<?page no="0"?> ISBN 978-3-381-14541-6 www.narr.de T A N Z T A N Z T A N Z TEXTE UND ARBEITEN ZUM NEUTESTAMENTLICHEN ZEITALTER At the heart of this volume is a new study on the question of how Paul understands and applies the Torah in the le er to the Romans a er his calling to Christ. While exegetical research has o en postulated an abolition of the Torah in Paul, freedom from the law, or fulfillment through Christ, Schreiber interprets the statements in Romans as an application of the Torah, which remains, to be sure, valid for Paul as a Jew, but is understood through a new hermeneutical lens. The study is complemented by contributions from the author, published here for the first time in English. These essays address the understanding of the Torah in Galatians, the interpretation of the death of Jesus as a “gi of reconciliation” in Romans 3: 25, and a political reading of Romans 13: 1-7 (which has gained new relevance today). The volume concludes with a study on the reception history of Paul: his appearance before the Roman Jews in Acts 28: 16-31. Stefan Schreiber Paul’s Messiah and God’s Torah 73 Stefan Schreiber Paul’s Messiah and God’s Torah Reconciliation, Interpretation, and Politics 73 <?page no="1"?> Paul’s Messiah and God’s Torah <?page no="2"?> T A N Z TEXTE UND ARBEITEN ZUM NEUTESTAMENTLICHEN ZEITALTER 73 herausgegeben von Wolfgang Grünstäudl, Jan Heilmann, Esther Kobel und Stefan Krauter <?page no="3"?> Stefan Schreiber Paul’s Messiah and God’s Torah Reconciliation, Interpretation, and Politics <?page no="4"?> DOI: https: / / doi.org/ 10.24053/ 9783381145423 © 2026 · Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG Dischingerweg 5 · D-72070 Tübingen Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Alle Informationen in diesem Buch wurden mit großer Sorgfalt erstellt. Fehler können dennoch nicht völlig ausgeschlossen werden. Weder Verlag noch Autor: innen oder Herausgeber: innen übernehmen deshalb eine Gewährleistung für die Korrektheit des Inhaltes und haften nicht für fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen. Diese Publikation enthält gegebenenfalls Links zu externen Inhalten Dritter, auf die weder Verlag noch Autor: innen oder Herausgeber: innen Einfluss haben. Für die Inhalte der verlinkten Seiten sind stets die jeweiligen Anbieter oder Betreibenden der Seiten verantwortlich. Internet: www.narr.de eMail: info@narr.de Druck: Elanders Waiblingen GmbH ISSN 0939-5199 ISBN 978-3-381-14541-6 (Print) ISBN 978-3-381-14542-3 (ePDF) ISBN 978-3-381-14543-0 (ePub) Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http: / / dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. <?page no="5"?> For Eva <?page no="7"?> 11 13 19 21 1. 21 2. 22 3. 24 3.1 24 3.2 30 3.3 32 4. 33 5. 36 6. 39 7. 42 44 51 53 1. 55 2. 57 2.1 58 2.2 60 2.3 60 Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 . . . The Atoning Death of Jesus According to Paul: A Critical Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Text: Romans 3: 21-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two Common Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The “Place of Atonement” According to Leviticus 16 . . “Expiatory Sacrifice” in the Context of the Martyr Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodological Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Alternative: the Votive Offering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . But What is a Votive Offering? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Metaphor of the Votive Offering in Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thinking Further: God’s Reconciling Votive Offering in Romans 3: 25 . . . . . The Starting Point: Challenges in Deriving ἱλαστήριον from Leviticus 16 LXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Semantic Alternative: ἱλαστήριον as Votive Offering . . . . . The Temple Chronicle from Lindos (99 BCE) . . . . . . . . Dio Chrysostom, Oration 11.121 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Atoning Memorial” or “Reconciling Votive Offering”? <?page no="8"?> 3. 62 3.1 63 3.2 64 4. 66 67 69 71 1. 71 2. 73 3. 74 4. 76 5. 77 6. 78 79 81 83 1. 83 1.1 84 1.2 86 1.3 88 1.4 90 1.5 92 2. 94 2.1 94 2.2 96 2.3 97 2.4 99 3. 103 104 The Application in Romans 3: 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural and Linguistic Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theological Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christ as hilastērion in Romans 3: 25: God’s Gift of Reconciliation . . . . . . . . Interpretation in Light of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 The Horizon of Reception of the Addressees in Rome . . . . . . . The Alternative: A Reconciliatory Votive Offering . . . . . . . . . Application: Christ as the “Gift of Reconciliation” in Romans 3: 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Gift of Reconciliation in the Context of Romans 3: 23-26 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law: The Perception of the Torah in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians . . . . . . . . . . The Psalms of Solomon and the Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Wrong Understanding of the Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . The Permanent Election of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Torah as Testimony to God’s Mercy . . . . . . . . . . . . The Torah as Guideline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delimitation vis-à-vis the Gentiles as the Principle of Exposition of the Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and the Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Demarcation Is Abolished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Structure in Paul’s Thinking: The Relationship to the God of Israel in Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Works of the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Interpretation of the Torah in Christ . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Contents <?page no="9"?> 109 111 1. 112 1.1 112 1.2 113 1.3 115 1.4 118 2. 122 2.1 122 2.2 126 3. 130 4. 137 5. 141 5.1 144 5.2 149 5.3 161 5.4 169 6. 176 7. 181 8. 189 193 205 207 1. 207 2. 209 3. 213 4. 215 Chapter 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul, his Jewish Identity, and the Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Torah at the Heart of Jewish Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul and the Torah in Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul, the Pharisee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Νόμος and Torah Interpretation in Second Temple Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qualifications of the Torah in Romans 2: 12-3: 20 . . . . . . . . . . . The Torah’s Inability to Distinguish Jews from Gentiles: Romans 2: 12-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No Advantage through “Works of the Law”: Romans 3: 19-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . God’s Saving Care in Christ—and the Law: Romans 3: 21-31 . Abraham’s Trust, Sin, and the Torah: Romans 4-6 . . . . . . . . . Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . The Need to Apply the Torah: Romans 7: 1-6 . . . . . . . . The Torah under the Dominion of Sin: Romans 7: 7-13 Under Foreign Rule - The Role of the Torah-Observant without Christ: Romans 7: 14-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Life in the Spirit and the New Interpretation of the Torah: Romans 8: 1-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Question of Israel and the Role of the Torah in Romans 9-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Love Commandment and the Torah’s Fulfillment in Romans 13: 8-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities: Dimensions of Political Language in Romans 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terminological Clarification: What Is “Politics”? . . . . . . . . . . . On the State of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Sociological Theory of Political Modes of Speech . . . . . . . . Text and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contents 9 <?page no="10"?> 5. 217 6. 221 6.1 221 6.2 230 7. 234 8. 239 240 247 249 1. 250 2. 254 3. 256 3.1 256 3.2 257 3.3 258 3.4 268 4. 271 273 278 Ad (1): Socio-Historical Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ad (2): Differentiation between Public and Hidden Transcripts Indicators of a Public Transcript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indicators of a Hidden Transcript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ad (3): The Function of the Hidden Transcript . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coordinates of a Hermeneutic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Narrative Context: Paul’s Accusation and Defense Before the Jews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . At the End: Focus on the Jews in Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul and the Roman Jews in Acts 28: 16-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Setting in Rome (Acts 28: 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul’s Defense (Acts 28: 17-22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul’s Proclamation (Acts 28: 23-28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Summary Ending (Acts 28: 30-31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Contents <?page no="11"?> Preface This book would not exist without the initiative of my colleague Wolfgang Grünstäudl. As one of the new editors of the TANZ series, he approached me— one of the former editors—on the sidelines of a conference with the suggestion to publish a volume of my own essays within the series. Intensive discussions and consultations eventually led to the volume now before you. It comprises seven contributions, all of which focus on Paul and his new, yet still Jewish, perspective on the relationship to God in Christ. I am deeply grateful to the new editorial team of TANZ—my colleagues Wolfgang Grünstäudl, Jan Heilmann, Esther Kobel, and Stefan Krauter—for including this volume in the series and for their valuable suggestions and comments. I extend my best wishes for the continued growth and development of the series. I received considerable assistance in translating my German-language essays into English (all remaining infelicities and errors are, of course, my own responsibility). I am especially grateful to my colleagues Wolfgang Grünstäudl and Stefan Krauter, as well as their research fellows Brandon Massey and Leandro Capstick, and likewise to my team in Augsburg, Anna Protzek and Dr. Matthias Adrian. My sincere thanks go to the publisher, namely Stefan Selbmann, Luisa Santo and Elena Gastring, for the professional and personal support provided throughout the production of this volume. I dedicate this book to my companion, friend, and partner, Dr. Eva Rünker, in deep gratitude for the years we have shared—for her loyalty, care, and tenderness. Augsburg, June 3, 2025 Stefan Schreiber <?page no="13"?> Introduction This volume presents innovative perspectives on familiar theological themes in the writings of Paul. It explores the interpretation of the Jewish Torah, the significance of Jesus’ death, and Paul’s critical engagement with political power. Furthermore, it offers insights into the reception history of Paul, particularly in Acts 28, where he is portrayed at the conclusion of his ministry in Rome as a preacher to the Jews. In addressing these themes, the volume aims to contribute meaningfully to ongoing scholarly discussions within the “Paul within Judaism” framework. The seven chapters of this volume focus on Paul as the earliest known author to reflect on the emerging conviction of his time that Jesus is God’s messiah, and to apply this belief to the lives of Christ-followers. A guiding insight of this study is the recognition that Paul, even as a follower of Christ, remained a Jew. His Jewish identity constitutes the foundational framework for his theological and practical engagement with the significance of Christ. At the same time, Paul’s belonging to Christ raises the question of how this new relationship reconfigures his Jewish identity. For Paul, this Christ-affiliation leads to a distinctive transformation of Israel’s understanding of God—and, inseparably connected to it, a renewed interpretation of the Torah. The seven chapters that follow trace how Paul articulates these processes of transformation across central aspects of his theology. This volume combines two main elements: a newly written, in-depth study of Torah hermeneutics in the letter to the Romans, and a selection of earlier essays, most of which are published here in English for the first time. These contribu‐ tions examine the understanding of the Torah in Galatians, the interpretation of Jesus’ death as a “gift of reconciliation” in Romans 3: 25, and a political reading of Romans 13: 1-7—a passage that has, regrettably, gained renewed relevance in today’s political climate. The volume concludes with a study of the reception history of Paul, focusing on his appearance before the Roman Jews in Acts 28: 16-31. The first part of the volume engages the Pauline theme of reconciliation with God, accomplished in Christ, with particular emphasis on the interpretation of Jesus’ death as ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion) in Romans 3: 25. At the heart of this section is an investigation into the meaning of the term ἱλαστήριον and its background in the history of religions. The progression of my exegetical <?page no="14"?> reflections on this theme is captured in the three essays that I composed over the course of several years, now presented as Chapters 1 through 3 of this volume. The first essay (“God’s Votive Offering”) offers foundational semantic, syn‐ tactic, and theological analyses, arguing that ἱλαστήριον should not—contrary to the prevailing interpretation—be understood in light of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16, but rather against the background of the ancient practice of votive offerings. It is crucial to emphasize that such offerings were also known and practiced within Jewish tradition, and thus the concept invoked by Paul is neither foreign nor “non-Jewish” to him or his audience. The second essay (“Thinking Further”) engages with critical objections to this thesis, providing an epigraphic expansion and a more nuanced semantic clarification of ἱλαστήριον as a gift or offering of reconciliation. The third essay (“Christ as hilastērion in Romans 3: 25”) presents a concise restatement of the thesis, originally developed as part of a scholarly exchange on the topic. A lasting strength of this thesis, in my view, is that Paul articulates the core idea of reconciliation not at the expense of his Jewish tradition, nor in contradiction to Leviticus 16. On the contrary, it affirms Paul’s enduring Jewish identity, even in his role as an apostle of Christ. His formulation in Romans 3: 25 thereby avoids any charge of anti-Jewish polemic. Instead, the metaphor he employs reveals a key dimension of Paul’s conception of God: whereas in the religious world of antiquity it was generally the human being who made offerings to achieve reconciliation and sustenance with the gods, Paul proclaims that it is God who takes the initiative—offering reconciliation, a restored relationship with himself, as a gift in Christ. My thesis has received both support and criticism over the course of the discussion—an ongoing debate that I already engage with in Chapters 2 and 3 and that continues to this day. Much hinges on the question of whether the text makes any audible reference at all to the use of ἱλαστήριον in Leviticus 16 and related passages, or whether interpreters deliberately seek to understand Paul against the background of Old Testament cultic sacrifices. In the latter case, it must be assumed that Paul effectively replaces, with a single stroke, the diverse practice of sin offerings in the Jerusalem Temple through the event of Christ, without explicitly stating or even beginning to justify this claim. My thesis renders this assumption unnecessary. In recent scholarship, several exegetes have argued that the text of Romans 3: 25 does not, in fact, allude to Leviticus 16. For example, Adela Yarbro Collins engages with my thesis in a published contribution and, following a detailed analysis, reaches the conclusion: “Since there are no signals in the text to direct the readers to the Septuagint’s usage of ἱλαστήριον in relation to the 14 Introduction <?page no="15"?> 1 Adela Yarbro Collins. “The Metaphorical Use of ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3: 25.” Pages 273-286 in Sōtēria: Salvation in Early Christianity and Antiquity: Festschrift in Honour of Cilliers Breytenbach. Edited by David S. Du Toit, Christine Gerber, and Christiane Zimmermann. NovTSup 175. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2019 (citation on p. 284). 2 William S. Campbell. Romans: A Social Identity Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 2023, 129-132 (citations on pp. 131 and 132). See further Patrick McMurray. Sacrifice, Brotherhood, and the Body: Abraham and the Nations in Romans. Lanham: Lexington; Fortress Academic, 2021, 67-68. ark of the covenant or to sin offerings of Lev 4 and 16, it seems likely that the addressees of Romans would have understood the term ἱλαστήριον in the context of the practice of votive offerings, which, as part of daily life, were no doubt known both to them and to Paul.” 1 See also the discussion in William Campbell, who draws on the work of Yarbro Collins but does not engage with my own contributions. Proceeding from the (in my view untenable) assumption that Romans is addressed exclusively to a Gentile audience, Campbell argues that Paul in Romans 3: 25 does not establish any lexical connection to Leviticus 16. Accordingly, he concludes that “it seems best to look to the context of the Greco-Roman world for analogies and explanations.” However, Campbell’s perspective may be overly narrow when, citing a Greek honorific inscription from Metropolis, he considers the possibility “that Paul deliberately chose to explain the role of Christ as bringer of (re)conciliation in contrast to the role ascribed publicly to the Caesar.” 2 The second part of this volume turns to Paul’s interpretation of the Torah. At the core of Paul’s perspective is the eschatological saving act of the God of Israel in Christ, which opens the way for the inclusion of the Gentiles into a redemptive relationship with God. This conviction necessitates far-reaching modifications to traditional expressions of Jewish identity, particularly in their role of distin‐ guishing Israel from the nations. These implications profoundly shape Paul’s interpretation of the Torah. The application of the Torah—especially in the letter to the Galatians—is examined in the study “Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law” (Chapter 4), which compares the understanding of the Torah in the early Jewish Psalms of Solomon with that found in Galatians, bringing the distinct contours of each into sharper relief. At the heart of this section is a new study on how Paul understands and applies the Torah in the letter to the Romans after his calling to Christ (Chapter 5: “Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans”). While much exegetical scholarship has traditionally posited that Paul abolishes the Torah, proclaims freedom from the law, or views it as fulfilled in Christ, this text-centered chapter argues for a Christ-centered application of the Torah. For Paul—as a Jew—the Torah remains valid yet is now interpreted Introduction 15 <?page no="16"?> through a hermeneutical lens shaped by his encounter with Christ. Frequently debated passages in Romans—such as the often anthropologically interpreted chapter Romans 7—thus receive fresh theological significance. The third part of the volume may be described as offering a political perspective. It examines the practical implications of the emerging conviction and the transformed social structure of the Christ-following communities, using their relationship to the Imperium Romanum—the dominant political system of the time—as a focal point. When the lordship of the exalted Christ is viewed against the historical backdrop of Roman imperial propaganda and modes of power, it emerges as a counter-image to the prevailing political order. This conviction of belonging to Christ enables the communities to maintain an inner distance from political authorities and structures, while simultaneously reinforcing their collective identity and hope for salvation. Paul’s now widely discussed political statement in Romans 13: 1-7, which continues to provoke divergent interpretations, stands at the center of the chapter “Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities” (Chapter 6). At first glance, this passage may seem remote from Paul’s Christology or Torah interpretation. Yet it illustrates precisely how Paul conceptualizes the position of the Christ-following communities in Rome in relation to the political realities of their time—through the lens of the exalted Christ, who reigns above all earthly rulers. Drawing on a sociological theoretical framework, the analysis shows how Paul, on the one hand, takes the realpolitik of Roman power structures seriously, while on the other, he creates space for communal Christian life within the urban fabric of Rome—shaped as it was by Roman norms and values—by fostering the development of a protected internal sphere. The fourth and final part of this volume offers an example of Pauline reception history from the perspective of the second and third generations of early Chris‐ tianity—specifically through the lens of the Acts of the Apostles. In his account of the early Christian movement, the author Luke repeatedly emphasizes Paul’s identity as a Jew. Throughout the narrative, and culminating in the final scene of the book, Paul delivers extended speeches, primarily before Jewish audiences, to demonstrate that his message about Christ is fully aligned with God’s will, consistent with Jewish identity, and legitimized by God’s long-anticipated plan of salvation and eschatological fulfillment. This comes into particularly sharp focus in Acts 28: 16-31, the passage examined in Chapter 7: “The Final Word of a Major Apologia.” The study underscores that the Jews in Rome are the primary addressees of Luke’s portrayal of Paul. In this final scene, Paul reactivates the critical words of the prophet Isaiah to Israel, applying them to the Jews in 16 Introduction <?page no="17"?> Rome—not in order to exclude them from salvation history, but to hold them accountable to their enduring role within it. The final word of Paul in Acts is, significantly, a word addressed to the Jews. Introduction 17 <?page no="19"?> Chapter 1 <?page no="21"?> * First published in German as “Das Weihegeschenk Gottes. Eine Deutung des Todes Jesu in Röm 3,25.” ZNW 97 (2006): 88-110. 1 German: “Sterben für.” On the religious-historical background of the concept of atonement, cf. only Merklein, “Sühne,” 1099-1102. 2 Wilckens, Römer I, 240 (dass “die kultische Sühne-Vorstellung durchweg der Horizont ist, unter dem der Tod Christi in seiner Heilsbedeutung im Neuen Testament gedacht wird”). See also Hofius, “Sühne,” 343; further Gäckle, “Sühne,” esp. 104-105 (with undifferentiated evaluation of the Deuteropauline letters). God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 * The strangeness of New Testament texts is perhaps nowhere more apparent than in discussions of the “atoning death of Jesus.” The conceptual framework of this historical model is largely alien to modern sensibilities: notions such as the “servant of God,” atonement within the temple cult, and martyrdom as an atoning act of “dying for” 1 are far removed from contemporary experience. Within church communities, however, the atoning death of Jesus has become a familiar and integral part of theological reflection. What was once strange has become familiar—a well-established element in a system of religious meaning. Yet this interpretive framework remains largely foreign, even incomprehensible to broader secular society. And that may be beneficial. It serves as a reminder that we are dealing with ancient texts—religious writings embedded in particular cultural and ritual contexts. These texts do not claim to offer timeless answers or universally valid truths, but instead speak to the specific, everyday realities of particular communities. As some may rightly suspect, their relevance may well be confined to those historical and religious contexts. The earliest Christian— and indeed Jewish—witness to an interpretation of Jesus’ death is the Apostle Paul. Yet the meaning he assigns to the notion of “atoning death” remains the subject of considerable scholarly debate. 1. The Atoning Death of Jesus According to Paul: A Critical Examination While Ulrich Wilckens, in his commentary on Romans, asserts that “the cultic concept of atonement is consistently the horizon under which the death of Christ is understood in its salvific significance in the New Testament,” 2 more recent scholarship approaches the matter with greater caution and nuance. In his recent <?page no="22"?> 3 Schnelle, Paulus, 507 (“Der Tod Jesu Christi als Sühnegeschehen”). 4 Ibid. (“Die Sühnevorstellung im Tempel- und Opferkontext gehört nicht zu den tragenden paulinischen Theologumena. Paulus greift sie nur einmal auf, allerdings an zentraler Stelle”; italics in original). 5 Breytenbach, “Versöhnung, Stellvertretung und Sühne,” 66 (“Bis auf diese eine Stelle kommt Paulus ohne die Begriffe ‘Sühne’ und ‘sühnen’ aus, wenn er das Evangelium, das er verkündigt, den Gemeinden verdeutlicht”). For a critique of a cultic reference see Breytenbach, Versöhnung, 169-170, 204-205. McLean, “Absence,” 531-553 rejects the derivation from the cultic atonement sacrifice. 6 Only because he makes this an unquestioned assumption, his derivation from the sacrifice of the martyrs’ lives can be carried out: Henten, “Background,” 102-103. book on Paul, Udo Schnelle introduces the section “The Death of Jesus Christ as an Act of Atonement” 3 by observing: “The concept of atonement within the context of temple and sacrifice is not one of the foundational Pauline theological motifs. Paul refers to it only once, albeit in a central passage,” 4 and he points to Romans 3: 25, 26a. Similarly, Cilliers Breytenbach, in a study on reconciliation in Paul’s letters, concludes: “Apart from this one passage, Paul does without the terms ‘atonement’ and ‘to atone’ when he explains the gospel he preaches to the communities.” 5 Yet Rom 3: 25 remains central, and for Jan Willem van Henten, it is entirely clear from Paul’s perspective “that God regarded Jesus’ death as a propitiating expiation.” 6 This raises significant questions: Who needs to be appeased here? Who, precisely, performs the act of atonement? It is worth more closely examining the wording of Rom 3: 25 and considering it within the conceptual and experiential context of its time. 2. The Text: Romans 3: 21-26 While Paul has already established in the preceding section that both Gentiles and Jews are sinners in need of God’s grace (Rom 1: 18-3: 20), he now elaborates on his central message concerning the righteousness of God—a theme first introduced at the conclusion of the epistolary proem (1: 16-17). What follows is my own translation of Romans 3: 21-26: 21 But now without the law the righteousness of God is revealed, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, 22 but the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no difference, 23 because all sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24 (they are) declared righteous as a gift by his grace through the redemption that is in the Christ Jesus: 25 whom God erected (publicly) as a ἱλαστήριον through [the] faith in his blood 22 God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="23"?> 7 Schnelle, Paulus, 351, 510. 8 Wilckens, Römer I, 183-184; Lohse, Römer, 129, 131-133; Theobald, Römerbrief I, 99- 100; Dunn, Romans I, 163; Roloff, “ἱλαστήριον,” 456; Klumbies, “Gott,” 195; Kraus, Heiligtumsweihe, 15-20; Stuhlmacher, Theologie, 193; explained in detail by Zeller, “Sühne,” 51-75. More cautious Henten, “Background,” 103: “it is probable that Paul made use of traditional imagery and terminology”. Rejected by Haacker, Römer, 89; Moo, Romans, 220. to reveal his righteousness because of the remission of the previous offenses 26 in the patience of God, to reveal his righteousness in the present time, (namely) that he is righteous and declares righteous the one who has faith in Jesus. The argumentative structure of this brief passage is clear. Verses 21 and 22a present the thesis: God’s righteousness is revealed apart from the Torah, through faith in Jesus Christ. In verses 22b-26, Paul provides the justification for this claim. First, in verses 22b-24, he once again states the prerequisite: sinful humanity is in need of grace as a gift. Then, in verses 25 and 26, he offers the proof: God’s righteousness is made manifest in Jesus Christ. Common (German) translations of ἱλαστήριον in verse 25 are: Catholic Einheitsübersetzung (1980): “Ihn hat Gott dazu bestimmt, Sühne zu leisten mit seinem Blut, Sühne, wirksam durch Glauben” (“God has appointed him to make atonement with his blood, atonement, effective through faith”). Protestant Luther-Revision (1984): “Den hat Gott für den Glauben hingestellt als Sühne in seinem Blut …” (“God has set him forth for faith as an atonement in his blood …”). New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989): “whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood.” New International Version (NIV, 1979, 2011): “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood.” A common feature unites these four translations: they destroy the structure of the Greek sentence by drawing ‘atonement’ and ‘blood’ together and then placing ‘faith’ in relation to them. The Greek text, however, relates ‘faith’ directly to ἱλαστήριον and then adds the term ‘blood’. Udo Schnelle has described the supposed statement of atonement in Rom 3: 25-26a as an exception. He explains this exception by suggesting that Paul is drawing on an established early Christian baptismal tradition. 7 The majority of interpreters recognize a pre-Pauline tradition here. 8 However, the arguments in favor of this view are weak. Most of the vocabulary used in this passage 2. The Text: Romans 3: 21-26 23 <?page no="24"?> 9 So ἀπολύτρωσις in 1 Cor 1: 30; Rom 8: 23; προτίθεσθαι, with semantic variation, in Rom 1: 13; αἷμα in Rom 5: 9; 1 Cor 10: 16; 11: 25, 27; πίστις typically Pauline; ἔνδειξις in 2 Cor 8: 24; Phil 1: 28; ἁμάρτημα in 1 Cor 6: 18; ἀνοχή in Rom 2: 4. Pauline hapaxlegomena are ἱλαστήριον and πάρεσις. 10 Fryer, “Meaning,” 99-116 provides an insight into the research up until the early 1980s. Extensive literature up until around 1990 can be found in Kraus, Heiligtumsweihe, 4-5 no. 16 (for research, see ibid. 1-8). 11 Also, in L X X Exod 31: 7; 35: 12; 38: 5, 7-8 (MT 37: 6-9). The kapporæt in MT Exod 26: 34; 30: 6; 39: 35; 40: 20 is not included in the L X X . In 1 Chr 28: 11, L X X translates with ἐξιλασμός—is it meant to specifically designate an atoning function of the place (which would not then have been heard in the term ἱλαστήριον)? 12 For the kapporæt and the rites described in Lev 16, see now the contextually grounded presentation by Jürgens, Heiligkeit. The Targum fragment 4Q156 (DJD VI 86-89) confirms the concept of the kapporæt as a kind of “top part.” can also be found elsewhere in Paul’s writings, 9 and the strangeness of Paul’s concept of an atoning death only becomes apparent if such a concept is really intended—something that is currently under scrutiny. The fact that ἱλαστήριον is a Pauline hapax legomenon merely demonstrates that Paul is writing in a distinctive way, tailored to the situation at hand. Therefore, it is more reasonable to assume a genuinely Pauline formulation in which Paul evokes a familiar motif by means of the term ἱλαστήριον. But which motif is he invoking? 10 3. Two Common Interpretations 3.1 The “Place of Atonement” According to Leviticus 16 The marginal apparatus of the widely used Nestle-Aland edition clearly points to the Old Testament reference of the statement as “Lev 16: 13-15,” thereby suggesting a specific interpretation. In this sense, a significant number of interpreters understand the term ἱλαστήριον as a translation of the Hebrew ת ֶ ר ֽ ֹ פּ ַ כּ, which, according to Exod 25: 17- 22, 11 is a central cultic object of the first temple: a golden plate with two winged cherubim on its sides, placed on top of the Ark of the Covenant. It symbolizes the throne of Y HWH and is the place of his presence and revelation. 12 According to Lev 16, a blood ritual is performed at this ת ֶ ר ֽ ֹ פּ ַ כּ every year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). The LXX of Lev 16 renders ת ֶ ר ֽ ֹ פּ ַ כּ as ἱλαστήριον. First, the priest Aaron is to cover the ֶ ר ֽ ֹ פּ ַ כּ ת / ἱλαστήριον with a kind of incense so that he “does not die” (v. 13); the smoke serves to protect his life and symbolizes the presence of Y HWH . Then, he takes some of the blood from the young bull (which he previously slaughtered for his own sin, v. 11) and sprinkles it with his finger once on the east side of the ת ֶ ר ֽ ֹ פּ ַ כּ/ ἱλαστήριον and seven times in front of it 24 God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="25"?> 13 In Lev 16: 33, atonement is mentioned for the sanctuary, the tent of meeting, the altar, the priests, and the entire people; see also 16: 20. This summary points to a comprehensive act of atonement and discourages any sharp differentiation into distinct individual rites, as suggested by Kraus, Heiligtumsweihe, 45-70: it is specifically at the ἱλαστήριον that the purification of the sanctuary takes place; cf. Kraus, “Jom Kippur,” 155-172. The differentiation of atonement in mShevu I 2-7, which Kraus, “Jom Kippur,” 164-165 (with Milgrom, “Day of Atonement,” 1384), refers to, overloads the term ἱλαστήριον and is also burdened with chronological uncertainty. 14 Roloff, “ἱλαστήριον,” 456: “An die Stelle der im Tempel verborgenen kapporæt und des auf sie bezogenen Sühneritus hat Gott Jesus treten lassen, der durch ‘sein Blut’, d. h. durch seine Lebenshingabe Sühne wirkt.” Cf. Hofius, “Sühne,” 344-345; Wilckens, Römer I, 190-193; Theobald, Römerbrief I, 100-101 (101: formula—polemic against the temple cult in the circle of Stephanus); Theobald, Der Römerbrief, EdF 294, 94; Fryer, “Meaning,” 105-111; Kraus, Heiligtumsweihe, 150-157 (229-334: formula—dispute of the Hellenists over the temple cult); Merklein, “Bedeutung,” 33; idem, “Tod,” 185-186; see further Heyer, Jesus, 60-64. 15 Stuhlmacher, Römer, 55-57, quote on page 56 (“An die Stelle des jährlich zu wiederho‐ lenden, den Augen des Gottesvolkes verborgenen Sühnerituals im Tempel tritt die von Gott selbst öffentlich durch Jesu Kreuz ein für allemal erwirkte Sühne”); cf. idem, Theologie, 193-194 (formula from the circle of Stephanus). 16 Stuhlmacher, Theologie, 194 (“[…] eine radikale Kritik am Sühnopferkult im Jerusalemer Tempel: Der von Gott gewollte Sühnetod Jesu am Kreuz hebt den Sühnekult auf dem Zionsberg auf ”; italics in original). 17 Ibid. 194-195 (“[…] der dem Gottesvolk gnädig begegnende Gott und der stellvertretend für die Sünder leidende Gottesknecht, wahrer Gott und wahrer Mensch in einer Gestalt und an einem Ort”; quote italicized in the original); cf. Stuhlmacher, Römer, 58. (v. 14). He then slaughters a goat “for the sin for the people” and performs the same ritual with its blood (v. 15). The sacrificial rite serves to purify the priest, his household, and all of Israel from sin (cf. v. 17). 13 Based on Leviticus 16, one can attempt a typological interpretation of the ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3: 25, viewing Jesus as the “place of atonement.” As Jürgen Roloff puts it: “God has caused Jesus to take the place of the kapporæt hidden in the temple and the atoning ritual associated with it, who, through ‘his blood,’ that is, through his self-giving of life, brings about atonement.” 14 Peter Stuhlmacher expresses a similar view: “In place of the ritual of atone‐ ment in the temple, which had to be repeated annually and was hidden from the eyes of God’s people, comes the atonement that God himself publicly achieved once and for all through Jesus’ cross.” 15 This implies “a radical criticism of the cult of atonement in the Jerusalem Temple: Jesus’ atoning death on the cross, willed by God, supersedes the cult of atonement on Mount Zion.” 16 Stuhlmacher goes on to conclude: Christ on the cross is (! ) “the God who mercifully meets the people of God, and the servant of God who suffers on behalf of the sinners, true God and true man in one form and in one place.” 17 This anachronism highlights 3. Two Common Interpretations 25 <?page no="26"?> 18 Gaukesbrink, Sühnetradition, 229-233; Knöppler, Sühne, 115-117. 19 Knöppler, Sühne, 117 (my translation). Gaukesbrink, Sühnetradition, 229 is certain: “undoubtedly atonement terminology shaped by Old Testament cultic traditions” (my translation). 20 Knöppler, Sühne, 116. Cf. Gaukesbrink, Sühnetradition, 237. Breytenbach, Versöhnung, 167-168 sees a radical replacement going on: “early Christian rejection of the Temple cult” (168, my translation); the Crucified one replaces the Holy of Holies as a place of atonement; see also Breytenbach, “Versöhnung, Stellvertretung und Sühne,” 78-79; Kraus, Heiligtumsweihe, 163: “The eschatological Yom Kippur took place on Good Friday” (my translation). 21 Stökl Ben Ezra, Impact, 197-205, quote on page 204. - Söding, “Sühne,” 382-383 goes a step further: the cultic aspect implies “the possibility and necessity of a sacramental representation of the death of Jesus in its salvific meaning”; he interprets Jesus’ blood from the paradosis of the Last Supper in 1 Cor 11: 23-24 as “the means of atonement that God accomplishes by establishing the new covenant”—only this Christology would connect cultic atonement theology and vicarious soteriology (my translations). the flexibility of the term ἱλαστήριον, which Stuhlmacher exploits theologically. However, Stuhlmacher overlooks Paul’s specific concern with Judaism in the letter to the Romans, which, as we know, is written shortly before Paul’s journey to Jerusalem. I will return to this last point below. Two monographs on the subject—Martin Gaukesbrink’s dissertation (1999) and Thomas Knöppler’s habilitation thesis (2001)—both support the typological interpretation. 18 At least Knöppler frankly acknowledges that “unambiguity” here “is ultimately not possible”. 19 Both works are rooted in the concept of “atonement.” Knöppler interprets the typology in such a way that the eschato‐ logical Yom Kippur is realized in the death of Jesus Christ, rendering the annual observance of Yom Kippur obsolete. 20 However, this interpretation leads to an antithesis that risks anti-Jewish devaluation and distortion, ignoring the fact that Yom Kippur could already be celebrated in the diaspora without the need for a cultic practice during the time of Paul. In contrast, Daniel Stökl Ben Ezra does not interpret the text as a replacement of the temple cult but rather as a supplement: God establishes “an additional eschatological Yom Kippur,” whose “spiritual blood rite” affects both Jews and Gentiles in faith. 21 However, one might ask: does the eschatological Yom Kippur not, in effect, replace the old Yom Kippur? And is the impact of Jesus’ violent death not diminished if it is merely “spiritualized”? Are such assumptions conceivable for Paul? A closer examination reveals significant objections to the typological inter‐ pretation. (1) First of all, the key assumption that ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3: 25 clearly refers to ת ֶ ר ֽ ֹ פּ ַ כּ in Lev 16 is problematic. The lexical evidence from the Septuagint suggests a much broader range of meanings: for instance, in Exod 25: 22, the 26 God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="27"?> 22 Two different functions of the kapporæt are also noted by Fryer, “Meaning,” 106. 23 Hebrew רוֹ ֜ תּ ְ פ ַ כּ, which could be confused with ת ֶ ר ֖ ֹ פּ ַ כ due to a consonantal transposition. The meaning “capital of a column” corresponds to the following judicial word about smashing the heads. 24 Symmachus translates the Ark of Noah in Gen 6: 15 with the Greek ἱλαστήριον, but this hardly reflects common usage, though it shows the openness of the noun’s denotation. 25 One too readily abstracts here from the cultic object to the theological locus of atonement; for example, according to Knöppler, Sühne, 116, the focus is “not a mere cultic object, but theologically the place where the earthly and heavenly realms meet” (my translation). Cf. Breytenbach, Versöhnung, 167: “atonement stele” or “place of atonement,” “the place of God’s atoning presence” (my translation); Campbell, Rhetoric, 112: “the point of the metaphor derives from the sacrificial associations that surround the kprt, and not the kprt itself” (italics in original); ibid., 130-133: “a more functional reference to atonement, and, therefore, possibly to the atoning ritual central ἱλαστήριον serves a different role; 22 in this passage, Y HWH tells Moses: “There I will make myself known to you, and I will speak to you from above the ἱλαστήριον… about all that I will command you for the sons of Israel.” Notably, there is no mention of atonement; instead, the ἱλαστήριον is the place where God’s presence is made manifest, the site of God’s revelation through his word. This idea is echoed in Num 7: 89, which uses similar wording. Furthermore, Lev 16: 2 indicates that God appears in a cloud over the ἱλαστήριον (which is the reason that access to it must be restricted). In Ezek 43, where Y HWH prophesies a new temple to the prophet, the term refers to a different cultic space. In this case, the Septuagint translates the He‐ brew ה ָ רָ ז ֲ ע ָ ה as ἱλαστήριον. The specific measurements for the altar of burnt offering (θυσιαστήριον) include both an upper and a lower ἱλαστήριον (μέγα/ μικρόν); the exact descriptions suggest that the altar had distinct sections or enclosures (v. 14, 17). These enclosures, along with other parts of the altar, are to be sprinkled with blood for the atonement of the altar (v. 20). Here, ἱλαστήριον refers to a different cultic area than in Lev 16 and is also connected to a rite of atoning with blood, but it is not exposed in the same way. Amos 9: 1, in the Septuagint, remains ambiguous: the prophet is instructed to strike the ἱλαστήριον, causing the temple courtyard to shake—a symbol of judgement that, admittedly, does not fit well with the topography. This likely results from a translation error, as the Hebrew text refers to a “capital of a column”. 23 Conclusion: From a lexicographical perspective, the meaning of ἱλαστήριον in the Septuagint is unclear. 24 The term refers to two distinct cultic spaces: within the physical temple, it can denote both the locus of God’s presence and, at times, to the site where an atonement ritual can be performed. Thus, it should not be regarded merely as a “place of atonement”; 25 rather, the specific function of the 3. Two Common Interpretations 27 <?page no="28"?> to the Jewish feast of atonement, Yom Kippur” (130), as an “analogy” to Jesus’ death (133); Kraus, Heiligtumsweihe, 31, 154 (“place of atonement”); idem, “Sühnetod,” 24-25. Even more abstract is Röhser, Stellvertretung, 118-119, who (based on the concept of “sanctuary consecration” according to W. Kraus) speaks of the “place” where “the sins of people are ‘concentrated’ and removed” (118, my translation). 26 The subtle differentiation within Lev 16 (purification of the sanctuary), which Kraus, Heiligtumsweihe, 45-79 elaborates, raises considerable difficulties in terms of reception history and makes a simple derivation in Paul even less likely. However, he is followed at the level of the formula by Karrer, Jesus Christus, 121. McLean, “Absence,” 545 defines his understanding, specifically regarding the object, as the place of the presence of God, excluding the concept of the atoning sacrifice. Cf. also Schenk, “Sühnemittel,” 566, who, on an etymological basis, also thinks of the place of the presence and grace of God. 27 Mos. 2.95 (ἐπίθεμα ὡσανεὶ πῶμα τὸ λεγόμενον ἐν ἱεραῖς βίβλοις ἱλαστήριον) and Fug. 100 (ἐπίθημα τῆς κιβωτοῦ καλεῖ δὲ αὐτὸ ἱλαστήριον) are revealing. Mos. 2.97 refers back to 95, Her. 166 and Fug. 101 merely quote (Exod 25: 22), Cher. 25 paraphrases Exod 25: 19 (ἱλαστήριον remains without distinct significance in the context of the cherubim). 28 Regarding the gracious power of God (with a kind of wordplay on the adjective ἵλεως) in Mos. 2.95 and Fug. 100; regarding the humility of man in Mos. 2.95. - When Knöppler, Sühne, 113, assigns ἱλαστήριον already “by definition” to the atonement tradition, he adopts an etymological restriction; cf., e.g., also Gnilka, Theologie, 81 no. 11. From a linguistic perspective, one can differentiate the ‘meaning’ of the lexeme from its ‘denotation’ (its reference to a specific object); see Lyons, Semantik, 190-228; Schreiber, Gesalbter, 23-27. place must be defined in each context. 26 For greater clarity, Paul should have been more precise in his usage. A study of the Letter to the Hebrews and the writings of Philo of Alexandria provides greater clarity on the matter. Hebrews 9: 5 demonstrates familiarity with the ἱλαστήριον in the (first) temple and, in verse 7, refers to the annual blood offering. Here, unlike in Romans, the reference to the temple is unambig‐ uous and explicit. While the notion of Christ’s bloody offering is also present, it is not associated with the ἱλαστήριον itself. Rather, it is typologically contrasted with the temple sacrifices (9: 12-14). Philo, on the other hand, discusses the ἱλαστήριον in connection with Exodus 25, but he makes this reference explicitly clear and even explains its meaning as the cover placed upon the Ark of the Covenant. 27 Moreover, Philo integrates allegorical interpretations of the ἱλαστήριον—inspired by its etymology 28 —without any reference to an atoning sacrifice. Thus, the term ἱλαστήριον alone is insufficient to determine a clear semantic reference. (2) A further objection to the Leviticus 16 interpretation of Romans 3: 25 arises from considerations of Paul’s rhetorical approach. Paul employs the rhetorical figure of a metaphor to evoke a context familiar to his audience, which is crucial for engaging their imagination. However, the ἱλαστήριον was part of the first 28 God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="29"?> 29 And even there, it was originally positioned in the Holy of Holies, making it completely inaccessible to the public. In the Herodian temple this place no longer existed; see Deißmann, “ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΣ,” 206. I fail to understand how Gaukesbrink, Sühnetradition, 51 no. 26, can assert that after 587 “the Kapporeth in the temple becomes a substitute for the ark” (my translation); referring to Tarragon, “La kapporet,” 11. The loss of the temple implements is indirectly evidenced by 2 Macc 2: 4-8. 30 Even though this is later discussed by the rabbis; see Str-B III 165-185. - With this argument, I modify the often raised—and equally often dismissed—objection that the predominantly Gentile Christian communities in Rome would not have been familiar with the cultic practices of the Jerusalem Temple, and thus would not have understood the allusion: While it is plausible that they were familiar with Yom Kippur and also the L X X texts, they would not have shared the same experiential understanding of the ritual symbolic system practiced in Jerusalem. 31 This is convincingly summarized by Jürgens, Heiligkeit, 427-428. 32 This difficulty in understanding is frequently acknowledged, cf. Lohse, Römer, 135; Haacker, Römer, 91; Schnelle, Paulus, 508. 33 A semantic field of “ἱλαστήριον, blood, sin” can only be reduced by excluding additional lexemes and cannot be unambiguously linked to Lev 16. 34 The absence of the article with ἱλαστήριον cannot be used as an argument, as it is grammatically justified: it is a double accusative (predicate accusative; cf. BDR § 157); ἱλαστήριον is a generic term, and the verb “to (publicly) set up” signals that it was not known beforehand, so no reference to it can be made (cf. BDR § 273). temple 29 and was lost along with the ark when the temple was destroyed in 586 BCE. It is not mentioned in the descriptions of the Day of Atonement in Josephus (A.J. 3.240-243) or in the Mishnah (Yoma V). As a result, it has been preserved only in literature and no longer plays a role in the lived experience of the time. 30 Furthermore, even in the literary formulation of Lev 16, a range of different rituals necessary for atonement is implied, of which only a portion is represented by the ἱλαστήριον. 31 The concept is further complicated by the fact that, on the “Lev 16 reading”, Jesus must to be understood both as the giver of the sacrificial blood and as the place where it is sprinkled. 32 (3) Finally, one might wonder why Paul doesn’t include more explicit refer‐ ences to Yom Kippur, the temple sacrifice, the scapegoat, or the altar of sacrifice, if he truly intends to speak of atonement. 33 On the contrary, in Rom 3: 21, Paul presents God’s righteousness χωρὶς νόμου, which points to an event outside the Torah. If one accepts this statement as a hermeneutical key to Rom 3: 25, a reference to Lev 16 (obviously part of the Torah! ) in Rom 3: 25 would be excluded. 34 3. Two Common Interpretations 29 <?page no="30"?> 35 Lohse, Römer, 135 (my translation). 36 With Klauck, 4. Makkabäerbuch, 671, we can here diagnose a “transfer of cultic terminology” (“Übertragung kultischer Begrifflichkeit”), without the cultic concept being relevant; cf. also Seeley, Noble Death, 98. Otherwise, Versnel, “Quid Athenis,” 192 assumes Hellenistic influence. 37 Cf. also 2 Macc 7: 37-38 and 4 Macc 6: 28-29. - Caution is necessary, however, regarding the reference by Haacker, Römer, 91 no. 38, to As. Mos. 9-10: Martyrdom is the ultima ratio of fulfilling the law (withdrawal is recommended) and is not causally connected to the onset of God’s kingship (even though God will avenge the spilled blood; 9: 7)! The idea of atoning death is specifically not utilized. Cf. Schreiber, “Hoffnung,” 267-268. 38 Lohse, Römer, 135 (“Während aber die Märtyrer durch ihren Tod nur auf begrenzte Zeit göttliche Rettung erwirken konnten, ist Christi Tod ein für allemal geschehen, weil Gott selbst ihn hingab als Sühnopfer”). Cf. Zeller, Römer, 86-87; already idem, “Sühne,” 53-59; Dunn, Romans I, 170-172. 3.2 “Expiatory Sacrifice” in the Context of the Martyr Tradition Due to these difficulties an alternative explanation, presented in the recent commentaries on Romans by Klaus Haacker and Eduard Lohse, proves more compelling. According to Lohse, “the contemporary Jewish martyr tradition of‐ fers the closest parallels,” suggesting that the “sense of an expiatory sacrifice” is present here. 35 Lohse cites 4 Macc 17: 21-22 as evidence: the martyrs mentioned in this passage obtained that the tyrant was punished, and our fatherland purified, for they became a kind of compensation for the sins of the people. Through the blood of those pious ones and their expiatory death (τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου θανάτου), divine providence saved Israel, which was previously heavily afflicted. (my translation, following Klauck, 4. Makkabäerbuch, ad loc.) The vicarious death of the righteous brings expiation for the sins of the people—a sacrifice that God has accepted. 36 The concept of the martyr’s self-sacrifice as an atoning offering is already found in Dan 3: 40, where Azariah, speaking from the furnace, says: “As burnt offerings of rams and bulls, as thousands of fat lambs, so let our sacrifice be acceptable to you today and make atonement for us before you.” 37 However, the term ἱλαστήριον does not appear in this context. According to Lohse, early Christian proclamation employed this terminology to express the salvific significance of Christ’s death. Lohse also develops a typology here: While the martyrs, through their death, could only achieve divine salvation for a limited time, Christ’s death occurred once and for all, because God himself gave him as an atoning sacrifice. 38 30 God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="31"?> 39 Lohse, Römer, 135 (“Nicht durch menschliche Initiative ist Sühne geschaffen worden, sondern Gott selbst hat in seiner unergründlichen Barmherzigkeit Christus dahingege‐ ben, ihn als Sühne öffentlich aufgestellt und eben darin seine Gerechtigkeit als seine Bundestreue erwiesen”). 40 Klauck, 4. Makkabäerbuch, 753. 41 For this date, see Henten, “Datierung,” 136-149; Klauck, 4. Makkabäerbuch, 668-669. Objections by Schnelle, Paulus, 509 no. 162. 42 Henten, “Background”. 43 Ibid., 118. He continues: Atonement was not brought about through human initiative, but God himself, in his unfathomable mercy, gave Christ up, set him up publicly as atonement, and in this very act, demonstrated his righteousness as his faithfulness to the covenant. 39 Lohse draws our attention to the fact that God is the primary agent in this act, and that this action serves to demonstrate his righteousness. The problem with Lohse’s interpretation, however, lies in the fact that the crucial terminology of ἱλαστήριον—and everything hinges on this term—is not present in the texts on martyrdom referred by Lohse. Although he presents the Greek text of 4 Macc 17: 22—based on the Septuagint edition of Alfred Rahlfs—as τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου τοῦ θανάτου (reading ἱλαστήριον as a noun), Hans Josef Klauck has correctly pointed out in his German edition of 4 Maccabees that this reading is less well attested, and the more reliable reading would be τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου θανάτου, which reflects the adjectival use. 40 Therefore, the noun ἱλαστήριον is not employed at all in the thematic context of ‘martyrdom and atonement.’ Moreover, the adjectival usage in 4 Maccabees is to be dated clearly later than Paul, toward the end of the first century. 41 Unless one presupposes earlier textual layers, it is scarcely plausible that Paul is making a direct allusion to this term. Jan Willem van Henten defines the terminology more broadly, particularly within the motif triad of atonement/ grace - faith/ faithfulness - blood; he argues that this framework was adopted from the early Jewish martyr tradition. 42 Regarding 2 Macc 7: 37-38, he states: “So the combination of intercessory prayer and martyrdom should bring about the atonement.” 43 Again, this schema plays no role in Rom 3: 25. Moreover, in the case of martyrdom, the focus is on the martyrs’ decision to remain steadfast, uphold their convictions, and die—a sacrifice which then is honored by God. In contrast, Paul emphasizes God’s action in Jesus, where God is the grammatical and theological subject of the event. The death of the martyrs is deeply tied to the specific context— 3. Two Common Interpretations 31 <?page no="32"?> 44 Cf. 2 Macc 13: 14 the death περὶ νόμων, ἱεροῦ, πόλεως, πατρίδος, πολιτείας. 45 Cf. Breytenbach, “Versöhnung, Stellvertretung und Sühne,” 70: “the death of Jesus breaks the deed-and-effect connection between sin and judgment of death, and this applies to all” (my translation). 46 Haacker, Römer, 91. See also Karrer, Jesus Christus, 126. 47 Cf. also Statius, Thebaid 10.756-790; Cicero, Fin. 2.61-62; Tusc. 1.89-90; the suicide of Razis in 2 Macc 14: 37-46 could be understood as an early Jewish analogy. On devotio see Speyer, “Religionen,” 155. - Seeley, Noble Death, 19-27, 99-141 (generally) understands the ancient concept of the “noble death” of the philosopher as the background for Paul’s interpretation of the death of Jesus. 48 See also the criticism on that in Schnelle, Paulus, 508-509. 49 The metaphorical aspect is now addressed by Schröter, “Metaphorische Christologie,” 63-66 (admittedly under a Jewish cult-metaphorical premise). On the theory of meta‐ phor, cf. only Zimmermann, “Metapherntheorie,” 108-133. the preservation of Jewish identity in the face of persecution— 44 while Paul potentially presents a broader, universal-eschatological perspective. 45 Haacker takes the discussion a step further by asking, from a reception-histor‐ ical perspective, how the “sacrifice of human lives” might have been understood within the Roman sphere of influence. 46 He notes that the “veneration of heroes who sacrificed their lives for the Roman people” is well attested (p. 91). Both Seneca (Ep. 76.25; 67.9) and Josephus (B.J. 5.419) mention this, with Cato serving as a prominent example (Lukan 2.312-313). 47 Horace famously captures the sentiment with the phrase dulce et decorum est pro patria mori (Carm. 3.2.13). Such sacrifices of life “were not only interpreted retrospectively in religious terms, but in some cases, they were also performed in traditional ceremonies as an ‘act of consecration’ (devotio)” (p. 91). According to Haacker, Rom 3: 25 reflects Paul’s attempt to “interpret the gospel ad homines Romanos” (p. 91). While the inclusion of the Roman worldview is certainly instructive, the key question is whether the model of political martyrdom, as exemplified by heroic sacrifice, is appropriate here. Paul does not speak of it in such terms, and the term ἱλαστήριον does not belong to this model. If Paul intends to refer to a “sacrifice of life,” this would be in need of further clarification. Furthermore, the objection remains that, in Paul’s view, it is not humans who act, but God. 3.3 Methodological Reflection Both approaches discussed so far have proven unsatisfactory, failing to address the core of Paul’s statement. 48 One important aspect that seems to have been overlooked in this discussion is the metaphorical nature of Paul’s language. 49 The term ἱλαστήριον evokes a particular image or experience, which is then transferred (as the source of the image, or Bildspender) into the specific context of 32 God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="33"?> 50 Aristotle (Poet. 1457b) already defined metaphor as ὀνόματος ἀλλοτρίου ἐπιφορά (transfer of a foreign concept). 51 Also in rhetorical analysis, increasing attention is paid to the situation of the letter’s recipients; for example, in the work of Elliott, Cutting, 5-6. 52 Deißmann, “ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΣ”. 53 Paton and Hicks, Inscriptions, 126 (no. 81) [= IG XII 4.2.673]. Cf. also Deißmann, “ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΣ,” 195. Paul’s speech (as the recipient of the image, or Bildempfänger). 50 In order to “see” (at least in broad outline) even today the content of this image, which is central to understanding the metaphor—or, more precisely, the extra-textual body of knowledge that is brought to the text as an “inference”—we must approach it from a socio-historical and religious-historical perspective, considering both Paul’s experiences and those of his recipients. Today, with the insights of the sociology of knowledge, reception aesthetics, and reader-response criticism, 51 we are increasingly aware of the role of the recipients in interpreting a text. This understanding must be integrated into exegesis. This opens up, with regard to the audience of Romans, a “different world”—not that of elite literary production, which likely had limited influence here, but rather the world of everyday life, the vita cottidiana, which shaped the thinking and worldview of broader social groups and thus becomes an important precondition for understanding. This world is reflected, among other things, in the omnipresent medium of inscriptions. 4. An Alternative: the Votive Offering A glimpse into this world becomes possible when we look back a century in the history of research. In 1903, Adolf Deißmann published a lexical study in the then fourth volume of the “Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,” in which he compiled contemporary evidence for the term ἱλαστήριον outside the Septuagint. 52 There are not many examples, and so I can present them briefly; all date from the early Roman imperial period. (1) Inscription from the Greek island of Kos (Augustan age) ὁ δᾶμος ὑπὲρ τᾶς Αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος θεοῦ υἱοῦ Σεβαστοῦ σωτηρίας θεοῖς ἱλαστήριον 53 The people (offer) a ἱλαστήριον to the gods for the saving deeds of the emperor Caesar, son of God, Augustus. The inscription was likely part of a statue dedicated as a gift to the gods for the emperor. This is classified as a ‘consecration gift’, ‘votive gift’ or ‘votive 4. An Alternative: the Votive Offering 33 <?page no="34"?> 54 Paton and Hicks, Inscriptions, 225-226 (no. 347) [= IG XII 4.2.648]. 55 Josephus’ informant, Nikolaus of Damascus, lived at the court of Herod the Great and wrote most of his works in Rome after Herod’s death in 4 BCE. offering,’ which is precisely the sense of ἱλαστήριον in this context: the people offer the gods a votive gift as thanks for the emperor’s favors. As would have been otherwise inconceivable in antiquity, this religious act carries a political intent. (2) Inscription from Kos, on the foundation of a column (Roman Imperial period) [ὁ δᾶμος ὁ Ἁλεντίων ……. Σε]βας[τ]ῷ Διῒ Σ[τ]ρατίῳ ἱλαστήριον δαμαρχεῦντος Γαΐου Νωρβανοῦ Μοσχίωνο[ς φι]λοκαίσαρος 54 The people of Haleis ……. a ἱλαστήριον to Augustus, Zeus, military leader through the mayor Gaius Norbanus Moschion, the emperor’s friend. Once again, the votive offering is referred to as ἱλαστήριον, and once again the political context is decisive (cf. “the emperor’s friend”). The addressee is the Emperor Augustus himself. (3) Dio Chrysostom, Or. 11.121 (we now step onto Roman soil, as Dio stayed in Rome from around the mid-60s to the mid-80s of the 1st century) καταλείψειν γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἀνάθημα κάλλιστον καὶ μέγιστον τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ καὶ ἐπιγράψειν· ἱλαστήριον Ἀχαιοὶ τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ τῇ Ἰλιάδι For they (i.e., the Greeks) leave them behind a very beautiful and large votive offering for Athena with the inscription: The Achaians (give) a ἱλαστήριον to Athena Iliad. It is interesting to note that the terms ἀνάθημα—the common Greek word for ‘votive gift’—in the description and ἱλαστήριον in the inscription are used in parallel. This further reinforces ἱλαστήριον as the technical term for ‘votive offering.’ As in the previous examples, this votive offering is also placed in a political context, serving to bestow “honor” (τιμή) on the state to whose deity it is dedicated (ibid.). (4) Josephus, A.J. 16.182 (written in Rome) 55 Herod the Great had David’s tomb opened and robbed, but when two of his bodyguards were killed by flames of fire, “he hurried out in great fear and erected τοῦ δέους ἱλαστήριον μνῆμα of white stone at the entrance at great cost.” Deißmann interpretes ἱλαστήριον as both a substantive and predicate noun, with the genitive τοῦ δέους understood as a genitivus auctoris: “he erected a monument as a votive offering prompted by his fear”. Thus, ἱλαστήριον is also 34 God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="35"?> 56 An adjectival usage from the 2nd century CE appears in P. Fayûm No. 337 (Grenfell, Hunt, and Hogarth, Fayûm Towns, 313): εἱλαστη[ρίο]υς θυσίας (appeasing/ atoning sacrifices). - Aelius Herodianus, De prosodia catholica 3.1.365 (2nd century), only mentions the noun in the context of grammatical questions. - More datable pagan references from the early imperial period cannot be found in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae either. 57 Blinkenberg, Tempelchronik, 12 (B 49, l. 48-50) [= Lindos II, col. B VIII]. 58 Ibid., 4. 59 The numerical superiority of the L X X references does not necessarily reflect the actual everyday use of the term, as it stems from a fixed tradition and is concentrated in just a few textual units; colloquial language, on the other hand, is much less frequently recorded in writing (and thus transmitted). 60 Compare already the explanatory ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα at the first mention in Exod 25: 17 L X X . regarded as a ‘votive offering’ in Jewish-Hellenistic usage. - In addition to Deißmann’s analysis, further evidence can be provided: 56 (5) The Lindian Temple Chronicle 57 This is an inscription stele that was discovered in 1904 during excavations in the city of Lindos on Rhodes, being dated to the year 99 BCE. 58 It lists a catalogue of dedications that were placed in the temple. [Τήλ]εφος φιάλαν χρυσόμφαλον, ἐφ᾿ ἇς ἐπεγέ[γρ]απτο· Τήλεφος Ἀθάναι ἱλατή[ρι]ον (sic! ), ὡς ὁ Λύκιος Ἀπόλλων εἶπε. Telephos (gave) a drinking bowl with a golden center, on which it was written: Telephos to Athana (as) a votive offering, as the Lycian Apollo said. To propitiate the Lindian goddess Athana, a drinking bowl is given here as a votive offering. The inscription provides the key details: donor, recipient, function, and occasion. The orthographic variation ἱλατήριον should not be overemphasized, as spelling errors and deviations are more common in inscrip‐ tions. Overall, the usage of the term is clear. All five of the cited instances use ἱλαστήριον in the sense of “votive offering.” This general Hellenistic usage of the term may also help plausibly explain its application in the Septuagint as a more specific designation: 59 for particular cultic places or objects that are “consecrated” to God. Philo (Mos. 2.95) appears to reflect this process: he seems aware that ἱλαστήριον in the surrounding context means ‘consecration gift’ or ‘votive offering,’ as he first conveys a concrete image of the ark’s cover (ἐπίθεμα ὡσανεὶ πῶμα, “a cover like a lid”) before introducing the term. He must clarify its application. 60 Deißmann himself falls short of his own observations when he suggests possible meanings for Rom 3: 25 such as “gift of reconciliation or atonement” or 4. An Alternative: the Votive Offering 35 <?page no="36"?> 61 Deißmann, “ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΣ,” 210-211 (“Versöhnungs- oder Sühnungsgeschenk,” “Ver‐ söhnungs- oder Sühnungsmittel”). Both Barth, Tod, 39-40, and Schnelle, Paulus, 509 also prefer a general meaning of “expiation,” “means of atonement.” However, this is practically not substantiated. 62 See generally Frateantonio, “Weihung,” 421-422; Straten, “Gifts,” 65-104 (fundamentals of private votive offerings and classifications with a focus on the Greek world), 105-146 (votive catalog in the appendix); Wachsmuth, “Weihungen,” 1355-1359. 63 Rüpke, Religion, 162 (my translation). Cf. Straten, “Gifts,” 72. 64 Regarding this concept, which was widespread in ancient poetry, see Speyer, “Religio‐ nen,” esp. 145-156. In early Jewish apocalyptic literature, the wrath of God also forms a conceptual category, although here it is thought of in an eschatological and universal sense. A similarity to the Greek concept can be seen, for example, in Josh 7: 1-12. 65 The term “atonement” would be too theological and theoretical here, as a sense of guilt is not the decisive factor. Rather, it concerns existential threat, the expectation of help, and the relationship with the deity. This is also supported by votives that show the donors in veneration of the deity: they seek the healing and protective care beyond the immediate need for their entire physical well-being. Cf. also Aelius Aristides, Or. 42.7 (C.A. Behr); on this, see Straten, “Gifts,” 151. “means of reconciliation or atonement.” 61 It is far more likely that the technical term ‘votive offering’ should be considered and tested in this context. 5. But What is a Votive Offering? In antiquity, votive offerings were common forms of interaction with the divine world, driven by the needs and concerns of the people. Individuals would turn to a deity for specific matters such as illness, the desire for children, love, a dangerous sea voyage, or crossing mountains. In gratitude for divine assistance or as a prepayment for future support—often within the context of a vow (votum)—people would give votive offerings to the deity. 62 Religious scholar Jörg Rüpke describes the basic structure of this religious practice: “The vow is a request to a deity for a specific service; in exchange for the fulfillment of the service, the petitioner promises a specific counter-performance.” 63 This practice may be based on the idea that illness and hardship signified a disrupted relationship with the gods, possibly understood as forms of divine punishment. Ancient religious thought acknowledged the possibility of divine wrath, 64 and the individual sought to restore a harmonious relationship with the deity, which, in turn, would facilitate the fulfillment of their wish. It may often be appropriate to speak of “reconciliation” here, though it originates on the part of the human being. 65 The desired restoration of the relationship with the deity is often symbolized materially through votive offerings. However, not everyone would have necessarily conceived this exchange in such theological terms. 36 God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="37"?> 66 On the distinction between dedicatio and consecratio see Kierdorf, “Funus,” 46-49; Frateantonio, “Consecratio,” 127-128; Frateantonio, “Dedicatio,” 359-360. 67 The material has only been partially explored and systematized. The cataloging in Straten, “Gifts,” 105-146, is helpful. See also Rüpke, Religion, 156, 159, and the works mentioned in note 70. 68 Rüpke, Religion, 155; Straten, “Gifts,” 78 (references in note 66). Cf., e.g., Cicero, Nat. d. 3.89: sanctuary in Samothrace full of votives; further Lucian, Podagra 142: ναὸς ὄλβου περικρεμὴς ἀγάλμασιν. 69 Rüpke, Religion, 157. 70 Rüpke, Religion, 161; Guarducci, “L’Isola,” 180-197. Comprehensive background infor‐ mation, catalog, and illustrations are provided by Pensabene, Terracotte. For body votives, especially in Rome and on the central Italian west coast, see Fenelli, “Contrib‐ uto,” 206-252 (with a table organized by locations and anatomy on pages 232-245). The primary Greek term for this practice, as specified in numerous in‐ scriptions, is ἀνάθημα. Other terms, frequently attested in inscriptions, in‐ clude χαριστήριον and εὐχαριστήριον, along with δῶρον, and more rarely ἱλαστήριον. In Latin, the corresponding terms are donum and donarium, while the act of dedication is referred to as consecratio or dedicatio. 66 In private matters, a wide variety of votive offerings are preserved, including bronze and clay figures, wooden and clay tablets, statues (such as stelae and monuments), paintings, vessels, tripods, and similar items. In many cases, inscriptions provide clarity, detailing either the assistance given by the deity or the specific need it addressed. Frequent iconographic elements in such offerings include anatomical models representing the site of affliction, figures of children expressing particular petitions, and images of the votary portrayed in acts of supplication or sacrifice, occasionally shown in the presence of a healing god. Additionally, also images illustrating specific scenarios, such as shipwrecks or individual events, were found. 67 Votive offerings are a widespread phenomenon, often mass-produced in series according to specific types. 68 As Rüpke notes, they are “testimonies of a common individual religious practice that has found little reflection in literary sources.” 69 In Rome, for instance, excavations conducted between 1885 and 1887 along the Tiber revealed numerous body votives, which can be explained in connection to the Asclepius cult on Tiber Island. 70 These votives primarily consist of terracotta representations of (parts of) human bodies, providing a glimpse into local religious practices (Lokalkolorit). (Even today, the Ospedale dei Fatebenefratelli stands in the same location, continuing this topographical tradition). The public aspect of these offerings is undoubtedly intentional. As Rüpke further observes, 5. But What is a Votive Offering? 37 <?page no="38"?> 71 Rüpke, Religion, 157 (my translation). 72 Straten, “Gifts,” 74. 73 Cf. 1 Chr 28: 12 ( L X X : ἅγια likely means “votive offerings”; context: temple treasures! ). Josephus, A.J. 14.34-36 mentions a “vine or garden,” which the inscription “gift of Alexander, King of the Jews” identifies as a votive offering of Alexander Jannaeus to the temple (later it became a gift of Aristobulus II. to Pompey and was placed in the Roman temple of Jupiter Capitolinus). There may be a connection with the “golden vines with grape clusters the height of men” mentioned in B.J. 5.210, which were placed over the gate before the innermost temple area (cf. b. Middot III 8, where a vine is mentioned, with leaves, berries, or grapes hanging as votive offerings). 2 Macc 2: 13 mentions a library in Judea (probably at the Temple in Jerusalem), where, among other things, “letters of the kings about votive offerings (περὶ ἀναθεμάτων)” were kept—apparently votive offerings at the temple. Luke 21: 5 mentions ἀναθήματα at the temple. According to Josephus, A.J. 18.18-19, the Essenes send ἀναθήματα to the Temple but do not offer sacrifices (which was apparently otherwise customary), because they “claim to possess holier means of purification.” - See the note by Maier, Zwischen den Testamenten, 232, the documentation in the form of votive offerings extends the audience beyond the immediate moment, more and more through the use of writing. Votive inscriptions, which make up a significant portion of epigraphic material alongside funerary inscriptions, were frequently found alongside larger donated objects, such as altars or statues. 71 This practice ensures that the petition remains in the memory of both humans and gods, giving permanence to the divine favor and its effectiveness. 72 Votive offerings take on larger dimensions in the public sphere, encompassing temples, altars, cult images, plots of land, and more. The dedication of these offerings is a public legal act. In ancient experience, religious and political dimensions often intersected, which means that public votive offerings also carried political symbolism. For instance, when the Roman emperor erected a statue in a Greek sanctuary, it signified an elevation in the city’s status, often linked to certain privileges (beneficia). When a city gives a votive offering for the emperor, it demonstrated its loyalty, thereby reinforcing the political system. It is likely no coincidence that the Capitol in Rome was a favored location for the placement of votive offerings (cf. Livy 6.29.8). In state cults, public vota (vows) play a key role at the beginning of the year, during the inauguration of emperors, or at the start of wars. These vota, in turn, had to be fulfilled through votive offerings. Thus, votive offerings were of great significance even at the highest political levels and carried substantial public visibility. It is important to note that the practice of votive offerings also found a place in Jewish culture, as evidenced by a few (though rare) references to the Jerusalem Temple, 73 as well as the mention in 2 En. 45: 2 of lamps being given 38 God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="39"?> on the great importance of votive offerings to the Temple, which also increased the temple treasury. 74 Not clear is 2 En. 62: 1. Cf. Böttrich, Henochbuch, 962 no. 2a; idem, Weltweisheit, 200. 75 Also in some early Jewish testimonies, a corresponding attitude of man precedes reconciliation with God, e.g., 2 Macc 1: 5; 8: 29 (prayer); Philo, Praem. 166 (“improve‐ ment”); Josephus, A.J. 7.153 and Jos. Asen. 11: 18-13: 15 (repentance); Josephus, B.J. 5.415 (confession and repentance). Also compare the intercessory role (of Moses) in Philo, Mos. 2.166; QE 2.49; Josephus, A.J. 3.315, the questioning of it in A.J. 6.143-144, and the “human sacrifice” in 7.295-297. 76 Compare on the public nature of the crucified one the vivid metaphor in Gal 3: 1: κατ᾿ ὀφθαλμοὺς … προεγράφη (“publicly portrayed before your eyes”). Also note the introducing formulation with the verb πεφανέρωται in Rom 3: 21: revelation as the public disclosure of something otherwise hidden. - God as the subject of reconciliation is also linguistically striking in 2 Cor 5: 19; see Breytenbach, “Versöhnung, Stellvertretung und Sühne,” 64; Barth, Der Tod Jesu Christi, 115-116. as votive offerings for synagogues. 74 The structure of a votive offering can be seen reflected in the narrative of Judith: Judith prays to God for help ( Jdt 9), and after receiving divine favor and successfully carrying out her act of salvation, Judith dedicates the household items of Holofernes and the mosquito net from his bed as a publicly visible ἀνάθημα to the temple ( Jdt 16: 19). 6. The Metaphor of the Votive Offering in Paul In light of the limitations of the classical interpretation of Romans 3: 25 in connection with Leviticus 16, and taking into account evidence from Hellenistic inscriptions and Jewish literary sources, my thesis is that Paul intentionally alludes to the diverse practice of votive offerings through the use of the term ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3: 25. This interpretation aligns with the verb προέθετο, which in the middle voice means “to deposit publicly” (in such a way that the actor is personally involved). By using this verb, Paul evokes a familiar and concrete practice for the listeners of his letter. However, whereas in this common practice it is always the human who offers something to appease the deity, 75 with Paul, it is precisely the other way around: God erected a votive offering for the people—and specifically, he does so publicly, for all to see. 76 This reversal precisely mirrors what Paul says about God’s righteousness, which brings about “justification” of the person. In verse 26, Paul states: “that he (God) is righteous and declares righteous the one who has faith in Jesus.” Paul’s metaphor evokes a simple yet striking image: God sets up a votive offering for the human being. However, in the reversal of the usual practice (in 6. The Metaphor of the Votive Offering in Paul 39 <?page no="40"?> 77 Structurally analogous is Rom 1: 17: the righteousness of God “from faith to faith.” - An increasing number of scholars, particularly those from English-speaking backgrounds, interpret πίστις in v. 25, as well as in 3: 22, as referring to the faithfulness of Jesus; see, for example, Henten, “The Tradition-Historical Background,” 103 (with references in no. 1 and 3); Wallis, Faith, 72-102; Seeley, Noble Death, 105-107; Campbell, Rhetoric, 58-69; and the influential work by Hays, Faith, 158-162. In my view, the overall structure of the passage—where πίστις is presented as the appropriate human response to God’s justification (as seen in the participial phrase εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας in v. 22 and the object of justification τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ in v. 26; πίστει as the human attitude within God’s justification in v. 28)—strongly supports the interpretation of faith as the human response to God’s action. Jesus is the object of faith (not merely an exemplum, as in Romans 4 with Abraham), meaning that faith is decided in his person. For Klumbies, “Gott,” 194, 197-198, 205, faith is constitutive for the relationship between God and man; the term secures in 3: 22-26 “primarily the human participation in the saving event accomplished by God in and through Christ for humanity” (205; my translation). The “subjective dimension of appropriating salvation” (238) is highlighted by Gaukesbrink, Sühnetradition, 237-239 (my translation). 78 The image does not suggest the washing away of sins through Jesus’ blood, but to God going to the utmost for humanity. - For blood as an image for violent death, see Friedrich, Verkündigung, 78-79; Breytenbach, “Blut,” 1650-1651 (who, however, sees the atoning effect in Rom 3: 25). Comparable uses can be found in Rom 3: 15; Matt 23: 30, 35; 27: 4, 6, 8, 24-25; Luke 11: 50-51; Acts 5: 28; 18: 6; 20: 26; 22: 20; Heb 12: 4; Rev 6: 10; 16: 3, 6; 17: 6; 18: 24; 19: 2; 1 Cor 10: 16; Col 1: 20. For blood as an apocalyptic symbol of death, see As. Mos. 10: 5; 4 Ezra 5: 5; Acts 2: 19-20 (= Joel 3: 3-4 L X X ); Rev 6: 12; 8: 7; 14: 20; the new relationship between the giver and receiver of the image), this image simultaneously becomes a paradox, an enormity, and nearly blasphemous. (To use contemporary imagery: It is as if I sit in church and God lights a candle for me! ) Yet it is precisely this provocative act that disrupts the ancient concept of divine wrath. In the event of Jesus Christ, God redefines the relationship with humanity. The tension within the metaphor is resolved through a radical reimagining of God’s nature. Paul aims to deepen the understanding of this image. To do so, he first introduces the apposition “through faith.” Its positioning before the syntagma “in his blood” is grammatically striking, thus emphasizing a key point. With this, Paul highlights how this image is perceived and accepted: without faith, the true significance of Jesus’ death remains unseen; his significance as God’s votive offering remains hidden. 77 Faith thus functions as the means of access available to both Jews and Gentiles, thereby— consciously or not—undermining the ethnic boundary that had defined Jewish identity. The second apposition, “in his blood,” metonymically refers to the violent death of Jesus (cf. 5: 9-10). Therefore, God’s votive offering is the murdered Jesus of Nazareth; it is not about objects, but about a human being. This is a matter of life and death, a “bloody serious” reality that everyone can see. 78 The Christ, 40 God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="41"?> 19: 13. In contrast, for example, Stuhlmacher, “Breytenbachs Sicht,” 350: “the blood of Christ as the eschatologically effective means of atonement instituted by God himself (cf. Lev 17: 11)” (my translation). - Already the sacrificial blood in Lev 16, through its close contextual connection to Lev 17 (which, in turn, has echoes of Gen 9), is associated with violent bloodshed (the killing of animals and humans); corresponding rituals also serve to limit violence; on this context, see Jürgens, Heiligkeit, 162-186, 427. 79 See also Rom 8: 32; further, 2 Cor 5: 18-21. From this context, the “love of Christ” in 2 Cor 5: 14a is also to be understood. Love as a motivation for a person to die for another is known in Greek culture; a prominent role model is Euripides’ tragedy Alcestis. See Breytenbach, “Christus,” 457-458; Bremmer, “Atonement,” 75-93. On the Greco-Roman background of “dying for,” see Speyer, “Religionen,” esp. 154-155; Hengel, Atonement, 6-18; Versnel, “Quid Athenis.” - One can also die out of love for one’s fatherland: Cicero, Tusc. 1.90: Quia tanta caritas patriae est, ut eam non sensu nostro, sed salute ipsius metiamur. 80 Compare in the context of voluntary death for the fatherland Seneca, Ep. 76.27: omnia enim relinquis, ut hoc (sc. bonum) habeas. 81 The word denotes less an affect (an emotion) than a fundamental (human) attitude. 82 The verb ἱλάσκομαι (middle voice) means “to make the deity favorable to oneself again”; the suffix -τήριον denotes the place of the event (BDR § 109,10)—etymologically, the ἱλαστήριον is therefore a “place of making favorable”. the Messiah, is the representative of God, and so God himself is depicted in this death. The death of Jesus represents God’s action on behalf of humanity. In Rom 5: 5-8, Paul expresses this connection in different terms: The love of God has been poured into our hearts through the holy Spirit, who has been given to us. For Christ died when we were still weak, at right that time, for (us) the ungodly. Rarely will anyone die for a righteous person; though for what is good, someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his love for us in that Christ died for us while we were still sinners. 79 Whoever gives their life gives everything. 80 Paul’s sole way of expressing God’s motivation for humanity here is through ἀγάπη, love. 81 The ultimate intensification of the bond between two individuals becomes a metaphor for God’s affection, vividly demonstrated in the death of Jesus. Why Paul uses the rare term ἱλαστήριον instead of the more common ἀνάθημα can only be speculated. It is possible that ἱλαστήριον was more familiar in the common language than we can recognize today. Etymologically, it may hint at God’s inclination: 82 God turns to humanity on his own initiative in a new way, initiating a relationship with them based on “affection.” Paul may have also been trying to avoid potential misunderstanding, as the term ἀνάθεμα (with epsilon! ), which is phonetically—and in the Hellenistic sense, also conceptually—very similar to ἀνάθημα, is used in the Septuagint and the 6. The Metaphor of the Votive Offering in Paul 41 <?page no="42"?> 83 Paul applies ἀνάθεμα to himself in Rom 9: 3; cf. 1 Cor 12: 3; 16: 22; Gal 1: 8-9. 84 Also compare to these ideas 1 Cor 6: 20; 7: 23. - Liberation is necessary in the face of the sinfulness and lost state of the world before God, which Paul addresses in Rom 1: 18-3: 20. 85 Even Aelius Aristides knows that the well-being of the physis, which many request through votive offerings, is given as a divine gift (Or. 42.7; C.A. Behr)—he also uses the adverb δωρεάν. 86 Ps 48: 8-9 L X X expresses the impossibility of redemption by humans themselves: λυτρώσεται ἄνθρωπος; οὐ δώσει τῷ θεῷ ἐξίλασμα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν τιμὴν τῆς λυτρώσεως τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ. 87 God turns directly and immediately to humanity in the person of Jesus, to which an equally immediate response in faith can follow. In contrast, Gaukesbrink, Sühnetradi‐ tion, 245 makes the atoning death the foundation: “Paul thus justifies the righteousness of faith in terms of atonement theology” (“Paulus begründet die Glaubensgerechtigkeit damit sühnetheologisch”; cf. also 262-266). 88 Cf. the formulation in Theobald, Römerbrief I, 115. Paul’s statement in 2 Cor 5: 19 is in the same vein: θέμενος ἐν ἡμῖν τὸν λόγον τῆς καταλλαγῆς. New Testament to refer to an object of a curse or the curse itself. 83 This negative connotation would not apply to Rom 3: 25. The justification by God serves as the overarching framework of understand‐ ing, or as the theme, in Rom 3: 21. In verse 24, Paul employs the metaphor of ἀπολύτρωσις, a term with a broad semantic range. In the Hellenistic context, it denotes the redemption of slaves and prisoners of war, 84 while in the Old Testament, it refers to the liberation of Israel from Egypt and from slavery (Exod 6: 6; 15: 13; Deut 7: 8; 9: 26; et al.), or, similarly, from exile (Isa 43: 14; 44: 22-24; et al.). This refers to grace given as a gift (δωρεάν, Rom 3: 24). 85 This liberation occurs “in Christ Jesus,” 86 a theme that is further elaborated—again metaphorically—in 3: 25 in more detail, where Paul explains that God publicly set him up as a votive offering. Paul then frames this event functionally, describing it twice as the “revealing” (ἔνδειξις) of God’s righteousness (thus completing the circle to verse 21): In his righteousness, God forgives sins or offenses (v. 25) and declares the individual righteous already in the present time (v. 26). On his own initiative, God establishes a new foundation for the relationship with humanity. This is God’s righteousness. 87 The death of Jesus reveals the righteousness of God. It is about what can be seen of God in this Jesus! Therefore, the death of Jesus stands as an effective sign of God’s saving action. 88 7. Results This study has aimed to demonstrate both the lexical plausibility and the religious-historical and socio-historical significance of interpreting the term 42 God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="43"?> 89 That Paul does not explicitly reject the reconciliation practice of Yom Kippur here aligns with the sensitivity he demonstrates toward God’s election of Israel in Romans 9-11. For a discussion on the issue of an anti-Jewish interpretation of the Torah in Rom 3: 21-31, see Wengst, “Gerechtigkeit,” 139-151. 90 On this, see Schreiber, Gesalbter, esp. 541, 551-552. ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3: 25 as a votive offering. From this perspective, several key insights emerge: (1) Paul articulates the significance of Jesus’ death through the unusual and provocative metaphor of a votive offering. In doing so, he draws upon the vividness of a well-known ritual practice: God, in a complete reversal of the expected human-divine relationship, gives on his own initiative everything for the sake of humanity—in the death of his representative. The metaphor of the votive offering, while likely powerful and intelligible in Paul’s time, has largely lost its resonance in contemporary contexts. Its full impact can now only be grasped through historical understanding; it resists timeless abstraction and does not lend itself easily to systematic theological frameworks. Because it is embedded in a specific cultural and historical moment, fresh translations and reinterpretations are required in every new context. Nonetheless, what endures beyond the historical specificity is the fundamental theological structure: God’s unconditional turning toward humanity through the giving of his representa‐ tive. The soteriological message remains entirely theo-logically grounded. (2) Paul does not interpret Jesus’ death in terms of ‘atoning death’ or ‘sacrifice’. These categories appear to play no central role in Pauline theology at all. Consequently, translations that employ terms such as “atonement” (German “Sühne”) are misleading and theologically inappropriate. Especially, Paul is not mounting a critique of the Jewish practice of Yom Kippur. 89 Only indirectly are all cultic practices of atonement and sacrifice ultimately pushed to their limits—and thereby rendered absurd. Likewise, any (possible) allusion to Yom Kippur contained in the term ἱλαστήριον remains merely implicit. This subtle ambiguity preserves space for intra-Jewish theological dialogue—a space Paul consciously engages in his letter to the Romans. (3) Paul’s argument is grounded in the concept of representation and is, in this sense, profoundly personal: in Christ, one encounters God. The idea of representation is already embedded in the title “Christ” (χριστός), as suggested by the word order “in Christ Jesus” in 3: 24: Traditionally, the anointed one is understood as God’s representative. 90 This provides the crucial link between the death of Jesus and the salvific action of God. However, this theological nuance is easily lost when Christ is understood merely as a proper name rather than as 7. Results 43 <?page no="44"?> 91 For example, I recognize the potential issue in Gnilka’s formulation (Theologie, 80): God, “who works atonement together with Christ” (“der zusammen mit Christus die Sühne wirkt”). Janowski, Sühne, 362 has to resort to the title “Son of God”; cf. Söding, “Sühne,” 383. The “presence of God”, which Knöppler, Sühne, 116 (cf. 314-315) speaks of, is not cultic, but Christo-logically grounded. a title. 91 A comparable idea is expressed differently in 2 Cor 5: 19: “For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and he placed among us the word of reconciliation.” What, then, is Jesus’ role in this divine event? Abstractly stated: he assumes the function of the representative. Paul articulates this idea again in Rom 5: 19, where he speaks of Jesus’ “obedience” in terms of an immediate, personal relationship with God. An instructive parallel can be found in the Jesus tradition: in Mark 2: 5, Jesus simply pronounces the forgiveness of sins to the paralytic lowered through the roof—without any accompanying ritual. This stands in stark contrast to his teacher John, who administers a water rite, and even more so to the temple’s sacrificial system. Here, forgiveness is presented as the eschatological act of God himself (cf. Mic 7: 19; Isa 33: 22, 24)! (4) From a formal perspective, it is striking how thoroughly the entire passage of Rom 3: 21-26 is shaped by metaphorical language. Metaphor, with its experiential resonance and inherent openness, emerges as an appropriate theological mode of expression—particularly when seeking to ascribe meaning to the historical event of Jesus’ execution from the standpoint of faith (pistis). God’s action is revealed beyond abstract logic and fixed truth. For us, Pauline imagery contains the openness to articulate the overcoming of estrangement from God through our own images—as an event that takes place in a human being and can therefore be responded to with human categories. It becomes the task of contemporary theology, then, to cultivate a metaphorical vocabulary of comparable depth and expressive power, one that is attuned to the symbolic world and existential concerns of our own time and culture. Bibliography Barth, Gerhard. Der Tod Jesu Christi im Verständnis des Neuen Testaments. 2nd ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2003. BDR = Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 16th ed. Bearbeitet von Friedrich Rehkopf. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. 44 God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="45"?> Blinkenberg, Christian, ed. Die Lindische Tempelchronik. Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 131. Bonn: Marcus und Weber, 1915. Böttrich, Christfried. Das slavische Henochbuch. JSHRZ V/ 7. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996. ---. Weltweisheit, Menschheitsethik, Urkult: Studien zum slavischen Henochbuch. WUNT II/ 50. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Bremmer, Jan N. “The Atonement in the Interaction of Greeks, Jews, and Christians.” Pages 75-93 in Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer and Florentino García Martínez. CBET 5. Kampen: Kok, 1992. Breytenbach, Cilliers. “Versöhnung, Stellvertretung und Sühne: Semantische und tradi‐ tionsgeschichtliche Bemerkungen am Beispiel der paulinischen Briefe.” NTS 39 (1993): 59-79. ---. “‘Christus starb für uns.’ Zur Tradition und paulinischen Rezeption der sogenannten ‘Sterbeformeln’: Martin Hengel zum 75. Geburtstag.” NTS 49 (2003): 447-475. ---. “Blut.” RGG 1 (4th ed. 1998): 1650-1651. ---. Versöhnung: Eine Studie zur paulinischen Soteriologie. WMANT 60. Neu‐ kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1989. Campbell, Douglas A. The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-26. JSNTSup 65. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Deißmann, Adolf. “ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΣ and ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟN. Eine lexikalische Studie.” ZNW 4 (1903): 193-212. Dunn, James D.G. Romans. Vol. I. WBC 38A. Dallas: Word Books, 1988 (Reprint 2001). Elliott, Susan M. Cutting Too Close for Comfort: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians in Its Anatolian Cultic Context. JSNTSup 248. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Fenelli, Maria. “Contributo per lo Studio del Votivo Anatomico: I Votivi Anatomici di Lavinio.” Archeologia classica 27 (1975): 206-252. Frateantonio, Christa. “Consecratio.” Der neue Pauly 3 (1997): 127-128. ---. “Dedicatio.” Der neue Pauly 3 (1997): 359-360. ---. “Weihung, Weihgeschenk. II. Klassische Antike.” Der neue Pauly 12/ 2 (2002): 421- 422. Friedrich, Gerhard. Die Verkündigung des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. 2nd ed. Biblisch-theologische Studien 6. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1985. Fryer, Nico S.L. “The Meaning and Translation of Hilastērion in Romans 3: 25.” EvQ 59 (1987): 99-116. Gäckle, Volker. “Sühne und Versöhnung bei Paulus.” Pages 87-105 in Warum das Kreuz? Die Frage nach der Bedeutung des Todes Jesu. Edited by Volker Gäckle. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1998. Bibliography 45 <?page no="46"?> Gaukesbrink, Martin. Die Sühnetradition bei Paulus. Rezeption und theologischer Stellen‐ wert. FB 82. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1999. Gnilka, Joachim. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. HThKNTSup 5. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1994. Grenfell, Bernard P., Arthur S. Hunt, and David G. Hogarth, eds. Fayûm Towns and their Papyri. Graeco-Roman Memoirs. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1900. Guarducci, Margherita. “L’Isola Tiberina e la sua Tradizione Ospitaliera.” Pages 180-197 in Scritti scelti sulla religione greca e romana e sul Cristianesimo. Leiden: Brill, 1983. Haacker, Klaus. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. THKNT 6. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999. Hays, Richard B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3: 1-4: 11. Chico: Scholars Press, 1983 (2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Hengel, Martin. The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. Henten, Jan W. van. “Datierung und Herkunft des Vierten Makkabäerbuches.” Pages 136-149 in Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Literature: Essays in Honour of Jürgen C.H. Lebram. Edited by Jan W. van Henten. StPB 36. Leiden: Brill, 1986. ---. “The Tradition-Historical Background of Romans 3,25: A Search for Pagan and Jewish Parallels.” Pages 101-128 in From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus De Jonge. Edited by Martinus C. de Boer. JSNTSup 84. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Heyer, Cornelis J. den. Jesus and the Doctrine of the Atonement: Biblical Notes on a Controversial Topic. Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1998. Hofius, Otfried. “Sühne IV. Neues Testament.” TRE 32 (2001): 342-347. Janowski, Bernd. Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift. 2nd ed. WMANT 55. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu‐ kirchener, 2000. Jürgens, Benedikt. Heiligkeit und Versöhnung: Levitikus 16 in seinem literarischen Kontext. Herders Biblische Studien 28. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2001. Karrer, Martin. Jesus Christus im Neuen Testament. GNT 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Kierdorf, Wilhelm. “‘Funus’ und ‘consecratio’. Zu Terminologie und Ablauf der römi‐ schen Kaiserapotheose.” Chiron 16 (1986): 43-69. Klauck, Hans-Josef. 4. Makkabäerbuch. JSHRZ III/ 6. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1989. Klumbies, Paul-Gerhard. “Der Eine Gott des Paulus. Röm 3,21-31 als Brennpunkt paulinischer Theo-logie.” ZNW 85 (1994): 192-206. 46 God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="47"?> Knöppler, Thomas. Sühne im Neuen Testament: Studien zum urchristlichen Verständnis der Heilsbedeutung des Todes Jesu. WMANT 88. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001. Kraus, Wolfgang. “Der Jom Kippur, der Tod Jesu und die ‘Biblische Theologie.’ Ein Versuch, die jüdische Tradition in die Auslegung von Röm 3,25f. einzubeziehen.” Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 6 (1991): 155-172. ---. Der Tod Jesu als Heiligtumsweihe: Eine Untersuchung zum Umfeld der Sühnevorstel‐ lung in Römer 3,25-26a. WMANT 66. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991. ---. “Der Tod Jesu als Sühnetod bei Paulus. Überlegungen zur neueren Diskussion.” Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 2 (1999): 20-30. Lohse, Eduard. Der Brief an die Römer. KEK 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Lyons, John. Semantik. Bd. 1. Beck’sche Elementarbücher. München: Beck, 1980. Maier, Johann. Zwischen den Testamenten: Geschichte und Religion in der Zeit des zweiten Tempels. NEchtB.AT Ergänzungsband 3. Würzburg: Echter, 1990. McLean, Bradley H. “The Absence of an Atoning Sacrifice in Paul’s Soteriology.” NTS 38 (1992): 531-553. Merklein, Helmut. “Die Bedeutung des Kreuzestodes Christi für die paulinische Gerech‐ tigkeits- und Gesetzesthematik.” Pages 1-106 in Studien zu Jesus und Paulus. WUNT 43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. ---. “Der Tod Jesu als stellvertretender Sühnetod.” Pages 181-191 in Studien zu Jesus und Paulus. WUNT 43. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. ---. “Sühne. 2. Neues Testament.” LTK 9 (3rd ed. 2000): 1099-1102. Milgrom, Jacob. “Day of Atonement.” EncJud 5 (1971): 1384-1387. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Paton, William R., and Edward L. Hicks, eds. The Inscriptions of Cos. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891 (Reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1990). Pensabene, Patrizio et al. Terracotte Votive dal Tevere. Studi Miscellanei 25. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1980. Röhser, Günter. Stellvertretung im Neuen Testament. SBS 195. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002. Roloff, Jürgen. “ἱλαστήριον.” EWNT II (2nd ed. 1992): 455-457. Rüpke, Jörg. Die Religion der Römer: Eine Einführung. München: C.H. Beck, 2001. Schenk, Wolfgang. “‘Sühnemittel’ oder ‘Gnadenort’? Zur ursprünglichen Codierung von ἱλαστήριον Röm 3,25.” Pages 553-567 in Nach den Anfängen fragen: Gerhard Dautzen‐ berg zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Cornelius Mayer. GSTR 8. Gießen: Selbstverlag des Fachbereichs Evang. Theologie und Kath. Theologie, 1994. Schnelle, Udo. Paulus: Leben und Denken. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2003. Schreiber, Stefan. Gesalbter und König: Titel und Konzeptionen der königlichen Gesalbtenerwartung in frühjüdischen und urchristlichen Schriften. BZNW 105. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2000. Bibliography 47 <?page no="48"?> ---. “Hoffnung und Handlungsperspektive in der Assumptio Mosis.” JSJ 32 (2001): 252-271. Schröter, Jens. “Metaphorische Christologie: Überlegungen zum Beitrag eines meta‐ pherntheoretischen Zugangs zur Christologie anhand einiger christologischer Meta‐ phern bei Paulus.” Pages 53-73 in Metaphorik und Christologie. Edited by Jörg Frey, Jan Rohls, and Ruben Zimmermann. Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann 120. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2003. Seeley, David. The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul’s Concept of Salvation. JSNTSup 28. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Söding, Thomas. “Sühne durch Stellvertretung. Zur zentralen Deutung des Todes Jesu im Römerbrief.” Pages 375-396 in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. Edited by Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Speyer, Wolfgang. “Religionen des griechisch-römischen Bereichs. Zorn der Gottheit, Vergeltung und Sühne.” Pages 140-159 in Frühes Christentum im antiken Strahlungs‐ feld: Ausgewählte Aufsätze. WUNT 50. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel. The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century. WUNT 163. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Straten, Folkert T. van. “Gifts for the Gods.” Pages 65-151 in Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World. Edited by Hendrik S. Versnel. Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 2. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Der Brief an die Römer. NTD 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. ---.“Cilliers Breytenbachs Sicht von Sühne und Versöhnung.” Jahrbuch für biblische Theologie 6 (1991): 339-354. ---. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. I. Grundlegung: Von Jesus zu Paulus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Tarragon, J.-M. de. “La kapporet est-elle une fiction ou un élément du culte tardif ? ” RB 88 (1981): 5-12. Theobald, Michael. Römerbrief. Vol. I. 2nd ed. SKKNT 6.1. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel‐ werk, 1998. ---. Der Römerbrief. EdF 294. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2000. Versnel, Hendrik S. “Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Bemerkungen über die Herkunft von Aspekten des ‘effective death’.” Pages 162-196 in Die Entstehung der Jüdischen Martyrologie. Edited by Jan W. van Henten. StPB 38. Leiden: Brill, 1989. Wachsmuth, Dietrich. “Weihungen.” KlPauly 5 (1979): 1355-1359. Wallis, Ian G. The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions. SNTSMS 84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 48 God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="49"?> Wengst, Klaus. “‘Gerechtigkeit Gottes’ für die Völker. Ein Versuch, Röm 3,21-31 anders zu lesen.” Pages 139-151 in Ja und Nein: Christliche Theologie im Angesicht Israels: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Wolfgang Schrage. Edited by Klaus Wengst. Neu‐ kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1998. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. Vol. 1. EKKNT VI/ 1. Zürich: Benziger; Neu‐ kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978. Zeller, Dieter. “Sühne und Langmut. Zur Traditionsgeschichte von Röm 3,24-26.” ThPh 43 (1968): 51-75. ---. Der Brief an die Römer. RNT. Regensburg: Pustet, 1985. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Metapherntheorie und biblische Bildersprache: Ein methodolo‐ gischer Versuch.” TZ 56 (2000): 108-133. Bibliography 49 <?page no="51"?> Chapter 2 <?page no="53"?> * First published in German as “Weitergedacht: Das versöhnende Weihegeschenk Gottes in Röm 3,25.” ZNW 106 (2015): 201-215. 1 Schreiber, “Weihegeschenk” (2006), 88-110. [Chapter 1 in this volume] 2 L X X Exod 25: 17-22 (7 attestations); 31: 7; 35: 12; 38: 5-8 (4 attestations); Lev 16: 2 (2 attestations); 16: 13-15 (5 attestations); Num 7: 89. Gen 6: 15 S Y M uses the term differently for Noah’s Ark. Thinking Further: God’s Reconciling Votive Offering in Romans 3: 25 * Abstract: In response to criticisms of my proposal to understand the term ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3: 25 as “votive offering,” both theologically and lexicographically, this article develops my thesis a step further. Hence, it first discusses the various problems with the widely held interpretation that the term refers to the “mercy seat” of Lev 16 L XX and describes the death of Jesus as the establishment of a new place of atonement. Furthermore, the philological possibility of translating ἱλαστήριον as “votive offering” or, more precisely, as “gift of reconciliation” is elaborated on in detail. Finally, the article discusses the application of the ancient practice of votive offerings to Rom 3: 25, directing attention to its possible reception by the listeners and to the theological significance of this process. Several years ago, I proposed a new interpretation of the complex term ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3: 25 as signifying a “votive offering.” 1 With this desig‐ nation, Paul offers a theological interpretation of Jesus’ death. The passage is of considerable significance, as within the context of Rom 3: 21-31 it articulates the foundation of human salvation or redemption—classically Lutheran: “justi‐ fication by faith”—in terms of the “atoning death” of Jesus. It thus constitutes a core text of Pauline theology. Interpreters who have been influenced by biblical theology commonly link Paul’s use of ἱλαστήριον in Rom 3: 25 to the early Jewish context of Yom Kippur and the blood ritual described in Lev 16: 11-17 L XX , which served to purify the priest, his household, and all of Israel within the Jerusalem Temple. Indeed, the majority of ancient attestations of ἱλαστήριον appear in this context. All 21 occurrences in the Pentateuch refer to the kapporæt—the “cover plate” or, as it is frequently translated, the “place of atonement” (German Sühnestätte) or “mercy seat” on the Ark of the Covenant in the First Temple. 2 However, only Lev 16: 11-17 LXX describes the Yom Kippur blood ritual itself. When Paul refers to Jesus as ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3: 25, then, according to this interpretation, Jesus assumes the function <?page no="54"?> 3 Roloff, “ἱλαστήριον,” 456 (my translation); Kraus, “Erweis,” 206, 208-216, quotation on 214-215 (my translation), where further literature is also cited. Cf. with varying emphases: Kraus, Tod Jesu; Jewett, Romans, 284-290; Zugmann, Hellenisten, 381-387; Eberhart, Kultmetaphorik, 160-170. Often, this is associated with the replacement of the temple cult with Christ. — Wolter, Paulus, 108 argues against a typological identification of Jesus with the ἱλαστήριον, since it is an abstract noun, and instead speaks of a functional analogy to the blood ritual of the Day of Atonement. 4 Kraus, “Erweis,” 201-203, 208. See also Zugmann, Hellenisten, 380-381; Tiwald, “Christ as Hilasterion,” 193-194. 5 Weiß, “Christus,” 294-302. of the Yom Kippur blood rite: he takes the place of the atonement site or ritual and, in his death, provides, once and for all, atonement for all human transgressions. J. Roloff interprets this typologically: “God has caused Jesus to take the place of the kapporæt hidden in the temple and the atoning ritual associated with it, who, through ‘his blood,’ that is, through his self-giving of life, brings about atonement.” W. Kraus articulates this in cultic-metaphorical terms: “The appointment as ἱλαστήριον involves the ‘consecration’ of the place of atonement, divine presence, and revelation”; “Jesus, through the offering of his life, was inaugurated as ἱλαστήριον—as the place where God is encountered.” 3 This interpretation of Romans 3: 25 gains plausibility not least from its basis in biblical theology, which allows it to be situated within the broader framework of Pauline scriptural exegesis. The reference to Leviticus 16 L XX enables far-reach‐ ing conclusions regarding the new relationship of Christians to the cultic practices of the Jerusalem Temple and their replacement through Christ. Thus, the interpretation of ἱλαστήριον entails fundamental hermeneutical decisions for understanding Pauline theology. It is therefore unsurprising that my proposal for an alternate reading—based on socio-religious practices within Greco-Roman culture—has been met with significant criticism. W. Kraus questions both the strength of the evidence I have presented and the theological coherence that emerges from my interpretation. 4 More recently, A. Weiß has disputed the philological viability of translating ἱλαστήριον as a votive offering in Greco-Roman sources. 5 By reexamining both the philological issues surrounding the term ἱλαστήριον and the hermeneutical indicators directed toward the reader in Rom 3: 21-26, I seek to reassess and further develop my thesis. 54 Thinking Further: God’s Reconciling Votive Offering in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="55"?> 6 For a more detailed discussion, see also Schreiber, “Weihegeschenk,” 91-96, where he further develops alternative interpretations, such as martyrdom and heroic death (96-99). 7 The ambiguity of the term is reflected in the diversity of interpretations. For instance, Kraus, “Erweis,” 206 carefully distinguishes between atonement for personal sins and the purification or consecration of the sanctuary as the primary point of reference. In contrast, Tiwald, “Christ as Hilasterion,” 205 adopts a broader view, interpreting ἱλαστήριον “as a metonymic pars pro toto expression” for Yom Kippur—or even for the entire temple cult—so that, in the death of Jesus, “the apex of fulfilment of all the expectations of redemption has now been reached” (italics in original). Although Tiwald underscores that early Jewish cultic metaphors do not necessarily imply a rejection of the temple cult (195-201), he ultimately cannot avoid the tension when describing Christ as “the deepest fulfilment of all that temple service stood for in the now upcoming eschaton” (206; italics original). Jewett, Romans, 290 speaks more directly of a “replacement of the temple.” — Eberhart, Studien, 140-158, 289-331, argues against 1. The Starting Point: Challenges in Deriving ἱλαστήριον from Leviticus 16 LXX The genesis of my earlier thesis was the set of difficulties associated with interpreting ἱλαστήριον against the backdrop of the blood ritual on Yom Kippur as described in Lev 16: 11-17 LXX . 6 Even within the Tanakh, the reference to ἱλαστήριον is not unequivocal: in Num 7: 89, the “cover plate” serves a different function—as the site of divine revelation; in Ezek 43, the term designates a different cultic location—a step of the eschatological burnt offering altar; and in Amos 9: 1, the reference remains ambiguous (a pillar capital? a cultic site? ). The metaphor presupposed in Rom 3: 25 is striking: Jesus appears both as the sacrificial offering (“in his blood”) and as the specific locus of that offering. What is missing is a tangible image that could facilitate the reception of the metaphor: the First Temple was destroyed in 586 BCE, and since then the Ark of the Covenant, along with its cover plate, were lost. A further significant problem arises from the fact that the evidence for this (assumed) allusion to Lev 16 LXX in Rom 3: 25 is confined to the single term ἱλαστήριον, thereby introducing a striking degree of ambiguity: it remains uncertain whether ἱλαστήριον refers to the designated object (the “cover plate”), the rites and functions of Yom Kippur, or the entire temple cult. Furthermore, it is questionable whether the original audience in Rome would have possessed precise knowledge of which ritual—the blood rite at the ἱλαστήριον, the burning of the sacrificial material, or the scapegoat ceremony—corresponded to which function (cleansing, forgiveness of sins, and the specific nature of those sins). It also remains unclear whether the text intends a typological or cultic-metaphor‐ ical application of Lev 16 to Jesus’ death, a positive correspondence to the model, or the replacement of Yom Kippur by Christ. 7 1. The Starting Point: Challenges in Deriving ἱλαστήριον from Leviticus 16 L X X 55 <?page no="56"?> limiting the atonement function to the kapporæt, instead emphasizing the central role of the scapegoat ritual and the burning rites. 8 For the significance of Yom Kippur, see Stökl Ben Ezra, Impact. 9 See also Schreiber, “Law,” 100-119, and compare Chapter 5 in this volume. The reception context of the addressees of the letter to the Romans is crucial here. The letter was not addressed to temple priests in Jerusalem, nor to Pharisaic scribes but rather to communities in Rome, which were predominantly composed of Gentile Christ-followers alongside Jewish Christ-followers. For at least the Gentile believers, it is unlikely that the term ἱλαστήριον, without further explanation, would have immediately evoked Yom Kippur and its associated functions. A cultic ritual centered on the Jerusalem Temple would have been unknown to them and their lived experience. A reference to Yom Kippur in Rom 3: 25 would likely have posed difficulties even for those acquainted with the Yom Kippur tradition as conveyed in Lev 16 L XX . The implications of such a transfer onto the death of Jesus would be unavoidable: Jesus’ death would signify the abrogation of Yom Kippur—that is, the Christologically grounded nullification of this ritual—or at the very least, a profound relativization of its function. This stands in stark tension with the high regard in which Yom Kippur was held within Judaism. 8 Precisely because Paul is writing as a Jewish author, the audience would scarcely have expected him to leave such a far-reaching consequence as the abolition of Yom Kippur as a mere implication, as if only mentioning it in passing without explicit justification. Regardless of the contested question as to whether Rom 3: 25 incorporates an early Christian tradition, readers would anticipate from an author like Paul—whose thought is deeply rooted in the theological framework of early Judaism—a thorough and explicit reflection on the relationship between Jesus’ death and Yom Kippur. Within the broader context of the letter to the Romans, the audience encounters Paul as a careful interpreter who develops his novel reading and application of the Torah from the vantage point of the Christ event, beginning in Rom 2: 12 and culminating in the Torah-hermeneutical principle set forth in 13: 8-10. 9 It is, therefore, highly unlikely that he would have offered no explanation of his terminological allusion, thus leaving room for misunderstanding. This is especially true when considering the purpose of Romans: to provide a comprehensive, measured, and well-reasoned presentation of the Pauline gospel aimed at gaining the Roman congregations’ support for Paul and his planned mission to Spain. The recipients would hardly suspect that Paul would jeopardize his mission through an implicit and casual dismissal of Yom Kippur. 56 Thinking Further: God’s Reconciling Votive Offering in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="57"?> 10 Cf. Schreiber, “Weihegeschenk,” 100-101. Weiß, “Christus,” 297 adds items (3)-(5). Inscriptions from the island of Kos: (1) Paton and Hicks, Inscriptions, 126, no. 81. (2) Ibid., 225-226, no. 347. (3) Bulletino del Museo dell’Impero Romano 3 (1932): 14, no. 11. (4) SEG LIV, no. 769. — Inscriptions from the city of Lindos on Rhodes: (5) Blinkenberg and Kinch, Lindos, no. 425. (6) Blinkenberg, Tempelchronik, 12, no. VIII (B 48-53). — Also relevant are: (7) Dio Chrysostom, Or. 11.121, and (8) Josephus, A.J. 16.182. — P.Oxy. 1985, a late source (543 CE), remains unclear: ἱλαστήριον appears as part of a mechanical device (a pump or irrigation system? ) in a mobile function (possibly for balancing or tilting? ). 11 Weiß, “Christus,” 298, 301 (my translations). 12 On methodology, see Egger and Wick, Methodenlehre, 163-169. 2. A Semantic Alternative: ἱλαστήριον as Votive Offering Given the challenges associated with the conventional interpretation of ἱλαστήριον against the backdrop of Lev 16 LXX , it is worth considering semantic alternatives that would have been accessible to the recipients within their Roman cultural context. Relevant evidence can be found in several instances within the epigraphic and literary record of antiquity. The examples I originally cited have since been expanded upon by A. Weiß, who adds three inscriptions, bringing the total to eight attestations—six epigraphic and two literary—from the two centuries surrounding the turn of the era, in which the noun is used outside the Septuagint and independent of the context of Yom Kippur. 10 Weiß initially observes that, in the case of the inscriptions, “a non-specific rendering of hilasterion as ‘votive offering’ is possible,” but subsequently raises reservations and ultimately dismisses my interpretation as “philologically untenable.” 11 It is well established that the meaning of a lexeme depends on the context of its usage—this is especially true for a polysemous term like ἱλαστήριον. The semantic features or components of a lexeme can be elucidated through the analysis of its syntagmatic relationships as well as by comparing it with words that stand in paradigmatic relation to it. 12 In the case of the inscriptions, which constitute the majority of attestations, the syntagmatic patterns surrounding ἱλαστήριον can be summarized as follows: a human agent is identified as the giver or dedicant of the ἱλαστήριον, while the addressee is a deity, and there is usually a beneficiary specified by a “for” construction. A verb is typically absent—an unsurprising feature in inscriptions—but can be supplied contextually, usually with “to give” or “to dedicate.” For instance, an inscription from the island of Kos (translated into English) reads: 2. A Semantic Alternative: ἱλαστήριον as Votive Offering 57 <?page no="58"?> 13 Paton and Hicks, Inscriptions, 126, no. 81 [= IG XII 4.2.673]. On the translation, see Weiß, “Christus,” 296. 14 For more on this practice, see Schreiber, “Weihegeschenk,” 102-105. 15 Text and commentary: Blinkenberg, Tempelchronik; Higbie, Chronicle. The people (gave/ dedicated) for the welfare of the emperor Caesar, son of a god, Augustus, to the gods a ἱλαστήριον. 13 The text genre of the inscription makes it clear that the lexeme designates an object identified as such and that this object serves as an offering to the gods, associated with a specific intention or petition on the part of the donor. This aligns broadly with the widespread ancient practice of dedicating votive offerings: when an individual approached a deity with a particular concern— whether personal or political—they would offer a gift either in gratitude for divine assistance already received or as a gesture in anticipation of hoped-for support. 14 Of particular interest are the passages in which Weiß develops his own translation as Sühnemal (“atonement memorial”). These instances require a nuanced analysis of the semantic evidence and thereby contribute to a more precise understanding of the lexeme ἱλαστήριον. 2.1 The Temple Chronicle from Lindos (99 BCE) 15 The inscription stele from Lindos contains, in Part A, a decree issued by the people concerning the production of the stele, which serves to document the significance of the temple of Lindian Athena. Particular emphasis is placed on the special votive offerings (ἀναθέματα) that were erected in honor of the goddess (A 3, 4, 7). Part B opens with the heading τοίδε ἀνέθηκαν τᾶι Ἀθάναι, which recalls the previously mentioned ἀναθέματα and may be translated as: “The following dedicated (votive offerings) to Athena.” This heading introduces a detailed list of votive offerings made by prominent figures from myth and history, typically accompanied by quotations of the inscriptions associated with the offerings. The arrangement of Parts A and B on the stele thus places all the listed offerings under the overarching term ἀνάθεμα, without requiring the term to be repeated in each entry. The passage of particular relevance here (B 48-53) refers to a votive gift from Telephos—a bowl with a golden boss—which is described in the accompanying 58 Thinking Further: God’s Reconciling Votive Offering in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="59"?> 16 The spelling without sigma is due to the local Doric dialect of Lindos, as noted by Weiß, “Christus,” 298 note 9, and should not be interpreted as an error or deviation, as I had previously assumed (Schreiber, “Weihegeschenk,” 101). 17 Cf. the remark by Weiß, “Christus,” 298 regarding several thousand attestations in the inscriptions. 18 Passow, Handwörterbuch I/ 2, 1478 (my translation). He also lists the meaning “to atone”; see below for further discussion. 19 Cf. Deißmann, “ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΣ,” 210-211, who defines the terms as “gift of reconciliation or atonement” or “means of reconciliation or atonement” (my translation). Higbie, Chronicle, 25, 83, translates it differently using the phrase “supplicatory gift” without offering further explanation. inscription as a ἱλατή[ρι]ον (B 49). 16 The term thus clearly denotes a votive offering. Its appearance in the inscription associated with the bowl places ἱλαστήριον in a paradigmatic relationship with ἀνάθεμα. This suggests a fundamental synonymy between the two terms and situates both within the same semantic field of “votive offering.” However—as Weiß rightly notes—the variation in terminology points to a more specific nuance in the meaning of ἱλαστήριον in comparison to the more general term ἀνάθεμα, thereby going beyond mere synonymy. The linguistic distinction between hypernym (superordinate term) and hy‐ ponym (subordinate term) helps clarify the relationship at hand. In antiquity, ἀνάθημα (or ἀνάθεμα, a spelling variant attested in the Hellenistic period) was the standard and widely employed term for “votive offering.” 17 The Temple Chronicle of Lindos reveals that ἱλαστήριον, mentioned in the inscription of a single dedication, is a hyponym of ἀνάθημα, the term that introduces the entire catalogue of offerings. In other words, ἱλαστήριον represents a particular type of votive offering: ἀνάθημα functions as the general category, and ἱλαστήριον as a specific instance within it. Other attested hyponyms found in inscriptions include χαριστήριον, εὐχαριστήριον, and δῶρον. The semantic specification conveyed by the lexeme ἱλαστήριον derives from the meaning of its lexical family, represented by the verb ἱλάσκομαι, meaning “to reconcile, to render a deity inclined, favorable or gracious.” 18 Accordingly, appropriate translations might include “gift of reconciliation” 19 or “reconciling votive offering.” Telephos is thus attempting, through the bowl he dedicates to Lindian Athena as a votive offering, to reconcile his relationship with the goddess and to thus (once again? ) win or restore her favor. Beyond this implication, the inscription provides no further detail. The hyponymic relationship between ἱλαστήριον and the overarching term ἀνάθημα is further confirmed by a second example discussed by Weiß: 2. A Semantic Alternative: ἱλαστήριον as Votive Offering 59 <?page no="60"?> 20 This interpretation is rejected by Weiß, “Christus,” 301 as too weak. 21 Cf. Seeck, “Dion Chrysostomos,” 101: “as penance and admission of their defeat” (“als Buße und Eingeständnis ihrer Niederlage”). 22 Weiß, “Christus,” 301. 2.2 Dio Chrysostom, Oration 11.121 In his Eleventh Oration, Dio radically reinterprets the traditional Homeric account of Troy, presenting it in a critical and revisionist light that stands in stark contrast to Homer’s narrative. In section 11.121, he employs the terms under discussion— ἀνάθημα and ἱλαστήριον—in a syntactically parallel construction. The narrative context involves imagined peace negotiations between the Tro‐ jans and the Greeks (11.118-122), during which the Trojans demand restitution for the costs of the war and appropriate reparations. The Greeks, citing their lack of financial means, decline these demands. However, in order to fulfill a sense of “a certain justice,” they propose to leave behind for the goddess Athena “a very beautiful and large ἀνάθημα,” bearing the inscription: “As a ἱλαστήριον, the Achaeans (gave/ dedicated this) to Trojan Athena” (11.121). According to Dio, this object was none other than the famous wooden horse. In this brief scene, the semantic relationship between the two terms is clearly affirmed: ἀνάθημα functions as the general category, which is specified in the inscription as a ἱλαστήριον. If we apply the proposed translations—“reconciling votive offering” or “gift of reconciliation” 20 —the semantic nuance of reconcilia‐ tion integrates seamlessly into the context of the peace negotiations. Since the Greeks are either unwilling or unable to provide material compensation for the Trojans’ wartime losses, reparation is transposed to the religious plane: it takes the form of reconciliation with Athena, the patron goddess of the Trojans. Through the offering of this precious votive offering, the demand for justice is symbolically fulfilled. The gesture conveys an acknowledgment of defeat, a disposition of penitence, and a genuine desire for reconciliation on the part of the Greeks. 21 These intentions are communicated through their relationship with the goddess Athena. In this light, the function of the “reconciling votive offering” becomes evident: reconciliation with Trojan Athena serves to restore a sense of justice and, by extension, signifies reconciliation with the Trojans. 2.3 “Atoning Memorial” or “Reconciling Votive Offering”? At this point, Weiß proposes the term Sühnemal (“atoning memorial”) as a German translation of ἱλαστήριον. 22 However, this translation raises more problems than it resolves. To begin with, the theologically charged term Sühne 60 Thinking Further: God’s Reconciling Votive Offering in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="61"?> 23 See also Wolter, Paulus, 102-103; Schröter, “Sühne,” 51-71. 24 In this context, ἱλαστήριον can be understood both as a substantive and as a predicate noun; μνῆμα functions as the object of the sentence, and the genitive τοῦ δέους is best interpreted as a genitivus auctoris. 25 Cf. LSJ 828 s.v.: “2. (sc. ἀνάθημα) propitiatory gift or offering” (italics in original); they also include Rom 3: 25 under this meaning. (“atonement”) is highly ambiguous and prone to misunderstanding. Does it—as in Weiß’s interpretation—refer to an “atoning act” in the sense of “making restitution”? The semantic range of the term oscillates between reconciliation, restitution, and the (substitutionary) bearing or expiation of punishment. The German word Sühne originates in Germanic legal tradition, where it referred to the restoration of a disrupted social relationship. In theological discourse, it is frequently used with connotations of cultic sacrificial rites intended to effect atonement before God. While Sühne is firmly embedded in the systematic-theo‐ logical language of description, its anchoring in the language of the ancient sources remains unclear. As such, the term lacks precision and is thus unsuitable for an accurate description. 23 It therefore seems advisable to forgo this term in favor of more precise alternatives such as reconciliation, reparation, or cultic sacrifice. The second component of the compound, Mal (“memorial”), is likewise problematic. It does not appear to be among the semantic features of ἱλαστήριον, as Josephus explicitly distinguishes it from μνῆμα, “memorial” or “monument,” in A.J. 16.182: Herod the Great had the tomb of David opened and robbed, but when two of his bodyguards were killed by flames of fire, “he hurried out in great fear and, as a gift of reconciliation prompted by his terror (τοῦ δέους ἱλαστήριον), erected a memorial (μνῆμα) of white stone at the entrance, at great expense.” 24 The term ἱλαστήριον designates the function of the monument, whereas μνῆμα refers to the concrete form of the ἱλαστήριον. Here again, the translation as “gift of reconciliation” or “reconciling votive offering” proves the most fitting: Herod has disturbed the peace of the deceased King David and now seeks reconciliation with the agitated realm of the dead by erecting a monument as an offering of reconciliation. This review of the available sources—those outside the context of the Septua‐ gint and Yom Kippur—reveals two key semantic features that carry the meaning of ἱλαστήριον: (1) Votive offering: 25 This feature emerges clearly from the context of its usage. Both inscriptions found on or referring to votive offerings, as well as the 2. A Semantic Alternative: ἱλαστήριον as Votive Offering 61 <?page no="62"?> 26 Schumacher, Entstehung, 338-340 shows that the suffix -τήριον can also denote function (of a place); he translates it as “instrument or means of reconciliation” (“Instrument oder Mittel der Versöhnung,” 341). He is followed by Baumert, Christus, 59-60. relevant literary attestations, indicate that the term consistently refers to votive gifts. Without exception, ἱλαστήριον is used in the context of offerings made as acts of devotion. (2) Reconciliation: The fact that the much more common term for a votive offering, ἀνάθημα, is occasionally replaced by ἱλαστήριον points to a semantic specification derived from the verbal root ἱλάσκ-, which means “to reconcile” or “to render inclined or favorable.” The suffix -τηριον in classical Greek typically denotes a place where a particular function occurs—in this case, a site where reconciliation is effected or expressed—thus incorporating functional significance into the term itself. 26 Translations are always linguistic approximations, as they can never fully capture the complexity of the original text. Nonetheless, the semantic features outlined above support “gift of reconciliation” or “reconciling votive offering” as plausible translation equivalents. In my view, this interpretation is not only philologically tenable but also faithful to its usage in the Greek texts. The semantic element of reconciliation also sheds light on the Septuagint’s application of ἱλαστήριον to concrete cultic objects or locations. In this usage, ἱλαστήριον—conceived as a “place of reconciliation” or “site of propitiation”— places the functional dimension of these cultic sites at the forefront. 3. The Application in Romans 3: 25 The applicability of the concept of a votive offering to Romans 3: 25 is, of course, not yet definitively settled by the preceding discussion. Nonetheless, the problems identified at the outset concerning the derivation of ἱλαστήριον from the Yom Kippur context of the Septuagint (Lev 16) render the pagan sense of “reconciling votive offering” a noteworthy alternative worthy of serious consideration. We are accustomed to assuming that Paul grounds his theology primarily in Old Testament concepts and categories—an assumption that is certainly valid with regard to his understanding of God and the basic structures of his theological thought. Yet when it comes to the metaphors he employs, Paul frequently draws on the broader cultural encyclopedia of his Greco-Roman environment. For instance, he compares the law to a pedagogue, a figure from Greco-Roman education who supervised and guided the children of wealthy 62 Thinking Further: God’s Reconciling Votive Offering in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="63"?> 27 This theme is also taken up in Exod 6: 6; 15: 13; Deut 7: 8; 9: 26, among others, for Israel’s deliverance from slavery in Egypt, and in Isa 43: 14; 44: 22, 24, etc., for the return from exile. 28 Philo, Mos. 2.95, 97; Fug. 100-101; Her. 166; Cher. 25. 29 Cf. Passow, Handwörterbuch II/ 1, 928-930; Schumacher, Entstehung, 199-209 (342-345 on Rom 3: 25 as Christ’s faithfulness toward humanity). 30 Cf. Matt 23: 30, 35; 27: 4, 6, 8, 24-25; Luke 11: 50-51; Acts 5: 28; 18: 6; 20: 26; 22: 20; Rom 3: 15; Col 1: 20; Heb 12: 4; Rev 6: 10; 16: 3, 6; 17: 6; 18: 24; 19: 2; 1 Cor 10: 16. [I had at one time considered interpreting πίστις as the faithfulness of Jesus in his death. Today, however—especially in view of Paul’s broader use of πίστις—I understand it as the human trust in Jesus, without which the significance of Jesus’ violent death as God’s ἱλαστήριον cannot be properly grasped.] 31 From this new relationship, Paul reinterprets the Torah: the Torah is not abolished but is newly applied in light of the Christ event (cf. Rom 7: 1-6). families (Gal 3: 24); he interprets the proclamation of the gospel through the lens of an athletic competition (1 Thess 2: 2); and, in the immediate context of the passage under discussion, he describes in Rom 3: 24 the effect of the Christ event using the notion of redemption, as it was known in antiquity in the context of ransoming prisoners of war and slaves. 27 3.1 Cultural and Linguistic Accessibility Both Philo and Heb 9: 5 explicitly and unambiguously link ἱλαστήριον to Exod 25 and Lev 16 L XX within their respective contexts. 28 Rom 3: 25, by contrast, does not do so, and I see no indications within the text that would steer the reception toward the context of Yom Kippur. This applies also to the subsequent phrase “in his blood.” The expression διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι does not refer to sacrificial blood in a cultic setting, but rather to the violent death of the human Jesus. If πίστις is translated, as is customary, as “faith,” the positioning between ἱλαστήριον and the phrase “in his blood” becomes awkward and difficult to integrate. Yet the Greek term πίστις encompasses a much broader semantic range: “trust, fidelity, reliability within relationships, conviction.” 29 If the phrase is understood as “through faithfulness in his blood,” the overall statement gains coherence: the focus is on Jesus’ fidelity, which he maintains even in the face of a violent death. In this context, “blood” functions metonymically to represent that violent death. 30 The context of Rom 3: 21-26 contains subtle textual cues that support reading ἱλαστήριον as a “gift of reconciliation.” The passage opens in 3: 21 with the declaration that God’s righteousness has been revealed “without the law” (χωρὶς νόμου), thereby directing attention to Christ as God’s representative—through whom God now enters into a direct and immediate relationship with humanity. 31 3. The Application in Romans 3: 25 63 <?page no="64"?> 32 Since ἱλαστήριον, which here functions as the object of προέθετο, always refers to an object, rather than a sacrificial act, the verb cannot be understood as indicating the offering of a sacrifice. 33 Jewish votive offerings are mentioned in 2 Macc 2: 13; Jdt 16: 19; Josephus, A.J. 18.18-19; Luke 21: 5; 2 En. 45: 2. This framing does not encourage the audience, just a few verses later, to locate the meaning of ἱλαστήριον within the Pentateuchal context of Yom Kippur. According to Rom 3: 24, justification is granted “as a gift,” through God’s “grace,” in Christ Jesus. These formulations may have reminded Paul’s audience of a familiar cultural practice: that individuals sought to gain the favor or goodwill of a deity through gifts, specifically votive offerings. The nature of this process of declaring righteous is further expressed in 3: 24 through the metaphor of “redemption in Christ Jesus,” which draws on the socio-political world of the listeners (and does not evoke cultic or sacrificial associations). Rom 3: 25 then clarifies this redemption with the metaphor of Christ as ἱλαστήριον. A key piece of evidence for this interpretation lies in the verb προέθετο (“set forth”), 32 which speaks of God publicly setting up or displaying the ἱλαστήριον —underscoring its visible and public character. This corresponds to the widespread practice in both the ancient pagan and Jewish 33 worlds of setting up votive offerings in visible places. That ἱλαστήριον is a term drawn from everyday Greco-Roman language (attested in at least eight instances) is something the audience could well have perceived and understood in metaphorical terms. 3.2 Theological Implications Against the background of the preceding considerations, Rom 3: 25-26 may be translated as follows: Whom ( Jesus Christ) God publicly set up as a gift of reconciliation (ἱλαστήριον) through faithfulness (διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως) in his blood to demonstrate his righteousness because of the remission of sins previously commit‐ ted during the patience of God, to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time […] The metaphor of ἱλαστήριον, applied to the death of Jesus, is striking: it draws attention—and it does indeed provoke—because it represents a twofold disruption of the cultural knowledge of the audience. (1) No longer is it human beings who offer votive gifts to a deity to fulfill a vow or to win divine favor. In a radical reversal, it is now God who, through the death of Jesus, presents a votive offering to reconcile with humanity. This message 64 Thinking Further: God’s Reconciling Votive Offering in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="65"?> 34 This is already evident in the thematic statement of Rom 1: 16-17. On the “righteousness of God” as an expression of “saving care,” cf. Ps 98: 2; Isa 56: 1; 45: 8; 46: 13; 51: 5; 59: 17; Ps 40: 11; 71: 15; also 4 Ezra 8: 36. 35 I opt for this meaning of πάρεσις based on the context of the “righteousness of God.” Different is Kraus, “Erweis,” 199-200, who understands it as “letting go” or “passing over” (“hingehen lassen”). of reconciliation becomes clear through the use of the rare term ἱλαστήριον, rather than the more common ἀνάθημα. (2) Whereas ἱλαστήριον typically refers to an object (this holds true even in the Septuagint), in this context it refers to the violent death of Jesus, the Christ. This gift of reconciliation is therefore not an object but an event—one in which God initiates a direct and immediate relationship with humanity, without the customary cultic mediation of priests, sacrificial materials, or ritual acts. It becomes evident that God does the utmost for humanity: his unique representative, the Christ (Messiah), gives his life in faithful obedience to his mission—faithful to God and to humanity alike. In this claim, one indeed reaches the very heart of Pauline theology. The metaphor of the “reconciling votive offering” highlights the function of Jesus’ death: it is God himself who acts in this event, taking the initiative and effecting reconciliation with humanity. That is, God turns toward human beings in a direct and salvific way, reestablishing the relationship with them freely and without precondition. This is underscored by the continuation of the passage in Rom 3: 25-26, which twice states the purpose of this act: “to demonstrate his (i.e., God’s) righteousness”—that is, his saving care, 34 made visible and effective in the death of Jesus. The text immediately provides the rationale for this action, using the causal διά with the accusative: “because of the remission 35 of sins previously committed during the patience of God […]”. God’s righteousness—understood here as saving, forgiving, and reconciling—is necessary because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3: 23; cf. 1: 18-3: 20), meaning that their relationship with God has been fundamentally disrupted. The death of Jesus is thus interpreted through the—then as now—unconven‐ tional metaphor of God setting up a reconciling votive offering for humanity, as a direct and unmediated expression of divine communion and thereby as a source of salvation. This statement is not to be understood as applying the Yom Kippur ritual to Jesus’ death, and even less as suggesting that Jesus’ death replaces that cultic practice. Such a view is not the focus of the text, which is addressed to communities living far from the Jerusalem Temple. What is decisive for them is that in Christ, God has turned toward them on his own 3. The Application in Romans 3: 25 65 <?page no="66"?> 36 For context, see Eschner, Gestorben; Versnel, “Making Sense,” 227-253. Cf. Schröter, “Sterben für die Freunde,” 277, 284; Wolter, Paulus, 104. 37 See also Stökl Ben Ezra, Impact, 108, 214-215; taken up by Tiwald, “Christ as Hilaste‐ rion,” 196. The term νηστεία is used by Strabo (Geogr. 16.2.40), Philo (Spec. 2.193-195), and Josephus (A.J. 14.66; 18.94) to refer to Yom Kippur. initiative—irreversibly—offering his saving presence and opening a redemptive and liberating relationship with himself. Paul further develops his interpretation of Jesus’ death—not in terms of sacrificial cult, but grounded in an immediate, “personal” relationship—in Rom 5: 5-8, where he presents Jesus’ death on our behalf as an event arising from the love of God. In evoking the motif of dying for another out of love, Paul draws on another theme familiar within the Greco-Roman cultural world. 36 No one has more to give than their own life; thus, dying for another is regarded as the highest and ultimate expression of love and commitment. According to Paul, it is in Jesus’ death that this greatest love of God for humanity becomes apparent and effective. With this, Paul in Rom 5: 1 links peace with God for those who place their trust in him, and in 5: 10-11, the metaphor of “reconciliation” (καταλλαγή) with God—applying to Jesus’ death the well-established motif from antiquity of reconciliation through peace treaties or agreements between political parties or nations (cf. 2 Cor 5: 19; Rom 11: 15). In the death of Jesus, the “Son,” the comprehensive reconciliation of God with humanity takes place. This reading of Rom 3: 25—without reference to the Yom Kippur ritual—also helps explain why the feast of Yom Kippur continued to be held in high regard by the earliest Christians. Luke mentions it in Acts 27: 9, using the term νηστεία (“fast”) and seems to take for granted that it was still observed by ( Jewish) Christians. 37 4. Conclusion Achieving clarity or consensus on the derivation of the term ἱλαστήριον remains difficult. ( Jewish-)Christians familiar with the Scriptures of Israel may have as‐ sociated it with the “covering plate,” described in Lev 16 L XX as central to the Yom Kippur ritual. However, the interpretive challenges tied to this reading—and the notably divergent interpretations it has produced—are cause for reflection. For this reason, I consider it in the very least worthy of serious consideration to understand the term—on both philological and historical grounds—against the background of the contemporary practice of seeking reconciliation with a deity through a votive offering. This practice would have been readily familiar to the recipients in Rome through their everyday cultural experience. Exploring this 66 Thinking Further: God’s Reconciling Votive Offering in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="67"?> interpretive framework opens the door to an alternative reading—one that is theologically coherent, persuasive within the context of Pauline theology, and that avoids many of the ambiguities inherent in the traditional interpretation. The potential gain of this approach lies in achieving greater clarity in Paul’s theological language and in identifying yet another example of his rich and innovative use of metaphor. Bibliography Baumert, Norbert. Christus - Hochform von “Gesetz”: Übersetzung und Auslegung des Römerbriefes. Würzburg: Echter, 2012. Blinkenberg, Christian, ed. Die Lindische Tempelchronik. Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 131. Bonn: Marcus und Weber, 1915. Blinkenberg, Chr., and K.F. Kinch, Lindos. Fouilles de l’Acropole 1902-1914. II: Inscriptions, Berlin: de Gruyter, 1941. Deißmann, Adolf. “ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΣ and ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟN. Eine lexikalische Studie.” ZNW 4 (1903): 193-212. Eberhart, Christian. Studien zur Bedeutung der Opfer im Alten Testament: Die Signi‐ fikanz von Blut- und Verbrennungsriten im kultischen Rahmen. WMANT 94. Neu‐ kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2002. Eberhart, Christian A. Kultmetaphorik und Christologie: Opfer- und Sühneterminologie im Neuen Testament. WUNT 306. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Egger, Wilhelm, and Peter Wick. Methodenlehre zum Neuen Testament: Biblische Texte selbständig auslegen. New edition. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2011. Eschner, Christina. Gestorben und hingegeben “für” die Sünder: Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens und deren paulinische Aufnahme für die Deutung des Todes Jesu Christi. 2 vols. WMANT 122. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010. Higbie, Carolyn. The Lindian Chronicle and the Greek Creation of their Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Kraus, Wolfgang. Der Tod Jesu als Heiligtumsweihe: Eine Untersuchung zum Umfeld der Sühnevorstellung in Römer 3,25-26a. WMANT 66. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991. ---. “Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit Gottes im Tod Jesu nach Röm 3,21-26.” Pages 192-216 in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft: Standorte - Grenzen - Beziehungen. Edited by Lutz Doering, Hans-Günther Waubke, and Florian Wilk. FRLANT 226. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Bibliography 67 <?page no="68"?> Passow, Franz. Handwörterbuch der Griechischen Sprache. 2 double vols. 5th ed. Updated by Valentin C.F. Rost et al. Leipzig: Fr. Chr. Wilh. Vogel, 1841-1857. Reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Paton, William R., and Edward L. Hicks, eds. The Inscriptions of Cos. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891 (Reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1990). Roloff, Jürgen. “ἱλαστήριον.” EWNT II (2nd ed. 1992): 455-457. Schreiber, Stefan. “Das Weihegeschenk Gottes: Eine Deutung des Todes Jesu in Röm 3,25.” ZNW 97 (2006): 88-110. ---. “Law and Love in Romans 13.8-10.” Pages 100-119 in The Torah in the Ethics of Paul. Edited by Martin Meiser. LNTS 473. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2012. Schröter, Jens. “Sterben für die Freunde: Überlegungen zur Deutung des Todes Jesu im Johannesevangelium.” Pages 263-287 in Religionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift für Klaus Berger zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Axel von Dobbeler. Tübingen: A. Francke Verlag, 2000. ---. “Sühne, Stellvertretung und Opfer.” Pages 51-71 in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. Edited by Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Schumacher, Thomas. Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache: Eine Untersuchung der pau‐ linischen Idiomatik und der Verwendung des Begriffes πίστις. BBB 168. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Seeck, Gustav A. “Dion Chrysostomos als Homerkritiker (or. 11).” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 133 (1990): 97-107. Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel. The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century. WUNT 163. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Tiwald, Markus. “Christ as Hilasterion (Rom 3: 25): Pauline Theology on the Day of Atonement in the Mirror of Early Jewish Thought.” Pages 189-209 in The Day of Atonement: Its Interpretations in Early Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by Thomas Hieke and Tobias Nicklas. TBN 15. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Versnel, Hendrik S. “Making Sense of Jesus’ Death: The Pagan Contribution.” Pages 213-294 in Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. Edited by Jörg Frey and Jens Schröter. WUNT 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Weiß, Alexander. “Christus Jesus als Weihegeschenk oder Sühnemal? Anmerkungen zu einer neueren Deutung von hilasterion (Röm 3,25) samt einer Liste der epigraphischen Belege.” ZNW 105 (2014): 294-302. Wolter, Michael. Paulus: Ein Grundriss seiner Theologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Zugmann, Michael. “Hellenisten” in der Apostelgeschichte: Historische und exegetische Untersuchungen zu Apg 6,1; 9,29; 11,20. WUNT II/ 264. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. 68 Thinking Further: God’s Reconciling Votive Offering in Romans 3: 25 <?page no="69"?> Chapter 3 <?page no="71"?> * First published in German as “Christus als hilastērion in Röm 3,25: Gottes Versöhnungsgabe.” Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 46 (2020): 91-99. 1 L X X Exod 25: 17-22 (7 attestations); 31: 7; 35: 12; 38: 5-8 (4 attestations); Lev 16: 2 (2 attestations); 16: 13-15 (5 attestations); Num 7: 89. 2 On the kapporæt and the rites in Lev 16, see Jürgens, Heiligkeit; Kraus, Tod Jesu. Christ as hilastērion in Romans 3: 25: God’s Gift of Reconciliation * In only one instance across his letters—Romans 3: 25—does Paul use the term hilastērion to describe God’s salvific outreach to sinful humanity through Jesus Christ. He introduces the term without elaboration, leaving its religious-his‐ torical background and soteriological significance opaque to modern readers. Whether translated as ‘atonement memorial,’ ‘atonement site,’ ‘mercy seat,’ or ‘gift of reconciliation,’ the term is inextricably linked to the death of Jesus, which is portrayed as having a salvific effect. This association reflects conceptual patterns from the ancient world, where sacrificial death, substitutionary death, and the appeasement—or reconciliation—of an offended deity were integral components of the religious and cultural imagination. 1. Interpretation in Light of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 The origin and meaning of hilastērion remain a matter of scholarly debate. A widely accepted interpretation—rooted in biblical theology—begins with the observation, that in the Pentateuch of the Septuagint, where a large part of the ancient evidence is found with 21 occurrences, hilastērion serves as the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporæt. 1 According to Exodus 25: 17-22, the kapporæt refers to a cultic object within the First Temple: a golden cover plate flanked by two winged cherubim, placed atop the Ark of the Covenant. 2 It functioned as a “covering plate,” or, more theologically, as the place of atonement—the site within the inner sanctuary where God’s presence was revealed and reconciliation enacted. Leviticus 16: 11-17 LXX specifically offers a detailed description of the blood ritual to be performed on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) in the Jerusalem Temple. This rite served to purify the (high) priest, his household, and the entire people of Israel. The priest (Aaron) would slaughter a goat “for the sin of the people,” sprinkle its blood once upon the <?page no="72"?> 3 Roloff, “hilastērion,” 456 (my translation). Cf. Jewett, Romans, 284-290; Eberhart, Kultmetaphorik, 160-170. In contrast, Wolter, Römer I, 256-259 rejects a typological identification of Jesus with the hilastērion, arguing that the term is an abstraction; Jesus’ death merely functions analogously to the blood ritual of the Day of Atonement. 4 Kraus, “Erweis,” 214-215 (my translation). 5 This ambiguity is reflected in different interpretations. Kraus, “Erweis,” 206 sees the purification or consecration of the sanctuary—not atonement for personal sins—as the referent. Tiwald, “Christ,” 205-206 interprets the term broadly “as a metonymic pars pro toto expression” for the entire Yom Kippur ritual, even the whole temple cult. Thus, in Jesus’ death, “the apex of fulfillment of all the expectations of redemption has now been reached”; Christ is “the deepest fulfillment of all that temple service stood for in the now upcoming eschaton” (italics in original). Jewett, Romans, 290 speaks directly of a “replacement of the temple.” side of the hilastērion and seven times in front of it, thereby effecting cultic purification (Lev 16: 15). Read against this backdrop, Romans 3: 25 presents Jesus as the hilastērion, assuming the role of the Yom Kippur blood ritual. In doing so, he replaces both the physical site of atonement and the ritual itself. This lends itself to a typological interpretation: “God has allowed Jesus to take the place of the hidden kapporæt in the Temple and of the atonement ritual associated with it. Through ‘his blood’—that is, through the giving of his life—he has effected atonement.” 3 Expressed in cultic-metaphorical terms: “The designation of Jesus as hilastērion entails the consecration of the place where atonement, divine presence, and revelation occur”; “Through the self-giving of his life, Jesus was inaugurated as the hilastērion—the locus where God is encountered.” 4 This interpretation, however, presents both conceptual and substantive chal‐ lenges for its reception. The referent of hilastērion in the Tanakh is somewhat ambiguous: in Num 7: 89, the “cover plate” functions instead as a site of divine revelation; in Ezek 43, the term designates a different cultic object—a step of the eschatological burnt offering altar; and in Amos 9: 1, the reference remains obscure (perhaps a pillar capital, or some cultic structure? ). What is lacking is a concrete visual reference for the hilastērion metaphor, since, with the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE, the Ark of the Covenant—and with it, the cover plate—was lost. The metaphor in Romans 3: 25 further complicates reception, as Jesus is portrayed both as the sacrificial offering (“in his blood”) and simultaneously as the locus of that sacrifice. Because Paul employs the term hilastērion without further explanation, it remains unclear whether the allusion to Lev 16 refers specifically to the cover plate, to the rites and functions of Yom Kippur, or to the Temple cult in its entirety. 5 This ambiguity becomes particularly problematic when the text is interpreted as suggesting that Christ replaces Yom 72 Christ as hilastērion in Romans 3: 25: God’s Gift of Reconciliation <?page no="73"?> 6 On this, see Stökl Ben Ezra, Impact. Kippur. These uncertainties prompt a provisional reflection on the horizon of reception shared by the original recipients of the letter to the Romans. 2. The Horizon of Reception of the Addressees in Rome Understanding Rom 3: 25 hinges on the cultural assumptions of the Roman Christ-followers to whom the letter is addressed. These were not temple priests in Jerusalem or Pharisaic scribes, but Christ communities in Rome, largely composed of Gentile Christ-followers (Rom 1: 5-6, 13; 11: 13, 17; 15: 15-16, 18). It is doubtful whether, upon hearing the term hilastērion without further explanation, they would have readily connected it to Yom Kippur and its associated functions, or whether they had a precise understanding of which rite—be it the blood ritual on the hilastērion, the burning of sacrificial materials, or the scapegoat ritual—served which purpose. Nonetheless, even for those acquainted with the Yom Kippur tradition as presented in Lev 16 L XX , an explicit reference to Yom Kippur in Rom 3: 25 would likely have posed interpretive challenges. Such readers would unavoidably confront the theological implication that the death of Jesus signifies the super‐ session of Yom Kippur—that is, the Christologically justified abrogation or, at minimum, a significant redefinition of its cultic function. This, however, stands in tension with the profound esteem in which Yom Kippur was held within Jewish religious thought. 6 Given that Paul, who remained a Jew even as a fol‐ lower of Christ (Rom 9: 3; 11: 1), authored the letter, the Roman recipients would reasonably have expected a more nuanced and explicit theological reflection on the relationship between Jesus’ death and the Yom Kippur ritual, rather than a vague or ambiguous allusion to its radical displacement. Elsewhere in the letter to the Romans, Paul consistently demonstrates himself as a thinker deeply rooted in Jewish tradition, who elaborates extensively on a reinterpretation and application of the Torah in light of the Christ event (cf. Rom 7: 1-25; 13: 8-10). It is therefore improbable that he would have employed such a technical allusion without providing clarification, thus avoiding potential misunderstanding or confusion. Conversely, Paul frequently employs metaphors drawn from the Greco-Ro‐ man cultural milieu of his time. For instance, in Gal 3: 24, he likens the Torah to a pedagogue—a figure who, in ancient educational contexts, was responsible for overseeing the upbringing of children from wealthy families. In 1 Thess 2: 2, Paul frames the proclamation of the gospel using the imagery of an athletic 2. The Horizon of Reception of the Addressees in Rome 73 <?page no="74"?> 7 See already Deißmann, “ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΣ.” Later, Schreiber, “Weihegeschenk; ” idem, “Weitergedacht.” [Chapter 1 and 2 in this volume] Cf. Eschner, Gestorben, 45-51. 8 Rüpke, Religion, 162. 9 Rüpke, Religion, 155. 10 Rüpke, Religion, 161; Guarducci, “L’Isola,” 180-197; comprehensive background infor‐ mation, catalog, and illustrations are provided by Pensabene et al., Terracotte. 11 Cf. 1 Chr 28: 12; 2 Macc 2: 13; Jdt 16: 19; Josephus, A.J. 14.34-36; 18.18-19; Luke 21: 5; 2 En. 45: 2 competition. Moreover, in syntactic connection with his use of hilastērion, he depicts the effect of the Christ event in Rom 3: 24 as a redemption or ransom—a notion widely recognized in antiquity as the purchase and liberation of prisoners of war and slaves. 3. The Alternative: A Reconciliatory Votive Offering Deriving the hilastērion motif from the Greco-Roman cultural milieu appears far more promising. 7 In classical antiquity, the practice of dedicating votive offerings to specific deities was widespread and easily invoked as a metaphorical concept. Ancient individuals could present a petition—such as for healing, the fulfillment of the desire to have children, or protection during a perilous journey—to the relevant deity, accompanied by a vow to offer a consecration gift, a type of votive offering, should the deity grant their request. The vow involved a petition to the deity for a specific favor, and in the event that this favor was granted, the petitioner promised to render a reciprocal offering. 8 A diverse array of votive offerings connected to private concerns has been discovered, including bronze and terracotta figurines, wooden and clay tablets, statues, monuments, paintings, vessels, and tripods. In some instances, inscriptions clarify the petitioner’s intent or commemorate the divine assistance received. Votive gifts constituted a pervasive mass phenomenon in ancient culture, frequently produced in standardized series according to established typologies. 9 For example, excavations in Rome along the Tiber have yielded numerous body votives—terracotta representations of human body parts—associated with the cult of Asclepius on the Tiber Island. 10 In the public sphere, votive offerings manifested on a grander scale, encompassing temples, altars, cult statues, and plots of land. Importantly, the practice of dedicating votive offerings is likewise attested within Jewish cultural contexts. 11 The standard ancient term for such votive offerings is anathēma (or anath‐ ema), a designation widely attested across numerous texts and inscriptions. Nevertheless, the term hilastērion also appears in eight inscriptions and texts 74 Christ as hilastērion in Romans 3: 25: God’s Gift of Reconciliation <?page no="75"?> 12 Cf. Schreiber, “Weihegeschenk,” 100-101; supplemented by Weiß, “Christus,” 297. 13 Paton and Hicks, Inscriptions, 126 (no. 81) [= IG XII 4.2.673]. On the translation, see Weiß, “Christus,” 296. 14 To substantiate this, see Schreiber, “Weitergedacht,” 207-209. 15 On the translation, see Weiß, “Christus,” 299; Schreiber, “Weitergedacht,” 208. 16 Passow, Handwörterbuch I/ 2, 1478. He also lists the meaning “to atone.” 17 Weiß, “Christus,” 301 suggests “Sühnemal” (English “atonement memorial”) as a German translation of hilastērion. However, the term “atonement” is not derived from ancient sources, but from theological descriptive language. It originates in the Germanic legal system, where it denotes the reparation of a broken social relationship. In theology, however, it is often used to describe cultic acts of sacrifice that bring about reparation before God. The term remains vague and is not suitable for exact description. dated to the two centuries surrounding the turn of the era. 12 For an illustrative example, consider this inscription from the island of Kos: The people (gave/ dedicated) for the welfare of the emperor Caesar, son of a god, Augustus, to the gods a hilastērion. 13 This inscription identifies a human agent as the dedicator of the hilastērion, specifies a deity as its recipient, and indicates a beneficiary (“for”). As is common in epigraphic contexts, the verb is omitted but can be reasonably supplied as “to give” or “to dedicate.” The term hilastērion—like charistērion, eucharistērion, and dōron—represents a subcategory within the broader semantic field of anathēma. In linguistic terms, it functions as a hyponym (subordinate term) of the hypernym (superordinate term) anathēma. 14 This hierarchical relationship is illustrated in a passage from Dio Chrysostom, within the context of his retelling of the Trojan War. Unable to provide restitution for the costs of the war or compensation to the Trojans, the Greeks instead devise an alternative means of enacting “a certain form of justice” (Or. 11.121): For they (the Greeks) wished to leave them (the Trojans) a very beautiful and large votive offering (anathēma) for Athena with the inscription: As a gift of reconciliation (hilastērion), the Achaeans (gave/ dedicated) this to Trojan Athena. 15 According to Dio, the object in question is the famous wooden horse. The termi‐ nological variation here signals a semantic specification: hilastērion articulates a more narrowly defined meaning than the broader category of anathēmata. This specific nuance is rooted in the lexical family associated with the verb hilaskomai—“to reconcile, to render a deity inclined, favorable or gracious.” 16 Accordingly, hilastērion is best translated as “reconciling votive offering,” “of‐ fering of reconciliation,” or “gift of reconciliation.” 17 When individuals sought to 3. The Alternative: A Reconciliatory Votive Offering 75 <?page no="76"?> 18 Since hilastērion, as the object of proetheto in this context, consistently refers to a physical object, rather than a sacrificial act, the verb cannot be understood as indicating a sacrificial offering here. 19 Cf. Matt 23: 30, 35; 27: 4, 6, 8, 24-25; Luke 11: 50-51; Acts 5: 28; 18: 6; 20: 26; 22: 20; Rom 3: 15; Col 1: 20; Heb 12: 4; Rev 6: 10; 16: 3, 6; 17: 6; 18: 24; 19: 2. appease a deity perceived to be angered by human wrongdoing—petitioning for forgiveness and restored favor—the votive offering dedicated in such a context could be designated as a hilastērion, that is, a gift intended to effect reconciliation with the divine. 4. Application: Christ as the “Gift of Reconciliation” in Romans 3: 25 When Paul, in Romans 3: 25, speaks of God erecting or setting up (proetheto) 18 the hilastērion, thereby emphasizing its visible and public character, he is deliberately guiding its interpretation: this corresponds to the familiar practice of setting up votive offerings. Yet Paul’s metaphorical application of hilastērion to the significance of Jesus’ death alters this familiar cultural convention in two key ways and demands close attention. First, in the Greco-Roman world, it is typically human beings who present votive offerings to a deity—either to fulfill a vow or to gain favor. In Paul’s account, however, this logic is reversed: it is God who, in the death of Jesus, erects a votive gift for reconciliation with humanity. This event, in keeping with the imagery used by Paul, can be vividly imagined by the listeners or readers of the letter. That reconciliation is the driving purpose of the event is evident in Paul’s choice of the rare term hilastērion rather than the more common anathēma. The theological point is striking: God seeks to “render humanity gracious”—drawing them into a relationship of reconciliation with himself. Second, whereas elsewhere hilastērion always refers to an object, here, it refers to the violent death of Jesus. This is indicated by the appositional phrase “in his blood,” which metonymically denotes a death brought about by violence. 19 It is not a reference to sacrificial blood in a cultic or ritual context. Accordingly, the prepositional phrase “in his blood” should not be read as a cue directing interpretation toward the context of Exod 25 or Lev 16. When Philo (e.g., Mos. 2.95, 97; Fug. 100-101; Her. 166; Cher. 25) or the author of Hebrews (Heb 9: 5) reference that context, they do so explicitly. By contrast, in Rom 3: 25, the notion of Jesus as a gift of reconciliation refers to an event—namely, the violent death of Jesus on the cross—in which God directly initiates a relationship with humanity, 76 Christ as hilastērion in Romans 3: 25: God’s Gift of Reconciliation <?page no="77"?> without cultic mediation through priests, sacrificial material, or ritual. God has given nothing less than the life of his Messiah (“Christ Jesus,” 3: 24), that is, his own representative. The death of Jesus on the cross demonstrates that God’s act of reconciliation has taken place once and for all—definitively and irrevocably. Through the death of Jesus, God offers reconciliation to all who respond with “trust” (3: 25). 5. The Gift of Reconciliation in the Context of Romans 3: 23-26 A translation of Romans 3: 23-26 situates the “gift of reconciliation” in its broader context: - 23 For all have sinned - - - and fall short of the glory of God; - 24 they are declared righteous - - - as a gift - - - by his grace - - through the redemption that is in the Christ Jesus, - 25 whom God publicly set up as a gift of reconciliation - - - through trust - - - in his blood - - to demonstrate his righteousness - - - because of the remission of sins - - - previously committed - 26 - during the patience of God, - - to demonstrate his righteousness - - - in the present time, - - - that he is righteous - - - and declares righteous the one - - - who lives by trust in Jesus. Paul interprets the death of Jesus through a metaphor that is as unfamiliar today as it was in his time: God himself “setting up” a reconciliatory votive offering for humanity. This image portrays God’s direct and saving engage‐ ment with human beings. It is God himself who acts—he takes the initiative and brings about reconciliation with humanity by restoring the relationship without preconditions (“as a gift, by his grace,” 3: 24). This is underscored in the continuation of the passage (3: 25-26): “to demonstrate his [i.e., God’s] 5. The Gift of Reconciliation in the Context of Romans 3: 23-26 77 <?page no="78"?> 20 As already stated in the programmatic sentence of Rom 1: 16-17. On the “righteousness of God” as a “saving commitment,” cf. Ps 98: 2; Isa 56: 1; 45: 8; 46: 13; 51: 5; 59: 17; Ps 40: 11; 71: 15; also 4 Ezra 8: 36. 21 Given the context of “the righteousness of God,” I interpret paresis accordingly as “remission.” Contra Kraus, “Erweis,” 199-200, who reads “to let pass” (“hingehen lassen”). righteousness”—that is, his saving commitment, 20 which is revealed and made effective in the death of Jesus. It brings about the remission 21 and forgiveness of sins—sins that had separated humanity from God and accumulated over time, because, in his patience (3: 26), God had continually left open the possibility for repentance. God’s righteousness—his gift of salvation, forgiveness, and reconciliation—became necessary because “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” that is, their relationship with God had been broken (3: 23; cf. 1: 18-3: 20). In 3: 25, Paul places the parenthetical phrase “through pistis” immediately after hilastērion. In doing so, he underscores that the crucified Jesus can be recognized and received as a gift of reconciliation only by those who respond to him with trust—a fitting translation of pistis, which can also denote faithfulness, loyalty, or conviction. This trust involves a personal and existential engagement with God and Christ. The human being brings nothing to this relationship besides their trust, through which they participate in Jesus’ death as God’s saving act. Accordingly, 3: 26 affirms that God “declares righteous the one who lives by trust in Jesus.” 6. Conclusions If Paul is not applying the Yom Kippur ritual to the death of Jesus, then he is likewise not proclaiming that Jesus’ death replaces this cultic practice. Engagement with Yom Kippur is not the focus of the text, which is addressed to communities living far from the Jerusalem Temple. What matters for them is that God, in Christ, has on his own accord and irrevocably turned toward them, offering his saving presence and thereby initiating a liberating, redemptive relationship. It is precisely this theological assurance that Paul communicates through the concept of the “gift of reconciliation,” which God himself effectively set up in the death of Jesus. Those who belong to Christ, therefore, no longer need to fear wrathful, punitive, or harmful deities of the sort familiar to them through their cultural background—for the one and only God of Israel has already granted them reconciliation on his own initiative. 78 Christ as hilastērion in Romans 3: 25: God’s Gift of Reconciliation <?page no="79"?> If the term hilastērion in Romans 3: 25 is understood against the backdrop of the ancient practice of votive offerings for reconciliation, then Paul’s reversal of the traditional roles underscores the grace and initiative of God. God seeks to render humanity gracious. In the death of Jesus, he opens the possibility of reconciliation to all who, in trust, receive his salvific and gracious engagement— understood in abstract terms: an indestructible and saving relationship with himself. Bibliography Deißmann, Adolf. “ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΣ and ΙΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟN. Eine lexikalische Studie.” ZNW 4 (1903): 193-212. Eberhart, Christian A. Kultmetaphorik und Christologie: Opfer- und Sühneterminologie im Neuen Testament. WUNT 306. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Eschner, Christina. Gestorben und hingegeben “für” die Sünder: Die griechische Konzeption des Unheil abwendenden Sterbens und deren paulinische Aufnahme für die Deutung des Todes Jesu Christi. Vol. I: Auslegung der paulinischen Formulierungen. WMANT 122.1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2010. Guarducci, Margherita. “L’Isola Tiberina e la sua Tradizione Ospitaliera.” Pages 180-197 in Scritti scelti sulla religione greca e romana e sul Cristianesimo. Leiden: Brill, 1983. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Jürgens, Benedikt. Heiligkeit und Versöhnung: Levitikus 16 in seinem literarischen Kontext. Herders Biblische Studien 28. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2001. Kraus, Wolfgang. Der Tod Jesu als Heiligtumsweihe: Eine Untersuchung zum Umfeld der Sühnevorstellung in Römer 3,25-26a. WMANT 66. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991. ---. “Der Erweis der Gerechtigkeit Gottes im Tod Jesu nach Röm 3,21-26.” Pages 192-216 in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft: Standorte - Grenzen - Beziehungen. Edited by Lutz Doering, Hans-Günther Waubke, and Florian Wilk. FRLANT 226. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Passow, Franz. Handwörterbuch der Griechischen Sprache. 2 double vols. 5th ed. Updated by Valentin C.F. Rost et al. Leipzig: Fr. Chr. Wilh. Vogel, 1841-1857. Reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Paton, William R., and Edward L. Hicks, eds. The Inscriptions of Cos. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891 (Reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1990). Pensabene, Patrizio et al. Terracotte Votive dal Tevere. Studi Miscellanei 25. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1980. Roloff, Jürgen. “hilastērion.” EWNT II (2nd ed. 1992): 455-457. Rüpke, Jörg. Die Religion der Römer: Eine Einführung. München: C.H. Beck, 2001. Bibliography 79 <?page no="80"?> Schreiber, Stefan. “Das Weihegeschenk Gottes: Eine Deutung des Todes Jesu in Röm 3,25.” ZNW 97 (2006): 88-110. ---. “Weitergedacht: Das versöhnende Weihegeschenk Gottes in Röm 3,25.” ZNW 106 (2015): 201-215. Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel. The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity: The Day of Atonement from Second Temple Judaism to the Fifth Century. WUNT 163. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Tiwald, Markus. “Christ as Hilasterion (Rom 3: 25): Pauline Theology on the Day of Atonement in the Mirror of Early Jewish Thought.” Pages 189-209 in The Day of Atonement: Its Interpretations in Early Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by Thomas Hieke and Tobias Nicklas. TBN 15. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Weiß, Alexander. “Christus Jesus als Weihegeschenk oder Sühnemal? Anmerkungen zu einer neueren Deutung von hilasterion (Röm 3,25) samt einer Liste der epigraphischen Belege.” ZNW 105 (2014): 294-302. Wolter, Michael. Der Brief an die Römer. Vol. I. EKKNT VI/ 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu‐ kirchener Verlagsgesellschaft; Ostfildern: Patmos, 2014. 80 Christ as hilastērion in Romans 3: 25: God’s Gift of Reconciliation <?page no="81"?> Chapter 4 <?page no="83"?> * Initially published under the same title in The Psalms of Solomon: Texts, Contexts, and Intertexts. Edited by Patrick Pouchelle, G. Anthony Keddie, and Kenneth Atkinson. EJL 54. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2021. Pages 139-164. 1 See Holm-Nielsen, Psalmen, 58-59; Atkinson, I Cried, 135-139. Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law: The Perception of the Torah in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians * The Psalms of Solomon criticize violators of the law with a striking frequency. The genesis of this corpus of psalms probably lies in Jerusalem in the period after the occupation by Pompey in 63 BCE and more precisely after Pompey’s death in Egypt in 48 BCE, to which Pss. Sol. 2: 26 alludes. 1 It is in this situation, where the influence of Roman politics and of Hellenistic culture has increased, that the Psalms of Solomon elaborate their understanding of the Torah. The situation of Paul, on the other hand, when he writes the Letter to the Galatians almost four generations later, is marked by the new conviction that Jesus is the Christ. This fundamentally changes his view of the Torah. This essay seeks to contrast the two ways of looking at the Torah, in order to bring out their profiles more clearly. I begin with the Psalms of Solomon. 1. The Psalms of Solomon and the Torah At first sight, the Torah does not appear to play any great role in the theology of the Psalms of Solomon, since the νόμος is mentioned positively only in Pss. Sol. 10: 14 and 14: 2. We do, however, encounter the semantic field around νόμος with negative connotations: the use of this concept is dominated by talk about lawlessness, breaches of the law, and lawbreakers. Our investigation will show that this is not based on a general understanding of law (in the sense that someone does not keep to the laws and conventions of society) but refers to the Torah of Israel, which offers the criterion for judging whether a person is righteous as God understands this. It is precisely the picture of the lawbreaker that makes it clear how important obedience to the Torah is for the life of Israel. <?page no="84"?> 2 Wright, Psalms, 83 translates the noun too unspecifically as “rotten behavior.” The reference to the Torah cannot be overlooked here. Pss. Sol. 4: 1 specifies as context ἐν συνεδρίῳ, which is surely a reference to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. The standard edition of the Psalms of Solomon remains that by Gebhardt (1895), which was included in Rahlfs’s concise edition of the Septuagint (1935); see now Rahlfs and Hanhart, Septuaginta, 471-489. Wright, Psalms, presents a new edition, but see the criticism in Albrecht, “Notwendigkeit,” 110-123. 3 The androcentric perspective reflects the societal circumstances in first-century Jeru‐ salem. The one who prays in Pss. Sol. 16: 17-18, on the other hand, asks to be preserved “from every evil woman” and from “the beauty of a lawbreaking woman” (κάλλος γυναικὸς παρανομούσης) who deceives him (ἀπατάω). 1.1 The Wrong Understanding of the Torah Especially in Pss. Sol. 4, 8, and 12, we are given a picture of persons who do not keep the Torah or else who interpret it falsely and thus lead others into error. The “unholy” one at the beginning of Pss. Sol. 4 is the one who makes the God of Israel angry through “breaches of the law” (παρανομίαι). 2 He is described polemically as a hypocrite, since he insists that sinners should be condemned before the court, although he himself is entangled in a multitude of sins (4: 2-3); he sins by night and in secret (4: 5). According to 4: 6, one who behaves in this manner lives “in hypocrisy” (ἐν ὑποκρίσει, cf. 4: 20, 22). In concrete terms, his sin consists of sexual desire and lies: he actively desires several women 3 and makes contracts under oath with no intention of observing them (4: 4-5). The Psalms of Solomon see a very grave problem in the behavior of the ungodly Jewish persons who embody the “unholy,” namely, that they have a negative influence on other households, which were the basic societal units in the ancient world. Through their false teachings and their false exposition of the Torah, they lead other houses (which are the nuclei of Jewish tradition and piety) into error and corrupt them. The “unholy” cultivates conducts with other houses, apparently without any evil intention (“cheerfully as though without guile,” 4: 5). But in reality, he is guided by a destructive intention because his eyes are directed “to the house of the man who is in security” (ἐν εὐσταθείᾳ)—that is to say, a house anchored in the Jewish tradition—in order “to destroy each other’s wisdom with transgressors’ [παράνομοι] words” (4: 9). He wishes to seduce other persons to practice “unrighteous desire” (4: 10), and 4: 11-12 states that he lays waste a house for the sake of a lawless desire (ἕνεκεν ἐπιθυμίας παρανόμου) and deceives people with his words. He destroys the next house with seductive speeches. This is called παρανομία (a “breach of the law”). Pss. Sol. 4: 20 reaffirms that the hypocrites “have laid waste the houses of many men in dishonor and have scattered them in their lust.” Lust, as the central cause of 84 Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law <?page no="85"?> 4 For material, see Schreiber, Brief, 208-209. 5 See the translation by Wright, Psalms, 87: “who deceitfully quotes the Torah.” The reference to the Torah is lost in Kraus and Karrer, Septuaginta Deutsch, 919: “indem er Recht spricht mit Trug.” The three best manuscripts offer a different wording: λαλοῦντα μόνον μετὰ δούλου (“He speaks alone with slave”); see Albrecht, Psalmi Salomonis, 337. 6 Cf. the ἔργα of the human with a negative connotation also in Pss. Sol. 4: 16; 17: 8 (parallel to “sins”); in 6: 2, the “deeds” succeed because they are protected by God, and in 18: 8, the Messiah guides human beings “in deeds of righteousness in the fear of God”; in 9: 4 and 16: 9, the “deeds” are open for both righteous and unrighteous conduct. 7 The sacrifices are made impure by the “flow of blood,” that is to say, by contact with menstrual blood: the priests are accused of having sexual contacts with impure women, with the result that the cult becomes impure. See Atkinson, “Enduring,” 158; McGlynn, “Authority,” 124-126. immoral or sinful conduct, designates the selfish desire to possess in both the Hellenistic-Roman world and in the early Jewish world. 4 It is characteristic of the “unholy” that he seeks to please humans (ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, 4: 7, 19). At 4: 8, this craving is linked to one particular exposition of the Torah: λαλοῦντα νόμον μετὰ δόλου (“He speaks the Torah with deceit”). 5 We do not know what authority entitles the unholy people to expound the Torah. The expression λαλεῖν νόμον (“to speak the Torah”) signals a pejorative evaluation of this exposition, since λαλεῖν can also mean “to talk nonsense.” This means that the text focuses on disputed questions of the correct exposition of the Torah. The reference to a craving for admiration may indicate an exposition of the Torah that was more open vis-à-vis the Hellenistic culture. The ethical behavior of the others, which is evil from the perspective of Psalms of Solomon, is called their “deeds” (ἔργα) at 4: 7. 6 This picture of the “lawbreakers” (παράνομοι, 4: 19, 23) is contrasted with the righteousness of God, which can remove unrighteousness (4: 24). The positive antithesis to the lawbreakers appears in 4: 23, 25: “those who fear the Lord in their innocence” and “love” him. Psalms of Solomon 8: 9 also speaks, with particular reference to the Jewish priests in Jerusalem, of “breakings of the law” (παρανομίαι), which provoke God’s wrath. It illustrates this by means of the following crimes (8: 9-12): incest, adultery, plundering of God’s sanctuary, and polluting the altar of sacrifice (θυσιαστήριον) and the sacrifices. 7 It is first and foremost the priests in the temple who are defamed here, and it appears that the cult is ultimately made impossible by such pollution. Pss. Sol. 8: 13 underlines the gravity of these sins by saying that they surpass even the Gentiles (ὑπὲρ τὰ ἔθνη). The association with the sinful conduct of the peoples is interesting because this may be a further indication of the intention with which the “lawbreakers” interpret the Torah: in the eyes of the Psalms of Solomon, they are conforming 1. The Psalms of Solomon and the Torah 85 <?page no="86"?> 8 The Romans intervened thereby in the power struggle between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, who had holed up in the Temple precincts; see Josephus, B.J. 1.131- 132, 142-147; A.J. 14.58-63. On the background, see Holm-Nielsen, Psalmen, 79-80; Winninge, Sinners, 64-65; Atkinson, I Cried, 21-36, 60-64, 135-139; idem, “Enduring,” 147. See also Pss. Sol. 17: 4-7, sinful rulers from Israel. It is possible that “the godless man” at 13: 5 refers to Aristobulus II. Sharon, “Opposition,” 41-54 underlines the anti-Roman attitude of the Psalms of Solomon. to the lifestyle of the Hellenistic world. This is also indicated by the context in 8: 14-22, which interprets the incursion of the Gentiles into Jerusalem as God’s reaction to the sinful behavior of the upper classes in Jerusalem: these persons were willing to make the invasion possible (see 2: 1-5, 11-14; 17: 11-18). This is an allusion to the incursion of Pompey into Jerusalem in 63 BCE and to the opening of the city by the Hasmonaean Hyrcanus II and his adherents. 8 Psalms of Solomon 12 takes the form of a prayer to be saved from the lawbreakers. The image of the enemy sketched in this psalm is that of a “lawbreaking [παράνομος] and wicked man” whose speech is dismissed as lawless and slanderous, mendacious and deceitful (12: 1). The actions of these “lawbreakers” (παράνομοι) are once again described at 12: 3-4 as the strife and rupture that they bring about in the “houses,” that is to say, in the Jewish families. The positive antithesis appears at 12: 5 in “the man who makes peace in the home”—it is clear that the ideal meant here is unity of the people. The basis for this peace is not stated explicitly, but it is the understanding of the Torah held by the group that stands behind the Psalms of Solomon. The problem that smolders in the background is the contentious behavior vis-à-vis the Torah. This becomes visible in the polemic against the lawless persons. 1.2 The Permanent Election of Israel Psalms of Solomon 9: 2 laments the “lawlessnesses” (ἀνομίαι) of Israel, which have led, thanks to God’s righteous judgment, to the “dispersion” (διασπορά). But even though Israel has behaved wrongly, this is not the end, since the punishment of Jerusalem makes possible a conversion to God (9: 6-7). Pss. Sol. 9: 8-11 holds fast to the permanent election by God that is deeply rooted in Israel’s history: he is God for his people Israel, which he loves, which belongs to him, and which is permitted to ask for his mercy (9: 8). The covenant formula (Lev 26: 12; Jer 11: 4) is echoed in the formulation: “You are God, and we are a people whom you have loved, … we are yours.” Pss. Sol. 9: 9 emphasizes the election of Israel as the seed of Abraham (see 18: 3) over against (παρά) all the Gentiles. God has set his name upon Israel, and the election is irrevocable: God 86 Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law <?page no="87"?> 9 Cf. the bestowal of eternal salvation in 7: 8; 11: 7; 14: 3-5; 17: 4. 10 See Nickelsburg, “Torah,” 222-235. 11 See Trafton, “Bible,” 435; cf. Atkinson, “Enduring,” 154. 12 See Winninge, Sinners, esp. 125-136; Schreiber, “Wisdom,” 89-106. 13 The adjective βέβηλος basically means “accessible” because not closed off by holiness or consecration, and hence “profane.” See Passow, Handwörterbuch I/ 1, 499. will not cast his people off. Pss. Sol. 9: 10 summarizes this salvific action of God upon Israel in the theology of the covenant: God has made a covenant with the fathers that makes hope and conversion possible for Israel. In all eternity, therefore, God’s mercy remains upon the house of Israel (9: 11). 