v. 3b, in some fairly erotic passages in Israelite works
the first dimension to their ‘sanctification’ is (Bassler 1995: 55).
that they refrain from porneia, which probably There are other, less likely, possibilities for
means sexual sin of all types (Best 1972: 161), skeuos. Donfried (1985: 342) argues that it means
which Paul presumably implies was character- the penis, being a reference to the strong phallic
istic of the idolatrous world they had left be- symbolism in the cults of Dionysus, Cabirus,
hind. Thus the norm (of sexual propriety) is and Samothrace prevalent in Thessalonica.
firmly embedded in a contrast between in- With ktasthai it means ‘to gain control over
group and out-group. one’s penis, or over the body with respect to
v. 4, is one of the most difficult verses in the sexual matters’. Bassler (1995) makes an inter-
letter. (God also wills that) each one of them esting new suggestion that it refers to one’s
should know ‘to acquire’ (or, perhaps, ‘to virgin partner.
keep’—ktasthai; NRSV has ‘control’) his skeuos v. 5, Paul contrasts this behaviour with its
(‘vessel’) in sanctification (hagiasmos) and hon- opposite, the lustful passion of the Gentiles
our. There are two main options: (1) ‘to keep or who do not know God. It seems much more
control one’s body’, which involves giving plausible that ‘lustful passion’ is a reference to
ktasthai a somewhat unusual meaning, or how the idolatrous Gentiles treat their bodies
(2) ‘to acquire one’s wife’. As to (1), sometimes rather than their wives. Graeco-Roman wives
in the post-NT Greek world (but not before) the were meant to live respectable lives at home,
body is called the container of the soul (Maurer bearing their children and attending to domes-
1971: 359). But Paul does refer to human bodies tic affairs. Greek or Roman men passionately
at 2 Cor 4:7 as ‘clay vessels’, bearing a treasure. involved with their wives were regarded as odd-
Maurer (p. 365) says the reference is not to the ities. Best’s (1972: 165) attribution to Paul of the
bodies as bearing the soul but the message, but notion that ‘pagan marriage is motivated by
why should not this be the sense in 4:7? This lust’ is culturally indefensible. v. 6a, Paul offers
interpretation of skeuos as body, preferred by a another piece of advice, beginning with an in-
number of patristic writers (such as Tertullian finitive, whose connection with what has pre-
and Chrysostom), in spite of a rather unusual ceded is difficult. It could be a new topic: ‘(It is
sense for ktasthai, is the most likely meaning. God’s will—understood from v. 3—that the
Lührmann (1990: 245–7) argues strongly that Thessalonian converts) should not wrong
skeuos means ‘body’ to include men and (huperbainein) or defraud (pleonektein; NRSV has
1 thessalonians 228

‘exploit’) his brother in commerce (pragmati)’. shortcomings announced at 3:10 and the need
This is unlikely, since it breaks up a chain of to abound even more in their apapē mentioned
thought that is otherwise completely devoted to at 3:12. Brotherly love is something that Paul
sexual misconduct decried in v. 3 and pragma in says he has no need to write about because
the singular is not used of commerce (Best 1972: they have been ‘God-taught’ (theodidaktoi) to
167). It is preferable to interpret pragma as ‘mat- love (agapan) one another.
ter’ (so NRSV) or ‘area’, referring back to the Although there is a treatise by Plutarch on the
misuse of one’s body in the lustful manner of subject, the word philadelphia is rare in early
pagans. In this context huperbainein and pleonek- texts of the Christ-movement. Paul uses phila-
tein could have the meanings just attributed to delphia only once elsewhere (Rom 12:10), and
them, in which case Paul would be warning the there are only a few instances in the rest of the
Thessalonians not to engage in sexual miscon- NT (Heb 13:1; 1 Pet 1:22; 2 Pet 1:7 (twice) ). The
duct with the wives or husbands of other mem- adjective philadelphos occurs at 1 Pet 3:8. There
bers of the congregation. But Paul is unlikely to are only three instances in the Septuagint, at 4
have introduced such a limitation. What he is Macc 13:23, 26; 14:1 (which Klauck (1990) sees as
actually saying is that they should not ‘outdo’ a source for Paul), while philadelphos also ap-
(huperbainein) or ‘gain the advantage over’ (pleo- pears, at 2 Macc 15:14; 4 Macc 13:21; 15:10. Per-
nektein) their brothers in the area of sexual con- haps the connection of ‘Philadelphos’ with the
duct, that is, stop acting like the pagans around Ptolemies has discouraged its wider use in bib-
them for whom sexual conquests were a matter lical texts. Betz (1978: 232) notes that there is no
of pride and the more one achieved the more obvious explanation why this term was
one had to boast about. Such competition was regarded as proper in the Christian context,
typical behaviour among unrelated males in since it was apparently considered as just part
this culture (Paul also attacks the same kind of of agapē and there was no further need to ex-
attitudes and practices in Gal 5:26; Esler 1998: plain it; it may have come to Paul from Hellen-
230). Once again, Paul is differentiating this ized Judaism. Aasgaard (1997) has argued for
group from the sinful outsiders. v. 6b–c, he striking parallels between Plutarch’s under-
reminds them that God will take vengeance on standing of philadelphia and Paul’s thought on
this behaviour just as he had previously told the subject.
them. There is a strong context for God as Yet in a context in which Paul was intent on
avenger in Israelite tradition (Deut 32:35; Ps maintaining the appropriateness of kinship pat-
99:8; Mic 5:15; Nah 1:2). terns from the surrounding culture to his Thes-
v. 7, Paul begins to sum up the discussion salonian congregation, the use of a word at
initiated at v. 3 by reminding them of the rival home in Greek perceptions of the family had a
brands of identity on offer: either the sanctifi- lot to recommend it. More particularly, broth-
cation (hagiasmos), to which God has called erly love characterizes the alternative to behav-
them, or impurity (akatharsia), here (like the in- ing like unrelated males always in competition,
stance at 2 Cor 12:21) being related to the con- which he criticized in v. 6a. Lying close to the
dition and product of porneia in v. 3. These heart of the identity Paul is recommending to
words describe the stark alternatives available the Thessalonians is the model of harmonious
to in-group and out-group. v. 8, Paul next re- relations among a respectable family in the
minds them of the divine dimension to the surrounding culture (Esler 2000). While the ref-
norms that are integral to their identity: the erence to their brotherly love at v. 9 is the most
one who ‘disregards’, or ‘rejects’ (athetein), does obvious example, the word adelphos occurs four
not disregard a human being but the God who times in the passage (4:1, 6, 10 (twice) ).
puts the Holy Spirit into them. Paul has already Theodidaktos is unattested prior to Paul; he
reminded them of the Spirit (see 1 Thess 1:5), may have coined the word. He could be alluding
which above all means the powerful charis- to Lev 19:18 (so Lührmann 1990: 248), or to Isa
matic phenomena associated with having, in 54:13 or Jer 31:33–4, but this is unlikely for a
effect, God within, and he now reiterates this Gentile congregation. Marshall (1982: 115) has a
message in the context of group norms in the good explanation: Paul is saying that the Spirit
area of sexual propriety. empowers humans to love. This is in accord
with Gal 5:22 (see Esler 1998: 203). Kloppenborg
(4:9–12) Brotherly Love v. 9, now Paul turns (1993) has suggested another source of phila-
to another subject, brotherly love (philadelphia), delphia, and theodidaktos, namely, that Paul is
although still within the broad subject of the utilizing the local popularity of the Dioscuri,
 229 1 thessalonians

Castor and Pollux, whose devotion to one an- the word ‘eschatology’ has been applied by NT
other was widely regarded as exemplifying scholars to this subject for over a century now
philadelphia, and that theodidaktoi evokes the Dio- (as an example, see Best 1972: 180), the various
scuri as a pattern for imitation. But such a (and differing) theological agendas that have
derivation is highly unlikely from the author become attached to that word have left its
of 1 Thess 1:9. How is it possible, contra Klop- meaning rather obscure, except in the vanish-
penborg, that two pagan gods could offer the ingly rare case of critics who indicate precisely
Thessalonians ‘an appropriate mimetic ideal in what they mean by it. Accordingly, in what
a situation in which disparities in moral char- follows the data in 4:13–5:11 will be considered
acter lead to rivalry and tension’ (1993: 237)? within two other frameworks which, although
v. 10a, Paul praises them for showing agapē to derived from social-scientific research, have the
all the brothers in the whole of Macedonia, potential to throw light on this absorbing pic-
which brings out the fundamental importance ture of the future dating to the very early stages
of group solidarity, a typical theme in this cul- of the Christ-movement.
ture. vv. 10b–11, he urges them to do even better First, within social-identity theory (a sub-area
and to make it their ambition to live quietly, to of social psychology—cf. 1 THESS C.5–8), a
mind their own affairs, and to work with their group’s distinctive orientation towards the fu-
hands as he had previously warned them. The ture can help foster among the members a cog-
most likely explanation for this advice is that nitive sense of belonging to the group, and also
Paul wanted his audience, probably urban nourish the evaluative and emotional dimen-
craftsmen and labourers of low status, to keep sions of membership. In other words, the mem-
a low profile and therefore avoid attracting an- bers tell themselves who they are—and in a very
tipathy from out-groups for reasons discussed positive way—in relation to where they are
in 1 THESS B.4. Within their social level, Paul was going. A striking modern example of this is
suggesting that they live the quiet, hardworking the Hausa, a group of Sudanese Muslims, who
life of honourable men (see 1 THESS 4:12). Hock spend their whole life as if they are undertaking
(1980: 46–7) believes that this is a recommenda- a pilgrimage, a haj, to Mecca, even though most
tion to keep out of politics (by paying special of them never get there (Esler 1998: 42). Sec-
levies, going on embassies to Rome, entertain- ondly, social anthropologists have investigated
ing the governor, undertaking public services). many groups, generally (although not always)
Such a withdrawal from public life was espe- suffering from some form of colonial oppres-
cially identified with the Epicureans and many sion or disturbance of traditional ways of life,
more in the first century, sometimes being who develop or revive narratives of a coming
coupled with advocacy of philosophers of re- transformation of the world which will leave
tirement and working with one’s own hands. them radically restored to their proper place
Yet Hock’s proposal seems socially unrealistic and, often, destroy those who oppress them
in relation to a more likely audience of the (Duling 1996; Esler 1993; 1994: 93–109). These
urban poor who would never have been in a phenomena are generally referred to as in-
financial position to engage in such activities in stances of ‘millennialism’ or ‘millenarianism’.
the first place, let alone to withdraw from them. Examples of millenarian mythopoiesis, dis-
v. 12, Paul ends this section with a purpose cussed elsewhere (Esler 1993: 187–8; 1994:
clause: so that they may adopt a respectable 101–4), include the ghost dance among North
identity (peripatein euschēmonōs; NRSV has ‘be- American Indians in the late nineteenth century
have properly towards’) towards outsiders (hoi and the cargo cults of twentieth-century Mela-
exō) and be dependent on no one. Thus Paul nesia (in the South Pacific). Jewett (1986: 161–78)
concludes with peripatein, the word used twice has usefully applied millenarian ideas to 1 and 2
when he opened this discussion (4:1). Thessalonians (the latter letter he regards as
authentic). Millennialism provides a second use-
The Lord’s Coming (4:13–5:11) ful etic framework for contextualizing this part
These verses deal in some detail with the future of 1 Thessalonians. It is worth noting that al-
destiny of those who believe in Christ and, to a though deprivation of some sort cannot simply
lesser extent, with those who do not. The letter be said to explain the origin of millennial move-
has previously referred to the future in store ments, it is often one aspect of the experience of
(1:10), especially the parousia of Christ (2:19; the membership and provides an important
3:13), but now we have the events and their part of the context that needs to be taken into
significance set out in some detail. Although account in understanding its futurist myth.
1 thessalonians 230

(4:13–18) The Circumstances of this Coming the Lord’ relates only to the statement in v. 15 or
v. 13, Paul wants them to know that they should whether it extends to the end of v. 17. The
not grieve about those who ‘are sleeping’ (NRSV former is more likely, because Paul had presum-
‘who have died’), ‘as others do who have no ably already told them the broad outline of
hope’. Apparently some of the people in Thes- what we have in vv. 16–17; v. 15 contains the
salonica whom Paul converted have died since new element that required to be supported by
and worries have arisen among the Thessalon- the appeal to authority.
ians concerning their status at the parousia of vv. 16–17, the Lord himself—accompanied by
Christ. Clearly, as already noted, belief in the a cry of command, the call of an angel, and the
parousia, even though it is a vision of the future trumpet of God—will come down from heaven
heavily indebted to Israelite tradition, is embed- and those who have died in Christ will rise first,
ded in this ex-Gentile group, so that the prob- then those who are living, who survive, will be
lem is whether those who die in faith snatched up together with them in the clouds to
beforehand will participate in Christ’s glorious a meeting with the Lord in the air, so to be with
return. The sharp distinction between in-group the Lord for ever. Here we have a futurist myth
and out-groups Paul maintains throughout the derived partly from Israelite tradition but given
letter is evident here in the reference to ‘the rest a new slant in the context of the belief in
who have no hope’. Hope (elpis) was included at Christ’s death and resurrection which saw him
1 Thess 1:3 as one of the three primary elements exalted to the right hand of God (Acts 2:33; Rom
of the identity of Christ-followers and the fact 8:34). The myth deals with Christ’s descent
that Paul is worried they might be deficient in (based on his preceding ascent to God) which
hope also surfaces in Timothy’s notable failure presupposes a first-century cosmology in which
to include it in his report to Paul of the current heaven is located above the earth. The cry of
condition of the Thessalonians (at 1 THESS 3:6). It command is probably to be taken as uttered by
is beside the point to suggest that it was not Jesus and as addressed to the dead that they
correct that the rest of men had no hope what- should rise. A trumpet also appears in connec-
soever (as does Best 1972: 185); Paul is using the tion with resurrection and the end-time at 1 Cor
notion of hope to differentiate Christ-followers 15:52 (also see Isa 27:13; Zeph 1:14–16). While
from other groups; the (probably inaccurate) most myths relate to past events, helping a
stereotypification of the others is essential to particular group to gain access to its formative,
this strategy. v. 14, Paul sets out what should primordial past (Eliade 1989), a myth of the
be the basis for their hope: if they believe that future such as this is rather different. It serves
Jesus died and rose, so also will God bring with to stress the goal rather than the basis of a social
him those who have died (lit. fallen asleep) order and thus has a prescriptive rather than a
through Jesus. In millennial movements else- proscriptive function (Doty 1986: 44–9; Esler
where the return of the ancestors is a common 1993: 186). Paul’s Thessalonian converts would
feature of the futurist myth. Here Paul links the have been reassured by the details of this narra-
inclusion in the parousia of those who have tive that another order of reality existed, and
already died to the belief in the death and res- that the difficult events of their present and
urrection of Jesus which was central to their recent past were occurring within a context
faith in him. controlled by heavenly forces who would ul-
v. 15, first emphasizing the authority of what timately restore their fortunes beyond their
he is about to say (it is a ‘word of the Lord’; wildest dreams. Yet although the creation of
v. 15a), Paul now expands upon the precise hope in a future vindication forms part of
nature of the vindication he is holding out for such mythopoiesis, it is not the end of the
those who have died. Those who are living, who story. For a futurist myth such as this also cre-
survive to the parousia of the Lord, will not ates an imaginary experience in the present of
have any advantage over those who have died that which is to come, and thus reinforces the
(v. 15b). It is difficult to know what Paul means social identity of its addressees at a time
by a ‘word of the Lord’ here. Possible meanings when they are exposed to external threat (Esler
include a saying of Jesus (not otherwise extant), 1994: 109).
a statement by a prophet among the Christ-
followers, a fragment of some unknown text, (5:1–11) The Need for Wakefulness v. 1, Paul
or (perhaps most likely) his own view but indicates that he does not need to tell them
spoken as the Lord’s agent and therefore the about dates and times, presumably because he
Lord’s. It is also unclear whether the ‘word of has already done so. He does not want to
 231 1 thessalonians

become involved in the discussion of an end- social identity for itself. vv. 6–7, Paul persists
time calendar. v. 2, what they already know is with his continuing process of group differen-
that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in tiation in a related area of imagery by exhorting
the night, that is, quite unexpectedly. The ‘day them not to sleep like the others (by implica-
of the Lord’ was well established in Israelite tion, people of the night) but to keep awake and
tradition. It was to be a time of joy for some be sober—for those who sleep and those who
and terror for others. Thus Isaiah had written get drunk do so at night. v. 8, since he and they
that on ‘that day’ a great trumpet would sound belong to the day, he says, they should be sober,
and the scattered ones in Assyria and Egypt thus reinforcing still further the reality of group
would come to worship the Lord on Jerusalem’s differentiation using imagery of day and night
holy mountain (Isa 27:13). Zephaniah, on the which he began way back at v. 4. Yet now he
other hand, had presented a bleaker picture: a adds a new element—they should do so having
day that would be a day of wrath, of anguish put on the breastplate of faith and love and the
and torment, of destruction and devastation, helmet of hope of salvation. In this latter clause
when the Lord would bring dire distress upon he summons before his readers the triad of
the people (Zeph 1:14–18). Paul must have faith, love, and hope (and in that order) which
imparted some of this material to his ex-idol- he introduced in the third verse of the letter.
atrous converts, no doubt painting a happy This is really to pile identity-descriptors on
future for them and an unhappy one for sinful identity-descriptors!
out-groups. When Paul refers to putting on (endusamenoi)
v. 3, Paul illustrates his previous statement the breastplate of faith and love (thōraka pisteōs kai
with two connected examples showing how agapēs) and the hope of salvation for a helmet
people will not escape. First, it is just when (perikephalaian elpida sōtērias), he is alluding either
people are saying ‘peace and security’ (eirēnē kai to Isa 59.17 or Wis 5:18 (which is presumably
asphaleia) that suddenly disaster overtakes them dependent on Isaiah), or both. The Isaian passage
just as, secondly, the pain of childbirth comes reads: ‘He put on (enedusato) righteousness as a
upon a pregnant woman. The latter example is breastplate (dikaiosunēn thōraka) and placed the
a commonplace of domestic human experience helmet of salvation (perikephalaian sōtēriou) on his
(although often mentioned as a sign of the End: head’, while the one from Wisdom has: ‘He will
Mk 13:8), but the former relates to the political put on righteousness as a breastplate (endusetai
realities of Thessalonica. Some coins minted at thōraka dikaiosunēn), and he will don true judge-
Thessalonica contained slogans with the similar ment instead of a helmet.’ Paul has changed the
words ‘freedom and security’, probably reflect- phrase ‘breastplate of righteousness’ to ‘breast-
ing the advantages the local élite derived from plate of faith and love’, while adding the word
Rome and the Roman imperial cult (Jewett ‘hope’ to the expression ‘helmet of salvation’,
1986: 124). The ‘peace’ to which Paul refers is which he otherwise retains. Paul’s treatment of
presumably the Pax Romana. Paul is alluding to the possible Septuagintal source(s) means, first,
the fragility of the comfortable relationship be- that faith and love represent a way of describing
tween the rulers of the city and Rome (Hendrix the condition of being a Christ-follower analo-
1984), which could at any time suffer a disas- gous to that expressed by ‘righteousness’. Sec-
trous reverse. ondly, however, the alteration indicates that in
vv. 4–5, Paul introduces the imagery of light writing to Gentiles he has deliberately chosen to
and darkness to distinguish between Christ- substitute the former for the latter, presumably
followers, whom the day (of anger) will not because he found ‘righteousness’ inappropriate
‘surprise . . . like a thief’, and others in Thessa- for such an audience (Esler 1998: 156–7). The
lonica. The Christ-followers are all sons of light function fulfilled by the language of holiness in
and sons of day who do not belong to night or relation to a Gentile audience in 1 Thessalonians
darkness; by implication, then, the others are is served later in relation to mixed Israelite and
sons of night and sons of darkness who do not Gentile groups in Galatians and Romans by the
belong to light or day. Such a powerful dualism discourse of righteousness.
presents very starkly the nature of the opposed v. 9, Paul’s statement that God has destined
identities of in-group and out-group, the first them not for anger but for obtaining salvation
highly positive and the second very negative through their Lord Jesus Christ makes explicit
indeed. Here we have a good example of the for the first time the nature of the fate, the
stereotypical group-categorization characteris- awesome wrath of God (see Zeph 1:14–18,
tic of the way one group generates a favourable noted above), hanging over out-groups, who
1 thessalonians 232

are again sharply differentiated from the be- spite of the group-differentiation that Paul has
lievers in Christ to whom salvation will be pursued throughout the letter, he specifically
extended. The nature of that salvation is set extends the scope of their doing good from
out in 1 Thess 4:16–17, while the ambit of the the members of the congregation to everyone.
anger is not. v. 10, Jesus Christ is described as There are limits to how far he will go with the
the one who died for us so that ‘awake or asleep’ process of group-categorization and certainly
(that is, dead, as in 1 Thess 4:13–16), we will live the all-too-common advocacy of violence
together with him. This the first time in Paul’s against out-group members plays no part what-
correspondence that we find the important for- ever in his perspective. vv. 16–18, rejoicing and
mula ‘Christ died for’ with a further word or continual prayer are essential aspects of their
words indicating the person(s) for whom he identity as Christ-followers. v. 19, they must not
died (also see 1 Cor 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14; 5:15; Rom quench the Spirit, by which Paul means that
5:6; 5:8; 14:15). De Jonge (1990: 233–4) has argued they must permit the charismatic gifts associ-
that this expression, which preceded Paul’s use ated with the coming of the Spirit—which was
of it since he cites it in 1 Cor 15:3 as a tradition he a major distinguishing feature of the movement
had received, always serves as a foundation for and no doubt made it attractive to members,
the claim that God’s salvation has become real- because of the euphoria Spirit-possession can
ity or at least has been inaugurated, to highlight produce. v. 20, prophecy is one of the gifts of
the new state of life into which Christ-followers the Spirit (see 1 Cor 12:10) and Paul calls on them
have been transferred. Within a social identity not to despise it. vv. 21–2, Paul mentions further
framework, one might add that the notion of attitudes which should characterize the identity
Jesus’ death for his followers is what enables the of the Thessalonians.
creation of their identity and also fills it with
positive evaluative and emotional dimensions. (5:23–4) Prayer for the Thessalonians vv. 23–
v. 11, the sentiment is similar to, while going a 4, Paul prays that God will sanctify (hagiazō)
little further than, that of 4:18. them, thus seeking divine renewal of the sanc-
tification he has already made clear was central
Final Exhortations and Greetings (5:12–28) to their new identity in contrast to the world of
This section contain a series of largely unrelated impurity (akatharsia) around them (1 Thess 4:7).
pieces of advice, ending with prayers. Sanctification primarily refers to their present
condition, but Paul then goes on to pray that
(5:12–13) Honouring Leaders vv. 12–13, Paul they will be blameless at the parousia. The one
asks the Thessalonians to respect those who who calls is faithful and he will effect this.
labour amongst them, who ‘care for’ (or, pos-
sibly, with the NRSV, ‘have charge of’) ‘you . . . (5:25–8) Closing Prayer and Instructions
and admonish you’. He wants his addressees to v. 25, now he asks them to pray for him (and
esteem them very highly in love because of their presumably Silvanus and Timothy); this en-
work and to be at peace with one another. Best livens the sense of his presence to them in the
(1972: 226) reasonably suggests that we should letter. v. 26, the source of the holy kiss of the
not interpret these verses as indicating there movement is unknown; possible sources in-
was a ministry among the congregation in the clude the historical Jesus, Judaism, or pagan
city. The fact that the ‘leaders’ are described by religion. v. 27, suddenly Paul changes to first
their activities and not by titles suggests that person singular, presumably because he has
they have none. Clearly Paul is at pains that taken the stylus in his own hand to write the
the Thessalonians should not engage in the last few words (as at 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11), and
antagonistic conduct common among unre- solemnly commands them to read the letter to
lated males in this culture. all the brothers. It is hard to determine how all
the brothers (and a textual variant adds ‘holy’
(5:14–22) Christian Identity-Indicators Paul to brothers) relate to the Thessalonians men-
here strings together various aspects of desir- tioned in the first verse. Perhaps the means to
able identity-indicators. Some of them are ensure that those who first received the letter
norms (that is, ‘ethical’ duties), but others, such should read it aloud to everyone in a meeting
as to rejoice and pray, are not. vv. 14–15, the of the congregation (Best 1972: 246–7). v. 28,
statements here constitute what are essential Paul ends with a form of benediction which
norms for maintaining the identity of Christ- must have become conventional among
followers. It is noteworthy, however, that in Christ-followers.
 233 1 thessalonians

REFERENCES Edson, C. (1948), ‘Cults of Thessalonica (Macedonica

III)’, HTR 41: 153–204.
Aasgaard, R. (1997), ‘Brotherhood in Plutarch and
Eliade, M. (1989), The Myth of the Eternal Return
Paul: Its Role and Character’, in H. Moxnes (ed.),
(London: Penguin).
Constructing Early Christian Families: Family as Social
Esler, P. F. (1987), Community and Gospel in Luke–Acts:
Reality and Metaphor (London: Routledge), 166–97.
The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology
Balch, D. L., Ferguson, E., and Meeks, W. A. (eds.)
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
(1990), Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor
—— (1993), ‘Political Oppression in Jewish Apoca-
of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress).
lyptic Literature: A Social-Scientific Approach’,
Barclay, J. M. G. (1992), ‘Thessalonica and Corinth:
Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture, 28: 181–99.
Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity’, JSNT 47:
—— (1994), The First Christians in their Social Worlds:
49–74.
Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpret-
—— (1993), ‘Conflict in Thessalonika’, CBQ 53:
ation (London: Routledge).
512–30.
—— (ed.) (1995), Modelling Early Christianity: Social-
Bassler, J. M. (1995), ‘Skeuos: A Modest Proposal for
Scientific Studies of the New Testament in Its Context
Illuminating Paul’s Use of Metaphor in 1 Thessalon-
(London: Routledge).
ians 4:4’, in White and Yarbrough (1995: 53–66).
—— (1998), Galatians (London: Routledge).
Baur, F. C. (1873–5) Paul: The Apostle of Jesus Christ
—— (2000), ‘ ‘‘Keeping it in the Family’’: Culture,
(London: Williams & Norgate). German original,
Kinship and Identity in 1 Thessalonians and Gal-
Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi (1845).
atians’, in J. W. van Henten and A. Brenner (eds.),
Best, E. (1972), A Commentary on the First and Second
Families and Family Relations as Represented in Early
Epistles to the Thessalonians, Black’s New Testament
Judaisms and Early Christianities: Texts and Fictions,
Commentaries (London: Adam & Charles Black).
Studies in Theology and Religion (Leiden: Deo),
Betz, H. D. (1978), ‘De fraterno amore (Moralia 478A–
ii. 145–84.
492D)’, in H. D. Betz (ed.) (1978), Plutarch’s Ethical
Fatum, L. (1997), ‘Brotherhood in Christ: A Gender
Writings and Early Christian Literature (Leiden: E. J.
Hermeneutical Reading of 1 Thessalonians’, in
Brill), 231–63.
H. Moxnes (ed.), Constructing Early Christian Families:
Boers, H. (1976), ‘The Form Critical Study of Paul’s
Family as Social Reality and Metaphor (London:
Letters. 1 Thessalonians as a Case Study’, NTS 22:
Routledge), 183–97.
140–58.
Faw, C. E. (1952), ‘On the Writing of First Thessalon-
Brown, R. (1988), Group Processes: Dynamics Within and
ians’, JBL 71: 217–25.
Between Groups (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).
Frame, J. E. A. (1912), Critical and Exegetical Commentary
Chapa, J. (1994), ‘Is First Thessalonians a Letter of
on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (New
Consolation?’, NTS 40: 150–60.
York: James Scribner’s).
Collins, R. F. (ed.) (1990), The Thessalonian Correspond-
Funk, R. (1967), ‘The Apostolic Parousia: Form and
ence (Leuven: Leuven University Press).
Significance’, in W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and
De Jonge, H. J. (1990), ‘The Original Setting of the
R. R. Niebuhr (eds.), Christian History and Interpret-
Christos Apethanen Hyper Formula’, in Collins (1990:
ation: Studies Presented to John Knox (Cambridge:
229–35).
Cambridge University Press), 249–68.
Donfried, K. P. (1984), ‘1 Thessalonians 2:13–16 as a
Headland, T. N., Pike, K. L., and Harris, M. (eds.)
Test Case’, Interpretation, 38: 242–53.
(1990), Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate,
—— (1985), ‘The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thes-
Frontiers of Anthropology, 7 (Newbury Park,
salonian Correspondence’, NTS 31: 336–56.
Calif.: Sage).
—— (1989), ‘Cults and the Theology of 1 Thessalon-
Hendrix, H. L. (1984), ‘Thessalonicans Honor Rome’,
ians as a Reflection of its Purpose’, in M. P. Horgan
Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
and P. Kobelski (eds.), To Touch the Text: Studies in
Hock, R. F. (1980), The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry:
Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (New York: Cross-
Tentmaking and Apostleship (Philadelphia: Fortress).
road), 243–60.
Hodgson, R., Jr. (1982), ‘1 Thess. 4:1–12 and the Holi-
Doty, W. G. (1973), Letters in Primitive Christianity
ness Tradition (HT)’, in K. H. Richards (ed.), Society
(Philadelphia: Fortress).
of Biblical Literature 1982 Seminar Papers (Chico,
—— (1986), Mythography: The Study of Myths and Rit-
Calif.: Scholars Press), 199–215.
uals (Alabama: University of Alabama Press).
Hooker, M. D., and Wilson, S. G. (1982) (eds.), Paul
Duling, D. C. (1996), ‘Millennialism’, in R. L. Rohr-
and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett (Lon-
baugh (ed.), The Social Sciences and New Testament
don: SPCK).
Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson),
Jewett, R. (1986), The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline
183–205.
Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress).
1 thessalonians 234

