luther rice journal of christian studies

Luther Rice Journal of Christian Studies Spring 2016

1

Contents

Editor's Page ................................................................................................................................. 1

The Inheritance of the Cosmic Kingdom in Galatians 3:154:7

Miguel Echevarria ................................................................................................................... 2

Expressing Emotion in Poetry: Grief and Recovery

Donald T. Williams ............................................................................................................... 18

Preaching on Pauls Discussion of the Lords Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:1734 Mark Owens.............25 Navigating the Spiritual Gifts Debate: Cessationism, Continuationism, or Neither?

Jonathan Ransom .................................................................................................................. 33

Reformation, Apocalypticism, and Revolution:The Complicated Exchange between Martin Luther and the German Peasants, and Implications for Modern Civil Unrest

Matthew Kasper .................................................................................................................... 42

Lightning and the Lord: Why William Rowes Argument from Natural Evil Fails

Doug Taylor ........................................................................................................................... 60

Book Reviews ............................................................................................................................. 90

Ronald E. Osborn. Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering.

Reviewed by Adam Howell ............................................................................................... 91

John H. Walton. The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate.

Reviewed by Richard C. McDonald ................................................................................... 94

Michael Reeves. Rejoicing In Christ. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2015. Pp. 135. Reviewed by Dustin Mathews ........................................................................................... 96

Chadwick Thornhill. The Chosen People: Election, Paul, and Second Temple Judaism. Reviewed by Tim Skinner .................................................................................................... 98

John Goldingay. Do We Need the New Testament? Letting the Old Testament Speak for Itself.

Reviewed by Joshua Stewart ............................................................................................. 101

Submission Guidelines, Luther Rice Journal of Christian Studies ................................... 104

Submission Guidelines for Book Reviews ............................................................................ 108


1

Editor's Page

James Kinnebrew, General Editor

Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Luther Rice Journal of Christian Studies! This

journal takes the place of our former publication, The Journal of Biblical Ministry and

broadens the scope of subject matter beyond that of vocational ministry. Its mission is To

instruct and edify Christian leaders through scholarly articles and practical essays relevant to life

and ministry. I believe you will find it both edifying and enjoyable.

We have been blessed to have an abundance of friends and faculty contribute several

fine articles to this issue, as a look in the Table of Contents will confirm. Rather than

preview each one, I would like to just express my appreciation to each contributor and to a

busy and dedicated editorial and advisory board, whose names appear at the front of this

journal. These dear friends have been relentless in their pursuit of quality and excellence as

they have sought out (and written) articles and reviews for your edification. The fruit of

their labors will speak for itself.

Please give us your feedback and suggestions for future articles and features. We

want to be as useful to you as we can be.

Faithfully,

J.M. Kinnebrew

J. M. Kinnebrew, Ph.D. General Editor


The Inheritance of the Cosmic Kingdom in Galatians 3:154:7

by Miguel Echevarria

Galatians 3:154:7 is rich in OT allusions. Chief among these are the stories of the

inheritance promised to Abrahams offspring and Israels exodus from Egypt. In this

article, I will argue that Paul interacts with the texts of such stories to underscore that

believers in Christ are the true heirs of the promises, inheriting a kingdom that stretches

beyond the original borders of Canaan to encompass the entire cosmos. Like the Israelites,

believers will not receive their inheritance until they complete the Spirit-led new exodus.

Looking at the OT texts which Paul cites and alludes to will be crucial for my

argument, for he never explicitly defines the content of the inheritance.1 As well, he never

says that the inheritance has any relation to a worldwide kingdom. The OT texts with

which Paul interacts would have been part of the scriptural matrix of Paul and his readers.

Only by peering into this interpretive framework can we see that Paul envisions that

Christians will inherit a worldwide kingdom.

Regarding the structure, scholars normally interpret Galatians 3:154:7 in terms of

explanation (3:1529) and illustration (4:17). That is, they argue that in 3:1529 Paul explains

that the inheritance is only received by faith, and in 4:17 he illustrates what he means by

employing an example from the Greco-Roman legal custom of guardianship.2 I see no

difficulty in discussing this passage in terms of explanation and illustration. My contention is

that the illustration is not from the Greco-Roman world, but a typological one from the OT:

the exodus from Egypt. Paul employs this story to clarify that believers will not receive

their inheritance until they complete the new exodus sojourn.

In order to prove my argument, I will show that in 3:1529 Paul interacts with several

Miguel Echevarria, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Christian Ministries at University of Mobile. This

article is a condensed and revised version of chapter 6 of his dissertation, The Future Inheritance of Land in the Pauline Epistles (Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014).

1 I follow Richard Hayss explanation of the relationship between quotation/direct citation, allusion, and echo: Quotation, allusion, and echo may be seen as points along a spectrum of intertextual reference, moving from the explicit to the subliminal. As we move farther away from overt citation, the source recedes into the discursive distance, the intertextual relations become less determinate, and the demand on the readers listening power grows greater (Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989], 23). In this paper, I will only address direct citations and allusions.

2 Thomas Schreiner, Galatians (ZECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 218, argues that in 4:17 Paul provides here an illustration from everyday life regarding the reception of the inheritance. Similarly, Richard Longenecker, Galatians (WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1990), 161, argues that Paul illustrates what he means in 4:17 by using the analogy of a son growing up in a patrician household; James Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; London: A & C Black, 1993; reprt., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 161: Having given a quick sketch of salvation history Paul hastens to draw the appropriate lessons in the face of the crisis presented to him in Galatia.


3

OT passages to explain that Christ is the promised Davidic King who will inherit the world

to come. Those who place their faith in Christ are fellow-heirs of his cosmic kingdom. Then,

in 4:17 I will contend that Paul brings to mind the exodus story to illustrate that believers

will receive their inheritance when they complete the new exodus journey.

Galatians 3:1529: Explanation Before observing Galatians 3:1529, it is important to note that 3:14 sums up the

entire argument about the Spirit that begins in 3:2.3 Here, Paul asserts that the blessing of

Abraham ( ) is fulfilled in the reception of the promise of the Spirit

( , 3:14). Paul therefore proclaims that the Spirit is the

blessing promised in Genesis (12:13, 15:121).4 This is the case even though there is no

explicit mentioning of the Spirit in the Abrahamic covenant promises.5

Paul does not make a new revelation in identifying the Spirit as the blessing of

Abraham. Instead, he echoes what is already proclaimed in Isaiah 44:3:

I will pour out my Spirit on your seed ( ) And my blessing upon your descendants ( ) The parallelism of these phrases identifies the Spirit ( ) as the blessing ( ),

which is what Paul affirms in Galatians 3:14.6 Also like Isaiah 44:3, in Galatians 3:14 Paul

pairs two clauses to make his point:

, .

3 Hays, Echoes, 110.

4 Hays rightly explains that the hermeneutical function of the Spirit is to generate an inspired

reading that discloses the secret truth to which the story of Abraham points: God will grant the eschatological Spirit to a community of gentiles, who will thereby become recognizable as Abrahams true offspring (ibid., 111). I would add that the eschatological Spirit is also given to believing Jews, so that people from all nations might become members of Abrahams family and heirs of the land, fulfilling the promise of universal blessing.

5 Schreiner, Galatians, 218.

6 This parallelism is also noted by J. Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1999), 276. The LXX also follows this parallelism:

.

Note how is parallel to , identifying the spirit as the blessing.


The second clause explains that the blessing () of Abraham is the

promised Spirit (). This construction is similar to the way in which Isaiah 44:3

parallels two clauses to make the same assertion. Even though there is no exact citation of

Isaiah 44:3 in Galatians 3:14, Paul clearly depends and interacts with the text of Isaiah. Paul,

then, as Isaiah, affirms that the Spirit is the fulfillment of the promise of blessing to

Abrahama promise that extends to the nations ( ) in Christ Jesus (

, Gal 3:14).

With this in mind, I now shift to Pauls inheritance argument in Galatians 3:1518. The

inheritance, like the blessing, is a promise of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:13, 15:121).

So Paul transitions from one Abrahamic covenant promise in 3:1314 to another in 3:1529.

He does so by employing the vocative (Brothers) at the inception of 3:15 (as he

does elsewhere, 1:11, 4:12, 5:13, 6:1) to indicate the beginning of a new section.7 The use of

the vocative specifies a transition from the discussion about the blessing of the Spirit in

3:1314 to a new, but related, topicthe inheritance in 3:1529. We should not make the

error of infusing Pauls discussion of blessing into that of the inheritance.8 Doing so will

lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of Pauls argument.

