Browsing by Author "Hays, Richard B"

The New Testament book known as the epistle to the Hebrews contains little obvious reference to Jesus' resurrection. Modern interpreters generally account for this relative silence by noting that the author's soteriological and christological concerns have led him to emphasize Jesus' death and exaltation while ignoring, spiritualizing, or even denying his resurrection. In particular, the writer's metaphorical appeal to the Yom Kippur sacrifice, with its dual emphasis on the slaughter of the victim and the presentation of the victim's blood by the high priest, allows him to explain the salvific significance of Jesus' death and exaltation. The crucifixion can be likened to the slaughter of the victim, while Jesus' exaltation in heaven can be likened to the high priest entering the holy of holies. In this way the cross can be understood as an atoning sacrifice. Such a model leaves little room for positive or distinct reflection on the soteriological or christological significance of the resurrection.

This study argues that the soteriology and high-priestly Christology the author develops depend upon Jesus' bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven. The work begins with a survey of positions on Jesus' resurrection in Hebrews. I then present a case for the presence and role of Jesus' bodily resurrection in the text. First, I demonstrate that the writer's argument in Heb 1-2 for the elevation of Jesus above the angelic spirits assumes that Jesus has his humanity--his blood and flesh--with him in heaven. Second, I show that in Heb 5-7 the writer identifies Jesus' resurrection to an indestructible life as the point when Jesus became a high priest. Third, I explain how this thesis makes coherent the author's consistent claims in Heb 8-10 that Jesus presented his offering to God in heaven. I conclude that Jesus' crucifixion is neither the place nor the moment of atonement for the author of Hebrews. Rather, in keeping with the equation in the Levitical sacrificial system of the presentation of blood to God with the presentation of life, Jesus obtained atonement where and when the writer says--when he presented himself in his ever-living, resurrected humanity before God in heaven. Jesus' bodily resurrection is, therefore, the hinge around which the high-priestly Christology and soteriology of Hebrews turns.

It is often assumed, occasionally argued, that when Matthew writes, in his ten “fulfillment citations” (FCs), that Scripture was “fulfilled,” he means that the occurrence of certain events “verify” scriptural “predictions.” This study argues that the FCs have another primary function—namely, to show how Jesus (or, in two cases, Israel’s leaders) brings the scriptural word to an unsurpassable, “full” limit. The key verb πληροῦν, that is, has a basic meaning of “fill up.”

The starting point is an examination of three rhetorically significant texts in Matthew’s gospel that are not FCs. In Matt 3:13-17, 5:17-20, and 23:32-36, Matthew consistently uses πληροῦν to mean “fill up” some ethical/ moral quantum. A survey of the way in which “limit-adjectives/ adverbs” (adjectives/ adverbs, that convey a limit being reached, e.g., “all”) cluster around the FCs points in the same direction—towards the hypothesis that πληροῦν means “fill up” in the FCs as well.

A potential linguistic objection is then addressed: is it possible to use πληροῦν in this way in Matthew’s Umwelt? Considering the instances of “πληροῦν + a word” formulations in koinē Greek, the study concludes that such language would have no default idiomatic meaning in the ears of Matthew’s speakers and could be used in the manner proposed.

After establishing the methodological principle that Matthew controlled the size of his FCs—and, thus, quoted precisely what he needed—exegesis of the specific FCs attempts to confirm the study’s central thesis. Consideration of relevant textual features of the narrative context in which the FCs are embedded (e.g., repetition of limit-adverbs/ adjectives, narrative-enacted “fullness”) would show that many, but not all, of the FCs point towards such a meaning for πληροῦν. Those FCs lacking such textual features can and probably should be read within the framework derived from Matthew’s normal usage of πληροῦν.

Finally, the study considers several hermeneutical implications of this exegesis. Ultimately, it would situate Matthew’s hermeneutic within scholarly discussion of “the Old in the New” and offer a contribution to Matthean christology. With the FCs, Matthew sets forth a vision of myriad images from Israel’s past (Emmanuel; Son; nazirite; light; healing Servant; nonviolent king; prophet; meek king) converging on the Jesus who fully embodies them to save Israel from the fullness of her exile.

The concept of principalities and powers is crucial for understanding Paul's theology and ethics, since for Paul the powers pervade all aspects of existence. We contend that Paul's conception of the powers is unintelligible without a developed account of the practices he advocated for the early believers. Thus, this study proposes "practice" as a category for understanding Paul's powers. A detailed study of Paul's letters reveals that there are certain practices that Paul believes guard believers from the dominion of the powers. Other practices, however, expose humans to the work of powers of darkness. We have labeled these practices as "powerful practices," activities that guard believers from the dominion of the powers or make believers and unbelievers vulnerable to the powers.

