3261162.pdf

7/24/2019 3261162.pdf

1/11

Two Pauline Allusions to the Redemptive Mechanism of the CrucifixionAuthor(s): Daniel R. SchwartzSource: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 102, No. 2 (Jun., 1983), pp. 259-268Published by: The Society of Biblical LiteratureStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3261162.

Accessed: 07/01/2015 14:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Society of Biblical Literatureis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:59:39 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sblhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3261162?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3261162?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sbl

7/24/2019 3261162.pdf

2/11

JBL

102/2

(1983)

259-268

TWO PAULINE

ALLUSIONS TO THE

REDEMPTIVE

MECHANISM

OF THE

CRUCIFIXION

DANIEL

R.

SCHWARTZ

Hebrew

University, Jerusalem,

Israel

I.

The

Problem

As

Paul writes in

1

Cor

1:23,

the

notion of a

crucified

messiah

was a

"stumbling

block"

(skandalon)

for

Jews.

This,

apparently,

was

due to

the

fact

that Deut

21:23,

at

least

according

to

the

Septuagint

rendition

(which

Paul

follows

in

Gal

3:13),1

states

that all

who are

"hung

on a

tree" are

accursed: the

idea

of

an

accursed

messiah is

ridiculous,

at

least

at first sight. Paul must have grappled with this problem, both alone and

in

debates

with

Jews.

Therefore,

in

addition

to the

general problem

of

why

Christ

died,

a

problem

which

Paul

answered

by

pointing

to

the

soteriological

significance

of

Christ's

death,

Paul

must

also

have

had to

deal

with

the

specific

problem

of

the

mechanics

of this

saving

event:

How

did it

occur

through

crucifixion,

which

brought

not

only

death

but

also,

according

to

Deuteronomy,

curse?

How

could such

a

death

bring

redemption?

Paul

explicitly

deals with

this

problem only

once,

in

the

aforemen-

tioned section

of

Galatians.

There,

after

stating

that the

Jews

had

I is

use of

fTzrKarapaTo?

instead

of

KEKaTrrpaiE,vO9

s

explained

by

the

assimilation to

Deut

27:26,

quoted

a

few

verses earlier

(3:10);

see

M.

Wilcox,

"'Upon

the

Tree'-Deut

21:22-23

in

the

New

Testament,"

JBL

96

(1977)

86-87. The

LXX

rendition's

assumption,

that

Deut 21:23

means

that God

cursed/curses

him who

is

hung

(and

not

that he

who

is

hung

cursed/curses

God,

as

in

the

standard

rabbinic

interpretation,

e.g.,

m. Sanh.

6:4),

is

shared

by

Tg.

Neofiti

ad

loc.

and,

perhaps,

by

the

Temple

Scroll

64:11-12;

on

the

latter,

see

1t.-W.

Kuhn,

"Jesus

als

Gekieuzigter

in

der

fruhchristlichen

Verkindigung

bis

zur

Mitte des

2.

Jahrhunderts,"

ZTK 72

(1975)

33-34

(but

cf. D.

R.

Schwartz,

"'The

Contemners of

Judges

and

Men'

[11Q

Temple

64:12],"

Les

47

[1982/83],

in

Hebrew).

Thus,

if

it

is

true,

as

generally

assumed,

that

Paul's

grappling

with

the

verse

reflected

not

only

his

private

meditations but

also

polemics

with

Jews

who

cited it

in

order

to

disprove

Jesus'

messiahship

(so,

for

example,

Kuhn,

loc.

cit.,

and

P.

Stuhlmacher,

"Jesus

als

Versohner,"

Jesus

Christus

in

Historie und

Theologie:

Neutestamentliche

Festschrift fir

Hans

Conzelmann

zum

60.

Geburtstag

[ed.

G.

Strecker;

Tubingen:

Mohr

(Siebeck),

1975]

93,

n.

14),

it is

no

longer

certain

that such

Jewish

disputants

were

necessarily

"Septuagint-Jews."

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

7/24/2019 3261162.pdf

3/11

Journal

of

Biblical Literature

become accursed due to

their

incomplete

fulfillment of the law

(3:10),

which

at

any

rate could not have been

expected

to

bring

justification

(vv

11-12),

Paul

explains

that

Christ

became a

curse

(as

shown

by

Deut

21:23) in order to redeem us from our curse. By itself, however, this

argument

does not

explain

how his

death

redeemed

the

Jews

from their

curse,

for

one

could

just

as well conclude

simply

that

Jesus

had

been

added to

the ranks of the

accursed

(or

that the curse he

shared

in

com-

mon

with

other

Jews

had been

supplemented

by

one

applying

to the

crucified).

Although

Paul does

not treat this

question

directly,

I

believe that an

analysis

of

his

language

in

Galatians

can indicate an answer.

Moreover,

it

seems that

another Pauline

response

is

alluded

to in

Rom 8:32.

An

inves-

tigation

of

the allusions of

these

passages

may,

therefore,

fill

an

impor-

tant

gap

in the

Pauline

explanation,

or

explanations,

of

Christ's

death.

