Prophecy & Eschatology in the New Testament: The Letters of Paul (Introduction)

Having examined the eschatology of Jesus as recorded in the (Synoptic) Gospels, as well as that expressed by the early Christian preaching in the book of Acts, it is now time to turn our attention to the Pauline Letters, and to give consideration to the eschatology of Paul, as studied through his letters.

One fact we may note before proceeding, is that, with regard to the eschatology found in the letters, there is surprisingly little that is unique to Paul’s thought and manner of expression (the discussion in Romans 9-11 being a notable exception). On the whole, he follows the traditional eschatology of early Christians, very much in accord with what we find in the preaching recorded in the book of Acts (cf. the previous two articles). What is distinctive is the way that Paul develops the tradition, giving added theological (and Christological) weight to the basic contours of the eschatological expectation of 1st century Christians. The main eschatological components handled and addressed by Paul in his letters are:

    • The return of Jesus to earth (i.e. the Parousia)
    • The great Judgment by God on humankind, and
    • The Resurrection (spec. of believers)

It is the last of these which is given most attention by Paul, since it relates to a fundamental (theological) aspect of his understanding of the religious identity of believers in Christ—namely, our identification (and union) with Jesus in both his death and resurrection (see especially Romans 6:3-4). This will be discussed in more detail as we encounter the various passages.

Any comprehensive treatment of Paul’s letters must always take into account certain critical questions of authorship. In particular, many (if not most) critical commentators regard a number of the canonical letters as pseudonymous. Among such scholars, there is general agreement that the Pastoral Letters (1-2 Timothy, Titus) and Ephesians are pseudonymous; others believe that Colossians and/or 2 Thessalonians are as well. For my part, entirely on objective grounds, I consider 2 Thessalonians and Colossians as genuinely Pauline, and will treat them as such in these articles (while occasionally mentioning certain critical objections). More substantial questions surround the Pastorals (esp. 1 Timothy) and Ephesians, in terms of vocabulary, style, and points of emphasis. I do not intend to address any of these, except in passing; however, as a point of procedure, in deference to the (critical) questions, I will treat the eschatology in Ephesians and the Pastorals last among the letters of Paul.

Here is an outline of the articles:

  • 1 & 2 Thessalonians:
  • 1 & 2 Corinthians:
    • Part 1: Survey of the Corinthian correspondence
    • Part 2: Key passages examined in detail
    • Part 3: The Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15
  • Romans:
    • Part 1: Survey of passages
    • Part 2: Development of the Resurrection theme
    • Part 3: Romans 9-11 (esp. chap. 11)
  • Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, and Colossians
  • Ephesians and the Pastoral Letters

Saturday Series: 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 (part 4)

2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, continued

In last week’s study, we examined 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 from the standpoint of the critical theory that the passage is an interpolation, i.e. a secondary addition to the text. In particular, the apparent non-Pauline features—those considered unusual or atypical of Paul—were discussed (following the prior examination of the vocabulary and other details in Parts 1 and 2). This study came under the heading of redaction criticism—that is, the passage as included in the text by an editor/redactor, a view often related to the theory that 2 Corinthians as a whole represents a compilation of two or more letters by Paul (for more on this, see below).

Composition Criticism

This week, we will be considering 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 from the standpoint of Pauline authorship; our discussion now falls under the heading of composition criticism—i.e. how the passage came to be authored (or composed) in the context of the letter as we have it. The study will be divided into four sections:

    1. The structure and content of 2:14-7:4 and the (current) location of 6:14-7:1
    2. Pauline authorship of 6:14-7:1 and how it might relate to 2:14-7:4
    3. The overall context of 1:1-7:16 as a unified composition (and how 6:14-7:1 fits in)
    4. Questions regarding the letter as a whole (including chaps. 8-9 and 10-13)
1. The Structure and Content of 2 Cor 2:14-7:4

Nearly all commentators (even those who view 2 Corinthians as a compilation) consider 2:14-7:4 (excluding 6:14-7:1) to be a unified composition and part of a single letter. It is for this reason, as we discussed last week, that the inclusion of our passage in the middle of this section—i.e. after 6:13 instead of 7:4—is so problematic for any interpolation/compilation theory. It will be useful now to examine briefly the structure and content of 2:14-7:4 as a whole. Most commentators and New Testament scholars today recognize that Paul, in his letters, makes use of common rhetorical (and epistolary) techniques in presenting his arguments and exhorting his readers, etc. I will be discussing the structure of 2 Corinthians in this light in the sections below. Generally we may describe the rhetorical thrust of 2:14-7:4 as deliberative, centered on two interrelated themes: (1) Paul’s relation to the Corinthians as an apostle, and (2) the importance of this relationship being maintained and/or restored. Here is how I would divide this section as a whole:

    • 2:14-17—Basic proposition: Paul and his colleagues as apostles who are honest and sincere in their ministry
    • 3:1-18—Issue/Argument #1: On letters of recommendation (for apostles/ministers)
      • Illustration: The written tablets of the Old Covenant, in relation to the New (homiletic exposition)—letter vs. Spirit (vv. 3, 7-18)
    • 4:1-6—Issue/Argument #2: On the honesty/sincerity of true apostles (such as Paul) in the preaching and ministry
      • Illustration: Light vs. Darkness (blindness), alluding to the Mosaic veil in the prior illustration (vv. 3-6)
    • 4:7-5:10—Issue/Argument #3: On the (physical) suffering of apostles such as Paul for the sake of the Gospel
      • Illustration 1: The death and resurrection of Jesus—the participation of believers in it (4:10-15)
      • Illustration 2: The inner vs. outer nature of the human being (esp. the believer) (4:16-18)
      • Illustration 3: The body as a house or tent (i.e. clothing) that perishes, to be replaced by one that is imperishable (at the resurrection) (5:1-5)
      • Illustration 4: At home vs. away from home—i.e. believers in the present world (of suffering) vs. the future life in Heaven (5:6-10)
    • 5:11-6:10—Exhortation/Appeal to the Corinthians, regarding Paul’s role as Apostle
      • 5:11-15—His ministry is centered on proclamation of the Gospel
      • 5:16-21—Effect of the Gospel: The life of believers is new in Christ, and does not depend on the ‘old’ standards of the world; as an apostle, his ministry serves this dynamic of making things new.
      • 6:1-10—The Corinthians must receive, realize, and act according to this new identity in Christ (vv. 1-2), which includes recognizing Paul’s relation to them as an Apostle (vv. 4-10)
    • 6:11-7:4—Personal Appeal by Paul
      • 6:11-13—First statement (“make wide [your hearts] to us”)
      • 6:14-7:1—Illustration (?) from Scripture (Lev 19:19)—Homiletic exposition/exhortation {disputed passage}
      • 7:2-4—Second(?) statement (“make space for us”)

This outline shows that 2:14-7:4 admirably forms the torso of a letter with a deliberative rhetorical thrust (i.e. seeking to persuade/exhort the reader with regard to current/future action):

Unfortunately, the situation is more complicated when 2:14-7:4 is considered in the context of 1:1-7:16 (on this, see below). How exactly does 6:14-7:1 relate to this outline for 2:14-7:4? It appears to have little, if anything, to do with the specific matters being addressed—of Paul’s relationship (as an apostle) to the Corinthians. As most commentators recognize, the transition from 6:13 to 6:14ff is sudden, appearing to interrupt the line of thought most abruptly. Nothing in 2:14-6:13 would prepare us for the style and tone (and subject matter) of 6:14-7:1. As I mentioned last week, 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 seems to have much more in common with Paul’s discussion(s) in 1 Corinthians (e.g. 5:6-8; 6:19; and 10:6-13) than anything we find in 2 Corinthians.

Perhaps a clue is to be found in the immediate context. In the letter as we have it, 6:14-7:1 is bracketed by two similar, and more or less synonymous, exhortations by Paul:

    • “make wide (your hearts) also to us” [platýnth¢te kai hymeís] (end of 6:13)
    • “make space [i.e. in your hearts] for us” [chœr¢¡sate hymás] (beginning of 7:2)

As commentators have noted, removing 6:14-7:1 yields a relatively smooth and consistent statement by Paul; for example, I translate with the temporary join indicated by italics and a vertical bar:

“Our mouth has been opened up toward you, Korinthians, our heart has been made wide; you are not in a narrow space in us, but you have (only) a narrow space in your inner organs (for us)! But (to give us) the (same) wage (back) in exchange, as (my dear) offspring, I say to you—make wide (your hearts) also to us, | make space for us! We treated no one unjustly, we corrupted no one, we (desir)ed to seize much from no one. …”

At the same time, it must be admitted that 6:11-7:4 represents the climax of the composition (defined here as 2:14-7:4), and, if such a dramatic piece of exposition as 6:14-7:1 belongs anywhere in this work, it would be just where it is currently located, in the middle of the climactic appeal. But does it truly belong there? To make a fair determination, let us now consider what Paul, as author, might have intended with this passage, and possible arguments for its inclusion at the point where we have it (between 6:13 and 7:2).

2. Pauline authorship of 6:14-7:1 and its current location

We have already examined some of the apparent “non-Pauline” features of this passage—words, expressions, style and points of emphasis that would seem to be unusual or atypical of Paul. These are significant enough to raise legitimate questions regarding authorship, and cannot simply be brushed aside. However, we have also seen enough genuine Pauline features to establish the possibility that he is ultimately responsible for the passage. A reasonable solution would be that Paul is here making use of traditional Jewish Christian material—in style and tone, if nothing else—adapting a piece homiletic exposition (on Lev 19:19), and applying it to his Corinthian audience. While this seems fair enough, and is more or less the explanation I would adopt, there is at least one serious challenge to Pauline authorship/use that must be addressed. This is the strong idiom of ritual purity in 6:14-7:1, with the corresponding emphasis on the need for believers to separate from non-believers. According to some commentators, this line of thought and mode of expression runs contrary to Paul’s own, based on evidence from his other (undisputed) letters. I addressed this argument in the previous study (see also the separate article on 6:14-7:1 and the Dead Sea Scrolls), but is worth outlining again here the most relevant passages where Paul draws on the idea of (ritual) purity from the Pentateuch/Torah, and uses it in a similar context of exhorting believers to avoid close association with immorality and/or ‘idolatry’. The passages are:

    • Rom 6:12-13, 19—there is perhaps a faint allusion to the purity of sacrificial offerings (i.e. service at the altar) in the idea of believers presenting themselves before (vb paríst¢mi, lit. “[make] stand alongside”) God (cf. also the quasi-ritual context of the image in 2 Cor 11:2); it is noteworthy that v. 19 contains the same juxtaposition of dikaiosýn¢ (“righteousness”) and anomía (“lawlessness”) that we find in 2 Cor 6:14 (see below).
    • 1 Cor 5:6-8—Passover imagery (esp. that of unleavened bread) is applied to believers, exhorting them not to associate with persons engaged in sexual immorality (vv. 1-2, 9-13f); the main difference with 2 Cor 6:14ff is that here it directed specifically against believers engaged in sinful behavior and not non-believers.
    • 1 Cor 6:19—the bodies of believers are identified (symbolically) with the Temple, which had to be kept ceremonially pure (a primary concern of the Torah purity laws); here we find perhaps the closest example of ritual purity meant to symbolize believers separating themselves from the immorality of the surrounding society (vv. 9ff, 13-18).
    • 1 Cor 10:6-13—the application of the Golden Calf episode (Exod 32; note the implicit context of ceremonial purity in 19:10-15) to the very matter addressed in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, namely, believers separating from the idolatrous culture around them (vv. 7-8, 14ff).

The last two examples from 1 Corinthians, in particular, are reasonably close to the basic message of 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, and serve to demonstrate, I think, that Paul was capable of addressing believers (and especially the Corinthians) in such a manner. However, if 6:14-7:1 genuinely comes from Paul (even if as an adaptation of traditional material), can any sense be made of its use at the current location in the letter? Why would Paul address his audience this way, at this point?

Much depends on the nature of the problems existing between Paul and at least some in the Corinthian congregations. The extent to which he emphasizes both (a) his role as an apostle, and (b) the sort of relationship the Corinthians ought to have with him, in 2:14-7:4, strongly suggests that there has been a breach in the relationship, to some extent. The wording he uses in the climactic appeal at 7:2 raises the possibility that there had been accusations of wrongdoing and, perhaps, misuse of his apostolic authority. He strings together three verbal phrases, forming a three-fold denial of any such wrongdoing on his part; each beginning with an emphatic oudeís (oudéna), “no one”:

    • oudéna ¢dik¢¡samen, “we treated no one unjustly”
    • oudéna ephtheíramen, “we corrupted no one”
    • oudéna epleonekt¢samen, “we (wish)ed to take more (from) no one” (i.e., acting greedily, etc)

It is possible—and admittedly, it is only a possibility—that the digression in 6:14-7:1 is connected in some way to these ‘charges’. The initial verb used in 7:2 (adikéœ, “act without justice, act/treat unjustly, injure”) is related to the initial noun (adikía, “[being] without justice, injustice”) that establishes the contrast (between believer and non-believer) in 6:14ff. Perhaps the point Paul is making, by utilizing the homiletic of 6:14ff, is: believers are not to be closely joined with non-believers, but should not separate from other believers (unless they behave like non-believers, cf. 1 Cor 5:9ff); how much more, then, should the Corinthians remain closely joined with an apostle and minister like Paul, who has not acted wrongly toward them, but has honestly and faithfully preached the Gospel that led to their experience of new life in Christ. This could also explain Paul’s wording in 7:3: “I do not say (this) toward bringing down judgment (on you)”, i.e. I am not saying you are acting like this (i.e. like unbelievers, 6:14ff), nor that you are making such charges against me (7:2), which would be wrong. If 6:14-7:1 is actually targeting immorality or idolatrous associations among the Corinthians, such as are mentioned in 1 Corinthians, then it would, indeed, seem to be out of place in its current location. But, if the point, by drawing the contrast between believer and non-believer, is meant to enhance and emphasize the unity and bond between believers (and between minister and congregation), then the inclusion of 6:14-7:1 here could perhaps be explained. We will take this up again in the concluding study next week.

