I have deliberately used an uppercase initial letter for most occurrences of the words “Law” and “Spirit” (altering English translations where necessary) throughout this essay in order to indicate that they are proper nouns, having specific referents and functioning essentially as technical terms. This is true even for translations of νόμος in Paul, even if there is debate about whether a specific occurrence should be rendered “Torah,” “Jewish Law,” or something else. ↵
See also my The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant: A (Not So) New Model of the Atonement (Eugene: Cascade, 2014), esp. (for Paul) 51–68, 89–94, 109–11, 118–27, 135–36, 141–61, 186–95. ↵
E.g. Ezek. 16:60; 34:25; 37:26. ↵
See Ezek. 36:26–27: “A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you (LXX ἐν ὑμῖν); and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you (LXX ἐν ὑμῖν), and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.” Cf. Ezek. 11:19, “I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them (LXX ἐν αὐτοῖς).” ↵
“I will put my Law within them (LXX 38:33 εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν), and I will write it on their hearts.” ↵
Ezekiel describes the foreigner as “uncircumcised in heart and flesh” (Ezek. 44:7, 9), implying the need for circumcision of the heart to be part of the covenant people. Thus, as we will see below, internalization and obedience to the Law are not antithetical; the latter results from the former, as Paul also says in, e.g., Rom. 8:3–4. ↵
E.g. Ezek. 3:7; 14:3–7; 16:30; 28:5, 17; Jer. 5:23; 9:14; 12:2; 17:1; 32:40. ↵
The prophetic promises of land restoration (e.g., Ezek. 36:24, 28) also stress the re-creation of such a covenant community and carry through into Paul in terms of community, if not in terms of land itself. ↵
See Kyle B. Wells, Grace and Agency in Paul and Second Temple Judaism: Interpreting the Transformation of the Heart, NovTSup 157 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), esp. the summaries on 221 (including n. 52) and 275. Cf. also, e.g., 12–13, 24, 134–39, 255–69. ↵
On eschatological restoration (including new exodus), see Wells, Grace and Agency; Rodrigo J. Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel, WUNT 2/282 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010). On new creation specifically, see John W. Yates, The Spirit and Creation in Paul, WUNT 2/251 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), with special attention to Ezekiel 36–37 in Paul’s theology. ↵
Martyn, “Afterword,” 164n13, in a discussion of agency in Paul (emphasis his). ↵
Though not all: “to” is found in, e.g., CEB, NAB, NRSV, RSV; “in” is used in, e.g., NASB, NET, NIV, NJB. ↵
Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 93. ↵
Ibid. ↵
Ibid. ↵
Ibid., 89. By “conversion” de Boer means God’s conversion of Paul “from his manner of life in Judaism to Christ” (89n143; cf. 77n120). ↵
Ibid., 159–63. “Damascus road” is again his term (160). ↵
Ibid., 161. ↵
Ibid., 161–62. We will offer a different interpretation below. ↵
Ibid., 162n242. ↵
Even Richard Hays, in arguing for a similar understanding of “the law of Christ,” does not mention the phrase “new covenant.” See Richard B. Hays, “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ,” CBQ 49, no. 2 (1987): 268–90. His thesis is that a “careful reading of the evidence will suggest that ‘the law of Christ’ is a formulation coined (or employed) by Paul” as a reference to “the paradigmatic self-giving of Jesus Christ” as the “definitive expression” of ἀγάπη (274–75). ↵
de Boer, Galatians, 262. ↵
“In” the Spirit is to be preferred for πνεύματι in 5:16 because it indicates the sphere in which the community of believers exists and moves forward. The location of the Spirit in believers, and vice versa, may be called mutual indwelling or reciprocal residence; it is discussed below. ↵
de Boer, Galatians, 265. ↵
J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33A (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 391–92. In fairness to de Boer and Martyn, I note that most commentators do not mention the new covenant. ↵
Cf. Rom. 8:9; Phil. 1:19. ↵
Cf. Jer. 24:7; 30:22; 32:38; Ezek. 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23, 27. ↵
Cf. Rev. 21:7. ↵
Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 63–72. ↵
It is beyond the scope of this chapter to defend in any detail the translation and interpretation offered of the critical texts in this passage. See Inhabiting, 63–72, 76–85. ↵
Richard Longenecker calls the phrase “into our hearts” from 4:6 a “collective synonym” for the phrase “in me” in 2:20 (Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC 41 [Waco: Word, 1990], 174). It may be better to say that 2:20 individualizes the more corporate, prophetic perspective of 4:6. ↵
Cf. Rom. 8:3–4. ↵
Hays, “Christology and Ethics,” esp. 273, 278, 280–83, 286–90. ↵
The Spirit is mentioned ten times in these verses. ↵
Wells, Grace and Agency, 269–75, esp. 273–74. Wells (255–69) also finds connections between the promised Law-inscription in the heart, love, and moral transformation in Romans 6; Rom. 8:3ff; and 1 Thess. 4:8–9. ↵
de Boer, Galatians, 161–62. ↵
As de Boer himself implies (Galatians, 161). ↵
At the same time, because the Messiah’s death is for “our” sins (1:4), in 2:20 Paul is implicitly speaking not just about himself or about individuals, but also about communities, in whom the Messiah corporately dwells and who corporately live in the Messiah (cf. the more explicit formulation of this claim in Rom. 8:3–4). See the comment in n. 27 above about the close connection between the Spirit and community in Galatians 5 and 6. ↵
See John Anthony Dunne, “Suffering and Covenantal Hope in Galatians: A Critique of the ‘Apocalyptic Reading’ and its Proponents,” SJT 68, no. 1 (2015): 1–15; idem, “Suffering in Vain: A Study of the Interpretation of ΠΑΣΧΩ in Galatians 3.4,” JSNT 36, no. 1 (2013): 3–16. ↵
Dominika A. Kurek-Chomycz, “The Scent of (Mediated) Revelation? Some Remarks on φανερόω with a Particular Focus on 2 Corinthians,” in Theologizing in the Corinthian Conflict: Studies in the Theology and Exegesis of 2 Corinthians, eds. Reimund Bieringer et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 69–108. ↵
Ibid., 70. ↵
Ibid. ↵
See the word ἀποκάλυψις, in the plural, in 2 Cor. 12:1, 7. ↵
Kurek-Chomycz suggests that “reveal” and “manifest” may sometimes best capture the distinction in the two semantic domains (“The Scent,” 106). She argues persuasively (90–100) that in 2 Corinthians, Paul maintains a clear distinction between the two-word families (ἀποκαλύπτω/ἀποκάλυψις and φανερόω/φανέρωσις). ↵
Ben Witherington similarly interprets 1:16 in connection with 2:20 (Grace in Galatia [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 106). ↵
Rowland, “Paul and the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ,” 145. ↵
Even Rowland (ibid.) notes that the medium is not limited to apostles. See, e.g., 2 Cor. 3:3, 18. ↵
In the undisputed letters, there are more than twenty occurrences of the phrase ἐν πνεύματι (or a similar phrase, including πνεύματι alone) in which location “in” the Spirit is at least a plausible interpretation. For the apocalyptic/revelatory significance of the phrase ἐν πνεύματι, see also Rev. 1:10. ↵
E.g. Ezek. 11:9; 36:26–27; 37:14 (put within); Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 39:29; Joel 2:28–29 (poured out on). ↵
I am not claiming that Paul invented the language of being in the Spirit but suggesting (part of) the reason for his attraction to it. The Spirit is of course “upon
” the figure(s) in Isaiah (Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1). ↵
ὁ δὲ . . . χρίσας ἡμᾶς θεός. It is also likely that the gospel tradition about Jesus’ mission of baptizing in/with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8 par; cf. 1 Cor. 12:13) is known to Paul. ↵
Martyn, “Afterword,” 164n13. ↵
See further my Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). ↵
I am grateful to my research assistant, Gary Staszak, and to the editors for their feedback on versions of this chapter. ↵
17
The Two Ages and Salvation History in Paul’s Apocalyptic Imagination
A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Galatians
J. P. Davies
Introduction
In 1970, Klaus Koch published a short but polemical book on what he saw as a neglected area in biblical studies, entitled Ratlos vor der Apokalyptik.[1] A generation later, this area is far from neglected, as the present volume demonstrates. But the question remains: are we still “clueless about apocalyptic”?