I

will

begin

with

the

passage

in

Galatians,

where

the allusion

to the cruci-

fixion

is

explicit

but

requires

further

interpretation,

and

I

will

then

pro-

ceed

to

the

passage

in

Romans,

where

the reference to

the crucifixion

must

first

be

uncovered.

II.

Gal

3:13;

4:4-5

We

may

begin

by

noting,

in

the wake

of

others,2

the

striking

simi-

larity

of

the above mentioned

passages:

both

speak

of

Christ's

buying

free

(keayopdaw)

the

Jews,

and

they

share a common

structure

(each

has

a statement

of fact

followed

by

its two

purposes

'va

...

'va

...]).

Now

one

might

note

a serious

problem

regarding

4:4-5:

while it states that

God

redeemed

the

Jews

by

sending

forth His

son,

it does not state

how

this

redeemed

them.

This

problem

is

a

weighty

one,

for 4:1-7

explicitly

compares

the

redemption

of the

Gentiles

to that of the

Jews,3

and

each was accomplished as a result of God's sending forth (vv 4,6:

aTrEo-reAyXEv)

is son

(or

the

spirit

of

the

latter).

But while

in

the case

of

the

Gentiles

this

redemption

was

accomplished

by

the said

spirit's

emancipatory

proclamation

(vv

6-7),

in the

case

of the

Jews,

as

noted,

2

See

especiallyJ.

Blank,

Paulus

und

Jesus:

Eine

theologische

Grundlegung

(SANT

18;

Munich:

Kosel,

1968)

262-63;

E.

Schweizer,

"huios,"

TDNT 8

(1972)

383.

3

Note

the

use of the first

person

n vv

3-5 and

the second

person

t-re,

eT)

n

vv

6-7;

if

j,iljv

in

v

6

is

really

original,

as is

generally

assumed,

and

V{iliv

a

harmonizing

orrection

(so, for example, H. D. Betz, Galatians [Hermeneia;Philadelphia:Fortress,1979] 210,

n.

86),

then

it

appears

hat the

latter

was

justified.

As

Betz

[ibid., 210]

suggests,

Paul

may

have used

the

words

"into

our hearts"

because

they

were

traditional;

cf.

Rom

5:5 and

2 Cor

1:22.)

On

the successive

treatmentof

Jews

and

Gentiles

in

this

pericope,

cf.

ibid.,

208 and

A.

J.

Bandstra,

The Law

and the

Elements

of

the World:

An

Exegetical

Study

in

Aspects

of

Paul's

Teaching

(Kampen:

Kok,

1964)

59-60.

Other

interpretations

are

discussed

by

G.

Howard,

Paul: Crisis

in

Galatia-A

Study

in

Early

Christian

Theology

(SNTSMS

5;

Cambridge:

Cambridge

University,

1979)

67-82.

260


7/24/2019 3261162.pdf

4/11

Schwartz:

Two Pauline

Allusions

we are

not

told

how the

sent forth son

redeemed them. This

problem

is

very

similar

to that

already

noted

above

with

regard

to

3:13.

In view

of

the

proximity

of

the

passages

and

their

other

similarities,

it is

likely

that

their common problem, the mechanics of redemption, invites a common

answer.

I

would

suggest

that the

key

to the

problem

can be found

in

Paul's

use

of f'aTrooTrEAAr

n 4:4

(and,

for

symmetry,

in

4:6),

for

apart

from

these two instances

he never uses this verb.

Why

does he not use his

more usual

7rdT,rco

r

aTroorTCAAo?4

Hatch and

Redpath

indicate that in

Paul's

Bible,

the

Septuagint,

4faTroorrTAAfX

most often

represents

the

Hebrew

slh

(pi'el),

and that

the

latter

accounts

for

the

great

majority

of

the

appearances

of

eaaTroo-reAAo.5

If

acting

on

this one now checks a

concordance of the Hebrew Bible for cases of

slh

(pi'

l)

similar to that

in

Gal

4:4-5,

namely

cases

in

which

sending

forth X redeems

Y,

two

cases,

and

only

two,

immediately appear.

In

Leviticus

14

one

reads that to

abrogate

certain

impurities

a

priest

must send forth a

live bird

having

first transferred the

impurity

to

it,

and in

Leviticus 16 one

reads of the

scapegoat

ritual

of

the

Day

of

Atonement,

wherein the

high

priest

trans-

fers the

people's

sins

to the

goat

and then sends

it

out

into the

desert;

in

both

cases,

the

verb used

is

slh

(pi'el)

=

efaTroo-rreAco.6

Moreover,

schol-

ars agree that the basic principle underlying both procedures is the

same,

as is

readily

evident.7

I

would therefore

suggest

that in

Gal 4:4-5

Paul

does not need to

explain

how

sending

forth

Christ

saved the

Jews,

for

already

the word

faTrEo-reA~?Ev,

at

least

in

his

own mind

if

not

in

that of his

readers,

carried the

explanation:

Christ's action

was that

of a

scapegoat.

