In addition, the dichotomy between a solution in terms of liberation and one that is forensic must be rejected. The act of God described in 2 Cor. 5:18–21 matches well Martyn’s notion that the solution is one of in-breaking or invasion. Yet, restricting this to a theory of liberation only captures one aspect of God’s manifold work in Christ. The in-breaking of God in the Son is precisely to address the forensic problem of human disobedience and guilt. Such a plight necessitated such a profound solution, but it is only because of the profoundness of the solution that the depth of the plight becomes known. Moreover, a wider lens on the divine solution allows us to incorporate a fully incarnational account.[60] The incarnation is precisely the solution to human transgression, but in a paradoxical way. Christ is identified and treated by his Father as a transgressor. This vision of the totality of Jesus’ human existence sees in him the defeat of the very sinful nature of humans. God confronts the anthropological problem by becoming an anthropos, and thus restores the anthropological condition.
* * *
The research for this study was supported by a British Academy/Leverhulme Trust Small Research Grant. ↵
J. Louis Martyn, “Epistemology at the Turn of the Ages,” in Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 89–110; Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 912–13. ↵
J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). ↵
It is worth noting as well that N. T. Wright does not mention these verses in his discussion of the human plight; see Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2 vols. (London: SPCK, 2013), 2:747–772. ↵
Ernst Käsemann, “Some Thoughts on the Theme ‘The Doctrine of Reconciliation in the New Testament,’” in The Future of Our Religious Past: Essays in Honour of Rudolf Bultmann, ed. James M. Robinson, trans. Charles E. Carlston and Robert P. Scharlemann (London: SCM Press, 1971), 49–64, at 52 (emphasis original). ↵
Ibid., 53. ↵
Ernst Käsemann, “The Saving Significance of the Death of Jesus in Paul,” in Perspectives on Paul, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM Press, 1971), 32–59, at 44. Similarly, in his portrayal of Pauline anthropology, Käsemann focuses on the cosmological place of humanity as enslaved (see his “On Paul’s Anthropology,” in Perspectives on Paul, 1–31). ↵
J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 97. ↵
Ibid., 105. ↵
Martyn’s translation (Galatians, 81). Martinus de Boer develops an almost identical reading of this passage in his Galatians, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 30. Mention should also be made of his claim that apocalyptic Judaism consisted of two tracks, “cosmological” and “forensic,” that conceived of plight and solution differently (see his contribution to this volume and ibid., 31–35). ↵
Martyn, Galatians, 90 (emphasis original). ↵
Ibid. ↵
J. Louis Martyn, “World Without End or Twice-Invaded World?,” in Shaking Heaven and Earth: Essays in Honor of Walter Brueggemann and Charles B. Cousar, eds. Christine Roy Yoder et al. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 117–32, at 121. Martyn is building on the grammatical use of “sin” in the singular to indicate the power of Sin. ↵
It is worth noting in passing the common way in which assumed tradition is treated by Käsemann, Martyn, and de Boer in their analyses of these verses. All maintain that Paul cites a tradition with which he largely disagrees and he must modify or reinterpret. While not addressed here, more consideration of how Paul relates to and uses traditional views may present additional problems for their interpretations. ↵
Martyn, Galatians, 99; idem, “Epilogue: An Essay in Pauline Meta-Ethics,” in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment, eds. John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole, LNTS 335 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 173–83, at 180. ↵
Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 63. ↵
The epistemological element is crucial to Campbell, who is drawing most directly on Barth. See his contribution to this volume. Epistemology is also important to Martyn (see his “Epistemology at the Turn of the Ages”; and Galatians, 95n43; 266n163). ↵
Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 63. ↵
Ibid., 65. ↵
Martyn, “Epistemology at the Turn of the Ages,” 92. ↵
Martyn argues that the new way is best expressed as “kata stauron” (ibid., 108). There is some truth to Martyn’s point that the cross is the most obvious point at which the shift in times can be seen. However, his separation of resurrection, the role of the Spirit, and indeed, the life of Jesus is unnecessary. Of course, the import of these only makes sense from the perspective of the cross, but without them, the cross does not make sense. ↵
For additional Jewish texts, see, e.g., Jos. Ant. 3.315; 7.153, 295; J. W. 5.415. For brief discussions of these and other texts, see I. Howard Marshall, “The Meaning of ‘Reconciliation,’” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of George E. Ladd, ed. Robert A. Guelich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 117–32, at 118–21; and Reimund Bieringer, “‘Reconcile Yourselves to God’: An Unusual Interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:20 in Its Context,” in Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity: Studies in Honour of Henk Jan De Jonge, eds. Rieuwerd Buitenwerf, Harm W. Hollander, and Johannes Tromp (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 11–38, at 18–28. ↵
