Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 March 2018
A familiar feature in Pauline scholarship is the view that Sin as a power, and the concomitant forces of the flesh and death, are the dominant elements in Paul's account of the human plight. The present article seeks not to deny the significance of these elements, but to argue that equally important are ‘sins’ or individual infractions of the divine will. It is argued here that recent developments in Pauline studies have, in combination, led to an unwarranted downplaying of sins plural. In a number of key passages, Paul includes such acts of transgression in his account of the human plight.
1 Dunn, J. D. G., The Theology of Paul's Letter to the Galatians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Hofius, O., ‘The Fourth Servant Song in the New Testament Letters’, The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (ed. Janowski, B. and Stuhlmacher, P. with Bailey, D. P.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 163–88, at 180Google Scholar.
3 Hooker, M. D., Not Ashamed of the Gospel: New Testament Interpretations of the Death of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 21 Google Scholar.
4 Stendahl, K., Paul among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 12 Google Scholar notes Luther in particular and the importance of distinguishing between Paul and Luther. On Luther and Paul, see now Prothro, J. B., ‘An Unhelpful Label: Reading the “Lutheran” Reading of Paul’, JSNT 39 (2016) 119–40Google Scholar.
5 For a detailed account of the developments of the individual elements of Paul among Jews and Gentiles, see Verduin, P. H., ‘Praiseworthy Intentions, Unintended Consequences: Why Krister Stendahl's Quest for “Healthy Relations” between Jews and Christians Ended Tragically’, Zionism through Christian Lenses: Ecumenical Perspectives on the Promised Land (ed. Burnett, C. M.; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013) 132–61Google Scholar.
6 Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, 25.
7 Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, 23.
8 On this, see Paget, J. Carleton, ‘Schweitzer and Paul’, JSNT 33 (2011) 223–56Google Scholar.
9 Schweitzer, A., The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (London: A & C Black, 1931) 225 Google Scholar.
10 Schweitzer, Mysticism, 63 and 64 respectively.
11 Schweitzer, Mysticism, 260.
12 Schweitzer, Mysticism, 261.
13 See Carleton Paget, ‘Schweitzer and Paul’, 245, noting that among reviewers of Mysticism ‘many objected to the sidelining of Paul's preaching on justification in favour of eschatology’. Reviews of Schweitzer's Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung had been even more negative (‘Schweitzer and Paul’, 232).
14 Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977) 508 Google Scholar.
15 Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 500. In all this, Sanders does maintain an expiatory role for the death of Christ. He also discusses the previous generation of scholarship's reflection on sin as transgression and sin as power in Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 500–1.
16 Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 501.
17 Campbell, D. A., The Quest for Paul's Gospel: A Suggested Strategy (LNTS; London/New York: Continuum, 2005) 4 Google Scholar et passim.
18 Campbell, D. A., The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009)Google Scholar.
19 Gorman, M. J., Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015) 3 Google Scholar.
20 Blackwell, B. C., Christosis: Pauline Soteriology in Light of Deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011) 5–13 Google Scholar has a very helpful discussion of the use of ‘theosis’ in recent Pauline scholarship. There are some helpful observations of the problems with ‘theosis’ as a category in current NT scholarship in Macaskill, G., Union with Christ in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) 24–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 I am indebted particularly to David Shaw for his insightful analysis of the apocalyptic school. See Shaw, D. A. B., ‘Apocalyptic and Covenant: Perspectives on Paul or Antinomies at War?’, JSNT 36 (2013) 155–71Google Scholar, and his thesis, ‘The Apocalyptic Paul: An Analysis and Critique with Reference to Romans 5–8’ (PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2018).
22 Martyn, J. L., Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997) 299 Google Scholar. This is spelled out further especially on pp. 142–4.
23 Martyn, J. L. ‘Events in Galatia’, Pauline Theology, vol. i : 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon (ed. Bassler, J. M.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 160–79Google Scholar.
24 Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul, 298.
25 Martyn, J. L., Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 97 Google Scholar.
26 Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul, 153. Martyn can also say, however, that Paul may not have given up completely on a sacrificial understanding of the atonement for sins; Paul holds on to the traditional Jewish–Christian understanding of Christ's death (see section 4 on p. 144); for Paul's agreement, see 147, 148.
27 See Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul, 148, where he describes the view of the ‘Teachers’ in Galatians as follows: ‘Jesus’ death is the totally adequate sacrifice made by God himself, the sacrifice in which God accomplished the forgiveness of sins for Israel…’
28 For a brief introduction, see Hunter, A. M., Paul and his Predecessors (London: Nicholson and Watson, 1940)Google Scholar, tracing the history back to Weiss in 1917. For a recent comment criticising the quest for pre-Pauline formulae, see Wright, N. T., Paul and the Faithfulness of God (London: SPCK, 2013) 419 Google Scholar.
