Pauline Soteriology

As already indicated, non-sectarian Jews of the second-Temple period believed that for the righteous the removal of the guilt of any sin was possible on the condition of repentance. Likewise, the Qumran sectarians believed that (eschatological) forgiveness was available to who entered the covenant through repentance, which is to enter the community. Paul agrees that God removes the guilt of sin, even sins that should not be forgivable; he also agrees that eschatological forgiveness is available to all who will accept it. The difference between Paul and his contemporaries, however, is that he provides an explicit theological support for his position. In his understanding, salvation is possible only because of the death and resurrection of Christ. It provides the objective ground for the removal of the guilt resulting from sin; in Paul's view being declared righteous (or however else he expresses his soteriology) is impossible without Christ, even for God.

2 Cor 8:9: For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for you he became poor, in order that you through his poverty might become rich.

Rom 4:25: He who was delivered over for our transgressions.

By the Corinthians' becoming rich in 2 Cor 8:9 Paul is referring to their soteriological benefits, which are made possible because Christ, though rich, became poor for (dia) the Corinthians. By Christ's becoming poor Paul is referring to his historical appearance and death, which he agrees to in order to make the Corinthians rich (see Phil 2:7-8: "But emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross). Likewise, in Rom 4:25 Paul says that Jesus was delivered over to death, not for his own sins, but for (dia) our transgressions.

He also uses the preposition huper + genitive for the purpose of identifying those for whom Christ died and the purpose for which Christ died. In both cases his death is vicarious, on behalf of others (for "us" or the church).

Rom 5:6, 8: For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly...But God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

2 Cor 5:21: He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us.

Gal 1:4: Who gave himself for our sins in order that he might rescue us from this present evil age

Gal 3:13: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us

Eph 5:2: Just as Christ also loved you and gave himself up for us

Eph 5:25: Just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her

On one occasion he used the prepositon peri + genitive to describe the purpose of Christ's appearance as for the purpose of sin: "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8:3).

Paul also speaks of the vicarious effects of Jesus' death using the phrase "in his blood" (Rom 5:9: "declared righteous in his blood"; Eph 2:13: "have been brought near in his blood"). By the phrase "in his blood," he is referring to Jesus' death, which produces these benefits for others.

From what he writes in several passages, Paul's understanding of Christ's death could be described as penal and substitutionary. In various ways, he teaches that Christ took on himself the sins of the world and bore the penalty of that sin, which was death. There is a forensic background to Paul's interpretation of Jesus' death insofar as he understands it as satisfying the demands of divine justice. This is the reason that Christ's death is vicarious, on behalf of others. Thus, by virtue of Christ's penal and substitutionary death, righteousness is imputed as a gift by faith to the individual who is not righteous. There is an exchange of statuses between Christ and sinners: his righteousness becomes theirs and their sin and its penalty become his.

In 2 Cor 5:21, alluding to Christ's death, Paul writes, "He [God] made him who knew no sin to be sin for us" (ton mê gnonta hamartian huper hêmon hamartian epoiêsen). To know sin is a Semitism meaning to be acquainted with sin insofar as one has committed sin.

(1) Paul's point is that Jesus, who was sinless, was made to be sinful; implied in this statement is that Christ's death was the result of a transfer of sin from the world to himself, so that Christ became a sinner in this substitutionary sense. This was for the benefit of the world, for his death was the penalty for the sin that he had taken upon himself (as Paul explains in Rom 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death"). Some exegetes argue that Paul is interpreting Jesus' death in light of the Isaian suffering servant (Isa 53).

(2) In this case, to make Christ "sin" is to make him "an offering for sin," just as in Isa 53:10 the servant is given as a guilt offering (ašam), which is translated in the LXX as "for sin" (peri hamartias). But there are no strong linguistic parallels between 2 Cor 5:21 and Isa 53, which suggests that the latter was not the religious-historical background against which the former is be interpreted.

(3) (There is no denying, however, that there are general conceptual parallels with the suffering servant in Isa 53.)

In Gal 3:13, Paul writes, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law (by) becoming a curse for us."

(4) The Mosaic covenant contained both blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (see Lev 26; Deut 28). In Gal 3:10, Paul concludes that all who attempt to make themselves righteous by means of the "works of the Law" are under are a curse; the implied premise is that no one can keep the Law perfectly and so everyone under Law necessarily falls under the curses of the Law (3:10). It for this reason that Paul concludes in Gal 3:11a that, "It is evident that by the Law no one is declared righteous before God." Paul seems to be speaking universally ("us"), when strictly speaking what he says can only apply to Jews, those under the Law, and therefore not to the Galatians, who were gentiles. Probably, he tacitly assumes the Jewish experience under the Law is representative and can therefore be spoken of as universally true. The representative status of the Jews accounts for the ammbiguity of Paul's use of the first person plural in Gal 3:10, 13, 23-25; 4:3-5.

(5) For Christ to become a curse for those who are actually under the curse of the Law is for him to become a substitution for the latter; moreover, his death is the penalty necessarily consequent upon being under the curse. (The phrase "curse of the Law" is a genitive of origin: curse from the Law. The Law is the origin of the curse and is not the curse itself.) Paul makes this clear when he quotes Deut 21:23 as interpretive of Christ's death: "Cursed in the one who hangs on a tree" (3:13b). (Paul cites a different Greek version than that found in the LXX; Paul's version omits the prepositional phrase "by God" [hupo theou].