At the inception of his inheritance argument, Paul says that the previously ratified

covenant () may neither be annulled nor altered by any means (3:15).9 The

7 Longenecker, Galatians, 126.

8 Some examples are F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002),

17173; Ronald Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 155, 165; S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., Once in Custody Now in Christ: An Exposition of Galatians 3:23 29, EmJ 13, no. 2 (2004): 211; Frank Matera, Galatians (Sacra Pagina; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007), 126; Dieter Betz, Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 156; Sam K. Williams, Promise in Galatians: A Reading of Pauls Reading of Scripture, JBL 107, no. 4 (1988).

9 Some scholars believe should be translated as will/testament in 3:15, rather than covenant, based on three main reasons. (1) The noun is commonly understood as a will/testament in Classical literature (e.g., Plato, Laws 923cd). (2) Since Paul uses a human analogy (, ), should be understood as having a secular sense, rather than its distinctly biblical sense of covenant (Betz, Galatians, 15445; Matera, Galatians,126; Johannes Behm and Gottfried Quell, , TDNT, 2:128). (3) There is familiar legal terminology associated with a last will and testament in Gal 3:15. In particular, Pauls use of the verb , which refers to the annulling of a will (LSJ, 31), and , which refers to the adding of a codicil (BDAG, 370).

Nevertheless, those who contend that should be understood as covenant have the weight of the evidence in their favor. (1) Just because Paul introduces an illustration from everyday life, does not mean that must be understood as will/testament. Paul makes an argument from the lesser to the greater, i.e., what is true of a lesser covenant (Gal 3:15) is all the more the case with a greater one (Gal 3:17; Schreiner, Galatians, 226; Scott Hahn, Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: in Galatians 3:1518, CBQ 67 [2005]: 88). Legal terminology may be used with both wills/testaments and covenants (Hahn, Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah: 87; Schreiner, Galatians, 227). So the legal terms and do not restrict the sense of to a secular will. (3) Paul, like the LXX, consistently


5

covenant in view is the Abrahamic covenant, for in 3:16 Paul says that the promises were

spoken to Abraham and his seed. Although the plural term (promises) seems

to point to all that God swore to Abrahamland, seed, and blessing (Gen 12:13, Gen 15:1

19)the remainder of verse 16 suggests that Paul has a more specific promise in mind.

Paul goes on to say that the promises were not spoken to multiple offspring, but to

one offspring, one seed (). To substantiate his point, he cites verbatim the words

(and to your seed), which suggest that there is a single beneficiary in

view. The promises to which the beneficiary is heir may be identified by considering the

context of the citation . Throughout Genesis, the LXX embeds this

citation whenever the promise of land is made to the descendants of Abraham. Genesis

13:15, 17:8, and 24:7 will illustrate this point:

Gen 13:15: Gen 17:8: Gen 24:7:

In each of these passages, the words are used when the land is

sworn to Abrahams offspring.10 The context of these passages makes this assertion

indisputable. Also, since the words strongly point to the promise of

land in Genesis, Pauls quotation is deeply rooted in this intertextual tradition. Pauls

citation thereby follows an established OT pattern that points to the land promised to

Abrahams offspring.

For further clarity, it is important to note that the OT commonly refers to the land as

the inheritance of Gods people. This idea is apparent in passages such as Genesis 15:7, in

which God tells Abraham that he will gather him from the region of the Chaldeans that he

might inherit () the land, and in Genesis 28:4, in which Isaac prays that God

may bless Jacob so that he might inherit () the land. Even in contexts

employs with the sense of covenant (Hahn, Covenant, Oath, and the Aqedah, 8081; Behm and Quell, , TDNT, 2:107; see Rom 9:4; 11:27; 1 Cor 11:25; Gal 3:17; 4:24; Eph 4:12). (4) As opposed to a testament, there are several examples in the OT where a covenant between persons was considered to be indissoluble, as in Gal 3:15 and 18 (So Schreiner, Galatians, 227; see Gen 21:2232; 26:2631; 31:4445; 1 Sam 18:3; 20:8; 22:8; 23:18; 2 Sam 3:12). (5) Since Gal 3:17 refers to the Abrahamic covenant, the context seems to indicate that in 3:15 should be rendered as covenant (ibid.).While it is possible that Paul moves from an idea of will/testament in 3:15 to a covenant in 3:17, it is more likely that he retains the same term throughout, instead of requiring his readers to switch back and forth between will and covenant (ibid.). These arguments suggest that there is more warrant for rendering in Gal 3:15 as covenant rather than will/testament.

10 The LXX uses elsewhere in the Pentateuch (e.g., Exod 33:1; Deut 34:4) to indicate that the land is promised to Gods people.


where it is not called the inheritance, the land is still recognized as the inheritance of Israel

because it was passed down to Abrahams descendants by the promise.11 This is the same

territory that the prophets, such as Isaiah, reaffirm [as] the land which God promised to

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob [as] the inheritance of their descendants.12 More accurately,

then, Pauls citation in Galatians 3:16 may be said to refer to the land inheritance

promised to Abrahams offspring.

Since some scholars infuse the promise blessing into that of inheritance, I will now

show that the former follows a different intertextual pattern than that of the latter.

Examples of the pattern pertaining to the promise of blessing are found in Genesis 22:18

and Sirach 44:21. Genesis 22:18 states, All the nations of the earth will be blessed

(in your seed) (cf. Gen 26:4). Sirach 44:21 says, Because of this, he [the Lord]

assured him with an oath that the nations would be blessed . In these

passages, the prepositional phrase affirms that the promise of blessing

would come to the nations in Abrahams seed.

In Galatians 3:14, Paul follows this pattern in saying that the blessing of Abraham

(i.e., the Spirit) comes to the gentiles (in Christ Jesus). He employs the

prepositional phrase to correspond to in Genesis 22:18 and

Sirach 44:21, clarifying the one through whom the blessing comes. I illustrate this point

below:

Gen 22:18: Sir 44:21: Gal 3:14: Thus, Paul employs in place of to specify that the one

through whom the blessing of the Holy Spirit comes to the nations is Christ Jesus.

In view of these observations, the quotation of the phrase in

Galatians 3:16, rather than prepositional phrases (Gen 22:18; Sir 44:21) or

(Gal 3:15), signifies that the inheritance of land is in view in 3:1518. This

verbatim citation, along with the new section in 3:15, strongly points to the fact that Paul

transitions from the promise of blessing in 3:1314 to the promise of a land inheritance in

3:1518. Therefore, the plural term in Galatians 3:16 points to the various

occasions in which the land was promised to Abrahams offspring (Gen 12:7; 13:15; 15:18;

11 James Hester, Pauls Concept of Inheritance: A Contribution to the Understanding of Heilsgeschichte

(London: Oliver & Boyd, 1968), 24.

12 Ibid., 25. See also Paul R. Williamson, Promise and Fulfillment: The Territorial Inheritance, in The Land of Promise: Biblical, Theological, and Contemporary Perspectives (eds. Philip Johnston and Peter Walker; Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000), 1534. For an overview of the inheritance theme in the OT, see my The Future Inheritance of Land in the Pauline Epistles, 3079.


7

26:3; 28:1315; 35:912; 46:4; cf. Pss. Sol. 12:6). The question we must now ask is, Who is

Abrahams offspring?

The Offspring of Abraham

Paul cuts right to the chase, using the term to narrow the offspring of

Abraham and the heir of the promises of land to one individual, Christ.13 His narrowing

down of the heir strongly echoes the thought of 2 Samuel 7:1214, which limits the seed

() of David, who will reign in the land, to Gods kingly son. Since David is

Abrahams descendent (e.g., Ps 89:34; Matt 1:16), his royal offspring is also the seed of

Abraham. The narrowing of the heir also echoes Psalm 2:68, which limits the heir of the

land to one individual, Gods kingly son. The notions of kingship and sonship in this

passage imply that, like 2 Samuel 7:1214, Gods royal son is ultimately the descendent of

Abraham. The fact that both 2 Samuel 7:1012 and Psalm 2:68 narrow the heir of the land

to Gods son, Abrahams offspring, provides valid warrant for claiming that Paul alludes to

these passages.14

Pauls use of the term carries an added significance. The LXX uses to

translate the Hebrew noun (e.g., Lev 4:3, 5, 16), meaning Messiah. The Messiah is the

anticipated Davidic king who will rule over Israel in the coming age (e.g., Num 24:1719; 2

Sam 2:5; Dan 9:2526; Rev 2022). 15 The royal Psalms clarify that this event will take place

in the future (e.g., Ps 2; 20; 21; 28; 45; 72; 89; 101). Several texts at Qumran (4QDibHam

13 N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T & T

Clark, 1991), 16368, seems to rely on the collective use of in 3:29 to argue that the singular in 3:16 is collective and refers to the idea that in Christ all the people of God are summed up into one family (ibid., 174). Andrew Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 73, rightly argues that the natural reading of the text is an emphatic singular in contrast to the plural (or collective) seedWright proposes that Jesus is the Messiah who sums up all Israel in himself and thereby rescues the possibility of a collective seed here. The reading seems entirely forced and depends on Wrights understanding of Jesus as Israels Messiah in other Pauline texts. The crucial difference to Wrights theory is that he must read the text backward from Gal 3:29. On a sequential reading of the text, there is nothing to indicate a collective sense in 3:16. On the contrary, it is only in v. 29 that Christians are incorporated into the one seed.