3. The context of 1:1-7:16 (as a unified composition)

Even a casual reader will notice that, after the long discussion in 2:14-7:4, the following section (7:5-16) picks up where 2:13 left off. This has led some commentators to posit that two letters have been spliced together: (1) 1:1-2:13 + 7:5-16, and (2) 2:14-7:4. I must say that I find little evidence to support such a theory; in which case, it would be more plausible to view 1:1-7:16 as (part of) a unified composition. However, this does complicate the structure of the letter considerably, since 1:8-2:13 + 7:5-16 appears to serve as the narration (narratio) portion of the letter—i.e. narrating the facts and historical circumstances, etc, related to the matter being discussed. Normally this section precedes the main proposition (propositio), presentation of arguments (probatio), and exhortation (exhortatio); for a clear example of this order, following the tenets of classical rhetoric and epistolary form, see esp. the outline of Galatians. As I noted above, 2:14-7:4 appears to have the character of the main body of the letter—propositio, probatio, exhortatio—but, if 1:1-7:16 is a single composition, then 2:14-7:4 instead functions as a (lengthy) digression in the middle of the narratio. It also would seem to require additional material to make up the body of the letter; such material, of course, would be at hand with chapters 8-9ff of 2 Corinthians as we have it. Thus, it will be useful, at the close of this part of our study, to consider the structure of the entire letter (our current 2 Corinthians), to see how 6:14-7:1 might relate to it.

4. The letter as a whole (including chaps. 8-9 and 10-13)

Upon examining chapters 8-9 and 10-13 we find two very distinct kinds of material: (a) instruction relating to the charitable collection for the Christians of Jerusalem (chaps. 8-9), and (b) a lengthy discussion on Paul’s status as an apostle, similar in some respects to that of 2:14-7:4, only much more pointed and harsher in tone, directed at specific opponents (and similar in style and manner of argument to Galatians). Thus, it is possible to isolate two structural lines, or strands, which make up the letter as we have it:

    1. A practical, and relatively straightforward letter, dealing primarily with the collection for Jerusalem, and
    2. Two lengthy treatments regarding Paul’s role and status as an apostle, and his relationship, as such, to the Corinthian churches

At first glance, these two strands seem to have little to do with each other; in particular, the harsh polemic of chaps. 10-13 appear at odds with the rest of the letter, which is why many scholars (including more traditional-conservative commentators) hold that chaps. 10-13 represent a separate letter from chaps. 1-9. If we were to remove 2:14-7:4 and chs. 10-13, temporarily, from the letter, a rather simple and straightforward outline emerges:

    • Greeting (Epistolary Prescript)—1:1-2
    • Introduction (Exordium)—1:3-11
    • Statement of the reason/purpose for writing (Causa)—1:12-14
    • Narration (Narratio)—1:15-2:13 + 7:5-16
    • Proposition (Propositio) [regarding the Collection]—8:1-7
    • Arguments/Instruction (regarding the Collection)—8:8-9:5
    • Exhortation (Exhortatio) [regarding the Collection]—9:6-15
    • Conclusion / Epistolary Postscript (?) cf. 13:11-14

The core of this letter relates to the Jerusalem Collection (chaps. 8-9). There have been some prior difficulties between Paul and the Corinthians, as he narrates (1:15-2:4); but, as was subsequently reported to him by Titus (7:5-16), to some extent at least, these seem to have been resolved. Now, following the preparatory work by Titus (8:6ff), Paul urges the Corinthians to complete their part in the Collection. How does 2:14-7:4 (much less chaps. 10-13) fit into this outline? As I have previously noted, a good number of commentators believe that 2 Corinthians represents a compilation of different letters from Paul’s Corinthian correspondence. Such theories, while interesting, and not entirely implausible, remain highly speculative, with little hard evidence to support them. Ultimately, though not without difficulties, it is easier to explain 2 Corinthians, as we have it, as a single letter. Assuming this, for the moment, how would 6:14-7:1 relate to the overall structure of this letter? The lengthy excursions regarding Paul’s role as an apostle, which clearly are of prime importance to the letter, at the same time distort the rhetorical picture. Commentators who accept the integrity of the entire letter, outline this complex picture in various ways. Here is a tentative outline on my part:

  • 1:1-2—Greeting (epistolary prescript)
  • 1:3-11—Introduction (exordium)
  • 1:12-14—Reason/purpose for writing (causa)
  • 1:15-7:16—Extended Narration (narratio)
    • 1:15-2:13—Initial narration: On the prior troubles between he and the Corinthians
    • 2:14-7:4—Excursus on Paul’s relationship (as an apostle) to the Corinthians
      • Basic proposition (2:14-17)
      • Issue 1: On Ministers and letters of recommendation (3:1-18)
      • Issue 2: On the honesty/sincerity of true apostles (such as Paul) in the preaching and ministry (4:1-6)
      • Issue 3: On the (physical) suffering of apostles such as Paul for the sake of the Gospel (4:7-5:10)
      • Exhortation/Appeal to the Corinthians, regarding Paul’s role as Apostle (5:11-6:10)
      • Personal (Concluding) Appeal by Paul (6:11-7:4)
    • 7:5-16—Concluding narration: On the expected resolution of troubles between he and the Corinthians
  • 8:1-7—Main Proposition (propositio), regarding the Collection for Jerusalem
  • 8:8-9:15—Arguments (probatio), in support of the Corinthians faithfully completing the Collection
  • 10:1-13:4—Extended Exhortation (exhortatio): Excursus on Paul’s relationship (as an apostle) to the Corinthians
    • Initial Appeal and Statement (10:1-6)
    • Issue 1: The nature of Paul’s (apostolic) authority—theme of boasting introduced (10:7-18)
    • Issue 2: Comparison between Paul and other would-be Apostles who are influencing(?) the Corinthians (11:1-12:13)
    • Issue 3: Paul’s apostolic authority—exercise of discipline (12:14-21)
    • Closing appeal (13:1-4)
  • 13:5-10—Concluding Argument and Appeal (peroratio)
  • 13:11-14—Closing/Benediction (epistolary postscript)

The (possible) relation of 6:14-7:1 to this outline will be considered carefully in next week’s study, which will bring our discussion of this provocative passage to a close. I hope to see you here next Saturday.

“…Spirit and Life (continued): Spirit in the Pauline Letters and other Writings

“Spirit” (pneu=ma) in the Pauline Letters

Here I will survey the occurrences of the word pneu=ma in the Pauline letters, beginning with the undisputed letters (including Colossians and 2 Thessalonians), then addressing the letters where Pauline authorship is most often disputed (Ephesians and the Pastorals), as well as the related adjective pneumatiko/$ and adverb pneumatikw/$. The subject is enormous, as Paul refers to the Spirit more than a hundred times in the undisputed letters, and gives to the term a rich development which reflects his unique theological approach. On the other hand, he is very much in keeping with the early Christian view of the Spirit, of which we have seen signs in the discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John.

To begin with, occasionally Paul uses pneu=ma to refer to an individual human person—i.e. his/her soul, mind or “presence” (e.g., 1 Thess 5:23; 1 Cor 2:11-12; 5:3-5; Rom 1:9, etc). There are also instances where the word is used in an abstract sense, in expressions such as “spirit of gentleness” (1 Cor 4:21), “spirit of trust” (2 Cor 4:3), etc. However, in the vast majority of occurrences, Paul is referring specifically to the Spirit—that is, the Spirit of God (and/or Christ). From a trinitarian point of view, it must be admitted that there is little evidence to indicate that Paul thinks of the Spirit as a distinct person, separate from either God the Father or Jesus. As in the Gospel of John, Paul can refer to the Spirit as being of God or of Jesus, without any obvious distinction, though specific references to the latter are far less common.

Here I summarize the Pauline evidence according to the most prominent expressions and concepts:

Other significant ideas and expressions:

    • The witness of the Spirit in/with our human spirit—Rom 8:16
    • The Gospel as manifestation of the Spirit—1 Thess 1:5-6
    • The teaching of the Spirit—1 Cor 2:13-14
    • The aid and help given to believers by the Spirit—Rom 8:26-27; 9:1
    • The “firstfruits” of the Spirit—Rom 8:23
    • The “fruit of the Spirit”—Gal 5:22ff (cf. also 6:8)
    • The “things of the Spirit” (cf. on the adjective pneumatiko/$ below)—1 Cor 2:14
    • Believers as the temple/shrine/house of the Spirit—1 Cor 6:19
    • The Spirit as a “deposit”, i.e. of the resurrection and the future/divine Life—2 Cor 1:22; 5:5
    • “Written” by the Spirit—2 Cor 3:3
    • Association of the Spirit with the (new) Covenant—2 Cor 3:6ff
    • Idea of “quenching” the Spirit—1 Thess 5:19

Especially worth noting are passages which identify God (and/or Jesus) as Spirit:

    • 2 Cor 3:17-18 (“the Lord is Spirit / Spirit of the Lord”)
    • 1 Cor 15:45: “the last Adam [i.e. Jesus] came to be (transformed) into a life-giving Spirit

It is interesting that Paul rarely, if ever, uses pneu=ma to refer to an unclean/evil “spirit” (i.e. a daimon or “demon”)—implied in 1 Cor 12:10, and cf. also 2 Cor 11:4; 2 Thess 2:2, and the expression “spirit of the world” in 1 Cor 2:12. Only in 1 Timothy 4:1 do we read specifically of “spirits” more or less identified with daimons/demons.

The “Disputed” Pauline Letters (Ephesians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus)

There are 21 occurrences of the word pneu=ma in these letters (14 in Ephesians, and 7 in the Pastorals). For the most part, the usage and semantic range corresponds with what we see in the “undisputed” letters (cf. above). The human “spirit” (mind/soul/person) is intended in Eph 4:23 and 2 Tim 4:22; while a “spirit” of sin/wickedness is referenced in 2:2, perhaps (but not necessarily) the same point of reference as the personal “spirits” in 1 Tim 4:1. Elsewhere, the word is used of the Spirit of God (and/or Jesus), in a manner similar to the Pauline references cited above:

    • Believers are “in the Spirit”—Eph 2:22; 3:5; 4:3, 30; 6:18
    • The Spirit dwells in believers—2 Tim 1:14
    • New life comes through the Spirit (resurrection/rebirth motifs)—Titus 3:5, cf. also Eph 3:16
    • The Spirit as a promise of future Life—Eph 1:13
    • Unity/community through the Spirit (“one Spirit”)—Eph 2:18ff; 4:3-4
      with a special emphasis in Ephesians 1-2 on the unity of Jewish and Gentile (non-Jewish) believers in Christ
    • An association between the Spirit and Baptism (washing/cleansing motif)—Titus 3:5
    • The Spirit reveals truth to believers—Eph 3:5; 1 Tim 4:1
    • Believers are led by the Spirit—Eph 2:18
    • Believers as the Temple/shrine (“house of God”) of the Spirit—Eph 2:22

Certain ideas and expression are unique to these letters:

The more abstract usage of pneu=ma in expressions such as “spirit of wisdom” (Eph 1:17), “spirit of power”, etc (2 Tim 1:7), almost certainly still has the Spirit of God in view.

One ambiguous occurrence of the word is in 1 Tim 3:16, which appears to be part of an early Christian credal formula or hymn. There are two ways of reading the words e)dikaiw/qh e)n pneu/mati:

    • “he was made/declared just in the spirit/Spirit”
    • “he was given justice [i.e. vindicated] by the Spirit”

The second option is to be preferred, and would certainly refer to the work done (on Jesus’ behalf) by the Spirit. However, if one opts for the first reading, it is not entirely clear whether pneu=ma refers to the human “spirit” (parallel to the earlier “flesh”) or God’s Spirit. The poetic character of the verse allows for a dual-meaning, both of the word pneu=ma as well as the preposition e)n (“in”).

Pneumatiko/$

The adjective pneumatiko/$ (“spiritual, of the Spirit”) is a popular term for Paul—of the 26 occurrences in the New Testament, all but 2 (in 1 Pet 2:5) are found in the Pauline letters. Quite often it is used in the plural, as a substantive—i.e. “spiritual (thing)s” or, perhaps, “(thing)s of the Spirit”: Romans 1:11; 15:27; 1 Cor 2:13; 9:11; 12:1; 14:1. The word is especially prominent in the first Letter to the Corinthians, in which Paul gives instruction to congregations which are clearly quite “charismatic” in character—experiencing (and expecting to experience) the regular manifestation of the Spirit in the corporate meetings and life of the congregation, through various means and ‘gifts’ (1 Cor 12:1ff). The word xa/risma (“favor [granted], gift”) appears in vv. 4, 9, 28, 30-31 of chapter 12, though the specific expression “spiritual gift” is found only in Rom 1:11. These are things “of the Spirit”, meaning they come from the Spirit of God (and Christ), but they can also be communicated to others by gifted believers.

Believers themselves can be called “spiritual (one)s” or “(ones/those) of the Spirit”, using the same plural substantive (1 Cor 2:15; 3:1; 14:37; Gal 6:1). In these passages, the adjective “spiritual” is meant to reflect a level of spiritual maturity for believers in Christ. In Eph 6:12, pneumatiko/$ refers to things (and/or beings) of spiritual wickedness (i.e. the opposite of things of the Spirit).

Occasionally the adjective is used with a specific object or in a particular expression, such as:

    • “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink”—Paul’s Christological interpretation of Exod 16:15ff and Deut 8:3 in 1 Corinthians 10:3-4; the baptismal and eucharistic associations are quite clear from the context.
    • “spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44 and 46)—referring to the believer after the resurrection; in verse 45, the resurrected Jesus is said to have become a “life-giving Spirit”.
    • “spiritual wisdom and understanding” (Col 1:9)—Paul’s prayer is that believers will be so filled by God (through His Spirit).
    • “spiritual chants/songs” (Col 3:16, also Eph 5:19)—to be sung or recited by believers to God (through the Spirit)
    • “spiritual blessings” (Eph 1:3)—that is, “(word)s of good account” given/spoken over believers by God (through/by the Spirit)

In Romans 7:14, Paul states that “the Law is spiritual” (or “…is of the Spirit”), using the same adjective. As I have discussed elsewhere, I believe that here (and in other passages) Paul understands the Law [o( no/mo$] in a broader sense, using the specific expression “the Law of God”. It is not strictly equivalent to the written Law of the Old Testament (i.e. Torah), though certainly the latter is included under the former. Since God is Spirit, his Word (or “Law”) is also Spiritual.