(6) The bodies of executed criminals, who are, by definition, cursed under the Law, were hung on a tree until evening. In the LXX, the Hebrew word for tree is translated as xulon (see also LXX Josh 10:26). In Greek, the word "wood" or "tree" (xulon) came also to refer to a gallows or cross, the instrument by which criminals were executed (Alexis Com. 220.10; LXX Gen 40:19; Esth 5:14; 6:4; Philo, Somn. 2.213; Josephus, Ant. 11.246). Thus, it is no surprise that Jesus is said to have been hung on a tree (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; 1 Pet 2:24; see Barn. 5:13; 8:5). But this is not original to the New Testament, because in 4QpNahum, Jannaeus, "the furious young lion," is said to have hung his opponents "alive on a tree," a reference to crucifixion (1.6-8). (It must be remembered that crucifixion was the most ignominious method by which the Romans executed criminals.) This linguistic coincidence allowed Paul (and early church) to interpret Jesus' crucifixion as evidence of his being under the curse of the Law. Parallel to and antedating Paul's Letter to the Galatians, in 11QTemple 64.7-12, crucifixion is likewise referred to as "to hang from a tree" in obvious dependence on Deut 21:23, and those who are hung from a tree are said to be cursed.

(7) The consequence of Christ's vicariously becoming a curse is that he "bought back "(exegorasen) those who were originally under the curse of the Law (see Gal 4:4-5). The implication is that it is Christ alone who can redeem from the cure of the Law. The verb "to buy back" (exagorazein) is a metaphor, which in this context has the meaning of "to free from." Paul's point is that Christ's act of becoming a curse frees those under the curse from that very curse.

(8)

In Rom 8:1, Paul says that there is no condemnation for those who "are in Christ Jesus" (The phrase "in Christ Jesus" is a typical Pauline way of expressing the spiritual state of having been declared righteous). As he explained earlier in the letter, the Law could not make anyone righteous because it was weakened by the "flesh," by which is meant that, because of the sinful nature, the inability to obey God inherent in human beings, human beings could not obey the Law and thereby make themselves righteous. (Thus the "flesh" is a synonym for the "the law of sin and death" [ho nomos tês hamartias kai tou thanatou] [8:2]; in this context "law" has the meaning of "principle": it is the innate causal factor in human beings that leads them to sin and then brings them under the penalty for sin, death.) As a result, God sent his son who appeared in the likeness of "flesh," meaning that he appeared as a human being, so that "flesh" in this context means not sinful nature but human nature as corporeal. God sent his son "for sin," or in other words to deal with sin (peri hamartias), by condemning sin in the flesh. God's condemning sin in the flesh means that God transferred human sin to the son in his humanity ("in the flesh") and judged and condemned his son as sinful, which led to Christ's death, since sin is the penalty of death. Christ's death was thereby penal and substitutionary. (Notice the different uses of "law" and "flesh" in this passage).

Paul also describes Christ's death by means of the metaphor of sacrifice. It is as a "sacrifice" that Christ's death is vicarious. This approach is complementary to those passages in which he describes Jesus' death as penal and substitutionary, insofar as a sacrifice functions as a substitute for offerer and serves to remove the guilt of sin.

The Temple cult provided the means of expiation for those violations of the Torah that were forgivable. Three types of sacrifice that could be brought by an individual were expiatory (Lev 1-7): the burnt offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering. The one who brings a sin offering lays his hands on the animal, thus effecting an identification; then the animal is sacrificed and some of its blood put on the four horns of the altar while the rest is poured out at the base of the altar. Commonly in Leviticus and Numbers, a priest atones (kpr) for the offerer by means of a sacrifice and the offerer is pardoned. One of these sacrifices could also be offered for communal guilt (cf. Num 15:22-26; 2 Chron 29:24). These atoning sacrifices that could be brought by individuals also formed part of daily, weekly, and monthly sacrifices, as well as special offerings during the festivals. In three instances expiation is said to be effected for all individuals within the community by a public offering comprised of one of these expiatory sacrifices (Num 28:22, 30; 29:5). This raises the possibility that all such public sacrifices not explicitly said to expiate do so also. The Day of Atonement was another means by which individual sins could be forgiven. In Leviticus 16 Aaron (or his descendants) is instructed first to atone for himself and his house annually. Then, taking two goats, Aaron is to offer one—chosen by lot—as a sin offering for the atonement of the sanctuary (v. 16), while over the other he is to confess all the wickedness of the sons of Israel and all their rebellion—their sin—and release this second goat into the wilderness. The released goat removes all wickedness. This was a national ritual designed to remove individual offenses against God's holiness.

Paul says that God presented Christ publicly (proetheto) as a hilastêrion "in his blood" for the purpose of being able to make righteous sinful human beings. It is God who takes the salvific initiative.

The verb protithenai is used in the middle voice two other times in Paul's letters (Rom 1:13; Eph 1:9); in both cases the meaning is "to plan or purpose." Moreover, the cognate noun prothesis ocurs in Rom 8:28; 9:11; Eph 1:11; 3:11; 2 Tim 1:9; 3:10 with the meaning of "purpose." This suggests that the phrase hon protheto ho theos should be translated as "whom God purposed [to be]" rather than "whom God set forth publicly." Also, this agrees with the salvation-historical context of Rom 3:22-26. (see C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC n.s.; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975, 1979), 208-209; A. Pluta, Gottes Bundestreue [SBS 34; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969] 59-62). A problem with interpreting protithenai is used in the middle voice as meaning "to plan or purpose," however, is the grammatically awkward double accusative that results: hon as the direct object and hilastêrion as predicative accusative.But there is a double accusative in Rom 8:29 with the similar verb proorizein. The context also has several terms denoting publicity: pephanerôtai, eis endeizin, pros endeizin. The point is that "The Death of Christ is not only a manifestation of the righteousness of God, but a visible manifestation and one to which appeal can be made" (W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans [ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902] 87). This is said to support the conclusion that the clause hon protheto ho theos should be translated as "whom God set forth publicly." Nevertheless, to translate hon protheto ho theos as whom God purpose does not detract from the publicity of the salvation-historical significance of Christ's death as hiastêrion.

The phrase "in his blood" (en to autou haimati) is a reference to Christ's death, so that it is as having died that Christ is a hilastêrion. The question to be answered is what did Paul mean by the term hilastêrion.

