Gager (1970) - Functional Diversity in Paul's Use of End-Time Language.pdf

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

Functional Diversity in Paul's Use of End-Time Language Author(s): John G. Gager, Jr. Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 89, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 325-337Published by: The Society of Biblical LiteratureStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3263503Accessed: 07-08-2015 07:20 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 147.142.196.103 on Fri, 07 Aug 2015 07:20:59 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sbl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3263503

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY IN PAUL'S USE OF END-TIME LANGUAGE

JOHN G. GAGER, JR. DEPARTMENT OF RELIGION, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY, 08540

INCE Albert Schweitzer's "rediscovery" of the eschatological framework of primitive Christianity, discussions have continued without

abatement on the extent of eschatological or apocalyptic influence at key points in the early churches - e.g., Jesus, the early Jerusalem community, Paul, and John.I In particular, the debate has focused on Paul.2 To what degree did he inherit and share the apocalyptic orientation of the earliest communities, or conversely, to what degree and on what basis did he modify their views?3 Is there a distinction to be made between apocalyptic and eschatological thought, as R. Bultmann and others have claimed, and if so, is Paul's thinking eschatological rather than apocalyptic?4 Or must we rather, with E. Kasemann, regard apocalyptic as the center of Pauline theology?s

Cf. R. H. Hiers, "Eschatology and Methodology," JBL, 85 (1966), pp. 170-84, where Hiers catalogues recent attempts to play down the importance of eschatology in the career of Jesus. As an underlying motive of such efforts, Hiers points to a confusion of historical and theological concerns. "The implicit end ... is to get rid of Jesus' strange, eschatological ideas, and with them the attendant theological difficulties that seem to stand between him and his relevance 'for us' today" (p. 175).

2Among recent monographs, cf. J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (1959), and H.-J. Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish

Religious History (1961), both of whom regard eschatology as the key to Paul's way of thinking. See also the recent article of H. Conzelmann, "Current Problems in Pauline Research," Interpretation, 22 (1968), pp. 171-86.

3 This problem lies at the heart of the recent debate involving Kisemann, Bult- mann, and others. The debate focuses on Kisemann's claim, against Bultmann, that

apocalyptic ideas underlie all of Pauline theology and that these ideas express the

cosmological and futuristic orientation of his thought. The major documents in the debate have been published in JThC, 6 (1969), Apocalypticism: esp. E. Kasemann, "The Beginnings of Christian Theology," pp. 17-46 (originally ZThK, 57 [1960]); G. Ebeling's reply to Kasemann, "The Ground of Christian Theology," pp. 47-68

(originally ZThK, 58 [1961]); Kasemann's rejoinder to Ebeling and others, "On the Topic of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic," pp. 99-133 (originally ZThK, 59 [1962]). Cf. also Bultmann's contribution, "Ist die Apokalyptik die Mutter der christlichen Theologie?" in Apophoreta: Festschrift fiir Ernst Haenchen (1964), pp. 64-69.

4 Bultmann, art. cit. (above, n. 3), p. 64; "Ich k6nnte zustimmen wenn es statt

'Apokalyptik' 'Eschatologie' hiesse." In the same vein, Ebeling, art. cit. (above, n. 3), pp. 51 ff., asserts that Kisemann's unreserved and provocative use of terms like "apocalyptic" and "enthusiasm" has impeded rather than furthered the discussion.

s Kisemann, "Primitive Apocalyptic," p. 133: "I hope I have made clear why I call apocalyptic the mother of Christian theology."

325



JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

By and large the discussion has made little progress toward consensus or clarification despite the volume of literature. There is still no agree- ment on basic matters relating to the definition and historical origins of

apocalyptic.6 Nor is the situation different on the matter of locating the focus or center of Paul's thought: mysticism, anthropology, cos- mology, and justification are still live candidates for this spot in various

quarters.7 One reason for the lack of progress may be the failure by some to distinguish between historical and theological categories and concerns, as when Kasemann asserts that "it is a question whether Christian theology can ever make do, or be legitimate, without this motif [apocalyptic]."8 But a second problem is surely that questions of a highly general order, like "Is apocalyptic the mother of Christian

theology?" or "Is Paul's overriding concern cosmological or anthro-

pological?", seem by their very nature to be unanswerable in any final sense. They demand simple answers to what are in fact highly com-

plicated questions. They attempt to reduce a complex set of data

(e.g., Paul's use of eschatological-apocalyptic material) to a single pattern (e.g., apocalyptic is the center of Pauline thought), without

considering at least the possibility that there may not be such a center for any thinker, let alone for one so unsystematic and problem-oriented as Paul.9 It is one thing to say that eschatology is an important, even