—— (1993), ‘Tenement Churches and Communal Perkins, P. (1989), ‘1 Thessalonians and Hellenistic
Meals in the Early Church: The Implications of a Religious Practices’, in M. P. Horgan and
Form-Critical Analysis of 2 Thessalonians 3:10’, BR P. J. Kobelski (eds.) (1989), To Touch the Text: Biblical
38: 23–42. and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer
Judge, E. A. (1971), ‘The Decrees of Caesar at Thessa- (New York: Crossroad), 325–34.
lonika’, RTR 30: 1–7. Robinson, P. (ed.) (1996), Social Groups and Identities:
Klauck, H.-J. (1990), ‘Brotherly Love in Plutarch and Developing the Legacy of Henri Tajfel (Oxford: Butter-
in 4 Maccabees’, in D. L. Balch, E. Ferguson, and worth Heinnemann).
W. A. Meeks (eds.), Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Schmidt, D. (1983), ‘1 Thess 2: 13–16: Lingistic Evi-
Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: dence for an Interpolation’, JBL 102: 269–79.
Fortress), 144–56. Schöllgen, G. (1988), ‘Was wissen wie über Sozial-
Kloppenborg, J. S. (1993), PHILADELPHIA, THEODIDAKTOS struktur der paul-inischen Gemeinden?’, NTS 34:
and the Dioscuri: Rhetorical Engagement in 1 71–82.
Thessalonians 4.9–12, NTS 39: 265–89. Schubert, P. (1939), Form and Function of the Pauline
Koester, H. (1979), ‘1 Thessalonians—Experiment in Thanksgivings, BNZW 20 (Berlin: de Gruyter).
Christian Writing’, in F. F. Church and T. George Seesemann, H. (1967), ‘Pateō and compounds in NT’,
(eds.) (1979), Continuity and Discontinuity in Church TDNT v. 943–5.
History: Essays Presented to George Hunston Williams on Smith, A. (1989), ‘The Social and Ethical Implications
the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Studies in the History of the Pauline Rhetoric in 1 Thessalonians’, disser-
of Christian Thought, 19 (Leiden: E. J. Brill), 33–44. tation submitted to Vanderbilt University (Ann
Koskenniemi, H. (1956), Studien zur Idee und Phraseolo- Arbor: University Microfilms International).
gie des griechischen Briefes bis n. Chr (Helsinki: Suo- Stern, M. (1974–80), Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and
malainen Tiedeakatemia). Judaism (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of the
Lührmann, D. (1990), ‘The Beginnings of the Church Arts and Sciences).
in Thessalonica’, in Balch, Ferguson, and Meeks Stowers, S. K. (1986), Letter Writing in Greco-Roman
(1990: 237–49). Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster).
MacMullen, R. (1981), Paganism in the Roman Empire Tajfel, H. (1978), Differentiation between Social Groups:
(New Haven: Yale University Press). Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations
Malherbe, A. J. (1987), Paul and the Thessalonians: The (London: Academic Press).
Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: —— (1981), ‘Social Stereotypes and Social Groups’,
Fortress). in H. Tajfel, Human Groups and Social Categories:
—— (1989a), Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minne- Studies in Social Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge
apolis: Fortress). University Press).
—— (1989b), ‘ ‘‘Gentle as a Nurse’’: The Cynic Back- —— and Turner, J. C. (1979), ‘An Integrative The-
ground to 1 Thessalonians 2’, in Malherbe 1989a: ory of Intergroup Conflict’, in W. G. Austin
35–48 (first pub. in NovT 12 (1970), 213–17). and S. Worchel (eds.), The Social Psychology of
—— (1989c), ‘Exhortation in First Thessalonians’, in Intergroup Relations (Monterey, Calif.: Brooks-
Malherbe 1989a: 49–66 (first pub. in NovT 25 Cole), 33–47.
(1983), 238–56). —— (1986), ‘The Social Identity Theory of Inter-
—— (1990), ‘Did the Thessalonians Write to Paul?’ group Conflict’, in S. Worchel and W. G. Austin
in R. R. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa (eds.), The Con- (eds.) (1986), Psychology of Intergroup Relations
versation Continues: Studies in Paul & John in Honor of (Chicago: Nelson-Hall), 7–24.
J. Louis Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 246–57). Vickers, M. (1972), ‘Hellenistic Thessaloniki’, JHS 92:
Malina, B. J. (1993), The New Testament World: Insights 156–70.
from Cultural Anthropology, rev. edn. (Louisville, Ky.: Vos, C. de (1999), Church and Community Conflicts: The
Westminster/John Knox). Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Phil-
Marshall, I. H. (1982), ‘Pauline Theology in the Thes- ippian Churches with their Wider Civic Communities,
salonian Correspondence’, in Hooker and Wilson SBL DS 168 (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
(1982: 173–83). Weatherly, J. A. (1991), ‘The Authenticity of 1 Thes-
Maurer, C. (1971), S. V. skeuos, TDNT vii. 358–67. salonians 2.13–16: Additional Evidence’, JSNT 42:
Okeke, G. E. (1980–1), ‘1 Thess 2.13–16. The Fate of the 79–98.
Unbelieving Jews’, NTS 27: 127–36. White, M. L., and Yarbrough, O. L. (eds.) (1995), The
Pearson, B. A. (1971), ‘1 Thessalonians 2:13–16: A Deu- Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of
tero-Pauline Interpolation’, HTR 64: 79–94. Wayne A. Meeks (Philadelphia: Fortress).
 12. 2 Thessalonians
philip f. esler
INTRODUCTION incomplete knowledge of the Christ-movement
in the first century their failure to come up with
A. The problem of authenticity. 1. The
a convincing particular audience and setting
dominant preliminary issue in the interpretation
does not, as sometimes suggested (Jewett 1986:
of 2 Thessalonians is the controversy as to
3–18; Barclay 1993: 526), itself invalidate their
whether Paul wrote this letter or not. The answer
arguments, although it will mean they are less
greatly affects how the letter is to be understood.
than compelling. Supporters of authenticity, on
It should be noted at once that there is virtually
the other hand, need to explain what had hap-
no support for reversing the traditional order of 1
pened that induced Paul to write a second letter
and 2 Thessalonians (for reasons well explained
to Thessalonica using language and structure so
by Jewett (1986: 24–30); contra Trudinger (1995),
similar to that in 1 Thessalonians; and to the
revisiting the views of J. Weiss and T. W. Man-
present writer the difficulties with this hypoth-
son). Doubts as to the authenticity of 2 Thessa-
esis are greater than those raised by the view
lonians are stimulated primarily by its close
that the letter is not by Paul (see Bailey 1978–9).
literary relationship to 1 Thessalonians. Many
As Menken (1994: 27–43) argues, while no one
critics, but especially William Wrede (1903),
argument is capable of sustaining a case for
have noted that the topics in the two letters are
inauthenticity, overall this seems the preferable
covered in the same sequence and the themes of
solution, in spite of very respectable views to
the first letter are reflected with minor variations
the contrary. Possible explanations for 2 Thes-
in the second, even if there are few examples
salonians on either hypothesis will now be
with exactly the same wording. Thus, the
addressed. Particular issues relating to this
renewed thanksgiving of 1 Thess 2:12 is repeated
debate will come up in the comments below.
at 2 Thess 2:12, prayers in the optative mood
introduced by ‘the Lord (God) himself’ appear
at similar points (cf. 1 Thess 3:11–13 and 5:23 B. Some Possible Explanations for 2 Thessa-
with 2 Thess 2:16–17 and 3:16), and there are lonians if Authentic. 1. Best (1972: 59) suggests
many verbal parallels (see Menken 1994: 36–9 that 2 Thessalonians was written by Paul from
for the comparative data and Best 1972: 50–1). Corinth shortly after 1 Thessalonians ‘to meet a
Only 2 Thess 2:1–12 has no parallel in 1 Thessa- new situation in respect of eschatology and a
lonians. On the other hand, both letters are very deteriorating situation in respect of idleness’,
different in these respects from the other Pauline although he notes that ‘we do not know from
letters. These literary similarities occur in spite of where Paul received his information’. He pro-
some major differences in the contents of the poses that Paul probably wrote with much of 1
two letters, especially in relation to views on the Thessalonians in his memory rather than that
parousia (with 1 Thessalonians saying that Christ he worked from a copy of 1 Thessalonians.
is expected to come soon and suddenly while 2 2. Jewett (1986: 176–8, 191–2) has a much
Thessalonians argues that his coming will be more particular explanation. It is that ‘for
preceded by other events) and the lack of per- some reason’ Paul’s first letter, impacting on a
sonal details about Paul and the Thessalonians of community alive with millenarian excitement,
the type found in 1 Thess 2:1–12; 13–16; and 3:1–13. actually provoked the radical members at Thes-
The tone of 2 Thessalonians is also generally salonica, who misunderstood Paul to such an
agreed to be rather cold in comparison with extent as to conclude that the day of the Lord
that of 1 Thessalonians. had arrived and to behave in accordance with
2. Many critics consider that the best explan- this belief (e.g. by curtailing certain everyday
ation for such features is that 2 Thessalonians is activities such as work). Paul responds by writ-
an imitation of the other letter written later to ing 2 Thessalonians, a refutation of this false
Thessalonica or to some other community of doctrine written in a very different tone.
Christ-followers which draws upon the earlier 3. Barclay (1993) has proposed an interesting
letter to enhance its authority. While those new answer to the relationship between the
who consider 2 Thessalonians inauthentic eschatologies in 1 and 2 Thessalonians which
usually seek to reconstruct a situation which offers a more specific explanation for how the
would render its creation plausible, given our Thessalonians misunderstood Paul’s first letter.
2 thessalonians 236

After noting Wrede’s (1903: 526) difficulty in date for the composition of 2 Thessalonians
suggesting a convincing setting for the letter, would be preferable (see 2 THESS 3:17).
Barclay argues that the references to fierce per- 2. 2 Thessalonians has been understood as a
secution (1:4–9), the problem of people not response to millennialism in a Mediterranean
working (3:6–13), and the claim by some that context. The three substantive issues of local
the day of the Lord is here (2:2) suggest a specific context recognized in the letter are the exist-
situation. Having examined and rejected exist- ence of some form of oppression being suffered
ing answers as to what ‘the day of the Lord’ by the addressees (1:4–6), the disturbance caused
means at 2 Thess 2:2 (see commentary), he pro- by the message that ‘the day of the Lord has
poses a new alternative, namely, that in 1 Thes- come’ (2:1–12), and the disorderly conduct of
salonians it is possible to draw a distinction certain Christ-followers who are refusing to
which Paul did not himself draw between par- work for a living. On the (preferable) assump-
ousia (4:13–18) and the day of the Lord (5:1–11) tion that these issues derive from an actual
and the latter is associated with the sudden situation somewhere in the ancient Mediterra-
destruction of unbelievers. So, maybe some nean world, and do not just comprise a notional
Christians in Thessalonica reacted to a local setting aimed at allowing someone to draft a
(or perhaps widespread) disaster by claiming letter in Pauline style, we are faced with what
that it manifested the wrath of God, thereby modern social scientists refer to as an outbreak
creating turmoil and encouraging some to give of millennialism. Across the world, we know of
up their jobs and and continue urgent, full-time many instances of groups, generally (although
evangelism. Thus Paul is compelled to write not always) suffering from some form of oppr-
another letter perhaps only a matter of weeks ession or disturbance of traditional social pat-
after the first wherein the friendly encourage- terns, who generate or revive narratives of a
ment gives way to a more frigid and authoritar- coming transformation of the world which
ian tone. will radically restore them to their proper
4. A major question hanging over proposals place and, often, destroy those who oppress
like those of Jewett and Barclay is that if Paul’s them (Duling 1996; Esler 1993; 1994: 93–109).
first letter had been misunderstood why would Examples, discussed elsewhere (Esler 1993:
he not try to persuade them with a completely 187–8; 1994: 101–4), include the ghost dance
new approach, rather than risking a letter which among North American Indians in the late
stylistically aped the earlier one, and also nineteenth century and the cargo cults of twen-
strongly protest about their egregious misinter- tieth-century Melanesia. Jewett (1986: 161–78)
pretation of the earlier letter. 2 Thess 2:2 cer- has usefully applied millenarian ideas to 2 Thes-
tainly does not fulfil the latter function, in salonians, although his treatment is affected by
contrast with 1 Cor 5:9–13, which clearly indi- his view that the letter is authentic. The view
cates how Paul went about correcting a misim- adopted here is that millennialism provides the
pression drawn from an earlier letter. best framework for contextualizing the letter in
a general way, even though we cannot be sure
C. Possible Explanations for 2 Thessalonians for which troubled community of first-century
if Inauthentic. 1. Proponents of the inauthen- Christ-followers it was written. Although bib-
ticity of 2 Thessalonians have come up with a lical critics generally use the now rather tired
variety of dates and situations for the letter. and overworked word ‘eschatological’, which
Wrede himself dated it to about 100 CE and derives from a theological agenda, to refer to
suggested it was written not for Thessalonica end-time speculation in such texts as Dan 7–12
(for Thessalonians would ask where it had lain and 1 Enoch, the framework of ‘millennialism’
all these years) but for another church which allows a fresh set of questions originating in
knew of the existence of other Thessalonian real social experience to be posed to texts such
correspondence. Masson (1957) proposed that as 2 Thessalonians. Attempts, such as that of
it was written about 100 CE to counter the belief Menken (1994), to discuss this dimension to 2
that the day of the Lord had come. On the other Thessalonians almost solely in relation to (the
hand, Marxsen (1968: 37–44; 1982) favoured an undoubtedly important) framework of end-
earlier date, around 70 CE, arguing that the letter time speculation in Israelite biblical and extra-
was intended to counter Gnostics, especially biblical literature, have an unnecessarily limited
their (false) claim that the day of the Lord had focus.
come. If Paul’s letters had been collected, as 3. It is always worth remembering that the
generally supposed, by about 100 CE, an earlier social context of the ancient Mediterranean
 237 2 thessalonians

world in which this example of millennialism epistolary categories to various sections of the
occurred was radically different from modern, letter does much to further our understanding
individualistic cultures of Europe and North of it. Accordingly, in the commentary I will
America. The ancient Mediterranean world adopt the following (pragmatic) structuration,
was one where, at an appropriate level of abst- essentially thematic in type, while making oc-
raction and without in any way denying local casional reference to possible epistolary or rhet-
variations, people found meaning by belonging orical subdivisions:
to groups (especially the family), honour was
Prescript (1:1–2)
the principal social value, all goods (material
Thanksgiving and Encouragement (1:3–12)
and immaterial) were regarded as existing in
The End and the Man of Lawlessness (2:1–12)
finite quantities, and relationships between pat-
Encouragement to Persevere (2:13–17)
rons and clients (sometimes mediated by other
Mutual Prayer (3:1–5)
individuals referred to as ‘brokers’; see Moxnes
Warning against Idlers (3:6–12)
1991) were common as a way of dealing with
Conclusion (3:13–18)
access to limited material and social goods.
These are the most important of an ensemble
of cultural features originally identified and
COMMENTARY
applied to the NT by Bruce Malina in 1981
(now see Malina 1993). (1:1–2) Prescript This is the beginning of one
4. The fact that Paul probably did not long sentence (1:1–12). Rhetoricians would call
write 2 Thessalonians does not entail taking this section the ‘exordium’. Letters in the anci-
a condemnatory attitude to whoever—pseud- ent Mediterranean began with a prescript, com-
onymously—claimed he had. Pseudonymity is a prising the names of the senders and the
common feature in the Bible (Proverbs, Eccle- addressees and a brief greeting, in Greek typic-
siastes, Isa 40–55 and 55–66), let alone in the ally chairei, ‘hail’. These verses constitute
profuse writings of the Pseudepigrapha them- the prescript to 2 Thessalonians. The senders
selves (see Bailey 1978–9: 143–5). Meade (1986) (Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy) and addressees
has plausibly argued that the phenomenon (‘ekklēsia, the community’—‘church’ sounds a
occurred when it was felt necessary to make little anachronistic—‘of the Thessalonians in
traditions capable of application to new situ- God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’) are
ations, so that it becomes an assertion of au- the same as in 1 Thessalonians, while the greet-
thoritative tradition, not literary origin. The ing has been Christianized (a practice possibly
closeness of the style of this pseudepigraphic inaugurated by Paul) even further here by an
document to 1 Thessalonians is perhaps explic- additional reference to Jesus Christ as Lord and
able out of the high respect in which its author God as Father. v. 2, by invoking upon the addr-
held Paul. It is reasonable, therefore, that some essees grace (charis) and peace (eirēnē; Heb. šālôm)
time in the first century, probably after Paul’s from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,
death in Rome in the later 60s, someone faced comes close to putting them on an equal foot-
with a situation having the three broad features ing, unless we are meant to see God as patron
mentioned above sought faithfully to reinter- and Jesus Christ as broker in accordance with
pret Pauline tradition in a way which would common Mediterranean social patterns, that is,
benefit those addressed. The (non-Pauline) a mediator who gives clients access to the re-
authors of Ephesians, Titus, and 1 and 2 Tim- sources of a more powerful patron (Moxnes
othy adopted the same strategy, although faced 1991: 248).
with very different situations.
5. In what follows I will refer to the author of (1:3–12) Thanksgiving and Encouragement
this letter as ‘Paul’ (with inverted commas) or v. 3, after the prescript, Paul often includes a
‘the author’ because of the view taken here that thanksgiving for the good qualities of his addr-
the historical Paul was not its author. essees (Rom 1:8–10; 1 Cor 1:4–8; Phil 1:3–6; but
not in Galatians, where Paul is too annoyed
D. Structure. 2 Thessalonians, like 1 Thessa- with his audience to engage in the usual cour-
lonians, can be given a structure based on tesies!). Yet here he says ‘we must always give
thematic, epistolary, or rhetorical consider- thanks to God’, rather than ‘we thank God’,
ations (helpfully summarized by Jewett 1986: which seems to some critics a rather more for-
222–5). It is doubtful, however, whether the mal expression, even though he does go on to
rigorous application of ancient rhetorical or mention that their faith is growing and their
2 thessalonians 238

love for one another increasing. The first person Christian literature. It is likely, however, that
plural may reflect the fact that three persons are Menken (1994: 85–7) is mistaken in seeing the
named as senders of the letter, or represent an current sufferings of the Thessalonians (which
example of the ‘epistolary plural’, where a single will absolve them from future judgement) as
writer talks of himself or herself in the plural. caused by their own sinfulness, since this con-
v. 4, virtually all translations (including flicts with the good things said about them
the NRSV) have ‘Paul’ saying something like ‘we earlier in the text.
ourselves boast’ among the communities (NRSV vv. 6–7a, the sentiment here represents a rat-
‘churches’) of God concerning your steadfastness her bald example of the law of revenge (lex
and faith in all persecutions (diōgmoi) and afflic- talionis). Although modern European or North
tions (thlipseis). But ‘boast’, which carries a American readers might find this puzzling, in
negative connotation to modern ears, is a mis- ancient Mediterranean culture serious insults,
translation. In a group-oriented culture domin- which desecrated one’s honour, had to be
ated by honour as the pre-eminent virtue and avenged. Thus God will bring vengeance on
always needing to be acknowledged by others, those who have dishonoured his people (see
‘Paul’ is saying that ‘we ourselves base our claim Deut 32:35–6) and therefore slighted him as
to honourp’ on the qualities mentioned. He can well. This is a fairly common biblical theme.
say this in relation to the relevant public (here In particular Isa 66:6 refers to ‘the voice of the
‘the communities of God’) either because he is LORD dealing retribution to his enemies’ and
intrinsically linked to the Thessalonians’ endur- Aus (1976) has suggested that this section of
ance and faith as their progenitor, or because he Isaiah may have influenced this verse and what
is closely connected with the Thessalonian follows. ‘Rest’ (anesis) refers to the absence of
Christ-followers who now exhibit these qualities, tension and trial. The persecution and oppres-
or both. Also see 1 Thess 2:19; 2 Cor 9:2–3. The sion mentioned in vv. 6–7 may be likened to the
presence of persecutions and oppressions disturbance of traditional lifestyles suffered by
among whatever group of Christ-followers for North American Indians or Melanesians at the
which 2 Thessalonians was originally destined hands of European conquerors or colonists. In
provides either the motivation for, or reinforce- North America and Melanesia (in the South
ment of, narratives of future deliverance of the Pacific) millennial myths developed which desc-
sort prominent in the text. ribed a coming convulsion in the cosmos when
v. 5 begins ‘This is evidence’ (endeigma). But to the white people would be swept away, so that
what stated previously does endeigma refer? Pos- the traditional lifestyles would be restored, the
sibly to their faith and steadfastness while they ancestors return, the game revisit the plains, or
suffer persecution and tribulation (Best 1972: cargo be dropped on the people from the sky
254–5), but it is more probable, given the tight (see Esler 1994: 101–4, and literature cited there).
interconnection of v. 4, that it refers to the fact The punishment for the oppressors and vindi-
that Paul lays his claim to honour on these cation of the oppressed in 2 Thessalonians re-
characteristics: ‘our claiming honour from flects a somewhat similar social experience. v.
your endurance and faith before the other com- 7b, the author now specifies when (or by what
munities (who did not demur) is a sure sign that means) the events just mentioned will occur,
God will also count you worthy’. The judge- literally: ‘at the revelation (apocalypsis) of Lord
ment Paul has in mind is the judgement of Jesus Christ from heaven with the angels of his
God at the end-time (usually, although not power’. First-century Christ-followers thought
very helpfully, referred to as ‘eschatological’) Jesus had gone to heaven after his resurrection
commonly described in Israelite literature and that he would return from there (1 Thess
(1 Enoch 1:1–9; 2 Esd 7.33–44; Apoc. Abr. 29.14–29; 1:10; 4:16; 1 Cor 1:7; 1 Pet 1:7, 13). Such beliefs
D. F. Russell 1964: 379–85). Without doubting were fortified (if not stimulated) by Israelite
their actual existence for the original audience traditions describing future vindicators of Israel,
of 2 Thessalonians, the troubles referred to in such as 1 Enoch 48:4–6 and Dan 7:13. Normally
the text are capable of interpretation as the Paul uses parousia of the future coming of Jesus,
‘woes’ before the end attested in other Israelite the sole use of apocalypsis in this regard being at 1
and Christian literature (Dan 12:1; 2 Apoc. Bar. Cor 1:7. The angels represent the heavenly host
25.2–4; Mk 13:19, 24; Rev 7:14). Thus we see a or court who accompany God when he comes
merger of experience and religious tradition in judgement (Zech 14:5; 1 Enoch 1.9), although
located in biblical and non-biblical Israelite the early Christ-movement attached them to
literature typical of this text and other early Jesus (Mk 8:38; 13:27).
 239 2 thessalonians

v. 8, in flaming fire, Jesus will mete out ven- epistolary nomenclature the ‘body’ of the letter,
geance (ekdikēsis) on those who do not know or in the language of rhetoric the partitio (cov-
God and those who do not obey his gospel. ering vv. 1–2), with the probatio beginning at v. 3.
The notion of fire as a feature of the vengeance Paul begs them in connection with ‘the coming
God would inflict on his enemies originates in (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being
the OT (Isa 66:15–16) and here the theme is gathered together (episynagōgē ) to him’. In Hel-
linked to the activities of Jesus. There seems lenistic Greek the word parousia referred to the
no basis for seeking to distinguish those men- arrival of a high official at a city or town, to the
tioned into two groups comprising Gentiles accompaniment of elaborate greetings and cele-
and Israelites. v. 9, we now learn what the ven- brations. But the word came to be applied to the
geance will consist of: ‘the punishment of eter- imminent arrival of Jesus from heaven (1 Thess
nal destruction, separated from the presence of 2:19; 3:13: 4:15; 5:23; 1 Cor 15:23; Mt 24:27, 37, 39;
the Lord and from the glory of his might’. The Jas 5:7, 8). The notion of God gathering in his
punishment does not consist of total annihila- people is found in the OT, either from exile (Isa
tion, but of exclusion from God and, import- 27:13; 43:4–7; Jer 31:8) or for final salvation
antly in an honour-driven society, from his (2 Macc 2:7; Sir 36:10). In Psalms of Solomon
exalted and powerful honour. This vision is 17.26 it is said that the Messiah will gather in
very different from the tortured future in store the people. Modern parallels exist in the form of
for the wicked in later Christian texts. v. 10 the individuals who focus and lead a millennial
further specifies the occasion for these events: movement (Esler 1994: 99).
‘when he comes to be glorified [i.e. greatly hon- v. 2, the content of Paul’s entreaty is that his
oured] by his saints’ etc., while also evoking the addressees should not be quickly shaken in mind
fate of the blessed as contrasted with that of or alarmed, either by a prophetic utterance (‘a
those who will be punished. Honour is shared spirit’) or a word or letter ‘as though from us’,
among groups and here his followers revel in saying that ‘the day of the Lord is already here’.
the great things he has done. The notion of ‘the This is one of the most important verses in the
day (of judgement)’ is a common feature of letter. ‘A letter as though from us’ can mean
Israelite end-time speculation (see Joel 2:1–2; either a forgery or a letter which he did write
Zech 9:16; Mal 3:1–2). that is now being misinterpreted. If Paul had
vv. 11–12, ‘Paul’ informs the Thessalonians actually written 2 Thessalonians, he would have
that he regularly prays for them, by asking signally failed to address either alternative. For he
God to make them worthy of his calling and neither denounces the letter as a forgery nor
powerfully fulfil every good resolution and seeks directly to correct the misinterpretation.
work of faith. The object of all this is specified The statement is easier to interpret on the hy-
in v. 12: ‘so that the name of our Lord Jesus may pothesis of pseudonymity. Paul’s letters were
be glorified [i.e. greatly honoured] in you, and difficult and liable to be misunderstood (see 2
you in him, according to the grace of our Pet 3:15–16). This could have been the fate of 1
God and the Lord Jesus Christ’. Although this Thess 4:13–5:11. There were several statements in
situation has been described as ‘mutual glorifi- this passage that could have been used to sup-
cation’ (Menken 1994: 94), it is possible to im- port an argument that the day of the Lord had
prove on such a designation. For here we have come. 2 Thess 2:2 makes good sense as an at-
the typical Mediterranean phenomenon of shar- tempt by its author to counter a misinterpret-
ing honour among the members of a group. If ation of 1 Thess 4:13–5:11.
we understand God as father or patron, Jesus as Barclay (1993: 526), who considers 2 Thessa-
broker, and the believers as clients, we have a lonians authentic, canvasses earlier suggestions
fictive kinship arrangement in which Jesus hon- as to whether the ‘day of the Lord is here’
ours (and is honoured in) them and they honour means: (1) a literal event—altering the structure
(and are honoured in) him. of the universe, which is unlikely since no such
The final statement, ‘according to the grace of event had occurred in the experience of the
our God and the Lord Jesus Christ’, indicates a audience of 2 Thessalonians; (2) an internal
very close relationship between the two, if not and personal reality, entry into a new world,
necessarily equating Jesus with God (Best 1972: which remains a popular view, especially if
272–3). linked to some kind of spiritualized or Gnostic
understanding of the parousia; or (3) something
(2:1–12) The End and the Man of Lawlessness which has not yet occurred but is imminent,
v. 1, ‘Paul’ now moves on to what is called in an option that is now generally regarded as
2 thessalonians 240

