Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination

by Ben C Blackwell

  Martinus de Boer, one of Martyn’s students, has done as much as anybody to establish a religionsgeschichtlich foundation for under-standing Paul as an apocalyptic theologian.[16] Having outlined two “tracks” of apocalyptic eschatology operative within early Judaism (cosmological-apocalyptic eschatology vs. forensic-apocalyptic eschatology), de Boer offers these as heuristic models with which to compare Paul’s own view of apocalyptic eschatology. Paul’s gospel, de Boer argues, consists mainly of the cosmological type of apocalyptic eschatology; in fact, the forensic brand is easily attributed to Paul’s conversation partners and/or opponents.[17] A similar reading is attributable to Douglas Campbell, whose work seeks to demonstrate that Paul’s gospel consists exclusively of a liberative model of salvation, whereby justification is a non-contractual/unconditional declaration of freedom upon those who are in Christ.[18] Campbell is explicit about his indebtedness to Barth and Martyn, and he follows both quite closely in the second Eschatological Invasion programmatic essay of this volume as he extends a Barthian reading of Paul’s “apocalyptic epistemology” (chapter 4).

  With this historical overview in mind, we turn now to our three axes for analyzing this scholarly paradigm—the spatial, temporal, and epistemological axes. Our title “Eschatological Invasion” attempts to capture the spatial and temporal nature of God’s work in Christ: “eschatological” describes the temporal shift marked out as the two ages, and “invasion” emphasizes the spatial activity of God in Christ (and the Spirit). Regarding the epistemological axis, this paradigm has a decidedly retrospective point of view, which is also conveyed by “invasion,” denying, as it does, the notion of a straightforward progression.

  Spatial Axis. With regard to the intersection of heaven and earth, those in the Eschatological Invasion group regularly frame the apocalyptic setting as a cosmological battle between evil powers that have usurped God’s authority. God’s invasive action in Christ (and the Spirit) to establish his control is the center of God’s revelation (ἀποκάλυψις/ἀποκαλύπτω = “coming on the world scene”; cf. Gal. 3:23).[19] This christological act of God is often framed as unilateral, in the sense that God’s agency is set against impotent humans under the subjection of these evil powers. Humans, thus, are part of the disputed territory of the cosmos, and, until Christ liberates them, they remain under the control of evil powers—Sin, Death, Flesh, and (sometimes) Law. The stress is most often on these personified, ontological powers, but at times, demonic beings—“rulers and authorities”—come into view. Ultimately, God transcends the heaven–earth duality through Christ and the Spirit and re-establishes his control of the entire cosmos.

  Temporal Axis. While there has been a shift in the Eschatological Invasion group from a focus on Christ’s second advent (Käsemann, Beker) to his first (Martyn, de Boer, Campbell), the Christ-event is seen as determinative for Paul’s approach to history. That is, the advent of Christ marks the hinge between two ages, as God’s action creates a new reality. In particular, the old age is marked by the control of Death and the Flesh, whereas the new age is marked by life and the Spirit, even as believers experience suffering in their participation in the death of the crucified messiah. As Käsemann explained:

  [T]he apostle does not understand history as a continuous evolutionary process but as the contrast of the two realms of Adam and Christ. Pauline theology unfolds this contrast extensively as the struggle between death and life, sin and salvation, law and gospel. The basis is the apocalyptic scheme of the two successive aeons which is transferred to the present. Apparently Paul viewed his own time as the hour of the Messiah’s birth-pangs, in which the new creation emerges from the old world through the Christian proclamation. Spirits, powers and dominions part eschatologically at the crossroads of the gospel. We thus arrive at the dialectic of “once” and “now,” which is absorbed into anthropology in the form of “already saved” and “still tempted.” In the antithesis of spirit and flesh this dialectic determines the cosmos until the parousia of Christ.[20]

  Though some others in this group would differ from Käsemann on where the fulcrum lies—the first, instead of the second advent—he captures the eschatological reserve that characterizes this perspective, even while they emphasize the radical newness inaugurated through Christ.