6 The comment of H. H. Rowley in The Relevance of Apocalyptic (1964), p. 25, that

"eschatology and apocalyptic are not coterminous," represents the only consensus at all. To cite but one example, F. M. Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran (1961),

p. 76, n. 35a, and Rowley, pp. 15 ff., stress the historical continuity between OT

prophecy and later apocalyptic, whereas G. von Rad, The Theology of the OT (1965), 2, pp. 301 ff., denies any connection between the two: "The decisive factor, as I see it, is the incompatibility between apocalyptic literature's view of history and that of the

prophets" (p. 303). 7 At the conclusion of his article on recent Pauline research (above, n. 2), Conzel-

mann remarks that "all these themes are held together and normalized by the one

central theme of justification" (p. 186). For Bultmann, says Kisemann, the dominating center of Paul's thought is "present eschatology," whereas for Kisemann himself this

center is his futuristic apocalyptic ("Primitive Apocalyptic," pp. 126 ff.). Three different

critics, three different centers! 8 "Primitive Apocalyptic," p. 46. 9 A good example of the same problem, though from a different field, are the re-

marks of H. D. Aiken in his essay, "Levels of Moral Discourse," in Reason and Conduct:

New Bearings in Moral Philosophy (1962). "As a matter of principle most contemporary moral philosophers pay lip service to the diversity and complexity of human problems.... Even when there is a passing acknowledgement of the 'ambiguities' of such terms as

'good' and 'ought,' there is usually an immediate narrowing of the subject for analysis to some 'essentially' or 'characteristically' ethical sense of these words. Essences,

however, always follow our interests, and where interests differ, what seems essential

to one will appear merely accidental to another" (p. 65). "The only way to resolve

such controversies ... is simply and resolutely to ignore all the essentialistic and re-

ductivistic questions upon which they depend and to proceed at once to a detailed and

unpolemical examination of the several levels upon which practical discourse pro- ceeds" (p. 66).

326



GAGER: PAUL'S END-TIME LANGUAGE

an essential, theme throughout his letters, but quite another thing to claim that it is the center of his thought. The first claim is obvious, but how would one verify, or falsify, the second?

What I propose instead is to focus on answerable, though perhaps less exhilarating, questions. Rather than insisting on definitions of apocalyptic and eschatology which must always remain to some degree arbitrary, would it not be wiser, at least provisionally, to speak of "end-time" language? Such a term will be especially appropriate if, as I suggest, we concentrate on the function rather than the content or meaning of what have traditionally been called eschatological or apocalyptic motifs. When and where does Paul use end-time language in his letters? To what specific or general purposes does he utilize it? Does it function differently in different situations? Of course, it would be impossible in a brief study to treat every occasion where Paul speaks of end-time. His references and allusions to the approaching end are manifold, and in them we see the continuity between Paul and his predecessors. From these many references I have chosen four- Rom 8 18-25; I Cor 7 25-35; I Cor 6 9-10; and Gal 5 21-where Paul uses end-time language in connection with problems of ethics or practical behavior. I do not claim, nor could I, that these passages are more significant or representative than others, merely that they illustrate the complexity with which Paul uses language of end-time.

I. Consolation and Justification: Romans 8 18-25

The discussion in Romans 8 picks up the central theme of 5 1-11, where Paul describes the present state of the believer as justification (5 1-5), a time of transition between the sinful aeon prior to the Christ (vss. 6-8) and the final reconciliation with God which is yet to come (vss. 9-11). In the present the believer has received the Spirit which marks him as an adopted son of God (8 23) with full rights of inheritance. But Paul also introduces two serious qualifications of this sonship: first, that the final inheritance and official proclamation have yet to take place, and second, that the manner of attaining sonship is deter- mined by the identification of the believer with the Christ. As he became the Son through suffering, so the believers become sons only through suffering. Thus vss. 18-25 are an excursus on the phrase in vs. 17, "provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him."

The view expressed in vs. 18, that suffering is an indispensable and necessary prelude to glorification, is a recurrent Pauline theme (cf. Phil 2 8 f.; II Cor 4 o1, 17; Rom 5 3-5, 6 5--11).10 Thus the present is a

-O The idea that the inheritors of the age to come must first experience tribulation is also common in Jewish literature; cf. II Esd 7 14, "Therefore unless the living pass through the difficult and vain experiences, they can never receive those things that have been reserved for them" (RSV).