To achieve our aims in this study, we present other models offered for understanding the powers, embodied in the work of four Western scholars: Clinton Arnold, Rudolf Bultmann, Hendrik Berkhof, and Walter Wink. We show how each of the models represented by these scholars is inadequate for understanding Paul's principalities and powers, not least because each proposed model of the powers inhabits modernity's unfortunate dichotomy between theory and practice. This study hopes to move beyond this modern divide and to contribute to the conversation on how theological conviction is embedded in Christian practices.

We, thus, draw on two contemporary accounts of practices--in the works of Alasdair MacIntyre and Pierre Bourdieu--to shed light on a practical understanding of Paul's theology of the powers. Next, we investigate Paul's letters for "powerful practices." We show that Paul offers practices such as baptism, preaching, and ecclesial discipline as ways for engaging the powers. Paul also forbids such practices as idolatry and idol sacrificial meals, because these practices expose believers to demonic powers.

Finally, since the study of the powers cannot be isolated from context and context-driven questions, we provide a cross-cultural perspective to our study by investigating how the powers are interpreted in the African context in light of African traditional religious beliefs and practices. We draw on Paul's powerful practices to respond to contextual issues that arise within the African context.

Vastly different opinions exist within New Testament scholarship regarding the relationship between Paul's ethical exhortations in Gal 5-6 and the theological portions of the letter. In an attempt to argue for the cohesiveness of Paul's argument in the letter as a whole, numerous commentaries outline the letter according to the principles that are described in the ancient handbooks on Greco-Roman rhetoric. Although outlining Galatians according to the typical parts of an ancient speech does provide a way of viewing the correspondence as a coherent argument, studying Galatians from the standpoint of Paul's adherence to the conventions of the technical rhetorical handbooks has produced problems of its own. First, there is no consensus as to whether or not Paul actually had obtained the highest level of rhetorical education in which the handbooks were studied. While some commentaries on Galatians (e.g., those written by Hans Dieter Betz and Ben Witherington III) propose that the apostle exhibits a rhetorical strategy in the letter that follows the conventions described in the rhetorical handbooks, other studies (e.g., the one by R. Dean Anderson Jr.) that compare Paul's letters with ancient rhetorical theory have concluded that Paul most likely had no knowledge of the principles of the rhetorical handbooks of his day. Another problem with minutely analyzing Galatians in terms of the conventions described in the ancient rhetoric handbooks is that Galatians is a letter, not a speech. Although ancient letters did usually follow the conventions of ancient epistolary theory, de Boer has most recently pointed out that efforts to classify Galatians as a particular type of rhetoric are misguided since ancient letters were freer compositions than ancient speeches. J. Louis Martyn has proposed that Galatians should be understood as an apocalyptic sermon and, therefore, since Paul was a divine messenger in preaching the gospel, the letter does not actually follow the conventions of a particular classification of ancient rhetoric. However, even scholars who propose that Paul had no technical knowledge of the rhetorical handbooks admit that certain rhetorical principles of speech and letter writing were ubiquitous in the Greco-Roman world.

This dissertation argues that one of the rhetorical principles that was prevalent in the first-century Greco-Roman world was the device of rhetorical parody. Although the word "parody" is usually associated today with the connotation of burlesque or absurdity, a type of humorous parody that did exist in the ancient world, ancient rhetorical parody should be understood as either an altered quotation of a recognizable text or saying or a newly created saying that closely resembles a recognizable one. Also, ancient rhetorical parody should be understood as a stylistic rhetorical device that was designed to add vividness and polemical intensity to an argument by way of incongruity. In an effort to persuade an audience, a recognizable text or saying was transformed and given a new meaning, one that might be quite incongruous with its original meaning. While this type of rhetorical device was discussed by ancient rhetoricians, its use was common in the everyday conversations of a literate person in the first century. Therefore the ability to use the device of rhetorical parody did not require a rhetorical education in which one studied the handbooks. Rather, it was a process by which a person altered an existing saying or text, possibly one that had been used by one's opponent in an argument, in order to gain an advantage over the opponent. Ancient rhetorical parody differs from irony in that irony presents a meaning different from the normal meaning of the words spoken. Irony, therefore, does not require an underlying saying or text.