(9) There are two interpretive possibilities. (Jeremias suggests that Rom 3:25 is allusion to Isa 52:13-53:12: the term hilastêrion is a translation of "guilt offering" [ašam], which the Servant is said to be insofar as he dies vicariously.

(10) This is improbable, however, since hilastêrion is never used to translate "guilt offering" [ašam] in the LXX and neither the verb hilaskesthai nor any of its cognates occurs in the servant songs.)

The term hilastêrion (when translating the Hebrew kapporeth) is the term used of the "mercy seat," the cover of the ark of the covenant, on the front of which and before which the high priest twice would sprinkle sacrificial blood on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:14-16). Hilastêrion is used as a translation of kapporeth in the LXX in twenty-two of its twenty-seven occurrences. In Exod 25:17, the LXX translates the Hebrew kapporeth with the phrase hilastêrion epithêma, but in other passage simply as to hilastêrion (LXX Exod 25:18-22; 31:7; 35:12; 38:5, 7-7 [Heb 37:6-9]; Lev 16:2, 13-15; Num 7:89). Philo likewise uses the term to hilastêrion to denote the kapporeth [De cherub. 8:25; Vita Mos. II (III) 8:95, 97.) It has therefore been suggested that when Paul calls Christ a hilastêrion he means to compare him typologically to the mercy seat: Christ is the means by which God atones for sin (Hebrew: kipper; Greek: hilaskesthai or exilaskein), being the antitype of this divine institution. (According to Tg. Onlelos Lev 16:2 refers to the kapporeth as the "place of atonement.") If so, then Christ is both the mercy seat and the sacrifice(s) at once ("in his blood") (see the Letter to the Hebrews for the similar idea that Christ is both high priest and sacrifice at the same time).

(11) The anarthrous use of hilastêrion, unlike its occurrence with the article when used of the mercy seat, may be explained as the result of its predicative function, which requires the omission of the definite article.

(12)

There is a second interpretive possibility. Against the interpretation of Christ as mercy seat, it is objected that to describe him as both the offering and the place of offering at once is awkward and confusing. Also it is questioned whether the predominantly gentile church in Rome would have understood the allusion to the Day of Atonement without further contextual clues. In addition, the fact that Paul does not use the article before hilastêrion, unlike its occurrences with the meaning of "mercy seat" in the LXX, could be taken to mean that he does not intend Jesus to be understood as anti-typical of the mercy seat, but with the more general meaning of propitiation, in keeping with the original Greek meaning of hilastêrios or hilastêrion.

(13) In Greek usage, outside of the LXX, hilastêrios can be used as an adjective or substantially.

(14) On this interpretation hilastêrion may be an adjective, not a noun: "whom God purposed to be propitiatory." It is argued that the first occurrence of hilastêrion in the LXX in Exod 25:17 as an adjective modifying epithêma (a propitiatory covering) establishes that its other uses are also adjectival, even when there is no noun to modify. Or hilastêrion may be a substantive, meaning "means of propitiation." On this interpretation, God is depicted as being angry because of the sins of human beings and therefore in need of being propitiated or appeased. To call Christ's death ("in his blood") as propitiatory or a propitiation is to describe Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice. His sacrificial death is the means by which the wrath of God is appeased.

(15) (The wrath of God is a major theme in Rom 1-3.) The same term is used of the martyrs in the Hellenistic 4 Maccabees: "They became, as it were, as a ransom (antipsuchon) for the sin of our nation. And through the blood of those pious ones and their propitiatory death (tou hilasteriou tou thanatou autôn), divine providence saved Israel, which had been exceedingly mistreated" (17:21-22). The nation as a whole suffered justifiably on account of God's wrath against national sin, but righteous individuals within the nation, those who refused to disobey the Law even under the threat of torture, suffer and die unjustly, and became thereby the divinely-ordained means by which God is propitiated (see also 2 Macc 7:30-38; 4 Macc 6:27-29). Perhaps Paul or the early church was aware of this version of martyr theology and reapplied it to Jesus.

(16)

Some exegetes who reject the interpretation of hilastêrion as kapporeth also prefer not interpret it to mean propitiatiory or propitiation. Dodd suggests that the meaning is expiation (The Bible and the Greeks [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935] 82-95). He claims that in the LXX hilasesthai, the cognate of hilastêrion, only four times has the meaning of to propitiate (Zech 7:2; 8:22; Mal 1:9; Ps 105:30). The many other occurrences, including those in which the verb hilasesthai translates the Hebrew kipper, have the meaning of to expiate or to cleanse from sin or ritual defilement. (When used with a priest as the subject, the meaning is expiate in the sense to remove by means of the cult guilt resulting from sin. On the other hand, when God is the subject of the verb, the meaning is to be merciful or to forgive.) Similarly, E. Lohse interprets hilastêrion to mean Sühneopfer (expiatory offering) (Märtyrer und Gottesknecht (FRLANT 46; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1963) 15-53), whereas G. Kümmel prefers Sühnemittel (means of expiation) (“Paresis und Endeixis: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der paulinischen Rechtfertigungslehre,” ZThK 49 [1952] 154-67). See also E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980) 97; H. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (HTKNT 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 110-11; K. Kertelge, “Rechtfertigung” bei Paulus (2 ed.; NTAbh, n.s. 3; Munster: Verlag Aschendorff, 1966) 55-58; G. Friedrich, Die Verkündigung des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament (BTS 6; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982) 60-67. The idea of expiation, however, is impossible to extricate from that of the propitiation, so that it is advisable not to replace propiation with expiation or some variation of it (L. Morris, "The Use of hilaskesthia etc. in Biblical Greek," ET 62 [1950-51] 227-33; id., The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956] 136-56; S. K. Williams, Jesus' Death as Saving Event [Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975] 38-41).