327




time of suffering as well as hope. But he adds immediately, as he does elsewhere (Rom 5 9 f., 15 ff.; II Cor 4 17), that the glories of the coming age are incomparable to the suffering of the present.

Having thus established a basic tension between present suffering and future glory in terms of the believer, Paul universalizes this tension in vss. 19-23. Now it is no longer just the believer who looks toward the future, but "the creation itself, which is now groaning in travail, will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God" (vs. 21). The real problem of these verses is obviously the meaning of KrlatS. Whom does Paul have in mind when he says that "the creation" waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God (vs. 19)? Traditionally exegetes have chosen between the inanimate creation and the animate (including animals, angels, and men). As long as we judge by comparison with Jewish sources alone (e.g., II Esd 7 75; I Enoch 45 5 f., 51 4), the former view is certainly possible; one stream of Jewish apocalyptic expectation conceived of God's saving action as an all-encompassing cosmic event. But if we look more to Paul's use of this material, a considerably different picture emerges.

In an article entitled "Das Harren der Kreatur," H. Hommel has

suggested a new approach to our passage.I He points out similarities in terminology between Romans 1 and 8. In both, a subject is relegated to LuaaTaLO'rs. Whereas the uatraLovSOaaL of 1 21 is described as the

consequence of the Gentiles' refusal to honor God as God, 8 20 merely states the fact of subjection. In both passages there is a specific actor, God himself, who carries out the subjection. Thus the oVx EKOVaa of 8 20 is the counterstatement of Trape6C0Kev O e6s of 1 24, 26, 28. On

the basis of this parallel between Romans 1 and 8, it now becomes clear that the subject of bvroratas in 8 20 is God and that KTIaLS must at least include humanity. Beyond this, Hommel suggests that it is

possible to specify even more accurately the reference of KTrlos. He refers to Vergil, Eclogue 4 50 ff. where the entire created order is por- trayed as sharing in the joyous expectation of the new generation (nova progenies) which is about to descend from heaven.12 And yet it is clear that Vergil is referring primarily to the people of his own generation. So also in Rom 8 19 ff. This view is further confirmed by the parallelism of KTitLS and TeKvL OeoV in 8 21, and by the term KaLvf KTitLS in

II Cor 5 17 and Gal 6 15 where KTrlLS refers exclusively to the believer. It is probably not too much to say that the original context and

meaning of KTroLS in each of these passages is to be found in the tradi-

I" In Schopfer und Erhalter (1956), pp. 7-23. "2 Hommel, ibid., pp. 19 f., and others have suggested that Vergil knew the Jewish

Sibylline Oracles and that the language of Eclogue 4 reflects this knowledge. Hommel also regards it as probable that Paul himself knew Vergil's Eclogue.

328




tion which lies behind Rom 8 18 ff. The original reference of KTrllS was to the entire created order. In Paul, this cosmic dimension has been significantly limited to an anthropological category, and its primary reference has become the nonbelieving, human world.

With respect to the language of vss. 20 ff., Hommel indicates close parallels to Roman legal terminology. vTrorTa'r'tv, gLaraLtoTrs, \Xev- Oepova0aL, and bovXELa were common terms in Roman slave-laws.I3 The context, however, is still eschatological, and it seems likely that this legal terminology was already a part of the pre-Pauline tradition. But the phrases bta rov vTroraTavTa, l4' EXrL&8t, and perhaps ovx cKoOvUa, look very much like Pauline qualifications of this material. In other words, just as in Gal 3 22 and Rom 11 32, Paul has reinterpreted the punitive understanding of the fall and sin, and has transformed them into necessary, preparatory stages in God's economy of salvation. The present evil age has been ordained by God not as punishment but as the basis for hope (c' EXwr\L8t).

Vs. 23 adds a new dimension to the main argument of the passage. The emphasis of 8 14 ff. has been that the believer, by virtue of the aTrapXf7 rov trvevtuaros (vs. 23, down payment, first installment), has a definite advantage over the nonbeliever by virtue of his confident expectation of attaining sonship. And yet vs. 23 places the believer firmly within the context of the groaning of the entire creation. The ov ,ubvov 6c, aXX& Kai avroi ... /rets clearly identifies the believer with the longing for salvation which is primarily characteristic of the nonbelieving world. Here again we seem to be dealing with a Pauline modification of traditional material. The idea of binding the fate of the saved community to that of the nonbelieving world is probably Paul's and not that of the particular eschatological tradition.