Faced with the cloud of methodological confusion that surrounds it, some have considered abandoning the term “apocalyptic” altogether.[2] As tempting as this may seem, such drastic measures are unnecessary, especially as the current state of apocalyptic study is promising. While the seminal work of John Collins and Christopher Rowland continues to be the basis of discussion for many, recent work by the members of the Enoch Seminar has also taken us further in our understanding of the texts, and in particular Loren Stuckenbruck’s recent work has connected this study of the apocalypses to the question of Pauline apocalyptic.[3]
When it comes to the “apocalyptic Paul,” however, some have expressed concern that this connection has been severed, as in this recent discussion by N. T. Wright:
Whatever else the word “apocalyptic” does in western scholarship, it always appeals implicitly to a historical context within the so-called ‘history of religions’ of the time. . . . If the word “apocalyptic,” as a label for a mode or type of thought, is intended to carry any implication in terms of the religio-historical context to which appeal is being made, it must be to these books [i.e., Daniel, Ezekiel, 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, Revelation], and the many others like them, that the writer is appealing. Otherwise the word has been cut loose from any recognisable historical moorings. . . . That, I think, has happened on a massive scale in recent discussions.[4]
Is Wright’s bleak assessment on target? It may well be the case that some recent discussions of apocalyptic in Paul have floated free from the apocalypses, at least functionally. But, in principle at least, most scholars agree that to use the word “apocalyptic” in reference to Paul is to make an historical and literary connection between his epistles and a body of second Temple Jewish and Christian literature, and the worldview that literature expresses. J. Louis Martyn’s approach to apocalyptic in Paul, which is enormously influential in the contemporary debate, appeals to exegesis of the apocalyptic literature. For example, his emphasis on the doctrine of the two ages in Galatians as a “scheme fundamental to apocalyptic thought” was argued on the basis that such a frame of reference can be discerned “from writings and traditions of Paul’s time.”[5] Martyn does not say here which writings and traditions he has in mind, but it seems safe to assume that they include the Second Temple Jewish apocalypses. Martinus de Boer is more explicit when he insists that defining apocalyptic is “partly a matter of defining what apocalyptic eschatology is apart from Paul,”[6] and that his definition “is based, as it ought to be, upon the data of the available sources, namely, such books as Revelation, Daniel, 1 Enoch, 2 Baruch, and 4 Ezra.”[7] On this matter at least, de Boer is in broad agreement with another vocal critic, Barry Matlock, who insists that “[t]he abstraction ‘apocalyptic’ (or whatever else it may fittingly be called) must, if terminology is to signify anything other than confusion, be made on the basis of the apocalypses.”[8] Matlock subsequently complains that “recent discussion has fluctuated oddly between being claimed to be free of the apocalyptic literature and yet still being claimed to be tied to the literature somehow,” something which he attributes to a desire “to preserve the concept from attempts to make it accountable to the literature.”[9] Responding to these criticisms, Beverly Gaventa has pointed to the exegesis done on the apocalypses in de Boer’s early work,[10] and in so doing, she implies agreement on at least the basic methodological point being made, that “when ‘apocalyptic Paul’ is being discussed, it should sound as if something historical is being discussed.”[11] There does, therefore, seem to be sufficient methodological agreement to provide cause for optimism.[12] We may disagree about the exegesis of the apocalypses, but it is about these texts and the worldview they express that we are disagreeing—or at least it should be.
