Navigating Paul

8/7/2019 Navigating Paul

1/154


2/154


3/154

Navigating Paul


4/154

For my studen,Jom whomIhave leaed so much


5/154

Navigating PaulA Introduction to Key Theological Concepts

]ouette M. Bassler

Westminser John Knox PressOUISVLLE ONDON


6/154

2007 Jouette M Bassler

Al rghts reseed. No pat of this book may be repoduced or ansmted in any om oby any means eecronc or mechanical includng photocopyng, recording o y anyinformation stoage o rereval system wthout pemisson in wing fom te pubshe

For nformaton address Westmnste John Knox Press 100 thespoon SteetLousvile Kentucky 40202-1396

Scpture quotatons unless oherwse ndicaed are rom the New Revsed StandadVesion o the Bible copyrgt 1989 y the Dvson of Chistan Educaon o teNaional Councl o the Chuches of Christ in the USA and used by permisson

Book design b Sharon AdamsCover design b Night & Day Desi

First editonPulshed Westmnste John ox Pressousvle entck

This book is pnted on acdee pape that meets e mecan Natonal SandadsInstute Z398 standad@

PND IN THE UNITD STAT OF AMRCA

07 08 09 10 1 12 13 15 6 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

Library of Congress Cataloging-n-Publcaon Data

Basse J ouete MNavigating Paul: an ntroducton to ke heologca conceps /oueeM Bassler

s edp e.

ncludes bbiogapcal eferences and ndeesSBN13 98-0664-2241-8 (alk. pape)SB-O 0-664-2241-4 alk pape)

1 Bible. N pstles of Paul Theolog.I.

TteBS2652B38 200722'06dc22

2006048986


7/154

Contents

Preface VII

Abbeviaions X

Chapte1 Gace: Probing Its Limits 1

Chapter Paul ad the Jewish aw 11

Chapte3 Faith

Chapte n Chis Myscal Reality or Mee Metapho? 3

Chapte . The Righteosess of God 49

Chapte6 he tre of "Isae Who Is Isae 71

Chape7 The Comes the Ed . The Paosia andthe Resrectio of he Dead 87

Endoes 97

Bibiography 121

ndex of Ancie Soces 129

Index of Mode Ahos 13 5

Index of ubjects 137


8/154


9/154

Preface

This s not a book on Paul's heolog. I am nt a all certan tha hehad "a heolog, that s a reasonably well rdere and negraese of beefs Even if he d am not cnvinced ha it wod have re-mane constant ver the course of hs tumultuus lfe or tha we could

hpe o recover t from the few an focused letters that reman f hs corresponence Clearly hugh, Pa did practice theolog. That is hethought through he problems afctng hs churches n lght of thegspel; and in ong so he referre freqently o concepts of obviousheolgical importance: grace faith, righteousness and he lke What hemeant by these references has been the surce of mch debae.

Ths cllecton of essays s nened oren he nerested reade fPaul o he sgncance of these concepts and the contours of the ebatesThe range of opics covere s no at all comprehensve bu it des nclude the isses that in my judgment most affect one's grasp of the apstle's thought. My goal has not been t smpl hs thought fr he reader.f anthng, these essays should make t seem moe complex. Recogniz-ng his complexty however is ccal, boh fo reaching new nsghtsnto hs meanng an for understanng e basis of the current debates.

Sme time ago was encouraged by Greg Glver at VK t expandan earlier essay on grace in a glssa of Paul's theolgcal vocabulay.My response to that suggeston has ake a somewha fferent drec-

ton. The essays are much too long to be labeled a "glossary, but nomere glossa could convey the rch possbiltes and shifing nuances ofPaul's langage. Frhemore nly a lmted number of topics are cov-ered. Even so there s some redunancy for explainng the meanng ofPauls references o one tpic usually reures discssing he meanng of


10/154

x }reyace

his references to another. Sti, each essay is intended to be compreen-sible on its own but each is also itended to be enhanced by the othersAl together, the essay s wil not provide a l road ap to Paul's letters,much less to his theoogy, but they wi provide navigationa guides tothe more difcult currents of his thought

Chapter 1, "Grace: Probig Its Limits was originaly pubised inInterpretation 57.1 (2003) 2432 It is reprnted here with permission insighty revised form


11/154

A

ABD

TC

ATBBRBibBJRBTBBZ

CBQETHDRNTCTNHTRHT SICCIntISFCJ

JBLJSJJSNSNSup

Abbrevatons

Achor BbleAnchor Bible Dictiona, ed. D N F reedman 6 vols NewYork: Doubleday, 1992Abingdo New Testamet Commetaries

author's translaoBuetin r Biblical ResearchBiblicaBuetin of the John Rylan Libra ManchesterBiblical Theolo BuetinBehee zur Zetschr r de neutestametlche Ws-seschaftCathoic Bibcal QuarterEglsh traslatoHarvard Dssertatos n Reigoarpers New Testamnt CommetaresHeders theologscher Kommetar um Neue estametHaard Theological Reviewarard Teological SdesIteatioa Crtcal CommetarnterpretationIteratioal Studes oratve Chrstant ad

JudasmJoual of Bibical LiteratureJoual r the Study ofJudaimJoual r the Study of the New tamentoual for the Sdy of he New Testamet Supplemets


12/154

xu Abbriations

JTSKJVLDNNASBNCBNeotNICNIGTCN

B

ovTSupRSVNTSOBTREBSBLDSSBLSmSSBT

SFSHJSTSMSSPTDT

WC

WT

ZTK

Joual of Theological Studieng James (Atorized) VesonLection dvinew American BibleNew Amecan Standad Bieew Centuy BibeNeotetamenticaew International Commentary on te New Testamentew Intenational Geek Testament ComentaryNew ntenatonal Versionew Jerusem Bbe

o Testentum, Sppemensew Reised Standard VersionNew tament StudieOvertues to Biblcal TheoogyRevsed Engls ibeSocey of Bblical Ltee D isseaon SeriesSociey of Biblcal Ltere Smposm SeiesSudes n Bbica T eology

Sout Foda Studies n te Hsoy oJudsmSociety for New Testment Sudes M onogp SeriesSaca pagnaTheological Dictiona of the New tament, ed. G Ktte andG. Fedic vols Grand Rpids: Eerdmns 19641976Word bica ComentryWtmintr Theological Joualssenscftce Unterscungen zum een Testment

Zeitchr fr Theologie und rche


13/154

Chaper One

GRCE

Probig I Limts

It is signcantly harde to wte on the Paulne concept of gace nowthan t was tenty, een, o even ten yeas ago. T he geneal agree

ment about the asic structe of Paus theology that pevae not toomany years ago as collapsed and een eplaced by the chaos of vigorousdebate.! I tat deate, even od cetitdes about gace, that mst car

acteistc component of Pauls theoog, have been shaken Few woudeny the basic premise that gace s central to Pau's tougt2 ut fewwould also now deny tat gace was centra t amost all foms of rstcentr Judasm Furthermore, wit te iners of ol assumptionsremoved, t has ecome clea that Paul, no less tan his Jewish contempoares, amed notsa gratia in te stict sense of te words but gacea a judgment accodng to deeds3 And so new questions emerge: Inwhat ways are Paus vews on grace dstinctive? And aganst what views

was hs most poemica grace-angae diected?

Gce Alound

Snce he pulcaon of E. P Sanderss landmark stdy of PalesnianJudasm, old dogmas aut Jesh egalism have become diclt to sustain4Tacing the peasive image of rst-cen Judaism as a egaisc (e,wors-base) eigion tat e i aheents sggling to ea savaonne a aceless code of meis, Sanders demonsate that e pimartexts o Paesnan Juasm revea n such thng He fo a paern of eign n whch oeience t te aw was of udenable impotance, ut thisedence was ame, dened, and sustained y naves of dne grace 5


14/154

2 Navigaing Paul

srels coenn reonshp wih God ws er l esblished no byer bu hrough elecion n c o pure grce nd sion ws ssuredo hose whin he coenn To be sure obedence o he lwor inen o obey he lwws required o mainain ones sus whin hecoenn Ths obedience ws no howeer esured gins rigid syse o eris nd deers. Wh ws expeced ws ihness no per-econ nd Gods grce ws nesed gin hrough dine orgienessnd n he proison o ens o oneen or hose who repened oheir rnsgressions

n he secrin udis idened wih he Ded Se Scrolls heipc o grce on he nddul is een ore pronounced ecuse he

secry ws no bo ino he couny o he new coenn bu jonedhrough n c o repennce here is deeper sense o he ndidul nohe non s he objec o elecon grce in hese wrngs And he roleo grce n oercoing hun snlness nd enbling len o he lw s more pronounced (s is he dend or obedence) "For Thoukowes he inclinon o Thy sern h he no relied [upon heworks o y hnds] o rise up y her . . he no eshly rege;[nd Thy sern hs] no righeous deeds o der hi o he P o

no orgieness u len on he bun[dnce o Thy merces] nd hopeor he greness] o Thy grce h Thou wl bring [slion] oower

Much o his sounds o course ke Pul (s ore hn one comenor hs obsered) which seres o underscore he c h he ngugeo grce nd n ce religious concep o grce were well esbished inPuls world The posle hd rich rdion upon which o drw nduch h he hd o sy bou grce hough o proound heologic sig

nicnce ws no heoogiclly disncie. Thus or exmpe he numer ous Puline reerences o undered cs o dne or or kndnesswheher n cllng choosing or jusngreeced in Chriscenered key des curren in rscenury udsm 9 is ld odsinguish beeen sic ew o eecion grce chrcersic o hosegroups ino which one s bo nd dnic ew chrcersc o groups o whch one is conered en he ormer howeer possessed dnmic sense o orgiing grce n n cie piey resing on .

The opposiion o sin nd grce is compex er Cerinly n rs-

cenury udism diine orgeness nd ens o oneen were undersood s nesons o Gods grce nd cerny his orgeness grce ws undersood o be sucien or eery rnsgressonI I ThusPus ci h "where sn incresed grce bounded l he ore


15/154

Grace Probing I Limi 3

Ro 5 20) would not be incopehensble wtin te aewok oJewish tougt Yet Paul goes te s e begns to descbe sin nolonge n tes o tansgessions but as a powe execsng absolute con-tol ove huan lves Ro 57) e oves beond tpicalJewish undestandng is coents on gace develop along siila lines "gacegt also execise doinon Ro 52 see also 6 5) and eetoo e oves beond typcal Jewis expesson But te dieences aeoe of degee than o substance Paul had a oe pessiistic view ohuan natue than ost o s Jewish contepoaes evoking a oepowe iage o dvne gace Yet Paul's pesentation o the singacedichoto as an oppostion of powefl foces can be seen as an exten

son o tadtional Jewis condence n te abliy o divine gace toovecoe sins It does not epesent an atogethe new developent nthe concept o gace

Yet tat is not the coplete picte Pauls undestandng o gace wasnot on ooted in hs Jewish wold; it was also shaped b hs encountewt Jesus, b hs stuggles wt hs cuces and b his subsequent teologcal eecon Thus n hs dscussions o sueing and te law gaceacquies disnctve ovetones chaacteistc o is thought alone

The Gce of Sueg

Fstcenuy Judais new o a connecton beteen gace and sue-ing Sueing could be undestood as the gacelled eans b wchGod led pesons to epentance Sueng could also be seen as te Godgven eans o individuals to atone o the sns in s wold teebpeseing o teseves a ewad in te wold to coe In soe ciclese sueng of ighteous ars ws held to ake aends o te sins

o otes o Paul toug, the connecton was entiel dieent eebaced o couse the convicton o the eal chuc at all the gaceo atoneent was concentated n te oncefoall event o the coss Ro3225) _Jesus' death "o us o "on ou beal Geek hyper hRo 58)which ade aends fo uan sins Yet Paul could also sa to te Phlppans "[God as gaciousl ganted ou the pivlege notonl o believing n hst, bu of surin r him as wel' Pil 29)Gace was nvolved not onl in hist's deah o e but also in tesueing "fo hst Geekhyper Chrisou But how was that possiblend how was t gace We need to look at te context o ths stateentn Pilppans