The

objection

that

the

scapegoat

of Leviticus 16 was

not

killed,

but

only

sent

forth

into the

desert,

while

Christ

died on

the

cross,

may

be

answered

by

the

simple recognition

that

by

Paul's

time,

at

least,

and

probably

much earlier as

well,

the

scapegoat

was in

fact

killed,

by

being

4

The former

appears

ifteen

times

in

the Pauline

pistles,

he

latter-four

(and

cf.

Paul's extensive use of

aTrrodT-Ao).

Note

especially

the

use of

7rE',uTr

for

God's

sending

His son in

Rom

8:13;

why

did Paul use another

verb

in

Gal

4:4,

6?

Scholarly

discussion

regarding

e'arroare'xxw

has

concentrated

on

the

question

of whether

it

implies

the son's

preexistence;

ee K. H.

Rengstorf,

"exapostello,"

TDNT 1

(1964)

406;

Blank,

Paulus und

Jesus,

264,

n.

17; Betz,

Galatians,

206. But whatever

position

one

takes

regarding

that

question,

it is clear

that such is at

most

an

implication

of

the

word,

but not the

reason

t

was used.

5

Specifically,

slh

(pi'el)

is translated

273 times

in

the

LXX,

159

times

by

cEa7roo-rrE')o

(in

second

place:

arroro-rEAAo,

1

times);

apart

from these

159

appearances

of

iearro-reAAXo

there

are

only

88

others,

pread

over

fifteen Hebrew

equivalents.

6

Lev

14:7, 53;

16:10,21, 22,

26.

7

See,

for

example,

G. B.

Gray, Sacrifice

in the

Old

Testament:

Its

Theory

and

Prac-

tice

(Oxford:

Clarendon,

1925)

316;

R.

de

Vaux,

Studies

in

Old Testament

Sacrifice

(Cardiff:

University

of

Wales,

1964)

96-97.

261


7/24/2019 3261162.pdf

5/11

Journal

of

Biblical

Literature

pushed

from a

precipice

onto the

rocks

below.8

This

procedure

is

described

by

the

Mishnah

and

by

Tg.

Yerusalmi I

(=

Ps.-Jonathan),

and

it is

alluded to

by

Philo

and

by

1

Enoch.9

Tannaitic

sources

indicate

just

how important the scapegoat's death was, for apart from supplying an

exegetical

basis

for the

requirement,10

they

also

rule,

according

to the

majority

opinion,

that if

the

goat

does not

die

from the

fall the

respon-

sible

agent

(Lev

16:21's

"ready

man")

is

to

follow him

down

and

dispatch

him.11

Moreover,

one

may

note that

the

comparison

of

Christ

to the

scape-

goat

is a familiar

one in

apostolic

and later

literature;12

all

I

am

suggest-

ing

is that it was

already

assumed

by

Paul.

Again,

the

similarity

of the

scapegoat concept

to

that

of the

Suffering Servant,

a

similarity which

includes

both essential

and verbal

parallels

in

the

biblical

texts

(Leviticus

8

B. A.

Levine

(In

the Presence

of

the

Lord:

A

Study

of

Cult and Some

Cultic Terms

in Ancient Israel

[SJLA

5;

Leiden:

Brill,

1974] 82)

admits this

may

have

been the ancient

practice

as

well,

and

G.

R. Driver

("Three

Technical

Terms in the

Pentateuch,"

JSS

1

[1956] 97-98)

indeed

suggests

that "Azazel"

originally

meant

"(the)

rugged

rocks" or

"(the)

precipice."

(For

some

criticism of Driver's

suggestion,

see de

Vaux,

Studies,

97.)

9

See

m. Yoma

6:6;

Tg.

Yer. I

Lev

16:22;

Philo,

De

plant.

14.61

(...

E.

i

a'/lara

Kal

8fedr1Aa Kal

8a3paOpa

EI7TI7TTo)U

Whitaker's translation in the LCL edition, "... to find

itself

amid

rocky

chasms

...,"

inaccurately

translates

the

verb

and

so

obscures

the

allusion];

note that

8a3paOpov

was

especially

known

as the name of

the cleft at Athens

into

which criminals were thrown

[see

LSJ

s.v.]);

1

Enoch 10:4-5. On the

latter,

S.

Landers-

dorfer

rightly

observed: "Dass wir hier

nichts anderes vor

uns

haben

als die

mythische

Ausgestaltung

des

in

der Mischna

geschilderten

Vorganges-sogar

die

Ortsbezeichnung

(/saboovi

bzw.

Dudael

=

Chadudu)

ist noch recht wohl

kenntlich-,

ist ohne

weiteres

klar"

(Studien

zum

biblischen

Versohnungstag

[ATAbh

10/1;

Munster

i. W.:

Aschendorff,

1924]

21).

10

"'And he shall

be

stood alive'

(Lev

16:10):

this teaches that he is

later to die"

(y.

Yoma

6.43c; similarly Sipra

ad

loc.

[ed. Weiss, p. 81a]).