The related adverb pneumatikw/$ (“spiritually, [done] by/in the Spirit”) occurs twice in the New Testament, including by Paul in 1 Cor 2:14—where he states that spiritual things can only be understood (and judged) spiritually, i.e. by the Spirit.

“Spirit” in the Remainder of the New Testament

Here I will briefly summarize the occurrences of the word pneu=ma in the rest of the New Testament (not including the Johannine Letters and the book of Revelation). There are 25 such occurrences:

Hebrews (12)
    • 1:7, 14—Heavenly Messengers (“Angels”) as ministering spirits (v. 7 cites Psalm 104:4), i.e. ministering specifically to Jesus and the spread of the Gospel (to believers); cf. also 12:9, where God is referred to as the “Father of the spirits”
    • 2:4—God manifests himself to believers through the various work of the Holy Spirit
    • 3:7—The special inspiration of Scripture (by the Holy Spirit) is indicated (citing Psalm 95:7-11); cf. also in 9:8; 10:15, where the idea of the Spirit witnessing to believers is emphasized
    • 4:12—The sharpness of the living Word of God is indicated by its ability even to divide between soul and spirit (i.e. inside a person). On the actual identification of the Word of God with the Spirit, cf. Eph 6:17
    • 6:4—Believers are said to have become (together) ones who hold the Holy Spirit
    • 9:14—Jesus is said to have offered himself (as a sacrifice) to God “through the (eternal) Spirit”
    • 10:29—The one who dishonors Christ’s sacrifice (through sin and disbelief) is said to have “cast insult upon the Spirit of (God’s) favor”
    • 12:23—Here the idea is that the righteous (i.e. believers), their “spirits”, come to be among the other spirits (i.e. Angels) in Heaven, as the “firstborn” (i.e. through Jesus)

It should be noted that the usage in Hebrews, especially in the way in which the title “Holy Spirit” is referenced, evinces a level of theological development, beyond what we find in Paul’s letters (cf. above), in the direction of a trinitarian distinction—i.e. the Holy Spirit as a distinct person.

James (2)

In James 2:26, the human/animal “spirit”—i.e., the life-animating power or “breath” is meant. By contrast, in 4:5, it would seem that the “Scripture” cited (identification remains uncertain) has been interpreted in reference to the Spirit dwelling in the believer. However, as there is no other specific reference to the Spirit of God (or Holy Spirit) in the letter, it is difficult to be certain of the author’s view of the matter.

1 Peter (8)
    • 1:2—As a central tenet, believers are “made holy” (i.e. sanctified) through the power and presence of the Spirit (“sanctification of the Spirit”)
    • 1:11-12—Three distinct points may discerned here:
      • The Spirit (of God) revealed future events to the Prophets whose oracles and visions are recorded in Scripture
      • This source of inspiration is actually called “the Spirit of Christ” (v. 11)
      • The “Holy Spirit” similarly inspired the apostles and other early Christian witnesses who declared the Gospel (v. 12b)
    • 3:18—Jesus is said to have been “made alive in/by (the) Spirit”. Compare with 1 Tim 3:16, where there is a similar ambiguity between the (human) “spirit” of Jesus (compared with “flesh”) and the Spirit of God. Perhaps something akin to Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 15:45 is intended here.
    • 3:19—apparently a reference to the tradition of “fallen Angels” (Gen 6:1-4), i.e. Angels as “spirits”, though it is at least conceivable that the spirits of the dead are also meant. For a more symbolic application, cf. 4:6
    • 4:6—A parallel statement to 3:18-19, though applied to believers, who are made alive by/through the Spirit
    • 4:14—The Spirit of God is said to rest upon believers

The author (indicated as Peter) also uses the adjective pneumatiko/$, twice in 2:5, referring to believers as a “spiritual house” (i.e. Temple or house of God), and as holy priests who offer “spiritual offerings” to God.

2 Peter (1)
Jude (2)
    • V. 19—The author refers to pseudo-believers, referring them as “souls” (yuxikoi/) who do not hold the Spirit; on a similar distinction between “soul” and “spirit” (or “Spirit”), cf. above
    • V. 20—The reference is to believers “praying in the Holy Spirit” (cf. Eph 6:18)

Saturday Series: 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 (part 3)

2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, continued

Literary Criticism

This is the third of five planned Saturday Series studies on 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, a passage thought by many commentators to be a (non-Pauline) interpolation. The evidence and arguments for this are significant, and worth pursuing as a way of demonstrating the importance (and value) of a thorough critical treatment of Scripture. The first study introduced the passage and looked at it from the standpoint of textual criticism; the second study examined it in terms of source criticism and form/genre criticism. Today, we will approach the passage through the eyes of literary criticism—that is, examining how it was authored and/or included in the letter of 2 Corinthians as a whole. This approach touches upon the style, circumstances, and purpose of the passage, as a section in the larger literary work. However, because of the serious questions regarding authorship and integrity of the passage—especially the thought that it may be a secondary addition (interpolation)—questions justified, at least in part, by the evidence we have considered so far, it is necessary to focus our study here in two ways. These reflect two other aspects of Biblical criticism:

    • Redaction Criticism—Here we will specifically consider the hypothesis that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is an interpolation, added to, or included in, the letter by an editor or compiler (i.e. redactor).
    • Composition Criticism—The focus shifts to explanations of the passage as the work of the author (i.e. Paul) of the letter.

Redaction Criticism

As mentioned previously, there are three different theories regarding 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 as an interpolation (i.e., a passage added secondarily to the letter): (a) Pauline, (b) non-Pauline, and (c) anti-Pauline. I will deal with these in reverse order:

Anti-Pauline theory

Some commentators feel that the unusual vocabulary, style and points of religious/theological emphasis, some of which we have already examined, are not only unusual to Paul, but actually run contrary to his way of thinking as expressed elsewhere in his letters. One prominent scholar who takes this position is Hans Dieter Betz, who discussed the matter in an article (“2 Cor 6:14-7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment?” Journal of Biblical Literature 92:88-108 [1973]), and again (as an appendix) in his outstanding critical commentary on Galatians (Hermeneia series [Fortress Press: 1979], pp. 329-30). He holds that the emphasis on the Torah, ritual purity, separation (from the ungodly/non-believer) in the passage, along with the strong dualistic manner of expression, better reflects the viewpoint of Paul’s Jewish Christian opponents (in Galatians, etc) than that of Paul himself. This seems rather to overstate the case, and on the whole I do not agree with such analysis; however, there is at least one supposition that needs to be examined seriously: whether the strong emphasis on separation from non-believers, so central to the passage, is foreign to Paul, or is in accord with his thought. In particular, this separationist teaching appears to run contrary to Paul’s specific instruction elsewhere to the Corinthian believers at three points: (1) the statement in 1 Cor 5:10, (2) the teaching regarding mixed marriage (1 Cor 7:12-16), and (3) relating to the issue of eating food that had been offered in a pagan religious setting (1 Cor 8-10, esp. 8:4-10; 10:23-30). It is worth considering each of these briefly.

In 1 Cor 5:1-12, Paul addresses the issue of a believer known to be engaged in improper sexual relations, and stresses that others in the congregation(s) should not associate with those involved in such behavior. The main difference with 2 Cor 6:14ff is that here the injunction to separate from immoral/ungodly people relates to believers, not the non-believer. Indeed, Paul seems to suggest the opposite of 2 Cor 6:14ff when he remarks, regarding this separation, that he is referring

“not (at) all (to) the ‘prostitutes’ [i.e. sexually immoral] of this world, or th(ose) looking to hold more [i.e. the greedy] and (who are) seizing (from others), or (to) the (one)s serving images [i.e. idols], (for) then you ought to go out of the world (completely)” (v. 10)

In other words, Paul is not telling them to separate (physically) from all the non-believers in the society at large, but, rather, to keep their distance from (lit. not to “mix together with”, vb sunanamígnymi) anyone claiming to be a believer (lit. “being named [a] brother”) who behaves in an openly immoral way (v. 11). In my view, the assumption that this instruction contradicts 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, while perhaps understandable, is misplaced. The same can be said of the other two instances mentioned above, even though, in many ways, those passages relate more directly to the teaching in 2 Cor 6:14ff.

In 1 Cor 7:12-16, as a part of wider teaching regarding marriage among believers in chap. 7, Paul specifically advises a man or woman, married to an unbeliever (lit. one “without trust”, ápistos), to remain together and not to separate, in the hopes that the unbelieving spouse might be converted. Following this, in chapters 8-10, Paul gives a most thorough and complex treatment on the question of whether believers should eat food that had been offered beforehand in a pagan religious setting (lit. food [meat] “slaughtered to [an] image”, eidwlóqyton, 8:1). This lengthy, nuanced instruction appears at odds with the stark contrast (and prohibition) given in 2 Cor 6:14ff. Paul, it seems, would permit believers to eat any such food as long as the act (and example) of doing so was not detrimental to others (those ‘weaker’ in faith). These two instances are notable, in relation to 2 Cor 6:14ff, in that they appear to be directly on point in several respects:

    • The same contrast between believer and non-believer (lit one “without trust”, ápistos) is made in both 1 Cor 7:12ff and 2 Cor 6:14ff. If, in the latter, the author (assuming it to be Paul) instructs a believer not to be “joined together” with a non-believer, how can he, in the former instance, tell them to remain ‘joined together’ in the marriage bond? Indeed, the very Scripture (Lev 19:19) upon which the homiletic in 2 Cor 6:14ff is based implies the sexual joining (i.e. breeding) of two different kinds of animals.
    • In 2 Cor 6:16 it is certainly implied that believers (as the “shrine of God”) should have nothing at all to do with the “images” (shorthand for the idolatrous deities) associated with Greco-Roman (polytheistic) religion. How, then, could Paul, if he is the author of the former passage, permit believers, under any circumstances, to eat food that had been offered beforehand to such ‘idols’ (cf. 8:4-10; 10:23-30)?

Does Paul’s teaching in these passages truly run counter to the exhortation in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 (and vice versa)? In answer to this question, I would make several points related to each passage:

1 Corinthians 7:12-16—In 1 Cor 7:12-16, Paul is dealing with a very specific situation: instances where one spouse came to faith in Christ while the other did not, or has not yet, remaining a ‘pagan’ non-believer. In other words, the two were already married when the one spouse became a believer. This must have been a relatively common occurrence in the early years when the Gospel took root in a particular region of the Greco-Roman world (i.e., in a city like Corinth). Paul’s hope (and expectation) in his instruction to the believing spouse within a ‘mixed’ marriage clearly is evangelistic—that the non-believing spouse will be converted. This situational advice should not be mistaken for a general teaching regarding marriages between believers and non-believers. If a believer, upon coming to faith, were then to consider marrying a (pagan) non-believer, I am quite certain that Paul’s exhortation (and warning) would be very much akin to that of 2 Cor 6:14: “You must not come to be joined with (one who is) different, (one) without trust!”

1 Corinthians 8-10—The teaching in 1 Cor 8-10, regarding the issue of food (meat) that had been offered to “images”, also deals with a very specific situation, and ought not to be taken as a general principle, as some in Corinth may have done—e.g., if an idol is “not anything (real)” (8:4), then why should we be concerned about food that has been offered to it? I suspect that Paul, if left to his own opinion on the matter, would have been inclined to give a blunt prohibition along the lines of 2 Cor 6:16 (cf. also Acts 15:20, 29, and the context of Rev 2:14, 20). However, he seeks to balance two equally important concerns—(1) the freedom believers have in Christ, and (2) the need to avoid immorality and evil (associated with idolatry), etc. As such, 1 Cor 8-10 is a masterpiece of Christian homiletic, though admittedly different in scope and style from 2 Cor 6:14ff. Ultimately, Paul’s exhortation (10:14-22) comes very close to 2 Cor 6:16ff, though with the caveat of the sort of special instruction in 10:23-30 that is absent from the latter passage. This instruction is important to keep in mind, because it marks the distinction, and particular situation, Paul is addressing. Meat purchased in the marketplace, and thus presented at meals, often would have come from a sacrificial setting, as the byproduct of offerings made to deities. If such an association is clearly evident, then believers ought not to partake of such food (in accordance with 2 Cor 6:16); only when there is no public or known association with pagan religion, are believers free to eat, without worrying about the food’s origins.

1 Corinthians 5:10—The notice in 1 Cor 5:10 should also be viewed in terms of the specific circumstances of Paul’s instruction, and not as a principle to follow on its own. Paul is telling believers not to associate with another believer (or one calling himself/herself such) who is known to be involved in immoral behavior. This involved a real distancing, or separation, since living and meeting in close proximity was a sign of religious identity and (spiritual) union. This does not apply to other non-believers in society at large (“the world”), since there is no such union involved, and physical proximity per se had no intrinsic meaning. As such, there was no need for believers to avoid passing contact with non-believers; indeed, as Paul makes clear, to do so would require that they virtually “go out of the world”. Some might say that this is just the idea suggested by the citation of Isa 52:11 in 2 Cor 6:17—of a strict separation from the world. However, the language in 2 Cor 6:14-16 indicates a close joining rather than casual contact. If a believer were tempted to join together closely or intimately with pagan non-believers, Paul might well use similar language as in 2 Cor 6:14ff.

It is hard to see how the theory that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is anti-Pauline can be maintained. Even more decisive is that it is virtually impossible to explain how such an anti-Pauline fragment was ever included as part of a Pauline letter (on this, see below).

Non-Pauline theory

Even if it is not anti-Pauline, that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 may not have been authored by Paul himself (i.e. non-Pauline) still remains a possibility, given the evidence that we considered in the previous studies. The passage is to be characterized as a Jewish-Christian homiletic treatment of Leviticus 19:19, comprised of a poetic exposition (in Semitic style, parallelistic couplets) with a chain (catena) of Scripture citations. The poetic style, and reliance upon Scriptural passages, may explain the apparent non-Pauline features, at least in part. A fairer judge concerning authorship, I think, would be any unusual or atypical details in the concluding exhortation (7:1). I discuss these in a separate, supplemental note.

If the passage was, indeed, not composed at all by Paul himself, what are its origins and how did it come to be included as part of 2 Corinthians? One critical theory is that it represents early Jewish Christian (homiletic) material that was, presumably, mistakenly identified (by an editor/compiler of the letter) as coming from Paul. There are three notable details or points of emphasis that, in large measure, appear to be foreign to Paul, and, at the same time, may have more in common with other Jewish (and Jewish Christian) writings of the period. I highlight these as:

    1. The emphasis on ritual purity, and, with it, the idea of believers separating from the non-believers.
    2. A strong dualism in thought and expression, as a way of contrasting believer vs. non-believer.
    3. Use of the name Belíal.