Paul new and expessed vaious undestandings o uan sueng


16/154

4 Navigaing Paul

He knewbecause he experenced tthat God provdes the power toendure suffering (1 Thess 1:6; 2 Cor :311; 4:72) He knew asobecause it was reveaed to him (2 Cor 12:7 )that when Gods powers exercised through human nstruments t is most cearly known to beGod power when those nstruments are themselves most obviously without power of ther own So suffering s the lot of the apostle norder that Gods power may be perfectly revealed (1 Cor 2:15; 2 Cor4:7; 3:14). But in Ph 1:29 grace is apparenty connected with the suf-ferng itsef not with the power to endure it or with the divine powerreveaed n it

To be sure those other ideas are present in the verses that precede ths

on for there Pau asserts that the Philppans' steadfastness and couragen the face o oppostion s evdence of God workng in them a sign ofther salvaton (v.2728). But when he contnues hs thought n verse 29he seems to move in a derent directon ere the emphasis is on the suf-ferng itself and t s the fact that the suerng s "for Christ or "on behafof Christ that s God's gracious g But n what way s heirsueringon behal

Like Pau the Philppian church was experienng pesecution (128)

though of what sort or what severty we do not know They were mostassuredly however suering persecution as foowers of Chrst and n thatsense "on his behal In a word hostile to folowers of Chrst the g of faith was at the same tme the "g of suering. But Paul means much more than that For Paul beevng in Christ meant believng inoChrst. When believers were baptized they were baptized ino Chrst(Gal 327) nto Chrst's body (1 Cor 12:13) nto Christs death (Rom 6:3).hese were not simply metaphors for oinng the church but described

the realty of oinng wth Chrst. he lfe of the faithl was life n unon with Chrst It was "knowng Christ by particpating in Chrst whichncluded sharng n hs suering in ther daiy ives ( Cor 4:101) andexperencing there the power of hs resurrection as well sueringandresurrection power not one or the other. Suffering was part of thegracious g of knowng Chrst lya gi not just for Paul but also forall who were united with Christ in faith and baptism.

Moreover in this particular pasage the grace of ther suering is idented wth "the same struggle that Paul himsef was endurng (Ph 1: 30)

a struggle lned not simply wth beief n Chrst or identication wthChrist but more speccay wth procamation of Christ (1:7 16). A important part of the gracious prvlege of suerng for Christ that tePhippians shared wth Paul was the prvlege of suerng for te procla


17/154

Grace Probing I Limi 5

mon o the gospel ndeed, the suerng waste proclmon o thegospe or Pul descrbes the gospel to whch nd or whch they weegcously clled s te gospel o te cruced Cst ( Cor 123 22 Gl614 see lso Pl 318 Gl 3) Ts gospel s embedded nd embodedn te lves o belevers (Phl 3 111) t s pocled tough te veso beleves, nsor s ther lves mnest not only te power o the res-urrecton but lsond especllythe sueng o the cross Te Plp pns, Pul sys hve thus been grcously pvleged to shre n the poclmton o the gospel o the cced Crst toug ter lvesThey re to understnd ther suerng s g, not becuse t hs tonng vueonly Csts deth could ccoplsh thto becuse t leds

tem to repentnce, but becuse t ks te non wt Crst nd, lkete euchrstc el, procls s de untl e etus (1 Co 1 26)Ths dentcton o grce wt umn suerng s essge bot

proound nd dsturbng Pul nstructs the Phlppns to nd evdenceo God's vor o gce not n powe or pestge tt sets he bove others, but n suerng tt untes them wth others nd pomotes ultyThs s messge tht Pul develops t gretest length wen wrtng tocuches tt tended towrd (or hd sgncnt numbe o ebers thttended towrd) selsh mbton nd nted selestee t s, howeve, messge t cres sgncnt sk n ts contepory pplctonThrough t those who re wek nd suerng cn nd enng n tersuerng but tey wl nd no ctque o the cuses o tt suerng, noencougeent to resst or to ovecoe t t s messge tt encouges hultyn potnt essge or those nclned towrd rrogncend greed, but devsttng one o those pushed by othes nto lves oumlton nd selden Te cruc wods on bel o Chrst cnbuer e equon gnst goss suse, nd the ende tt the gr

cous vo o ptcpton n Cst lso ncludes ptcpton n s esurrecton power pevents te g o sueng om beng lnked wth nyorm o selbseent But expeence s shown tt te dnger o s pplcton s el, nd we do well to remeber tt tee re ccustnces wen suerng on bel o Cst s not ppoptely pesenteds pt o God's gcous g

Grace at e Law

e ost dstnctve undestndng o gce to emege n te Pulne let-tes, nd te one most closey dented wth Pul, s ound exclusvely nRons nd Gltns, where gce stnds n strk opposton to the lw


18/154

6 Navigaing Paul

r wrks aw " wh wan be jsed by he aw have c yrseves m Chrs y have aen away m grace (Ga 54; see as16; 1; Rm 4; 4 6; 64 15; 116) Sch a hgh was ncncev- abe n dasm, where bedence he aw was cndced whn aamewrk gace. In hese etters he erm "grace has ceary acreda new cnnan, b here s n cnsenss ver s precse nance, rhere s n agreemen ver wha Pa means by he ppsng erm "aw(r "wrks aw).

Fr Rd Bmann, he aw (as Pa cnses ) reveas he basc hman perversn sereance. Encnered as Gd's bgaydemand caryng he hrea jdgmen, he aw nevaby evkes he sn

respnse "sepwered srvng . . prcre savan by [nes]wn strengh. Pa's bjecn he aw, hen, s n dreced aganshe dcy ng ts demands. I s dreced agans he sysem wrksrghesness (egasm) ha he aw spprs, a sysem ha eedshe sn seachevemen and generaes an atde bas arrgance and serghesness. Over agans hs sysem peerse svngsands grace, he pre g deverance m jdgmen. h Gd ak-ng he nave by erng hs g reey, there s n rm r hman

achevemen, n bass r ase prde. There can ny be a respnse be-den sesrrender.Bmanns nerpreatn s a magsera hegca achevemen

stnnng scpe and cmpeng pwer. I s as, hweve, ams ceranywrng. I mpses n Pa he cncerns he Rerman and a md- e exsenas anayss he hman cndn. Mrever, gresey msrepresens rscenty dasm as a regn "rebes prde.' Sme cnne ar hs nerprean (hgh em nang s anewsh ne), b n nger dmnaes he ed.Indeed, n snge nerprean dmnaes he ed. Insead, a range pasbe pns exs ha der wdey n her apprasa he prbemPa sees wh he aw and ths as n he mpcans ppsng grace.

One pn wrks wh a vew egasm srpped he becnabeeares prde and serghesness. I s pssbe vew he aw asGds reveaed w and ndersand savan be cndned n bedence wh cncdng ha bedence s aways and necessary an ac sesrvng. Obedence cd, r exampe, derve m a sncere desre

pease Gd r demnsrae ne's ahness he cvenan. B hs s cser Pa's ndersandng dasm, wha s he bass r Pa'sbjecn T wha s grace ppsed Sme sgges ha he prbem sne hman are "Pa hs beeves ha hmans d n and (appar


19/154

ace Probing I Limi 7

enty) cannot obey Gods commandments in a ay tat satises divine reqirements Grace ten is te obvos antidote to te pigtic rested om ife nder a If te od system that as centeredon te a faied becase of man inabiity to kee the a adeqateyte ne covenant eiminates a and orks of a om any roe in sava-tion a is by grace.

In contrast to Btmanns interretation tis soer nderstandng of egaism does not fat te es for attemping to obey te a bt forfaiing to recognize teir inabiiy to scceed and teir conseqent needto rey on grace instead. Nevereess it sti rests on a distorted vie ofdaism for it ignores cometey the important roes of man repen

tance and divne forgiveness in tat reigionAvariant roposa frames te isse more radica y It is ot tat maneakness renders the abased system impossibe to satis rater Gods ne act in Crist renders te abased system obsoete Grace asinvaded te ord on te cross a ne principe of savation as arrivedand to contine to rey on te a as te ay to savation is to fai to recognize tat te res ave canged Wt te advent of Crist savatonis by grace not by orks of te a

Wie is nderstanding of te agrace dicotomy does better js-tice to as apocaptc ay of tinking it sti rests on a distorted pictre ofdaism If anders is rigt (as I tink e is) rstcentry Jdaismnderstood e tat savaton as by grace and did not regard it as something to be earned by orks of te a Tis proposa can terefore bemaintained ony by noting at te agrace dicotomy is articia basedeiter on a mistake by a or on is qesonabe decision to misrepresent Jdaism in order to bttress is argment Neiter coice is par-ticary appeaing

Atird roosa takes a dierent starting point It proceeds from teassmption tat in setting grace against te a a as not opposing teidea at one cod ea savation by obeing te a becase rstcen-try Jdaism did not od tat vie Instead it assmes tat as obec-tive as te incsion of Genties itin e peope of God He asterefore oposing te idea promoted in Gaata tat te a and ese-ciay its reqirement of circmcision a sign of Israes privieged stats a bondar marker beteen tose in and those ot of te covenant

By opposing grace to tis vie of e a a as oosing te idea of aimitation of divine favor to a singe ethnic groTe varios proposas raise a nmber of qestions abot te ay a

constres grace in tese passages Is it te free gi of grace tat is at te


20/154

8 Navigating Paul

cener of aus hough in Gaaians and Romans, a grace ha negaesany need o earn savaion? Or is i insead he bread of Gods graceha au has in mind, a gace ha negaes any resricion of savaion ohose nder e aw? erhaps we are wrong o seek for a snge answererhaps aus oug, ike grace isef, overowed he ogica consrains of his argumen (Rom 5:20-21) e e fac ha his disincive awgace opposion appears ony in Gaaians and Romans, eerswere e esion of he accepance of Genies was paamoun, pro-vides srong sppor for Dunns conenion ha he eading edge of auspurpose here was "o free boh promise and aw for a wider range ofrecipiens, freed from he ehnic consrains which he saw o be narrow

ing he grace of God e srong obecions have been raised agains his poposa Some ae

based on differen readings of key exs, for au does no express him- se as ceary as we woud ike, and he does no aempor, if heaemps, he does no achievehe consisency of expicaon and appicaion ha woud provde unambigous access o is ough here is,however, a deeper concern behind some of e obecions. usicaionby grace hrough faih is regarded by many as h hear of he Chrisian

message. If, however, as some have ared, au deveoped his as a"poemica docrine in opposiion o a specic posiion on circumci sion a was emerging in Gaaia, does ha mean i was no founda-iona o his hogh? Ad if i was no foundaiona, or if i did nomean for au wha i means for Chrisians oday, does a ndermineChrisan assurance and condence? I hink no, bu his is a maerfor heoogians o expore The pasora and heoogica concerns of ourown ime and pace ms no, however, dicae wa we are abe o hearau saying in his ime and pace. Ad in he siaion ha emerged inGaaia, i seems o me ha he radica incusiveness of grace was a hecener of his argmen

hus seems ironic ha au, having demoished he aw as a barriea denies Genies access o grace as Gentles, hen ses p a chrisoogica barrier ha deniesews access o grace as Jews.43 I s, as on Barcaynoes, a "suby paricuaris caim o universaism ha au presens ine name of grace, one ha "uimaey deegiimize[s] ews and a oher nonChrisians who canno accep ha hey are simpy on he way o

desrcion ( Cor.1:18)?4 e asks, "Does au have anyhing a a ooer a word ha is no ony muicura bu aso mreigious? andhen provides an answer ha is as hough as any I ave read. I uoe ia engh