grammatically impossible. Barclay himself pro- Isa 57:4) and in the Qumran literature (1QS 9:16,
poses a fourth alternative. It is possible to draw 22; CD 6:15; 13:14). In Jn 17:12 Judas is called ‘a son
from 1 Thessalonians a distinction that Paul did of destruction’. It is then stated that he (the
not himself make between parousia (4:13–18) and lawless one) ‘opposes and exalts himself above
the day of the Lord (5:1–11), the latter being every so-called god or object of worship, so that
associated with the sudden destruction of un- he takes his seat in the temple of God, declaring
believers. Perhaps the Thessalonians interpreted himself to be God’. While this figure plainly
certain calamitous events in the early 50s of the encapsulates the lawlessness (or the ‘sin’, if—as
first century as the sudden destruction of unbe- seems unlikely—the variant reading here is
lievers, thus triggering a belief that ‘the day of correct) which will characterize the apostasy
the Lord’ had arrived. If one regards the letter as preceding the End, it has not proved easy to
inauthentic and takes what is probably the identify him with any known character in Jew-
more likely view that the parousia and the day ish or Christian literature. It is even unclear
of the Lord would have been understood by the whether he is a human or supernatural figure,
recipients of 2 Thessalonians as referring to the although we should be careful to avoid the
same event, what meaning might one attach to modern tendency sharply to distinguish these
‘the day of the Lord is here’? One possibility is realms. Elsewhere we find false false messiahs
that people had appeared claiming to be Christ and prophets predicted for the time before the
and that such claims were troubling the target End (Mk 13:21–2) and presumably the person of
audience of this letter (so Menken 1994: 100–1). lawlessness is somewhat similar. We must pre-
Mk 13:6 (to be dated sometime shortly before or sume that in the millennial mythopoiesis (that
after 70 CE) provides a basis for this suggestion. is to say, the creation of myth, see Esler 1993:
vv. 3–4, Paul expresses concern that someone 186–7) which had already occurred in the com-
might deceive them. Deception prior to the end munity for which this letter was written the
is also mentioned in the Markan apocalypse person of lawlessness had been allocated a cen-
(13:5) and here seems to relate to the date of tral role. The details in v. 4 show how this
the parousia. The second clause in v. 3 opens mythopoiesis was able to draw upon existing
with the words ‘because unless’, which begin aspects in Israelite tradition in describing how
the protasis of an anacoluthon, a sentence con- the lawless person would behave. He will be like
taining two conditions, which continues until Antiochus IV Epiphanes who tried to extirpate
the end of v. 4 without being rounded off with Israelite religion and identity (in the period 167–
an apodosis, a statement of what will happen, 164 BCE), as described in 1 Macc 1:16–64 and Dan
presumably requiring something like ‘the par- 11:36–7, Pompey (who entered the temple in
ousia of the Lord will not occur’. The first con- Jerusalem; see Pss Sol. 17:11–15) and Caligula
dition required is the apostasy or rebellion who wanted to install statues of himself in the
(apostasia). The lack of specification as to who temple (Jos. J. W. 2.184–5).
will apostasize and in what way suggests that v. 5, ‘Paul’ asks if they do not remember that he
the author could count on the original recipi- used to tell them (i.e. on more than one occa-
ents of 2 Thessalonians knowing what was sion) of these things when he was still with them.
meant. For modern readers, however, both This statement, loosely based on 1 Thess 3:4,
aspects are difficult. At a general level the serves to provide an air of reality to the pseud-
word refers to the dramatic breakdown of the onymous fiction. There is no mention in 1 Thes-
legal, moral, social, and even natural order salonians of either the apostasy or the person of
which is predicted in certain Israelite and NT lawlessness. vv. 6–7, the author affirms that ‘you
texts of the period before the end (Jub. 23:14–21; know what is now restraining (katechon) him, so
2 Esd 5:1–13; 2 Tim 3:1–9; Jude 17–19). Yet uncer- that he may be revealed when his time comes.
tainty surrounds the issue of whom the apos- For the mystery of lawlessness (anomia) is already
tasy will involve: Israelites, Christ-followers, at work, but only until the one who now re-
Gentiles, or representatives from all three strains (katechōn) it is removed.’ These are ex-
possible groups. tremely difficult verses (see Lietaert Peerbolte
The second condition needing to be fulfilled 1997; Powell 1997). The chief problems have to
is the revealing of ‘the lawless one’ (lit. the do with the movement from a restraining power
person of lawlessness: ho anthrōpos tēs anomias), or thing to a restraining person, with the person
immediately described as ‘the one destined for of lawlessness as the implied subject of restraint,
destruction’ (lit. the son of destruction). Expres- and with the identity of the restrainer and the
sions similar to these occur in the OT (Ps 89:23; restraint. But even to translate the Greek using
 241 2 thessalonians

‘that or who restrains’ means opting for one is an OT context for God inspiring false
among several possibilities (others being ‘pos- prophets in 1 Kings 22:23 and Ezek 14:9, while
sess’ or ‘hold sway’). Possibly (see below), the an idea somewhat similar to what is said here
original readers of this letter knew what or who occurs at Rom 1:18–32.
was meant, although the expression does not
occur elsewhere in Jewish or Christian writings (2:13–17) Encouragement to Persevere vv.
dealing with the End. This phenomenon may 13–14, quite suddenly ‘Paul’ changes tack, by
have been an element of the mythopoiesis con- launching into a second thanksgiving (follow-
cerning the End with which they were familiar. ing the precedent in 1 Thess 2:13). The reason
The answer may simply be beyond us (Best 1972: for the thanks is that God has established the
301). Yet one option worth mentioning, sug- notional Thessalonian addressees (who stand
gested by Strobel (1961: 98–116) and based on for the original audience of this letter) as a
the possible influence of Hab 2:3 as interpreted differentiated and privileged group in the
in Jewish and Christian tradition, is that the world, with a particular history and a glorious
restraining power is God’s plan of salvation and destiny (which links the thanks to the previous
the restraining person is God himself. Less likely material about the End). They are ‘brothers
is the idea that the power is the Roman empire [NRSV has ‘‘brothers and sisters’’] beloved by
and the person is the emperor himself, especially the Lord’, whom God (as in OT traditions of
in view of the author’s lack of interest in the divine election) chose ‘from the beginning
political realm. Lietaert Peerbolte (1997), finally, [though the uncertain Gk. could also mean ‘‘as
makes the interesting suggestion that these the first fruits’’; NRSV] for salvation through
words are deliberately obscure, allowing sanctification (hagiasmos) by the Spirit and
‘Paul’—who has no answer for the delay of the through belief in the truth’. God called them
parousia—to create the illusion among the to this through ‘Paul’s’ gospel, to obtain the
readers of 2 Thessalonians that there is an answer exalted honour (doxa) of Jesus Christ. Such de-
of which the original Thessalonians were aware. scriptions serve the fundamental purpose of
v. 8, ‘then the lawless one (ho anomos) will be delineating their identity, that is, providing an-
revealed, whom the Lord (Jesus) will destroy swers to the always vital question ‘Who are we?’
with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him The word ‘sanctification’ in particular serves to
by the manifestation of his coming.’ Whatever distinguish them and their present experience
or whoever restrains the lawless person (an from the welter of idolatry and immorality im-
equivalent of ‘the person of lawlessness’ at plied as characteristic of the world outside the
v. 3), there is no doubt that it is Jesus who will group. On the other hand, ‘salvation’ expresses
kill him once he is revealed. The author’s deter- the future goal of their existence; it is very
mination to make this point leads him to it common for people to tell themselves who
before he has actually described the lawless they are in terms of their sense of where they
one’s revelation (in vv. 9–10). The manner of are going (Esler 1998: 42, 175). In this heavily
the killing, by ‘the breath of his mouth’, derives group-oriented culture, it is natural that the
from Isa 11:4 (‘by the breath of his lips he will kill members of the group will share in the honour
the impious’; LXX). vv. 9–10, in a second relative of their most honourable and honoured leader.
clause the author describes the coming of the v. 15, the author encourages them to stick
lawless one as taking place through Satan’s ac- resolutely to the traditions (paradoseis) which
tivity with ‘all power, signs, lying wonders, and they have received by word of mouth (dia
every kind of wicked deception for those who logou) or in a letter. It is likely that the original
are perishing’. The picture of signs and wonders recipients of 2 Thessalonians would have inter-
which will be worked by agents of evil before preted the letter mentioned here as 1 Thessalon-
the End is reminiscent of Mk 13:22; Rev 13:14; ians. The oral proclamation referred to was
19:20. vv. 11–12, ‘For this reason’, presumably presumably teaching they had already received
their failing to accept the love of the truth, with which ‘Paul’ concurred. We must imagine
God sends on them a power of delusion to a situation, therefore, in which the author is
make them believe in falsehood, ‘so that all saying in effect, ‘Just as the Thessalonians were
who have not believed the truth but took pleas- told by Paul to rely on his earlier letter and the
ure in unrighteousness (adikia) will be con- teaching given them in the community, so too
demned’. Menken (1994: 117) points out that must you’. vv. 16–17, moving easily from thanks
divine causality appears here to match the to intercession, ‘Paul’ now offers a prayer that
human causality of the preceding verse. There Jesus Christ and the God ‘who loved us and
2 thessalonians 242

through grace gave us eternal comfort (para- are following and will continue to follow his
klēsis) and good hope’ might comfort (parakalein) commands. In a pseudonymous letter this is a
and strengthen their hearts ‘in every good work way of encouraging the target audience to adhe-
and word’. The prominence of Jesus in this re to the message associated with Paul. Specifics
prayer indicates the fairly high Christology of the instruction will be provided in 3:6–12. v. 5,
characteristic of the letter. ‘Good hope’ seems ‘Paul’ prays that the Lord may ‘direct your hearts
to derive from mystery cults as a way of refer- to the love of God and to the steadfastness of
ring to life after death (Best 1972: 321); mystery Christ’. This prayer takes the audience to the
cults, such as those of Eleusis, offered their source of their ability to carry out the instruc-
adherents a relation of intense communion, tions. It is probable that the author appeals to
often ecstatic in nature, with a god. Christ’s steadfastness to provide them with a
role model during the current difficulties they
(3:1–5) Mutual Prayer Many critics arguing for are experiencing.
a rhetorical structure to the letter regard v. 1 as
beginning its exhortatio. Epistolary theorists tend (3:6–15) Warning against Loafers v. 6, ‘Paul’
to see here the beginning of a series of moral commands the ‘Thessalonians’ to avoid every
admonitions (Jewett 1986: 224–5). vv. 1–2, in a member of the congregation who is living ‘in a
way somewhat similar to that of 1 Thess 5:25, disorderly way’ (ataktōs) and not in accordance
‘Paul’ asks the adelphoi, literally ‘brothers’ but with the tradition (paradosis) they received from
presumably also meant to include female mem- him. The word ataktōs appears again at v. 11,
bers of the congregation (so perhaps ‘brethren’), where the author describes how certain of his
to ‘pray for us, so that the word of the Lord may addressees are behaving, and ‘Paul’ himself
spread rapidly and be glorified [i.e. ‘‘greatly denies he behaved in such a way at v. 7. It is
honoured’’] everywhere, just as it is among reasonably clear from the associations of the
you, and that we may be rescued from wicked word in vv. 6–15 that by ‘disorderly’ the author
and evil people; for not all have faith’. If 2 means ‘not in accordance with the discipline of
Thessalonians is pseudonymous, such a senti- working and supporting oneself’, thus behaving
ment conveys an aura of verisimilitude, but also like a loafer (hence ‘living in idleness’ in the
serves to legitimate—that is, to explain and NRSV). Scholars have long explained this idle-
justify the existence and identity of—whatever ness as rooted in ‘eschatological’ excitement
community this letter was originally intended produced by a belief in the imminence of the
for. They would be reassured of the value of parousia of Christ (see R. Russell 1988: 105–7).
their faith and of the fact that their sharp differ- Several examples of millennialism in modern
entiation from sinful and uncomprehending times, moreover, have revealed that a belief in
outsiders was just what Paul had indicated the imminent or actual transformation of the
would be the lot of the Thessalonians. Yet a world can produce, not surprisingly, a break-
similar conclusion could be drawn if the letter down in belief in the need for everyday activ-
is authentic, only now it would be the Thessa- ities, such as work. Rejection of work and the
lonians themselves for whom the point was usual social order can be associated with exag-
being made. The hostile reception that Paul gerated behaviour and often a belief in a return
and his co-workers had received figures both to a Golden Age which preceded the current
in the clearly genuine correspondence (such as period and its tribulations (Jewett 1986: 173–5;
Rom 15:30–1; 2 Cor 1:8–11; and 1 Thess 2: 2) and Esler 1994: 101). In the unknown community for
also in the deutero-Pauline writings, such as in 2 whom 2 Thessalonians was written it is likely
Tim 3:10–11; 4:16–18). that such attitudes had made an appearance and
v. 3, the author asserts the faithfulness of the needed to be attacked. If Menken (1994: 130–3) is
Lord, who will strengthen and guard them from correct in assuming that underlying the order
the evil one, and this quality stands in stark which ‘Paul’ would like to be restored is the rule
contrast to the lack of faith (and the evil asso- of work that originated in the sin of Adam
ciated with it) mentioned in the previous verse. and Eve in the garden of Eden in Gen 3:17–19,
It is noteworthy that although this statement is it is possible that those refusing to work were
probably based on 1 Thess 5:24, here the faithful appealing to the alleged reestablishment of
one is the Lord (that is, Jesus Christ) and not prelapsarian bliss to support their position.
God, which indicates the move to a higher R. Russell (1988) proposes a different view
Christology in 2 Thessalonians. v. 4, now ‘Paul’ (which has been challenged recently by Roma-
expresses his confidence in the Lord that they niuk 1993), that this idleness has nothing to do
 243 2 thessalonians

with end-time excitement, but is a result of the millennial belief that ‘the day of the Lord is
urban poor finding support within the social already here’ (2:2).
networks of Christ-fearers and then giving up
work. A similar view has more recently been (3:13–18) Conclusion vv. 13–16, there is a great
presented by Jewett (1993), who proposes that diversity of views among those advocating epis-
the early Christ-movement was likely to have tolary or rhetorical analyses of the letter as to
been located in the tenement houses of the non- where the divisions fall in these verses (Jewett
élite, where the system of internal support 1986: 224–5). The first four verses (13–16) can
would have been jeopardized by the refusal of either be connected with the previous section,
some members to contribute. which would mean ‘Paul’ wanted the ‘Thessa-
vv. 7–8, ‘Paul’ offers himself as a model for lonians’ to do good to the disorderly and idle
them, inasmuch as he did not exhibit the dis- troublemakers, or, more likely, constitute a sep-
order of idleness when he was amongst them, arate section at the end of the letter—beginning
but worked day and night so as not to be a with a general exhortation to them to do good
burden on them by eating at their expense. (v. 13). Those who do not are to be ostracized
Imitation of Paul is a reasonably common (although, as we see in the next verse, only to a
theme in the genuine Pauline epistles (1 Cor limited extent) so that they may be put to shame
4:16, 11:1; Phil 3:17; 1 Thess 1:6). v. 8b is closely (v. 14). Here we see the typical association in
based on 1 Thess 2:9, and there are similar state- Mediterranean culture between honour and
ments at 1 Cor 9:12; 15–18; 2 Cor 11:7–8; 12:13. In group-belonging. Nevertheless, such a person
these passages, however, Paul is seeking to allay is not to be treated as an enemy, but admon-
any suspicion that he preached the gospel for ished as a brother (v. 15). The person is socially
personal profit, while in 2 Thessalonians the separated as a form of discipline and for a
point is made to encourage the target audience limited time (subject no doubt to a change of
to imitate him in this respect. v. 9, the author behaviour on the malefactor’s part). Exclusion
notes he had a right to be supported by the from the community for various reasons and
congregation, even though he did not exercise for a limited time was also practised at Qumran
it, in order to offer them a model for imitation, a (see e.g. the CD 8:16–18). v. 16, ‘Paul’ prays that
theme introduced in v. 7. v. 10, by mentioning the Lord will give them peace at all times and
that he had previously told them in their pres- remain with them; in 1 Cor 14:33 Paul notes that
ence that anyone unwilling to work should not God is a God of peace not disorder.
be fed, ‘Paul’ makes explicit the precise nature of v. 17, it was a practice in ancient letter-writing
the disorder which has been implied hitherto— for an author to use a scribe and add a few
the fact that some members of the congregation words at the end in his own handwriting. Paul
are living off the others. There are parallels to adopts this practice elsewhere in 1 Cor 16:21; Gal
this saying (which has been frequently cited out 6:11; Col 4:18 (leaving aside the issue of whether
of its context ever since), in Prov 10:4; 12:11; Colossians is authentic or not). This device
19:15; and Pseudo-Phocylides, Sentences, 153–4. would only be effective as a proof of authenti-
v. 11, here again is a reference to disorder, city in relation to the original of the letter, since
now with an unequivocal core meaning the difference in the two hands apparent there
brought to the surface in v. 10, together with would disappear in subsequent copies. Al-
the disturbing news—expressed in a pun—that though the author of 2 Thessalonians seems to
some of them are not busy at work (ergazome- claim—wrongly—that this was Paul’s universal
nous) but busybodies (periergazomenous). Presum- practice, Jewett’s (1986: 6) conclusion that this
ably the author has in mind here some itself indicates authenticity since otherwise the
exaggerated type of behaviour of the sort com- author would be casting doubt on other Pauline
mon among millennial movements, but its pre- letters not bearing the addition is unwarranted
cise nature remains unclear. Not only are they if the letter were written before the collection of
not working, but they are interfering with the Paul’s letters towards the end of the first cen-
work of others. v. 12, ‘Paul’ follows up the state- tury. On the other hand, 1 Thessalonians does
ment in v. 11 with a direct exhortation to the not bear Paul’s self-attestation and this strength-
troublemakers here: ‘to do their work quietly ens Jewett’s point if 2 Thessalonians was
and to earn their own living’ (lit. eat their own originally directed to Christ-followers who pos-
bread). The reference to quietness here suggests sessed 1 Thessalonians. The self-conscious (and
that their current state is one of loud activity unique) way in which the author draws atten-
or excitement, no doubt associated with the tion to the practice in 3:17 by saying that ‘This is
the pastoral epistles 244

the mark’ (sēmeion, sign) is itself suspicious. v. 18, Marxsen, W. (1968), Introduction to the New Testament
the letter ends with a standard benediction. (Oxford: Blackwell).
—— (1982), Der zweite Thessalonicherbrief (Zurich:
Theologischer Verlag).
REFERENCES
Masson, C. (1957), Les Deux Epı̂tres de Saint Paul
Aus, R. D. (1976), ‘The Relevance of Isaiah 66.7 to aux Thessaloniciens (Neuchatel: Delachaux and
Revelation 12 and 2 Thessalonians 1’, ZNW 67: Niestlé).
252–68. Meade, D. G. (1986), Pseudonymity and Canon: An Inves-
Bailey, J. A. (1978–9), ‘Who Wrote II Thessalonians?’, tigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Author-
NTS 25:131–45. ity in Jewish and Early Christian Tradition, WUNT 39
Barclay, M. G. (1993), ‘Conflict in Thessalonika’, CBQ (Tübingen: Mohr).
53: 512–30. Menken, M. J. J. (1994), 2 Thessalonians (London: Rou-
Best, E. (1972), A Commentary on the First and Second tledge).
Epistles to the Thessalonians, Black’s New Testament Moxnes, H. (1991), ‘Patron–Client Relations and the
Commentaries (London: Adam & Charles Black). New Community in Luke–Acts’, in J. H. Neyrey
Duling, D. C. (1996), ‘Millennialism’, in R. L. Rohrbaugh (ed.) (1991), The Social World of Luke–Acts: Models for
(ed.), The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation Interpretation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson), 241–68.
(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson), 183–205. Powell, C. E. (1997), ‘The Identity of the ‘‘Restrainer’’
Esler, P. F. (1993), ‘Political Oppression in Jewish in 2 Thessalonians 2:6–7’, BSacr 154: 320–32.
Apocalyptic Literature: A Social-Scientific App- Romaniuk, K. (1993), ‘Les Thessaloniciens étaient-ils
roach’, in Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture, des paresseux?’, ETL 69: 142–5.
28: 181–99. Russell, D. F. (1964), The Meaning and Message of Jewish
—— (1994), The First Christians in their Social Worlds: Apocalyptic (London: SCM).
Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpret- Russell, R. (1988), ‘The Idle in 2 Thess. 3.6–12: An
ation (London: Routledge). Eschatological or a Social Problem?’, NTS 34:
—— (1998), Galatians (London: Routledge). 105–19.
Jewett, R. (1986), The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Seesemann, H. (1967), ‘Pateō and compounds in NT’,
Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress). TDNTv. 943–5.
—— (1993), ‘Tenement Churches and Communal Strobel, A. (1961), Untersuchungen zum eschatologischen
Meals in the Early Church: The Implications of a Verzögerungs-problem: Auf Grund der Spätjüdisch-
Form-Critical Analysis of 2 Thessalonians 3:10’, urchristlichen Geschichte von Habakuk 2, 2 ff. (Leiden:
Biblical Research, 38: 23–42. Brill).
Lietaert Peerbolte, L. J. (1997), ‘The Katechon, Katechōn Trudinger, P. (1995), ‘The Priority of 2 Thessalonians
of 2 Thess. 2:6–7’, NovT 39: 138–50. Revisited: Some Fresh Evidence’, Downside Review,
Malina, B. J. (1993), The New Testament World: Insights 113: 31–5.
from Cultural Anthropology, rev. edn. Orig. 1981 Wrede, W. (1903), Die Echtheit des zweiten Thessaloniker-
(Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox). brief untersucht, TU NS 9/2 (Leipzig: Hinrichs).

13. The Pastoral Epistles

clare drury
INTRODUCTION matter, their teaching concentrating on church
order and ethical exhortation. Sandwiched be-
These three letters purporting to be from Paul
tween them, 2 Timothy is more personal than
to two of his close companions clearly belong
the other two; Paul is in prison, while in the
together as a set. They have always been placed
other two he is free. His character and behav-
together in the New Testament, their concerns
iour in adversity are presented as models to
and language are shared. Certain key words and
Timothy which arouse the reader’s sympathy
ideas permeate the three, connecting them and
and admiration.
holding together what at first sight might seem
a rather amorphous collection of ethical injunc-
A. Authorship. 1. The claim that Paul himself
tions and doctrinal assertions. 1 Timothy and
wrote the letters seems at first sight obvious and
Titus are very similar in character and subject-
incontrovertible. All three begin with a greeting
 245 the pastoral epistles

from the apostle and contain personal notes 4. By the end of the first century the figure of
and asides such as ‘I urge you, as I did when I Paul had assumed authority for many in the
was on my way to Macedonia’ (1 Tim 1:3); ‘I left church and, as his significance grew, so did
you behind in Crete’ (Titus 1:5) and ‘When you narratives about his life and interpretations of
come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at his teaching. The Acts of the Apostles provides
Troas, also the books and above all the parch- evidence of this sort of development; the figure
ments’ (2 Tim 4:13). Combined with such emo- of Paul is employed to present the author’s own
tional appeals as 2 Tim 1:3–5; 4:6–8, the image of the Gentile church and its origins. In
impression of Pauline authorship seems clear. Paul’s speeches in Acts there is nothing that
2. But things are not so straightforward: signs directly contradicts the ideas we find in Paul’s
of the late date of the letters proliferate. The own letters, but the picture that emerges is one
organization of the church under officers such of a more conciliatory and less theologically
as bishops and deacons is well advanced (e.g. 1 sophisticated figure. Both Acts and the Pastoral
Tim 3:1–13; 5:3–13) and mirrors the situation Epistles witness to a time in the church’s devel-
found in late first-century and early second- opment when Paul had become a legendary
century Christian writings such as 1 Clement figure and different groups were competing to
and the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp. The be regarded as his true successors. This trend
situation of the letters seems inauthentic too; continued well into the second century: the
they are addressed to two travelling compan- apocryphal Acts of Paul provide evidence of
ions whom ‘Paul’ has apparently just left (1 Tim speculation and legends which grew up around
1:3; Titus 1:5) and expects to see again soon (1 the figure of Paul. The longest and most com-
Tim 3:14; 2 Tim 4:13; Titus 3:12). Yet they contain plete of them, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, pro-
teaching of the most rudimentary kind which vides a model of the woman’s role as teacher
close associates might be expected to know. and baptizer that the Pastoral Epistles deplore (1
3. The teaching that characterizes the Pas- Tim 2:11–15). According to Marcion, the second-
torals lacks the fire and passion of the original century heretic, Paul alone had presented the
Pauline epistles; the immediacy of eschato- true Christian message of love and grace.
logical expectation that lay behind much of 5. Thus the origin of the Pastoral Epistles
Paul’s teaching (e.g. 1 Cor 7:17–31) has gone. begins to become clear: the author emphasizes
Judgement and the future appearance of Christ the importance of handing on true teaching
are still expected, but it is the ordered life of the through leaders such as Timothy and Titus,
community that is focal. There is no mention of authorized by Paul so that false doctrine could
key Pauline ideas such as the cross, the church be refuted and its promulgators condemned,
as the body of Christ, or covenant. Paul’s strug- ‘Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to
gle to identify the role of the law in his new you. Avoid the profane chatter and contradic-
understanding of salvation is absent; in the Pas- tions of what is falsely called knowledge’ (1 Tim
torals, the law fulfils its normal function of 6:20; cf. 2 Tim 2:1–2, 14–19; Titus 1:1–5; 3:8–11).
identifying, restricting, and punishing evildoers While a small and declining number of scholars
(1 Tim 1:8–11). The teaching of the Pastorals still argue for Pauline authorship, most prefer to
focuses upon the ordered life of the community see the author’s modesty and his admiration for
emphasizing such virtues as piety or godliness Paul behind his pseudonymity; he was passing
(e.g. 1 Tim 2:2; 2 Tim 3:5; Titus 1:1) and good on Pauline tradition and the credit was due to
conscience (1 Tim 1:5, 19; 3:9; 2 Tim 1:3). Individ- Paul rather than to him. The letters can be seen
ual behaviour is bound up in the well-being of as documents written in and for a community
the whole group, and there is a clear sense that which wanted to hold fast to what they consid-
the church has a future as a community; its ered true Pauline teaching in the face of perse-
organization is designed to enable sound doc- cution or opposition from different kinds of
trine to continue (1 Tim 4:6; 2 Tim 3:10). The Christian teachers. On the other hand, some of
ethical teaching is not solely inward-looking, Paul’s teaching on practical matters—teaching
but also aims to ensure that the church is ac- about the remarriage of widows for example,
ceptable to the outside world. The behaviour of and about the ideal ascetic life—is contradicted
its members must not draw attention to them as in the Pastorals (e.g. 1 Cor 7:7–8; cf. 1 Tim 2:11–15;
part of a new and suspect cult, they must con- 3:2–5). The situation the author was addressing
form in every way to the moral standards and was so different he felt he had the authority to
expectations of the larger community. alter Paul’s original teaching.
the pastoral epistles 246