14 I quote each of these passages for comparison. 2 Sam 7:1214: And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no moreMoreover, the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a houseI will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom (ESV). Ps 2:68: As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill. I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession (ESV). Each of these passages clearly narrows the heir to one individual, Gods royal offspring, an intertextual pattern which Paul seems to follow.

15 N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 48689. See 2 Sam 7; Ps 20:7; Isa 9:16; 11:19; Jer 30:9; 33:1426.


[=4Q504] 3:47; 4Q246 2:1) even assert that Gods royal son in 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2the

very texts to which Paul alludes in Galatians 3:16is the anticipated Messiah. In addition,

4 Ezra 7:2829 states that Gods messianic son will arise from the line of David (cf. 4 Ezra

12:32). Lastly, Psalms of Solomon 17:2146 expresses the expectation that Davids son will

become king and restore the fortunes of Israel. Verse 32 of this passage explicitly states that

their king shall be x . Against this background, Pauls use of also

carries the messianic expectation of a king from Davids lineage who will reign in the

land.16

What is more, the reverberation of Psalm 2:68 in Galatians 3:16 brings to light that

the inheritance of Christ has been expanded beyond the borders of the original promised

land (Canaan) to include the entire coming world. This point is evidenced in that Psalm 2:8

declares that the nations are the Davidic kings inheritance ( [MT];

[LXX]) and the ends of the earth are his possession ( [MT]; [LXX]). As a

result, it is evident that Christ, the long awaited Davidic king, will rule over a worldwide

inheritance.17 The theme of inheritance in Galatians 3:1517 may therefore be most

accurately described as the worldwide kingdom over which Christ will rule, simply

described as the cosmic kingdom.

Later in Galatians 3:18, Paul explains that the inheritance () cannot be

obtained by observing the Laws demands, for it is a gift of the Abrahamic covenant. Pauls

use of the term which commonly refers to the land inheritance in the LXX,

both in the Pentateuch, such as in Exodus 6:8 and Numbers 33:53, and later when the land

has been expanded in passages such as Psalm 2 and Isaiah 54confirms that the

inheritance concept is the focus of this passage. 18 In view of the echo of Psalm 2:68 in

Galatians 3:16, I have warrant to assume that the term points to the inheritance

of a future worldwide kingdom. This is the cosmic kingdom, as Paul argues, that rightly

belongs to Christ.

The focus on the inheritance in 3:1518 sets the tone for the remainder of chapter 3,

which will continue to draw attention to this promise and show how all those who are in

16 One of the clearest passages in the NT that identifies as the Son of God, i.e., the long

awaited Messiah, is found in Peters proclamation in Matt 16:16 (cf. Matt 8:29, 14:33). David L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 404, argues that Peters proclamation echoes 2 Sam 7:1012 and Ps 2:68. Another possible echo for Peters confession is 1 Chr 17:13.

17 The expansion of the land promise is also evident in Isa 54; 6566.

18 is commonly use to translate words of the stem (W. Foerster and J. Herrmann, , TDNT, 3:769). This word, along with and , is used in the LXX for rendering Old Testament inheritance terms. See also Johannes Eichler, Inheritance, Lot, Portion, NIDNTT 2:298; LSJ, 95960.


9

Christ are fellow-heirs of the kingdom in the coming world. Also, since there are no other

promises mentioned in the remainder of chapter 3, the term (3:22, 29) continues

to point to the promises of the inheritance of the cosmic kingdom.

Fellow-Heirs of the World In Galatians 3:19-29, Paul discusses how others become heirs of the worldwide

kingdom promised to Christ. He begins in 3:19 by arguing that the Law remained in force

until the seed for whom the promises were made, whom he has already identified as

Christ, arrived on the scene. The fact that Christ originally came to the unredeemed earth

suggests that he has not yet received his inheritance. Passages such as 2 Samuel 7 and

Psalm 2, which will be fulfilled in Revelation 21-22, point to a time when the curse of sin

will be lifted and Christ will rule physically over a redeemed earth. Such a time will not

come about until, as Daniel 7:13 claims, the Son of Man comes on the clouds to receive his

everlasting dominion. So although Christ is already reigning at the right hand of God

(Mark 16:9, Acts 7:55), he has yet to rule over an earthly inheritance.19 This sense of the

inheritance is consistent with Pauls argument in Romans 4:1325 and 8:1425, in which he

envisions the inheritance of the future eschatological world, and is also in line with

passages such as 2 Peter 3:13 and Revelation 21-22, in which the inheritance is envisioned

to be the new heavens and new earth. So when Christ at last reigns over the coming

world, the promised inheritance to Abrahams offspring will be realized.

With this in mind, in Galatians 3:21 Paul goes on to specify that others become

beneficiaries of the promised inheritance by faith in Jesus Christ (

).20 He continues to assert this point in the remainder of chapter 3 by testifying that

19 I do see an already-not-yet tension in the reign of Christ. Christ is already reigning, but he is not

yet reigning physically on the earth. The inheritance is the fulfillment of the earthly reign of Christ, i.e., the not yet aspect of the kingdom.

20 An extensive discussion of the debate is beyond the scope of this article. I will, however, offer a concise treatment of the subjective and objective genitive interpretations of in Galatians 3:21. Scholars who prefer the subjective interpretation argue that this phrase refers to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (Dan Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 116), generally maintaining that the phrase is a reference to Jesus faithfulness to give his life on the cross. Some even take this as evidence of his covenant faithfulness which rectified the unfaithfulness of Israel (N. T. Wright, Justification: Gods Plan & Pauls Vision [Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2009], 12236.). A reference to Christs self-giving deathwhether one decides to draw out the covenantal implications or notseems to make theological sense and may even be seen as the equivalent to Gal 1:4: who gave himself for our sins in order that he might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of God our Father (Dunn, Galatians, 195). As well, subjective genitive proponents maintain that the substantival participle communicates the need for faith (Wright, Justification, 12236). This idea may be represented in the following manner: the promise, by means of Jesus faithfulness, is given to those who believe, avoiding the sense of redundancy that may be noted in the objective genitive readingthe promise, by means of faith in Jesus Christ, is given to those who believewhich makes two references to faith in the same sentence.


believers are now sons of God ( ) and recipients of the promise through faith in

Christ Jesus in verse 26, and by stating that by faith believers also belong to Christ and are

counted as the seed of Abraham ( ) and heirs in accord with the

promise ( ) in verse 29.21 Thus, it is through Christ, the

original successor of the promised inheritance (3:16), that people become members of

Abrahams family and fellow-heirs. Although the promised has yet to be fulfilled, the heirs

anticipate the day when they will dwell in the world over which Christ will physically

reign (e.g., 1 Cor 15:5057; Rev 2022).

Another important point is that Galatians 3:2229, like verse 16, alludes to the thought

of Psalm 2, except that in this case it is even stronger. Psalms 2:68 asserts that Gods son,

the Davidic king, will inherit the entire earth.22 After that, Psalm 2:12 affirms that those

who refuse to honor Gods kingly son will perish, while those who seek refuge in him (

[MT]; [LXX]) will be blessed. This verse thereby suggests that those who fail to

Scholars who favor the objective interpretation take to refer to faith in Jesus Christ (Dunn, Galatians, 195; Ronald Fung, Galatians, 16465; Betz, Galatians, 175), taking this phrase to be a reference to faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. Such a reading seems in line with Pauls emphasis on the significance of faith in Christ as opposed to observance of the Law in 3:2129 (So Schreiner, Galatians, 244). In addition, those who argue for an objective genitive reading claim that the participle after Paul has already noted the need for faith in Christ in the phrase serves to emphasize that the promise is obtained by faith in Christ, not by the Law. Such repetition was not uncommon to Greek writers. Authors from the Homeric to the Hellenistic period used repetition as a valuable rhetorical device for the sake of emphasis (see P. E. Pickering, Did the Greek Ear Detect Careless Verbal Repetitions, CQ 53 (2003): 49099; P. E. Easterling, Repetition in Sophocles, Hermes 101 (1973): 1434). Hence, Pauls reiteration of terms would have been recognized by a Greek speaker as an attempt to accentuate his pointthe importance of faith in Christ.