Cf.

the

argument,

based

on

this

verse,

as

to how

long

the

scapegoat

must remain alive:

Sipra

loc.

cit.;

t.

Yoma

4(3).12 (Zuck.

188);

b. Yoma

40a-b, 65a,

71a.

11

See

t. Yoma

4(3).14

(Zuck.

188);

b.

Yoma

66b;

y.

Yoma

6.43c-Josephus

is

noticeably

absent

among

the witnesses to the

killing

of the

scapegoat;

he states

only

that

it is

to be

"sent alive into the wilderness

beyond

the

frontiers"

(Ant.

3.10.3

241). (M.

Olitzki's

sug-

gestion

[Flavius

Josephus

und die

Halacha

(Berlin:

Itzkowski,

1885)

47,

n.

76]

that

VirEpOptov

here is to

be derived from

virep

+

0opos,

hus indeed

referring

to the

precipice

of the other

sources,

is

completely groundless,

as

both

the

context

[Talv

Vr7TpOplov Epeflav]

and the lexicons

show.)

This omission is due either to

abbreviation

(the

whole rite is des-

cribed

in

only

half a

sentence)

or

to an

apologist's

desire

to

avoid

mentioning

a

practice

which could seem

superstitious

or

pagan;

cf.

Josephus's

omission of reference to the

Golden Calf

in

his

paraphrase

of

Exodus. The

rabbis

were aware that

Gentiles

might

cast

aspersions

on this

rite;

see the baraita in b. Yoma

67b

(wherein,

according

to

the

MSS nd

old

editions,

"the nations of the world" are

mentioned

along

with

Satan).

12

See,

inter

alia,

Barn.

7:6-11;

Justin,

Dial.

40:4;

Tertullian,

Adv. Marc.

3.7.7.

For

a

comparison

of these

texts,

see

P.

Prigent,

Les

Testimonia dans

le

christianisme

primitif:

L'Epitre

de

Barnabe

I-XVI

et ses

sources

(EBib;

Paris:

Gabalda,

1961)

105-10,

or

idem,

Epitre

de

Barnabe

(SC

172;

Paris:

Cerf,

1971)

136-37.

262


7/24/2019 3261162.pdf

6/11

Schwartz:

Two Pauline

Allusions

16 and Isaiah

53),13

is another factor which

could have

suggested

to

Paul

the use of

the

scapegoat image.14

Finally,

this

suggestion may

be

supported

on the

basis of Gal

3:13.

Not only does it "work," in that it solves the logical problem of how

Christ's

becoming

a curse

redeemed other accursed

ones;

it

may

also

be

supported

by

the fact

that,

again

by

Paul's

day

if

not

earlier,

the

scape-

goat

was considered to become

accursed.

This is

shown

by

Philo,

"Barna-

bas" and

Tertullian,

and

is

also reflected

in

words

which the

Palestinian

Talmud attributes to

Alexandrian

Jews

of

the

predestruction

period.15

In

other

words,

Paul's

thought

behind

Gal

3:13;

4:4-5

is as

follows:

Christ

was

hung

on a

tree,

and

so became a

curse,

and so could

become a

scapegoat which, by being sent forth to its death, redeemed the Jews

from their curse.

III. Rom

8:32

In

this

verse,

"He

who

did not

spare

His

own son but

gave

him

up

for

us

all,

will He

not

also

give

us all

things

with

him?"

(RSV),

we find

again

the

logical

problem

raised

by

the

verses

in

Galatians:

How

does

God's

"giving

up"

His

son

help

mankind? The

verse

also

supplies

a

cer-

tain

stylistic problem: Why does Paul note that God did not spare His

son?

Why

did

the

positive

statement

("gave

him

up

for us

all")

not

suffice?

Commentators

generally

use

the latter

question

in

solving

the

former,

assuming

that

Paul

here

alludes

to Abraham

who

did not

spare

his

son

(Gen

22:12,

16);

as

this was

followed

by

a

blessing

(vv

17-18),

so

too is

God's not

sparing

of His

son,

according

to

Romans,

followed

by

13

See T. H.

Gaster,

Myth,

Legend

and Custom in

the Old

Testament: A

Comparative

Study

with

Chapters from

Sir

James

G. Frazer's

Folklore in the Old Testament (New

York:

Harper

&

Row,

1969)

581. As

Gaster

notes

(p.

699,

n.

6),

nigzar

in

Isa

53:8

echoes

gezera

in

Lev

16:22;

to this

one

might

add that

both the

Servant and

the

scapegoat

are

said to

carry

(nasa')

the

sins of

the

people

(Isa

53:12;

Lev

16:22).

14

For Paul's

referral

of

the

Suffering

Servant to

Christ in Phil

2:5-11

and

elsewhere,

see

W. D.

Davies,

Paul

and Rabbinic

Judaism

(2nd

ed.;

London:

SPCK,

1965)

274;

R.

N.

Longenecker,

The

Christology

of

Early

Jewish

Christianity (SBT

2/17;

London:

SCM,

1970)

106.