Marshall, “The Meaning of ‘Reconciliation.’” Marshall’s study has been extended by Stanley E. Porter. See particularly idem, Καταλλάσσωin Ancient Greek Literature: With Reference to the Pauline Writings, EFN 5 (Cordoba: Ediciones el Almendro, 1994); and idem, “Reconciliation and 2 Cor. 5,18-21,” in The Corinthian Correspondence, ed. Reimund Bieringer, BETL 125 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 693–705. ↵
Victor P. Furnish, II Corinthians, AB 32A (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 335 (emphasis original). ↵
The exact meaning of this phrase in v.19 is debated. Many understand ἦν . . . καταλλάσσων as an imperfect periphrastic; see, e.g., Porter, “Reconciliation and 2 Cor. 5,18-21,” 698–99; and Margaret Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 2 vols., ICC 34 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 433–34. Another common view posits that θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ is a self-contained clause meaning “God-in-Christ;” see, e.g., Richard H. Bell, “Sacrifice and Christology in Paul,” JTS 53, no. 1 (2002): 1–27, at 11–12; and Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 440–43. ↵
In the background may be the Adam-Christ antithesis (cf. 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 45–49; Rom. 5:12–20). ↵
M. J. Harris, “Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 3:1171–1215, at 1197. ↵
Grammatically the statement is not linked with the previous or following verse. ↵
This view is summarized well by Linda Belleville in “Gospel and Kerygma in 2 Corinthians,” in Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, eds. L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson, JSNTSup 108 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 110–33. ↵
In the LXX, ἁμαρτία is occasionally used for חטאת, although the more common and precise phrases are τὸ περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας and περὶ ἁμαρτίας (see Leviticus 4). When ἁμαρτία indicates the sin offering, the context always contains other cultic terms which provide the indication that the word is a reference to the specific sacrifice. Commentators who argue for sin offering in 2 Cor. 5:21 also often draw a parallel with Rom. 8:3, where the phrase περὶ ἁμαρτίας is understood as a reference to the sin offering. These commentators also suggest that Paul is dependent on Isa. 53:10, where the servan
t is put forth περὶ ἁμαρτίας. The cross-references to Rom. 8:3 and Isa. 53:10 fail to acknowledge that the meaning of both texts is disputed. Indeed, there is an element of circularity in the arguments of those who defend references to “sin offering” in these three texts since they often appeal to the other verses to support their argument. ↵
Furnish, II Corinthians, 340. ↵
Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, Repr. (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 277. ↵
C. K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC (London: A&C Black, 1993), 180; cf. Thrall, Second Corinthians, 441–42. ↵
Thrall, Second Corinthians, 439; Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 314n62; Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 451–52; Ben C. Blackwell, Christosis: Pauline Soteriology in Light of Deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria, WUNT 2.314 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 226, 230. ↵
Morna D. Hooker, From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge: CUP, 1990), 17. ↵
So most commentators. For the argument that the phrase refers to Christ’s pre-existent condition, see Bell, “Sacrifice and Christology in Paul,” 14–16. ↵
Cf. ibid., 14. ↵
Cf. the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 37: “What do you understand by the word ‘suffered’? Answer: That during his whole life on earth, but especially at the end, Christ sustained in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race.” ↵
Cf. Rom. 8:3. ↵
The ease with which Paul shifts from “transgression” to “for us” suggests that, whatever differences may exist, one should not hold these two expressions too far apart. ↵
Although some argue for a cosmic interpretation of “world” (κόσμος), the meaning is specified by the “us” in v.18 and “them” and “theirs” in v.19—all of which clearly denote human beings. ↵
The word appears 16x in the Pauline corpus while only 3x (possibly 6x) outside it: Rom. 4:25; 5:15 (2x), 16, 17, 18, 20; 11:11, 12; Gal. 6:1; Eph. 1:7; 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13 (2x); Matt. 6:14, 15; 18:35 (v.l.); Mark 11:25, 26 (v.l.); Jam 5:16 (v.l.). Many scholars consider vv.18–21 in part or whole as a traditional statement, and this word is a support for this idea. See Thrall, Second Corinthians, 445–49, for a review and critique. Even if this is a traditional statement, there is no indication here that Paul objects to the tradition. In fact, the methodological starting point should be that Paul agrees with traditions he cites unless otherwise made clear. ↵
BDAG, s.v. παράπτωμα. ↵
Käsemann, “Saving Significance,” 40. Cilliers Breytenbach argues that Paul differs from other Jewish ideas of reconciliation because in the latter it is God who is reconciled to humanity by setting aside his wrath. In Paul, though, God is not angry with humanity and he reconciles humanity to himself (“Salvation of the Reconciled [with a Note on the Background of Paul’s Metaphor of Reconciliation],” in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology, ed. J. G. Van der Watt, NovTSup 121 [Leiden: Brill, 2005], 271–86, at 277–78). This interpretation misses on two accounts. First, it fails to realize that Paul and the tradition differ on who is the primary agent. In the Jewish sources, the initiative is taken by the human and God is the responding actor. Second, it does not take sufficient account of the human plight as disobedience. ↵