9 The covenant forms the basis upon which Israel can lead a godly life. Naturally, the contemporary situation posed the urgent question of how the conquest of Israel by the foreign political power of Rome could be compatible with the conviction that Israel was God’s chosen people. The Psalms of Solomon apply a paradigm from the theology of history here: the sins of the people are seen as provoking the intervention of God, whose instrument is the foreign power (1: 7-8; 2: 11-13; 8: 9-14, 22; 17: 5-8, 19-20). This interpretation bears the mark of the Deuteronomic historical scheme that is established in Deut 28-32 and that frequently occurs in early Jewish literature: 10 Israel has sinned against the Sinai covenant and the Torah, has been punished by God, but after Israel turns anew to God, it experiences his blessing. The prayer of the pious man in Pss. Sol. 8: 25-34 expresses this conversion to God (within the covenant). This makes it clear that Israel has not been abandoned or rejected by God. Israel has been punished, and now God’s mercy can come into its own once again (7: 3-10; 9: 9-11). 11 However, not everyone in Israel follows God’s instruction, since some are walking along the paths of the Gentiles. This is why the Psalms of Solomon are pervaded by the contrast between the role models of the “righteous” and the “sinners.” 12 After the history of the Roman invasion in 63 BCE has been recapitulated in Pss. Sol. 2, Pss. Sol. 3-7 characterize the life of the righteous and sinners in this historical framework. Pss. Sol. 3: 3-12 posits a direct opposition between the two groups. Pss. Sol. 4: 1 then begins by addressing an “unholy” man (βέβηλε), 13 who sits “in the council of the holy” although his heart is far away from the Lord. It then sketches a critical picture of the godless man. In Pss. Sol. 12-16, the righteous and the sinners are contrasted in an eschatological perspective. The righteous are promised deliverance, but the sinners are threatened with destruction. This opposition reveals the frontline between two different cultural models, since the “sinners” are not only the Gentiles (although they too are sinners, cf. 1. The Psalms of Solomon and the Torah 87 <?page no="88"?> 14 Schröter, “Gerechtigkeit,” 568, and Schnelle, “Gerechtigkeit,” 368, speak of the “true Israel,” but this term is not used by the Psalms of Solomon. 15 Cf. the merely putative righteousness of Jerusalem in Pss. Sol. 1 and the comparison of the “sinners” with the “Gentiles” (1: 8; cf. 8: 3). The terms “lawbreakers” (4: 23; 1: 1-6), “impurity” (8: 22), and “lawlessness” (e.g., 15: 8, 10) point to the distance from the tradition of Israel; this is expressly formulated in Pss. Sol. 17: 14-15. 16 See Winninge, Sinners, 133. Pss. Sol. 2: 1-2), but, even more so, the Jews who are open to the influence of the Roman-Hellenistic culture and therefore risk hollowing out their own identity from within. The distinction between the righteous and the sinners becomes an existential question for the group behind the Psalms of Solomon, who are influenced by early Jewish wisdom, but also by the theology of Deuteronomy. Within Israel, there arises a core group of those who remain faithful to their God and are therefore “righteous.” 14 It is vital to perceive who is in fact a “sinner,” that is to say, one who has assimilated to the Hellenistic culture. 15 One must keep strictly apart from such persons in order not to betray one’s own identity. 1.3 The Torah as Testimony to God’s Mercy Psalms of Solomon 10: 1-3 begins with a beatitude on the one who accepts God’s reproof, education, and—to keep to the image—“blows from the whip,” and lets himself be changed thereby. The motif of education describes God’s salvific action with regard to the righteous in order that he may bring them back to the right path again and again, provided that they accept his education (10: 3, “those who love him in truth”). In the Psalms of Solomon, God’s παιδεία is a central factor of what he does for the righteous in Israel: God “judges Israel with education” (κρίνων τὸν Ἰσραήλ ἐν παιδείᾳ, 8: 26), and God is the “educator” (παιδευτής) of Israel (8: 29). Pss. Sol. 13: 6-11 contrasts the destruction of the sinner with the “education” (παιδεία) of the righteous man, whose “transgressions” (παραπτώματα) have occurred without an evil intention, in ignorance (13: 7; cf. 3: 8; 18: 4). The use of the concept of παραπτώματα is in itself an indication that no intentional sinning is meant here (cf. 3: 7). 16 God exhorts the righteous man like a beloved son and educates him like a first-born (13: 9). Against the social-historical background of the appreciation of the eldest son in classical antiquity, this expresses a very special devotion on the part of the father and the prospect of having the position of the preferential heir. God extinguishes the transgressions of the righteous through his education (13: 10), and the chastisement purifies from sins (10: 1-2). This presupposes that the righteous also sin but that they repent again and again 88 Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law <?page no="89"?> 17 This is the category in Winninge, Sinners, 131-134. Schnelle, “Gerechtigkeit,” 368 calls being righteous “a status concept.” 18 The “eternal covenant” recalls the covenant with Abraham in Gen 17: 13, 19. See Pss. Sol. 9: 9. 19 The assertion by Winninge, Sinners, 206 that “the Torah also has a ‘negative’ disciplinary task” fails to do justice to this insight. Pss. Sol. 7: 9 draws a parallel between “yoke” (ζυγός) and “education.” If one hears in the concept of ζυγός the following of the Torah, then the educational function of the Torah is implied here too. Ζυγός is related to the Torah in Jer 2: 20 L X X , 5: 5 L X X ; Gal 5: 1; 2 Cor 6: 14; Matt 11: 28-30; Acts 15: 10; 2 En. 34: 1; 48: 9; 2 Bar. 41: 3, and in the rabbinical literature (e.g., m. ‘Aboth 3: 5); this use could have been transmitted via sapiential traditions that call Wisdom ζυγός (Sir 6: 30; 51: 26). 20 “Supervision” (ἐπισκοπή) refers here to God’s present-day activity, not to the eschaton (cf. 11: 6). Atkinson, “Enduring,” 161 takes a different position. 21 Ἔλεος or ἐλεημοσύνη in Psalms of Solomon: 4: 25; 9: 8, 11; 10: 3-4, 6-7; 11: 1, 9; 13: 12; 15: 13; 16: 3, 6, 15; 17: 3, 34, 45; 18: 3, 5, 9; cf. the entire promise of salvation in 11: 1-9. This, as Steins, “Psalmen,” 137 states, is clear evidence that the Psalms of Solomon cannot be seen “als jüdische Kronzeugen der ‘Werkgerechtigkeit.’” and turn to God in faithfulness (3: 6-8; 9: 6-7). This is why there is a difference between the “sinfully righteous” 17 and notorious sinners, so that 17: 5 can state: “But in our sins there rose up sinners against us.” God’s motivation is called his “mercy” (ἔλεος). Pss. Sol. 10: 4 takes up the theme of God’s mercy to his servants and links it—and thus the entire motif complex of education—to the Torah: the testimony (μαρτυρία) to God’s merciful action is “in the law of the everlasting covenant” (ἐν νόμῳ διαθήκης αἰωνίου). 18 This appeals to the Torah in its positive function of attesting and presenting God’s salvific will, and the Torah can do this in the framework of the covenant that God has made with Israel. God’s mercy appears as the general thrust of the Torah. All the cultic and ethical demands that the Torah makes of Israel are borne by this mercy, or they assist human beings to live out of this mercy. 19 The Torah shows the path to understand God’s education and offers orientation for one’s concrete behavior. In other words, the Torah itself has an educational function. This is why the testimony is also found on the paths of human beings who are under God’s “supervision” 20 —that is, those who live in fellowship with God. Logically, therefore, the reference to the testimony in the Torah to God’s mercy flows into Israel’s praise of its God in 10: 5-7. God’s mercy and compassion is a leitmotif of the picture of God in the Psalms of Solomon. 21 This shows that God does not expect perfection of his righteous ones but is always ready to forgive their sins if they repent and turn back to him. Despite their sins, the righteous are blessed (not punished) by God in 9: 7, and God’s kindness turns to them when they have sinned and then repent. Ultimately, mercy corresponds to the “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη) of 1. The Psalms of Solomon and the Torah 89 <?page no="90"?> 22 Cf. Pss. Sol. 2: 15; 4: 24; 8: 24-26 (“the God of righteousness, who judges Israel with education”). 23 See Schröter, “Gerechtigkeit,” 566. God, of which the Psalms of Solomon frequently speak, for example, in 4: 2-5: God’s righteousness means the implementation of his salvific will and of his teachings (which are written in the law, 10: 4; 14: 2). It can have a negative effect in the judgement against the sinners and a positive effect in the education of the pious. 22 God’s loving action towards Israel in the covenant, through which he initiated his saving relationship to Israel, was always the basis for the implementation of his righteousness. 23 Humans can correspond to God’s righteousness when they understand and shape their entire lives in their relationship to God. Accordingly, righteousness is the principle of right conduct in 9: 4-5; its antithesis is “to do wrong.” The pious can perform “righteous deeds” (9: 3), but this line of thought ends in the rhetorical question in 9: 6, “To whom will you show kindness, O God, if not to those who call upon the Lord? ” 1.4 The Torah as Guideline Psalms of Solomon 14: 1 begins with an assurance to the righteous: “Faithful is the Lord to those who love him in truth, to those who endure his education.” This is then made more precise in 14: 2, “those who walk in the righteousness of his ordinances [προστάγματα], in the law [νόμος] which he commanded us that we might live [εἰς ζωὴν ἡμῶν].” A positive picture is painted of the Jewish law in the framework of God’s relationship to Israel. It contains instructions for a successful life with God that continues to exist even beyond death: “they will live in it (the law) forever” (ζήσονται ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, 14: 3). The Torah, which offers the guiding principle for Israel’s life, has a saving and educative function (cf. 10: 1-4). At the same time, it is the basis of the identity of the righteous ones in Israel, who may hope for eternal life. Psalms of Solomon 14: 2-3 contains an allusion to Lev 18: 4-5 LXX , which demands that all the instructions and legal decisions of God be preserved and put into action: it is through these that a human being will live. The allusion picks up the concepts of πορεύομαι (“to walk”) and προστάγματα (“instructions”), as well as the future form ζήσονται (Lev 18: 5: ζήσεται) with the specification ἐν αὐτῷ (Lev 18: 5: ἐν αὐτοῖς). Pss. Sol. 14: 3 expands the affirmation “they will live in it” with “forever” (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα), thereby placing the accent on the future, eschatological life with God. Life according to the Torah is motivated 90 Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law <?page no="91"?> 24 This, however, is the position taken by Gathercole, “Torah,” 133: “doing Torah is the precondition of a future life; ” “it is dependent on obedience to the Torah.” Cf. Ottenheijm, “Which If a Man,” 305. On the relevance of the “deeds” to salvation, see also Schnelle, “Gerechtigkeit,” 373. Dunn, Theology, 152-153, on the other hand, understands “life” in Lev 18: 5 as “a way of life, and not of a life yet to be achieved or attained” (153); it is “the way life is lived within and by … the covenant people” (152). 25 Winninge, Sinners, 133 (on 5: 17) goes too far when he asserts “that righteousness is a positive achievement of the pious Jew.” On the contrary, it is a question of a correspondence to the righteousness of God. See Lindemann, “Paulus,” 333, 336, but the statement that this means “jenen Status und jenes Selbstverständnis des Menschen, den Paulus als ἰδία δικαιοσύνη bezeichnet” (333), devalues the intention of the Psalms of Solomon excessively, and leads to an insufficiently differentiated position. 26 Sanders, Paul, 75; cf. 319-320, 420, 426, 544. Cf. Abegg, “4QMMT,” 203-216; Atkinson, “Enduring,” 151-153. For a lively discussion of Sanders’ theses, see Carson, O’Brien, and Seifrid, Justification; Theißen and von Gemünden, Römerbrief, 42-45. by the prospect of eternal life. This, however, must not be misunderstood as a soteriological achievement on the part of the human being. 24 The psalm goes on to promise the pious an eternal, paradisiac life with God (14: 3-5, 10), but their antithesis, the “sinners and lawbreakers [παράνομοι]” who followed their sin and their desire (ἐπιθυμία), will end in the realm of the dead and in destruction (14: 6-9). One who keeps to God’s instructions—the Torah— lives in his righteousness, that is, in a positive correspondence to God’s salvific will. Righteousness thus also concerns the behavior of the human being with regard to the Torah: one who lives according to the Torah acts in righteousness and thus has a share in God’s righteousness (cf. 5: 17). This, however, does not mean that he merits this share. 25 God’s saving action cannot be merited, since it has already taken place in the covenantal election, and can be lost only through a conscious and consistent turning away from God. Ed P. Sanders has described the connection between the covenant and the Torah in early Judaism by means of the concept of covenantal nomism. This means that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression. … Obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such. 26 God’s saving will and the human response, namely, obedience to God’s instruc‐ tions, are inseparable. Since humans, because of their sins, are absolutely inca‐ pable of a perfect observance of the Torah, God through his mercy compensates for human inadequacy (15: 13). Psalms of Solomon 14 communicates the high esteem that the Torah enjoyed in the groups that stand behind the Psalms of Solomon. It is nevertheless striking 1. The Psalms of Solomon and the Torah 91 <?page no="92"?> 27 See Atkinson, “Enduring,” 160. that we scarcely ever hear of the need to insist on the observance of specific material contents of the Torah; nor is there any discussion or exposition of individual instructions or commandments. Instead, the Torah functions as a differentiator between the righteous and the sinners, and the sinners include not only the Gentiles, but also the lawless in Israel. This leads me to propose the thesis that in the Psalms of Solomon, the delimitation vis-à-vis the lifestyle of the Gentiles is the principle of exposition of the Torah. 1.5 Delimitation vis-à-vis the Gentiles as the Principle of Exposition of the Torah Psalms of Solomon 2: 13, speaking of the “daughters of Jerusalem,” castigates the “disorder of mingling” in the context of unchastity or prostitution (2: 11-12). This gives us our first sight of the problems associated with the mingling with the foreign culture that is dangerous but attractive, with its foreign gods and lifestyles. In 3: 8, reconciliation for the transgressions committed in ignorance takes place through fasting and humbling oneself; humbling should be understood as the insight into one’s own sinfulness and the conscious submission to God’s will and commandments. Fasting as a means to attain forgiveness of unconscious sins is implicitly here a competitor to the cultic animal sacrifices that are prescribed for this purpose by Lev 4-5: the Torah is interpreted to mean that the cultic prescriptions have lost their significance, in view of the conviction that the immoral behavior of the priests has made the Temple impure. 27 Fasting, confessing one’s sins, and continuous prayer (praise) are the attitudes through which the righteous remain in the salvific relationship to God and that delimit them vis-à-vis the sinners (in Israel! ). Pss. Sol. 15 and 16 demand attentiveness to the presence of God: Pss. Sol. 15: 2-6 recommends the continuous praise of God, which keeps fellowship with God alive (as the antithesis of the “lawlessness” [ἀνομία] of the sinners in 15: 8, 10), and Pss. Sol. 16: 1-4 warns against allowing the soul to fall asleep, since this takes one far from God. It too encourages the praise of God and the continuous remembrance of God (16: 5-6, 9). The historical background to what the Psalms of Solomon regard as the need to draw a boundary vis-à-vis the pagan lifestyle becomes clearly visible in Pss. Sol. 17. The “lawless one” (ἄνομος) in 17: 11 comes from a foreign race, from the Gentiles (17: 7, 13), and has brought death and destruction to Israel. In terms of contemporary history, the author (and the readers) will have had in mind 92 Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law <?page no="93"?> 28 This raises the question of the group of “bearers” of the Psalms of Solomon. A few years ago, one could speak of a consensus that attributed these texts to the Pharisees, but today, in view of the plurality of currents in early Judaism, it is impossible to attribute them unambiguously to any one of the known groups. See Schreiber, Gesalbter, 161-162; Atkinson, I Cried, 6-8; Wright, Psalms, 7-10. Trafton, “Bible,” 434 thinks of “an anti-Hasmonean Jewish sentiment that had affinities with both Pharisaism and Essenism, but which cannot be identified with either.” One should also bear in mind the influence of sapiential currents. See Schreiber, “Wisdom.” 29 Influences from Ps 2 are discernible in the text. See Collins, “Royal Psalms,” 85. Pompey or the Roman military power in Israel, whose actions in Jerusalem are equated with those of the Gentiles in their cities (17: 14). Pss. Sol. 17: 15 is interesting, because it states that “the sons of the covenant” (Israel) surpassed even the Gentiles in their wicked deeds (cf. 1: 8; 8: 13). This makes it clear that the sinners in Israel cultivated the same lifestyle as the Gentiles, thereby turning their backs on the traditional way of life in Israel, which is represented by the Torah. 28 In 17: 18, the “lawless ones” (ἄνομοι) are identical with the peoples that have scattered Israel over the whole earth. The sinners in Israel are to be found in every class of society, from the ruler to the lowliest, as 17: 20 underlines: they were in every kind of sin—“the king in transgression [παρανομία], and the judge in disobedience, and the people in sin.” For the Psalms of Solomon, a question mark hovers over the traditional way of life, over the very existence of Israel! Psalms of Solomon 17 then projects the delimitation vis-à-vis the pagan lifestyle into the messianic future. The messiah, as mediator and God’s agent, will establish this boundary line perfectly. The messiah who is awaited will destroy unjust rulers and “lawbreaking peoples” (ἔθνη παράνομα), and he will drive away the sinners from the inheritance, calling into question their membership of Israel (17: 22-24). 29 Accordingly, the messiah will gather together a “holy people” (λαὸν ἅγιον) and “judge the tribes of the people” (κρινεῖ φυλὰς λαοῦ) that “is sanctified by the Lord his God” (17: 26). The delimitation becomes even clearer in the promise that then there will be no more injustice among them and that there will not dwell among them anyone who knows evil. “Neither settler [πάροικος] nor alien [ἀλλογενής] shall live among them any more” (17: 27-28). The settler is an inhabitant who lacks the rights of a citizen, and an alien comes from another people. All those who do not truly belong to Israel, and thus their dangerous, different culture, will no longer pose a threat to the people of God—the delimitation is perfect! Once the messiah has reestablished the pure, original state of things in Jerusalem (17: 30), an eschatological promise envisages a possible entry of the Gentiles, but only on the premise that they are oriented to Israel: there will be “peoples of the Gentiles” (λαοὺς ἐθνῶν) who serve the messiah under his 1. The Psalms of Solomon and the Torah 93 <?page no="94"?> 30 The “yoke” of the Messiah has political connotations; see Willitts, “Matthew,” 38. This concept, which is also used in 7: 9, may indicate that the sovereignty of the Messiah comes about in accordance with the Torah, which the Gentiles adopt. 31 The term φόβος has positive connotations here; see Willitts, “Matthew,” 47-48. 32 The concept of λαός does not have a univocal reference in the Psalms of Solomon. It is frequently employed for Israel as the people of God (and is then used in the singular): 9: 8; 10: 6; 17: 20, 26, 35, 36, 43. In 5: 11; 9: 2; 17: 29, 30, 33, it stands (in the plural) for the peoples of the earth. Pss. Sol. 12: 2 uses it in general for “people.” In 8: 2, λαός πολύς refers to Roman troops. 33 This does not, however, mean that observance of the Torah has a soteriological function. For a different view, see Seifried, Justification, 130-133. yoke, 30 and there will be Gentiles (ἔθνη) who come from the end of the earth to see his glory, “bringing as gifts her children who had fainted.” Their function is the eschatological bringing back of the Jews from the diaspora to Jerusalem (17: 30-31; cf. the motif in Isa 49: 22 LXX ). According to 17: 34, he will be merciful to all the Gentiles who fear him, 31 and according to 17: 43, he will rule “in the midst of sanctified peoples [λαῶν].” An eschatological opening of the λαός Israel is thus envisaged for those Gentiles who submit to the rule of the messiah. 32 This opening onto the peoples of the world is, however, only conceivable in eschatological terms, in the saving rule of the Messiah, when he makes this rule secure and guarantees it. The psalm closes, therefore, with a prayer that God may save Israel “from the uncleanness of unholy enemies” (17: 45). In the present time, delimitation is commanded. This is the visibly lived belonging to the God of Israel in a life for which the Torah provides orientation. A life in accordance with the Torah is evidence of this belonging. 33 The group behind the Psalms of Solomon formulates here a clear directive for Israel’s conduct in the present time. 2. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and the Torah 2.1 The Demarcation Is Abolished What remains an eschatological perspective in the Psalms of Solomon becomes in Paul a present-day conflict: the inclusion of the Gentiles. As we have seen, the Torah functions in general in the Psalms of Solomon to draw a boundary line between Israel and the Gentiles, and more specifically to draw a boundary line within Israel between the pious Jews and those who adapt to the Gentile way of life. In Paul’s dialogue situation, where, as a consequence of the eschatological Christ-event, persons from Judaism and from the Gentiles together form the community of the end-time, it is precisely the delimitation between Jews and 94 Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law <?page no="95"?> 34 On the historical background: Koch, Geschichte, 238-243; Schnelle, Jahre, 232-234. 35 Gal 4: 8 indicates that the addressees of the letter were primarily gentile Christians. Gentiles that he wants to overcome. In Paul’s eyes, after the Christ-event, access to God stands open for persons from the Gentiles too. These Gentiles are integrated into the community of Christ without first becoming proselytes. The so-called Antioch incident, which is recalled in Gal 2: 11-14, 34 shows that the resulting coexistence of Jewish and Gentile Christians, which was actualized substantively in their common meal (Gal 2: 12), aroused suspicion on the Jewish side. Under the influence of a group of Jewish Christians from Jerusalem (whom Paul calls “James’s people”), even Barnabas (who had accompanied Paul for many years on the mission to Gentiles that did not demand circumcision) and Peter withdrew into the old pattern of delimitation, and this is what forms Paul’s criticism of Peter in Gal 2: 14: “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? ” The delimitation of the Jews vis-à-vis the Gentiles has lost its basis, since all who belong to Christ possess a common identity. This relativizes other, typically Jewish, patterns of identity. The overcoming of the boundary between Jews and Gentiles in the commun‐ ity of Christ—an overcoming that becomes visible in the coexistence of the two groups in the central spheres of life—is the problem that the letter to the Galatians takes up. Paul’s rivals demand that the Gentile Christians 35 in Galatia also accept circumcision, which has been the sign of the covenant since the days of Abraham (Gen 17: 11), as a decisive mark of Israel’s identity (Gal 5: 2-3, 6; 6: 12- 13, 15). As proselytes, these Christians would possess a clear identity, and they would be able to demonstrate clearly through the traditional Jewish identity markers that they belonged to the people of Israel, in a visible delimitation vis-à-vis the pagan milieu. These rivals must have had a considerable influence, since some Galatians were clearly on the point of getting circumcised (1: 6; 4: 9, 17, 21; 5: 4). In order to defend his new praxis, Paul must interpret the Torah in such a way that the visible marks of delimitation, such as circumcision and commandments concerning diet and purity, are relativized. It seems natural to relate the central syntagma “works of the law” in Gal 2: 16 to these identity markers of Judaism. This identifies the goal of Paul’s argumentation with regard to the concrete problem in Galatia. But in order to understand the affirmations of the letter to the Galatians in their theological depth, we must go on to ask: when Jews become adherents of Christ, does nothing change in their understanding of the Torah? 2. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and the Torah 95 <?page no="96"?> 36 Cf. Gal 4: 4-5: “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son … to redeem those who were under the law.” 37 Cf., e.g., L X X Ps 142[143]: 1-2; Mic 7: 9; Dan 9: 14-16. In the linguistic usage of the L X X , the righteousness of God means his salvific turning to his people, cf. Ps 40[41]: 11; 70[71]: 15; 97[98]: 2; Isa 45: 8; 46: 13; 51: 5; 56: 1; 59: 17; 4 Ezra 8: 26. 38 On this antithesis, see also Gal 2: 21; 3: 2, 5, 10-14; 5: 4-5. 39 See Schreiber, Brief, 93-96; Schumacher, Entstehung. 2.2 The Structure in Paul’s Thinking: The Relationship to the God of Israel in Christ This question leads us to the fundamental structure in Paul’s thinking. At its center stands the relationship between God and the human person. Paul presupposes that, with Christ, the final age has dawned, and God turns toward Israel or to human beings in a new way in Christ, opening up the relationship to his own self. Paul affirms the eschatological significance of the Christ-event already in the prescript of the letter, at Gal 1: 4: Jesus’s gift of himself snatches us out of the present evil aeon, and this implies that we are freed in principle from the power of sin. 36 This leads to a new, eschatologically transformed existence in Christ: it is “Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live in trust in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (2: 20). And in 6: 15, he speaks of the human being who is in Christ as a “new creation,” implying an eschatological change of status. Gal 2: 16 sums up this salutary turning of God to human beings by means of the motif of “justifying.” On God’s part, this means that human beings are welcomed and saved and that their sins are forgiven. “Justifying” (δικαιοῦσθαι) in Gal 2: 16, or “righteousness” in 2: 21, denotes an action on the part of God that puts the human being in the right relationship to God and gives fellowship with God. The human being himself cannot do this. This is something that God must do. 37 The decisive point now is how Paul defines the part played by the human being. How does the human being behave in the new relationship to God? The Christ-event brings about here the crucial difference that Paul formulates as a sharp antithesis in 2: 16: the basis (ἐκ) of justification is no longer the “works of the law” but the “steadfast relationship to Christ” (πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). 38 In classical linguistic usage, πίστις means confidence, fidelity, and reliability within a relationship and a conviction. 39 The genitive compound πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which is the object of controversial discussion among scholars, is best translated as “steadfast relationship to Jesus Christ,” where the reciprocity of the 96 Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law <?page no="97"?> 40 This neutralizes the disputed question whether πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is to be under‐ stood as an objective genitive (“faith in Christ,” according to classic German scholarship) or as a subjective genitive (“the fidelity of Jesus in his death,” as many English-language scholars prefer; see Boer, Galatians, 148-150). 41 Cf. Isa 14: 5; 1 Macc 1: 34; 2: 48; Pss. Sol. 1: 1-8. relationship is decisive. 40 Accordingly, 2: 17 can employ the formulation “to be justified in Christ,” that is to say, in the sphere of the relationship to him. For Paul, justification passes, after the eschatological Christ-event, via the relationship to Christ. Accordingly, he has “put his trust in Christ Jesus” (2: 16). The new fellowship with God in Christ creates a new perspective on the Torah that differs in some respects from the traditional Jewish understanding, which Paul describes by means of the syntagma “works of the law.” 2.3 The Works of the Law Paul continues to understand the Torah as a Jew. In 2: 15, he explicitly numbers himself among the Jews and adopts the customary Jewish delimitation that sees the Gentiles in principle—in contradistinction to the Jews—as sinners. 41 But, as 2: 16 underlines three times, Paul is convinced that, after the Christ-event, a human being “is not justified by works of the law [ἐξ ἔργων νόμου].” Here (as also in the Psalms of Solomon) the meaning is not that one merits God’s righteousness through religious achievements. Rather, the question is how the relationship to God is lived. The “works of the law” are now useless as a response to justification. The concept of ἔργα achieves a vital differentiation here. In linguistic terms, it makes it impossible to deny completely the significance of the Torah. “Works of the law” does not in the least have the general meaning of behaving and living in accordance with the Torah, with the intention of attaining righteousness before God. It means actions that make visible one’s belonging to God (as the human side within the relationship between God and the human being). Those who perform “works of the law” thereby show that they are living the Torah in the typically Jewish manner, which also finds a representative in the Psalms of Solomon. The concept of ἔργα points to concrete prescriptions or modes of conduct that can be plainly seen to be a consequence of the law. In the dialogue situation of the letter to the Galatians, we should think of these as pointedly Jewish identity markers that make Jewish identity visible in demarcation vis-à-vis the pagan world—first and foremost, circumcision, the Sabbath commandment, and commandments 2. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and the Torah 97 <?page no="98"?> 42 Cf. 4Q398 14 II, 2-7 (part of 4QMMT): “And also we have written to you some of the precepts of the Torah [ma’aseh ha-Torah] … and it shall be reckoned to you as justice when you do what is good and upright before him”. These words are preceded by some precepts that were understood as Torah and that were important for the group behind this text. These are concerned above all with ritual purity and fulfill the function of marking boundaries between groups within Judaism. Josephus, A.J. 20.42, 43, 46 uses the expression “to do the work” (πράσσειν τὸν ἔργον) in the sense of “carrying out circumcision” in the context of conversion to Judaism. On this understanding, see Dunn, New Perspective, esp. 1-88, 109; idem, Theology, 354-359. 43 On the state of the discussion, it suffices to see Bendik, Paulus, esp. 165-174; Schreiber, “Paulus,” 91-102; Wolter, Römer, 233-237. 44 Bachmann, “Keil,” 69-134 holds that only regulations of the law are meant. Against this, see Dunn, “Dialogue,” 400. Philo, Praem. 82-83, 126, and Josephus, C. Ap. 2.291-292, already note that it is only works that implement the laws. 45 From the perspective of the history of scholarship, the new theological evaluation of the regulations of the Torah that make one’s belonging to the God of Israel come alive is inseparable from the sociological consequence, that is to say, the admission of persons from the Gentiles to the communities of Christ. The latter is strongly emphasized by the New Perspective (the function as boundary markers). about eating and purity. 42 For Paul, these are dangerous, not only because of their function of demarcation, but also because they signify an access to God that has become obsolete for Christ-followers. The reference of the syntagma ἐξ ἔργων νόμου is extremely disputed among exegetes. 43 Above all, there is no agreement about whether this refers to following the entire Torah or only particular modes of conduct that mark the specific character of Judaism (in the so-called New Perspective, these are called identity or boundary markers). Martin Luther’s general distinction between legalism (that is to say, every compliance with laws of the state and of religion) and divine grace has left a lasting mark on the discussion. This is connected with the theological question of whether “works of the law” are to be understood as human achievements that are meant to establish a claim on God. Paul would strictly reject such an idea, combating it by proclaiming divine grace. Scholars also discuss a distinction between prescriptions and concrete actions. 44 The intention to make one’s own belonging to the God of Israel visible in the ἔργα νόμου is, per se, positive. But for Paul, this has been rendered “obsolete” through the eschatological Christ-event since God has now opened up in Christ a new possibility of belonging. The fulfilling of the Torah changes both for the Jewish adherents of Christ and for those who come from the Gentiles (ἔθνη). 45 For Jewish Christians, the relationship to Christ implies that the traditional Torah practices, which express Israel’s covenantal belonging to God, lose their significance; in addition to the identity markers mentioned above, these also include cultic actions in the Temple in Jerusalem, or the fasting that is 98 Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law <?page no="99"?> 46 When Paul defends himself in Gal 1: 10 against the charge that he wants to please human beings (ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν), his rivals were probably making the same kind of accusations that the Psalms of Solomon too could raise against the “sinners” (Pss. Sol. 4: 7, 19). 47 In early Judaism, Abraham was regarded as the founding father of Israel when he accepted circumcision. He already observed the Torah before it was given on Sinai; cf. Gen 26: 5 L X X ; Sir 44: 20-21 L X X ; Jub. 24: 11. Cf. Wischmeyer, “Abraham.” recommended in Pss. Sol. 3: 8 to atone for the sins committed in ignorance; the latter is irrelevant, since the sins have now been removed through Christ’s gift of himself (Gal 1: 4). And for adherents from the Gentiles, it is the relationship to Christ that makes possible in the first place their belonging to the God of Israel without accepting circumcision and commandments concerning matters such as food—in short, without becoming proselytes. Like Jewish adherents, those from the Gentiles find their orientation in the Torah and its concept of God, but they understand this in a special manner, from the perspective of the Christ-event. It is precisely against the backdrop of the Psalms of Solomon that we can grasp how Paul’s rivals in Galatia, confronted with his radical opening of the covenant to the ἔθνη, could accuse him of interpreting the Torah in a way that amounted to a cheap assimilation into pagan culture. 46 For Paul, the consequence of the new fellowship with God in Christ is a new interpretation of the Torah. Let me conclude by at least indicating briefly in four points what has changed in Paul’s understanding of the Torah in comparison to that in the Psalms of Solomon. 2.4 The Interpretation of the Torah in Christ First, Paul defines the significance of the figure of Abraham anew by means of an interpretation that is unusual in early Judaism. In the Psalms of Solomon, Abraham stands for the election of Israel, which distinguishes it from the Gentiles (Pss. Sol. 9: 9), and for the beginning of the covenant with God (10: 4); an allusion to Gen 17: 13, 19 can be heard here. 47 But Gal 3: 6-18 begins at an earlier point in the story of Abraham, in order to show that God made it possible for Abraham to enter into a relationship with him through Abraham’s trust in God’s promise—even before circumcision. Gal 3: 6 quotes from Gen 15: 6 L XX : “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” The Gentiles (ἔθνη), too, are blessed in this attitude of trust (Gen 12: 3 is quoted); according to Gal 3: 7-9, οἱ ἐκ πίστεως (“those from the relationship of trust”) are the children of Abraham; the Gentiles are included here from the outset. Paul thus uses Abraham to demonstrate that God always favored the attitude 2. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and the Torah 99 <?page no="100"?> 48 According to Gal 3: 17, the law was given 430 years later. This figure is taken from Exod 12: 40-41 L X X ; cf. Josephus, A.J. 2.318. 49 Bachmann, “Argumentation,” 524-544 defines Gal 3: 10-12 formally as two linked syllogisms. It seems more important to me that we have here an interpretation of scripture, probably a thematic pesher (cf., e.g., 4Q174 III; Acts 2: 14-42). 50 Ottenheijm, “Which If a Man,” 316: “In Paul’s vision no person is able to keep the Law outside the realm of Christian faith.” The dying “through the law” of which Gal 2: 19 speaks (διά with the genitive denotes the law as mediator) is probably to be understood on the basis of this curse. The “dying to the law” in the same verse is a metaphor for the separation, the distance vis-à-vis the law (cf. Rom 6: 2, 10-11; 7: 6), that opens up a new standpoint in relation to the Torah and a new interpretation. Gal 5: 1, 3 speaks, with reference to circumcision, of the “yoke [ζυγός] of slavery,” which apparently means that the entire Torah must be kept. 51 Dunn, Theology, 361; cf. Wright, Climax, 145. Matlock, “Helping,” 154-179 discusses alternative drafts and convincingly defends the inability explanation. of πίστις; the law, which came later, does not change this in any way (3: 17). 48 In Gal 3: 29, he states that all who belong to Christ are descendants of Abraham. The Torah is given the role of bearing witness that πίστις is the proper human posture in relationship to God: this applies both to Abraham (Gen 15: 6) and to his descendants (Gen 12: 3). Second, the Psalms of Solomon do not speak of a curse of the law. Here, Paul elaborates an interpretation that is generated by the perspective of the Christ-event. According to Gal 3: 10-13, all who live out of “works of the law” are under a curse. In support of this affirmation, Paul quotes Deut 27: 26, 49 where the curse falls on everyone who “does not abide by all things written in the book of the law.” The fundamental idea, already established in this quotation, is that no one is able to keep the Torah perfectly. This means that all who rely on “works of the law” are in fact always under the curse. 50 The thesis that Paul’s starting point is the inability of the ( Jewish) human being to fulfill the entire Torah has often been criticized by scholars who assert that early Judaism considered obedience to the law as practicable; it required no impossible perfection, but made provision for atonement and repentance. 51 But as we have seen, the Psalms of Solomon already place the emphasis on God’s mercy. In other words, they presuppose that even the righteous are always in need of this mercy since no one can keep the Torah perfectly (“sinful righteous”). And they no longer regarded the sacrificial cult as reliable because the priests had incurred impurity. Unlike Paul, however, the Psalms of Solomon still envisage the strict observance of the Torah as the path on which one can live in God’s mercy. Paul interprets the inability of the human being to do the Torah perfectly in malam partem through the concept of the curse in order to show that “works of the law” and 100 Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law <?page no="101"?> 52 On various interpretations of Paul’s use of Lev 18: 5, see Avemarie, “Paul; ” cf. Chibici-Re‐ vneanu, “Leben.” 53 Gathercole, “Torah,” 143-145, sees Paul “in dialogue with a Judaism that thought in terms of obedience, final judgment, and eternal life” and argues against the view that “obedience to Torah is not the means of salvation but rather marks out covenant membership” (144)—a view maintained, e.g., by Wright, Climax, 149-150. In my opinion, the supposition of a causal relationship between observance of the Torah and the reward of eternal life does not go far enough, since it looses sight of the entire relationship to God that the Torah seeks to shape; the theology of the antecedent covenant influences the soteriology of the Psalms of Solomon (esp. 9: 8-11). The new interpretation of the Torah by Paul after the Christ-event is the decisive point of conflict. 54 Pace Boer, Galatians, 210: “the law itself is a curse.” the relationship to Christ are not equally valuable alternatives as a basis for fellowship with God. The quotation from Lev 18: 5 L XX (ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς) places the accent on doing the Torah. The Septuagint version of Lev 18: 5 already underlines that this means keeping the entire Torah (“all my instructions and all my legal decisions”)—something that Paul sees as impossible, so that, on this basis, the curse must necessarily fall. 52 In Galatians 3: 11-12, there is a contrast between two scriptural quotations, Hab 2: 4 (“The righteous will live out of trust [ἐκ πίστεως]”) and Lev 18: 5 (the one “who does [these commandments] shall live by them”). The motif of life links the two texts and places the accent on the opposition, already made pointedly at Gal 2: 16, between trust and doing the Torah. In both cases, the goal is life with God. Life has a comprehensive meaning here, including both the present day and the inalienable life with God. 53 Leviticus 18: 5 centers life on the prescribed framework of observing the Torah, while the relationship of trust in God transcends this boundary, leading to a new understanding of the Torah. For Paul, therefore, belonging to God can now be realized and lived only in an inadequate manner on the basis of fulfilling the entire Torah. But Christ ransomed humans from the curse of the law (not from the law as such! ) 54 by taking upon himself the curse uttered in Deut 21: 23 L XX (“Cursed [be] everyone who hangs on the wood”), shared it with all other human beings under the law, and—as Christ, as God’s representative—liberated them from the curse with an eschatological effect (Gal 3: 13). Third, in Gal 3: 19-4: 7, Paul can assign certain functions of the Torah to the past. The caesura is formed by the Christ-event, which divides the whole of history into a period before Christ and a period after Christ. This dichotomy of the ages means that the time between Abraham and Christ loses its contours; Moses, David, and the prophets play no role. In this provisional, dark time, the 2. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and the Torah 101 <?page no="102"?> 55 But not “to produce the transgressions” (thus Boer, Galatians, 231). 56 Paul uses the verbs φρουρέω (transitive: to guard, to protect, but also of a garrison: to occupy) and συγκλείω (to enclose, to shelter, to encircle, to shut in). 57 Rom 13: 8-10 also quotes Lev 19: 18 as the summary of the Torah. Such summaries were known in early Judaism. See Schreiber, “Law.” law too has only a provisional function. According to Gal 3: 19, the law was added “because of transgressions,” in order to prevent the worst from happening, or in order to bring to light hidden, unconscious transgressions and make people conscious of them. 55 This function is temporary, until the coming of the “offspring” (Christ). According to 3: 21-22, there never existed a righteousness “by the law,” because everything, including the Torah, was enclosed under sin, and dominated by sin. Prior to the “relationship of trust [πίστις],” the law had the function of guarding (3: 23) and of a “tutor” (παιδαγωγός, 3: 24). This reflects an ambivalent view. Guarding can mean protection but also imprisonment, 56 and the “tutor”—a slave who took boys to school or the gymnasium and back, and watched over them—could protect but also chastise. He was responsible for protection from dangers and bad influences, but he was also mocked, because the tutor was often a slave whose age or handicap meant that he could not be used for any other work. The function of the tutor recalls Pss. Sol. 7: 9 and 10: 1-4, but once again Paul sees it as temporary, until the coming of the relationship to Christ. Now that Christ has come, Christ-adherents are no longer under the tutor (Gal 3: 25), that is, under this pedagogical function of the Torah. Galatians 4: 4-5 summarizes the significance of the coming of Christ: through the sending of his Son by God, the “fullness of time,” the eschaton, has come. Since the Son himself was subject to the conditions of human (“born of a woman”), and specifically Jewish existence (“born under the law”), he was able to redeem those who are “under the law,” so that they receive “divine childhood”—that is, new life in relationship, in immediate closeness to God in the end-time. The motif of education, whereby the Torah played a central role as guideline, is central to the Psalms of Solomon, but this has become obsolete in Paul, thanks to God’s salvific action in Christ. A new interpretation of the Torah is both possible and necessary. Fourth, the commandment of love from Lev 19: 18 becomes the new criterion of interpretation of the Torah in Gal 5: 14: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one (single) word, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” Love for one’s neighbor, welcoming and accepting the other person, getting involved on behalf of the other, means the fulfillment of the Torah. 57 This is in accord with the new relationship to Christ, so that 5: 6 speaks of “πίστις that becomes operative through ἀγάπη.” Love of neighbor is a consequence of the relationship to Christ 102 Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law <?page no="103"?> 58 Atkinson, “Enduring,” 159 emphasizes the elements that are shared by the Psalms of Solomon and Paul: the fulfilling of the law does not make one righteous before God; all human beings sin; the pious know this, and they acknowledge the righteousness of God. and is thus the key to the interpretation of the Torah in Christ. It is here that Paul’s specific hermeneutic of the Torah becomes visible. Leviticus 19: 18 itself is part of the Torah, meaning that Paul’s interpretation does not represent a departure from Judaism. In Gal 6: 2, he speaks of “the law of Christ.” This is not a new law, but the law that is qualified through Christ. He defines it by means of an exhortation: “Bear one another’s burdens”—which is in keeping with the intention of Lev 19: 18. Love of neighbor becomes the new identity marker of the community, which sets its stamp upon the community’s ethos and demarcates it ad extra, while Jewish and Gentile Christians are united precisely in this love. Gal 6: 1 asserts that addressing a “transgression” (παράπτωμα) is the responsibility of the community, composed of those who are filled with the Spirit (πνευματικοί), and who have the ability to restore the transgressor to the right path. In this way, the community takes on a role that otherwise belongs to God: in Psalms of Solomon 13: 10, it is God himself who removes the transgressions of the righteous through his instruction and education. 3. Conclusion This comparison with the Psalms of Solomon shows that Paul’s new interpretation touches a raw nerve of the Jewish understanding of the Torah: Abraham as the beginning of the election of Israel, the Torah as a good path of righteousness, the educational function of the Torah. In these areas, Paul develops new paths and summarizes his understanding of the Torah in the commandment of love, which is his hermeneutical key. The Psalms of Solomon and Paul both share a central focus on God’s turning toward Israel, which is expressed in his “righteousness” and his “mercy” (Psalms of Solomon) or his “love” (Gal 2: 20). In the Psalms of Solomon, doing the Torah corresponds to the righteousness of God, and whoever lives in accordance with the Torah can be called righteous and may hope for the forgiveness of his or her sins (one does not merit God’s righteousness—one lives in it). 58 For Paul, on the other hand, the righteousness of God finds a new place in Christ, whereby also sins are forgiven. In Christ, God grants his people—and also the Gentiles—a new access to himself, establishing a new relationship that frees them for a new interpretation of the Torah. This reinterpretation relativizes the instructions that distinguish Jews from Gentiles, thereby offering the Gentiles in Christ eschatological access to the people of God. 3. Conclusion 103 <?page no="104"?> Bibliography Abegg, Martin G. “4QMMT, Paul and ‘Works of the Law’.” Pages 203-216 in The Bible at Qumran: Texts, Shape, and Interpretation. Edited by Peter W. Flint and James C. Vanderkam. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Albrecht, Felix. “Zur Notwendigkeit einer Neuedition der Psalmen Salomos.” Pages 110-123 in Die Septuaginta—Text, Wirkung, Rezeption. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Siegfried Kreuzer. WUNT 325. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. ---. Psalmi Salomonis. SVTG 12.3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018. Atkinson, Kenneth. I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social Setting. JSJSup 84. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004. ---. “Enduring the Lord’s Discipline: Soteriology in the Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 145-163 in This World and the World to Come: Soteriology in Early Judaism. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner. LSTS 74. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Avemarie, Friedrich. “Paul and the Claim of the Law according to the Scripture: Leviticus 18: 5 in Galatians 3: 12 and Romans 10: 5.” Pages 125-148 in The Beginnings of Christianity. Edited by Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2005. Bachmann, Michael. “Keil oder Mikroskop? Zur jüngeren Diskussion um den Ausdruck ‘Werke des Gesetzes’.” Pages 69-134 in Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive: Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion. Edited by Michael Bachmann. WUNT 182. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. ---. “Zur Argumentation von Gal 3.10-12.” NTS 53 (2007): 524-544. Bendik, Ivana. Paulus in neuer Sicht? Eine kritische Einführung in die “New Perspective on Paul.” Judentum und Christentum 18. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2010. Boer, Martinus C de. Galatians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011. Carson, Donald A., Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds. Justification and Variegated Nomism. 2 vols. WUNT II/ 140, 181. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001, 2004. Chibici-Revneanu, Nicole. “Leben im Gesetz: Die paulinische Interpretation von Lev 18: 5 (Gal 3: 12; Rom 10: 5).” NovT 50 (2008): 105-119. Collins, John J. “The Royal Psalms and Eschatological Messianism.” Pages 73-89 in Aux origines des messianismes juifs. Edited by David Hamidović. VTSup 158. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013. Dunn, James D.G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Reprint 2003. ---. The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays. WUNT 185. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Revised edition: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. ---. “The Dialogue Progresses.” Pages 389-430 in Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspek‐ tive: Beiträge zu einem Schlüsselproblem der gegenwärtigen exegetischen Diskussion. Edited by Michael Bachmann. WUNT 182. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. 104 Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law <?page no="105"?> Gathercole, Simon J. “Torah, Life, and Salvation: Leviticus 18: 5 in Early Judaism and the New Testament.” Pages 126-145 in From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New. Edited by Craig A. Evans. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004. Gebhardt, Oscar von. Die Psalmen Salomo’s zum ersten Male mit Benutzung der Athoshandschriften und des Codex Casanatensis. TUGAL 13.2. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1895. Holm-Nielsen, Svend. Die Psalmen Salomos. JSHRZ IV/ 2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1977. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Geschichte des Urchristentums: Ein Lehrbuch. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. Kraus, Wolfgang, and Martin Karrer, eds. Septuaginta Deutsch: Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009. Lindemann, Andreas. “Paulus—Pharisäer und Apostel.” Pages 311-351 in Paulus und Jo‐ hannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur. Edited by Dieter Sänger and Ulrich Mell. WUNT 198. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Matlock, R. Barry. “Helping Paul’s Argument Work? The Curse of Galatians 3.10-14.” Pages 154-179 in The Torah in the New Testament. Edited by Michael Tait and Peter Oakes. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2009. McGlynn, Moyna. “Authority and Sacred Space: Concepts of the Jerusalem Temple in Aristeas, Wisdom, and Josephus.” BN 161 (2014): 115-140. Nickelsburg, George W.E. “Torah and the Deuteronomic Scheme in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: Variations on a Theme and Some Noteworthy Examples of Its Absence.” Pages 222-235 in Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im Neuen Testament: Festschrift für Christoph Burchard. Edited by Dieter Sänger and Matthias Konradt. NTOA 57. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Ottenheijm, Eric. “‘Which If a Man Do Them He Shall Live by Them’: Jewish and Christian Discourse on Lev 18: 5.” Pages 303-316 in The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maarten J.J. Menken. Edited by Bart J. Koet, Steve Moyise, and Joseph Verheyden. NovTSup 148. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013. Passow, Franz. Handwörterbuch der Griechischen Sprache. 2 double vols. 5th ed. Updated by Valentin C.F. Rost et al. Leipzig: Fr. Chr. Wilh. Vogel, 1841-1857. Reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Duo volumina in uno. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Sanders, Ed P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977. Schnelle, Udo. “Gerechtigkeit in den Psalmen Salomos und bei Paulus.” Pages 365-375 in Jüdische Schriften in ihrem antik-jüdischen und urchristlichen Kontext. Edited by Hermann Lichtenberger and Gerbern S. Oegema. Studien zu den jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit 1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2002. Bibliography 105 <?page no="106"?> ---. Die ersten 100 Jahre des Christentums 30-130 n.Chr.: Die Entstehungsgeschichte einer Weltreligion. UTB 4411. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Schreiber, Stefan. Gesalbter und König: Titel und Konzeptionen der königlichen Gesalbtenerwartung in frühjüdischen und urchristlichen Schriften. BZNW 105. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2000. ---. “Paulus und die Tradition: Zur Hermeneutik der ‘Rechtfertigung’ in neuer Perspek‐ tive.” TRev 105 (2009): 91-102. ---. “Law and Love in Romans 13.8-10.” Pages 100-119 in The Torah in the Ethics of Paul. Edited by Martin Meiser. LNTS 473. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2012. ---. “Can Wisdom Be Prayer? Form and Function of the Psalms of Solomon.” Pages 89-106 in Literature or Liturgy? Early Christian Hymns and Prayers in their Literary and Liturgical Context in Antiquity. Edited by Clemens Leonhard and Hermut Löhr. WUNT II/ 363. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. ---. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. ÖTK 13/ 1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2014. Schröter, Jens. “Gerechtigkeit und Barmherzigkeit: Das Gottesbild der Psalmen Salomos in seinem Verhältnis zu Qumran und Paulus.” NTS 44 (1998): 557-577. Schumacher, Thomas. Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache: Eine Untersuchung der pau‐ linischen Idiomatik und der Verwendung des Begriffes πίστις. BBB 168. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Seifried, Mark A. Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme. NovTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Sharon, Nadav. “Between Opposition to the Hasmoneans and Resistance to Rome: The Psalms of Solomon and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 41-54 in Reactions to Empire: Sacred Texts in their Socio-political Contexts. Edited by John A. Dunne and Dan Batovici. WUNT II/ 372. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Steins, Georg. “Die Psalmen Salomos—ein Oratorium über die Barmherzigkeit Gottes und die Rettung Jerusalems.” Pages 121-141 in Laetare Jerusalem. Edited by Nikodemus C. Schnabel. Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum 10. Münster: Aschendorff, 2006. Theißen, Gerd, and Petra von Gemünden. Der Römerbrief: Rechenschaft eines Reformators. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Trafton, Joseph L. “The Bible, the Psalms of Solomon, and Qumran.” Pages 427-446 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol. II of The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Willitts, Joel. “Matthew and Psalms of Solomon’s Messianism: A Comparative Study in First-Century Messianology.” BBR 22 (2012): 27-50. Winninge, Mikael. Sinners and the Righteous: A Comparative Study of the Psalms of Solomon and Paul’s Letters. ConBNT 26. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995. 106 Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law <?page no="107"?> Wischmeyer, Oda. “Wie kommt Abraham in den Galaterbrief ? Überlegungen zu Gal 3,6-29.” Pages 119-163 in Umstrittener Galaterbrief: Studien zur Situierung und Theo‐ logie des Paulus-Schreibens. Edited by Michael Bachmann and Bernd Kollmann. Bib‐ lisch-theologische Studien 106. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2010. Wright, Nicholas T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Reprint London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Wright, Robert B. The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text. Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies 1. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Wolter, Michael. Der Brief an die Römer. Vol. I. EKKNT VI/ 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu‐ kirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2014. Bibliography 107 <?page no="109"?> Chapter 5 <?page no="111"?> * Previously unpublished. 1 Throughout this essay, I have chosen to write “law” in lowercase, even when referring to the Torah. The only exception is in set phrases such as “Law and Prophets,” where the terms denote a clearly defined section of Scripture. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans * This essay offers a fresh perspective on highly disputed texts in Paul’s letter to the Romans, particularly those concerning the Torah. Paul conspicuously often uses the term νόμος (“law”) throughout Romans, and in some passages—such as “law of sin” in Romans 7: 23—readers are prompted to consider whether νόμος refers specifically to the Torah or more generally to a rule or principle. Since the grammatical and contextual determinations of νόμος—such as genitive constructions—do not always seem to align with the meaning of Torah, many interpretations of Romans shift the sense of νόμος abruptly from one passage to another, making it difficult to form a consistent picture of Paul’s use of the term throughout the letter. In contrast, I argue that it is not only possible but also highly beneficial for interpreting Romans to understand νόμος consistently as referring to the Torah. 1 In cases where the term seems to be used in unexpected ways, I propose that a distinct Torah hermeneutics is at work—one that Paul articulates in a language unique to him. The aim of this essay is to highlight Paul’s distinctive Torah hermeneutics as it emerges in the letter to the Romans and to show how these texts can be interpreted clearly and contextually situated as expressions of Paul’s application of the Torah. In sum, this essay examines Paul’s use of the term νόμος and argues for a consistent reading of it as referring to the Torah, suggesting that such an approach yields a more coherent interpretation of the letter to the Romans as a whole. As we shall see, Paul’s interpretation of the Torah is neither situated outside the Judaism of his time nor does it operate within it without distinctive contours. Rather, it presents the profile of a Torah interpreter whose understanding is fundamentally shaped by his conviction that Jesus is the Messiah. The foundation is laid by considering the significance of the Torah in Judaism during Paul’s time, the context of the letter to the Romans, and Paul’s continuing Jewish identity (1.). The essay then follows the line of argument in the letter to the Romans. It begins by examining how Paul qualifies the Torah in Romans 2: 12-3: 20 (2.). On this basis, Paul is able to show in Romans 3: 21-31 what <?page no="112"?> 2 Cf. Rendtorff, Old Testament, 93-95, who argues that “book of the law” in this context most likely refers to a form of the Pentateuch or a Deuteronomic core. 3 All translations of biblical and other ancient texts are my own, unless otherwise indicated. - On the dual function of reading and interpreting Scripture, see Eskenazi and Judd, “Composition,” 650-652; Kalimi, Retelling, 134-136. changes in the understanding of the Torah with the manifestation of God’s saving care in Christ (3.). At this point, Paul’s Torah hermeneutics begins to take shape. Further challenges to the traditional Jewish understanding of the Torah appear in Romans 4-6, particularly in relation to Abraham’s trust and the overwhelming influence of sin (4.). The core of Paul’s new Torah hermeneutics is then developed in Romans 7: 1-8: 4 (5.), and again in Romans 13: 8-10 (7.). Between these two passages, Paul reflects in three sections of Romans 9-11 on the role of the Torah in relation to the question of Israel (6.). Finally, I will draw together the conclusions of the essay (8.). 1. Paul, his Jewish Identity, and the Torah 1.1 The Torah at the Heart of Jewish Life In Nehemiah 8: 1-12 (or L XX 2 Esdras 18: 1-12), the passage describes how the people of Israel reconstitute themselves after the exile. The entire community gathers in Jerusalem and asks the scribe Ezra to read from “the book of the law of Moses” ( L XX 2 Esd 1: 1: τὸ βιβλίον νόμου Μωυσῆ). At the heart of this moment is the Torah, which in this context likely refers to the Pentateuch. 2 The people assemble in a large liturgical setting to recommit themselves to the Torah, seeking to understand its teachings in order to discern God’s will. For an entire morning, Ezra reads to the people from the book of instructions, and the people listen attentively (8: 3/ 18: 3). What stands out in this account is that, alongside the reading, the Levites provide further explanations of the law to the people (8: 7/ 18: 7). In 2 Esd 18: 8, it is Ezra who interprets the law (while in Neh 8: 8, the task is attributed to the Levites): And they read from the book of the law of God, and Ezra taught (ἐδίδασκεν) and expounded (διέστελλεν) it from his knowledge of the Lord, and the people were full of understanding at the reading. 3 This passage underscores the importance of understanding the law—not only through the public reading of Scripture, but also through its interpretation. The reading of the Torah must be accompanied by explanation, involving both interpretation and application, so that its instruction can be grasped 112 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="113"?> and meaningfully integrated into daily life. This process of understanding culminates in a joyful feast of gratitude before the Lord (8: 9-12), reflecting both the people’s appreciation of the Torah and its central role in the life of Israel. Through the Torah, God’s presence becomes tangible. In responding with obedience, the people not only affirm their identity but also deepen their rootedness in the Torah. The text highlights the central role of the Torah in Jewish life and identity. It also reflects an awareness that interpretation and application are essential for the Torah to remain relevant in everyday life. For Paul, as a Jew, orientation toward the Torah was likewise foundational. As a Pharisee, he would have been deeply familiar with the need for situational interpretation of the Torah. It is therefore no coincidence that, in his letter to the Romans, he repeatedly returns to the question of how the Torah should be rightly understood. 1.2 Paul and the Torah in Romans As a Jew, it was self-evident for Paul to base his life on the law—the Torah. His Jewish identity was fundamentally shaped by the Torah, which remained fully valid for him even after his calling by God, when Jesus of Nazareth—executed on a Roman cross—was revealed to him as God’s Messiah (Gal 1: 15-16). However, this calling also meant that he was sent to the so-called Gentile nations (ἔθνη), the non-Jews (Gal 1: 16). As a result, Paul was inevitably compelled to rethink his understanding of the Torah. The Torah contains commandments that visibly distinguish Israel from the Gentiles and safeguard Israel’s unique identity—such as circumcision, the Sabbath commandment, purity regulations, and dietary laws. These practices functioned to maintain the boundary between Israel and the nations. They both distinguished Israel in its identity and separated it socially and ritually from the Gentile nations. Yet Paul recognized that, in this eschatological moment, God had opened a new way of access to himself—one that, alongside Israel’s tradition and the Torah, enabled people to have communion with God and is now centered in Christ. Through belonging to Christ and placing trust (πιστεύειν, πίστις) in him, a relationship with the God of Israel was now made possible. And this access was no longer limited to Israel alone but extended also to the Gentiles! This conviction raised not only theological questions about the role of the Torah, but also practical challenges concerning the coexistence of Jewish and Gentile Christ-followers in Paul’s communities. The pressing issue emerged: Did people from the nations need to be circumcised and observe dietary and purity laws in order to worship God and share table fellowship with Jewish 1. Paul, his Jewish Identity, and the Torah 113 <?page no="114"?> 4 For a discussion of the Torah in Galatians, see Chapter 4, “Violators of the Law and the Curse of the Law: The Perception of the Torah in the Psalms of Solomon and in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” in this volume. Notably, several passages on the Torah in Romans and Galatians exhibit significant parallels, e.g., Rom 13: 8-10 and Gal 5: 14, or Rom 3: 20, 28, 30 and Gal 2: 15-16. 5 Νόμος in Rom 2: 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27; 3: 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 31; 4: 13, 14, 15, 16; 5: 13, 20; 6: 14, 15; 7: 1-6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 25; 8: 2, 3, 4, 7; 9: 31; 10: 4, 5; 13: 8, 10. 6 Wolter, “Gesetz,” 358. Cf. Hultgren, “Paul,” 211. For an argument in favor of a consistent reference to the Torah, see Dunn, “Torah,” 441-445. By contrast, the distinction between two concepts of law in Gosnell, “Law,” 253-255—namely, Torah regulations (in most uses in Romans) and instruction (primarily in quotations)—is less clearly developed than in Wolter. Christ-adherents? This demanded a fundamental, theologically grounded an‐ swer—one that necessarily engaged with the Torah, whose commandments had long ensured Israel’s distinctiveness. In Galatians, Paul made an initial attempt to clarify the theological role of the Torah. That response, however, was marked by sharp polemic, reflecting an urgent crisis: the Gentile Christians in Galatia were apparently on the verge of undergoing circumcision (Gal 5: 2-3, 6, 11-12; 6: 12-15). 4 It is particularly in the letter to the Romans that Paul returns to this question in detail and in a more deliberate and reasoned tone. My contribution, therefore, focuses on Romans. In Romans, the understanding and interpretation of the Torah is a central theme. This is evident even at first glance from the frequent occurrence of the term νόμος, which, as will be shown, generally refers to the Torah. The term appears throughout the entire letter, 5 shaping a sustained discourse on the Torah. Contemporary scholarship largely agrees that νόμος refers to the Torah in most instances in Romans (as well as in other Pauline letters). However, different meanings are still postulated in certain passages. For example, Michael Wolter interprets νόμος in Rom 3: 21 (“the Law and the Prophets”) and 3: 31 (“we hold fast to the law”) as a literary designation for the first part of the Tanakh—the five books of Moses; in Rom 4: 15 (“where there is no law”) and 7: 1 (regarding the law’s binding authority), he understands νόμος as referring to a general concept of law; in Rom 3: 27; 7: 21, 25; and 8: 2, he takes νόμος metaphorically, as denoting a general “principle” or “regularity.” 6 In the analysis that follows, we will need to examine whether νόμος in these passages may in fact still refer to the Torah—and what the implications of such a reading might be. 114 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="115"?> 7 On Phil 3: 5, see Ehrensperger, “As to the Law,” 95-105. 8 On the Pharisees, cf. the overviews in Stemberger, Pharisäer, 10-114; Frey, “Prägung,” 60-61; Niebuhr, “Pharisäer,” 72-75; Sievers, Levine, and Schröter, Pharisäer, 14-292. On Paul as a Pharisee, Wolter, Paulus, 14-18. 9 If the two teachers of the law mentioned in Josephus, A.J. 17.149-160, Judas and Matthias, are to be considered Pharisees, they stood out as “interpreters of the paternal laws” (ἐξηγηταὶ τῶν πατρίων νόμων). On the portrayal of the Pharisees in Josephus, see Mason, “Pharisäer.” 10 See Sheinfeld, “Nomos,” 65-66; Niebuhr, “Jesus; ” Ehrensperger, “Pharisäer,” 154. 11 See also A.J. 17.41; Vita 191. 1.3 Paul, the Pharisee As a Jew, Paul was deeply familiar with the central role of the Torah in Jewish life—a law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai to serve as a guide for the people of Israel. The Mosaic law, embodied in the five books of Moses, formed the foundation of Israel’s covenantal relationship with God and provided orientation for living according to his will. Moreover, according to his own account, Paul had belonged to a specific Jewish group prior to his calling in Christ. In Phil 3: 5, he reflects on his former identity as a Pharisee with the words: “concerning the law, a Pharisee” (κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος). 7 This phrase suggests a close connection between Pharisaic identity and the Torah, referring both to his training as a Pharisee and his expertise in interpreting the law. But what did it mean to be a Pharisee? Although historical sources about this movement in the 1st century CE are limited, they do reveal key features of the Pharisaic approach to the Torah. 8 The Pharisees were known for their thorough knowledge of the Torah and for their particularly precise interpretation of its commandments—an approach focused on the exact implementation of the law’s wording. As Josephus notes in B.J. 2.162, using the verb ἐξηγέομαι, the Pharisees had a reputation for “interpreting the laws with accuracy” (μετὰ ἀκριβείας … ἐξηγεῖσθαι τὰ νόμιμα). 9 The term ἀκριβεία (and its adjectival form ἀκριβής) does not imply excessive strictness, but rather a high level of competence, consistency, and depth in applying the Torah—a sign of intensive engagement with both Torah and tradition. 10 In B.J. 1.110, the Pharisees are described as appearing “more pious” (εὐσεβέστερον) than other Jews and as those who “expound the laws more accurately” (τοὺς νόμους ἀκριβέστερον ἀφηγεῖσθαι). 11 This emphasis on accu‐ racy, however, was not unique to the Pharisees; rather, the consistent observance of the Torah and its individual commandments was part of the broader Jewish ethos of the time. What distinguished the Pharisees was the basis of their interpretation. According to Josephus, A.J. 18.12, the Pharisees adhered closely 1. Paul, his Jewish Identity, and the Torah 115 <?page no="116"?> 12 In Gal 1: 14, Paul describes himself in his pre-Christian period as a “zealot for the traditions of my ancestors,” highlighting his deep commitment to Pharisaic tradition. 13 Mason, for example, sheds light on the Pharisees’ relatively lenient interpretation of the Torah concerning punishments, as seen in Josephus (“Pharisäer,” 105-107). 14 For an overview of the Pharisees in the New Testament, see Wilk, “Evangelien,” 85-107. 15 In Acts 5: 34, Gamaliel is portrayed as a Pharisee and a respected member of the Synedrion who advocates for restraint in dealing with the apostles. On Gamaliel, see to the teachings or interpretations handed down by the ancients, which included not only the written Torah but also the oral traditions of the ancestors (A.J. 13.297). 12 The instructions they gave to the people (13.296) are derived from this and reflect a Torah interpretation grounded in this “tradition” (παράδοσις, A.J. 13.297, 408; cf. Gal 1: 14). The Pharisees’ oral tradition represented a dynamic application of the Torah to the evolving cultural, political, and religious realities of their time. This application enabled the Torah to remain livable and relevant even under new circumstances. The Pharisees did not pursue a radical reinterpretation of the Torah that would separate a specific group from the majority of Israel, but rather offered a normative interpretation of the Torah applicable to the life of all Israel. In this way, they sought to safeguard the holiness of God’s chosen people in every aspect of daily life (cf. Exod 19: 5-6; Lev 11: 44-45; 20: 22-26; Deut 26: 16-19). Through their oral tradition, they aimed to apply the Torah in such a way that it could be faithfully and effectively observed in the concrete lives of the people. 13 The Synoptic Gospels offer glimpses into the Pharisees’ consequent applica‐ tion of specific Torah commandments—for example, their emphasis on tithing and purity regulations in Matt 23: 23-28 par. Luke 11: 37-44, or their concern for Sabbath observance, ritual purity, and marriage regulations in Mark 2: 13-3: 6; 7: 1-23; 8: 11, 15; 10: 2-12. 14 According to Josephus and the Synoptic Gospels, the Pharisees maintained a way of life closely aligned with the law, developing concrete applications of the Torah for various life situations. The sources do not indicate whether the Pharisees were also active outside the land of Israel—that is, whether they were present in the Jewish diaspora. Their consequent interpretation of the Torah, particularly regarding purity regulations, could be fully implemented only within the land of Israel. Historical reminiscences of Paul’s affiliation with the Pharisees are also preserved in Luke’s Acts. In Acts 22: 3, Paul refers to having been instructed in the Torah in Jerusalem by the well-known Pharisaic Rabbi Gamaliel the Elder: 15 he was “educated at the feet of Gamaliel, according to the accuracy of 116 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="117"?> Marguerat, Apostelgeschichte, 236. On the pharisaic teaching of the Torah, see Haacker, Apostelgeschichte, 360. 16 For discussion, see Ehrensperger, “Pharisäer,” 146-148. For classification, see also Novenson, Paul, 24-45. 17 Cf. Niebuhr, Heidenapostel, 180-181; Schröter, “Paul,” 89, 112-114; Ehrensperger, “Paul, the Jewish Apostle.” Bühner, Paulus, 372 offers a balanced assessment of the question of “Paul within Judaism,” concluding that Paul can be “both at the same time: part of a particular stream within the Judaism of his time, and at the same time a critic of various other Jewish expressions and ways of life” (my translation). 18 Ehrensperger, “Pharisäer,” 150 (“Paulus war ganz offenkundig ein Pharisäer in der Nachfolge Christi”). More cautious Niebuhr, “Jesus,” 198; Bühner, Paulus, 382. the ancestral law” (κατὰ ἀκρίβειαν τοῦ πατρῴου νόμου). While the historical correctness of this claim cannot be definitively verified, the reference to “accu‐ racy” reflects the Pharisees’ characteristic approach—namely, the consistent and precise application of Torah instructions to daily life. In Acts 23: 6 and 26: 5, Luke’s Paul also explicitly affirms his membership in the group of the Pharisees. The extent to which Paul remained a Pharisee even after his calling experi‐ ence remains a matter of scholarly debate. 16 Today, there is broad agreement that Paul was a Jew and continued to identify as a Jew after his calling, but situating him more precisely within the diverse landscape of Second Temple Judaism is more challenging. 17 Kathy Ehrensperger argues that “Paul was clearly a Pharisee who followed Christ.” 18 It seems important, however, to distinguish between the different focal points of Paul’s self-understanding. He likely did not renounce his Pharisaic identity outright after his call, but rather redefined it in light of his conviction that Jesus is the Messiah. It is plausible that he continued to develop his interpretation of the Torah—shaped by his Pharisaic background—with Christ at the center. In this way, he may have reinterpreted the “traditions of my fathers” (τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεις), which he once zealously upheld, as described in Gal 1: 14, from a Messianic perspective. Paul’s being a Pharisee, then, will have changed in the wake of his becoming a follower of Christ. Paul’s training as a Pharisee remained significant for his understanding of the Torah, even after his calling by Christ. He recognized that the Torah needed to be interpreted and applied to the concrete realities of daily life. He was aware of both the necessity and the possibility of interpreting the Torah. The correct understanding of the Torah continued to be a central concern for Paul. What changed was the standard by which he interpreted it: now, the Christ event served as the hermeneutical key to his reading of the Torah, as we will see. 1. Paul, his Jewish Identity, and the Torah 117 <?page no="118"?> 19 On this, see Wishart, “Nomos.” 20 Menge, Großwörterbuch, 473 (‘Brauch, Gewohnheit, Ordnung, Regel, Satzung, Gesetz’). 21 Ehrensperger, “Pharisäer,” 153 (“dass nomos in den meisten Fällen so etwas wie die Gesamtheit jüdischer Traditionen und Bräuche umfasst”). On various meanings of Torah in ancient Judaism, cf. Schniedewind, Zurawski, and Boccaccini, Torah; Sheinfeld, “Nomos.” 22 Mason, Flavius Josephus, 98-100; cf. Ehrensperger, “Pharisäer,” 152. 23 The significance of oral tradition in 1st-century Judaism is illustrated by Philo, Spec. 4.149-150: “Customs are unwritten laws, the teachings of the ancestors […] For the children should inherit from their father the paternal customs in which they were brought up and in which they have lived from their cradle, and not despise them simply because they are transmitted without being written down.” 1.4 Νόμος and Torah Interpretation in Second Temple Judaism The exact reference and scope of the term νόμος in Second Temple Judaism and in Paul’s writings remain subjects of scholarly debate. It is commonly assumed that νόμος refers to the Mosaic law—the Torah, that is, the five books of Moses. 19 However, some scholars propose a broader understanding of the term νόμος, drawing on its more basic meanings such as ‘custom, habit, order, rule, statutes, law,’ 20 and extending it to include oral traditions. For example, Kathy Ehrensperger argues “that nomos in most cases encompasses something like the totality of Jewish traditions and customs.” 21 As Steve Mason has shown, Josephus includes contemporary practices and traditions as part of the Mosaic law. 22 These enjoy the same authority as the written texts. For example, in A.J. 3.224-286, the νόμοι concerning sacrifices go beyond the written Torah. For Josephus, such regulations—essential to Jewish life—are nonetheless part of the law of Moses: “I have written everything as Moses left it […] and added nothing that Moses did not establish” (A.J. 4.196). Josephus clearly has a concept of oral tradition that relates to the written Torah but extends beyond it as its practical application. As noted above, in his portrayal of the Pharisees, Josephus emphasizes the significance of the “traditions of the fathers” for their understanding of the Torah. It is within these traditions that the Pharisees’ own Torah hermeneutics takes shape. In A.J. 18.15, Josephus refers to this hermeneutical activity as “interpretation” (ἐξήγησις) of the Torah. In connection with the Pharisees’ influence among the people, he notes that prayers and sacred rites are performed according to their “interpretation.” The object of this interpretation is the Torah, which, according to A.J. 18.12, is applied in accordance with the interpretations of the ancients. Interpretation, then, is essential for understanding the Torah and, as such, becomes part of what the term νόμος encompasses. 23 118 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="119"?> 24 Kratz, Qumran, 109 (“eine produktive Entfaltung des biblischen Gesetzes, der Tora des Mose”); cf. ibid. 114-115. 25 Text combined from fragments 4Q266 fr. 18, V 6-7 and 4Q270 fr. 11, I 20-21 (completing CD XIV 23). Translation following Kratz, Qumran, 105-106 (“Siehe, das alles ist geschrieben über die letzte Auslegung der Tora”). 26 Translation adapted from Maier, Qumran-Essener I, 178-179; cf. García Martínez and Tigchelaar, Scrolls, ad loc. Cf. similarly CD XV 5-17; further CD III 12-16; 1QH XIII 11-12; XIV 10-11. 27 On the leading role of the priests in the Yachad, cf., e.g., CD XIV 4-7; 1QSa II 17-22. On this Kratz, Qumran, 99. 28 Lichtenberger, “Tora-Verständnis,” 15 (Sie vertritt “in manchen Einzelfragen, etwa in Dingen der Reinheit, der Sabbatheiligung oder der Ehegesetze, eine gegenüber der pharisäisch-rabbinischen Halacha strengere Auslegung”). A group-specific interpretation of the Torah is evident in the scrolls of the Qumran community, the Yachad (1QS I 1). In particular, the Community Rule (1QS) and the Damascus Document (CD) present what has been described as “a productive development of the biblical law, the Torah of Moses.” 24 The focus lies on applying the Torah to contemporary needs and circumstances, especially in matters related to purity and holiness, which are central to the identity and daily life of the Yachad (cf. CD XII 19-20). The community’s interpretation is regarded as the definitive, current, and therefore binding one: “Behold, all this is written about the last interpretation of the Torah.” 25 This authoritative interpretation is issued by the priestly group known as the “Sons of Zadok,” who hold leadership within the Yachad (1QS V 2-3). As a result, candidates seeking admission into the community are required to take an oath of commitment, as described in 1QS V 8-9: (8) To return to the Torah of Moses according to all that He has commanded, with all (9) your heart and with all your soul, to all that is revealed from it to the sons of Zadok, the priests, the keepers of the covenant and the dispensers of His will. 26 In order for the Torah to guide all aspects of life, the biblical Torah of Moses is supplemented by the interpretation of the Zadokite priests, to whom the Torah is “revealed” in a special way. These priests are regarded as possessing the insight and authority necessary to apply the Torah correctly. 27 The writings specific to the Qumran community further clarify this interpretive approach: they promote “a stricter interpretation in certain matters, such as issues of purity, the sanctification of the Sabbath, or marriage laws, compared to the Pharisaic-rabbinic Halakhah.” 28 The Torah interpretation of the Yachad is particularly evident in the recon‐ structed document 4QMMT, which introduces its theme with the phrase miqṣat 1. Paul, his Jewish Identity, and the Torah 119 <?page no="120"?> 29 4Q398 fr. 14, II 3; cf. 4Q394 fr. 3, I 4-5. On the document, see Kratz, “Interpreting”. On the text, Qimron and Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4. On the “halakhic” interpretation in Qumran scrolls, cf. Stökl Ben Ezra, Qumran, 216-223, 377-392. - On 11Q19, Kratz, Qumran, 113-114. 30 On the interpretation of the Torah in 4QMMT, cf. Kratz, Qumran, 117-125; ibid. 118-121 on the example of impurity and separation in the case of leprosy. See also Noam, “Halacha”; Maston and Sherwood, “4QMMT,” 53-54; Weissenberg, 4QMMT. 31 This becomes clear in the distinction between those who belong, the “practitioners of the Torah” (1QpHab VIII 1; XII 4-5), and those who remain outside the Qumran interpretation, the “evildoers” (1QS V 11; 1QpHab I 11); cf. also the distinction between the sons of light and the sons of darkness in 1QS I 3-4, 9-10. On this, see Lichtenberger, “Tora-Verständnis,” 13. On the secret teachings of the community, see Stökl Ben Ezra, Qumran, 314. 32 On Torah hermeneutics in Second Temple Judaism, cf. Schreiber, “Law,” 104-108; idem, Kinder, 185-214. ma‘ase ha-torah (“some of the practices of the Torah”). 29 Like the Temple Scroll (11Q19), it draws on non-biblical legal collections and demonstrates that the Torah, as understood at Qumran, extends beyond the written Pentateuch. 4QMMT focuses primarily on regulations concerning sacrifices and ritual purity—areas in which multiple interpretations existed within Judaism—and presents particularly strict rulings. 30 These practical applications represent some of the earliest evidence of Jewish legal instruction, or Halakhah. The recurring formula “but we think” (e.g., 4Q394 fr. 3, II 16) clearly signals the community’s own interpretive stance. This reveals that the Torah in Second Temple Judaism was not a fixed, monolithic entity, but allowed space for group-specific interpretations and ongoing development. The quest was for the correct and deeper understanding of God’s instructions and commandments. The Yachad placed special emphasis on ritual purity as a central feature of its way of life, which functioned as a key marker of group identity. Thus, the interpretation of the Torah served not only as a guide for conduct but also as a means of inner-Jewish group demarcation—a boundary marker. 31 The Torah hermeneutics of the Dead Sea community reflect both the diversity and the interpretive flexibility of Torah understanding within Judaism prior to the emergence of rabbinic definitions beginning in the 2nd century CE. 32 Although the Qumran community set itself apart and occupied a somewhat marginal position, it undoubtedly remained within the broader framework of Judaism. As we have seen, the Pharisees likewise developed their own interpre‐ tation and application of the Torah—an approach that drew criticism from the Qumran community. If the phrase “those who give smooth instructions” in 120 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="121"?> 33 See Stökl Ben Esra, Qumran, 267-268; Kratz, Qumran, 179; Maier, Qumran-Essener II, 89. - “Those who give smooth instructions” is also found in 4QpNah II 2, 4; III 3, 6-7; 1QH X 15, 32; XII 10; 4Q163 fr. 23, II 10; CD I 18-20. - This identification is further supported by consistent references in Josephus, A.J. 13.376, 380-381, 410. 34 Kratz, Qumran, 128 (“höchst wahrscheinlich, dass die Auslegung der Tora ab der zweiten Hälfte des 2. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. zum Gegenstand von Auseinandersetzungen zwischen den einzelnen Religionsparteien und sozialen Gruppen wurde”). 35 See already Lohse, Römer, 210: “daß Paulus unter νόμος die Torah und die ihr entspre‐ chende Auslegung begreift” (“that Paul understands νόμος to mean the Torah and its corresponding interpretation”). 4QpNah I 2, 7 most likely refers to the Pharisees, 33 then their interpretation of the Torah is being rejected as overly accommodating—“smoothed out,” so to speak. It is therefore “highly probable that, from the second half of the 2nd century BCE onward, Torah interpretation became a contested issue among various religious parties and social groups.” 34 Paul, too, participated in this broader interpretive dispute. For Paul, the Torah—the five books of Moses—forms the core of what he refers to as νόμος. This is evident in phrases such as “the Law and the Prophets” (ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προφήται) in Rom 3: 21, as well as in his use of Abraham as an example in Rom 4: 1-25, which connects back to his affirmation in 3: 31 that “we preserve the law” (νόμον ἱστάνομεν), where he repeatedly cites the Pentateuch. However, in addition to the written Torah, there were also interpretive, oral traditions that applied the Torah to various areas of life. 35 These likely correspond to the “traditions of the fathers” mentioned by Paul in Gal 1: 14—referring to the inherited tradition passed down through generations that shaped Jewish culture and identity (cf. Sir 8: 9, which values the wisdom of the ancients who learned from their fathers). For the pre-Christian Paul, this tradition was Pharisaic in nature. As we will see, Paul, in his letter to the Romans, develops his own ways of referring to different interpretations of the Torah—for example, by attaching genitive qualifiers to the term νόμος. At the center of his interpretation, however, as with other Jews of his time, stands the written Torah. In this way, Paul situates himself within the broader spectrum of Second Temple Judaism’s approaches to understanding and applying the Torah. Yet within this context, he develops his own distinctive hermeneutics of the Torah—one shaped by his theology of Jesus as the Messiah. 1. Paul, his Jewish Identity, and the Torah 121 <?page no="122"?> 36 “Judged by the law” (διὰ νόμου) means that God, as the eschatological judge, identifies sins through the law in order to condemn them. See Wolter, Römer I, 181. - The noun ἁμαρτία and the verb ἁμαρτάνω, as in the Septuagint and early Jewish literature, refer to offenses or acts of guilt committed against God and fellow human beings. On this, see Schreiber, Kinder, 130-146. 2. Qualifications of the Torah in Romans 2: 12-3: 20 2.1 The Torah’s Inability to Distinguish Jews from Gentiles: Romans 2: 12-29 Paul addresses the Torah for the first time in his letter to the Romans in 2: 12, within the broader argumentative section spanning Romans 1: 18 to 3: 20. In this passage, Paul seeks to demonstrate that all people—Jews as well as Gentiles—fail to live righteously before God and are instead under the power of sin, standing guilty before him. This assertion calls into question the traditional distinction between Jews and non-Jews, a distinction that is foundational from a Jewish perspective. According to Jewish understanding, it is precisely the role of the Torah to make the difference between Israel and the nations visible and to guide Israel in living as the people of Y HWH , aligned with God’s will for salvation (cf. Deut 4: 5-8; Bar 4: 1-4). That the Gentiles—who do not acknowledge the God of Israel—are all sinners (1: 18-32) aligns with traditional Jewish thinking. In 2: 1-29, however, Paul shifts the focus by emphasizing that the Jewish people, God’s chosen nation, are likewise sinners and in need of God’s mercy. Within this context, 2: 12 introduces the Torah, which, from a Jewish perspective, should represent Israel’s decisive advantage over the nations (cf. 9: 4). Yet Paul relativizes this advantage in light of the universal sinfulness of humanity: For all who have sinned (ἥμαρτον) without the law (ἀνόμως) will also perish without the law (ἀνόμως), and all who have sinned with the law (ἐν νόμῳ) will be judged by the law (διὰ νόμου). Some sin without the law, others with it. The law provides insight into what constitutes sin (cf. 3: 20), but it does not offer protection from sin itself. As a result, the same judgment falls upon sinful Jews as upon Gentiles. 36 Thus, the Torah does not represent a clear advantage for the Jewish people in this regard. This passage reflects Paul’s conviction that both Jews and Gentiles are equally subject to sin and divine judgment, with the law functioning to expose sin rather than to prevent it. 122 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="123"?> 37 Cf. Deut 5: 27; 6: 3; 30: 12-13; Ezek 33: 31-32; Josephus, A.J. 5.107; 20.44; Jas 1: 22-25; Matt 7: 24-27 / / Luke 6: 47-49; Luke 11: 28. 38 Paul is speaking in Romans 2 of Jews and Gentiles in general, not specifically of Gentile Christ-followers, as suggested, for example, by Cranfield, Romans I, 156; Jewett, Romans, 213; and, cautiously, Campbell, Romans, 95, 98. In contrast, Lohse, Römer, 105; Haacker, Römer, 73; Wolter, Romans I, 184; Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 237. 39 Cf. Gosnell, “Law,” 259: “controlling factors that are in line with the Torah’s regulations.” 40 Cf. Dunn, “Torah,” 452. 