6. This implies that the personal notes and the tradition to two junior companions, Tim-
reminiscences, which occur throughout the let- othy and Titus, who, in turn, are instructed to
ters (1 Tim 1:3; 2 Tim 4:13; Titus 1:5), are con- transmit it to the communities in their care.
scious forgeries included to add authenticity. So Within these communities, officers of blameless
some scholars (e.g. Miller 1997) have suggested character will be charged with preserving and
that the Pastorals are a semi-pseudonymous handing on this sound doctrine and ethical in-
work, containing fragments of genuine Pauline structions to the rest. In this way there could be
material with later teaching added to these no doubt of the authenticity of the teaching the
‘notes’ to form the epistles as we have them. author presents; it has been transmitted by a
But a growing number of scholars see the Pas- direct and faultless route. The character of the
torals as entirely pseudonymous. They argue for officers of the community is a major theme in 1
complete and intentional pseudonimity; the Timothy and Titus. They were key people in
writer used the device of the letter form, and maintaining true doctrine and in keeping
included the kind of personal details that would order and discipline within the community.
convince his readers of the letters’ authenticity. 3. Alternating with instructions about
If the device was successful the author’s oppon- church organization and ethical teaching are
ents would be unassailably refuted. The per- brief kerygmatic statements about God’s plan
sonal notes are trivial in nature and do not fit of salvation (1 Tim 2:5–6; 3:16; 6.13–16; 2 Tim
with details of Paul’s life we know from his 1:9–10; 2:11–13; Titus 3:4–7). These doctrinal sec-
undoubted letters, or from the story as pre- tions present familiar ideas about salvation his-
sented in Acts. But they were an important tory, none of them inconsistent with Pauline
part of the fiction and for the author’s purpose and other New Testament teaching. Indeed
to work, the fiction must be convincing. Pauline language is sometimes employed; but
the ideas are not developed theologically. Their
B. Character and Situation of the Pastorals. 1. form is often rhythmical; they may have litur-
The concerns expressed in the Pastoral Epistles gical origins.
focus on sound doctrine and good behaviour. 4. The organization of the church and the
The two are closely linked in the author’s mind relationship of its members to one another is
and are contrasted with the ideas and behaviour based on the Graeco-Roman household. House-
of his opponents. A group within the author’s hold codes are found elsewhere in the NT epis-
church is trying to convert members of the tles (Col 3:18–4:1; Eph 5:22–6:9; 1 Pet 2:18–3:7)
community to its own way of thinking and but their use in the Pastorals is developing so
living (e.g. 1 Tim 1:3–7, 18–20; 4:1–10; 6:3–4; 2 that the church can be described as the house-
Tim 2:24–6; 3:13–17; 4:3–5; Titus 1:10–2:2). This hold of God (1 Tim 3:15). The development is not
group of people, heterodox from our author’s complete—the terminology is used sometimes
point of view, was having such success in per- in its original sense and sometimes with the
suading others of its ideas, that the Pastoral sense of church office (e.g. in 1 Tim 5:1, 17, the
Epistles were written to contradict their theories Greek word presbuteros is used both for ‘older
and denounce their behaviour. They are char- man’ and for ‘elder’) but evolution can be seen
acterized as disputatious and given to theo- to be taking place.
logical speculation and argument—teaching 5. In the passages of ethical teaching the
which leads to disharmony in the community Pastoral Epistles share some of the ideas about
(e.g. 1 Tim 6:3–10). The methods the author how a virtuous life should be lived with con-
employs to contradict false teaching and to temporary pagan philosophers as well as with
encourage attachment to his point of view are other Christian and Jewish writers. Compar-
a combination of exhortations to virtue and isons with the works of Plutarch, who lived in
condemnations of the teachings of his oppon- the second half of the first century, and Epicte-
ents with warnings of the dire results of follow- tus, a Stoic philosopher of the first half of the
ing them. Because we have no independent second century, illuminate our understanding
record, we cannot be certain who the oppon- of the Pastorals’ teaching about moderation or
ents were or exactly what they were teaching; restraint (sōphrosunē) and piety or godliness
we have to reconstruct what we can from the (eusebeia). These terms describe the kind of
epistles themselves. civic and private virtues that were common
2. The author counters his opponents with subjects for discussion among Greek and
his appeal to tradition. Paul, well known and Roman moralists at the time. In the Pastorals
revered as the apostle to the Gentiles, hands on the meaning of eusebeia is both doctrinal and
 247 the pastoral epistles

ethical; it is a word used to describe the kind of threefold salutation is slightly different from
lifestyle the author advocates that arises out of a those found in other Pauline letters. Grace and
belief in the doctrinal claims he makes; good peace are familiar; here, mercy is added in the
behaviour is inextricably linked with belief in middle of the formula, where ‘to you’ is found
sound doctrine. Pagan writers also help to put elsewhere (e.g. Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal
in perspective social issues such as the role of 1:3). Mercy is a particular concern in the Pastoral
women. The place of women in society was as Epistles, where the word appears five times of
much an issue for pagan writers as it was for the ten occurrences in the whole Pauline cor-
Christians (see Beard, North, and Price 1998: i. pus. God the Father, or Creator, and Christ Jesus
297–9). our Lord are invoked again at the end of the
salutation as the origins of Christian ‘virtues’.
COMMENTARY
(1:3–7) The situation envisaged at the opening
1 Timothy of the letter is that Paul has left Timothy behind
(1:1–2) The form of the opening greeting is fa- in Ephesus while he has travelled on into Mace-
miliar to readers of NT epistles. It follows the donia. Such a situation cannot be fitted into any
conventions of letter-writing of the first few cen- reconstruction of Paul’s life that can be pieced
turies CE, with the sender naming himself and together either from his own letters or from the
greeting the recipient of the letter. Here, the narrative in Acts. They provide the kind of
writer names himself as Paul, apostle of Christ personal details that lead some readers to
Jesus, as he does with minor variations in the argue for authenticity, while others claim that
other two letters. The recipient here is Timothy, it is exactly the kind of information a pseud-
well known from Pauline epistles and Acts as onymous author would include to add verisim-
Paul’s companion and fellow-worker (e.g. Rom ilitude to his pretence, bringing the characters
16:21; 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10; Col 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1; Acts to life by placing them in relationship to one
16:1). Several points stand out in this introduc- another in a real setting.
tion: Paul’s authority is stressed and is in no Having established his credentials, the author
doubt; not only is he an apostle of Christ Jesus, introduces one of the main concerns of his
he is commanded by God. The formality of the letter; he wants to combat false teaching and
greeting, unexpected in a letter between friends to discredit the teachers. The teachers cannot be
and colleagues, has contributed to the belief that identified with any certainty, nor what they
the letter is inauthentic. At the heart of the greet- were teaching. 1:3–11 provides clues about the
ing two unusual epithets are employed, God is teaching; we are told that the opponents oc-
called ‘our Saviour’ and Christ, ‘our hope’. Out- cupy themselves with ‘myths and endless ge-
side the Pastorals, only in Cor 1:27 is Christ iden- nealogies which lead to speculations’ (v. 4). It
tified as ‘hope’ and there it is ‘Christ the hope of may be that a Gnostic group was teaching in the
glory’; God our Saviour is found in the Pastorals author’s community and perverting the faith as
a number of times, but elsewhere in the NT only he understood it by mythological speculations
in the Magnificat (Lk 1:47) and in the doxology of about creation and salvation. Because his
the epistle of Jude (Jude 25). The writer wants to readers must have known who he was referring
make it clear that the message he brings is the to, he does not need to identify his opponents
true message of salvation, so he presents himself specifically, but sets his view of Christian virtues
as the apostle Paul, commissioned by God the such as love, a pure heart, and a good con-
origin of salvation. Hope and salvation are science against the vices of speculative theory
closely connected; the work of salvation started and vain discussion.
at the incarnation will be continued through the
church and completed at Christ’s return. (1:8–11) Here he adds a further dimension to
v. 2, Timothy, the recipient of the letter, is the description of his opponents. They desire
called a ‘loyal child in the faith’ as is Titus in to be teachers of the law, presumably the Jewish
Titus 1:4. The word gnēsios, translated ‘loyal’, law, without understanding what it is they are
implies legitimacy in the Greek. In distinction talking about; its true meaning is to regulate the
to others who will be invoked, later (e.g. Hyme- behaviour of lawless and disobedient people.
naeus and Alexander, 1:20), Timothy is Paul’s The vices listed in vv. 9–10 are an odd collec-
legitimate successor. He is a child and therefore tion, including specific acts such as murder,
inferior to Paul, but the tradition passed from matricide, and parricide alongside general char-
one to the other is true and authoritative. The acteristics such as sinfulness, unholiness, and
the pastoral epistles 248

profanity. At different levels such behaviour and less forgiving. Acts is much closer to this
would incur disapproval in almost any society, passage when it speaks of the ignorance of
not just under Jewish law. The list is obviously unbelievers before their conversion (e.g. 3:17;
meant to be contrasted with the list of virtues in 13:27; 17:23).
1:5. The writer’s central theme, that good doc- The central Christian belief (v. 15), that Christ
trine leads to good behaviour, is contrasted with Jesus came into the world to save sinners, is
the effects of following unsound teaching. He introduced by a formula that assumes general
does not explain this teaching very clearly; but acceptance. The formula is found five times in
simply by placing the lists alongside one an- the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim
other he points up the contrast. 2:11; Titus 3:8), often, as here, drawing attention
The qualities belonging to the faith, such as to a significant doctrinal statement. It is not
love issuing from a pure heart and a good con- clear why the author uses the phrase with
science, are not typical of the teaching in Paul’s some doctrinal assertions and not with others.
genuine letters. Paul would certainly not dissent Often, as in this case, it seems that a quotation is
from the ideas expressed, but he uses different being employed. The significance of the expres-
language to describe them. The Pastor’s view of sion, ‘Christ came into the world to save sin-
the law is very different from Paul’s own too. ners’, lies in the second half of the statement:
For Paul the law symbolized the old dispensa- the writer is not so much interested in the pre-
tion, and its relationship to salvation brought existence of Christ, which may be implied, as in
through Christ was extremely complex; it was the soteriological effect of his coming (cf. 3:16
God-given but restrictive and negative in its and 2 Tim 1:10). It introduces the idea of Paul’s
effects (e.g. Rom 7:4–25; Gal 3:1–14). The Pastor, sinfulness which in turn shows him as a proto-
on the other hand, sees it in a much more type believer and recipient of grace. Patience or
mundane way: it is a God-given guide to behav- forbearance (makrothumia) is a defining charac-
iour, which, when abused, works against sound teristic of God in relationship with his people in
teaching. the Jewish Scriptures. The words found in Ex
34.6–7 where God is described as ‘merciful and
(1:12–17) 1:3–11 and 18–20 provide a framework gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in
for these verses. This biographical section, illus- steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping stead-
trating God’s mercy to his apostle Paul, has the fast love for the thousandth generation’ are
effect of giving Paul tremendous prominence. repeated and echoed frequently in later Jewish
The section takes the form of a thanksgiving, writings to contrast the long-suffering con-
and describes the radical volte-face of the some- stancy of God with the sinfulness and fickle
time persecutor turned faithful disciple. The nature of his people (Jon 4:2; 2 Macc 6:14–16;
story is familiar not only from Acts (9:1–22; Wis 11:23; 12:16). Here the attributes have been
22:3–21; 26:9–20), but also from 1 Cor 15:8–10 transferred to Christ, through whom God is
and Phil 3:1–5. The story of the complete con- working out salvation. Eternal life is in the fu-
version of the persecutor is a tale worth telling. ture, it is a focus for belief grounded in Christ
But here more than anywhere else the fate of ‘our hope’ (1:1) for the future and based on what
Paul is inextricably linked with the story of has already been achieved.
salvation. ‘Christ Jesus came into the world to
save sinners—of whom I am the foremost.’ (1:18–20) This section follows awkwardly from
Paul’s sinfulness is vividly described: ‘I formerly the doxology in v. 17 and it is far from clear what
a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a man of vio- ‘these instructions’ refers to. It may look back to
lence’, but he ‘received mercy’ because he acted 1:3 where Timothy is urged to give certain in-
out of ignorance. The sharp contrast between structions, or forward to the injunction to ‘fight
the persecutor and the believer is shown to be the good fight’ later in the same verse. The word
an intentional part of God’s plan so that Paul paraggelia, translated here as ‘instruction’, occurs
might be an example for others, to demonstrate with its cognates six times in 1 Timothy (cf. Tim
above all the perfect patience of Jesus Christ. So 1:3; 4:11; 5:7; 6:13, 17) demonstrating how import-
the tale serves a dual purpose; Paul is a typical ant was the passing on of sound doctrine
example of a convert, but his special case gives through properly commissioned people. The
him a special position as an apostle as the next prophecies referred to in v. 18 are not to be
few verses show. Paul himself talks of his for- understood as scriptural prophecies, but recall
mer life in 1 Cor 15:9 and Phil 3:4–8, to make a prophetic experiences such as that described in
similar point, but here the language is stronger Acts 13:1–3 and referred to in 1 Tim 4:14.
 249 the pastoral epistles

The imagery of fighting or warfare was wide- particularly kings and those in authority, and
spread among philosophers and religious not just for members of the community. For
groups in the ancient world and is found else- God is Creator and Saviour, and desires that
where in the NT epistles (1 Cor 9:7; 2 Cor 10:3–6; every human being should be saved. Prayer for
Eph 6:10–17; 2 Tim 2:3–7, where the image is the emperor caused difficulties for Jews and
linked with that of athletic competition). The Christians; their refusal to acknowledge his au-
repetition of the virtues of faith and a good thority sometimes led to persecutions, but there
conscience from 1:5 provides a framework for are a number of passages in the NT which
the central section of this chapter. Further em- follow the same line as this (Rom 13.1–7; 1 Pet
phasis is given by reference to two men, Hyme- 2:14, 17; Titus 3:1; Acts passim). The aim of such
naeus and Alexander, who have ‘reject[ed] prayer was to avoid the possibility of persecu-
conscience’ and ‘suffered shipwreck in the tion, and so lead a peaceful life ‘in godliness
faith’. They have therefore been ‘turned over to and dignity’. There is similar teaching in other
Satan’. As in 1 Cor 5:5, this is a powerful image first- and second-century Jewish and Christian
describing the radical effects of exclusion from writers, and the reasons given often echo those
the Christian community. Hymenaeus is men- given here (e.g. 1 Clem. 61; Tert. Apol. 30; Jos. J. W.
tioned again, alongside Philetus, at 2 Tim 2:17, 2.197). The nouns translated ‘godliness’ and ‘dig-
where their talk is said to spread like gangrene. nity’ are characteristic of the Pastorals and be-
Alexander the coppersmith is mentioned in 2 tray their Hellenistic setting; they translate
Tim 4:14 where he is said to have done Paul words (eusebeia and semnotēs) found elsewhere
great harm. It is impossible to say whether in the NT only in Acts and 2 Peter. They illus-
both refer to the same man. Their rejection of trate the results of living in harmony with the
the faith is to be contrasted with the steadfast- authorities; the ability to devote oneself to the
ness of Paul and Timothy; by the end of the first worship of God which results in a respectable
chapter, we are left with a clear impression of and responsible life not outwardly distinct from
the apostle and of his legitimate successor; they that of their pagan neighbours. Knowledge of
are the transmitters of the true teaching of the the truth recurs in 2 Tim 2:25; 3:7; Titus 1:1, and
church. helps emphasize the accessibility of the Chris-
tian message to all reasonable people.
Church Organization and Behaviour (2:1–3:13)
The discussion in chs. 2 and 3 changes from (2:5–6) presents a summary of the true teach-
concern about the opposition to a description ing that is the focus of that Christian message. It
of the kind of behaviour that should character- appears to contain a quotation (NRSV presents
ize members of the church towards both one it as verse), and is a succinct telling of the drama
another and outsiders. The detailed arrange- of salvation in a rhythmical and poetic form—a
ments for the leadership of this household and kind of credal statement (cf. 1 Tim 3:16; 6.13–16;
relationships within it suggest that the church is 2 Tim 1:9–10; 2:11–13; Titus 3:4–7). God is one
becoming more at home in the world. For Paul, and the Saviour of all people. Christ’s role is as
who felt he was living at the end of the age, mediator; he alone links God and humankind.
there was a strong tension between living in this His humanity is stressed to show solidarity with
age but belonging to the next. This not only those he saves—the same word is used in Greek
affected his sense of purpose but his ethical for ‘human’ and ‘humankind’. The word ‘medi-
teaching as well. Now the situation is different. ator’ is applied to Christ in the NT only here and
Eschatological hope is still very much alive in Hebrews (8:6; 9:15; 12:24, where he is medi-
(e.g. 6:14–15, 18–19), but there is no sense of ator of the covenant as Moses was in Gal 3:19).
urgency or immediacy. There is a more long- The emphasis on a single God and a single
term viewpoint; the church must be firmly mediator may be an attack on the kind of Gnos-
established, and respectable, so as to avoid tic ‘myths and speculations’ referred to in 1:4,
adverse publicity. and the stress on Christ’s humanity may have
been included to refute Docetism.
(2:1–7) Prayer is the first duty of a member of Christ’s self-giving as a ransom, also found in
the community. Four words are used to de- Titus 2:14, uses language similar to Paul’s in
scribe the prayers, ‘supplications, prayers, inter- Romans 3:24 and 8:23 and to that used in Mk
cessions, and thanksgivings’ but no distinction 10:45, Mt 20:28, where ‘he came . . . to give his
is made between them. More significant is life as a ransom for many’. Here, by contrast, the
that prayers are to be made for everyone, language is totally inclusive; he gave his life as a
the pastoral epistles 250

ransom for all. The language of ransom implies was no doubt as true among Christian women
that payment is being made to obtain the free- as non-Christian women. But like other conser-
dom of captives or slaves and has as its back- vative writers, Christian and non-Christian, the
ground both the manumission of slaves and the Pastor is concerned that women should remain
freeing of Israel from Egypt at the Exodus. By in what he perceives as their proper, subordinate
the time the Pastoral Epistles were written, the position. Other NT writers make the same sort of
language of ransom had become central in point, particularly about the public behaviour of
Christian thought. In the context of 1:15 free- women. It was necessary for the successful con-
dom from sin is implied. As part of God’s plan tinuation of the faith and to avoid persecution,
for salvation, Jesus’ death undoubtedly came at that women should behave in a seemly way in
the right time. In the Greek the phrase ‘testi- meetings of the community. Part of this was an
mony at the right time’ is part of the credal insistence that women should not teach or be
statement of vv. 5–6 rather than a comment perceived to be in a position of authority over a
upon it. man (cf. 1 Cor 14:34).
The reason given by the Pastor for women’s
(2:7) Paul’s own role in God’s plan is empha- subordination goes back to Adam and Eve (cf. 1
sized again. He was not only an apostle but also Cor 11:8–9). First, he claims that primacy in time
herald and teacher of the Gentiles. The word implies superiority of status. Second, it was, he
translated ‘herald’ is rare in the NT, and is found claims, Eve who was deceived, not Adam. He is
elsewhere only in 2 Tim 1:11, where it also refers departing from the Genesis narrative at this
to Paul, and in 2 Peter 2:5, where it refers to point. Certainly, Eve ate the fruit first, but she
Noah. The cognate verb is, however, found was quickly followed by Adam, and they were
throughout the NT. Paul’s appointment as both punished. According to some Jewish tra-
teacher of the Gentiles provides the means for ditions, Eve’s sin was a sexual one, she was
God’s plan for universal salvation to proceed. seduced by the serpent, so salvation could be
The picture of Paul as apostle to the Gentiles achieved only by bearing children. An idea of
accords with that in Paul’s own letters and with this sort may lie behind 2:14–15 which places
the narrative of his journeys in Acts. The insist- Eve’s transgression in such close proximity to
ence on Paul’s authority is exaggerated, much the solution that salvation for women rests in
more than would be necessary in a genuine bearing children. In any case, a woman’s most
letter from Paul to his friend. But in the context important role in the Graeco-Roman world was
of this letter the insistence on authority has its to be the mother of children. For the Pastor, the
place: the true message of salvation is being family and the household were the focus of the
handed on to the next generation. church, so bearing children and bringing them
up in the faith was vital for its successful
(2:8–15) Returning to the subject of prayer, survival and growth.
Timothy is now given instructions about the The teaching about women’s subordination
necessary physical as well as emotional attitude. should not be understood outside its own con-
A distinction is drawn between the attitude text. In Rom 16:1 a deacon called Phoebe is
suitable for men and that for women. Men are commended by Paul. His teaching in 1 Cor 11
to pray with hands raised; they can pray any- and 14 suggests that already in the middle of the
where, in private as well as in communal wor- first century some women were behaving with a
ship. Their emotional state ‘without anger or freedom which was unacceptable to the leaders
argument’ as a prerequisite to proper prayer of the church. The popular story of Thecla, told
recalls the teaching of Old Testament prophets in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, is evidence that this
(e.g. Hos 6:6; Am 3:14–15; 5:4–7). trend continued into the second century.
The Pastor then turns to the behaviour of
women. First they are to dress and behave mod- (3:1–7) ‘The saying is sure’ may refer back to
estly. This teaching can be paralleled in Plutarch’s what has just been said, as in 4:9 or Titus 3:8, or
Advice to a Bride and Groom, ‘It is not gold or forwards to the instructions about church of-
precious stones or scarlet that makes a woman fices. When the same phrase was used before in
decorous, but whatever invests her with that 1:15, it introduced an important Christological
something which betokens dignity, good saying, as it does in 2 Tim 2:11. It is not quite
behaviour and modesty’ (Mor. 141e). Women clear here if either the preceding saying or what
were gaining a certain amount of freedom and follows is thought by the author to have this
independence in the Roman empire, and this special significance. The writer’s teaching about
 251 the pastoral epistles

women is important to him but so is his teach- episkopos one must be firmly rooted in the
ing about church officers which follows. faith; the implication must be that the church
vv. 1b–7 concern the office of the episkopos, itself is firmly established too.
literally overseer, but translated in the NRSV as We do not know whether each community
bishop. The discussion indicates that the church had one episkopos, or more. Ignatius, who was
has reached a settled situation, where it needs bishop of Antioch in Syria, argued strongly in
capable and dignified men to run it. But the the first decade of the second century for a mo-
information we are given is tantalizingly in- narchical episcopate, that is, having one episkopos
complete, for while the qualities required of a as overseer of the Christian communities in each
bishop are clearly set out, his duties are not town, who presides over and is distinct from the
described. If, as is quite likely, one of the pat- deacons and from the elders, ‘that you may be
terns of organization and worship in the early joined together in one subjection, subject to the
church was the synagogue, then the episkopos bishop and to the presbytery, and may in all
would, like a Jewish synagogue leader, lead the things be sanctified’ (Ign. Eph. 2.2; cf. 20.2). But it
community and represent its interests in the is certain that there was no universally accepted
outside world. His good character and reputa- pattern of leadership at this period, and from the
tion among outsiders was essential for the com- Pastoral Epistles themselves no clearly defined
munity’s welfare and continuing stability. The organization can be discerned.
parallel drawn in 3:5 between the household
and the church provides another clue. Graeco- (3:8–13) Just as there is information about the
Roman households which consisted of family, character but not the duties of the episkopos,
slaves, and more loosely dependent groups of only the virtues necessary for a deacon are de-
people were run by a paterfamilias who had scribed in vv. 8–13. Indeed, the virtues of episko-
complete authority. The church in the Pastoral pos and deacon overlap to a great extent. This
Epistles is seen as the household of God; every- suggests that the functions were clearly under-
one—men, women, children, elders (presbyteroi), stood already in the community being ad-
servants (diakonoi)—has his or her place in it and dressed; the issue was to find suitable people
its smooth running is overseen by an episkopos to perform the functions. The Greek word dia-
who must be of impeccable character. konos, translated ‘deacon’, originally meant ‘ser-
The list of virtues expected of such a com- vant’, but in the apostolic fathers (e.g. Didache 15;
munity leader is conventional in both Jewish Ign. Trall. 2, 3; Ign. Magn. 6, 13) and the NT
and Hellenistic societies, including that favour- Epistles it is used to describe an officer of the
ite ‘restraint’ (sōphrosunē, translated in the NRSV church (e.g. Rom 16:1; 1 Cor 3:5; Eph 6:21; Phil
as ‘temperate’). His duties include a responsibil- 1:1; 1 Thess 3:2; cf. Acts 6). The narrative in Acts
ity for teaching, that is handing on the tradition 6 traces the diaconate back to the Jerusalem
as he has had it handed on to him. There are church when ‘seven men full of the Spirit’
some points that may be surprising to a modern were appointed to distribute food to the
reader; the episkopos is expected to be married Greek-speaking widows of the church. This
and to be the head of a household (3:2, 4–5). may be later rationalization of the origin of
Furthermore he is to be ‘married only once’, the office, linking the function of serving to
literally, ‘the husband of one wife’. Polygamy is the diaconate when its origins were already
not being forbidden here; remarriage after di- obscure. In Mk 10:45 Jesus uses the verb cognate
vorce may be in question, or it may be that the with diakonos when he says ‘I came not to be
remarriage of widowers is also excluded for served but to serve’. The qualities of an episkopos
episkopoi. If so, the rules are different for differ- and a deacon were similar; their roles appar-
ent groups in the community, for young ently not dissimilar except for a greater em-
widows are encouraged to remarry (5:14). Per- phasis on management and teaching in the
haps, though, this is rather an extreme transla- case of the episkopos. Little information is given
tion of the Greek; what is meant is that the here about the work of a deacon, but it is clear
episkopos should be a faithful husband to his that a test was necessary for those aspiring to
wife, but that sequential monogamy is not out become deacons to prove themselves blame-
of the question. His conversion to Christianity less. The ‘mystery of the faith’, God’s hidden
must not be recent. There may have been im- purpose only understood by believers, refers
portant individuals in the community who felt to the true teaching of 2:5–6 and 3:16.
that their standing or wealth qualified them to In the midst of the description of a deacon’s
become leaders in the church. But to be an character is a verse about women. The word
the pastoral epistles 252

translated ‘women’ also means wives in Greek, the world and glory. The structure is chiastic,
so there is a real possibility that the verse de- ABBAAB (where the earthly world is represented
scribes the qualities required in a deacon’s wife by A, the heavenly by B) which makes the for-
rather than in a woman deacon. If that is the mula memorable and helps unify the whole. In
case, they must be as far beyond reproach as every line the verb is in the same tense and is
their husbands. On the other hand, Phoebe is followed by a noun in the same case preceded,
called a deacon in Rom 16:1, so it is possible that with one exception, by ‘in’. Heaven and earth are
this verse refers to the qualities such women being contrasted and yet shown to belong to-
need. If so, their role must be limited by the gether, united by the revelation of Christ and its
constraints put on women’s behaviour in 2:11– effects. There is no direct reference to Christ’s
12, where women were told to be submissive to death and resurrection, nor to the end of the
men and to learn in silence, and were forbidden world, but a clear picture is created of the unify-
to teach or have authority over men. The char- ing and universal nature of the coming of Christ.
acteristics mentioned are reminiscent of those Christ’s triumph and glory are placed in contrast
necessary for episkopoi and deacons. A deacon, to the teachings of demons which are to be the
like an episkopos, must be married only once, subject of the next passage. The household of
literally ‘the husband of one wife’, and must be God rests on sure foundations.
a good head of his household. Single men,
slaves, and, to judge by this qualification, (4:1–5) No attempt is made to elucidate the
women, seem to be excluded from holding of- confessional statement, instead, the author
fice. The requirements that an episkopos should moves on to describe dangers of his opponents’
be hospitable and a teacher are not included for teaching, and the importance and strength of
deacons, but Timothy is referred to as a deacon true doctrine. The contrasts between flesh and
in 4:6, and since he was expected to ‘pass on all spirit, earth and heaven are emphasized by
these instructions’, in other words, to teach, it reference to revelation through the Spirit in
may be that the categories are quite fluid and ill- vv. 1–2. The Spirit who inspires true prophetic
defined. The face that the church presents must utterances has foretold opposition to the faith
be respectable, so all its representatives must be in ‘later times’, or the last times. It was a com-
beyond reproach. monplace idea in Jewish and Christian apoca-
lyptic that the end would be preceded by a time
(3:14–16) vv. 14–15 open with a personal note of persecution and suffering (e.g. Mk 13; 1 Cor
designed to add verisimilitude to the fictional 15:24–8). The sense of urgency and immediacy
situation. It is common in the Pauline epistles to are absent from the Pastoral Epistles, but there
refer to personal travel plans, so this reference is a lingering feeling that before the end there
places the epistle firmly in its genre as well as will be difficult and dangerous times.
supporting the picture of Paul’s personal in- The opposition described in these verses
volvement. The use of the word ‘household’ comes from people whose teaching is danger-
summarizes the whole section from 2:1 to 3:13. ously close to that of the author and yet mark-
More will be said of the household later in this edly different. It seems to be based on
letter and also in the other two. But the picture asceticism; marriage was rejected and so was
we have so far presents a picture of a solid the eating of certain foods. Paul had faced simi-
establishment, run by responsible figures. Any lar problems in Corinth, but his response,
assailant will have a difficult task. recommending celibacy as the ideal, was con-
The ‘mystery of our religion’ is described in ditioned by his belief in the imminence of the
the quoted formula which follows. For similar end (e.g. 1 Cor 7:8–9, 25–31). The perspective of
passages see 1 TIM 2:5–6. The word translated this writer is longer, he envisages a future for
‘religion’ is eusebeia; normally in the Pastorals the church, so marriage and the procreation of
eusebeia and its cognates denote piety or godli- children who will be brought up in the faith is
ness, here it carries a sense of the system of belief important to him. Sexual asceticism would rob
that inspires piety. The earlier formula in ch. 2 the church of the next generation of believers.
dwelt on the human nature of Christ; this con- The Pastor feels so strongly about his oppon-
fessional formula consists of three pairs of con- ents that he claims that their teaching is in-
trasted statements. The main point of contrast spired by demons (v. 1). His own monotheism
being the last word of each line: in the first pair is clear and, in contrast to such teachers as
flesh and spirit, in the second it is angels and Marcion, he believes that ‘everything God
Gentiles, in the last pair the contrast is between created is good’. Like Jesus when discussing
 253 the pastoral epistles