Of the two readings, the objective genitive is the best option, for Paul, in Gal 3:2122, desires to emphasize faith in Christ as the means by which one receives the inheritance. This is evidenced in the way he employs repetition to stress his point. Those who are inclined to reject the objective reading on account of linguistic redundancy miss the point of Pauls rhetorical style.

21 See the discussion in Yon-Gyong Kwon, Eschatology in Galatians (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 12527. In arguing that believerswhich admittedly at this point are composed of mainly Gentilesare heirs of the promises to Abraham, I do not wish to suggest that there is no hope for ethnic Israel. Such a position would negate Pauls argument in Rom 911. My outlook on the future for Israel is line with the excellent work of John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). Concerning Rom 911, Barclay argues that the success of the Gentile mission signals for Paul the spreading impact of wealth, which will return to its home when Israel is restored by faith in Christ to the root of Gods unconditional mercy (11:3032). From start (9:68) to finish (11:3032), Israel is constituted by a calling that bears no relation to its worthand into this distinctly Israelite privilege, Gentiles are also drawn into this indiscriminate grace (ibid., 55657). He goes on to say that the incongruity of grace gives Paul confidence to look beyond the disobedience of Israel, since the God who called this people without regard to their desert wills to overcome their impiety by his world-embracing mercy (ibid., 557).

22 See Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 150 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 2004), 6869, who contends that Psalm 2 points to the Davidic kings worldwide rule in Revelation (e.g., Ps 1:5; 12:5; 19:5).


11

honor the Davidic king will be destroyed and will have no prospect of living under his

rule. Similarly, Galatians 3:2229 insinuates that those who reject Christ, the long awaited

Davidic king, will not inherit the world.

This idea is even clearer in comparing the language of the Psalmist and Paul. The

Psalmist speaks of finding refuge in him ( [MT]; [LXX]), that is, the King, in

Psalm 2:12, and Paul speaks of trusting in Christ Jesus ( ) in Galatians

3:26 and 28. Since both the King in Psalm 2:12 and Christ Jesus in Galatians 3:26 and 28 are

the same personthe long awaited Davidic rulerthe words in him in the former

passage and in Christ Jesus in the latter bring to light that the hope of inheriting the

world is found only by trusting in King Jesus.

Furthermore, the presence of Psalm 2 strengthens the idea that Galatians 3:1529

presents the inheritance as the cosmic kingdom promised to Gods son. Only those who

place their faith in Christ Jesus, the king to whom honor is due, will also receive such an

inheritance. But those who reject his rule have no hope of dwelling in the kingdom over

which he will exercise his full dominion.

So although in Galatians 3:1529 Paul does not specifically define the content of the

inheritance, the reverberations of passages such as 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 suggest that he

envisions that Abrahams offspring, Christ Jesus and his loyal subjects, will inherit a

kingdom that stretches from one side of the world to the other. There is certainly no need

for Paul to overtly make this claim, for the passages to which he alludes, or directly cites,

are those which would have been part of the matrix of texts that bring to mind that the

inheritance is grounded in the promise of land that has come to encompass the kingdom in

the coming world.

Galatians 4:1-7: Typological Illustration

After revealing the heirs of the kingdom, Paul now puts things into perspective for

his readers. In Galatians 4:17, he illustrates that although believers are the promised heirs,

they will not receive the worldwide kingdom until they complete the new exodus journey.

Thus, Paul gives his readers the following perspective: The inheritance has been promised

to you. But you do not yet possess it. You must complete the present new exodus sojourn,

with all of its trials and tribulations, until you at last enter the world over which Christ will

reign.

In spite of the apparent exodus context, scholars often argue that the Greco-Roman

legal custom of guardianship is the background to Galatians 4:12. According to this

custom, the paterfamilias appoints one or more guardians for his children who are entitled

to inherit his property after his death. Though he is legally the lord of all, as a minor he is

no different from a slave. Hanz Deiter Betz contends that the analogy between the slave


and the minor is one of appearance only and should be taken with a grain of salt.23

Consequently, if a better reading suits the context, it should be preferred.

James M. Scott offers that better reading. Scott argues that Galatians 4:12 should be

read in light of the story of the exodus.24 Since the exodus story culminates with Israels

entry into the land (e.g., Exod 3:78), such a background fits well with Pauls inheritance

argument in Galatians 3:154:7.

Being a Jew immersed in the Old Testament, an appeal to the exodus tradition would

not have been strange to Paul. As Sylvia Keesmaat argues,

In the scriptural writings there is a tradition which links the promise to Abraham [the

inheritance] with the exodus event. Notable texts are Exod. 2.24; 3.2526; 6:29; and Ps.

105.42, where God declares that he will come to save the people because he has

remembered his covenant with AbrahamThese texts contributed heavily to the

intertextual matrix upon which Paul was drawing.25

Keesmaats explanation shows that it is more likely that Galatians 4:12 echoes the

exodus tradition, which culminates with the entrance into the land, than the Greco-Roman

legal custom of guardianship.

Being persuaded by this argument, I will show that 4:12 follows Israels original

exodus story. This then sets up a parallel with the new exodus story in 4:37, which

culminates when Gods people inherit the kingdom in the coming world.

Original Exodus

Paul begins his illustration by asserting that while the heir () of a

fathers land is a minor, he is no different from a slave, even though he is the lord of all

( ) (4:1) James Dunn points out that the idea of the (Jewish) child as lord of

23 Betzs comments are worth quoting in full: The illustration itself is not without difficulties.

Certainly it was taken from legal practices as it was known to Paul and his readers. Paul refers to the practice in Roman law called tutela testamentaria (guardianship established by testament). According to this institution the paterfamilias appoints one or more guardians for his children who are entitled to inherit his property after his death. During the period of time in which the heir ( ) is a minor () he is potentially the legal owner () of the inheritance, but he is for the time being prevented from disposing of it. Although he is legally (potentially) the owner of all, he appears not to be different from a slave ( ). To be sure, this comparison must be taken cum granu salis. The similarity between the minor and the slave is one of appearance only (Galatians, 203). I first noted this citation in Rodrigo Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel: New Exodus and New Creation Motifs in Galatians (Ph.D. diss., Duke Divinity School, 2007), 160.

24 James M. Scott, Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background of in the Pauline Corpus (WUNT 48; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 12186.

25 Silvia Keesmaat, Paul and His Story: (Re)Interpreting the Exodus Tradition (JSNT 81; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 177.


13

all may well reflect and affirm the tradition already well-established which interpreted the

land promised to Abraham as the whole earth.26 Similarly, Scott, pointing to such

passages as Sirach 44:19-23, argues that the phrase lord of all carries the notion of

universal sovereignty.27 That is to say, the people of Israel were considered lords of the

entire earth. Pauls argument that the heir is the lord of all thereby echoes the Jewish

idea that Israels departure from Egypt was intended to culminate in the inheritance of the

world.28

Since Jewish tradition held that Israel was the heir of the world, it is best to see the

term as a reference to Israel.29 Although destined to receive the inheritance, the

remainder of Galatians 4:1 notes that there was a time when Israel was considered a minor.

Such a designation, as Scott argues, alludes to Hosea 11.1, where, in a unique way in the

LXX, the term refers to Gods people as young at the time of the Exodus when God called

Israel out of Egypt as his son.30

Yet as long as the Israelites remained under bondage, they were no better than a slave

(Gal 4:1). Galatians 4:2 notes that Israel remained in this state until the appointed time (

) of the father. This phrase likely echoes Genesis 15:13, in which God informs

Abraham that his descendants will be sojourners and strangers in a foreign land where

they will be afflicted for four-hundred years. Scott notes that after this verse follows the

promise of the exodus in Genesis 15:1416 and the land in Genesis 15:1821 which was

associated with Israels eschatological hope of world rule.31 The period of 400 years in

Genesis 15:13 could therefore point to an appointed time in Israels history. Accordingly,

in Galatians 4:2 Paul likely alludes to the time that Israel was a slave in Egypt until the

appointed 400 years came to an end.