41 Cf. Deut 7: 6-11; Sir 39: 8; 1QM X 9-10; Philo, Mos. 1.278; Let. Aris. 139, 142; 2 Bar. 48: 22-24. - It does not do justice to Jewish self-understanding to characterize it as “self-satisfaction and contentment,” as Jewett, Romans, 222 does, or to describe it as “die überhebliche Haltung des Juden” (“the arrogant attitude of the Jew”), as found in Lohse, Römer, 109. For a contrasting perspective, see Windsor, Paul, 154-155. - The dialogue Romans 2: 13 raises a critical issue by referencing a statement familiar within Jewish tradition: 37 not the hearers of the law, but the doers will be declared righteous by God—that is, they will receive a favorable verdict in God’s judgment (cf. 2: 16). However, this raises an important question: who is truly able to “do” the Torah—to fulfill it completely? In Rom 3: 10 and 3: 20 (cf. Gal 3: 10), Paul expresses strong skepticism about the possibility of such complete obedience. In Romans 2: 14-15, Paul relativizes the claim that possession of the Torah gives Jews superiority over Gentiles. He presents the case that Gentiles, 38 “by nature” (φύσει)—that is, without knowing the law—can act in ways that align with what the law requires. They are capable of discerning and practicing standards of ethical behavior that correspond to the law, 39 guided by their own moral convictions or their “conscience” (συνείδησις). In Greco-Roman popular philosophy at the time, conscience functioned as an internal authority that accuses or defends, thereby enabling ethical judgment. For Paul, however, the ultimate standard for evaluating behavior remains the Torah. Yet in this case, the Torah provides no clear advantage to the Jew over the Gentile. 40 In 2: 16, Paul already hints at the perspective from which he now understands both God’s judgment and the law—namely, through the lens of God’s saving work in Christ. It is the perspective of the gospel he proclaims: “according to my gospel, through the Christ (the Messiah) Jesus.” For Paul, the Christ has become the decisive point at which God’s judgment is rendered, a conviction that necessarily reshapes his understanding of the Torah. He will develop this further in the following chapters. In Romans 2: 17-24, Paul begins with a positive view of the Torah, one that is characteristic of Jewish tradition. He affirms the Torah as a mark of distinction for the Jewish people, since the law was given specifically to them, thereby signifying their unique election (2: 17). 41 The Torah teaches Israel the will of 2. Qualifications of the Torah in Romans 2: 12-3: 20 123 <?page no="124"?> partner in Romans 2 is best understood as an actual Jew, not—as Campbell, Romans, 101, and Fredriksen, Paul, 157-158 suggest—as “an imagined gentile proselyte.” Öhler, “If you are called,” takes a different view. 42 This finds a parallel in the figure of Wisdom, which, in the Torah, was made accessible exclusively to Israel; cf. Deut 4: 5-6; Bar 3: 29-4: 4; Sir 24: 1-12, 23-25, 33. On this, see Wolter, Römer I, 195. 43 For a more general treatment, see Prothro, “Knowledge,” 499: “The greater realities of knowledge and truth […] have taken shape in the Mosaic law.” 44 The citation of Isa 52: 5 in Rom 2: 24 serves to extend the reference of the fictitious “you” beyond the immediate dialogue partner to encompass all Jews. 45 See also Wolter, Römer I, 198; Haacker, Römer, 80-81; Windsor, Paul, 169. God (τὸ θέλημα) and the proper way to live before God (2: 18). In this way, the Jewish people—particularly in their role as educators and moral teachers of others—possess “the embodiment of knowledge and truth in the law” (τὴν μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ νόμῳ; 2: 20). 42 In this context, the term μόρφωσις can be understood as “form,” “image,” or more fully, the “embodiment” of knowledge and truth—specifically referring to the insight about God that is central to the identity of the Jewish educator or teacher. 43 The law thus serves as the visible expression and revelation of the otherwise hidden nature and will of the one God of Israel. This knowledge of the Torah fosters a deep awareness of Israel’s election and calling as God’s people. However, Paul immediately relativizes the Torah in terms of its effectiveness. In Rom 2: 21-23, he presents the sobering realization that the Jews themselves do not adhere to the teachings they derive from the law—teachings they also seek to impart to the Gentile nations. Employing the style of the Greco-Roman diatribe, Paul addresses a fictitious interlocutor, a representative Jewish dialogue partner. This addressed Jewish “you” 44 dishonors God “through the transgression of the law” (διὰ τῆς παραβάσεως τοῦ νόμου, 2: 23). Yet the law is meant to be a mark of distinction for Israel, a reason for “boasting” (2: 23). Ideally, by living in accordance with the Torah, Israel should make visible God’s divinity before all nations (cf. 2: 24). 45 By drawing a stark contrast between this ideal and the actual reality, Paul employs polemical provocation to underscore the fact that no one is capable of perfectly fulfilling and embodying the Torah. In the relativization of the Torah, Romans 2: 25-27 includes circumcision (περιτομή). Since the exile, circumcision had become the central marker of Jewish identity, codified in the Torah, and distinguishing Israel from the Gentile nations. It serves as the sign of the covenant between God and Israel—already since Abraham (Gen 17: 1-14; Jub. 15: 26-28)—a covenant that also encompasses the Torah as God’s instruction. By referencing circumcision, Paul brings the underlying situation and the conversation in the letter to the Romans into view 124 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="125"?> 46 The term ἀκροβυστία is a neologism of the Septuagint (cf. Gen 17: 11, 14, 23; 34: 14, 24; Exod 4: 25; Lev 12: 3; Josh 5: 3; Jer 9: 24 et al.). It is later taken up by Philo (QE 2.2), by Paul (1 Cor 7: 18-19; Gal 2: 7; 5: 6; 6: 15; Rom 2: 25-27; 3: 30; 4: 9-11), and in Pauline reception (Col 2: 13; 3: 11; Eph 2: 11; Acts 11: 3). For further background, see Wolter, Römer I, 201. 47 The term δικαιώματα frequently appears in connection with the Torah in the Penta‐ teuch, often in parallel with ἐντολαί (“commandments”) and occasionally with κρίματα (“judgments”); cf. L X X Gen 26: 5; Lev 25: 18; Num 36: 13; Deut 4: 40; 6: 1-2; 7: 11; Luke 1: 6. This usage suggests that translations such as “statutes” or “legal prescriptions” are appropriate, as the term refers to the regulations and directives of the Torah that Israel is commanded to observe. In this sense, δικαιώματα is also used, for example, in L X X Exod 15: 26; Deut 4: 1, 5, 6, 8, 14, 44; 5: 1; 6: 24; 7: 12; 26: 17; Ps 104: 45; 118: 5, 8; Ezek 11: 20. Cf. Josephus, B.J. 7.110 (“statutes of the Jews”). See BDAG 249. 48 Cf. Windsor, Paul, 171. 49 The prepositional phrase διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς is to be understood modally, describing the manner in which the transgressor lives. Cf. BDR § 223.4; BDAG 223-224 (A.3.c.). See also Cranfield, Romans I, 174; Moo, Romans, 172-173; Lohse, Römer, 113; Fitzmyer, Romans, 322; Wolter, Römer I, 205. The translation of διά as “notwithstanding”, thereby “referring to attendant circumstances”—as proposed by Jewett, Romans, 234 (cf. Käsemann, Römer, 246: “trotz”; Windsor, Paul, 180: “though”)—introduces a contrast not inherent in the phrase itself. (see 1.2). However, he asserts in 2: 25 that circumcision is of no value to the “transgressor of the law” (παραβάτης νόμου)—and, according to 2: 17-24, this includes every Jew—because he fails to keep the Torah. His circumcision has, metonymically speaking, become “foreskin” (ἀκροβυστία), effectively render‐ ing him as though he were uncircumcised. 46 In God’s judgment, the circumcised Jew is thus no different from the uncircumcised Gentiles. The authority of the Torah is further relativized by the striking reversal in which an uncircumcised person who upholds the legal requirements of the law (τὰ δικαιώματα 47 τοῦ νόμου) is regarded as though he were circumcised (2: 26). Moreover, the Gentile who is by nature uncircumcised yet observes the law serves to indirectly condemn the circumcised Jew who fails to keep it (2: 27). In this way, Paul deconstructs the dominant Jewish self-understanding and the distinction from Gentiles that is grounded in it. 48 It is significant that Paul introduces the concept of the “letter” (γράμμα) for the first time in Romans in 2: 27. Here, he characterizes the transgressor of the law as one who lives “in the manner of the letter and of circumcision” (διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς). 49 The “letter” refers to the written formulation of the law to which the transgressor is bound, with circumcision functioning as a visible sign corresponding to this literal adherence. In 2: 28-29, Paul contrasts physical circumcision (ἐν σαρκί, “in the flesh”) with circumcision “of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter” (καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι), thus introducing a redefinition of Jewish identity: before God, what matters is not 2. Qualifications of the Torah in Romans 2: 12-3: 20 125 <?page no="126"?> 50 Paul is not the only one to use the phrase “circumcision of the heart” to describe the inner disposition that matters before God; cf. already Lev 26: 41; Deut 10: 16; 30: 6; Jer 4: 4; 9: 25; Ezek 44: 7, 9; Jub. 1: 23; 1QS V 5; 1QpHab XI 13. On this, see Jewett, Romans, 236; Haacker, Römer, 82-83; Wolter, Römer I, 206. 51 Some exegetes suggest that the contrast between Spirit and letter reflects different hermeneutical approaches. Boyarin, Jew, 86-97 distinguishes between an “allegorical” and a “literal” reading of the text. Windsor, Paul, 187-189 interprets the contrast as representing “two alternative communities with two alternative theological viewpoints associated with two alternative stances towards reading and teaching the law” (187)— namely, the synagogue community and the Christ-believing community. the literal fulfillment of circumcision on the human body, but an understanding of circumcision permeated by the divine Spirit, that is, a transformation effected by the Spirit. God himself enables this “circumcision of the heart” 50 by giving the Spirit, thereby opening a new way of relating to him—both for Israel and for all humanity. In doing so, Paul relativizes the traditional, commonly held Jewish understanding of the Torah, represented by the “letter,” by elevating the Spirit of God as the true hermeneutical key. This contrast between letter and Spirit will reemerge in Rom 7: 6 and is paralleled in 2 Cor 3: 6, where it functions as a defining principle of the new covenant. Since the Christ event, Paul reads the Torah through the lens of the Spirit, which alone—he insists—provides the proper understanding of both the Torah and Jewish identity. 51 Let us revisit Paul’s portrayal of the Torah in Romans 2. Paul asserts that both Gentiles and Jews are under the power of sin, and the law does not exempt the Jews from this reality (2: 12-15). The Jews fail to fulfill the Torah, and thus they possess no inherent advantage over the nations. While Paul certainly acknowledges the great significance of the Torah for Israel’s identity (2: 17-20), because of their transgressions, Jewish people cannot truly live in accordance with the Torah (2: 21-24). In light of these transgressions, even circumcision becomes ineffective. Therefore, a new perspective on Jewish self-understanding is needed: rather than focusing on the literal observance of circumcision and the law, what is required is a “circumcision of the heart,” which can only be accomplished through the Spirit of God (2: 25-29). In this manner, Paul sets the stage for articulating his transformed understanding of the Torah. 2.2 No Advantage through “Works of the Law”: Romans 3: 19- 20 In Romans 3: 9-20, Paul brings his argument, which began in 1: 18, to a climactic conclusion: all people—both Jews and Gentiles—are under the power of sin 126 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="127"?> 52 According to Roman law, a defendant’s silence following the presentation of charges could be interpreted as an admission of guilt. See, for example, Jesus’ silence before Pilate in Mark 15: 3-5. On this, see Haacker, Römer, 93; Wolter, Römer I, 231. 53 The term “law” here continues to refer specifically to the Torah, not to legal systems in general (contrary to Jewett, Romans, 266); in agreement with Haacker, Römer, 94. 54 The preposition ἐκ/ ἐξ, as noted in BDAG 296 (3.e), denotes “the reason which is a presupposition for something: by reason of, as a result of, because of” (italics in original). 55 For an overview of the debate, see Schreiber, “Paulus”; idem, “Streitfall,” 97; Bendik, Paulus, 165-174; Wolter, Römer I, 233-237. 56 Thus, for example, Rapa, Meaning, 265 defines the phrase as referring to “the theological thought constructs and behavior patterns of Judaism, believed to form the basis for one’s relationship to God,” which Paul uses to argue “against Jewish ‘soteriological superiority’”. Cf. Hultgren, “Paul,” 213. Maston and Sherwood, “4QMMT,” 56 understand “the works of the law broadly as any act of obedience to the Torah.” (3: 9). He supports this claim in 3: 10-18 through a catena of quotations from the Septuagint, highlighting the universal unrighteousness and guilt of humanity. In 3: 19-20, Paul directs this insight especially toward his Jewish contemporaries— those who “live in the law” (ἐν τῷ νόμῳ). The law itself speaks so that every person may be shown to be guilty before God (3: 19): But we know: Whatever the law says, it says to those who are in the law (ἐν τῷ νόμῳ), so that every mouth (πᾶν στόμα) may be silenced and all the world (πᾶς ὁ κόσμος) may be found guilty before God. The two statements with πᾶς (“every mouth,” “all the world”) express a universal generalization: the claim applies to all people, who cannot dispute the undeniable reality of their guilt before God. 52 They do not live in accordance with God’s will. Paul continues this line of thought in 3: 20 with the phrase “all flesh,” further emphasizing that all humanity stands guilty before God. This includes the Jews, despite the privileges associated with the law: 53 Therefore, by works of the law (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) no flesh (οὐ … πᾶσα σάρξ) will be made righteous before him (God). For through the law comes the knowledge of sin. The interpretation of 3: 20 depends significantly on the phrase “works of the law.” Paul employs this expression in Gal 2: 16; 3: 2, 5, 10 and in Rom 3: 20, 28, with the wording in Gal 2: 16 being identical to that of Rom 3: 20 (ἐξ 54 ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ). The phrase ἔργα νόμου has a long-standing history of scholarly debate. 55 For a long time, the phrase was applied to the entire practice of the Torah and interpreted as observance of the Mosaic Torah as a prerequisite for salvation, 56 2. Qualifications of the Torah in Romans 2: 12-3: 20 127 <?page no="128"?> 57 Important representatives of this position are Bultmann, “Christus,” 48; Moo, Romans, 208-209; Lohse, “Christus”; idem, Römerbrief, 126-138; Schnelle, Paulus, 516-537; Bell, Call. Cf. Jewett, Romans, 281: “that the rightful status of humans before God cannot be achieved on the basis of any human effort” (cf. ibid. 266: “law as an identity marker for any culture”); Holtz, “Paul,” 217-219: “‘works of the law’ are related to humans doing the law” (197), showing “human inability” to do the law (217, 219, quoting Dunn, Romans I, 239). 58 The so-called “New Perspective on Paul,” named after an influential essay by James Dunn with the same title, has become particularly significant in this context. Cf. Wright, Paul; Tiwald, Hebräer, 273-303; idem, “Glaube” (though his distinction between ritual-cultic and ethical commandments is problematic and does not hold in terms of early Jewish thought); see also, Haacker, Römer, 95. Similarly Campbell, Romans, 124. The definition of Bergmeier, “Gesetz,” 42 takes a more sociological approach but remains too broad: “Behaviors that are considered obligatory for life under the Torah, because they mark the difference between the righteous and the sinners” (“Verhaltensweisen, die als für das Leben unter der Tora verbindlich betrachtet werden, weil sie den Unterschied zwischen Gerechten und Sündern markieren”; original in italics). 59 Dunn, “Perspective,” 109. Wolter, “Gesetz,” 359 explicitly rejects this limitation, yet in practice, he effectively adheres to it. Recent scholarship, particularly within the so-called “Paul within Judaism” perspective, often interprets the phrase “works of the law” with specific reference to non-Jews; cf. Campbell, Romans, 124; Fredriksen, Paul, 90-120. or, more broadly, as a reference to legalism as a universal anthropological phenomenon. 57 However, if we take into account the fundamentally positive view of the Torah held by Paul, the Jew (cf. Rom 7: 12, 14, as well as his deep concern for Israel in Rom 9-11), and the context of Romans and Galatians, it makes sense to understand “works of the law” specifically as referring to Jewish identity markers—practices such as circumcision, Sabbath observance, and dietary laws. 58 These practices, within the covenantal relationship between the God of Israel and his people, served to make visible one’s belonging to God in a distinctively Jewish way. Dunn writes: “These identity markers identified Jewishness because they were seen by the Jews themselves as fundamental observances of the covenant. They functioned as badges of covenant member‐ ship.” 59 As such, the “works of the law” also functioned as boundary markers, distinguishing Israel as God’s people from all other nations and allowing the Jewish people to visibly express their identity as God’s covenant community. Against this backdrop, Paul’s critique of these identity markers in Galatians and Romans does not amount to a wholesale rejection of the Torah. Rather, it reflects a relativization of the Torah’s boundary-marking function in light of the inclusion of Gentiles through trust in Christ. 128 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="129"?> 60 4Q398 fr. 14, II 3; cf. 4Q394 fr. 3, I 4-5. On the interpretation of the Torah in 4QMMT, cf. Kratz, Qumran, 117-125. See above 1.4. In ancient Jewish literature, the phrase “works of the law” (maʿase ha-torah, ἔργα νόμου) is rarely attested. In Exod 18: 20 LXX , the expression “the works (ἔργα) that they shall do” refers to Israel’s conduct in accordance with the entire Torah—actions that distinguish Israel as God’s covenant people. However, in most instances, the term is used more specifically. The reconstructed document 4QMMT primarily addresses legal regulations related to sacrificial practices and ritual purity, interpreted with particular strictness. Near the conclusion, it states: “And we have also written to you about some of the works of the Torah (miqṣat ma‘ase ha-torah) […] so that it may be credited to you as righteousness, since you are doing what is right before him.” 60 Here, the focus lies on particular regulations and practices related to ritual purity, which function as intra-Jewish boundary markers and serve to establish the identity of the Yachad, the community behind the text. Similarly, in 1QS V 20-21 and VI 18, the phrase “deeds (works) in the Torah” appears in the context of admission into the community, again functioning to distinguish the Yachad from broader Jewish society. In Flavius Josephus (A.J. 20.42, 43, 46), the phrase “doing the work” (πράσσειν τὸν ἔργον) refers specifically to the act of circumcision in the context of con‐ version to Judaism. A broader application appears in 2 Bar. 57: 2, which, speaking of Abraham and his descendants, notes that “the unwritten law was in force among them, and the works of the commandments were accomplished at that time.” Although the written Torah had not yet been given, the commandments are kept. The “works of the commandments” refer to concrete behaviors that demonstrate how the life of Abraham and his descendants was already aligned with God’s will, even in the absence of the written Torah. Across these texts, “works” consistently refer to specific commandments or practices of the Torah, often tied to particular contexts—whether communal identity, conversion, or covenantal faithfulness. In Romans 3: 20, Paul uses the phrase “works of the law” within the broader context of what distinguishes Jews from Gentiles and sets them apart (2: 17-29; 3: 1, 9). This suggests that Paul is referring to those requirements of the law that represent Israel’s election among the nations—particularly practices such as circumcision, Sabbath and festival observance, and dietary and purity laws. These practices function as visible expressions of Israel’s exclusive allegiance to its God and thus form essential components of Jewish identity. Because Paul’s focus is not on the Torah as a whole, but on these specific identity markers, he 2. Qualifications of the Torah in Romans 2: 12-3: 20 129 <?page no="130"?> 61 The genitive νόμου is best understood as a genitivus qualitatis (cf. Wolter, Römer I, 237). - However, a statement such as “No one can present ‘works of the law’” (Wolter, Römer I, 233: “Kein einziger Mensch kann ‘Werke des Gesetzes’ vorweisen”) is not tenable. - If the specific meaning of “works of the law” is overlooked, the interpretation of Rom 3: 20 becomes problematic. Reimer, Approach, 223-227 attempts to mitigate the force of the verse by integrating passages from Israel’s Scriptures, presupposing the existence of righteous individuals within Israel. - Owen’s proposal to interpret “works of the law” as a genitivus subjectivus—that is, as the effects produced by the (personified) law—misses the contextual focus in Romans. The emphasis is on Israel’s or humanity’s standing before God, in which the observance of the Torah is part of the human response. The subject of the action, therefore, remains the human person. Cf. Owen, “Works,” esp. 555-559, 568-577. 62 The temporal nuance of νυνὶ δέ remains a matter of scholarly debate. It is an overex‐ tension to interpret the phrase as signaling “the transition from one epoch to another” (Dunn, Romans I, 164; cf. Wilckens, Römer I, 184-185; Campbell, Romans, 126). At the same time, it is too reductive to see in it merely a rhetorical device indicating contrast with what precedes (Woyke, “Einst,” esp. 199, 206; Jewett, Romans, 272; Haacker, Römer, does not speak generally of “the law,” but more narrowly of the “works of the law”— that is, concrete commandments within the Torah that mark out covenant membership. 61 The broader question of whether the Torah in its entirety could be abolished or rendered obsolete is not even at issue for Paul. This helps to clarify the statement in Rom 3: 20: Even the privileges granted to Israel through the Torah do not enable a person—“no flesh”—to enter into a right relationship with God, that is, into saving fellowship with him. The advantage offered by the Torah thus proves ineffective in this regard. According to 3: 20, the function of the law is solely to make sin recognizable and identifiable in one’s actions: “Through the law comes the knowledge of sin (ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας).” The Torah does not have the power to overcome sin. These reflections ultimately lead to a kind of aporia in the understanding of the Torah. Paul subtly raises questions and doubts in the minds of his readers or listeners: How, then, should the Torah be understood at all? Can it still fulfill its role as God’s instruction for the life of Israel? What purpose does it serve at all? The answer to these questions begins to unfold in 3: 21. 3. God’s Saving Care in Christ—and the Law: Romans 3: 21-31 In Romans 3: 21, Paul introduces a turning point with the phrase νυνὶ δέ (“but now”). He perceives the dawn of a new era in the relationship between God and humanity—an era that stands alongside, yet distinct from, the previous mode of relating to God. 62 By placing the phrase χωρὶς νόμου (“without the 130 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="131"?> 98). Rather, the phrase points to a new reality that has already come into effect, establishing a sense of historical simultaneity (cf. Käsemann, Römer, 86-87; Wolter, Römer I, 246). 63 “God’s righteousness” should not be understood as God’s punitive or judging interven‐ tion, but—consistent with Jewish usage in Paul’s time—as God’s saving care for his people (cf. Ps 98: 2; 1 Sam 12: 7; Mic 6: 5; Isa 56: 1; cf. Ps 40: 11; 71: 15; CD XX 19-21; 1QH VI 15-16; 1QS XI 2-3, 12-15; 4 Ezra 8: 36). In some instances, it also refers to God’s salvific intervention on behalf of the whole world (Ps 98: 3; Isa 45: 8; 46: 13; 51: 5; 59: 16-18; 1 En. 53: 7). The term “saving care” emphasizes the dimension of salvation and healing inherent in God’s intervention—not limited to physical deliverance but extending to spiritual and mental salvation as well. law”) emphatically at the very beginning of the statement, Paul underscores the decisive shift: he is describing a new way in which God engages with humanity. The term νόμος clearly refers to the Torah, so χωρὶς νόμου indicates that this new way is not mediated through the Torah. Paul presents this new access to God in 3: 21-22a in the form of a thesis: - 21 But now (νυνὶ δέ) without the law (χωρὶς νόμου) - - the righteousness of God (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ) has been made known, - - - witnessed by the Law and the Prophets (μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ - - - νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν), - 22a namely, the righteousness of God - - through trust in Jesus Christ (διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) - - - for all who trust (εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας). Paul draws on the thematic statement of Rom 1: 16-17, which emphasizes the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel, and now shows that this righteousness has been made known “without the law,” but “through trust in Jesus Christ.” In doing so, he proclaims that God has opened a new path to himself—his righteousness, his saving care 63 —that lies outside the framework of the Torah. But what does this mean for the Torah’s validity and value? It has certainly not been rendered obsolete. On the contrary, Paul immediately affirms the ongoing significance of the Law and the Prophets: they represent the sacred scriptures of Israel and serve as witnesses to God’s righteousness revealed in Christ—a reality that cannot be grasped at all apart from the scriptures. A prime example of this is found in the figure of Abraham, to whom God’s righteousness was reckoned on the basis of his trust in God (see Romans 4). In this way, God’s righteousness is now experienced “through trust in Jesus Christ”—that is, through a steadfast relationship with Christ. To “trust in Christ” (πιστεύειν) entails being faithful and reliable to him, living in a steadfast relationship with him marked by loyalty and commitment. It is less 3. God’s Saving Care in Christ—and the Law: Romans 3: 21-31 131 <?page no="132"?> 64 The terms πίστις and πιστεύειν are inherently relational. For their semantic range and usage, see Passow, Handwörterbuch II/ 1, 928-930; Schumacher, Entstehung, 199-209; Schreiber, Thessalonicher, 93-96. 65 Prominent is Hays, Faith, 156-160, 272-298; Boer, Galatians, 148-150. Cf. Campbell, Rhetoric, esp. 113-115, 187-188; Campbell, Romans, 128. 66 See also Ulrichs, Christusglaube, 167-194, 249; Lohse, Römer, 130-131; Jewett, Romans, 277-278; Haacker, Römer, 99-100. Wolter, Römer I, 250 understands the genitive in πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as a genitivus qualitatis, interpreting the phrase as faith characterized by or defined through the destiny of Jesus—faith as determined by its orientation toward Christ. However, this reading arguably places too much emphasis on the cognitive dimension of faith, at the expense of its holistic, relational character. For Paul, the focus lies not primarily on intellectual assent, but on a lived relationship with Christ, within which God imparts his righteousness. 67 For a detailed exploration of the metaphor of the ἱλαστήριον, see my three essays in this volume: “God’s Votive Offering: A New Reading of Jesus’ Death in Romans 3: 25” (Chapter 1); “Thinking Further: God’s Reconciling Votive Offering in Romans 3: 25” (Chapter 2); “Christ as hilastērion in Romans 3: 25: God’s Gift of Reconciliation” (Chapter 3). about a mere cognitive act of believing or assenting to certain truths, and more about a holistic posture of trust, faithfulness, and relational fidelity. 64 Those who live in such a relationship with Christ also live in a relationship with God, a relationship mediated through Christ. In recent English-language scholarship, it is often assumed that the genitive construction πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ should be understood as a genitivus subjec‐ tivus, meaning “the faithfulness of Christ” or “fidelity of Christ”—often linked to his obedience unto death. 65 However, this interpretation overlooks a crucial aspect: God’s saving grace becomes effective for individuals only when it is personally received—that is, when one enters into a relationship with God through Christ. It is only through trust in Christ that God’s saving action in Christ can be both recognized and appropriated. For this reason, the phrase (here and in other instances) is better understood as a genitivus objectivus, denoting “trust in Christ,” which reflects the human response and relational stance toward him. 66 This reading is further supported by the immediately following verbal phrase in 3: 22: “for all who trust” (εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας). It is human beings who enter into relationship with Christ through their trust in him. This confidence in Christ is open to all people (πάντας), both Jews and Gentiles alike. The relationship with Christ now constitutes the decisive means of access to God, as Rom 3: 22b-26 makes clear. Through Christ, God has initiated reconciliation with sinful humanity entirely on his own initiative. In the violent death of Jesus, God publicly overcame the power of sin and reconciled to himself all who place their trust in Christ. In this way, Christ became the ἱλαστήριον—God’s “gift of reconciliation” (3: 25). 67 132 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="133"?> 68 This boasting is intrinsically linked to Israel, as it is a consequence of its election by God. It is therefore not the self-glorification of an individual based on personal religious achievement—pace Käsemann, Römer, 96; Cranfield, Romans I, 219; Fitzmyer, Romans, 362; Lohse, Römer, 137; Jewett, Romans, 296; cf. also, Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 64. Against this, Dunn, Romans I, 185; Wolter, Römer I, 267. 69 Wolter, Römer I, 270 (my translation; italics in original). 70 Räisänen, “Gesetz,” 112 (my translation); cf. idem, “Sprachliches,” 119-147; Käsemann, Römer, 96; Fitzmyer, Romans, 363; Schnelle, Paulus, 353-354; Haacker, Römer, 110; Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 65. In Romans 3: 27-31, Paul draws key conclusions regarding the role and understanding of the Torah. Rom 3: 27 points back to Israel’s sense of election— the “boasting” associated with the possession and observance of the Torah: So where is the boasting (ἡ καύχησις)? It is excluded. By what law (διὰ ποίου νόμου)? That of works (τῶν ἔργων)? No, but by the law of trust (διὰ νόμου πίστεως). “Boasting” can refer to a Jew’s pride in their identity and status as part of God’s chosen people (cf. 2: 17, 23). 68 But now this boasting is excluded—through God’s redemptive action in Christ. The traditional expression of Jewish identity and election loses its significance in light of Christ. This shift must have implications for the Torah, which had functioned as the primary expression of Israel’s election. At this point, Paul articulates for the first time the foundational principle of his hermeneutic approach to the Torah. However, there is no scholarly consensus on how to interpret the genitive constructions “law […] of works” and “law of trust.” Two main lines of interpretation have emerged. (1) Some interpreters understand νόμος—at least in the phrase “law of trust”—in a non-literal sense, as referring to a principle, standard, or norm. Michael Wolter, for example, interprets νόμος in “law of faith” as “a metaphor for a principle,” which Paul explicitly articulates at the end of Rom 3: 30. In contrast, in the phrase “law of works,” νόμος refers more concretely to the Torah, highlighting that its key characteristic is that “it must be done.” 69 Heikki Räisänen similarly interprets both uses of νόμος as denoting a kind of “order”: “νόμος πίστεως is the order of salvation based on faith, and νόμος τῶν ἔργων is the order based on works of the law.” 70 (2) Other interpreters take νόμος to refer directly to the Torah but understand the genitive constructions as pointing to particular aspects or functions of the Torah. Gerhard Friedrich, for instance, sees the “law of works” as the Torah in its demand for deeds, whereas the “law of faith” refers to its function as a 3. God’s Saving Care in Christ—and the Law: Romans 3: 21-31 133 <?page no="134"?> 71 Friedrich, “Gesetz,” 107-122; cf. Lohse, Römer, 137: the law that “proclaims faith” (“den Glauben verkündigt”); Wilckens, Römer I, 245: “the law associated with faith” (“das dem Glauben zugeordnete Gesetz”). Jewett, Romans, 297 identifies a contrast between two interpretations of law—one that enhances boasting and one that excludes it—though he understands “law” as encompassing both Jewish and Greco-Roman legal traditions (298). 72 Ito, “Νόμος,” 256. 73 Osten-Sacken, “Verständnis,” 30 (my translation). 74 The genitives are best understood as genitivus epexegeticus, serving to clarify or specify the meaning of the governing noun. - According to Yael Fisch, both expressions refer to the entire Torah of Moses, representing “different facets of Torah itself ”; cf. Fisch, “Origins,” 52. See also Fredriksen, “Paulus,” 141. witness (cf. Rom 3: 21), testifying that God justifies by faith. 71 Akio Ito offers a more specific reading, interpreting the “law of faith” as the part of the Torah that recounts Abraham’s faith. 72 Peter von der Osten-Sacken, in turn, understands it as “the Torah enacted through faith.” 73 To understand the two genitive constructions in νόμος πίστεως and νόμος τῶν ἔργων, the following considerations are helpful: 1. The parallel structure of the two phrases suggests that νόμος carries the same basic meaning in both cases. This makes it unlikely that νόμος in “law of trust” (unlike in “law of works”) refers to a general principle or norm. 2. The repeated use of νόμος in the surrounding verses—3: 21, 27, 28, and 31—and the clear references to the Torah in 3: 21, 28 indicate that νόμος consistently refers to the Torah in this context. 3. The genitive constructions in 3: 27 indicate a differentiation in how the law is to be understood. On the basis of these observations, νόμος πίστεως appears to be a parallel and analogous formulation to νόμος τῶν ἔργων, with Paul presenting one and the same Torah from two distinct perspectives. The genitives specify the domain or function of the law, indicating the interpretive framework from which the Torah is considered—either as a law characterized by works or by trust. 74 These two expressions can be understood as representing two distinct hermeneutical approaches to the Torah. When Paul qualifies νόμος in 3: 27 with two genitives, thereby contrasting two different interpretations of the Torah, he conveys a complex theological concept in accessible language. The “law of works” (νόμος τῶν ἔργων) refers to the prevailing Jewish interpretation of the Torah, which emphasizes Israel’s distinction from the nations. The focus here is on Israel’s identity markers—the “works of the law”—which serve as the basis for Israel’s “boasting.” In contrast, the “law of trust” (νόμος πίστεως) represents 134 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="135"?> 75 The extent to which the motif of the pilgrimage of the nations—whereby peoples from the nations stream to Jerusalem and acknowledge the God of Israel (Isa 2: 2-4; 66: 21; Mic 4: 1; Tob 14: 5-6)—offers a viable alternative in this context remains open to discussion. In this eschatological vision, however, the nations are not incorporated into the people of Israel, but rather gain access to YHWH alongside and through Israel. Fredriksen, Paul, 8-30, 32-60, 73-77 highlights this apocalyptic motif of the pilgrimage of the nations. an interpretation of the Torah accessible to those who live by trusting in Christ. Through this phrase, Paul articulates his reconfiguration of the Torah, now understood through the lens of relationship with Christ. In this reading, Jewish boasting is excluded because trust is no longer ethnically bound; it is extended to both Jews and Gentiles. Without elaborating on the details, Paul introduces with the term “law of trust” a hermeneutical principle by which he interprets the Torah on the basis of belonging to Christ. In 3: 28, Paul supports this view with a concluding statement that stands as a central affirmation of his theology (cf. Gal 2: 16), once again relativizing the significance of the ἔργα νόμου: For we have reached the conclusion that a person (ἄνθρωπος) is made righteous through trust (πίστει), without works of the law (χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου). God now justifies “through trust,” and “without works of the law.” In doing so, Paul establishes a stark contrast: the requirements of the Torah—which had defined Israel’s identity—lose their significance when compared to the attitude of trust. Paul thus articulates a radically new interpretation of the Torah, in which the “works of the law” are entirely pushed into the background. In this, one can discern a key element of Paul’s emerging hermeneutics of the Torah—an interpretation shaped decisively by the context of Romans. Through this interpretation, Paul seeks to overcome the separation between Jews and Gentiles marked by circumcision and other “works of the law.” Relationship with Christ has become the new identity marker for the Christian communities—an identity accessible to every human being (ἄνθρωπος as a species)—thus including both Jews and Gentiles. Belonging to the community, and thereby to the eschatological people of God, now takes place in Christ, the Messiah and messenger of God, rendering traditional Jewish identity markers ineffective as distinguishing criteria. As Romans 3: 29-30 explains, Gentiles can now fully belong to God’s eschatological people if they place their trust in Christ. For Paul, the notion that people from the nations could belong to the God of Israel—an idea that could be seen as unsettling or problematic within the framework of traditional Jewish beliefs about their unique election, covenant, and exclusive possession of the Torah 75 —is only conceivable in light of his 3. God’s Saving Care in Christ—and the Law: Romans 3: 21-31 135 <?page no="136"?> 76 Wolter, Römer I, 273-274 (with further examples). 77 Cf. in German both the Revidierte Einheitsübersetzung der Heiligen Schrift (2016) and the Revidierte Fassung der Lutherbibel (2017), which translate νόμον ἱστάνομεν as: “wir richten das Gesetz auf ” (“we uphold” or “establish the law”). See also, e.g., Lohse, Römer, 139; Jewett, Romans, 303 (“we uphold law”); Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 246. In contrast, Haacker, Römer, 113-114 translates the phrase as “wir bringen es zum Tragen” (“we bring it to bear,” 97), a rendering that is scarcely less misleading—particularly as he restricts the meaning of the law here to its condemnatory effect. conviction about God’s eschatological intervention. In his Messiah Jesus, God has opened a new way to himself for all who trust in Christ. Paul thus grounds both his mission to the Gentiles apart from circumcision and the shared table fellowship of Jewish and Gentile Christians in this new understanding of God’s inclusive saving action. In light of these considerations, Rom 3: 31 almost inevitably raises the question of whether the Torah has lost its validity or been abolished through trust in Christ: “Do we now nullify (καταργοῦμεν) the law through trust? ” Paul immediately and emphatically rejects this implication: “That is not possible (μὴ γένοιτο)! Instead, we preserve the law (νόμον ἱστάνομεν).” The verb ἱστάνω—a later Greek variant of ἵστημι— fundamentally means ‘to place, to set up.’ As Michael Wolter has demonstrated, in legal contexts and in relation to the Torah, ἵστημι or ἱστάνω carries the meaning ‘to hold, to keep, to maintain, to preserve, to carry out.’ 76 Several examples illustrate this usage: In 1 Sam (1 Kgdms LXX ) 15: 13, King Saul claims, “I have kept all that the Lord has said” (ἔστησα πάντα, ὅσα ἐλάλησεν κύριος). In 2 Kgs (4 Kgdms LXX ) 23: 24, King Josiah abolishes foreign cultic practices “so that the words of the law may be kept” (ἵνα στήσῃ τοὺς λόγους τοῦ νόμου). In Mark 7: 9, Jesus reproaches the Pharisees: “You skillfully set aside the commandment of God in order to preserve your tradition” (ἵνα τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν στήσητε). And in 1 Macc 2: 27, Mattathias calls to discipleship the one “who zealously keeps the law and preserves the covenant (ἱστῶν διαθήκην).” From this, it follows that translating νόμον ἱστάνομεν in Rom 3: 31 as “we uphold the law” 77 or “we bring the law to fruition” is misleading. Such renderings risk suggesting that the law was in a state of decline or failure in Jewish practice and that it is only in Christian usage that the law is restored to its proper meaning. However, Paul—like other Jews—claims to “preserve” (or to “keep”) the law. For him, the Torah remains foundational and indispensable for understanding God and his historical-eschatological activity in Christ. Nevertheless, in light of the Christ-event, Paul discerns a new theological standard by which the Torah must be understood and applied. He is convinced that his new understanding, grounded in “trust”, is in full continuity with 136 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="137"?> 78 This challenges Wolter’s interpretation (Römer I, 274), who argues that νόμος in Rom 3: 31 carries a different meaning than in 3: 28: In 3: 28, νόμος refers to the legal requirements of the Sinai Torah that must be fulfilled, whereas in 3: 31, particularly in the context of Romans 4, νόμος is understood as a literary category designating the five books of Moses, which recount the history from creation to Moses’ death (cf. Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 246). However, this distinction appears overly subtle. The antithesis between “works of the law” and “trust” articulated in 3: 28 is explicitly reiterated in 4: 1-6 and 13-16, while Abraham’s circumcision—corresponding to the works of the law—is clearly subordinated to his trust in 4: 9-12. Rather than shifting categories, Paul appears to draw on the full narrative and legal authority of the Torah, applying it consistently through the lens of his christologically shaped hermeneutics. 79 According to Rom 4: 19, Abraham recognized the reality of his advanced age—“he was about a hundred years old”—as well as the “deadness of the womb” of his wife Sarah. the Torah and honors its enduring authority. This conviction is encapsulated in the catchphrase “law of trust” in 3: 27. 78 Paul will further elaborate on the implications of this interpretive approach in Romans 7. 4. Abraham’s Trust, Sin, and the Torah: Romans 4-6 In Romans 4, Paul presents a reinterpretation of the Torah that preserves its authority while reconfiguring its meaning around the principle of trust. Using Abraham as a paradigmatic figure, Paul argues that the patriarch’s relationship with God was fundamentally rooted in trust rather than in adherence to legal requirements. Through a careful reading of Scripture, Paul highlights how the Torah itself—when rightly understood—underscores trust as central to the divine-human relationship. Like other Jews of his time, Paul regards the holy Scriptures—the Torah and essentially the Prophets and the Writings—as foun‐ dational for understanding God and discerning the nature of the relationship between God and his people. He begins with Abraham’s trust in God’s promise of numerous descendants (Gen 15: 6), a promise that must have seemed utterly implausible given Abraham’s and Sarah’s old age. 79 By foregrounding trust as the defining element in Abraham’s story, Paul elevates it as the key to interpreting not only that narrative but the Torah as a whole. Since God’s election of Abraham marked the beginning of Israel’s election from among the nations, Abraham becomes a central figure for Israel’s self-understanding and for Paul’s new interpretation of the Torah. In Romans 4: 1-8, Paul argues that God justifies Abraham on the basis of his trust in God, not on the basis of works. To support this claim, he cites 4. Abraham’s Trust, Sin, and the Torah: Romans 4-6 137 <?page no="138"?> 80 Cf. the study by Kujanpää, Functions, 62-73 for further detail. 81 Cf. 1 Macc 2: 52; Jub. 23: 10; Sir 44: 19-20; Jas 2: 21. 82 Cf. Gen 12: 2, 7; 13: 15-17; 15: 5-7, 18; 17: 8. 83 The term “trust” in this context should not be limited to Abraham’s own trust (see Dunn, Romans I, 214; Jewett, Romans, 326), but should be understood as extending to the trust of all his descendants (Fitzmyer, Romans, 385; Wolter, Römer I, 298). 84 Haacker, Römer, 127 interprets νόμος here as a reference to Greco-Roman law, while Wolter, Römer I, 299 understands it more broadly as referring to any form of law. However, such readings are highly implausible in the context of Rom 4: 13-17a, where the discussion is clearly centered on the Torah. Gen 15: 6 and Ps 31: 1-2 LXX . 80 This constitutes a distinctive, even idiosyncratic, interpretation of Abraham—one that diverges significantly from the prevailing Jewish tradition of Paul’s time, which emphasized Abraham’s obedient actions in response to God’s command as the foundation of his righteousness. 81 In Rom 4: 9-12, Paul further subordinates Abraham’s circumcision to his trust, thereby relativizing circumcision as a boundary marker between Jews and Gentiles. In Rom 4: 13, Paul reintroduces the concept of the “law” (νόμος), referring to the Torah, the authoritative foundation for circumcision and the expression of Israel’s election. Yet in 4: 13-17a, Paul argues that the Torah is subordinate to trust in God. He follows the narrative sequence of the Torah—the five books of Moses—highlighting that God’s promise of land and numerous descendants to Abraham 82 was made long before the giving of the Torah to Moses at Sinai. The timing is crucial. The promise is grounded not in the Torah, but in Abraham’s trust: “For it was not through the law (διὰ νόμου) that the promise was made to Abraham (…) but through the righteousness of trust (διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως)” (4: 13). This connection between righteousness and trust recalls Gen 15: 6, where God counts Abraham’s trust as righteousness—that is, he declares him righteous and grants him a relationship with God on the basis of his trust. Rom 4: 14 reinforces this with a hypothetical scenario: if those who are “of the law” (ἐκ νόμου)—that is, those who live by and fulfill the law—were the true heirs of the promise, then the promise would depend on law-keeping. In that case, the law would overshadow the promise, and both trust (πίστις) 83 and the promise itself would be rendered void. However, Rom 4: 15 makes it clear that the function of the law is not connected to the promise, but rather to the recognition of transgressions against God’s commandments: “for where there is no law, 84 there is no transgression.” The law renders such transgressions recognizable and accountable (cf. 3: 20; 5: 13), and ultimately leads to condemnation in God’s judgment: “the law produces wrath.” In contrast, as stated in Rom 4: 16, the promise was made “of trust” (ἐκ πίστεως, that is, grounded in trust) and thus according to God’s “grace” (κατὰ 138 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="139"?> 85 Schlier, Römerbrief, 131; Dunn, Romans I, 216; Neubrand, Abraham, 270-276; Jewett, Romans, 331 (pagan and Jewish Christians in the second part, resulting in a strange overlap). 86 Fitzmyer, Romans, 385; Wolter, Römer I, 301-302. 87 Käsemann, Römer, 114-115; Cranfield, Romans I, 242; Wilckens, Römer I, 271-272; Moo, Romans, 278-279; Lohse, Römer, 155; Haacker, Römer, 127; Schliesser, Faith, 373-375. 88 See Wolter, Römer I, 277, 300-301. Cf. Jewett, Romans, 330; Haacker, Römer, 127. 89 On these quotes, see Kujanpää, Functions, 74-81. χάριν)—that is, solely on God’s sovereign will to save (cf. 3: 24; 4: 4). As a result, the promise applies to “all” (παντί) of Abraham’s descendants: “not only to those who live by the law, but also to those who live by the trust of Abraham.” This distinction raises the question of which groups of people, according to Paul, are represented by the concepts of ‘living by the law’ and ‘living by trust’. Scholarly opinions vary. The options typically proposed are: (1) non-Christian and Christian Jews versus Christian Gentiles; 85 (2) non-Christian Jews versus Christian Jews and Gentiles; 86 or (3) Christian Jews versus Christian Gentiles. 87 The context favors option (2), as Paul contrasts non-Christian Jewish life according to the Torah with Christian life based on trust—applicable to both Jewish and Gentile Christians. His aim is to make clear that Jews hold no privilege over Gentiles who trust in God. At the same time, the passage also anticipates Paul’s later argument that the Jewish people are not excluded from the promise (cf. Rom 11: 25-32). The promise, therefore, applies not only to Jews, who—according to their own self-understanding—are “of the law” (ἐκ τοῦ νόμου) and children of Abraham, but also to Gentiles who, like Abraham, are “of trust” (ἐκ πίστεως). Importantly, Paul does not negate the validity of the promise for the Jewish people—this should not be overlooked. At the same time, he broadens the scope of Abraham’s descendants to include people from the nations who share Abraham’s trust in God. 88 This naturally includes not only Gentile Christians, but also Jewish Christians who live by trust (in Christ). Thus, Abraham becomes the “father of us all” (πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν)—encompassing Jews, Jewish Christians, and Gentile Christians alike. Paul supports the inclusion of the Gentile nations among Abraham’s descendants in Rom 4: 17a by quoting Gen 17: 5: “I have made you the father of many nations.” The term ἔθνη (“nations”) clearly refers to non-Jewish peoples, as also reflected in Sir 44: 19, which describes Abraham as “the great father of a multitude of nations.” Romans 4: 17b-25 once again underscores Abraham’s unwavering trust in God’s promise, supported by citations from Gen 17: 5 and 15: 5-6. 89 Paul presents the followers of Christ as standing in continuity with Abraham, insofar as they likewise place their trust in God’s salvific action—now revealed definitively in 4. Abraham’s Trust, Sin, and the Torah: Romans 4-6 139 <?page no="140"?> 90 On this interpretation, see Dunn, Romans I, 286; Wolter, Römer I, 359. 91 On the rare use of this phrase in Greek, see Wolter, Römer I, 393. The reference is clearly to the Torah—contra Jewett, Romans, 411-412. The expression ὑπὸ νόμον naturally refers to all Jews. Campbell, Romans, 186, however, narrows the scope again, interpreting it as referring specifically to “the ethnē in Christ.” the death and resurrection of Jesus. With this, Paul brings his interpretation of Scripture to a climactic conclusion: he has demonstrated, through the example of Abraham, that his central theological claim—namely, that justification is grounded in “trust in Christ” rather than in “works of the law” (Rom 3: 28)—is not a departure from the Torah but is in fact deeply rooted in its witness. In the following chapters, Paul refers to the law only briefly, yet significantly. In Romans 5: 13, he revisits themes introduced in 3: 20 and 4: 15, describing the function of the Torah as a kind of debt register, recording humanity’s sin: “For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not taken into account where there is no law.” He expands on this in Rom 5: 20, situating the law within the destructive dynamic between sin and death that has exercised dominion over humanity since Adam: “But the law came in addition so that the transgression might increase.” This implies that the law was not able to break this destructive dynamic; instead, it intensified it. Paul even ascribes to the law a role in multiplying transgressions and sins. Whereas Adam faced only a single commandment—one which he broke—, the Torah presents many commandments, offering more opportunities for sin and thus deepening human entanglement in it. 90 Far from being a guide to a successful life for Israel, the Torah here becomes a catalyst for sin—a provocative and paradoxical claim. The destructive bond between sin and death has been fundamentally trans‐ formed for those who belong to Christ. As Romans 6 explains, they have been liberated from the dominion of sin and brought under the benevolent reign of God. The Christ-followers are no longer hopelessly enslaved to sin. No longer hopelessly enslaved to sin, Christ-followers are assured by Paul in 6: 14 that sin will no longer rule over them. They have been set free from sin’s dominating power. Paul grounds this assurance in a theological contrast: they are no longer “under the law” (ὑπὸ νόμον), but “under grace” (ὑπὸ χάριν). To be ὑπὸ νόμον means to live under the legal requirements of the Torah. 91 As Paul has argued in 5: 20, the law, while not inherently sinful, plays a preparatory role in sin’s expansion, contributing to humanity’s deeper entanglement in its power. Consequently, to be no longer under the dominion of sin entails also being no longer under the dominion of the law. Paul does not unpack this fully here, but instead emphasizes the contrast with “grace.” “Grace” refers to God’s saving action in Christ—his unmerited favor extended to humanity—as 140 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="141"?> previously outlined in 3: 24 and 5: 15-17, 20-21. Whereas the Torah intensifies sin’s rule, grace nullifies its effects (though not the Torah itself). Those who live ὑπὸ χάριν now owe their very existence to God’s grace, his liberating mercy. The distinction Paul draws between law and grace naturally provokes the question posed in Romans 6: 15, one framed from a Christian perspective: “Shall we sin because we are not under the law (ὑπὸ νόμον) but under grace (ὑπὸ χάριν)? ” In other words, can Christ-followers sin with impunity since the law no longer registers sins and grace seems to cancel its consequences? Paul responds with emphatic rejection: “That is not possible! ” (μὴ γένοιτο). Paul does not offer a detailed explanation here of what it means to no longer be “under the law” (ὑπὸ νόμον). He does not declare the Torah invalid, but rather challenges the dominant interpretive framework through which the Torah is understood in his time—namely, a framework that, in his view, loses its authoritative status. From the perspective of grace, however, the Torah becomes open to reinterpretation. One might describe it this way: the one who is no longer “under the law” now stands in a new relationship to the law—able to engage with it from a position of freedom, interpreting it from the vantage point of God’s grace. Paul begins to develop this idea more fully in Romans 7: 1-8: 4. 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 In Romans 7, Paul articulates his new understanding of the Torah. The core idea is that, because the reality of humanity has been radically transformed by the Christ-event, the application of the Torah must also be reconfigured accordingly. A renewed interpretation of the Torah becomes necessary. Since Adam, sin has exerted its destructive power over human life and has even instrumentalized the Torah for its own devastating purposes (5: 12-21). As long as sin reigns, humans are unable to truly live in accordance with the Torah—thus, the Torah fails to fulfill its intended purpose. With Christ, however, this destructive connection has been radically altered, resulting in a new freedom to engage and interpret the Torah (Rom 7: 3, 6; 8: 2; Gal 5: 1). Scholars have long debated the proper interpretation of Romans 7. It has often been assumed that Paul abolishes the validity of the Torah and grants believers in Christ freedom from the law. Consequently, passages like Romans 7: 1-6, or even 7: 1-25, are frequently titled “Freedom from the Law” (German: 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 141 <?page no="142"?> 92 Lohse, Römer, 203; Lichtenberger, Ich, 109; Jewett, Romans, 428; Wolter, Römer I, 408; Potgieter, Body, 128; cf. Käsemann, Römer, 178; Theobald, Römer I, 193; Haacker, Römer, 169 (“detachment from the law,” “Ablösung vom Gesetz”). 93 Thus, in Käsemann, Römer, 181; Dunn, Romans I, 359; Lohse, Römer, 204-209; Esler, Conflict, 222-242; Jewett, Romans, 430, 435, 437-438; Kurek-Chomycz, “Wedded Wife,” 115-116; with strong theoretical differentiations Wilckens, Römer II, 67-71. 94 As by Käsemann, Römer, 179; Wolter, Römer I, 410; Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 177; Potgieter, Body, 129; cf. Haacker, Römer, 167-168. In contrast, Jewett, Romans, 430. 95 Käsemann, Römer, 178 (a “radikale Torakritik” as a “unverwechselbares Merkmal paulinischer Theologie”). 96 Likewise, Jewett, Romans, 428. 97 Theobald, Römer I, 195 (my translation; italics in original); cf. 197-198. 98 Campbell, Romans, 206; cf. 218-220. “Freiheit vom Gesetz”). 92 In this context, the Greek term νόμος (“law”) is typically understood to refer to the Torah, suggesting that, according to Paul, the Torah is abolished or no longer binding for believers in Christ. 93 Less commonly, νόμος in 7: 1 is interpreted not as the Torah, but as a more general legal order, public law, or similar regulation. 94 However, this interpretation does not preclude the claim that Paul offers a “radical critique of the Torah” as a “characteristic feature of Pauline theology.” 95 That said, interpreting νόμος as a reference to general legalism seems unlikely, especially given the immediate example drawn from the Torah’s regulations on marriage. Moreover, the term νόμος appears eight times in 7: 1-6, reinforcing thematic unity. 96 Other scholars seek to avoid the assumption that Paul abolishes the Torah, but in doing so, they tend to diminish its significance for Jewish identity. Michael Theobald, for instance, suggests that the Torah is concentrated “on its theological core, the holy, just, and good will of God,” viewing it as “the embodiment of God’s will, which obliges all people (2: 18! ), and which legitimates universal legal demands in the Decalogue.” 97 William Campbell, on the other hand, argues that Romans 7 addresses only “Gentile Christ-followers,” who “have come to know the Law most likely by association with the synagogues as God-fearers or perhaps as proselytes.” 98 However, as we will see, the discussions in Rom 7: 7-25 primarily concern Jewish individuals who do not belong to Christ, while the issue of Gentile Christ-followers (in Rome), who are struggling with their relationship to the Torah, is implicitly addressed—perhaps even as Paul’s primary intended audience. A proper understanding of Romans 7: 1-8: 4 depends on recognizing the struc‐ ture Paul has given the passage; this structure likewise forms the framework of my investigation. A new textual unit begins with Rom 7: 1. The rhetorical question “Or do you not know” (Ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε), along with the direct address to the recipients as “brothers and sisters” (ἀδελφοί) and the parenthetical remark 142 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="143"?> 99 Rhetorically, this involves the figure of a captatio benevolentiae. If this is not merely empty flattery, as Wolter suggests in Römer I, 409 (cf. Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 176-177), but is instead rooted in reality, it can only have its intended effect on the recipients. It is plausible that the recipients were genuinely familiar with the law, given the presence of Jewish Christians and God-fearers among them (cf. Schreiber, “Römerbrief (Einleitung),” 292-293). They were being invited to engage with Paul’s argument. 100 Alternatively, Wolter, Römer I, 384-385 interprets Rom 6: 12-23 and 7: 1-6 as two parts of a single section; cf. Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 176; Haacker, Römer, 166-167. A new beginning in 7: 1 is also acknowledged, for example, by Fitzmyer, Romans, 454; Lohse, Römer, 205. 101 In both cases, a delicate question with regard to the law is followed by the answer μὴ γένοιτο, after which a justification introduced by ἀλλά is given. Thus 7: 7 and 7: 13 form an inclusio. 102 Fitzmyer, Romans, 462-463; Lohse, Römer, 204; Eastman, “Strengthening,” 146 (concern‐ ing 7: 7-13), for example, also advocate this division. Others see a break between 7: 12 and 7: 13, e.g., Cranfield, Romans I, 341; Wilckens, Römer II, 74-75; Theobald, Römer I, 205-207; Jewett, Romans, 440-441; Wolter, Römer I, 425; Campbell, Romans, 212, 216. Rarely is 7: 25 already connected with 8: 1-11, as by Theobald, Römer I, 218. identifying them as “those who know the law,” 99 indicates the beginning of a new theme. 100 Romans 7 can then be divided into three sections: 7: 1-6, 7: 7-13, and 7: 14-25. Rom 7: 6 has a summarizing function, concluding 7: 1-6. Rom 7: 7 introduces a further question (two interrogative sentences with negative answers), offering a conclusion to what has been discussed and continuing the theme of “law and sin.” Rom 7: 13 creates a formal inclusio with 7: 7, through a question with a negative response. 101 Rom 7: 14 begins a new segment with “we know,” referring to a conviction Paul shares with the addressees. This verse also marks a shift in tense from the past to the present. The theme of “the human being and the law” continues, but from a changed perspective, concluding in 7: 25 with a final statement (ἄρα οὖν, “therefore”). In Rom 8: 1, a contrast is drawn to what has preceded (ἄρα νῦν), marking the beginning of the description of the new reality in Christ. Thus, a reversal occurs between 7: 25 and 8: 1. 102 This structural arrangement serves to guide the reader’s interpretation. In 7: 1-6, Paul employs the example of a spouse’s death to illustrate that, with the advent of Christ, a fundamental transformation of reality has occurred— necessitating a reconfiguration of how the law is to be understood. In 7: 7-13, Paul presents the voice of Adam’s “I,” articulating an experience of the law as one co-opted or instrumentalized by sin. This experience is further developed in 7: 14-25 through the “I” of a Torah-observant Jew, culminating in an existential impasse. The resolution is offered in 8: 1-4, where a renewed perception—shaped by the Christ-event—reframes the relationship to the law. 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 143 <?page no="144"?> 103 This idea is found only in the later rabbinic tradition: b. Šabb. 30a; b. Šabb. 151b; b. Nid. 61b. Cf. Str-B 3: 232, 234; Lichtenberger, Ich, 113-115. In early Judaism, it remains unclear whether the validity of the law ends with a person’s death. For example, in Pss. Sol. 17, the Torah is not mentioned in the messianic period; according to 1QS IX 9-11, the Torah is to be observed until the arrival of the messianic figures. In contrast, CD VII 18-20 places the “giver of the Torah” parallel to the messianic “prince of the congregation,” and 4 Ezra 9: 36-37 contrasts the corruption of sinful humanity with the immortality of the law in its glory; additionally, according to T. Ps.-J. 23: 5, the royal Anointed One will establish a righteous law. 104 My translation (which is also supported by most commentators) understands νόμῳ as an instrumental dative and relates δέδεται to τῷ ζῶντι ἀνδρὶ (cf. 1 Cor 7: 27: “are you bound to a woman”). Otherwise, Jewett, Romans, 431, takes δέδεται intransitively: “is bound by law while the man is alive; ” similarly, Wolter, Römer I, 412-413: “bound by the law while the man is alive” (“durch das Gesetz gebunden, solange der Mann lebt; ” cf. 1 Cor 7: 39: “a woman is bound while her husband is alive”). However, it cannot be argued that “bound to her husband” is in tension with the following statement that the woman is “released from the law,” because she is not released from the law in general, but “from the law concerning the husband” (see below). 5.1 The Need to Apply the Torah: Romans 7: 1-6 In Romans 7: 1, Paul raises the question of the validity of the law, that is, the Torah, and explores the requirements for living in accordance with the Torah, as well as the scope of its application. He introduces the principle “that the law (ὁ νόμος) is lord (κυριεύει) over a person as long as they live.” The phrase “to be lord” is used in 6: 14 in relation to sin, thereby introducing a negative connotation to the dominion of the law. This is likely not an established legal principle, at least not one that can be demonstrated from Paul’s time. 103 Rather, it reflects a human experience of the Torah: for someone who has died, the Torah no longer holds relevance or authority, as it no longer applies to their life. Paul thus participates in the Jewish discussion of the Torah in his time, but takes a distinct path. The notion that the validity of the law ends with death becomes a key theme throughout Romans 7. In Romans 7: 2-3, Paul illustrates that the Torah must be applied in accordance with the specific circumstances of a person’s life. He does so by drawing on a case study from the Torah concerning a woman’s marital bond and the prohibition of adultery (e.g., Exod 20: 14; Lev 20: 10; Deut 5: 18; 24: 1-4). The premise always is the reality of the individual’s life, to which the Torah is then to be applied, and if that reality changes, so too must the application of the Torah. The example in Rom 7: 2 assumes the situation of a married woman: she is “bound to her husband as long as he lives, by the law” (τῷ ζῶντι ἀνδρὶ δέδεται νόμῳ). 104 However, the death of her husband radically alters her situation, transforming her into a widow. In this context, death dissolves her marital bond, and she is now free 144 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="145"?> 105 Paul already used the example of a wife who is bound to her husband with the same and similar words in 1 Cor 7: 39. - “Free from the law” in Rom 7: 3 refers to the regulations of the Torah concerning marriage; the woman must of course continue to fulfill all other regulations of the Torah. Cf. Wolter, Römer I, 414. Jewett, Romans, 432, takes a different view of being free from the law itself. 106 Similar linguistic constructions that focus the application of the law on specific areas are also evident, for instance, in L X X Exod 12: 43 (νόμος τοῦ πάσχα); Lev 12: 7 (ὁ νόμος τῆς τικτούσης); 14: 2 (ὁ νόμος τοῦ λεπροῦ); Josephus, A.J. 17.241 (νόμος τῆς ἑορτῆς). On this, see Wolter, Römer I, 413. 107 Thus, the legal case (casus) is transformed. Similarly, Lichtenberger, Ich, 116, writes: “It is not the law as such that is abolished, but only its effectiveness” (Es “wird nicht das Gesetz als solches aufgehoben, sondern nur seine Wirksamkeit”). to belong to another man. Paul states that she is now “released from the law concerning the husband” (κατήργηται ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός; Rom 7: 2) or “free from the law” (ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου; 7: 3), referring specifically to the legal bond that previously tied her to her husband. 105 With καταργεῖσθαι ἀπό, Paul formulates—over against the concept of being “bound” (δέδεται)—a release from that binding. This distinction is crucial: the woman is not generally released from the Torah, but specifically from the legal regulations that bound her to her husband. It is these provisions to which the phrase νόμος τοῦ ἀνδρός refers. 106 The same applies to the statement “free from the law” in 7: 3, as the subsequent reference to the “adulteress” (which she is not, in this context) makes clear. The validity of the Torah itself does not change; the marriage regulations of the Torah continue to stand, of course. What changes is not the law’s validity, but its application in this particular case. 107 Paul’s use of death here as a decisive change in reality is intentional. The metaphor of the Christ-follower dying to sin shaped 6: 1-11, and the death of Jesus becomes immediately significant for the life of Christ-followers in 7: 4-6. The case study centers on a relationship, which then becomes an image for the new, transformed relationship between humanity and God. The law, therefore, still applies after Christ, but it addresses Christ-followers within the framework of this renewed relationship in a new way—one that Paul characterizes as a freedom for a new interpretation and embodiment of the Torah. In Rom 7: 4, Paul applies the preceding example to the new reality of those who belong to Christ. The bondage to the law is released through the death of another. “Through the body of Christ” (διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ), the recipients have been “put to death to the law” (ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ) (see also the state of having died to sin in 6: 2-11). They now relate to the law as people who have died. It is important to note: it is not the Torah that has died, but metaphorically, those who are united with Christ. They share in 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 145 <?page no="146"?> 108 Moo, Romans, 417 understands the phrase as a reference to “the physical body of Christ,” killed on the cross; cf. Cranfield, Romans I, 336; Fitzmyer, Romans, 458; Lohse, Römer, 207; Jewett, Romans, 433; Haacker, Römer, 169. Wilckens, Römer II, 64-65, sees an ecclesiological-sacramental dimension, while Wolter, Römer I, 415 emphasizes its salvific effect. 109 It is therefore inaccurate to conclude that the incorporation into Jesus’ death simply “released them from bondage to law, which had dominated life in the old age, leading them into perverse forms of competition for honor” ( Jewett, Romans, 434). Cf. also Lohse, Römer, 207: “Through the death of Christ, the reign of the law is ended” (“Durch das Sterben Christi ist die Herrschaft des Gesetzes beendet”). Such negative portrayals of the law fail to reflect Paul’s more nuanced view of the Torah within the new reality in Christ. For this, see Hultgren, “Paul,” 204. his death (cf. 6: 3). The term “body” (σῶμα) refers—similarly to its use as in 1 Cor 10: 16 and 11: 24—to the slain body of Jesus and its salvific significance for his followers. 108 Paul had already underscored this meaning in Rom 3: 25, where Christ is presented as God’ “votive offering” (see section 3 above), and in 5: 9-10, where justification by his blood and reconciliation through his death are emphasized. In 5: 8, the death of Christ is further interpreted as a profound demonstration of God’s love. Through this death, a new relationship with God is inaugurated. Just as the woman in the case study is released to belong to another, so too Christ-followers, through Jesus’ death, belong to another—to the living Christ, who “was raised from the dead.” His resurrection by God implies his significance as the new Lord—source of salvation and new life for those who belong to him (cf. 4: 24; 6: 4; 8: 11; 10: 9). This relationship to the risen Christ now becomes the defining reality of their existence. The structure of their relational world has been decisively and radically transformed. This means that, within in their new reality, Christ-followers are called to apply the Torah in a renewed and liberated manner. They are no longer bound by the dominant, traditional Jewish interpretation of the Torah—that is, they have been “put to death to the law.” 109 This reflects a hermeneutical distance from the law—a distance that arises from the new existence in Christ and enables them to engage the Torah from a transformed perspective, marked by a new freedom in its application. Paul, as a Jew, exercises this freedom as a reinterpretation of the Torah from within its own framework, not as a rejection of the law, a freedom from the law. This stands in contrast to scholarly claims that Paul sought to abolish the Torah. “We”—Paul includes himself here—“bear fruit for God” (cf. 6: 21-22). The new reality of life entails a corresponding new way of living, one that flows from the renewed relationship with God and expresses itself in a reoriented application of the Torah. 146 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="147"?> 110 The “flesh” (σάρξ) characterizes the former mode of existence prior to one’s turning to Christ—an existence shaped entirely by human, worldly reality, alienated from and opposed to God. In 7: 5, the flesh is closely associated with the passions, sin, and death. Cf. Rom 7: 14; 8: 4-5, 8-9. See also 1QS XI 9: “I belong to heinous humanity, to the multitude of wicked flesh.” 111 Cf. Rom 5: 20; further 1 Cor 15: 56; Rom 3: 20; 4: 15. - A different perspective is offered by Jewett, Romans, 436: “the Torah had become traduced into an instrument of gaining honor.” The juxtaposition of the old and new realities of life in 7: 5-6 (“when we were in the flesh” 110 - “but now”) underscores the transformed condition under which the Torah is now to be applied. This contrast anticipates a theme that will become central in the verses that follow: prior to the Christ-event, human beings were entangled in the destructive dynamic between the “passions of sins” (παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν) and death, a dynamic that was exacerbated because of the law (7: 5). These passions correspond to the desires mentioned in 6: 12 and reflect humanity’s self-centered orientation, which culminates in sin. The law, rather than restraining these passions, became part of this destructive nexus by intensifying sin: the passions found an operative channel through the law itself. 111 Paul will further unpack how the law can assume this dark and paradoxical role in 7: 7-13. The result of this former way of life, in contrast to the fruitfulness described in 7: 4, was a harvest not of life, but of misfortune— ultimately, death. But this has “now” (νυνί) changed, and with it, the relationship to the Torah is also transformed, as expressed in 7: 6: But now we are released from the law, having died (to it) by which we were held fast, so that we are slaves in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. νυνὶ δὲ κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἀποθανόντες ἐν ᾧ κατειχόμεθα, ὥστε δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος καὶ οὐ παλαιότητι γράμματος. In the use of “we,” Paul includes himself alongside his recipients. Because “we” have died with respect to the law, “we” are now “released” from it. The notion of death here is used metonymically to refer to participation in the death of Jesus and expresses the radical transformation of existence that comes with belonging to Christ. It is not the law that has been abrogated (cf. 3: 31); rather, we have been transformed in our relation to it, and thus it no longer applies to us in the traditional way. Paul describes the former state as one of being “held fast,” which suggests a strong attachment to the prevailing early Jewish interpretation of the Torah. With our being “released from the law,” this binding adherence comes to an end. Those who belong to Christ are no longer constrained by that previous understanding of the Torah. The term “released” points not to a 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 147 <?page no="148"?> 112 Contra Jewett, Romans, 437: “To define salvation so explicitly in terms of freedom from the law represents a radical break from traditional Judaism as Paul had experienced it.” Cf. Dunn, Romans I, 365; Lohse, Römer, 208-209; Potgieter, Body, 135, 137. - In contrast, Theißen, Aspekte, 258 identifies in Paul’s opposition a distinction between two aspects of the law. 113 In each case, the construction should be understood as a genitivus epexegeticus. Cf. Wolter, Römer I, 421. 114 For the translation “things written” and its reference to the law, see Wolter, Römer I, 421. A comparable expression is found in Philo, QG 2.19, who speaks of “the holy letter/ the holy writing of the law” (τὸ ἱερὸν γράμμα τοῦ νόμου). 115 Plutarch, Num. 22 similarly refers to “dead letters.” 116 Analogous references to the Spirit as an agent of group-specific understanding can be found in 1QS III 2b-9a; IV 20-23; 1QH V 18-19 (cf. IV 26). total detachment from the law, but to a shift in interpretive stance—a greater hermeneutical distance that makes a new reading possible. For Paul, this does not imply that the Torah has become irrelevant or void of meaning. 112 Rather, he advocates for a new freedom: the freedom to interpret and apply the Torah in light of the new reality in Christ. He presents this as a natural consequence (ὥστε) of the transformation that has taken place. Paul summarizes his new hermeneutics of the Torah in a striking contrast: “the newness of the Spirit” versus “the oldness of the letter.” 113 The notion of “being a slave” here signifies a close bond to a new dominion—that of Christ and the Spirit—which radically transforms the reality of Christ-followers for the better (cf. 6: 6, 16-20, 22). This new dominion simultaneously opens the way for a new freedom in interpreting the Torah. The term “letter” (γράμμα) denotes something written, 114 in this context referring specifically to the “written law.” By employing the word γράμμα—“letter” or “things written”—Paul introduces a subtle shift: he is not simply referring to the law itself, but to a particular understanding of the law—namely, the traditional interpretation of the Torah. This could be paraphrased as an approach that focuses on the literal wording of the law—as it is commonly understood, apart from the new reality of the Spirit of Christ. 115 For Paul, this understanding has become “old” in light of Christ. Thus, γράμμα here broadly represents early Jewish interpretations of the Torah that differ from Paul’s own Christ-centered reading. His terminology suggests a more restrictive, literal reading of the Torah, contrasted with a “freer”, Spirit-led understanding. Living in the newness determined by the Spirit means that the Spirit funda‐ mentally shapes the new life of Christ-followers and simultaneously forms the authority for a new interpretation of the Torah. 116 Reading in the Spirit forms the hermeneutical principle for interpreting the Torah with Christ. The structure of Pauline thinking becomes evident: in the new relationship to God in Christ, 148 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="149"?> 117 Campbell, Romans, 209-211 takes a different view, applying Rom 7: 6 exclusively to Gentiles, where “in the oldness of the letter” would refer to a proselyte without Christ, and “in the newness of the Spirit” to a proselyte with Christ (cf. Rodríguez, Call, 126). However, 7: 6 derives its significance precisely from the fact that Paul aims to make his new Torah hermeneutics plausible for both Jews and Gentiles in Christ. 118 For an understanding of this question, cf. also Jewett, Romans, 446. 119 Thus by Käsemann, Römer, 184, 191, 197, 201: every person is considered, “caught up […] in their own greed for life” (“verstrickt […] in die eigene Lebensgier,” 211); Lohse, Römer, 211, 222; Schnelle, Paulus, 371; Lichtenberger, Ich, 121, 136-160; Starnitzke, Struktur, 238-279. 120 Cf. Wilckens, Römer II, 75; Haacker, Römer, 172; Wolter, Römer I, 432. those who trust in Christ—both Jews and Gentiles 117 —now approach the law in freedom, in order to reinterpret it in the Spirit. In terms of the history of Torah-interpretation, this is indeed a “novelty” that can be described as a new Torah hermeneutics. By significantly deviating from the “old” interpretation, the new interpretation raises a high claim. Nevertheless, it still remains within the broad framework of early Jewish discourse about the application of the Torah. 5.2 The Torah under the Dominion of Sin: Romans 7: 7-13 The phrasing in Rom 7: 5-6 raises the question of how the law is situated within the destructive connection between sin and death. A misunderstanding that could arise from this is addressed by Paul in 7: 7 with a rhetorical question: “Is the law sin? ” Is the law itself permeated by sin, is it a form of sin, a manifestation of sin? 118 He immediately rejects this possibility clearly: “That is not possible” (μὴ γένοιτο)! However, the relationship between the law and sin marks the issue that is addressed in the following explanations. Therefore, Rom 7: 7-25 is not about a draft of a Christian anthropology that describes the tension of Christian life between the new existence and the old world, as is often assumed in research. 119 It is, above all, about the Torah. 120 Romans 7: 7-13 reveals the following structure. 7: 7a presents, as we have seen, the issue of the relationship between law and sin. Three steps of response follow: 1. Through the law, I recognized sin (7: 7b). 2. Through the law, sin was working in me (the desire) (7: 8). 3. Through the law, sin brought death to me (7: 9-10). 7: 11 provides a summary: sin deceived me and killed me through the law. From this, 7: 12 draws the conclusion that the law is good. In 7: 13, a securing of results follows: It is sin, through the good law, that brings about death. Interpreting this text is complicated by the linguistic feature that, beginning in 7: 7, an “I” (first-person singular) suddenly emerges. There has not yet been a 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 149 <?page no="150"?> 121 On the positions advocated, cf. Cranfield, Romans I, 342-347; Lichtenberger, Ich, 15-105; Jewett, Romans, 441-444; Wolter, Römer I, 460-461. 122 The “I” cannot refer to Paul as a child because a Jewish child in antiquity never lived without the law, even before the Bar Mitzvah. See, for example, 1QSa I 6-7; Josephus, A.J. 4.211 (“Let the children learn the laws, as the first thing they are taught”); C. Ap. 2.178, 204 (“that they may be nourished up in the laws from their infancy”); Philo, Legat. 210 (“having been instructed in this doctrine from their very earliest infancy”). On this, see Lichtenberger, Ich, 257-263; Dunn, Romans I, 382. Against Jewett, Romans, 450-451. 123 Theißen, Aspekte, 223-268. He sees ibid. 244 an extension to a general human conflict; cf. Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 415-420, 428-437. Restricted to Israel by Goodrich, “Sold,” 495: The “I” “stands for unbelieving Paul as a representative of Israel.” Hart, “Paul,” 331, 341 recognizes an expansion of Paul’s “I” to the “weak” in Rome; cf. Jewett, Romans, 444-445, 461-473 passim. For Lambrecht, Wretched, 75-91, Paul speaks autobiographically about his (and other) pre-Christian Jewish experiences with the law; cf. Engberg-Pedersen, “Reception,” 112. 124 Lüdemann, Auferstehung, 98. 125 Cranfield, Romans I, 341-342, 346; Dunn, Romans I, 377, 382, 387-388, 411-412. Cf. Jervis, “Commandment”; Rehfeld, Ontologie, 184-186. Müller, “Willensschwäche,” 236- consensus in exegesis regarding the identity of this “I.” 121 I will attempt to outline the main positions, although there are also several overlaps and combinations. 1. Biographical interpretations associate the “I” with Paul himself. 1.1 One might consider the past, the period before Paul’s calling, which gives rise to psychological interpretations. 122 Gerd Theißen suggests an unconscious conflict within Paul, one between exceptional adherence to the law and archaic instincts. 123 Gerd Lüdemann, on the other hand, sees an inner disruption in Paul, stemming from his personal failure and an unconscious fascination with Christians. 124 However, the textual evidence for these ideas is insufficient, as Paul provides no indication of an inner struggle prior to his calling. 1.2 Another approach focuses on the present and interprets the “I” as referring to Paul in his current state as a “Christian.” This would reflect the experience of a conflict between willing and failing, which could be understood not just in terms of Paul’s personal experience but as a fundamental anthropological reality. A term for this interpretation would be the Lutheran concept of simul iustus et peccator, which has had a significant influence on theological history. According to this view, while the Christian lives in the new age, the old age continues to exert influence, endangering the Christian. This interpretation, which was already held by Augustine and later the Reformers Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin, is still found today, for example, in the work of scholars like Charles Cranfield and James Dunn. 125 However, this interpretation does not align with the 150 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="151"?> 237 is thinking of a Christian who experiences weakness of will in himself and is not yet able to implement the new ethical conduct. Timmins, Romans 7, 135-136 envisages the apostle Paul, who is paradigmatic for all the addressees of the letter. 126 Kümmel, Römer 7, 123-160; cf. already Bultmann, “Problem,” 43: “Depiction of the objective state of the unredeemed, as it has become visible from the standpoint of the redeemed” (“Darstellung des objektiven Seins des Unerlösten, wie es vom Standpunkt des Erlösten aus sichtbar geworden ist”). Auch Schnelle, Paulus, 372. 127 Thus, above all, Lohse, Römer, 215-216. Cf. Lichtenberger, Ich, 174-176. 128 Lohse, Römer, 215 (“wird in jedem Menschen ausgetragen, er sei Jude oder Grieche”). Cf. Wilckens, Römer II, 76-77; Theobald, Römer I, 203-206; Hultgren, “Paul,” 209; Schröter, “Mensch,” 209-223; Beyer, Determined, 211. Campbell, Romans, 215 modifies this interpretation by applying it exclusively to Gentiles: “non-Jews mistakenly seeking in the Law a way to acceptance with God.” 129 Käsemann, Römer, 188-189; Theißen, Aspekte, 204-210; Wilckens, Römer II, 79; Dunn, Romans I, 381; Theobald, Römer I, 203, 207-208, 210; Bergmeier, “Gesetz,” 69-70; Lohse, Römer, 212; Lichtenberger, Ich, 160-165; Schnelle, Paulus, 370; Dochhorn, “Röm 7,7,” 59-62; Haacker, Römer, 176-177; Söding, “Mensch,” 373; Holtz, “Paul,” 189-190; Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 260, 430. Dochhorn, Adammythos, 367-384 sees a special reference to the Adam narrative in Apoc. Mos. 15-30. Catchpole, “Who,” 168 thinks of “an Adamitic person living in the sphere of Moses.” Otherwise, Wolter, Römer I, 466 identifies “the I as an ideal-typical Jewish I […] that encounters the legal requirement of the Torah and wants to fulfill it” (“das Ich als idealtypisches jüdisches Ich […] das der Rechtsforderung der Tora begegnet und sie erfüllen will”). Cf. Moo, Romans, 430-431. context, as Paul had previously emphasized, in 7: 5, the new reality of Christ’s followers, in which the dominion of sin and death is broken. 2. Other interpretations understand the “I” in a non-literal, metaphorical, or ideal-typical sense as a stylistic device. For instance, Werner Kümmel interprets the “I” as representing the perspective of a Christian on the time before Christ, viewing it as a rhetorical form rather than a literal self-reference. 126 2.1 This can be compared to the style of confessional speech, which has parallels in individual songs of lament and thanksgiving in the Psalms (Ps 6; 13; 22; 41; 64) as well as in the hymns of praise and thanksgiving found in the Qumran scrolls (e.g., 1QS XI 9-16; 1QH X 7-30; XI 19-21; XII 29-37; also VIII 11-12). 127 The “I” is defined in various ways. According to Eduard Lohse, it is a “generic” I that represents the situation of all human beings (the human condition)—life without Christ—and with which both reader and listener can identify: The dichotomy in the human being “is carried out in every person, whether he be a Jew or a Greek.” 128 However, this interpretation does not fully account for the communicative context of the letter to the Romans: What relevance does the Torah have for every person? In Rom 7: 7-13, there are often perceived allusions to the figure of Adam, so the “I” can be understood as linked to the experience of Adam. 129 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 151 <?page no="152"?> Dodd, Paul’s Paradigmatic “I”, 230, for example, combines several interpretations: “elements of Adam’s story, elements of Paul’s experience and […] somehow intended to relate to the experience of Jewish, and perhaps Christian, believers.” Cf. again Dochhorn, Adammythos, 385-407; Eastman, “Strengthening,” 143-146, 158-159. 130 Stowers, “Speech-in-Character,” 180-193. Cf. Harrill, Slaves, 17-30 (a “slave self ” in Romans 7). Stowers himself identifies the “I” as a Gentile without Christ, a God-fearer (ibid. 198-202: “the person must be a gentile who has come to know the decalogue” [200]). So do Campbell, Romans, 211-216, 218-220; Rodríguez, Call, 120-121, 133-138; Potgieter, Body, 139. 131 Wolter, Römer I, 466 points to differentiations. 132 Quintilian draws on Cicero; cf. Quintilian, Inst. 9.2.29-37; ibid. 29 he speaks of fictiones personarum or προσωποποιίαι. Cf. the Progymnasmata of Aelius Theon, of Hermogenes of Tarsus, and of Aphthonius of Antioch. In 7: 14-25, it can be assumed that the “I” is expanded to encompass all of humanity (Adam’s descendants). 2.2 The suggestion to interpret the “I” as a rhetorical device, specifically as prosopopoeia, originates with Stanley Stowers. 130 The προσωποποιία can be described as speech-in-character, speaking in a role, or “masking” one’s speech. In my view, the last suggestion proves to be the most productive. Paul’s adoption of a particular role in 7: 7 can be recognized by the recipients of the letter to the Romans in the abrupt shift to the “I” at that point, and the emphatically placed ἐγώ in 7: 9 and 7: 10 in the Greek text. By referencing the rhetorical form of prosopopoeia, we gain insight today into how ancient people could compose, receive, and interpret texts. Although the original recipients of the letter to the Romans may not have known the term or a precise definition of prosopopoeia, 131 they would have been fundamentally familiar with this form of speech from their everyday lives. A speaker using προσωποποιία (speech-in-character) represents another person or a specific role type, such as the type of a husband, general, or farmer, or even a classical character like Medea. As a rhetorical technique, prosopopoeia is discussed by Cicero, Quintilian, and other classical authors. 132 In this “role speech,” the focus is on the ἦθος (ethos) of a person, that is, their typical character traits or behaviors, which the speaker highlights. For example, in a courtroom setting, an advocate might adopt the role of their client, presenting their perspective in a direct, firsthand, and therefore emotionally compelling way. Quintilian thus describes prosopopoeiae as fictae alienarum personarum orationes, quales litigatore dicit patronum (“invented speeches of foreign persons, such as the advocate puts them into the mouth of the litigant,” Inst. 6.1.25). 152 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="153"?> In antiquity, elementary education already introduced the technique of proso‐ popoeia in a fundamental way. When reading and reciting ancient texts, students learned to identify which character was speaking. In works like Homer’s, for example, direct speech often begins without an introductory phrase, requiring the reader to vocally clarify who is speaking. As Quintilian notes, “a different tone of voice is necessary to distinguish it from what the poet speaks in his own person” (Inst. 1.8.3). This type of character speech is also found in biblical and early Jewish literature, such as the Psalms and the Song of Songs. In the book of Sirach, Wisdom sometimes speaks in the first person singular—at times without an introductory phrase (Sir 4: 15-19), and at other times with one (Sir 24: 1-34). One can easily imagine a similar performance when reading a letter from Paul to an assembly of the community—provided the reader can emphasize the text to convey its meaning. The use of prosopopoeia was also common in Greek and Roman theater, as is already indicated by the name itself. Πρόσωπον (Latin persona) referred to the mask worn by ancient actors during a dramatic performance, symbolizing the role they were portraying. Quintilian underscores the emotional impact of speaking in character: The bare facts are no doubt moving in themselves: but when we pretend (fingimus) that the persons concerned themselves are speaking, the personal note adds to the emotional effect. For then the judge seems no longer to be listening to a voice bewailing another’s ills, but to hear the voice and feelings of the unhappy victims, men whose appearance alone would call forth his tears even though they uttered never a word. And as their plea would awaken yet greater pity if they urged it with their own lips, so it is rendered to some extent all the more effective when it is, as it were, put into their mouth by their advocate (velut ipsorum ore dicuntur): we may draw a parallel from the stage, where the actor’s voice and delivery produce greater emotional effect when he is speaking in an assumed role (sub persona) than when he speaks in his own character. (Inst. 6.1.25-26 [Butler, LCL]) In Romans 7: 5-6, Paul had spoken in the first-person plural (“we”) about the shared experience he has with the recipients regarding the Torah, both before and after Christ. This is echoed in 7: 7a: “What shall we say then? ” In contrast, from 7: 7b onwards, listeners must notice a shift to the first-person singular (“I”). Does Paul now speak only for himself ? This seems unlikely, as the statements about the law apply not only to him but, in principle, to all Jewish people. So why does he not say “we” or “the Jews who do not trust in Christ”? The use of the “I” suggests it carries special significance, hinting that Paul may be adopting a particular role. 