With regard to the spatial axis, the two paradigms equally note that Christ plays a central place in God’s activity on earth and that evil powers are active here as well. However, some diversity exists with respect to the nature and involvement of other mediating agents, such as angels. Thus, to what extent do angels and other cosmic powers play a role in Paul’s theology?
With regard to the temporal axis, the two paradigms again agree on the pivotal role Christ plays in redemptive history. At the same time, the nature of how the Christ-event relates to God’s previous acts in history is highly disputed between the two. How, then, does Paul understand this (salvation-)historical relationship? Is it characterized more by continuity or discontinuity?
With regard to the epistemological axis, both paradigms also agree that Christ and the Spirit are the ultimate solution to the problem of evil. However, between the two groups stands a fundamental disagreement about the direction of his narrative logic, and thus about how Paul frames the plight-solution relationship. Does Paul’s theology develop prospectively (from plight to solution) or retrospectively (from solution to plight)?
Of course, these questions rarely elicit either/or answers, but the nature of the answers often lead scholars into one of our two paradigms. Having explained some of the key elements that exist within the groups, we will explain the direction of the chapters in this volume.
Progression of the Volume
The above survey has revealed not only a lack of clarity and consensus in scholarship about why Paul’s theology should be considered apocalyptic; it has also shown that there remains disagreement about precisely how to approach Paul as an apocalyptic thinker. Beyond this, there remain outstanding debates over various individual themes considered to be central to Paul’s apocalyptic worldview. This volume aims to help remedy some of these shortcomings.
Admittedly, our preliminary discussion here has merely scratched the surface. In order to orient the reader further, David Shaw in the next chapter (“‘Then I proceeded to where things were chaotic’ [1 Enoch 21.1]: Mapping the Apocalyptic Landscape”) explores in more detail various questions and proposals on apocalyptic in Paul, as well as their developments in modern scholarship.
After having reviewed in Part 1 many of the significant discussions taking place in contemporary Pauline theology, we move to the heart of the book in the remaining three parts. Part 2 consists of four programmatic chapters by prominent scholars who have written extensively on Paul and apocalyptic. Two essays are devoted to each of the two paradigmatic views sketched above, one primarily on the space-time axes, and one primarily on the epistemological axis. The Eschatological Invasion perspective is represented by Martinus de Boer (“Apocalyptic as God’s Eschatological Activity in Paul’s Theology”) and Douglas Campbell (“Apocalyptic Epistemology: The sine qua non of Valid Pauline Interpretation”); the Unveiled Fulfillment perspective is represented by Edith Humphrey (“Apocalyptic as Theoria in the Letters of St. Paul: A New Perspective on Apocalyptic as Mother of Theology”) and N. T. Wright (“Apocalyptic and the Sudden Fulfillment of Divine Promise”). These chapters engage various texts—the Hebrew Bible, early Jewish and Christian literature, and especially the letters of Paul—in order to provide a synthetic overview of the topic as well as to demonstrate what is, in the views of the respective authors, essential for an apocalyptic reading of Paul.
Since the understanding and employment of the idea of apocalyptic is highly influenced by the setting in which it originated as well as that in which it is studied, Part 3 consists of contextual chapters that seek to show how knowledge of different historical and intellectual contexts helps us to approach and understand Paul’s apocalyptic theology. Early Judaism is treated by Loren Stuckenbruck (“Some Reflections on Apocalyptic Thought and Time in Literature from the Second Temple Period”), Greco-Roman philosophy by Joseph Dodson (“The Transcendence of Death and Heavenly Ascent in the Apocalyptic Paul and the Stoics”), ancient Christian traditions by Ben Blackwell (“Second Century Perspectives on the Apocalyptic Paul: Reading the Apocalypse of Paul and the Acts of Paul”), and modern theology by Philip Ziegler (“Some Remarks on Apocalyptic in Modern Christian Theology”).
