Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination
Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston, editors
Fortress Press
Minneapolis
PAUL AND THE APOCALYPTIC IMAGINATION
Copyright © 2016 Fortress Press. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical articles or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher.
Visit http://www.augsburgfortress.org/copyrights/ or write to Permissions, Augsburg Fortress, Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN 55440.
Cover design: Alisha Lofgren
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Print ISBN: 978-1-4514-8208-9
eBook ISBN: 978-1-5064-0909-2
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z329.48-1984.
Manufactured in the U.S.A.
This book was produced using Pressbooks.com.
Contents
Contributors
Preface
1. Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination
An Introduction
Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston
2. “Then I Proceeded to Where Things Were Chaotic” (1 Enoch 21:1)
Mapping the Apocalyptic Landscape
David A. Shaw
3. Apocalyptic as God’s Eschatological Activity in Paul’s Theology
Martinus C. de Boer
4. Apocalyptic Epistemology
The Sine Qua Non of Valid Pauline Interpretation
Douglas A. Campbell
5. Apocalyptic as Theoria in the Letters of St. Paul
A New Perspective on Apocalyptic as Mother of Theology
Edith M. Humphrey
6. Apocalyptic and the Sudden Fulfillment of Divine Promise
N. T. Wright
7. Some Reflections on Apocalyptic Thought and Time in Literature from the Second Temple Period
Loren T. Stuckenbruck
8. The Transcendence of Death and Heavenly Ascent in the Apocalyptic Paul and the Stoics
Joseph R. Dodson
9. Second-Century Perspectives on the Apocalyptic Paul
Reading the Apocalypse of Paul and the Acts of Paul
Ben C. Blackwell
10. Some Remarks on Apocalyptic in Modern Christian Theology
Philip G. Ziegler
11. Righteousness Revealed
The Death of Christ as the Definition of the Righteousness of God in Romans 3:21–26
Jonathan A. Linebaugh
12. Thinking from Christ to Israel
Romans 9–11 in Apocalyptic Context
Beverly Roberts Gaventa
13. Apocalyptic Allegiance and Disinvestment in the World
A Reading of 1 Corinthians 7:25–35
John M. G. Barclay
14. After Destroying Every Rule, Authority, and Power
Paul, Apocalyptic, and Politics in 1 Corinthians
John K. Goodrich
15. Plight and Solution in Paul’s Apocalyptic Perspective
A Study of 2 Corinthians 5:18–21
Jason Maston
16. The Apocalyptic New Covenant and the Shape of Life in the Spirit according to Galatians
Michael J. Gorman
17. The Two Ages and Salvation History in Paul’s Apocalyptic Imagination
A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Galatians
J. P. Davies
Index of Names
Index of Ancient Writings
Contributors
John M. G. Barclay (PhD, University of Cambridge) is Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham.
Ben C. Blackwell (PhD, University of Durham) is Assistant Professor of Christianity at Houston Baptist University.
Martinus C. de Boer (PhD, Union Theological Seminary) is Professor of New Testament at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Douglas A. Campbell (PhD, University of Toronto) is Professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity School.
J. P. Davies (PhD, University of St. Andrews) is Tutor of New Testament at Trinity College, University of Bristol.
Joseph R. Dodson (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Ouachita Baptist University.
Beverly Roberts Gaventa (PhD, Union Theological Seminary) is Distinguished Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Baylor University.
John K. Goodrich (PhD, University of Durham) is Assistant Professor of Bible at Moody Bible Institute.
Michael J. Gorman (PhD, Princeton Theological Seminary) is Raymond E. Brown Chair in Biblical Studies and Theology at St. Mary’s Seminary and University.
Edith M. Humphrey (PhD, McGill University) is William F. Orr Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.
Jonathan A. Linebaugh (PhD, University of Durham) is Lecturer in New Testament at the University of Cambridge.
Jason Maston (PhD, University of Durham) is Assistant Professor of Theology and Chair of the Department of Theology at Houston Baptist University.
David A. Shaw (PhD candidate, University of Cambridge) is Tutor in New Testament and Greek at Oak Hill College.
Loren T. Stuckenbruck (PhD, Princeton Theological Seminary) is Professor of New Testament at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.
N. T. Wright (DPhil, University of Oxford) is Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St. Andrews.
Philip G. Ziegler (ThD, University of Toronto) is Senior Lecturer in Systematic Theology at the University of Aberdeen.
Preface
The debate about Paul and apocalyptic has experienced significant growth spurts in recent scholarship. One needs only to glance through the major Pauline theologies that have appeared in the past couple of decades to observe that so-called apocalyptic readings are not only in vogue, but that wrestling with the questions and themes raised by such readings (e.g., cosmology, eschatology, epistemology, agency) has become mandatory for any responsible treatment of Paul’s worldview. It is equally apparent, however, that not all apocalyptic readings have adequately conversed with one another. This volume is an attempt to facilitate such a discussion between the major perspectives on Paul and apocalyptic, as well as to plot ways forward. The volume’s contributors represent the two primary approaches on Paul’s apocalyptic imagination, and our hope as editors is that the conversation will advance precisely because these different viewpoints have been placed alongside of and in conversation with one another.
Several of the chapters in this book were presented during a special session of the same name at the 2014 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in San Diego. We thank the authors for their contributions both to that event and to this volume. We really could not have asked for a better team—their enthusiasm for the project was evident from the start, and we are grateful to each contributor for carving out time in their busy schedule to participate in this stimulating dialogue. We especially wish to thank John Barclay, who provided invaluable guidance at the initial planning stages. Thanks are also due to Neil Elliott and the Fortress Press team for accepting the volume and seeing it through to publication. We are indebted as well to Joshua Bremerman for compiling the indexes. As always, we are enormously grateful to our respective families and academic institutions—without their unending support, this book would not have been possible.
We wish also to acknowledge our debt to two important scholars who, though not directly involved in the book, have shaped many of the ideas that appear be
tween its pages. First, we wish to recognize John J. Collins, whose work on Jewish apocalyptic literature has been hugely formative for the framework of many who engage in apocalyptic readings of the NT in general—and of Paul, in particular. Astute readers will detect in the title of this book an allusion to Collins’s seminal volume The Apocalyptic Imagination (Crossroads, 1987; 2nd ed., Eerdmans, 1998). Although he himself is not a Pauline scholar, Collins’s impact on the current debate about Paul cannot be exaggerated, and our choice of title is a reflection of the widespread influence of his scholarship.
Finally, we (the editors on behalf of all the contributors) wish to acknowledge and give thanks to Richard B. Hays for his many significant publications on Paul (apocalyptic and otherwise) throughout his illustrious career. Hays’s work has already influenced and inspired an entire generation of scholars, including all who have contributed to this particular project. Many of the important advances that have occurred in modern Pauline research would not have been possible without the penetrating and measured reflections of this distinguished scholar. It is, therefore, to him that we warmly dedicate this volume.
B. C. Blackwell, J. K. Goodrich, and J. Maston
Fall 2015
1
Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination
An Introduction
Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston
Problematizing Apocalyptic in Pauline Scholarship
Over the course of the last century, the place of apocalyptic has grown increasingly prominent in Pauline studies. Following from Käsemann’s now famous dictum that “apocalyptic was the mother of all Christian theology,”[1] it is now almost universally affirmed that Paul had an apocalyptic worldview. As Barry Matlock acknowledged (in fact, protested) some years ago, “‘Apocalyptic’ interpretation of Paul is, if not a consensus, then certainly a commonplace.”[2] Beyond this basic affirmation, however, there is little consensus regarding what the label “apocalyptic” actually suggests about Paul’s theological perspective. Indeed, lying conspicuously behind the employment of common language are many different definitions, and even competing interpretations of Paul’s letters.[3] As N. T. Wright remarks, “this term has proved so slippery and many-sided in scholarly discourse that one is often tempted to declare a moratorium on it altogether.”[4]
Since the term is unlikely to disappear from the scholarly vocabulary in the immediate future, what is needed now is a forum for clarifying the nature of apocalyptic language as it is currently being used in relation to Paul. Although a few past publications have sought to justify, clarify, or even discredit the application of “apocalyptic” in Pauline studies,[5] one problem in the rather recent surge of apocalyptic proposals is that Pauline theologians have often talked past one another. Instead of engaging in meaningful dialogue about the significance of apocalyptic language with the intent of moving toward unified employment, Pauline scholars of various stripes have simply recycled the specialized terminology of their respective theological predecessors, often leaving readers to themselves not only to decode such language, but also to differentiate between its parallel yet dissimilar usages.
In the light of the recent swell of studies on the so-called apocalyptic Paul, as well as the ambiguity that continues to accompany the “apocalyptic” label, this collection of essays aims to give voice to multiple perspectives and to place these alternative viewpoints side by side, so readers can see the similarities and differences firsthand. Moreover, we seek in this volume to further the discussion through additional exploration into the various contexts of apocalyptic discourse as well as through focused study on themes considered to be central to Paul’s apocalyptic imagination.
Before progressing, however, to chapters that expound and explore the various aspects of this debate, we seek in this introductory chapter to orient the reader to some of the issues involved by presenting a heuristic taxonomy of what we see as two current perspectives on apocalyptic in Paul, as well as some of the historical factors that have led to these paradigms. After sketching the history and key features of these groups, we summarize key questions in the debate and introduce the chapters in this volume.
Perspectives and Paradigms
Many rightly note that “apocalyptic” is a scholarly construct and a shorthand description of a concatenation of particular themes. It is the differing combinations of those themes, together with the nuances of their arrangement, that has led to the multiplicity of perspectives on the apocalyptic nature of Paul’s worldview. But while apocalyptic touches upon a host of theological categories, it is important to pay special attention to three main axes, emphasized to varying degrees by recent contributors to the apocalyptic debate.
The first two are the space–time axes, highlighted in John J. Collins’s important definition of “apocalypse.” According to Collins, “‘Apocalypse’ is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.”[6] Although some scholars incorporate additional aspects of Collins’s definition into their study of Paul’s apocalyptic theology, all viewpoints stress both eschatology—that is, Paul’s two ages paradigm (temporal/horizontal axis)—and revelation—that is, the intersection of heavenly and earthly realms by way of God’s redemptive activity and Paul’s mystical experiences (spatial/vertical axis). Both these axes feature prominently within constructions of Paul’s theology. However, the way they are understood shifts between the paradigms we note below.
Beyond these two axes, scholars are also concerned with how God’s revelatory activity affects Paul’s epistemology. Apocalyptic, according to any account, involves cognition and enables a seer to understand previously hidden realities. But how has God’s eschatological revelatory activity affected Paul’s deep logic, causing him to view history differently, especially the human plight and the divine solution introduced through Christ and the Spirit? Does Paul view history prospectively, that is, does he understand God’s redemptive work as the fulfillment of covenant promises made to Israel long ago? Or, does Paul view history retrospectively, that is, has God’s revelation re-programmed the apostle’s thinking such that he interprets the human plight in a radically new way, indeed as one disconnected from Israel’s plight and promises and unanticipated in the Jewish Scriptures?
As in other debates, these themes are foregrounded or backgrounded in various ways by scholars as they expound their particular formation of ideas. While they do not always present simple binary options on this topic, scholars tend to adopt one of two general approaches as they describe how Paul’s worldview is apocalyptic.[7] We refer to these approaches as Eschatological Invasion and Unveiled Fulfillment. For most readers, the first perspective will probably be the most familiar, since it is the one perhaps most often identified as “apocalyptic” in recent Pauline studies. However, the second paradigm also justifiably utilizes this terminology, yet in different ways, and therein lies the debate.
By offering this heuristic binary, we hope to clarify the basis for the distinctive approaches. The taxonomy does not imply that these are mutually exclusive or fixed categories, but the groupings are meant to help identify similar perspectives on Paul and his contemporaries. Also, the taxonomy is not comprehensive. Others, such as Troels Engberg-Pedersen, describe Paul as apocalyptic, but their various approaches fall outside of our primary discussion.[8] Several previous studies have ably detailed the social, intellectual, and conceptual history of scholarship regarding apocalyptic within the field of NT studies, so we will not rehearse all those details here.[9] Rather, we will briefly note influential figures and explain how the two paradigms relate to our three key axes (spatial, temporal, and epistemological).
Eschatological Invasion
Although eschatology came on the stage strongly in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century with Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer, the wider acceptance of Paul as an apocalyptic thinker is a fruit of Karl Barth’s separate but parallel work. As the popularity of Barth’s view of divine revelation breaking into human history through Christ began to take hold in wider theological circles, it became easier to see this “apocalyptic” perspective in Paul’s letters as well.[10] While prominent NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, were influenced by Barth, it was Bultmann’s student Ernst Käsemann who popularized this perspective. Bultmann’s emphasis on existentialism (and therefore, anthropology) separated his reading from Käsemann’s “apocalyptic” perspective in NT studies, which resisted Bultmann’s demythologizing project and stressed the cosmological transformation wrought by God in Christ.[11] Käsemann primarily grounded his understanding of apocalyptic on God’s act in Christ to establish his Lordship over the world and over the evil powers controlling it. The culmination of God’s apocalyptic activity would arrive at Christ’s imminent return as the kingdom of God was universalized and Christ’s Lordship came to encompass the entire cosmos.[12]
In the Anglo-American context, the influence of Käsemann’s reading was mediated through (and modified by) J. Christiaan Beker and J. Louis Martyn.[13] Following Käsemann, Beker maintained a focus on the parousia as the key apocalyptic event, though Beker offered a threefold definition of apocalyptic: “(1) historical dualism; (2) universal cosmic expectation; and (3) the imminent end of the world.”[14] Martyn, on the contrary, famously shifted the focus of apocalyptic from the second advent of Christ to the first, and particularly the cross, as the apocalyptic fulcrum for Paul’s theology. Yet, in continuity with Käsemann (and Barth), the Christ-event serves as God’s in-breaking to restore the world.[15]
Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination Page 1