15

Philo,

De

spec.

leg.

1.35

188;

Barn.

7:6;

Tertullian,

Adv.

Marc.

3.7.7.

Cf. G.

Alon,

Studies in

Jewish

History

in

the

Times

of

the Second

Temple,

the

Mishna and

the Tal-

mud

(2

vols.;

Tel-Aviv:

Hakibutz

Hameuchad,

1957-58)

1.304,

n.

19

(Hebrew).

Accordingto

y.

Yoma

6.43d,

Alexandrian

Jews

used to

hasten the

scapegoat

on its

way,

complaining

"How

long

will

you keep

(tolin,

literally

=

hang )

the

qalqala

among

us?"

Qalqala

not

only

sounds

and

looks

like

qelala

(=

curse)

but also

its

meanings

(degradation,

disgrace,

corruption,

sin,

mischief)

are

similar.

See M.

Jastrow,

A

Dictionary

of

the

Targumim,

the

Talmud

Babli and

Yerushalmi,

and

the

Midrashic Literature

(2

vols.;

New

York:

Pardes,

1950)

2.1382,

s.v.

For

examples

of the

exchange

of

qeilal

and

qalqial,

see the

critical

apparatus

and

notes to

Gen. Rab.

20.3

(on

Gen

3:14)

in

the

edition

of

J.

Theodor

and Ch.

Albeck,

p.

183,

lines

4-5. Cf.

F.

Schwally,

"Miscellen,"

ZAW 11

(1891)

170-73.

263


7/24/2019 3261162.pdf

7/11

Journal

of

Biblical

Literature

bounties

(8:32b).16

This

assumption

may

be

buttressed not

only by

the

general

consideration

that Paul

regularly

refers to

Abraham,

in

Romans

and

elsewhere,

but also

by

the

identity

of

the verbs

used for

"sparing"

(Elbol,al)

and by the probability that Gen 22:17-18, the conclusion of

the

Aqedah

story,

was

alluded to

just

a few

chapters

earlier,

in

Rom

4:13.

The

assumption

that Rom

8:32 alludes to the

Aqedah

is

very

old

and

widespread,17

scholars

differing

only

as to

whether Paul

meant that

God's

giving

of

Jesus

was

merely

analogous

to Abraham's

binding

of

Isaac or

(as

Dahl has

argued)

a reward for

it,

and as to

whether Paul

originated

the

comparison

of

the crucifixion

to the

Aqedah

or

inherited

it from

other

early

Christians.

However,

while Dahl

begins

his

study

with the

observation that Rom

8:32 is

"obviously

reminiscent

of

Gn

22,

as

has

been

recognized

by

exegetes

from

Origen

onward ...

the allusion

is

unambiguous,"

he

does later

admit,

after

setting

forth

his own inter-

pretation

of the

meaning

of

this

allusion,

that

"caution forbids us to

pos-

tulate that Paul's statement

may

not be

explained

otherwise."

With

all due

respect

to

exegetical

tradition,

I will

enter the

door

Dahl

opened,

for

the above

explanation

of Rom

8:32 seems

questionable.

First,

one notes that if its

reference were indeed to the

Aqedah,

this

would be the clearest such reference in the Pauline corpus;18 even if

Rom

4:13

does allude to

Gen

22:17-18,

which is not

certain,19

those

16

For references to some scholars

sharing

this

assumption,

see

below,

notes

17,

19.

17

For

what

follows,

see N. A.

Dahl,

"The Atonement-An

Adequate

Reward for the

Akedah?

(Ro

8:32),"

Neotestamentica et

Semitica:

Studies in Honour

of

Matthew Black

(ed.

E. E.

Ellis and

M.

Wilcox;

Edinburgh:

T. & T.

Clark,

1969),

esp. pp.

15-20

(the

quo-

tations

are from

pp.

16 and

20);

H.

Paulsen,

Uberlieferung

und

Auslegung

in

Romer

8

(WMANT

43;

Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener,

1974)

165-68.

Both

supply ample

refer-

ences to the literature. The

assumption

that

Rom 8:32

reflects

Gen

22:12,

16

is

so

imbedded

that some will even insert an

explicit

reference

to the

Aqedah

into their

para-

phrases

of

Romans; so,

for

example,

W.

Sanday

and

A.

C.

Headlam,

The

Epistle

to the

Romans

(ICC;

5th

ed.;

Edinburgh:

T. & T.

Clark,

1902)

219:

"As

Abraham

spared

not

Isaac,

so He

spared

not the

Son...."

18

On

other Pauline

passages

which have been seen as

referring

to the

Aqedah,

see

Dahl,

"The

Atonement," 23-27;

G.

Vermes,

Scripture

and

Tradition

in

Judaism:

Haggadic

Studies

(SPB

4;

Leiden:

Brill,

1973)

218-21;

J.

E.

Wood,

"Isaac

Typology

in the New

Testament,"

NTS

14

(1967/68)

587-89.