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 153 <?page no="154"?> 133 For example, he or she can insert a pause in the reading, add an emphasis, or change the tone of the voice. 134 However, this point is not made explicit until 7: 8. On this matter, Jewett, Romans, 446; Haacker, Römer, 174; Wolter, Römer I, 429: “Through the law, sin is rather made capable of making the I sin” (“Durch das Gesetz wird die Sünde vielmehr in die Lage versetzt, das Ich sündigen zu lassen”). 135 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, … your neighbor’s house …”. A similar, abbreviated form of the prohibition against coveting (without specifying the object) appears in Rom 13: 9, 4 Macc 2: 6 (“not to covet, as the law has told us”), and in Philo, Spec. 4.78. Cf. Kujanpää, Functions, 316-317. The question arises: Which Jewish person might be speaking here? A clue might already be found in 7: 7b, where sin is said to have been made known to the “I” only through the law. Before the Torah, the “I” did not recognize it. But for which Jewish person was there a time when they were without the Torah—except for Adam in paradise? The answer becomes clear only in 7: 9: Paul is playing the role of Adam, who, after the “fall,” evaluates the law—and in a typological sense, stands for all those who live according to the law. A good reader, however, can, through their performance, already start making subtle hints from 7: 7b onward, pointing towards a metaphorical understanding of the “I.” 133 The use of prosopopoeia allows Paul to immediately and vividly adopt a different role, the role of Adam. In this role, the “I” of Adam addresses the question about the relationship between sin and the law in 7: 7b-10 in three steps. (1) It was through the law that I first came to recognize sin: “But I would not have known what sin was except through the law” (7: 7b). The law reveals and makes us aware of sin (cf. 3: 20). To recognize sin means to grasp it in linguistic terms, thereby making it conceivable and dispelling any former naivety regarding its nature. This recognition is accompanied by the personal experience of sinning. 134 The Torah functions in this way for the “I,” who previously lacked an understanding of sin and, as a result, was not exposed to it. To illustrate this point, Paul introduces the concept of desire (or covetousness), placing it in parallel with sin: For in the same way, I would not have known about covetousness (ἐπιθυμία) if the law (ὁ νόμος) had not said: You shall not covet! Desire gives concrete expression to the destructive power of sin, which the “I” experiences inwardly through its own coveting. Sin gains a foothold in the human will and emotions, but this dynamic is only brought to consciousness through the law. Paul appeals to the Torah as the basis of his argument, quoting a shortened form of the Decalogue commandment by omitting the object 135 of 154 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="155"?> 136 See, e.g., Epictetus, Ench. 34; Diatr. 2.18; Plutarch, Mor. 449d; Stobaeus, Ecl. 2.88.8-91.9. 137 Wis 4: 12; Sir 23: 4-6; Philo, Decal. 142, 150, 153, 173; QG 1.47; Her. 173; Apoc. Mos. 19: 3 (“covetousness is the cause of all sin”); T. Reu. 4: 8-9; 5: 5-6; 6: 4; T. Jud. 13: 2; T. Jos. 7: 8; 4 Macc 2: 5-6; John 8: 44; Jas 1: 15; 4: 2. On the ancient understanding of ἐπιθυμία, see Schreiber, Thessalonicher, 208-209, 218-219. - In contrast to Paul, however, early Jewish thought views the law or commandment as a restraint on sin. 138 Philo, Spec. 4.82-85. Pss. Sol. 2: 24 mentions the greed for robbery (cf. T. Jud. 13: 2; T. Iss. 4: 5; Rom 13: 13-14). 139 The phrase ἀφορμὴν δὲ λαβοῦσα means ‘to take as an occasion, as a point of departure, to seize or grasp an opportunity; ’ cf. BAGD 158 (Bauer, Wörterbuch, 255-256); Wolter, Römer I, 432 with no. 32. 140 Cf. Wolter, Römer I, 433. Prothro, “Knowledge,” 488 refers to the law as the instrument of sin. desire: “You shall not covet! ” ( L XX Exod 20: 17; Deut 5: 21). In doing so, he treats this particular commandment as representative of the law in its entirety. The term ἐπιθυμία, commonly translated as “covetousness” or, more neu‐ trally, as “desire” (German: “Begierde”), generally refers to the self-centered will of a person who thinks only of themselves, disregarding both their fellow human beings and God (Rom 1: 24; 6: 12). In ancient thought, desire was often seen as the principal source of immoral behavior. According to Stoic affect theory, it is one of the four primary affects—alongside pleasure, pain, and fear—all of which must be brought under control in order to lead a morally virtuous life. 136 In early Jewish literature, desire is frequently portrayed as the root of all sinful behavior, often linked to sexuality, though not confined to it. 137 A comprehensive treatment appears in Philo, who describes covetousness as the “source of all evil” (ἁπάντων πηγὴ κακῶν) and the “cause of evil” (ἀρχέκακον), associating it with the pursuit of wealth, fame, power, beauty, and other “goals of striving and struggling.” 138 From desire, as the initial impulse to sin, all other transgressions flow. For Paul, in Rom 7: 7b, the role of the law—specifically expressed in the Decalogue commandment against coveting—is to bring awareness to desire itself. (2) Through the law, sin awakened desire within me (7: 8): But sin grasped the opportunity (ἀφορμὴν δὲ λαβοῦσα 139 ἡ ἁμαρτία) and, through the commandment (διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς), produced in me every kind of desire (πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν). For without the law (χωρὶς γὰρ νόμου), sin (was) dead. The structure of the sentence clearly illustrates how Paul envisions the workings of sin. Sin is the subject of the sentence, acting as an active force that takes the initiative and, when the opportunity arises, instrumentalizes 140 the command‐ ment (ἐντολή) for its destructive purposes. Paul employs “commandment” here as a concrete manifestation of νόμος, the law. As a specific directive, it serves 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 155 <?page no="156"?> 141 In L X X 2 Esd 20: 29 “law” and “commandments” are parallel. 142 Cicero, Dom. 49, 127; Tull. 9; Rosc. Amer. 70; Seneca, Clem. 1.23.1; Herc. Ot. 357 (“one loves the forbidden, while what is allowed is pushed aside”); Publilius Syrus, Sentenz N 17 (“Nothing is loved more by desire than what is forbidden”); Ovid, Am. 2.19.3; 3.4.17 (“We are always striving for the forbidden and want what is denied to us”); 3.4.30. Cf. Rom 4: 15; 5: 13. On this, see Theobald, Römer I, 207; Haacker, Römer, 175 no. 15; Wasserman, Death, 103-114; Krauter, “Wenn das Gesetz,” 7-11; Wolter, Römer I, 433-434. 143 For examples of this figurative use of νεκρός, see Philo, Leg. 3.35, where he pairs “ineffective and dead” (ἄπρακτος καὶ νεκρός), or Jas 2: 26, which states: “Trust without works is dead” (ἡ πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν). Cf. Jas 2: 17; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.23.28. In contrast, 1 Cor 15: 56 declares, “the power of sin is the law.” 144 Wolter, Römer I, 436-437 rejects the interpretation centered on Adam and understands the “I” in an ideal-typical sense: “Israel before the Sinai revelation, just as every Jew throughout history before encountering the legal demands of the Torah—Paul certainly included” (437; my translation). However, when exactly is the time before a Jew encounters the Torah? As noted above, early Jews believed that God’s instruction metonymically for the Torah. 141 Sin exploited the commandment to provoke all possible forms of desire within the “I.” The idea that a prohibition can actually incite its transgression was a common theme in Roman literature. 142 For Paul, however, the emphasis is on sin as an active force. He concludes that without the instrument of the commandment, sin was “dead” (νεκρά). This does not mean that sin did not exist, but rather that it had no access to people and thus could not exert any influence. Without the commandment, it remained ineffective. 143 In the context of Rom 7: 7b, the commandment could specifically refer to the Decalogue command not to covet. If we consider the role of Adam played by the speaking “I”, we can connect this opportunity to the commandment God gave Adam (and Eve) in paradise, in the Garden of Eden, namely, not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2: 16-17; 3: 1-3). Sin tempted Eve (and Adam) through the commandment to transgress, and the “desire” awakened in the face of the commandment led to the downfall of Adam and Eve. (3) Through the law, sin brought about my death (7: 9-10): 9 But I (ἐγώ) once (ποτέ) lived without the law (χωρὶς νόμου); but when the com‐ mandment (ἐντολή) came, sin came to life, 10 but I (ἐγώ) died, and the commandment that (was meant to lead) to life, this very thing proved to me (to be leading) to death. It now becomes increasingly clear that the “I” is assuming the role of Adam. The repeated emphasis on ἐγώ (“I”), placed at the beginning of the Greek sentences in 7: 9 and 7: 10, is striking—especially in conjunction with the claim that the “I” once lived without the law. Such a state without the law can apply to no one among the Jewish people except Adam. 144 Paul had already introduced Adam 156 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="157"?> existed in the world even prior to the giving of the Torah at Sinai. Also critical of interpretations focused on Adam are, for example, Kümmel, Römer 7, 85-87; Eng‐ berg-Pedersen, “Reception,” 116-117; Jewett, Romans, 451; Schröter, “Mensch,” 209-210; Potgieter, Body, 146. 145 Busch, “Figure,” 12-36, and Krauter, “Eva,” 1-17, emphasize the reference to Eve. In 2 Cor 11: 3, Paul explicitly mentions Eve as the object of the serpent’s deception. 146 Apoc. Mos. 11: 2; 21: 2 (παρανομία) and 10: 2; 23: 3; 24: 1, 3; 25: 1 (ἐντολή); 4 Ezra 7: 11 (plural “commandments”); Philo, Leg. 1.90-97; T. Neof. on Gen 3: 24 then states this explicitly (the law was created long before the world, identified with the tree of life); Gen 3: 22 (Adam did not keep the “commandments of the law”); Gen 2: 15. For additional material, see Lichtenberger, Ich, 205-241. 147 Cf. Deut 4: 1; Ezek 20: 11; Neh 9: 29; CD III 15-16, 20; Pss. Sol. 14: 2 (“the law, commanded for our life”); Bar 4: 1; 4 Ezra 7: 21; 14: 30. Paul cites Lev 18: 5 verbatim in Gal 3: 12 and Rom 10: 5. as a typos in 5: 12-21, where it is likewise evident that there was a time when Adam lived without the law. The audience is thus being prepared to see Adam in the voice of the “I.” According to 7: 9, Adam (and Eve 145 ) “once” (ποτέ) lived in paradise “without the law,” that is, prior to the introduction of the commandment prohibiting them from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2: 16-17). In early Jewish interpretation, God’s commandment in paradise could be viewed as functionally equivalent to the Torah later given to Moses at Sinai. 146 Through the commandment, “sin came to life”—that is, it was able to seize the commandment and thereby begin exerting its power. The consequences were fatal for the first human couple: the “I” died, just as Adam and Eve lost their paradisiacal life in the story of the Fall. Their existence came under the dominion of sin and death (cf. Rom 5: 12-14). Here, death refers to the loss of a salutary, life-giving relationship with God. Thus, the positive intention of the Torah was turned into its opposite: the commandment, which was meant to promote the flourishing of life, instead brought about death for the “I,” the loss of a salutary life. Leading to life in relationship with God and according with his instructions corresponds to the very intention of the Torah, as articulated in Lev 18: 5. 147 The Torah represents God’s salvific will for his people and embodies his covenant with Israel. Yet, in reality, the commandment (that is, the Torah) leads to death, as the “I” laments. Paul’s argument challenges the common Jewish understanding of the Torah in his time—a view he could articulate only from a Christian perspective The claim that the Torah, once co-opted by sin, leads to death would have been deeply provocative to non-Christian Jews in Paul’s day. 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 157 <?page no="158"?> 148 Gen 2: 16-17; 3: 17-19; Apoc. Mos. 14: 2-3 (cf. 7: 1; 17: 5; in 19: 3, “desire” is added); 4 Ezra 3: 7; 2 Bar. 23: 4; 54: 14-15, 22; 2 En. 30: 16. In 4 Ezra 9: 32-33, 36-37, analogous to Paul, a transfer takes place: “the fathers” - “we”. 149 According to Menge, Großwörterbuch, 247, the verb ἐξαπατάω means ‘to deceive thoroughly, to cheat, deceive, mislead, outwit.’ The translation ‘to seduce’—frequently applied in interpretations of Gen 3: 13 L X X and Rom 7: 11—is only appropriate insofar as it refers to seduction through deception. 150 The compound verb ἐξαπατάω also appears in a similar context in 2 Cor 11: 3; 1 Tim 2: 14; 4 Macc 18: 8; Philo, QG 1.31; Josephus, A.J. 1.48-49. In early Jewish tradition, the story of Adam already reflects a well-established connection between commandment (law), transgression, and death, 148 with the figure of a seducer—whether the serpent or the devil—playing an integral role in the narrative. Paul, however, goes a step further by introducing sin as an active, personified force that seizes the Torah, forces it into its service, and thus transforms the Torah’s good intention into an instrument of death. This represents a distinct interpretation of the Adam and Eve story—a particular reading of the Torah that nonetheless remains the foundational source of Paul’s theological reflection. In Romans 7: 11, Paul offers a summary of his argument while continuing to speak in the role of Adam and Eve: For sin grasped the opportunity and deceived me (ἐξηπάτησέν με) 149 through the commandment and killed (me) through it. Just as the serpent did in paradise, sin seized the opportunity to deceive and bring death to the “I” through the commandment (cf. Gen 3: 1-7). The term “deceive” recalls Eve’s explanation in Gen 3: 13 L XX : “The serpent deceived me (ἠπάτησέν με).” Apart from the prefix ἐξin Paul’s use of ἐξαπατάω, the wording is identical—suggesting a deliberate intertextual marker. 150 The serpent deceived Adam and Eve by downplaying the fatal consequences of eating from the tree of knowledge. Paul recasts sin as the deceptive agent, replacing the serpent. Sin deceived the “I” (representing Adam and Eve) by awakening desire—something that, according to Rom 7: 8, occurred through the commandment. In doing so, sin obscured the transgressive nature of the act and its outcome: death. As a result, it brought death to the “I,” which lost its salvific life. For Paul, it is crucial to emphasize that it was not the commandment itself that caused the deadly deception, but sin, which exploited the commandment for its own ends. Once one grasps how sin takes possession of the Torah, Paul’s conclusion in Romans 7: 12 becomes compelling: it is not the Torah that brings destruction, but sin. The unequivocally positive evaluation of the Torah as God’s instruction thus remains firmly in place: 158 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="159"?> 151 Cf. also Wolter, Römer I, 439. 152 The adjective δίκαιος appears, for example, in 2 Chr 12: 6; Ps 129: 4; Zeph 3: 5, and ἀγαθός in 2 Chr 30: 18; Ps 135: 3; as well as in Philo, Somn. 1.149; Decal. 176; Spec. 1.209. These adjectives are also associated with the Torah in various texts: ἅγιος in 2 Macc 6: 23, 28; δίκαιος in Deut 4: 8; and ἀγαθός in Neh 9: 13 (2 Esd 19: 13); Prov 4: 2; Josephus, A.J. 4.295. For discussion of these passages, see Wolter, Römer I, 439. Thus, the law is indeed holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good. The law itself is “holy” (ἅγιος), as it was given directly by God to Moses at Sinai and represents God’s will for the life of his people. The term “holy” situates the law within the divine sphere, reflecting the very nature of God, who is repeatedly described as “holy” (cf. Lev 20: 26; Isa 6: 3; Ps 99: 9). Paul reinforces this by adding that the commandment (ἐντολή)—which, as a specific instruction, once again stands metonymically for the Torah 151 —is also “holy and righteous and good” (ἁγία καὶ δικαία καὶ ἀγαθή). These attributes further confirm the commandment’s association with the divine, as δίκαιος and ἀγαθός are likewise predicates frequently applied to God. 152 The Torah, for Paul, is an expression of God’s salvific will, his righteousness directed toward humanity, and his essential goodness. As such, the divine dignity and enduring validity of the Torah remain unquestioned for Paul, the Jew. Romans 7: 13 serves to confirm and secure the conclusion drawn thus far. Once again, Paul poses the rhetorical question: Does that which is “good” (i.e., the law) lead to death—to the ruin of the ( Jewish) person? And once again, he emphatically rejects the notion: “That is not possible” (μὴ γένοιτο)! It is not the law, but sin alone that brings about death—by seizing the good law and using it for its own destructive purposes. In doing so, sin causes the death of the “I” (understood in the role of Adam and Eve): But sin, in order to become visible as sin, has caused death unto me through the good, so that sin becomes exceedingly sinful through the commandment (διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς). Sin manipulates what is “good” (the law) for its own ends, turning the Torah’s life-giving intention into its opposite. In doing so, sin reveals its true nature as a destructive power that brings death to the “I.” It amplifies its influence, becoming “exceedingly sinful,” by instrumentalizing the “commandment.” Once again, the commandment functions metonymically, representing the entire law as it is expressed through each individual commandment. The figure of sin occupies a central role in Romans 7: 7-25. Paul presents sin as a supernatural power—hostile to humanity—that actively influences and acts 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 159 <?page no="160"?> 153 Eastman, Paul and the Person, 109-125 understands sin as “a hostile colonizing power” (109). Paul draws an analogy between sin and the serpent in Gen 3—behind which, according to Apoc. Mos. 15: 1; 16: 1-5; 17: 4, the devil is portrayed. 154 In antiquity, experiences and abstract ideas were often personified as supernatural powers or deities. Examples include Thanatos or Mors (“death”), as well as malevolent forces such as Febris (“malaria”), Mala Fortuna (“misfortune”) or Asebeia (“wickedness”). These figures were sometimes represented in anthropomorphic form and received ritual worship, allowing individuals and communities to integrate personal and socio-political experiences into religious and everyday life. See Bendlin, “Personifikation,” 639-643. 155 Some exegetes emphasize the anthropological dimension of sin rather than interpreting it as an external, dominating power: Wasserman, Death, 81-84, 148 traces Paul’s concept of sin to Platonic moral philosophy, identifying it with the irrational parts of the human soul, while the speaking “I” corresponds to the “inner person” or reason. Röhser, “Paulus,” 97-98 understands sin as the “‘epitome’ […] of all human acts of sin” (“‘Inbe‐ griff ’ […] aller menschlichen Sündentaten”) and sees in it “a specific anthropological ‘reality’” (“eine spezifische anthropologische ‘Wirklichkeit’”). Similarly, Wolter, Römer I, 433 describes sin as an “anthropological dimension” (“anthropologische Größe”)—a “disposition present in humans” (“eine im Menschen vorhandene Disposition”). See also Wilckens, Römer II, 79-80 and Theobald, Römer I, 209-210. upon individuals. 153 It is best understood as the personification of a (mytholog‐ ical) force or experience that stands in opposition to God’s salvific will. 154 Sin, in Paul’s depiction, is not merely a moral failing but a real and invasive power capable of turning the good intention of the Torah into its opposite, and of thwarting the human will to do what is good. 155 It approaches from outside the person but operates within, awakening desire and thereby initiating the process of transgression. By instrumentalizing the law, sin becomes even more dangerous (7: 13), exerting a powerful and oppressive influence over the Torah. This prevents the Torah from being received and lived out as it was intended, distorting its purpose and obscuring its life-giving message. The teachings of the Torah are thus overshadowed by the corrupting effects of sin. Notably, Paul does not address the issue of personal guilt here (as he does in 1: 18-32); regardless of how complicit the individual may seem in the act of sinning, they are ultimately not free to resist it. Sin works within them in a way that is insurmountable. Only the liberating event of Christ can deliver them from this condition. In Romans 7: 7-13, Paul seeks to make a central theological claim plausible: that sin, as an active and hostile power, instrumentalizes the inherently good law, thereby producing both desire and death. Speaking in the voice of the “I,” Paul assumes the role of Adam. From this perspective—interpreted through his belonging to the Messiah Jesus—he reflects back on the primal encounter with the commandment, an encounter that, in his view, has shaped Israel’s relationship to the Torah in a condition without Christ ever since (cf. 5: 12- 21). In this way, the “I” introduces Adam’s experience into the theological 160 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="161"?> reflection. The structural parallel between the Genesis narrative of Adam and Eve’s fall (Gen 2: 16-3: 24) and Paul’s first-person narration lies in the question of how evil—how sin—gains influence over humanity despite, or through, the commandment. Paul understands this as the underlying dynamic by which sin—despite, and indeed precisely through, the Torah—gains access to Jewish life. He identifies this pattern as theologically decisive for understanding the relationship between the Jewish people and the Torah: sin (like the serpent) seizes the Torah (the paradisiacal commandment), awakens desire, and obscures the deadly consequences of transgression. In this way, it ultimately leads to death. For Paul, this is the deep drama of the Jewish person’s relationship to the Torah—a dynamic he goes on to unfold more fully in Romans 7: 14-25. Conclusion: For Paul, sin is so powerful that it can seize the Torah and instrumentalize it for its own destructive purposes. The Torah itself is—and remains without question—good and holy, for it embodies God’s salvific will. Yet sin exerts such dominion over it that, in practice, the Torah becomes an instrument that leads not to life, but to the frustration of humanity’s true purpose. As a result, the Torah is rendered incapable of mediating a right relationship with God. Paul’s interpretation of the fall narrative, drawn from the Torah itself, allows him on the one hand to affirm without reservation the Torah’s divine origin and enduring dignity (7: 12). On the other hand, he begins to anticipate the argument of Rom 8: 3-4: that only the event of Christ can break sin’s grip and thereby open the way for a new application of the Torah. 5.3 Under Foreign Rule - The Role of the Torah-Observant without Christ: Romans 7: 14-25 Since the idea that the law could be dominated and misused by sin is both unusual and theologically challenging within the context of Second Temple Judaism, Paul proceeds to clarify and deepen this claim in what follows. At the outset of Romans 7: 14-25, Paul makes a first-person plural statement in verse 14 that he presents as a shared conviction: “For we know that the law is spiritual (ὁ νόμος πνευματικός ἐστιν).” The appreciation of the law as “spiritual” is linguistically unusual and signifies that God’s Spirit is at work in the law—through it, God is present and can be encountered in the world. With this affirmation, Paul builds on the positive valuation of the law in 7: 12, where it represents God’s salvific will for his people. Thus, the focus in Romans 7: 14-25 remains centered on the Torah. In contrast to this spiritual law (δέ), Paul introduces once more the “I”: “But I am fleshly, sold under sin” (ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰμι πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν). This “I” is shaped by forces 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 161 <?page no="162"?> 156 According to Rom 3: 9, all people are “under sin” (ὑφ’ ἁμαρτίαν), and in Gal 3: 22, Scripture has “gathered all things together under sin (ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν).” This language underscores sin’s dominion and the subjection of humanity to its power. 157 In contrast, Wolter, Römer I, 447, 467 identifies the same “I” in both Rom 7: 7-12 and 7: 13-25—a view also assumed, for example, by Lohse, Römer, 219-220. 158 Cf. also Wolter, Römer I, 465-466 (at least for Rom 7: 14-25). 159 Lichtenberger, Ich, 136, 160-166 understands the “I” as representing humanity descen‐ ded from Adam. 160 Cf. Timmins, Romans 7, 198-199: a believer in Christ. wholly other than those of God’s Spirit. As “fleshly,” it belongs to the sphere of the flesh—marked by limitation, weakness, mortality, and estrangement from God—under the oppressive dominion of sin (cf. 7: 5). 156 Like a slave, the “I” is sold into bondage under the power of sin. Again, in Romans 7: 14, an “I” begins to speak, with the Greek ἐγώ emphati‐ cally placed at the beginning of the sentence. Following 7: 7-13, it is likely that Paul is once more employing the rhetorical device of prosopopoeia. However, it is no longer the voice of Adam speaking; rather, a shift in role occurs, 157 evident through several textual features. The “I” of 7: 14 is separated from that of 7: 13 by an interjected first-person plural (“we”), marking a fresh beginning. Additionally, the verb tense shifts from the aorist to the present, suggesting either an “I” of Paul’s present time, or a more generalized, timeless “I.” This new “I” is characterized as “fleshly” and “sold under sin.” While building on the Adamic “I,” the passage now portrays a contemporary and pre-Christian figure—a Torah-observant person apart from Christ. This “I” cannot represent a follower of Christ, since, as Paul makes clear elsewhere in Romans, such a person no longer belongs to the realm of the flesh but has been fundamentally liberated from the power of sin (cf. Rom 3: 21-26; 6: 1-11; 8: 1-17). In adopting the voice of the fleshly “I” dominated by sin, Paul plays the role of a Jewish individual whose experience with the Torah he seeks to portray from his present perspective as a follower of Christ. 158 Contrary to some inter‐ pretations in scholarship (see above), the focus is not on the human condition in general— on existential misery, the desire for life, or self-alienation 159 —nor is it on the Christian caught in the tension between righteous and sinner (as in the Reformation concept of simul iustus et peccator). 160 Rather, Paul centers his attention on the specific situation of the Jewish person in relation to the Torah, as he now understands it. In Romans 7: 14-25, Paul illustrates the tension between willing and doing, revealing the devastating impact of sin, which traps the “I” in a seemingly hopeless condition. The passage can be divided into two distinct parts. Part 1 (7: 14-21) dramatically portrays the despair of the “I,” while Part 2 (7: 22-25) 162 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="163"?> 161 Euripides, Med. 1077-1080. For a discussion of this cluster of motifs, see Lichtenberger, Ich, 176-186; Theißen, Aspekte, 213-233; Engberg-Pedersen, “Reception”; Müller, “Wil‐ lensschwäche”; Wolter, Römer I, 447-452. points to the possibility of salvation. The rhetorical force of Part 1 lies in its partially literal repetition of key statements, arranged in a parallel structure: - 7: 14-15a / / 18 Negative premise: the condition of being “in the flesh” - 7: 15b / / 19 The discrepancy between willing and doing - 7: 16a-17 / / 20 The indwelling of sin as the cause - 7: 16b / / 21 A reference to the νόμος Part 2 begins with a contrasting view of the law (7: 22-23) and then highlights the “I”’s desperate need for salvation (7: 24). In 7: 25a, the narrative briefly steps outside the role of the “I” as Christ is invoked as Lord. Finally, in 7: 25b, the “I” draws a concluding reflection on its divided state. According to Romans 7: 14, the “fleshly” “I” recognizes itself as being de‐ termined by sin. In 7: 15-17, this determination by sin manifests itself in a fundamental human experience: the discrepancy between willing what is good and doing what is evil. In antiquity, this experience was the subject of a broad cultural discourse—familiar from theater, literature, and school readings. A paradigmatic example is the figure of Medea in Euripides’ tragedy of the same name. Although fully aware that killing her children is wrong, Medea is driven by overwhelming passion—specifically, a desire for revenge against her unfaithful husband, Jason. She thus embodies the inner fracture of the human condition: the capacity to act completely against one’s own ethical judgment. She represents a destructive dichotomy within humans—an incomprehensible powerlessness over oneself that ultimately leads to destruction. Medea is fully aware that her intended act—the murder of her own children—is evil; yet her consuming passion for revenge against her unfaithful husband overpowers the voice of reason. Thus, she laments in Euripides: … I am defeated by evil. Although I understand what evil I am about to do, passion is stronger than my reasoning, it being the cause of the greatest misfortunes among mortals. 161 Ovid has his Medea articulate the inner conflict with striking precision: But against my will, a foreign power compels me, desire (cupido) advises one thing, reason (mens) another. I see the better and approve it; I follow the worse. In Seneca’s Medea, the protagonist articulates an inner dichotomy between two opposing affects—anger (ira) and love or affection (amor/ pietas) (Seneca, 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 163 <?page no="164"?> 162 Paul overlooks another ancient solution to the problem, one found in the Socratic-Pla‐ tonic tradition, which asserts that reason can control the passions. According to this view, once one recognizes the good, one will also do it, making virtue teachable (Plato, Prot. 352cd; cf. Xenophon, Mem. 3.9.4; Philo, Ebr. 160). Similarly, the Stoic philosopher Epictetus critiques Medea’s actions as the result of deception and misjudgment, suggesting that if she were made aware of her error, she would act differently (Diatr. 1.28.5-9). He cites Euripides’ view in Diatr. 2.26.4: “What he wants, he does not do, and what he does not want, he does” (ὃ θέλει οὐ ποιεῖ καὶ ὃ μὴ θέλει ποιεῖ), but Epictetus reaches a different conclusion, stating, “One only has to want, and it happens” (4.9.16). For a discussion on the relationship between reason and passion in Stoic thought, see Holtz, “Paul,” 193-206, which contrasts the Stoic primacy of reason with Paul’s perspective. Med. 937-944). Ultimately, voluptas (the desire for what is evil) emerges as the dominant force, seizing her against her will (invitam) (Med. 989-992). This inner dichotomy is echoed in other dramatic figures. For instance, in Euripides’ Hippolytos, Phaedra acknowledges: “We know and recognize what is beneficial, but we do not carry it out” (Euripides, Hipp. 380-381), attributing this failure to laziness and lust (ἡδονή) (Hipp. 382-383). Similarly, in the fragmentary drama Chrysippos, the title character declares: “Although I have insight, nature (φύσις) compels me” (Euripides, Chrysippos fr. 840). Finally, Seneca’s Phaedra also reflects on her divided self: Fury forces one to follow the worse path. My mind knowingly goes into the abyss and turns back in vain, striving for rational decisions. (Seneca, Phaed. 178-180) This inner dichotomy ultimately leads to death. Seneca’s Phaedra says: No reasoning can restrain one who is rushing toward destruction, once he has decided to die and stands on the brink of death. (Phaed. 265-266) We pursue what we ought to flee; but I am not master of myself. (699) When Phaedra reflects once more on her divided will, she echoes the voice of the “I” in Rom 7: 15-21: “That I do not want what I want” (hoc quod volo me nolle; Phaed. 604-605). At this point, one might imagine Paul’s exclamation from Rom 7: 24 as the natural next line. 162 Set alongside these voices from Greco-Roman literature, Paul’s “I” in Rom 7: 19 joins the chorus of lament with striking clarity: “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.” Paul draws upon this anthropological drama to articulate the inner conflict experienced by the Torah-observant “I.” He transposes the tension between insight and action, between willing and doing, onto the experience of a person under the law, yet without Christ. However, unlike the ancient dramas, which attribute the source 164 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="165"?> 163 Matt 12: 43-45 / / Luke 11: 24-26 describe the possession of a person using the image of a demon inhabiting a house (κατοικεῖ); cf. Mark 3: 22-27; Josephus, A.J. 6.211 (“the evil spirit and the demons that take up residence in you”); T. Naph. 8: 6 (“the devil will inhabit [οἰκειοῦται] him”). 164 As noted by Wolter, Römer I, 456. 165 The term “rule” is used by Lohse, Römer, 222. Cf. Cranfield, Romans I, 362; Käsemann, Römer, 197; Winger, Law, 184-189; Lichtenberger, Ich, 147; Schnelle, Paulus, 373; Haacker, Römer, 181; Wolter, Römer I, 456-457; Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 263. Osten-Sacken, Römer 8, 210, on the other hand, points to the Torah. Cf. Dunn, Romans I, 392-393; Jewett, Romans, 469. According to Gosnell, “Law,” 262 the “uses of νόμος in 7: 21 and 7: 23 are jarringly ambiguous.” of this conflict to affects or emotions such as anger or lust, or to human nature itself, Paul identifies sin as a dominating power—one that “dwells” in the person like an intruder in a house (7: 17, 20). This dominion of sin is portrayed almost like demonic possession: sin occupies the person like a demon, seizes control, and frustrates every good intention. 163 Furthermore, Paul’s standard for discerning what is good is not based on general human moral awareness but is defined specifically by the law of God—the Torah. For our inquiry, the conclusions Paul draws about the law in Rom 7: 16 and 7: 21 are especially significant. When the “I,” under the domination of sin, does what it does not will to do, it proves unable to truly fulfill the Torah. Yet paradoxically, it is precisely through its failure—through doing what is wrong—that it confirms that the law itself is good (καλός, 7: 16). This statement echoes the earlier affirmation in 7: 12 that the “commandment is holy and righteous and good.” The Torah is “good” because it embodies God’s will for the salvation of his people and, as stated in Deut 12: 25, 28; 13: 19 L XX , teaches Israel to do “what is good and pleasing” (τὸ καλὸν καὶ τὸ ἀρεστόν) in the sight of God. The problem, then, does not lie in the law itself, but in the Torah-observant person who is enslaved to sin. Against such domination, even the law is powerless. In 7: 21, Paul further clarifies the dynamic between the law and the “I”: So I find the law for me, who wants to do what is good (εὑρίσκω ἄρα τὸν νόμον τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν), that evil lies close at hand—to me. The syntax is best understood as taking τὸν νόμον as the object of εὑρίσκω, with the dative phrase τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ further qualifying νόμος: it refers to the person who stands under the law’s authority and to whom it finds application. 164 In the context of Romans 7, νόμος primarily refers to the Torah. However, scholarly debate persists as to whether νόμος here should be interpreted more broadly as a general principle or rule. 165 It is possible that Paul deliberately employs the term with a degree of ambiguity, engaging in a kind of wordplay: the general 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 165 <?page no="166"?> 166 In relation to Rom 7: 23, Lichtenberger, Ich, 148 argues that νόμος nowhere means the Mosaic Law (“nirgends das mosaische Gesetz” meint) but generally signifies “order” or “rule”. Cf. Käsemann, Römer, 197; Schnelle, Paulus, 373-374; Wolter, Römer I, 460- 461; Beyer, Determined, 211-212. Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 265 speak of “two laws”, one of which “seduces to pride in the law and zeal for the law” (“zu Gesetzesstolz und Gesetzeseifer verführt”; cf. ibid. 435), a view similarly held by Lohse, Römer, 222-223. In contrast, Dunn, Romans I, 394-395; Wilckens, Römer II, 90; Herzer, “Gesetz,” 240-241; and Eastman, “Strengthening,” 153-154 (“qualified by two opposing ‘masters’,” 153) refer to the Torah. Similarly, Jewett, Romans, 470 seems to align with this understanding. Ryan, Conflict, 174 interprets νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας as a possessive genitive, reading it as “God’s Law now under the stronghold of the power of Sin.” 167 The syntagma also appears in relation to the Torah in several passages, such as L X X Josh 24: 26; 1 Chr 16: 40; 22: 12; 2 Esd 19: 3; 20: 28-29; Ps 1: 2; 18: 8; Hos 4: 6; Isa 30: 9; Jer 8: 8; Bar 4: 12. Paul similarly uses it in Rom 7: 25 and 8: 7. 168 For the motif of delight in the law, see Neh 8: 10-12; Ps 1: 2; 112: 1; 119. 169 For a discussion of the ancient background to the image of the “inner man,” refer to Markschies, “Innerer Mensch”; Betz, “Concept”; and Wolter, Römer I, 457-459. human law—evident, for example, in figures like Medea—also illuminates the experience of the non-Christian “I” in relation to the Torah. In both cases, wanting to do good does not lead to the performance of the good. In this way, the “I” encounters the law not as a guide to life, but as a source of frustration and judgment—because, being under the dominion of sin, it is incapable of responding to the law rightly or experiencing it as anything other than a power that exposes its inability to do the good. Part 2 draws its conclusion about the Torah from the “I”’s internal conflict between willing the good and doing evil. This inner struggle leads to a contra‐ dictory perception of the law, as depicted in Rom 7: 22-23. To express this perception linguistically, Paul modifies the term “law” with various qualifiers. He sets the “law of God” (νόμος τοῦ θεοῦ) or the “law of my mind” (νόμος τοῦ νοός μου) in opposition to an “other law” (ἕτερος νόμος) or the “law of sin” (νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας). The issue is not about different laws or sets of regulations, but about how the one law—the Torah—is perceived in radically different ways. 166 Paul’s use of verbs of perception underscores this subjective dimension of perceiving and qualifying the law: συνήδομαι, “I rejoice,” conveys a positive, internal affirmation of the law, whereas βλέπω, “I see,” introduces a more detached, observational stance. The “law of God” 167 is perceived by the “I” in its “inner person” (ἔσω ἄνθρωπος), and because the “I” recognizes God’s instruction in this law, it rejoices in it (Rom 7: 22). 168 The concept of the “inner person” 169 stands in contrast to the “members” (7: 23)—that is, the outward, bodily faculties through which actions are made visible. It refers to a person’s inner world: their thoughts, will, 166 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="167"?> 170 On the martial language in Rom 7: 1-25, see Ryan, Conflict, 171-176. 171 In this context, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ refers to the mediation of thanksgiving, as in Rom 1: 8 (with Lohse, Römer, 224; Wolter, Römer I, 463), not to Christ as the mediator of divine and moral awareness, which are not immediately apparent to others. Although the “I” recognizes the Torah as God’s law within this inner self and delights in it, it remains incapable of translating that recognition into obedient action. The “other law” or “law of sin,” by contrast, refers to the way the Torah is perceived and functions under the power of sin—namely, as it is enacted and takes effect through the bodily “members” of the “I.” This “law” seizes the “I” like a prisoner of war, compelling it against its deeper intentions. The “members” are the agents of the “I”—its actions, which are visible and have social impact (cf. 6: 13, 19; 7: 5). In this context, however, they function merely as instruments carrying out the will of sin. Paul metaphorically describes this inner tension in the experience of the Torah as a war (ἀντιστρατευόμενον), 170 in which two opposing perceptions of the law clash with one another. The underlying idea remains that sin instrumentalizes the essentially good law, turning it into an instrument of its own power and thus subjecting the person to its dominion. The “I” wants to live in accordance with the Torah, yet simultaneously experiences the law as an “other” law—one that, in practice, is controlled by sin and captures the “I” in its behavior. As a result, a good life in accordance with the Torah becomes impossible for the “I.” In 7: 24, the prosopopoeia, or speech-in-character, reaches its climax. The hopelessness of the “I” bursts forth in a desperate lament: “Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death (σῶμα τοῦ θανάτου)? ” The “I”, speaking in its role, acknowledges its inability to free itself from the internal conflict. The “body” here refers to existence in the world—behavior and social relationships. The “I” recognizes that its body is inevitably and irrevocably bound to death, echoing the “body of sin” from 6: 6. Fully aware of its hopeless predicament, the “I” can only lament. The question of who will rescue it (ῥύσεται) is framed in the future tense, signaling that salvation for the Torah-observant person without Christ is yet to come and can only come from outside the “I.” The “I” would not be freed until the power of sin is broken. The cry of despair forms the backdrop for the brief leap out of the role in 7: 25a. Here, the author of the letter—Paul himself—intervenes and points to the source of salvation: “But thanks be to God through (διά) Jesus Christ our Lord! ” In this short doxology, Paul gives thanks to God, with the thanksgiving mediated through Jesus Christ. 171 In Christ, God has already enacted deliverance, which includes the fundamental disempowerment of sin, and offers it to the torn and 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 167 <?page no="168"?> salvation (contra Jewett, Romans, 473, who refers to “the agency of Christ’s redemptive activity; ” cf. Potgieter, Body, 161). 172 The placement of 7: 25b between 7: 25a and 8: 1 has been a point of contention in scholar‐ ship, in part because 7: 25a already reflects the Christian perspective, making 7: 25b seem like a regression. To explain this, some scholars have suggested a post-Pauline inter‐ polation, such as Käsemann, Römer, 203-204; Wilckens, Römer II, 96-97; Lichtenberger, Ich, 150-160; Schnelle, Paulus, 374 no. 135; Schröter, “Mensch,” 207-208. Others, less commonly, propose a rearrangement of the text, arguing that 7: 25b originally belonged between 7: 23 and 7: 24 (e.g., Engberg-Pedersen, “Reception,” 126). Jewett, Romans, 456-458, 473 suggests that 7: 25b may be “a marginal gloss added by Paul himself that was probably intended to be placed between v.23 and v.24” (473). However, the dialogical nature of 7: 25b and its summarizing function provide a plausible explanation for its position, rendering literary-critical interventions unnecessary. Lohse, Römer, 224; Haacker, Römer, 183; Wolter, Römer I, 463-465 (with detailed argumentation) all support the unity of the text. 173 The expression αὐτὸς ἐγώ is overinterpreted when understood as “the self restricted to its own resources” and translated as “left to myself,” as suggested by Jewett, Romans, 473. divided “I.” Whoever submits to Christ as “Lord” becomes part of God’s saving reign. Whereas access to God was once thought to be mediated solely through the Torah, Paul now sees in Christ a new and living way to approach God. This shift leads to a renewed understanding of the Torah itself (cf. 8: 1-11). Naturally, this conviction reflects Paul’s Christian perspective on God’s salvific work. In 7: 25b, the “I” speaks for the final time in its role to offer a concluding statement. 172 The reappearance of the “I” is signaled by the emphatically placed αὐτὸς ἐγώ (“I myself ”), which underscores the speaker’s personal involvement. This creates a brief dialogical moment between the “I” and Paul, which continues subtly into 8: 1-2. In 7: 25b, the “I” summarizes its divided state: Therefore, I myself 173 indeed serve (δουλεύω) the law of God with the mind, but with the flesh, the law of sin. The “I” is always under a form of dominion—it “serves,” or more literally, “is a slave.” The verb δουλεύω echoes 7: 6, which also addresses existence under a particular rule or authority. As in 7: 22-23, Paul again employs distinct genitival expressions for the law in 7: 25b: “law of God” (νόμος τοῦ θεοῦ) and “law of sin” (νόμος τῆς ἁμαρτίας). These formulations highlight the differing perspectives from which the law is viewed, or the differing effects it exerts on those attempting to live by it. The tragedy of the “I” lies in its divided condition: while it is subject to the law as God intended—with the mind—, it is, in its human existence “in the flesh,” determined by the law that is itself under the dominion of sin. In the face of this internal conflict, the “I” is ultimately powerless. 168 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="169"?> 174 Thus, with the manuscripts א B F G 1506*. 1739*. The variant με can be explained by the fact that the dialogical structure of the text was no longer understood, leading to the statement being attributed directly to Paul. 175 The use of “you” can also refer to every Christian due to the logical structure of the argument: salvation and deliverance through Christ apply to all Christians. However, in the immediate context of Rom 7: 7-25, the dialogical address of the “I” is clearly evident. If Paul had intended to address the recipients of the letter specifically, he could have used the plural or employed another term to describe believers in Christ. In contrast, see Wolter, Römer I, 473 and Haacker, Römer, 187. The dialogical structure is also supported by Wilckens, Römer II, 123-124; Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 436; Campbell, Romans, 221-223. Let us summarize the argument in 7: 14-25. Speaking in the role of a “Torah-observant person without Christ,” Paul first demonstrates that both the will and actions of human beings are under the power of sin. He then applies this insight to the Torah, concluding that the typical Jewish interpretation leads to an aporia, since the “I” is not in control of its own actions. At the same time, by appealing to a generally human experience, Paul connects the “I” to all people, thereby relativizing the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. He underscores, in dramatic terms, the desperate need for salvation—a deliverance that can only come through Christ. As a response to this dilemma, Paul hints at a new understanding of the Torah in Christ, one that is valid for both Jews and Gentiles who are in Christ, and which he will develop more fully in 8: 1-11. The law of God can now be lived out in a new way, freed from the enslaving power of sin. According to Paul, this is precisely what has been accomplished in Christ. Corresponding to this new human condition is a new hermeneutics of the Torah. 5.4 Life in the Spirit and the New Interpretation of the Torah: Romans 8: 1-4 In Romans 8, Paul presents the new quality of life available in Christ. Beginning in 8: 1, the author—Paul himself—resumes speaking in his own voice. Yet, in describing the new reality experienced by Christ-followers, he implicitly continues the dialogue with the “I” from 7: 7-25, building on the note of thanksgiving in 7: 25a. Notably, in 8: 2, he even shifts momentarily to directly address the “I” as “you” (“has set you [σε] 174 free”). 175 Romans 8 thus serves as a counterpart to Romans 7, showing what has changed for the “Torah-observant person without Christ” as well as for all who now belong to Christ. Central to this transformation is the new understanding of the Torah that Paul addresses in 8: 1-4. 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 169 <?page no="170"?> 176 Again, some interpreters understand νόμος here in the general sense as “rule, principle, regulation, order.” This interpretation is supported by Käsemann, Römer, 207; Cranfield, Romans I, 375-376; Fitzmyer, Romans, 482-483; Moo, Romans, 475-476; Bergmeier, The central message of Romans 8: 1-4 is that the new relationship with God—established through the sending of the Christ, the Messiah Jesus, and mediated by the work of the Spirit—gives rise to a new hermeneutics of the Torah. In 8: 1-11, Paul explores the new reality of life in Christ and closely weaves his reflections on the Torah into this discussion, particularly in verses 8: 2 and 8: 4. Already in 8: 1, echoes of the Torah and its former function can be discerned: “Therefore, there is now (νῦν) no condemnation (κατάκριμα) for those who are in the Christ Jesus.” The adverb νῦν (“now”) marks the new eschatological moment—life under the reign of Christ. The term κατάκριμα (“condemnation”) previously appeared in 5: 16 and 5: 18, where it referred to the calamity that came upon all humanity as a result of Adam’s disobedience. It signified the death sentence inevitably tied to the misdeeds of sinning people. The Torah is indirectly connected to this, since the misdeeds mentioned in 5: 16-18 are characterized as “transgressions” (παραπτώματα)—those of people generally and of Adam specifically—implying violations of divine command, and thus invoking the framework of the Torah. Now, however, for those who are in Christ, this condemnation no longer applies. It has been nullified by God’s saving action in Christ (cf. 3: 21-26; 5: 18-21; 6: 1-11; 7: 6), and the Torah no longer functions to count transgression for the purpose of judgment. This reorientation has profound consequences for how the Torah is to be understood, as Paul begins to unfold in 8: 2: For the law of the Spirit of life in the Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου. By addressing a “you,” Paul re-engages the “I” of 7: 7-25 and opens up the possibility of liberation from its inner conflict and fractured condition. The liberation consists in a new understanding of the Torah in Christ. To distinguish this new interpretation from the old, Paul—just as in 3: 27 and 7: 6—employs contrasting genitival constructions of the noun νόμος, each functioning as a genitivus epexegeticus. This rhetorical strategy enables him to begin with the same referent—the Torah—while interpreting it from opposing perspectives. 176 170 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="171"?> “Gesetz,” 74-75; Lichtenberger, Ich, 190; Schnelle, Paulus, 375; Haacker, Römer, 186-187; Wolter, Römer I, 473-474; Potgieter, Body, 166; Beyer, Determined, 214. In contrast, others point specifically to the Torah, including Osten-Sacken, Römer 8, 226-227; Wilckens, Römer II, 122-123; Dunn, Romans I, 417-419; Lohse, Römer, 229-230; Jewett, Romans, 481; Popa, “Mensch,” 81-85; Herzer, “Gottes Geist,” 185. This position aligns with the reference to the Torah in Rom 8: 3-4. The interpretation of Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 402, which suggests that the law “in the end splits into two laws” (“am Ende in zwei Gesetze zerfällt”), remains unclear. Wilckens, Römer II, 123, more clearly describes a “turning point in the law itself from its condemnatory function to its function of abolishing this condemnation” (“Wende im Gesetz selbst von seiner verurteilenden zu seiner diese Verurteilung aufhebenden Funktion”; italics in original). Finally, Gosnell, “Law,” 265 is at least somewhat misleading, as he suggests that the law of the Spirit “sounds like a new kind of law that promotes the standards of Torah’s regulations, but in a successful way.” 177 When Potgieter, Body, 166 interprets the genitive τοῦ πνεύματος as “a genitivus auctoris describing the freeing force from the law” (italics in original), she reverts to the old substitution scheme, viewing the Spirit as liberation from the law. Similarly, Hultgren, “Paul,” 210 asserts that believers “are now free from the law.” In contrast, Popa, “Mensch,” 84 rightly understands the phrase as referring to the “Torah brought to bear by the Spirit” (die “durch den Geist zur Geltung gebrachte Thora”). 178 See BDR § 442.2b; Wolter, Römer I, 473. On death as a consequence of sin, refer to Rom 5: 12; Sir 25: 24; 2 Bar. 23: 4; 54: 15. This interpretation challenges Beyer’s view (Determined, 214) of it as a “genitive of direction and purpose”. 179 The connection between the Spirit and life is well known in Jewish tradition, as seen in Ezek 37: 5 ( L X X : πνεῦμα ζωῆς); Sib. Or. 4: 46; and in πνεῦμα ζωῆς in Jos. Asen. 16: 14; 19: 11. It is also found in the NT, for example, in Gal 6: 8; John 6: 63; Rev 11: 11. According to Wilckens, Römer II, 123, the genitives τοῦ πνεύματος and τῆς ἁμαρτίας refer to “the respective powers determining the νόμος” (“die jeweils den νόμος bestimmenden Mächte”). Paul is not claiming that the Torah is replaced by the Spirit (which would fall back into the old paradigm of substitution), 177 but rather that the Torah is reinterpreted through the work of the Spirit. The contrast is stark: apart from Christ, the Torah becomes the “law of sin and death,” since it is co-opted by sin and ultimately leads to death. The καί in this phrase should be read consecutively—death as the result of sin. 178 From this angle, the Torah is interpreted in a manner distorted by sin’s influence. In Christ, however, it becomes “the law of the Spirit of life in the Christ Jesus.” Here, the Spirit refers to the Spirit of God, who mediates God’s presence in the world and whose effects are experienced within the early Christian communities, including those in Rome (cf. 1 Cor 12-14; Rom 12: 3-21; 15: 13). The genitive construction “Spirit of life,” like the καί noted above, carries a consecutive meaning: the Spirit brings about life. 179 The genitive constructions indicate what determines the functioning of the Torah. In Christ, it is no longer determined by sin but by the Spirit of God, 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 171 <?page no="172"?> 180 The sentence can be understood as having an accusative of relation in Τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου, which can be translated as “As for the inability of the law” (cf. BDR § 160.1 no. 2). In this interpretation, no additional supplements are necessary. This view is also supported by Haacker, Römer, 185 no. 1, 187 and Wolter, Römer I, 474-475. 181 For a discussion of the Christological motif of sending in Paul, see Schreiber, Anfänge, 97-98. who leads to life. The Spirit and Christ now shape the interpretive framework through which the Torah is understood, because they inaugurate a new reality of life. This new reality demands a corresponding application of the Torah—thus bringing Paul’s argument full circle back to 7: 1-6. With the phrase “law of the Spirit of life,” Paul introduces his own terminology to articulate a new hermeneutics of the Torah—one mediated by the Spirit and made accessible to those who belong to Christ. Notably, Paul presents this reinterpretation as an experience of liberation. The “law of the Spirit of life”—that is, the Torah reinterpreted through the lens of the Spirit—has set Christ-followers free from traditional interpretations that previously governed their understanding. These older frameworks no longer serve as the norm for those who are in Christ. Just as Christ has liberated his followers from the power of sin, so too has he freed them for a new way of engaging the Torah—certainly not a freedom from the Torah, but a freedom for a new, Spirit-led engagement with it. In Romans 8: 3-4, Paul expands on this idea with a densely packed sentence: 3 For as for the powerlessness of the law (ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου), 180 while it was powerless (ἠσθένει) through the flesh, God sent his own son in the likeness of the flesh of sin (ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας) and because of sin (περὶ ἁμαρτίας), and condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the legal regulation of the law (τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου) might be fulfilled (πληρωθῇ) among us, who do not walk according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν) but according to the Spirit (κατὰ πνεῦμα). By sending his “son” (cf. 1: 3), God directly addressed the root of the problem: the operation of sin. The law was marked by powerlessness or inability (ἀδύνατον); it could not take effect because it could not be implemented through the “flesh”—that is, human existence as described in 7: 14, 18, under sin’s dominion, alienated from God, and even hostile to him. God’s act of sending the Son brought this impasse to an end. The language of “sending” highlights both the divine origin and the mission of the Son, who came as God’s fully authorized representative (cf. Gal 4: 4-5). 181 172 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="173"?> 182 Several interpreters understand the prepositional phrase περὶ ἁμαρτίας in light of its usage in the Septuagint (cf. Lev 4: 3; 5: 6, 7, 11; 9: 2, 3; 12: 6, 8; 16: 3, 27) as a sacrificial term, relating it to Jesus’ atoning sacrifice or sacrificial death. This view is supported by Käsemann, Römer, 208; Wilckens, Römer II, 127; Dunn, Romans I, 422; Moo, Romans, 480; Bell, “Sacrifice,” 5-8; Lichtenberger, Ich, 195; Jewett, Romans, 484; Wolter, Römer I, 478-479 (who provides a detailed discussion on the term’s use). However, περὶ ἁμαρτίας is also used adverbially in the Septuagint, often with specific clarification, as seen in Lev 4: 3 (“for the sake of his sin which he has sinned,” περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτοῦ ἧς ἥμαρτεν); 5: 6 (“the priest shall obtain forgiveness on his account for his sin, which he has sinned,” περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας αὐτοῦ ἧς ἥμαρτεν); Exod 32: 30; Lev 19: 22. It is also used adverbially in Heb 5: 3; 10: 17, 18, 26; 1 Pet 3: 18; 1 John 2: 2; 4: 10. In some instances, such as Lev 16: 27, both interpretations are possible. 183 The interpretations of Cranfield, Romans I, 382; Osten-Sacken, Römer 8, 230-231; Fitzmyer, Romans, 486; Lohse, Römer, 231-232; Breytenbach, “Versöhnung,” 24-28; and Beyer, Determined, 216 align in this direction. What is decisive, in my opinion, is the context, which emphasizes sin as a dominant power (Rom 7: 8, 14, 18, 20, 25). In this context, Paul contrasts the sending of the Son (he does not speak of his death) as an act of God’s power to overcome the enslaving power of sin. While up to this point “sin” has been understood semantically as a realm of power, this connotation persists here as well, as the end of sin is now declared. The removal of individual human sins through cultic sacrifice is not addressed and does not serve as a background in this passage. With the formulation “in the likeness of the flesh of sin,” which may appear somewhat overloaded due to the presence of two genitives, Paul aims to articulate the mode of existence into which God sent the Son for the purpose of overcoming sin—without in any way diminishing the son’s authority. The phrase is carefully chosen: it expresses that the son truly entered into the human condition, which is determined by the power of sin, as the syntagma “flesh of sin” implies; yet he did so in a manner that preserved his status and commission as son of God, who, according to 2 Cor 5: 21, is sinless. This paradox is preserved by the term “likeness” or “shape” (German: “Gestalt”). A parallel expression appears in Phil 2: 7: “in the likeness (ἐν ὁμοιώματι) of men.” Thus, God’s redemptive action in the Son begins precisely within the sphere of fallen human existence—the very arena where sin operates—so that sin might be defeated at its point of power. The phrase “because of sin” (περὶ ἁμαρτίας) likely does not function here as a technical term rooted in Old Testament sacrificial language, such as the cultic context of a “sin offering” in Lev 4: 14 or 7: 37. 182 Rather, it serves as an adverbial expression that conveys the purpose behind the sending of Jesus—namely, the disempowerment of sin. 183 It underscores the pervasive influence of sin as a hostile power that persistently opposes God’s salvific will. In response, God himself enacts judgment, condemning sin decisively and directly within the sphere of the flesh. By doing so, he renders sin fundamentally powerless. Rom 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 173 <?page no="174"?> 184 Thus, for example, Fitzmyer, Romans, 487-488; Moo, Romans, 484-485. 185 See Cranfield, Romans I, 385; Schreiner, Romans, 404-408; Kowalski, Spirit, 253-255. 186 Num 36: 13; Deut 4: 40; 6: 1; 7: 11. Regarding the regulations and instructions of the Torah, the term δικαιώματα is used, for example, in Deut 4: 1; 5: 1; et al.; cf. Josephus, B.J. 7.110 (“legal rules of the Jews”). See BDAG 249 and the discussion above on Rom 2: 26. Herzer, “Gottes Geist,” 184 gives this insufficient consideration when he interprets δικαίωμα as the “fundamental legal claim of the law, according to which sin deserves punishment or death” (die “grundsätzliche Rechtsforderung des Gesetzes, wonach die Sünde Strafe bzw. den Tod verdient”). 187 According to Cranfield, Romans I, 384, “the law’s requirements are essentially a unity.” 3: 24-26 and 5: 6-11, in this context, recall the visible manifestation of God’s grace in the death of Christ. This now makes it possible for those who belong to Christ to fulfill the “legal regulation of the law” (δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου, 8: 4). The statement is in the passive voice: “might be fulfilled (πληρωθῇ) among us.” In scholarly discussions, there is ongoing debate about whether this passive form refers to God’s activity, specifically that of his Christ, who—through his death and resurrection—brought about the realization of the law among his followers. 184 Through their faith, they are able to participate in this fulfillment. Another interpretation highlights the role of moral effort on the part of believers: through the Spirit, they receive the strength to fulfill the requirement of the law, which is often understood as the commandment of love. 185 What is striking, however, is that in both interpretations, the actual fulfillment of the Torah itself tends to be overlooked—yet this is precisely what the text appears to address. The plural δικαιώματα is used frequently in the Pentateuch to refer to the “legal regulations” of the Torah and often appears in parallel with ἐντολαί, “commandments.” 186 In the singular, the syntagma τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου in Num 31: 21—apparently the only occurrence in ancient literature apart from Rom 8: 4—refers to the “legal regulation” of the law. As a generic term, legal regulation designates the provisions and instructions of the Torah that Israel is expected to fulfill. 187 One may reasonably ask why Paul does not simply refer to “the law” here, but instead to the more precise expression, “the legal regulation of the law.” The use of δικαίωμα suggests that no narrowing of the Torah’s scope—such as limiting it to ethical commandments—is intended. Paul draws directly on the instructions and regulations as they were written in the Pentateuch, going beyond the contemporary interpretations and traditional applications of his time. He builds upon this textual foundation of the Torah as the basis for his new application of it in light of Christ. This also corresponds to the text’s own emphasis on the fulfillment of the Torah. 174 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="175"?> 188 Cf. Wolter, Römer I, 480 and Wilckens, Römer II, 129 for further discussion. 189 BDAG 828-829; Dunn, Romans II, 777 (“properly perform”); Wolter, Römer I, 480. The fulfillment of the Torah is rarely discussed in early Judaism with the verb πληρόω; cf. however, T. Naph. 8: 7 (“For the commandments of the law [ἐντολαὶ τοῦ νόμου] are … only fulfilled [πληροῦνται] with expertise”). “Among us,” who walk according to the Spirit and thus live in a new relationship with Christ, the fulfillment of the Torah is now possible, because the law is no longer dominated by sin. 188 Paul places great importance on the idea that the followers of Christ—whether Jews or Gentiles—are not required to abandon the Torah; rather, under the new perspective of belonging to Christ, they now fulfill it in accordance with God’s will. The verb “to fulfill” (πληρόω) is also used by Paul in Gal 6: 2 (in the compound form ἀναπληρόω), Gal 5: 14, and Rom 13: 8, 10, where it refers to fulfilling the law—that is, living in a manner that fully and uncompromisingly realizes the Torah’s intent. The idea of “completing,” that is, thoroughly or completely fulfilling, lies within the semantic field of πληρόω. 189 This fulfillment takes place through the new way of life adopted by Christ-followers, a life no longer governed by the “flesh” but by God’s “Spirit” (8: 4: “walking according to the Spirit”; cf. 8: 5-11; 5: 5). Already in Ezek 36: 27, God’s Spirit is promised as the power enabling obedience to his legal regulations (δικαιώματα) and decisions. According to Rom 8: 4, the Torah can now be fulfilled in its true intention through this new Spirit-determined way of life. Paul thus identifies the new way of life in the Spirit of God with the fulfillment of the Torah. By allowing their lives to be wholly guided by the Spirit, Christ-followers simultaneously fulfill the Torah. The Spirit enacts the same will of God for those who belong to him that the Torah expresses in written form. Therefore, life in the Spirit and life according to the Torah can be seen as corresponding to one another. This may also explain why Paul does not go into greater detail here—for instance, by highlighting areas where the new interpretation of the Torah aligns with common Jewish understandings of the time (such as the exclusive worship of God) or where it diverges (such as the absence of circumcision requirements for Christ-followers from the nations). His concern is not that Christ-adherents now carry out every individual commandment of the Torah in a literal sense, but rather that they fulfill the Torah in the way the Spirit of God leads them. Paul will clarify this understanding more fully in Romans 13: 8-10: those who shape their conduct according to the commandment to love one’s neighbor have fulfilled the entire law (see below, section 7). The essential point is that Paul offers the recipients of the letter a hermeneu- 5. Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans 7 175 <?page no="176"?> 190 This contradicts the assumption of Lichtenberger, Ich, 142, who claims that “those who are ‘in Christ’ are not bound to the Torah, but to Christ” (“die ‘in Christus’ sind nicht an die Tora, sondern an Christus gebunden”). However, this is not actually a contradiction; rather, Christ is now the measure of attachment to the Torah and, thus, of the new Torah hermeneutics. 191 Cf. Wolter, Römer II, 35. The use of νομοθεσία in relation to the Torah is also attested in early Jewish texts, such as 2 Macc 6: 23; 4 Macc 5: 35; 17: 16; Let. Aris. 15, 147, 176; Philo, Migr. 14; Leg. 3.96; Somn. 1.237; Josephus, A.J. 12.36. tical standard by which they can reinterpret the Torah for themselves and fulfill it accordingly. They live out and fulfill the Torah in their own lives through the power of the Spirit. The guiding standard for this is Christ 190 —or, as Paul puts it in Rom 8: 2, a hermeneutics of the Torah as the “law of the Spirit of life in the Christ Jesus.” Whoever belongs to Christ belongs to the God of Israel and fulfills the Torah. 6. The Question of Israel and the Role of the Torah in Romans 9-11 If, for Paul, the God of Israel has made access to Himself available specifically through Christ, the question naturally arises: what does this mean for those Jews who do not belong to Christ? Paul addresses this complex issue in Romans 9-11, where he also touches briefly, at certain points, on the role of the Torah. First, Paul emphasizes the central importance of the Torah for Israel’s self-understanding. In Romans 9: 4-5, he affirms that the Torah is one of the privileges granted to Israel by God, as reflected in the list of distinctions he provides: the people bear the honorific name “Israelites” (Gen 32: 29), they are in a unique “sonship” relationship with God (Exod 4: 22; Deut 14: 1; Hos 11: 1), they have witnessed the manifestation of God’s “glory” (e.g., during the Exodus: Exod 16: 10; 40: 34), and they hold the assurance of God’s faithfulness through the “covenants” (made with Abraham, Isaac, and Moses). Among these privileges is also the “giving of the law” (νομοθεσία), through which God provided instructions for life at Sinai. In addition, Israel cultivates the “worship of God,” possesses God’s “promises,” traces its heritage to the “fathers” as foundational figures, and is the nation from which the Christ—the Messiah—comes, according to his human lineage (“according to the flesh”). The νομοθεσία, the lawgiving, is inseparably linked to Israel’s election: through the Torah’s instructions, Israel receives the necessary guidance to embody and live out its election among the nations in everyday life. 191 176 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="177"?> 192 In Rom 10: 3, Paul critiques this understanding as Israel’s own interpretation, which was not God’s intention: “For because they did not recognize the righteousness of God and wanted to maintain their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God.” 193 Cf. BDAG 1104-1105 (s.v. ὡς; 3b.c); BDR § 425.3. 194 Thus, however, Käsemann, Römer, 268; Cranfield, Romans II, 510; Wilckens, Römer II, 212-213; Lohse, Römer, 287. Against this, Wolter, Römer II, 99. What, according to Paul, is the mistake made by the majority of Israel who reject Christ? The answer is found in Romans 9: 31-32: - 31 But Israel, - - who pursued the law of righteousness (διώκων νόμον δικαιοσύνης), - - has not progressed to the law (εἰς νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασεν). - 32 Why? - - Because not by trust (ἐκ πίστεως), - - but as by works (ὡς ἐξ ἔργων). In 9: 31, the phrase “law of righteousness” is—just as in 3: 27; 7: 22, 23, 25; 8: 2, 7—a genitive construction with the noun νόμος. It refers to the Torah, understood from the perspective of God’s righteousness, though with a specific interpretation 192 of what that righteousness entails. According to Paul, the majority of Israel, apart from Christ, who pursued the “law of righteousness,” sought to attain God’s righteousness through their adherence of the Torah. In doing so, they came to define righteousness itself in terms of Torah observance— that is, as a righteousness grounded in and derived from the law. From a positive standpoint, the Torah did initially provide Israel with the means to pursue God’s righteousness, setting them apart from the Gentile nations. Yet Paul insists that Israel (without Christ) has failed to reach the goal of the Torah; it has not led them to the righteousness of God—that is, to his saving, merciful care (cf. 2: 21-29; 3: 9-20; 11: 7). For Paul, this failure lies in Israel’s refusal to place its trust in Christ. Paul explains this in 9: 32 with a succinct contrast. The elliptical phrasing focuses on the essentials. Israel has not based its understanding of the law on an attitude of “trust” (in Christ) (ἐκ πίστεως) but has instead continued to pursue the Torah “as if by works” (ὡς ἐξ ἔργων). The comparative particle “as” suggests a subjective—and for Paul, now mistaken—interpretation of the Torah, 193 in which Israel defines its identity through certain demands of the law, the so-called identity markers. This does not imply that Israel has always misunderstood the Torah, 194 but rather that it has now failed to grasp the significance of an approach based on trust (ἐκ πίστεως). Israel has not recognized that the relationship to 6. The Question of Israel and the Role of the Torah in Romans 9-11 177 <?page no="178"?> 195 For further discussion, see Burchard, “Weisung,” 254-262. Cf. Lohse, Römer, 291; Haacker, Römer, 248; Wolter, Römer II, 111-112. 196 On the range of meanings of τέλος, see Passow, Handwörterbuch II/ 2, 1856-1858; LSJ 1772-1774. 197 Wolter, Römer II, 107-112 offers a comprehensive overview of current research. 198 E.g., Bultmann, “Christus,” 48; Schlier, Römerbrief, 311; Käsemann, Römer, 272-273; Schreiner, Romans, 545; Heil, “Christ,” 484-486, 498; Lohse, Römer, 291-293; Hultgren, Romans, 384. Massinelli, “Christ,” 723-726 opts for an understanding as the “termina‐ tion” of the law “as a prerequisite for being part of the covenant community” (726). 199 Hultgren, “Paul,” 209. 200 According to Herzer, “Gesetz,” 230 the law “receives its inner foundation in Christ” (“erhält in Christus seinen inneren Grund”, italics in original). Christ now leads to God’s righteousness and opens a new way of understanding the Torah. In Romans 10: 4, Paul sharpens his hermeneutics of the Torah with the statement: “For the aim of the law is Christ for righteousness to everyone who trusts” (τέλος γὰρ νόμου Χριστὸς εἰς δικαιοσύνην παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι). Here, Paul summarizes how the Torah must now be understood in the wake of the Christ event. At the same time, he provides an explanation (γάρ) for why Israel did not attain the Torah (9: 31). Syntactically, within the context beginning at 9: 31, it is natural to take τέλος νόμου in 10: 4 as the subject of the sentence and Χριστὸς as the predicate nominative: 195 this is a statement about the law, further defined in relation to Christ. In scholarship, the meaning of the phrase τέλος νόμου remains highly contested. The Greek term τέλος has a range of meanings and can denote ‘fulfillment,’ ‘completion,’ ‘goal,’ ‘aim,’ or ‘end.’ 196 Four main interpretations can be distinguished: 197 1. Cessation of the Law: It has often been argued that for Paul, Christ is the end of the law in the sense that, for those who believe in Christ, the law’s function ceases. In this view, the Torah as a means of salvation is abolished or rendered obsolete 198 —“Christ has replaced the law.” 199 The cessation of the law applies only to those who believe in Christ; others continue to hold on to the law as a way of salvation. 2. Fulfillment of the Law: It is now rarely argued that Paul views Christ as the fulfillment or completion of the law—i.e., that the law, which prepared the way for him, finds its fulfillment only in Christ. 200 3. Goal of the Law: Closely related is the interpretation that Christ is the goal of the law—that the Torah has always pointed toward Christ and can 178 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="179"?> 201 E.g., Cranfield, Romans II, 519; Badenas, Christ; Fitzmyer, Romans, 584; Bechtler, “Christ,” 298-302; Burchard, “Weisung,” 257; Bergmeier, “Gesetz,” 78-79; Jewett, Romans, 619- 620; Reinbold, “Ziel,” 297-312; Avemarie, “Ungehorsam,” 313; Haacker, Römer, 247-250; Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 332-336. 202 E.g., Dunn, Romans II, 589; Wilckens, Römer II, 222-223; Theobald, Römerbrief I, 284; Moo, Romans, 640-641; Windsor, Paul, 215 no. 95; Kujanpää, Functions, 149-150. Jolivet, “Christ,” 15 speaks of “conveying both senses of goal or fulfillment and termination,” drawing on ancient philosophical and rhetorical distinctions (e.g., the concept of the “unwritten law” or Christ as the “embodiment of the law,” 30). However, such categories are far removed from the context and concerns of the letter to the Romans. 203 Thus Wolter, Römer II, 110-111 (“eine unüberbrückbare Diskontinuität”, 111; italics in original). Gignac, “Christ,” 57 has introduced the categories of continuity and discontinuity into the discussion. 204 A similar insight is found in Haacker, Römer, 250, who interprets Rom 10: 4 as “a hermeneutical statement”—namely the thesis that “Christ […] is the main point that the Torah is already about” (“eine hermeneutische Aussage,” “dass Christus […] die Hauptsache ist, um die es schon in der Torah geht”; italics in original). See also Wilckens, only be properly understood in light of him. This view has gained renewed attention among several scholars in recent years. 201 4. Combined View—End and Goal: Some interpretations integrate both senses —Christ as both the end and the goal of the law. Once the law has reached its goal in Christ, its previous function comes to an end. 202 One version of this view suggests that Christ stands in continuity with the law—insofar as he fulfills the hope of salvation that Israel associated with the Torah—while on the other hand marking what one scholar has called “an unbridgeable discontinuity” with the law— since, after Christ, God’s righteousness is no longer attained through fulfilling the Torah’s legal requirements (the works), and the Torah is no longer necessary for this purpose. 203 It is clear from passages such as Rom 3: 31; 7: 12, 16; and 9: 4 that the significance and appreciation of the law remain intact for Paul; thus, the law has not simply come to an end with Christ. Likewise, the idea that the law is fulfilled or completed in Christ cannot mean that it has become obsolete. I propose translating τέλος νόμου as “aim of the law,” with a modified version of position 3—namely, that it refers to a new, divinely intended understanding of the Torah that takes Christ as its interpretive measure. The term “aim” is less concrete than “goal” and emphasizes the process and direction of interpretation. This better fits the context in which Paul distinguishes between a conventional understanding of the Torah—held by Jews apart from Christ—and a new, Christ-centered hermeneutics. “Aim” here signifies a guiding principle, the hermeneutical key by which the Torah must now be interpreted and lived. 204 When the law is viewed through 6. The Question of Israel and the Role of the Torah in Romans 9-11 179 <?page no="180"?> Romans II, 223, who links this to Rom 8: 2: “Christ is the aim of the law, insofar as in Christ Jesus the Torah has become the ‘law of the Spirit of life’” (“Christus ist das Ziel des Gesetzes, sofern in Christus Jesus die Tora zum ‘Gesetz des Geistes des Lebens’ geworden ist”). 205 See Backhaus, “Weisheit,” 28-59. 206 In the citation in Rom 10: 5, αὐτά refers back to the “works” mentioned in Rom 9: 32. the lens of Christ, it leads to “righteousness to everyone who trusts”—that is, to a salutary, life-giving relationship with God firmly grounded in belonging to Christ. This understanding of the Torah is accessible to all, both Jews and Gentiles, who live by trust in Christ. In this relationship, God imparts his righteousness to them. Thus, the salvific intent of the Torah is fulfilled through trust in Christ, and the image of God conveyed by the Torah takes concrete form in life with Christ. From this Christ-centered perspective, even Gentile Christ-followers can perceive and fulfill the law. My interpretation of Rom 10: 4 as a Pauline formulation of his hermeneutics of the Torah gains plausibility through comparison with similar texts. A notable example within the Pauline tradition is 1 Tim 1: 5: “But the aim of the command (τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας) is love,” which is connected to the interpretation of the law (1: 7: “teachers of the law”). Here, the “aim” of the command establishes a standard—a hermeneutical key—for understanding the command in contrast to other interpretations. A similar formulation appears in Eccl 12: 13 L XX , where the second closing remark of the book, likely an editorial addition, begins with: τέλος λόγου τὸ πᾶν ἀκούεται, which may be rendered, “The aim of the book, (in which) the whole is heard.” 205 This is followed by a succinct summary of the book’s message: “Fear God and keep his commandments.” The τέλος of the book thus refers to a conclusion and a hermeneutical key that frames how the entire book should be read. This is the “aim” of the book—it signals the interpretive lens through which the editor intends to guide the reader’s understanding. A further parallel often cited in commentaries comes from Plutarch, who writes concerning divine law: δίκη μὲν οὖν νόμου τέλος ἐστί (“Now justice is the aim of the law”; Plutarch, Mor. 780e). Here, Plutarch presents justice not as the end in a terminal sense, but as the guiding aim of the law—offering it as the hermeneutical key by which the law is to be rightly understood. As in Romans 3: 31, Paul follows his statement in Romans 10: 4 with a scriptural interpretation that demonstrates how the Torah can be read in light of Christ. The righteousness mentioned in 10: 4 is further clarified in 10: 5-8 through a contrast. The “righteousness from the law” (δικαιοσύνη … ἐκ [τοῦ] νόμου), which Moses writes about in the Torah, is illustrated by a quotation from Lev 18: 5, which emphasizes that doing the Torah’s commandments 206 guarantees 180 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="181"?> 207 For further discussion, see Schreiber, “Römerbrief,” 137. Fisch, “Origins,” 56-61 inter‐ prets the passage through the lens of a “double-torah” (written/ oral Torah). On the scriptural citations in Rom 10: 5-8, see Kujanpää, Functions, 150-166. 208 For a Christological reading of Rom 10: 5, cf. Avemarie, “Paul,” 524-528. participation in God’s life-giving righteousness. This reflects the conventional Jewish understanding of the Torah. In contrast, the “righteousness by trust (ἐκ πίστεως)” in Rom 10: 6 reflects a new access to God through Christ. Paul expands on this in 10: 6-8 through an interpretation of Deut 30: 12, 14, reoriented toward Christ. 207 In doing so, Paul discovers within the Torah itself the grounds for trust in Christ—that is, the relationship with Christ. From the quotation of Deut 30: 14 in Rom 10: 8, he concludes—within the framework of “righteousness by trust”—that Christ is indeed near to the one who trusts, present in the word. This word becomes audible as the word of God in the Christian proclamation (cf. 1 Thess 2: 13). Paul thus offers an example of his new, christologically shaped understanding of the Torah by reading the word of God in Deut 30: 14 as the word of Christ. This interpretation may also retrospectively illuminate his use of Lev 18: 5 in Rom 10: 5: the notion of “doing” the Torah in Lev 18: 5 could be broadened and reinterpreted through the lens of Christ. From this perspective, those who trust in Christ are the ones who “do” the Torah. 208 7. The Love Commandment and the Torah’s Fulfillment in Romans 13: 8-10 In the brief passage of Romans 13: 8-10, Paul offers his audience a standard by which they can fulfill the Torah —that is, by applying it to their daily lives. This standard is the commandment to love from Leviticus 19: 18, which can also be understood as a new identity marker for the communities of Christ, shaping their conduct. Within its context, Rom 13: 8-10 functions as a summary of Rom 12: 1-13: 10 and sets the stage for Romans 14 and 15 by pointing forward to the behavioral orientation expected of the letter’s recipients. Romans 13: 8 opens with the following exhortation: - 8a Owe no one anything, except to love one another. - - Μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε εἰ μὴ τὸ ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν. - 8b For the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. - - ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον νόμον πεπλήρωκεν. 7. The Love Commandment and the Torah’s Fulfillment in Romans 13: 8-10 181 <?page no="182"?> 209 For an interpretation of Rom 13: 1-7, see Chapter 6 in this volume. The verb ὀφείλω with the dative means ‘to be indebted, to owe’ or ‘to be a debtor to someone’; cf. Menge, Großwörterbuch, 508 (‘schuldig sein, schulden’); LSJ 1277; Haacker, Römer, 322-323. 210 For parallels, see Wilckens, Römer III, 67 no. 372; Jewett, Romans, 805; Wolter, Römer II, 330 no. 4. 211 The double negation serves to intensify the statement; see BDR § 431.2. 212 The article τό turns the infinitive phrase ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν into a substantive. It remains unclear why Paul chooses this construction. Is he quoting a fixed expression (Lohse, Römer, 360 no. 4; cf. Jewett, Romans, 806)? Or is he using it as an accusative object governed by ὀφείλετε, parallel to μηδὲν, thus creating structural coherence (Wolter, Römer II, 332 no. 12)? In any case, Paul clearly highlights the call to mutual love and presumes it to be familiar to his audience. 213 T. Zeb. 8: 5; T. Gad 7: 7; T. Jos. 17: 2; Jub. 35: 9 varia lectio; 36: 4; 46: 1; 1 Thess 3: 12; 4: 9; Gal 5: 13; Eph 4: 2; 2 Thess 1: 3; 1 Pet 1: 22; John 13: 34-35; 15: 12, 17; 1 John 3: 11, 23; 4: 7, 11, 12; 2 John 5; Plutarch, Mor. 480e (φίλους ἀγαπᾶν); Dio Chrysostom, Or. 74.12 (ἀλλήλους [μᾶλλον] ὤφειλον ἀγαπᾶν). Cf. CD VI 20-21 (“to love the brother as oneself ”). 214 Wischmeyer, “Vorkommen,” 91-108; idem, Liebe, 8-9, 61-65, 127-129. With the verb ὀφείλετε, Paul connects back to τὰς ὀφειλάς (“that which is owed”) in Rom 13: 7, where the focus was on obligations toward political authorities—tribute, taxes, fear, and honor. 209 In contrast, Rom 13: 8a shifts the attention to the relationships among the letter’s recipients. The exhortation μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε reflects a well-known formulation from antiquity, 210 which promoted the ideal of freedom from debt—an ideal applicable both to financial obligations and to the underlying social code of honor. Paul, however, unexpectedly surpasses this ideal by introducing “love” as a perpetual obligation. He transfers the social concept of economic debt into the sphere of interpersonal relationships. The construction Μηδενὶ μηδὲν 211 … εἰ μὴ (literally, “nothing to no one … except”) underscores that there is only one debt the addressees must continually repay: “to love one another” (τὸ 212 ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν). The exhortation to “love one another,” expressed through the combination of ἀγαπάω and ἀλλήλους, was familiar in early Jewish, early Christian, and Greco-Roman contexts. It originally referred to the ideal relationship between biological siblings but could also be extended to describe the bonds within a group. 213 While the verb ἀγαπάω (“to love”) and the noun ἀγάπη (“love”) were relatively rare in pagan Greek, they appear frequently in the Septuagint, early Jewish literature, and among early Christians. Over time, the term’s semantic range shifted from the basic sense of erotic or emotional love as a powerful human drive to an ethical concept—denoting neighborly or sibling love and functioning as a moral virtue. 214 To love, in this ethical sense, involves acceptance, respect, affirmation, and committed care toward others. 182 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="183"?> 215 In contrast to interpretations that broaden the scope of love to include “all with whom the Roman Christians would come in contact” (Dunn, Romans II, 776; cf. Wilckens, Römer III, 68; Fitzmyer, Romans, 678), Jewett, Romans, 807 emphasizes that the reference is specifically to “the small Christian congregations in Rome.” 216 Paul already speaks of the “fulfilling” of the Torah (πᾶς νόμος) in Gal 5: 14. As in that passage, the context of Rom 13: 9 makes it clear that νόμος in 13: 8 refers specifically to the Torah. This interpretation is supported by Wilckens, Römer III, 68; Lohse, Römer, 360; Haacker, Römer, 324; Theißen and Gemünden, Römerbrief, 447; Wolter, Römer II, 333. In contrast, Jewett, Romans, 809 broadens the meaning of νόμος to include “both Jewish and Roman law, and indeed any other law that could be mentioned.” However, such an expansion dilutes the text’s specific theological focus and diminishes its interpretive clarity. Loving one another encompasses all the obligations individuals may have toward one another within the community. Thus, the addressees are ultimately left with a single enduring debt: to love one another. Love has already served as the guiding principle in the ethical instructions of Rom 12: 9-21, and—as with the phrase “brotherly love toward one another” (φιλαδελφία εἰς ἀλλήλους) in 12: 10—the theme of mutuality is central here as well. Reciprocal love shapes the identity and character of the community of Christ. 215 However, Paul imbues mutual love with new significance by once again bringing the Torah into view in Rom 13: 8b (following 10: 4) and, notably, for the final time in the letter. In doing so, he continues (γάρ) the thought of 13: 8a—that the recipients are indebted to love one another—and now links this obligation explicitly to the νόμος (the law). For Paul, love constitutes the fulfillment of the law, the Torah. It is striking that here Paul does not repeat the phrase “love one another” but instead names “the other” (τὸν ἕτερον) as the object of love. In the context of 13: 8a (“love one another”) and 13: 9 (“love your neighbor”), the “other” most naturally refers to fellow members of the Roman Christian communities. However, Paul’s choice of wording may also suggest a widening of the circle of reference—to include all those in the broader social environment of the Christ-followers in Rome. This would reflect the realities of urban life and the diverse relationships encountered in the Roman context. The verb “to fulfill” (πληρόω), in relation to the νόμος, refers—just as in Rom 8: 4—to a way of life that completely and uncompromisingly fulfills the Torah. According to 8: 4, this fulfillment takes place through the new life of those who belong to Christ and live in the Spirit of God (see above 5.4). 216 To fulfill the Torah, then, is to align one’s entire conduct in accordance with it. The idea of replacing or abolishing the Torah is thus excluded. By grounding Torah fulfillment in love for the other, Paul articulates a fundamental principle by which the Torah is to be rightly understood and holistically fulfilled by those in Christ. This focus 7. The Love Commandment and the Torah’s Fulfillment in Romans 13: 8-10 183 <?page no="184"?> 217 As in Rom 7: 7, Paul abbreviates the tenth commandment here as well. 218 On the significance of the Decalogue in early Judaism, see Berger, Gesetzesauslegung, 38-55, 258-277; Wischmeyer, “Gebot,” 162-163. Whittle, Covenant, 110-133 interprets Rom 13: 8-10 within the (arguably too) broad framework of Deuteronomic tradition, viewing it as an expression of covenant renewal and consecration. 219 Paul’s use of “word” (λόγος) instead of “commandment” (ἐντολή) does not imply a substantive distinction; this usage is attested, for example, in Deut 27: 3, 26; 29: 29; 31: 12, 24. It may reflect an intentional focus on a specific saying or command. - The verb ἀνακεφαλαιόω means ‘to summarize, to put something in a nutshell’ and is used rhetorically to denote the conclusion or summation of a speech; cf. Classen, Criticism, 30-31. 220 On the two citations in this context, see Kujanpää, Functions, 317-321. on love as the key to Torah application makes it possible for both Jewish and Gentile Christ-followers to fulfill the Torah in their new, shared life in the Spirit. The following sentence in Romans 13: 9 elaborates on and supports this claim (introduced by γάρ): For that You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,  217 and whatever other commandment (ἐντολή) there is, is summed up (ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται) in this word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself (ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν). Paul quotes as examples four individual commandments from the Decalogue— more precisely, from the second table of the Decalogue in Deut 5: 17-21 LXX , which regulates relationships with fellow human beings. 218 By adding the phrase “and whatever other commandment there is,” he underscores the exemplary nature of the list, making it clear that the following summary applies to all commandments. The four cited commandments thus serve as representatives of all the commandments of the Torah. As a summary, Paul then quotes the commandment to love one’s neighbor from Lev 19: 18. 219 While Lev 19: 18, in its original context (Lev 19), summarizes preceding instructions—such as protecting the disadvantaged, judging impartially, and refraining from hatred and revenge—in Paul’s argument it functions as a summary of the second table of the Decalogue, which deals with human relationships. 220 And since the commandments Paul cites stand for all commandments collectively, he summarizes the entire Torah in this single command to love one’s neighbor. 184 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="185"?