Part 4 consists of chapters that seek to explain how apocalyptic perspectives are valuable for understanding specific Pauline texts and themes. In comparison to the essays in Part 2, these chapters are limited in scope. Rather than providing a synthetic overview of numerous texts and themes in Judaism and Paul’s letters, these chapters focus on a smaller selection of texts and seek to demonstrate how apocalyptic (variously defined) informs Paul’s theology. For simplicity’s sake, these chapters have been arranged according to their canonical order and include discussions by Jonathan Linebaugh (“Righteousness Revealed: The Death of Christ as the Definition of the Righteousness of God in Romans 3:21–26”), Beverly Roberts Gaventa (“Thinking from Christ to Israel: Romans 9–11 in Apocalyptic Context”), John Barclay (“Apocalyptic Allegiance and Disinvestment in the World: A Reading of 1 Corinthians 7:25–35”), John Goodrich (“After Destroying Every Rule, Authority, and Power: Paul, Apocalyptic, and Politics in 1 Corinthians”), Jason Maston (“Plight and Solution in Paul’s Apocalyptic Perspective: A Study of 2 Corinthians 5:18–21”), Michael Gorman (“The Apocalyptic New Covenant and the Shape of Life in the Spirit according to Galatians”), and Jamie P. Davies (“The Two Ages and Salvation History in Paul’s Apocalyptic Imagination: A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Galatians”).
By revisiting the question of “apocalyptic” in Paul in the following essays, this collection ultimately seeks to clarify how the word is being used and to demonstrate how the concepts it embodies remain serviceable in the explication of Paul’s theology. Our hope is that this volume will move the discussion forward by bringing clarity to contested issues and offering fresh trajectories in the study of Paul’s apocalyptic imagination.
* * *
Ernst Käsemann, “The Beginnings of Christian Theology,” in New Testament Questions of Today, trans. W. J. Montague (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 82–107, at 102. ↵
R. Barry Matlock, Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul: Paul’s Interpreters and the Rhetoric of Criticism, JSNTSup 127 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 11. ↵
Ibid., 250: “No doubt everyone who needs the term has an understanding quite suited to his or her purpose.” ↵
N. T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 41. ↵
See, e.g., the many contributions of Martinus de Boer (chapter 3, n. 1). See also Matlock, Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul. ↵
John J. Collins, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia 14 (1979): 1–20, at 9 (emphasis added). ↵
Cf. Edwin Chr. van Driel “Climax of the Covenant vs Apocalyptic Invasion: A Theological Analysis of a Contemporary Debate in Pauline Exegesis,” IJST 17, no. 1 (2015): 6‒25. ↵
Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). However, Joseph Dodson’s essay in this volume (chapter 8) does address this topic. ↵
Some of the essays in this volume provide abridged discussions: Shaw (chapter 2), Wright (chapter 6), and Ziegler (chapter 10). For additional surveys, see esp. Richard E. Sturm, “Defining the Word ‘Apocalyptic’: A Problem for Biblical Criticism,” in Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, eds. J. Marcus and M. L. Soards (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989), 17–48; David Congdon, “Eschatologizing Apocalyptic: An Assessment of the Conversation on Pauline Apocalyptic,” in Apocalyptic and the Future of Theology: With and Beyond J. Louis Martyn, eds. J. B. Davis and D. Harink (Eugene: Cascade, 2012), 118–36. ↵
For the influence of Barth on the topic of Paul and apocalyptic, see Philip Zieglier’s essay in chapter 10; and Douglas Harink, Paul among the Postliberals: Pauline Theology Beyond Christendom and Modernity (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2003). ↵
See Congdon, “Eschatologizing Apocalypt
ic,” 119–27. ↵
David V. Way, The Lordship of Christ: ErnstKäsemann’s Interpretation of Paul’s Theology, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 119–76 (esp. 129). ↵
For a longer (but still brief) survey, see N. T. Wright, “Paul in Current Anglophone Scholarship,” ExpT 123, no. 8 (2012): 367–81, at 372–74. Other Pauline scholars influenced by Käsemann and Martyn who are not mentioned elsewhere in this section include Leander Keck, Beverly Gaventa, Alexandra Brown, and John Barclay. ↵
J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 136. Beker expanded this to a fourfold definition in his Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel: The Coming Triumph of God (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 29–53: (a) God’s self-vindication through faithfulness to his promises; (b) God’s universal reign and redemption of the world; (c) the dualistic structures of time and the world; and (d) the imminent arrival of God’s kingdom. ↵
Martyn’s Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33a (New York: Doubleday, 1997) is his defining work, and his four essays about “Apocalyptic Rectification” in Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 85–156, summarize the heart of his argument. ↵
See esp. de Boer’s extensive bibliography in chapter 3 of this volume. ↵
Martinus C. de Boer, Galatians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 31–35 (cf. 194). De Boer’s scheme is crucial also for Martyn’s view of Paul and the teachers in Galatia (Martyn, Galatians, 97–98n51). ↵
Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). See also his discussion in this volume in chapter 4. ↵
De Boer, Galatians, 79–82. ↵
Ernst Käsemann, “Justification and Salvation History in the Epistle to the Romans,” in Perspectives on Paul, trans. M. Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), 60–78, at 67. ↵
With the de-emphasis upon continuity with the past, scholars at times feel the need to defend themselves against a quasi-Marcionite interpretation of their position. ↵
Richard B. Hays, “Apocalyptic Poiēsis in Galatians: Paternity, Passion, and Participation,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter, eds. M. W. Elliott et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014), 200–219, at 204. ↵
We see a similar but inverted progression with N. T. Wright, for whom the movement is from plight to Christ and back to plight again (Paul and the Faithfulness of God [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013], 750). ↵
Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982 [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2002]). ↵
See, e.g., Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, 2nd ed., WUNT 2/4 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1984); Carey Newman, Paul’s Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric, NovTSup 69 (Leiden: Brill, 1992). ↵
Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). Before Segal’s work, several studies were formative for this direction in Pauline scholarship: Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity, WUNT 2/36 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990); James Tabor, Things Unutterable: Paul’s Ascent to Paradise in Its Greco-Roman, Judaic, and Early Christian Contexts (Lanham: University Press of America, 1986); Andrew Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to his Eschatology, SNTSMS 43 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). Various others have made use of the theme: e.g., J. M. Scott, “The Triumph of God in 2 Cor. 2.14: Additional Evidence of Merkabah Mysticism in Paul,” NTS 42, no. 2 (1996): 260–81. More recently, Benjamin L. Gladd, Revealing the Mysterion: The Use of Mystery in Daniel and Second Temple Judaism with Its Bearing on First Corinthians, BZNW 160 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008); G. K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd, Hidden but Now Revealed: A Biblical Theology of Divine Mystery (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014). ↵
Matlock, Unveiling the Apocalyptic Paul. ↵
Christopher Rowland and Christopher R. A. Morray-Jones, The Mystery of God: Early Jewish Mysticism and the New Testament, CRINT 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2009). Cf. Christopher Rowland, “Apocalyptic, Mysticism and the New Testament,” in Geschichte–Tradition–Reflexion: Judentum, ed. P. Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr, 1996), 405–21. ↵
Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Overlapping Ages at Qumran and ‘Apocalyptic’ in Pauline Theology,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. Jean-Sébastien Rey, STDJ 102 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 309–26; idem, “Posturing ‘Apocalyptic’ in Pauline Theology: How Much Contrast with Jewish Tradition?,” in The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Texts, WUNT 335 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 240–56. ↵
Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 52. For this reason, in his recent assessment of the apocalyptic scheme developed by Martyn, de Boer, and Campbell, Wright protests, “How come it is so different from what the leading analysts of first-century Jewish apocalyptic describe?” (“Paul in Current Anglophone Scholarship,” 373). ↵
Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 53. ↵
Ibid., 54 (original emphasis). ↵
Ibid., 42. See also Wright’s The Climax of the Covenant: Christ as the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). ↵
Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 53 (original emphasis). ↵
The Unveiled Fulfillment group agrees that Christ is the revelation of God in Paul’s theology, yet we might say they also affirm that Paul and other Jews valued the other revelations that God had given before Christ. ↵
Cf. N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, chapter 9, esp. 750. ↵
The comparison with Hays’s reading approach (as discussed above) is informative. Though both Hays and Wright read the elements of the story as bidirectional and in continuity, their starting points are different. ↵
Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, chapters 5–7. ↵
2
“Then I Proceeded to Where Things Were Chaotic” (1 Enoch 21:1)
Mapping the Apocalyptic Landscape
David A. Shaw
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things termed apocalyptic, it seems good to take one more swing at it. As we do so, it is well to recognize that, like the KJV from which those opening words are taken, the term “apocalyptic” has a remarkable power to command loyalty and divide opinion. Such divided opinions are regularly expressed in the works of those who have previously “taken in hand to set forth” the history and significance of apocalyptic readings of Paul—ranging from those who find the term powerfully evocative to those who feel the term is hopelessly ill-defined and as tangible as mist.[1] The task of this chapter, however, is neither to praise nor to bury the term, but simply to chart the current situation in the hope of orienting the reader to the apocalyptic landscape that stretches out in the chapters beyond this one. To that end, and by way of introduction, it will be helpful briefly to note two earlier surveys that highlight the major questions to be addressed.
The first is the 1989 essay, “Defining the Word ‘Apocalyptic’: A Problem in Biblical Criticism” by Richard E. Sturm, which opens a volume in honor of J. Louis Martyn.[2] A striking feature of this essay is that it outlines two distinct approaches to the question—one that defines apocalyptic as a literary genre, and another that defines it as a theological concept. In connection with the first, Sturm discusses the contributions of Emil Kautzsch, R. H. Charles, H. H. Rowley, D. S. Russell, Philipp Vielhauer, and John J. Collins; addressing the second, prominent names include Richard Kabisch, Albert Schweitzer, Rudolph Bultmann, Ernst Käsemann, Ulrich Wilckens, Wolfhart Pannenberg, J. C. Beker, Christopher Rowland, and J. Louis Martyn.
For Sturm’s part, he believes the second approach is more sign
ificant because it allows Jesus and Paul to be discussed under the rubric of apocalyptic, even though “it remains uncertain how one can most adequately approach the problem of defining apocalyptic.”[3] He has a proposal of his own to make, and we will come to that; for now, we simply note the major question that emerges, namely: how does apocalyptic, as a theological concept, relate to those literary texts known as apocalypses? Do those two sets of scholars ever talk to each other? And, more pointedly, to what extent ought the feet of those who speak of Paul as an apocalyptic theologian be held to the fire of the apocalypses? This is the first of our major issues.
The second is highlighted by a rather different survey, although it too appears in a volume honoring J. Louis Martyn. In a fascinating essay, David Congdon takes Sturm’s category of apocalyptic as theological concept, focuses on its application to Paul, and detects two distinct streams.[4] The first, termed “Apocalyptic A,” is represented by Käsemann and Beker; the second, “Apocalyptic B,” by Martyn, Bultmann, and Barth. The arrangement of names in this configuration will perhaps be surprising to many, and to this too, we will return; the point for now is that it highlights the second major question for discussion, namely: how uniform is the apocalyptic reading of Paul?
This is a more significant question than has usually been recognized. In part, this is because so many theological concepts operate under the “apocalyptic” label, giving the appearance of uniformity, and partly because analysis or critique of the apocalyptic reading has often been a terminological one—questioning the nomenclature more than examining the content. Occasionally, the differences are acknowledged or new terminology is proposed, but for the most part and at least to the uninitiated, an impression of consistency has been given. For example, Martinus de Boer speaks of building “on the contributions of other interpreters of Paul, most notably, Albert Schweitzer, Käsemann, J. Louis Martyn and Beker.”[5] Likewise, Douglas Harinck asserts, “the understanding of Paul as an apocalyptic theologian goes back as far as the work on Paul by Albert Schweitzer. It has been given vigorous revival by Ernst Käsemann, J. Christiaan Beker and J. Louis Martyn.”[6] Of course, neither de Boer nor Harinck are suggesting these figures hold a uniform understanding of Paul’s theology or a uniform view of the relevance of apocalyptic to that theology, but the remarkable diversity among them is too little commented on. Hence, some exploration of those differences may be of help.
Paul and the Apocalyptic Imagination Page 3