  Epistemological Axis. According to the Eschatological Invasion model, Christ—as the true revelation (ἀποκάλυψις) of God—opens up new epistemic possibilities about everything: the world, the human plight, Israel, the law, and so on. Paul’s new understanding extends especially to his view of history, which is fundamentally retrospective. That is, Paul’s narrative logic develops in reverse: having experienced Christ as the divine solution, Paul is now able to look back and understand the plight previously misunderstood or even unknown to him. To be sure, Paul’s understanding of the present is not determined by his understanding of the climax of a Jewish narrative within a larger story of the human plight. In fact, the reverse is true: Paul’s understanding of the human plight, the Jewish narrative, and salvation history is only properly understood in light of Christ—indeed, “in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:16–17). The combination of the christological and pnuematological invasion, together with the radical newness established by Christ, reinforces this retrospective reading strategy. The effect is that discontinuity with the past is often highlighted.[21]

  That said, this retrospective reading approach is not simply unidirectional. Within the Eschatological Invasion group exists a diversity of ways to approach the topic of continuity and discontinuity. While many in this group might be described as following a model of retrospective-discontinuity, Richard Hays presents a model of retrospective-continuity. That is, Paul does read backwards (i.e., retrospectively), but with an emphasis on narrative continuity, such that Paul presents God’s eschatological activity in continuity with the story of Israel. Accordingly, Hays writes, “I contend that Paul’s understanding of the new age in Christ leads him not to a rejection of Israel’s sacred history but to a retrospective hermeneutical transformation of Israel’s story in light of the story of God’s startling redemptive actions. . . . [T]his requires a dramatic rereading of Israel’s story, but what is required is precisely a rereading, not a repudiation.”[22] Thus, Paul’s theological vision is not fully captured by moving from Christ to Israel; rather, his vision begins with Christ but is two way, moving from Christ to Israel and then back to Christ again.[23]

  Overall, the Eschatological Invasion model has strong affinities with Barthian theology. Indeed, God’s revelation in the christological invasion, which thoroughly undercuts human pretense (found in versions of natural theology), reflects several key elements in Barth’s theological vision. These echoes may be due to the direct influence of Barth’s own work, though not all these scholars explicitly acknowledge a connection to Barth or his hermeneutical approach; in some instances, then, Barth has perhaps been mediated through other authors. In any case, the Eschatological Invasion group, with this shared theological perspective, has, until recently, retained a more direct and widespread influence on Pauline scholarship than our second paradigm, the Unveiled Fulfillment group, to which we now turn.

  Unveiled Fulfillment

  If the Eschatological Invasion group has been influenced by Barth’s theological perspective, the Unveiled Fulfillment group has been impacted—though perhaps to a lesser extent—by Christopher Rowland and the wider interest in reading Paul within a Jewish narrative. Among the many important studies of Jewish apocalyptic literature, Christopher Rowland’s TheOpen Heaven has proven especially influential for the Unveiled Fulfillment group.[24] In fact, most of those whom we align with this group explicitly acknowledge indebtedness to Rowland’s work.

  One of Rowland’s key arguments in TheOpen Heaven is that the revelation (ἀποκάλυψις) of divine mysteries is central to Jewish apocalyptic texts. Therefore, when Pauline interpreters make use of Rowland, they argue that the concept of apocalyptic has as much to do with th
e disclosure of knowledge about spiritual activity as it does with God’s redemptive work itself. The significance of spiritual agents, then, concerns not only their participation in cosmic events (as emphasized in the Eschatological Invasion group), but also their mediation of heavenly knowledge. Thus, scholars in the Unveiled Fulfillment group tend to emphasize Pauline texts that highlight the revelation of Christ himself, Paul’s mystical experiences, and the revelatory activity of spiritual agents—as seen in Galatians 1, and 2 Corinthians 3–4 and 12, as well as passages that highlight “mystery” language. However, as the influence of the group has grown, scholars such as N. T. Wright and Michael Gorman have expanded their discussions beyond these more traditional topics.