> 221 Further discussion can be found in Schreiber, “Law,” 112-116, and Kinder, 191-195. 222 Similarly, T. Jos. 11: 1 includes both the fear of God and the honoring of one’s brothers under the practice of the law. Cf. T. Benj. 3: 1, 3: “And now, my children, you also love (ἀγαπήσατε) the Lord, the God of heaven, and keep his commandments (ἐντολάς) (…) Fear the Lord and love your neighbor (φοβεῖσθε κύριον καὶ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν πλησίον)! ” By summarizing the Torah—or entire sections of it—in a single, concise phrase, Paul follows a practice that was common in Jewish literature of his time. This observation is crucial for interpreting the passage, as it shows that Paul stands firmly within the tradition of contemporary Torah interpretation, even as he develops his own distinct perspective within that framework. In early Jewish writings, summaries of the Torah formulated with reference to one’s relationship with God on the one hand, and with fellow human beings on the other, serve as concise expressions of the Torah’s core principles. 221 They encapsulate the basic understanding of the Torah, condensing its many individual commandments into a clear and memorable formulation. Worship of God and love of one’s neighbor are typically expressed using distinct terms. For instance, Let. Aris. 131 states: “Now our legislator first gave commandments concerning piety (εὐσέβεια) and justice (δικαιοσύνη).” Here, piety refers to the worship of the one God of Israel, while justice pertains to appropriate conduct toward others. This is further clarified in Let. Aris. 168: “Our law (νόμος) commands us not to do evil to anyone by word or deed.” The goal of the entire law—including food and purity regulations—is, according to Let. Aris. 169, “justice and the just coexistence of people”. Philo likewise summarizes both aspects of the Torah under overarching categories: There are “two outstanding summaries (κεφάλαια) of the countless individual rules and teachings, concerning conduct toward God through piety and holiness (εὐσέβεια and ὁσιότης), and conduct toward fellow humans through philanthropy and justice (φιλανθρωπία and δικαιοσύνη)” (Spec. 2.63; cf. Decal. 108-110; Virt. 95; Her. 168, 172). A similar pattern appears in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Just before his death, the patriarch Issachar declares: “I loved the Lord, and likewise every man with all my strength” (T. Iss. 7: 6). Earlier, he had exhorted his children: “Now keep, my children, the law (νόμον) of God (…), love the Lord and the neighbor (τὸν πλησίον)” (T. Iss. 5: 1-2). Here, the law is succinctly expressed in terms of love for God and for the neighbor. Likewise, T. Dan 5: 1, 3 summarizes the law as follows: “Now pay attention, my children, to the commandments (τὰς ἐντολάς) of the Lord and keep his law (τὸν νόμον)! Love (ἀγαπᾶτε) the Lord with all your life and one another (ἀλλήλους) with a true heart.” 222 Already in Jubilees 36: 7-8, the 7. The Love Commandment and the Torah’s Fulfillment in Romans 13: 8-10 185 <?page no="186"?> T. Benj. 3: 5 further emphasizes “the love for the Lord that he expresses (in love) for the neighbor.” 223 It seems unlikely that Paul is directly drawing on the tradition behind Mark 12: 28-34. The differences in detail which exist in the connection to the Sh e ma (Mark 12: 29-30) and the Decalogue (Rom 13: 9) respectively, argue against a direct tradition-historical derivation. Cf. Wischmeyer, “Gebot,” 179-180. Arguing in favor of such a derivation are Dunn, Romans II, 779; Thompson, Clothed, 132-140; Jewett, Romans, 813; Kujanpää, Functions, 319. What both texts share, however, is the significant role of Lev 19: 18 in early Christian ethics. 224 Possible allusions to Lev 19: 18 appear in Jub. 36: 4 (“let them love each other as their own souls [= as themselves]”) and CD VI 20-21 (“loving one’s brother as oneself ”). A later reference is found in Sifra Lev 19: 18, where Rabbi Akiba views loving one’s neighbor as a “great comprehensive principle (or: a great summary) in the Torah,” though among others. In b. Šabb. 31a, Rabbi Hillel cites the golden rule as a summary of the Torah. connection between the two central commandments—to fear God and to love one’s brother—is clearly expressed (cf. Jub. 20: 2-3, 7). In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus summarizes the Torah by combining two central commandments. Unlike the previously mentioned examples, in Mark 12: 28-31 / / Matt 22: 34-40 / / Luke 10: 25-28, these commandments are quoted verbatim, underscoring the authority of Scripture. The focus is on a hermeneu‐ tics of the Torah, as highlighted by the scribe’s question: “Which is the first commandment (ἐντολὴ πρώτη) of all? ” (Mark 12: 28), or “Which commandment (ἐντολή) is great in the law (νόμος)? ” (Matt 22: 36; cf. Luke 10: 26: “In the law— what is written? ”). Jesus responds by identifying the love of God, drawn from Deut 6: 4-5 (the Sh e ma Israel), as the first commandment, and pairs it with a “second” (δευτέρα), the command to love one’s neighbor from Lev 19: 18. Matt 22: 40 adds: “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” In the context of ongoing contemporary debates about the interpretation of the Torah, these two commandments function as a hermeneutical key to understanding it. 223 At times, the commandment to love one’s neighbor appears on its own as a summary of God’s commandments. This is seen in T. Zeb. 5: 1: “And now, my children, I proclaim to you to keep the commandments (τὰς ἐντολάς) of the Lord, and to show mercy to your neighbor (ἐπὶ τὸν πλησίον), and to have compassion for all.” A negative formulation appears in T. Gad 4: 2, where hatred refuses to hear “the words of his (i.e., God’s) commandments (ἐντολῶν) about love for the neighbor (περὶ ἀγάπης τοῦ πλησίον).” 224 Jas 2: 8 identifies Lev 19: 18 as the “royal law” (νόμος βασιλικός), while Matt 19: 18-19 distinguishes it from other individual commandments. Within this context, Paul also fits, particularly in Gal 5: 14 and Rom 13: 9. In early Judaism, the command to love one’s neighbor 186 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="187"?> 225 As in Sir 13: 15 (“every living being loves its own kind, and every man his fellow man” [τὸν πλησίον αὐτοῦ]); Jub. 7: 20; 20: 2; 36: 4; Let. Aris. 229; Wis 6: 17-18; Philo, Spec. 2.63 (“toward men”); Virt. 116; T. Reu. 6: 9; T. Zeb. 8: 5; T. Gad 4: 6-7; 6: 1, 3; 7: 7; T. Jos. 17: 2-3; 1QS I 9-11 (to love the sons of light and to hate the sons of darkness). For further references, see Wischmeyer, “Gebot,” 164-165; Söding, Liebesgebot, 56-66. On the dual aspect of charity, directed both to the brother and to all humans, see Konradt, “Menschen- oder Bruderliebe.” 226 There are also other summaries of the Torah. Philo condenses the second table of the Decalogue under the concept of “desire”, which he describes as the “root sin” or “source of all evils” (Spec. 4.84; cf. Decal. 153; 4 Macc 2: 5-6). In LAB 11: 10-13, the golden rule serves as a summary of the second part of the Decalogue. 227 For further discussion, see Strotmann, “Offenheit.” 228 See Finsterbusch, Thora, 97, 100-107; Dunn, Theology, 656-657, 675; Haacker, Römer, 324-325; Wolter, Römer II, 334-335. In contrast to Wischmeyer, “Gebot,” 182, 184 (“gesetzesüberwindende Funktion”), 187; cf. Söding, Liebesgebot, 257, 284; Schnelle, Paulus, 396-397; Esler, “Identity,” 60. Wilckens, Römer III, 70-71 argues that the first is frequently emphasized and, in some strands, expands into a universal ethical principle. 225 The various summaries of the Torah align with early Jewish thought and reflect—as we have seen—the particular hermeneutical framework of the scrip‐ tural context in which they appear. 226 They distill the core meaning of the Torah, concentrating its numerous regulations into foundational principles. The commandment to love one’s neighbor from Lev 19: 18 is first explicitly presented by Paul as the fulfillment of the entire Torah (cf. also Gal 5: 14). In doing so, he builds upon the commandment’s position within its broader context in Lev 19: 9-18, where a series of ethical instructions governing interpersonal conduct is laid out. Lev 19: 18 summarizes these commandments with the one command to love one’s neighbor, linking them explicitly to the worship of God: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.” This positions Lev 19: 18 not only at the heart of chapter 19 but as a central ethical statement within the whole book of Leviticus. 227 It offers a concise expression of the ethical norms for social life articulated in Lev 19: 9-18. The reference to the “neighbor” denotes the concrete individuals within one’s immediate social environment. To love them means to accept, respect, support, and care for them. The neighbor is understood as a person like oneself—equally dependent, vulnerable, and entitled to the same concern for well-being as one desires for oneself (“as yourself ”). For Paul, love of one’s neighbor becomes the guiding principle for interpret‐ ing the entire Torah and all its commandments—primarily in relation to human relationships, but extending also to all other commandments. Even love for God can be expressed concretely through love for one’s neighbor. As a Jew and follower of Christ, Paul does in no way negate the validity of the Torah; 228 on the 7. The Love Commandment and the Torah’s Fulfillment in Romans 13: 8-10 187 <?page no="188"?> table of the Decalogue is fulfilled through faith, and the second through love, with the cultic and ritual commandments of the Torah losing their relevance or function. 229 Greater emphasis is placed on boundaries and separation, for example, in Let. Aris. 139: the law as a form of delimitation (“impregnable ramparts and walls of iron”), and 142: regulations concerning purity (regarding food, drink, contact, etc.). Jub. 20: 2-3 adds circumcision and abstention from impurity and fornication to the command to love one’s neighbor (cf. CD VI 14-21, which links segregation with love of neighbor). Similarly, 1QS I 9-11 reinforces group boundaries by enjoining love for the sons of light and hatred for the sons of darkness. 230 For the formulation, see Ps 14: 3 L X X (“does no evil to his neighbor”); Zech 8: 17 (“let none of you devise evil in his heart against his neighbor”); Let. Aris. 168 (“to do no evil”). Haacker’s reference (Römer, 325) to the phrase “do no evil” as indicative of “a profane concept of the law” (“einem profanen Gesetzesbegriff; ” citing Cicero, Off. 3.5.23, 27) departs from the textual context and neglects its grounding in the Torah. - Jewett’s interpretation (Romans, 814-815) of ἡ ἀγάπη as referring to “the love feast,” specifically “the agape meals of house and tenement churches in Rome,” lacks textual basis and trivializes νόμος by reducing it to “various forms of law, which insisted that family members should always eat together.” contrary, he affirms its enduring authority. However, he reinterprets it through the lens of the commandment from Lev 19: 18. According to Paul, the one who fulfills the command to love their neighbor has thereby fulfilled the Torah as a whole. In this way, love becomes the defining characteristic of the followers of Jesus. In the context of Paul’s apostolic mission—especially the inclusion of Gentiles into the Christ-communities—this hermeneutics of the Torah gains particular significance: Gentile Christ-followers, too, can embody the command to love their neighbor without becoming Jews. 229 In Romans 13: 10, Paul returns to his summary of the Torah, now articulated through the use of the noun ἀγάπη: Love (ἡ ἀγάπη) does no harm to the neighbor (τῷ πλησίον). The fulfillment of the law, therefore, is love (πλήρωμα οὖν νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη). The noun ἀγάπη encompasses all actions motivated by love. Paul defines this love by stating that it “does no harm to the neighbor,” a generalization that reflects and builds upon his earlier exhortations in 12: 9, 17, 21 and 13: 3-4, which call for upright conduct within the community, toward outsiders, and in relation to the governing authorities. 230 In conclusion, Paul reaffirms and strengthens his central thesis: love for one’s neighbor constitutes the fulfillment of the Torah. Whoever loves their neighbor, in every circumstance, acts in accordance with what the Torah commands. The nominal clause (with the verb “to be” implied) underscores the status of this statement as a firmly established principle in Paul’s thought—an authoritative summary of his understanding of the Torah. By using the term πλήρωμα (“fulfillment”), Paul echoes the verb πληρόω (“to 188 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="189"?> 231 It fails to do justice to Paul’s new hermeneutics of the Torah to devalue the traditional Jewish understanding of the Torah as mere “slaving servitude to the law in casuistic regulations,” as Lohse, Römer, 362 does (“knechtenden Gesetzesdienst in kasuistischen Bestimmungen”). Such a characterization oversimplifies and misrepresents the com‐ plexity and theological depth of Jewish engagement with the Torah in Paul’s context. 232 Cf. also Wolter, Römer II, 336-337. By contrast, Campbell, Romans, 352-354 limits the applicability of the connection between the law and love to Christian Gentiles alone; cf. Fredriksen, Paul, 117-118. fulfill”), which he had employed earlier in 8: 4 and 13: 8b, indicating that he is again speaking of the complete realization of the Torah. Consistent love for one’s neighbor, for Paul, fulfills the whole Torah. With love, Paul once again articulates a principle that encapsulates his hermeneutics of the Torah—one shaped by the relationship with Christ. He is convinced that this interpretation honors the Torah in a way that aligns with God’s saving action in Christ. This perspective does not imply a devaluation of the Jewish understanding of the Torah apart from Christ. 231 With the principle of love, Paul returns to his interpretation of the Christ event as an expression of God’s love (Rom 5: 5-8; 8: 34-35). While love there functioned as the driving force behind God’s saving action in Christ, it now emerges as the guiding principle of interpersonal conduct—creating a structural analogy with God’s actions and will. Since it reflects God’s will, love also fulfills the instructions of the Torah. At the same time, love for one’s neighbor becomes a new identity marker for the Christ-communities. Ideally, it shapes their collective ethos, distinguishing them from the broader society while uniting Jewish and Gentile Christ-followers within. Love for one’s neighbor is a commandment both Jews and Gentiles in Christ can live out, and it now takes precedence over Torah instructions that traditionally separated Israel from the nations. Thus, the fulfillment of the Torah becomes accessible to non-Jews who belong to Christ. 232 Jewish and Gentile Christians alike can now fulfill the Torah through the principle of love—overcoming the exclusion of Gentiles from the people of God. 8. Concluding Reflections As we have seen, Paul places the conviction of God’s saving activity in his Messiah, Jesus, at the center of his theology. In Christ, God’s saving care—his righteousness—has become a reality, revealed through the gospel Paul proclaims (Rom 1: 16-17; 3: 21-26). This conviction is backed up by personal experiences with Christ, which leads to a transformative theological insight. At the same 8. Concluding Reflections 189 <?page no="190"?> time, this new conviction becomes the starting point for Paul’s reexamination of the Torah and its traditional interpretation and application within Second Temple Judaism. In particular, the Torah’s role in marking the identity of the Jewish people—distinguishing them from the nations through identity markers—is brought into question. What does it mean for the role of the Torah when, through trust in Christ, the boundary between Jews and Gentiles is no longer decisive (cf. 1: 16)? In his letter to the Romans, Paul develops a new hermeneutics of the Torah, grounded in trust in Christ as a new way of life. In doing so, Paul introduces significant qualifications to the prevailing under‐ standing of the Torah in his time. He challenges the emphasis on Jewish identity markers—the “works of the law”—that distinguish Israel from the Gentile nations. Furthermore, he underscores that human behavior is wholly subject to the power of sin, which he depicts as a dominating, quasi-mythological force. According to Paul, sin has so thoroughly instrumentalized the Torah that it can no longer effectively guide even the Jewish people in living according to God’s will. However, humanity’s situation has been radically changed for the better through the Christ event. The power of sin has been fundamentally broken, making a new application of the Torah both possible and necessary. At various points, Paul offers his own formulations to articulate this new hermeneutics of the Torah, often using language that is theologically rich but at times unusual and in need of interpretation for contemporary readers: “the law of trust” (νόμος πίστεως, Rom 3: 27); “being slaves in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter” (δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος καὶ οὐ παλαιότητι γράμματος, 7: 6); “the law of God” and “the law of my mind” (νόμος τοῦ θεοῦ, νόμος τοῦ νοός μου, 7: 22, 23); and “the law of the Spirit of life in the Christ Jesus” (νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 8: 2). To live according to the Spirit of Christ is, for Paul, to fulfill the Torah in its entirety. Moreover, in Rom 13: 9, by summarizing the Torah in the commandment to love one’s neighbor from Lev 19: 18, Paul identifies a central principle around which the fulfillment of the Torah can be concentrated and directed. In this way, the previously abstract notion of a new application of the Torah in Christ—or in the Spirit—becomes concrete, taking shape in the Christ-follower’s practical, ethical conduct. It is noteworthy that Paul’s new hermeneutics of the Torah—apart from the commandment of love in Romans 13: 8-10—remains largely abstract. He does not provide detailed instructions on how specific Torah commandments should 190 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="191"?> 233 See further Schreiber, “Römerbrief (Einleitung),” 294-296, for a detailed discussion of this point. 234 The possibility that, alongside strict practices of separation, forms of table fellowship with Gentiles existed within Diaspora Judaism is examined in detail by Bühner, Paulus, 98-234. now be reinterpreted. Nevertheless, we can infer certain implications from the context of the letter to the Romans, as already indicated earlier. 233 (1) The central role the Christ event plays throughout the letter suggests that Paul understands the Torah as a testimony to the Messiah (cf. 3: 21) and, conversely, interprets it from the perspective of Christ. (2) Paul relativizes the traditional Jewish identity markers—the “works of the law.” In Rom 2: 29, he speaks of “circumcision of the heart in the Spirit,” shifting emphasis from the external ritual performed on the body to the internal, spiritual relationship with God. Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, which brought Jewish and Gentile Christ-followers together within a single community, was highly controversial, as it challenged the traditional boundary markers that had separated Israel from the nations. In Paul’s communities, the Torah’s commandments that had served to define Jewish identity—such as circumcision, dietary laws, 234 and calendar observances—lost their exclusive significance. Specifically, according to Romans 14, the Jewish dietary laws and calendar regulations become open to discussion. Paul is convinced that, for those who trust in Christ, no food is unclean in itself (14: 14). This clearly represents an application of the Torah reinterpreted from the perspective of Christ. In this context, Paul once again introduces the concept of “love” (ἀγάπη) in 14: 15, referring back to the commandment of love in 13: 8-10. He applies it here as a guiding principle for community life, making love the criterion for behavior. Specifically, believers are to avoid actions that might cause others in the community to stumble or take offense (14: 13, 15). Instead of traditional identity markers such as circumcision or dietary laws, which distinguished Israel from the nations, Paul’s new hermeneutics of the Torah introduces new “Christian” identity markers: belonging to Christ and loving one’s neighbor. However, this shift raises fundamental questions about the validity and application of the Torah. One might gain the impression that Paul seeks to diminish or even abolish the Torah altogether. Yet this is not his intention. On the contrary, the Torah remains central to Paul’s understanding of God (cf. 1: 18-32; 4: 1-8, 17b-22), of Christ, and of ethical life within the community. What Paul proposes is a new way of applying the Torah—one in which trust in Christ, and through him, in God, becomes decisive for the identity of those who belong to Christ. 8. Concluding Reflections 191 <?page no="192"?> Through this new application of the Torah, Paul attains a kind of freedom—a hermeneutical distance that allows for a fresh interpretation of tradition. His ap‐ proach is not shaped by fear that the community might lose its identity through altering inherited practices, but by the conviction that a new relationship with God has been established through Christ. This renewed relationship now defines the perspective from which the Torah is to be understood and practiced. Accordingly, the Torah is reinterpreted in light of the new eschatological situation—the dawning of the end times in Christ. In his reflections on the Torah, Paul displays a strong sense of theological self-awareness and holds himself to a high interpretive standard—both shaped by his experience of and reflection on the Christ event. Yet his depiction of the “old” understanding of the law is clearly perspectival, shaped by a specific viewpoint. Paul interprets everything through the lens of his own—and the community’s—encounter with Christ. A confrontation with other (early Jewish) interpretations of the Torah is therefore both inevitable and inherent to his approach. Paul does not avoid this conflict; rather, he engages it knowingly, fully aware that he remains within the shared discursive space of early Jewish Torah interpretation—a space he does not intend to abandon. It is not surprising that Paul was unable to convince the majority of his Jewish contemporaries. Perhaps that was never the primary aim of his Torah hermeneutics in the letter to the Romans. His intended audience was the community of believers in Christ—both Jews and people from the nations—, specifically the Christ-followers in Rome, composed of so-called Jewish and Gentile Christians. What Paul’s hermeneutics of the Torah accomplished—or at least contributed to—was the continued relevance of the Torah, along with the Prophets and Writings, for the self-understanding of Christ’s followers. The Tanakh—Torah, Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings)—remains founda‐ tional within the Christian canon, where it is received as the Old Testament across various denominations. Through their own interpretive lens, believers in Christ have been able to make the Torah and the other scriptures the basis of their understanding of God, their view of the Messiah, and their way of life. Finally, this raises the question of whether Paul’s Torah hermeneutics still holds relevance for us today. It cannot be directly applied to contemporary church settings, as the Torah has long been “Christianized” within the Christian canon of the Old Testament, and its original connection to Jewish Torah traditions has largely been lost. (In this context, it is rather important to rediscover and acknowledge the Tanakh as the holy scriptures of Israel and of the Jewish people.) Nonetheless, despite the historical and theological distance, Paul’s Torah hermeneutics offers Christian churches valuable insight into the 192 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="193"?> practice of a hermeneutics of tradition. Traditions that have developed—or, perhaps more accurately, proliferated—within the church over the centuries often shape its theology and practice so strongly that they take on a life of their own. They risk becoming ends in themselves. In some cases, especially among more conservative groups, tradition is selectively instrumentalized to support particular ecclesial visions—reflected in liturgical forms, hierarchical structures, specific views of Scripture and the Eucharist, or rigid sexual ethics. The contextual application of tradition to the lived realities of contemporary believers often plays only a secondary role. In such settings, tradition tends to dominate rather than be shaped by the foundational Christian texts. Instead of being nourished and continually renewed by Scripture, tradition dictates the formation of Christian identity. For Paul, by contrast, it was the new relationship with Christ that determined how he engaged with Jewish tradition—not a fear of losing identity. From his perspective, there is one decisive criterion by which the application of tradition must be measured—and by which it can still be measured today: the relationship with Christ. Bibliography Avemarie, Friedrich. “Israels rätselhafter Ungehorsam: Römer 10 als Anatomie eines von Gott provozierten Unglaubens.” Pages 299-320 in Between Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9-11. Edited by Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner. WUNT 257. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. ---. “Paul and the Claim of the Law according to the Scripture: Leviticus 18: 5 in Galatians 3: 12 and Romans 10: 5.” Pages 511-529 in Neues Testament und frührabbinisches Judentum: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Edited by Jörg Frey and Angela Standhartinger. WUNT 316. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Backhaus, Franz J. “Der Weisheit letzter Schluss! Qoh. 12,9-14 im Kontext von Tradi‐ tionsgeschichte und beginnender Kanonisierung.” BN 72 (1994): 28-59. Badenas, Robert. Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10: 4 in Pauline Perspective. JSNTSup 10. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Bauer, Walter. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. 6th ed. Edited by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1988. BDR = Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 16th ed. Bearbeitet von Friedrich Rehkopf. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Bibliography 193 <?page no="194"?> Bechtler, Steven R. “Christ, the Τέλος of the Law: The Goal of Romans 10: 4.” CBQ 56 (1994): 288-308. Bell, Richard H. “Sacrifice and Christology in Paul.” JTS 53 (2002): 1-27. ---. The Irrevocable Call of God: An Inquiry into Paul’s Theology of Israel. WUNT 184. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Bendik, Ivana. Paulus in neuer Sicht? Eine kritische Einführung in die “New Perspective on Paul”. Judentum und Christentum 18. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2010. Bendlin, Andreas. “Personifikation I. Begriff. II. Historische Entwicklung.” Der neue Pauly 9 (2000): 639-643. Berger, Klaus. Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu. Teil 1. WMANT 40. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 1972. Bergmeier, Roland. “Das Gesetz im Römerbrief.” Pages 31-102 in Das Gesetz im Römerbrief und andere Studien zum Neuen Testament. WUNT 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Betz, Hans Dieter. “The Concept of the ‘Inner Human Being’ (ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος) in the Anthropology of Paul.” NTS 46 (2000): 315-341. Beyer, Barbara. Determined by Christ: The Pauline Metaphor ‘Being in Christ’. NovTSup 191. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2024. Boer, Martinus C. de. Galatians: A Commentary. The New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Contraversions: Critical Studies in Jewish Literature, Culture and Society 1. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Breytenbach, Cilliers. “Versöhnung, Stellvertretung und ‘Sühne’: Semantische und tra‐ ditionsgeschichtliche Bemerkungen am Beispiel der paulinischen Briefe.” Pages 11-33 in Grace, Reconciliation, Concord: The Death of Christ in Graeco-Roman Metaphors. NovTSup 135. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010. Bühner, Ruben A. Paulus im Kontext des Diasporajudentums: Judenchristliche Lebensweise nach den paulinischen Briefen und die Debatten um “Paul within Judaism.” WUNT 511. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023. Bultmann, Rudolf. “Das Problem der Ethik bei Paulus.” Pages 36-54 in Exegetica: Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: Mohr, 1967. ---. “Christus des Gesetzes Ende.” Pages 32-58 in Glauben und Verstehen: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Vol. II. 5th ed. Tübingen: Mohr, 1968. (ET: “Christ the End of the Law.” Pages 36-66 in Essays Philosophical and Theological. London: SCM, 1955.) Burchard, Christoph. “Glaubensgerechtigkeit als Weisung der Tora bei Paulus.” Pages 241-264 in Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. WUNT 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Busch, Austin. “The Figure of Eve in Romans 7: 5-25.” BibInt 12 (2004): 1-36. 194 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="195"?> Butler, Harold E. The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian. Vol. 2. LCL. Translated by H.E. Butler. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1921 (Reprinted 1977). Campbell, Douglas A. The Rhetoric of Righteousness in Romans 3.21-31. JSNTSup 65. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Campbell, William S. Romans: A Social Identity Commentary. London: T&T Clark, 2023. Catchpole, David. “Who and Where Is the ‘Wretched Man’ of Romans 7, and Why Is ‘She’ Wretched? ” Pages 168-180 in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D.G. Dunn. Edited by Graham Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker, and Stephen C. Barton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Classen, Carl J. Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament. WUNT 128. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Cranfield, Charles E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. ICC. London; New York: T&T Clark, 1975 (Reprint 2001). Dochhorn, Jan. “Röm 7,7 und das zehnte Gebot: Ein Beitrag zur Schriftauslegung und zur jüdischen Vorgeschichte des Paulus.” ZNW 100 (2009): 59-77. ---. Der Adammythos bei Paulus und im hellenistischen Judentum Jerusalems: Eine theologische und religionsgeschichtliche Studie zu Römer 7,7-25. WUNT 469. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. Dodd, Brian. Paul’s Paradigmatic “I”: Personal Example as Literary Strategy. JSNTSup 177. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Dunn, James D.G. Romans. 2 vols. WBC 38A.B. Dallas: Word Books, 1988 (Reprint 2001). Dunn, James D.G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Cambridge; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ---. “The New Perspective on Paul (1983).” Pages 89-110 in The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays. WUNT 185. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005 (Revised Edition: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). ---. “Paul and the Torah: The role and function of the Law in the theology of Paul the Apostle (2004).” Pages 441-461 in The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays. WUNT 185. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005 (Revised Edition: Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). Eastman, Susan G. Paul and the Person: Reframing Paul’s Anthropology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. ---. “Strengthening the Ego for Service: The Pastoral Purpose of Romans 7,7-25.” Pages 137-164 in Dying With Christ - New Life in Hope: Romans 5,12-8,39. Edited by John M.G. Barclay. SMBen 24. Leuven: Peeters, 2021. Ehrensperger, Kathy. “‘As to the Law—a Pharisee’ (Phil 3: 5c): Do We Have a Friend in Paul? ” Pages 95-105 in The Ties that Bind: Negotiating Relationships in Early Jewish and Christian Texts, Contexts, and Reception History. Edited by Esther Kobel, Jo-Ann A. Brant, and Meredith J.C. Warren. LNTS 660. London et al.: T&T Clark, 2023. Bibliography 195 <?page no="196"?> ---. “Paul, the Jewish Apostle to the Nations: Key Aspects of the Paul within Judaism Perspective.” EChr 14 (2023): 35-54. ---. “Der Pharisäer Paulus und der nomos.” Pages 146-167 in Die Pharisäer: Geschichte und Bedeutung. Edited by Joseph Sievers, Amy-Jill Levine, and Jens Schröter. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2024. Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. “The Reception of Graeco-Roman Culture in the New Testa‐ ment: The Case of Romans 7.7-25.” Pages 107-129 in Paul and Philosophy: Selected Essays. WUNT 509. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023. Eskenazi, Tamara, and Eleanore P. Judd. “Composition and Theology in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah.” JBL 107 (1988): 641-656. Esler, Philip F. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting auf Paul’ Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. ---. “Social Identity, the Virtues, and the Good Life: A New Approach to Romans 12: 1-15: 13.” BTB 33 (2003): 51-63. Finsterbusch, Karin. Die Thora als Lebensweisung für Heidenchristen: Studien zur Bedeu‐ tung der Thora für die paulinische Ethik. StUNT 20. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Fisch, Yael. “The Origins of Oral Torah: A New Pauline Perspective.” JSJ 51 (2020): 43-66. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AncB 33. London; New York: Doubleday, 1993. Fredriksen, Paula. Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017. ---. “Paulus, der vollkommen gerechte Pharisäer.” Pages 121-145 in Die Pharisäer: Ge‐ schichte und Bedeutung. Edited by Joseph Sievers, Amy-Jill Levine, and Jens Schröter. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2024. Frey, Jörg. “Die religiöse Prägung: Weisheit, Apokalyptik, Schriftauslegung.” Pages 59-66 in Paulus Handbuch. Edited by Friedrich W. Horn. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Friedrich, Gerhard. “Das Gesetz des Glaubens: Röm 3,27.” Pages 107-122 in Auf das Wort kommt es an: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. García Martínez, Florentino, and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Gignac, Alain, “Le Christ, τέλος de la Loi (Rom 10,4), une lecture en termes de continuité et de discontinuité, dans le cadre du paradigme paulinien de l’élection,” ScE 46 (1994): 55-81. Goodrich, John K. “Sold under Sin: Echoes of Exile in Romans 7.14-25.” NTS 59 (2013): 476-495. Gosnell, Peter W. “Law in Romans: Regulation and Instruction.” NovT 51 (2009): 252-271. Haacker, Klaus. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. 5th ed. THKNT 6. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2019. 196 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="197"?> ---. Die Apostelgeschichte. Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 5. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2019. Harrill, J. Albert. Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006. Hart, John F. “Paul As Weak In Faith In Romans 7: 7-25.” BSac 170 (2013): 317-343. Hays, Richard B. The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3: 1-4: 11. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Heil, John P. “Christ, the Termination of the Law (Romans 9: 30-10: 8).” CBQ 63 (2001): 484-498. Herzer, Jens. “‘Worin es schwach war durch das Fleisch’ (Röm 8,3): Gesetz und Sünde im Römerbrief - oder: Das Ringen des Paulus um eine neue Identität.” Pages 219-247 in Anthropologie und Ethik im Frühjudentum und im Neuen Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. Edited by Matthias Konradt and Esther Schläpfer. WUNT 322. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. ---. “Röm 8,1-17: Gottes Geist als Kraft des neuen Lebens.” Pages 165-208 in Dying With Christ - New Life in Hope: Romans 5,12-8,39. Edited by John M.G. Barclay. SMBen 24. Leuven: Peeters, 2021. Holtz, Gudrun. “Paul, the Law and Judaism: Stoification of the Jewish Approach to the Law in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” ZNW 109 (2018): 185-221. Hultgren, Arland J. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. ---. “Paul and the Law.” Pages 202-215 in The Blackwell Companion to Paul. Edited by Stephen Westerholm. Malden; Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Ito, Akio. “Νόμος (τῶν) ἔργων and νόμος πίστεως: The Pauline Rhetoric and Theology of νόμος.” NT 45 (2003): 237-259. Jervis, L. Ann. “‘The Commandment which is for Life’ (Romans 7.10): Sin’s Use of the Obedience of Faith.” JSNT 27 (2004): 193-216. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Jolivet, Ira. “Christ the τελος in Romans 10: 4 as both Fulfillment and Termination of the Law.” ResQ 51 (2009): 13-30. Käsemann, Ernst. An die Römer. 4th ed. HNT 8a. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1980. Kalimi, Isaac. The Retelling of Chronicles in Jewish Tradition and Literature. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Konradt, Matthias. “Menschen- oder Bruderliebe? Beobachtungen zum Liebesgebot in den Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen.” ZNW 88 (1997): 296-310. Kowalski, Marcin. The Spirit in Romans 8: Paul, the Stoics, and Jewish Authors in Dialogue. Lublin Theological Studies 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2024. Bibliography 197 <?page no="198"?> Kratz, Reinhard G., ed. Interpreting and Living God’s Law at Qumran. Miqṣat Ma‘aśe Ha-Torah - Some of the Works of the Torah (4QMMT): Introduction, Text, Translation and Interpretative Essays. SAPERE 37. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. Kratz, Reinhard G. Qumran: Die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer und die Entstehung des biblischen Judentums. München: C.H. Beck, 2022. Krauter, Stefan. “Eva in Röm 7,” ZNW 99 (2008): 1-17. ---. “‘Wenn das Gesetz nicht gesagt hätte,…’: Röm 7,7b und antike Äußerungen zu paradoxen Wirkungen von Gesetzen.” ZThK 108 (2011): 1-15. Kümmel, Werner G. Römer 7 und das Bild des Menschen im Neuen Testament. Neuausgabe. TBei 53. München: Kaiser, 1974. Kujanpää, Katja. The Rhetorical Functions of Scriptural Quotations in Romans: Paul’s Argumentation by Quotations. NovTSup 172. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2019. Kurek-Chomycz, Dominika. “The Wedded Wife in Romans 7: 1-6.” Pages 107-135 in Dying With Christ - New Life in Hope: Romans 5,12-8,39. Edited by John M.G. Barclay. SMBen 24. Leuven: Peeters, 2021. Lambrecht, Jan. The Wretched “I” and Its Liberation: Paul in Romans 7 and 8. Louvain Theological & Pastoral Monographs 14. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Das Tora-Verständnis im Judentum zur Zeit des Paulus: Eine Skizze.” Pages 7-23 in Paul and the Mosaic Law. Edited by James D.G. Dunn. WUNT 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. ---. Das Ich Adams und das Ich der Menschheit: Studien zum Menschenbild in Römer 7. WUNT 164. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Lohse, Eduard. Der Brief an die Römer. KEK 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. ---. “Christus, des Gesetzes Ende? Die Theologie des Apostels Paulus in kritischer Perspektive.” ZNW 99 (2008): 18-32. Lüdemann, Gerd. Die Auferstehung Jesu: Historie, Erfahrung, Theologie. New edition. Stuttgart: Radius-Verlag, 1994. Maier, Johann. Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer. 3 vols. UTB 1862, 1863, 1916. München; Basel: Ernst Reinhardt, 1995, 1996. Marguerat, Daniel. Die Apostelgeschichte. KEK 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2022. Markschies, Christoph. “Innerer Mensch.” RAC 18 (1998): 266-312. Mason, Steve. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study. StPB 39. Leiden et al.: Brill, 1991. ---. “Die Pharisäer bei Josephus.” Pages 88-120 in Die Pharisäer: Geschichte und Bedeutung. Edited by Joseph Sievers, Amy-Jill Levine, and Jens Schröter. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2024. Massinelli, Georges. “Christ and the Law in Romans 10: 4.” CBQ 77 (2015): 707-726. 198 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="199"?> Maston, Jason, and Aaron Sherwood. “4QMMT and Romans 3: 1-20: Works of the Law and Justification.” Pages 52-58 in Reading Romans in Context: Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015. Menge, Hermann. Langenscheidts Großwörterbuch Griechisch - Deutsch. 27th ed. Berlin: Langenscheidt, 1991. Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Müller, Jörn. “Willensschwäche und innerer Mensch in Röm 7 und bei Origenes: Zur christlichen Tradition des Handelns wider besseres Wissen.” ZNW 100 (2009): 223-246. Neubrand, Maria. Abraham - Vater von Juden und Nichtjuden: Eine Exegetische Studie zu Röm 4. FB 85. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1997. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm. Heidenapostel aus Israel: Die jüdische Identität des Paulus nach ihrer Darstellung in seinen Briefen. WUNT 62. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. ---. “Pharisäer in Jerusalem.” Pages 72-75 in Paulus Handbuch. Edited by Friedrich W. Horn. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. ---. “Jesus, Paul, and the Pharisees: Observations on their Commonalities and their Un‐ derstanding of Torah.” Pages 173-200 in Paulus im Judentum seiner Zeit: Gesammelte Studien. WUNT 489. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022. Noam, Vered. “Die pharisäische Halacha im Licht von 4QMMT.” Pages 61-87 in Die Pharisäer: Geschichte und Bedeutung. Edited by Joseph Sievers, Amy-Jill Levine, and Jens Schröter. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2024. Novenson, Matthew V. Paul, Then and Now. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022. Öhler, Markus. “‘If you are called a Judean …’ (Rom 2: 17): Paul and his Interlocutor.” Pages 219-242 in Israel and the Nations: Paul’s Gospel in the Context of Jewish Expectation. Edited by František Ábel. Lanham: Lexington Books; Fortress Academic, 2021. Osten-Sacken, Peter von der. Römer 8 als Beispiel paulinischer Soteriologie. FRLANT 112. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. ---. “Das Verständnis des Gesetzes im Römerbrief.” Pages 9-54 in Die Heiligkeit der Tora: Studien zum Gesetz bei Paulus. München: Kaiser, 1989. Owen, Paul L. “The ‘Works of the Law’ in Romans and Galatians: A New Defense of the Subjective Genitive.” JBL 126 (2007): 553-577. Passow, Franz. Handwörterbuch der Griechischen Sprache. 2 double vols. 5th ed. Updated by Valentin C.F. Rost et al. Leipzig: Fr. Chr. Wilh. Vogel, 1841-1857. Reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Popa, Romeo. “Der anfällige Mensch und das Gesetz Gottes. Der anthropologische Schlüssel des paulinischen Gesetzesverständnisses nach Röm 8,1-4.” BN 171 (2016): 75-94. Potgieter, Annette. Contested Body: Metaphors of Dominion in Romans 5-8. HTS Religion & Society Series 7. Cape Town: AOSIS, 2020. Bibliography 199 <?page no="200"?> Prothro, James B. “Knowledge and Truth: Romans 2: 20 and the Use of the Mosaic Law in Paul.” CBQ 85 (2023): 485-502. Qimron, Elisha, and John Strugnell, eds. Qumran Cave 4. V: Miqṣat Ma‘aśe Ha-Torah. DJD 10. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Räisänen, Heikki. “Das ‘Gesetz des Glaubens’ (Röm. 3.27) und das ‘Gesetz des Geistes’ (Röm. 8.2).” NTS 26 (1979/ 80): 101-117. ---. “Sprachliches zum Spiel des Paulus mit νόμος.” Pages 119-147 in The Torah and Christ: Essays in German and English on the Problem of the Law in Early Christianity. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1986. (ET: “Paul’s Word-Play on νόμος: A Linguistic Study.” Pages 69-94 in Jesus, Paul, and Torah: Collected Essays. JSNTSup 43. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2015.) Rapa, Robert K. The Meaning of “Works of the Law” in Galatians and Romans. StBibLit 31. New York: Lang, 2001. Rehfeld, Emmanuel L. Relationale Ontologie bei Paulus: Die ontische Wirksamkeit der Christusbezogenheit im Denken des Heidenapostels. WUNT II/ 326. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Reimer, Matthias. An Intertextual Approach to the Paradox of Romans 2: 13 and 3: 20: Justified by Law Observance? Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač, 2022. Reinbold, Wolfgang. “Das Ziel des Gesetzes nach Röm 10,4-13.” Pages 297-312 in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissenschaft: Standorte - Grenzen - Beziehungen. Edited by Lutz Doering, Hans-Günther Waubke, and Florian Wilk. FRLANT 226. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Rendtorff, Rolf. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985. Rodríguez, Rafael. If You Call Yourself a Jew: Reappraising Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2014. Röhser, Günter. “Paulus und die Herrschaft der Sünde.” ZNW 103 (2012): 84-110. Ryan, Scott C. Divine Conflict and the Divine Warrior: Listening to Romans and Other Jewish Voices. WUNT II/ 507. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Römerbrief. 2nd ed. HThKNT 6. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1979. Schliesser, Benjamin. Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4: Paul’s Concept of Faith in Light of the History of Reception of Genesis 15: 6. WUNT II/ 224. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Schnelle, Udo. Paulus: Leben und Denken. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2003. Schniedewind, William M., Jason M. Zurawski, and Gabriele Boccaccini, eds. Torah: Functions, Meanings, and Diverse Manifestations in Early Judaism and Christianity. EJIL 56. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2022. Schreiber, Stefan. “Paulus und die Tradition: Zur Hermeneutik der ‘Rechtfertigung’ in neuer Perspektive.” ThRv 105 (2009): 91-102. ---. “Law and Love in Romans 13.8-10.” Pages 100-119 in The Torah in the Ethics of Paul. Edited by Martin Meiser. LNTS 473. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2012. 200 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="201"?> ---. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. ÖTK 13/ 1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2014. ---. Die Anfänge der Christologie: Deutungen Jesu im Neuen Testament. Neu‐ kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 2015. ---. “Streitfall ‘identity markers’: Die Entgrenzung der neuen Christus-Gemeinschaft bei Paulus.” BK 71 (2016): 95-99. ---. “Der Römerbrief.” Pages 26-195 in Vol. 1 of Paulus schreibt den Gemeinden: Die sieben Briefe des Apostels aus dem Urtext übersetzt und kommentiert. 2 vols. By Sabine Bieberstein, Martin Ebner, Hildegard Scherer, and Stefan Schreiber. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2020. (cited as “Römerbrief ”) ---. “Der Römerbrief.” Pages 281-306 in Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 3rd ed. Edited by Martin Ebner and Stefan Schreiber. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 6. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2020. (cited as “Römerbrief (Einleitung)”) ---. Die Kinder Gottes und ihr Christus: Die Johannesbriefe als Lotsen einer frühjüdischen Messias-Bewegung. BWANT 250. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2025. Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. BECNT 6. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998. Schröter, Jens. “Der Mensch zwischen Wollen und Tun: Erwägungen zu Römer 7 im Licht der ‘New Perspective on Paul’.” Pages 195-223 in Paulus - Werk und Wirkung: Festschrift für Andreas Lindemann zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Paul-Gerhard Klum‐ bies and David S. Du Toit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. ---. “Was Paul a Jew Within Judaism? The Apostle to the Gentiles and His Communities in Their Historical Context.” Pages 89-119 in Jews and Christians—Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE? Reflections on the Gains and Losses of a Model. Edited by Jens Schröter et al. BZNW 253. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021. Schumacher, Thomas. Zur Entstehung christlicher Sprache: Eine Untersuchung der pau‐ linischen Idiomatik und der Verwendung des Begriffes πίστις. BBB 168. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Sheinfeld, Shayna. “From Nomos to Logos: Torah in First-Century Jewish Texts.” Pages 61-74 in The Message of Paul the Apostle within Second Temple Judaism. Edited by František Ábel. Lanham: Lexington Books/ Fortress Academic, 2020. Sievers, Joseph, Amy-Jill Levine, and Jens Schröter, eds. Die Pharisäer: Geschichte und Bedeutung. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2024. Söding, Thomas. Das Liebesgebot bei Paulus: Die Mahnung zur Agape im Rahmen der paulinischen Ethik. NTA 26. Münster: Aschendorff, 1995. ---. “Der Mensch im Widerspruch (Röm 7).” Pages 371-374 in Paulus Handbuch. Edited by Friedrich W. Horn. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Starnitzke, Dierk. Die Struktur paulinischen Denkens im Römerbrief: Eine linguistisch-logi‐ sche Untersuchung. BWANT 163. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2004. Bibliography 201 <?page no="202"?> Stemberger, Günter. Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, Essener. SBS 144. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991. Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel. Qumran: Die Texte vom Toten Meer und das antike Judentum. Jüdische Studien 3; UTB 4681. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Stowers, Stanley K. “Romans 7.7-25 as a Speech-in-Character (προσωποποιία).” Pages 180-202 in Paul in his Hellenistic Context. Edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen. London; New York: T&T Clark, 1994. Strack, Hermann L., and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. München: Beck, 1922-1961. Strotmann, Angelika. “Die Offenheit des Nächstenliebegebotes in Lev 19,18. Mit einem Blick auf die Jesusüberlieferung.” Pages 19-42 in ‘Edler Ölbaum und wilde Zweige (Röm 11,16-24)’: Christlich-jüdischer Dialog auf neutestamentlicher Grundlage: Zur Erinnerung an Maria Neubrand. Edited by Angelika Strotmann and Heinz Blatz. SBB 84. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2023. Theißen, Gerd. Psychologische Aspekte paulinischer Theologie. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Van‐ denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Theißen, Gerd, and Petra von Gemünden. Der Römerbrief: Rechenschaft eines Reformators. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. Theobald, Michael. Römerbrief. 2 vols. SKK 6/ 1, 2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1992, 1993. Thompson, Michael. Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1-15.13. JSNTSup 59. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Timmins, Will N. Romans 7 and Christian Identity: A Study of the ‘I’ in Its Literary Context. SNTSMS 170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Tiwald, Markus. Hebräer von Hebräern: Paulus auf dem Hintergrund frühjüdischer Argu‐ mentation und biblischer Interpretation. Herders Biblische Studien 52. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2008. ---. “Setzt der Glaube an Christus die Tora außer Kraft? Ein neuer Blick auf die ‘Werke des Gesetzes’ in Röm 3,20-31.” Pages 165-175 in König und Priester: Facetten neutestamentlicher Christologie: Festschrift für Claus-Peter März zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Martina Bär, Markus-Liborius Hermann, and Thomas Söding. Erfurter Theologische Schriften 44. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2012. Ulrichs, Karl Friedrich. Christusglaube: Studien zum Syntagma πίστις Χριστοῦ und zum paulinischen Verständnis von Glaube und Rechtfertigung. WUNT II/ 227. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Wasserman, Emma. The Death of the Soul in Romans 7: Sin, Death, and the Law in Light of Hellenistic Moral Psychology. WUNT II/ 256. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Weissenberg, Hanne von. 4QMMT: Reevaluating the Text, the Function, and the Meaning of the Epilogue. STDJ 82. Leiden: Brill, 2009. 202 Paul’s Hermeneutics of the Torah in Romans <?page no="203"?> Whittle, Sarah. Covenant Renewal and the Consecration of the Gentiles in Romans. MSSNTS 161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. 3 vols. EKKNT VI/ 1-3. Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft, 1978, 1980, 1982. Wilk, Florian. “Die synoptischen Evangelien des Neuen Testaments als Quellen für die Geschichte der Pharisäer.” Pages 85-107 in Judaistik und neutestamentliche Wissen‐ schaft: Standorte - Grenzen - Beziehungen. Edited by Lutz Doering, Hans-Günther Waubke, and Florian Wilk. FRLANT 226. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Windsor, Lionel J. Paul and the Vocation of Israel: How Paul’s Jewish Identity Informs his Apostolic Ministry, with Special Reference to Romans. BZNW 205. Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter, 2014. Winger, Michael. By What Law? The Meaning of Νόμος in the Letters of Paul. SBLDS 128. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Wischmeyer, Oda. “Das Gebot der Nächstenliebe bei Paulus: Eine traditionsgeschichtli‐ che Untersuchung.” BZ 30 (1986): 161-187. ---. “Vorkommen und Bedeutung von Agape in der außerchristlichen Antike.” Pages 91-115 in Von Ben Sira zu Paulus: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Texten, Theologie und Hermeneutik des Frühjudentums und des Neuen Testaments. WUNT 173. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. ---. Liebe als Agape: Das frühchristliche Konzept und der moderne Diskurs. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Wishart, Ryder A. “Paul’s Use of Νόμος: Torah, Law, or Custom? ” Pages 31-58 in Paul and Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Land. Pauline Studies 10. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2019. Wolter, Michael. “Gesetz/ Werke des Gesetzes.” Pages 358-362 in Paulus Handbuch. Edited by Friedrich W. Horn. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. ---. Der Brief an die Römer. 2 vols. EKKNT VI/ 1, 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Ostfildern: Patmos, 2014, 2019. ---. Paulus: Ein Grundriss seiner Theologie. 3rd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021. (ET: Paul: An Outline of his Theology. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2015.) Woyke, Johannes. “‘Einst’ und ‘Jetzt’ in Röm 1-3? Zur Bedeutung von νυνὶ δέ in Röm 3,21.” ZNW 92 (2001): 185-206. Wright, Nicholas T. Paul in Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005. Bibliography 203 <?page no="205"?> Chapter 6 <?page no="207"?> * First published in German as “Imperium Romanum und römische Gemeinden: Dimensionen politischer Sprechweise in Röm 13.” Pages 131-170 in Die Bedeutung der Exegese für Theologie und Kirche. Edited by Ulrich Busse. QD 215. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005. 1 Schultze, “Politik/ Politikbegriffe,” 657 (“zielt auf die Verwirklichung der dem Wesen des Menschen angemessenen guten und gerechten politischen Ordnung, die apriorisch vorgegeben ist”). See also Maier, “Politik I,” 431, 434. The counterpart to the citizen is the idiōtēs, one who is entangled in the idía—that is, the private, the local, the particular. 2 Weber, Wirtschaft, 822 (“Streben nach Machtanteil oder nach Beeinflussung der Macht‐ verteilung, sei es zwischen Staaten, sei es innerhalb eines Staates zwischen den Menschengruppen, die er einschließt”); idem, “Politik,” 506. Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities: Dimensions of Political Language in Romans 13 * 1. Terminological Clarification: What Is “Politics”? Contemporary definitions of “politics” frequently draw on the Greek origin of the term: τὰ πολιτικά refers to public affairs pertaining to the πόλις—matters that concern and bind all citizens. The (more restrictive) concept of politics in classical Greek thought “is oriented toward the realization of a good and just political order, one deemed appropriate to the nature of the human being and presupposed as a priori.” 1 In modernity, the concept of politics has become significantly more contested: What constitutes the public interest? What should be universally binding? Who ought to decide, and by what procedures? The recognized dependence of political structures and concepts on historical, spatial, and cultural contexts has led to a general rejection of ultimate normative foundations. Instead, a plurality of values and conceptions of order now governs political thought. This shift is exemplified in what Weber, in his sociological framework, describes as “political realism.” He defines politics in terms of action theory, as “the striving for a share of power or to influence the distribu‐ tion of power, whether among states or within a state among the groups it encompasses.” 2 Weber understands power as the probability of imposing one’s will despite resistance. This approach presupposes value-neutrality, thereby detaching politics from ultimate moral or ethical questions. Means become autonomous; the sole criterion for political action is success. In modernity, politics—expanding the term beyond its original reference to the polis—comes to signify “any form of governance and rule, any action <?page no="208"?> 3 Maier, “Politik I,” 431-432 (“jede Form von Regierung und Herrschaft, jedes Handeln zur Erreichung öffentlicher Zwecke”; “durch die Frage nach den Mitteln zur Durchsetzung seiner Ziele”). Modern political science “dispenses with rigid definitions and instead en‐ compasses the entire field of order enforcement, power struggle, and policy implemen‐ tation in administrative form,” according to Münkler, “Politik/ Politologie,” 2 (“verzichtet auf abgrenzende Definitionen und umgreift statt dessen das gesamte Feld von Ord‐ nungsverbürgung, Machtkampf und verwaltungsförmiger Politikimplementation”). On the development of the concept of politics, see also ibid. Cf. Nuscheler, “Politik,” 387: “There is no clear and universally accepted concept of politics” (my translation). A systems-theoretical definition holds: “The political system is the subsystem of society in which collectively binding decisions are made,” Schultze, “Politik/ Politikbegriffe,” 657 (my translation). 4 See the afterword by the editors Aleida and Jan Assmann in Taubes, Theologie, 178-180. 5 The term “state” in the narrower sense refers to the institutions (offices and functions) of sovereign rule; see Forschner, “Staat,” 890. 6 Also, Neschke, “Politische Philosophie,” 27-33; Münkler, “Politik/ Politologie,” 1-3. aimed at the realization of public objectives.” The modern concept of politics is shaped primarily “by the question of the means through which such goals are to be pursued.” Consequently, it increasingly takes on a purely technical and instrumental character, which contributes to a growing pejorative connotation, as substantive aims and normative content recede into the background. 3 A widely used terminological distinction in political theory differentiates be‐ tween polity (the political system, formal orders and institutions—for example, constitutions and governing bodies), politics (the dynamic processes of conflict negotiation, decision-making, and the exercise of political will), and policy (the substantive goals and normative content of political action). Considering the metaphysical foundations attributed to the state in antiquity, I adopt a simpler distinction between a horizontal concept of politics (referring to spheres of society, the public realm, and “social affairs”) and a vertical concept of politics (referring to authority, institutional structures, and “state power”). 4 The following reflections will be guided by the vertical understanding of politics—specifically, the relationship between “Christian” communities and the state (Imperium Romanum). 5 In antiquity, the modern concept of the “state” was expressed through a range of terms, each with its own distinct semantic nuance—such as πόλις, res publica, civitas and imperium. Polis and oikos appear as formative social structures. The just political order—understood as one that corresponds both to human nature and to the order of the world—was the subject of theoretical reflection in ancient political philosophy, most notably in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and, later, Augustine. 6 At first glance, a comparison clearly reveals that Paul, in Romans 13, shows no interest whatsoever in such theoretical considerations. And yet, throughout 208 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="209"?> 7 See the overview in Wilckens, Römer, 43-66, and Käsemann, “Römer 13,1-7,” 316-376. On the specific issue of state-metaphysical language in the former GDR, see Schenk, “Römer 13,” 979-999. A brief overview of interpretations from the early Church and the 20th century is offered by Reasoner, “Exegesis,” 359-374. 8 The current state of research is summarized in Theobald, Römerbrief (2000), 307-310; also, the monographic studies by Riekkinen, Römer 13, and—though with a strong systematic focus—Pohle, Christen. For a primarily methodological approach, see Botha, Subject. The most important literature is listed by Wilckens, Römer, 28-29; Haacker, Römer, 261-263; Lohse, Römer, 350-351; and also, the critical synthesis by Theobald, Römerbrief (2000), 306-307. 9 Strobel, “Verständnis,” 67-93; idem, “Furcht,” 58-62; Unnik, “Lob,” 334-343; and Cole‐ man, “Binding Obligations,” 307-327. 10 Käsemann, Römer, 338, 344-347. Taken up in Moxnes, “Honor,” 212. the history of Christianity, his statements have repeatedly been interpreted as articulating a theoretical understanding of politics or the state. In light of the role such interpretations have played in legitimizing the uncritical alignment of Christian authorities with unjust regimes—such as the Nazi regime in Ger‐ many—the question of a historically and theologically responsible interpretation becomes all the more urgent. 2. On the State of Research Until well into the last century, ecclesial tradition, drawing on Romans 13, generally upheld the God-given authority of the state. This included discus‐ sions of, among other things, the state’s ius gladii (power of the sword) and its relationship to the church—often framed in terms of the “two-swords theory.” 7 In contrast, exegetical scholarship has increasingly moved away from a state-theoretical approach. 8 In my view, a decisive advance in the field has been the historical contextualization of the Hellenistic terminology that dominates Romans 13—an approach undertaken by August Strobel, Willem van Unnik, and, more recently, Thomas Coleman. 9 A heuristic reconstruction of the historical situation to which Romans 13 responds is essential for a proper understanding of the passage. Central to this approach is the recognition of the text’s embeddedness in its specific historical and social context. Ernst Käsemann identifies a polemical stance against Christian enthusiasts in Rome who considered obedience to earthly political and social structures irrelevant for Christians, given their citizenship in the heavenly polis. 10 Johannes Friedrich, Wolfgang Pöhlmann, and Peter Stuhlmacher—whose thesis has been widely received—refer to historically documented abuses in the Roman tax system prior to the year 58, which led 2. On the State of Research 209 <?page no="210"?> 11 Friedrich, Pöhlmann, and Stuhlmacher, “Situation,” 153-159. See also Furnish, Teaching, 133-134; Dunn, Romans, 766 (on the general problem of taxation in light of the growing tension between Jews and Rome and the vulnerability of Christians); Merklein, “Sinn,” 431-434; McDonald, “Romans 13,1-7,” 546-547; Gielen, Tradition, 451-452; Wedderburn, Reason, 62; Theobald, Römerbrief (1993), 91-93; idem, Römerbrief (2000), 309. 12 Borg, “Context,” 205-218. The context of Roman suspicion toward Jews also plays a role in the interpretations of Dunn, Romans, 759, 766-768, and Pilgrim, Neighbors, 11-12. Bammel, “Romans 13,” 365-383 interprets Romans 13 as an apology against Zealot suspicion. 13 Pilgrim, Neighbors, 28-29. Theobald, Römerbrief (1993), 88 speaks of “Paul’s generally positive horizon of experience” with Roman rule (my translation). On the link between missionary strategy and both ecclesiastical and political aims, see Haacker, “Friedensmemorandum,” 25-41. According to Álvarez Cineira, Religionspolitik, 403, the avoidance of political conflicts with the judiciary served to preserve Paul’s opportunities for proclamation. 14 Schottroff, “Kaiser,” 185-192. Cf. Elliott, Liberating Paul, 225-226. 15 Wengst, Pax Romana, 104. 16 Pilgrim, Neighbors, 8-12, 27-36. See also, for example, Wengst, Pax Romana, 101-106. to unrest among the Roman population and significantly affected the Christian community there. 11 Marcus Borg posits the presence of Jewish nationalism in Rome in the period leading up to the outbreak of the Judeo-Roman War, including the possibility that radical nationalist Jews in the city were promoting a political messianism. Christians, closely affiliated with the Jewish communities, would have been drawn into the resulting tensions with Roman authorities. 12 Walter E. Pilgrim, along with many earlier interpreters, views the relatively calm early years of Nero’s reign as the context in which Paul presents Roman rule as a stable social order that could facilitate the expansion of the gospel to Spain. 13 Luise Schottroff, by contrast, situates the Sitz im Leben of Romans 13 in the context of persecution and state repression—though she must rely on second-century texts to substantiate this setting. According to her, Paul anticipates such circumstances with an appeal to loyalty and by invoking the paradigm of Christ’s passion. 14 Finally, Klaus Wengst suggests that Paul may be seeking to defend himself against potential accusations of disloyalty to the Roman Empire. 15 Walter E. Pilgrim’s treatment of Romans 13 may serve as a representative example of contemporary exegetical approaches to the passage. 16 He repeatedly voices a sense of unease regarding Paul’s uncritical stance toward the state, citing, for instance, the words of Klaus Wengst (Pax Romana, ET, pp. 83-84; German edition, p. 105): Paul “exposes himself to the danger of providing theo‐ logical legitimation for de facto power no matter how it may come into being, 210 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="211"?> 17 A similar contextual relativization is also undertaken by Elliott, Liberating Paul, 223- 225, and Venetz, “Unterwerfung,” 154-158. Wischmeyer, “Staat,” 160-161 neutralizes the highly-charged potential of Romans 13: 1-7 by treating it merely as a general backdrop to the specifically Christian paraenesis (agape) in 13: 8-10. 18 Cf. 1 Thess 5: 3 against the Roman propaganda slogan of “peace and security”; 1 Cor 12: 3; 8: 5-6; Rom 10: 9, and similar texts that proclaim only “Jesus Christ is Lord.” 19 Cf. 1 Cor 2: 6—the rulers of this aeon are passing away; Phil 3: 20—the politeuma is in heaven. Schrage, Christen, 50-62, emphasizes both Paul’s distance from the state and also his fundamental respect for and responsible affirmation of it; the state is viewed as the arena in which the gospel is tested in everyday life. 20 Pilgrim understands the context even more broadly: the crucifixion of Jesus (1 Cor 2: 3; Gal 3: 1, and others) recalls the injustice perpetrated by the Romans; he also points to Christian suffering (2 Cor 1: 7; Rom 8: 17) and to Paul’s theologia crucis (1 Cor 1: 18-25). and how it may be used” (p. 28). Clearly, Paul’s statement no longer fits within our contemporary worldview—an indication of a fundamental hermeneutical problem. At its core, Pilgrim’s interpretation amounts to a relativization of the text’s pointed assertion. This is accomplished by embedding it within a broader theological framework (p. 29): 17 the commandment to love (Rom 12; 13: 8-10) is extended to the public sphere; in light of the eschatological expectation (13: 11-14), government is understood merely as a temporally limited human institution. Pilgrim offers a series of further observations that serve to relativize the passage (pp. 30-35): (1) Romans 13 does not present a developed political doctrine but remains contextually bound; it offers ethical instruction rather than a political theory. In the background, however, lies Paul’s “conviction that governments have been divinely instituted to preserve order and peace and justice in the human community” (p. 30). The issue of the legitimacy of war is also not addressed (p. 11). (2) The response to a government that opposes the good and abuses its power remains an open question. (3) Other Pauline texts adopt a more critical stance toward the state and acknowledge its capacity for injustice—for example, 1 Cor 2: 6-8 (the rulers of this age fail to recognize God’s wisdom) or 2 Cor 11: 23-33 (Paul’s negative experiences with the authorities). 18 Paul expresses a degree of distance from state institutions, as seen in 1 Cor 6: 1-8, where he urges believers to refrain from appealing to secular courts. 19 Christianity “both honors the political structures for the common good as well as places them under divine authority” (p. 34). In my view, this expansion of the interpretive context becomes problematic when it moves beyond Romans itself and interprets the letter in light of other community situations. 20 Pilgrim concludes that the exclusive focus on Christ makes a conflict of loyalty with the state possible. Moreover, the exhortation to civic loyalty represents only one strand within the broader New Testament tradition. 2. On the State of Research 211 <?page no="212"?> 21 Botha, Subject (1994). 22 Perdue, “Social Character,” 6-11. 23 Sonntag, Nomos Soter (2000). Jan Botha’s monograph 21 offers a valuable framework for situating my approach within the broader history of scholarship. In his study, Botha explores various modern methodological approaches to the text, namely linguistic, literary (or epistolary), rhetorical, and social-scientific perspectives. In the final (and shortest) chapter (pp. 189-218), he applies broader sociological models of “society” to Romans 13, drawing in particular on the work of Leo G. Perdue: 22 According to a “paradigm of order,” paraenesis serves to sanction and reinforce the social order or status quo—an interpretation evident when Romans 13 is read in isolation from its surrounding context (pp. 203-206). However, when the passage is read in light of its broader context, a “paradigm of conflict” becomes discernible, highlighting tensions between the narrower Christian community and the state (pp. 206-207). Victor Turner’s “structure/ anti-structure” model al‐ lows for an integration of these two perspectives by drawing on the sociological distinction between Gesellschaft (society) and Gemeinschaft (community) (pp. 207-212). For the continued existence of the emerging Christian community, it becomes necessary “to conform to some of the values of the Gesellschaft, in particular those regarding conduct towards the people in positions of authority”; to this end, the social values of the Christian community are transformed (p. 217). By contrast, the sociological reading model I propose below places greater emphasis on the text itself, making it possible to identify directly within the passage what Botha can demonstrate only through contextual analysis: a clear relationship between the two positions, along with an evaluative stance toward them, becomes evident. Two recent studies operate largely within the framework of a horizontal concept of politics, aiming to interpret Paul in light of ancient political theory. Holger Sonntag 23 examines the concept of νόμος in pagan texts of antiquity. In philosophical writings, νόμος is the principle that transforms the individual into a (free) citizen and thereby into a fully realized human being—one who both acts justly and is just (p. 106). Paul, within his cultural context, contributes to the broader Greco-Roman political discourse in which pagans, Jews, and Christians participated—a discourse centered on the question: τί οὖν νόμος ἀγαθός; (p. 108). According to Paul, the gospel functions as a normative authority in contrast to both the Jewish law and pagan lawlessness, representing a concept that is at once intelligible and provocative to both audiences—a “comprehensible and at the same time offensive political concept” (p. 271; my 212 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="213"?> 24 Blumenfeld, Political Paul (2001). 25 Scott, Domination (1990), especially the introductory conceptual discussion, pp. 1-16; see also my treatment in: Schreiber, “Caesar.” translation). Moreover, the term δικαιοσύνη denotes “the civilized behavior of the polis citizen, humanized by law, toward God and others,” and is thus, in this context, a political term. For Paul, as “also in the political sphere,” what ultimately matters is orientation toward a fundamentally valid norm—one that holds within the “relevant political order” (p. 300; my translations). What this implies for Paul’s stance toward the state, however, remains unresolved; Romans 13 is not addressed. Bruno Blumenfeld 24 interprets Paul’s community theology as a political reflection grounded in ancient political theory—especially Plato, Aristotle, and Hellenistic Pythagoreanism. Accordingly, his extended treatment of Romans (pp. 302-414) brackets the specific historical situation and interprets Paul’s statements—particularly on δικαιοσύνη—as outlining a vision of political com‐ munity based on the polis. This vision draws from contemporary popular phi‐ losophy and affirms, even promotes, the legitimacy of the state—that is, Rome. Blumenfeld argues that Paul’s thought signals the beginnings of a longer-term development toward a Christian state modeled on the divine basileia (esp. pp. 411-414). In his reading of Romans 13, Blumenfeld emphasizes the Greco-Ro‐ man intellectual background and concludes that Paul both acknowledges and endorses the state (pp. 389-396). However, his analysis remains confined to the Hellenistic linguistic and conceptual surface of the text. In response to such assumptions about Paul’s engagement in a theoretical political discourse, it must be shown that Paul is, in fact, writing for a specific community in response to a concrete historical situation. 3. A Sociological Theory of Political Modes of Speech The distinction between public and hidden transcript, developed by sociologist James C. Scott, provides a productive theoretical framework for analyzing political language. 25 This model addresses speech within asymmetrical power re‐ lationships—between those who are subordinate and those who hold authority, between the oppressed and the oppressor —within institutionalized structures of social and political subjugation. Such dynamics can be observed, for instance, in the narratives of enslaved African Americans in the 19th-century American South. In these contexts, the public expressions of the oppressed conform to the expectations of those in power. Scott terms this outward-facing, socially 3. A Sociological Theory of Political Modes of Speech 213 <?page no="214"?> 26 The attempt to apply Scott’s theory by Herzog, “Dissembling,” 339-360 fails due to a neglect of the internal discourse. Accordingly, his analysis of strategies of dissimulation in Romans 13 (354-359) remains superficial. Building on Herzog’s approach, Stubbs, “Subjection,” 375-404 attempts to identify the hidden transcript in the immediate context of Romans 13: 1-7; however, this remains well below the theoretical potential of Scott’s model. 27 Cf. Scott, Domination, 136-156. 28 See Elliott, “Patience,” 32-41; Schreiber, “Caesar,” 76-78. 29 See also Schreiber, “Caesar,” 79. acceptable form of speech the public transcript. It reflects only the dominant values and perspectives of the ruling class, while leaving the true opinions and experiences of the subordinate group unspoken. When, by contrast, the subordinate speak among themselves—in a space removed from the control of the powerful and marked by mutual trust—Scott refers to this as the hidden transcript. These “hidden” expressions relativize or outright negate the public transcript at key points and reveal the true perspectives of the oppressed. Within the hidden transcript, the psychological consequences of the violations of human dignity caused by oppression and violence are, at least in part, processed and compensated for. The shared experience of oppression by an entire social group or people gives rise to a distinct collective linguistic culture—a discourse internal to the group that contains political counter-narratives and often draws upon religious forms of speech. 26 In most cases, the public transcript produced by the oppressed is crafted in such a way that elements of the hidden transcript are perceptible in veiled form. The techniques used to conceal these messages frequently rely on polysemous features of language—such as symbolism, metaphor, and allusion—making dual readings of the text possible. 27 Techniques for concealing politically sensitive statements can also be ob‐ served in early Jewish literature. For example, apocalyptic writings often offer veiled critiques of the Imperium Romanum through symbolic imagery. Similarly, 4 Maccabees creates the impression that it merely recounts past events —specifically, the persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes—and engages in a Hellenistic, popular-ethical discourse on virtues and passions, while in fact embedding politically charged messages beneath the surface. Philo of Alexandria’s allegorical interpretation of Joseph’s dream (Gen 37: 7) likewise oscillates between an individual-ethical exhortation to caution in the face of life’s uncertainties and a veiled critique of the arbitrary use of power by political authorities (Somn. 2.78-92). 28 Scott’s theoretical model can be applied to political discourse in the New Testament through a methodologically practicable three-step approach: 29 214 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="215"?> 30 For a clarification of the argumentative structure, see Stein, “Argument,” 325-343. - A text-linguistic analysis is provided by Merklein, “Sinn,” and Arzt, “Macht,” 163-181. (1) A key prerequisite for interpreting a political text is the socio-historical reconstruction of its extratextual context. Particular attention must be paid to the status of the text’s producers or recipients as subordinates or marginalized groups under the (potentially violent) authority of the Roman Empire. Interpre‐ tations that approach the text through the lens of political theory are, in this context, methodologically suspect. (2) A textually demonstrable distinction between public and hidden transcript allows for a methodologically sound analysis of its speech pragmatics. This presupposes a fundamental attentiveness to political critique that may be concealed within the public transcript. The linguistic forms and rhetorical strategies characteristic of both “public” and “hidden” modes of speech must be carefully examined. (3) The hidden transcript thus identified offers insight into how the commun‐ ity associated with the text perceived and evaluated the state, as well as into its internal cultural and religious discourse. It is within this discursive space that the group’s (critical) stance toward the state is formed and where strategies for coping with their socio-political reality are articulated. When Romans 13 is read against this background, its political implications come into view with greater nuance and critical awareness. Following a brief consideration of the text and its context, this study will proceed according to the three methodological steps outlined above. 4. Text and Context The argumentative structure of Romans 13: 1-7 can be outlined as follows: 30 - 1a General instruction - 1b.2 First justification (γάρ): state authority is instituted by God - 3.4 Second justification (γάρ): state authority serves the good - 5 Summary: brief restatement of the instruction and both justifications - 6 Concrete justification or conclusion: taxes and duties (reflecting the - - epistolary situation) - 7 General conclusion and summary exhortation Formally, the text connects instruction and justification through explicit argu‐ mentative markers (note the frequent use of γάρ [7x], ὥστε in v. 2, διό in v. 5, διὰ τοῦτο in v. 6); it adopts the style of a popular-philosophical discourse. 4. Text and Context 215 <?page no="216"?> 31 Botha, Subject, 90-92 classifies Romans 13: 1-7 within the paraenesis as a protreptikos (characterized by broader argumentation and thematic concentration). 32 Romans 13: 1-7 proves to be an original part of its context: the terminology of “good” and “evil” (13: 3-4) creates links to the surrounding material, where these terms frequently occur (12: 2, 9, 17, 21; 13: 10). Further connections exist through keywords such as τὰς ὀφειλάς (v. 7) / ὀφείλετε (v. 8), ἐκδίκησις (12: 19) / ἔκδικος (13: 4), τιμή (12: 10; 13: 7), and the motif of divine wrath or judgment (12: 19; 13: 4, 5). In light of this, the hypothesis that 13: 1-7 is a post-Pauline interpolation—most forcefully argued by Kallas, “Romans XIII,” 365-374—is now largely rejected. Walker, Interpolations, 221-231 however, leans again in this direction; as the following study will show, his argument—based on the assumption of an uncritical affirmation of authority in Romans 13—cannot be sustained. 33 Merklein, “Sinn,” 426-431 sharply emphasizes the lack of internal textual differentiation regarding attitudes toward the state; thus, he considers Romans 13 to be “a highly problematic example of persuasive discourse” (431; my translation). 34 This was already observed by Dibelius, “Rom,” 183. See also, for example, Theobald, Römerbrief (1993), 96. The immediate context of Romans 13 is the paraenesis 31 that begins explicitly in Rom 12: 1 (παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς). In 12: 2, Paul calls on the recipients not to be conformed to this present age (αἰών), but to be transformed by the renewal of their minds. Does this not already imply political consequences? The response follows in 13: 1-7. The broader section can be structured as follows: 12: 3-16 addresses life within the Christian community, while 12: 17-13: 7 con‐ cerns relationships with the outside world. The latter section may further be divided into 12: 17-21, which presents the “horizontal” aspect of political life (interpersonal conduct), and 13: 1-7, which addresses its “vertical” dimension (relation to governing authority). Cohesive features in the text enable readers to construct a sense of internal coherence. 32 The preceding exhortation to renounce vengeance (12: 17-21) reflects a “surplus of goodness” in the Roman Christians’ engagement with their broader environment. The attitude toward the state in 13: 1-7 follows naturally from this. Rom 13: 1-7 thus integrates meaningfully into the wider paraenetic section, which addresses both internal and external community relations—and, especially in the context of the Roman metropole, includes the relationship to state authority as a distinct and pressing issue. Given the unique nature of this subject, both tone and mode of argumentation shift significantly here, marking a notable change in the literary character of the passage. Two major questions arise upon a first reading and must be addressed by any coherent interpretation: Why is Paul so uncritical of the state? 33 And why is there so little in this passage that appears distinctly Christian? 34 216 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="217"?> 35 Bergmeier, “Loyalitätsparänese,” 341-357 completely disregards any situational back‐ ground of the text (cf. Pohle, Christen, 172) and derives his interpretation solely on the basis of a traditionally transmitted (early Jewish and Christian) catalog of paraenesis. The result is a one-sided emphasis on the duty of loyalty demanded by Paul in Rom 13 (with reference to Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms! ). According to this view, the state authorities are instituted by God, and the (publicly commendable) good is, for Christians, the practice of love; thus, state action is seen as a form of worship (esp. 356-357). Wischmeyer, “Staat,” 153-155 likewise largely ignores the historical situation in Rome; she misjudges the social character of the congregations when she views Christians “as citizens of a polis” (slaves are “not considered here,” 157). 36 See Tacitus, Ann. 2.85; Suetonius, Tib. 36; Cassius Dio, Hist. 57.18.5. 37 Possibly due to their stance toward Gentiles—for example, their admission into the group without circumcision. On the dating of the Claudian edict, see Orosius, Hist. adv. pag. 7.6.15 (5th cent.), who places it in the ninth year of Claudius’s reign, i.e., 49 CE. By contrast, Lüdemann, Paulus, 183-195 dates the event to 41 CE, identifying it with the assembly ban reported in Cassius Dio (Hist. 60.6.6). Lüdemann suggests that Dio modified his source. However, Dio does not correct a source here but rather contrasts this report with that of the earlier expulsion under Tiberius (Hist. 57.18.5). Moreover, the year 49 fits well with the context of Acts 18: 1-17; cf. Schnelle, Einleitung, 33-34. See also Alvarez Cineira, Religionspolitik, 194-216, who argues in favor of the interpretatio christiana (201-210). This interpretation still appears to me the most plausible, even though the brevity and terminological vagueness of the ancient notice invite alternative interpretations. For example, Slingerland, Policymaking, esp. 151-245 rejects the interpretatio christiana and interprets the notice as a reference to an expulsion 5. Ad (1): Socio-Historical Contexts Given the conditions of modern statehood in the Western world, it is not easy to grasp the political and social realities of a predominantly socially disadvantaged group, composed largely of non-citizens, living within the Imperium Romanum. For this reason, a primarily socio-historical (or sociological) methodological approach appears not only appropriate, but indeed necessary. 35 Rome—the city of the letter’s recipients—was the capital of the Roman Empire, the seat of the emperor and government, and a major military, economic, and cultural center. For the Christian communities in Rome, this entailed continual exposure to and confrontation with imperial authority. Their history is closely bound up with that of the Jewish synagogues, with which they initially coexisted within a shared communal framework. However, significant legal interventions by the authorities increasingly strained this relationship—both with the synagogues and within the Christian communities themselves: - Expulsions of Jews from Rome occurred in 19 CE under Tiberius 36 and again in 49 CE under Claudius, through the so-called Claudian Edict (Suetonius, Claud. 25.4). The occasion for this latter action appears to have been conflicts within the Jewish community—i.e., between Jews and “Christians” in Rome. 37 5. Ad (1): Socio-Historical Contexts 217 <?page no="218"?> of the Jews prompted by imperial hostility, allegedly influenced by a slave or freedman of Claudius named Chrestus. 38 Schnelle, Einleitung, 134 assumes a definitive separation and regards Jewish Christians as only a minority within the Christian congregations. However, the separation process was unlikely to have been smooth or immediate. In this context, Broer, Einleitung, 457, points to 1 Clem. (ca. 95) and The Shepherd of Hermas (mid-2nd cent.), both written in Rome and demonstrating close familiarity with Jewish and Jewish-Christian traditions. Evidently, connections persisted for some time, and a clear separation did not occur until the mid-2nd century. Furthermore, Theobald, Römerbrief (2000), 35 cautions that not all Jews were actually expelled, as Acts 18: 2 might suggest. Nonetheless, he argues that the trauma of the expulsion continued to shape the eventual separation between synagogue and communities. 39 On the historical events and consequences of 49 and 64 CE, see also Lichtenberger, “Josephus,” 257-260. On the social composition of the Roman “Christians,” see Gaston, “Romans in Context,” 131-135 (though he does not associate the Claudian edict with the Christian movement). 40 On this assessment, cf. also Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.4; Pliny, Ep. 10.96.8. This likely accelerated the process of separation between Jews and Christians in the city. 38 By the time of Nero’s persecution in 64 CE, Christians were evidently identifiable by the authorities as a distinct social group. As a result, the Roman Christians gradually lost the protection afforded by the legal privileges of the synagogues. 39 A growing sense of mistrust and antipathy from the Roman emperors—and likely from the lower administrative authorities as well—can already be discerned. - This is further confirmed by a ban on Jewish assemblies in Rome in 41 CE, issued on account of their large numbers (Cassius Dio, Hist. 60.6.6). - To what extent the tensions arising in Palestine in the lead-up to the Judean-Roman War also affected the situation in Rome remains unclear. - Under Nero, beginning in 64 CE, a large number of Christians were executed (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44 records this highly imprecise figure). The exact nature of the preceding tensions—whether primarily political or rather social—is not specified. Suetonius (Nero 16) likewise reports executions of Christians under Nero’s rule, portraying them as adherents of a novel and dangerous superstition (superstitio, 16.2), 40 and he includes these measures among the praiseworthy accomplishments of Nero’s reign. The term superstitio denotes the rejection of religio, the proper ritual and cultic observance, suggesting an emerging social marginalization of the Christian community. In the paraenetic section of Romans, Paul provides a clear indication of the Roman congregations’ strained relationship with their external environment. In Rom 12: 14, he refers to “persecutors” (διώκοντες), toward whom the readers are 218 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="219"?> 41 Cf. also the experience expressed in Rom 8: 35-36. On the early Christian motif of blessing one’s enemies, cf. Luke 6: 28. Paul also recommends behavior that avoids social conflict in 1 Thess 4: 11-12. 42 Theobald, Römerbrief (1993), 71. Cf. Haacker, Römer, 264-265. 43 The congregations were composed of both Gentile and Jewish Christians, likely with Gentile Christians in the majority. Paul refers to Gentile origins in Rom 1: 5-6, 13; 11: 13, 17; 15: 15-16, 18, while also indicating the presence of Jewish Christians (4: 1; 9: 24; 16: 7, 11). Jewish Christians who had been expelled could have returned to Rome following the repeal of the Claudian edict—at the latest, at the beginning of Nero’s reign in 54 CE. On the minority status and sense of social alienation, see also Theobald, Römerbrief (1993), 93. Elliott, Liberating Paul, 222-223, illustrates the vulnerability of Jewish communities under the Roman Empire using the situation of the Jews in Alexandria in the 1st century as an example. 44 The vast majority of members belonged to the lower social classes. Haacker, Römer, 263-264 suggests they were peregrini, since only these were subject to tribute (as implied in Rom 13: 6). Freedmen (liberti) are also likely. Lampe, Christen, 65-66 infers from the crucifixions under Nero that these were not Roman citizens, and through prosopographical analysis (135-153), determines a high percentage came from the lowest social strata. Possibly, during his stay in Corinth (where Paul likely composed Romans), he himself experienced instability and arbitrariness—or at least indifference— on the part of Roman authorities, as the Gallio episode in Acts 18: 12-17 suggests. instructed to respond not with curses but with blessings. 41 These persecutions are unlikely to have been formal, state-sanctioned, or systematically executed by Roman authorities. Rather, as Michael Theobald 42 argues, they reflect the precarious social position of the Christians, who, in the eyes of Roman society, were followers of a foreign and oriental cult. As such, they were increasingly exposed to suspicion and hostility from their pagan surroundings—particularly after their separation from the synagogue, which had previously afforded them a measure of legal protection. What is being described, then, are social tensions within Roman society, rooted in religious difference and culminating in social ostracism and discrimination. In this context, Paul’s exhortation in Rom 12: 18 “to live peaceably with all” (εἰρηνεύοντες) becomes especially meaningful. It reflects a call for restraint and non-provocation in the midst of an already volatile and vulnerable social situation. Conclusion: Even from an early stage, the relationship between Jews—and later, “Christians”—in Rome and the imperial authorities was marked by ten‐ sion and fragility. The Roman congregations (cf. Rom 1: 7) constituted small subgroups within the dominant Hellenistic society. 43 They were in the midst of a transitional process: separating from the synagogue, losing the associated legal privileges, and thereby undergoing a reconstitution of “Christian” identity. As a result, they were particularly vulnerable, lacking a clearly defined “social location” within Roman society. 44 Thus, the communities do not (yet) present 5. Ad (1): Socio-Historical Contexts 219 <?page no="220"?> In contrast, the idea of a (hopeless) rebellion, as mentioned by Alvarez Cineira, Religionspolitik, 402, does not fall within the horizon of the text’s assertions. 