With vs. 23 the block of eschatological material seems to have ended. The main thrust of 8 18 ff. has been that the present is a time of expectation and hope, not of fulfillment and consummation. On the other hand, much of Paul's earlier exposition has emphasized events which have already taken place (3 21; 5 1; 6 2; 8 15). r, 7y,p -XrwL8t c-qOrtiev in vs. 24 attempts to reconcile these two aspects, the "already" and the "not yet." Justification has come as the revelation of God's righteous- ness and the receipt of the Spirit. And yet final redemption is still incomplete; it is still a matter of hope.

Through his use of end-time language in Romans 8 Paul has made three basic claims: first, that the way to glory leads necessarily through suffering; second, that the present age is a time of hope for, not fulfill-

13 Hommel, ibid., pp. 13-17. He notes further that a7roXirpwcoas in vs. 23 reflects the practice of manumission. As for a&rapXO, also in vs. 23, it too appears in slave terminology; see Moulton-Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (1930), p. 54.

329




ment of, the final act of salvation; and third, that the believer is bound

up with the nonbelieving world in a common longing for redemption from suffering and slavery. At this point it becomes apparent how integral and indispensable the end-time perspective is to the inner logic of Paul's position (and coincidentally why he resists the Corinthian "enthusiasts" so vigorously).14 Without it, his emphasis on the necessity and provisional duration of suffering loses all meaning, and the believer is left without hope.15 Within it, Paul is able to offer both justification of, and consolation for, present suffering, and thus to render tolerable a situation which would otherwise have been intolerable. Vs. 18 clearly serves this function of justification and consolation. Finally, the uni- versalizing of the context in vss. 19-25 to include the entire creation serves the same purpose of consolation. The suffering of the believer now

appears not as an isolated instance, but as an integral and necessary stage in the cosmic birth process whose culmination will be the glorious liberty of the sons of God. As in other cultures, the end-time perspective provides "refuge and consolation as an unpractical solution to ever- increasing difficulties."I6

II. The Problem of Marriage: I Corinthians 7 25-35

In 7 ff. Paul takes up a series of questions (8 1; 12 i; 16 i) put to him in writing by the Corinthian community. The first questions deal with the problem of marriage, and in 7 25 he turns to the issue of the parthenoi.'7 Paul approaches this particular issue with greater caution than any other in the letter. In verses 6, 12, 25, and 40 he explicitly men-

tions that his words about marriage reflect his own opinion which, while not devoid of authority (vss. 25 and 40), is clearly less binding than a

I4 Kisemann, "Primitive Apocalyptic," p. 127, remarks that Paul's "anti-en- thusiastic battle... is in the last and deepest analysis fought out under the banner of

apocalyptic." Although an immediate polemical context is lacking in Romans 8, it is

probably not too much to say that Paul's entire perspective had been colored by his recent Corinthian experience and that this letter was written with the Corinthians still in mind.

Is In I Cor 15 13-19, 29-32, Paul spells out quite explicitly and in detail the disastrous

consequences of denying, as he understood the Corinthians to have done, the end-time

perspective. I6 C. H. Allan, "A Nativistic Cult in the British Solomon Islands," South Pacific, 5

(1951), p. 84. I7 It is not quite clear whether 7 25-28 refers simply to those who are unmarried for

whatever reason or to the "married virgins" of 7 36-38. The fact that Paul uses the term parthenoi in both places suggests that he has the "married virgins" in mind

throughout. For a review of literature on this special institution, the virgines subin-

troductae, see J. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (1965), pp. 169-82. It should be noted that Paul nowhere questions the institution as such, though he does not, unlike some of the Corinthians, regard it as a sin if the couple "marries," i.e., consummates the

relationship (7 28,36).

330




word of the Lord. In short, his view was not shared by the entire church, nor was it universally binding. Specifically, his position is that all should remain as they are (oivrws) because of what he calls the present difficulty (bLaT rj'v evevar Paav ava&yK7lv, vs. 26). It is often assumed that Paul justifies his appeal to the status quo by alluding to the common Jewish (II Bar 10 13; I Enoch 99 5) and Christian (Mark 13 17, 19; Luke 23 29) theme that the time prior to the judgmental coming of the messiah would produce great hardship and temptation for all, but especially for those already under some form of duress. In this case, the duress is marriage, which Paul clearly presents as a kind of 0X?iCis. If this in-

terpretation is correct, those who interpret evearcaa ava'yKr7 as a reference to the end must explain why Paul uses ava'yKr7 in connection with the end only in this text. In II Cor 6 4, 12 10, and I Thess 3 7,

ava&yK7 refers to persecutions and external difficulties. In I Cor 7 37;

II Cor 9 7; and Philemon 14, it refers to pressure or constraint in general. And in II Cor 6 4 and I Thess 3 7 av&T'Kr7 and 0Xilts occur together, as they do here in vss. 26 and 28, with no apparent end-time reference. In the light of this evidence, evwarwaa ava&yKr should be translated as "present difficulty."'8 Only if the broader context so demands can we read it as "impending disaster" (RSV).