Jewish food laws (Mk 7:19), he believes all food Further Matters of Church Order (5:1–6:2)
may be eaten. This particular controversy may Like ch. 3, this passage concerns church organ-
support the thesis that some, at any rate, of his ization. Here the subject is widows and elders.
opponents were Jewish. In Greek the word presbuteros is used to desig-
nate old age as well as being the title of an office
(4:6–10) The rest of the chapter continues in in Judaism and Christianity. This can lead to
the same tone; encouraging Timothy as a ‘good ambiguity in interpretation; the natural rever-
servant’ or ‘deacon’ to pass on to his fellow ence for the senior members of the group devel-
Christians the sound teaching he has received, oped into hierarchical organization. For the
while avoiding or rejecting the ‘profane myths modern reader it is not always easy to distin-
and old wives’ tales’ of the opposition. We are guish between the two uses of the term, par-
given little more information about the content ticularly at the stage of development we see in
of sound teaching or of its opposite. Presum- the Pastorals when the original use is still found
ably, both were well known to the recipients of alongside its titular use. In vv. 1–2 the meaning
the letter and did not need to be spelt out, but is the original one, ‘older men’, as can be seen
the false myths obviously play an important from the context. Later in the chapter instruc-
part in the opponents’ teaching (cf. 1:4). Eusebeia, tions are given for presbuteroi, the leading ‘elders’
here translated ‘godliness’, appears again as the of the community.
most important Christian virtue. It character-
izes behaviour now and holds promise for the (5:3–16) The instructions concerning widows
life to come. are extremely detailed and precise compared
In v. 9 the formula ‘the saying is sure’ is with those relating to other groups (3:1–7, 8–13;
repeated (cf. 1:15; 3:1). Again, it is not clear 5:17–22). We have already seen that the position
whether it points back to what has gone before, and activities of women were of particular con-
or forwards, or whether it is meant to refer to cern to the Pastor. This group of women com-
the whole passage about holding fast to the mands his special attention. It was regarded as a
faith and rejecting false teaching. v. 10 mentions special duty among the Jews to care for widows
hope again (cf. 1:1). As well as looking back to who had no family to provide for them. This is
the historical events of Christ’s life and death, the group referred to here as ‘really widows’.
attention was fixed on hope for the future (cf. 2 Women who would otherwise be genuinely
Cor 1:10). God’s universal salvation here is more destitute deserved the community’s support,
limited than in 2:6 ‘especially to those who whereas those who had families able to support
believe’, but there is no suggestion of an alter- them were not the financial responsibility of the
native fate for those who do not believe. community. The clear moral message of the
author stands out in v. 8; failure to provide for
(4:11–16) Timothy is again addressed person- widows in one’s family was tantamount to a
ally. Such personal references help to carry the denial of the faith. Widows have a religious
fiction of Pauline authorship. He is instructed to duty themselves: to offer prayers night and
teach, to exhort, and to read aloud: in other day (v. 5). But the widow ‘who lives for pleasure’
words, to pass on the tradition he has received (v. 6) does not deserve the community’s sup-
from Paul, until Paul himself arrives (cf. 2:14–15). port. The reference to such women may be to
Teaching was one of the functions allocated to highlight the plight of the ‘real widow’, or there
the episkopos: Timothy is not named as an epis- may have been such a case within the commu-
kopos anywhere in the Pastorals, but he is por- nity and known to the readers.
trayed as carrying out some similar functions
(in Ign. Magn. 3 the church is recommended to (5:9–16) It seems, however, as if ‘real widow’
respect and obey their episkopos despite his may have a titular sense as well. The expression
youth). He is to set an example by his behaviour in v. 9, ‘Let a widow be put on the list’, suggests
and deportment. He is gifted as a teacher, from some sort of formal enrolment; perhaps, like
the time he was commissioned by the laying on the term ‘elder’, the word had acquired a tech-
of hands by the council of elders (also referred nical sense. Those enrolled might consist of ‘real
to in 2 Tim 1:6). Laying on of hands was a means widows’ or be a separate group. In any case,
of transferring the power of the Spirit from one qualifications for enrolment are strict and are
person to another for teaching or healing. It was reminiscent of those for bishops and deacons in
a transference of authority, a commissioning or ch. 3. The enrolled widow must be 60 years old
consecration to a particular office or task. or more, she must have been married only once,
the pastoral epistles 254

and she must have brought up children. If the for their masters as there are in other epistles (e.
widows of 5:3–5 are included in this group, they g. Col 3:22–4:1; Eph 6:5–9). The institution of
also have the religious duty to pray continu- slavery is not questioned here or elsewhere in
ously for the community. In v. 11 the subject the NT; it was seen as a necessary part of soci-
changes to younger widows, a group of women ety. The only issue was how slaves should be
whose behaviour the author finds particularly treated by their owners, but the Pastoral Epistles
unacceptable. His characterization of these are not concerned even with that issue. The
young women, though it may have been based slaves are divided into two groups, those who
on his knowledge of one or two individuals, is a belong to non-believing masters and those
gross over-generalization, and one that has whose masters are members of the community.
done women harm. His solution, as in 2:15, is Unquestioning obedience is demanded of the
marriage and childbearing. first group so that the name of the church
should not fall into disrepute. Those who are
(5:17–22) As a council, the group of elders ex- slaves of Christian masters are advised not to
ercised authority in the community (cf. 4:14; presume on their shared beliefs, though they are
Titus 1:5, etc.). Here we find rules for their pay- all brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of
ment and their discipline. Some may have one God. Nevertheless, the social constraints
achieved their status as elders simply on ac- that exist in their everyday lives are not to be
count of their age, and a group of them, ‘those overstepped.
who rule well’, are worthy of double honour or
double payment (the same word is used in (6:2b–21) The apparently haphazard collection
Greek to denote payment and honour). Any of teaching, unified by its hortatory character,
ambiguity about the word here disappears in links false teaching with bad conduct and iden-
the light of v. 18 which contains the scriptural tifies eusebeia, godliness or piety, with true
quotation also found in 1 Cor 9:9. There is wealth. As we have seen, piety in the Pastorals
further justification for the disciplinary proced- denotes the manner of life of a true believer
ures by an allusion to a catchphrase also quoted who honours God as Creator and Redeemer of
in Mt 10:10 and Lk 10:7. all, and who treats other human beings with
The disciplining of elders is based on the Jew- respect (cf. 2:2; 4:7, 8; 5:4). It also separates
ish system of public accusations supported by at sound teaching from false. False teachers be-
least two witnesses; this has the double effect of lieve that what they call piety is a source of
ensuring that casual accusations are not made mercenary gain, while 4:8 points to its real
and that ‘the rest’ would be put off committing value. In vv. 3–10 piety is contrasted with all
the same sin. The rest may refer to the whole kinds of vices ranging from envy to morbid
community or just the other elders. Impartiality, craving for controversy, from wrangling to a
a word used only here in the NT, is to be the basis desire for wealth. Teaching about the vanity of
of all judgements. Timothy is urged ‘not to ordain riches here and in 6:17–19 frames a paragraph
anyone hastily’. This could imply that extra care describing the true Christian life.
taken about the appointment of elders would vv. 11–12 present the reverse image; the right-
avoid the need for discipline later. eousness and piety of the person who shuns the
attractions of wealth are contrasted with the
(5:23–6:2) Before turning to instructions for behaviour described in vv. 3–10. The list of anti-
slaves, a personal instruction is given to Timothy social and untruthful behaviour in vv. 4–5 is
about drinking wine. Ostensibly it is a personal balanced against the beliefs of one who pursues
note referring to Timothy’s health, which helps godliness, in language already familiar, Timothy
support the impression of intimacy between the is exhorted to pursue virtues which have been
two. It may also be a roundabout way of attack- recommended before, and to fight the good
ing the asceticism of the writer’s opponents (cf. fight. vv. 13–16 contain a doxology or liturgical
4:3–4). Church officials are to be neither drunk- formula similar to others in the Pastorals (see 1
ards nor ascetics. 5:24–5 contain general truths TIM 2:5–6). It illustrates the ideas of salvation and
which may be meant to refer back to the elders of hope with which the epistle began. God the
the previous verses, or, more generally, to mem- Creator, whose glorious and transcendent nature
bers of the congregation. is extolled in a series of rich images, will bring
about the second manifestation of Christ at the
(6:1–2) Slaves are given special instructions, right time. God’s transcendence is thus balanced
though there are no corresponding instructions with his involvement in human history, in the
 255 the pastoral epistles

two appearances of Christ, one past, one still to mother Eunice were believers before him.
come. Jesus Christ is introduced, in his first mani- Meanwhile, the closeness of the relationship
festation, as an example of faithful testimony between Paul and Timothy is emphasized by
before Pilate. Although this does not fit neatly Paul’s constant prayers for Timothy and by the
with any of our gospel accounts, that he su- emotional memory of tears and the anticipation
premely bore witness to the truth is undeniable of joy when they meet again. This, together with
for the Pastor. As with the other similar passages, the naming of Timothy’s mother and grand-
the language is poetic and defies precise inter- mother, provide the kind of personal details
pretation, but the rhetoric is clear: God is one, he that add to the sense of authenticity. But the
desires the salvation of all believers through the very fact that three generations of Christians
mediation of his Son, Jesus Christ. within one family are mentioned implies a
In the final injunction to Timothy the im- post-Pauline date; 3:15 makes it clear that Tim-
portance of handing on the tradition is othy had been brought up as a Christian from
repeated, for that is ‘what has been entrusted’ childhood.
to him. ‘What is falsely called knowledge’ be- From 1:6 it seems that Timothy received the
came part of the title of Irenaeus’ late second- laying on of hands from Paul himself rather
century refutation of Gnosticism. than from the council of elders as was suggested
by 1 Tim 4:14. They may refer to two separate
2 Timothy occasions where authorization or commission-
2 Timothy shares many of the concerns of ing was given for different purposes, or they
1 Timothy and Titus, and many of the same may simply reflect the different tones in 1 and
expressions, but there is a difference of tone. 2 Timothy, the latter being more personal, the
There are far more personal touches in this letter; former more formal and official. What is certain
people are mentioned by name, fellow-workers, in both cases is that through the laying on of
friends, and relations as well as opponents. The hands God’s Spirit is passed from one to the
relationship between Paul and Timothy is made other, whether from Paul the apostle or from
to seem closer and less formal. There are more the council of elders. The qualities imparted by
references, mostly indirect, to Paul’s letters the laying on of hands are both new and famil-
particularly to Romans. iar in these epistles. Self-discipline translates
one of the sōphrosunē words familiar from the
Greeting and Warnings (1:1–18) other two epistles, and together with the spirit
The opening greeting recalls that in 1 Timothy, of power and love is contrasted with the spirit
but the call is by the will of God rather than by of cowardice. The idea of cowardice is linked
his command (cf. 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Col 1:1; Eph with that of shame in the next paragraph, with
1:1). Paul is said to be an apostle for the sake of the mention of Paul’s imprisonment. The Pastor
the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, instructs Timothy not to be ashamed of bearing
which expands the idea of Christ Jesus, our witness to the gospel or of Paul’s imprisonment
hope, in 1 Timothy. ‘In Christ’ is an authentically (cf. Rom 1:16). Philippians presents a clear ac-
Pauline expression, but there is no sense that count of his imprisonment and of its effects on
the author has grasped the deep metaphysical Paul and his fellow Christians. Neither 1 Tim-
meaning of life in Christ as understood by Paul othy nor Titus mentions it, but here it adds to
himself. Timothy is called ‘beloved’ rather than the sense of authenticity. Paul has by now ac-
‘loyal’ or legitimate child here (see 1 TIM 1:1–2). quired the status of a hero, someone of whom
Thus we already have a hint of the different tone his successors must not be ashamed; another
of the letter; there is not so much concern about indication of the late date of these letters.
passing on the authentic tradition. The link between God’s saving work in the
Paul’s letters often open with a thanksgiving past and the present sufferings of the apostle are
like this, but different Greek words are used continued in the kerygmatic passage that fol-
here, perhaps because the Pauline word euchar- lows in 1:8–14. It is a summary of the theological
isteō which originally meant ‘give thanks’ had doctrine of the kind the Pastor makes in 1 Tim-
acquired special eucharistic connotations by the othy and Titus (cf. 1 Tim 2:5–6; 3:16; 6:13–16; 2
time this letter was written. The tension Paul Tim 2:11–13; Titus 3:4–7). Like those passages, it
himself clearly felt between his Jewish ancestry depends on Pauline teaching, it uses some Paul-
and his Christian faith is lacking here (1:3; cf. ine language, but is subtly and markedly differ-
Rom 9–11). Timothy’s own ancestry in the faith ent from Paul. For example, Paul rarely uses
is exemplary: his grandmother Lois and his the verb ‘to save’ in the past tense (a notable
the pastoral epistles 256

exception being Rom 8:24, where it is in the where it has a sense implying the rejection of
context of future hope). The ideas expressed in true teaching, rather than personal rejection. (A
v. 10 are based on the teaching in Romans man named Hermogenes the coppersmith is
16:25–7, ‘the proclamation of Jesus Christ mentioned in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, 3:1,
according to the revelation of the mystery that where he is a companion of Paul but a hypocrite
was kept secret but is now disclosed’. The no- and flatterer. Onesiphorus is also mentioned in
tion that God’s plan of salvation was a mystery the next paragraph.) Ephesus, where Timothy
hidden from people for generations before the receives these letters, was the capital of the
appearance of Christ was one that quickly took Roman province of Asia, the western part of
root. It created a historical schema which could modern Turkey.
link events and prophecies from Scripture not
only with Christ’s life and death, but into the
present and up to his future reappearance. Al- Charge to Timothy (2:1–3:9)
though the idea has Pauline roots, it is expressed (2:1–7) Timothy is urged to ‘be strong in grace’
here in language typical of the Pastorals: Christ following the example of Onesiphorus. Again
is described as Saviour, his appearance as epi- he is presented as the link in the chain between
phaneia, a word found in the NT only in the Paul and the church at the time of the Pastorals.
Pastorals (cf. 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13) He has heard Paul’s gospel directly and indir-
and in 2 Thess 2:8. Christ’s death had the effect ectly through the teaching of others. What has
of abolishing death and through the gospel he been entrusted to him, he is to pass on to those
brought life and immortality. The Greek word who will, in their turn, teach others. But the role
translated ‘immortality’ actually means ‘incor- of a faithful Christian is not simply belief and
ruptibility’, an associated but not identical idea. loyal transmitting of tradition, it entails suffer-
Immortality, translating a different Greek word, ing as well. This is a theme that is hardly
is said in 1 Tim 6:16 to belong of God alone. Paul touched upon in 1 Timothy and Titus, but is
himself talked of resurrection rather than im- prominent in 2 Timothy. Three images are used
mortality, so again we are presented with Paul- to describe this wholehearted commitment to
ine ideas presented in un-Pauline terms. the gospel: a Christian must be like a soldier
dedicated to serving his commanding officer,
(1:11–14) We are brought into the present by like an athlete winning a race according to the
the reference to Paul’s appointment as apostle rules, or like a farmer toiling over his crops. The
and teacher, both familiar terms, and herald, three images are not explained; Timothy is told
already used once in a similar way in 1 Tim 2:7 to work out their meaning for himself, with the
(elsewhere in the NT only in 2 Pet 2:5). In Greek help of the Lord (v. 7), but the general sense is
the word is related to the verb ‘to preach’, and to clear. Work is involved in all three images, they
‘proclamation’. This triple role has led to Paul’s are familiar from Paul’s epistles and other NT
imprisonment, but Paul can remain steadfast works, and are found in popular teaching of the
because of his trust in God and his assurance time. The first two belong quite closely to-
of vindication. ‘What has been entrusted to me’ gether, they involve willing obedience to a com-
is a better translation of 1:12 and refers back to 1 manding officer or to the rules of competition.
Tim 6:20; with the help of Christ and the The farming image recalls 1 Cor 9:7–12.
Holy Spirit, the sound teaching will continue
uncorrupted. The line beginning with Christ, (2:8–13) v. 8 recalls Rom 1:3–4 and 1 Cor 15:20.
and passing to Paul, now continues through It represents a formulaic summary of the
Timothy. author’s message. Jesus Christ, whose own suf-
fering is not mentioned but is assumed behind
(1:15–18) Paul is presented in these verses as this passage, was raised from the dead. The Son
being held in a prison in Rome, where he was of David, he was human, even though of royal
visited by the faithful Onesiphorus. The ex- descent. In a few words much is implied to
ample of Paul’s faithfulness and that of Onesi- contradict the opponents’ teaching. The preach-
phorus (cf. also 4:19) is contrasted with the ing of this message had led to Paul being held in
behaviour of those in Asia who have turned chains like a criminal in a Roman prison. But
against Paul, including two individuals, Phyge- his enthusiasm for the spreading of the gospel
lus and Hermogenes. Nothing else is known was not diminished or held back by his impris-
about these two men, but the verb used for onment; this epistle is meant to provide proof
‘turn away’ is found also in 4:4 and Titus 1:14 of that. For the sake of the gospel, Paul is even
 257 the pastoral epistles

willing to be held as a criminal, innocent in 2:4–6, Timothy works at expounding the

though he is, so that those who believe, ‘the truth clearly, literally ‘cutting a straight path’,
elect’, may obtain salvation and share in eternal then he will have nothing to feel ashamed of
glory along with him. Salvation and glory are before God or people. Profane chatter was the
familiar themes in the Pastorals, but glory is subject of a warning in 1 Tim 6:20, as it is here.
normally a property of God. The idea of sharing There it was coupled with ‘what is falsely called
in his glory after death or after the end of the knowledge’, here it is said to lead to impiety and
world is, however, a frequent image in Paul will spread like gangrene; a vivid medical
(Rom 8:21, 30, etc.) image. Hymenaeus and Philetus are singled
A rhythmical passage follows (vv. 11–13), out. Like other named people in the letters we
introduced by the formula ‘the saying is sure’ cannot be sure whether they were known to the
(cf. 1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; Titus 3:8). It explains in community at the time of writing, if they were
poetic form the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, well-known historical figures, or if they are fic-
for his suffering and death are patterns for the titious characters introduced to make the situ-
suffering and death of his followers, and the ation more vivid and realistic. The particular
results of his endurance will be shared with impiety of the two named heretics is the belief
those who also suffer in his name. The parallel that the resurrection has already happened. This
saying in v. 12b makes the same point but in the idea was already prevalent in Paul’s lifetime and
negative, while 2:13a emphasizes that Christ re- resulted from one possible interpretation of his
mains faithful to the purposes of God whatever own teaching (e.g. 1 Cor 15). It became a popular
human beings do. The ideas are based on Rom idea among some Gnostics and sometimes
6, but are developed further. It is impossible to accounted for their dismissive attitude to the
know whether the Pastor included here, as pos- physical body. The teaching of Paul was
sibly elsewhere (for refs. see 2 TIM 1:9–10), exist- regarded as authoritative by both Gnostics and
ing liturgical passages, but the emphasis on the anti-Gnostics in the second century. Both
need for faithfulness in suffering fits this con- groups could interpret his teaching in ways
text perfectly. which supported their own outlook. The Pas-
toral Epistles stand out firmly against ‘know-
(2:14–26) From the encouragement to remain ledge falsely so-called’ and became the basis
faithful, the passage turns to countering hetero- for many later anti-Gnostic positions.
doxy. The ultimate aim set out in 2:24–6 is to The building metaphor of vv. 20–2 is com-
bring the heterodox back into the fold. Correc- mon in Christianity, and is found elsewhere in
tion rather than expulsion is the theme here (cf. the Pastorals (1 Tim 3:15), where it is associated
1 Tim 1:20 where Hymenaeus and Alexander with the author’s favourite metaphor, the
have been handed over to Satan). Repentance household of God. Behind this passage lies Isa
is in God’s gift, he provides the only way that 28:16, quoted by Paul in Rom 9:33. From the
the heretics can be released from the power of same chapter of Romans comes the inspiration
the devil into whose snare they have fallen. We for the image of different utensils. But here it is
are reminded of 1 Tim 2:4 where God desires the not used in the same way as in Rom 9:21, which
salvation of all. is about election, nor in the same way as the
Before we reach this conciliatory point, how- image of different parts of the body in 1 Cor 12.
ever, we learn something of what the oppon- At first glance it seems to be a parable about
ents were teaching. They liked above all to enter important and less important vessels, along the
into disputes about words. The Greek word, same lines as the body metaphor, but some of
logomachein, to dispute or wrangle about the meaning has become lost in the retelling.
words, is found in related forms also in 1 Tim The NRSV translation obscures the meaning
6:4 and Titus 3:9. Clearly, acceptance of sound further; the words translated ‘special’ and ‘or-
doctrine means not asking questions or ques- dinary’ mean ‘honourable’ and ‘dishonourable’
tioning definitions. A clear exposition of in Greek. From the context we can understand
accepted doctrine was the only proper method the passage to be an instruction to Timothy to
of teaching. Discussion could only lead to dis- cleanse himself of any teaching except that ad-
pute, and so must be avoided. If the teacher is vocated already as sound doctrine, thus he and
above reproach, then opponents have no those he teaches will become useful, that is
grounds for raising questions. As is often the honourable, utensils. Again, orthodoxy is
case in these epistles, good behaviour and closely bound up with ethics. The list of qual-
sound doctrine go hand in hand. If, like those ities Timothy should cultivate, begun in v. 15
the pastoral epistles 258

but then interrupted, continues in v. 22. His is no doubt that she is portrayed as having
youth, mentioned in 1 Tim 4:12, is not to be an arrived ‘at a knowledge of the truth’.
excuse for immature behaviour. The qualities Jannes and Jambres were the names given in
mentioned in vv. 22–4, are already familiar some Jewish traditions to the Egyptian magi-
from this letter and its companions; there is cians summoned by Pharaoh to oppose Moses
particular emphasis on avoiding quarrels and and Aaron in Ex 7:8–13 etc. Just as Moses’ op-
controversies which is the special interest of 2 ponents’ success was short-lived, so those who
Timothy, and it is worth noticing that the in- opposed the work of God now, by insinuating
junction to be an ‘apt teacher’ was used in 1 Tim themselves into households, would fail before
3:2 of the episkopos. long.

(3:1–9) The distress of the last days was a com- Paul as Exemplar (3:10–4:8)
mon theme in Judaism and early Christianity. Paul’s own steadfast character and his heroism
Sinfulness and corruption of all sorts would under persecution are set out as an example of
prevail for a time, but it was believed that true faith. This glowing description of his char-
none of this was beyond God’s control or out- acter, though framed in the first person, be-
side his purpose. The gospels present us with a speaks hagiography not autobiography. He is
picture of cosmic terrors, such as earthquakes, the model for Christians in times of persecu-
famines, and eclipses (e.g. Mk 13:14–27). Like the tion. The three cities, Antioch, Iconium, and
commentary on Habakkuk by the Jews of Qum- Lystra, where the persecutions took place, are
ran (1QpHab), and like 1 John, 2 Timothy sees mentioned in Acts 13 and 14 as places where
the distress in terms of human sin and apostasy. Paul and Barnabas were persecuted by the Jews,
A long list of such vices is added which follows jealous of their success. Paul has not yet
the conventions of its time, but many of the encountered Timothy at this point in the Acts
vices appear elsewhere in the Pastorals, either as narrative. It is probable that 2 Timothy and Acts
characteristics to be avoided or whose oppos- are using the same sources here, unless one
ites are recommended for Christian leaders. The depends on the other for information. The ex-
list in Greek has a certain coherence, lost in ample of Paul’s persecutions illustrates the pos-
translation, because of alliteration at the begin- sibility of persecution for believers. But just as
ning or end of the adjectives, and because the Paul was saved many times, so would his fol-
first two and last two begin with the prefix phil-. lowers be. The opponents are held up as con-
That these vices belong to heterodox Christians trasts to Paul’s character (3:14). The situation
becomes clear in v. 5. Timothy, and through described at the beginning of the chapter will
him the whole congregation, are warned to go from bad to worse as more and more people
keep out of such people’s way. are led astray. The same situation was foreseen
The group of people thought to be most at in 1 Tim 4:1. A chain reaction will take place;
risk from these apostates are women. The after one person has been deceived into believ-
mocking diminutive is used, ‘little women’, ing the opponents’ falsehoods, he, in turn, will
translated by the NRSV as ‘silly women’. It is deceive others.
not immediately obvious whether ‘over-
whelmed by their sins and swayed by all kinds (3:14–17) As well as having the model of Paul
of desires’ refers to their disposition towards before him, Timothy must continue to follow
this sort of teaching or whether they are seen the teachings of the sacred writings, an expres-
as particularly sinful women. Taken in conjunc- sion used by Greek-speaking Jews to describe
tion with 1 Tim 2:11–14 (and 1 Cor 14:35), it is their bible. He has been taught Scripture from
clear that there were women in the early church childhood; the reference is to his mother and
anxious to learn. In Acts there are several ac- grandmother (2 Tim 1:5), but he has also had
counts of women being attracted to the words teachers such as Paul. Scripture is rarely quoted
of an apostle’s preaching. Stories told about in the Pastoral Epistles, and there is no descrip-
Thecla (written down in the late second century tion or explanation of the development of
as the Acts of Paul and Thecla), who renounced the Christianity out of and away from Judaism. It
prospect of marriage to follow Paul and devote is probable that opposition is coming, at any
her life to spreading the gospel, illustrate the rate some of the time, from Jewish Christians,
kind of response from women that the Pastor but apart from differences about myths, geneal-
deprecates. Thecla’s vocation is justified in the ogies, and the law, we are not told much
stories by miraculous escapes from death; there about where the differences lie. Here Scripture,
 259 the pastoral epistles

presumably including the law, is given un- In spite of suffering, Timothy must continue his
equivocal approval. If the NRSV translation of good work, and not be put off by the apostasy
3:16 is taken, the usefulness of all Scripture of some members of the community.
arises from the fact that it is divinely inspired. Paul’s death is imminent; in 2 Timothy it has
The alternative reading in the margin assumes been made clear that he is in prison: now, in
that only those passages inspired by God are poignant language reminiscent of Phil 2:17 (the
useful, i.e. it assumes that some parts are not so only other use in the NT of the verb ‘pour out as
inspired. This was indeed the belief among a libation’, NRSV), Paul reveals that he is to be
some early Gnostic groups such as the Marcio- put to death. Looking back, Paul reviews his
nites, so it makes most sense to follow the Christian ministry as a fight he has fought and
NRSV translation. It is the usefulness of Scrip- as a race he has run, two familiar metaphors (1
ture that is the significant point; different kinds Tim 6:12, cf. 1 Cor 9:25, 2 Tim 2:5; cf. Phil 2:16;
of usefulness are immediately listed. v. 17, 3:13–14). His life is a model to Timothy and to all
‘everyone who belongs to God’ (cf. 1 Tim 6:11), believers, the reward that awaits him and others
probably refers to anyone in a position to teach who follow him is sure; it is the garland given to
or lead the congregation; such a person needs victors in athletic competitions, understood by
to be well versed in Scripture as well as in Paul to be the reward for a life of virtue, and so
Christian doctrine. The result will be good used also in the early church of the reward for
works (as in 1 Tim 2:10). martyrs (cf. Mart. Pol. 17.1; 19.2).
Ch. 4 contains more intensely personal ma-
terial than any other part of the Pastoral Epis-
tles. The first section gives the impression, like Personal Comments and Salutations (4:9–22)
1:3–7 of being a personal ‘testament’; the passing (4:9–15) Many individuals; friends, fellow-
on of instructions from an important person to workers, and companions of Paul are referred
his followers is a literary form found elsewhere to, adding conviction to the pretence of Pauline
in the NT, but it also has a long scriptural authorship, and persuading some commenta-
tradition (e.g. Deut 31:24, Isa 8:16). Its content tors that at any rate fragments of the letters
is kerygmatic, like other doctrinal passages in are genuine. Timothy must endeavour to visit
the Pastorals; this is the most solemn both in Paul in prison, for, as he mentioned in 1:15,
form and content. Judgement is mentioned for many others have left him. Only Luke remains
the first time, which adds a note of real serious- (but cf. 4:21 where Paul seems to have several
ness; in the presence of God the Saviour, Christ companions). Demas, whose name is found to-
will judge the living and the dead. A picture of a gether with Luke’s and Mark’s in Col 4:14 and
God who had to approve one’s behaviour oc- Philem 24 has actually deserted him (Demas is
curs in 2:14–19, but without mentioning judge- also named in Acts of Paul and Thecla, as is Her-
ment. Here, in language reminiscent of 1 Cor mogenes the coppersmith, cf. 2 Tim 1:15; this is
15:21–8 (cf. Acts 10:42; 1 Pet 4:5), judgement possibly the same person as in 4:14. Both are
becomes explicit. But the favourite terminology said to be hypocrites). Crescens and Titus seem
of the Pastorals is not absent; Christ’s appear- to have left but not deserted him. Tychicus is
ing, or epiphaneia, referring to his second com- also mentioned in Titus 3:12 and in Acts 20:4;
ing, recurs in 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 4:8; and Titus Col 4:7; Eph 6:21. The reference to the cloak,
2:13 (and in 2 Tim 1:10 the same word refers to books, and parchment left behind at Troas adds
his incarnation), but ‘kingdom’ is mentioned a final touch of verisimilitude to the picture.
only here and in 4:18. Timothy’s role is to Alexander, possibly the same person as the
preach the gospel, in favourable and unfavour- Alexander of 1 Tim 1:20, is mentioned as an
able times, to make sure that the message is enemy. He may be the Alexander of Acts 19:33
properly understood. ‘The time is coming’, has who was a Jewish silversmith, not a copper-
a sense of urgency about it, particularly as it smith. At any rate this Alexander was well
seems to refer to events that are already begin- known to the community as an opponent.
ning to take place (cf 3:1–9). Sound doctrine will
be rejected in favour of false teaching, myths (4:16–18) It is difficult to identify Paul’s ‘first
will be believed instead of the truth. The pre- defence’ (4:16) with anything we hear about in
diction by Paul of the events that are happening Acts or in the other epistles, apart possibly from
in the community addressed by the Pastorals that mentioned in Phil 1:7, 16. There it is the
gives the sense that present events are part of defence of the gospel that is referred to, here, it
God’s plan and Paul knew what was to happen. seems to be a more technical court appearance.
the pastoral epistles 260