After considering the entire illustration in Galatians 4:12, it is apparent that Paul

alludes to the series of Jewish texts that make up the exodus story, which present the

Israelites as the rightful lords of the world who were enslaved under Egyptian rule (Gal

4:1). While in slavery, the people of Israel were subject to the authority of Egypts officials

and overseers (Gal 4:2). This lasted until the appointed time of 400 years was up (Gal 4:2),

26 Dunn, Galatians, 211.

27 Scott, Adoption as Sons, 13135.

28 See Martin A. Halvorson-Taylor, Enduring Exile: The Metaphorization of Exile in the Hebrew Bible (VTSup; Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2011), who examines the pervasive tradition of continuing exile in the OT.

29 Morales, The Spirit and the Restoration of Israel, 165.

30 Ibid.



at which point commenced the sojourn to the cosmic land where Abrahams offspring

would be a kingdom (cf. Exod 19:6).

New Exodus

In Galatians 4:3, the words (thus also we) set up a comparison

between the original exodus in 4:12 and the new exodus 4:37.32 Paul then asserts, When

we were minors, we were enslaved under the elements of the world (

). Like the allusion to Israel in Galatians 4:1, Pauls readers were once also

minors and enslaved under a ruthless taskmaster. While Israel was enslaved to Egypt,

believers were enslaved to the elements ( ) during the jurisdiction of the Law.33

Paul continues his comparison in Galatians 4:4 by asserting that his readers remained

enslaved minors until the fullness of the time ( ) came. The

fullness of the time is a common theme in Jewish literature. In particular, texts such as 2

Baruch 29:8, Tobit 14:5, and Jeremiah 36:10 (LXX) affirm that it refers to a date that God set

beforehand.34 The phrase fullness of the time in verse 4 thereby stands parallel to the

appointed time of the father in verse 2, the date which God had foreordained to

Abraham that Israel would be delivered from bondage to Egypt.35 Therefore, it is likely

that Galatians 4:4 refers to the time when God brought to an end the period of slavery for

believers, as he did for Israel in Galatians 4:2.

Moreover, in Galatians 5:5 the fullness of the time came to pass when God sent

forth his Son, having been born from a woman, having been born under the Law. The

sending of the Sonthe Messiahfits well with the exodus story. Jewish tradition,

stemming from Deuteronomy 15:1518, evidences that the Messiah would be a second

Moses who would redeem his people from oppression.36 Christ as a second Moses is also

32 Scott points out the uses of in typological arguments in Matt 12:40, 24:37, 39; John

3:14; Rom 5:12, 18, 19; 1 Cor 15:22 (ibid., 150). Also, in this formula of comparison the pronoun refers to both Jews and Gentiles. Agreeing with Schreiner, Galatians, 267: We () could be restricted to the Jews, but since Paul speaks of the worlds elements, he probably includes both Jews and Gentiles. Contra Scott Hafemann, Paul and the Exile of Israel in Galatians 34, in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (ed. James Scott; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 34041, who argues that Paul only has Jews in mind.

33 Schreiner, Galatians, 269. The may refer to a number of elements that ruled over humanity before the coming of Christ, such as demonic powers. For a survey of the possible interpretations, see again Schreiner (ibid., 26769).


35 Ibid., 142.

36 Ibid.,164.


15

found in Gospel texts such as Matthew 2:5, which asserts that Jesus, like Moses, was called

out of Egypt (cf. Mark 9:7; Hos 11:1). Christ as a second Moses is supported by the NT and

coheres extremely well with contemporary Jewish expectation concerning Gods new act

of salvation, in which a new Moses was expected to inaugurate a new exodus event.37 It

also suits the new exodus typology of Galatians 4:37, in that Christ is the new Moses

whom God sent to deliver his people out of bondage to the Law (cf. Gal 3:2329).

This point is supported in the final clause of Galatians 4:5, in which Paul asserts that

God sent his son in order that he might redeem those under the Law. Like Moses, Christ

redeemed his people from slavery. While Moses redeemed Israel from slavery under

Egypt, Christ redeemed his people from slavery under the Law (cf. Gal 3:13). Christ is

therefore the second Moses who delivered his people from slavery. Also like Moses, Christ

freed his people in order that they may one day inherit the world over which he will reign.

Furthermore, those whom Christ has rescued from bondage under the Law are

adopted as sons (, Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4; Eph 1:5).38 At the appointed time in

salvation history, God sent Christ to redeem both Jews and Gentiles to be his people. When

understood in the context of the new exodus, it is clear that just as Israel, the heir to the

Abrahamic promise of land, was redeemed as Gods son from slavery in Egypt at the time

specified by the Father (Gen 15:13; Ex 4:22; Hos 11:1), so too believers were adopted as sons

from slavery under the Law at the fullness of time and thereby became heirs to the

Abrahamic promise.39 Pauls readers, then, having been delivered from bondage, are now

sons of God destined to inherit the worldwide kingdom.40

In Galatians 4:67, Paul will now highlight the role of the Spirit in assuring that Gods

people complete their new exodus journey and inherit the cosmic kingdom promised to

them.

37 Keesmaat, Paul and His Story, 16263. 38 The term has received much attention. I will only offer these brief comments. BDAG, 1024,

notes that is a legal term of adoption of children in Paul, only in a transcendent filial relationship between God and humans (with the legal aspect, not gender specificity, as major semantic component. In Gal 4:5, the term is used of those who believe in Christ and are accepted as his children (ibid.). For an excellent study of this term, see Scotts Adoption as Sons.


40 Keesmaat, Paul and His Story, 17879, insightfully asserts: It was in the exodus narrative that Israel was first called Gods son; in recollection of the new exodus that such an identification was reinterpreted; in hope for a new exodus event that this sonship expected. See Exod 4:22; Deut 14:32; Hos 2:2 (LXX); Isa 43:57; Jer 38: 920; Jub. 1:2425, noted by Keesmaat (ibid., 179).


The Spirits Role in the New Exodus In Galatians 4:6, Paul says that God has sent the Spirit ( ) into the hearts of

those who are sons (). Then, in 4:7 he asserts that the result of receiving the Spirit is

that the one who is a son () is also an heir () of the inheritance

promised to Abraham. Pauls mentioning of the sending of the Spirit in the context of the

exodus story alludes to the role of the Spirit in this tradition. Though not immediately

apparent in the narrative of the Pentateuch, the later reflection of the Prophets, as in Isaiah

63:1114 and Nehemiah 9:925, testifies that in the original exodus the Spirit was the one

who lead the people out of Egypt, through the wilderness, and into the land.

Like the original exodus, the new exodus tradition in passages such as Psalm 142:10

and Isaiah 63:11-15 promises that the Spirit will lead Gods people on a new and better

exodus. Paul also points to this tradition when he mentions Gods people being led by the

Spirit in the inheritance related passages of Romans 8:14 and Galatians 5:18. Such

observations strongly suggest that Pauls reference to the sending of the Spirit in the new

exodus context of Galatians 4:67 means that he is bringing to mind that the Spirit is

currently leading the sons of God through the wilderness of the present sinful age (Acts

7:3044; Heb 3:711; 1 Pet 2:1112) until they inherit the kingdom in the coming world (Rev

21). The Spirit is thereby the guarantee that believers will receive their inheritance (Eph

1:1314).

Having considered the entirety of Galatians 4:17, the comparison between the

original exodus in Galatians 4:12 and the new exodus in 4:37 is now clear. Just as Israel in

the exodus story was redeemed as Gods son from slavery in Egypt and was led by the

cloud to the inheritance (Gal 4:12), so too believers on the new exodus have been adopted

as sons from slavery under the Law and are being led by the Spirit through the present

sinful wilderness until they inherit the world to come (Gal 4:37). The original exodus was

therefore a type of the present exodus of which both Jews and Gentiles in Christ are

privileged to take part, one that will at last culminate when they dwell in Christs cosmic

kingdom.

Conclusion In this article, I have shown that in Galatians 3:154:7 Paul explains that believers are

the beneficiaries of the cosmic inheritance promised Abrahams offspring. Though not yet

in their possession, Paul illustrates that they, like the Israelites, will receive their inheritance

when they complete the Spirit-led new exodus.

The fact that Paul does not explicitly define the content of the inheritance presents no

unsurmountable obstacle to my thesis. Considering the OT texts that shape Pauls

interpretive framework illumines for us that in Galatians 3:154:7 Paul envisions that

Abrahams offspringthose who have placed their faith in Christ Jesuswill inherit a


17

cosmic kingdom. Texts such as Romans 8:1230 and Revelation 2122 (cf. Ezek 37) bring to

light that the completion of the new exodus and entry into the inheritance will occur at the

resurrection. This will be the time when the curse of sin will be lifted and Christ will reign

with his people on the renewed earth. In short, the realization of the promised inheritance

is the time when Messiah will reign on his throne, the earth will be renewed, and Gods

people will dwell in peace forever. Paul makes certain that his readers understand that

believers in Christ Jesus are the heirs of this good hope.