29 Poythress, V. S., ‘Is Romans 1.3–4 a Pauline Confession After All?’, ExpT 87 (1975–6) 182 Google Scholar n. 1 traces the theory of a pre-Pauline origin of Rom 1.3–4 to Weiss, J., Das Urchristentum (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917) 89 Google Scholar. The first suggestion I have seen of 1 Cor 8.6 as a pre-Pauline fragment is Lietzmann, H., ‘Symbolstudien (cont.)’, ZNW 22 (1923) 257–79, at 268CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘Aber man darf nicht vergessen, daß die Formel auch ohne diesen Hintergrund, losgelöst aus der Umgebung der Gedanken von I Cor, guten Klang in griechischen Ohren hat.’ Cf. the first edition of Cullmann's monograph: ‘the very ancient two-part confession in I Cor. 8.6, which is probably even earlier than Paulinism’ (Cullmann, O., Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957) 267 Google Scholar).
30 Seeberg, A., Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit (Leipzig: Deichert, 1903)Google Scholar; Weiss, J., Der erste Korintherbrief (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1909) 347 Google Scholar.
31 Seeberg, Katechismus der Urchristenheit, 52: the verse is ‘[eine] Stelle, zu deren Tonart die Berücksichtigung einer Formel jedenfalls trefflich passt’ .
32 Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 347 and idem, Urchristentum, 75.
33 Weiss, Urchristentum, 75; trans. Grant, F. C.: The History of Primitive Christianity (New York: Wilson-Erickson, 1937) 104 Google Scholar.
34 Bultmann, R., Theologie des Neuen Testaments, vol. i (Tübingen: Mohr, 1948) 47 Google Scholar. See most recently Carter, T., The Forgiveness of Sins (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2016) 188Google Scholar for Rom 3.25 as pre-Pauline, and see there reference to other recent advocates.
35 Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 47: ‘Ebenso steht es mit Rm 4, 25, einem Satze, der in seiner Form (synthetischer Parallelismus membr.) den Eindruck eines Zitates macht.’
36 Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 47; trans. Grobel, K., Theology of the New Testament, vol. i (London: SCM, 1952), 46 Google Scholar.
37 Käsemann, E., ‘Zum Verständnis von Römer 3.24–26’, ZNW 43 (1950–1) 150–4Google Scholar.
38 Käsemann, ‘Zum Verständnis von Römer 3.24–26’, 150.
39 Lohse, E., Märtyrer und Gottesknecht: Untersuchungen zur urchristlichen Verkündigung vom Sühntod Jesu Christi (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963) 150 Google Scholar.
40 Richard, E. J., First and Second Thessalonians (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1995) 122 Google Scholar. On the language of ‘filling up the measure of their sins’, Richard comments: ‘the author borrows a traditional OT phrase’, adding: ‘The term hamartia (‘sin’) appears only here in 1 Thessalonians but in the plural, a usage which is rare for Paul, though its appearance in what might be classified a formulaic OT expression would conform to Pauline passages such as Rom 4:7 or 1 Cor 15:3.’ Similarly, Furnish states that the reference to filling up sins ‘derives from the tradition’: Furnish, V. P., 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2007) 71 Google Scholar. On the other hand, Richard does not include ‘sins’ in his list of ‘non-Pauline or not-frequently-employed terms and expressions’ which constitute part of the evidence for the passage being an interpolation (First and Second Thessalonians, 125). Baur, F. C., Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ (London: Williams and Norgate, 1875)Google Scholar ii.86, considered that the reference to the Jews filling up the measure of sins and receiving the wrath of God at last was a clear indication of the post-70 date of the epistle as a whole, but this was not because of the vocabulary.
41 Moo, D. J., The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 46 n. 31Google Scholar, citing N. T. Wright, ‘The Messiah and the People of God’ (DPhil diss., University of Oxford, 1980) 51–5.
42 Ziesler, J. A., Paul's Letter to the Romans (London: SCM, 1989) 111 Google Scholar; see also his comment on the alleged pre-Pauline formula in Rom 1.3–4: ‘Even if he is quoting, it ought to be added, he means what he says’ (Romans, 60).
43 Breytenbach, C., ‘The “for Us” Phrases in Pauline Soteriology: Considering their Background and Use’, Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology (ed. van der Watt, J.; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 163–85, at 177Google Scholar.
44 Holsten, C., Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus (Rostock: Stiller, 1868), 427 Google Scholar: ‘also zwar kein reiner ausdruck der christologie des Paulus’ (lower case nouns original).
45 Jewett, R., Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006) 286 Google Scholar.
46 The comment on Gal 1.4 in de Boer, M. C., Galatians: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011) 30 Google Scholar emphasises that Christ gave himself for our sins ‘to effect not forgiveness but deliverance from an evil realm’.