However, historical identification is neither frequently in the Pastoral Epistles; in Titus, for
possible nor necessary to understand the pic- example, God and Christ are each described as
ture the author is presenting. Paul has survived Saviour three times. Two elements of the bless-
one trial; the trial resulted in his desertion by his ing are present in v. 4, rather than three as in 1
friends, but he was enabled to defend the gospel and 2 Timothy.
with God’s help. ‘All the Gentiles’ probably re- Titus, like Timothy in 1 Tim 1:2 is called ‘my
fers to those at his trial, but may be a reference loyal child’, in other words, legitimate succes-
to his whole Gentile mission. That time he sor. From Paul’s own letters he is known to be a
survived, the next time he will be saved for Greek whom Paul and Barnabas took to Jerusa-
God’s heavenly kingdom. He expects to die lem (Gal 2:1, 3) and who was associated with the
now, but his death will not be the end (cf. 4:8). Corinthian church (2 Cor 7:6–16; 8:6, 16–17, 23;
12:18). In 1 Tim 4:10, he is said to have been sent
(4:19–21) The final greetings name some fa- to Dalmatia. Like the setting of 1 and 2 Timothy,
miliar and some unfamiliar people. Prisca and this setting is fictitious.
Aquila are mentioned in an almost identical
way at the end of Romans (16:3, cf. 1 Cor 16:9 (1:5–9) The situation envisaged at the begin-
where they themselves send greetings). Onesi- ning of the epistle is that Paul has instigated a
phorus is familiar from 1:16. Erastus was the successful mission in Crete and it is now Titus’
name of the city treasurer of Corinth (Rom job to continue the work, ‘putting it in order’.
16:23), and in Acts 19:22 Paul sends a man called (Crete is mentioned elsewhere in the NT only in
Erastus with Timothy from Ephesus to Macedo- Acts 27, when Paul did not visit the island in-
nia. Trophimus appeared in Acts 20:4; 21:29, as tentionally, but his ship was wrecked as it sailed
an inhabitant of Ephesus. None of Paul’s current past.) Putting things in order consisted first in
companions are mentioned elsewhere in the appointing elders in every town (cf. Acts 14:23),
NT. Perhaps they were names familiar to the which in turn would discourage opposition.
community. As a further personal touch Paul Qualifications are given for elders here which
urges Timothy to travel before winter, because resemble those given in 1 Tim 3 for bishops
travel during that season was difficult and dan- (episkopoi) and deacons. The use of the conjunc-
gerous (cf. Titus 3:12). tion ‘for’ at the beginning of v. 7 heading the list
The final blessing is modelled on those in Gal of qualities necessary for an episkopos implies an
6:18; Phil 4:23; and Philem 25. overlap in their roles; perhaps, as in Jewish
communities of the diaspora, the episkopos was
drawn from the ranks of the elders. In 1 Tim (5:1,
Titus
17, 19) it is not clear that this was the case; there
Greetings and Instructions on Dealing with a council of elders with an episkopos at its head
Deceivers (1:1–16) may have been envisaged. The episkopos is the
(1:1–4) The opening greeting of Titus is longer steward of God’s household, a favourite image
and fuller than its counterparts in 1 and 2 Tim- of the church in the Pastorals (e.g. 1 Tim 3:4; 5:12,
othy and includes a summary of the gospel 15). Paul, who was fond of using metaphors of
message. Paul is named again as the sender, service and slavery to describe his own role,
but here he is called slave as well as apostle as used it of himself once in 1 Cor 4:1. But there
in Rom 1:1. Faith and knowledge of the truth are he is the steward of the mysteries of God. To the
said to accord with godliness or eusebeia (cf. 1 exemplary character of the episkopos, familiar
Tim 2:2, etc.). The idea of God’s plan of salva- from 1 Tim 3, is added the necessity of his
tion is clearly set out again, here strengthened having ‘a firm grasp of the word’, that is, a
by the assertion that God never lies. This is clear understanding of the Christian message.
never explicitly said of God elsewhere in the This will enable him not only to present the
NT but it is a thought underlying the notion church’s teaching clearly but also to refute
of prophecy fulfilment throughout the NT. those who contradict it.
God’s plan of salvation includes his promises
in the past, and their fulfilment in the work of (1:10–16) The character of those who contra-
Christ, and in the work of those who proclaim dict is then set out. That some of them are
the gospel, as well as the hope of eternal life. Jewish Christians now seems clear (v. 10). This
Both God and Christ are named as Saviour, fits with the impression given in 1 and 2 Tim-
because Christ carried out God’s work of salva- othy but not made explicit there. They are na-
tion on earth. The title ‘Saviour’ is used tive Cretans, converted to Christianity from
 261 the pastoral epistles

Judaism and now apparently reverting in some slanderers or slaves to drink. They can be
way to their old faith and possibly advocating teachers, presumably of the younger women,
the circumcision of Gentile Christians. But as in certainly not of men (1 Tim 2:12), they taught
1 Tim 1:4 and 2 Tim 4:4, it is their teaching of the female Christian virtues and not matters of
Jewish myths that occupies the author’s atten- doctrine. These virtues are then listed. To the
tion. Since we are given no further information, modern eye they encourage submissive atti-
however, it is not possible to know whether tudes; they are, however, typical of attitudes
these were Gnostic myths or more traditional everywhere in the Graeco-Roman world (e.g.
scriptural myths. They also imposed Jewish Plut. Mor. 140c, 142d). It is possible that the
commandments on their followers; perhaps opponents of ‘sound doctrine’ taught that
food laws which the author did not accept (cf. women could remain single and continue to
1 Tim 4:3–5), and which may be alluded to in lead a full Christian life, and like Thecla become
1:15. Ascetics, whether Jewish or not, who re- an itinerant preacher (see 2 TIM 3:1–9). In any
fused to eat certain foods were condemned in 1 case, that kind of behaviour in no way con-
Tim 4:4, for ‘all things created by God are pure’. forms to the ideals of this author, who believes
Here such people are condemned as having a woman’s role is properly that of wife and
corrupt consciences; this is very strong con- mother, her salvation dependent on her fulfill-
demnation for people whose understanding ing those roles submissively (cf. 1 Tim 2:9–15).
about purity is different from one’s own. But it The motivation given here, however, is to pre-
is the obverse of believing that sound faith leads vent the church being discredited. Nothing in
to good behaviour. However, it contradicts the behaviour of the members of the commu-
Paul’s teaching on such matters in Rom 14 and nity must attract negative comment from its
1 Cor 8–10 where he is able to accommodate neighbours.
both points of view. Titus is urged to be a model for younger men
in his behaviour and teaching. Here it is oppon-
Membership of the Community (2:1–3:11) ents not secular neighbours who must find no
The main section of Titus is reminiscent of 1 object for criticism in the behaviour of the
Timothy in that it describes the qualities of young men. The Pastoral Epistles show no
members of the community, interspersed with sense of their community being threatened by
short doctrinal statements. Here the concern is persecution in a serious way, but the author
not with the officers of the community, but does not want to attract attention to the church
with its ordinary members. It is introduced by by odd or antisocial behaviour. Paul had a simi-
the injunction to Titus to teach what is consist- lar concern about people in Corinth speaking in
ent with sound doctrine. This seems to entail tongues (1 Cor 14:23–5).
good behaviour on the part of all members of Like women to their husbands, slaves are to
the community. What follows resembles the be submissive to their masters. The teaching
lists of instructions about behaviour in other about slaves corresponds to contemporary
NT epistles (Col 3:18–22; Eph 5.22–33; 1 Pet thinking in every way. Just as attitudes to the
2:18–3:9), but here the grammatical form is dif- position of women have changed beyond all
ferent. Nevertheless, the list of qualities and recognition, so have attitudes towards the in-
duties required contains no surprises. Older stitution of slavery. But at the time the letter
men (not elders here; a related but not identical was written the institution was never really
word is used) are encouraged to be temperate questioned, though there was discussion of
(cf. 1 Tim 6:11), serious (semnos, cf. 1 Tim 3:8, 11), the proper treatment of slaves, particularly
and prudent (sōphrōn, cf. 1:8; 1 Tim 3:2). These are among the Stoics (e.g. Seneca, ‘On Master and
virtues that would be admired throughout the Slave’, Epistles, 47). In parallel household rules
Hellenistic world but specifically Christian vir- in other NT epistles, the behaviour of masters
tues follow; they are to be sound in faith, in to slaves, husbands to wives, and fathers to
love, and in endurance (cf. 1:9; 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim children is introduced to balance the picture
3:10). A summary, in other words, of the qual- (Eph 6:1–9; Col 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet 2:18–3:7). The
ities listed in ch. 1. Pastoral Epistles enjoin no such commitments.
Older women have more detailed instruc- The reason for the slaves’ submissive and
tions: prohibitions as well as positive admon- obedient attitude that the letter recommends
itions. This is a much more general group than is given in 2:10 in a way very typical of the
the widows of 1 Tim 5. They are to be reverent, Pastoral Epistles; they are to be ‘an ornament
and like those in 1 Tim 3:11, they must not be to the doctrine of God our Saviour’. In other
the pastoral epistles 262

words, sound doctrine and ethics are inextric- the experience of each individual in the com-
ably linked even for slaves. munity before becoming Christian. Usually in
the Pastorals lists like this provide a contrast
(2:11–15) contains a typical doctrinal statement, between the behaviour of the opponents and
interrupted by ethical exhortations in v. 12, that advocated for believers. Here, on the other
recalling other such passages in the other two hand, the list points up the contrast between the
epistles, but resembling most closely that in 2 good moral behaviour of members of the com-
Tim 1:9–12. The close relationship between the munity which arises out of sound doctrine and
death of Christ and the removal of sin is here the same people’s earlier moral turpitude. The
expressed more clearly than anywhere else in two lists only partly correspond with one an-
the three epistles and in a way that entirely other; there are closer links with similar lists in
conforms to Paul’s own teaching. Typically for Eph 2:2; 5:8; 1 Cor 6:11. So it is clear that lists of
the Pastorals, the incarnation of Christ and his ‘before and after’ behaviour were becoming a
sacrifice are linked with the hope and expect- commonplace of Christian preaching. The use
ation of his future coming. The Greek of 2:13 is of the metaphor of slavery to sin is familiar
ambiguous. The NRSV chooses to identify from Paul (e.g. Rom 6:6).
God our Saviour with Jesus Christ. Since he is
nowhere else called God in the Pastoral Epis- (3:4–8a) describes the means by which this
tles—indeed his humanity is stressed in 1 Tim change has come about for believers. This is the
2:5—the alternative translation, ‘our great God final summary of ‘sound doctrine’ in the epistles,
and our Saviour Jesus Christ’ is to be preferred. signalled by ‘the saying is sure’ in v. 8. As always
But, on the other hand, the immediate context in the Pastorals, the soteriology is theocentric.
of the verse with its imagery of royal epiphany God is Saviour, and salvation comes not as a
might have encouraged the author to use the reward for good deeds but from God’s mercy.
most exalted imagery of Christ at his parousia. The incarnation, not Christ’s death, is identified
The grace of God has brought salvation to all; here as the turning-point in salvation history
the soteriology of the Pastorals is almost always when God’s goodness and loving kindness (phi-
inclusive rather than exclusive (e.g. 1 Tim 2:4, 6). lanthrōpia, lit. love for human beings) were
The qualities that grace enables us to learn have revealed. The crucifixion is referred to only
been mentioned before, and include words twice in the Pastorals, as the decisive soterio-
belonging to the piety (eusebeia) as well as restraint logical moment, in 1 Tim 2:6 and Titus 2:14. The
(sōphrosunē) groups. The connection between author prefers to balance the first and the future
God’s gracious act of salvation in Christ’s coming epiphanies to describe God’s work of salvation;
and death with present Christian behaviour has this passage can be paralleled with 2:11–14 where
never been expressed more clearly. The word the future manifestation of Christ completes the
used for redemption here is cognate with that process of salvation.
used for ransom in 1 Tim 2:6; Christ’s death is The decisive moment for individuals was
the price of redemption. The idea of purification baptism, here described as the water of rebirth
of a people is not Pauline as ideas of ransom are, and renewal; the moment when ‘he saved us’.
but is reminiscent of 1 Pet 2:9. The final injunction Justification by grace, a truly Pauline idea, is not
adds weight and authority to his teaching. explained, but like ‘saved’ in v. 5, the emphasis is
on a past event, enabling believers to become
(3:1–2) The face the church presents is to be ‘heirs according to the hope of eternal life’. The
that of peaceful and helpful people, both in process of salvation is not yet complete, but
the public realm towards the government and believers can feel certain of their part in it.
also towards private individuals. The injunction Paul’s understanding of justification is complex,
to be subject to rulers is familiar from 1 Tim 2:2 but contrasts faith as the central element of
and from Rom 13:1–7 (cf. also 1 Pet 2:13–17 where salvation with works of the law. The Pastoral
it is placed in a list of duties as it is here). Epistles’ emphasis, on the other hand, is on the
‘Remind them’, an expression also used in 2 close relationship between belief in sound doc-
Tim 2:14, seems to introduce a general instruc- trine and the good works which follow. The
tion for the community as a whole rather than two ideas are not opposed to one another, but
for a particular group. are distinctly different.

(3:3–8a) The courtesy which is owed to those (3:8b–11) concerns relationships between Titus
outside the church is explained by reference to and members of the community who indulge in
 263 philemon

controversy and argument. Such behaviour is cus was mentioned in 2 Tim 4:12 and the name
contrasted with the good works that profit the appears elsewhere in the NT (Acts 20:4; Eph
whole community. That the difficulties are 6:21; Col 4:7). Zenas the lawyer is unknown
caused by Jewish Christians is suggested by the but Apollos is known to us from both 1 Corin-
fact that some of the debates concern the law. thians and Acts (1 Cor 1:12; 3:4–6, 22; 4:6; Acts
Genealogies are also mentioned as a focus of 18:24; 19:1). Perhaps we are to envisage them as
dispute as they were in 1 Tim 1:4. After two the bearers of the Epistle to Titus. They are
attempts at putting them straight, Titus is told to be well looked after and perhaps given finan-
to ignore such argumentative people; they are cial support for their onward journey. Travel
the cause of their own condemnation. in winter was unadvisable, so Paul had
decided to spend the winter in Nicopolis. A
Personal Matters (3:12–16) final injunction to good works precedes the
Personal details at the end of the book add a final greeting.
final touch of verisimilitude to the fictional situ-
ation. Paul hopes that Titus will come to him REFERENCES
soon in Nicopolis, a city not mentioned else-
where in the NT and probably to be understood Beard, M., North, J. A., and Price, S.R.F. (1998), Reli-
as the city of Nicopolis in Epirus. Since the city gions of Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University
does not appear in Acts and is not mentioned Press).
by Paul, any attempt to locate this letter at a Miller, James D. (1997), The Pastoral Letters as Composite
particular point in Paul’s life as we know it is Documents (2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
impossible. Artemas is unknown to us. Tychi- sity Press).

14. Philemon
CRAIG S . WANSINK

INTRODUCTION epistle has been approached. Onesimus gener-

ally is seen in one of three ways: (1) as a runaway
A. Paul’s Imprisonment. The apostle Paul,
slave (cf. Lohse 1971; R. P. Martin 1974; Caird
according to 1 Clem. 5, 5–6, was ‘in chains’
1976; Nordling 1991); (2) as an estranged slave,
seven times. In 2 Cor 11:23, Paul himself boasts
appealing to his owner’s friend (amicus domini)
of having experienced ‘far more imprisonments’
(cf. Lampe 1985; Rapske 1991; Bartchy 1992); or
than his detractors. Ironically, the one who had
(3) as a slave, sent by Philemon, to serve Paul in
formerly imprisoned Christians (cf. Acts 8:3;
prison (cf. Knox 1959; Winter 1984; 1987;
22:4; 26:10) frequently found himself incarcer-
Wansink 1996).
ated. During one such experience, he wrote to
2. The first two characterizations generally
Philemon and the church that was in his house.
focus on vv. 11, 15, and 18, and, as discussed in
Only twenty-five verses long, Paul’s letter is
the commentary below, tend to undervalue
replete with rhetorical dissonance, subtlety,
Greek wordplays, conventions of ancient slav-
and wordplay. The epistle offers little insight
ery and, particularly, Paul’s location (in prison).
into its provenance or dating. Whether it was
For a number of additional reasons, it seems
written in Rome, Ephesus, Philippi, or else-
unlikely that Onesimus either ran away or was
where is not of primary concern. Whether it
estranged from his master: (1) If Onesimus had
was written towards the end of Paul’s life or
run away or faced estrangement, his owner
towards the beginning of his mission is not
probably would not have known where he
revealed. Rather, the most salient aspects of
was. Here, however, Philemon appears to have
the letter are Paul’s rhetoric and his imprison-
known that Onesimus was with Paul (Winter
ment (cf. vv. 10, 13, 22).
1987). (2) It seems unreasonable to believe that
Onesimus would run away from his master in
B. Onesimus. 1. Although the figure of Onesi- order to escape into prison. Such a hypothesis
mus is not introduced until almost half-way seems to ignore Paul’s imprisonment. (3) If One-
through the letter (in v. 10), the interpretation simus were estranged from Philemon and in
of this figure has typically framed how the need of reconciliation, his conversion to the
philemon 264

Christian faith—under such conditions—could gardless, she is a Christian (i.e. ‘sister’). ‘Archip-
well appear feigned and opportunistic. (4) Al- pus’: the appellation ‘fellow-soldier’ (cf. Phil
though Paul asks that Philemon support Onesi- 2:25) does not necessarily refer to one who
mus, he does not request pity or forgiveness on performs a specific task within the church. Be-
behalf of Onesimus. Onesimus is not presented cause soldiers were well known for their loyalty,
in any way as remorseful or repentant. the title may represent a character attribute (for
3. It appears that Onesimus neither ran away other martial imagery, see PHILEM 23). The ad-
nor was estranged from his master. Writing monitions to a certain Archippus in Col 4:17 led
from prison, Paul thanks the recipients of the Knox to ask if Paul’s admonitions in Philemon
epistle for their support. He sees his relation- were directed primarily to Archippus (cf. Knox
ship with them as similar to that of ‘partners’. 1959). ‘To the church in your house’: the earliest
And when he returns a person who had been Christians gathered and worshipped in private
with him in prison, he feels justified in asking homes (cf. PHILEM 22). v. 3, salutation: ‘Grace to
that this person be received with respect and you and peace’. To readers of Greek epistles,
care. That is the situation in Paul’s letter to the charis (‘grace’) would have sounded similar to
Philippians. That is also the situation in Phile- the typical epistolary greeting chairein (‘greet-
mon. In Philippians, Epaphroditus was messen- ings’; cf. Jas 1:1). Paul thus uses wordplay in a
ger and minister to Paul’s needs. He had been way in which his greeting bears theological
sent to Paul by the Philippians, he had served import. His use of the word ‘peace’, in the sec-
this prisoner on their behalf, and he then ond part of this greeting, probably reflects the
returned to his community. Onesimus, simi- typical Hebrew and Aramaic salutation shalom
larly, appears to have been sent by Philemon (šālôm).
to serve Paul while he was in prison. During this
service, however, something unique happened. (4–7) Thanksgiving The thanksgiving estab-
Onesimus became a Christian and Paul had now lishes the major themes and expectations of
found a new colleague in ministry. If the pagan the epistle. v. 4, although this letter is addressed
slave Onesimus was sent by his owner to ‘re- to an entire house-church, the Greek makes
fresh’ the imprisoned, if he was no runaway clear that Paul’s thanksgiving is now directed
looking for quick redemption and forgiveness, to one individual, presumably Philemon. v. 5,
generations of Christian interpreters have chea- Paul acknowledges that he has heard of Phile-
ted Onesimus out of the integrity of his faith. mon’s ‘love’ and ‘faith’ towards Jesus and all ‘the
saints’. In v. 6 Paul expounds on this faith and in
v. 7 the love. v. 6, ‘I pray that the sharing of your
COMMENTARY faith may become effective when you perceive
all the good that we [other ancient authorities
Prescript and Thanksgiving (1–7) read ‘you’] may do for Christ’. The word for
(1–3) Prescript The references in vv. 1 and 9 ‘sharing’—koinōnia—is a technical term fre-
reflect Paul’s first written use of the appellation quently associated with commerce in the
‘prisoner of Christ Jesus’ (cf. 2 Tim 1:8; Eph 3:1; Graeco-Roman world (cf. Sampley 1980). Cf. v.
4:1; 3 Cor. 3.1). Some see this expression as 17 where Paul more explicitly uses the language
reflecting only Paul’s presence in prison. Others of commerce. Paul refers to ‘the good’ again in
understand it metaphorically, in the light of v. 14. v. 7, ‘joy’, a typical catchphrase of Pauline
triumphal marches (cf. Stuhlmacher 1981) or rhetoric in Philippians is frequently used during
initiations into mystery cults (cf. Reitzenstein times of persecution. Paul notes his own joy
1978). Most interpreters, however, see Paul’s sta- and comfort in Philemon’s love, ‘because the
tus as ‘prisoner’ as resulting either ‘because of’ hearts (splagchna) of the saints’ had been
or ‘for the sake of’ Christ Jesus (cf. PHILEM 9; ‘refreshed’ through Philemon. Here Paul sets
PHILEM 23 offers an alternative interpretation). the stage for the main concerns in the letter.
‘Philemon, our beloved brother and fellow Similar references reappear in v. 12, where Paul
worker’ (NASB). Ironically, only one other indi- describes Onesimus as his splagchna and in v. 20
vidual in this letter is referred to as ‘beloved’: where Paul encourages Philemon to ‘refresh my
Onesimus (in v. 16). ‘Co-worker’: like the four heart (splagchna) in Christ’. Note that around the
persons mentioned in v. 24, Philemon is a fel- year 110 CE, when the bishop Ignatius was being
low worker, apparently one who assists taken in chains to Rome, he wrote to the Ephe-
the imprisoned apostle. v. 2, ‘Apphia’: some sians, thanking them for ‘refreshing’ him
commentators see her as Philemon’s wife. Re- through Crocus and others whom they had
 265 philemon

sent to be with him while he was a prisoner (cf. know if Paul is using this expression in a literal,
Ign. Eph. 2. 1–2) (cf. Wansink 1996). figurative, or simply rhetorical sense. The refer-
ence to ‘Onesimus’ as having been ‘useless’
Body: Paul’s Request (8–20) would have sounded ironic to the original
vv. 8–9, Paul opens his request by acknowledg- readers of this letter. The wordplay is even
ing that although he is ‘bold enough’ to com- more notable when we look at achrēstos in the
mand Philemon to do his duty, he would rather light of v. 10. Onesimus became a Christian
appeal to him ‘on the basis of love’ (cf. vv. 5, 7). while with Paul. Before Onesimus met Paul he
Paul notes that he makes such an appeal as a was not a Christian. He was achristos (without
‘prēsbutes, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Christ). In Koine Greek, achristos and achrēstos
Jesus’. The Greek term prēsbutes has been trans- were homophones. Thus, Paul is saying: Before
lated both as ‘old man’ and as ‘ambassador’. Onesimus was a Christian, he was named One-
When the received text is emended (Lightfoot simus (or ‘useful’). At that time, however, he was
1904) or when comparisons are made to 2 Cor not truly useful, because he was achrēstos/achris-
5:19b–20a and Eph 6:20 (cf. Stuhlmacher 1981), tos. Now that he is a Christian, however, he is
this word sometimes is translated as ‘ambas- truly useful (cf. Winter 1987). As Philemon’s
sador’. However, since Paul has just announced messenger and minister to Paul, Onesimus
that he would not exploit his authority to give would be useful to both persons. v. 12, ‘I am
commands (v. 8), referring to himself now as an sending him, that is, my own heart, back to
‘ambassador’ would seem contradictory. Fur- you.’ The Greek verb employed here is fre-
thermore, recent lexical studies emphasize that quently used to refer to the return of messen-
‘old man’ would be the most appropriate trans- gers or envoys. ‘My own heart’ (cf. PHILEM 7, 20):
lation for this Greek term (cf. Gnilka 1982; Bird- the Greek word splagchna, translated as ‘heart’, is
sall 1993). Paul, thus, is seeking empathy. He is also a synonym for the Greek word pais (child)
old and, furthermore, he is in a situation in- (cf. Artemidorus, Oneirocritica, 1. 44). v. 13, ‘I
appropriate for a person of his age: he is a wanted to keep him with me’ (Paul wants Phi-
prisoner. These two epithets share at least one lemon to make his own choice; vv. 9, 14, 21), ‘so
key characteristic: both the elderly and the that he might be of service to me in your place’.
imprisoned were seen as vulnerable and depen- In prison, Paul would have been dependent on
dent upon others (Hock 1995). ‘Prisoner of outsiders for food, clothing, the delivering of
Christ Jesus’: the point seems to be that letters, etc. v. 14, ‘I preferred to do nothing
prisoners were dependent on support from out- without your consent, in order that your good
siders (cf. v. 13). At the same time, the constel- deed might be voluntary’. In v. 6, Paul prays that
lation of military metaphors in this letter points Philemon might effectively share his faith when
to an even richer meaning for this appellation he perceives ‘all the good that we [the impri-
(cf. PHILEM 23). v. 10, ‘Onesimus’: literally ‘useful’ soned?] may do for Christ’. Here Paul expects
in Greek. In this first reference to Onesimus, that Philemon—with free will and this know-
Paul is not explicit about how these two came ledge—will use his goodness appropriately.
to be together. Apparently Philemon already v. 15, ‘Perhaps this is the reason he was separated
knew. ‘My child’: in the Pauline and Deutero- from you for a while’. Those interpreters who
Pauline literature, Onesimus, Titus (Titus 1:4), claim that Onesimus was a runaway slave tend
and Timothy (1 Cor 4:17; Phil 2:22; 1 Tim 1:2, to see this verse as Paul’s euphemistic handling
18; 2 Tim 1:2; 2:1) are the only specific individ- of a delicate situation (cf. Stöger 1971; Lohse
uals whom Paul refers to as his children. The 1971). The Greek word translated as ‘separated’,
language, thus, is quite intimate. As in 1 Cor 4:17 however, does not necessarily mean ‘ran away’.
and Phil 2:22, here Paul uses the word ‘child’ in Slaves were often separated from their owners,
commending to the addressees the one whom conducting business for them, delivering letters,
Paul, himself, is sending. ‘Whose father I have helping others, or simply working where their
become’: Onesimus was converted by the labour was needed (cf. D. B. Martin 1990). What
imprisoned apostle. v. 11, by postponing the Paul directly acknowledges is that this separ-
word ‘Onesimus’ to the end of v. 10, the Greek ation has resulted in a change in Onesimus’
highlights the wordplays in v. 11. Immediately status and how he is to be viewed. v. 16, ‘no
we are told that Onesimus was formerly ‘use- longer as a slave but more than a slave, a
less’ (achrēstos) but ‘now is useful (euchrēstos) beloved brother’. Onesimus was converted in
both to you and to me’. In what respect was prison and just as Philemon is referred to as
Onesimus ‘useless’ (achrēstos)? It is difficult to ‘beloved’ (v. 1), just as he is referred to as Paul’s
philemon 266