Interestingly enough,

in the

present

context,

is

the

fact that

it

is none other than

Gal

3:13-14

which

is,

according

to Dahl

(p.

23),

"apart

from

Ro

8:32 the clearest

Pauline

allusion

to

Gn

22";

so too

Vermes,

p.

220.

(But

Paulsen

[Uber-

lieferung,

167]

calls this allusion, and another in Rom 3:25, "kaum

m6glich.")

Here, in

any

case,

as

in

Rom

4:13,

the allusion

to Genesis

22,

if it is

one,

is to a

point

in the

chapter

after

the

completion

of the

Aqedah

(vv

17-18)

and does not hint

back

to the

preceding

account.

19

Note,

for

example,

that

neither

Sanday

and Headlam

(Romans,

111)

nor 0. Michel

(Der

Brief

an

die

Romer

[5th

ed.

=

MeyerK

4,

14th

ed.;

Gottingen:

Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht,

1978]

168)

refers to

Genesis

22

in their commentaries on

Rom

4:13,

although

they

both

see an

allusion

to the

Aqedah

in Rom

8:32.

Since Rom

4:17,

19

definitely

refer

264


7/24/2019 3261162.pdf

8/11

Schwartz: Two Pauline

Allusions

verses of

blessing,

as far as

they

are reflected

in

Romans,

give

no hint

as

to the merit

which

preceded

them.

Indeed,

in

the context of

Romans

4,

where faith is contrasted with

works,

the fact that

Paul did not

mention

any meritorious act by Abraham is a fair indication that he did not

intend to refer to it.

Again,

one notes

that even

many

of those

who

rec-

ognize

an allusion to the

Aqedah

in

Rom

8:32

agree

that Paul did

not

develop

this

theme,20

which

might

also hint that

the allusion

is so

subtle

that

it

might actually

be

doubtful.

In

fact,

the

parallel

between the

Aqedah

and Christ's death is

very

weak:

Isaac is not

meant to be

"given,"21

he did

not

die,

had

he

died it would

have been

on an altar

and not on

a

cross,

and

his death

would not

have been

for

anyone,

although

Paul

emphasizes

here

that

Christ's death

was for

us all.

Finally,

we

may

underline

another

problem:

while

Genesis 22

consistently,

even

monotonously,

calls Isaac

"his

son" or

"your

son"

or

"my

son,"

the

pronouns

referring

to

Abraham,22

Paul

here

speaks

of

"His

own son"

(rov

ll'ov

viov)

as if we

might

have

supposed,

otherwise,

that it

was someone

else's

son who

could have

been

spared.

Why?

Another

biblical

passage

fits the bill

much

better: 2

Sam

21:1-14.

Here we

read

that

God

afflicted Israel

with a

famine on

account

of the

unavenged

blood of

Gibeonites

killed

by

Saul;

when

David

asked the

Gibeonites how this might be expiated, they replied that they would take

no

ransom

of silver

or

gold,

but

rather

demanded

that

seven

of

Saul's

sons

be

hanged.23

However,

while

one

would

suppose

that the

expiation

would

be all the

more

effective

the

more

prominent

the

sons of

Saul thus

given

up,

David

nevertheless

spared

Mephibosheth

son of

Jonathan,

the

most

prominent

survivor

of the

line

(v

7).24

Seven others

were

given

to

to

Genesis 17

(vv

5,

17),

one

should

perhaps

prefer

to see

in Rom

4:13 an

allusion to

Gen

17:6-8.

20

So,

for

example,

Dahl,

"The

Atonement,"

16:

".

.

the

allusion is

unambiguous,

but

Paul

in no

way

draws

it to the

attention

of his

readers ..

.";

Paulsen,

Uberlieferung,

167:

".

. .

im Kontext

von V.

32a die

Aufnahme von

Gen

22

nicht

reflektiert

wird." In

light

of

the

above,

one

might

well

sympathize

with

G.

Bornkamm's

summary

dismissal

of the

subject:

Paul

"makes

no use

of

Genesis 12

and 22"

(Paul

[London:

Hodder

&

Stoughton,

1975]

143).

Admittedly,

however,

this

does not

speak

to

suggestions,

such

as

those

of

Vermes, Dahl,

and

especially

Paulsen,

that

in Rom

8:32 Paul

repeated

traditional

phrasing

which

contains

such an

allusion,

without

himself

making

use

of

it.

21

No verb of

giving

appears

in

Genesis 22

(MT

or

LXX).

22

Gen

22:2, 3, 6,

7, 8,

9, 10,

12, 13,

16. In

all

these

cases,

the LXX

uses the

simple

o-ov,

avTro

(and

in vv 7-8 the Hebrew

"my

son" becomes

TrKvov).

23

See

below,

n.

26.

24

Mephibosheth

is

considered the

last of

Saul's

house

in

2

Sam

9:1-8 and

19:28;

he

may

have

entertained

hopes

of

regaining

the

usurped

throne

(16:1-4;

19:24-30).