In particular, on these three points, many commentators point out the parallels in certain of the Qumran texts (Dead Sea Scrolls); I address these in some detail in a supplemental article which you may want to consult as part of this study. I will be discussing these ‘non-Pauline’ features, and whether, or to what extent, they may be compatible with Paul’s actual style, thought, and mode of expression, in the section on “Composition Criticism” (see below).

One problem faced by proponents of the theory that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is a non-Pauline interpolation, is the question of just how it ever came to be included as part of 2 Corinthians. It would seem to require two basic suppositions: (1) it was mistakenly attributed to Paul by an editor or compiler, and (2) 2 Corinthians is a composite work, made up of more than one letter by Paul. On the second point, I mentioned this possibility in a prior study, pointing out the variety of theories advanced by scholars, perhaps the most common being: 2-document (chaps. 1-9 + 10-13), 3 document (chaps. 1-8 + 9 + 10-13); and 5-document (1:1-2:13 + 2:14-6:13, 7:2-16 + chap. 8 + 9 + 10-13). In general, these theories would apply just as well if 6:14-7:1 was authored by Paul, or was itself part of a genuine letter; this will be discussed briefly below. However, both of these suppositions (1 & 2 above) remain highly questionable, and to require both makes the theory, my view, rather implausible.

A Pauline interpolation?

Finally, we must consider the theory that 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is Pauline, at least in the sense that it comes from an authentic letter by Paul, perhaps as part of his Corinthian correspondence. From the New Testament evidence itself, we know that Paul wrote at least four letters to Corinth—1 & 2 Corinthians, and the two letters referenced in 1 Cor 5:9 and 2 Cor 2:3-4. Indeed, it is quite natural that Paul would have written to believers there any number of times. Internal considerations regarding shifts of style, tone, and subject matter, have prompted many commentators to consider 2 Corinthians, as we have it, as representing several different letters (or parts of letters) that Paul wrote. In terms of 6:14-7:1 itself, the tone and theme of separation (between believer and non-believer) has led a fair number of scholars to identify it with the letter mentioned in 1 Cor 5:9, since it seems to relate to the sort of thing Paul is addressing there in 5:1-12 (see above). Indeed, 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 appears to have much more in common with the language and subject matter of 1 Corinthians (see esp. 5:6-8; 6:19; and 10:6-13, and my discussion in the supplemental article [on 6:14-7:1 and the Dead Sea Scrolls]) than anything we find throughout 2 Corinthians.

However, any interpolation theory, based on the idea of 2 Corinthians as a compilation, founders for lack of any explanation as to why 6:14-7:1 was included where it is now, since virtually all commentators agree that 2:14-6:13 + 7:2-4, at the very least, belong to the same letter. It would have made considerably more sense to place the passage (as a fragment from another letter) after 7:4 rather than 6:13, or even at a different location altogether. It would have been an extremely clumsy and/or inattentive editor (or copyist), indeed, who left 6:14-7:1 in its current location. No one has yet provided anything like a satisfactory explanation for the passage being included where it is located today.

If we were to summarize the evidence and analysis provided thus far (and above), I believe it would be fair to make two basic points:

    • There is strong evidence characterizing 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 as Jewish Christian homiletic material with features that are, in part at least, unusual or atypical of Paul.
    • At the same time, any theory treating the passage as an interpolation, even one based on a theory of 2 Corinthians as a composite compilation, rests on rather slim and questionable evidence, and is difficult to maintain.

Do you agree with either or both of these conclusions? Why or why not? Think over and examine carefully what I have presented in the studies thus far. How would you explain some of the curious or apparently ‘non-Pauline’ details in the passage, and way it seems to interrupt the flow between 6:13 and 7:2? In the next study, we will turn our attention to the supposition that Paul is the author of 6:14-7:1, in the sense that it is a genuine part of 2 Corinthians (or at least 2:14-7:16) as it has come down to us. This discussion will take place under the heading of Composition Criticism (see above), looking at 6:14-7:1, within the context of the letter as a whole, in terms of Paul’s style, mode of expression, rhetorical thrust, and ultimate purpose. I hope to see you here for this exciting study…next Saturday.

Note on 2 Corinthians 7:1

2 Corinthians 7:1

This note is supplement to the current Saturday Series studies on 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, a passage many commentators consider to be a non-Pauline interpolation. In the prior studies, I presented some of the key evidence of vocabulary, stylistic details, and points of emphasis that appear to be unusual or atypical of Paul in his other (undisputed) letters (see esp. Study 1 and the article on 6:14-7:1 and the Dead Sea Scrolls). However, in so doing, it also was made clear, I think, that the unusual vocabulary could be at least partly explained by the reliance upon certain Old Testament passages, as well as the poetic format, used in vv. 14-18 (see Study 2). Therefore, it would seem that a fairer judge of authorship would be the concluding exhortation in 7:1, which is more likely to be a direct product of the author’s own thought and manner of expression. I felt it worth devoting a detailed note to the analysis of the words, phrases, and stylistic devices in 7:1, to see whether, or to what extent, they conform to Pauline usage. I will touch upon these in order of occurrence in the verse.

oún échontes (ou@n e&xonte$)… . The exhortation begins, “(So) then, holding these (thing)s…”, followed by a hortatory subjunctive “we should cleanse [katharísœmen] ourselves”, i.e., “let us cleanse ourselves”. This syntax here is homiletical in nature, and accords with the overall character of 6:14-7:1 as a Jewish Christian homily. This particular format is found in Hebrews (4:14; 10:19, cf. also 12:1), a work which reads more like an extended sermon than a standard letter or epistle. It does not occur precisely so elsewhere in the Pauline letters, though Galatians 6:10 is reasonably close:

“(So) then [oún], as we hold [échomen] (the) time [i.e. have opportunity], we should work [i.e. let us work] (for) the good…”

Paul opens similarly with échontes oún in 2 Cor 3:12 (cf. also 4:1), but not followed by a (hortatory) subjunctive.

tás epangelías (ta\$ e)paggeli/a$). The noun epangelía literally means a message about something, or on a certain point, sometimes with the more forceful connotation of a declaration or announcement. The related verb (epangéllœ) always occurs in the middle voice in the New Testament, often with the sense of a message about oneself, i.e. about what a person will do. The noun is frequently used in the New Testament in reference to what God will do, that is, what he has promised to do, and thus is typically translated as “promise”. The word is used, both in the singular and plural (as here), by Paul 19 times in the undisputed letters, almost all in Romans and Galatians (Romans 4:13-14, 16, 20; 9:4, 8-9; Galatians 3:14, 6-18, 21-22, 29; 4:23, 28), in connection with his arguments regarding the Law (Torah) and the covenant promises of God, as applied to believers in Christ. It also occurs 6 times in Ephesians and the Pastorals (1:13; 2:12; 3:6; 6:2; 1 Tim 4:8; 2 Tim 1:1). The only other occurrence in the Corinthian letters is 2 Cor 1:20:

“For as (many) promises [epangelíai] of God as (there are), in him [i.e. in Jesus Christ] (is) the ‘yes’ (to them)…”

This reflects the Pauline teaching that all the promises made by God (in the Law and Prophets) to His people (Israel) have been fulfilled for believers in the person and work of Christ. There is no reason to think that this is not the same meaning in 7:1; however, it is worth noting that the closest parallel to the specific expression “holding [échonta] the promises” is found in Hebrews (7:6; but see also 1 Tim 4:8).

agap¢toí (a)gaphtoi/), “(be)loved (one)s”. This manner of address, to fellow believers as “beloved”, appears to have been common among early Christians. It occurs frequently in Paul’s letters, the closest parallels to the plural form, as it is used here, would be Rom 12:19; 1 Cor 10:4; 15:58; 2 Cor 12:19; Phil 2:12; 4:1. However, it is even more common in the non-Pauline letters of the New Testament (19 times in Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1 John, and Jude).

katharísœmen heautoús (kaqari/swmen e(autou\$), “we should cleanse ourselves”, “let us cleanse ourselves”. The verb katharízœ (“make clean, cleanse”) occurs 31 times in the New Testament, but would appear to be extremely rare for Paul, occurring nowhere else in the undisputed letters, and only twice at all in the corpus (Eph 5:26; Titus 2:14). As many commentators have noted, the idea of believers cleansing themselves seems foreign, not only to Paul’s thought, but to the thought-world of the New Testament as a whole. We need only point to Eph 5:26 and Tit 2:14, the only other Pauline occurrences of the verb—in these passages it is Christ who cleanses believers, through his sacrificial and redeeming work. Even in the context of the baptism ritual, it is still God and Christ (and the Spirit) that does the cleansing, not believers themselves. In many ways the idea of believers making themselves clean, through obedience to God, etc, is closer to the manner of thinking of the Qumran Community (see, for example, 1QS 3:8-9), than that of the New Testament.

apo pantós molysmoú (a)po\ panto\$ molusmou=), “from all stain”. The noun molysmós, “stain, soil(ing)”, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and is extremely rare in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) as well (Jer 23:15; also 1 Esdras 8:80; 2 Macc 5:27). The related verb molýnœ, is more frequent, though still rare in the New Testament (3 times), but is used by Paul in 1 Cor 8:7, in a context (the eating of food previous offered to ‘idols’) not too dissimilar from that of 2 Cor 6:14ff. His argument is that if believers are seen eating food (i.e. meat) that is known (or thought) to have been slaughtered in a pagan religious setting it could harm a fellow believer who is ‘weaker’ in understanding; if this ‘weaker’ believer, influenced the example of the ‘stronger’, is encouraged to eat such food, against his/her own conscience, he/she is then “stained” (molýnetai) by it. In Rev 3:4, the verb generally refers to immorality and/or improper religious behavior, but may relate to the same context of eating food offered to ‘idols’ (cf. 2:14, 20); in Rev 14:4, it refers to sexual intercourse, and marriage/relations between believer and (pagan) non-believer may also be in view in 2 Cor 6:14ff.

It should be noted that a much more common word for Paul to express the idea of impurity is akatharsía, “uncleanness” (2 Cor 12:21; Rom 1:24; 6:19; Gal 5:19; 1 Thess 2:3; 4:7). Conceivably, a different word (molysmós) was chosen here, for variety, since the cognate verb katharízœ was already used in the verse.

sarkós kai pneúmatos (sarko\$ kai\ pneu/mato$), “of flesh and spirit”. Paul frequently uses both words sárx (“flesh”) and pneúma (“spirit”), but the latter almost always refers to the Holy Spirit (or Spirit of God/Christ), and rarely in the general sense of the human “spirit” or “soul”. When he does use pneúma this way, i.e. in the anthropological sense, it is combined with the word sœ¡ma (“body”), not sárx (1 Cor 7:34; 1 Thess 5:23). Normally Paul juxtaposes sárx and pneúma quite differently, as a dualistic contrast between human beings (“flesh”) governed/driven by sin and the “Spirit” of God and Christ (Gal 5:16ff et al). The idea of the human “spirit” being defiled is unusual, but perhaps something along the lines of what Paul expresses in 1 Cor 6:15-20 is intended. Certainly the emphasis here is on the entire person becoming stained by impurity.

epiteloúntes hagiœsýn¢ (e)pitelou=nte$ a(giwsu/nh), “making holiness complete”. The verb epiteléœ, an (intensive) compound form of teléœ (“[make] complete”), is used by Paul 6 other times in his letters, including three times more in 2 Corinthians (8:6, 11 [twice]). Generally the emphasis is on completing something which has already begun, though without necessarily any special theological significance (Rom 15:28). In Phil 1:6, the context is eschatological, expressing confidence that God will complete His good work (that He is currently doing) in and among believers, when Christ appears again on earth. In Galatians 3:3, the focus is rather different—believers are completing things themselves (middle voice of the verb), and in the wrong direction, moving from the Gospel of trust in Christ to a view of Christianity that would include (and/or require) observance of the Torah regulations (such as circumcision). Here, too, in 2 Cor 7:1, it is believers who are to do the completing, but in the positive direction, by avoiding the impurity that comes from involvement with the surrounding (pagan) religious-cultural environment.

The noun hagiœsýn¢ (“holiness”) is actually quite rare in the Pauline letters; indeed, it occurs only two other times in the New Testament, but these are both in Paul’s letters. Romans 1:4 is generally thought to represent part of a credal formula or (Christological) hymn which Paul is adapting. The use in 1 Thessalonians 3:13 is closer in tone and meaning to 2 Cor 7:1, part of a prayer-wish for the Lord Jesus

“to make your hearts firm, without blame [ámemptos], in holiness [en hagiœsýn¢], in front of our God and Father…”

The eschatological setting of this statement is close to that of Phil 1:6 (see above).

en phóbœ theoú (e)n fo/bw| qeou=), “in (the) fear of God”. The expression “fear of God” is traditional, referring to the proper reverence (i.e. fear/awe) due to God, with strong roots in the Old Testament. It would have been relatively common among Jews and Christians of the period, even though the specific expression “(the) fear of God” ([ho] phóbos [tou] theoú) itself is rare in the New Testament. Paul uses the word phóbos (“fear”) at least a dozen times, but “fear of God” only occurs in Rom 3:18 (citing Psalm 36:1), while the synonymous “fear of the Lord” is used in 2 Cor 5:11 (see also Col 3:22). In Eph 5:21, we also have “fear of Christ”, which some MSS read as (or correct to) “fear of God”; in its variant form, the expression is exactly that of 2 Cor 7:1—”in the fear of God” (en phóbœ qeoú).

The title “(one) fearing God” ([ho] phoboúmenos ton theón) was specifically used of Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel, or who otherwise lived upright lives, were devout, and/or sympathetic to Israelite religion. There are several important occurrences in the book of Acts, especially regarding Cornelius (10:2, cf. also 10:35), and in Paul’s speech at Antioch (13:16, 26).

Conclusion

The evidence for 2 Cor 7:1, like that of 6:14-7:1 as a whole, is mixed. There are peculiar features, but also others well in accord with Paul’s style and manner of expression. The unusual or atypical details permit genuine questions regarding Pauline authorship of the passage, and yet can by no means exclude it as the work of Paul. The central clause of the exhortation (“let us cleanse ourselves of all stain of flesh and spirit”) remains problematic, for two reasons: (1) the strong idiom of ritual purity, with the idea of believers cleansing themselves, and (2) the atypical joining of “flesh” and “spirit”.

Even so, strong arguments can be made for Pauline authorship, or, at least, that he himself made use of traditional material in authoring his letter (specifically 2:14-7:16). This will be discussed, in some detail, in next week’s Saturday Series study.

Gnosis and the New Testament, Part 4: Religious Identity and Tradition

Closely tied to a gnostic understanding of salvation (cf. Part 2) is the sense of religious identity being defined in terms of knowledge. This was discussed to some extent in Part 3, but it requires further elaboration and examination of some of the key New Testament passages. According to the gnostic (and Gnostic) viewpoint, the (elect) believer comes to know, that is, to become aware, of his/her true identity in relation to God (or the Divine). Among certain Gnostic groups we find the idea that a spark or seed of the Divine has been ‘trapped’ within the fallen material world or sin and darkness. Knowledge of salvation comes—proclaimed and revealed by the Savior (and/or his messengers)—to believers trapped so as to have been ignorant of their true identity as offspring (sons/children) of God. There is, indeed, something of this religious worldview reflected in the New Testament Scriptures, but not quite in the manner expressed by many Gnostics. It is in the Pauline and Johannine writings that we find the closest parallels. A number of the most relevant passages are summarized here:

The Pauline letters

1 Cor 2:6-16—I have discussed the entire section 1:18-2:16 in an earlier series of notes. The logic of Paul’s theology can be described this way:

    • The Gospel contains the secret, hidden wisdom of God
    • This is conveyed to the apostles and preachers of the Gospel through the Spirit
    • Those who receive/accept the Gospel receive the Spirit which is at work in them, allowing them to understand
    • The Spirit instructs and guides believers so they can discern the wisdom of God—we thus have “the mind of Christ”

From a theological standpoint, there is some question as to what extent God—specifically the Spirit—is present and at work in believers prior to hearing the Gospel and coming to faith. Given Paul’s statement in verse 11, how do people respond in faith the Gospel without the work of the Spirit? Paul typically employs the language and image of a favor (xa/ri$) or gift—i.e., the Spirit as a gift given, presumably at the time one receives the Gospel, though it may also be connected with the moment of baptism. However, the quotation in verse 9, apparently citing loosely and adapting Isa 64:4, adds an interesting dimension to this; consider the last portion of the quotation:

“…the (thing)s God prepared for the (one)s loving him”

In the context of 1 Cor 1:18-2:16, these “things” are the hidden things of God, the wisdom of God, which, according to Paul’s way of understanding it is: (1) manifest in the person of Christ, (2) revealed in the Gospel, and (3) made available to believers through the Spirit. Yet these things were prepared or made ready by God ahead of time (in the past), for those in the present who are already loving Him. This same idea is suggested in 1 Cor 8:3—”if any (one) loves God, this (person) has been known under [i.e. by] Him”. Here the sense of predestination is stronger: God has known the believer ahead of time, the perfect tense indicating past action which continues into the present. Cf. also 1 Cor 13:12.

Rom 7:7-25—Paul frequently uses language and imagery expressing the idea that God, through Christ, has delivered humankind from bondage to the power of sin (cf. above for this same idea from a Gnostic standpoint). It is described in almost cosmic terms in Rom 5:12-21, while here in 7:7-25, we see it presented from the vantage-point of the individual believer. Paul sets himself, rhetorically, in place of this representative human being, using the first person (“I”). This person could be identified with those who are “loving God” (prior to receiving the Gospel), desiring (in his spirit) to fulfill the Law of God, but unable to do so because of the power of sin residing in the “flesh” and controlling it. Uniquely Pauline is the idea that revelation—in the Law (Torah), prior to encountering the Gospel—brings a kind of preliminary saving knowledge, in that it brings knowledge (i.e. recognition, awareness) of sin. But Paul’s understanding in this regard is two-fold: (1) the Law brings (saving) knowledge, but at the same time (2) through the Law God has imprisoned all human beings (including believers) under sin (Gal 3:22-24; Rom 11:32). For more on Paul’s teaching on the Law, cf. the articles in the series “The Law and the New Testament”.

Rom 8:19-25—Here we find the cosmic image of creation groaning and suffering in bondage. Again, we have the idea that God is the one who has set it under bondage (to sin and death). Admittedly, the reference in verse 20 is somewhat ambiguous, where it states that the thing formed (creation, collectively) was set under the order of (i.e. subjected to) sin and death “not willingly, but through the (one) putting it under (this) order”. Commentators debate just who “the (one)” is, but, in my view, based on the context in Romans, and other passages in Paul’s letters, it should be understood as referring to God the Father (the Creator). In certain Gnostic systems, the Creator—that is, the one who fashioned the fallen and sinful material condition—was a kind of inferior divine Being (a Demiurge). This is foreign to Paul’s thought, but the idea of God setting Creation (and humankind) under bondage to the power of sin has certain points in common with Gnostic theology. The eschatological theme in Rom 8:19-25 involves the eventual deliverance of creation from this condition of bondage, and is tied directly to the presence (and identity) of the elect believers (the “sons/offspring of God”). Indeed, this is specifically described in terms of revelation—the earnest expectation and hope of creation is to receive (from God, or from heaven) “the uncovering (a)poka/luyi$) [i.e. revelation] of the sons of God”. This could be understood in the sense that the sons of God (believers) are already present in creation, but that creation is unaware of their true identity. In verse 21, the future hope for creation is defined as being “set free from the slavery of decay, into the freedom of the honor/splendor of the offspring of God”. The implication is that all of creation will be renewed in the same way that believers in Christ are renewed—in particular, Paul has the end-time resurrection in mind (v. 23).

Col 1:12-13—As part of the great declaration in vv. 9-20, describing the person and work of Christ, the author (Paul) states that God the Father is the one

“who (has) made us able (to come) into the portion of the lot [i.e. the inheritance] of the holy ones in the light, (and) who rescued us out of the authority of darkness and made us stand together (away from there) into the kingdom of the Son of his love”

There is, in this description, language and imagery that is similar to gnostic modes of expression—the dualism of light and darkness, the idea of being rescued out of a realm of darkness, believers as “sons of light”, believers as heirs of God, the kingdom of the Son, etc. Of course, these can be found at various points throughout the New Testament, but their combination here, within two short verses, is what gives the passage a “gnostic” ring. The deliverance out of darkness is tied directly to the work of God through the person of Christ; elsewhere in Paul’s writings, it is connected more properly with the proclamation of the Gospel (2 Cor 4:4-6). The idea of believers being called out of darkness is found in 1 Pet 2:9, and goes back to Old Testament imagery, preserved within the early Gospel tradition—Matt 4:16; Lk 1:78-79, etc, and cf. 2 Pet 1:19.

Eph 5:13-14—Here, in connection with the same light/darkness dualism we find the additional idea of the soul “awaking” to its true nature. This is expressed in the quotation (possibly from an early hymn) in verse 14:

“Rise, (you) the (one) going down to sleep, and stand up out of the dead, and the Anointed (One) will shine (light) upon you!”

This line itself suggests the initial conversion of a believer—i.e., of responding to the Gospel and coming to faith. It may originally have been associated with the ritual of Baptism. However, here Paul (or the author) cites it as part of ethical instruction (exhortation) directed to believers. The context clearly has to do with abandoning sinful behavior and associations, and walking according our true nature, that is, as “offspring (i.e. children) of light”. The image of the soul waking to its true nature and identity is a common gnostic motif, though here the orientation is ethical rather than soteriological. The exhortation “walk according to the light, as you are in the light” is stated in a similar context in Galatians 5:16-25, but in terms of the Spirit: “If we live in/by the Spirit, we should also step in line (i.e. walk) in/by the Spirit”.

Other passages could be added to these mentioned here, but those above give a suitable number of representative examples from the Pauline writings.

Johannine writings

These will be discussed further in the supplemental article on knowledge and revelation in the Gospel and letters of John. Here I will simply list some of the more notable references:

In the Gospel1:9-13; 3:5-8, 18-21; 5:37-43; 6:44-47; 7:17, 28-29; 8:12, 31-38ff; 10:3-9, 14-16, 27ff; 11:25-26; 12:35-36; 14:21-24; 15:3ff, 15-16, 19; 17:6-26; 18:37

In the Letters1 John 1:5-7; 2:5-6, 19-20ff; 2:29-3:2; 3:10, 19; 4:2-6, 9-10; 5:1ff, 10-12, 18-19; 3 John 11

The strong dualism running through the Gospel and letters of John will be discussed in the last part (Part 6) of this series.

Other aspects of Christian Identity

There are other important aspects of Christian identity—that is, of the believer’s religious identity in Christ—which serve to counteract or counterbalance any gnostic tendencies, such as could be drawn from the language used in the passages cited above. Again, we are best informed about early Christian tradition and instruction in this regard from the Pauline letters. Here are some of the more notable aspects:

    • Paul’s use of the expression “in Christ” (e)n xristw=|), and the related idea of belonging to Christ, which can be called mystical and spiritual(istic), rather than gnostic. That is to say, we are united with Christ, both symbolically, and through the presence of the Spirit, and participate in the power of his death and resurrection. The expression is so common in Paul’s writings that it functions virtually as a title for believers, a religious identification. Of the many references, cf. 1 Cor 1:30; 15:18-23; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 2:4; 3:26-28; Rom 3:24; 6:11; 8:1f; 12:5; Phil 2:5; 3:8-12; Col 1:28; 3:1-4; Eph 2:6ff. It is rare in the New Testament outside of Paul (1 Pet 3:16; 5:10, 14, and note Heb 3:14).
    • The idea of believers as a “new creation”, may seem, on the surface, to have a gnostic tinge to it, but it can just as easily be understood in the opposite sense—believers in Christ come to be completely different than they were before. The main passages utilizing this expression, or varying forms of it, are: 2 Cor 5:16-21; Gal 6:15; Col 3:9-11ff; and Eph 2:14-18. The Johannine idea of the “new birth”, of believers born out of God, is perhaps closer to gnostic patterns of thought.
    • The symbolism of the rite of Baptism was important for Paul, in that it symbolized the believer’s identification and union with Christ, specifically in the sense of participating in his death and resurrection—cf. 1 Cor 6:11; 12:13; Gal 3:27-28; Rom 6:3-4ff; Col 2:11-12; 3:9-11. Paul inherited the ritual motif of “putting off” the old, sinful way of life, and “putting on” the new life in Christ. The various Gnostic Christian groups seem to have retained Baptism, along with other rituals, though certainly giving to it a somewhat different meaning and significance, even as Paul may have done. He perhaps was the first to connect baptism specifically to the idea of believers sharing in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
    • The emphasis on the real, physical death (the crucifixion) of Jesus as central to the Gospel message, would separate Paul from many of the Gnostic groups known in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Gnostics, with their strong (metaphysical) dualism, especially when assuming the evil of the material condition, appear to have struggled greatly with the fact of Jesus’ death on the cross, and attempted to explain or interpret it in various ways (some less plausible than others). In 1 and 2 Corinthians, where he may be combating certain gnostic tendencies, Paul sets the message of the cross in direct contrast to the (supposed) wisdom and knowledge of the world. Cf. especially 1 Cor 1:18-2:16 and my earlier notes on this passage.
    • Likewise Paul’s teaching on the presence and role of the Spirit in (and among) believers also distinguishes his understanding of Christian identity from that of the later Gnostics. While most Gnostics emphasized the invisible and eternal world of the Divine (against the evil physical/material world), they, for the most part, do not seem to have been Spiritualists—that is, they do not define and understand their religious identity and experience predominantly in terms of the (Holy) Spirit. For Paul, on the other hand, the Spirit was fundamental to his thinking and teaching; even when referring to knowledge and revelation, he almost always qualifies and connects it in relation to the Spirit. Of the many relevant passages, cf. 1 Cor 6:19-20; 12:13ff; 2 Cor 1:21-22; 3:17-18; 5:5; 11:4; Gal 3:2-3; 5:16-26; Rom 5:5; 8:9-12; Eph 4:30.
    • In his emphasis on Christian love, Paul draws on early Gospel tradition going back to Jesus’ own words. The so-called “love command (or principle)” was fundamental to Paul, especially in his ethical teaching—cf. Rom 12:9-10; 13:8-10; 14:15; 1 Cor 8:1ff; 12:31-14:1; 16:14; Gal 5:6, 13-14; 1 Thess 4:9; Col 3:14. In 1 Corinthians, Paul sets love against (spiritual) knowledge, arguing that love is far superior and necessary for governing all aspects of Christian behavior, especially for our relationships to others in the Community of believers.
    • Paul repeatedly mentions the suffering of believers—their endurance of hardship and persecution, etc—as an important mark of Christian identity. For Paul, it was closely tied to the idea of our participation in the death of Jesus (cf. above). The experience and endurance of suffering also served as a example to other believers, and as a witness to the Gospel. Cf. 1 Thess 2:14ff; 2 Cor 1:6f; 2:14-17; 4:7-12; 6:3-10; Gal 4:19; Phil 1:12-14ff; Col 1:24, etc. Gnostic groups also experienced persecution—including, sadly, at the hands of other “orthodox” Christians—but they would not have ascribed much importance to (physical) suffering in this life.

Some of these points can be found elsewhere in the New Testament, including the Johannine writings. However, there are several other aspects of Christian identity expressed in the Gospel, and especially, the letters of John, which are worth noting briefly:

    • The overwhelming primacy of the person of Christ. In Paul’s writings, the Christological emphasis is usually put forward in connection with: (a) the message of the Gospel, (b) the believer’s union with Christ, and/or (c) the ecclesiastical aspect of the Community of believers as the “body of Christ”, etc. In the First letter of John, on the other hand, following along the lines of the great discourses of Jesus in the Gospel, Christian identity tends to be aligned more directly with the person of the Son (Christ) himself. Ultimately, this extends to what may be properly called orthodoxy—i.e. correct belief about Christ; on this, cf. below.
    • Love in the Gospel and letters of John takes on a somewhat different sense; while continuing the tradition of the “love command/principle”, it is given a centrality to the identity of believers that is really not found anywhere else in the New Testament (Paul’s great chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians being the closest). In 1 John, the presence of love in the believer is virtually synonymous with the presence of Christ, and indicates that the believer is “out of (i.e. from) God” and has been born from Him. Cf. 1 Jn 2:5, 10, 15; 3:1, 10-18, 23; 4:7-12, 16-21; 5:1-3; 2 Jn 5-6.
    • Compared with Paul’s use of baptism symbolism, in the Gospel of John there is a different kind of imagery used to described the believers union with Christ and participation in his death, etc. It is found in the drinking/eating and water/bread symbolism in the great discourses of Jesus—Jn 4:7-24, 34; 6:22-59; 7:37-38f. If baptism is implied in the water imagery of 3:5ff, it has a different sense than in Paul. Jn 19:23 and 1 Jn 5:6-8 have water (and blood) connected more closely with the death of Christ.

One unique feature of the Gospel and letters of John is the way it establishes a correct belief about Jesus—who he is, where he came from, etc—as essential to the Christian identity. This is indicated in the discourses of Jesus in the Gospel (3:18; 8:23-24; 14:10-11; 17:3, 20-21; cf. also 20:28, 31), and takes on greater significance in the letters, where incorrect belief regarding Christ marks those who have separated from the Community and also the “spirit of antichrist”—cf. 1 Jn 2:18-25; 4:1-6; 5:1-5, 6-12ff; 2 Jn 7ff. For more on the Johannine writings, cf. the supplemental article in this series.

Revelation and Christian Tradition

One other topic which needs to be addressed here is the early Christian understanding of revelation in terms of tradition—that is, of (apostolic) teaching and instruction, going back to the words of Jesus, which has been preserved and transmitted to believers. Paul frequently refers to his own apostolic authority as a minister who proclaims the Gospel (as revelation) and gives instruction for the congregations under his charge. At several points, he ties his own commission and ministry to specific revelations he received from Jesus (Gal 1:12, 16; 2:2, etc; cf. also Eph 3:1-6ff). By the time of the Pastoral letters (whether or not one regards these as authentically Pauline), as also in the letters of Jude and 2 Peter, in particular, there had developed a strong sense of a collected body of Gospel witness and (apostolic) teaching which was being threatening by false and aberrant Christian ‘leaders’, and which had to be safeguarded by the faithful minister. Jude summarizes this as “the trust [i.e. faith] given along at one (time) [i.e. once] to the holy ones” (v. 3); it was to be “fought/struggled over”, i.e. the minister should contend and fight to preserve it. The clear context of 2 Pet 1:16-21 is that this tradition (lit. that which is given along, passed down) goes back to the apostles, the eye-witnesses of Jesus, including Peter himself. It is no coincidence that the Transfiguration scene is mentioned, as it is a powerful example of divine revelation—God manifesting his presence and glory in the person of Jesus.

Interestingly, this same aspect of revelation—the words of Jesus and the Divine Truth manifest therein—passed on to the apostles, etc., was an important element of Gnosticism in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Many of the (apparently) Gnostic writings, such as those preserved in the texts from Nag Hammadi, are couched as pseudepigraphic “Gospels”—that is, as teaching by Jesus, usually set after the resurrection, given to select disciples. The Gnostic texts frequently suggest that this teaching reflects special revelation to which other Christians are not privy. Clearly, it was a way to ensure that the distinctively Gnostic approach to the Gospel and interpretation of the Christian message, had apostolic authority, being connected to the eye-witnesses of Jesus, just as we see in Lk 1:2; 2 Pet 1:16ff. Other (proto-)orthodox Gospels and writings use the same (literary) method of pseudepigraphy and pseudonymity. Many critical scholars would claim that at least several of the New Testament writings (e.g., the Pastoral letters, Ephesians, 2 Peter) are also pseudonymous; the weight and quality of the evidence for these claims varies, and, in any event, remain controversial in more traditional-conservative circles. Admittedly, the emphasis on tradition is strongest in the later writings (those likely written after 60 A.D.)—the Pastorals, 2 Peter, Jude, the Lukan prologue, etc. Two verbs tend to be used to express the idea of revelation passed down from the apostles, from the first generation(s) of believers down to the next:

    • paradi/dwmi (paradídœmi, “give along”), with the derived noun para/dosi$ (parádosis). More commonly used in reference to the betrayal of Jesus (in the sense “give/hand over”), it also carries the figurative meaning of passing along teaching, instruction, etc. from parents to children, and from one generation to the next, including within a religious setting (cf. Mk 7:13; Acts 6:14). A specialized sense of this latter meaning was used in early Christianity—for use of the verb, cf. Luke 1:2; Acts 16:4; 1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3; Rom 6:17; 2 Pet 2:21; Jude 3; for the noun, 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6, and note the negative sense in Col 2:8. It continues to be used in early Christian writings (cf. 1 Clement 7:2; Diognetus 11:6; Irenaeus 3.3.3).
    • parati/qhmi (paratíth¢mi, “set/put along[side]”), with the derived noun paraqh/kh (parath¢¡k¢), used in the concrete sense of placing an object (food, etc) before someone, often in the sense of providing help or assistance; figuratively, it can used with the meaning of entrusting something (or someone) into the care of another. A specialized sense of this latter meaning developed in early Christianity. These are the words used in the Pastoral letters—1 Tim 1:18; 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12, 14; 2:2; they do not occur in the undisputed letters of Paul, certainly not in this sense (cf. 1 Cor 10:27). Cf. the separate note on 1 Tim 6:20-21.

By the later part of the 2nd century, Gnostic groups and teachings had become widespread and influential enough that Irenaeus felt the need to write his five-volume work Against Heresies, to defend his (proto-Orthodox) position as representing the true Apostolic Tradition. The interpretation and application of Scripture was employed more regularly to demonstrate this, since both “sides” could lay claim to the Apostolic heritage. However, many Gnostics proved to be quite adept and incisive as commentators of Scripture (cf. Ptolemy’s letter to Flora, preserved by Epiphanius). Since various passages in the New Testament could, conceivably, be interpreted various ways, and plausibly so, depending upon one’s expectations and presuppositions, it was difficult, at times, to rely on the Scripture itself to provide decisive proof. Origin’s massive (and unfinished) commentary on the Gospel of John was begun, in large part, as a response to the Gnostic Heracleon’s own commentary (the earliest such NT commentary known to us). The main problem, of course, was that Gnostics worked from a religious/theological worldview which was markedly different, in certain respects, from that of the proto-Orthodox; as a result, they were bound to see the same passage of Scripture in a somewhat different light.

Saturday Series: 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1

For the next few weeks these Saturday Series studies will explore 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, a most interesting (and much-debated) passage among Paul’s letters. New Testament scholars and commentators have long been aware of the difficulties surrounding this passage, which may be summarized by the following two points:

    • It appears out of place—in terms of style, tone, emphasis, and subject matter—with the surrounding portions of the letter. It seems to break the flow and thought abruptly at 6:13, which otherwise follows relatively smoothly with 7:2ff. There would appear to be no clear explanation of how the rest of the letter (specifically 2:14-6:13 + 7:2-4) relates to this section.
    • There are a considerable number of words and expressions which differ considerably from Paul’s language and vocabulary in the other letters. This has led an increasing number of commentators to question both the source and authorship of the section.

Consideration of both points has led many scholars to view 6:14-7:1 as an interpolation—that is to say, a (secondary) insertion into the text from another source. Actually, the question is parsed more finely; theories regarding the passage may be summarized as follows:

    • It is Pauline (i.e. authored by Paul) and in its proper place as part of single unified letter—whether defined as 2:14-7:4, all of 2 Corinthians, or something in between  [View #1]
    • It is non-Pauline, but used by Paul and in its proper location [View #2]
    • It is Pauline, but from a separate letter or writing, and has been inserted into its current location secondarily (i.e. an interpolation) [View #3]
    • It is non-Pauline, and an interpolation [View #4]
    • It is anti-Pauline (i.e. contrary to Paul’s own thought, in certain respects) and an interpolation [View #5]

This represents a remarkably wide range of opinions, and there is little consensus among commentators, other than general agreement that the current location of the passage creates significant difficulties for interpretation. In this regard, 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 serves as a valuable test case for the application of the principles and methods of critical study. Such analysis is actually most valuable in situations where there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement surrounding a particular passage. In terms of the various areas and aspects of Biblical criticism, we must consider the following, in relation to 2 Cor 6:14-7:1:

    • Textual Criticism—(1) External evidence for the text, along with any variant reading; and (2) Internal evidence regarding the vocabulary and style of the passage
    • Source Criticism—Is there evidence that the text comes from a distinct source, compared with other portions of the book? If so, what are characteristics and features of this source? To this may be included Form- or Genre-criticism, especially in terms of the poetic and parenetic character of this particular passage.
    • Literary Criticism—Study of the features of the text, as a written (literary) work, and how it came to be written; here, we may specifically refer to a pair of related sub-categories:
      • Composition Criticism—How the text, within the work as a whole, came to be composed, i.e. by a particular author (or authors)
      • Redaction Criticism—Whether, or to what extent, the text was part of a process of editing or compiling (“redaction”), to form the final written work as we have it
    • Canonical Criticism—This relates primarily to the narrower question of, if 2 Corinthians represents a compilation from different sources (possibly including non-Pauline material), what effect (if any) does this have on the canonical status (inspiration, etc) of the letter?

Let us begin with a translation of 2 Cor 6:14-7:1:

14You must not come to be yoked with (those who are different), (to one)s without trust!

For what holding (is there) with [i.e. between] justice and lawlessness,
or what common (bond is there) with [i.e. between] light and darkness?
15And what voice (sounding) together (is there) of (the) Anointed (One) toward Belîal,
or what portion for (the one) trusting with (the one) without trust?
16And what setting down together (is there) for the shrine of God with images?—
for you are the shrine of (the) living God, even as God said that
‘I will make (my) house among them and will walk about among (them),
and I will be their God and they will be my people.’

17‘Therefore you must come out of the middle of them and mark (yourselves) off from (them),’ says the Lord,
‘and you must not attach (yourself) to an unclean (thing)’
‘and then I will take you in—
18and I will be a Father unto you, and you will be sons and daughters unto me’,
says the Lord Almighty.

7:1So (then), holding these messages about (what He will do), (my) beloved (one)s, we should cleanse ourselves from all soiling of flesh and spirit, completing holiness (fully) in (the) fear of God.”

I have tried to indicate the structure of the passage above, which may be outlined as follows:

    • Initial statement (injunction)—V. 14a
    • Poetic exposition, concluding in a Scripture citation—Vv. 14b-16
    • Catena (chain) of Scripture citations—Vv. 17-18
    • Concluding exhortation—Ch. 7:1

This has all the appearance of a mini-sermon or homily, a point which will be discussed, along with the poetic character of the passage, in the next study (dealing with Source- and Form-criticism). The first critical area to examine relates to the Greek text itself.

Textual Criticism

As discussed in prior studies, textual criticism primarily involves efforts to establish the most likely original form of the text, as far as this is possible. In the case of 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 as a textual unit, this involves the two-fold question outlined above: (a) whether the passage may be an interpolation (and thus not part of the original text), and (b) whether or not it is genuinely Pauline. Two kinds of evidence are used to address such questions: (1) External evidence (i.e. the actual Greek manuscripts and ancient versions, etc), and (2) Internal evidence (comparative examination of vocabulary, style, etc). For more on the terminology of Textual Criticism, see my 3-part article “Learning the Language”.

(1) External Evidence

Here it must be pointed out that there is not a single known Greek manuscript, nor ancient version, nor citation in the Church Fathers, which would indicate that 2 Corinthians was ever without 6:14-7:1. Further, there is not any indication that the passage was ever present in a different location in 2 Corinthians (or anywhere else in the Pauline corpus). Nor is there much evidence for any substantive textual variants (variant readings) in this passage. Thus, the external evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that 6:14-7:1 is an interpolation. For this reason, theories of interpolation or non-Pauline authorship rest solely on internal evidence.

(2) Internal Evidence

Here we must consider two factors: (i) the disruption apparently caused by 6:14-7:1 in context, and (ii) instances of vocabulary, style, and thought which may be seen as foreign to Paul’s letters. The first factor is better addressed separately, as an aspect of literary (composition) criticism, in an upcoming study. Here I will consider only matters of vocabulary, style, etc, in relation to the question of Pauline authorship. Normally, such analysis based on vocabulary and style is rather precarious (due to the measure of subjectivity involved), but where there is a high incidence of unusual terms or expressions in a rather short space, the arguments become stronger and more reliable. This is the case, for example, with the Pastoral Letters (especially 1 Timothy), and also here with 2 Cor 6:14-7:1.

Rare and unusual vocabulary

For example, there are eight (8) words which do not occur elsewhere in Paul’s letters (including 7 which are not found anywhere else in the NT), as a well as several other words where occurrence is rare. Here are the unique words, in order:

    • heterozygéœ (e(terozuge/w) [v. 14]—a compound verb meaning “joined/yoked” (i.e. zygós, “yoke”) together with “(something/someone) different” (héteros); most likely this is taken from the Greek version of Leviticus 19:19, where the related adjective (heterózygos) is used. Paul does make use of the word sýzygos (“[one] joined together [with]”), possibly as a proper name (?), in Philippians 4:3.
    • metoch¢¡ (metoxh/) [v. 14]—a similar sort of (compound) noun, referring to someone who “holds” (vb. échœ) something in common “with” (metá) another. This occurs only here in the New Testament (and just twice in the Greek OT), but related the adjective métochos and verb metéchœ are more common. Paul uses the verb five times, in 1 Cor 9:10, 12; 10:17, 21, 30.
    • symphœ¡n¢sis (sumfw/nhsi$) [v. 15]—again, a compound noun meaning literarly a “voice [fœn¢¡] (sounding) together with [sun]” another; this noun occurs nowhere else in the New Testament (nor the Greek OT), but related words (symphœnéœ [vb], symphœnía [noun], sýmphonos [adj]) do occur. Paul uses the adjective sýmphonos in 1 Cor 7:5.
    • Belíar (Beli/ar) [v. 15]—this is a transliteration in Greek of the Hebrew term b®liyya±al (lu^Y~l!B=), with the variant spelling Belíar instead of Belíal. The meaning of this word, used here as a proper name (generally equivalent to “[the] Satan”, “Devil”), will be discussed when we explore the overall thought of the passage in an upcoming study. The Hebrew is always translated (rather than transliterated) in the Greek OT, except for the A-text of Judges 20:13 LXX.
    • sungkatáthesis (sugkata/qesi$) [v. 16]—a compound noun similar in form to symphœ¡n¢sis (above), meaning literally “(something) set down together with”, in the sense of an “agreement”, etc. The noun also occurs nowhere else in the New Testament (or Greek OT), though the related verb sungkatatíthemai is used once at Lk 23:51 (also Exod 23:1, 32 LXX).
    • emperipatéœ (e)mperipate/w) [v. 16]—a prefixed compound form of the verb peripatéœ (“walk about”) with the preposition en (“in, among”); here it is derived (and can be explained) from its use in the Greek version of Leviticus 26:12.
    • Pantokrátœr (Pantokra/twr) [v. 18]—a compound noun essentially meaning “might(iest) of all, mighty over all, all-mighty), commonly used in Greek as a divine title, and frequently so in the Septuagint (181 times). It occurs nine other times in the New Testament (all in the book of Revelation), but nowhere else in Paul.
    • molysmós (molusmo/$) [7:1]—this noun, derived from the verb molýnœ (“smear [i.e. with paint or dirt], stain, soil”), occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and is also extremely rare in the Greek OT (cf. Jer 23:15 LXX); used in a ritual context, it connotes “pollution, defilement”.