21/154

ace Probin I Limi 9

I hink mysef a Pau paraly de consrucs his own Chrisological exclusivism by his pervasive appea o he grace of God. The foundaion of Pauls gospe, and he basis of his reaivizaion of acures is hs radca apprecaion of he grace of God whch humes human pride and subvers the heoogical and culra ediceswhch "esh onsrucs. he jusicaion of e ungody and he giof he Spr are, for Pau acs of gace whch undemine asouecommitmen o he aw (Rom 4:45; Gal. 3:1-5; he himsef hadexerienced God's gace as cang ino quesion al hs previous cura assurances (Gal :1316 Cor 5810 Pau discerns he gracious iniave of Go rough sraes hisor, and is paradoxca

riumph precisely hrough her uneef (Romans 9 since eGod who has consigned all o dsobedience wil ulimaey havemercy on al (Rom 11 :32. This radical noon of dine grace whichPau uses o desailize he church a leas as much as hose ousidei (cf. Coinhans ssim), could serve oh o arm an o reavize he Chrisan radiion iself The church exiss no fo is ownsae u o bear witness o he grae of God Paul hmself is utimaey seechless efore he mercy of God and anno nd evenChrisian language n which o express s sinicance (Rom.11:33-36 To his exen, even Pauine heolog could e mobizedo see a muliculralsm whose religious basis is he afrmng andelavzing gace of God45

Conusion

rae was no for Pau a sai onep is reasonae o assume a

befoe his enouner wih his he shae e vews of s-enJuais an hus ha he aea ha a livel sense of os rae Hisexpeiene of his reveae a new ous of rae in e ross whihaere his undersandin of he conneion etween rae an huansuein. is assessmen of huan neaii o sin sees also o haveeeened an wih i his unesaning of he owe of forivin aehe oni eneae his ission o e enies oene hs eyes ohe aial inlusiveness of ae rae was i seems, on e rowin

ee of his heolo A he resens us wh a hoe eihe o ake hisinsihs as a noraive exression of gae or o folow his lea in oin he is iis


22/154


23/154

Chapter Two

Paul and the Jewish Law

No aspect of Paul's thought is as oty disputed as his view of he law.Tere are conicing opinions on te role of he aw in the Juaism

of Paul's ay: within an against what views i he stan? here aredebaes over terinology Do all his references to nomos-a Greek wor

wih a range of nuances I-refer o the ewsh aw the orah? is qes

ion is coplicate by e neologisms (new expressions) tat Paul createde nomos of Christ (Gal 62) te nomos of sin and eah (Ro 82) henomos of faith (Ro 327) the nomos of te Spirit of life (Rom 82) Dotese evocative prases also refersoehow-to the same law? f so

what view of e aw do ey impy?e most intense argents-because tey toc fondationa issues

of revelation an inspiration-concern he consistency of Pal's view ofhe aw Di Pau's view of the aw derive fro his conversion experiencean reain constant thereaer?2 Did it deveop-ogicay organically

in response to Paul's experiences?3 More specicaly id it eergepoemicalyot of his conicts wit oer issionaries?4 ore raicastill di he even ave a clear an consisten position on the law, or o theleters reect ad hoc forulations creaed to eet various nees?5

Upon one issue ere is agreement Paul understood his apostoic cato be a coission to bring a lawee gospel to te Gentiles. Theiracceptabiliy to God and heir embersh in he peope of God di notdepend on heir adherence to he ewish law These Genties were being

incorporate nto a essianic sect of udaism They becae chiren ofAbraham (Gal 367; Rom 412) heirs of the blessing proised toAbraham's ospring (Gal 329; Rom 416) grae onto e root ofsrae(Ro 117) But hey di not have to become ews!6 That is hey did not


24/154

2 Navgatng Paul

ave to be irmised and tey did not ave to folow te aw Tis mes-sage equired some explanation and defense espeialy wen Paus viewswee halenged by oher moe ohodox ews e an make someprogress toward ontexuaiing Paul's vew of te law by fousng st onis omments on iumision for at initiaton ite marked the tradi-tional boundary beeen those outside he law and those unde it

Crcncson

oug rumsion was patied by a nmbe of other etn groupsmost notaby n Paus time by te Egptians it was wdey egaded as te

dening arateisti of e ew For mae ews emova of e foresknwas a neessary pysal sign of membersip in he ovenant people (en 94 and ommitment to te ovenant law Tat was etainly a dominant view in daism but tere is eidene hat it was not the ony viewrond te margins and espeially in he Diaspora some ews seem toave ed a dierent vew pysial irumision was not an absoluterequiement and identiy make for mae ews

e learest evidene fo tis omes om Phio a stentuy CE

ewis piosope om lexandra e defends te pratie of im-ision against the ridie of outsiders but in dong so he does not men-on its importane fo ewish etni and reigous ideni Quite theontray is st point is tat iumision is pratied by oter nationsas wel e also defends irumision on hygieni gounds and adds tatit seres as a vauabe symbol of moal pi speialy a symbol of eexision of hedonism and prideSpec 11) He notes tat some adereonly to tis symboli o "inner meaning and neglet e physial "exter

na rite (M 893 u men e rebukes but he does not deny emte name ew ndeed Pilo himself elsewhere denes e proselye teentie onvert to udaism as "one who has irumised not hs nirmision but his desies and sensual peasures and oter passions of esoul (QE 22 9 From what e as sad esewee it is lear tat Pioexpeted the male proseyte to beome pysialy imised btnageement wi te "symboists mentioned aboveit is inne rumision tat in is view makes one a ew

Tee is evideneusually in the fom of omplaints by traditionaliststat uniumised ews existed in ote times and plaes Jublees(2nd entr BCE warns against "ildren ofsrael [wo] wl not iumise teir hlden aoding to te law (1 3334 Fist aabeesdesribes (and denones adultews who remove eir marks of im


25/154

Paul and the JhLw 3

son (1 15, oug s ear a ey onnued o regard emseesas ews. \ Josepus nsss a rumson s e dene mark of eew ye e aso repors a n a eas one exepona ase a proseye wasno requred o undergo e re Ant 034 414 Te aer rab-bn raon oeremngy arms e requremen of rumsonye een wn a radon ere was room for debae

ur Rabbs au f a prseye was rumse bu nmmerse (n e rua bah Ra eer says a nee s s a(a prsee . . . f e (e proseye mmerse bu was n r-umse Rabb sua says a nee s s a (a prseye . . . .

u e saes say f e (e prsee mmerse b was n rmse ( was rumse no mmerse e s n a (aprseye un e s rumse an mmerses b Yb a

Te pon of s surey s o sugges a wen Pau reas pysa r-umson as an nderen maer (1 Cor 7:9; a 56; 65 wen eassers a rumson of he ear (a s mora ange s wa ma-ers (Rom :59, e s akng a poson on e margn bu wn e

wde range of opnons afrmed by Jews of s ay. In aaans ougPau also expresses a sronger opnon. Crumson for enle beeers s no a maer of nderene or oe eymt notsum o (a5 Pau was of ourse pushe o a asseron (peraps een pusedo ha opno f was no mp n s earer saemens by ra mssonares wo were nssng a Pau's oners ompee her onerson wh rumson as a sgn of er membersp n e oenanpeope Paus olen objeons rase e queson Wa was wrong wene beeers agreeng o be rumsed Paus answer s ear hawoud rng em uner e aw (a 5:3 Bu wa oes Pau see aswrong w ompemenng fa wh works of e aw Ta quesonrases a ery dspued ssue

Work of e Law"

Pau uses s phrase sx mes aways n aaans or Romans and awaysopposed o fah e know a a person s used no by e works of

e law bu roug fa n esus Chrs . n we ae ome o beee nChrs esus so ha we mgh be jsed by fa n Crs and no byong e works of e aw beause no one w be jused by e worksof e aw (a 1; see aso al 3 5 0; Rom 30, 8 Te phrase


26/154

14 Naigating Paul

wrks f he law" is n unque Pau I is n even paricularlyprmnen in Pau bu explring wha he migh have mean by expses

he rdde f hs view f he lawFr many years he prevaling assumpn parcuary n Presanscharshp was ha wrks f he law" referred gd wrks dne nrder gain r achieve rgheusness befre Gd The phrase denedJudaism as a religin f wrksrigheusess a legalisic" (r qud prqu) sysem n which ne aemped earn salvan by nes wn meris This aemp wheher successl r n was reeced by Pau ( isargued) because i embdied he sn f sefpride r sefachevemen andencuraged a sace f bas arrgance befre Gd1 Such an iner

preain seemed dcaed by passages lke Rm 42 (Fr if Abraham wasjusied by wrks he has smehng bas abu bu n befre Gd"see als Rm 93033; Phil 39), ye curiusy undermined by her pas-sages like Phil 32 (Wrk u yur wn savain wih fear and rem-bing" see as Rm 2910; 2 r 50). A number f schlars alspined u ha his nerprean dd crrespnd wha was knwnf he Judaism f Paus day, 1 5 a warning ha wen argey unheeded unlhe pubcan fPaul and Paletinian Judai bE P Sanders.16

Sanders scured he wrings f Palesian Judasm frm 2 00 BE 200 E uncver wha he caled he paes f relign" reecedhere. By paern f religin" he mean he way a relgn was percevedby s adherens ntion" hw pepe g n and sayed i n a dayday bass7 a he fund in spie f sgican hegica derencesn his maeral was a cmmn paer red in grace, n whch wrksncned as a respse Gds free elecn fsrae in cvenan rela-inship Wrks were n regarded r perfrmed as a way f acheving

meri r salvai One g n he pepe f Gd he fud purely bygrace and lved and remained n he peple f Gd by bedence heaw Mrever bedience isef was susaed by grace he grace f a frgivg Gd and a divnely insued means f aneme Because he law(Greek nomo ncned reglae fe wihn a cvenan f graceSanders named hs paer cvenanal nmism"8

Sanderss dscvery rcked he prevag cnsensus abu he egals-ic inerpreain f wrks f he law" and varus aeaives have sub-seuenly been prpsed Sme dspue he accuracy f Sanderssresearch and nerpre rscenry udasm as a variegaed bu in manyways sl egaisc eniy 19 Ohers accep he accuracy f hs descrpinbu arge ha Paul misundersd r (mre sinsery) msrepresenedhe Judaism f his day as egasc2 Sanders himsef agreed ha Pau


27/154

Paul and the Jh w 15

was nt cncerned with accuratey representing Judaism n is wnterms, but, he said, the reasn r this was that Gd had changed the

perative pattern reigin au ppsed wrks the aw," ntbecause they were inherenly awed, but simply because they were ntaith Sanders memraby cncluded, What aul nds wrng inJudaism: it is nt hristianity"21

The radical discninuity beween au and Judaism hat Sanders pr-psed, nt t menin his discncerng prpsal a deity wh simplychanged the rules, was nt, hwever, widey embraced even by thse whacceped his descrptn aesinan Judaism A mre saising su-tnr sme, at eastwas und by uing nce again t the writings

Secnd Temple Judaism in rder t gain a better understanding theoal nctin the aw. James D G Dunn, acng n clues und inSanderss wrk, pineered this rund research22