The reason that God presented Christ as a hilastêrion is “on account of passing over sins committed formerly in the forbearance of God." Paul means that Christ’s death as a hilastêrion was necessary because of sins committed formerly, which God left unpunished because of his forbearance. In other words, by means of Christ God planned to deal with sins that could not be forgiven until Christ’s sacrificial death. Paul then adds that Christ’s death as hilastêrion was to serve as a proof or demonstration of God’s righteousness in order that God might be righteous (dikaios) and the one who declares righteous (dikaiontes) those who have faith in Jesus. Paul is using something of a play on words to present a succinct but profound theological statement, for the two words “righteous” (dikaios) and declare righteous (dikaiontes) have two different meanings in spite of being cognates. God is righteous in the sense of being just, because he did not overlook human sin. Rather than punishing sinners, however, God punished Christ, that is, he presented Christ as a hilastêrion. The result is that God is not only just, because he does not overlook sin, but also the one who declares sinners to be righteous on the condition of faith in Jesus. (Ordinarily, anyone who declares sinners to be righteous is unjust.)

Representative of the Bultmannian position, in which Hellenistic Christianity is sharply distinguished from its Palestinian counterpart, Williams argues that the idea of vicarious, expiatory suffering is absent from Palestinian, second-Temple, Jewish thought; in fact he claims that it is questionable whether such an idea is even found in Isa 53, the traditional locus classicus of this idea: “Perhaps all that can be said with relative certainty…is that the servant’s suffering somehow eventuates in the healing and making whole of the people of God. Whether the prophet intended to speak of ‘vicarious expiatory suffering’, however, is very much open to question.” (Jesus' Death as Saving Event, 110) Not surprisingly he concludes that post-exilic interpretation of Isa 53 shows “no evidence that Isaiah 53 was understood as the picture of a figure whose suffering expiates the sins of his fellows” (120). Williams holds that the idea vicarious expiatory suffering in rabbinic thought is a post-70 development, and therefore, discontinuous with pre-70 Jewish thought. He also rejects T. Benj. 3:8 as evidence, concluding that even the Armenian version is a Christian interpolation. Likewise, Williams finds no indication that, in the Qumran sectarian writings, suffering was ever understood as vicarious and expiatory; not even 1QS 8.3-4 should count as evidence. He concludes that the only pre-Christian Jewish text in which the idea of vicarious expiatory suffering occurs is 4 Maccabees, but claims that this text was influenced by the Greek-Hellenistic concept “effective human death” in its interpretation of the Maccabean martyrs. Thus the origin of the idea of Jesus' vicarious and expiatory death is Hellenistic in origin. In my judgment, Williams adopts a circular method of argumentation, for he consistently adopts the less probable interpretation of texts in order to uphold his hypothesis of the absence of the idea of vicarious expiatory suffering in pre-Christian, Palestinian Judaism; after a while the reader’s credulity is strained.

Williams’ treatment of 4 Maccabees is open to question. First, he wrongly concludes that the doctrine of expiatory death is not so central to 4 Maccabees as is normally thought; he prefers to call their deaths “effective,” rather than expiatory. According to him, the beneficial effect of the deaths of the nine martyrs was expressed (inappropriately?) in metaphorically religious terms, as if they were sacrifices, which should not be taken too seriously and certainly not literally. (In fact, any interpretation of a human death in Jewish tradition as a sacrifice is metaphorical, since human beings are not legitimate sacrifices; this does not minimize the significance of the death, however, as metaphorically sacrificial.) Second, Williams unsuccessfully argues the concept of “effective human death” derives exclusively from a Greek-Hellenistic background, contrary to Lohse, who sees antecedents of the idea in the Old Testament and Palestinian Judaism. No one doubts that the author of 4 Maccabees is heavily influenced by Greek philosophical thought and that the idea of “effective human death” is at home in a Hellenistic environment; nevertheless, as Lohse points out, the idea of representative death also forms a part of conceptual world of Palestinian Judaism. In his view, the author of 4 Maccabees has given a Hellenistic interpretation of a Palestinian idea (Lohse, Märtyrer und Gottesknecht, 371; J. Gnilka, "Märtyriumsparanese und Sühnetod in synoptischen und jüdischen Traditionen," Die Kirche Des Anfangs, (FS H. Schürmann) [EThSt 38; ed. R. Schnackenburg, J. Ernst, J. Wanke; Basel/Freiburg/Wien, Herder, 1978] 236-39). One must not forget that in the Old Testament, the Servant in Isa 53 dies a vicarious and expiatory death. This passage is clearly an antecedent to an interpretation of Jesus' death as such, especially if one interprets the Servant as the Messiah as some Jews did (see J. Jeremias and W. Zimmerli, "The Servant of the Lord" TWNT v. 654-717; M. Bastin, Jesus devant sa Passion (Paris: Cerf, 1976) chap. 1). Even if it was not influential theologically in the second-Temple period, as some claim (see M. Rese, "Überprüfung einiger Theses von Joachim Jeremias zum Thema Des Gottesknechtes im Judentum" NTS 22 [1975/76] 15-31), still the the figure suffering Servant is present in Isa 53. With Isa 53 in the religious-historical background, it is no surprise to find second-Temple texts in which the death of the righteous in interpreted as vicarious and expiatory. Apart from 4 Maccabees, there are several passages in second-Temple Jewish texts in which the death of the righteous expiates the guilt of others (see Schoeps, Paul, 126-49). As already indicated, T. Benj. 3:8 and 1QS 8.3-4 both assert that the death of a righteous person can atone for the sins of others. In T. Benj. 3.8, which is unlikely to be a Christian interpolation, the second-Temple author has the patriarch Jacob predicts of his son Joseph, "In you will the heavenly prophecy be fulfilled which says that the spotless one will be defiled by lawless men and the sunless one will die for the sake of impious men." The prophecy to which Jacob refers, which in Jacob's day has yet to be revealed, is probably Isa 53. Similarly, the Qumran sectarians interpret the suffering (and obedience) of the "council of the community" (consisting of "twelve men and three priests") as "paying for iniquity" of Israel, which, in their view, was equivalent to the membership of the community (1QS 8). The phrase "to pay for iniquity" probably derives from Lev 26:41, 43, referring to the nation's exile as punishment for its iniquity (see also 1QS 5.6). Finally, the tradition of the Akedah of Isaac (Gen 22 ) was also prevalent in the second-Temple period (See B. D. Smith, Jesus' Last Passover Meal, 46-48; Schoeps, Paul, 141-49). Isaac's willingness to die (or in some versions of the tradition, his actual death) was interpreted as vicarious and expiatory; in particular, the Akedah of Isaac was the ground for the expiatory effectiveness of the original Passover offerings.