Expressing Emotion in Poetry: Grief and Recovery in Psalm 6

by Donald T. Williams

I According to Wordsworth in his "Preface" to Lyrical Ballads, poetry by definition is

"the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings" which "takes its origin from emotion

recollected in tranquility."1 Well, Pope might have quibbled about the spontaneity, noting

that "True ease in Writing comes from Art, not chance, / As those move easiest who have

learned to dance."2 And he might also have wondered at the focus on emotion at the

expense of "What oft was Thought, but ne'er so well exprest, / Something, whose Truth

convinced at Sight we find, / That gives us back the image of the mind."3 So gargantuan a

task it is to categorize a phenomenon so protean as Poetry, that those who attempt to do so

run the risk of being contradicted by all the other blind men who happen to be holding

onto another part of this indescribably vast Elephant. There is a real Elephant, with a truly

elephantine nature, for all that; and it really is like a wall, as long as we do not forget the

tree, the spear, the rope, the fan, and the snake. One of Poetry's many functions then is to

lend itself to the expression of emotion in ways that are more intense than is typical of

prose. And one at least of the ways that it does so is suggested by Archibald MacLeish.4

Donald T. Williams, Ph.D. is R. A. Forrest Scholar and Professor of English at Toccoa Falls College.

1 Russell Noyes, ed., English Romantic Poetry and Prose (NY: Oxford Univ. Pr., 1956), p. 365.

2 Alexander Pope, The Poems of Alexander Pope, ed. John Butt (New Haven: Yale Univ. Pr., 1963), p.

155.

3 Ibid., p. 153.

4 Archibald MacLeish, The Collected Poems of Archibald MacLeish (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962), pp. 50-51.


19

Ars Poetica

A poem should be palpable and mute As a globed fruit,

Dumb

As old medallions to the thumb,

Silent as the sleeve-worn stone Of casement ledges where the moss has grown--

A poem should be wordless

As the flight of birds. *

A poem should be motionless in time As the moon climbs,

Leaving, as the moon releases

Twig by twig the night-entangled trees,

Leaving, as the moon behind the winter leaves, Memory by memory the mind--

A poem should be motionless in time

As the moon climbs *

A poem should be equal to: Not true.

For all the history of grief

An empty doorway and a maple leaf.

For love The leaning grasses and two lights above the sea--

A poem should not mean

But be.


What is MacLeish saying? He presents us with a series of statements about poetry

that seem at first simply to be nonsense. A poem that was mute, dumb, or silent, for

example, would be no poem at all, for poetry is an oral art form. In every century before

the Twentieth, poetry demanded to be intoned, chanted, or sung--or at least recited. And a

poem that was wordless would also be no poem at all, for poetry is a verbal art form. An

object that made use of neither surface, line, color, nor texture might be interesting, but one

could hardly call it a painting. Nor can a poem be motionless in time. To be heard (or even

read), it must progress from one phoneme, one word, to another, from the opening line to

the last syllable of recorded sound. And as for meaning versus being . . . well; the prosaic

might be excused if they simply shrugged their shoulders and walked away.

Nevertheless, there is a method to MacLeish's rhetorical madness. How, the persistent

reader is led to ask, should a poem be mute, silent, dumb, wordless, or motionless? And

then we notice the parallel structure in which each assertion is stated in the form of a

paradoxical simile. Each simile, moreover, has as its vehicle a concrete sensory image. The

poem is mute the way a globed fruit is palpable; the way, that is, in which its shape,

weight, and texture nestle into one's hand. The combination of visual with tactile imagery

continues as the poem is dumb the way an old medallion feels to the thumb. Complex

emotional associations are added next through romantically-tinged connotations, accruing

as silently as moss on casement ledges. And then auditory imagery jumps in, making our

hearts leap as wordlessly as the whirr of wings from a suddenly spooked flock of quail.

MacLeish is saying by doing what Robert Frost had stated more prosaically: Poetry is

"saying one thing and meaning another, saying one thing in terms of another."5 Thus,

MacLeish presents the two emotions that appear in his poem, grief and love, in terms of

concretely realized pictures. Grief is conveyed by an empty doorway and a maple leaf,

love by leaning grass and lights above the sea. And he explains how grief and love are

related to these pictures with his cryptic statement that a poem should be "equal to, not

true." Equal to what? Presumably, to grief or love or globed fruit or flying birds. Well,

this is another paradox: a poem about grief is not the same thing as sorrow, nor one about

love the same thing as devotion. A poem cannot be

literally "equal to" any more than it can be wordless.

But there was a truth in the lie that a poem could be wordless, and that same kind of

truth appears again here. A poem cannot literally "be" grief or love, nor equivalent to

them; it perforce must be a statement that "means" something "true." In what sense then is

a poem true? One hopes it is a true statement about something. We need to supply that

5 Robert Frost, "The Figure a Poem Makes," 1939; rpt. in Selected Prose of Robert Frost, ed. Hyde Cox

and Edward Connery Lathem. (N.Y.: Collier, 1968), p. 24.


21

preposition about to match its sister preposition to: true about versus equal to. A poem can't

be literally wordless, but it should, if it is to be true about the flight of birds, use words that

convey the rush of those wings so vividly that we are not conscious of reading words but

only of the object: the unavoidable words are virtually lost in the whir of wings. In the

same way, a poem cannot be literally equal to grief or love, but it should be true about

them in such a way that we are not conscious so much of reading words as only of the

object: the unavoidable words are lost in the tears of loss or the heart throb of affection.

The poem cannot really avoid being true about (except by being false, and hence not a true

poem)--but it should seem equal to if it is to be effective at being affective poetically.

The way the poem achieves this seeming is through metaphor and concrete imagery.

MacLeish suggests a plausible scenario. Perhaps the empty doorway is the one out of

which the lover went, never to return. And perhaps she did so in autumn. And then one

pauses years later before that doorway with the leaf blowing across it and the full

poignancy of the original grief comes back in force. So we do not tell the reader that "the

man was sad because he thought of his lost love." We park the reader in front of that

doorway and let him get the impact of that blowing leaf, carried by its associations, even as

the character in the poem would if it were really happening. Perhaps the waving grasses

are in the dunes by the beach on which the two lovers walked with the beams of the

lighthouses stabbing through the darkness.

Perhaps you can provide another scenario. It does not matter. What matters is that

we use concrete words in such a way that they convey the same emotional associations that

the concrete things they image do in life: globed fruit, casement ledges, old medallions.

And it matters not whether the imagery is visual, tactile, auditory, or even olfactory. Have

you never been transported back to your mother's kitchen in your childhood by the smell

of bacon frying? Poetry conveys emotion by tapping into the mind's propensity to form

associations between emotions, memories, and concrete experiences. And so we come to

understand the last dyad of "Ars Poetica": "A poem should not mean / But be." "Mean" is

parallel to "true about," "be" to "equal to." The poem cannot avoid meaning, but by the use

of concrete imagery it means in such a way as to seem to do more: to be. Rather than

simply making a statement about emotion, it recreates it by means of the magic of concrete

imagery and metaphor.

II

How well does this analysis of modern English poetry apply to Hebrew poetry in

the biblical text? Let's take a look at Psalm 6.


Psalm 6

To the Choirmaster: With Stringed Instruments: According to the Sheminith

A Psalm of David

O LORD, rebuke me not in your anger

Nor discipline me in your wrath.

Be gracious unto me, O LORD, for I am languishing;

Heal me O LORD, for my bones are troubled.

My soul also is greatly troubled.

But you, O LORD--how long?

Turn O LORD, deliver my life;

Save me for the sake of your steadfast love,

For in death there is no remembrance of you;

In Sheol who will give you praise?

I am weary with my moaning;

Every night I flood my bed with my tears;

I drench my couch with my weeping.

My eye wastes away because of my grief;

It grows weak because of all my foes.

Depart from me, all you workers of evil,

For the LORD has heard the sound of my weeping.

The LORD has heard my plea;

The LORD accepts my prayer.