Judaism, Dunn agreed, never regarded the aw as a means earningGd's avr wever, the Jewish view he aw did evlve rm Gdsrequirement r living within the cvenant (an inramural cncern) t anexpressin sraels distinctiveness as peple the cvenan (an inter-mura cncern) Wrks the law, especially circmcisin and the d

and Sabbah aws, nctined as identy markers" Gds pepe, asbadges" membership and thus as a bundary" between Gds pe-ple and the surrunding natins. In such a rle he law als became amark the privieged stats Gds chsen peple The wrks thelaw" which aul bjects, Dunn argues, are wrks undersd in thisway as identity badges that mark ne privieged grup Fr we hldthat a persn is usied by aith apart rm wrks prescribed by he awOr is Gd the Gd }ews nly s he nt the Gd Genes as"

(Rm 3930This new perspective" n au as been embraced by many r hecarity it brings t numerus auline texts and the ease with which it tsaus scial and cultural cntexts2 It has as been expanded TathaWiley ntes that wrks the law" d nt mark aJews as privileged,ny maleJews Ony men bear he genderspecic mark the cvenantand ny their stats in hmes and in assemblies is enhanced by thecvenant law aus resistance t wrks he aw, she arges, was eledat eas in part by his determinatin t retan he equaity nt nly Gen

tles and Jews but as men and wmen within he bdy hrist24he respnse t the new perspectve has nt, hwever, been universay

psitive Sme auline texts seem resistant t the new perspective,seem, indeed, yield mre natraly t the ld perspective (Rm 415;


28/154

1 Navigating Paul

Ga 31014) Additionay, soe objet that, e the earer nterpreta-tion, ths one aso presents a dstorted portrait of Jdasm If a maorobjetion to the od perspetive was its depton of Jdaism as a soess,egaisti reigion, the new one provides no rea mproveent, for t ar-atres dasm as a raist, nationast regon Ths energetidefenses of the od perspetive onne to be deveoped, with vayngdegrees of aomodation to the insghts of the new

The argment perssts that Jdais was indeed egaist, or that aegasti form of dasm exsted aongside one dened by ovenantanos, and that t was against the former, not the atter, that Papoemzed Chares Tabert arges that ovenanta no is beae,

in an eshatoogia ontext that is, when endtme savation was sharpyn vew), a egaist regon One ay be a part of God's peope bygrae, bt n order to stay in the peope and in order to enter into thege to Coe, one st obey the Law Obediene is the ondtion foreshatoogia savation It is this eshatooga, egast form ofovenanta nois abeed synergs), Tabert aims, that s the target of Pa's atta

In partia deferene to the pitre of Jdam hat eerged o

anders's nvestigation, some who retan the egasti interpretaton havesoened he ontors of Jewish egas The eort to obey God's aws,t s ared, need not aways entai a sefseeng atttde and the vew thatone s earnng savation ors of the aw an be performed smpybease God has omanded them On this view Pa reets wors ofthe aw not bease they reet han hbrs the attept to estabsha ai on God), or bease they restrt Gods grae to a singe grop,bt bease apart om Christ they annot be aopshed in a way thateets Gods approva of these expanations, thogh presentng amore arey naned verson of te od perspetive on wors of teaw, fa to aont for the entra roes of dvine mery, forgiveness, andatoneent in rstentry Jdaism

Other responses to nn rejet the in with das atogether Theey to this ine of interpretaton are the addressees of Pas etters Gentile ongregaions When Pa writes tothemabot "wors of te aw, its arged, he s not rting Jewish obserane of the aw Rather, he swaing against the adoption of seeted Jewsh praties on the part of

Gentiles" Gentilesdo not need wors of the aw, for they wi be maderghteos throgh Chrst The probem of the Jews is not that tey ingto the aw nstead of beievng in Christ, bt that they fa to aept thatChrist is the goa of te awr GentilesThose exporng this ne of nter


29/154

Paul and the Jh Law 17

pretationhave proded readngs of Pa that ae startngy esh andpovoaive, bt they ae also dt fo they ere abandonng pre-sppositions tha have ontoled the eading of Pal fo we over eenhnded years Many nd t had to eonile this interpretation wih passages where Pa seems to inde Jews in his tie of wos of the lawRom 30 930 03 )

e are le then, with an appaent staemae egaist so or had)ntepretatons of Pals rtiism of woks of the law fail to do stetothe reaities of eond Tempe Jdaism or to te thrst of Pal's agment in several ial passages The new pespetive, on te othe hand,reires strained exegesis of some other ra passages The probem is

that ting to t al of Pa's referenes to wors of the aw nto a sngetheologal amewor seems o eire strained exegesis at some ponAbetter approah may be to assme that Pal was exble n the way hesed the phrase It is likey that Pa did not start hs theoogia ree-tions on he aw by dspassionatey anayng ts role in Jdaism and henwoing hs way toward Gods soton Rathe, as anders has insisted,Pa began wth hs sdden appehenson of the solon and from thatperspetve woked hs way bak to the plight Moreover, the present-

ng needs of hs agmen at deent pons in his dieent eters d-tated his emphasis moe than a desie to present objetivey the omplexreaity of stentry Jdaism

Bease of the misson ontext of Pas ettes, the oe of woks ofthe law in exding Gentiles from salvation seems to be hs pmary one, and it s nsttive hat te st refeenes to the phase n Galaians and Romans have ths emphass Gal 111 Rom 3 031) Bt indeveopng hs agments for the nson of Genties he od and dd)aso emphase the moe gene pont that wors ae ontravened bygrae Gal 3 1 Rom 45) yet obeiene s enabled by the piri Rom84) Whether n hs mnd this was reevant only fo Genties is thetop of hapte

The Law: tNare and Funon

In addon to his spei remaks abot ws of the aw, Pal aso omments on the aw tself is orgn, natre, and non It s dil, how

ever, to extat a eoogy of the aw om these omments bease theyare so vaed, so hetoriay harged, and so station dependent Theyae also lsteed n ony o lettes Gaatians and Romans Pal rareymentions the law n hs other ettes In Corinthans, apart om sattered


30/154

8 Navigating Paul

fns to wat s wttn n t aw t s ony on sbstantvommnt (155) w s so nongos n ts ontxt tat many ta tto b a at ntpoaton T s a lngty ontast of t ltt and tpt n Contans 3 bt aw (nomos) s not xplty mntond andt ata pont of tat dssson s t way Pals opponnts w on-dting t msson not t aw p s Pal ontasts gtosnss omt law and gtosnss basd on fat n P 39 bt t s no sstand dssson nd tat s t On th ot and t aw domnatsRomans and Gaaans w t wodnomo ppas 4 and 31 timssptvy nd obvosy to fos t bt t s bst to bgn wtspaat and py dsptv aonts Pal as dnt tngs to say

abot t law n ts two tts and amonng tm ats poblmsPa wot Gaatians n t gy agd staton of a battl wt

ot val mssonas fo t ats and mnds of s Gnt Gaatianonvts n ts ontxt dsbs t s taton wt apoalypt sta-nss blvs a pat of t nw aton (14) and t law s dmaby pat of t d Pal dos not dny t aws dvn ogn bt dos not stss t t God sad ssd t voab pomsto Abaam (t poms of blssngs to Gnt tog t mssan

sd 3 8) t aw owv was addd at (3 :19) By sng t pas-sv vo Pa avods namng t on wo addd t H dos say tat twas odand tog angls by a mdato w sggsts avnlyogn bt Pa ss ts asstion to dssoat t law fom God Nowa mdato nvolvs mo tan on paty bt God s on (30)

Moov Pal ats bng nd law (33) to bng nd sn(3 ) nd a yo of slavy (5 ) and n pson (3 3) H vn atst Gaatans ds to b nd t law wit a t to t pvosdolaty Now owv tat yo av om to now God o at tob nown by God ow an yo t ba agan by sbmtng to m-son to t wa and bggay mntal spts How an yo want tob nslavd to tmagan?" (49) T law too ts sggsts s basaly wa and bggaly vn og t xss t pow of a savmast o pson wadn ov tos nd t

Pal assms wtot agmnt tat t law ad a ntonnowannlld n Cstof spaatng Jw fom Gntl (45) H asoassms wtot agmnt tat t dns t standad of gtos ob-

dn and ts ponons a sovom n Cston tos wo(nvtaby) fa to mt t (3 04) T aw nssts od not anddd not av t ntion of jstng of mang gtos ( ; 3 1)It ad t mo mtd tmpoay bt nvtlss mpotant o of t


31/154

Paul and the Jh Law 19

padaggo the save charged wth tranng, dscpnng, and protectng theasters sons ntl they cae of age 3232) tate soewhat orespy, he law was added becase of to deal wh] transgressons, ntthe essanc] osprng shod coe 319) nthatsense he can asserthat the aw was not agantthe proses of God 321), hogh t wascleary not a part of the

Pal wrote Roans n a staton ess poecaly charged He hadnever been to Roe, and there were no rval ssonares to cobat . t spossbe, thogh, that word abot hs very negatve vews on he law hadreached the Roan chrches and pset he, for he sees concerned nhs etter to present a ore baanced and nanced argent abot the

aw ere he attrbtes the orgn of the aw nabgosy to God (theaw of God, 722, 2 5) and decares t to be holy, jst, good, and sprta7 12, 14) Ths rngng araton of the law coes, however, hard one heels of, and as a correcon to, hs stateens earer n he letter thatn he aw tghty to sn and deah, to captvty and savery 51221, espv 20; 71) Pa has spoken of he law as f t were a power or a control-ng force fro whch one can escape only throgh deah 7; cf 7,1214) Now he arges that t s awak power, ntended for good 710,

13) bt coandeered by the stronger power of sn and sed by that spe-ror power for ev prposes and wth tragc rests 7725) Overal n Roans, Pal assesses he ntended ncon of the aw ore

postvey t separates Jews fro Gentes, bt not n a way hat pgnsGods partaly or sadvantages the Genles, forwhle the Gentlesdo not possess the ewsh law they have ts reqreents wrtten on herhearts 2 121, 2 529; 3 9) The law denes sn 320), reveas sn 713),recons or eeps cont of sn 513), and n that sense tples sn520) Pa nevertheless asserts greater contnty n ths etter beweente law and fah than he dd n Galatans Thogh the savng rghteos-ness of God s now reveaed on te bass of fath and apart fro aw, stthe aw and the prophets bear wness to t 3 21) And, Pal nssts, fathdoes not overthrow the aw 3 31), a rearable ca hat he defends bydeonsrang that Abrahas fahlness and trst were conred bycrccson 4112) ndeed, he says, Chrst s the end of the law104), an abgos stateent that probly eans that Chrst s the

goal, not he ternaton, of he law.

n Galaans Pal nssts that beevers are no longer nder aw (Ro1415), that they have ded to the aw 74) Yet n ths eter Pal sprngsasrprse only nted at n Galaans For God has done what the law,weaened by the esh, cold not do by sendng hs own on n e eness


32/154

0 Navgatng Paul

of snl esh, and to deal wth sn, he ondemned sn n the esh, so thatthejust requrement ofthe law mght be ed n us who walk not accordngto theesh but accordng to the Sprt" 8 3) Ths srprsng am that thereremen of the law remans n eet needs arel attenton TheGree word translated st reement (dkama) s snglar, and sothe emphass s on lllng the laws essential demand for ghteosness,not on sasng eah of ts ndvdal reremens More sgnantly,Pal says ths essenal demand wll be llled n s he does not say bys In fat, he says t wll be llled n s throgh the ndwellng presene of the Holy prt, wh enables the one possessng that prt tolve n aordane wt God's wll by provdng he gdane and the

power to do so (8511)Ths resolves a nal pzzle of the law Pal ndates n several plaes

tat n some way the law wll be the standard of jdgment for eveyone,even for those who are not nder t Rom ; 39; Gal 514) It snow lear hat hs s so bease the law's nton as an expresson ofGods r ghteos wll does not hange Those who are led and empoweredby the p wll lll hs rghteos wll even thogh they mght neveronslt or delbeately obey the ommandments of Moses I s pobably

n ths lght that the sng phrases the aw of fath Rom 3 ), thelaw of the prt of lfe Rom 8), even the law of Chrst Gal ) areto be nderstood Thogh the sse s dspted, they probably refe tothe aw as llled by ative and obedent fat Rom 1 5; 1 ) the law'srghteosness as llled by those who wal n the prt, or the law'srghteos reement lledspeally throgh the love ommandby those n Chrs.