It is to be noted how many of these are rare compound noun (or verb) forms, which seem uniquely suited to the poetic style of vv. 14b-18, allowing the author to express complex associations in the compact space of a poetic line. In addition to these eight words above, there are several others which seem rather unusual or rare for Paul:

    • merís (meri/$) [v. 15]—this noun, which fundamentally means “part, portion” is quite rare in the New Testament (occurring just 5 times); it is used just once in the Pauline corpus (Col 1:12).
    • katharízœ (kaqari/zw) [7:1]—this verb (“make clean, cleanse”) is relatively common in the New Testament (31 times), but occurs nowhere else in the undisputed Pauline letters (esp. nowhere in Romans, Corinthians, Galatians), only in Eph 5:26 and Titus 2:14. Moreover, the usage here, with the idea of believers cleansing themselves, does seem somewhat unusual for Paul.
    • hagiosýn¢ (a(giosu/nh) [7:1]—this noun (“holiness”, from hágios, “sacred, holy, pure”), is rare in the entire New Testament, occurring just three times; admittedly the other two instances are from the undisputed Pauline letters (Rom 1:4; 1 Thess 3:13), still the word is rare for Paul, and its occurrence in Rom 1:4 is often thought to come from an early creedal formula which Paul is adopting.

There are other aspects of style and wording/expression are perhaps unusual for Paul, many of which can be (and are) debated, and we will explore these as we proceed. However, those listed above are the most noteworthy as examples of rare vocabulary. The high number of these in such a short passage is striking, and makes an argument against Pauline authorship that must be taken seriously. At the same time, there are other areas of vocabulary and style in 6:14-7:1 which may be viewed as genuinely Pauline features. I would ask that you keep these 11 words (listed above) in mind as you continue to study the passage. How would you explain the incidence of these, and why so many are rare, both to Paul and even to the New Testament as a whole? How much does the poetic framework of this section, along with the use of so many quotations and allusions to the Old Testament, affect this data?

Next week, we will be exploring these (and other) questions as we examine the passage from the standpoint of source– and form-criticism.

4QMMT (“Halakhic Letter”)

The Qumran text 4QMMT, sometimes referred to as “Halakhic Letter”, has an especially interesting (and important) connection to the New Testament—the letters of Paul in particular. It is represented by 6 manuscripts (4Q394-99), all quite fragmentary; scholars would seem to be correct in assigning them to a single document, which has been reconstructed, as far as possible. The critical edition was produced by E. Qimron and J. Strugnell in volume 10 of the Discoveries in the Judean Desert (DJD) series, pp. 3-40, plates I-VIII.

The number of surviving manuscripts, spanning, it would seem, a period of more than 100 years (c. 75 B.C. – 50 A.D.), is an indication of its popularity and importance for the Community of the Qumran texts. Most likely it was viewed as an authoritative work, and one which represented the Community’s religious identity and principles in significant ways.

The designation “MMT” is an abbreviation of the Hebrew phrase hr*oTh^ yc@u&m^ tx*q=m!, miqƒ¹¾ ma±¦´ê hatôrâ (for more on this, cf. below), which occurs in an important section (C 25-32) now regarded by most commentators as the epilogue of the work. In some ways the title “Halakhic Letter” is more appropriate, though a bit anachronistic in terminology; for, indeed, the work appears to be a letter, of sorts, and contains what would come to be known as halakah. This term, referring to the way by which a person must walk, was used in a technical sense for the interpretation of the regulations and requirements of the Torah, and how they are to be applied in detail. A vast body of traditional teaching in this regard was preserved and given authoritative form in the Mishnah and Talmud; but it is found in the midrashim (commentaries) and other writings as well. The bulk of 4QMMT, or what survives of it, involves an interpretation of various regulations in the Torah; we can fairly assume that this halakah represents the views of the Community, and that they regarded it as an authoritative interpretation. It would seem that the purpose of the work (as a letter) was to convince other individuals or groups that those who did not adhere to the Community’s interpretation were dangerously in error. The letter may well have originally been written to a specific individual, presumably a leading/ruling figure (note the mention of David in C 25); a clear statement of the purpose of writing follows:

“Remember David…he, too, [was] freed from many afflictions and was forgiven. And also we have written to you miqƒ¹¾ ma±¦´ê hatôrâ which we think are good for you and for your people, for we s[a]w that you have intellect and knowledge of the Instruction. Reflect on all these matters and seek from Him that He may support your counsel and keep you far from the evil scheming[s] and the counsel of Belial, so that at the end of time, you may rejoice in finding that some of our words are true. And it shall be reckoned to you as justice when you do what is upright and good before Him, for your good and that of Israel.” (C 25-32, 4Q398 frag. 14-17 col. ii. 1-8).

The phrase miqƒ¹¾ ma±¦´ê hatôrâ is a bit difficult to render clearly into English. A literal translation would be something like “from the ends of the (thing)s made/done of the Instruction”. The “Instruction” (hr*oT, tôrâ), of course, means the Instruction given to the people of Israel, by God, through Moses (and written/preserved in the books of the Pentateuch)—i.e. the Torah or “Law” of Moses. In context, the word tx*q=m! (miqƒ¹¾), “from the ends (of)”, refers to some specific examples, or certain details, in the Torah. The word yc@u&m^ (ma±¦´ê) is a construct plural form of the noun hc#u&m^ (ma±¦´eh), from the root hcu, and meaning “something made or done”; here, however, it probably denotes “something that is to be done“. Thus, the basic sense of the phrase is “some specific things in the Instruction (Torah) which are to be done”.

The surviving portions of 4QMMT present some details and examples of these “things which are to be done”. It is not necessarily to go over them in detail, but a summary of some of the contents may be helpful (cf. R. A. Kugler, “Rewriting Rubrics: Sacrifice and the Religion of Qumran”, in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler [Eerdmans: 200]):

    • B 11-13—on the care that needs to be taken by the priests in performing their duties (Lev 22:16; Num 18:1)
    • B 9-13—on when the common meal portion of sacrificial offerings is to be eaten (Lev 7:15; 19:6)
    • B 13-17—details related to the purification ritual involving the ashes of the red cow (Num 19:1-10)
    • B 27-35—where the ritual slaughter is to take place, and how this is to be interpreted/applied (Lev 17:3-4)
    • B 36-38—the regulation against sacrificing a parent animal with its offspring (Lev 22:28)
    • B 39-54—regulations regarding who may be allowed to enter the sanctuary (Deut 23:2-4; also 18:13; Lev 21:17)
    • B 62-64—on the dedication of the produce and tithe of the herd/flock as “holy to the Lord” (Lev 19:23-24; 27:32)
    • B 75-82—regulations regarding priestly marriages (Lev 21:7, 14; also 19:19; Deut 22:9)

Generally, the halakhic interpretation by the Qumran Community would seem to be stricter than that observed by other Jews at the time, an attitude reflected in many other Qumran texts. The Community felt that it possessed an inspired, authoritative interpretation of the Torah (and of Scriptural prophecy, etc), which was the result of special revelation and guidance. The eschatological warning indicated in the epilogue (cf. above) shows the importance of following the Community’s inspired halakah (and the danger of disregarding it). Column i of the same fragment cited above presents this even more clearly:

“…concerning these things…we [have written that you must understand the bo]ok of Moses [and the books of the prophets and David…]…[it is writ]ten that you [shall stray from the path and evil will encounter] you. And it is written: and it shall happen when [all] these [things shall befa]ll you at the en[d] of days, the blessing [and the] curse, [then you shall take it] to your he[art] and will turn to Him with all your heart [and with al]l [your] soul [at the en]d [of time]…”

Paul and 4QMMT

When the text 4QMMT was made known, scholars were immediately struck by the similarity between the expression hr*oTh^ yc@u&m^ (ma±¦´ê hatôrâ) and the Greek e&rga no/mou used by Paul. It is the closest Hebrew parallel thus far found, and one that, at least in the latest copies of 4QMMT, would have been roughly contemporary with Paul’s letters. The Greek expression simply means “works of (the) law”, and generally corresponds with the Hebrew, though not without important loss of nuance. As indicated above, the Hebrew hr*oTh^ yc@u&m^, in the context of 4QMMT, should be translated “things (which are to be) done of the Instruction [i.e. Torah]”. If this Hebrew expression, and its use, truly underlies Paul’s Greek wording, then it has significant implication for the latter’s meaning. It is worth touching on this briefly, as it relates to the current discussion on “Paul’s View of the Law” (in Galatians and Romans).

Ever since Luther and the Reformation, Protestant Christians have been accustomed to thinking of Paul’s “works of the Law” in terms of a contrast of “faith vs. works”, in which “works” refers primarily to human effort as the basis of the contrast—i.e. human effort to achieve a right status with God, rather than relying on faith in Christ. While Paul doubtless would agree with this contrast (cf. the Pauline statement in Eph 2:9), a careful reading of Galatians and Romans—the only letters where the expression “works of the Law” is used—shows that Paul is actually making a very different sort of argument, and one which may be confirmed (decisively) by the expression in 4QMMT.

When dealing with fundamental religious issues like circumcision or the dietary regulations, the question involved is not about trying to gain righteousness through work/deeds, but on whether believers in Christ (and Gentile believers, in particular) are required to fulfill these regulations in the Torah. This is exactly the sense of the Hebrew expression in 4QMMT, i.e. things in the Torah which people are required to do, as I discussed above. Thus, issue lies not in the limitations of human effort (in regard to obtaining righteousness), but in the nature of the Torah itself, and its place (or lack thereof) in the new arrangement (covenant) believers now observe in Christ. Paul discusses this at length in Galatians and Romans, and I similarly have been presenting his arguments in detail in the current series (on “Paul’s View of the Law”). His teaching on the Torah is so unique (and controversial) among Jews (and Jewish Christians) of the time, that it must be studied carefully. Even today, many Christians are unable to recognize, and/or reluctant to admit, the consequences and implications of his line of argument. I recommend that you read these articles and notes on the key passages in Galatians and Romans. For reference, it may be useful to summarize the locations where the expression “works of the Law” (or its shorthand, “works”) occur:

  • The full expression e&rga no/mou (“works of the Law”):
    Gal 2:16 (3 x); 3:2, 5, 10; Rom 3:20, 28; in all but the last of these, the phrase is “out of [i.e. from, by] works of the Law” (e)c e&rgwn no/mou); in Rom 3:28, we have the opposite, “apart from [xwri/$] works of the Law”.
  • The shorthand e&rga (“works”) or e)c e&rgwn (“out of [i.e. from, by] works”):
    Rom 3:27; 4:2, 6; 9:11, 32; 11:6
  • We might also note, that, when Paul speaks of the “works of the Law” in relation to the Gentiles, on one occasion (Rom 2:15), he uses the singular “work [e&rgon] of the Law”; the distinction presumably reflects the idea that Gentiles have not had the specific regulations (“works”) of the Torah to follow, but are “under the Law” in a different manner (comp. with how he expresses this in Gal 4:1-11).

This special use of the word e&rga (“works”) appears to be unique to Paul in the New Testament, and its use is limited to Galatians and Romans. While other believers at the time may have used the word in a similar way (whether or not influenced by Paul), there is little or no trace of it in the New Testament. Elsewhere, “works” refer to things done (deeds), in a more general religious (and ethical) sense, either in terms of “good works” or the contrary, “evil deeds”. Even in the “deutero-Pauline” letters—that is, those where Pauline authorship is often disputed or considered pseudonymouse&rga is used almost entirely in terms of “good works”, and even the statements in Eph 2:9 and 2 Tim 1:9, which seem to echo Paul’s teaching on believers’ relationship to the Torah, likely refer to “works” in the more general sense of (good) deeds. The reference to “dead works” in Hebrews 6:1; 9:14 could also reflect Paul’s teaching, but may just as easily be the result of traditional ethical instruction.

The use of e&rga (“works”) in the letter of James is more difficult to judge. On the one hand, the author, throughout 2:14-26 (where the word occurs 12 times), seems to be speaking more generally of “good works”, i.e. acts of charity to others. On the other hand, the reference to Abraham, with a citation of Gen 15:6, almost certainly draws upon the traditional image of Abraham as one who faithfully followed God’s commands (i.e. the regulations of the Torah). However, the overall context of the letter suggests that, if the author has any “commands” in mind in using the word e&rga, it should be understood in terms of the single “Love-command” (2:8ff); in this regard, the author is fully in accord with Paul as to the relationship between believers and the “Law” (Gal 5:6, 13-15; 6:2; Rom 12:9ff; 13:8-10). Cf. my recent article for more on the use of Gen 15:6 by Paul and James.

Translations of 4QMMT above are taken, with some modification, from The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, ed. by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (Brill / Eerdmans: 1997-8).