The more difficult methodological question is how we are to move from the historical and literary phenomenon of the apocalypses to the examination of apocalyptic thought in texts that do not belong to that genre. How do we talk about “apocalyptic” beyond the apocalypses, about, for example, Paul’s “apocalyptic imagination”?
The Genre Apocalypse and the Apocalyptic Mode
To this end, a useful framework is available in contemporary literary criticism—specifically, the notion of “modes” of thinking and writing, described in detail by Alasdair Fowler.[13] To illustrate the concept of “mode,” Fowler uses the example of the noun “comedy” and the related adjective “comic.” In literary criticism at least, “comedy” is a specific generic label designating a kind of literature—namely, a play with certain distinguishing features. But the related adjective “comic” can also be applied to other forms of writing, such as the description of Jane Austen’s Emma as a “comic novel.” “Then,” Fowler says, “we mean that Emma is by kind a novel, by mode comic.”[14] This all seems quite straightforward, but the extrapolation from the concrete and contingent embodiment of the comedies to the more broad modal application “comic” is by no means a simple process, as many have found in the case of the kind “apocalypse” and the mode “apocalyptic.” Fowler thus concedes, with perhaps a touch of understatement, that “the adjectival use of generic terms is a little complicated.”[15] He rejects the conclusion, however, that this means that such usage is inherently vague—limits can and must be applied to the modal adjectives on the basis of an examination of the nonstructural features of that mode’s repertoire and the application of those features to another kind of literature. Fowler speaks of modes as “distillations” of the most valuable features from its embodiment in the contingent texts of any given genre. It is only by keeping the implied connection with this textual repertoire in mind that modal usage can avoid vagueness.[16]
This literary-critical tool may be useful in providing methodological clarity in the discussion of Paul and apocalyptic. For an evaluation of the hypothesis that Paul was a theologian in the “apocalyptic mode,” it is vital that we examine the apocalypses, discerning and distilling important non-structural features, and then discuss the presence of such features (including their Christological adaptation) in Paul.
The Doctrine of the Two Ages: A Litmus Test for Apocalyptic?
Such modal distillations involve making judgments as to which “nonstructural features” of the texts are most important, mapping what Richard Hays has recently called Paul’s “apocalyptic DNA.”[17] One frequently invoked contender for the genetic essence of apocalyptic is the dualistic eschatological doctrine of the two ages. In this connection, some scholars examining Paul’s apocalyptic thought have cited the following programmatic statement of Philipp Vielhauer:
The essential feature of Apocalyptic is its dualism which, in various expressions, dominates its thought-world. Above all, in the doctrine of the Two Ages, in the dualistic time-scheme of world eras (ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος and ὁ αἰὼν μέλλων), the entire course of the world is comprehended. . . . The dualism of the Two-Ages doctrine recognizes no continuity between the time of this world and th
at which is to come. . . . This eschatological dualism is the essential characteristic of Apocalyptic so far as its contents are concerned.[18]
In support of this basic definition are the contentions of Paul Hanson and D. S. Russell that this kind of dualistic eschatology is the “basic perspective” of the apocalyptic “symbolic universe”[19] and that its expression in the doctrine of the two ages is “characteristic of apocalyptic eschatology.”[20]
When it comes to examining apocalyptic thought outside the apocalypses, it is asserted that the doctrine of the two ages is the sine qua non. Indications of this eschatological framework in Paul are thus interpreted as the sign that the apostle is thinking in the apocalyptic mode. The most influential proponent of this approach is Martyn, who cites Paul’s use of the “distinctly apocalyptic expression ‘the present evil age,’” as decisive evidence of the two-ages framework, “a scheme fundamental to apocalyptic thought.”[21] Likewise, de Boer is clear that, for him, the two ages motif is “the fundamental characteristic of all apocalyptic eschatology,” including that of Paul.[22]
Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination Page 43