In

contrast,

David

surrendered to the

Gibeonites

two sons

of a

concubine

(3:7;

21:11)

and five

sons

of

Saul's

daughter

Merab,

whose

hand in

marriage

David once

refused

(1

Sam

18:17-19).

(As

1

Sam

18:19;

2

Sam

6:23 and

various

textual

witnesses

indicate,

Merab,

not

Michal,

was

the

mother

intended

by

2

Sam

21:8.)

265


7/24/2019 3261162.pdf

9/11

Journal

of

Biblical

Literature

the

Gibeonites,

who

hanged

them;

later,

after their

corpses

and those of

Saul and

Jonathan

were

properly

buried,

God

relented

(v 14).

Here,

then,

we

have

the same verbal

parallel

to Rom

8:32 offered

by

the Aqedah: David spared (LXX:

EcEio'aro)

Mephibosheth. Here, fur-

thermore,

people

were

given25

(to

the

Gibeonites),

they

were

actually

killed,

by

hanging

(or

crucifixion),26

for

the

people

(to

end the

famine).

On

all counts the

parallel

with Christ

is

closer than

that offered

by

Gene-

sis

22.

Again,

we

may

now

understand

Paul's

emphasis

on

Christ's

being

God's

own

son,

for in

the

parallel

the man

spared

was not the son of

the

sparer.

Paul's

argument

turns out

to

be

a

persuasive

argumentum

a

minori

ad

majus

(qal

wahomer),27

the terms of which are as

follows:

David God

someone

else's son

His

own son

spared

did not

spare

If

David

brought

blessing

despite

the

fact

that he

spared

someone else's

son,

how much

more

certainly

will

God

bring

blessing

if

He

did

not

spare

His own son

IV.

Conclusion

By

analyzing

some

peculiarities

of Paul's

arguments

and

language

in

the

passages

discussed

above,

we

have

attempted

to discover Paul's

answer

to the

question

with which

we

began:

How

did

Christ's

death

on

the cross

bring

redemption?

More

specifically,

we have assumed that

Paul viewed

this death

via

some biblical

category,

and have

attempted

to discover

what

category

that

might

be.

In

fact,

we found

two answers.

To

borrow later

terminology,

we

would

say

that

Paul found

Christ's

death

on

the

cross

"typified"

both

by

the scapegoat ritual and by the hanging (crucifixion?) of Saul's sons. It

may

well be that

other

passages

will

be

found to

support

one of these

answers

to our

question,

or

both,

or

others;

just

as Paul

used various

25

2

Sam 21:6

(bis),

9;

in all

three instances

the LXX

uses

b8i81tL.

In

Rom

8:32,

Paul

used

7rapaSblbw8L,

in

line with

usual NT

practice regarding

the execution of Christ

(see

F.

Buichsel,

"TrapaSbwp8lL,"

DNT

2

[1964]

169).

Cf.

below,

n.

29.

26

On

the

meaning

and ancient

translations

of

hoqia

see S.

R.

Driver,

Notes on the

Hebrew

Text and

Topography

of

the

Books

of

Samuel

(2nd

ed.;

Oxford:

Clarendon,

1913)

351;

Driver

concludes

that the word

in

any

case

implies hanging,

and

probably

a

special

form thereof, such as crucifixion. For additional evidence to the effect that the

latter

(crucifixion)

was

indeed

the current

Jewish

understanding

of the

word in

antiquity,

see

D.

J.

Halperin,

"Crucifixion,

the Nahum

Pesher,

and

the

Rabbinic

Penalty

of

Strangu-

lation,"

JJS

32

(1981)

39;

but cf.

J.

M.

Baumgarten,

"Hanging

and Treason in

Qumran

and

Roman

Law,"

Eretz-Israel

16

(1982)

8*-9*.

27

Paul

uses this

type

of

argument

more

explicitly

in Rom

5:9,

10, 15,

17; 11:12,

24;

1

Cor

6:2-3;

2 Cor

3:7-8,

9.

Cf.

J.

Jeremias,

"Paulus

als

Hillelit,"

Neotestamentica

et

Semitica,

92.

266


7/24/2019 3261162.pdf

10/11

Schwartz:

Two Pauline Allusions

sacrificial

images

when

speaking

of Christ's death

in

general,28

there

is

no

reason

why

he

might

not find

more

than one biblical

"type"

for the

specific

mode of

death.29

We should state that we readily admit that these allusions to

Leviticus

16

and

to 2 Samuel 21 are

only

that;

Paul has not troubled to

make

them

explicit

to his

readers,

and

many may

well

have missed

them.30

Their

importance, apart

from

the clarification which

they

offer

to the verses in

question,

is rather

in the further

light

which

they

shed

on

Paul's

understanding

of

the

crucifixion and on his

adaptation,

to his new

worldview,

of

categories

taken from

Jewish

tradition and

history.

Finally,

one

might

broach the

possibility

that

the

interpretations

of the

crucifixion alluded to in Gal 3:13, 4:4-5 and Rom 8:32 did not originate

with Paul

but were rather

received

by

him from

earlier

Christians. This

possibility

could be

supported

not

only by

general

considerations,

namely

the

assumption

that

the fact the

allusions

are

not

explained

indicates

they

are

traditional31

and the

assumption

that

already

the earliest

Christians

must

have

searched

the

Bible

diligently

for

"types"

of

Christ's

death,32

but

also

by

the

specific

observations that

(1)

both

Gal 3:13

and Rom

8:32

speak

of

Christ's death as "for

us,"

using

a

phrase

(v7rep

4El

v)

usually

considered

28

Rom

3:24-25; 8:3;

1

Cor

5:7;

15:20;

2

Cor

5:21;

Eph

5:2.

On these

and

other

sacrificial

images

which Paul uses

of the death

of

Christ,

images

which are

not identical

although

not

necessarily

contradictory,

see H.

Wenschkewitz "Die

Spiritualisierung

der Kultus-

begriffe: Temple,

Priester und

Opfer

im Neuen

Testament,"

Angelos

4

(1932)

180-89

(=

Angelos

Beiheft, 1932,

116-25);

Davies,

Paul and

Rabbinic

Judaism,

230-53.

29 One

could,

moreover,

suggest

how the

scapegoat image

and that

of Saul's sons

could

come to be

combined: via the

common

denominator of

the

Suffering

Servant.

The

fate of

Saul's

sons recalls

that of the

Servant,

and we have

already

noted the

similarity

of the

latter to

the

scapegoat

(above,

n.

13).

This

could

also

help explain

Paul's

substitution in

Rom

8:32 of

wrapabibwJAL

or the

8bWIAL/

of 2 Samuel 21, for the former is used of the

Suffering

Servant in LXX

Isa

53:6,

12

(bis)

(cf.

above,

n.

25).

Finally,

one

may

note that

if

a

minority

view

is correct

and

hoqi'a

(Num

25:4;

2

Sam

21:6,

9)

does not

mean

hang/

crucify

(above,

n.

26)

but

rather

"hurl down to

death"

(so

NEB,

following

W.

Robertson

Smith,

Lectures

on the

Religion

of

the Semites

[2d

ed.;

London:

Black,

1914]

419,

n.

2),

then we

would have

here a close

parallel

to the

scapegoat

ritual

(above,

nn.

8-9).

30

Certainly

the

reference

to

2

Samuel 21

was

unlikely

to be

recognized;

indeed,

there is

no

reference to

that

chapter

in

either volume of

Biblia

Patristica

(ed.

J.

Allenbach et

al.;

Paris:

Centre

National de

la

Recherche

Scientifique,

1975-77).

(Jewish

sources,

in

contrast,

devote much

attention to

this

chapter;

see L.

Ginzberg,

The

Legends

of

the

Jews

[7

vols.;

Philadelphia:

Jewish

Publication

Society,

1968]

4.110-11,

6.269-70,

nn.

114-18,

and the

further references

listed

by

A.

Hyman,

Torah

Haketubah

Vehamessurah

[rev.

ed.

by

A.

B.

Hyman;

3

vols.;

Tel-Aviv:

Dvir,

1979]

2.73-74.)

On the

other

hand,

to

continue with

this same

instance,

we

note that also

those who

see

in

Rom

8:32

an

allusion to

the

Aqedah

admit that

Paul's

readers,

as some

modern

commentators,

may

not

have

noticed the

allu-

sion;

see

Dahl,

"The

Atonement,"

16.

31

On

this

assumption

I

would

agree

with

those who see

an

allusion to the

Aqedah

in

Rom

8:32;

see

above,

n.

20.

32

Cf.

Stuhlmacher,

"Jesus

als

Versohner,"

89-90.

267


7/24/2019 3261162.pdf

11/11

268

Journal

of

Biblical

Literature

to

be

a Pauline

inheritance

from

earlier

Christians,33

and

(2)

two of

the

pericopes

(Gal

4:4-7

and Rom

8:31-34)

have

indeed

been

claimed as

remnants of

pre-Pauline

material.34 At this

point,

however,

I

do

not see

any basis for more than simply broaching the possibility.

33

On the traditional nature of

this

phrase,

see

1

Cor

15:3,

also E.

Stauffer,

Die

Theologie

des Neuen

Testaments

(4th

ed.;

Stuttgart:

Kohlhammer,

1948)

111-12;

R.

Bultmann,

Theologie

des Neuen

Testaments

(5th

ed.;

Tubingen:

Mohr

[Siebeck],

1965)

49.

34

On

Gal

4:4-7,

see

the

references

given

by

Blank,

Paulus und

Jesus,

261-62.

(Blank

himself

denies the

passage

is

Pauline,

but

this

is,

apparently,

only

due to its

great

resem-

blance to

3:13-14,

"eine

Aussage

. .

.bei

der es

kaum

jemand

einfallen

wird,

sie Paulus

abzusprechen.")

On

Rom

8:31-34,

see

Paulsen,

Oberlieferung,

137-47;

he and

others see

here a pre-Pauline

hymn.

3261162.pdf

Documents

Transcript of 3261162.pdf