Paul’s View of the Law: Introduction

In this series on “The Law and the New Testament”, it is now time to begin exploring Paul’s view of the Law, which will be done over a series of articles. It is a complex and difficult subject, to which one might easily devote any number of book-length treatments (as indeed scholars have done); here I will attempt a careful survey of the most relevant passages, devoting longer exegetical notes, when necessary, to specific verses. The history of interpretation, fascinating though it may be, will only be introduced when it is especially helpful in elucidating a particular passage; similarly, comparative studies between Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and so forth, will be kept to a minimum. Every effort will be made to focus on the fundamental meaning and context of Paul’s words in the letters. Before proceeding, I must offer two explanatory notes:

1) On authorship of the Pauline letters—Of the fourteen letters (or “epistles”) traditionally ascribed to Paul in the New Testament, they may be divided as follows:

    • Undisputed letters—i.e., Paul is indicated as the author in the text and few (if any) commentators question his authorship; there are seven (7) such letters: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon
    • Disputed letters—Paul is indicated as the author in the text, but at least a fair number of commentators believe the letters are actually pseudonymous; I would break down this category further:
      —where critical scholarship is somewhat divided (2): Colossians, 2 Thessalonians
      —where there is a general critical consensus against Pauline authorship (4): Ephesians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus
    • Anonymous letters (1): Hebrews—traditionally ascribed to Paul, though relatively few scholars would hold this today

For the purpose of these studies, I am not including Hebrews in the discussion on Paul’s view of the Law. With regard to the 6 disputed letters, I accept 2 Thessalonians and Colossians, without any real reservation, as among the authentic Pauline epistles. There is more legitimate question surrounding the other four (Ephesians and the Pastoral epistles). I will be including them in these articles; however, as a way of preserving the distinction, they will always be cited or referenced in order after the previous nine letters.

2) On recent interpretive trends—In recent decades, there has been something of a revolution in Pauline studies, in two main respects:

(a) A reaction against the customary Reformation/Protestant view of Paul, with its juxtaposition of law vs. faith, works vs. grace, and so forth. Attempts have been made to present a more “holistic”, nuanced picture of Pauline theology, with more attention paid to his epistolary and rhetorical style, the context of (re-)socialization and community-building in early Christianity, the Jewish background and apocalyptic character of his thought, and so on.
(b) Paul’s Jewish background, in particular, has been given greater emphasis, part of a wider tendency to set early Christianity within a Jewish matrix. Correspondingly, scholars today are much more reluctant to draw a sharp distinction between “Judaism” and “Christianity” in the New Testament.

These articles draw on the more recent scholarship, to some extent, though I have tried very much to allow the text of the epistles to speak for itself. At several junctures, however, it will be necessary to interact with certain modern interpretive tendencies involving key passages—especially in Galatians and Romans, the two letters where the Law is most extensively discussed by Paul.

An Introduction to Galatians

As Galatians contains the most distinct (and controversial) Pauline teaching on the Law, I will be dealing with it first. There are, however, several points which ought to be addressed, by way of introduction:

Historical background and chronology—The historical context of Paul’s argument (including the narration in Gal 2:1-14) has long been a subject of scholarly debate, especially in terms of its relationship with the so-called “Jerusalem Council” of Acts 15. An important question has been whether the Jerusalem meeting described in Gal 2:1-10 refers to the same underlying event of Acts 15 (for more on this question, see my earlier supplemental article on the Jerusalem Council). A number of scholars would hold that the events of Gal 2:1-14 took place prior to those of Acts 15, even that Galatians itself was perhaps written prior to the Council. The main evidence typically cited is:

    • There are several notable differences in the details as narrated in Acts 15 and Gal 2:1-10
    • Paul makes no mention of the decisions of the Council of the decree (the letter of Acts 15:22-29) in Galatians
    • Acts 15:24 (in the letter) may be a reference to what Paul mentioned in Gal 2:12
    • The picture in Acts 15 (cf. also 16:4) is of a generally harmonious resolution of the Jewish-Gentile question (on the matter of circumcision and observance of the Torah), with all involved apparently accepting the Jerusalem decisions and decree (as expressed in the letter) as authoritative. This seems to be at odds with the conflict narrated in Gal 2:11-14, and, indeed, with the overall argument of Galatians as a whole.

The last of these points carries the greatest weight, and it is the main reason—i.e. the desire to harmonize Galatians and Acts—that many traditional-conservative commentators hold that Paul’s epistle was written prior to the Council. I find it far more likely that the events described in Gal 2 took place prior to those of Acts 15 than that Galatians itself was written so early. There are essentially three possibilities:

    • That the events in Gal 2:1-14 (and possibly Galatians itself) are to be dated prior to the Council (and the decree/letter) of Acts 15
    • That Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15 describe the same basic event, and that the incident at Antioch in Gal 2:11-14 took place after the Council (and issue of the the letter/decree)
    • That Gal 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-12ff describe the same event, but that the letter/decree of Acts 15:22-31ff was issued some time after the Antioch incident of Gal 2:11-14, the author of Acts combining/conflated separate traditions within the narrative of ch. 15

I am rather inclined to this last option, though it is not without its own difficulties. Many critical commentators would object to any attempt at harmonizing Galatians and Acts as being unnecessary and misplaced. I agree in that I see no need for harmonization from the standpoint of trying to preserve (or defend) the inspiration and historicity of the two accounts—each book ought to be read and/or accepted on its own merits. However, there is still considerable value in examining the historical background of Galatians (and the historical tradition[s] within Acts). At any rate, these are questions and issues which may be brought up, from time to time, during this study of Galatians (esp. involving the narration in chapter 2).

The use of the term “Law”—Of the approx. 130 references to law in the Pauline letters, 70 or so are found in Romans, with another 32 in Galatians. The Greek word is no/mo$ (nómos), and it is virtually always used in the sense of the revelatory instruction (hr*oT, tôrâ) seen as coming from God (YHWH) to Israel (through Moses), and preserved primarily within the five “books of Moses” (the Pentateuch: Genesis–Deuteronomy). This instruction was viewed as normative for Israelites (and Jews), bound up intimately with the idea of the agreement (covenant) God established with his people. From a traditional and religious standpoint, observance of the Torah represented the terms and requirements necessary for preserving the covenant. In the introductory article of this series of “The Law and the New Testament” I have discussed the specific terminology, along with differing nuances of meaning between hroT, no/mo$ and English “law”. Some commentators today, uncomfortable with Paul’s use of no/mo$ (in Galatians especially), would like to substitute or read in a specific meaning or connotation such as “legalism”, “(misuse/misunderstanding of the) law”, and so forth. I disagree completely with such an approach. I find little reason to think that Paul intends anything other than a basic, fundamental reference to the Law/Torah wherever no/mo$ is used in Galatians, Romans, and the rest of the epistles, with but a few possible exceptions. This will be discussed in more detail when dealing with specific passages in Galatians.

On Jewish and Christian identity—Another area of difficulty for many modern-day students and commentators of the New Testament involves the religious distinction between “Judaism” and “Christianity”, with an increasing reluctance to set Christian identity over against the Jewish, at least within the context of the New Testament itself. There are a number of reasons for this, most notably:

    • A more ‘holistic’ and comparative approach to the study of the New Testament (and Pauline studies in particular, cf. above), including more objective analysis of the Jewish background and environment of early Christianity
    • Multi-cultural, religious-pluralistic, and ecumenical trends which have had a significant influence on theology and interpretation today
    • Sensitivity to the painful legacy of centuries of anti-Jewish (and/or anti-Semitic) mistreatment and persecution by ‘Christian’ communities

These are all important matters today which cannot (and ought not to) be ignored. In particular, the modern religious and cultural sensitivity is, on the whole, most laudable, especially with regard to past mistreatment of Jews by supposed Christians. However, it is easy for such noble sentiments to color or distort the historical context and meaning of many New Testament passages. Consider, for example, the famous (and notorious) ‘anti-Jewish’ discursion in 1 Thess 2:14-16, within an epistle almost universally recognized as authentically Pauline. It is so striking, and appears at odds with what is understood (and/or assumed) today about the Jewish Paul, that many commentators seriously doubt that Paul could have said it. Admittedly, it makes for uncomfortable reading today, which is almost certainly the main reason why it is often regarded as a non-Pauline interpolation—many would prefer to remove it from the New Testament!

The same situation applies, to a lesser degree with the way Paul deals with Judaism and the Law in Galatians and Romans; there is less overt conflict expressed in Romans, but Paul’s various arguments in that epistle are not without their own points of controversy (especially in the soteriological/eschatological aspects of chs. 9-11). The forcefulness (even harshness) of the rhetoric and polemic Paul uses at times in Galatians (against his Jewish-Christian opponents, sometimes called “Judaizers”) can also be hard to read (and accept) today; one might naturally question whether Paul is treating his opponents fairly and representing their actual position accurately. However, I would maintain that it is the fundamental issue of religious identity which represents the most difficult, and perhaps controversial, point of the letter. Whatever date one ascribes to Galatians, it is almost certainly the earliest New Testament writing which attempts to define a specific Christian identity, in relation to Judaism (and the Law); and when Paul begins to apply traditional and essential aspects of Jewish identity (such as the promises to Abraham and his descendants) to believers in Christ, there can be little doubt that a new sort of religious identity is being expressed. As indicated above, these can be extremely sensitive matters within today’s cultural and religious climate, and yet they must be addressed and interpreted fairly and honestly, without prejudice.

Concluding outline—The articles in this series on Paul’s View of the Law will proceed according to the following outline:

    1. The Law in Galatians
    2. The Law in Romans
    3. The Law in the remaining Pauline Letters
    4. Paul’s view of the Law in Acts compared with the Letters

Due to the length required, each article may be broken into more than one part, as necessary.

May 5: 1 Corinthians 1:4-9

1 Corinthians 1:4-9

Most of Paul’s letters contain, in the introductory section (exordium), a component of thanksgiving, in which he refers to his giving thanks (to God) for the believers to whom he is writing. The introduction, or exordium, follows the initial greeting (salutation), which almost always blends into a blessing formula (i.e., “grace and peace”)—1 Corinthians provides a good example of this format:

“(The) favor [xa/ri$] (of God) be with you, and peace [ei)rh/nh] from God our Father and (our) Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed {Jesus Christ}.” (1 Cor 1:3)

More than a simple wish, such blessings serve as a compact theological statement. The same may be said of the thanksgiving which follows in 1:4-9. There are two aspects of the thanksgiving which should be noted:

    1. Rhetorical—A common rhetorical device in the exordium (introduction) of the speech or letter was the so-called captatio benevolentiae (“capture of good-will”), through which the speaker/writer seeks to gain the audience’s attention and interest with complimentary words, or by offering praise. Paul often couches this praise in the context of his offering prayer to God.
    2. Theological/Spiritual—On the one hand, the thanksgiving genuinely reflects Paul’s care and concern for the believers in the regions where he had worked as a missionary, and for the churches he had helped to found. At the same time, his thanksgiving formulae also contain a seminal theological statement that unfolds out in a long sentence, with a distinct Christological (and often eschatological) emphasis. From a rhetorical standpoint, this focuses his audience’s attention squarely on their religious identity in Christ.

The thanksgiving begins with verse 4:

“I offer good words (of thanks) to my God always about you, upon [i.e. for] the favor of God th(at) was given to you in (the) Anointed Yeshua…”

The initial verb here is eu)xariste/w (eucharistéœ), “give/offer good (words of) favor”, or, more specifically, to offer words of thanks or gratitude for a favor which was shown. Paul repeats and spells out this favor (xa/ri$, cháris) precisely: “…the favor [xa/ri$] of God that was given to you in Christ Jesus”. The Christological emphasis could not be more clear—the favor (or “grace”) lies squarely in the person and (saving) work of Christ. In verses 5-7, the emphasis shifts to the Corinthian believers (in Christ):

“…in all (thing)s you are made wealthy in him [e)n au)tw=|] , in all (spoken) account(s) [lo/go$] and in all knowledge [gnw=si$]” (v. 5)

If verse 5 emphasizes the believer’s identity in Christ, verse 6 focuses on the other side of this identity, of Christ in the believer:

“even as the witness of (the) Anointed was made firm [i.e. confirmed] in you [e)n u(mi=n]” (v. 6)

Again, in verse 7, Paul cleverly positions his praise of the Corinthians in relation to Christ—in particular, the expected appearance of Jesus at the end-time:

“so that you are not to be left behind, not in any favor granted [xa/risma] (by God), looking out to receive from (God) the uncovering of our Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed” (v. 7)

This “uncovering” (a)poka/luyi$, lit. “taking the cover away from”) of Christ, refers specifically to his (impending) future appearance, as in 2 Thess 1:7, etc. The favors granted (xari/smata, charísmata) to the Corinthians—that is, their distinct spiritual “gifts”—along with their inspired words and (spiritual) knowledge (v. 5), come to be an important point of emphasis in Paul’s teaching throughout the letter (on the charismata, cf. especially chapters 12-14). Verses 4-8 comprise a single sentence in Greek, which closes on a strong eschatological note:

“who also will make you firm until (the) completion, without (anything) calling you in (to account) on the day of our Lord Yeshua [(the) Anointed].” (v. 8)

There is likely a dual-sense of the word te/lo$ (“completion”) here, referring to (a) the end of the current Age, and (b) the believer being made ‘perfect’ and complete. Note the elliptical outline of this clause:

    • (Jesus Christ) who
      —will make/keep you firm (i.e. stable, sure, strong) until…
    • the day of Jesus Christ

A second, shorter sentence in verse 9 summarizes and concludes the thanksgiving:

“Trust(worthy is) God, through whom you were called into (the) common-bond [i.e. community] of His Son Yeshua (the) Anointed, our Lord.”

Again, the emphasis is squarely on the believers’ identity in Christ, here defined in terms of being called by God.

After the thanksgiving, Paul turns to the main proposition (propositio) of the letter and his reason (causa) for writing. This is outlined in verse 10-17, with the propositio of verse 10 emphasizing the need for unity among believers, in the light of apparent divisions (and divisiveness) in the congregations. This lack of unity at Corinth had been reported to him by “the (people) of Chloe”, which could refer to the people of Chloe’s household, or to the house-church led by Chloe (meeting in her house, etc). In either case, she was clearly a prominent women in the Corinthian church. Her name is literally “Green” (Xloh/), presumably in the sense of “fresh, tender”, i.e., young and beautiful. It is worth noting her name here in light of the current series Women in the Church which I am presenting on this site. The next article (Part 4) of this series will focus on Romans 16:1-2ff, which features another prominent woman of Corinth—Phoebe, minister (dia/kono$, diákonos) in the Corinthian port town of Cenchreae.