In fact there does appear to be some indication that Paul uses the phrase in an ambiguous manner, at least in vs. 28b. His statement there presupposes for the Corinthians, as well as for himself, that the unmarried state is preferable on its own, quite apart from the imminent end. As it stands, Paul's coupling of marriage with tribulation sounds like a general statement of fact. Vss. 32-35 seem to confirm this view. OAXwo 6 begins a new thought pattern which is not related to the preceding verses where Paul has spoken of the end. The logic of the passage is clear. The believer should be free of anxiety (&auLptluvos) in order to focus his concern (/UepLtivav) entirely on the things of the Lord. The married person, in his attempt to please (apeaKEtv) his/her mate, is necessarily divided (ueLpLptLOat) in his loyalties. Therefore it is best for the believer to remain unmarried and wholly devoted to the Lord.

Two passages from Philo and Epictetus should be mentioned in this connection. In his Apologia pro Iudaeis 11 17 Philo summarizes and justifies the Essene view of celibacy: 6 y&p 7/ yvvatLKs q/lXrpots EVSEOEiS i TEKVYW avalyKrp fWVeWS 7TrpOK7r)o!EEVO ... eep. . po XXr60e

'yecyov&s, avTr' eXevOEpov JboXos. As in Paul, the married man or wo- man is lured away from his primary (religious) concern by the seduc- tive ploys of the mate. Both Philo and Paul use the term ava&yK7r to describe the marital situation, and both contrast the restrictions of the

i8 NEB: "in a time of stress like the present."

331




married state with the freedom of celibacy. Epictetus, in his discussions of the true Cynic (3 22.67 ff.), says that the Cynic would marry if he could live in a city of the wise. But, he continues: rotaCirs 5' oviils KararTaoecTs, o(ta vvv EffTLv, wS EV Trapar aEL, /ro TrOT a7repp7lora- arrov ELvcat 6ce rTv KvVLK6o, oXov rpos rT LtaKovL rov .eov.... Given the special circumstances of the present, says Epictetus, the Cynic has no choice but to avoid this distraction in order to devote himself entirely to his main task as herald of the gods. As with Paul, the motivation for celibacy is the desire to devote oneself without distraction to a religious obligation, and justification for this is rooted in unusual, external, and presumably not permanent circumstances.I9

The question now becomes how we are to understand the end-time

perspective which Paul introduces in vss. 29-31. How is it related to what we have already said about Paul's views on marriage? The immediate effect of 29a (6 Katpo's aVveaCraX/Jvos EOartv) and 31b (Trapap&yeL yap r

oaXjta Tro KObalov TO7rov) is to provide a justification for the s jA/ exhortations in 29b-31a. Because the end is so near, says Paul, and because the time has been foreshortened, the relation of the believer to the world must be tentative, impermanent, and provisional. He is to deal with the world as if he had no dealings with it at all. The imminence of the end determines the believer's stance in the world in every respect, although marriage is still Paul's central concern. In this sense, the end- time perspective provides not only the motivation for behavior, but the

justification for its content as well.20 From a statement of fact ("the end is near"), Paul is able to derive a statement of obligation ("therefore you ought to prepare yourself by refraining from unnecessary distractions, notably marriage").

But having said this, we should recall that vs. 28b, taken with vss. 1, 7, 32-34, and 38, has already provided some basis for assuming that on the question of marriage Paul's attitude was not entirely dependent on the end-time context of 29-31. A. Bonh6ffer speaks of a "gewisse Uberein- stimmung" between Paul and Epictetus.21 Perhaps this is saying too little rather than too much. The reflections of end-time language in 7 29-31 should not cause us to overlook a second language type, that of

19 On the general theme of withdrawal from the world and ascetic tendencies in the early Roman empire, see A.-J. Festugiere, Personal Religion among the Greeks (1960), pp. 53-67, and E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (1965), pp. 27-36.