4.3.2. Eph 5:2

In exhorting his readers to love as Christ loved, Paul describes metaphorically how Christ gave himself for "us" (as) "an offering and sacrifice to God, for a fragrant odor" (prosphora kai thusia tô theô eis osmên euôdias). To say that Christ "gave himself for us" describes his willing, vicarious death. The phrase "an offering and sacrifice to God" is a predicative accusative, explicative of what it means for Christ to "give himself for us."

(17) It is probable that the phrase "an offering and sacrifice" is a hendiadys, two words designed to express a single idea: Christ as sacrifice.

(18) The dative "to God" is a dative of indirect object, so that Christ is offered as a metaphorical sacrifice to God, as sacrifices are in general.

(19) The purpose of Christ as sacrifice is said to be "for a fragrant aroma" (eis osmên euodias). (The genitive relation between "odor" [osmê] and "fragrance" [euôdia] is that of quality.) In the LXX, each of the terms "odor" (osmê) and "fragrance" (euôdia) refers to sacrifice or offering, being used to translate the various Hebrew words for the same (see Ps 40:6 [LXX 39:7] for the use of both terms together). The phrase eis osmê euôdias occurs in the Old Testament to describe anthropopathically the intended effect that the sacrifice is to have on God: insofar as it is a "for a fragrant odor" to God, a sacrifice is acceptable to God (see Gen 8:21; Exod 29:18, 25, 41; Num 15:3) (see the phrase "fragrant odor to the Lord" [osmê euôdias tô kuriô] in LXX Lev 1:9, 13, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5; 4:31 and "fragrant odor to all their idols" [osmê euôdias pasi tois eidôlois autôn] in LXX Ezek 6:13; see also T. Levi 3:6). So likewise, Christ's sacrifice of himself was acceptable to God as a means of atonement for the sins, not of Christ, but of those for whom he gave himself ("us"). The purpose of Christ's death as sacrifice was for the removal of sin.

In admonishing the Corinthians about their non-exclusion of the sexually-immoral man ("removing the old leaven"), Paul refers to Christ as the Passover offering that was slain. Although this is the only time that he refers to Christ as the Passover offering and does not elaborate on this point in 1 Cor 5, Paul probably holds that Christ is the anti-type of the Passover sacrifices, making possible a new exodus by providing expiation of sin. It is probable that Jesus himself interpreted his death in eschatological-paschal terms.

(20) In other words, there is a whole paschal theological background to this passing remark to Christ as Passover offering, which Paul presupposes.

Paul uses the metaphor of redemption (apolutrôsis) to describe the salvation-historical significance of Christ's death (Rom 3:24; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; 1 Tim 2:6).

(21) To redeem something is to buy it back or ransom it by paying the designated price for it. The term was used originally in relation to the manumission of slaves by means of paying a ransom (see Plutarch, Pomp. 24.5; Ep. Arist. 12; 33; Philo, Omn. Prob. Lib. 114; Josephus, Ant. 12.27). It seems that Paul sees human beings as like slaves, insofar as all are under the wrath of God; Christ's death was like the price paid for the redemption of human beings. Paul speaks of the redemption that is "in" (en) (used with a causal sense) Jesus Christ (Rom 4:24; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14) and the redemption that is "through" (dia + gen) Christ's blood (Eph 1:7). (See LXX Dan 4:3: Nebuchadnezzar says that "my time of redemption has come" [ho chronos mou tês apolutrôseôs êlthê], by which he means his metaphorical redemption from his seven years of incapacitation.) To whom Christ paid the redemption money is not specified, but probably one should not press the metaphor too far. In Eph 1:7 and Col 1:14, Paul includes the phrase "forgiveness of sins" in apposition with "redemption." The believer is both "redeemed" insofar as he is forgiven and vice versa. (See the parallel term antilutron in 1 Tim 2:6.) Paul can even call Jesus "redemption" by which he means the means by which believers have been "redeemed." The same idea of Christ's death as a ransom stands behind Paul's statement, "You were bought with a price" (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23). (In Rom 8:23, Paul can also refer to the resurrection of the dead as the "redemption of the body"; see also Eph 4:30: "the day of redemption.")

In Col 2:13-14, Paul expresses the significance of Jesus' death using terms and expressions unparalleled in the Pauline corpus.

Paul begins by describing how God "forgave all our trespasses" (charisamenos hêmin panta paraptômata) (2:13b). Although he uses to verb charizesthai with the meaning of "to forgive" elsewhere in his letters (2 Cor 2:7, 10; 12:13; Eph 4:32), Paul only uses it with the noun "transgressions" (paraptômata) as its object in Col 3:13b. Trespasses are those acts of disobedience for which a person is culpable (see Gal 6:1; 2 Cor 5:17; Rom 4:25; 5:16). Paul then uses the metaphor of the cancellation of a debt to express the soteriological significance of Christ's death and resurrection: "Having destroyed completely the certificate of indebtedness that stood against us" (exaleipsas to kath' hêmon cheirographon). (The phrase "that stood against us" [to kath' hêmon] and "which was against us" [ho en hupenantion hêmin] are parallel in meaning.) A certificate of indebtedness is a record of outstanding financial debt (see Tobit 5:3; 9:5); used metaphorically, it refers to the outstanding debt of obedience to God that has not been paid.