After determining a definition of ancient rhetorical parody, this study investigates whether or not an understanding of Paul's use of rhetorical parody in Galatians might clarify some of Paul's puzzling statements. The investigation is limited to the statements that Paul made in Galatians and does not attempt to understand the letter via Paul's other letters. This study seeks to determine if Paul's scriptural quotations and allusions might be a parodic reinterpretation of Scriptures that demanded Torah-obedience in order to dissociate obeying the Mosaic law from faithfulness to God. The study is not limited to the Scriptures that were later canonized by the Church, but it is limited to the Greek text of writings since rhetorical parody is a play on the words of the hypotext.

A comparison of Galatians with Scriptures that demanded obedience to the Mosaic law or praised individuals who championed the law reveals that Paul parodically reinterpreted scriptural passages in order to dissociate the rejection of the Mosaic law from the curse of the law. The curse of the law is shown to refer not only to slavery, but also to spiritual death. This study also reveals that the law-free Galatians were being excluded from the faith community on the basis that they were unrepentant sinners. Additionally, Gal 3-4 is best understood as Paul's argument against the confluence of the covenant with Abraham and the Mosaic law.

This dissertation concludes that understanding Paul's use of rhetorical parody not only clarifies several puzzling statements in the letter, but also demonstrates that Paul's exhortations in Gal 5-6 address the Galatian situation just as much as the theological sections do.

The central portion of Paul's letter to the Galatians consists of three main arguments, each of which invokes a different image of Abrahamic descent: sons (3:7) in 3:6-14, seed (3:16, 29) in 3:15-4:11, and children of promise (4:28) in 4:21-5:1. Current interpretations of these Abrahamic appeals typically portray them as logically problematical, collectively inconsistent, and/or generally unpersuasive, a situation that then leads most scholars to identify them as ad hoc responses to the Galatian agitators. This inability to find a coherent model of Abrahamic descent in Galatians, however, threatens to undermine the very gospel itself by suggesting that it cannot effectively counter a Judaizing call that derives from a simple appeal to Abraham.

This dissertation argues that Paul does indeed present the Galatians with a coherent account of Abrahamic descent that accords with his persuasive intent of refuting a law-based circumcision. Its key insight lies in the suggestion that Paul understands the Abrahamic diatheke in 3:15-18 as akin to a Hellenistic adoptive testament. As a result, the promised Abrahamic seed must be both a son of Abraham and, because of Abraham's divine adoption through the diatheke, a son of God, hence Paul's identification of Christ as Abraham's sole seed (3:16).

This twofold nature of the Abrahamic seed then suggests a distinction in Paul's other terms for Abrahamic descent. The dissertation accordingly contends that "sons of Abraham" in 3:7 designates, as it typically did in the mid-first century C.E., the Jews, i.e., those physical descendants of Abraham who also share his faith. In contrast, "children of promise" in 4:28 designates gentiles who have through faith received the Abrahamic blessing, i.e., the Spirit of sonship that makes them children of God. Each group thus requires incorporation into Christ to establish their status as Abrahamic seed: the Jews so that they might share in the gentiles' divine sonship, the gentiles so that they might share in the Jews' Abrahamic sonship. This interdependent union of the Jewish sons of Abraham and the gentile sons of God in Christ then constitutes the single divine Abrahamic seed who inherits (3:29).

Paul employs this model to refute the necessity of law observance as follows. In 3:6-14, he argues that Christ's accursed death on the cross divides faith from law observance as a means of justification for Jews; the full sons of Abraham accordingly become those Jews who, by dying to the law and embracing Christ, exhibit the same radical trust in God as their forefather exhibited. In 3:15-4:11, he argues that God added the law and its curse to ensure that the Jews could not receive the Abrahamic blessing promised to the nations--i.e., the Spirit that would make the Jews sons of God and, thus, Abrahamic seed--apart from the one seed, Christ. Finally, in 4:21-5:1, he argues that, like Hagar, the non-adoptive Sinaitic diatheke produces Abrahamic descendants (i.e., non-Christian Jews) who share the general human enslavement to the stoicheia, whereas the adoptive Abrahamic diatheke produces Abrahamic descendants (i.e., Christian Jews) whose divine adoption frees them from this enslavement. Each appeal to Abraham thus undermines the gentile Christians' motivation for submitting to the law by demonstrating that Jewish Christians do not even remain under the law.

The canonical gospels are each concerned to present the significance of Jesus vis-à-vis the Jewish tradition. Yet the Gospel of John exhibits a particularly strained relationship with Judaism, especially through its frequent description of Jesus’s opponents as “the Jews,” its presentation of numerous hostile exchanges between Jesus and characters described as “Jews,” and its application of significant Jewish imagery (e.g., “the temple of his body,” “I am the true vine”) to the person of Jesus rather than to traditional Jewish institutions or figures. This dissertation argues that the Gospel of John presents Jesus as the one through whom the Jewish tradition realizes its eschatological hopes in continuity with the stories and symbols of its past. As the Fourth Gospel presents its theological vision for the significance of Jesus, it also criticizes the theological vision of a rival group—that is, “the Jews.” In the Fourth Gospel, “the Jews” represents an alternative—and for John, a rival—theological vision for how the Jewish tradition might live into its future in continuity with its past. Therefore, John’s affirmations of many aspects of the Jewish tradition are bound up with its negation of how another segment of the tradition would construe those same features of the tradition.

Methodologically, this study attends to how the narrative of John characterizes Jesus as the fulfillment of particular Jewish hopes and expectations, and also as the narrative of John states (or implies) the shortcomings of Jesus’s opponents insofar as they fail to bring the Jewish tradition into more thorough continuity with its storied past and prophesied future. Attention to John’s narrative does not override the importance of its historical location, however. Questions that were directly relevant to Second Temple and late first-century Judaism about how the tradition might live faithfully are pertinent to the structure of the Fourth Gospel and its presentation of Jesus and “the Jews.” John narrates the fulfillment present in Jesus and the failure represented by “the Jews” by drawing on discourses that were accessible within late first-century Judaism. Historical context is thus essential for understanding the logic of John and the terms in which the Gospel tells its story. This study concludes that the Fourth Gospel is a late first-century narrative that takes up the question of how the Jewish tradition might move into its future in continuity with its past. Through the vehicle of the Gospel narrative, John argues for Jesus as the one who enables the people of God to experience the future toward which the Jewish tradition had long been oriented.

In comparison to Mark and Luke, Matthew's Gospel contains a striking preponderance of economic imagery, especially in passages dealing with sin, righteousness, and divine recompense. This cluster of economic terms is found in every strand of tradition in Matthew's Gospel, and frequently appears to be the result of Matthean redaction. A good chunk of this language occurs in five uniquely Matthean parables dealing either with the pricelessness of the kingdom or judgment and reward (the hidden treasure in 13:44; the pearl in 13:45-46; the parable of the unforgiving servant in 18:23-35; the parable of the workers in the vineyard 20:1-16; the sheep and the goats in 25:31-46). Matthean additions to the triple tradition also tend to contain economic language.

In this dissertation I begin by analyzing Matthew's economic language against the backdrop of similar language in other early Jewish and Christian literature. I then go on to examine the import of this language for the narrative as a whole, arguing that some of the Gospel's central claims about Jesus emerge from this conceptual matrix. To be more specific, the narrative provides a coherent description of how Jesus saves his people from their sins and comes to be enthroned as Son of Man. Matthew draws on images of exile and debt-bondage to depict the people Jesus came to save as captives because of the debt of their sins. Jesus is introduced as the one born to save his people from their sins (1:21), and throughout the Gospel he does this by teaching them how to find debt forgiveness and store up treasure in the heavens in order to acquire eternal life. From the time Jesus begins predicting his death and resurrection he also teaches his disciples to follow him in giving their lives and being repaid with resurrection (16:24-28; 19:29), participation in the rule of the Son of Man (19:27-28), and the price of release for others who are in captivity. The passion narrative portrays the very repayment Jesus told the disciples that both he and they would receive: Jesus is raised from the dead, given all authority as Son of Man, and earns the ransom-price for the many. The end of the age remains in the future, and so suffering and doubt persist. Nevertheless, God's repayment of Jesus' self-giving is a foretaste of the coming settling of accounts.

With the rise of the modern nation-state in recent centuries, "the people" has emerged as the most determinative concept of human community, the decisive imaginary for negotiating and producing human difference. It has become the primary basis for killing and the measure of life and death. John Howard Yoder sought to articulate the Christian political alternative in the face of the violence of modern peoplehood, a violence that cannot be understood apart from its anti-Jewishness. After expositing Yoder's account, I argue that it is inadequate insofar as it does not attend to God's election of Israel. I then trace the rise of modern peoplehood from "the West," particularly in the case of the people of the United States, in order to expose both the peculiarly Christian racism that has informed it and the key trope of "new Israel" for the imagination of political independence and exceptionalism. Following this historicization and analysis of modern peoplehood, I build critically on Karl Barth's account of the elect people of God in order to offer a Christian understanding that can subvert the violent, racist tendencies of modern political formations and embody a peaceable alternative in the midst of them. I sustantiate my Christian account of peoplehood as determined by God's election of Israel in Messiah with readings of key passages in the Tanakh/Old Testament, the Gospel of Matthew, and the Epistle to the Romans.