47 Martyn, Galatians, 95.
48 Martyn, Galatians, 95.
49 Martyn, Galatians, 90. There is a possible inconsistency in Martyn, however, as later he maintains that Paul does not give up the Jewish–Christian formula (Galatians, 269; cf. 273).
50 Martyn, Galatians 90 (emphasis added).
51 Martyn, Galatians, 95.
52 Martyn, Galatians, 81.
53 Wrede, W., Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr, 1907) 112 n. 9Google Scholar: ‘Aber dass Paulus auch das “gestorben für unsere Sünden” aus der Überlieferung erhalten habe ist nur bei sehr buchstäblicher Auffassung seiner Worte verbürgt.’
54 Paul also uses the cognate verb ἁμαρτάνω in the sense of committing particular offences (Rom 2.12 bis; 3.23; 5.14, 16; 6.15; 1 Cor 7.28 bis; 8.12; 15.34), as well as the rare word προαμαρτάνω (2 Cor 13.2).
55 Rom 4.7; 7.5; 11.27; 1 Cor 15.3, 17; Gal 1.4; 1 Thess 2.16. In the disputed epistles this plural occurs in Eph 2.1; Col 1.14; 1 Tim 5.22, 24; 2 Tim 3.6.
56 Rom 4.8; 5.13b, 20; 14.23; 2 Cor 11.7.
57 Ambiguous cases include at least Rom 5.12a, 12b, 13a; 7.7; 2 Cor 5.21.
58 Pace Hooker, Not Ashamed of the Gospel, 21.
59 παράβασις: Rom 2.23; 4.15; 5.14; Gal 3.19; παράπτωμα: Rom 4.25; 5.15 bis, 16, 17, 18, 20; 11.11, 12; 2 Cor 5.19; Gal 6.1.
60 For tabulations of some of the data, see Westcott, B. F., Saint Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (London: Macmillan, 1906) 165–6Google Scholar; Gathercole, S. J., Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2015) 49 Google Scholar.
61 I am grateful to Dr Will Timmins for pointing this out to me.
62 One of the glosses for πλεονάζω provided by LSJ s.v. iii.7 is ‘partake of plurality’, in evidence for which they provide a passage from Proclus: ‘where it [sc. the unit or unity] multiplies, it is not one’ (ᾧ μὲν ἐπλεόνασεν, οὐχ ἕν, Inst. 2).
63 Martyn, Theological Issues, 298, s.vv. ‘cosmological apocalyptic eschatology’.
64 For discussion of this topic in general, see Dodson, J. R., The ‘Powers’ of Personification: Rhetorical Purpose in the Book of Wisdom and the Letter to the Romans (BZNW 161; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
65 See further Gathercole, S. J., ‘Sin in God's Economy: Agencies in Romans 1 and 7’, Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment (ed. Barclay, J. M. G. and Gathercole, S. J.; LNTS; London/New York: Continuum, 2006) 158–72Google Scholar.
66 Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, 23.
67 For doubts cast on Rom 1.3–4, perhaps the passage most commonly seen as a pre-Pauline formula, see Poythress, ‘Is Romans 1:3–4 a Pauline Confession After All?’, 180–3.
68 See the parallel criticisms in Hooker, M. D., ‘Christology and Methodology’, NTS 17 (1970–1) 480–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
69 Strecker, G., Theology of the New Testament (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000) 362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For criticism of this kind of approach (not specifically in reference to Strecker), see Stanton, G. N., The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002 2) 29–30 Google Scholar.
70 On Gal. 1.4, so Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1069: ‘The idea of the Messiah “giving himself for our sins” is every bit as central for Paul himself as the “rescue from the present evil age” as is clear from the repetition of the idea of the Messiah “giving himself for me” in the climactic and decisive 2.20. The two go together, as always in Paul…’
71 Hofius, ‘The Fourth Servant Song’, 179–80, contrasting what he sees as Paul's view with the pre-Pauline view.
72 Campbell, Quest for Paul's Gospel, 198.
73 Campbell, Quest for Paul's Gospel, 183.
74 Wrede, Paulus, 96–7.
75 See Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, 23.
76 These two criticisms are actually related, because – as is not often noticed – Paul's language in 2 Corinthians may even be influenced by the language of Psalm 32: both talk of God ‘not reckoning’ sins or transgressions.
77 Jewett, Romans, 286.
78 I take the opportunity here to express thanks to the Biblical Studies and New Testament seminars at Edinburgh, King's College London, Oxford and St Andrews for invitations to present earlier versions of this material, and for their critical feedback. I am particularly grateful to my colleagues Dr James Carleton Paget and Dr Jonathan Linebaugh for reading and making detailed comments on the manuscript.