Wat emerges here, as several have noted, s somethng that loosvery mh le the ovenantal nomsm that, aordng to anders, dened

Palestnan Jdasm (1) Gods gaos ntatve n establshng a rela-tonshp n Jdasm, n the gvng of the ovenant; here, n the sendng ofChrst () the hman response that mantans the relationshp nJdasm, lfe n obedene to the ovenant; here, lfe n Chrst, whh slfe n the pt, whh s fe n aord wth the rgheosness the lawdesbes; 3) nal dgment

Conclusion

Interpretatons of Pals statemens on the law, espeally hs reeton ofwors of the law, seem drven to a large extent by exta textal onernsabot onssteny, abot preseng the trth of Chrstanty as he nter


33/154

Paul and th Jish Law 21

peteroeves t, abot atemt more orety, atJewsh) oseees The debate a be avaed oy by are exegess of Pa'soe ovoted ad ambgos Gree, a tas that es far beyod the mtatos of ths essay e t to say that oe's erstadg of theyams of Pa's argmet s sogy aete by exegeta esosabot erta ey texts eg, Ga : o Rom104) ad by the way oeostres the otastg eemet, fath or trst, Isou Christou o' or Jess Chrst Crety there s o osess ad o evi-ee that oe s emergg ome matters, thogh, are reasoaby ear

Pa's zeaos oe abot the aw eved Romas ad Gaatas otbeg wth hs overso. By hs ow admsso, hs perseto

ofthe foowes of Chrst was aso ooted hs zea fo the tratos ofmy aestors, that s, hs zea for the aw, pesmaby bease these traios, ths aw, wee beg ermed by the ew messa set Paemerge from hs eoter wth Chrst eay zeaos for hs ew om-msso to brg he goo ews of savaio to Getes Fath was a hatwas eessary, ad fath was aoe sfet They d ot eed to omeder the aw

For Jews, those who wee the objet of the msso wo of Peter ad

Jamesad Joh Ga2:8-9)there seems to have bee o obeto to therotg obedee to the aw as a ompemet to ther fath Thsmaes Pas absote opposto to t fo Geies seem faty rraioa,as hs oppoets dobtess aged, espeay whe he retoed met of he aw as he goa of the prted fe Bt Pa's esposewas dtated by hs oppoets' sstee that Gete beevers wererqurdto ome er the aw, hat s, to beome Jews, orer to be members of Gos peope To Pa that meat that Getes as Gntilswere ot aeptabe to God, yet the worgs of the prt amog the me

ad wome Gaata prove ompg evdee, to Pa at east, thatGeteswraeptabeas Getesto Go Therefore Geties mstot ome der awthat s, beome Jewsfo to do so wod deythe eaty of the gae they ha a experee Pas opposto to Getes omg er aw dd ot, however, mea that Pa odoe aw-ess behavor The prt, he ssted, was a reabe ge to God'srghteos w a a power eaber of obee to t


34/154


35/154

Chpter Three

Fai

For Pa, pistis say tansated "fath, was the essentia characterstic of those e caed, appopratey enogh, "beievers He sed

othe wods and phases to describe them as we they wee "saints o"hoy ones, "beoved, and "caed or "chosen ones see, eg, Rom17. They were o shod have been) chaacteried by ove, ighteos-

ness, hope, peace, and endrance Bt when Pa reported what was po-camed aboad abot them (1 Thess 8 what he most feared theosing(1Thess35 what he most ceebated thei havng(1Thess379it was to thepistis thei fath, that he efered In a ndamenta waypistisdened them n the eationshp to God The same thng, howeve,was tre of many strands of contempoay Jdasm In 4 accabees, niach, and especay in the witings of Pho, pistisappeas as a cenafeate of Jewsh sefdenition evea things, however, distnisedPas se of the tem om that of Greespeaing Jewish wrtes heopposedpististo the Jewish aw insted of coordnating it with obediencetothe aw, he reatedpististo Chrst, and he emphasied not ony the ee-ment of trst that pedomnates in Jewsh ses of the term, bt asoandsomesay especiayan eement of assent to that is, beief in) the con-tent of the gospe The ast point sggests that before expoing how Pandestoodpististo be reated to Chrst and to the aw, we mst estabishthe basc meaning of the word

e Mes) ofPleuein

The nonptisand the vebpisteuein fomed in Gee om the same rootist* are say rendeed in Engsh with wods formed om derent


36/154

24 Navigaing Paul

sems fa om Lan) for the non, and beieve om MiddleEngishbilvn) fo he verb Boh n donaries and n genera sage,

fah has he prmay meanng of beef n the rh of someng, even,oespeally, n he absene of maeia evidene iewse, beleve hasthe prmay meanng of aeping soehing as e or rea Neither ofhese wo Engsh words, however, onveys all te shades of meanngfond in the Gree ems The pimay nane of the Gree non, foexampe, is s or ondene hghghting an atve sane of rmeiane on someone o something) I an aso sgges, as the Englshdoes, redene or beef ephaszing he nelea atviy of assen the rh of soethng o he hness of soeone) i an mply fath-

ness or rsworhness fosing on the moral seadfastness of one'sdeeds and words) and an designae the poof or evdene pon whhondene or beef an be based ewise, te nanes of the veb angeom sing n soething or soeone), eyng on someng o some-one), o beevng ha something is e, wth varos preposons o onnions n, on, or ha) oen sed o a he nare and objeof he ay

Pas se of tese words overs hs whoe ange of meanings He

soees speies onen(whais believed), emphasizing he eemenof neleta assen beeve n yo hear haGod aised him fomhe dead, Rom 09 see aso hess 4 4) Ohe imes he sesses hemoal aspe by nng he word wih referenes o obedene o bngabo he obediene of faih among al he Genes, Rom :5 also6:26 see also 0 6) and he promoes he nane of s hogh heexampe of Abraha Ro 4622) oe have arged ha one ofthese aspes is ore fondaiona for Pa than he ohers, b hee isno agreeen ove whh has tha sas is more impoan o viewhe vaos nanes as a onn han o esolve her absoe anng rs n God o Chris) s neessaily rooed n he belief ha whas sad abo God o Chis) is re, whehe i be pomse o poamaon And ea rs neessary manfess iself in he way one livesones fe, ha is, in aons Pa pooes diffeen aspes ofpisisadffeen pons in hs argens, b he ll range of nanes s awaysa eas poenaly presen Cenra, hogh, o he mporane of heonep fo Pal, and egardless of whh aspe s in view, s he on

viion, expessed n a varey of ways, hapisis s the appropiae andsaving esponse o he gospe Theefoe pisis s from heang, andheaing s hogh he wod abo Chis Rom 0: 7 AT see Rom0:57 Co 5:2 Thess :28)


37/154

F versus e Law

Faith 2 5

eveal of h ee mo oab Galaa ad Roma Pau hap-e he meag ofpistisb coag wh aohe wa of elag oGodhough wok of he ewh) aw HeecJewh wgee wee ee a compemea aco hlo a ceu C Jewof Aexada decbepistisa "he mo pefec of ve (He 9)whPaul h ve cloel aocaed wh Abaham ad he elemeof u domae meag Abaham accodg o Phlo beleved(ad ed) he pome of God peccal he pome ha he woudhe wdom(He 0) Sgca howeve ae exeve pae

of Abaham'pistis Pho oe a he "cowg comme "ha h madd he dve law ad he dve commad (Ab 275) istisad obed-ece o he aw ae alged o oppoed ho' wg

Lkewe 4 accabee we he HelecJewh Dapoabewee he ce BCE ad he ecod ceu C oe ha heJew who wee oed ad klled b Aochu Epphae (2d ce BC) acceped he deah wh gea couage becaue of he pistisTh pistisembaced boh he ue God ad he belef ha

he ke Abaham aac ad Jacob would "ve o God ha be whGod ae he deah (7: 623; cf 622) Sgca he wademoaed pecel b he oa o he law "Le u w all ouhea coecae oueve o God who gave u ou lve ad e u ueou bode a a buwak fo he aw (33) Fa Sach we he ecod ceu BC dee hough poec paalem hoe whouisteuein God a pecel hoe who keep God' aw

he e wh keep he awpeeve hmelf

a he e wh e dwll ue

(3224 ee alo 277)

Fo al hee we God ad obedece o God' aw wee buwo de of he ame co Pau howeve pee he wo a aheca "Ye we kow ha a peo ued o b he wok of he law bu

hough fah Jeu Ch nd we have come o beeve ChJeuo ha we mgh be ued b fah Ch ad o b dog he wokof he aw becaue o oe wl be jued b he wok of he law (Ga2 6) Clea h ahe ha mplcao fo aul' vew of he aue


38/154

26 Nagatng Paul

and cance of fah bu wha thee mplcao ae hol co-eed Much depend on how one nepe aul oppoon o wokof he aw

The pevaln ntepeaton of Paul' obecton to wok of he law hat wok epeent "wokhteoue the atempt to acheve o"ean avaton o one' own met Such an aempt ee a ot onmded amuch a achev alvaton eman beond he each ofn humant bu alo ( ome nepeaon) n amuch a heve aempt to ean alvaon an atempt to "pu God n one debTh t aed conttte a dea of oe "depedece upon God heCeao and th dea the eence of n Fah h cotex and

accodn o h ntepeato he athe of achevemen aact of obedence and uende "he adca oppoe of he atude ofboatn enedeed b wok lthouh t a "ee deed of deco t no an accomplhme Yetand hee the pobemmlke an accomplhme When Bumann ate hat "fah hecodo fo the ecep ofhteoue akn he place ofwok one coud cocude hat he bac fomula eman the ame a peon uted b he adequac of oe fath ntead of b the adequac of one'

deed "Fah mo be a tpe of "wokBulan aue ooul aat th cocluon et he doe o pmal b denn fath a no a accomphmen he a "he adcal enucaon of accomphmen I 5 Caned aee: "Fah] noa cobuton fom the huma] de whch b lln a condon addown b God eable the ope to be a ha cae he admt"fa woud be he la eot a meoou wok Bu a Caneld " of he ve eence of fath a au udeand ha oppoed to a human dee all huma etabhn of cam on

God Now Paul hmelf doe no expc dee fah n h wa ohow do Caned Bultmann and ohe foown th e of nepeta-o know that t o Becaue he undeand "wok of the aw a anatemp to eabh a clam o God and au e fath oppoed to hBu wha f tha udeandn of "wok of he law coec?

Jame D G Dun ae hat tncoect. The poblem of he lawhe a not ha pomoe wokhteoune t doe no uchthn. Rahe au obec to "the law mudeood b a mpaced

empha on boundamakn ta whch wok cton o dvdeJew fom onJew o dtuh hoe wth he covean om thoewhout thconex he empha Pau ned b conat fahwh wok hat "God avn act fo awho beleve wthout d


39/154

Faith 2 7

tintion" (Rom 322) that whout pvegg thoe wh he phamak of the ovena Aodg o th vew of the ve eeeofististha aimatial mea of appopatg God g oe thaala exee Fah tand oppoed he ot to huma met ad boa-g but to Jewh atoa efodene baed o he beg the peope of he aw.

Du popoa daw aul oe o Judam ofa aistisad thelaw (pope udetood wthou a empha o boudae) a oeaga be oodated (Rom 3 : 3 ) Ye a ubtatal deene ema.Fo auistis eated o Ch. Bu how eated?