Käsemann, “Some Thoughts,” 52. Cf. de Boer, Galatians, 30n42. ↵
The best manner in which to describe the atonement theory of these verses is not obvious. The theory of “interchange” popularized by Morna Hooker has great explanatory power for vv.14–15 and 21 (see her essays collected in From Adam to Christ). However, this theory need not be opposed to forensic or substitutionary categories. See Blackwell, Christosis, 227, 231–32; and more broadly, Simon Gathercole, Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015). ↵
Martyn, “Epilogue,” 180 (emphasis original). ↵
Ernst Käsemann, “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul,” in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 168–82. ↵
Morna D. Hooker, “On Becoming the Righteousness of God: Another Look at 2 Cor. 5:21,” NovT 50, no. 4 (2008): 358–75; Campbell, The Deliverance of God, 912–13, and his fuller discussion of the phrase on pp. 677–704. ↵
N. T. Wright, Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978-2013 (London: SPCK, 2013), 68–76; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2:879–85. ↵
See Linebaugh’s essay in this volume. ↵
Cf. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 454–55. ↵
The strength of Wright’s interpretation lies in his claim that v.21 is the fourth in which Paul has adopted a dual pattern that speaks first of God’s salvific act and then of Paul’s ministry (see vv.15, 18, 19). He, though, has over-read verse 15. Moreover, the grammatical disconnection of v.21 suggests that it is intended not as a repeat but something new. ↵
Jeffrey W. Aernie, “Participation in Christ: An Analysis of Pauline Soteriology,” HBT 37 (2015): 50–68, at 61. ↵
Most scholars opt for a passive; see, e.g., Marshall, “The Meaning of ‘Reconciliation,’” 123–24; Porter, Katallassō in Ancient Greek Literature, 140–41, 143. For a middle, reflexive meaning, see Bieringer, “Reconcile Yourselves to God,” 33–35. ↵
Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Reconciliation in Pauline Theology,” in To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 162–85, at 168: “True, Paul invites human beings to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20), but that is an invitation to appropriate or apprehend the effect of the Christ-event for themselves (the aspect of subjective redemption).” ↵
Marshall (“The Meaning of ‘Reconciliation,’” 123) comments, “It is no doubt significant that the active sense of the verb is not used for this human action, because there is no need to reconcile a God who has reconciled the world to himself.” ↵
Cf. ibid., 128; Rudolf Bultmann, The Second Letter to the Corinthians, trans. Roy A. Harrisville (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985), 159, 164. ↵
The apocalyptic reading of Martyn was crucial to my interpretation of Romans 7 in Divine and Human Agency in Second Temple Judaism and Paul: A Comparative Study, WUNT 2.297 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 127–52. Nothing argued in this essay leads me to rethink the way I employed Martyn’s perspectives there. My contention is that this version of the apocalyptic Paul simply needs to be wider and not operate with such an either-or perspective. ↵
Campbell’s incarnational reading is a welcome expansion to the narrow focus on the death of Jesus. See also Susan Grove Eastman, “Apocalypse and Incarnation: The Participatory Logic of Paul’s Gospel,” in Apocalyptic and the Future of Theology: With and Beyond J. Louis Martyn, eds. Joshua B. Davis and Douglas Harink (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2012), 165–82. ↵
16
The Apocalyptic New Covenant and the Shape of Life in the Spirit according to Galatians
Michael J. Gorman
There is more than one sense to the term apocalyptic, and more than one way in which Paul was an apocalyptic figure. I have no doubt that he viewed the coming, death, and resurrection of Jesus as a disruptive, divine, liberating “invasion” or “incursion,” and that the term apocalyptic can be appropriately used to characterize that saving event. But Christopher Rowland has rightly drawn our attention to Paul’s apocalyptic autobiographical statements in Galatians 1:
. . . for I did not receive it [the gospel] from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ [ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] (Gal. 1:12).[1]
God . . . was pleased to reveal his Son to me [ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί; or “in me” (so NET, NIV, NJB)] so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles (Gal. 1:15–16a).
Rowland argues that Paul was an apocalyptic figure because he receive
d a revelation, an apokalypsis, and not because of a particular theological perspective or agenda that could be called “apocalyptic.”[2]
I want to develop, but also nuance, Rowland’s view, the nuance being the rejection of the possible implications in his statement that (1) experience and theology should be pitted against each other and (2) Paul is only, or at least primarily, apocalyptic experientially. We should resist this kind of unnecessary and ultimately unhelpful dichotomy.[3] Paul’s apocalyptic experience shaped his apocalyptic theology (including his “politics”), and his apocalyptic theology helped him to interpret, and likely also shaped, his apocalyptic experience.
Focusing on Galatians, I wish to make four main points about Paul as an apocalyptic figure under the general rubric of “the apocalyptic new covenant and the shape of life in the Spirit”—an attempt to hold together Paul’s apocalyptic experience and his apocalyptic theology as well as his apocalyptic and his new-covenant perspectives.
Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination Page 40