  Arguably, those Pauline scholars who draw on this approach are not as numerous as the Eschatological Invasion group. In fact, many whom we identify with this group are not always considered to be partaking in a debate against the Eschatological Invasion perspective over the meaning and nature of apocalyptic in Pauline theology. Nevertheless, a number of studies—treating such topics as divine mysteries, heavenly visions, and mysticism—correspond to the methodology and perspec-tives of the Unveiled Fulfillment group, and thus form a foundation for the growing interest in this approach.[25]

  The foremost early proponent of this view within Pauline circles was Alan Segal in his Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee, who viewed texts such as 2 Corinthians 12 as important for understanding Paul’s wider theological perspective.[26] Barry Matlock, with his Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul, also stands out as an early advocate of the Unveiled Fulfillment approach among Pauline scholars. Focused more on critiquing the Eschatological Invasion perspective than providing a construction of his own, Matlock nonetheless leans heavily upon Rowland’s Open Heaven approach, and thus proposes comparing Paul with individual apocalypses (and other texts) rather than a synthetic conception of “apocalyptic.”[27]

  In addition to Pauline specialists working directly on the topic of apocalyptic, there are also scholars primarily known for their work in Second Temple Judaism who have brought their expertise to bear on the issue of apocalyptic in the NT and in Paul. The collaborative project of Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones, published as The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, is a case in point.[28] This type of work is also captured by the SBL Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism Group and those who study Paul in the context of emerging Merkevah Mysticism. Recently, Loren Stuckenbruck has added his voice to matters Pauline, lending a perspective heavily informed by his extensive work on Second Temple texts. In particular, he has questioned the conceptualization of time and the “two ages” motif that characterizes much of the Eschatological Invasion perspective, arguing that early Jewish authors envisioned more continuity between the ages than is often assumed by Pauline specialists.[29]

  In distinction to these studies more limited in scope, N. T. Wright has perhaps been the most influential champion of the Unveiled Fulfillment perspective, as he employs this reading strategy much more widely across the Pauline corpus than others associated with this paradigm. Concurring with a perspective like Rowland’s, Wright argues that “apocalyptic characteristically speaks of the unveiling or revelation of mysteries, hidden secrets known in heaven but not before known on earth.”[30] On the other hand, Wright is sympathetic to certain aspects of Käsemann’s understanding of apocalyptic in Paul (e.g., the shocking and invasive nature of God’s redemptive work in Christ), though he insists that this notion converges with Paul’s concept of “covenant” (i.e., “God’s long and many-staged plan of salvation”[31]). As he explains, “In the messianic events of Jesus’ death and resurrection Paul believes both that the covenant promises were at last fulfilled and that this constituted a massive irruption into the processes of world history unlike anything before or since.”[32] For Wright, Christ is “the climax of the covenant” promises, such that “covenant and apocalyptic . . . are mutually reinforcing rather than antithetical.”[33] Thus, “once we understand how ‘apocalyptic’ works, the convergence between it and what I have called ‘covenantal’ thinking becomes apparent. One of the things which is ‘unveiled’ is precisely how the covenant plan has been worked out”—namely, that through the covenant faithfulness of God expressed in the Messiah Jesus, Jews and gentiles have been brought together into one people of God.[34]

  The majority of the Unveiled Fulfillment studies, to be sure, are topical in nature rather than attempts to frame the entirety of Paul’s theology. Yet, these various scholars work from a generally similar paradigm when the three axes, spatial, temporal, and epistemological, are accounted for in Paul’s letters. Our title, “Unveiled Fulfillment,” attempts to capture these aspects: “unveiled” describes the spatial and epistemological axes as God acts to reveal the mystery of Christ in the world, and “fulfillment” emphasizes the temporal activity of Christ as the culmination of God’s covenantal work, understood from a decidedly prospective point of view.