‘brother’ (vv. 7, 20), so Onesimus here is referred prisoner’. The Greek sunaichmalōtos actually
to as a ‘beloved brother’. vv. 17–18, ‘If he has means ‘fellow prisoner of war’. The term points
wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, to more than merely shared imprisonment.
charge that to my account.’ The ‘if’ which begins When Paul, by implication, refers to himself
this sentence makes the apodosis hypothetical both as a ‘soldier’ (cf. PHILEM 2) and as a ‘prisoner
(cf. C. J. Martin 1992). Onesimus did not neces- of war’, the implication is that Paul’s imprison-
sarily wrong Philemon or owe him anything. At ment followed naturally from his commitment
the same time, slavery in the Graeco-Roman to Christ Jesus. Like famed Roman soldiers, and
world often resulted from personal bankruptcy like Socrates, Paul and Epaphras refused to desert
or need. Under these conditions, individuals their posts, regardless if it would lead to impris-
were slaves because they were in debt to their onment or death (cf. Knox 1955; Wansink 1996).
masters. Furthermore, even if a slave owed his v. 24, Paul refers to the others with him as ‘fellow
master nothing, if that slave were to be freed, workers’ (cf. PHILEM 1). Of Mark, Aristarchus,
the owner would expect recompense: he would Demas, and Luke, the latter figure has provoked
be reluctant to give away what he considered to the most interest. In 2 Tim 4:11, he is the last
be an investment. v. 19, ‘I, Paul, am writing person to remain with the imprisoned apostle. In
(egrapsa) this with my own hand’. The epistolary Col 4:14, he is called ‘the beloved physician’.
aorist functions like a signature on a typed letter Because ancient sources see illness as a terrifying
(cf. Gal 6:11; Col 4:18; 1 Cor 16:21). Paul is serious threat faced by the imprisoned, it is interesting to
about this request. ‘I say nothing about your note that each of the references to Luke—the
owing me even your own self’. Paul apparently physician—appears only in epistles said to have
was responsible not only for the conversion of been written from prison, v. 25, a traditional final
Onesimus but also for that of Onesimus’ owner. greeting.
v. 20, ‘Yes, brother, let me have this benefit from
you in the Lord!’ In v. 7, after Paul writes that the
REFERENCES
hearts of the saints had been refreshed through
Philemon, he refers to him as ‘brother’. Here, Bartchy, S. S. (1992), ‘Philemon, Epistle to’, ABD v.
similarly, Paul refers to Philemon as ‘brother’, 305–10.
and asks that he benefit him by refreshing his Birdsall, J. N. (1993), PRESBYTHS ‘in Philemon
heart in Christ. Just as Philemon refreshes ‘the 9: A Study in Conjectural Emendation’, NTS 39:
hearts of the saints’, so he is to refresh Paul. The 625–30.
verse has, however, yet another implication. In Caird, G. B. (1976), Paul’s Letters from Prison (Oxford:
v. 12, Paul refers to Onesimus as ‘my heart’. Oxford University Press).
Paul’s reference to Onesimus in v. 20 hinges Gnilka, J. (1982), Der Philemonbrief (Freiburg: Herder).
on the equation Paul makes in v. 7. Thus, Hock, R. F. (1955), ‘A Support for His Old Age: Paul’s
when Paul writes ‘let me have this benefit (onai- Plea on Behalf of Onesimus’, in L. M. White and
mēn) from you in the Lord’, the term onaimēn is O. L. Yarbrough (eds.), The Social World of the First
not coincidental. In a letter inundated with Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (Min-
wordplay, the similarities between onaimēn and neapolis: Fortress) 67–81.
Onesimus (onēsimos) would have been obvious Knox, J. (1955), ‘Philemon’, in G. A. Buttrick (ed.),
to a Greek-speaking audience. Thus, Philemon The Interpreter’s Bible (New York: Abingdon), xi.
here is called upon to refresh both Paul and 555–73.
Onesimus. —— (1959), Philemon Among the Letters of Paul: A New
View of Its Place and Importance (Nashville: Abing-
Final Prayer, Greetings, and Blessing (21–5) don).
vv. 21–2, Paul is confident about both Philemon’s Lampe, P. (1985), ‘Keine ‘‘Sklavenflucht’’ des Onesi-
obedience and his own release from prison. Fur- mus’, ZNW 76: 135–7.
thermore, he asks Philemon to prepare lodging Lightfoot, J. B. (1904), St Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians
for him. House-churches were not only for wor- and to Philemon (London: Macmillan).
ship, Christian meetings, and moral instruction, Lohse, E. (1971), Colossians and Philemon, trans. W. R.
but also for hosting travellers and guests. Just as Poehlmann and R. J. Karris, Hermaneia (Phila-
Paul had prayed for Philemon (cf. PHILEM 4), so he delphia: Fortress).
asks that this community pray for him in his Martin, C. J. (1992), ‘The Rhetorical Function of
imprisonment. Paul employs the second person Commercial Language in Paul’s Letter to Phile-
plural pronoun, clearly emphasizing his relation- mon (Verse 18)’, in D. F. Watson (ed.), Persuasive
ship with the entire community. v. 23, ‘Fellow Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of
 267 philemon

George A. Kennedy, JSNTSup 50 (Sheffield: JSOT), Sampley, J. P. (1980), Pauline Partnership in Christ:
321–37. Christian Community and Commitment in Light of
Martin, D. B. (1990), Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor Roman Law (Philadelphia: Fortress).
of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale Stöger, A. (1971), The Epistle to Philemon, ed. J. L. McKen-
University Press). zie, trans. M. Dunne (New York: Herder & Herder).
Martin, R. P. (1974), Colossians and Philemon, NCB Stuhlmacher, P. (1981), Der Brief an Philemon, EKKNT
(London: Oliphants). (Zürich: Benziger).
Nordling, J. G. (1991), ‘Onesimus Fugitivus: A Wansink, C. S. (1996), ‘Chained in Christ’: The Experience
Defense of the Runaway Slave Hypothesis in Phi- and Rhetoric of Paul’s Imprisonments, JSNTSup (Shef-
lemon’, JSNT 41: 97–119. field: JSNT).
Rapske, B. M. (1991), ‘The Prisoner Paul in the Eyes of Winter, S. (1984), ‘Methodological Observations on a
Onesimus’, NTS 37: 187–203. New Interpretation of Paul’s Letter to Philemon’,
Reitzenstein, R. (1978), Hellenistic Mystery-Religions: Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 35: 3–12.
Their Basic Ideas and Significance, trans. J. E. Steely —— (1987), ‘Paul’s Letter to Philemon’, NTS 33:
(Pittsburgh: Pickwick). 1–15.
 Bibliographical Guide to New Testament Studies:
the Pauline Epistles

3. Introduction to the Pauline Corpus Dunn, J. D. G. (1988), Romans, WBC (2 vols.; Dallas:
Word).
Ashton, J. (2000), The Religion of Paul the Apostle (New
Fitzmyer, J. A. (1993), Romans, Anchor Bible (New
Haven: Yale University Press).
York: Doubleday).
Beker, C. (1980), Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in
Hay, D. M., and Johnson, E. E., (eds.), (1995), Pauline
Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Theology, vol. 3 Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress).
Bruce, F. F. (1977), Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free
Moo, D. J. (1996), The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Donaldson, T. L. (1997), Paul and the Gentiles: Remap-
Sanday, W., and Headlam, A. C. (1902), Romans, ICC
ping the Apostle’s Convictional World (Minneapolis:
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Fortress).
Stowers, S. K. (1994), A Rereading of Romans (New
—— (2007), Judaism and the Gentiles: Jewish Patterns of
Haven: Yale University Press).
Universalism (to 135 CE), (Waco, TX: Baylor Univer-
Wedderburn, A. J. M. (1988), The Reason for Romans,
sity Press).
SNTW (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Dunn, J. D. G. (1998), The Theology of Paul the Apostle
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Engberg-Pedersen, T. (2000), Paul and the Stoics
5. 1 Corinthians
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Hengel, M. (1991), The pre-Christian Paul (London: Adams, E. and Horrell, D. G. (eds.) (2004), Christianity
SCM). at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church, (Louis-
Lüdemann, G. (1984), Paul Apostle to the Gentiles: Stud- ville: Westminster John Knox Press).
ies in Chronology (London: SCM). Barrett, C. K. (1971), A Commentary on the First Epistle to
Montefiore, C. (1914), Judaism and St. Paul: Two Essays the Corinthians, BNTC (London: A. & C. Black).
(London: Max Goschen). Chow, J. K. (1992), Patronage and Power: A Study of
Murphy-O’Connor, J. (1996), Paul: A Critical Life Social Networks in Corinth, JSNTSup 75 (Sheffield:
(Oxford: Clarendon). JSOT).
Riesner, R. (1998), Paul’s Early Period: Chronology, Mis- Clark, A. D. (1993), Secular and Christian Leadership in
sion, Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1
Sanders, E. P. (1977), Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Com- Corinthians 1–6 (Leiden: Brill).
parison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress). Collins, R. F. (1999), First Corinthians, Sacra Pagina
Schweitzer, A. (1931), The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (Collegeville: Liturgical).
(London: A. & C. Black). Conzelmann, H. (1987), 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia
Segal, A. F. (1990), Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale Uni- Fee, G. D. (1987), The First Epistle to the Corinthians,
versity Press). NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Hurd, J. C. (1983), The Origin of 1 Corinthians, 2nd edn.
(Macon, Ga.: Mercer).
4. Romans
Martin, D. B. (1995), The Corinthian Body (New Haven,
Barrett, C. K. (1957), A Commentary on the Epistle to the Yale University Press).
Romans, BNTC (London: A. & C. Black). Meggitt, J. J. (1998), Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh:
Barth, K. (1933), The Epistle to the Romans (London: T. & T. Clark).
Oxford University Press). Mitchell, M. M. (1991), Paul and the Rhetoric of Recon-
Byrne, B. (1996), Romans, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville: ciliation (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck).
Liturgical). Murphy-O’Connor, J. (2009), Keys to First Corinthians.
Cranfield, C. E. B. (1975–1979), Romans. ICC (2 vols.: Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford: Oxford Univer-
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). sity Press).
—— (1998), On Romans and Other New Testament Es- Theissen, G. (1982), The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity:
says (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Donfried, K. P. (ed.) (1991), The Romans Debate, rev. Thiselton, A. C. (2000), The First Epistle to the Corin-
edn. (Peabody: Hendrickson). thians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
 269 bibliographical guide

Welborn, L. L. (2005), Paul, the Fool of Christ. A Study of Kern, P. H. (1998), Rhetoric and Galatians, SNTSMS 101:
1 Corinthians 1–4 in the Comic-Philosophic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
(London: T. & T. Clark International). Longenecker, B. W. (1998), The Triumph of Abraham’s
Wire, A. (1990), The Corinthian Women Prophets (Min- God. The Transformation of Identity in Galatians (Edin-
neapolis: Fortress). burgh: T. & T. Clark).
Longenecker, R. N. (1990), Galatians, WBC (Dallas:
Word).
6. 2 Corinthians
Lührmann, D. (1992), Galatians: A Continental Commen-
Barnett, P. (1997), The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, tary (Minneapolis: Fortress).
NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Martyn, J. L. (1997), Galatians, Anchor Bible (New
Barrett, C. K. (1973), A Commentary on the Second Epistle York: Doubleday).
to the Corinthians, BNTC (London: A. & C. Black). Matera, F. J. (1992), Galatians, Sacra Pagina (College-
Betz, H. D. (1985), 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary ville: Liturgical).
on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul,
Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress).
8. Ephesians
Crafton, J. A. (1991), The Agency of the Apostle: A Dra-
matistic Analysis of Paul’s Response to Conflict in 2 Barth, M. (1974), Ephesians, Anchor Bible (2 vols; New
Corinthians, JSNTSup 51 (Sheffield: JSOT). York: Doubleday).
Furnish V. P. (1988), 11 Corinthians, Anchor Bible (New Best, E. (1998), Ephesians, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T.
York: Doubleday). Clark).
Georgi, D. (1986), The Opponents of Paul in Second Goodspeed, E. J. (1933), The Meaning of Ephesians
Corinthians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Lambrecht, J. (1999), Second Corinthians, Sacra Pagina Kirby, J. C. (1968), Ephesians, Baptism and Pentecost
(Collegeville: Liturgical). (Montreal: McGill University Press).
McCant, V. W. (1999), 2 Corinthians (Sheffield: Shef- Koester, H. (ed.) (1995), Ephesos—Metropolis of Asia
field Academic Press). (Valley Forge, Pa.: TPI).
Martin, R. P. (1986), 2 Corinthians, WBC (Dallas: Word). Lincoln, A. T. (1990), Ephesians, WBC (Dallas: Word).
Murphy-O’Connor, J. (1991), The Theology of the Second —— and Wedderburn, A. J. M. (1993), The Theology of
Letter to the Corinthians (Cambridge: Cambridge the Later Pauline Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press). University Press).
Sumney, J. L. (1991), Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Mitton, C. L. (1951), The Epistle to the Ephesians (Oxford:
Question of Method in 2 Corinthians, JSNTSup 40 Clarendon).
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). Muddiman, J. (2001), The Epistle to the Ephesians, CNTC
Thrall, M. E. (1994, 2000), The Second Epistle to the (London & New York: Continuum).
Corinthians, ICC (2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). O’Brien, P. T. (1999), The Letter to the Ephesians, PNTC
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Schnackenberg, R. (1991), The Epistle to the Ephesians
7. Galatians
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Barclay, J. M. G. (1988), Obeying the Truth: A Study van Roon, A. (1974), The Authenticity of Ephesians,
of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & NovTSup 39 (Leiden: Brill).
T. Clark).
Betz, H. D. (1979), Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s
9. Philippians
Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia (Phila-
delphia: Fortress). Beare, F. W. (1973), The Epistle to the Philippians, 3rd
Bruce, F. F. (1982), The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC edn. (London: A. & C. Black).
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Bockmuehl, M. (1998), The Epistle to the Philippians
Dunn, J. D. G. (1993), The Epistle to the Galatians (London: A. & C. Black).
(London: A. & C. Black). Boomquist, L. G. (1993), The Function of Suffering in
—— (1993), The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians Philippians, JSNTSup 78 (Sheffield: JSOT).
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Fee, G. D. (1995), The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians,
Hansen, G. (1989), Abraham in Galations—Epistolary NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
and Rhetorical Contexts, JSNTSup 29 (Sheffield: Shef- Hawthorne, G. F. (1983), Philippians, WBC (Dallas:
field Academic Press). Word).
Hays, R. B. (1983), The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investi- Martin, R. P. (1983), Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5–11 in
gation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3: 1–4: Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian
11, SBLDS 56 (Chico. Calif.: Scholars Press). Worship, 2nd edn. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
bibliographical guide 270

—— and Dodd, B. J. (eds.) (1998), Where Christology Malherbe, A. J. (1987), Paul and the Thessalonians: The
Began: Essays on Philippians 2 (Philadelphia: West- Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia:
minster/John Knox). Fortress).
O’Brien, P. T. (1991), Philippians, NIGTC (Grand —— (2000), The Letters to the Thessalonians, Anchor
Rapids: Eerdmans). Bible (New York: Doubleday).
Peterlin, D. (1995), Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Richards, E. J. (1995), First and Second Thessalonians,
Light of Disunity in the Church, NovTSup 79 (Leiden: Sacra Pagina (Collegeville: Liturgical).
Brill). Smith, A. (1995), Comfort One Another: Reconstructing
the Rhetoric and Audience of 1 Thessalonians (Louis-
ville: Westminster/John Knox).
10. Colossians
Wanamaker, C. A. (1990), The Epistles to the Thessalon-
Arnold, C. E. (1996), The Colossian Syncretism (Grand ians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Rapids: Baker).
Barth, M., and Blanke, H. (1994), Colossians, Anchor
12. 2 Thessalonians
Bible (New York: Doubleday).
DeMaris, R. E. (1994), The Colossian Controversy, Giblin, C. H. (1967), The Threat to the Faith. An Exegetical
JSNTSup 96 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press). and Theological Re-Examination of 2 Thessalonians.
Dunn, J. D. G. (1996), The Epistles to the Colossians and to AnBib 31 (Rome: PBI).
Philemon, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Holland, G. S. (1988), The Tradition that You Received
Francis, F. O., and Meeks, W. A. (eds.), Conflict at from Us: 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline Tradition, HUT
Colassae, SBLSBS 4 (Missoula: Scholar’s Press). (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Lohse, E. (1971), Colossians and Philemon, Hermeneia Hughes, F. W. (1989), Early Christian Rhetoric and 2
(Philadelphia: Fortress). Thessalonians, JSNTSup 30 (Sheffield: JSOT).
MacDonald, M. Y. (2000), Colossians and Ephesians, Meade, D. G. (1986), Pseudonymity and Canon: An
Sacra Pagina (Collegeville: Liturgical). Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and
Martin, T. W. (1996), By Philosophy and Empty Authority in Jewish and Early Christian Tradition,
Deceit, Colossians as Response to a Cynic Critique, WUNT 39. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck)
JSNTSup 118 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press).
13. Pastoral Epistles
Muddiman, J. (2001), A Commentary on the Epistle to the
Ephesians, Black’s NT Commentaries (London/New Dibelius, M., and Conzelmann, H. (1972), The Pastoral
York: Continuum). Epistles, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Murphy-O’Connor, J. (2007), ‘Greeters in Col Donalson, L. R. (1986), Pseudepigraphy and Ethical
4:10–14 and Phm 23–4’, Revue Biblique, 114 (2007) Argument in the Pastoral Epistles (Tübingen: Mohr-
416–26. Siebeck).
O’Brien, P. T. (1982), Colossians and Philemon, WBC Harrison, P. N. (1921), The Problem of the Pastoral Epistle
(Dallas: Word). (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Porkorn
y, P. (1991), Colossians, A Commentary (Pcabody, Kelly, J. N. D. (1960), The Pastoral Epistles (London:
Mass.: Hendrickson). A. & C. Black).
MacDonald, D. R. (1983), The Legend of the Apostle:
The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia:
11. 1 Thessalonians
Fortress).
Best, E. (1972), The First and Second Epistles to the Thes- Marshall, I. H. (1998), The Pastoral Epistles, ICC
salonians (London: A. & C. Black). (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Bruce, F. F. (1982), 1 and 2 Thessalonians, WBC (Dallas: Miller, J. D. (1997), The Pastoral Letters as Composite
Word). Documents (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Collins, R. F. (1984), Studies on the First Letter to the Press).
Thessalonians. BETL 66 (Leuven: Peeters). Mounce, W. D. (1999), The Pastoral Epistles, WBC
—— (1990), The Thessalonian Correspondence (Leuven: (Dallas: Word).
Leuven University Press). Quinn, J. D. (1990), Titus, Anchor Bible (New York:
Donfried, K. P., and Beutler, J. (2000), The Thessalon- Doubleday).
ians Debate: Methodological Discord or Methodological —— and Wacker, W. C. (2000), The First and Second
Synthesis? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). Letters to Timothy, Eerdmans Critical Commentary
Jewett, R. (1986), The Thessalonian Correspondence: (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Young, F. (1994), The Theology of the Pastoral Letters
Fortress). (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
 271 bibliographical guide

14. Philemon Petersen, N. R. (1985), Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and

the Sociology of Paul’s Narrative World (Philadelphia:
Barth, M., and Blanke, H. (2000), The Letter to Philemon,
Fortress).
Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Sampley, J. P. (1980), Pauline Partnership in Christ:
Eerdmans).
Christian Community and Commitment in Light of
Burthchaell, J. T. (1973), Philemon’s Problem (Chicago:
Roman Law (Philadelphia: Fortress).
ACTA Foundation).
Wansink, C. S. (1996), ‘Chained in Christ’: The Experience
Fitzmyer, J. A. (2001), The Letter to Philemon, Anchor
and Rhetoric of Paul’s Imprisonments, JSNTSup 130
Bible (New York: Doubleday).
(Sheffield: JSOT).
Martin, D. B. (1990), Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor
of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale
University Press).
This page intentionally left blank
 Index
Aasgaard, R. 228 Apostolic Council 157, 158 as cosmos metaphor 117
Abba (Father) 77/163 Apphia 264 imagery 134
Abraham Aquila (and Priscilla) 59 physical suffering 102, 129, 147
ancestor of Jews and Gentiles 70 Arabia, Paul 156, 165 resurrection 121–4
children chosen by God 59, 112 Aramaic as temple of the Holy Spirit 99
faith in God 118, 161 early Christian Church 17 Bruce, F. F. 41, 42, 170, 188, 190, 206,
God’s promises to 64, 161 New Testament 7, 11, 17, 21 215, 237
Achaia 40–2, 44, 92, 124, 128, 139, Archippus 206, 207, 215, 264
140, 149, 221 Aretas, king of Arabia 39 Cabirus 217, 221, 227
Acts of the Apostles Aristarchus 214, 266 Caligula 240
historical reliability 41 armour of God 186–8 canon 4–5
life of Paul 29, 30, 245 Artemas 263 biblical criticism 4
Acts of Paul and Thecla 245, 250, 256, asceticism letters of Paul 6
258, 259 Colossians 210, 211 Carpus 245
Adam 1 Corinthians 104 Cassander 217
archetypal human, Romans Pastoral Epistles 252, 254 Castor and Pollux 229
(book) 56 Athens 190, 225 celibacy
Pastoral Epistles 179 atonement Paul 104, 252
pride in Philippians 144 Paul’s theology 32 Cephas see Peter
2 Thessalonians 235 Aune, David E. 46, 47 charisma, Paul 27, 94, 181
adoption by God 119–20, 173 children
adultery baptism household rules in
law of God 73 on behalf of the dead 121 Ephesians 185–6
1 Thessalonians 216 Colossians 130, 170 Paul 70, 73, 148, 162, 193, 199,
afflictions dying with Christ 50, 211 265
physical suffering 95 idealistic origin 12 of promise 80
afterlife into Moses 112 Christ see Jesus; Messiah
see also resurrection significance of 123 Christ hymn 87
1 Corinthians 91 Barnabas 30, 40, 158, 260 Christianity
Alexander (and Hymenaeus) 247, cousin of Mark 214 see also church
249, 257 meeting with Jerusalem authority of the emperor 248
allegory leaders 157 contrasted with Judaism 155
Hagar and Sarah 165 Paul and 41, 157 Cretan 260
angels persecution by Jews 258 early texts 228
promulgating the law 162 Baur, F. C. 59, 223 eschatology 229
anger belief exhortations by Paul 88, 184
of God 183–4 in God 69, 70–1 Gentile converts 189
Antioch in Jesus Christ 25, 34, 69 household rules 185–6
church at 152, 157, 158 resurrection of Christ 121, 230 Jewish 38, 59, 60, 79, 95, 125
Paul 39, 121, 157–8, 258 believers laws 62
Antiochus III (the Great) (kingofSyria) free from the law of sin 76 Lord’s supper 116
history of Colossae 204 law of the Spirit 76–9 model for conduct in
Antiochus IV Epiphanes (king of power not to sin 72 Ephesians 184
Syria) 240 benediction new humanity in Ephesians
2 Thessalonians 235 Romans (book) 88 176–8
apocalyptic literature Beroea 225 origins, Paul 27
language of 147 Betz, Hans Dieter 48 persecution 34, 38, 146, 258
Apocrypha bishops 19, 191, 245, 252, 260 slaves 213
Protestant 6 Black Sea 152 unity 85, 86, 90, 181
Apollos 92, 95, 98, 99, 100, 124, 263 blessing worship 120
apostasy Ephesians (book) 173–4 Christology
2 Thessalonians 136, 154, 240, boasting 49, 69, 71, 94, 96, 98, 111, Colossians 171
258, 259 118, 127, 129, 137, 140, 143, 145, Messiahship of Jesus 155
apostles 146, 147, 169, 170, 176, 178, non-Jewish influences 198
effectiveness 205 194, 222 Philippians 190
apostolic authority 49, 63, 64, 88, body 76–7 2 Thessalonians 117
127, 136, 140, 145, 149 Christian identity 121 Chrysostom 36, 196, 197, 222, 227
index 274

church non-believers 105 Greek language 12

apostolic talent 144 Saul (Paul) on road to Jewish communities 36
belongs to God 99 Damascus 31 Rome 57
body of Christ 116–18, 205, 212, Coptic Church 4 diatribe 67
245 Corinth 11 Didache 147
characteristics 29 church 11, 71, 77, 85, 90, 91, 92, 93, Dionysus 221
Corinthian 29–30, 91–3, 94–5, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, Dioscuri 228
108, 115, 133, 140, 145 103, 104, 106–8, 109, 110, 111, disciples
early developments 16 114–116, 118, 119, 121, 124, 128, see also apostles
Ephesians 170, 175, 179, 185 140 Christ as model 195–200
Galatia 151 Paul 48, 235 Philippiaus 189–199
groupings 16 1 Corinthians 42, 91–125 disobedience
itinerant-settled shift 18 authorship 67 2 Corinthians 148–9
Jewish origins 16 2 Corinthians 42, 126–150 divine consolation 137
leadership 100 authenticity 126 divorce
obscurity 18 collection for the Saints 140, 148 Paul 104–107.
organization in Pastoral covenant Dunn, James D.G. 29
Epistles 245, 246, 249 ff. Abraham 70, 161
rural setting 17 Judaism 72 ecstatic experiences 128
time span 17 Lord’s Supper 102 Eden 242
urban setting 17, 18 new 116 education
Cicero 45 Paul and the Corinthians 132 Paul 37
circumcision covetousness 66 elders
Ephesians 177 creation instructions in Pastoral
Galatians 177 being saved through Christ 77 Epistles 253
for Gentile proselytes 37, 41 new 135 election
Jewish identity 16, 106, 159 creeds God’s chosen children 80–1
participation in covenant 61 Christian 174 Eleusis 242
Philippians 200 Crescens 259 end of the world
civil authority, Romans (book) Crete 245, 260 see also eschatology
85 criticism 1–3 2 Thessalonians 236–7
Clement (of Rome) 53, 189 see also source criticism Epaphras 188, 204, 205, 206, 207,
collection for the saints Crocus 264 214
commitment of Corinth 141 cross Epaphroditus 194, 202, 207, 264
Paul 124, 128, 148 message of the 95, 97, 98, 118 Ephesians (book) 170–188
Paul’s visit to Jerusalem 39 suffering and sacrifice 71 authorship 125
Colossae 204 crucifixion exhortation 180 ff.
Colossians (book) 7, 42, 46, 49, 99, attitudes towards 95 great prayer and
130, 170, 171, 188, 264, 205, Pastoral Epistles 1 meditation 173 ff.
206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, cults relationship to Colossians 170
212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 266, Eleusis 242 Ephesus 170, 247, 260
270 imperial 194 history of Colossae 204
commentary Thessalonica 192, 202 Pauls 189
critical 1 Cynics 15, 222 Timothy 247
reasons for using 1 Epictetus 246
use of The Oxford Bible Damascus Epicureanism
Commentary 6 Paul 31, 34, 38 Philippians 194
community dead 1 Thessalonians 229
benefits from prophecy 119 baptism on behalf of the 121 Epiphanes see Antiochus IV
ethic 87 death Epirus 263
honour 140 see also afterlife; dead episkopos (bishop) 19, 251, 252, 253,
instructions in Pastoral Colossians 210 258, 260
Epistles 261–3 God’s power over 123 epistolography 216
confession Deissmann, Adolf 45 equality, Jew and Gentile 59, 73
triadic structure 181 deities, Greek and Roman 108 Erastus 93, 108, 260
consolation Demas 214, 259, 266 eschatology
Paul 128 demon Colossians 205, 211
consolation-affliction believers’ relationships with 113 Ephesians 171
antithesis 128 Denzili 204 Gentile inclusion 83
conversion diakonos 146, 251 marriage 107
attained through prophecy 120 diaspora 12, 32, 36, 37, 67, 99, 103, Messiah 34, 58
Colossians 207 125, 128, 149, 158, 260 realized 61
 275 index

resurrection 124 flesh justification by faith 28, 31, 50, 51,

Romans (book) 72, 84, 86 contrasted with Spirit 168 70, 71, 78, 104
spiritual body 134 weakness of the mortal body 74 new humanity in Ephesians 122,
1 Thessalonians 229 food 172, 176, 183
2 Thessalonians 235 corruption of the body 104 offering of 58,
ethics laws 59, 87 Paul 14, 20, 31, 35–38, 39, 59
Pastoral Epistles 257 Lord’s Supper 116 Philippians 89
Ethiopic church sacrificial 91, 92, 108–110, 113 as sinners 159
Old Testament canon 5 Fool’s Speech 144–148 1 Thessalonians 218, 223, 224,
eucharist forgiveness 227, 231, 240
see Last Supper Ephesians 183 Titus 138, 157, 207, 248
Euodia 202 of sins glory
Euphrates 204 Paul 52 for believers 97
evangelism form criticism 2 earthly body 123
Ephesians 182 founding churches, Paul 42, 88 God 97, 115, 123, 131, 137, 192
Paul 239, 87 fragrance, presence of God 131 Pastoral Epistles 121, 251, 257
Eve free will suffering 71, 77, 178
deception by the serpent 144 omnipotence of God 80 1 Thessalonians 205
Pastoral Epistles 250 sin 73 Gnosticism 255
2 Thessalonians 241 freedom, Christian liberty 103 Pastoral Epistles 257
exaltation 87 Funk, R. 233 Philippians 201
exclusion future 2 Thessalonians 236
kingdom of God 177 see also eschatology God
excommunication, at Corinth 101 2 Corinthians 134 see also YHWH
existence anger of 184
the flesh and the spirit 101 Galatia children of 254
limited nature of 134 churches, relationship with covenants of 70, 161
pagan idols 109 Paul 164 the Father 179, 185
Exodus (book) comparison with Colossae 206 impartiality of 67
Philippians 198 Galatians (book) 28, 151–169 kingdom of see Kingdom of
expulsion, Roman Jews 59, 92 church characteristics 17 God
external appearances, judging introduction and overview 151 knowledge of 123, 192
by 135 justification by faith 51 love of 183
letters from Paul 152 mercy of 80
faith Paul’s visits to Jerusalem 37, 40 omnipotence 80
in Christianity 53 position in chronology 41 power of 104, 175
Ephesians 170, 269 style of content 3, 29, 205 righteousness 59, 64–5, 68, 78,
Jesus as object of 22 Gallio 41 83
in Judaism 34 Gamaliel 37 salvation of 246
nature of 65–66 Gaventa, Beverley 89 Saviour 247
revelation of 162 gender sinners 71, 112
1 Thessalonians 220 see also women sovereignty of 20, 79
2 Thessalonians 240 hierarchy 115 transcendence of 254
working through love 166 Genesis Trinity 178
faithfulness the fall 72 godliness 245, 249
of the Lord 242 righteousness by faith 81 Goodspeed, Edgar 54
false believers 152, 157, 158 Gentiles gospel
famine 41 acceptance into Judaism 14, 27, 1 Corinthians 95
fate, predestined by God 78 31, 35, 58, 64, 80, 260 payment for preaching 111
Father children of Abraham 59, 70, 162, proclamation of God’s good
Ephesians 180 166 news 154
2 Thessalonians 237 circumcision 52, 59, 64, 67, 79, transcends human language 97
fathers 105, 151, 157, 159, 166, 169, 177 Gospel of John see John (Gospel)
household rules in Ephesians 186 compelled to live like Jews 159 Gospel of Luke see Luke (Gospel)
feminism equal membership 28 Gospel of Mark see Mark (Gospel)
post-critical biblical study 3 evangelism 44, 223, 236 Gospel of Matthew see Matthew
final judgement God’s justification of 161 (Gospel)
nakedness metaphor 134 idolatry 43, 66, 76, 103, 106, 113, gospels
finances 189, 212, 217, 226, 241 see also John; Luke; Mark;
converts at Corinth 103 Jewish perspective in Matthew
financial support, Paul 110, 124, 145, Ephesians 172, 177 authorship 49
168 and Jews eating together 158 inadequacies 10
index 276

gospels (cont.) hope church in 40, 88

Jesus’ death and resurrection 24 Christ, Pastoral Epistles 247 Paul 30
Jewish background 12 Ephesians 174 Jesus (called Justus) 214
purpose 11 Philippians 193 Jesus Christ
grace 1 Thessalonians 220–1, 225, 230 see also Christ; Christology;
Ephesians 171, 175, 178 household, codes 185–6, 213, 246 disciples; Messiah
Philippians 191 hubris 196 apocalyptic discourse 13, 24
2 Thessalonians 237 human beings baptism 86
Graeco-Roman greetings 47 see men; women blood of 209
Great Sanhedrin see Sanhedrin humanity body of 116, 186, 211
Greek Ephesians 176–8, 183 church and 116, 186
diaspora 12 humility crucifixion 133, 163, 170
New Testament 7, 11 Ephesians 181 death
greetings, Graeco-Roman 46 Paul 109 condemnation of sin 76
guilt Romans (book) 85 meaning 52
Paul’s theology 50 husbands example of 195
Paul 251 fulfillment of God’s purpose 13,
H see Holiness Code Hymenaeus 247, 249, 257 24, 82
Habakkuk (book) hymns grace of 157
righteousness by faith 65 Christological 208 Holy Spirit 157, 162
Hagar 165 Ephesians 185 imagery 212
hands, laying on 253 Essene 208 Israel 82
harpagmos 196 Philippians 195 Judaism 22
Hausa 229 leadership 22
Hays. R. B. 59, 63 Iconium 41, 258 love 86
head coverings 115 idleness, 2 Thessalonians 242 new covenant 132
heaven idolatry New Testament and 20
see also kingdom of God 1 Corinthians 111–13 prayers 241
Philippians 207 Ephesians 184 reconciliation of God and
Hebrew Bible (HB) Paul 112 humanity 71
Christian animosity 62 Romans (book) 66 redemption by atonement 66
Hellenism sacrificial food 108–14 rejection of 67–9
Jewish Christians 38 sins of non-believers 66 resurrection 121–4
Jewish diaspora 36 1 Thessalonians 217 I Corinthians 121–4
Judaism and 155 2 Thessalonians 241 Ephesians 172, 182
New Testament 11, 15 Ignatius of Antioch 17, 19 Gospel accounts 22
heresy Irenaeus 53, 255 Paul’s letters 22
Pastoral Epistles 257 Isaac return of 226
Hermogenes 256, 259 birth of 165 salvation through 231, 262
heterodoxy, Pastoral Epistles 257 Isaiah (prophet) 187 sinners 247
Hierapolis 204, 214 Paul’s misreading in Romans social role 22
hierarchy of heads 115 (book) 82–3 Son of God 11, 22, 25, 49, 63, 71,
higher criticism see source criticism 1 Thessalonians 231 160, 196, 208
historical criticism 1–3 Isaian Servant 197 sources of knowledge 20
holiness Isidore of Pelusium 196 suffering
non-believers in a marriage 105 Israel on the cross 134
Romans (book) 86 Ephesians 177 Torah antithesis 33, 38, 50
1 Thessalonians 226 Holiness Code 226 wisdom 112
Holiness Code (H) 226 ignorance of Christ 92 Jewett, R. 220, 235
Holy Spirit Romans (book) 79–90 Jewish Christianity 79, 95, 125, 202
being filled with the 185 wilderness wanderings 112 Jews
body as temple 99 YHWH and 155 advantage over Gentiles 79
contrast with ‘flesh’ 167 Antioch incident 163
fruit 167 Jambres 258 attitudes, Romans (book) 67
Galatian churches 160 James (son of Zebedee) 156 authority of the Roman
quenching 232 James of Jerusalem 33, 158 emperor 249
sword of the 187 Jannes 258 church in Corinth 128
Thessalonian church 222, 228 Jeremiah (prophet) circumcision issue 200
unity 181 metaphors in Ephesians 180 Colossae 204
honour Jerusalem and Gentiles eating
community 140 Apostolic Council together 158
2 Thessalonians 238 deliberations 156 Gentilization 89
 277 index

new humanity in kauchaomai 194 used as chronology of his life 29,

Ephesians 176–183 Kenotic theory 197 40
Paul 128 Kingdom of God liberationism 4
1 Thessalonians 217 excluded persons 103 liberty, Christian ethos 101
widows 253 love 87 life
Job (man) kipper see atonement means of attaining 72, 82
trust 193 knowledge models for in Ephesians 182
Johannine Gospel see John of God 123 light
(gospel) of pagan idols 192 Ephesians 184
John (apostle son of Zebedee) without love 118 1 Thessalonians 221
leader of the Jerusalem Knox, John 41, 45 literary criticism see source
church 158 Kurios 197–8 criticism
Sanhedrin 193 literature
1–3 John (Epistles) 16 language Bible as 1, 3
John (Gospel) see also Aramaic; Greek loafers 242
early Christian church 15 biblical criticism 1 love
origin of beliefs 12 of commerce 264 brotherly 228
joy Ephesians 173 Colossians 207, 212
Philippians 192, 202 letters of Paul 29, 51 demands of 118
Judaism New Testament 7 divine 183
see also diaspora; Jews; rabbinic Stoic 190 Ephesians 182
Judaism Laodicea 204–5, 214–15 fulfilling the law 85
before Christ 68 Last Supper of husband and wife 185
Christianity contrast 155 Christian rites 116 Paul 118
dietary laws 109 Latin culture, New Testament 11 1 Thessalonians 220, 225
early Christian church 193 law Lüdemann, Gerd 41, 42
Gentiles, acceptance of 35 see also Torah Luke 266
God’s salvation through Christ its fulfilment 82 Paul 259
Christ 51 Colossians 211 Stephen and the Hellenists 155
Hellenism 155, 203 coming into existence 161 Stoic ideas 190
influence of Romans (book) 57 curse of 158, 161 1 Thessalonians 225
law 57, 132 Ephesians 171 writings of 152
monotheism 198 function of 162 Luke (Gospel)
New Testament 11 Pastoral Epistles 247 Septuagint 12
Paul 31 performance of 49 Luther, Martin 51
primary sources 60 promulgated by angels 162 Lycus (river) 204
righteousness, Romans sin and 72 Lydia (person) 189, 202
(book) 80 Stephen and the Hellenists 157 Lystra 41, 152, 258
sabbath 159, 164 works contrasted with faith 71
sacrifice 68 leadership Macedonia 12, 30, 31, 32, 81, 91, 93,
sinners 67 1 Corinthians 98 95–6, 101–10, 138, 159, 162,
unbelief in Christ 58 models of 98 167, 179, 181, 190
Judea ‘super apostles’ 144 collection for the Saints 140
churches 156 1 Thessalonians 232 Philippians 189
1 Thessalonians 224 letters magic 258
judgement Graeco-Roman 162 Malina, B. J. 220
see also final judgement of recommendation 131, 143 manual labour, Paul 110
courts at Corinth 102 types and styles 45 Marcion 50, 53, 57, 62, 89, 245, 252,
worldly standards 136 letters of Paul 27 ff. 259
justice see also individual books Mark 214
divine biblical criticism 1–3 Mark (Gospel)
mercy 83 early Christian church 16 inadequacies 10
justification by faith interpretation 28, 32, 51 marriage
Christianity 31 Jesus’ death and resurrection see also adultery; husbands;
Judaism 70 22 wives
Paul 28, 50 letters in Philippians 189 metaphor 144
justification by works literary content 27 Paul 73, 104
Judaism 31, 50 origin of beliefs 14 Matthew (Gospel)
Moses 82 pattern of thought 50 Jewish background 12
Paul 67 rhetorical criticism 47 men
religious ‘entry requirements’ 61 style of content 48, 49 Paul 107
Justus 214 theological content 49–53 Menken, M. J. J. 235
index 278

mercy background 11–15 parrhesia 193

divine 83 canon 4–5 particularistic religion 32, 35
Pastoral Epistles 247 Christian church depicted Passover
Messiah in 15–20 yeast 102
see also Christ; Jesus Greek language Pastoral Epistles 244–63
Ephesians 181 Jewish background 12, 25 authorship 244–6
false 240 origin of writings 9 language of Paul’s letters 255
Jesus as 155 piecemeal growth 9 Timothy 247–60
Jewish expectations 34 racial tension 179 Titus 260–3
Jewish tradition 22 relationship with Old pastoral responsibility
messiahship, Jesus Christ 155 Testament 10 Paul 44
metaphors role in Christian life 8, 19 Roman church 58
agricultural 98 translations 2, 5, 8, 109, 149, patience
architectural 133 158, 164, 166, 167, 170, Ephesians 181
Christ and church in 238 patriarchy 185
Epehesians 175 worship forms 19 patronage 9, 93, 110, 111, 136, 140,
Ephesians 10, 49, 54, 72, 130, 137, Nicopolis 263 143
170–88, 206, 215, 237, 264 non-believers Paul (apostle)
Philemon (book) 42, 45–6, 53, contact with 135–6 see also letters of Paul
189, 214, 263–7 marriage to 105 Arabia 156
millenium speaking in tongues 119 authenticity of letters 214, 243
1 Thessalonians 3, 42, 216–34 Nympha 214 authority
2 Thessalonians 49, 219, 223, 229, 1 Corinthians 91, 100–1, 115,
235–44 oaths 121
miracles New Testament 10 2 Corinthians 127, 131, 142
of God 160, obedience Galatians (book) 153
missionaries of faith 63 Pastoral Epistles 245
Paul 19, 28, 110, 128 to parents 186 Romans (book) 64, 88
monotheism Octavian 36, 189 1 Thessalonians 222
Ephesians 174, 181 Odes Barnabas 258
Judaism 108, 198 of Solomon 198 boasting 129, 140, 143, 145, 194,
Pastoral Epistles 252 offerings 222, 238
Paul 108, 198, 252 see sacrifice brotherly love 228
1 Thessalonians 217 Old Testament Colossians (book) 204
morality canon 4–5 conscience questions 109
church at Corinth 102 olive tree metaphor 84 conversion 31–5, 130, 156
knowledge of God 62 omnipotence 80 Corinth 91, 97, 101, 124, 126, 147
Romans (book) 62 Onesimus 46, 54, 206, 213–14, Crete 260
Mosaic law 263–6 cultural adaptability 111
Christian communities 212 Onesiphorus 256, 260 death of 193, 278
redefined 168 oppression as exemplar 278
requirements of 159 2 Thessalonians 238 financial support 111
Moses oral tradition Fool’s Speech 143
comparison with Paul’s biblical criticism 3 formative years 35–40
ministry 132 original sin 212 Galatian churches 152, 163
Ephesians 182 Orthodox canon 4 Gentiles 158, 184, 250
justification by works 82 other-worldly journeys 147 hymns 208
as mediator 162 oxen 112 idolatry 112
at Sinai 79 Oxford Annotated Bible 5 illness of 164
Mount Sinat see Sinai imprisonment 177, 189, 192, 206,
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome 16, 37, paganism 255, 263
39, 41, 42, 45, 114, 128, 131–7, Colossians 204 interdependence of men and
139, 141, 144–8, 204–16 social issues 212 women 115
mystery, Paul and 178, 210 1 Thessalonians 217 interpretation 28, 32, 51, 54
mystical theology, Paul 97 Palestine Jesus
impact of Greek culture 11 commitment to 266
nakedness parody slave of 154
2 Corinthians 144 2 Corinthians 144 vision of 205
nativity of Jesus see Jesus Christ parousia Judaism 32, 61, 62, 155
Neapolis 189 Pastoral Epistles 262 Judeans 224
New Testament 1 Thessalonians 224, 229 Laodiceans 214
see also gospels 2 Thessalonians 235, 239 laying on of hands 255
 279 index

leadership 98–100 Phoebe 89, 250, 252 Reformation

literary legacy 27 Phygelus 256 Romans (book) 57
Mosaic law 212 Piety 13, 34, 60, 180, 206, 211, 245, relationship maintenance 64
mystery 178 246, 252, 254, 262 religion-relationship antithesis 81
opposition 194, 252, 258 Plutarch 228, 233, 246 religious ecstasy 135
patronage 140, 143 Polycarp religious persecution
persecution of church by 155 letters of 245 Christians 34, 38
Peter at Antioch 158–60 Philippians 190 religious phenomena, causes 38
Philemon 263 polygamy 251 repentance
Philippian church 203 polytheism church at Corinth 138
Praetorian contacts 203 Colossians 209 Pastoral Epistles 257
prayers 174–5, 226 Pompey 57, 240 resurrection
preaching 43 post-critical movements 3–4 body 93, 120
rhetoric 127, 263 potters Ephesians 172, 176
sexual relations 101, 104 Romans (book) 81 resurrection of Jesus
sinfulness 257–8 power 1 Corinthians 121–4
slavery 213 Colossians 207, 211 Ephesians 182
style of letters 45–9 Ephesians 175 Romans (book) 71
suffering 128, 133, 137, 147, 210 1 Thessalonians 221 Revelation (book)
tearful letter 127, 130 in weakness 133–4, 142, 149 church grouping 17
theology 29, 49, 50, 53, 58, 96 prayer Jewish hopes 13
Thessalonica 221 Jesus 77, 242 revelation
tolerance 87 for knowledge in Ephesians Colossians 205
wealth 139 180 of faith 162
women’s speech 120 preaching, Paul 42 Jesus 1
Pax Romana 231 prescripts 46–7, 90, 120, 220, 230, Paul 147
peace 237, 264 rhetoric
Colossians 212 pride deliberative 139
greeting in 2 Thessalonians 237 converts at Corinth 98 Paul 47, 127, 144
1 Thessalonians 231 Priscilla (Prisca) 59, 89, 90,91, 125, rich people see wealth
Pentateuch 260 righteousness
biblical criticism 2 promise to Abraham see convenant believers state of 78
Peter (apostle) prophecy by faith 6
as an apostle to the see also prophets Ephesians 187
circumcised 159 Paul 119 of God 78, 83
before the Sanhedrin 193 prophets Judaism 8
Corinthian church 95 see also prophecy Pastoral Epistles 254
death of 193 false 240 Paul 51, 201
eating with Gentiles 159 killing of 224 Romans (book) 64
Paul and 39, 159 proselytism 35 1 Thessalonians 231
Pharisees Protestantism under the law 82
Paul 37 Romans (book) 57 rites
Philadelphia (brotherly love) 228 proverbs Lord’s supper 116
Philemon (book) 263–7 Ephesians 183 to seal immortality 112
Colossians 206 punishment ritual kiss 150
position in chronology 42 church at Corinth 149 rock prediction 99
writing style 45 purity Roetzel, Calvin J. 28
Philetus 249, 257 1 Thessalonians 227 Roman empire
Philip II (king of Macedon) 189 Corinth 126
Philippi 222 Qumran Romans (book) 57–90
background in Phillippians community practices 243 Abraham’s covenant with
189 early church 15 God 70
Philippians (book) 189–204 chain of influence 27
appeal for unity 193 Rabban Gamaliel the Elder see eschatological context 86
authorship 190 Gamaliel ethical exhortations 84
exhortations on reconciliation and Galatians 75
discipleship 194–9 Corinth 131, 136 justification by faith 51
knowledge of God 192 God’s love 71 law of the Spirit 76
position in chronology 42 Jews and Gentiles 172 literary style 48, 58
Stoic language 190 redaction criticism 3 love 85
Philo of Alexandria 165 redemption missing passages 89
Paul 202 Pastoral Epistles 262 position in chronology 42
index 280

Romans (book) (cont.) Shields 187 Sundays 124

provenance 57 shoes 187 ‘super apostles’ 128, 130, 144–147
sin and righteousness 71 Silas (Silvanus) 128, 220, 222, 237, swords 187
Rome sin symbolic universe 138
see also Roman empire see also sinners synagogues
Christian community 57 anthropomorphized 67, 68 Paul 37, 43
civil authority 85 before the law was given 70 Synoptic Gospels 2
expulsion of the Jews 57, 59, 92 belief in Christ 73 Syntyche 202
imperial cult 200 Colossians 210 Syria
Jewish community 57 Ephesians 175–176, 184 see Seleucid empire
Paul 36, 88, 192, 256 external power 67, 74
inevitability 68 Tarsus 31, 36, 37, 40
sacrifice origins of 212 tearful letter 49, 127, 130, 137–141
Jewish 113 Paul’s theology 51–52 temple (heavenly)
living 84–85 sexual 227 Christian church seen as 137
sacrificial food Sinai, Mount 165 Tertullian 49, 53, 115, 227
guidelines for eating 113 singers testing
idolatry 79–80, 84 91, 93, sinners divine 141
108–109, 113 destruction by god 112 textual criticism 2
saints Jesus 247 thanksgiving
collection for the 40, 124, 127, slavery Colossians 207
138–141, 148–149 Christianity 106, 212 1 Corinthians 91, 94, 120
Colossians 206 Graeco-Roman society 266 2 Corinthians 128, 131, 141
Philippians 191 household rules 186 Ephesians 174
salvation 14, 33, 60, 95, 132, 166, 171, Pastoral Epistles 254, 261 Galatian congregations 153, 156,
194, 208, 218–219, 241, 245 social relationships 168
Ephesians 176, 187 Romans (book) 86 Philemon 264
Jewish law inadequate 132 social-identity theory 219, 226, 229 Philippians 191
non-believers in a marriage 105 Socrates Romans (book) 43, 47–8, 51, 56,
Pastoral Epistles 246, 255–156, likened to Paul 266 58, 64
260, 262 Solomon 1 Thessalonians 158, 161–5, 216,
Paul 60, 61 Odes of 198 220–221
Philippians 198 Son of Man 22, 175 2 Thessalonians 235–24
1 Thessalonians 231 Sosthenes 91 Thecla 189–91, 245, 250, 256,
2 Thessalonians 241 source criticism 259–262
Samothrace 227 biblical criticism 2 theodidaktos 228
Sappington, T. J. 206 Spain theology
Sarah (wife of Abraham) Paul 44, 45, 58, 88, 89, 206 ditheism 109
as a free woman 165 speaking in tongues 78, 93, 108, 118, Paul 29, 48–50, 53, 58, 61, 73, 103,
Satan 120, 261 115, 122, 127, 131, 133, 136–138,
physical suffering 147 speech 146, 148, 171, 218–219
1 Thessalonians 225 without love 118 1 Thessalonians 218–219
Saviour, usage 247, 260 Spirit see Holy Spirit 1 Thessalonians 2, 42, 46, 216–232
scripture spirit position in chronology 40
letters of Paul 54 architectural metaphors 133 social identity approach 219
Pastoral Epistles 258 law of 75–76 2 Thessalonians 49, 206, 219, 223,
Seleucid empire resurrection 63, 96 229, 235–244
Colossae 204 understanding of believers 97 authenticity 178 235, 243
self-righteousness 61 spirits position in chronology 42
self-sufficiency elemental 50, 163 Thessalonica 18, 52, 192, 202,
Graeco-Roman tradition 141 Stephanas 92, 95, 124 204–205, 214–227, 230, 235
Sermon on the Mount steward metaphor 100, 111, 260 early Christian community 217
Ephesians 170 stoicheion 210 social context
servants Stoicism threshing ox 110
of God 63 Philippians 190–194 Timothy (companion to Paul)
sex Strabo 36, 209 Philippians 191, 199
abstinence 105 subordination 115, 138, 250 recipient of letters 256
converts at Corinth 102, 104–105, suffering 1 Thessalonians 220, 224, 225, 230
148 boasting of 71, 77 1 Timothy (book) 153, 206,
Ephesians 183 catalogue of 136 244–250, 255, 256
shame links with glory 77 2 Timothy (book) 49, 237, 244, 248,
Graeco-Roman tradition 132–133 physical weakness 133 256–260
 281 index

Titus (book) 10, 15, 16, 28, 44, 49, Via Egnatia 217 will of God 76
127, 130, 138–142, 148, 157, vices 131, 148, 167, 183, 212, 248, 254, wisdom
167, 170, 183–186, 188, 207, 258, 181, 186, 188 converts at Corinth 103, 146
237, 244, 263, 265 virgins spirituality 97
Titus (fellow-worker of Paul) head coverings 115 subverted by God 96, 97
circumcision question 260 marriage metaphor 144 Wisdom of Solomon 5, 66,
and Corinthian church 260 marriage of 107 171
recipient of letter 260–263 Paul 105, 107, 115 Wisdom of Solomon (book)
tolerance, Romans (book) 87 virtue 183 canonical status 5
tongues 2 Corinthians 136 wives
speaking in 78, 93, 108, 118, 119, 261 Paul 105
Torah warfare women
Christ antithesis 33, 34 metaphor for Christian life 186 see also wives
eternal life 72 weakness Christianity 90, 114–15, 121
interpretation of law 182 body metaphor, 1 Colossians 213
justification by works 31 Corinthians 117–18 head covering in prayer 114–16
Paul’s theology 50, 53 Christians and sacrificial participation in worship 120
will of God 76–7 food 110 Pastoral Epistles 251, 258, 261
Townsend, John T. 44 Paul 143 social position 108, 114, 115
tradition poor Christians 111 1 Thessalonians 227
Jewish teaching 143 theology of the cross 133 Word of God
transcendence of God 254 tolerance by the strong 87 failure in Israel 79
transgressions see sin wealth worship
translation converts in Corinth 94 Christian 120
Bible 5 Paul 139
Troas 130, 245, 259 weddings YHWH
Trophimus 260 Ephesians 186 see also God
twelve apostles see apostles wickedness marriage with Israel 144
Tychicus 49, 171, 188, 207, 214, 240, justice of God 81 name of 197
263 widows warrior 187
celibacy and remarriage 79, 106,
unbelievers see non-believers 107 Zenas 263
universal gospel 32 instructions in Pastoral Zephaniah (prophet)
universalism 35, 122 Epistles 253 1 Thessalonians 231