All my enemies shall be ashamed and greatly troubled;

They shall turn back and be put to shame in a moment. (ESV)

Hebrew poetry (like English) of course does much more than simply express emotion;

it also asserts propositions, makes promises, describes, utters praise and lament, etc. But

like all poetry, it is a medium in which intense emotion is often communicated. Also,


23

Hebrew poetry is providentially the most translatable poetry on the planet. It depends on

the rhyming of ideas rather than sounds, the repetition of thoughts rather than meters, to

create its prose-transcending structures. Thus the translator avoids the horrible dilemma of

preserving either sound or sense, as they rarely can both be reproduced at the same time

in a different tongue.

But this "Hebrew Poetic Parallelism" does more than that. By its very nature it creates

a rhythm of contemplation. By hearing every statement twice, in different terms--one

statement "in terms of another"6--we are invited to pause and reflect on the potentialities of

meaning and nuance, and we are simultaneously given space in which to do so. Often there

are two key terms per statement, one pair of which is a simple set of synonyms so that

attention is focused on the other pair, which interact in a more thought-provoking way. So

anger is a synonym of wrath (v. 1), languishing of trouble (v. 2), death of Sheol (v. 5). These

near equivalences invite us to meditate on the less obvious insights that rebuke disciplines

(v. 1), grace heals (v. 2), and remembrance engenders praise (v. 5).

These insightful pairs in Psalm 6 are embedded in the larger binary structure that

compares grief and recovery from that grief across the whole poem. The psalmist's prayer

carries him through the period of apparent abandonment, his petition for relief buttressed

by descriptions of his distress and the argument that if he dies he will no longer be able to

praise his Lord in Sheol (v. 5). Then, when his prayer is "heard," i.e., "accepted," the mood

shifts suddenly and dramatically to one of exultation in triumph over his enemies.

Now, these ideas in themselves are spiritually edifying; the way they are structured is

intellectually satisfying. The role of emotion is to make them existentially compelling. To

be effective as a poem as well as a prayer, the psalm must give the reader an opportunity to

identify personally with the situation David is facing. He accomplishes this identification

by means of images that convey the physical symptoms of emotional suffering. It is not the

seemingly imminent triumph of his enemies but his apparent abandonment to them by the

Lord that has him in such agony that his very "bones" are "troubled." His distress is

unrelenting; he cannot let it go. It keeps him up at night. The central emotional image is

that of the bed soaked with tears. Thus the reader is enabled to draw an analogy to his

own experience, to compare David's grief with those griefs that have deprived the reader

of his own sleep. And he knows that the crisis has passed when that imagery simply

disappears. The shift in emotion from despair to confidence is signaled by the shift in

focus from David's own inward feelings described in physiological terms to an outward

view of his enemies as defeated ("Depart from me!") and of the Lord as having finally

responded to his prayer. No explanation for the shift in mood is given; rather, the poem

simply portrays the shift, which can only be attributed to the mystery of faith.

6 Cf. Frost.


Just like MacLeish, David has used concrete words in such a way that they convey the

same emotional associations that the concrete things they image do in life. For all the

history of grief: blurred eyes and a tear-soaked mattress. For relief from that grief, in the

form of recovered confidence that God cares: scattered enemies that are turned back and

put to shame in a moment. The fact that this scattering is anticipated rather than observed

makes a point about the emotional dynamics of doubt and faith that is not quite expressible

in cold prose. In the context of the insightful parallels created by the structure of Hebrew

poetry, this emotional identification through concrete imagery allows us not just to

understand, but also vicariously to experience, the fact that during our own darkest

moments we can hope for a like reversal. So David's prayer has not just "meant" grief and

recovery through faith, but "been" that for us. And that, indeed, is what a poem should be.


25

Preaching on Pauls Discussion of the Lords Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:1734

By Mark Owens

In his introductory text on hermeneutics, God-centered Biblical Interpretation, V.

Poythress creatively uses different imaginary characters (e.g., Peter Pietist, Marvin Marxist)

to help guide his reader towards a better understanding of proper biblical interpretation.1

One such character is named Dottie Doctrinalist. Throughout Poythress text, Dottie

Doctrinalist exhibits an intense interest in sound theology and views the Bible strictly as a

repository of timeless propositional truth.

While Dottie Doctrinalist technically only exists in Poythress imagination, her

approach to Scripture seems alive and well within the evangelical Church. Scripture

certainly should be read with a view to understanding its theological message.

Nonetheless, Scripture must also be read and studied within its historical and literary

contexts.2 The need to read and study the Bible within its historical and literary contexts

becomes especially significant when one approaches a text like 1 Cor 11:1734. If Dottie

Doctrinalist did exist beyond Poythress imagination, one could safely assume that she

would be extremely fascinated by Pauls discussion of the Lords Supper in 1 Cor 11:1734.

Pauls statements in 1 Cor 11:1734 are rife with rich theology, particularly in v. 2326,

where Paul describes Jesus final meal with His disciples. Nonetheless, we have to

remember that v. 2326 are framed by v. 1722 and v. 2734. These two sections of 1 Cor

11:1734 are significant because they explain the historical context that led Paul to pen v.

2326 and present Pauls instructions for dealing with the ethical crisis that has reared its

ugly head in Corinth.3 Unfortunately, the Church today suffers when it (seemingly) skips

over v. 1722 and v. 2734 as it rightly wrestles with such questions as Who may partake

of the Lords Supper? and What is the nature of Christs presence during the Lords

Supper? Such a reading of this passage, however, overemphasizes the theological scope of

this text and seems to overlook the ethical ramifications of this text.

The central issue Paul addresses in 1 Cor 11:1734 is the division that was occurring

when the Corinthian church celebrated the Lords Supper (v. 18). More specifically, the

Mark Owens, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of New Testament at Luther Rice College & Seminary.

1 V. Poythress, God-centered Biblical Interpretation (Phillipsburg, NJ; Presbyterian & Reformed, 1999).

2 See A. Kstenberger and R. Patterson (Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical

Triad of History, Literature, and Theology [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011], 93128) for a helpful discussion of the relationship between theology, history, and literature in the interpretation process.

3 See below for further discussion of the relationship between these three major sections of 1 Cor 11.


Corinthian church was observing the Lords Supper in such a way that the rich were able to

use the event as a means of flaunting their wealth (see v. 2022). In an attempt to correct

their abuse of the Lords Supper, Paul cites the Last Supper tradition from the Gospels (v.

2326). In order to understand properly Pauls statements within v. 2326, we need to keep

in mind that Paul is not specifically providing instruction on the Lords Supper, but instead

is citing Jesus example from the Last Supper as a way of clarifying how the Corinthians are

abusing the Lords Supper.4 In other words, 1 Cor 11:2326 does not present a Pauline

Theology of the Lords Supper. Instead, these verses present Pauls response to a crisis

within a local church.

Structure 1 Cor 11:1734 may be divided into three relatively tidy sections: 1) Pauls

description of the Corinthian abuse of the Lords Supper (v. 1722); 2) Pauls citation of the

Last Supper tradition (v. 2326); and 3) Pauls solution to the Corinthian abuse of the Lords

Supper (v. 2734). Looking more closely at each of these sections, we may make the

following broad observations about this passage:

1. Paul begins this passage with his own personal evaluation of the Corinthians observance of the Lords Supper in v. 17 (In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good);

2. Paul then highlights his central concern in v. 18the presence of divisions during the Lords Supper celebration;

3. In v. 19, Paul qualifies his statements in v. 18 by noting that there is a sense in which divisions will inevitably occur within the Church;

4. Paul then provides a detailed description of the abuse of the Lords Supper in Corinth (v. 2021);

5. Paul then presents a series of rhetorical questions that highlight the inappropriate behavior of the rich believers in Corinth (v. 22);

6. Paul then reminds the reader of the Last Supper tradition (v. 2325); 7. Paul next provides his reason for citing the Last Supper tradition and reminds the

reader of the true significance of the Lords Supper (v. 26); 8. Paul then warns the Corinthians of the possible negative ramifications of their

improper observance of the Lords Supper (v. 27); 9. Paul then provides his first solution to the Corinthian abuse of the Lords Supper (v.

28); 10. Paul then states the reason or rationale behind his prior instruction in v. 28 (see v.

29); 11. Paul then provides an explanation of his earlier warning in v. 27 (see v. 3032); 12. Paul next presents his second solution to the Corinthian abuse of the Lords Supper

(v. 33) 13. Finally, Paul concludes this passage by providing a third solution and again

reminding the Corinthians of the danger of divine judgment (v. 34).

4 D. Garland, 1 Corinthians (BECNT; Grand Rapids; Baker Academic, 2003), 53434. Cf. R. Ciampa &

B. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 548.