(22) Paul interprets Christ's death and resurrection as the means by which this record of debt was completely destroyed, thus freeing the sinner from this non-payable debt. Paul adds the qualifying phrase "because of the regulations" (tois dogmasin) (instrumental dative) to explain why there exists a certificate of debt in the first place. (There is the implied participle "having been written" (gegramenon) for the adverbial phrase "because of regulations" to modify.) By "regulations" Paul means the Law (see the somewhat redundant phrase in Eph 2:15: "the Law of the commandments in regulations"). (In Hellenistic Judaism, the term "regulations" is used to denote the commandments of the Law; see Josephus, Apion 1.42; Ant. 15.136; Philo, De gig. 52; Leg. all. 1.54-55; 3 Macc 1:3.) In other words, the Law put human beings in a situation of indebtedness before God, insofar as it specified the will of God. Paul is addressing a largely gentile readership, so that it may seems strange that he speaks of them as being indebted to God "because of the regulations." Although only the Jews had the Law, Paul no doubt would argue that their experience was representative of human experience generally; or Paul could be referring not only to the Law but the law written on the heart (Rom 2:15). Finally, Paul says that God set aside the certificate of indebtedness, that it was nailed to the cross, as it were (kai auto êrken ek tou mesou prosêlôsas auto tô staurô); his point is that Jesus' death is the means by which the non-playable debt of obedience to God is canceled. The use of the metaphor of crucifixion with Christ is used by Paul in other contexts (Gal 5:24; 6:14).

(23)

There is evidence that some of Paul's expressions of the soteriological significance of Christ have been influenced by the motif of the suffering servant in Isa 53. It is difficult to explain why Paul never explicitly interprets Christ's death in light of the fate of the servant in Isa 53. It seems that Paul was influenced indirectly by pre-Pauline tradition in this direction but himself did not adopt this interpretive option for some unknown reason.

(24)

Paul quotes the tradition that he received (parelabon) from his apostolic predecessors, which is really a concise statement of the early kerygma: "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; he was buried, and was raised on the third day according to the scriptures" (15:3). The exact Old Testament reference is not cited, but the leading candidate is Isa 53. The phrase "on behalf of our sins" (huper tôn hamartiôn hêmôn) evokes Isa 53:5 "He was crushed for our sins" in the Hebrew or Aramaic Targum. LXX Isa 53:5 has the almost identical and synonymous phrase dia tas hamartias hêmôn. The propositions dia + accusative and huper + genitive are interchangeable in kerygmatic formulations, as Matt 26:28 = Mark 14:24 demonstrate.

(25) (LXX Isa 53 never uses the phrase huper tôn hamartiôn hêmôn, even though the idea of the servant's vicarious death is referred to several times: Isa 53:10 has peri hamartias and 53:6 tais hamartias hêmôn.)

(26)

As already indicated above, Paul uses the preposition huper + genitive ("on behalf of...) to express the beneficiaries of Christ' vicarious death (2 Cor 5:21; Gal 1:4; Gal 3:13; Eph 5:2) (see 3.8.2.). In three of these Paul connects the prepositional phrase huper + genitive ("on behalf of...) with the verb paradidontai followed by the reflexive pronoun heauton (to deliver over or surrender oneself): paradontos heauton huper mou ([who] gave himself on behalf of me) (Gal 2:20), paredoken heauton huper hêmôn (Christ...gave himself on behalf of us) and kai heauton paredoken huper autês (Christ...gave himself on behalf of it [i.e., the church]. These expressions could be the result of the influence of the interpretation of Jesus' death as that of the servant in the pre-Pauline tradition on Paul's own theology. In Targum Isa 53:5 and 53:12 (Two passages in which the servant is said to suffer and die vicariously) two different Hebrews verbs are translated as msr ("to deliver over" or "to surrender"), which is the Aramaic equivalent of the Greek verb paradidontai, the verb used in the three examples above. Also the verb paradidontai occurs in LXX Isa 53:6, 12b, 12c. These considerations suggest the influence of Isa 53 on pre-Pauline soteriological formulae, which then influenced Paul's own theological assertions.

The statements in Rom 4:25 "Who was delivered over for our transgressions and was raised for our righteousness" (hos paredothê dia ta paraptômata hêmon kai egerthê dia dikaiosin hêmôn) and Rom 8:32 "But on behalf of us all he [God] delivered him [Christ] over" (alla huper hêmôn pantôn paredoken auton) are also probably influenced by Isa 53. Rom 4:25 is very close verbally to the clause in LXX 53:12c descriptive of the servant: "And for their sins he was delivered over" (kai dia tas hamartias autôn paredothê).

(27) It is also conceptually parallel to LXX Isa 53:12b: "Because his soul was given over to death" (anth' hôn paredothê eis thanaton hê psuchê autou). It should also be noted that the preposition dia + accusative is used in Rom 4:25 to express the idea of vicarious death rather than huper + genitive, which conforms to one of the choices of the LXX for the same.

(28) The use of the passive voice of paradidontai (paredothê) may also correspond to the Aramaic msr in the ithpeel form found in Targum Isa 53:5. Rom 4:25 could therefore reflect Targum Isa 53:5: "He [the servant] was delivered over for our iniquity. In Rom 8:32, the use of paredoken probably reflects the use of the same in LXX 53:12c or LXX 53:6. In Rom 8:3 the use of peri + genitive to express the idea of representative action is also found in LXX Isa 53. Whether Rom 4:25 and Rom 8:3 are Paul's own formulation influenced by the tradition or whether he is citing traditional soteriological formulae is an open question.