F Cs or F of Cs?

Whe aul pee the obe of the atvt of beevg o ttg heuuall meo God (Rom 43 5 7 24 Ga 36 1 The 8). Foaul a fo Judam fah hee theoet t God whom oneobe (Rom 63 22) God n whom oe t (Rom 45) ad God'at ad pome ha oe beeve (Rom 0:9) Yet fo au fah ad ae deted peal owad God oe of alvato though the death

ad eueon of Jeu Cht ad that ee t ao fah Ch That t the belef that God' oe of alvao houghCh e ad that Cht ow Lod ad t ute ut ad obedee o he oe who ha oeed that alvaon ad made hm Lod

Thee ae howeve evea paage aul udpued ette hapeak o eem o peak of Ch' ow fath o fahle (Rom 32226 Gal 2 6 we 20 3 2 2 h 3 9 ee ao ph 3 : 2) f ha theoe epetao he eaohp beee the beleve' fah andCh aque addtoa omplex Bu e ue ho debated Ahe heat of the queto an ambguou Geek phae that a be taaed ehe fah of Cht o fath Ch glh anlato haveoten hoe the latte ndeed oe ha o go bak o he ngJame Bbe ( 6 ) o d a mao alaton at pee he aeave e he agme fo the of Ch talao ae muh ogeha the ho of glh talaon would ndate ad uppo foh aeave gowg he agmet ae tehnal ad omewhaedou bu eea to gap f oe nteeed evauatg he ate

aveThe Geek phae o of he ou fath istis) foowed b Jeu

ame o tle eu Ch Jeu Ch o So of God) the geveae(, istis Chtou) Geek h ae a mak amog ohe thg


40/154

28 Nagatng aul

eobjt f e acn ncae b e peceg nn (hee pstsaha C a bec ence fa Ch) e ha heef he ac f e peceng nn (hee pstsha Ch hmelf eb ece fa f C) Te fme efee n gammabk a he "becve genve he lae a e "becve genve Amla ambg can be fn n he Engl pae "ve f G whchcan efe lve f G (becve geve) G lve (f he)(becve genve) Nng n pae alne n heptsphaen qe encage ne eang ve ane Ohe facce-al eegecal an elgcalae empe ece n efena paca nepean. Wa fac hen pp ppe he f

fee pn egangpstsTe anlan "fa n C gl ppe b an epecall nce e xeen cene abve alan a been cnenl fave n Engl anlan. Ealeala Cpc Sac an Lan ae me ambg Sec-n e fac a Pal efe belevng ng n Ch ge le ambg gammacal cncn (e g he vebpstun," beleve w e pep s, " p, ) ea me cn-cle a he nene e me abg pae sts genve) be ne n he ame wa. Th h a ngle excepn (Eph 3 12)he ambg phae n f e eePalne lee (leeabe Pal b pbabl wen b fllwe f Pal) Thee lee cnan ea nambg efeence "fah n Ch: enpstswh he pep n, "n (e.g Eph 115; Cl 1:4; 1 Tm3 13; 2 m 1:13 3 15) Tee ae hweve wa f nepeng evece I cl be an can ha me f Pal eale flwe clae gnal nen b g a le abg phae. On

he e an c ncae ha ffee phae wee e b Palan h fllwe efe ffee ng he fah f Ch stsgenve) an fah Cstsw e pepn). Fnall p-pe f "fah Ch ak w f he fa f Ch wee mp-an Pal ecbe me eal hw Ch plae h fah?Apa m h phae hee ae n clea efeece C' fah Pal lee. Sppe f fa f Ch epn ha Pal canecbe Je fahl ac wh necea ng he w psts

Ng a elewhee Pal eqaepstsan beece (eg Rm 151016) e clam ha n peang f Je beence epecall naccepng eah (m 5:1819 an Phl 268) Pal peang fJepsts


41/154

Fath 29

Te tanslatn at rst" s strngl surted, rst, b h -rause t nun pstslled b a ersnal nun r rnun n thgent cas Ts cnstructn aears nl rarel n the rngs llnstcJudasm, but n t ds aar t s almst eclusl as a sub-jcte (at ) gne.3 Tat Paul tactl assumes tat th Rmas( ae nt eard m tac r rac r ean ts ras) llunderstand t arges, sme clam, n ar ntrprtng t n terms ts custmary usag. 36 Scnd, n addn t th sen nstances erPaul lls pstst a rnce t rst, uss te cnstrctnenyur tmes t a drnt rernt n all tese t ernce st te at r trst r ahlness fte nddual, tat s, te subecte

gent.3 Agast ts cmellng backgund, Has arges, Fat Jsus rst s nt t mst naural traslatn psts Chrtu"38 Trd, artcular, t ambgus gt rases n Rmans tat may reer tte at rst (3:22 26 are surruded b assags tat use rcslaralle ass sts + gente) and clearl er t te atlnss fGd (3 3 and the ath fAbraam 4 2 6 n ts cntet, sme agea rader clned tad cnsstenc uld b strngl encuraged tread he ras as ah rst"3

Prnnts te at rst" readg acnldg tat Paulseaks clearl beleng n rst, and admt tat te ambgusrase psts Chrstu s clsel ntegrated nt assages tat cntan thesclear statmets But, n ter e, tat ery ntegran generates surt r t readng t re. I psts Chrstu s ranslated at nrst," te result, te clam, s an aard and dn dundanc,c s as reled b translatng t rase as a subject gnte

Yt tat a s s sd t b t s t la btthruh th u hrt Ad a c t hrtu s at gt b jst fath hrt a t b dgt s t la (al 2 NRV)

Yet tat a rs s ste t b rks la bttug t atless esus rst d a c t bele t t st esus, s tat t b just b t atlss rst, ad t b s t la. (a 26T

But rts th subct radng (at rst") seeredundac, ts rerrg ath n" see stead a rm emassPaul ugs s nt b stang t reeatdl and n arus rmuatns


42/154

30 Naviatin Paul

Dieent pesupposins abut wha consites unacceptabe gammat-ical awkadness conol this aspec of the debate .

Ohe aguents es even oe obviosly on heoogica pesupposi-ions n suppot of he "faih in Chis eading i is claimed

a tat he "fait f hist pti demies the Refmatephasis huma faith ae

b. hat fait is apppiae f the S of Gd h is e app-piaely the bet f faith

. that e aal tas t humaork is humafai ist

In suppot of the "faih of Chist eadig i is caimed

a that ith he "fath i his pi stai ests etely nhma beleig hi iss ig fat a "bizae st f

b tha "faith i is assigs ess a eey passie le anddes pide a slid histlgia gudig f ethis

tat e ata tast tma s sris' faitess

Thecogecy of hese agmens may becoe ceae if he shape of he"faith of Chis opion is oe y expoed In paicula the elaion-ship beeen Chist's faith and human faih needs to be explained Jusicain e gi of ighteosness Pau says comes hough faih (Rom3 2 2 8 30) But whose And hw The possibiit ha Chis's ow faithplays a ole aises these Refomatioea qesions ane

The answe o tese quesions cealy lies i he claim that somehow

Chist's fait he adica st and obediece at led him o accep thecss becoes o ow: "It is no loge who ive but i is Chis whoives in me nd he ife now ive in he esh I ive by he failessof the on of od who loved me and gave himsef fo me (a 2 :20 ATVaios ways of descibg how his faith becoes ous have been oeed( By imitation of he exampe of Chist Explanations favoing this langage pomote the idea ha obust human actiiy modeled on Chist'sis necessay ad adequae The wods of am ilias show his ten-dency "Chistian faith is Chistfaith hat elationship o od whichChist exemplied iiams attempts t mdi he noion of mereimitaon sggesting that Chist "ceated this faih "acuaied it andmade it "availabe as a eal ha possbiit. nd he suggests hatthee s a "pesonal ion with Cist that makes his faih possibe.


43/154

Faith 31

B e does no exaine nae o a nion and insiss a eac indi-ida is esosile or rememei Cris's exemlay obediece and

yiedi onesel in oal obedience o od as Cris did Fo Wliams

e crcial idea ee is ieness (2) By dentngwi Cis Tisexlanaion aoids e imicaion a mee imiaon is adeae ilacs clariy Wa does i mean o ideni wi Cris? (3) By mystalunon wih orpartpaton n Cis3 Tis way o descrii e relaionsieween Criss aih and hman ai esecs e exiciness oPals laae o nion wi Cris (Rom 63 8 0 2 Cor 5 al32) I assmes ha e elieer is acally nied wih Cis arici-ain in Cis (or Cis dwelin in e) ho a ysica nion and

becase o ha se saes or arciaes in Cris's ai js as se ar-iciaesin Cris's dea (Ro 6). Cis's ai ecomes es y ireo e ein one wi Cis s as in im se aaes o is ieos-ness ( Co 30 2 Cor 52) and wisdom ( Co 30) Two nal asecso is oon need o e addessed how one coes o e inCris ande ansomae imicaions o ha nion

orna Hooer aises an ineesin esion Is i a case o eieinin im and so enerin ino Cis? Or is i aer a ecase we are

in im we sae is ai? When e esion is osed is way iresemes e cicenande conndm Whic coes s? oi-cally i wold seem oursdoes e canno sare in wa Cissniwe ener im and we ener im y eiei in im so a o ais come rs As Hooe noes hoh e oic o ariciaionis no inear

Pal descibes e rocess o nii wi Cris in wo ways baismino Crs(es Crston Rom 63 a 3 2 7) and beliein ino Cris(es

Crston Rom 1014 al 26 Pi 1:29) Tese wo exessions areammaicaly arae bo emlo e same eosiion(es one aimies moemen and o see o ncion as anser ermino-oy. Onebelevesio Cris. Wha is sranesondin asse-ion seems o imly is a one oes ino nion wi Cis o anac o Cisie rs Tis ac is no owee mee imiaion o Cris'spsts; i is an ac a claims and receies Criss sain as one's ownOn is mode Cis'spstsand manpts hoh iniially seaaese ino one

Tose wo are in Cris aae o Cis'spsts Pal does no owee see o eard ispstsas a arenie aliy a is on oconceal a ealiy o lessanerec manpsts Hooe oins s in eri diecion ere. Tee are se noes assaes in Pamos oaly


44/154

32 Navigating Paul

a 49 "y tte childre fo ho I agi i the p of childbh hst s fored yosggestg th partciptio ihris is tasfog io hereby ose i hist ae cofoed tohrist s "hist is fored i he hose ho pticipte hstsfaih go io th fih. Hooer says, "hose ho shre i hstsfaith she aleady i his righeosess; sacicatio is ideed eof becog h oe s hsti life is a ate of cofoty to histfo begiig o eda shig i ht he is this is the hoe atteof jsig faih ad scig obediece.