45 Against this background stands the thesis of Friedrich, Pöhlmann, and Stuhlmacher, “Situation,” 156-159: Paul exhorts the Roman Christians—living in a context of public lack of rights, resentment, and exposure to the extortionist demands of tax collectors—to exhibit Christian obedience. See also Tellbe, Paul, 176-181. a direct target, but they do offer a potential point of attack for Roman society, from which suspicion and an ever-present sense of threat emanate. Specific details concerning the relationship between the Roman congregations and the Imperium Romanum are not known. Accordingly, there is no indication that Paul, in Rom 13: 1-7, is responding to particular events or concrete developments involving the Roman authorities. Rather, he appears to offer a more general reflection on the precarious situation faced by these prominent congregations located in the heart of the Empire. A revealing glimpse into the broader political and social climate of the Roman population is offered by a report in Tacitus (Ann. 13.50-51; cf. Suetonius, Nero 10). Tacitus recounts widespread public discontent and protest over the burden of heavy taxation and the corrupt practices of the publicani—private contractors responsible for tax collection: In the same year [58 CE], as a consequence of repeated demands from the public, which complained of the exactions of the revenue-farmers, Nero hesitated whether he ought not to decree the abolition of all indirect taxation and present the reform as the noblest of gifts to the human race. … that the dissolution of the empire was certain if the revenues on which the state subsisted were to be curtailed: —For, the moment the duties on imports were removed, the logical sequel would be a demand for the abrogation of the direct taxes. … At the same time, a check ought certainly to be placed on the cupidity of the collectors; otherwise a system which had been endured for years without a complaint might be brought into ill odour by new-fashioned harshnesses. (Tacitus, Ann. 13.50-51, Jackson, LCL) To prevent unrest, the government under Nero introduced a series of reforms in 58 CE: laws were published to enhance legal transparency, a statute of limitations was introduced, and a formal mechanism for filing complaints was established. 45 It is reasonable to assume that Paul was aware of this situation through his contacts in Rome (cf. Romans 16). This suggests that Paul and the Roman Christians likely shared a similar perspective on the conditions in the city, thereby narrowing the interpretive gap between the text’s implied readers and its historical audience. In Rom 13: 6, Paul directly addresses the issue of taxes and duties—both direct and indirect forms of tribute—which was no doubt 220 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="221"?> 46 A different view is offered, however, by the Einheitsübersetzung (1980), which entitles the pericope: “Der Christ und die staatliche Ordnung”—“The Christian and the State Order,” thereby suggesting and implying a more general, doctrinal interpretation. The political-theoretical classification of Romans 13 thus also becomes problematic in the work of Cancik, “Gewalt,” 53-74. 47 Theobald, Römerbrief (1993), 90 speaks of a popular-philosophical style of presentation; Unnik, “Lob,” 342-343, and Schlier, Römerbrief, 389 describe it as the style of the diatribe. Wilckens, Römer, 40 identifies “the general legal style in the third person” (my translation). 48 According to Strobel, “Verständnis,” 84 (cf. 90), Rom 13: 1-7, in terms of its terminology, is a secular text. The “language of the state” runs counter to the approach of Nanos, Mystery, 289-336, who reads Rom 13 as an exhortation directed at Gentile Christians to submit to the authorities of the synagogue(s) in Rome. Tellbe, Paul, 187-188 argues too strongly e silentio when he imputes an implicit rejection of the temple tax to the text. The translation of Rom 13 offered by Schenk, “Römer 13,” 994-95, which focuses narrowly on fiscal terminology, rests on an unduly restrictive interpretation of the Greek vocabulary. a general concern among Roman Christians. However, there is no evidence of specific conflicts or acts of resistance related to tax collection. Might Paul have been concerned that Christians, by engaging in acts of defiance, could put their very existence at risk? Given the legally uncertain and socially precarious position of the Roman congregations, Paul is not writing from a stable position that would allow for the development of a full-fledged political theology—a metaphysical account of the state from which moral obligations toward it could be systematically derived. Rather, his concern appears to be entirely practical: helping the community navigate a tense and potentially dangerous situation. 46 6. Ad (2): Differentiation between Public and Hidden Transcripts 6.1 Indicators of a Public Transcript Formally, Pauline paraenesis typically employs the second person plural (direct address). In Rom 13: 1-5, however, the use of the third person—and in vv. 3b and 4, the second person singular—gives the passage the tone of a Hellenistic-style ethical discourse. 47 Terminologically, the key concepts are drawn from the political and adminis‐ trative vocabulary of the Hellenistic-Roman world. 48 This results in a linguistic surface that aligns with Roman cultural norms. Individual lexical examples further illustrate this framework of reference: 6. Ad (2): Differentiation between Public and Hidden Transcripts 221 <?page no="222"?> 49 Strobel, “Verständnis,” 75-79, esp. 79. 50 Botha, Subject, 40-41 also arrives at this insight, using linguistic methodology; see already Käsemann, Römer, 341-342. This personal perspective also becomes evident in v. 6, where the tax is immediately considered from the standpoint of the individuals involved in its collection. 51 Bergmeier, “ὑποτάσσω,” 975-976; cf. Theobald, Römerbrief (1993), 86. On Pauline usage, see Rom 8: 7 (submission to God’s law); 10: 3 (to God’s righteousness); 1 Cor 16: 16 (in the social realm, submission to community leaders). 52 Bauer, Wörterbuch, 1689-1690. According to Wilckens, Römer, 33, regarding state authorities, “what is meant concretely is their competence to order” (my translation). In Paul, the verb denotes voluntary subordination by a person; so Alvarez Cineira, Religionspolitik, 401. 53 See the references in Strobel, “Verständnis,” 85-86. The usage of the noun διαταγή (v. 2), which appears especially in private legal contexts, is less clear; cf. Friedrich, Pöhlmann, and Stuhlmacher, “Situation,” 136-138. To conclude from these authors that Paul avoids “the idea of that hierarchical pyramid of offices (…), with God at the top, the state authorities at the center, and the citizens or Christians at the base” (139), and thereby echoes of the “ruler ideology and glorification of the state under the notion of order” (140, my translations), seems to me too far-reaching. 54 Unnik, “Lob,” 336-340. See also the epigraphic and literary material in Winter, “Hon‐ ouring,” 88-92. v. 1 ἐξουσίαι: The closest Latin equivalents found in official terminology are imperia and potestates, which refer to the various authoritative offices within the extensive administrative apparatus of the Roman Empire 49 —namely, those who hold public power: officials, magistrates, and other authorities. The emphasis here lies not on the institutions themselves, but on the individuals who hold such offices. 50 ὑποτάσσεσθαι: This verb reflects the social structures of the Hellenistic-Roman world, 51 and denotes an actual subordination to figures of authority and respect. 52 τεταγμέναι: The term (προ)τεταγμένος is frequently used as a Greek rendering of various Roman administrative offices and, in some cases, can be translated as praefectus. 53 v. 3 ἔπαινος: The term “praise” evokes the Roman laudatio, an official com‐ mendation awarded for exemplary conduct. Willem van Unnik has demonstra‐ ted—on the basis of numerous examples—that the Hellenistic world commonly understood praise/ honor and blame as standard responses of a higher authority to good or bad behavior. 54 Within this framework, it is considered a fundamental duty of governing authorities to commend those who do good and to punish 222 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="223"?> 55 Unnik, “Lob,” 341. Thus, the state serves for the good of the inhabitants. According to Scott, Domination, 18 the ideological claim to govern for the benefit of subordinates is a characteristic component of a public transcript. 56 Lysias, Or. 31.30; Xenophon, Cyr. 1.6.20; Mem. 3.4.8; Oec. 9.14; Demosthenes, Or. 20.504; Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 1.70.6; 5.71.1, 6; Plutarch, Mor. 779b; Philo, Spec. 4.77; Sacr. 131, 133; Mos. 1.153-154; Virt. 227; Josephus, B.J. 6.134; A.J. 6.267. See also the later Christian attestations: 1 Pet 2: 14; Aristides, Apologia 13.7; Athenagoras, Suppl. 24; Tatian, Or. Graec. 7.1-2; Eusebius, Praep. ev. 6.6.16, 18. Also Ps.-Lysias, Or. 2.17-19. — The Pauline distinction from this Hellenistic norm is described by Unnik, “Lob,” 343, as follows: in Hellenism, the ruling authority is autonomous, that is, it judges on the basis of its own lawfulness, whereas Paul views the authority as instituted by God and dependent on him. 57 Cf. Strobel, “Verständnis,” 81-85. wrongdoers. 55 Praise and honor are expressed both verbally (ἐπαινέω, τιμάω) and substantively (ἔπαινος, τιμή). 56 Two illustrative examples: Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 1.1.2: The historian’s task is “to bestow just praise upon noble men for their virtuous deeds, and to consider the wicked through a record of their crimes worthy of just reproof ” (τοῖς μὲν ἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐπὶ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων τὸν δίκαιον ἐπιλέγειν ἔπαινον, τοὺς δὲ φαύλους, ὅταν ἐξαμαρτάνωσιν, ἀξιοῦν δικαίας ἐπιτιμίας; cf. 11.46.1). Dio Chrysostom, Or. 39.2: The gods themselves, as city-founders, aim to establish “a lawful civic order, one that assigns honor to virtuous citizens and dishonor to the wicked” (πολιτείαν νόμιμον καὶ τῶν μὲν ἀγαθῶν πολιτῶν τιμήν, τῶν δὲ κακῶν ἀτιμίαν). In imperial correspondence addressed to various cities of the empire, such “praise” is often extended—not merely to a select few individuals, but to the entire population. 57 Grounds for such praise include, among other things, public demonstrations of honor (τιμαί) toward the emperor (cf. Rom 13: 7), as well as generally commendable behavior (ἀγαθός, καλός) in the sense of being an orderly and responsible citizen. Especially in connection with the latter, numerous examples from letters and inscriptions attest to the influence of this ideal on public conduct. The ἀνὴρ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός—the “noble and good man” who comports himself appropriately within his social status—is consistently portrayed as an ideal. More broadly, τιμή (cf. v. 7) is among the central social values in Roman society. “Honor” is due to public benefactors—especially from those who have benefited from them (e.g., Seneca, Ben. 4.21.2; Plutarch, Phil. 21.12.6)—but also to all those in authority, including the emperor (e.g., Philo, 6. Ad (2): Differentiation between Public and Hidden Transcripts 223 <?page no="224"?> 58 On the high value placed on “honor,” see further Coleman, “Obligations,” 318-325. Moxnes, “Honor,” 210-212 understands Rom 13 in the broader context “of a society that holds honor as its most prominent value” (210); this is taken up by Botha, Subject, 213-215. 59 Cf. Strobel, “Verständnis,” 79 no. 71. 60 On this background, see Friedrich, Pöhlmann, and Stuhlmacher, “Situation,” 140-145, esp 144 with no. 75 and 77. A different interpretation is offered by Strobel, “Verständnis,” 88-89, in terms of the ius gladii, the Roman jurisdiction over capital punishment. 61 See the overview of secular meanings in Schrenk, “ἔκδικος,” 442-443. Strobel, “Ver‐ ständnis,” 89-90 proposes defensor (“advocate”) as an equivalent. 62 Strobel, “Verständnis,” 86-87. 63 Strobel, “Verständnis,” 87-88. As a technical term for paying taxes in Josephus, A.J. 12.159; Philo, Opif. 85. 64 Strobel, “Verständnis,” 88; Coleman, “Obligations,” 309-315. The phrase φόρους τελέω is commonly used. Merklein, “Sinn,” 418 no. 39, points out that in addition to the tributum, there were other direct taxes such as inheritance, sales, and manumission taxes. 65 In the Septuagint, the verb φοβέω can denote fear of human authorities: Lev 19: 3 (father and mother); Num 12: 8 (Moses); Prov 24: 21 (God and the king). Legat. 140) and subordinate officials. Cities regularly bestowed honors upon their benefactors. 58 v. 3 The term ἄρχοντες could be rendered in Latin as magistratus. 59 v. 4 The word μάχαιρα (cf. Rom 8: 35; Matt 26: 47) denotes a sword as a weapon, in contrast to ξίφος, which refers to a sword as a symbol of office. In Roman Egypt, armed police officers are referred to as μαχαιροφόροι, who occasionally appear in the company of tax collectors (cf. Philo, Spec. 2.92-95; 3.159-163, where Philo describes violent abuses committed by armed tax collectors). 60 This likely indicates a reference to the exercise of state police power. The term ἔκδικος is frequently translated as “avenger,” but it may be better understood as “state prosecutor” or “judicial enforcer” in the context of divine wrath. 61 v. 6 The λειτουργοί are (rather subordinate) civil servants or state function‐ aries. 62 v. 7 The verb ἀποδιδόναι is commonly used in the context of fulfilling the duties of subjects, particularly with regard to showing honor (τιμή) to those in authority and the payment of money (including taxes, τέλος). 63 The phrase τὰς ὀφειλάς is commonly used when talking about the duties of subordinates. The terms φόρος and τέλος are standard designations for direct and indirect taxes, roughly corresponding to the Latin terms tributum and vectigal. 64 The word φόβος is used in the sense of fear, meaning reverence or respect, directed toward superiors (e.g., the emperor or officials); cf. Aelius Aristides, Or. 26.31-32; (Ps.-)Aristotle, Oec. 3.3. 65 224 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="225"?> 66 For the historian Michael Rostovtzeff (History, 131), the speech on Rome is “one of the most important sources of information … on the political ideas current at the time [sc. of the Antonines].” 67 English translation in Behr, Aristides. Text and German translation in Klein, Romrede (1983). — There is much to support the dating to the year 143, proposed by Klein, Romrede (1981), 76-77. In contrast, Behr, Aristides, 373 opts for the year 155. An example of a statement reflecting the Roman public transcript 66 is provi‐ ded by Aelius Aristides in Or. 26 (ΕΙΣ ΡΩΜΗΝ / “To Rome,” mid-2nd century CE): 67 31. Everything is accomplished by edict and by a sign of assent more easily than one would strike the chord of a lyre. And if something must be done, it is enough to decree it and it is accomplished. The rulers (ἄρχοντες) who are sent to the cities and to the peoples are each the rulers of those under them, but in regard to their personal position and their relations to each other are equally subjects. And, indeed, one would say that in this respect they differ from their subjects, in that they first teach the duties of a subject. So much fear (φόβος) is instilled in all for the great ruler (τοῦ μεγάλος ἄρχοντος) and president of the whole [thus, a “hierarchy of rule”]. 32. Therefore they believe that he has more knowledge of their actions than they do of themselves, and they have more fear and respect for him than anyone would for the presence of his master who was supervising and giving orders. 38. [Context: availability of appeal in judicial cases] … Another great judge remains, whom no aspect of justice ever escapes. 39. And here there is a great and fair equality between weak and powerful, obscure and famous, poor and rich and noble. … however, justice (τὸ δίκαιον) guides him … 65. … Since the government (πολιτεία) is universal and like that of a single city, the governors with good reason rule not foreigners, but, as it were, their own people. In addition, under this government all of the masses have a sense of security against the powerful among them … [regarding Roman citizens] 66. Thus, with good reason the present circumstances are satisfactory and expedient for both poor and rich … And there has arisen a single harmonious government (μία ἁρμονία πολιτείας) … and that which formerly seemed impossible to happen has been combined under you, the great and real power of empire and generosity (φιλανθρωπία). And of those who have been rulers, you alone have come to possess true power. 67. … If some city through its excessive greatness has lost the power of exercising self-control, you have not even begrudged these people officials to oversee and protect them. All men pay taxes 6. Ad (2): Differentiation between Public and Hidden Transcripts 225 <?page no="226"?> 68 Cicero also names taxes as a return for the pax Romana: Quint. fratr. 1.1.34; cf. Tacitus, Hist. 4.74 (the Roman general Cerialis in 69 CE addressing the revolting Batavians); Cassius Dio, Hist. 52.29 (speech of Maecenas). — In preferring the paying of taxes to their collection, Aristides may have had in mind the former kingdoms of Pergamum, Cyrene, and Bithynia, which voluntarily handed themselves over to Rome (in 133 and 74 BCE, respectively); see Klein, Romrede (1983), 96. 69 The image of Rome as the light of the world is frequently used (e.g., Cicero, Imp. Pomp. 14.41; Pliny, Nat. 27.3); cf. Klein, Romrede (1983), 118. According to Behr Aristides, 378, φῶς possesses “primarily a religious significance” (with reference to Tacitus, Agr. 44.5). 70 Cf. Or. 2.454 (Plato, Resp. 391d); one is to think of men like Aeneas, Theseus, or Achilles. On this, see Behr, Aristides, 379. (τοὺς φόρους) to you with greater pleasure than some people would collect them from others. With good reason! 68 89. … For whenever one man commands so many, while those who are servants and legates (διάκονοί τε καὶ πρέσβεις) for him are far inferior to him, but far superior to those over whom they have charge, whenever they accomplish everything quietly without disturbance and confusion, whenever there is no envy, whenever everything everywhere is full of justice and respect, whenever the fruits of virtue (καρπὸς δὲ ἀρετῇς) are lost to no one, how is this verse not most suitable? 91. … For you alone are natural (κατὰ φύσιν) rulers, one might say. … Since you were free from the beginning and, as it were, were born directly to be rulers, you have well prepared all that pertains to this and have discovered a form of government which no one had before, and have im-posed unvarying law and order on all men. 103. [After the beginning of Roman rule] … and there entered in universal order (τάξις) and a glorious light 69 in life and government and the laws (νόμοι) came to the fore and the altars of the gods were believed in (πίστιν ἔλαβον). 104. … And it seems that the gods (οἱ θεοί), watching from above, in their benevolence join with you in making your empire successful (συγκατορθοῦν … τὴν ἀρχήν) and that they confirm your possession of it. 105. Zeus … Hera … Athena and Hephaestus … 107. [Regarding the emperor] … And one would say that whatever decision he might render is truly justice (δικαιοσύνη) and law (νόμιμον). And one would add that the following surpasses all the rest. What is this? Clearly that he has treated as equals his partners in the administration of the empire (τῆς ἀρχῆς κοινωνούς), whom he regards as kinsmen, and that he has more of them than any of his predecessors. 109. [In the form of a prayer] Let all the gods and the sons of the gods 70 be invoked, and let them grant that this empire and this city bloom forever and not cease … and that the great emperor and his sons be kept safe and obtain good for all mankind (ἄρχοντά 226 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="227"?> 71 One of the most significant topoi of Roman panegyric is the divine protection of the Imperium Romanum from the beginning of its history; piety and the possession of religious tokens (e.g., the sacred fire of Vesta, the Penates, the Palladium, the sacred shields of Mars) guarantee this status of Rome; cf. Klein, Romrede (1983), 118-119 (with references). 72 References in Schrage, Staat, 14-28; Friedrich, Pöhlmann, and Stuhlmacher, “Situation,” 145-146. 73 Jer 21: 7, 10; 22: 25 and elsewhere name Nebuchadnezzar as appointed by God; in Jer 25: 9; 27: 6-7; 43: 10 he appears as the “servant” of YHWH. These statements are not found in the L X X ! Cf. 2 Sam 12: 7-8. 74 Translation according to Michel and Bauernfeind, Josephus, 209. “Loyalty” here denotes a duty of allegiance; what is meant is the state authority (as this is self-evident in relation to superiors; cf. 2.126). 75 However, this does not primarily serve the purpose of prompting readers to identify with Paul’s position and thereby cooperate with his future plans (the mission to Spain), as Botha, Subject, 115 suggests (cf. ibid., 187: “The exhortation is primarily one of the strategies employed by the encoded author to enhance his credibility, and it serves as one more way to identify with the implied readers.”). From a historical perspective, the statement remains removed from its situation—rather, Paul is responding to the threatening nature of the context and articulates the Christian value system in a way demanded by it. τε τὸν μέγαν … πρυτανεύειν τὰ πᾶσι τἀγαθά). 71 … (cf. 29. … the whole inhabited world speaks in greater harmony than a chorus, praying that this empire last for all time.) From the perspective of the history of religions, the Old Testament and early Jewish idea that governmental authority is instituted by God is widely attested. 72 Thus, according to Isa 41: 2, 4, 25; 45: 1-6, God authorizes King Cyrus as an instrument of his will. 73 Further attestations include Prov 8: 15-16; 21: 1; Wis 6: 3-4 (v. 4: kings as ὑπηρέται [servants] of God’s royal sovereignty); Sir 10: 4; 17: 17 (“For every nation he appointed a ruler, but Israel is the Lord’s own inheritance”); Dan 2: 21, 37-38; 5: 18, 21; 1 En. 46: 5; 2 Bar. 82: 9; 4 Macc 12: 11; Let. Aris. 196, 219, 224 (cf. 15). Josephus (B.J. 2.140) presents a similar perspective in his description of the Essenes: anyone newly admitted to their community swears an oath, which includes the promise “always to remain loyal to all, but especially to those in authority (τοῖς κρατοῦσιν), since no one attains to rule (τὸ ἄρχειν) apart from God.” 74 See also B.J. 1.390; 2.390; A.J. 15.374-376; as well as John 19: 11. The wide distribution of these texts demonstrates how familiar and broadly accepted this idea was. 75 Paul, then, is stating something “well known,” almost self-evident. Other related themes are also attested in early Judaism: the demand for obedience to state authorities appears in Philo, Legat. 69 (“The right … to command belongs solely to the princeps, while the duty of the subject is to obey”), as well as Legat. 152, 236, 312; Flacc. 84; Josephus, B.J. 2.350, 433; A.J. 6. Ad (2): Differentiation between Public and Hidden Transcripts 227 <?page no="228"?> 76 Strobel, “Verständnis,” 92 remains on the level of the public transcript when he sees Rom 13 as “written in the spirit of the ancient ideal of the good, upright citizen” (my translation). See also Lohse, Römer, 352-359. 77 The aim of the passage—to advocate integration into the existing order, the iustitia civilis—is emphasized by Schrage, Staat, 57; Merklein, “Sinn,” 413-414; Gielen, Tradition, 445-446. 11.43-48; also Sir 4: 27; Let. Aris. 254. Fear of the king is found in Prov 24: 21, and fear of punishment in Philo, Legat. 7. Honor toward rulers is attested in Philo, Flacc. 49; Legat. 86, 133, 140, 149, 153-154, 305. This tradition continues into the New Testament, as seen in 1 Pet 2: 17: “Fear God, honor the emperor.” In terms of content, Paul begins Rom 13: 1—with emphasis achieved through the initial position—with πᾶσα ψυχή, thereby generalizing his remarks beyond his immediate readership (cf. the same syntagma in 2: 9). What he now states applies equally to all inhabitants of the Roman Empire. This is all the more striking given that, in 12: 2, at the outset of the paraenesis, Paul had urged his audience not to be conformed to this age (αἰών)—and now, he makes an undifferentiated statement that applies to all! The variation of the prefixes ὑπέρand ὑπό-, occurring in immediate succession, linguistically illustrates the existing realities of superordination and subordination. The participle οὖσαι points to the actual structure of the state, which, as being instituted by God, serves as the starting point for Paul’s reflections. Through these linguistic details, Paul signals to his readers—at the very beginning of his instructions concerning conduct in the realm of the state—that he intends to speak “publicly,” that is, in a way aimed at the broader public. 76 For this reason, Paul deliberately refrains from any explicitly Christian line of argumentation. He himself enacts what he intends to exhort others to do. The entire subsequent argument is framed in such a way that it corresponds to the Roman public transcript—the ideological construct of a Roman “world order”: state authority is divinely legitimized (v. 1b); resistance constitutes an affront to the divine will (v. 2); rulers are servants of God who promote the doing of good and even execute divine judgment; those who integrate themselves into the existing social order are deemed praiseworthy (vv. 3-4); 77 subordination is an internal necessity (ἀνάγκη, v. 5); the payment of taxes is presented as a virtually self-evident reciprocal obligation in exchange for state order and the pax Romana (v. 6). The final sentence (v. 7) aligns with this framework: once again, “all” (πάντες) are explicitly the object of obligation, and the content of that obligation is underscored through the rhetorical device of doubling (geminatio 228 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="229"?> 78 Usually, all four “obligations” are interpreted as referring to the state; see Gielen, Tradition, 453-455; Merklein, “Sinn,” 420-421. 79 On this intention, see also Theobald, Römerbrief (2000), 309-310. Friedrich, Pöhlmann, and Stuhlmacher, “Situation,” 165 reduce the occasion to the “tax burden” and, going beyond a pragmatic aim, add a metaphysical one: because “a world moving toward God’s judgment requires a regulating state authority in order not to fall prematurely into chaos” (my translation). But this is precisely not how Paul thinks. 80 Scott, Domination, 32 generally observes that the language and gestures of subordina‐ tion “serve also as a barrier and a veil that the dominant find difficult or impossible to penetrate.” Josephus, B.J. 2.350-351 puts it this way: “One must try to win over the authorities and not provoke them. … Nothing makes the blows cease more readily than patient endurance, and the silence of the victims leads to a change in their tormentors.” The actual effectiveness of the public transcript is illustrated, for example, by Velleius Paterculus, Hist. Rom. 2.117-118: the Germanic tribes demonstrate willing subordination to the Roman general Varus, thus giving him a false sense of security and preparing his defeat (cf. Haacker, Römer, 269). Schottroff, “Kaiser,” 206-216 misunderstands Paul’s intent to secure existential survival: for Paul, the (to him self-evident) limit of loyalty lies in the resistance against Satan that shapes the entire Christian existence—resistance which consists essentially in the specific life of the congregations and generates conflicts with the Roman populace and authorities (up to martyrdom); Rom 13: 1 expresses the “radicalism of apocalypticism” (203: “Radikalität der Apokalyptik”). The fact that a certain political surveillance of literary production (cf. Haacker, Römer, 264) may also have compelled Paul to caution could be an additional factor. 81 According to Botha, Subject, 87, the purpose of the paraenesis with regard to the audi‐ ence includes “pressing them to continue a certain way of life rather than convincing them to adapt a new way of life.” or anadiplosis): taxes, duties, fear, and honor—all these are owed to the empire and its representatives. 78 Those who shape their behavior accordingly avoid conflict with the author‐ ities—this intention emerges clearly from Paul’s discussion and is something he seeks to impress upon the Roman congregations. 79 In the context of the Roman communities, marked by tensions and significant potential for social conflict, this guidance is intended to ensure their continued existence in a fundamental way. It is thus unequivocally clear that Christian communities can live under the Roman Empire without surrendering their identity. The statements serve a protective function 80 and are therefore oriented in a thoroughly pragmatic way. Within the broader framework of the paraenesis, what occurs here is less the introduction of a new norm of behavior than the affirmation and consolidation of a practice that was likely already being observed—though constantly at risk. 81 6. Ad (2): Differentiation between Public and Hidden Transcripts 229 <?page no="230"?> 6.2 Indicators of a Hidden Transcript From the perspective of the history of religions, the early Jewish conception of the establishment of state authority by God almost always contains a central implication: the subordination of rulers to God, which at the same time serves to affirm God’s universal sovereignty. This conception functions as a form of critique of rulers, expressing a normative demand upon those in power. Numerous examples can be cited. Prov 8: 15-16 names wisdom, in context, as a divine gift to kings and exhorts them to receive it; through it, rulers are enabled to judge justly. According to Prov 21: 1, God directs the heart of the king—an assertion that carries an implicit demand, since v. 2 declares that God examines the hearts. Wis 6: 3-4 speaks for itself: 3 It was the Lord who gave you [sc. the kings] power (κράτησις), the Highest who gave you sovereignty (δυναστεία); he it is who will try your works and search out your counsels. 4 Though you are servants of his kingdom, you have not judged aright, nor kept the law, nor walked according to the instruction of God. In context, admonitions to exercise understanding and threats of divine pun‐ ishment follow, indicating a clear function of critique. According to Sir 4: 27, conduct in accordance with wisdom takes precedence over deference to the ruler. Even when Sir 10: 4 presents the ruler as an appointment of God, the expectation of wise governance still applies (vv. 1-18); the ruler’s life is not in his own hands (v. 10: “today a king, tomorrow dead”), and God casts down the throne of the proud (v. 14). When Dan 2: 21 affirms that God “removes kings and sets up kings,” divine authority is presented as the ultimate corrective to royal power. “The most high God has sovereignty over the kingdom of mortals and gives it to whom he will” (Dan 5: 21)—a truth that Nebuchadnezzar came to recognize in light of his downfall. That God had granted the king his power (v. 18) implies an inherent expectation of righteous governance. In the apocalyptic vision of 1 En. 46: 5, the Son of Man—who enacts the final judgment—removes thrones and kingdoms from the kings because they failed to exalt and praise him and did not “humbly acknowledge from whom they had received the kingdom.” Similarly, 2 Bar. 82: 9 states that it was the goodness of God that granted rulers their power; their destruction is foretold as a consequence of denying this truth. The statements in Let. Aris. 196, 219, and 224 appear within the context of a mirror for princes, which reflects on the proper conduct of a king and thereby conveys a critical perspective: Since God has granted the king his rule, he ought to do nothing unworthy of his office (219); whoever acknowledges that no one 230 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="231"?> 82 In contrast to ἀπό with the genitive: instrumental meaning “from / out of.” 83 A relativization of earthly authorities is also noted by Gielen, Tradition, 443. 84 Friedrich, Pöhlmann, and Stuhlmacher, “Situation,” 162, and Stein, “Argument,” 331-332, speak of the κρίμα of God. According to Alvarez Cineira, Religionspolitik, 401-402, however, the context indicates that the judgment in v. 2b refers to legal-political measures of the authorities. This is not a contradiction, since it is precisely through these that God’s judgment becomes effective. 85 Cf. also the judicial terminology (κρίμα, ὀργή) in 2: 1-5. In Romans, κρίμα always refers to the judgment of God (2: 2, 3; 3: 8; 5: 16; 11: 33). becomes king by their own merit, but that kingship is a divine gift, can avoid the envy of others (224); the king can retain his power if he remains conscious that ultimate authority is bestowed by God (196). See also Let. Aris. 15, which refers to the insight that God guides the king’s rule—an insight that results in the release of the enslaved Jews. In A.J. 15.374-375, Josephus reports that the Essene Manaemus foretells that the young Herod has been deemed worthy of kingship by God. He then adds, with a critical undertone, a brief mirror for princes: the virtues of a ruler are love of justice and piety, along with kindness toward one’s subjects. In the New Testament, Jesus offers a similar critique of political authority in John 19: 11, where Pilate’s power is described as existing only because it has been given “from above” (ἄνωθεν). Those familiar with this tradition will recognize its function as a critique of political rule. Even though Paul does not address it directly, the tradition itself likely alerts readers to its underlying critical dimension. The uniformly positive depiction of state authorities provokes objection and invites critical engagement, as the recipients of the text are confronted with very different real-life experiences. This tension leads to a search for hidden nuances that might serve to relativize the authority of the state. The phrase ὑπὸ θεοῦ, used twice in v. 1, can be read with a critical undertone: ὑπό with the genitive carries a causal sense, 82 indicating that God is the source of all authority. Rather than signaling an unqualified legitimization, this formulation suggests a reflective subordination of rulers to God. 83 The use of “God” in the singular evokes the biblical and early Jewish conception of God, in contrast to Roman polytheism. In vv. 2 and 4, governmental authority is portrayed as an instrument of divine judgment. 84 By contrast, in 12: 19, God alone is the agent of judgment (ὀργή) and vengeance. 85 God thus remains the ultimate source of judgment—one to which all are subject, including the authorities themselves. In vv. 3-4, Paul develops the Hellenistic principle of the state’s function to reward good and punish evil in heightened rhetorical language, making it unmistakable and, at the same time, opening the key terms to interpretation. This prompts the question: are “the good” and “the evil” for Christians (cf. 12: 2, 9, 17, 21; 6. Ad (2): Differentiation between Public and Hidden Transcripts 231 <?page no="232"?> 86 The general familiarity with the practice of publicly honoring benefactors does not yet justify the conclusion that Christians also benefited from it (contra Winter, “Honouring,” 92-95); both socio-historical and text-pragmatic evidence argue against this. 87 According to Wilckens, Römer, 37, v. 6 provokes the Roman congregation. The thought may also be prompted that even if state officials are not aware of it, they are nevertheless being used by God as instruments of his eschatological action. Unlikely is the claim of Richardson, Language, 187, 196, that Paul’s frequent invocation of God corresponds to an anticipated resistance against his statement. 88 Wilckens, Römer, 36 (my translation). 89 Haacker, Römer, 268 speaks of political reason (politische Vernunft). The surpassing of mere opportunism by the conviction of conscience is found formally in numerous Latin authors: Seneca, Vit. beat. 20.4; Ira 3.41.1; Horace, Ep. 1.16.52-53; Velleius Paterculus, Hist. Rom. 2.115; Virgil, Aen. 9.252-254; Tacitus, Agr. 1.2 (cf. also ibid., 267-268 no. 32). 13: 10) identical to what they are for “everyone” (13: 3-4)? Does not the Christian understanding involve something far more profound—especially in light of the surrounding context, where love serves as the defining criterion of the good? Moreover, one must ask whether it is historically plausible that members of the Roman congregations would have received official commendation (ἔπαινος, v. 3). For those from the lower social strata, this seems highly unlikely. In this light, the “praise” of the authorities becomes a culturally intelligible concept but one that lacks motivational force. 86 Instead, what is “hidden” in the text is a reference to the distinctively Christian understanding of the good. The term “God” is emphasized in v. 4 by the repeated placement of the genitive attribute θεοῦ before the noun διάκονος, underscoring God as the source and foundation of the state’s service. The designation of state authority as God’s servant (διάκονος τοῦ θεοῦ, v. 4) and tax collectors as ministers of God (λειτουργοί τοῦ θεοῦ, v. 6) conveys subordination to God and introduces a critical dimension: 87 behavior should conform to this divine commission, allowing for an inner distance from officials whose actions deviate from it. The concept of συνείδησις (v. 5) brings into view the tension between public and hidden transcripts, especially when one considers the distinction between a general and a specifically Christian understanding of “conscience” (or “consciousness”). Conscience, as a faculty of moral judgment, is socially or communally (i.e., group-specifically) shaped in its content. In Rom 2: 15, Paul refers to Gentiles who, though without the law, act according to nature (φύσις, 2: 14); their conscience, as Ulrich Wilckens puts it, reflects an “inner knowledge of good and evil that proves decisive in the conflict of thoughts.” 88 When Rom 13: 5 is read in light of this background, submission to state authority appears as a general demand of conscience. 89 Yet in context—and especially given the reference to Roman Christians in 13: 6—the audience may interpret this more 232 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="233"?> 90 On the conceptual possibilities of a general and a Christian conscience, see Wilckens, Römer, 36-37, who ultimately minimizes the distinction. Friedrich, Pöhlmann, and Stuhlmacher, “Situation,” 164 limit themselves to a Christian concept of conscience. 91 Cf. Coleman, “Obligations,” 310-312: “an important aspect of φόρος was that it connoted subjugation” (312). References include Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 1.18.5-6; 2.1.7; 4.10.3; 10.25.4; 11.47.1; 13.114.1; Strabo, Geogr. 4.5.3; 1 Macc 10: 29; Philo, Spec. 1.142-143; 3.159-160; Josephus, B.J. 2.402-406. Cf. Tertullian, Apol. 13.6 (taxes as notae captivitatis). 92 Armstrong, LCL. See Strobel, “Furcht,” 60, where I found the text. specifically in terms of a Christianly formed conscience. Paul himself speaks in 9: 1 of his conscience “in the holy Spirit,” indicating a conscience shaped by orientation toward Christ. Such orientation generates a distinctive behavioral pattern in which the relationship to the state becomes only a secondary concern within the broader framework of “the good” and “love.” 90 Conscience here entails, in essential terms, accountability before Christ for the welfare of the Christian communities. The term used for direct taxation (φόρος, vv. 6-7)—a tax imposed on subjuga‐ ted peoples and ideologically construed as recognition of Roman sovereignty— carries with it connotations of imperial domination. 91 The tax as such thus assumes symbolic value as a marker of the real political and social subjugation under Roman rule. The semantic range of φόβος and τιμή in v. 7 leaves their precise referents unclear, allowing for both theological and political readings. Paul does not specify to whom fear and honor are owed: the emperor? the executive agents of state power (as in 13: 3)? The two forms of fear distinguished in (Ps.-)Aristotle, Oec. 3.3, help sensitize the reader to the layers of public and hidden transcript. The text reads: 92 For of fear there are two kinds. The fear which virtuous and honourable sons feel towards their fathers, and loyal citizens towards right-minded rulers, has for its companions reverence and modesty; but the other kind, felt by slaves for masters and by subjects for despots who treat them with injustice and wrong, is associated with hostility and hatred. Paul’s language of fear can be understood contextually when the idea of forced subordination is heard behind the “public” statement. Taken in strictly logical terms, Rom 13: 2-3 would imply that fear of state authority is unnecessary in the case of good conduct. Both human and divine frames of reference are possible for these terms. For example, Sir 3: 1-11 speaks of honor (τιμή, τιμάω) toward one’s father (often in parallel with δόξα), while in Rom 2: 7, 10, τιμή—again in parallel with δόξα—refers to a God-oriented way of life; in 12: 10, it is applied to relationships among people. Prov 24: 21 introduces a differentiation: “Fear the 6. Ad (2): Differentiation between Public and Hidden Transcripts 233 <?page no="234"?> 93 Cf. Klauck, Umwelt, 56-57: during the reigns of Claudius and Nero, a rather restrained practice of the imperial cult; however, after Claudius’s death, the belief in his assump‐ tion into heaven and among the gods. Important in this context is the observation by Graf, “Kaiserkult,” 143-145, that the cult of the Roman emperors was “initially a political-diplomatic act” (143; my translation); see also Steimer, “Herrscherkult,” 41-42. On the imperial cult (especially under Claudius), see also Alvarez Cineira, Religionspolitik, 55-97. Unlike Paul, Josephus distinguishes in C. Ap. 2.75 between (appropriate) honor toward the emperor and his (for Jews impossible) cultic worship. 94 Friedrich, Pöhlmann, and Stuhlmacher, “Situation,” 165 speak of a “remarkably undia‐ lectical (and thus soon misinterpreted) argumentation” (my translation). Lord, my son, and the king.” In both Old Testament and early Jewish as well as New Testament contexts, the fear of God is a well-established topos (e.g., Prov 7: 1 LXX ; 1 Pet 2: 17). Against this backdrop, God may subtly emerge as the true recipient of fear and honor—an interpretation that becomes apparent only within the “inner space” of the believing community. Finally, it is noteworthy that the entire passage contains not the slightest indication of any rivalry between the emperor and Christ—even though the emerging imperial cult must have been known to both Paul and his audience, at least as a locally practiced means of securing loyalty to the state. While it may not yet have been a widespread or compulsory practice for individuals in Rome, its presence would have been familiar. 93 It is also likely that the imperial privilege exempting Jews from participation in the state cult was still in effect at the time. Does the absence of any reference to the emperor cult suggest that Paul expects his audience to draw the contrast with Christ themselves? This would correspond to his deliberate refusal to interpret the believer’s relationship to the state in Christological terms 94 —a task that is left to the Christ-followers to discern, not on the public-political stage, but within the internal life of the community. 7. Ad (3): The Function of the Hidden Transcript 7.1 The concept of a hidden transcript is already embedded in the prescript of Romans (1: 1-7). In verses 3-4, which most scholars agree that Paul is drawing on earlier tradition, the “Son” of God, “Jesus Christ our Lord,” is defined in two distinct ways: (1) “Descended from the seed of David according to the flesh”—a striking statement, all the more so because it is unique among Paul’s letter openings. Against the backdrop of early Jewish messianic traditions, this evokes the Davidic lineage of the messiah, as attested in Pss. Sol. 17: 4, 21 and 4Q174 III 10-13 234 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="235"?> 95 The resurrection from the dead (plural! ) has an eschatological significance. On the anointed-one tradition in Rom 1: 3-4, see Schreiber, Gesalbter, 410-412. 96 Taubes, Politische Theologie (Lectures from 1987), citations 24, 26-27 (my translations). 97 See also Rom 8: 34, where Christ’s being “at the right hand of God” indicates his reign; likewise, Phil 2: 10: all powers in heaven, on earth (! ) and under the earth must submit to the name of Jesus. The distance is also unmistakably reflected in Jesus’ death on the cross at the hands of the Roman occupying power. (interpreting 2 Sam 7: 12-14 and Amos 9: 11). This reference lays a foundation for the Anointed One’s royal, and thus national-political, authority. The theme also resonates in Rom 15: 12, where Paul cites Isa 11: 10 L XX : the root of Jesse (David’s father) will rise to rule over the nations. (2) The phrase “appointed Son of God in power (ἐν δυνάμει) according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead” echoes Ps 2: 7, a royal enthronement psalm expressing the conferral of divine authority. While the reference to resurrection relativizes a narrowly national-political reading, the exaltation to a heavenly position of rulership carries universal implications—and thus retains its political significance. 95 The Jewish philosopher of religion Jacob Taubes sharpens the interpretation into a political challenge—a “political declaration of war against the Caesar”: 96 It is thus a deliberate emphasis on those attributes that are imperatorial, that are royal, that are imperial. These are highlighted specifically toward the community in Rome, where the emperor himself is present, and where the center of the Caesar cult, the religion of the Caesars, is located. … And of course, it is Paul’s political genius that he is not writing to just any community, but to the community in Rome, the seat of the world empire. He had a keen awareness of where power lies and where a counter-power could be established. … I want to emphasize that this is a political declaration of war when a letter addressed to the community in Rome—read aloud, without knowing into whose hands it will fall, and the censors are not idiots—is introduced with such words, and not otherwise. … My thesis therefore is this: in this sense, the letter to the Romans is a political theology, a political declaration of war against the Caesar. In my view, Taubes is correct in some respects, although he overestimates the public nature of this statement. The power of the exalted one is universal power, which certainly encompasses the political realm, yet this is precisely not made explicit in the address to Rome. For the Christian audience, however, this is clearly given, so that the corresponding attitude is the “obedience of faith” (ὑπακοὴ πίστεως, v. 5): a new “power structure” becomes paradigmatic. 97 7.2 In the language of public discourse, Paul speaks notably positively about the overarching state authorities, clearly aiming for the public transcript to be 7. Ad (3): The Function of the Hidden Transcript 235 <?page no="236"?> 98 References to a specific background are also given by Wilckens, Römer, 36 (“riots” in the context of the edict of Claudius); Theobald, Römerbrief (1993), 88-89. Botha, Subject (1994) practices a strict separation between the world of the text and the historical situation, which is identified as a fundamental point of critique in the reviews by J.H. Elliott, E.R. Thibeaux, and D.F. Watson (Neot. 31/ 1 [1997]: 195-217). That a (pragmatic) text can only be understood as part of its communicative situation must remain methodologically present despite all difficulties in reconstruction. The later texts 1 Pet 2: 13-17; 1 Tim 2: 2; Titus 3: 1, which show striking thematic parallels to Rom 13, are to be interpreted out of their changed situation. 99 According to Theobald, Römerbrief (1993), 92-93 Paul aims, through the unreserved willingness to pay, to protect against rash actions (with reference to 1 Pet 2: 15). acknowledged. This reflects a pragmatic imperative: given the specific political context in Rome, 98 the communities must regulate their outward behavior so as not to fall outside the normative code of the Roman Empire but to live within it. With no viable political alternatives available, loyalty becomes the appropriate stance. Accordingly, Paul refrains from any explicitly Christian justification; Christ-followers are to present themselves as citizens like any others. From this, a conclusion regarding the communities’ relationship to the state can be drawn. There is no indication that Paul writes in direct opposition to concrete resistance. Instead, the political supremacy of the Empire is revealed— an authority that governs society and at any time could annihilate a small religious minority largely without rights and viewed with suspicion as a sect. In practice, no real dialogue exists; the state does not genuinely acknowledge these communities. The practical implications of the loyal stance described above become partic‐ ularly evident in the matter of taxation (vv. 6-7). Taxes function as a concrete expression of dependence and oppression, representing a deeply felt intrusion of state power. At this point, Paul places deliberate emphasis, as this exhortation finds no direct parallel in early Jewish or Greco-Roman traditions. Taxes and duties—direct and indirect dues—regardless of how high, burdensome, or existentially threatening they may be, are to be paid. 99 There is no alternative to this posture and practice, which publicly demonstrates and symbolically enacts loyalty. And yet, a deeper perspective is introduced. This becomes clear as Paul links the state to God—not to offer a metaphysical legitimization of state authority, but to invoke a higher point of reference. God holds power even over the state; those who exercise state authority are ultimately accountable to him, ultimately in the final judgment. This also applies to the officials or civil servants who collect the taxes. The community’s powerlessness in the face of arbitrary coercion becomes 236 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="237"?> 100 One could speak of a parechesis (cf. BDR § 488.2: phonetic similarity between different words) or a paronomasia (Botha, Subject, 182: similar forms with different meanings; defined differently in BDR § 488.1). 101 Scholars evaluate the relationship differently. Wilckens, Römer, 38 sees an influence on the formulation in Rom 13: 7, through which a “certain element of relativization of the relationship to the state authority as God’s servant in contrast to the relationship to God himself ” becomes apparent (my translation). Thompson, “Clothed with Christ,” 111-120 argues for an allusion. By contrast, Friedrich, Pöhlmann, and Stuhlmacher, “Situation,” 155-156, and Theobald, Römerbrief (1993), 93 reject such a connection. more bearable in light of this accountability to God and the assurance of an eschatological reckoning. A certain critical distance toward the state is also evident in Paul’s choice of vocabulary. Whereas in Rom 1: 5 he speaks of the “obedience (ὑπακοή) of faith,” he uses the verb ὑποτάσσω in relation to the state, thereby presenting subordination as a socially conventional form of behavior. The substantive definitions of “good” and “evil” are to be discerned by Christian readers within the broader context, in accordance with Christian norms—summarized by the overarching concept of “love” (12: 2, 9-10, 17, 21; 13: 8-10). The inner authority of conscience, formed in conformity with the figure of Christ, serves as the decisive criterion for moral judgment. The concluding sentence in verse 7 is artfully composed. (1) Each of the four nouns gains emphasis through its double mention. (2) A wordplay occurs between φόρος and φόβος, 100 while τέλος and τιμή form an alliteration. These rhetorical devices juxtapose two pairs: two concrete items (tax, toll) and two abstract concepts (fear, honor). While the former are semantically clear, the latter remain open-ended. Notably, the object of what is owed is left unspecified: what is unambiguous in relation to financial dues becomes ambiguous in the case of fear and honor. This opens the question of a tradition-historical connection between verse 7 and the Jesus tradition in Mark 12: 17 (and parallels). Beyond the shared issue of tax payment, there are formal parallels: the identical verb form ἀπόδοτε, the doubling of terms, and the structured contrast between two domains. 101 Within the internal life of the Christian community, it would likely have been quickly understood to whom fear and honor ultimately belong: to God and to his Christ. This refers to a sovereignty that surpasses the authority of the state—a power in which, even amid uncertain political conditions, trust may be pragmatically placed. Christ mediates a distinct “dimension of rule” grounded in divine salvation, one that relativizes the Roman Empire to near insignificance and categorically identifies experienced structures of oppression as unjust. Thus, the imperial ideology is fundamentally challenged. Loyalty, in this context, does not imply resistance or violence against the state, but rather 7. Ad (3): The Function of the Hidden Transcript 237 <?page no="238"?> 102 Käsemann, Römer, 346 takes a different view: “For the Christian, there is no pseudo-obe‐ dience consisting of merely outward behavior” (my translation). However, this state‐ ment takes insufficient account of the great hermeneutical distance between modern and ancient experiences with the state. As Heiligenthal, “Strategien,” 59 rightly ob‐ serves, outward conformity can create freedom for transformative action within the internal life of the community. 103 Thus, the interpretation by Friedrich, Pöhlmann, and Stuhlmacher, “Situation,” 161 that Paul is giving instructions for a “missionary witness in action” (my translation; original in italics), becomes relativized. 104 Cf. Schreiber, Gesalbter, 418. 105 Cf. 1 Cor 12: 12-27: The community as the body of Christ represents Christ’s lordship, with whom it is identified according to the inclusive vv. 12 and 27. Also 1 Cor 6: 1-11: intra-community resolution of conflicts oriented toward an “alternative” righteousness. 106 See also Moxnes, Honor, 212-216. In another contribution (Moxnes, “Quest”), Moxnes observes that in Rom 13: 1-17, Paul indeed seeks integration into society and accepts its normative “system of honor” (214-216), but at the same time transforms it in 12: 1-16 in terms of a life within the community that reorients values (216-230). My approach also allows this aspect to emerge in Rom 13: 1-7 itself. entrusting the hope for transformation entirely to God. This constitutes a form of “inner distance” or “internal resistance” that serves as a means of coping with the prevailing circumstances. 102 In the specific historical context—as the hidden transcript indicates—it was neither the task nor within the capacity of the Christian communities in Rome to reform or transform the political order. That task belongs to the authority of Christ alone. Christians exert influence on the state solely by living out their new existence in Christ. 103 This insight prompts a fundamental reflection on Christian life and its public impact. 7.3 According to Rom 3: 24-26, redemption through Christ embraces the whole human person and thus necessarily has visible implications at the social and political levels—particularly in the structuring of communal life within the Christian assemblies. 104 On this soteriological foundation, the life of the community acquires a distinctive quality, as articulated in Rom 12: 3-8. 105 Paul situates this new social order within the internal life of the community itself, which thereby becomes a latently subversive body—preserving its identity precisely through this posture. In drawing a clear boundary against “the world” —a motif Paul repeatedly emphasizes in Romans (e.g., 12: 2: “Do not conform to this aeon”; cf. 1: 21-32; 6: 19-23)—he establishes the necessary identity of the communitas. 106 The witness the community offers through its shared life becomes its most powerful public statement—a claim that, mutatis mutandis, remains fully valid for the Church today. Romans 10: 9-13, beginning with a confessional formula, points toward sal‐ vation (σωτηρία) in a holistic and comprehensive sense—implicitly presenting 238 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="239"?> 107 This also aligns with the more state-critical texts such as 1 Cor 6: 1-11; 2: 6, 8; Phil 3: 20 (“our politeuma is in heaven”); and also 1 Thess 5: 3. 108 For example, Theobald, Römerbrief (1993), 97; idem, Römerbrief (2000), 310; Schrage, Staat, 54. - By contrast, Wilckens, Römer, 40 speaks of the eschatological function of the state as an organ of the divine will. 109 The personal political positioning of interpreters must be taken into account and relativized. This issue is critically discussed by McDonald, “Romans 13: 1-7,” 547-549. an alternative to Roman imperial ideology. Christ is κύριος over both Jews and Greeks, indeed over “all” (v. 12). Paul is fully aware that exclusive allegiance to Jesus as χριστός and κύριος carries inherently subversive implications. To live a Christian life is, by its very nature, to challenge imperially sanctioned forms of power, along with all structures of oppression and unfreedom. 107 The distinct mode of life embodied by the Christian communities thus inevitably invites political suspicion and, at times, violent confrontation with the empire. The eschatological framing of the present in the context of 13: 11-14 can likewise be understood as a relativization of the state. 108 The apocalyptic language—though symbolically coded—is unmistakably clear to those attuned to its register: the power of God, already breaking into the present, redefines earthly realities. Turning toward this divine power is, in itself, a challenge to the legitimacy of the state as a structure of domination. The urgency of this perspective is expressed in the language of awakening and transformation: “The hour has already come,” “arise from sleep,” “now your σωτηρία is nearer” (v. 11); “the night is far gone, the day is near,” “let us lay aside the works of darkness and put on the armor of light” (v. 12). 8. Coordinates of a Hermeneutic A hermeneutic that takes seriously the history of interpretation—and that aims to be more than the expression of spontaneous ideas 109 —finds a productive starting point in the interplay between public and hidden transcripts. The tension between conflicting elements, as manifest in the text, unfolds within a space defined by two poles, both of which are essential for any meaningful contemporary application. The use of both registers reveals a deliberate rhetor‐ ical strategy whose central concerns continue to demand critical attention. Any such reflection must begin with a clear awareness of the radically transformed political and public context in which we now find ourselves. Today’s public transcript is shaped by power structures that, while still enabling 8. Coordinates of a Hermeneutic 239 <?page no="240"?> 110 Christians suffering under totalitarian regimes may gain a more direct, “intuitive” ac‐ cess to the rhetorical levels of Rom 13 based on comparable situations and experiences; this is where liberation-theological readings find their point of departure. oversight of political institutions (at least in much of the Western world), 110 si‐ multaneously generate new forms of domination—most notably, the dominance of the economy in public life. In contrast to Paul’s time, Christians today have the possibility of participating in the structures of the state at multiple levels. This shift gives rise to the following hermeneutical “coordinates”: (1) Paul’s pragmatic mode of public discourse aims at securing the social survival and public legitimacy of the Christian communities—what we might now call “the Church within the state.” In shaping this relationship, it is essential to distinguish between two forms of religion: a “state religion,” which legitimizes and integrates itself with the political order by claiming universal authority over the civic realm, must be critically interrogated as a problematic fusion of fun‐ damentally distinct domains. By contrast, the model characteristic of the secular state—which maintains a separation between religion and government while allowing religious communities space for self-expression—offers a framework within which Christian life can be authentically situated and publicly lived. (2) Within this space, the formation of Christian identity becomes a task grounded in both foundational theological knowledge and lived communal experience. By drawing on its own origins, the Church can cultivate a conscious‐ ness attuned to oppression, social injustice, and violations of human dignity. When Christian communities develop distinctive patterns of thought and life, their teaching and institutional presence must appear in society as alternative signs—at once consoling, unsettling, and provocative. The recognition of this task, and its concrete implementation, constitutes an urgent imperative for Christian communities today. Bibliography Alvarez Cineira, David. Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Claudius und die paulinische Mission. Herders Biblische Studien 19. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1999. Aristotle. Metaphysics 10-14. Translated by Hugh Tredennick. Oeconomica. Magna Moralia. Translated by G. Cyril Armstrong. LCL 287. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935. Arzt, Peter. “Über die Macht des Staates nach Rom 13,1-7.” SNTSU 18 (1993): 163-181. Bammel, Ernst. “Romans 13.” Pages 365-383 in Jesus and the Politics of His Days. Edited by Ernst Bammel and C.F.D. Moule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. 240 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="241"?> Bauer, Walter. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. 6th ed. Edited by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1988. BDR = Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 16th ed. Bearbeitet von Friedrich Rehkopf. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Behr, Charles A.P. Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works II: Orations XVII-LIII. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Bergmeier, Roland. “ὑποτάσσω.” EWNT 3 (2nd ed. 1992): 975-976. ---. “Die Loyalitätsparänese Röm 13,1-7 im Rahmen von Römer 12 und 13.” TBei 27 (1996): 341-357. Blumenfeld, Bruno. The Political Paul: Justice, Democracy and Kingship in a Hellenistic Framework. JSNTSup 210. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Borg, Marcus. “A New Context for Romans XIII”. NTS 19 (1973): 205-218. Botha, Jan. Subject to Whose Authority? Multiple Readings of Romans 13. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Broer, Ingo. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. NEchtB.NT Ergänzungsband II/ 2. Würz‐ burg: Echter, 2001. Cancik, Hubert. “‘Alle Gewalt ist von Gott.’ Römer 13 im Rahmen antiker und neuzeitlicher Staatslehren.” Pages 53-74 in Staat und Religion. Edited by Burkhard Gladigow. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1981. Coleman, Thomas H. “Binding Obligations in Romans 13,7: A Semantic Field and Social Context.” TynBul 48 (1997): 307-327. Dibelius, Martin. “Rom und die Christen im ersten Jahrhundert.” Pages 177-228 in Botschaft und Geschichte. Vol. II. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1956. Dunn, James D.G. Romans 9-16. WBC 38B. Dallas: Word Books, 1988. Elliott, Neil. Liberating Paul: The Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. ---. “The ‘Patience of the Jews: ’ Strategies of Resistance and Accommodation to Imperial Cultures.” Pages 32-41 in Pauline Conversations in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin J. Roetzel. Edited by Janice Capel Anderson, Philip Sellew, and Claudia Setzer. JSNTSup 221. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Forschner, Maximilian. “Staat I: Sozialphilosophisch.” LTK 9 (3rd ed. 2000): 890-892. Friedrich, Johannes, Wolfgang Pöhlmann, and Peter Stuhlmacher. “Zur historischen Situation und Intention von Röm 13,1-7.” ZTK 73 (1976): 131-166. Furnish, Victor P. The Moral Teaching of Paul. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985. Gaston, Lloyd. “Romans in Context: The Conversation Revisited.” Pages 125-141 in Pauline Conversation in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin J. Roetzel. Edited by Janice Bibliography 241 <?page no="242"?> Capel Anderson, Philip H. Sellew, and Claudia Setzer. JSNTSup 221. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Gielen, Marlies. Tradition und Theologie neutestamentlicher Haustafelethik. BBB 75. Frankfurt am Main: Hain, 1990. Graf, Fritz. “Kaiserkult.” Der neue Pauly 6 (1999): 143-145. Haacker, Klaus. “Der Römerbrief als Friedensmemorandum.” NTS 36 (1990): 25-41. ---. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. THKNT 6. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999. Heiligenthal, Roman. “Strategien konformer Ethik im Neuen Testament am Beispiel von Rom 13,1-7.” NTS 29 (1983): 55-61. Herzog, William R. “Dissembling, a Weapon of the Weak: The Case of Christ and Caesar in Mark 12: 13-17 and Romans 13: 1-7.” PRSt 21 (1994): 339-360. Käsemann, Ernst. “Römer 13,1-7 in unserer Generation.” ZTK 56 (1959): 316-376. ---. An die Römer. 4th ed. HNT 8a. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Kallas, James. “Romans XIII 1-7: An Interpolation.” NTS 11 (1964/ 65): 365-374. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Die religiöse Umwelt des Urchristentums. Vol. 2. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie IX/ 2. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1996. Klein, Richard. Die Romrede des Aelius Aristides: Einführung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftli‐ che Buchgesellschaft, 1981. ---. Die Romrede des Aelius Aristides. Herausgegeben, übersetzt und mit Erläuterungen versehen by Richard Klein. Texte zur Forschung 45. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1983. Lampe, Peter. Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. 2nd ed. WUNT II/ 18. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Lichtenberger, Hermann. “Josephus und Paulus in Rom: Juden und Christen in Rom zur Zeit Neros.” Pages 245-261 in Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter: Festschrift für Heinz Schreckenberg. Edited by Dietrich-Alex Koch and Hermann Lichtenberger. Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Lohse, Eduard. Der Brief an die Römer. KEK IV. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Lüdemann, Gerd. Paulus, der Heidenapostel I: Studien zur Chronologie. FRLANT 123. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Maier, Hans. “Politik I: Geschichte und Systematik.” Staatslexikon 4 (7th ed. 1988): 431- 435, 439. McDonald, J.I.H. “Romans 13: 1-7: A Test Case for New Testament Interpretation.” NTS 35 (1989): 540-549. 242 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="243"?> Merklein, Helmut. “Sinn und Zweck von Röm 13,1-7: Zur semantischen und pragma‐ tischen Struktur eines umstrittenen Textes.” Pages 405-437 in Studien zu Jesus und Paulus. Vol. II. WUNT 105. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Michel, Otto, and Otto Bauernfeind. Flavius Josephus: De Bello Judaico. Der Jüdische Krieg. Vol. I. 2nd ed. München: Kösel, 1962. Moxnes, Halvor. “Honor, Shame, and the Outside World in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” Pages 207-218 in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. ---. “The Quest for Honor and the Unity of the Community in Romans 12 and in the Orations of Dio Chrysostom.” Pages 203-230 in Paul in His Hellenistic Context. Edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Münkler, Herfried. “Politik/ Politologie.” TRE 27 (1997): 1-6. Nanos, Mark D. The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Neschke, Ada. “Politische Philosophie.” Der neue Pauly 10 (2001): 27-33. Nuscheler, Franz. “Politik.” LTK 8 (3rd ed. 1999): 387-388. Perdue, Leo G. “The Social Character of Paraenesis and Paraenetic Literature.” Semeia 50 (1990): 5-39. Pilgrim, Walter E. Uneasy Neighbors: Church and State in the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999. Pohle, Lutz. Die Christen und der Staat nach Römer 13: Eine typologische Untersuchung der neueren deutschsprachigen Schriftauslegung. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1984. Reasoner, Mark. “Ancient and Modern Exegesis of Romans 13 under Unfriendly Govern‐ ments.” SBLSP 135 (1999): 359-374. Richardson, Neil. Paul’s Language about God. JSNTSup 99. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Riekkinen, Vilho. Römer 13: Aufzeichnung und Weiterführung der exegetischen Diskussion. ASSF 23. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakademia, 1980. Rostovtzeff, Michael I. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. Schenk, Wolfgang. “Römer 13, ‘Obrigkeit’ und ‘Kirche im Sozialismus’.” Pages 979-999 in Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in Their Textual and Situational Contexts. Festschrift für Lars Hartman. Edited by Tord Fornberg and David Hellholm. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995. Schlier, Heinrich. Der Römerbrief. HThKNT VI. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1977. Schnelle, Udo. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 4th ed. UTB 1830. Göttingen: Vanden‐ hoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. Bibliography 243 <?page no="244"?> Schottroff, Luise “‘Gebt dem Kaiser, was dem Kaiser gehört, und Gott, was Gott gehört’: Die theologische Antwort der urchristlichen Gemeinden auf ihre gesellschaftliche und politische Situation.” Pages 184-216 in Befreiungserfahrungen: Studien zur Sozial‐ geschichte des Neuen Testaments. TBei 82. München: Kaiser, 1990. Schrage, Wolfgang. Die Christen und der Staat nach dem Neuen Testament. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1971. Schreiber, Stefan. Gesalbter und König: Titel und Konzeptionen der königlichen Gesalbtenerwartung in frühjüdischen und urchristlichen Schriften. BZNW 105. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2000. ---. “Caesar oder Gott (Mk 12,17)? Zur Theoriebildung im Umgang mit politischen Texten des Neuen Testaments.” BZ 48 (2004): 65-85. Schrenk, Gottlob. “ἔκδικος.” TWNT 2 (1935): 442-443. Schultze, Rainer-Olaf. “Politik/ Politikbegriffe.” Lexikon der Politikwissenschaft 2 (2000): 657-658. Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Slingerland, H. Dixon. Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome. SFSHJ 160. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Sonntag, Holger. Nomos Soter: Zur politischen Theologie des Gesetzes bei Paulus und im antiken Kontext. Texte und Arbeiten zum Neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 34. Tübingen; Basel: Francke Verlag, 2000. Steimer, Bruno. “Herrscherkult IV: Alte Kirche.” LTK 5 (3rd ed. 1996): 41-42. Stein, Robert H. “The Argument of Romans 13,1-7.” NovT 31 (1989): 325-343. Strobel, August. “Zum Verständnis von Röm 13.” ZNW 47 (1956): 67-93. ---. “Furcht, wem Furcht gebührt: Zum profangriechischen Hintergrund von Röm 13,7.” ZNW 55 (1964): 58-62. Stubbs, M. A. “Subjection, Reflection, Resistance: A Three Dimensional Process of Empowerment in Romans 13 and the Free-Market-Economy.” SBLSP 135 (1999): 375- 404. Tacitus. The Histories and The Annals. Translated by Clifford H. Moore and John Jackson. 4 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937. Taubes, Jacob. Die politische Theologie des Paulus. Edited by Aleida and Jan Assmann. München: Wilhelm Fink, 1993. Tellbe, Mikael. Paul between Synagogue and State. ConBNT 34. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001. Theobald, Michael. Der Römerbrief. Vol. 2. SKKNT 6/ 2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1993 (cited as “Römerbrief (1993)”). ---. Der Römerbrief. EdF 294. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2000 (cited as “Römerbrief (2000)”). 244 Imperium Romanum and Roman Communities <?page no="245"?> Thompson, Michael B. Clothed With Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12: 1-15: 13. JSNTSup 59. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Unnik, Willem C. van. “Lob und Strafe durch die Obrigkeit: Hellenistisches zu Röm 13,3-4.” Pages 334-343 in Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner G. Kümmel. Edited by Edward E. Ellis and Erich Grässer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975. Venetz, Hermann-Josef. “Zwischen Unterwerfung und Verweigerung: Widersprüchliches im Neuen Testament? Zu Röm 13 und Offb 13.” BK 43 (1988): 153-163. Walker, William O. Interpolations in the Pauline Letters. JSNTSup 213. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Weber, Max. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. 5th ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972 (1st ed. 1921). ---. “Politik als Beruf.” Pages 505-560 in Gesammelte politische Schriften. 4th ed. Edited by Johannes Winckelmann. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. Wedderburn, Alexander J.M. The Reasons for Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Wengst, Klaus. Pax Romana: Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. München: Kaiser, 1986. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. Vol. 3. EKKNT VI/ 3. Zürich: Benziger; Neu‐ kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982. Winter, Bruce W. “The Public Honouring of Christian Benefactors: Romans 13: 3-4 and 1 Peter 2: 14-15.” JSNT 34 (1988): 87-103. Wischmeyer, Oda. “Staat und Christen nach Römer 13,1-7: Ein neuer hermeneutischer Zugang.” Pages 149-162 in Kirche und Volk Gottes: Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Otto Merk. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2000. Bibliography 245 <?page no="247"?> Chapter 7 <?page no="249"?> * First published in German as “Das Schlusswort einer großen Apologie: Paulus, Jesaja und die Juden in Rom (Apg 28,16-31).” Pages 203-231 in Antijudaismen in der Exegese? Eine Diskussion 50 Jahre nach Nostra Aetate. Edited by Stefan Schreiber and Thomas Schumacher. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2015. 1 Nostra Aetate 4,6: Licet autem Ecclesia sit novus populus Dei, Iudaei tamen neque ut a Deo reprobati neque ut maledicti exhibeantur, quasi hoc ex Sacris Litteris sequatur. Cited from the edition by Hünermann, Dokumente, ad loc. (my translation). 2 Van de Sandt, “Acts 28: 28,” 341. The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) * The Nostra Aetate declaration of the Second Vatican Council does not reference Paul’s speech to the Roman Jews in Acts 28: 25-28, which quotes verbatim the often so-called “statement of hardening” from Isaiah 6: 9-10. This omission is not surprising. The pivotal section, Nostra Aetate 4, which aims to articulate a positive theological understanding of the relationship between the Church and Judaism, grounds its perspective primarily in the enduring salvific role of Israel in its covenantal relationship with Y HWH , the God of Israel, as articulated by Paul in Romans 11: 11-32. Nonetheless, one statement in this document bears a striking resemblance to Acts 28 or, more precisely, to a particular interpretation of this passage: “Even if the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should nevertheless be presented neither as rejected by God nor as accursed, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.” 1 The citation from Isaiah in Acts 28 has frequently been construed as signaling a definitive rejection of Israel. Does this, then, after all, not follow from Holy Scripture? The following reflections on Paul’s stay in Rome in Acts 28: 16-31 aim to critically examine the interpretive framework through which this narrative is commonly read today. Scholarly discussion often centers on questions such as, has Israel forfeited its status as God’s chosen people? Has it been displaced from the trajectory of salvation history? Has the separation of the “Church” from Judaism been definitively sealed by the Roman Jewry’s rejection of Paul’s proclamation? A few illustrative examples may suffice: In his essay titled “No Salvation for the People of Israel? ”, Huub van de Sandt addresses the posed question with great nuance and differentiation. 2 In his most recent commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Richard Pervo speaks in terms of a comprehensive rejection of the Jewish people: “The Jewish people had their chance but failed to exploit it.” According to Pervo, Luke portrays this rejection as final and interprets it as laying the foundation for “the existence of (in modern terms) <?page no="250"?> 3 Pervo, Acts, 681, 685. 4 Schaefer, Zukunft, 352 (“eine entscheidende Frage,” “ob die Szene in Rom eine endgültige Abwendung der christlichen Verkündigung von den Juden (bzw. ein Ende der […] Judenmission) erzählt”). 5 See Sellner, Heil, 371 no. 40 and 41 for references to this terminology; he himself is critical of its use. See also O’Toole, “Mission,” 376-379 on the expression “‘true’ Israel.” 6 Eisen, Poetik, 206-207 refers to this as the “climactic conclusion” (“krönenden Ab‐ schluss”). a separate religion.” 3 Similarly, Christoph Schaefer’s recent dissertation, “The Future of Israel in Luke,” frames “whether the scene in Rome signifies a definitive turning away of the Christian message from the Jewish people (or even the conclusion of the […] mission to the Jews)” as a “crucial question”—though he ultimately answers in the negative. 4 The frequent invocation in the secondary literature of notions such as the “true” or “new Israel” often carries with it the theological implication that the Church has replaced Israel in the unfolding of salvation history. 5 In contrast, I intend to demonstrate that the text does not at all engage with this particular set of questions and, therefore, does not seek to provide an answer—whether affirmative or negative—to the issues raised above. The interpretive framework that the text itself develops narratively becomes evident when (1) the broader narrative context is considered, (2) attention is paid to the focus on the Roman Jews in the conclusion, and (3) a close reading of Acts 28: 16-31 is conducted. 1. The Narrative Context: Paul’s Accusation and Defense Before the Jews The final narrative in Acts 28: 16-31 concludes a long narrative trajectory. Paul’s arrival in Rome is foreshadowed multiple times, underscoring its theological and narrative significance. 6 Following his successful ministry in Ephesus, where he preached to both “Jews and Greeks” (19: 10), Paul begins to consider his next steps. He plans a journey to Jerusalem via Macedonia and Achaia, ultimately designating Rome as his final destination: “After I have been there, I must also see Rome” (19: 21). Luke’s use of the term δεῖ (“must”) emphasizes the necessity of this historical event within the framework of God’s salvific plan (cf. 23: 11; 27: 24). The cities of Jerusalem and Rome thus emerge as central to the unfolding narrative. From 20: 16 onward, the narrative focus turns, at first, to Jerusalem. Paul’s prior missionary activity among both Jews and Gentiles has come to a close, 250 The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) <?page no="251"?> 7 The narrative of Paul’s conversion or calling in Acts 9: 15 already names “nations and kings and the children of Israel” as the target group of his preaching. In view of Acts 4: 25-27, where these groups appear as a unified front against the early community, the narrative pattern of accusation and defense is prefigured. What is particularly striking, however, is the emphases in the placement of the “children of Israel” at the end of the list—suggesting that the defense before them carries a distinctive weight or significance. as summarized in his farewell address to the Ephesian elders (20: 17-38). In this speech, Paul offers a retrospective account of his ministry, underscoring both the integrity of his preaching and the credibility of his witness. It is noteworthy that he summons the elders to the port city of Miletus—already situating the speech within the framework of his urgent journey to Jerusalem. This journey is overshadowed by repeated warnings that foreshadow impending calamity and Paul’s imprisonment in Jerusalem (20: 22-23; 21: 4, 11-13). Upon his arrival, Paul meets with James and the elders, the leadership of the Jerusalem Christ-com‐ munity. Their conversation reveals a fundamental tension at the heart of Paul’s proclamation: he is accused of promoting apostasy (ἀποστασία)—a defection from Moses and the traditional Jewish way of life, particularly with regard to circumcision—for Jews in the diaspora (21: 18-21). This growing dispute with the Jews over the legitimacy of Paul’s teaching—and its implications for Jewish identity—drives the unfolding of the narrative from this point forward. In the Jerusalem Temple, Paul is aggressively attacked by an agitated Jewish crowd who accuse him of teaching against the people, the law, and the temple. He narrowly escapes by being arrested by Roman soldiers stationed at the temple (21: 27-36). From this point onward, Paul remains in the custody of the Roman authorities until the conclusion of the narrative. While they protect him from violent assaults by the Jews of Jerusalem, they also pose a latent threat to his freedom and life. His subsequent address to the Jerusalem Jews is explicitly framed as a defensive speech (ἀπολογία, 22: 1), and in keeping with this, Paul recounts his Jewish roots and his unique calling through a vision of Jesus, the Lord (22: 1-21). 7 However, at the very moment when Paul mentions his calling to preach to the Gentile nations, the scene shifts abruptly and the Jews who are listening seek to kill him (22: 21-22). The point of conflict between Paul and the Jerusalem Jews is thus clearly delineated in the narrative: it centers on his proclamation to the Gentiles, who are offered a form of salvation comparable to that of the Jewish people. This is followed by a conflict between Paul and the members of the Sanhedrin, who are depicted as being divided among themselves (23: 1-10). Paul then experiences a vision of the Lord, who encourages and instructs him: “For as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome” (23: 11). 1. The Narrative Context: Paul’s Accusation and Defense Before the Jews 251 <?page no="252"?> 8 On the Roman legal procedure of the appellatio ad Caesarem, see Omerzu, “Fallstudie,” 247-252. In light of the dispute with the Jews of Jerusalem, this announcement provides a key narrative indication of Paul’s mission: his target audience remains the Jews, as the comparison clearly suggests—as (ὡς) in Jerusalem, so (οὕτως) in Rome. The conflict intensifies, and Paul is subsequently taken by his Roman guards to the governor in Caesarea (23: 12-35). Accused once again by the high priest and the elders before the governor Felix (24: 1-9), Paul again offers a defense (ἀπολογέω, 24: 10). His confession that, as a member of the Christ group, he simultaneously serves the God linked with the fathers of Israel and remains faithful to the law and the prophets is central to Luke’s depiction of the new “way” (24: 14). The trial against Paul continues only after two years under the new governor, Festus. In his defense (ἀπολογέω, 25: 8), Paul reiterates that he has not violated “the law of the Jews or the sanctuary” (25: 1-8). A key passage for the narrative’s progression is found in Acts 25: 9-12: In order to escape the potentially deadly conflict with the Jews of Jerusalem, Paul appeals to the emperor before Festus, whereupon Festus decides that Paul is to be sent to the emperor (cf. 25: 21, 25). 8 The immediate trigger for the journey to Rome is thus the conflict with fellow Jews. Paul’s Roman imprisonment appears, narratively, as a means to an end—namely, to bring him to Rome. The stance of the Roman authorities, exemplified by the figure of Festus, is notably neutral: Festus emphasizes that the Romans regard themselves as bound by an accused person’s right to a defense (25: 16-18). In Paul’s case, however, no criminal charge could be identified; the matter concerned internal disputes about the Jewish way of practicing reverence before God—on which the Romans refrained from passing judgment (25: 19). This neutral attitude on the part of the Roman authorities will continue to characterize Paul’s imprisonment right through to the conclusion of the book. Once again, Paul is granted a prominent opportunity to defend himself against Jewish accusations—this time before the Jewish king Herod Agrippa II (cf. the double use of ἀπολογέω in Acts 26: 1-2). Two statements made in this context are crucial to understanding the narrative. The first concerns the relationship between newly converted Gentile Christians and Israel: through their conversion—that is, through their new relationship (πίστις) to Christ— the Gentiles receive “a share/ an inheritance (κλῆρος) among those who are sanctified” (26: 18), implicitly referring to Israel. Because Gentile Christians thus participate in Israel’s status as the people of God, Paul’s proclamation to both Jews and Gentiles is legitimized (26: 20). Secondly, Paul insists that his message 252 The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) <?page no="253"?> 9 Jipp, Visitations, 271-272 (cf. 280-283), interprets Acts 28: 1-10 as a positive counterpart to the final scene in 28: 16-31—namely, the acceptance of the message by Gentiles in contrast to its rejection by the Roman Jews. However, the narrative itself does not establish such a contrast: Acts 28: 1-10 contains neither a report of preaching nor of conversion. Rather, it highlights Paul’s divine protection and miraculous power, which is acknowledged through the granting of hospitality. According to Labahn, “Boldly and Without Hindrance,” 56-76, the narrative as a whole underscores God’s protection of Paul’s mission. 10 On this point, see Köhler, “Ende des Paulus,” 220. For the ancient origin of the concept, see Schreiber, Wundertäter, 126-127. concerning the suffering and raised Messiah Jesus—who “would proclaim light to the people (λαός, i.e., Israel) and to the Gentiles (ἔθνη)”—is entirely grounded in the Torah of Moses and the writings of the prophets (26: 22-23). Finally, Agrippa confirms Paul’s innocence (26: 31-32). Paul is brought to Rome—still as a Roman prisoner—by way of a perilous sea voyage (Acts 27: 1-28: 15). 9 When the ship he is traveling on is caught in a violent storm, an angel appears to Paul and encourages him with the words, “You must stand before the emperor” (27: 24). The journey to Rome is thus portrayed as divinely ordained. After surviving a shipwreck, another entirely unexpected opportunity arises—again in the context of accusation and imprisonment—to demonstrate Paul’s innocence. The narrative recounts Paul’s miraculous immunity to the otherwise deadly bite of a venomous snake (28: 1-6): while the pagan onlookers initially interpret the incident as divine punishment from Dike, the goddess of justice, Paul’s unharmed survival reveals his innocence and the special protection afforded him by God. 10 However, Paul does not seize the opportunity that follows to preach to the Gentiles. This omission is striking and shifts the narrative trajectory directly toward Rome—and toward the Jews residing there. Unharmed and guided by divine providence, Paul finally arrives in Rome in Acts 28: 16. Conclusion: The geographical arc extending from Jerusalem to Rome, begin‐ ning in Acts 19: 21, constitutes in its entirety a comprehensive apologia by Paul before the Jewish world of his time, in which he defends the legitimacy of his proclamation of Christ to both Jews and Gentiles. In his repeated defenses, Paul emphasizes his innocence, his divine calling by the Lord himself, and his continued commitment to the Jewish Torah tradition. The journey to Rome ultimately appears as the consequence of the fatal conflict with the leading Jews of Jerusalem. Paul’s proclamation in Jerusalem encounters insurmountable resistance and effectively comes to an end. Therefore, under divine guidance, he carries his message onward to Rome, where he once again presents it to the leading representatives of the Jewish community. 1. The Narrative Context: Paul’s Accusation and Defense Before the Jews 253 <?page no="254"?> 11 Cf. Skinner, Locating Paul, 82, 86; Rapske, Book of Acts, 33, 38-39, 173-191, 227-242; Omerzu, Prozess, 499. 12 Rapske, Book of Acts, 34, 209-213; Skinner, Locating Paul, 164. 13 The term ξενία in Acts 28: 23 refers more to the act of hospitality (“they came to him for hospitality”) than to the location, such as an inn; the latter meaning became more common only after the first century. Cf. LSJ 1188; Passow, Handwörterbuch II/ 1, 379; Skinner, Locating Paul, 164; Jipp, Visitations, 276. Typically, ξενία is constructed with the preposition ἐπί, though εἰς can also be used in a sense similar to ἐπί (cf. BDR § 207.2). Similarly, μίσθωμα in 28: 30 does not refer to a location (Passow, Handwörterbuch II/ 1, 258 lists Acts 28: 30 as its sole occurrence), but rather to the rental fee or rent. Thus, Paul lives under the condition of “his own rent,” which he pays himself, meaning he is responsible for his own upkeep. Cf. Skinner, Locating Paul, 164-165: “payment.” 14 However, this does not make a positive statement about the Roman Empire but rather serves to accentuate the narrative focus. Skinner, “Unchained Ministry,” 90-93, argues that in Acts 21-28, Paul consistently transcends the conventional role of the prisoner. 2. At the End: Focus on the Jews in Rome Paul’s arrival in Rome—the capital and center of the Imperium Romanum—raises certain expectations. Will Paul deliver a grand speech in the Roman Forum, before the Senate, or even before the emperor? Will he gather interested Gentiles around him and establish new communities in Rome? Will he suffer martyrdom? Luke recounts none of this. Instead, the narrative focuses entirely on Paul’s encounter with the Jews in Rome. This narrative purpose is supported in Acts 28: 16 by the portrayal of Paul’s imprisonment as house arrest. Rather than being thrown in with other prisoners, Paul is allowed to reside in private lodgings, guarded by a single soldier. In the Roman world, such house arrest—custodia militaris—was a recognized and relatively lenient form of custody, typically granted to individuals of higher social standing or those with favorable connections to the authorities. 11 In such cases, it was generally assumed that the risk of flight was miniscule. Prisoners kept under this arrangement were, of course, responsible for their own sustenance and had to draw on personal resources. 12 Luke notes that Paul was even able to offer hospitality to visitors in his residence (28: 23, 30). 13 While this scenario is not implausible in an ancient context, it is nonetheless striking in the case of a Jewish prisoner such as Paul. It signals to the reader that Paul occupies a comparatively elevated social position; in fact, Luke portrays him as a Roman citizen (Acts 16: 37-38; 22: 25-29; 23: 27). Although he arrives in Rome under arrest, he is treated with considerable respect and retains a remarkable degree of personal freedom—freedom that he uses for the continued proclamation of his message. This narrative strategy both diffuses any potential tension with the Roman authorities—removing them from the focal point of the story 14 —and 254 The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) <?page no="255"?> 15 For further discussion on the Roman Jews, see Barclay, Jews, 282-319, especially 290, 295, 316; Lampe, Christen; additional references can be found in Pervo, Acts, 682 no. 11. 16 We can only infer that the initial presence of Christians in Rome was due to Jew‐ ish-Christian “missionaries,” unknown by name, who likely arrived from the East as merchants and traders along major trade routes or as Christian slaves in the households of Jewish aristocrats, and established communities of Christ in the city. For background, see Schreiber, “Römerbrief,” 293-295. 17 Paul refers to several such Christian networks in Rome, including the Jewish-Christian couple Prisca and Aquila, who are identified as leaders of a house community (Rom 16: 3-5), as well as Christ-followers associated with the households of Aristobulus and Narcissus (Rom 16: 10-11), and additional individuals listed in Rom 16: 14-15. simultaneously underscores Paul’s ability to engage the leading Jews in Rome on equal terms. Luke recounts that Paul initially addresses the “leaders of the Jews” in Rome, followed by a subsequent meeting with “several” Jews—a larger group of Jewish individuals (Acts 28: 17, 23). This indicates that the Jewish population of Rome constitutes the sole internal audience of Paul’s message: Paul came to Rome to engage with the local Jewish community. Epigraphic and literary evidence attests to a significant Jewish presence in Rome during the first century, with estimates suggesting a population of up to 30,000 indi‐ viduals, organized into multiple distinct synagogue communities. 