Some reject the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Isa 52:12-53:12 was influential on the pre-Pauline interpretation of Jesus' death. Contrary to Paul's own claims (1 Cor 15:3a), M. Hooker rejects 1 Cor 15:3b-5 as an early kerygmatic formula (Jesus and the Servant [London: SPCK, 1959]). Comparing it to similar kerygmatic formulas in the Book of Acts (2:22-39; 3:12-21; 13:26-41), she concludes that the connection between Jesus' death and the forgiveness of sins is a Pauline theological idiosyncrasy, since it is not present in these other kerygmatic formulas. Moreover, Hooker dismisses all of the alleged verbal and conceptual allusions to Isa 53 in Paul's letters on the grounds of insufficient evidence. (Only Hebrews 9:28; Acts 8 and 1 Pet 2:21-25 are demonstrably influenced by the motif of the suffering servant.) H. Patsch likewise rejects the alleged verbal and conceptual parallels between 1 Cor 15:3b-5 and LXX Isa 53 as unproved; he points out that the key word huper ("on behalf of") is absent in LXX Isa 53 (Abendmahl und historischer Jesus [Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1972] chap. 4). He also regards as circular the argument that the tradition cited in 1 Cor 15:3b-5 is dependent upon Targum Isaiah. In his view, the notion of a sacrificial death for others is as derivable from Jewish martyr theology as from Isa 53. In fact, according to Patsch, the phrase "according to scripture" (kata tas graphas) is a later addition to the formula in 1 Cor 15:3b-5; originally, the formula did not refer to any particular Old Testament text (see also F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel. Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1974] 54-66). In spite of these objections, it seems that there is just enough evidence to conclude that Isa 52:13-53:12 was influential on the pre-Pauline kerygmatic formulas.

4.7. Christ's Death as Mystery

Nowhere in the extant second-Temple sources is the Messiah's death seen as a part of his messianic work. Jews of this period may have expected eschatological forgiveness, but this was not to be by means of the Messiah's death. (The Old Testament passages cited in the New Testament that assert the salvation-historical necessity of the Messiah's death are what one could call non-explicit or not-obvious prophecies. The servant of Yahweh whose vicarious death is described in Isa 53 is never explicitly identified as the Messiah.) Paul gives evidence that this is a novel teaching when he refers to what he is preaching as the mystery or secret things that God kept hidden but now has revealed (Rom 16:25: "the mystery" [to musterion]; 1 Cor 2:1: "the mystery of God" [to mustêrion tou theou]; 2:7: "the wisdom in mystery" [hê sophia en mustêriô]; 4:1: "stewards of the mysteries of God" [to mustêrion theou]; Eph 1:9: "the mystery of his will" [to mystêrion tou thelematos autou]; 6:19: "the mystery of the gospel" [to mustêrion tou euaggeliou]). Paul's view is that the fulfillment of the promise of eschatological salvation exceeds the expectation, insofar as God did not reveal to the prophets a total understanding of his eschatological purposes. The most important omission was the salvation-historical necessity of the death of Christ, which has definite salvation-historical consequences. Thus, for Paul, the term (musterion) denotes the hidden eschatological purposes of God now revealed after the fact. (Paul also uses the term "mystery" in relation to the church; see The New Covenant)

IThe Hebrew term raz is used with the meaning of the eschatological purposes of God in the Book of Daniel (2:18, 19, 27, 30, 47). The term mustêrion is also found in Wisdom of Solomon, where it refers to God's eschatological purposes (2:22). In the Thanksgiving Hymns, the founder describes himself as chosen by God to receive "mysteries" (razim) (2.13; 4.27; 5.25). His calling was to serve as a source of enlightenment for all who would heed his words. These mysteries revealed to the founder concerned God's eschatological purposes and the community's role in these. He says, "Through me you have enlightened the face of the many and you have shown your power without limit, because you have made known to me your wonderful mysteries and through your marvelous counsel you have strengthened my standing" (1QH-a 4.27-28). (Part of the hidden knowledge revealed to the founder was the ways in which the Israelites had erred, which implies that to him was revealed the proper interpretation of the Torah [1QS 5.11-12]). In the Similitudes of Enoch, the secrets of the eschatological figure of the son of man is revealed to Enoch (46.2-8); such knowledge is concealed from the rest of humanity. Similarly, in 1 Enoch 103:2, Enoch discloses the mystery that was revealed to him by reading esoteric writings, "the tablets of heaven" and "the books of the holy ones": that there will be a final judgment in which retributive justice shall be meted out to the righteous and sinner (see also 1 Enoch 104:10-12). Although most of it is practical and this-worldly, the wisdom teaching of 4QInstruction (4Q416, 417, 418) is qualified by an eschatological outlook. The wise understands that human history will culminate with the final judgment when the righteous will be vindicated against the wicked. The teaching concerning eschatological judgment and how one ought to live in light of this ultimate fact is described idiomatically “the mystery of what is to come” (4Q416 frg. 2, 3.9-10, 14-15, 18, 20-21; 4Q417 frg. 1, 1.10-12; frg. 2, 1.6, 8-9, 18-21). Presumably, this teaching is a mystery because it is not widely known (or at least believed); the righteous or the wise are characterized as those who understand this mystery. Likewise, in Mysteries (1Q27; 4Q299–301), human beings are said not to know the “mystery of what is to come,” which is certain and irrevocable (1Q27 frg. 1, col. 1.1–7 = 4Q300 frg. 3.1-6). The “mystery of what is to come” denotes God’s historical purposes, in particular his purpose to bring eschatological judgment on the world at the appointed time. In the Greek Wisdom of Solomon, part of being righteous is to have wisdom, insight into God’s hidden designs called "the mysteries of God" (mustêria theou). In particular, the righteous, being wise know that after death comes a judgment based on works and, because they are righteous, they will be granted the reward of immortality, for which they were created: “For though in the sight of others they were punished, their hope is full of immortality” (3:4).