Conuionhe faih th os s a obst faih. It ivolves coitted obed-ece ad dcal st s ch as it does asset to he trth of cais botod d hs the Lette ofes says of faith hat is eely asset"ve he deos beleved shdde aas 2 9) as faith s od-directed ad hrisdeed Wether "hsdeed eas oly hathst dees he eas of ods eveao ad the vehce of he slva-tio h od oers o lso icdes hists o fh s a ae ha is

vigoosy debated. If the ate s corec, t has sevea ieestg dipott coseqeces. It ecorages greater ephasis o the haess of Jesshs

rst d faithless to od becoe soteroogiclly sgcat2 I peis the ephases of he ospel rratives ad of s etes

to be ore esly recocied he eso betee the ospels eph-sis o the lfe ofJess ad als esole focs o e ccxio ad resrrectio of Jess ( o 22; see so 2 o 5 6 is ovios. If hoever,the fithess Jess dispayed drig his ife is of theoogcal sigicceto a that teso is edced o eiited al ad the ospes eet,as i ere, ehsee

3. I aso fcilitates the coordiato of to lies of thogh i lsleters ht have og ee vieed as jrrigy idepedet the ridcalcocept of jsticaio by faith (e.g., Ro 4) d the pticipaory cocep of bapis io hist (e.g, Ro 58) If fith ivolves pticptioihist, he o ies of thogh ge o oe

his focsed discsso of the ipotace of fath fo he divdal

ho espodsor does oto he essage of svo, ho ss dobeys od, ho ptciptes hrs, shod ot obsce the ipoatfac that fo al ad his st the sigcce of fath s oe gropoieted Fath, as destood , factaed the icsio of o


45/154

Faith 3 3

idGlo th people of God. Faith ca be mafedthrough obdece to h aw (Rom 8 4), but i i ot reicd to ha ad

o i ope to al. d o oe readg of Rom 3222 Chrt' faihl evald ad lld God' ow cova faihl to IaBu ha i the topic of chapte 5


46/154


47/154

Chpter Four

I Christ

Myscal Reait or Mere Metaphor?

In al 2920 Pau sas hav ncruced with Christ; and it is nolongr I ho liv ut it s Chst who lives in me" In 2 Cor 5 h pro-

laims o i anon isin Christ hr is a n ration ! In Rom 63 hass Do ou not no hat al o us ho hav nbatized into ChristJesusr batized into his death?" n Rom 8 0 h assrts Bu iChrt is

in you though th od is dad aus o sin h piri is li aus orightousnss And in al 32 h instus "an o ou as r batized into Christhav othed yourselves with Christ"

Ovr svnt ars ago lrt htr insstd that al hs stat-ns (and oths l th rr to a mstial union ith Christ andun aimd that Christ msts s th ntr o [Pauls] hough' Othrs hovr hav rsistd that onlusion To in th spiri nomor dnos h stat o stas than to n Christ' is a ormula o ms-

iism Whr do sholars sand toda on ths qustion? Is h langago ing in Christ or dng and rising th Chrs mr mtaphorialor dos i rt a smpl rait I i is a ralit ho dos Paul spao it and hat dos h man it? And most imporant ha ar hmpiaions or thos in Chris?

he Conover

i hir (ut a i arlir and ith mo orid pros do

Dissmann oatd h nr o Paul's rligion in hs msial union ihChrs Paul in Christ Chist in Pau! Paul is l o Chris!

o

Paul's mor hologial onps stam h sas rom this ntralpoin o vron hovr as so rtain nraions o shoars


48/154

Navgatng aul

ere inuenced nsead b Rudof Bultann's contenton that the s-tcal language found n Pau's eters as a egac of he Helenstc

chuch Paul hough not enel free of ths a of thnng eploedthe language n a dieren a n Chris far fro beng a forua forstc unon is prarl an lsologal forua It eans he state ofhang been ariculated into the bod of Chrst e the church b bapts I oen epresses n a qute general a the sae of beng deterned b Chrst hereb t suppes the lac o the not e conedadjecte Chsan' Hans Conelann aso rejected an stcal con-ten for Pau's n Chrst stateents The oen ean he sas littleore than hat salaton is hrough Chrst or epress the objecte

foundaton and the innerordl nangblt of Chrstan eisenceGnter Borna as clearer and een ore ephac epressionse Ga Ro 8 910 etc. hae lle n coon th sticiseen here thei dicon approates o t Accordng to these schol-as Paul a occasonall soun e a sc but scs as noherenear the cener of Paul's hought

A decade late Chrisaan Beer opened hs sgnaure or on Pauith a reference to essann bu he dd so onl to reec essann's

concluson Pauls conerson a hae been a sca phenoenon butsas Beer hat s central for Pau's hough s not personal subjeciso an inrapschc phenoenon (Bee's dsisse a of descrbngPaul's stca eperence) but he ne stae of aars . . that concernsthe natons and the creaton; hat s t concerns apocapic eschatol-og. rgen Becer eeples anoher response. He does no eplclreect a scal eleent n Paul's thought but his teaten o sical passages s bref and e bland s clear tha hrough this anage

Paul ants o ephase he personal side of he ne reatonship o Godand Chs. Thus in arous asb enerpreaon b eplicitrejecton and b slencehe porance o a sca eleen in Pau'sthought as effecel dened

There ere ecepons to hs trend and porant ones. ichel Bouter reeced an of essann's broadest cas but agreed that nChrst oen eant rea incluson and partcpaon ens H.ee too Pau's langage of partcpaton n Chrs er seous;ndeed he ade t the centerpece of his nerpretaon of Paul's theor ofatoneent Rejectng the ore coon subsitona heo hereGod ransfers to esus the punshent due to huans on account of theirsn he proposed nsead that Paul's understandng as one o saaonhrough partcpaon Chrst shared all our eperience sn alone


49/154

n Chr Myal Rea or Mere Meahor 3

ecepe ncling eah in orer that we by vrte of or soliaity whhm mght share hs life Epanng the meaing of ths "solary

hecommente incorporato s no too srog a woErs Ksemann note the eence between he worview of Pa

a tha of hs inerpreers an nsste "tat what seems to s myholog-cal was vewe by Pa qe eastcaly Ths he cocles "I s noeant metaphorcally whe Pal says hat baptism an the echastnvolve s n ess eath copoae s n Chist a allow s to paticipate n he vne Spir n E P Sanes arge vgorosy that"thema points of Schwetes aayss [are precisely correct to wt"the realsm wh whch Pal thoght of incorpoaon he boy of

Chrst [whch is] he hear of hs theologyhs view seems to be gowing n popla ee has been a sh n

termnology he langage of "mystcsm eeme by many o be consng o scomtng is oen epace by eferences to "parcipao oless reqenty "intechange ebae contes even amog thosewho accep the ealty of Pals langage of particpaio ove what hsparcpaton acaly etals Saners hin speas fo many when heass "Bt what oes hs [langage of patcpation] mean How are we

o nerstan t e seem o lac a caegory of realyeal paicpatio Chst rea possession of the Spitwhch es between nave cosmoogcal specaton an belef n magcal ransferece on the one hana a revse sefnestanng on he other ohn shon has I hnp hs nge on he pobem "Pal was] a ea mysc an the sse is"a mater of vsonar nsght athe han of ogca hoght his sg-gests ha ony another mystic can grasp he "caegoy of ealty of whchPa speas a mystical scholas are ew a far beween Ye whateverthe angage se an whatever he evel of insght ino the ae of heealty moe an moe schoas of a nonmystcal bent are acnowleggha some form ofreal no w Christ was important even centra toPas eperence an thogh

The Langage of Papaon

Pal ses a nmbe of phases hat sgges non wth Chrst He speasof Chrs beg "in hm or "n those to whom he wrtes Revesg he

image he speas of hmself or his reaes beng "n Chist beg "members of Chrst or beng "members of the boy of Chrst e caestanston by speang of beng "bapte to Chst an mos racallyhe refes to beng "bapte into Chrsts eath an beng "crcie with


50/154

38 Navigating Paul

Chst Paul oen uses deent pases n lose onuntion andsometmes almost nteangeay so t may e somewhat atia and

misleadng to nvesgate them sepaatelyas f Pau ad aelly distn-gused among tem Paul's thought and langage seem to e ve uidand exile ut t is neveteless ep at least nially to fous on thepases one y one Not all of tese phases ae ead as easly o as equently as expessons of mysti unon

Chrit in ou/me Tough not te most pevalent o pomnent phasePaus lam tat Chist s in hm o n is eades may e the easest tounpa and tus t s a good pae to egn. He maes hs statement nfou passages n thee deent lettes Gal 116; 220 Rom 810 2 Co

135 see also Gal 49 Col 2, wih may ave een witten y a fol-lowe of Paul also ontains te pase) Of these Rom 890 seems topovde the most futl nsigts nto Paus meanng

t yo ae not n te es; yo ae in te Spit sine te Sit ofGod dells n you nyone o does not ave te Sit of stdoes not elong to t f st is n you toug te ody sdead eause of sn te Spt is life ease of gteousness

n ts passage Paul speas inteangealy of he "Spit of God te"Spt of Chst and "Chist dwelng wthn te eeve and all ofthese phases seem to designate he same ent e efes to elsewhee asthe "Hoy Spt. ppaently Pau dented the Spt that they eeivedupon the onfession of fait Gal 3 15) and tat seed as a sgn of thenew status as hden of God Gal 446 as te Spt of te sen Chistndeed he dentied te wo so losely that t made no dffeene to him

f e spoe of te Spt of Chst o of Cst mself dweling wtin. annot epeat oen enoug that Pau was not a systemat heooganand dd not wo out fo hs eades a onsistent way of efeing to andelatng these entes; ut Co 5 45 suggests one detion of istought "Thus t is wten Te st man dam eame a lvng eng ;te last dam that s Cst eame a lfegivng spt The NRSVdoes not apitaze the wod "spt n ts vese and hus downplaysany ln wth te Hoy Spt o wth Paus efeenes esewhee to theSpit of Chist. et as Dunn notes tee is ittle dieene eween "lfe-giving Spt Geepneuma zopoioun) hee and "Spiit of fe Geepneuma t z) in Rom 82 o the statement that "the Spt gves lfeGeeto de pneuma zopoie in 2 Co 3 6 Sine the last o ae genealyeognied as efeenes to the Hoy Spit Co 15 45 s appopately


51/154

n hrst ystcal Rea or ere etaphor 39

nterpreted t mean that "Chrst s experienced n and thrugh evenastheifegivng prt

ith ths dentcan the striking assertin that Christ dwelsthin seems equvaent t the re falar ca that the ly prt(rthe prt f r frm d) dwells thn (eg R 811; C ;3 6; 6 9 ; Thess 48) anguage aut the ndwelling prit hweversnt ften nterprete as a reference t mystcal unn rather it s gen-erallyuderstd t refer re simply t the dvine resence. Yet Paul'scments n the indelng sprt f Christ mve in a stincty mystica drectn

D u nt that hever s unted t a sttte ees ne th her? t is sa "he t shall e ne esh ut any-ne unte t the r ees ne st th h Shun fa-tin ve sn that a ersn mmts s utse the ut theratr ss aganst the d tsel r yu nt n that yur is a tele te Srt t u hch y have frG an that u are nt ur n? (1 r 6: 1 6-9)

The mages are ud as Paul weaves tgether the deas f eng unted tthe rd ecming ne sprt wth the rd and the dy as a tempe fthe ly prt Paul's argent sees t presuppse that the y prtithn the dy s he pt f Christ hch untes th the human sprts ntmatey that the ecme ne spirt just as des ecmene sexual ntercurse

One shuld nte that ths way f speakng f a unn wth Chrst wuldhave een readily understd y Paus rgnal hearers and readers wh

ved n a culture that regarded the dy as suect t nvasn y damnsdetes angels sprts and the ke They understd as wel that such"invasins cud result n a unn wth he daimn hat altered the vereng f a persn Paus message aut ecmng ne spirt wth thendelng rd was f a piece with their wn cultural vews

n hrst members of hrst members ofthe body ofhrst ust as Paulcan speak apparently nterchangealy f the prt wthn and eng nthe prit s t he speaks nt nly f Chrst thn ut as f engn hrst Indeed the last s y far the mst cmmn exressin he

uses Fr that very reasn thugh the phrase s mre dfcut tassess It ccurs s frequently n Pauls letters that a reasnaly cmpletesurvey s nt psse the meaning Pau attaches t t seems t vary; andits pnt f cntactf anywith siar recRman cncepts s


52/154

40 Naigating Pau

debaed and dubous. Ye s wdey regarded as he cenra eemen ofPaus ysicis.