27

Literary Context

This passage within 1 Corinthians occurs within a section of this epistle that focuses on

addressing problems within the Corinthian church related to public worship (1 Cor 11:2

14:40). Pauls statement in 1 Cor 7:1 indicates that he is addressing problems he has become

aware of by means of a letter from the Corinthian church (Now for the matters you wrote

about). Paul has already briefly discussed the Lords Supper within his warning about

idolatry and participation in pagan temple worship (1 Cor 10:1617). Paul then addresses

the Corinthians concern regarding proper attire during public worship in 1 Cor 11:216.

Finally, Paul turns to dealing with the Corinthian abuse of the Lords Supper in 1 Cor 11:17.

Important Interpretive Issues The first section within 1 Cor 11:1734 (v. 1722) primarily discusses how the

Corinthian church is abusing the Lords Supper. Paul begins by noting that when the

Corinthian church gathers, they do more harm than good (v. 17). Paul next makes it clear that the central reason their gatherings do more harm than good is because of the

presence of divisions within the church (v. 18). We should also keep in mind that according to v. 19 some degree of division is only natural (No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval). Paul here points to the reality

that within any given local church, there will be some who genuinely believe and live as Christians and those who do notPaul suggests that God will make it clear who has His

approval and who does not.5 Paul, in fact, describes one of the ways God shows His approval in v. 30 (That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep).

In v. 2022, Paul specifically describes the social and theological crisis that is plaguing the Corinthian church. Paul suggests in v. 2022 that the rich believers in the Corinthian church are engaging in lavish, private meals when they partake of the Lords Supper.6 1 Cor 11:21 is particularly important here as it gets to the heart of what is going on in Corinth. English translations struggle somewhat with v. 21, but the ESV is particularly helpful: For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk (emphasis added). The rich believers in Corinth were apparently eating their

own private meals rather than sharing with the poor believers; therefore, the poor go hungry, while the rich get drunk.7 On the basis of Pauls statements in v. 21 we can 5 Cf. G. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 53839; C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; Rev. ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987), 26162; J. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 32; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 433.

6 Notice in v. 20 that Paul asserts the Corinthians are not actually celebrating the Lords Supper.

7 Cf. Ciampa & Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 545; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 435. At the same time, some scholars argue that the verb prolambanw actually means devour in v. 21 (e.g., Garland, 1


therefore conclude that the crisis in the Corinthian church that Paul addresses in 1 Cor 11:1734 is the practice of private meals during the Lords Supper celebration, a practice Paul suggests is unworthy of association with the Last Supper (v. 20).8

Within v. 2326, Paul reminds the Corinthians of what happened at the Last Supper

as a means of helping them correct their own abuse of the Lords Supper. It is helpful to

explore v. 2326 by focusing on the answers to two questions. First, What does Paul state

happened during the Last Supper? Second, How do Pauls statements in v. 2326 connect

with the crisis in Corinth?

So what does Paul state happened during the Last Supper? We see from v. 2324 that

the Last Supper began with the taking of the bread (notice the phrase took bread at the

end of v. 23).9 We also see from v. 25 that the Last Supper ended with the taking of the cup

(notice the phrase, he took the cup in v. 25). We also see from v. 25 that between the

bread and the cup, there was a supper (after supper). Scholars generally argue that the

supper that was eaten was a Passover supper.10 This helps clarify what Jesus and His

Corinthians, 54041). If these scholars are correct, v. 21 could then be translated, For in eating, each one devours his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. This rendering of the verb prolambanw is worthy of serious consideration.

8If the verb prolambanw does mean something like devour in v. 21, this leads to a particularly problematic form of private meal in which wealthier Christians may have been partaking of their lavish meals in the presence of impoverished Christians. See Fee (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 54041) for a summary of the three ways in which the problem of private meals in Corinth might be understood in 1 Cor 11:1734.

9 Paul begins in v. 23 by noting that he has received the traditions recorded in v. 2326 from the Lord. Paul is not suggesting he has directly received these traditions from some sort of supernatural revelation from Christ; instead, he is suggesting that these traditions have been passed down to him from eyewitnesses to the Last Supper, which is as good as if these traditions actually came from the Lord. Cf. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 54849. 10 E.g., A. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 87174; Ciampa & Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 30, 47475; R. Routledge, Passover and the Last Supper, TynB 53 (2002): 203204, 206). It is this Passover background that best clarifies Jesus statements, This is my body in 1 Cor 11:24. Unleavened bread plays an important role in the Passover meal within Jewish tradition (see Deut 16:3). During the celebration of the Passover supper, the host explains the various elements and the events surrounding the exodus from Egypt are recalled. This Passover context helps us understand Jesus statement, This is my body during the Last Supper meal (see Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19). The unleaven bread associated with the Passover ceremony is referred to as the bread of affliction in Deut 16:3 and is intended to remind the participant of the suffering the Israelites endured during their time in Egypt. Thus, when Jesus interprets the unleavened bread as his own body, he is subtly foreshadowing is sacrificial death for humanity. Jesus statement, This is my body, thereby does not refer to a metaphysical change in the bread (however that might be construed). Rather, it describes a change in Gods dealings with humanity within salvation-history, specifically, the inauguration of the new covenant and a greater Passover (cf. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 877; Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 550; Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 26667). Ultimately, the Last Supper traditions depict Jesus reinterpreting the Passover festival and implying that God was about to enact an act of redemption greater than the exodus from Egypt (cf. 1 Cor


29

disciples mean in the Gospels when they speak of eating the Passover (e.g., Matt 26:17;

Mark 14:12, 14).

So how do Pauls statements in v. 2326 connect with the crisis in Corinth? First, while

Paul does not state this, it is likely that he is reminding the Corinthians that there was no

private meal when Jesus and the disciples celebrated the Passover during the Last Supper.11

In other words, everyone ate supper together during the Last Supper suggesting that there

was no division among Christ and his disciples. This is clearly in contrast to how the

Corinthians were observing the Lords Supper (see v. 1822). Second, v. 2326 describe the

Lords Supper as a remembrance and proclamation of Christs death.12 The nature of the

atonement is thus somehow related to the celebration of the Lords Supper. Within the

context of 1 Cor 11:1722, what is to be primarily remembered and proclaimed is that

Christ died for all of humanity, not specific groups of humanity.13 All are equal at the foot

of the cross and Paul is suggesting that in eating a private meal during the Lords Supper,

the Corinthian church is behaving as if the rich have some sort of special privilege over and

against the poor.

In an effort to help the Corinthians address their abuse of the Lords Supper, Paul

then gives three primary pieces of advice in v. 28, v. 33, and v. 34. But, before he offers this

advice, Paul gives a warning in v. 27whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the

Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the

Lord. The key phrase in v. 27 is an unworthy manner. The King James Version,

unfortunately, translates v. 27, Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this

5:78). Finally, Jesus statement, This cup is the new covenant in my blood should be understand along similar lines.

11 Garland, 1 Corinthians, 547, 549.

12 In terms of the noun remembrance in v. 24, once again an awareness of the Passover background proves helpful. The recollection of the events surrounding the exodus from Egypt plays an important role in the instructions for observing the Passover festival in Deut 16:18 (see esp. v. 3). When linked with a festival that commemorates Gods deliverance of His people from Egypt, the verb to remember thus encompasses more than the mere remembering of facts. The verb to remember also likely encompasses a response of

worship and gratitude for what God has done. This understanding of the verb to remember in Deut 16:3 finds support when one looks at other uses of this verb in the Old Testament (e.g., 1 Chron 16:814; Psa 22:27; 105:5). Furthermore, the concept of remembrance is often linked with a response of obedience to God (Exod 20:8; Lev 26:42; Deut 16:12). When Jesus statement, do this in remembrance of me is read in light of this Old Testament background, it suggests that Jesus is describing more than a morbid recalling of his suffering on our behalf and certainly more than a mere mental recollection of his death for our sins. Jesus is, rather, describing a celebratory response of worship, gratitude, and obedience (cf. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 553; A. Johnson, 1 Corinthians [IVPNTC; Downers Grove: IVP, 2004], 210).

13 Cf. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 548.


cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. This

translation has often been understood to mean that believers should ensure that their

relationship with God is worthy of the elements.14 This has caused the Lords Supper to

be an individual and self-absorbed experience, but this unfortunately goes against the grain

of Pauls message in this passage. Pauls primary concern here in v. 27 is not with who may

take the elements, but with how the elements are taken.15 According to Paul, the Lords

Supper should be observed in a manner that highlights

luther rice journal of christian studies

Documents