4.8. Faith as a Condition

The soteriological benefit flowing from Christ's death are is on the condition of faith (pistis); this is a constant theme in his Letter to the Romans and his Letter to the Galatians. Paul does, however, make reference to this idea in his other letters: 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9; Titus 3:5. Faith, as used by Paul, denotes the negation of any doing that would result in making a claim on God; in other words, faith is not a work, but simply the human response of openness to God, which leads to the acceptance of God's gracious promise. Faith is the human faculty that connects human beings to God, in order that God may give freely to human beings all that He wants to give. Faith has as its condition the proclamation of the good news: "Faith comes from hearing, and the hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17; see 10:14-15) (The phrase rêma Christou is an subjective genitive: Christ's word.) Paul means that faith arises when Christ speaks to the hearer through his messengers.(29) In fact, faith for Paul is a gift of God (Phil 1:29), being the result of divine election (2 Thess 2:13); no human being can confess Jesus is Lord without the Spirit (1 Cor 12:3).(30) If faith is a gift of God, then clearly it is not a meritorious human work. The condition for the realization of faith is the hearing of the message of salvation (Rom 10:14-15).(31)

(1) H. Windisch, Der zweiter Korintherbrief (9 ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924) 198.

(2) S. Lyonnet and S. Sabourin, Sin, Redemption and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study (AB 48; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970) 248-55; R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 19860 140, 156-58; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 76.

(3) R. Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1954) 57.

(4) On this passage, see H. J. Schoeps, Paul. The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) 175-83; H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 249-50; H.-J. Eckstein, Verheißung und Gesetz. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Gal 2,15-4,7 (WUNT 86; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996) 150-65.

(5) See T. Donaldson, "The ’Curse of the Law’ and the Inclusion of Gentiles: Galatians 3:13-14," NTS 32 (1986) 94-112. In-Gyu Hong argues that Paul uses the first person plural exclusively, denoting thereby only Jews (The Law In Galatians [JSNTSup 81; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993] 78-79). He holds that the reference to gentiles in 3:14a creates a contrast between the first person plural in 3:14b, which is inclusive of gentiles, and the first person plural in 3:13, which is exclusive of gentiles. Hong’s proposal is possible, but there does not seem to be enough indication from the text to substantiate it.

(6) F. Mußner argues that Paul omits the phrase hupo theou because Paul could not conceive of the possibility that Christ could be cursed by God (Der Galaterbrief [HTKNT 9; Freiburg: Herder, 1974] 233.) One could say, however, that Christ was cursed by God, but not on account of his own sins.

(7) See J. Maier, The Temple Scroll (JSOTSup 34; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) 132-34.

(9) On this question, see A. J. Hultgren, Paul’s Gospel and Mission (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 47-72; A. Pluta, Gottes Bundestreue [SBS 34; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969] 17-41.

(11) See A. Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit. Ein Kommentar zum Römerbrief (6 ed.; Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1991) 148; Lyonnet and Sabourin, Sin, Redemption and Sacrifice, 158-66; T. W. Manson, "Hilasterion," JTS 46 (1945) 1-10; A. Nygren, Commentary on Romans [Philadelphia:Fortress, 1949] 156-58; F. Lang, "Gesetz und Bund bei paulus," Rechtfertigung: Festschrift für Ernst Käsemann zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. J. Friedrich, W. Pöhlmann, P. Stuhlmacher; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1976) 309; A. Pluta, Gottes Budestreue, 62-70; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (TNTC; London: Tyndale, 1963) 104-108; M. Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 45; B. F. Meyer, "The Pre-Pauline Formula in Rom 3:25-26a," NTS 29 (1983) 198-208; P. Stuhlmacher, "Zur neuen Exegese von Röm 3,24-26," Jesus und Paulus: Festschrift für Werner Georg kümmel zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. E. Earle Ellis and E. Grässer; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 315-33; A. von Dobbeler, Glaube als Teilhabe (WUNT 2.22; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987) 78-87; A. Hultgren, Paul’s Mission and Gospel, 47-81; P.-G. Klumbies, Die Rede von Gott bei Paulus in ihrem zeitgeschichtlichen Kontext, 126-28.

(12) D. J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).

(13) See Lyonnet and Sabourin for uses of hilastêrion in Hellenistic sources (Sin, Redemption and Sacrifice, 155-57).

(14) See also A. Deissmann, "hilastêrios and hilastêrion. Eine lexikalische Studie," ZNW 4 (1903) 207-208 and H. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (HTKNT 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977) 110-11.

(15) A. Deissmann, Bible Studies (2 ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1903) 124-35; Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 87-88; L. Morris, "The Meaning of hilastêrion in Romans 3.25," NTS 2 (1955-56) 33-43; id.,"The Use of hilaskesthai. etc. in Biblical Greek" ET 62 (1950/51) 227-33; id., The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956); J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965) 1.116-21; Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 1.214-18; D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings. Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967); H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 187.

(17) H. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003) 648.

(18) P. T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999) 355.

(20) See B.D. Smith, Jesus’ Last Passover Meal (Lewiston, NY: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993).

(22) E. Lohse, TDNT 9.435; P. O’Brien, Colossians and Philemon (WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1982) 125. Contrary to A. J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of the World (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1964) 158-63; R. P. Martin, "Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Colossians," Reconciliation and Hope (ed. R. Banks; Exeter: Paternoster, 1974) 104-24; W. Carr, Angels and Principalities (SNTMS 42; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) 52-66.

(23) See E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971) 108-11; P. Porkorny, Colossians (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 134-41; J. B. Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon (London: MacMillan, 1892) 186-89.

(24) On this topic, see W. Zimmerli and J. Jeremias, The Servant of God (rev. ed.; London: SCM Press, 1965); M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (2 ed.; London: James Clarke, 1982) 18-23; Stuhlmacher, "Jesus as Versöhner," Versöhner, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1981); Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980).

(26) See G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 722-29; H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 251-58

(27) See U. Schnelle, Gerechtigkeit und Christusgegenwart (GTA 24; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 72-74; O. Kuss, Der Römerbrief (3 vols.; RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1963-78) 1.195.

(29) O. Michel, Der Brief an die Römer (12 ed.; MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963) 254.

(31) F. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles (SNTSMS 56; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) 78, 120, 130.