15 There is, however, no indication of a centralized authority or overarching leadership body—such as a council of elders—among these communities; the existence of such a structure therefore appears unlikely. Rather, each synagogue seems to have maintained its own leadership and representatives. This decentralized organization may account for Luke’s general reference to the “leaders of the Jews” (Acts 28: 17). The encounter between Paul and the Roman Jews stands out all the more prominently, given that the narrative clearly indicates Paul was not the first to bring the gospel to Rome: there were already “brothers and sisters” present in the city, who came out to welcome him upon his arrival (Acts 28: 14-15; cf. 18: 2-3, 26 regarding Priscilla and Aquila). This aligns with statements in the Epistle to the Romans, which make it evident that Paul did not found the Roman congregations himself and is, in fact, establishing contact with them for the first time through his letter (Rom 1: 8-15; 15: 15, 23-24, 28-29). 16 The list of greetings in Rom 16: 3-16 further indicates that, by Paul’s time, several autonomous house churches were already established in Rome. 17 When Acts 28: 15 mentions the “honorific reception” (ἀπάντησις) of Paul by Roman Christians, the text alludes to the political practice of the ceremonial reception of a distinguished person upon their visit to a city, in which the populace goes out to meet the honored 2. At the End: Focus on the Jews in Rome 255 <?page no="256"?> 18 For further discussion, see Schreiber, Thessalonicher, 257-258. 19 Cf. the insightful paper by Christfried Böttrich presented at the SNTS Conference 2014 in Szeged, Hungary: “Das Lukasevangelium im Kontext frühjüdischer Literatur,” esp. section 2.4. Notably, Alexandria—despite its status as one of the principal centers of Jewish theology—plays virtually no role in the narrative of Acts. guest and escorts them into the city. 18 This allusion underscores the respect and high regard in which Paul was held by the Roman Christians. Given the known existence of Roman Christian communities prior to Paul’s arrival—a fact likely familiar to the audience—it is all the more striking that the narrative centers almost exclusively on Paul’s interactions with the Jews in Rome, while the local Christian communities are barely mentioned. This sheds new light on the two geographical poles of Jerusalem and Rome, which—contrary to common assumption in scholarship—do not merely symbolize the transition from Judaism to the Gentile world. Instead, Rome emerges as a key center of Diaspora Judaism. 19 The link forged between these two major cities through the figure of Paul, beginning in Acts 19: 21, thus establishes an axis connecting Jerusalem, the center of the Jewish homeland, with Rome, the symbolic heart of the Jewish diaspora. Underlying this narrative structure is a distinct theological conception: Paul presents and defends the message of Christ before leading representatives of Judaism in the eastern Mediterranean. This theological framework explains the narrative emphasis in Acts 28: 16-31 on Paul’s encounter with Jews in Rome, who embody the core of the Jewish diaspora. At the culmination of Acts, the theological dialogue with Jewish interlocutors remains a central theme. 3. Paul and the Roman Jews in Acts 28: 16-31 The narrative unit in Acts 28: 16-31 follows a clearly delineated structure. 28: 16 sets the scene upon Paul’s arrival in Rome. The first part of his conversation with the Roman Jews focuses on his defense (28: 17-22), while the second centers on his proclamation of the gospel (28: 23-29). The pericope concludes with a summary statement in 28: 30-31, which simultaneously functions as the conclusion to the entire book of Acts. 3.1 The Setting in Rome (Acts 28: 16) In Acts 28: 16, Paul arrives in Rome as a prisoner in Roman custody. Yet the narrative quickly downplays the severity of his confinement: Paul is placed 256 The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) <?page no="257"?> 20 Cf. Acts 26: 6-7. At several points, the “hope” is specified through the resurrection of the dead (23: 6; 24: 15, 21); it is now grounded in Christ, as seen in the resurrection of Jesus as the fulfillment of the promise to the fathers in 13: 32-33, and Jesus as “the first from the resurrection from the dead” in 26: 23. The consequence of the Christ message, namely the inclusion of the Gentile nations in the hope of Israel, leads to aggressive rejection by Jews in Jerusalem, as seen in 26: 20-21, 23. This is emphasized by Deutschmann, “Hoffnung,” 54-60. under house arrest, permitted to live independently, albeit under the watch of a soldier. The final portrait is that of a captive apostle who, despite ongoing tensions with both Roman authorities and Jewish interlocutors, remains a sovereign witness to Christ. He retains full freedom to preach, allowing him to deliver a theological summation of his message to the leading Jewish figures in Rome—engaging them on equal footing in a concluding theological dialogue. 3.2 Paul’s Defense (Acts 28: 17-22) As is characteristic of Paul in the Acts of the Apostles, he first addresses the Jewish community upon entering a new city—Rome is no exception. In this case, he turns to the πρῶτοι, the “first,” or most prominent and respected members of the Roman Jewish community (Acts 28: 17). The term is likely intentionally vague, intended to encompass the diverse leadership structures of the Roman synagogues. His greeting, “Men, brothers” (ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί), underscores their shared identity as members of the people of Israel. In his defense, Paul references the context of his imprisonment and his sharp conflict with other Jews, explaining the reason for his current status as a prisoner. This aligns with the narrative’s overall focus on the Roman Jews and is reflected in Paul’s retrospective interpretation of the legal proceedings outlined in Acts 28: 17-19: he highlights the hostile actions of the Jerusalem Jews—namely, handing him over to the Romans and opposing his release, which ultimately led to his appeal to Caesar. Paul insists that he has committed no offense “against the people (λαός) or the ancestral customs,” i.e., Jewish tradition (28: 17), and emphasizes that he has no intention of bringing any accusation against his people (ἔθνος) (28: 19). In doing so, he addresses the recurring charge that was repeatedly leveled against him: he opposes Jewish law and tradition (21: 21, 28; 24: 5-6; 25: 7-8). Put more positively, Paul establishes a causal connection in Acts 28: 20 by stating that his imprisonment is because of “the hope of Israel”, thereby asserting that his message about Christ fulfills Israel’s eschatological expectation—the consummation of God’s reign. 20 His proclamation is thus anything but an alien intrusion into Jewish tradition. The 3. Paul and the Roman Jews in Acts 28: 16-31 257 <?page no="258"?> 21 See also Gempf, “Luke’s Story,” 51-52. The term “loyal Jew” is used by Marshall, Acts, 423. 22 The term αἵρεσις carries this meaning; cf. Josephus, B.J. 2.118-119, 122, 162; A.J. 13.171, 297-298; Acts 5: 17; 15: 5; 26: 5. Schlier, “αἵρεσις,” 180-183, and Eisen, Poetik, 209, interpret the word as “school,” suggesting that the Roman Jews may have regarded Christ-fol‐ lowers neutrally, as a legitimate school. The widespread contradiction (ἀντιλέγεται) faced by the group echoes Simeon’s prophecy in Luke 2: 34, where Jesus is described as a sign that will be contested or spoken against (ἀντιλεγόμενον). 23 Note also the use of the imperfect verbs, which indicate the progressive or processual character of the actions. 24 Cf. Acts 17: 4: “some (sc. of the Jews) ἐπείσθησαν and joined Paul and Silas,” that is, they became “believing; ” see also the contrast in Acts 14: 1-2: πιστεύω - ἀπειθέω. On this, see Marguerat, Lukas, 315-316. narrative portrays Paul as a loyal Jew while also implying a socially elevated status—one that would have enabled him, had he chosen, to “bring charges against his people” before the Roman authorities and thus bring harm upon them. 21 But precisely this he consciously refrains from doing. The representatives of the Roman Jews then testify that they have received no information from Judea that would cast suspicion on Paul. However, they are well aware of the conflict surrounding this new movement and therefore wish to hear Paul’s account (28: 21-22). In doing so, the Roman Jews indirectly affirm Paul’s innocence. They do not hesitate to recognize the Christ groups as legitimate intra-Jewish movements. 22 Consequently, the Jewish audience initially appears open-minded and impartial. 3.3 Paul’s Proclamation (Acts 28: 23-28) The second part of the narrative recounts Paul’s proclamation before represen‐ tatives of the Roman Jewish community and their response. Paul receives them hospitably, and they remain with him from morning until evening (28: 23), creating a setting of sustained and engaged fellowship. Paul’s message is briefly summarized as a testimony to the kingship of God and an effort to persuade them concerning Jesus. Quite significantly, the basis of his argument is “the Law of Moses and the Prophets”—that is, the Jewish scriptural tradition (28: 23). As is characteristic of Paul’s missionary encounters, the audience’s response is divided: some were persuaded (ἐπείθοντο), while others refused to believe (28: 24). 23 Being persuaded entails embracing the new conviction and aligning oneself with the Jesus group. 24 Until the very end, the narrative remains focused on the goal of winning all Jews to the message of Christ. This goal, however, is not fulfilled. 258 The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) <?page no="259"?> 25 On the negative connotation of disunity and disharmony in antiquity, cf. Thompson, One Lord, 19-134; see also Pao, “Disagreement,” 114-117. Cf. also Acts 23: 6-9 for the conflict between Sadducees and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. 26 The passive form of the verb ἀπολύω can mean: to be released, set free; to part or disperse; to be acquitted; to depart or withdraw; cf. Passow, Handwörterbuch I/ 1, 345. 27 Wolter, “Doppelwerk,” 273, interprets the statement differently—as a separation of the Jews from Paul. 28 An aorist participle can—but does not necessarily—indicate anteriority; in this case, it is more likely functioning synchronously to link the two statements in direct sequence. 29 Cf. Acts 22: 22; 24: 21. 30 This is overlooked by Jipp, Visitations, 278, who speaks of an identification between the Roman Jews and the Israelites in the time of Isaiah. Unlike in Jerusalem, the leading Jews in Rome did not confront Paul with hostility. However, they were divided among themselves, which significantly weakened their position. Thus, there was no unified Jewish rejection of the message about Jesus! 25 Accordingly, “they departed” (28: 25). 26 This departure should not primarily be understood as a separation from Paul but rather as a reflection of internal disagreement—a division among the Roman Jews themselves. 27 According to 28: 25, it is closely connected to a particular statement made by Paul. This is introduced with the genitivus absolutus εἰπόντος τοῦ Παύλου (“when Paul said”) 28 and is given special emphasis by the phrase ῥῆμα ἕν (“a particular statement”), a formulation that, as in comparable contexts involving Paul’s defense and accusation, marks the utterance as especially significant. 29 This statement serves as a provocation to Paul’s Jewish listeners and prompts their departure; it does not, however, indicate a definitive rupture between Paul and the Jewish community. Their divergent reactions to his message had already been recorded in verse 24. The fact that Paul’s words are narrated only after the audience’s response (hysteron proteron) and now presented in direct speech, further highlights their rhetorical and narrative weight. The statement emphasized at this point centers on a quotation from Isaiah 6: 9-10 L XX . Particularly noteworthy is the way the citation is introduced in Acts 28: 25: “The holy Spirit spoke rightly through the prophet Isaiah to your fathers.” This introduction is significant in that it deliberately avoids a direct and accusatory application of the prophetic message to the immediate audience (e.g., “spoke about you”). 30 Instead, it frames the quotation in a more indirect and historical register: Paul is cast in the role of the prophet, while his listeners are addressed as descendants of the fathers. The citation thus functions as an exemplum from Israel’s sacred history—a warning meant to caution the current hearers. Just as their ancestors failed to respond to God’s word mediated through 3. Paul and the Roman Jews in Acts 28: 16-31 259 <?page no="260"?> 31 The word order differs from that in Isa 6: 9 L X X (“Go and say to this people”). Only here in the NT is the prophet’s commission itself also quoted, thereby placing particular emphasis on the people as the addressees. 32 Acts 28: 27 follows the Septuagint (in contrast to the Hebrew text, which uses imperative forms), thereby placing greater responsibility on the people. 33 The verb παχύνω means ‘to make fat, dull, or stupid’ (Passow, Handwörterbuch II/ 1, 776- 777), and metaphorically denotes mental sluggishness or immobility. The translation “obstinacy” (or “hardening”) fails to fully capture these connotations. 34 Omission of αὐτῶν after ὠσίν in contrast to Isa 6: 10 L X X . 35 An alternative translation—“and/ but I will heal them”—would, in contrast, imply a promise of salvation (Eisen, Poetik, 212-213, argues for an adversative καί; cf. BDR § 442.1). Such an interpretation is linguistically possible, given the shift from four aorist subjunctives to a future indicative, along with a change in subject. However, according to BDR § 442.2d, the future indicative may correspond to the aorist subjunctive following μή(ποτε) (cf. Luke 8: 12); a similar use of the future indicative as an expected consequence after μήποτε with subjunctive also appears in Luke 12: 58 and 14: 8-9. Moreover, such a shift toward a salvation promise would be scarcely marked in the text and would obscure the clearly intended contrast with verse 28. 36 See note 33. The Lucan Paul had previously used the verb σκληρύνω (“to harden”) in Acts 19: 9 to describe the rejection of his message by some Jews in Ephesus. Compare the prophet Isaiah, so too are the present hearers at risk of repeating that failure. In this way, the authority of Scripture intersects pointedly with the contemporary response of the audience. Acts 28: 26-27 then reproduces the LXX version of Isa 6: 9-10 verbatim: 26/ 9 Go to this people (λαός) and say: 31 With your hearing you will hear, yet certainly not understand, and seeing you will see, yet certainly not perceive; 27/ 10 for 32 the heart of this people (λαός) has grown dull (ἐπαχύνθη), 33 and with the 34 ears they scarcely hear, and they have shut their eyes, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with your ears, and understand with the heart, and turn back, and I would heal them. 35 Central to our understanding is the terminology we employ to describe the message of the text. The quotation from Isaiah, through the use of the verb παχύνω, does not depict the behavior of the people of Israel as “obduracy” in the sense of stubborn, malicious resistance to God. Rather, it conveys a state of profound lethargy—a dullness or insensitivity toward the prophetic word of God, a persistent indifference to his message. 36 Through this declaration in 260 The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) <?page no="261"?> also Stephen’s speech, which describes the people’s repeated rejection of Y H W H as “stiff-necked” (σκληροτράχηλοι). 37 Cf. the warning in Acts 3: 23 (quoting Lev 23: 29). The motifs of misunderstanding, rejection, and obstinacy on Israel’s part in its relationship with God run throughout Stephen’s speech in Acts 7: 25-53, leading to a prophetic warning (a quotation of Amos 5: 25-27 L X X in Acts 7: 42-43). This thematic concern is already present in Luke 4: 16-30, which raises the issue of Israel’s reception of Jesus’ prophetic message and ends in a forceful act of rejection. Isaiah, God brings a (provisional) halt to his ongoing but unsuccessful efforts to reach his people. If this statement is to be understood as a “word of judgment,” it must not be interpreted as an announcement of final, eternal condemnation and rejection. Instead, it should be seen as a valid judgment on the people’s present disposition—a disposition that remains, in principle, open to change. Accordingly, the “lethargic” people still retain responsibility for their rejection. Yet the audience also knows that God’s relationship with Israel continued, despite the prophet’s severe words, and that God has never definitively rejected his people. The true and deeper intent of the passage lies not in solidifying the status quo, but in breaking through lethargy by means of a sharply formulated call to awareness. Even in its “dullness,” Israel remains the λαός of God. Only a functional interpretation can grasp the full significance of the prophetic utterance. From this arise two implications for the function of the quotation in Acts 28: 26-27: (1) With regard to the narrated audience—the Roman Jews—the function of the quotation lies in its role as a prophetic warning to Israel. It seeks to make those Jews who reject the message of Christ aware of their error and to awaken them from their lethargy. The overemphasis on dullness and obstinacy is not intended to affirm a fixed condition but to provoke transformation. In this way, the quotation functions analogously to the citation from Hab 1: 5 L XX in Acts 13: 40-41, which likewise explicitly serves as a prophetic warning against closing oneself off to the divine message. 37 Describing the Isaiah citation merely as a “word of judgment” is therefore misleading, as it may imply a definitive and irreversible rejection. In reality, the quotation is undergirded by a salvific intent: to prompt recognition that the message of Christ is divinely sanctioned and aligned with God’s will for his people. The reference to Israel’s repentance and healing at the conclusion of the passage constitutes, following the chiastic structure of the preceding clauses (heart/ ears/ eyes - eyes/ ears/ heart), an overarching element that conveys the ultimate aim of Christian proclamation. Given that the quotation implicitly bears this salvific orientation, it is of secondary importance whether the final clause is read as the conclusion of the indictment or as a syntactic new beginning—namely, an announcement 3. Paul and the Roman Jews in Acts 28: 16-31 261 <?page no="262"?> 38 Cf. n. 35. In favor of this view is Karrer, “Verstockungsmotiv,” 258-259, 270-271. For a critical perspective, see Plümacher, “Rom,” 143-145. The fundamental salvific intention is emphasized by Kilgallen, “Heal Them,” 94-95. 39 The verb κρίνω can mean, among other things, ‘to determine’ or ‘to judge’; cf. Passow, Handwörterbuch I/ 2, 1827-1828. 40 This corresponds to the function of the quotation in its original context in Isaiah; cf. Beuken, Jesaja 1-12, 166 f. — Marguerat, Lukas, 311-312, identifies a narrative role reversal: Paul is not the condemned (as known from historical tradition) but rather the “bearer of a word of judgment” against “the chosen people” (my translation); cf. Skinner, Locating Paul, 166-167. of future restoration (“and I will heal them” 38 ). In either reading, the quotation does not pronounce a general or definitive statement about Israel’s “obduracy” in response to the message of Christ, nor does it entail the irrevocable loss of salvation for Israel as a people in its entirety. (2) On the narrative level, the quotation assumes a distinct pragmatic func‐ tion. It provides the Christian audience of Acts with a scriptural rationale for an otherwise perplexing reality: the widespread rejection of the Christ-message by significant portions of God’s covenant people. This rejection is framed not as an isolated or inexplicable event, but as part of a recurring pattern in Israel’s history—marked by spiritual lethargy and insensitivity to God’s call. Thus, the opposition of many Jews is interpreted within the framework of God’s relationship with Israel and, ultimately, in his sovereign will. The quotation simultaneously maintains the offer of salvation to Israel as an enduring goal. This interpretive lens renders the recurring conflicts between Paul and his fellow Jews intelligible, thereby easing a narrative tension that has persisted since Acts 13: 46-47. There, the missionaries Paul and Barnabas declared that those Jews who rejected the offer of salvation had “judged themselves unworthy of eternal life,” 39 implying that they bore the consequences of their own decision. Yet the full implications of that decision remained ambiguous. The explanation in Acts 28: 26-27 provides clarification and, simultaneously, serves to rehabilitate Paul. 40 As a guarantor of tradition and a foundational figure for the communities of the Lukan era, Paul’s legitimacy is affirmed, along with the legitimacy of his message: neither the proclamation of the gospel nor Paul himself is to be seen as having failed. This is consistent with Paul’s earlier defense in Acts 18: 6, where he insists on his innocence in the face of rejection by the Jews in Corinth—rejection that precipitated his turn to the Gentiles in the city. For the listeners of Acts, it becomes clear that Paul has faithfully fulfilled the commission entrusted to him by the risen Lord (9: 15; 26: 17-18), culminating in his final proclamation before the Roman Jews. 262 The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) <?page no="263"?> 41 Gnilka, Verstockung, 150 (my translations); cf. 143-145, 154. 42 Cf. (with varying emphases) Wilson, Gentiles, 227; the commentaries by Haenchen (KEK 3, 1977), 112, 135-137, 697 (135: “For Luke, the Jews are ‘written off ’” [my translation]); Conzelmann (HNT 7, 1972), 159; Roloff (NTD 5, 1981), 374-375; Schneider (HThKNT V/ 2, 1982), 418, 420; Weiser (ÖTK 5/ 2, 1985), 683-684; Tyson, “Problem,” 137; Rese, “Jews,” 185-201. 43 This is the view taken by most interpreters, e.g., Popkes, “Worte,” 625. 44 Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 627-629, 631, quotation on 631. Cf. Pervo, Acts. 45 Cf. Sanders, “Salvation,” 127-128; Moessner, “End(s)ings,” 215, 219-220. 46 Schröter, “Historiograph,” 253 (my translation); cf. 260-261. Cf. also Schröter, “Heil,” 260-267. This conclusion directly challenges a still-influential scholarly position that interprets the passage as indicating an “obduracy” and, consequently, the definitive rejection of Israel as a whole, and as signaling the transfer of the status of God’s people to the Gentile church. In 1961, Joachim Gnilka described the Isaiah quotation as a “striking keystone” in Luke’s presentation of history and interpreted it as signaling the replacement of Israel by the Church: “The Jews have excluded themselves from the Church, which is the legitimate heir of Israel.” 41 Gnilka distinguishes sharply between the new Israel—the Church—and the old Israel, which, due to its rejection of the Christ-message, no longer belongs to the people of God as a collective entity (p. 149). Only individual Jews, he maintains, still have the possibility of inclusion: “The Jews have forfeited their primacy, but they are not permanently excluded as individuals.” (p. 154). According to Gnilka, “The obduracy of the Jews foretold by Isaiah […] has now completely and definitively opened the way for the Gospel to reach the Gentiles” (p. 130; cf. p. 148). 42 For him, the separation of the Church from Israel is already a historical reality by the time of Luke’s narrative (p. 130). 43 Jacob Jervell speaks in terms of a reconstitution of the people of God: “Israel is divided into believers and unbelievers, and unbelieving Judaism is condemned and rejected by God through Scripture […]. From now on, the Church is separated from the unbelieving part of Judaism. […] only the church composed of Jews and God-fearing Gentiles is the people of God.” 44 Salvation, he argues, has been stripped from unbelieving Jews; “the Jewish mission is concluded,” and a “future conversion of Israel […] is excluded” (p. 628). 45 Similarly, Jens Schröter contends that, in light of Israel’s obduracy, salvation, in the end, is directed exclusively to the Gentiles, and that the mission henceforth becomes a solely Gentile mission. The narrated phase of history ends “with the separation of Israel and the Church in Rome”; from that point onward, the Jews are no longer considered part of the people of God, which now consists solely of Gentile Christians. 46 This “reconstitution of the people of God” entails “a temporal priority of the Gentiles in being incorporated into the people of 3. Paul and the Roman Jews in Acts 28: 16-31 263 <?page no="264"?> 47 Schröter, “Heil,” 260, 263. According to Pao, “Disagreement,” “the contrast between the unified Church and the divided Jews” (114) reflects “Luke’s understanding of the identity of the Church within which one finds the continuation of salvation history” (118). 48 Jipp, Visitations, 271, 279, 287. 49 Wolter, “Doppelwerk,” 285 (my translation); cf. 273. 50 Wolter, “Doppelwerk,” 270, 278, 287. Cf. Bendemann, “Geist,” 62-70: Israel, he argues, is not ultimately written off (62-63); rather, Luke’s interest lies primarily in the Gentile mission (65-66); Luke already looks back on the “conflict history with Judaism” and presents Isaiah 6: 9-10 as “a final theologically interpretive metatext” (69; my translation; italics in original). God; ” because of Israel’s rejection, salvation now takes place apart from Israel, which is presently no longer part of God’s people. 47 Nonetheless, Schröter emphasizes that this obduracy of Israel is “a phase within salvation history that serves the inclusion of the Gentiles, yet does not abrogate the ultimate fulfillment of Israel’s hopes” (p. 265; my translation). Even recent scholarship continues this trajectory of supersessionist interpretation. Joshua W. Jipp, for example, speaks of the “final rejection” of the Roman Jews, 48 interpreting the Isaiah quotation as a “message of judgment against them” (p. 278); their division “sets them apart from the people of God” (p. 278), and thus, the continuation of the mission can only be thought of as a mission to the Gentiles (pp. 286-287). The narrative, however, conveys a different perspective. Even at the conclusion of Acts, in Rome, Paul addresses the Jews first—and their response is divided, which clearly does not amount to a wholesale or definitive rejection. From the beginning, the narrative has pointed toward the inclusion of the Gentile nations in salvation (cf. Luke 2: 32; 24: 47-48; Acts 1: 8; 2: 39; 13: 47), and this inclusion is not portrayed as dependent in principle on Israel’s rejection. Rather, Jewish rejection serves as the immediate occasion for the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 13: 46). Consequently, a number of recent studies have approached the way the relationship to Israel is portrayed in Acts 28 with greater nuance. Michael Wolter argues that the Isaiah quotation does not offer a timeless statement about the nature of Judaism but serves, in retrospect, as an explanation for the failure of early Christian proclamation—an outcome that “led to the separation of Church and Synagogue.” 49 He understands this history of separation as a distinct epoch within the broader history of Israel. 50 In an earlier publication, however, Wolter had taken a narrower stance, interpreting the quotation as a pronouncement of the “definitive 264 The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) <?page no="265"?> 51 Wolter, “Zukunft,” 330 (my translations); since salvation depends entirely on one’s attitude toward Christ, a redefinition of the people of God becomes necessary (330; cf. 331-333). 52 Marguerat, Lukas, 315-325, quotation on 320 (my translations); cf. also 232-236. See also Evans, To See, 124-126, who interprets Acts 28, on the one hand, as an “intra-Jewish debate,” but, on the other hand, sees Luke as convinced “that apart from faith in Christ, the Jews are lost” (124). 53 Sellner, Heil, 375, 376 (my translations). Cf. O’Toole, “Mission,” 383, 391; Gempf, “Luke’s Story,” 60-61. Labahn, “Boldly and Without Hindrance,” 73 sees only the priority of the Jews as having come to an end. 54 Schaefer, Zukunft, 359-360, 362 (my translations). loss of salvation for large parts of God’s people.” 51 The quotation, he claimed, delivered the “final word” on the rejecting generation “in a hyperbolically generalized manner”; this generation, having remained “obdurate,” was therefore to be “written off ” from participation in eschatological salvation (p. 327). This judgment, he suggested, could be extended to later Jews who likewise reject the message and thus share the fate of the “generation of hardening” (p. 328). Daniel Marguerat discerns both elements of openness and a negative assessment of Israel in the conclusion of Acts and, ultimately, highlights its narrative ambivalence: Luke has “no definitive answer to the question of Israel’s future.” 52 The story ends “neither with a final rejection (a curse upon Israel) nor with a procedural dismissal (a trivialization of Israel’s rejection),” but instead “remains deliberately ambivalent,” thereby precluding “any definitive verdict on the future relationship between Church and Synagogue” (p. 324). For Marguerat, the motif of hardening functions “to situate the rupture between Church and Synagogue within a framework of salvation-histor‐ ical continuity” (p. 318). Hans-Jörg Sellner interprets the function of the quotation as a “diagnosis” or “explanation” of the undeniable fact that large portions of Israel reject the message of Christ. 53 Yet this is not to be understood as a final judgment; rather, the salvific status of those who reject remains “strangely unresolved” (p. 372; cf. pp. 377-378). Christoph Schaefer also refers to the quotation as an “explanation,” 54 though he places greater emphasis on the motif of “self-hardening” (p. 361). He understands the Church as being “spatially separated from Judaism” and sees Acts 28 as aiming “to define the Church as a distinct entity alongside the Synagogue” (p. 363; cf. p. 358). However, he maintains that this does not amount “to a final redefinition of Jewish status; ” there is no definitive verdict. Rather, repentance remains both possible and expected (pp. 363-364). Ute E. Eisen takes this interpretation a step further, viewing the quotation as a form of inner-Jewish polemic. In this reading, Jewish resistance is interpreted “within the traditional framework of Old Testament prophecy”—not as a rejection of Israel, but 3. Paul and the Roman Jews in Acts 28: 16-31 265 <?page no="266"?> 55 Eisen, Poetik, 212. She refers to Lehnert, “Verstockung,” 14. 56 Troftgruben, Conclusion, 126-130, quotations on 128 and 130. Similarly, van de Sandt, “Salvation,” 358; cf. Kilgallen, “Heal Them,” 104; Litwak, “Views,” 233-235. 57 Καί functions here emphatically; cf. BDR §442.8b n. 24. It is ultimately immaterial whether the emphasis falls specifically on the pronoun or the verb, as the pronoun itself already carries emphatic weight. rather as its failure to understand. 55 The text, she argues, does not yet presuppose a rupture between Judaism and Christianity (p. 213). Similarly, Troy M. Troftgruben interprets Acts 28: 25-28 as an inner-Jewish dialogue and prophetic critique aimed “to provoke insiders.” The passage, he contends, does not signal the end of the Jewish mission or a final condemnation, but seeks instead to elicit repentance: “to sense the tragedy of Paul’s words, and to be moved to respond.” 56 Thus, key questions remain open: “In sum, the ending of Acts has no conclusive answers regarding a mission to Jews and Israel’s redemption, only unresolved questions” (p. 154). These last two positions bring us back into close proximity with my own conclusions regarding the function of the Isaiah quotation. Let us now turn again to the unfolding of the narrative. The final sentence of Paul’s brief speech links Israel’s spiritual lethargy with God’s extension of salvation to the Gentile nations (Acts 28: 28). Paul’s mission to the Gentiles had already provoked rejection from Jewish listeners in Acts 22: 21-22. The introduction of this new statement carries a solemn tone and, with the inferential οὖν (“now”), explicitly connects to the preceding Isaiah quotation: “Let it now be made known to you.” The message of salvation intended for Israel is now accompanied by the declaration that salvation has also been sent to the Gentiles: “that this salvation (σωτήριον) expected of God has been sent to the nations (ἔθνη).” The demonstrative pronoun “this” (τοῦτο) refers directly to the salvific will of God expressed at the end of the Isaiah quotation (Isa 6: 10 LXX ) and, in the broader context, to the entire salvific message of Christ (cf. Acts 28: 23). The noun σωτήριον, a substantivized adjective, occurs in the New Testament (apart from Eph 6: 17) only here and in Luke 2: 30 and 3: 6—texts that programmatically include the Gentiles, or “all flesh,” in God’s saving purpose. In Luke 3: 6, this promise is grounded in the prophetic message of Isaiah, through a citation of Isa 40: 5 LXX . The promise of the beginning thus reaches its fulfillment at the conclusion of Acts, such that the proclamation of salvation to the Gentiles forms a sweeping narrative arc across the Lukan two-volume work. The final clause in Acts 28: 28, “they will also listen” (αὐτοὶ καὶ 57 ἀκούσονται), introduces an implicit contrast with the “hard of hearing” Jews. This contrast, however, should not be read as a blanket opposition between disobedient Israel and obedient Gentiles but as a provocative challenge. The salvation of Israel 266 The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) <?page no="267"?> 58 On the contrast between Israel’s unwillingness to hear and the Gentiles’ receptivity, see Ezek 3: 6-7; Luke 7: 9; 13: 28-29; 14: 16-24; cf. also Rom 10: 19-20; 11: 11. Kilgallen, “Acts 28,28,” 176-187, interprets the function of this verse as a call to repentance. The motif of jealousy is also identified by Litwak, “Views,” 240-241, 246-247. However, the idea of a “remnant of Israel” (ibid., 235-236) is, in my view, not discernible in Acts 28: 28. 59 See also Luke 2: 31-32 and Acts 18: 10 regarding the motif of inclusion. On this, cf. Sellner, Heil, 494-495. Neubrand, “Volk”, 289-310, takes a different view; she argues for the coexistence of two “peoples,” with the elect from the nations existing on equal footing alongside the first-chosen people, Israel. 60 Similarly, Gnilka, Verstockung, 145-146. Cf. Sellner, Heil, 369-370. Schaefer, Zukunft, 277, associates the term Ἰουδαῖοι with an “external or outside perspective” (my translation). and that of the nations must not be set against one another. In the immediate context, some Jews are persuaded by Paul’s message (Acts 28: 24); conversely, both narrator and audience are well aware that only a small portion of the Gentiles truly “listen.” The text thus evokes the well-known motif of jealousy: 58 if even Gentiles respond to the message of Israel’s God, how much more should everyone in Israel be expected to listen? The linguistic contrast introduced in the text does not imply a theological “replacement” of Israel by the “Church.” Although Luke is clearly familiar with the term ἐκκλησία, he deliberately avoids using it here. Instead, his choice of vocabulary suggests that he continues to view the emerging Christ movement as part of Israel. In Acts 28: 22, he refers to it as a αἵρεσις, portraying it as a faction within Israel itself. At the same time, he significantly broadens the use of λαός, a term largely reserved for the people of God, to include the Gentile nations. This interpretive shift is made explicit in Acts 15: 14 at the Jerusalem meeting, where it is declared that God has taken ἐξ ἐθνῶν λαόν (“from the Gentiles nations a people”). Here, the Gentiles are incorporated into the λαός—the people of Israel—and are thereby affirmed as legitimate members of the one people of God. 59 This inclusion is further confirmed in Acts 26: 18, where the narrated Paul states that through their conversion, the Gentiles receive “a share” or “inheritance among those who are sanctified”—that is, they are granted participation in Israel’s election. A conceptual distinction that equates λαός with the new people of God and Ἰουδαῖοι (“Jews”) with the rejecting part of the Jewish people 60 does not hold up under textual scrutiny. The “Jews” mentioned in the Roman scene (Acts 28: 17) do not all reject the message of Christ. Moreover, even the Israel characterized by spiritual inertness in the Isaiah quotation remains God’s λαός (Acts 28: 26-27). What is central here is not a competition over exclusive salvific status before God but differing responses to the new message. Considering that the internal 3. Paul and the Roman Jews in Acts 28: 16-31 267 <?page no="268"?> 61 Thus, in Salamis (Acts 13: 5), Antioch in Pisidia (13: 14), Iconium (14: 1), Philippi (16: 13), Thessalonica (17: 1), Berea (17: 10), Corinth (18: 4), Ephesus (19: 8), and Rome (28: 17), Paul begins his proclamation with the Jews. In this way, Luke maintains the salvation-his‐ torical priority of the Jews, who, according to Acts 3: 26, are to receive the gospel first. It is, therefore, also significant that, at the beginning of the proclamation in Acts 2-5, many Jews join the movement. 62 Cf. Troftgruben, Conclusion, 139; Eisen, Poetik, 216; Sellner, Heil, 377; Köhler, “Ende des Paulus,” 209-210, 232. Marguerat, Lukas, 321, also observes that the Roman Christians are fundamentally included. listeners of the text are still Jews in Rome, the ultimate aim is to persuade them of the legitimacy of the Gentile mission. The text does not imply a definitive turning away from the Jewish people. Throughout the Pauline mission, the pattern is consistent: in each city, Paul always approaches the Jews first. 61 Only when his message is rejected does he turn to the Gentiles (e.g., Acts 13: 46 in Antioch of Pisidia; 18: 6 in Corinth). Yet even after such rejection, Paul continues this pattern in the next city, beginning once more in the synagogue. That Acts 28: 28 does not mark a final break with the Jews is underscored by the final words of the book. 3.4 The Summary Ending (Acts 28: 30-31) The final section of the pericope serves as a summary ending, bringing the entire book to a close (Acts 28: 30-31). It states that Paul was able to welcome all who came to him for a full two years. During this time, he proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ. These same elements had already characterized his proclamation in Acts 28: 23. The final words emphasize that Paul carried out this mission “with all boldness” and “without hindrance,” despite being under house arrest. Unlike earlier missionary contexts, Paul encounters no violent resistance from hostile Jews in Rome. The relationship appears to have relaxed, providing a foundation for continued dialogue concerning the message of Christ. While Paul’s house arrest recedes into the background, it remains subtly present in the narrative. For ancient audiences familiar with such circumstances, it accentuates the contrast between Paul’s physical confinement and his unimpeded freedom in proclamation—underscoring the divine protection and empowerment behind his mission. Of particular relevance to our inquiry is the continued openness of Paul’s proclamation to “all”—that is, to Jews, Gentiles, and followers of Christ in Rome. 62 The text gives no indication that Jews are now excluded from his 268 The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) <?page no="269"?> 63 This is asserted, for example, by Gnilka, Verstockung, 130; and the commentaries of Haenchen (693-394); Schneider (vol. II, 420); Jervell (630). Cf. Popkes, “Worte,” 613. 64 Literally, Acts 28: 30 states that Paul lived “at his own expense” (lit. “in his own rented dwelling”; cf. n. 13). Already in Ephesus, after disputes with some Jews, Paul chose a Greco-Roman “lecture hall” (σχολή) as the place for his proclamation (Acts 19: 9). On the significance of this change of location, see Marguerat, “Image,” 41-42, 45. 65 Roloff, “Paulus-Darstellung,” 522-524; cf. Cullmann, Petrus, 115-117. audience. 63 This inclusivity is mirrored in the neutral setting where Paul receives his visitors: a private residence, likely in one of the many insulae in Rome. 64 The long narrative arc detailing Paul’s conflict with other Jews concludes without resolution, but one point remains clear: despite Jewish rejection, Paul stands as the legitimate herald of a message sustained by God himself. And the offer of salvation to Israel remains intact. This openness likely reflects the historical context of the narrator, Luke, writing at a time when no definitive separation between the Christ-following communities and Judaism had yet occurred. In this way, Paul fulfills his mission in exemplary fashion, establishing the foundation for the further expansion of the Christ movement. He thus stands as a reliable guarantor of tradition for the future, with a message deeply rooted in God’s history with Israel. What the audience recalls from their historical memory reinforces what Luke explicitly narrates. All other matters fade into the background at the conclusion of Acts—for example, whether Paul, as foretold in Acts 27: 24, eventually appears before the emperor, how his relationship with the Roman Christ communities unfolds, or how he dies. It appears that Luke was aware of Paul’s death in Rome, as “his” Paul delivers a prophetic declaration of his impending death in the farewell address to the Ephesian elders prior to his journey to Jerusalem and Rome (Acts 20: 24-25), a prophecy the elders themselves understand as such (20: 37-38; cf. 21: 13). The precise circumstances surrounding Paul’s death remain largely obscure in the earliest sources. 1 Clem. 5: 5-7 alludes to his martyrdom, attributing it to “jealousy and strife” (5: 5). Jürgen Roloff had previously interpreted this reference in the context of internal conflicts within the communities in Rome. 65 The letter to the Romans makes clear the intense tensions between Paul and other Jews regarding the relatively free nature of his Gentile mission (Rom 15: 25, 30-31). Consequently, Paul likely anticipated opposition within the Roman Christ communities as well; he clearly recognized the need to present his gospel and to win over these communities to his mission (Rom 15: 14-32). To what 3. Paul and the Roman Jews in Acts 28: 16-31 269 <?page no="270"?> 66 It is only Eusebius, at the beginning of the fourth century, who describes the persecution of Christians in Rome under Nero in 64 CE as the occasion for Paul’s execution (Hist. eccl. 2.25.5-7). — If 2 Tim 4: 10-16 reflects historical memory of Paul’s Roman imprisonment, it suggests that other Christians had distanced themselves from him. 67 Thus, the ending of Acts is less open than is often assumed. On open endings in ancient narrative works and the combination of closure and openness in Acts 28, see Troftgruben, Conclusion, esp. 144-178; see also Marguerat, Lukas, 301-308. On the possible effect on the audience, see Lang, Kunst, 424-426. Baum, “Rhetoric,” 95-128, once again brings the theory of an early dating into play as an explanation for the supposedly incomplete ending. — The programmatic proclamation “to the ends of the earth” from Acts 1: 8 has been partially fulfilled (cf. the Ethiopian eunuch in 8: 26-40); Paul’s death has already been foreshadowed (20: 24-25, 37-38; 21: 13); and, in any case, the Christian witness has reached the emperor, as the persecution of Christians in Rome under Nero following the Great Fire of 64 CE demonstrates (Tacitus, Ann. 15.44)—an event that the audience would surely have recalled. extent this tension ultimately contributed to Paul’s death—presumed to have occurred in Rome in the early 60s 66 —remains uncertain. Luke concludes his historical narrative by centering it on the completion of Paul’s mission. This mission is fulfilled in Rome, particularly through the positioning of Paul’s message in relation to the Roman Jews. With this, Paul’s divinely appointed role in salvation history is brought to its completion. Unlike in earlier missionary contexts, there is no aggressive or violent rejection from the Jews in Rome. This also signals a form of closure: Paul no longer needs to move on. With his proclamation delivered to the leading figures of the large and prominent Jewish diaspora synagogues in Rome, his missionary movement reaches what can be seen as its—at least provisional—endpoint. The narrative ends with a striking openness in the relationship between Paul and the Roman Jews—an ending that does not inscribe a definitive break but rather leaves room for ongoing development. In doing so, Luke acts in accordance with the conventions of a skilled ancient historian: he brings his account to a close where a meaningful conclusion becomes discernible. Paul’s mission is complete, and with it the enduring foundation of Christian theology is established within the framework of God’s salvific history with Israel. 67 At this point, a new phase of early Christian proclamation and community formation can begin—one that must remain fundamentally rooted in the tradition of Israel. From Luke’s historical perspective, Paul’s achievement lies not in initiating the Gentile mission (a task attributed to Peter in Acts 10: 1-11: 18), but in theologically grounding it within Israel’s tradition, without stepping outside its boundaries. 270 The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) <?page no="271"?> 68 As Marguerat, Lukas, 237 suggests. See, by contrast, idem, “Image,” 45; and Eisen, Poetik, 205: “Thus, the perspective of a sober, matter-of-fact narrator dominates—precisely what one would expect at the close of a narrative” (my translation). 69 The issue of identity is also noted by Wolter, “Zukunft,” 330, and Marguerat, Lukas, 236-238. The Acts of the Apostles does not conclude with a “triumph of God,” 68 but rather with a sober and pensive tone regarding Israel’s response, while maintaining quiet confidence in the legitimacy and continued expansion of the proclamation of Christ. 4. Conclusion The reading of Paul’s defense and his stay in Rome in the Acts of the Apostles clearly demonstrates that the question the text addresses in relation to Judaism is not: Has Israel fallen out of salvation, lost its status as God’s people, and irreversibly forfeited the chance for repentance? Rather, the question is: How can we be convinced of the message of Christ when a significant portion of the Jewish people rejects it? This question likely represented one of the greatest theological challenges and points of contention for the Christian communities during Luke’s time. Ultimately, Israel’s understanding of God remained the foundation for the conviction that this God revealed himself in Jesus. The rejection by a large portion of Israel, reflected in the divided response in Acts 28: 24, thus significantly calls into question the self-understanding and identity of the Christians. 69 Their place within God’s salvation history with Israel now requires justification. Do the promises of the Scriptures of Israel apply to them who, by now, are dominated by people from the so-called Gentile nations? Do they have a part in the continuity of God’s salvific action toward his people? It becomes evident how deeply the author and the recipients of Acts still think within a Jewish framework. The response in Paul’s story strengthens the conviction: The message of Christ is trustworthy because it was initiated and upheld by Y HWH , the God of Israel, and is specifically tied to Paul as its messenger. Yet Israel, once again—just as it has so often in its history—fails to listen to God’s word. A final judgment on Israel’s salvation or condemnation is thus entirely absent, as is any notion of Israel being replaced as the people of salvation by the “Church” (substitution). Luke, in the third generation of Christians, understands the Christ communities, composed of Jews and Gentiles living together according to Paul’s gospel, as part of the people of God, as λαός, just as Israel, even in its “dullness,” remains λαός (28: 26-27). 4. Conclusion 271 <?page no="272"?> 70 Luke and Paul share the view that the legitimacy of the Gentile mission rests on the enduring foundation of the Jewish Torah (cf., e.g., Rom 3: 21-31; 7), which has implications for Luke’s portrayal of Paul. For the recent shift in scholarly interpretation on this topic, see Schröter, “Modell,” 53-80. 71 This formulation can be found in Eltester, “Israel,” 115-116 (my translation). The narrative is particularly concerned with portraying Paul—the witness who appears as the leading figure in the mission to the Gentiles—as someone who remains firmly rooted in Judaism. Even after his “conversion,” he continues to live in accordance with the Torah and Jewish tradition. It is on Jewish ground, within the sphere of Jewish life, that the new eschatological community emerges—one that, through belonging to Christ, is able to unite both Jews and Gentiles within itself. 70 The fundamental question of Luke’s narrative is therefore not whether “Israel stands within the camp of Christianity,” 71 but whether the Christ communities, composed of both Jews and Gentiles, are a legitimate part of Israel—the people of God. This question is answered emphatically in the affirmative, as the narrative explains the widespread rejection within Israel through Scripture itself. Put pointedly, it is not Israel’s place in salvation history that is in doubt in this historical context, but rather that of the communities. The historical context of Luke lies far in the past. After nearly two thousand years of separation between “Judaism” and “Christianity”—a history often marked by painful ruptures, particularly on the part of the Christian Church— the notion of a shared λαός is no longer theologically sustainable. For today’s Christian churches, the recognition of Israel as the originally elected people of God is a theological necessity. Unlike in the early period, when the mission to Israel arose from within, out of Israel itself, churches today are not called to evangelize this people “from the outside.” This does not mean, of course, that the churches should be closed to Jewish individuals who seek to walk their path with Y HWH also in relation to Christ. Christian theology must acknowledge the unresolved nature of the question concerning “Israel’s salvation; ” it is not within its authority to make definitive claims regarding Israel’s salvation or condemnation. At the same time, theology is called to remember—and indeed to rediscover—its own Jewish roots, particularly where fundamental theological convictions are at stake, such as in Christology. The document of the Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate, opened the Church to a renewed understanding of Israel by affirming the distinctive nature of the bond between the Church and Israel. It speaks of the “spiritual bond linking the people of the New Covenant with the stock of Abraham” (Nostra Aetate 4.1). Moreover, it gestures toward a shared perspective on the 272 The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) <?page no="273"?> eschatological future: “In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle [i.e., Paul], the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ (Zeph 3: 9)” (Nostra Aetate 4.4). What we are challenged to rediscover today was self-evident for the Acts of the Apostles. Bibliography Barclay, John M.G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE). Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Baum, Daniel A. “‘Rhetorik des Schweigens’? Der unvollständige Schluss der Apostel‐ geschichte (Act 28,30-31) im Licht antiker Literaturtheorie und historiographischer Praxis.” ETL 88 (2012): 95-128. BDR = Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 16th ed. Bearbeitet von Friedrich Rehkopf. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Bendemann, Reinhard von. “‘Trefflich hat der heilige Geist durch Jesaja, den Propheten, gesprochen …’ (Apg 28,25): Zur Bedeutung von Jesaja 6,9f. für die Geschichtskonzep‐ tion des lukanischen Doppelwerkes.” Pages 45-73 in Das Echo des Propheten Jesaja: Beiträge zu seiner vielfältigen Rezeption. Edited by Norbert C. Baumgart and Gerhard Ringshausen. Münster: LIT Verlag, 2004. Beuken, Willem A.M. Jesaja 1-12. HThKAT 34. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2003. Conzelmann, Hans. Die Apostelgeschichte. 2nd ed. HNT 7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1972. Cullmann, Oscar. Petrus: Jünger, Apostel, Märtyrer. Das historische und das theologische Petrusproblem. 3rd ed. Zürich: Zwingli, 1985. Deutschmann, Anton. “Die Hoffnung Israels (Apg 28,20).” BN 105 (2000): 54-60. Eisen, Ute E. Die Poetik der Apostelgeschichte: Eine narratologische Studie. NTOA 58. Fribourg; Göttingen: Academic Press; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Eltester, Walther. “Israel im lukanischen Werk und die Nazarethperikope.” Pages 76-147 in Jesus in Nazareth. Edited by Erich Gräßer et al. BZNW 40. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1972. Evans, Craig A. To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9-10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation. JSOTSup 64. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Gempf, Conrad. “Luke’s Story of Paul’s Reception in Rome.” Pages 42-66 in Rome in the Bible and the Early Church. Edited by Peter Oakes. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002. Gnilka, Joachim. Die Verstockung Israels: Isaias 6,9-10 in der Theologie der Synoptiker. Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 3. München: Kösel, 1961. Haenchen, Ernst. Die Apostelgeschichte. 3rd ed. KEK 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Bibliography 273 <?page no="274"?> Hünermann, Peter, ed. Die Dokumente des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils: Konstitutio‐ nen, Dekrete, Erklärungen. Lateinisch-deutsche Studienausgabe. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil 1. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2009. Jervell, Jacob. Die Apostelgeschichte. KEK 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Jipp, Joshua W. Divine Visitations and Hospitality to Strangers in Luke-Acts: An Interpre‐ tation of the Malta Episode in Acts 28: 1-10. NovTSup 153. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013. Karrer, Martin. “‘Und ich werde sie heilen: ’ Das Verstockungsmotiv aus Jes 6,9f. in Apg 28,26f.” Pages 255-271 in Kirche und Volk Gottes: Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff. Edited by Dieter Sänger and Ulrich Mell. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000. Kilgallen, John. “‘… and I will Heal Them’ (Acts 28: 27).” PIBA 28 (2005): 87-105. ---. “Acts 28,28—Why? ” Bib 90 (2009): 176-187. Köhler, Kristell. “‘Allen bin ich alles geworden, um auf jeden Fall einige zu retten’ (1 Kor 9,22b): Das Ende des Paulus und der ‘Anfang’ der Kirche.” Pages 193-234 in Das Paulusbild der Apostelgeschichte. Edited by Rudolf Hoppe and Kristell Köhler. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2009. Labahn, Michael. “‘Boldly and Without Hindrance He Preached the Kingdom of God and Taught about the Lord Jesus Christ’ (Acts 28: 31): Paul’s Public Proclamation in Rome as the Finale of a Shipwreck.” Pages 56-75 in Christians as a Religious Minority in a Multicultural City: Modes of Interaction and Identity Formation in Early Imperial Rome. Edited by Jürgen Zangenberg and Michael Labahn. JSNTSup 243. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Lampe, Peter. Die stadtrömischen Christen in den beiden ersten Jahrhunderten. 2nd ed. WUNT II/ 18. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Lang, Manfred. Die Kunst des christlichen Lebens: Rezeptionsästhetische Studien zum luka‐ nischen Paulusbild. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 29. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2008. Lehnert, Volker A. “Die ‘Verstockung Israels’ und biblische Hermeneutik: Ein exege‐ tisches Kabinettstückchen zur Methodenfrage.” Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 16 (2005): 13-19. Litwak, Kenneth. “One or Two Views of Judaism: Paul in Acts 28 and Romans 11 on Jewish Unbelief.” TynBull 57 (2006): 229-249. Marguerat, Daniel. Lukas, der erste christliche Historiker: Eine Studie zur Apostelgeschichte. ATANT 92. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2011. [French original: La première histoire du christianisme, 2nd ed., 2003.] ---. “The Image of Paul in Acts.” Pages 22-47 in Paul in Acts and Paul in His Letters. WUNT 310. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles. TNTC 5. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1980. Moessner, David P. “‘Completed End(s)ings’ of Historiographical Narrative: Diodorus Siculus and the End(ing) of Acts.” Pages 193-221 in Die Apostelgeschichte und die 274 The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) <?page no="275"?> hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung: Festschrift für Ernst Plümacher. Edited by Cilliers Breytenbach and Jens Schröter. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 57. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004. Neubrand, Maria. “‘Ein Volk aus Nichtjuden’ (Apg 15,14): Die bleibende Erwählung Israels und die Erwählung aus den Völkern im lukanischen Doppelwerk.” Pages 289- 310 in Das Heil der anderen: Problemfeld ‘Judenmission’. Edited by Hubert Frankemölle and Josef Wohlmuth. QD 238. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2010. O’Toole, Robert F. “The Christian Mission and the Jews at the End of Acts of the Apostles.” Pages 371-396 in Biblical Exegesis in Progress: Old and New Testament Essays. Edited by Jean-Noël Aletti and Jean-Louis Ska. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2009. Omerzu, Heike. Der Prozess des Paulus: Eine exegetische und rechtshistorische Untersu‐ chung der Apostelgeschichte. BZNW 115. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2002. ---. “Fallstudie: Der Prozess des Paulus.” Neues Testament und Antike Kultur 1 (2004): 247-252. Pao, David W. “Disagreement among the Jews in Acts 28.” Pages 109-118 in Early Christian Voices in Texts, Traditions, and Symbols: Essays in Honor of François Bovon. Edited by David H. Warren, Ann Graham Brock, and David W. Pao. BibInt 66. Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2003. Passow, Franz. Handwörterbuch der Griechischen Sprache. 2 double vols. 5th ed. Updated by Valentin C.F. Rost et al. Leipzig: Fr. Chr. Wilh. Vogel, 1841-1857. Reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009. Plümacher, Eckhard. “Rom in der Apostelgeschichte.” Pages 135-169 in Geschichte und Geschichten: Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte und zu den Johannesakten. Edited by Jens Schröter and Ralph Brucker. WUNT 170. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Popkes, Enno Edzard. “Die letzten Worte des lukanischen Paulus: Zur Bedeutung von Act 28,25-28 für das Paulusbild der Apostelgeschichte.” Pages 605-625 in Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historiographie. Edited by Jörg Frey, Clare K. Rothschild, and Jens Schröter. BZNW 162. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2009. Rapske, Brian. The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody. Vol 3 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Rese, Martin. “The Jews in Luke-Acts: Some Second Thoughts.” Pages 185-201 in The Unity of Luke-Acts. Edited by Joseph Verheyden. BETL 142. Leuven: Peeters, 1999. Roloff, Jürgen. “Die Paulus-Darstellung des Lukas: Ihre geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen und ihr theologisches Ziel.” EvT 39 (1979): 510-531. ---. Die Apostelgeschichte. NTD 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Bibliography 275 <?page no="276"?> Sanders, Jack T. “The Salvation of the Jews in Luke-Acts.” Pages 104-128 in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. New York: Crossroad, 1984. Schaefer, Christoph. Die Zukunft Israels bei Lukas: Biblisch-frühjüdische Zukunftsvorstel‐ lungen im Doppelwerk des Lukas im Vergleich zu Röm 9-11. BZNW 190. Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter, 2012. Schlier, Heinrich. “αἵρεσις.” Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament 1 (1933): 180-183. Schneider, Gerhard. Die Apostelgeschichte. HThKNT V/ 2. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1982. Schreiber, Stefan. Paulus als Wundertäter: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und den authentischen Paulusbriefen. BZNW 79. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1996. ---. “Der Römerbrief.” Pages 281-307 in Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 2nd ed. Edited by Martin Ebner and Stefan Schreiber. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 6. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2013. ---. Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher. ÖTK 13/ 1. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2014. Schröter, Jens. “Lukas als Historiograph: Das lukanische Doppelwerk und die Entdeckung der christlichen Heilsgeschichte.” Pages 237-262 in Die antike Historiographie und die Anfänge der christlichen Geschichtsschreibung. Edited by Eve-Marie Becker. BZNW 129. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2005. ---. “Heil für die Heiden und Israel: Zum Zusammenhang von Christologie und Volk Gottes bei Lukas.” Pages 247-267 in Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament: Studien zur frühchristlichen Theologiegeschichte. WUNT 204. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. ---. “Paulus als Modell christlicher Zeugenschaft: Apg 9,15f. und 28,30f. als Rahmen der lukanischen Paulusdarstellung und Rezeption des ‘historischen’ Paulus.” Pages 53-80 in Reception of Paulinism in Acts. Edited by Daniel Marguerat. BETL 229. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Sellner, Hans-Jörg. Das Heil Gottes: Studien zur Soteriologie des lukanischen Doppelwerks. BZNW 152. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2007. Skinner, Matthew L. Locating Paul: Places of Custody as Narrative Settings in Acts 21-28. SBL.Academia Biblica 13. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. ---. “Unchained Ministry: Paul’s Roman Custody (Acts 21-28) and the Sociopolitical Outlook of the Book of Acts.” Pages 79-95 in Acts and Ethics. Edited by Thomas E. Phillips. New Testament Monographs 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005. Thompson, Alan J. One Lord, One People: The Unity of the Church in Acts in Its Literary Setting. LNTS 359. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2008. 276 The Final Word of a Major Apologia: Paul, Isaiah, and the Jews in Rome (Acts 28: 16-31) <?page no="277"?> Troftgruben, Troy M. A Conclusion Unhindered: A Study of the Ending of Acts within Its Literary Environment. WUNT II/ 280. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Tyson, Joseph B. “The Problem of Jewish Rejection in Acts.” Pages 124-137 in Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publ. House, 1988. van de Sandt, Huub. “Acts 28: 28: No Salvation for the People of Israel? An Answer in the Perspective of the LXX.” ETL 70 (1994): 341-358. Weiser, Alfons. Die Apostelgeschichte. ÖTK 5/ 2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1985. Wilson, Stephen G. The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts. SNTSMS 23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Wolter, Michael. “Das lukanische Doppelwerk als Epochengeschichte.” Pages 261-289 in Theologie und Ethos im frühen Christentum: Studien zu Jesus, Paulus und Lukas. WUNT 236. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ---. “Israels Zukunft und die Parusieverzögerung bei Lukas.” Pages 311-335 in Theologie und Ethos im frühen Christentum: Studien zu Jesus, Paulus und Lukas. WUNT 236. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Bibliography 277 <?page no="278"?> Index of References Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Gen 2: 16-17 156 ff. 2: 16-3: 24 161 3: 1-3 156 3: 1-7 158 3: 13 158 3: 17-19 158 6: 15 27, 53 9 41 12: 2 138 12: 3 99 f. 12: 7 138 13: 15-17 138 15: 5-6 139 15: 5-7 138 15: 6 99 f., 137 f. 15: 18 138 17: 1-14 124 17: 5 139 17: 8 138 17: 11 95, 125 17: 13 89, 99 17: 14 125 17: 19 89, 99 17: 23 125 26: 5 99, 125 32: 29 176 34: 14 125 34: 24 125 37: 7 214 Exod 4: 22 176 4: 25 125 6: 6 42, 63 12: 40-41 100 12: 43 145 15: 13 42, 63 16: 10 176 18: 20 129 19: 5-6 116 20: 14 144 20: 17 155 25 28, 63, 76 25: 17 35 25: 17-22 24, 53, 71 25: 19 28 25: 22 26, 28 26: 34 24 30: 6 24 31: 7 24, 53, 71 32: 30 173 35: 12 24, 53, 71 37: 6-9 24 38: 5 24 38: 5-8 53, 71 38: 7-8 24 39: 35 24 40: 20 24 Lev 4: 3 173 4: 14 173 4-5 92 5: 6, 7, 11 173 7: 37 173 9: 2, 3 173 11: 44-45 116 <?page no="279"?> 12: 3 125 12: 6, 8 173 12: 7 145 14: 2 145 16 14, 24, 26, 28 f., 39, 41, 54-57, 62 f., 66, 72 f., 76 16: 2 27, 53, 71 16: 3 173 16: 11 24 16: 11-17 53, 55, 71 16: 13 24 16: 13-15 24, 53, 71 16: 14 25 16: 15 25, 72 16: 27 173 16: 33 25 17 41 18: 4-5 90 18: 5 101, 157, 180 f. 19: 3 224 19: 9-18 187 19: 18 102 f., 181, 184, 186 ff., 190 19: 22 173 20: 10 144 20: 22-26 116 20: 26 159 23: 29 261 25: 18 125 26: 12 86 26: 41 126 Num 7: 89 27, 53, 55, 71 f. 12: 8 224 31: 21 174 36: 13 125, 174 Deut 4: 1 157, 174 4: 5-6 124 4: 5-8 122 4: 8 159 4: 40 125, 174 5: 1 174 5: 17-21 184 5: 18 144 5: 21 155 5: 27 123 6: 1 174 6: 1-2 125 6: 3 123 6: 4-5 186 7: 6-11 123 7: 8 42, 63 7: 11 125, 174 9: 26 42, 63 10: 16 126 12: 25 165 12: 28 165 13: 19 165 14: 1 176 21: 23 101 24: 1-4 144 26: 16-19 116 27: 3 184 27: 26 100, 184 28-32 87 29: 29 184 30: 6 126 30: 12 181 30: 12-13 123 30: 14 181 31: 12 184 31: 24 184 Josh 5: 3 125 7: 1-12 36 24: 26 166 1 Sam (1 Kgdms) 12: 7 131 Index of References 279 <?page no="280"?> 15: 13 136 2 Sam 7: 12-14 235 12: 7-8 227 2 Kgs (4 Kgdms) 23: 24 136 1 Chr 16: 40 166 22: 12 166 28: 11 24 28: 12 38, 74 2 Chr 12: 6 159 30: 18 159 Neh 8: 1-12 112 8: 3 112 8: 7 112 8: 8 112 8: 9-12 113 8: 10-12 166 9: 13 159 9: 29 157 Ps 1: 2 166 2 93 2: 7 235 6 151 13 151 14: 3 LXX 188 18: 8 166 22 151 31: 1-2 LXX 138 40: 11 65, 78, 131 40[41]: 11 96 41 151 48: 8-9 42 64 151 70[71]: 15 96 71: 15 65, 78, 131 97[98]: 2 96 98: 2 65, 78, 131 98: 3 131 99: 9 159 112: 1 166 119 166 129: 4 159 135: 3 159 142[143]: 1-2 96 Prov 4: 2 159 7: 1 234 8: 15-16 227, 230 21: 1 227 21: 1-2 230 24: 21 224, 228, 233 Eccl 12: 13 180 Isa 2: 2-4 135 6: 3 159 6: 9-10 249, 259 f. 6: 10 266 11: 10 235 14: 5 97 30: 9 166 33: 22 44 33: 24 44 40: 5 266 41: 2 227 41: 4 227 41: 25 227 43: 14 42, 63 44: 22 63 44: 22-24 42 44: 24 63 45: 1-6 227 45: 8 65, 78, 96, 131 280 Index of References <?page no="281"?> 46: 13 65, 78, 96, 131 49: 22 94 51: 5 65, 78, 96, 131 52: 5 124 56: 1 65, 78, 96, 131 59: 16-18 131 59: 17 65, 78, 96 66: 21 135 Jer 2: 20 89 4: 4 126 5: 5 89 8: 8 166 9: 24 125 9: 25 126 11: 4 86 21: 7 227 21: 10 227 22: 25 227 25: 9 227 27: 6-7 227 43: 10 227 Ezek 3: 6-7 267 20: 11 157 33: 31-32 123 36: 27 175 37: 5 171 43 55, 72 43: 14 27 43: 17 27 43: 20 27 44: 7 126 Dan 2: 21 227, 230 2: 37-38 227 3: 40 30 5: 18 227, 230 5: 21 227, 230 9: 14-16 96 Hos 4: 6 166 11: 1 176 Joel 3: 3-4 40 Amos 5: 25-27 261 9: 1 27, 55, 72 9: 11 235 Mic 4: 1 135 6: 5 131 7: 9 96 7: 19 44 Hab 1: 5 261 2: 4 101 Zeph 3: 5 159 3: 9 273 Zech 8: 17 188 Deuterocanonical Works and Septuagint Tob 14: 5-6 135 Jdt 16: 19 64, 74 Wis 4: 12 155 6: 3-4 227, 230 6: 17-18 187 Index of References 281 <?page no="282"?> Sir 3: 1-11 233 4: 15-19 153 4: 27 228, 230 6: 30 89 8: 9 121 10: 4 227, 230 10: 10 230 10: 14 230 13: 15 187 17: 17 227 23: 4-6 155 24: 1-12 124 24: 1-34 153 24: 23-25 124 24: 33 124 25: 24 171 39: 8 123 44: 19 139 44: 19-20 138 44: 20-21 99 51: 26 89 Bar 3: 29-4: 4 124 4: 1 157 4: 1-4 122 4: 12 166 1 Macc 1: 34 97 2: 27 136 2: 48 97 2: 52 138 10: 29 233 2 Macc 1: 5 39 2: 4-8 29 2: 13 38, 64, 74 6: 23 176 6: 23, 28 159 7: 37-38 30 f. 8: 29 39 13: 14 32 14: 37-46 32 2 Esd 1: 1 112 18: 1-12 112 18: 3 112 18: 7 112 18: 8 112 19: 3 166 20: 28-29 166 20: 29 156 4 Macc 2: 5-6 155, 187 2: 6 154 5: 35 176 6: 28-29 30 12: 11 227 17: 16 176 17: 21-22 30 17: 22 31 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apoc. Mos. 10: 2 157 11: 2 157 14: 2-3 158 15: 1 160 16: 1-5 160 17: 4 160 19: 3 155 21: 2 157 23: 3 157 282 Index of References <?page no="283"?> 24: 1, 3 157 25: 1 157 As. Mos. 9-10 30 10: 5 40 2 Bar. 23: 4 158, 171 41: 3 89 48: 22-24 123 54: 14-15 158 54: 15 171 54: 22 158 57: 2 129 82: 9 227, 230 1 En. 46: 5 227, 230 53: 7 131 2 En. 30: 16 158 34: 1 89 45: 2 64, 74 48: 9 89 62: 1 39 4 Ezra 3: 7 158 5: 5 40 7: 11 157 7: 21 157 8: 26 96 8: 36 65, 78, 131 9: 32-33 158 9: 36-37 144, 158 14: 30 157 Jos. Asen. 11: 18-13: 15 39 16: 14 171 19: 11 171 Jub. 1: 23 126 7: 20 187 15: 26-28 124 20: 2 187 20: 2-3 186, 188 20: 7 186 23: 10 138 24: 11 99 35: 9 182 36: 4 182, 186 f. 36: 7-8 185 46: 1 182 LAB 11: 10-13 187 Let. Aris. 15 176, 231 131 185 139 123, 188 142 123, 188 147 176 168 185, 188 169 185 176 176 196 227, 230 219 227, 230 224 227, 230 229 187 254 228 Pss. Sol. 1: 1-6 88 1: 1-8 97 1: 7-8 87 1: 8 88, 93 2: 1-2 88 2: 1-5 86 2: 11-12 92 2: 11-13 87 2: 11-14 86 2: 13 92 2: 15 90 Index of References 283 <?page no="284"?> 2: 24 155 2: 26 83 3: 3-12 87 3: 6-8 89 3: 7 88 3: 8 88, 92, 99 4 84 4: 1 84, 87 4: 2-3 84 4: 2-5 90 4: 4-5 84 4: 5 84 4: 6 84 4: 7 85, 99 4: 8 85 4: 9 84 4: 10 84 4: 11-12 84 4: 16 85 4: 19 85, 99 4: 20 84 4: 22 84 4: 23 85, 88 4: 24 85, 90 4: 25 85 5: 17 91 6: 2 85 7: 3-10 87 7: 8 87 7: 9 89, 94, 102 8: 9 85 8: 9-12 85 8: 9-14 87 8: 13 85, 93 8: 14-22 86 8: 22 87 f. 8: 24-26 90 8: 25-34 87 8: 26 88 8: 29 88 9: 2 86 9: 3 90 9: 4 85 9: 4-5 90 9: 6 90 9: 6-7 86, 89 9: 7 89 9: 8 86 9: 8-11 101 9: 9 86, 89, 99 9: 9-11 87 9: 10 87 9: 11 87 10: 1-2 88 10: 1-3 88 10: 1-4 90, 102 10: 4 89 f., 99 10: 5-7 89 10: 14 83 11: 7 87 12: 1 86 12: 3-4 86 12: 5 86 13: 5 86 13: 6-11 88 13: 7 88 13: 9 88 13: 10 88, 103 14 91 14: 1 90 14: 2 83, 90, 157 14: 2-3 90 14: 3 90 14: 3-5 87, 91 14: 6-9 91 14: 10 91 15: 2-6 92 15: 8 88, 92 284 Index of References <?page no="285"?> 15: 10 88, 92 15: 13 91 16: 1-4 92 16: 5-6 92 16: 9 85, 92 16: 17-18 84 17 144 17: 4 87, 234 17: 4-7 86 17: 5 89 17: 5-8 87 17: 7 92 17: 8 85 17: 11 92 17: 11-18 86 17: 13 92 17: 14 93 17: 14-15 88 17: 15 93 17: 18 93 17: 19-20 87 17: 20 93 17: 21 234 17: 22-24 93 17: 26 93 17: 27-28 93 17: 30 93 17: 30-31 94 17: 34 94 17: 43 94 17: 45 94 18: 3 86 18: 4 88 18: 8 85 Sib. Or. 4: 46 171 T. 12 Patr. T. Benj. 3: 1-5 185 T. Dan 5: 1, 3 185 T. Gad 4: 2 186 T. Gad 4: 6-7 187 T. Gad 6: 1, 3 187 T. Gad 7: 7 182, 187 T. Iss. 4: 5 155 T. Iss. 5: 1-2 185 T. Iss. 7: 6 185 T. Jos. 11: 1 185 T. Jos. 17: 2 182 T. Jos. 17: 2-3 187 T. Jos. 7: 8 155 T. Jud. 13: 2 155 T. Naph. 8: 6 165 T. Naph. 8: 7 175 T. Reu. 4: 8-9 155 T. Reu. 5: 5-6 155 T. Reu. 6: 4 155 T. Reu. 6: 9 187 T. Zeb. 5: 1 186 T. Zeb. 8: 5 182, 187 Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH V 18-19 148 1QH VI 15-16 131 1QH VIII 11-12 151 1QH X 7-30 151 1QH X 15, 32 121 1QH XI 19-21 151 1QH XII 10 121 1QH XII 29-37 151 1QH XIII 11-12 119 1QH XIV 10-11 119 1QM X 9-10 123 1QpHab I 11 120 Index of References 285 <?page no="286"?> 1QpHab VIII 1 120 1QpHab XI 13 126 1QpHab XII 4-5 120 1QSa I 6-7 150 1QSa II 17-22 119 1QS I 1 119 1QS I 3-4 120 1QS I 9-10 120 1QS I 9-11 187 f. 1QS III 2b-9a 148 1QS IV 20-23 148 1QS V 2-3 119 1QS V 5 126 1QS V 8-9 119 1QS V 11 120 1QS V 20-21 129 1QS VI 18 129 1QS IX 9-11 144 1QS XI 2-3 131 1QS XI 9 147 1QS XI 9-16 151 1QS XI 12-15 131 CD I 18-20 121 CD III 12-16 119 CD III 15-16 157 CD III 20 157 CD VI 14-21 188 CD VI 20-21 182, 186 CD XII 19-20 119 CD XIV 4-7 119 CD XIV 23 119 CD XV 5-17 119 CD XX 19-21 131 4Q156 24 4Q163 fr. 23, II 10 121 4Q174 III 100 4Q174 III 10-13 234 4Q266 fr. 18, V 6-7 119 4Q270 fr. 11, I 20-21 119 4Q394 fr. 3, I 4-5 120, 129 4Q394 fr. 3, II 16 120 4Q398 fr. 14, II 2-7 98 4Q398 fr. 14, II 3 120, 129 4QMMT 119, 129 4QpNah I 2, 7 121 4QpNah II 2, 4 121 4QpNah III 3, 6-7 121 11Q19 120 Philo Cher. 25 28, 63, 76 Decal. 108-110 185 142 155 150 155 153 155, 187 173 155 176 159 Ebr. 160 164 Flacc. 49 228 84 227 Fug. 100 28 100-101 63, 76 101 28 Her. 166 28, 63, 76 168 185 172 185 173 155 286 Index of References <?page no="287"?> Leg. 1.90-97 157 3.35 156 3.96 176 Legat. 7 228 69 227 86 228 133 228 140 224, 228 149 228 152 227 153-154 228 210 150 236 227 305 228 312 227 Migr. 14 176 Mos. 1.153-154 223 1.278 123 2.47 28 2.95 28, 35, 63, 76 2.97 63, 76 2.166 39 Opif. 85 224 Praem. 82-83 98 126 98 166 39 QE 2.2 125 2.49 39 QG 1.47 155 2.19 148 Sacr. 131 223 133 223 Somn. 1.149 159 1.237 176 2.78-92 214 Spec. 1.142-143 233 1.209 159 2.63 185, 187 2.92-95 224 2.193-195 66 3.159-160 233 3.159-163 224 4.77 223 4.78 154 4.82-85 155 4.84 187 4.149-150 118 Virt. 95 185 116 187 227 223 Josephus A.J. 2.318 100 A.J. 3.224-286 118 A.J. 3.240-243 29 A.J. 3.315 39 A.J. 4.196 118 A.J. 4.211 150 A.J. 4.295 159 A.J. 5.107 123 A.J. 6.143-144 39 A.J. 6.211 165 Index of References 287 <?page no="288"?> A.J. 6.267 223 A.J. 7.153 39 A.J. 7.295-297 39 A.J. 11.43-48 228 A.J. 12.36 176 A.J. 12.159 224 A.J. 13.171 258 A.J. 13.296 116 A.J. 13.297 116 A.J. 13.297-298 258 A.J. 13.376 121 A.J. 13.380-381 121 A.J. 13.408 116 A.J. 13.410 121 A.J. 14.34-36 38, 74 A.J. 14.58-63 86 A.J. 14.66 66 A.J. 15.374-375 231 A.J. 15.374-376 227 A.J. 16.182 34, 57, 61 A.J. 17.41 115 A.J. 17.149-160 115 A.J. 17.241 145 A.J. 18.12 115, 118 A.J. 18.15 118 A.J. 18.18-19 38, 64, 74 A.J. 18.94 66 A.J. 20.42 98, 129 A.J. 20.43 98, 129 A.J. 20.44 123 A.J. 20.46 98, 129 B.J. 1.110 115 B.J. 1.131-132 86 B.J. 1.142-147 86 B.J. 1.390 227 B.J. 2.118-119 258 B.J. 2.122 258 B.J. 2.140 227 B.J. 2.162 115, 258 B.J. 2.350 227 B.J. 2.350-351 229 B.J. 2.390 227 B.J. 2.402-406 233 B.J. 2.433 227 B.J. 5.210 38 B.J. 5.415 39 B.J. 5.419 32 B.J. 6.134 223 B.J. 7.110 125, 174 C. Ap. 2.75 234 C. Ap. 2.178 150 C. Ap. 2.204 150 C. Ap. 2.291-292 98 Vita 191 115 Mishnah, Talmud and Related Texts Mishnah ’Aboth 3,5 89 Yoma V 29 Targumim T. Neof. on Gen 2,15 157 T. Neof. on Gen 3,22 157 T. Neof. on Gen 3,24 157 T. Ps.-J. 23,5 144 Talmud b. Middot III 8 38 b. Nid. 61b 144 b. Šabb. 30a 144 b. Šabb. 31a 186 b. Šabb. 151b 144 Sifra Lev 19,18 186 288 Index of References <?page no="289"?> New Testament Matt 7: 24-27 123 11: 28-30 89 12: 43-45 165 19: 18-19 186 22: 34-40 186 23: 23-28 116 23: 30 40, 63, 76 23: 35 40, 63, 76 26: 47 224 27: 4 40, 63, 76 27: 6 40, 63, 76 27: 8 40, 63, 76 27: 24-25 40, 63, 76 Mark 2: 5 44 2: 13-3: 6 116 3: 22-27 165 7: 1-23 116 7: 9 136 8: 11 116 8: 15 116 10: 2-12 116 12: 17 237 12: 28-31 186 15: 3-5 127 Luke 1: 6 125 2: 30 266 2: 31-32 267 2: 32 264 2: 34 258 3: 6 266 4: 16-30 261 6: 28 219 6: 47-49 123 7: 9 267 8: 12 260 10: 25-28 186 11: 24-26 165 11: 28 123 11: 37-44 116 11: 50-51 40, 63, 76 12: 58 260 13: 28-29 267 14: 8-9 260 14: 16-24 267 21: 5 38, 64, 74 24: 47-48 264 John 6: 63 171 8: 44 155 13: 34-35 182 15: 12, 17 182 19: 11 227, 231 Acts 1: 8 264, 270 2: 14-42 100 2: 19-20 40 2: 39 264 2-5 268 3: 23 261 3: 26 268 4: 25-27 251 5: 17 258 5: 28 40, 63, 76 5: 34 116 7: 42-43 261 8: 26-40 270 9: 15 251, 262 10: 1-11: 18 270 11: 3 125 13: 5 268 13: 14 268 Index of References 289 <?page no="290"?> 13: 32-33 257 13: 40-41 261 13: 46 264, 268 13: 46-47 262 13: 47 264 14: 1 268 14: 1-2 258 15: 5 258 15: 10 89 15: 14 267 16: 13 268 17: 1 268 17: 4 258 17: 10 268 18: 1-17 217 18: 2 218 18: 2-3 255 18: 4 268 18: 6 40, 63, 76, 262, 268 18: 10 267 18: 12-17 219 18: 26 255 19: 8 268 19: 9 260, 269 19: 10 250 19: 21 250, 253, 256 20: 16 250 20: 17-38 251 20: 22-23 251 20: 24-25 269 f. 20: 26 40, 63, 76 20: 37-38 269 f. 21: 4 251 21: 11-13 251 21: 13 269 f. 21: 18-21 251 21: 21 257 21: 27-36 251 21: 28 257 22: 1-22 251 22: 3 116 22: 20 40, 63, 76 22: 21-22 266 22: 22 259 23: 1-10 251 23: 6 117, 257 23: 6-9 259 23: 11 250 f. 23: 12-35 252 24: 1-9 252 24: 5-6 257 24: 10 252 24: 14 252 24: 15 257 24: 21 257, 259 25: 1-8 252 25: 7-8 257 25: 9-12 252 25: 16-18 252 25: 19 252 25: 21 252 25: 25 252 26: 1-2 252 26: 5 117, 258 26: 6-7 257 26: 17-18 262 26: 18 252, 267 26: 20 252 26: 20-23 257 26: 22-23 253 26: 31-32 253 27: 1-28: 15 253 27: 9 66 27: 24 250, 253, 269 28 264 28: 1-6 253 28: 1-10 253 28: 14-15 255 290 Index of References <?page no="291"?> 28: 15 255 28: 16 253 f., 256 28: 16-31 16, 249 f., 253, 256 28: 17 255, 257, 267 f. 28: 17-19 257 28: 17-22 256 28: 20 257 28: 21-22 258 28: 22 267 28: 23 254 f., 258, 266, 268 28: 23-29 256 28: 24 258 f., 267, 271 28: 25 259 28: 25-28 249, 266 28: 26-27 260 ff., 267, 271 28: 27 260 28: 28 266, 268 28: 30 254, 269 28: 30-31 256, 268 Rom 1: 3 172 1: 3-4 234 1: 5 237 1: 5-6 73, 219 1: 7 219 1: 8 167 1: 8-15 255 1: 13 24, 73, 219 1: 16-17 22, 65, 78, 131, 189 1: 17 40 1: 18-3: 20 22, 42, 65, 78, 122 1: 18-32 122, 160, 191 1: 21-32 238 1: 24 155 2: 1-29 122 2: 1-5 231 2: 4 24 2: 7 233 2: 9 228 2: 10 233 2: 12 56, 122 2: 12-3: 20 111 2: 12-15 126 2: 13 123 2: 14 232 2: 14-15 123 2: 15 232 2: 16 123 2: 17 123, 133 2: 17-20 126 2: 17-24 123, 125 2: 17-29 129 2: 18 124, 142 2: 20 124 2: 21-23 124 2: 21-24 126 2: 21-29 177 2: 23 133 2: 24 124 2: 25-27 124 2: 25-29 126 2: 26 125 2: 27 125 2: 28-29 125 2: 29 191 3: 1 129 3: 8 231 3: 9 129, 162 3: 9-20 126, 177 3: 10 123 3: 15 40, 63, 76 3: 19 127 3: 20 114, 122 f., 127, 129 f., 138, 140, 147, 154 3: 21 29, 39, 42, 63, 114, 121, 130, 134, 191 3: 21-22 131 3: 21-26 22, 44, 54, 63, 162, 170, 189 3: 21-31 43, 53, 111, 272 Index of References 291 <?page no="292"?> 3: 22 40, 132 3: 22-26 132 3: 23 65, 78 3: 23-26 77 3: 24 42 f., 63 f., 74, 77, 139, 141 3: 24-26 174, 238 3: 25 13 f., 22 f., 25 f., 28 f., 31 f., 35, 39 f., 42 f., 53-56, 62 ff., 66, 71 ff., 76, 78 f., 146 3: 25-26 64 f., 77 3: 26 23, 39 f., 42, 78 3: 27 114, 133 f., 137, 170, 177, 190 3: 27-31 133 3: 28 40, 114, 127, 134 f., 137, 140 3: 29-30 135 3: 30 114, 125, 133 3: 31 114, 121, 134, 136 f., 147, 179 f. 4: 1 219 4: 1-25 121 4: 1-8 137, 191 4: 4 139 4: 9-11 125 4: 9-12 138 4: 13 138 4: 13-17 138 4: 14 138 4: 15 114, 138, 140, 147, 156 4: 16 138 4: 17 139 4: 17-22 191 4: 17-25 139 4: 19 137 4: 24 146 4-6 112 5: 1 66 5: 5-8 41, 66, 189 5: 6-11 174 5: 8 146 5: 9 24 5: 9-10 40, 146 5: 10-11 66 5: 12 171 5: 12-14 157 5: 12-21 141, 157, 160 5: 13 138, 140, 156 5: 15-17 141 5: 16 170, 231 5: 18 170 5: 18-21 170 5: 19 44 5: 20 140, 147 5: 20-21 141 6: 1-11 145, 162, 170 6: 2 100 6: 2-11 145 6: 3 146 6: 4 146 6: 6 148 6: 10-11 100 6: 12 147, 155 6: 12-23 143 6: 13 167 6: 14 140, 144 6: 15 141 6: 16-20 148 6: 19 167 6: 19-23 238 6: 21-22 146 6: 22 148 7 141, 272 7: 1 114, 142, 144 7: 1-6 63, 141 ff., 172 7: 1-25 73, 141 7: 1-8: 4 112, 142 7: 2-3 144 7: 3 141, 145 7: 4 145, 147 7: 4-6 145 292 Index of References <?page no="293"?> 7: 5 147, 151, 167 7: 5-6 147, 153 7: 6 100, 126, 141, 147, 168, 170, 190 7: 7 143, 149, 152-156, 184 7: 7-10 154 7: 7-13 143, 147, 149, 151, 160, 162 7: 7-25 142, 149, 159, 169 f. 7: 8 155, 158 7: 9 152, 154, 157 7: 9-10 156 7: 10 152 7: 11 158 7: 12 128, 143, 158, 161, 165, 179 7: 13 143, 159 f. 7: 14 128, 147, 161 ff., 172 7: 14-25 143, 152, 161 f., 169 7: 15-17 163 7: 15-21 164 7: 16 165, 179 7: 17 165 7: 18 172 7: 19 164 7: 20 165 7: 21 114, 165 7: 22 166, 177 7: 22, 23 190 7: 22-23 166, 168 7: 23 111, 166, 177 7: 24 164, 167 7: 25 114, 143, 166 ff., 177 8: 1 143, 168 ff. 8: 1-11 143, 168 ff. 8: 1-17 162 8: 1-2 168 8: 1-4 170 8: 2 114, 141, 169 f., 176 f., 190 8: 3-4 161, 172 8: 4 174 f., 183, 189 8: 4-5 147 8: 5-11 175 8: 7 166, 177, 222 8: 8-9 147 8: 11 146 8: 17 211 8: 23 24 8: 32 41 8: 34 235 8: 34-35 189 8: 35 224 8: 35-36 219 9: 1 233 9: 3 42, 73 9: 4 122, 179 9: 4-5 176 9: 24 219 9: 31 178 9: 31-32 177 9: 32 177, 180 9-11 43, 112, 128, 176 10: 3 177, 222 10: 4 178, 180, 183 10: 5 157, 181 10: 5-8 180 10: 6-8 181 10: 8 181 10: 9 146, 211 10: 9-13 238 10: 19-20 267 11: 1 73 11: 7 177 11: 11 267 11: 11-32 249 11: 13 73, 219 11: 15 66 11: 17 73, 219 11: 25-32 139 11: 33 231 12 211 Index of References 293 <?page no="294"?> 12: 1 216 12: 2 216, 228, 231, 237 f. 12: 3-16 216 12: 3-21 171 12: 3-8 238 12: 9 188, 231 12: 9-10 237 12: 9-21 183 12: 10 183 12: 14 218 12: 17 188, 231, 237 12: 17-13: 7 216 12: 17-21 216 12: 18 219 12: 19 231 12: 21 188, 231, 237 13 208 f., 212 f., 215 13: 1 222, 228, 231 13: 1-5 221 13: 1-7 16, 215 f., 220 13: 2 222, 228, 231 13: 2-3 233 13: 3 222, 224 13: 3-4 188, 216, 228, 231 13: 4 224, 231 f. 13: 5 228, 232, 235 13: 6 220, 222, 224, 228, 232 13: 6-7 233, 236 13: 7 182, 223 f., 228, 233, 237 13: 8 175, 181, 183, 189 13: 8-10 56, 73, 102, 112, 114, 181, 190 f., 211, 237 13: 9 154, 183 f., 186, 190 13: 10 175, 188, 232 13: 11 239 13: 11-14 211 13: 12 239 13: 13-14 155 14: 13 191 14: 14 191 14: 15 191 15: 12 235 15: 13 171 15: 14-32 269 15: 15 255 15: 15-16 73, 219 15: 18 73, 219 15: 23-24 255 15: 25 269 15: 28-29 255 15: 30-31 269 16 220 16: 3-16 255 16: 3-5 255 16: 7 219 16: 10-11 255 16: 11 219 16: 14-15 255 1 Cor 1: 18-25 211 1: 30 24 2: 3 211 2: 6 211, 239 2: 6-8 211 2: 8 239 6: 1-11 238 f. 6: 1-8 211 6: 18 24 6: 20 42 7: 18-19 125 7: 23 42 7: 27 144 7: 39 144 f. 8: 5-6 211 10: 16 24, 40, 63, 146 11: 23-24 26 11: 24 146 11: 25 24 294 Index of References <?page no="295"?> 11: 27 24 12: 3 42, 211 12: 12-27 238 12-14 171 15: 56 147, 156 16: 16 222 16: 22 42 2 Cor 1: 7 211 3: 6 126 5: 14 41 5: 18-21 41 5: 19 39, 42, 44, 66 5: 21 173 6: 14 89 8: 24 24 11: 3 157 11: 23-33 211 Gal 1: 4 96, 99 1: 6 95 1: 8-9 42 1: 10 99 1: 14 116 f., 121 1: 15-16 113 2: 7 125 2: 11-14 95 2: 12 95 2: 14 95 2: 15 97 2: 15-16 114 2: 16 95 ff., 101, 127, 135 2: 17 97 2: 19 100 2: 20 96, 103 2: 21 96 3: 1 39, 211 3: 2 96, 127 3: 5 96, 127 3: 6 99 3: 7-9 99 3: 10 123, 127 3: 10-13 100 3: 10-14 96 3: 11-12 101 3: 12 157 3: 13 101 3: 17 100 3: 19 102 3: 21-22 102 3: 22 162 3: 23 102 3: 24 63, 73, 102 3: 25 102 3: 29 100 4: 4-5 96, 102, 172 4: 8 95 4: 9 95 4: 17 95 4: 21 95 5: 1 89, 100, 141 5: 2-3 95, 114 5: 3 100 5: 4 95 5: 4-5 96 5: 6 95, 102, 114, 125 5: 11-12 114 5: 13 182 5: 14 102, 114, 175, 183, 186 f. 6: 1 103 6: 2 103, 175 6: 8 171 6: 12-13 95 6: 12-15 114 6: 15 95 f., 125 Eph 2: 11 125 4: 2 182 Index of References 295 <?page no="296"?> 6: 17 266 Phil 1: 28 24 2: 7 173 2: 10 235 3: 5 115 3: 20 211, 239 Col 1: 20 40, 63, 76 2: 13 125 3: 11 125 1 Thess 2: 2 63, 73 2: 13 181 3: 12 182 4: 9 182 4: 11-12 219 5: 3 211, 239 2 Thess 1: 3 182 1 Tim 1: 5 180 1: 7 180 2: 2 236 2 Tim 4: 10-16 270 Titus 3: 1 236 Heb 5: 3 173 9: 5 28, 63, 76 9: 7 28 9: 12-14 28 10: 17, 18, 26 173 12: 4 40, 63, 76 Jas 1: 15 155 1: 22-25 123 2: 8 186 2: 17 156 2: 21 138 2: 26 156 4: 2 155 1 Pet 1: 22 182 2: 13-17 236 2: 14 223 2: 17 228, 234 3: 18 173 1 John 2: 2 173 3: 11, 23 182 4: 7, 11, 12 182 4: 10 173 2 John 5 182 Rev 6: 10 40, 63, 76 6: 12 40 8: 7 40 11: 11 171 14: 20 40 16: 3 40, 63, 76 16: 6 40, 63, 76 17: 6 40, 63, 76 18: 24 40, 63, 76 19: 2 40, 63, 76 19: 13 41 Apostolic Fathers, New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 1 Clem. 5: 5-7 269 296 Index of References <?page no="297"?> Ancient Authors Aelius Aristides Or. 2.454 226 Or. 26 225 Or. 26.29 227 Or. 26.31-32 224 f. Or. 26.38-39 225 Or. 26.65-67 225 Or. 26.89 226 Or. 26.91 226 Or. 26.103-105 226 Or. 26.107 226 Or. 26.109 226 Or. 42.7 36, 42 Aelius Herodianus De prosodia catholica 3.1.365 35 Aelius Theon Progymnasmata 152 Aphthonius of Antioch Progymnasmata 152 Aristides Apologia 13.7 223 Aristotle Poet. 1457b 33 Athenagoras Suppl. 24 223 Cassius Dio Hist. 52.29 226 Hist. 57.18.5 217 Hist. 60.6.6 217 f. Cicero Dom. 49 156 Dom. 127 156 Fin. 2.61-62 32 Imp. Pomp. 14.41 226 Nat. d. 3.89 37 Off. 3.5.23, 27 188 Quint. fratr. 1.1.34 226 Rosc. Amer. 70 156 Tull. 9 156 Tusc. 1.89-90 32 Tusc. 1.90 41 Demosthenes Or. 20.504 223 Dio Chrysostom Or. 11.121 34, 57, 60, 75 Or. 39.2 223 Or. 74.12 182 Diodorus Siculus Hist. 1.1.2 223 Hist. 1.18.5-6 233 Hist. 1.70.6 223 Hist. 2.1.7 233 Hist. 4.10.3 233 Hist. 5.71.1, 6 223 Hist. 10.25.4 233 Hist. 11.46.1 223 Hist. 11.47.1 233 Hist. 13.114.1 233 Epictetus Diatr. 1.28.5-9 164 Diatr. 2.18 155 Diatr. 2.26.4 164 Diatr. 3.23.28 156 Diatr. 4.9.16 164 Ench. 34 155 Euripides Chrysippos fr. 840 164 Hipp. 380-381 164 Hipp. 382-383 164 Med. 1077-1080 163 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 2.25.5-7 270 Praep. ev. 6.6.16, 18 223 Index of References 297 <?page no="298"?> Hermogenes of Tarsus Progymnasmata 152 Horace Carm. 3.2.13 32 Ep. 1.16.52-53 232 Inscriptions IG XII 4.2.648 34 IG XII 4.2.673 33, 58, 75 Kos 81 33, 57 f., 75 Kos 347 34, 57 Lindos 425 57 Lindos II, col. B VIII 35 Lindos VIII (B 48-53) 57 f. P.Oxy. 1985 57 SEG LIV 769 57 Livy 6.29.8 38 Lucian Podagra 142 37 Lukan 2.312-313 32 Lysias/ Ps.-Lysias Or. 2.17-19 223 Or. 31.30 223 Orosius Hist. adv. pag. 7.6.15 217 Ovid Am. 2.19.3 156 Am. 3.4.17 156 Am. 3.4.30 156 Papyri P. Fayûm 337 35 Plato Prot. 352cd 164 Resp. 391d 226 Pliny the Elder Nat. 27.3 226 Pliny the Younger Ep. 10.96.8 218 Plutarch Mor. 449d 155 Mor. 480e 182 Mor. 779b 223 Mor. 780e 180 Num. 22 148 Phil. 21.12.6 223 (Ps.-)Aristotle Oec. 3.3 224, 233 Publilius Syrus Sentenz N 17 156 Quintilian Inst. 1.8.3 153 Inst. 6.1.25 152 Inst. 6.1.25-26 153 Inst. 9.2.29-37 152 Seneca Ben. 4.21.2 223 Clem. 1.23.1 156 Ep. 67.9 32 Ep. 76.25 32 Ep. 76.27 41 Herc. Ot. 357 156 Ira 3.41.1 232 Med. 937-944 164 Med. 989-992 164 Phaed. 178-180 164 Phaed. 265-266 164 Phaed. 604-605 164 Phaed. 699 164 Vit. beat. 20.4 232 Statius Thebaid 10.756-790 32 Stobaeus Ecl. 2.88.8-91.9 155 Strabo Geogr. 16.2.40 66 Geogr. 4.5.3 233 298 Index of References <?page no="299"?> Suetonius Claud. 25.4 217 Nero 10 220 Nero 16 218 Nero 16.2 218 Tib. 36 217 Tacitus Agr. 1.2 232 Agr. 44.5 226 Ann. 2.85 217 Ann. 13.50-51 220 Ann. 15.44 218, 270 Ann. 15.44.4 218 Hist. 4.74 226 Tatian Or. Graec. 7.1-2 223 Tertullian Apol. 13.6 233 Velleius Paterculus Hist. Rom. 2.115 232 Hist. Rom. 2.117-118 229 Virgil Aen. 9.252-254 232 Xenophon Cyr. 1.6.20 223 Mem. 3.4.8 223 Mem. 3.9.4 164 Oec. 9.14 223 Index of References 299 <?page no="300"?> Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (TANZ) herausgegeben von Matthias Klinghardt, Günter Röhser, Stefan Schreiber und Manuel Vogel Bisher sind erschienen: Frühere Bände finden Sie unter: https: / / www.narr.de/ theologie/ reihen/ tanz/ 50 Christian Kurzewitz Weisheit und Tod Die Ätiologie des Todes in der „Sapientia Salomonis“ 2009, 194 Seiten €[D] 49,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8349-5 51 Sascha Flüchter Die Anrechnung des Glaubens zur Gerechtigkeit Auf dem Weg zu einer sozialhistorisch orientierten Rezeptionsgeschichte von Gen 15,6 in der neutestamentlichen Literatur 2010, 399 Seiten €[D] 78,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8373-0 52 Philipp Kurowski Der menschliche Gott aus Levi und Juda Die „Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen“ als Quelle judenchristlicher Theologie 2010, 201 Seiten €[D] 49,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8384-6 53 Jochen Wagner Die Anfänge des Amtes in der Kirche Presbyter und Episkopen in der frühchristlichen Literatur 2011, 358 Seiten €[D] 68,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8411-9 54 Stephan Hagenow Heilige Gemeinde - Sündige Christen Zum Umgang mit postkonversionaler Sünde bei Paulus und in weiteren Texten des Urchristentums 2011, 370 Seiten €[D] 68,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8419-5 55 Soham Al-Suadi Essen als Christusgläubige Ritualtheoretische Exegese paulinischer Texte 2011, 347 Seiten €[D] 68,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8421-8 56 Matthias Klinghardt, Hal Taussig (Hrsg.) Mahl und religiöse Identität im frühen Christentum Meals and Religious Identity in Early Christianity 2012, 380 Seiten €[D] 78,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8446-1 57 Philipp F. Bartholomä The Johannine Discourses and the Teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics A Contribution to the Discussion Concerning the Authenticity of Jesus` Words in the Fourth Gospel 2012, 505 Seiten €[D] 78,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8457-7 <?page no="301"?> 58 Wichard von Heyden Doketismus und Inkarnation Die Entstehung zweier gegensätzlicher Modelle von Christologie 2014, 567 Seiten €[D] 88,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8524-6 59 Julian Petkov Altslavische Eschatologie Texte und Studien zur apokalyptischen Literatur in kirchenslavischer Überlieferung 2016, 495 Seiten €[D] 78,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8531-4 60 Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien Band 1: Untersuchung || Band 2: Rekonstruktion | Übersetzung | Varianten 2020, 1480 Seiten €[D] 218,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8742-4 60/ 1 | 60/ 2 Matthias Klinghardt Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien Band I: Untersuchung | Band II: Rekonstruktion, Übersetzung, Varianten 2015, 1296 Seiten €[D] 198,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8549-9 60/ 1 Matthias Klinghardt Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien Band 1: Untersuchung 2020, 543 Seiten €[D] 109,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8737-0 60/ 2 Matthias Klinghardt Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien Band 2: Rekonstruktion | Übersetzung | Varianten 2020, 937 Seiten €[D] 149,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8741-7 61 Jan Heilmann, Matthias Klinghardt (Hrsg.) Das Neue Testament und sein Text im 2. Jahrhundert 2018, 322 Seiten €[D] 118,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8640-3 62 Nathanael Lüke Über die narrative Kohärenz zwischen Apostelgeschichte und Paulusbriefen 2019, 302 Seiten €[D] 98,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8677-9 63 Alexander Goldmann Über die Textgeschichte des Römerbriefs Neue Perspektiven aus dem paratextuellen Befund 2020, 254 Seiten €[D] 98,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8709-7 64 Viktor Löwen Die zwölf Jünger Jesu Exegetische Untersuchungen zum Kreis der zwölf Jünger im Matthäusevangelium 2021, 656 Seiten €[D] 128,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8724-0 65 Jan-A. Bühner Jesus und die himmlische Welt Das Motiv der kultischen Mittlung zwischen Himmel und Erde im frühen Judentum und in der von Jesus ausgehenden Christologie 2020, 490 Seiten €[D] 98,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8725-7 66 Jan Heilmann Lesen in Antike und frühem Christentum Kulturgeschichtliche, philologische sowie kognitionswissenschaftliche Perspektiven und deren Bedeutung für die neutestamentliche Exegese 2021, 707 Seiten €[D] 128,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8729-5 <?page no="302"?> 67 Tobias Flemming Die Textgeschichte des Epheserbriefes Marcion änderte nichts: Eine grundlegend neue Perspektive auf den Laodicenerbrief 2022, 236 Seiten €[D] 88,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8738-7 68 Manuel Vogel (Hrsg.) Heiliger Krieg Religiöse Konzeptionen und Kontexte des Krieges im Alten Testament, im antiken Judentum und im frühen Christentum 2023, 300 Seiten €[D] 98,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8787-5 69 Matthias Klinghardt Mahl und Kanon Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 65. Geburtstag. Herausgegeben von Jan Heilmann und Kevin Künzl 2022, 508 Seiten €[D] 128,- ISBN 978-3-7720-8779-0 70 Markus Vinzent (Hrsg.) Concordance to the Precanonical and Canonical New Testament 2023, 320 Seiten €[D] 118,- ISBN 978-3-381-10601-1 71 Aaron Graser Das Fremdzeugnis für Jesus Untersuchung der narrativen Darstellung des Zeugnisgebens für Jesus im Johannesevangelium 2024, 429 Seiten €[D] 118,- ISBN 978-3-381-11001-8 72/ 1 | 72/ 2 | 72/ 3 Markus Vinzent Die älteste Sammlung paulinischer Briefe und die Entstehung der kanonischen Paulusbriefsammlung Teil I: Untersuchung | Teil II: Rekonstruktion-- Übersetzung | Teil III: Rekonstruktion - Übersetzung 2025, 2296 Seiten €[D] 420,- ISBN 978-3-381-12691-0 72/ 1 Markus Vinzent Die älteste Sammlung paulinischer Briefe und die Entstehung der kanonischen Paulusbriefsammlung Teil I: Untersuchung 2025, 880 Seiten €[D] 209,- ISBN 978-3-381-12561-6 72/ 2 Markus Vinzent Die älteste Sammlung paulinischer Briefe und die Entstehung der kanonischen Paulusbriefsammlung Teil II: Rekonstruktion - Übersetzung 2025, 734 Seiten €[D] 139,- ISBN 978-3-381-12571-5 72/ 3 Markus Vinzent Die älteste Sammlung paulinischer Briefe und die Entstehung der kanonischen Paulusbriefsammlung Teil III: Rekonstruktion - Übersetzung 2025, 682 Seiten €[D] 129,- ISBN 978-3-381-14211-8 73 Stefan Schreiber Paul’s Messiah and God’s Torah Reconciliation, Interpretation, and Politics 2026, 299 Seiten €[D] 118,- ISBN 978-3-381-14541-6 <?page no="303"?> ISBN 978-3-381-14541-6 www.narr.de T A N Z T A N Z T A N Z TEXTE UND ARBEITEN ZUM NEUTESTAMENTLICHEN ZEITALTER At the heart of this volume is a new study on the question of how Paul understands and applies the Torah in the le er to the Romans a er his calling to Christ. While exegetical research has o en postulated an abolition of the Torah in Paul, freedom from the law, or fulfillment through Christ, Schreiber interprets the statements in Romans as an application of the Torah, which remains, to be sure, valid for Paul as a Jew, but is understood through a new hermeneutical lens. The study is complemented by contributions from the author, published here for the first time in English. These essays address the understanding of the Torah in Galatians, the interpretation of the death of Jesus as a “gi of reconciliation” in Romans 3: 25, and a political reading of Romans 13: 1-7 (which has gained new relevance today). The volume concludes with a study on the reception history of Paul: his appearance before the Roman Jews in Acts 28: 16-31. Stefan Schreiber Paul’s Messiah and God’s Torah 73 Stefan Schreiber Paul’s Messiah and God’s Torah Reconciliation, Interpretation, and Politics 73