20 So also W. Schrage, Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinschen Paranese (1961), pp. 22 f.

2I Epiktet und das Neue Testament (1911), p. 35. The similarities have also been noted by H. Chadwick, "All Things to All Men," NTS, 1 (1955), p. 267; E. Fuchs, "Jesus and Faith," in Studies of the Historical Jesus (1964), p. 52; and H. Braun, "Die Indifferenz gegeniiber der Welt bei Paulus und Epiktet," in Gesammelte Studien zum NT und seiner Umwelt (1967), pp. 159-67.

332




popular philosophy, in 7 25-35.22 In fact, our analysis has suggested that the popular philosophical (though not necessarily non-Jewish) language seems to predominate here, whereas the end-time language is introduced as an additional support by placing disengagement from marriage within the particular context of preparation for the imminent end.23

III. "Those Who Do Such Things Will Have No Share in the Kingdom of God": I Corinthians 6 9-o1 and

Galatians 5 zi

Paul's outburst in I Cor 15 50 to the effect that "flesh and blood cannot participate in the kingdom of God" points to yet another manner in which Paul uses end-time language. On three occasions, twice in I Corinthians 6 and once again in Gal 5 21, he uses the formula "such and such will have no share in the kingdom of God."24 And in each instance the formula is preceded by a list of evildoers who are denied a share in the kingdom. The origin of this formula is clear, though commentaries on these passages rarely take note of it.25 It is a common rabbinic topos which appears in discussions about heretics. M. Sanhedrin 10 1-4 re-

peats the phrase "such and such have no share in the world to come" no fewer than eight times,26 and the same words are attributed to R. Eleazer the Modiite (d. 135 C.E.) in Pirke Aboth 3 i1: "He who

profanes things and despises festivals and shames his associates in

public, and makes void the covenant of Abraham our father and gives interpretations of torah which are not according to halakah, even though

22 Schrage, in his article "Die Stellung zur Welt bei Paulus, Epiktet und in der Apokalyptik," ZThK, 61 (1964), pp. 138 ff., denies any connection between Paul's view of marriage and that of Epictetus. He argues instead that the material of 7 29-31

(ein apokalyptisches Traditionsstiick) derives from II Esd 16 40 ff. At the same time, he also notes that the apocalyptic elements have been drastically reduced by Paul. Against Schrage's view it must be said that II Esd 15-16 are generally regarded as dating from the second or third century A.D.; see the discussion in V. P. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (1968), p. 37.

23 In this respect I would agree with the remark of J. Hering, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (1962), that "the recommendations of 7 30 and 7 31 have a much wider bearing and are independent of the date of the Parousia" (p. 59).

24 I Cor 6 9: 0eov- faaXeiLav ov KXrlpovotflaovatv. I Cor 6 10: ... oi &ptra'yes 3aatXelav Oeov KXlpovoJ'la?ovatV. A variant of the formula also appears in Eph 5 5: . 0. OVK XEL KX7popvoIlaPv v r- jpaatlXEL roV Xptaro- Kal 0coD.

25 A brief survey of commentaries on I Corinthians and Galatians showed that none took note of the similarity between Paul's formula and its rabbinic parallels. The likeness is noted, however, by W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1958), p. 118, n. 1; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch, Vol. IV, part 2 (1928), pp. 1183-92, list numerous occurrences of the formula in rabbinic literature.

26 .b.n D1Yiy pin Dn. 1 ...

333




he possesses torah and good deeds, has no portion in the world to come."27 What interests us at present, however, is not the rabbinic character of the formula, but the manner in which Paul has appropriated it for his own use.

In I Corinthians 6 Paul shows his anger and amazement that a dispute between two members of the community in Corinth had been referred outside the community for adjudication: anger, because the dispute had arisen at all, and amazement that it had been referred to outsiders, whom he calls aiLcKO. Since he obviously regarded the incident as a serious threat to the community as a whole (and probably also to his own apostolic status- see I Thess 2 19 f.: "What is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus...? Is it not you?"; cf. also Phil 2 16; II Cor 1 14), he appeals to the community to undo the present harm and to avoid similar incidents in the future. His exhortation un- folds in three stages. (1) 6 2-6, introduced by the phrase q} OVK o't'arE,

argues that the disputants should not appeal to non-Christian judges (adikoi). The point here is that the believers, by virtue of their own future role as judges of the cosmos and the angels, are not only more than competent to judge worldly matters, but are humiliating themselves

by submitting to the authority of those who are despised by the com-

munity. (2) Vss. 7-8 argue that the dispute should never have arisen in the first place, because such disagreements are contrary to the very basis of their faith. Far better, says Paul, probably referring to a familiar maxim about not returning evil for evil (cf. Matt 5 39 f.; I Thess 5 15) to suffer an injustice than to cause one. (3) Finally, vss. 9-11, again introduced by qi OVK o'k are, conclude the appeal with a threat: adikoi, says Paul - now meaning the believers themselves and not the outsiders - will not share in the kingdom. Then, after listing various kinds of evildoers and repeating the formula, he spells out the obvious con-

sequences for the Corinthians: "You have been such as these!" (vs. lla), with the clear implication that unless they change their ways, they, too, will be numbered among the adikoi at the coming of the kingdom. In

short, Paul uses the threat of future judgment as a sanction and motivation for ethical exhortation. Unlike I Corinthians 7, however, where there is a degree of correlation between the end-time perspective and the content of the exhortation, such is not the case here.

The situation is not substantially different in Gal 5 21. As is clear from 5 13-15, Paul is severely distressed by divisions and enmity within the community. This time, however, his response is couched in terms of the traditional two-ways ethic. There is, he says, a way of the flesh, whose

27.Nn Dlylw pin 1~ 1 ... (3 16 in R. H. Charles ed., Apocrypha and Pseude-

pigrapha of the OT; 3 15 in some editions.)

334




works he enumerates in vss. 19-21a, and a way of the Spirit, the fruits of which he lists in vss. 22-23. But what interests us is his vigorous effort to demonstrate that in terms of their present characteristics (vss. 17 f.)

and their future consequences (vs. 21), the two ways are mutually ex- clusive.28 "They are set against each other in order to prevent you from doing what you would" (vs. 17). In other words, the way or path of any particular person is made manifest in his works, and the clear implication, already visible in vs. 15, is that Paul saw the works of his readers as actually or at least potentially works of the flesh. Thus in vs. 21, as if to clarify the obvious, he reintroduces an idea which he had already used in earlier contacts with the community: "I warn you now, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not share in the kingdom of God." Just as in I Cor 6 9 f., Paul uses the prospect of the future kingdom to reinforce his general moral exhortation.

For Paul the connection between such "is" statements ("since we live by the Spirit," Gal 5 25a) and "ought" statements ("let us walk by the Spirit," Gal 5 25b) was obvious. No doubt the Galatians and the Corinthians agreed with Paul on the general principle that the believer ought to live in a manner consistent with the fact of being in the Spirit. But they differed at the level of determining which moral rules or specific types of behavior were in fact consistent with this principle. For Paul the connection was obvious (e.g., the love commandment in Gal 5 14, the fruits of the Spirit in 5 22 f., and the specific exhortations in 5 26),

but the connection seems not to have been apparent to others. Paul's own experience reveals that a significant range of moral rules, including some which were totally unacceptable to him, appeared to be consistent with general principles such as being in the Spirit (I Cor 6 19; Gal 5 25)

or being called to freedom (I Cor 6 12; Gal 5 13).29 Indeed, there is no

necessary correlation between principles and specific moral rules, apart from generally accepted conventions.30 On several occasions Paul en- countered this problem and was forced to turn elsewhere to defend his

28 Paul uses the two-ways ethic in the same hortatory manner in Rom 8 12 ff. 29 In fact, Paul seems to have spent considerable time correcting what he regarded

as misunderstanding of his principles - e.g., "all things are legal for me, but not all things are beneficial" (I Cor 6 12); "you were called to freedom, brothers, but not freedom as an opportunity for the flesh" (Gal 5 13); "Should we continue in our sinning so that grace may increase? By no meansl" (Rom 6 1).

30 Aiken, "Levels of Moral Discourse" (cited above, n. 9), p. 74, summarizes the problem as follows: "What I here call 'moral rules' at once specify certain types of behavior which ordinary non-deviant person within a given community [emphasis mine] would approve...." What was lacking between Paul and the Corinthians was precisely this community of understanding. His letter can perhaps best be understood as an attempt, using various means, to create such a community. At the time of its writing, however, Paul still regarded the Corinthians as deviants.

335



336 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE

particular view of consistency.31 In I Cor 6 9 f. and Gal 5 21, he uses the language of end-time. In discussing various reasons for the eventual success of Christianity in the Roman empire, E. R. Dodds points out

that, while many cults held out to their initiates the promise of a better inheritance in another world, Christianity by comparison wielded both a bigger stick and a juicier carrot.32 Paul's hortatory use of the rabbinic anti-heretical formula in these two instances is a particularly clear case of how end-time language could be used in Dodds' sense as a big stick.33

IV. Conclusions

We have seen three different uses of end-time language in three

separate instances. In I Cor 6 9 f. and Gal 5 21, reference to the end is used as a big stick to support Paul's view of what specific moral rules or virtues are consistent with living in the Spirit. In these passages there is no internal connection between the rules and the content of the end- time language. In Rom 8 18 ff., the opposite is true. Here the end-time

language predominates. Even though there have been significant modi- fications of traditional material, the final event of end-time is the in-

dispensable key to Paul's view of the present as a time of hope and

suffering.34 In I Cor 7 25 ff., Paul again uses traditional "apocalyptic"

31 Paul uses various methods of justifying his position on practical matters. In I Cor 11 14 he appeals to nature to support his view that men ought not to wear long hair; in I Cor 11 16 he appeals to the common practice of the churches as a justification for his view that women ought to cover their heads during worship; and in I Cor 7 io he cites a word of the Lord to settle the issue of divorce.

32 Pagan and Christian, p. 135. 33 The above observations raise serious questions about the view taken by G.

Bornkamm in his article, "Der Lohngedanke im NT," Studien zu Antike und Ur- christentum (Ges. Aufs. II, 1963). "Der Lohngedanke kann darum niemals Motiv eines echten Gehorsams sein" (p. 80). His use of the term "echt" reveals the statement to be normative rather than descriptive and also explains his attempt to play down the idea of reward and punishment in Paul (p. 90). In his recent book, Theology and Ethics in Paul, V. Furnish likewise deemphasizes the use of end-time language in connection with morality. "Its survival [eschatological recompense] in Paul... is, in turn, some- times ascribed to its utilitarian value as a prod to morality" (p. 119). "It is also important to observe that Paul does not speak of specific, material rewards..." (p. 120). "The Pauline eschatology is not just one motif among others, but helps to provide the fundamental perspective within which everything else is viewed" (p. 214). While the last two observations are correct as far as they go, they also indicate the same tendency toward oversimplification and reductionistic solutions which we have discussed above (see n. 9).

34 E. Kasemann, "Primitive Apocalyptic," pp. 132 f., has attributed an even broader significance to the r61e of apocalyptic in Paul. For him it expresses "die Ange- fochtenheit des Glaubenden," "der angefochtene Glaube" ("the trials of the believer," "faith under trial"). Paul's understanding of the incompleteness (in a temporal sense) of faith was undoubtedly related to his expectation of the end (cf. Rom 8 18-25). The




elements but reduces them considerably. Moreover, these elements apply only to the exhortations of 7 29b-31a. For the rest, the discussion of marital issues in ch. 7 is independent of all reference to end-time. Unlike I Cor 6 9 f. and Gal 5, however, there is an internal connection between the ideal of celibacy and the content of the end-time framework. The believer who must prepare himself for the imminent end is well advised to avoid all distractions, and for Paul marriage was a distraction.

If our analysis thus far has been on the mark, we can no longer assume that the "apocalyptic" or end-time perspective provides the sole point of departure for interpreting Paul's letters. Instead we have seen that he argues differently in different situations, adapting his language to meet specific occasions. This should not be surprising in light of his declared modus operandi: "To those under the law I became as one under the law.... To those outside the law I became as one outside the law" (I Cor 9 20 f.).

hermeneutical question remains whether the primary emphasis is given to his understanding of the incompleteness of faith or to his belief in the imminent end. In either case, his belief in the imminent end was unsubstantiated. Thus if Paul's use of apocalyptic material is an essential expression of the incompleteness of faith, as Kase- mann suggests, Kasemann must either reject Paul's understanding of faith or find some other means of expressing "die Angefochtenheit des Glaubenden." He is clearly not satisfied with the theological solutions of Bultmann and Ebeling, and from my experience with Kasemann I know that this theological concern underlies much of his preoccupation with Paul's use of end-time language.

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING OF JBL

Limitations of space have made it impossible in recent issues of JBL to include reference to those publications which regularly list or summarize articles and critical notes from JBL. In addition to standard items carrying such listings as the Social Sciences and Humanities Index, Internationale Zeitschriftenschau fur Bibelwissenschaft und Grenzgebiete, New Testament Abstracts, etc., we note also these from our exchange publications:

Biblia Revuo (Piazza Duomo 4, 48100, Ravenna, Italy) published in Esperanto.

Index to Jewish Publications (2030 S. Taylor Road, Cleveland, Ohio, 44118), a guide to current writing and thinking on Jewish subjects, arranged by author and subject.

337



Documents

Gager (1970) - Functional Diversity in Paul's Use of End-Time Language.pdf