  Spatial Axis. According to the Unveiled Fulfillment model, the thin separation between the heavenly and earthly domains means that God as well as other spiritual agents are frequently involved in this world. As the primary emphasis of Paul’s theology, God’s activity to solve the problem of evil plays out through the work of the Messiah Jesus, who defeats the powers of evil and introduces the age of the Holy Spirit. This serves as the climax to God’s promises and the means by which God reveals his righteousness to the world. In addition, this group notes how other spiritual agents—both good and evil—infuse the language and worldview of Paul. In fact, rather than there existing a barrier between the earthly and heavenly domains, the interchange between these two spheres is quite porous—hence, Rowland’s moniker “Open Heaven.”

  Temporal Axis. History, for the Unveiled Fulfillment group, is a progression. In a wider narrative of creation and renewed creation stands God’s acts of covenant formation, restoration, and promise-making to the people of Israel, even in the midst of foreign oppression and the unfaithfulness of the covenant people. Jesus, as the Jewish messiah who inaugurates the age of the Spirit, stands as the climax of that covenant and the fulfillment of past promises. Yet, in contrast to a steady and evolutionary development, this fulfillment is sudden, unexpected, and difficult, which is like other Jewish apocalyptic texts that explain an arduous and surprising resolution to the problem of evil. Yet, behind this fulfillment is the expectation that God is already in control of history even when the righteous suffer at the hands of evil powers and their human accomplices (especially political enemies). Accordingly, current and future salvation is framed as standing in continuity with God’s previous promises.

  Epistemological Axis. Since, according to the Unveiled Fulfillment group, Paul views God’s activity as a progression from and fulfillment of what was promised in the past, Paul’s theology is grounded in a story that began before Christ, though it is fulfilled in him.[35] That is, the epistemological framework runs prospectively from Judaism to Christianity, from plight to solution (even if back to plight again),[36] rather than retrospectively from Christ(ianity) back to Judaism, or from solution to plight.[37] The “prospective” point of view means that, in some way, the prior Jewish (apocalyptic) narrative, derived from the OT or Second Temple texts, is privileged and forms the interpretive grid for understanding Paul’s theology. Accordingly, continuity with Judaism forms a structural foundation for this paradigm. This does not mean that these scholars see Judaism as monolithic or that Paul never disagrees with Jewish forms of thinking; indeed, foundational theological pillars of Judaism (e.g., monotheism, election, eschatology, to borrow Wright’s threefold structure)[38] are transformed or “re-imagined” in the light of Christ and the Spirit. Nevertheless, Paul sees Christ as the “climax” of a distinctly Jewish narrative, and everything inaugurated in Christ is the goal or culmination of Israel’s history. The prospective movement is no more a one-to-one fulfillment than it is a s
imple progression: the Christ-event was surprising and challenging, but a fulfillment nonetheless; it is for Paul, therefore, a prospective event. The surprising aspect of the Christ-event corresponds to the fact that many do not yet understand the nature of this divine mystery. Thus, in addition to the epistemology that undergirds Paul’s theology as a whole, individuals—and, especially, Paul himself—have access to such wisdom and knowledge through revelation, that is, an unveiling of mysteries that have been hidden in the past, but which now make sense in view of the full breadth of the narrative.

  Admittedly, this Unveiled Fulfillment group is less cohesive than the Eschatological Invasion group; however, the common reading strategies do form a common bond. One may, at times, find it difficult to see the ideological coherence between the different Unveiled Fulfillment studies since they tend to be focused on particular topics or passages rather than on Paul’s larger theological vision and deep logic. This means that the group’s boundaries and influences have remained less defined as well.

  Summary of Key Questions

  Of course, the binary taxonomy presented above does not include all the variations represented by the field of Pauline scholarship, but it does highlight the interpretive approaches that broadly unite these two groups. Importantly, we have seen that the distinctions explored here are not merely historical or exegetical, but hermeneutical in nature. The following, then, are some of the key questions that arise from the discussion in this volume: