IN WHAT WAY IS PAULS GOSPEL (EUANGEUON ) OF FREEDOM THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS (THEOLOG1A CRVCISf.

Gloria van Donge*

I. PAUL AND THE HISTORICAL JESUS OR THE KERYGMATIC CHRIST?

An examination of Pauls letters to churches makes it clear that his theology is not a repetition of Jesus preaching of the coming of the kingdom of God. In fact it has been claimed that Paul dismisses the historical Jesus because he fails to make even the slightest effort to expound his teaching.1 Bultmann sees no need to search for continuity between Jesus and Paul because the Christ of the kerygma has replaced the historical Jesus. To him, Paul shows no interest in the how or what of Jesus life, only in the that.2 Many disagree and argue that more is demanded than the fact of Jesusexistence and the identification of the historical Jesus with the kerygmatic Christ.3Ksemann, for example, cannot accept that historical continuity is irrelevant if material continuity is maintained.4 In his book, Jesus Means Freedom, Kasemann outlines Jesus as a liberal Jewish rabbi, according to the standards of his religious environment: and comments that it was probably this very fact that sent him to the cross.5 The Jewish Christians did not pass on Jesus liberal attitude very readily. In fact, the history of his freedom only seemed to involve continual uneasiness and scandal firstly, the scandal of the cross and soon afterwards, the scandal of the stoning of Stephen, the ringleader of the Diaspora Jews.6 This precipitated the fleeing of Stephens followers and the beginning of the mission to the Gentiles. So, very early in this post-Easter period, there were different parties with differing theologies.7The Palestinians continued to cling to the law and the Temple, while the Hellenists, centred in Antioch,8preached Christ in the strength of the Holy Spirit. Fragments of their early hymns9 highlight their beliefs that God had exalted the earthly Jesus as Lord of the universe and thereby, Gods reign had actually dawned and was present. Their characteristic watchword was freedom.1 0 It was in this milieu that Pauls concept of the gospel of freedom developed." Though Paul took up this clarion call to freedom, his message was clearly distinct from that of Jesus because of the event of the cross. In developing his gospel, Paul had to come to terms with the question, Why was Jesus crucified? In addressing the topic, In what way is Pauls euangelion of freedom theologia crucisT I wish to show that Paul used the word of the cross as a criterion for interpretation to root Christian experience in the life of Jesus and so refute the teachings of his opponents. To do this, I propose to survey Pauls concept of the gospel of freedom by examining its fullest statement in Romans,1 2and then note how he uses the word of the cross to combat two fronts: Hellenistic enthusiasm in first and second Corinthians and Jewish legality in Galatians. II. PAULS GOSPEL OF FREEDOM IN ROMANS 1. In the Context of the Righteousness of God (Rom. 1-4). After the introductory section, Paul states his theme in Rom. 1:16-17.
For 1 am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power o f God to salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. * Gloria van Donge completed her bachelor degree at the University of Queensland this year. The article was written as part of the requirement for her major in Religious Studies.

19

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written: He who is righteous will live by faith.

In these verses, Paul describes the gospel as Gods declaration of salvation to the world; as the epiphany of His eschatological power.1 3 Here, the Jews and Greeks represent the whole cosmos and the dikaiosyne theou, righteousness of God, is proclaimed as the righteousness of faith.1 4 Though Pauls understanding of the righteousness of God is viewed differently by various scholars,1 5 Ksemann sees in Pauls phrase a rich and multifaceted concept, incorporating an indissoluble connection of both power and gift. To Paul then, the righteousness of God is His sovereignty over the world revealing itself eschatologically in Jesus.1 6The universal nature of the righteousness of God is only grasped when the world, before and apart from Christ, is seen as under the wrath of God. Firstly, the spotlight falls upon the Gentile world, then the religious humanity, specifically represented by Judaism.1 7In sharp antithesis to the depicted hopelessness of humanity, Romans 3:21-31 speaks of worldwide salvation for the cosmos under the wrath of God in the context of Christs lordship, for in him, the new aeon has already broken into the old.1 8 The eschatological end of the world proclaims itself anthropologically s the end of ones own way of salvation. Faith, in this context, is the renunciation of human accomplishment which Paul illustrates by the example of Abraham.1 9 In Romans 5-8, Paul spells out the gospel in terms of the righteousness of faith as a reality of eschatological freedom.
2. As Eschatological Freedom (Rom. 5-7) (a) Freedom from the Power of Death (Rom. 5:1-21) The goal of Pauls argument in this passage is the doctrine of justification, especially as it relates to freedom from the power of death.2 0To facilitate his thought, he sets up the Adam-Christ typology where the reign of Christ confronts the reign of sin and death initiated by Adam. Both Adam and Christ are viewed as primal figures who inaugurate different worlds.2 1 In the world inaugurated by Adam, humankind always finds itself in the power of sin and death. By his disobedience,2 2Adam determined this present world in which we re in the grip of forces which seize our existence and determine our will to the extent that we cannot choose freely. The law proclaims eschatological judgement,2 3 but even before the law, punishment fell on sin according to the nexus of act and consequence, in that God gave up the world to general corruption.2 4 Even the world not determined by the law is involved in general rebellion against God and thus suffers the corresponding retribution of being consigned to the destiny of death.2 5 Paul is speaking of ruling powers of the cosmos which implicate all people individually thus making anthropology a projection of cosmology.2 6 Paul speaks of Adam and the first aeon in order to present the effect of the act of salvation against this background. Christ is the author and representative of the new aeon which confronts the old. In Romans 5:15-17, Paul introduces the motif of eschatological superiority and shows how Christ, as bearer of the destiny for the end-time, is superior to Adam, the bearer of the destiny for the fall-determined primal time. The one who ends disaster is infinitely superior to the one who brings it.2 7 Christ, by his obedience to death on a cross, brought eschatological salvation which means that this present aeon has been invaded by the power of grace to effect a new creation. Grace is a power which takes concrete form in the gift of righteousness to the ungodly and consists in the transfer from one aeon to another, from the sphere of death to life as resurrection power.2 8
20

When humankind is integrated into Christs reign, Christ shatters subjection to the Adamic world of sin and death by setting the world before its Creator again and by setting men and women in the state of creatureliness.2 9 For Paul, the feign of Christ replaces the reign of Adam and opens the door to the eschatological present. Because the world is the field of contending powers, we do not exercise autonomy: even as a believer, existence becomes the place of the assaulted freedom of faith where the power of grace has to be seized unceasingly in renunciation of the old aeon.3 0 By pitting the Adamic world against the new aeon which Christ brings, Paul shows that we can participate in the freedom from the power of death which Christ has won. (b) Freedom from the Power of Sin (Rom. 6:1-23) In Romans 5, Paul sets forth the universal realisation of eschatological life by claiming justification for the ungodly in terms of freedom from the power of death. In Romans 6, he addresses the task of making this intelligible in terms of the reality of everyday life. He does so by characterising it as freedom from the powers of sin and the law and then summons believers with the inner necessity to confirm, in their personal lives, the change of aeons which has been effected. The theme of cosmology and the fact that the Christ-event precedes faith are projected into anthropology and verified by the community.3 1 For Paul, the projection of the change of aeons initiated by Christ, seizes the life of the individual in baptism where the old man dies,3 2and the new man participates in the reign of Christ through the motif of fellowship.3 3It was Christ alone who died on the cross, but in so much as he died for us, we are brought into his death and participate in his fate. Baptism is the rite of initiation which gives the believer a share in Christs destiny.3 4Though believers have yet to participate in the resurrection, its power already rules us and sets us free from the power of sin. The formula, with Christ, is used in various ways by Paul. Though its coinage may derive from liturgical tradition3 5and its usage may be limited to the context of resurrection only in 1 Thessalonians 4:14 and 2 Corinthians 4:14, Paul attaches it here and in Galatians 2:19 to the crucifixion of Christ seen from the perspective of baptism.3 6 By bringing the motif of being crucified with Christ into the baptismal statement, Paul asserts that the power of the resurrection initially sets believers under the shadow of the cross and makes this the mark of the new life.3 7The man who comes from the cross, and remains beneath it, has a Lord who necessarily separates him from the powers and forces which rule in the world and thus stands in fact in the change of aeons.3 8 The salvation event which has been established with Christ, is to be grasped by the believer as binding upon himself and while it is not to be repeated, it is to be verified in discipleship.3 9It is not by chance that the latter half of Romans 6 is filled with imperatives. Not only is the believer freed in a negative sense from the power of sin, but freed in a positive way, to obedience.4 0The righteousness of God, as a power which determines existence, enables the believer to maintain the break with the world of Adam accomplished in baptism and to show it in earthly reality by the new obedience.4 1 (c) Freedom from the Law (Rom. 7:1-6) Pauls doctrine of justification ascribes the law, along with death and sin, to the old aeon.42 2 Corinthians shows that Paul understands the law as a universally
21

effective power, which continues to threaten the believer from outside even though it no longer has any claim on him.4 3Just as death severs ties in the social sphere, so the believer is no longer in relation to the law of Moses.4 4 The argument about freedom from sin in the previous chapter is repeated and transferred to the law here. Just as the dominion of the risen Lord brings freedom from sin at baptism, so too he brings freedom from the law.4 5 Romans 7:4 looks again to baptism and motifs of the previous chapter are repeated here. Lusts of Romans 6:12 are described here as passions of sins (Rom. 7:5) and the old man within us (Rom. 6:6) which is crucified, is now specified as en sarki, in the flesh, the universal dimension of the flesh which was introduced by the first Adam. In baptism, incorporation into the reign of Christ and total separation from the law coincide. It is the Torah itself which is done away with, not just the curse of the law.4 6 Freedom from the powers of sin and death takes concrete shape in freedom from the law. This can only be maintained in the Spirit. For Paul, the antithesis of letter and Spirit (Rom. 7:6) is the same as flesh and Spirit. The presence of the risen Lord in the power of the Spirit takes the place of the Torah of Moses. In baptism, the believer comes under the dominion of the Spirit, thus breaking and vanquishing the dominion of the law. If the Torah is merely internalised, then salvation is restricted to the pious only, and world order would be proclaimed under the banner of the law. But for Paul, the doctrine of justification is for the ungodly, so wherever this is the premise, freedom from the law has to be proclaimed.4 7 III. PAULS THEOLOGIA CRUCIS 1. Theologia Crucis A Scandal Paul refers to the cross and the Crucified (One) almost in a technical manner; an emphasis which is clearly seen in the gloss, even death on a cross which Paul adds to the Christological hymn of Philippians 2:6-11. This gloss signals the unusual degree of suffering and humiliation connected with this death. The motif of the curse,4 8adopted from the Old Testament which judged the man who died this way to be unclean and excluded from the covenant community of God,4 9 stresses its criminal nature. Hebrews 13:12-13 carries this notion further with the motif of God-forsakenness when it speaks of dying outside the camp of the covenant community. In antiquity, temples were visual abodes of the divine presence. The populace was also aware of places which were distant from God. Both Paul and the author of Hebrews understand that Jesus died, not only as a common criminal, but also outside the limits of consecrated ground. As a liberal Jewish rabbi, Jesus turned away from the religiosity of his time t publicans and sinners,5 0and so scandalised his contemporaries because he ventured into the domain where it was assumed that God was absent.5 1 For Paul, then, to preach Christ crucified, to honour one who was cursed, to venerate one who died at a place where God was deemed absent, this was a frightful scandal in his day!5 2 The offense of the cross was not derived solely from the means of execution. It was not that anybody a cross would do. To Paul, it was important that it was the death of Jesus on the cross.5 3 The offense lay in the fact that the cross climaxed the whole career of the historical Jesus.5 4 2. Theologia Crucis Christ for Us Many times Paul took over traditional formulae, often from a liturgical context, and attached his own significance to its already current meaning. One such formula
22

is Christ died for our sins, which is found in one of its many forms in the oldest confessional tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3.5 5 The traditional usage already emphasised the love and grace of God, the representative work of Christ and the sins which alienated us from salvation. It already understood the death of Jesus as the great turning point where God no longer abandoned humankind to hopelessness.5 6 To this, Paul added a new depth. Paul understood that salvation is directly and unmistakably related to the death of Jesus. He describes the Jesus who died on the cross as the obedient man who is the eschatological antitype of Adam who surrendered his creatureliness by disobedience.5 7Thereby the obedient Jesus is the beginning of a new creation and the manifestation of freedom. For Paul, the cross showed that God is the Creator who brings existence out of nothing, calls creation out of chaos and proves to be the one who raises the dead.5 8 Christs resurrection is the revelation of that. Resurrection is not an extension of earthly life, but the reign of God which begins beyond the realm of rebellion and death.5 9 Paul develops an important nuance in the formula, Christ died for our sins, when he speaks of dying for the ungodly,6 0 for the brethren6 1 and for all.6 2 The central motif, for us, can mean both for our sakes or to our advantage and in our stead or as our representative.6 3These meanings confirm the fact that man is incapable of working out his own salvation. The cross shows that true man is always the sinner and cannot help himself. He is part of a world that is lost and chaotic and awaiting the resurrection of the dead. The cross of Jesus remains a scandal for Jews and Gentiles in that it exposes humanitys illusion that it can, by its own capabilities, exalt itself against God. But God demonstrates, by the cross, that only He, as creator, saves. Paul declares that the doctrine ofjustification is firmly rooted in the death of Jesus on a cross, which he interprets as Christ for us. The Christ who died becomes the creator of a new humanity freeing us from the temptation of trying to achieve our own salvation. 3. Theologia Crucis a Sacrificial Death? It has been common for scholars to emphasise the idea of Jesus death as a sacrifice.6 4 His death in Romans 3:25 has been traditionally understood as a means of atonement, particularly in terms of the liturgical metaphor, blood of Jesus. This, and the sacrificial motif of 1 Corinthians 10:18-21 where the Eucharist is compared with Jewish and pagan sacrificial practices, tend towards an explanation of the for us in terms of sacrifice. Paul seems to be familiar with this notion and uses it in Romans 12:1,15:16 and Philippians 2:17. So the possibility that it has Christological overtones cannot be excluded. On the other hand, Paul does not explicitly call Jesus death a sacrifice: only pre-Pauline tradition can be cited to support this view;6 5 a notion which Paul tends to play down when he took over the death-of-Jesus tradition. In 1 Corinthians 5:7, where Jesus is described as the passover lamb sacrificed for us, the context suggests the consequence of his death as the beginning of resurrection for believers rather than a sacral rite. The decisive emphasis is on the ending of our alienation from God.6 6 The motif of redemption which Paul knew too,6 7also shows modification in his hands. Rather than linking up the term with the buying back of a slave, Pauls chief meaning of redemption is liberation, readily seen in Romans 8:23 and the liturgical
23

phrase of Galatians 1:4, delivering us from the present evil age. Paul develops this idea more fully in Romans 8:32-39: the death of Jesus means freedom from the cosmic powers and, as the obedient one, he leads those who have renounced Adams rebellion into the eschatological future. Even though they face earthly trials, they find their sufficiency in the grace of the Lord and manifest the power of heavenly freedom.6 8 Though the motif of reconciliation has been interpreted in terms of the substitutionary penal suffering of Christ,6 9 to Paul it means the ending of enmity.7 0 Reconciliation, to be proclaimed by the apostles everywhere, is offered to the whole world; yet it is only realised where we become disciples of Jesus for, of ourselves, we are unable to end the state of enmity. Paul sharpens the focus of former tradition which spoke of reconciliation in terms of forgiveness,7 1 and emphasises instead freedom from the power of sin, death and divine wrath.7 2 Therefore, though Paul is aware of the motif of sacrifice and the pre-Pauline interpretation of Jesus death as atonement, he criticised the tradition he took over; preferring to interpret redemption as liberation rather than buying back, and reconciliation as the end of enmity rather than forgiveness.

4. Theologia Cruets Jesus9Freedom as Pauls Criterion Jesusacts of freedom were primarily seen in his attitude towards the Mosaic Law and scribal tradition. He broke the purity regulations7 3and the sabbath command;7 4 he committed sacrilege by placing such importance upon people following him that it took precedence over burying their fathers corpse;7 5he reversed rabbinic casuistry by making vows to God secondary to childrens responsibility for needy parents,7 6 and even allowed for the interruption of the offering of a sacrifice;7 7he proclaimed a God for sinners and included them in his contacts,7 8 and even tolerated women among his followers;7 9 he spoke with authority, putting aside the Mosaic legislation with the recorded customary phrase, But I say unto you8 0 . These are but some of the ways in which the Gospel tradition preserves the notion of Jesusfreedom as he proclaimed the basileia of God and attacked Jewish law and order. Yet this freedom was sharply contested by the religious authorities whose aim was to sharpen the Law and intensify its observance. Jesusfreedom caused deep offence. They supposed him to be a rebel who was possessed;8 1they interpreted his freedom as blasphemy against God which infringed His rights;8 2 they denounced him to the Romans as a threat to political stability.8 3 The inevitable consequence of Jesus euangelion was the cross. The cross was caused by the reaction of an evil world with its intolerances and opposition. Jesus freedom was the criterion of Pauls theologia crucis. It was Paul who saw most clearly that the God of Jesus was no longer the God of the Jews and the religious ones only, but also the God of Gentiles.8 4It was Paul who interpreted Jesus freedom theologically as he proclaimed eschatological freedom for recipients of the righteousness of God. But it was also Paul who understood the conflict with the world that resulted from this freedom. Rather than interpreting the cross as part of Gods pre-determined plan, Paul viewed the cross as the violent, despicable consequence of the worlds reaction to Jesusfreedom. To Paul, Christians not only participate in the sonship of God and freedom from world powers, but also in the consequences of the worlds retaliation and hatred, i.e. the cross.8 5

24

IV. PAULS THEOLOGIA CRUCIS AS A CRITERION AT CORINTH Examination of Pauls conflicts with the Hellenistic enthusiasts at Corinth show that his theologia crucis was the criterion of interpretation when he addressed the problems there.

1. Theologia Crucis vs. Theologia Gloriae

What was the reason for the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the church at Corinth? It would appear that the members were living on a theology of the resurrection which had taken precedence over a theologia crucis and which resulted in a misunderstood gospel of freedom.8 6 This problem is associated with the Hellenistic outlook which understood Christianity as a mystery religion with the exalted Christ as its cultic god.8 7 The exaltation of Christ was understood as his enthronment since his resurrection. The importance of the kerygmatic Christ became so central at Corinth that no great store was set on the earthly Jesus and some even went to the extent of crying, Jesus be cursed.8 8 This was acceptable to their way of thinking, because the new Cosmocrator had dethroned the former powers of this world, entered his sovereignty by resurrection and exaltation and brought into being the kingdom of eternal peace and universal reconciliation.8 9 Against this background, the sacraments assumed paramount importance. It was in baptism that believers participated in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, were liberated from the old aeon with its powers of death and sin and translated into the new aeon of the Kingdom of Christ. To the Corinthians, baptism became a sacrament which effected complete redemption by conferring on the participant a heavenly spiritual body which degraded the earthly body to a transitory veil.9 0 The goal of salvation was already reached, therefore any further doctrine of resurrection was unnecessary. That they had achieved this status was demonstrated in the celebration of the Lords Supper as an anticipation of the heavenly banquet accompanied by ecstatic manifestations such as glossolalia.9 1 It was belief m their version of Christology which led to this radical interpretation of the sacraments. In turn, these beliefs surfaced in anthropological form as the congregation assembled for worship and in everyday life. Why should a woman keep silent when the Spirit has come upon her?9 2 Why shouldnt prophets and those who speak in tongues exercise their gifts as often as they wish, if they are inspired?93Why shouldnt the love-feast be a time for gluttony and drinking bouts?9 4 Why shouldnt one practice asceticism to show that his state was like that of the angels?9 5 Yet, on the other hand, why shouldnt one cohabit with his stepmother to show that Christ has freed one from the moral prejudices of the world?9 6Why should the slave consent to be dependent upon a Christian master?97 Why shouldn t one be free to eat meats offered to idols, when an idol amounts to nothing anyway?9 8 These problems of a misunderstood freedom were the outcome of a Christology which emphasised a theologia gloriae to the exclusion of a theologia crucis. In his response to these difficulties, Paul does not deny Jesus resurrection, or Gods sovereignty which inaugurated it nor the reality of Christian freedom. Rather he bases his attack on a different Christology; one which characterises the gospel as the word of the cross. At the outset of his debate with this church, Paul declared that he had decided to know nothing among them except Jesus Christ and him crucified.9 9
25

Paul found himself unable to adopt the Corinthians premise that the Christian participates, not only in the cross of his Lord, but also in his resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, the central theme of Pauls doctrine of resurrection is that Christ must reign. Yet he adds the qualification that death remains the last enemy and has not, for the present, been overcome.1 0 0He does not interpret the exaltation of Christ as the end of history;1 0 1 rather his sovereignty has yet to be finalised by the conquest of death. He is not yet the final victor.1 0 2 For Paul, the exalted Christ still bears the nail-marks of the earthly Jesus. Christ remains the Crucified One; his sovereignty is not understood if the cross is merely made the last station on his earthly way: or, to put it another way, if Jesusdeath is moved into the shadow of his exaltation. The cross is not the way to the kingdom; nor the price of it: the cross is the signature of the one who is risen.1 0 3In this manner, Paul shows that, rather than the cross being a chapter of resurrection dogmatics, the correct emphasis is that the resurrection is only one aspect of the message of the cross.1 0 4 The apostle not only corrects the enthusiasts Christology, but also their doctrine of salvation which proceeds from it.1 0 5 He agrees that baptism effects participation in the destiny of the second Adam and conveys involvement in the heavenly life by making the new obedience possible; yet he refuses to follow the enthusiasts who declared baptism to be a full participation in the resurrection life of Christ. He erects an eschatolgoical reservation and speaks of sharing in the resurrection in the future tense.1 0 6 If baptism makes the new obedience possible, it is still only an anticipatory hint of what is still in the future. Christ alone is risen: but the gift of the Spirit is the believers pledge of being raised in the future.1 0 7 He further rectifies their traditions of the sacraments of, and participation in, Jesus death.1 0 8 To share in Jesus death means to bear the cross after him. Philippians 3:10 sheds light on Pauls thought here. The result of knowing Christ and the power of his resurrection is so the believer may share in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death. Believers can remain under the power of the resurrection and in the hope of being raised again only when the crucified Christ rules over them and is glorified through them. In this way, the enthusiasts who fancied themselves already in heaven were brought down to earth as Paul proclaims that the completion of salvation is still in the future:1 0 9 in the meantime, to know Christ is to share in his suffering. Just as Pauls attack on the Corinthianstheology of resurrection did not deny the resurrection but understood it differently, so the theology of the cross does not hamper the freedom of Gods children, but puts it between blind obedience and the enthusiasts excesses. Rather than freedom being the logical outcome of a resurrection that had already taken place, it was a freedom within the anticipation of a resurrection still expected.1 1 0The renewed person, rather than being closed up and ensnared in himself, stands in the expanse of grace and the Spirit for where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.1 1 1 The Corinthians thought that Jesus bore the cross so that believers might partake of his exaltation. This notion was extended so far that they believed that Christ was made human so they might become divine.1 1 2Paul contested this view by presenting a different Christology which led to a different perspective regarding salvation and which outlined the boundaries of Christian freedom. By making his theologia crucis a criterion of interpretation, he succeeded in placing the theologia gloriae in the shadow of the theologia crucis.

26

2. Theologia Crucis and the Theology of the Word vs. the Wisdom of this World and the Theology of the Word A further evidence of the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the church at Corinth was the substitution of a wisdom of this world for the word of the cross in their preaching. This, too, seemed to stem from their emphasis upon a theologia gloriae with its different soteriological view. Again this problem could have arisen from the Hellenistic outlook which understood Christianity as a mystery religion which adopted a mythological gnosis as the basis of salvation.1 1 3To the Corinthians, wisdom was viewed as a treasured possession. The sophia which was prized was not merely prudence or insight, but a deeper meaning of things, including the gospel, which was hidden from the ordinary believer. The sophia fanatics boasted that they had already reached the state of perfection and were in possession of the spirit and revelation-knowledge which allowed them to share in freedom from the powers of fate and death.1 1 4 This had repercussions on everyday living which became licentious as they extolled their slogan, all things are lawful.1 1 5 Their attitude of superiority downgraded the significance of the cross as the means of salvation because they claimed that their gnosis freed them from more powers. It was easy, then, for the itinerant Christian preachers of 2 Corinthians to force their way in and find acceptance among the membership at Corinth. They were furnished with letters of recommendation;1 1 6 they vigorously commended themselves as apostles and servants of Christ;1 1 7they behaved in a manner consistent with the slogan of the perfect ones;1 1 8 and they preached another Jesus1 1 9 which cast aspersions upon Pauls gospel and his apostleship. In their view, Paul lacked all the marks of the true apostle. They asked what convincing manifestations of the Spirit he could produce.1 2 0They accused him of being weak, of being dumb when it came to speaking in the Spirit1 2 1 and of being bold only when writing from a distance.1 2 2 So these opponents waged a two-pronged attack against Pauls preaching and his apostleship. In reply, Paul attacks the form, content and results of preaching based upon sophia and contrasts it with the preaching of the Crucified. It would appear that th theology of the word for the gnosis group took the form of debates and great oratory. They took delight in verbal eloquence, in using their intellect and espousing their learning.1 2 3 For Paul, the Kingdom of God was a matter of power, not of words,1 2 4 or higher or deeper mysteries.1 2 5 The theology of the word was proclaiming or announcing the good news.1261 Corinthians 1:18-25 clarifies Pauls thought that he knows no other approach to the cross than preaching.1 2 7 The itinerants are accused of preaching another Jesus by Paul;1 2 8 the Jews only seem interested in signs; while the sophia group are only concerned with hidden mysteries.1 2 9 Paul is determined only to preach the crucified Christ1 3 0 which he describes as foolishness, a stumbling-block and a snare to those who are perishing, but as the power of God to those who are being saved.1 3 1The power of this gospel to judge, shame and bring to nothing the wisdom of the world highlights the proclamation of the power of the Creator. The gospel of freedom is a new guise for the word of creation1 3 2 which shows that authentic existence can only mean indebtedness to God.1 3 3The result of Pauls preaching for the sophia group means that in the cross God has exploded the criterion by which they think about God and themselves.1 3 4 Paul points out that if worldly criteria were valid, the Corinthians would never have become Christians because, by these standards, they were
27

nobodies.1 3 5On the other hand, the result of the theology of the word of the sophia group who substituted a wisdom of the world for the word of the cross was that they actually undid the basis of their salvation and emptied the cross of its power.1 3 6 Just as Paul used the word of the cross as the criterion forjudging a theology of the word, so too it becomes the standard for measuring true apostleship. The only infallible token he offers in his defence is that the apostolic character bears the stamp of the cross. If I must boast, he says, I will boast in the things that show my weakness.1 3 7 Because of their different Christology, Pauls opponents failed to understand the eschatological tension in Christian existence and so boast of their works by the Spirit. In contrast, Paul places a Christians earthly existence under the sign of the cross. He, too, can boast of visions and revelations;1 3 8 but, rather than boasting of his accomplishments, he boasts of his vulnerability. The series of enumerations of his acts and sufferings1 3 9is not the account of the life and fortunes of a hero; rather they are the declaration of the power of God who delivers him. His boast is that in suffering, weakness, persecution and trials, Christs power is made perfect1 4 0 as he carries in his body the death of Jesus.1 4 1 In addressing the numerous problems that arose in the Hellenistic enthusiastic milieu at Corinth, Paul used the theologia crucis as the criterion to judge christology, soteriology, Christian freedom, theology of the word and apostleship. V. PAULS THEOLOGIA CRUCIS AS A CRITERION IN GALATIA 1. Cosmologa Crucis An Implication of Theologia Crucis? What was the cause of Pauls agitation and concern as he penned the letter to the Galatians? It would seem that he was deeply troubled about his readers vulnerability to another gospel1 4 2purported by his opponents:1 4 3a reconstruction of whose origins and views can only be based on the epistle itself.1 4 4 Perhaps a summary phrase of the adversariesposition is that they boast or glory in the flesh.1 4 5 If Paul calls his gospel a gospel of uncircumcision,1 4 6 then presumably the other gospel was one of circumcision.1 4 7 Regarded as a sign of Gods covenant with the nation of Israel, circumcision seemed to be the chief concern of those who gloried in the flesh. Paul traces this boast to two specific desires: the desire to obey the Law and the desire to avoid persecution for the cross of Christ.1 4 8 Paul renounces both these desires. He tells his readers that any return to Judaism makes the cross of Jesus invalid.
I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness were through the Law, then Christ died to no purpose.149

Further, he discredits this other gospel by claiming that in avoiding persecution, the scandal of the cross is removed.1 5 0 In defending the truth of the gospel of freedom, Paul again calls upon the theologia crucis as a criterion. Whe his opponents glory in the flesh, Paul determines not to boast in anything save the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.1 5 1Apart from glorying in the flesh, Paul outlines two more alternatives to glorying in the cross. These are glorying in self or boasting in the cosmos. Yet for him, both these alternatives have been ruled out in as much that both have been crucified.
I have been crucified with C hrist.. .152 But for me, perish the thought that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ through whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the world.1 53

Earlier in his rebuke to the Galatian converts, Paul explains that to be crucified with Christ means death to the Law with its system of blessings and curses.1 5 4 But here
28

Paul wants his readers to move towards an unreserved acceptance of the crucifixion of their cosmos.1 5 5 What does cosmologa crucis mean? From the context of Galatians 6:15, crucifixion of the world marks the total devaluation of both circumcision and uncircumcision. The cosmos is a realm where people set a high value on those distinctions. It is with the destruction of those distinctions that the new creation .emerges. So, for Paul, it is where the cosmos ends that the new creation begins Galatians 6:16 sets up an antithesis of two communities. One walks according to the kanon, rule, of Galatians 6:15; the other does not. The first community is the Israel of God; the other presumably is not. The Israel of God is identified with the new creation; the other, according to Galatians 6:12-13, is where circumcision retains its significance. Thus, in the epitome of this letter, Gal. 6:12 the world which Paul ,16 has crucified is constituted by reliance on circumcision, the flesh, the Law and the ,community which is bound by those stands. It is opposed to the new creation avoids persecution for the sake of Christ, and rejects the true Israel of God.1 5 6 By locating the crucifixion of the world in the cross of Jesus in Galatians 6:14, is Paul saying that Jesus was crucified by this cosmos, by the community bound by the standards of Law and circumcision and flesh? What Paul does make clear is that to be a member of the new creation, the Israel of God, one has to bear the stigmata of Jesus.1 5 7 In these ways Paul makes the theologia crucis the criterion by which he measures the gospel of the Judaizers. Because their gospel invalidates the cross, it is no gospel: it only brings bondage. Only in being crucified with Christ is there freedom from the Law and only in a cosmologa crucis is there obliteration of the distinctions of Jew and Gentile, circumcision and uncircumcision, slave and free, male and female ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus.1 5 8 IV. CONCLUSION For Paul, the euangelion of freedom means eschatological freedom from the cosmic powers of death, sin and the Law. But the criterion against which Paul constantly measured this gospel was the word of the cross. It was in the cross of the historical Jesus that the power of grace invaded the old Adamic aeon and issued in the new aeon. This cosmology is proclaimed anthropologically in the renunciation of all human accomplishment as the way of salvation. So when the Corinthians boasted in their works of the Spirit and the Galatian opponents of their works in the flesh, Paul accused them of preaching another Jesus, another gospel and of making the cross of Jesus invalid. Only as the gospel of freedom remains under the criterion of the theologia crucis would God be acknowledged as Creator and we .retain our creatureliness By outlining Pauls concept of theeuangelion of freedom and the theologia crucis and noting how he used the word of the cross to combat the fronts at Corinth and Galatia, I have shown that Paul used the word of the cross as a criterion of interpretation to root Christian experience in the life of Jesus,
FO O TN O TES 1. Gunther Bornkamm, Paul (New York: Harper & Row, 1971) 110. 2. R. Bultmann, The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the Historical Jesus, The Historical Jesus and the Kerygm atic Christ, ed. C. E. Braaten & R. A. Harrisville (New York: Abingdon, 1964) 15-42.

29

3. J. A. Fitzmyer sees Pauls use of euangelion as a summary term denoting the person, life, ministry, passion, death, resurrection and lordship of Jesus of Nazareth. See his article, The Gospel in the Theology of Paul, Int 33 (1979) 339-50, esp. p. 341. For a similar view see R. Rickards, The translation of dia rhemetos Christou in Rom. 10:17, 2 ( 1976) 447-8. For an outline of this debate, see S. G. Wilson, From Jesus to Paul: The Contours and Consequences of a Debate, From Jesus to Paul: Studies in honour o f Francis Wright Beare, ed. Peter Richardson & John C. Hurd (Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984) 1-21, and L. E. Keck, Future f o r the H istorical Jesus: The Place o f Jesus in Preaching and Theology (London: SCM , 1972) 50-99. 4. Ernst Ksemann, New Testament Questions o f Today (London: SCM, 1969) 36. For a full discussion of Bultmanns controversy with his pupils, see 35-65. 5. Ernst Ksemann, Jesus M eans Freedom (1968; reprint ed., Philadephia: Fortress, 1974) 16-41, esp. p. 17. 6. Acts 6:5, 7:58. 8. Acts 11:26. 7. Acts 6:13. See also Ksemann, Jesus Means Freedom , 43-6. 9. Phil 2:6-11, 1 Tim 3:16, Eph 2:14, 2 Cor 9:9 cf 5:19.

10. For a description of the unstable first century world, see Howard C. Kee & Franklin W. Young, The Living World o f the N ew Testament (1960; reprinted, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1969) 7-24. 11. For the importance to Paul o f freedom vocabulary viewed statistically, see Peter Richardson, Paul's Ethic o f Freedom (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979) 164. 12. In their book, Buck & Taylor use literary methods for determining the dates of the Pauline epistles and show a development in Pauls thought accordingly. They conclude that Romans was written last and reproduces outlines of arguments which already appear in 2 Cor and Gal. See Charles Buck and Greer Taylor, Saint Paul: A Study o f the D evelopm ent o f His Thought (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1969). 13. John C. Hurd suggests that Pauls apocalyptic message was similar to the teaching attributed to Jesus in the synoptic apocalypse. See his article, The Jesus Whom Paul Preaches, From Jesus to Paul: Studies in H onour o f Francis Wright Beare , 73-89, esp. p. 83. For a discussion of some of the limitations of this view, see S. G. Wilson, 12-18. John M. Court sees a connection between Paul and the apocalyptic pattern of Mk 13. See his article, Paul and the Apocalyptic Pattern, Paul and Paulinism: Essays in honour o f C. K. Barrett , ed. M. D. Hooker & S. G. Wilson (London: SPCK, 1982) 4-16.. 14. Ernst Ksemann, Com m entary on R om ans , ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1973; reprint ed., London, SCM, 1980) 21-32. 15. For the view that by the righteousness of God Paul means that righteousness which God requires of men and of which He approves, see J. C. O Neill, Paul's Letter to the Rom ans (Baltimore: Penguin, 1975) 38, 70-2, 168 and Ridderbos, Paul: A n Outline o f His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 163. For the view that Paul points to G ods power, his saving activity or his convenant faithfulness, see Joseph Fitzmyer, The Letter to the Romans, JBC, ds. R. E. Brown et al. (1968) 301 and C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Rom ans (London: A & C Black, 1957) 29 and Victor Paul Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968) 144-5. For the view that Paul means G ods gift by His free grace alone, see R. Bultmann, Theology o f the New Testament (New York: Scribners, 1951) 1, 285. For a full discussion of Pauls use of this phrase in Romans, see Sam K. Williams, The Righteousness of God in Romans JBL 99 ( 1980) 241 -90. 16. Ksemann, N T Q ues, 168-82, esp. 180. 17. Rom 1:18-32,2:1-3,20, 18. Ksemann, Romans, 92. 19. Rom 4:1-25 cf Gen 15:6 and Ps 31:1. See also N. A. Dahl, Studies in Paul (Minneapolis; Augsburg, 1977) 107. 20. For the view that the primary nuance of death in Rom 5 is that of sacrificial atonement for sin see C. Clifton Black II, Pauline Perspectives on Death in Rom 5-8, JBL 103 (1984) 413-33. Bultmann defines freedom from death as sharing in Christs resurrection, a concept based on mystery religions and Gnosticism. See his Theology o f the New Testament, 1:345. 21. See Ksemann, Rom ans , 142, where he rejects the idea of Adam and Christ as two heads of a generation. 22. Rom 5:19. 23. Ksemann, Rom ans , 150. 24. Rom 1:18-32. 25. 5:13-14.

30

26. Ksemann, R om ans , 150. Ksemann explains that the transition in Rom 5:12d is not implying the theory of original sin; nor is it a transition from cosmic outlook to individual or mythical curse to responsible decision. Rather it is a transition from the motive of destiny to the scope of the disaster. He also rejects the existentialist interpretation which ascribes the motif o f destiny to pre-Pauline tradition. See 148-50. 27. K semann, R om ans , 152-3. Ksemann rejects the view that eschatological superiority is the loving will of God being stronger than wrath or that the law has broken the analogy between Adam and Christ. See 152. 28. This is in contrast to justification of the ungodly as a change of course or expunging prior guilt. See Ksemann, Rom ans , 155. 29. Ksemann, Romans, 156. 32. Rom 6:6. 33. For the view that baptism is a sacramental experience of the death of Jesus see W. G. Kmmel, The Theology o f the N ew Testament, according to its m ajor Witnesses: Jesus Paul John (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973)215. For a criticism of this view, see Oscar Cullman, Baptism in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1950). 34. Kasemann, Rom ans , 162. For the possibility that Hellenistic mystery cults influenced the rite of baptism see R. Bultmann, Theology o f the New Testament, 1:167-9. For an outline of the differences between the Hellenistic mysticism and the Pauline tradition see ICC: R om ans , ed. C. E. B. Cranfield (1895; reprinted., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975) 1.301-2. 35. See Rom 8:29, Phil 3:10,21. 39. Ksemann, Rom ans , 171. 40. For a discussion of the relationship of justification to sanctification in the context of ethics, see C. H. Dodd, M N TC : The Epistle o f Paul to the Rom ans (London: Hodder Stoughton, 1932) 96-9. For a discussion of this problem in the context of Pauline eschatology, see Furnish, 262. 41. Ksemann, Rom ans , 163. Bultmann seems to present freedom from sin as the result of the obedience of faith, so that believers experience a paradoxical servitude. See his Theology o f the New Testament, 1:330-40. Graham Shaw also supports this view of a paradoxical servitude. See his book, The Cost o f A uth ority: Manipulation and Freedom in the New Testament (London: SCM , 1983) 158-61. Shaw regards sin as an offence, rather than a power; as does Roger Trigg when he asks what the relationship is between the concept of sin and freedom. See his article, Sin and Freedom, RelS 20 (1984) 191-202. 42. In the Jes us-Paul debate, a case has been made that their view of the Law is similar because of its root in common eschatological conviction. For a discussion of this issue, see S. G. Wilson, 11 & 4. 43. Ksemann, Rom ans , 186. 44. Rom 7:2-4. Freedom from the Law, to Bultmann, has a dialectic or paradoxical character. See his Theology o f the New Testament, 1:341-3. 45. Rom 6:4 cf Rom 7:4. 46. Ksemann, Rom ans , 189. For the view that it is only the tyranny of legality and moral order of retribution which is removed, see C. H. Dodd, The Meaning o f Paul f o r Today (London: Collins, 1958) 71. Bultmann claims that Christ is the end of the Law in so far as it is a way of salvation by which man establishes his own righteousness. See his Theology o f the N ew Testament, 1:341. John W. Drane argues that Paul seems to be implying that, though the fpnction of the Law has been radically altered . . . , it is not altogether abolished. See his book, Paul: Libertine or Legalist? A Studv in the Theology o f the M ajor Pauline Epistles (London: SPCK, 1975) 133. 47. Kasemann, R om ans , 191. W. D. Davies warns against interpreting Paul's view of the Law systematically. It needs to be understood against his mission to the Gentiles. See his article, 4 'Paul and the Law: Reflections on Pitfalls in Interpretation , Paul and Paulinism: Essays in honour o f C. K. Barrett, 4-16. 48. Gal 3:13. 52. 1 Cor 1:23. 49. Deut 21:23. 50. Luke 5:27-31, 7:34, 15:1-2 and parallels. 54. Keck, Historical Jesus 128-31. 51. Ernst Kasemann, Perspectives on Paw/(London: SCM, 1971) 36-7. 53. 1 Cor 2:8, Phil 2:5-11. 36. Rom 6:4,6,8. 38. Furnish, 174. 37. Bultmann, Theology o f the New Testament, 1:140. 30. Ksemann, Rom ans , 156. 31. Ksemann, Rom ans , 159.

31

55. Perhaps the origin of this formula was the proclamation of the Suffering Servant and its Sitz im Leben, the message for the Last Supper. See Ernst Ksemann, The Pauline Theology of the Cross , Int 24 (1970) 158. 56. Ksemann, Perspectives , 39-49. 58. Rom 8:19-23. 62. 2 Cor 5:14. 57. See the Adam-Christ typology in Rom 5:12-1. 60. Rom 5:6-8. 61. Rom 14:15. 59. Ksemann, Perspectives , 40 & 42.

63. Ksemann, Pauline Theology, 158.

64. J. Jeremias, The Central M essage o f the N T ( New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1965) 31-51. Vincent Taylor, The Teaching of St Paul, The Cross o f Christ: Eight Public Lectures (London: Macmillan, 1956) 24-34. C. K. Barrett speaks of theologia crucis as a doctrine of atonement in his article, Theologia Crucis in Acts? Theologia Crucis Signum Crucis , Festschrift fur Erich Dinkier zum 70. Geburtstag & Herausgegeben von Carl Andresen und Gunter Klein (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1979) 73. 65. L. E. Keck argues that the interpretation of Jesus death as substitutionary in Rom 5:6-7 is a post-Pauline gloss. See his article, The Post-Pauline Interpretation of Jesus Death in Rom 5:5-7, Theologia Crucis, 237-48. 66. Ksemann, Pauline Theology, 162. 67. 1 Cor 6:20, 7:23, Gal 3:13, 4:15. 68. Ksemann, Perspectives 45. For the view that Rom 8:32 is based on the Akedah story of Gen 22:17-18, see Alan F. Segal, He W ho Did N ot Spare His Own S o n . . Jesus, Paul and the Akedah, From Jesus to Paul: Studies in honour o f Francis Wright Beare, 169-84. For a view against the Agedah story in preference for 2 Sam 21:1-14 (David & Mephibosheth), see Daniel R. Schwartz, Two Pauline Allusions to the Redemptive Mechanism of the Crucifixion, JBL 102(1983) 257-68. 69. Based upon Gal 3:13 and 2 Cor 5:21. 70. Rom 5:10. 71. See Rom 3:25, 2 Cor 5:19. It is striking that Paul does not use the expression, forgiveness, though he must have been aware of it in the Last Supper tradition. See Ksemann, Pauline Theology, 163. 72. Rom 5:9,8:2. See also Robin S. Barbour, Wisdom and the Cross in 1 Cor 1 and 2, Theologia Crucis Signum Crucis, 59. 73. Matt 15:2. Mark 7:5. Luke 11:38. 74. Mark 2:23-28. Luke 6:6-11. 75. Matt 8:21-22. 76. Mark 7:8-13. 77. Matt 5:23-24. 78. Matt 9:10-12. 79. Matt 27:55-56. 80. Matt 5:18,20,22,26,28,32,34,39,44. 82. Matt 9:3, 26:65. Mark 14:64. 81. Mark 3:22-27. John 8:48-59. 84. Rom 5:6.

83. Luke 23:2,5.

85. Ernst Kasemann, The Jesus Tradition as Access to Christian Origins, Colloquium 13 (1981) 9-10. 86. Kasemann, Jesus M eans Freedom, 61. 87. This outlook in the NT is primarily seen in fragments of hymns and confessions of faith such as Eph 2:5, 5:14 & Col 2:12. See also 1 Cor 15:20, 2 Cor 1:5, 2:14-16, 4:14, 13:4. 88. Kasemann, Jesus M eans Freedom , 61. Contrary to this view, see Birger A. Pearson, Did the Gnostics Curse Jesus? JBL 86 (1967) 301-5. 89. Kasemann, N T Ques, 127. 90. Kasemann, N T (hies, 125-6. 91. Kasemann, N T Ques, 126. 92. 1 Cor 11. 93. 1 Cor 14:26-28. 94. 1 Cor 11. 95. 1 Cor 7. 96. 1 Cor 5. 97. 1 Cor 7:20-24. 98. Cor 8-10. Against Conzelmann, Richard A. Horsley specifies the real ethical problem of 1 Cor 8-10 as freedom of conscience. See his article, Consciousness & Freedom among the Corinthians: 1 Cor 8-10, CBQ 40 (1978) 574-89. 99. 1 Cor 2:2. 100. 1 Cor 15:26. 101. Rev C. J. Burdon, Paul and the Crucified Church, ExpTim 95 (1983/4) 141-5. 102. For a discussion on the reign of Christ as the subjection of the cosmic powers and the reign of Christ which still has to conquer the power of death, see Kasemann, N T Ques, 134-6. 103. Kasemann, Perspectives , 56. 104. Kasemann, N T Ques , 131. For possible explanations for why Paul did not fall victim to the theologia gloriae like the Corinthians, see Barbour 57-8. Kasemann outlines four modern-day protests to crux sola nostra theologia. See his rticle, Pauline Theology , 165-8. 105. Kasemann, Jesus Means Freedom , 69. 107. 2 Cor 1:22. 108. 1 Cor 11:26. 106. 1 Cor 15:49, 51-52.

In discussing Pauls modification of traditional material in Rom 8:18-25, Gager understands .109 Paul to be speaking of salvation in terms of already and not yet. See his article, 329 . Kasemann, Jesus Means Freedom , 72. 111.2 Cor 3:17. 112. Kasemann, Perspectives .110, 59 . For a summary of the various views re origin of this phenomenon, see Barbour .113 59-60 . Paul calls these sophia fanatics the teleioi, the perfect ones in 1 Cor 2:6. Bornkamm .114, 71 . Cor 6:12, 10:23. Cor 11:4. 116. 2 Cor 3:1, 10:12. 117. 2 Cor 12:11, 11:23. 118. Bornkamm 1 .115, 75 . 120. 2 Cor 12:18. 121. 2 Cor 11:6. 122. 2 Cor 2 .119 10:1.

Cor 1:17. 124. 1 Cor 1 .123 4:20 , 2:4. Cor 1 .125 2:6 For a denial that Paul is untrue to himself in adopting the gnostic opponents body .16 of current ideas in 1 Cor 2:6-16, see Bornkamm, 162-4. For the contrast of language and content between 1 Cor 1:18-2:5 and 1 Cor 2:6-16 see Barbour, 60 . Rom 10:14. For a discussion of the origin of the term, euangelion ., see J. A. Fitzmyer, The .126 Gospel in the Theology o f Paul, 350 . Kasemann, Perspectives , 49. 128. 2 Cor 11:4. 129. 1 Cor 1:22. 130. 1 Cor .127 1:18,23, 2:2. Cor 1:18,23. Cor 1:26-31. 132. 1 Cor 1:28 cf Rom 4:17 & 2 Cor 4:6. 136. Barbour 60. 1 Cor 1:18. 133. Bornkamm 1 .131, 161. L. E. Keck, The N T Experience o f Faith (Missouri: Bethany Press .134, 1976( 86 . 137. 2 Cor 1 .135 11:30. Cor 12:1-7. Evidently, the itinerant preachers regarded their visionary and charismatic 2 .138 .experiences as proof that their souls had left the body behind and made contact with the Spirit See Keck, New Testament Experience , 86 . Cor 4. 2 Cor 4,6. 140. 2 Cor 12:9. 141. 2 Cor 4:8-12. 142. Gal 1 .139 1:6. ,Hans D. Betz views the anti-Pauline opposition as Jewish Christian missionaries. See his book .143 Galatians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 7. For an overview of scholarships approach to Pauls opponents in Galatia, see George Howard, Paul: Crisis in G alatia( London: C.U.P ., 1979( 1-19. Howard goes on to argue his thesis that the crisis in Galatia was the widening of the scope of the gospel to include uncircumcised Gentiles, so that God became the universal god, rather than the local deity of Israel. This could only be achieved in Christ who ended the divisive power of the Law. For a summary of his view, see 65 . For the problem of lack o f primary evidence about the opposition see Betz, 5. For a list of facts .144 re the opposition which the epistle yields, see Betz, 7 . ,Gal 6:12-13. On the interpretation of boast as trust see R. Bultmann, kauchaomai in TDNT .145 eds. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, 111:649. Gal .146 2:7. For an explanation of the accusation in Gal 5:11 that Paul still preached circumcision, see .147 Peder Borgen, Paul Preaches Circumcision, Paul & Paulinism , 37-46 . Gal 6:12-13. For the theory that Jewish Christians faced persecution from a Zealot movement in .148 the period A D 48-52, see Robert Jewett, The Agitators and the Galatian Congregation, N T S 1 7 ) 1970( 198-212. Gal 2:21. 150. Gal .149 5:11. Gal 6:14. For the importance of the actuality of the crucifixion of Jesus see Paul S. Minear, The .151 Crucified World: The Enigma of Gal 6:14, Theologia Crucis Signum Crucis, 401 . Gal 2:20. 153. Gal 6:14. 154. Gal 2:19. 155. Minear .152, 397 . Minear, 397-8. This antithesis is to be seen earlier in the letter where Paul traces it back to .156 Abraham and the definition of sonship and the two lines of descent. See Gal 3:6-14, 4:21-31 . Gal 6:17. The stigmata of Jesus may have been intended as an ironic antithesis to the good .157 showing which his opponents wanted to make in the flesh by circumcision. See Minear, 400 . Gal .158 3:28.

33

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.