The euency of he hrase duls is iac. The mode reader endso si over i as ious ler. Cerany Paul oen uses he hrase n waysa do no ehasie or even necessariy sugges Chrs as apace whereone exiss. Thus, for exame n he sace of hireen verses in his eer oe Phans he clas o hoein the Lrd Jeuo send Tohy o he(2 : 9) and o rusin the Lrdha he woud aso come (2 :24) and he urgeshe o welcome Eahrodiusin the Lrd(2 :29) and o reoicein the Lrd(3 : ) . He also addresses he leer o he sansin Chrit Jeu ( : ) and cosesby greeng every sanin ChrtJeu (5 :2 ) Addiioally he uses he hrase

euenly o renforce he auhory of hs own words "e as and urgeyou in the Lrd Jeu" (1 Thess 4: see aso o 9 2 Cor 2 : 9). Buihin hs varied and ubuious usage are saeens ha seem o ono he exerenced realy ha underies Paus fondness for he hrase.

ore han ha I regard everhng as loss ecause o he surassngvaue of nong his esus y ord For hs sae I have sueredhe loss o al hngs, and I regard he as rubsh n oder ha I ay

gain hrs and e oundin him Phl 3:89a)

So if anyone s in Chrit here is a new creaon everhng old hasassed aay; see everhng has ecoe ne (2 or 5 )

Ino a ersonin Chritho foureen years ago as caugh uohe hrd heavenheher n he body or ou o he ody I do noo; God nows. (2 or 22)

any o you as were aed ino hris have cohed yourseveswh hrs There is no longer ew or Gree here s no longer saveor ee, here s no onger ae and eae; or all o you are one inChrit Jeu Gal 3:228)

oe of course deny any ysca meaning even o hese saemens .Buann nssed ha Paus referencs o being "in Chris ean noore han aer references o beng a Chrsian a meer of he eccesalbody of Chris. Bu is ha al i eans Dunn says no "Paul evdenly felhmsef o e caugh u n Chrs and boe aong y Chrs Pelseragrees "Pau] mus cerany be ang abou a realy ha es beyondhe reali o his world ruled by naural senses.


53/154

In Cht Mytial Reali o Mee Metaho 4

uch eo has ee expeded o aemps to de he bacgoudof he cocept of pacpag Chst o he bod of Chs \ha

the GecoRoma wold esemled hese cams? \ha ow coceps could aul's heaes ad eades have daw upo o gasp he sgcace of hs wods? \ha ow cocepts mght have ueced ault expess hmself hs wa? hee suggesos ae egulal oeed hegosc edeeme mh, the ewsh cocep of copoae pesoa, adhe tato es of the mstey culs

he gosc mt coces the fate of a heavel ma out of whosesustace dvdua humas wee ceated ad wh whom these dvduals (moe pecse, he heavel potos of these dviduas) ae ul

mae eued 38 hs myh, howeve, s kow o om souces muchlate ha au ad hus s a ule souce fo aul's laguage o hsheaes' udesadg Copoate pesoay emaces the Od Tesame dea hat oe ca epeset ma39 so ha the deed of oeecomes he deed of hose he epeses (see esp Ge 3 Rom 415:11) Howeve, he cocept that domaes he oo of copoatepesoay hat of epesetao whch seems a fa cy om theoos of uo ad copoao hat au's lagage suggess.0 The

mstey es ma have voved a ta uo wth he dety, but dealsae elusve (see below). Oveal hough, ths le of aass seems o haveeached a dead ed, wh o cosesus havg emeged. Falue o de the bacgoud of au's laage of patcpato does o, howeve,mea that au coud ot be efeg o eal pacpao I smp e-foces he eed o be aeve o aul's ow wods

Batized into Chit atied into hi death uied with Chit Twceau efes o eg aptzed to Chs (Rom 63 Gal 37). The

phas ca e epeed a vaey of was. I oe le of epeao he phase s egaded as a aeaed fom of apzed to [o] the ame of Chst. 1 au does o use that oge fom, but he seemso pesuppose owedge of t whe he asks (sacascall), Wee oubapzed o [Gee ei] he ame of aul? (1 Co 13 see also 15) Ifhs s he acgoud ad meag of the phase bapzed to Chs,he ha phase has o mscal o pacpao ovetoes I pocams,as the moe lsome fomula does, tha he baptized peso ow eogso Chs

he phase ca also e tepeted as a efeece to the bapzed pe-so's copoao o the od of Chst, bu hs meapho s a ud adsppey oe Somemes he od of Chs seems o efe o he chuchas a colecve ety deted ts alegace o Chs (eg, 1 Co17)


54/154

4 Navgatng Paul

apsm to thod efes to te te of ao to ths commuyof fat Oe mes, oweve, te od of Cst seems to suggest a

mstcal" etty1

Co1016)

I Ga3

aul equates eg aptedto Cst wh puttg o Cst," a stg phase tat suggests amate uo wh Cst.44 O s eadg eg apted to Cstefes to he act of mscal uo wth hm4

au's efeece to eg apted to Cst's deat (Rom 63) ad thesmla commet aout eg cuced wth Cst (Gal 19) ae evemoe dcult ad dsputed46 he pevalg tedec as ee to teattese wods as smes, so that te ae udestood to mea dgaCstded ( aptsm?) ad sueg aCst sueed o te coss (oug

eeco o soca ostacsm?).47 Ceta au's wods Rom 6:5 (fof we ave ee uted wh m a death lke hs . . .") ad s cataogsof apostolc suegs ( 116; Co 130) would seem to suppot ts cocluso. Yet seveal passages also suppot a pacpatoy omstca tepetato dg (ad sg) ecomg oe wt Cst48I Co 54 fo example, au folows hs asseto at we ae co-vced that oe as ded fo al ot wt a efeece to the atog poweof tat dea, ut w a cocluso at maes most ese f oe assumes

a mstcal o patcpatoy eemet aul's ogc: teefoe all aveded."49 Smlal, the asseto I ave ee cced wh Cst" (Ga 19) s folowed mmedatel a secod asseto at stogl suggestsuo wh Cst d t s o oge I who lve, ut t s Cst wo ves me The upshot of al ts s hat scholas who accept o othe goudsa mstcal compoet to aul's thought ae ced (ut ot olgated) tod allusos to mstcal patcpato tese passages aout apsmto Cst ad to hs deat. Those ot cled towad a mstca tepetato of aul ca d gouds fo deyg t ee.

uc atteto as ee gve to te possle og of the agageof aptsm to Cst's deat o, moe geeal, te cocept of dyg adsg w Cst. Te eesc mstey cults, wt e mys ofdg ad sg o euveated gods, ave og ee egaded as tecoceptua acgoud, f ot te acta og, of au's lagage. Flawsave ee foud wt s teoy, oug, sucet to cause most scolas to aado t1 Thee s appaet o efeece to eg apedto Iss, fo example, o a dcao tat e tate ded, was ued,

o ased w" Oss Tee s eve some deate ove wete te ate was eve deted wt te cut god o goddess u, fo example,uequvocal sas o; ese, thoug, cams tat devotees ae somewa deted w the cut dety," toug he eses to call t a mstca


55/154

In Ch Myial Rali o M Mho 3

unon."5 h pobm s tha txs om or about hs cus ar fw andnooous ambiguous and dicut to np. (h ms cus" goth nam, a a, om h fac a h rs wr a call garddscrt) is impotant, howr, to dsngush btwn wha actalhappnd n cu c is and h popua prcpton o t cut prac-tcs rook Pason args ta is mo tan nogh idnc osuggst that t connction btn baptsm, da (smboc, actual, osimp h possibliy ro and initiaton ino th cut o ss wouldha xsd in at last popuar mnd"54 ha would b sucin

h dba s obous not o, though unn's suggston ha hmaphor of baptsm ino Jsus' dath oiginatd n Jsus own rfnc

to hs dat as a bapsm am to b baptd wt" (Mak 1038) has muchto commnd it55 Howr, knowldg o th orgn of Pauls langag ofbapsm ino Chis and nto his dath s not ssntia fo assssng hpsnc o absnc of a msca lmn n Paus tough, for on anhypothss it is a concpt that Paul hmsl rh dopd

Vt Ioes t e?

h os frqunt ncound xplanaton is tha h anguag ofparicipaion is to b undstood mtaphocall ( g , h bod o Chiss a mapho fo th chuch)56 or as a simil (.g., w xpinc somhng lk Chrst's dah ut what would t man to assum that hanguag o particpation n Chrs rrs o just ha: partcipaon nChrs? t s impotan st to addss som common msconcptionsPaus mscism was Chrismstcsm; h dd no ocus, as a ms-cs did, on mstcal union wh God (bu s Ph 213. Moor, ms-tcism, if i is prsnt, dos not n Pauls s impl a union wth Christhat somhow maks th pson din, nor dos an ha th p-son is dssold ino Chrs so compltl tha hs o h prsonhood isobatd. was h assumpion hat mstcsm" ncssaril mpdhs ings that d to a ucanc o us hs m o dscib whatPau was aking abou ut f bng in Chrst" or hang Chs n ou"dd not imp absopon nto Chist, i dd impl, as Psr nssts,mor han nrng into a spcia raonshp wt Chis" Hsamp to dscrib h phnomnon s as good as an: s ath h

comng abou of a toa nw om of xsnc, an xisnc o bingl controld b Chrst, o ing hrough Chis ling n h blit is h comng abou o a nw prsonay in whch Chrs can b dn-td, t wihout th bli osng h/hs dnty. s a union


56/154

4 Navigating aul

w Cris ad i, saisd Cis ad xpricdog fai i im, a ca poal s dscid as msica7 addiio, og, i was o, a as as Pal dopd i, a pridiidalisic pomo, ad i ad a disicil scaologicacompo: io wi Cis xpricd i is world was o a foras of h Paosia

Pa frrd o is msical io a k pois i is s, ow was spakg of ics paricipaio i Cris cssiad oald cai mods of aior Rom :34) os wo a p o"Cis a p o is wa of if as wll a 5 :) also drw ois cocp o mpasiz h icsi qai of ir w xsc ws

ad ls og ar i Cris Jss a 3:) ad w wh aemany ar o od" ( Cor 0: ) d o dscrid saaio ims of paricipaio i Cris os i io wi Cis sar i isigosss ( Cor :30) paricipa i is dah Rom :3) ad araisd i im o a w if ( Co 57) o sr, Pa dos o ps is as a iaa ali is ma waigs ad xhoaios idica clarl og a ow ra dsood io wi Criso , did o drsad i as a io ha cod ok fai

o li o a io, o docm i rog os aciosA

sas,Cis ms fomd" i m Gal 4: 9)I is impora o o a is is o o wa a Pal og

of Cis Pa was, as Scwi od, o wol ad sol a msic,"9 a is, did o awas s agag ad logic of msicismi is s aso spok, spcial w was addrssig polm of wis law, i gal ms of Criss da as a aomsacic a pmid rigos God o pass or oookmai's sis Rom 3:24 s also 4:5 Gal 3 : 3 ) I as log cocdd a s wo mods of og, idical lgal admsical, coxisd ar asil ad ilogical i Pa's lrs aii Cris is cra o o, io wi Cris o or T siois sigica rdcd, ow, if, as ma ow a, Pa's drsadig of fai also ad a paicipao lm a opic rqirsis ow cap s cap 3)

addiioal implicaio of akig siosl Pa's agag o f paricipao cocs ss of sf rar a ss of salao I

sms a oos coclsio a io wi or paricipaio i Cissold cag o's ss of id a Mar's ipao ofPas k of cai m wo wr sig prosis ( Co : 50)igigs a cosqc


57/154

In Chst Mystal Real Mere Metaphor 5

The Chrisan man's being s dened by hs partcpaion in he bodyof Chis. "D

Documents

Navigating Paul