Eamon Younis: 2022

Wednesday 21 December 2022

Re-Examining Romans 1–8 With The Pentateuch

By James M. Howard

[James M. Howard is Senior Pastor, Dillon Community Church, Dillon, Colorado.]

Abstract

This article proposes that understanding the theology of the Pentateuch is critical in understanding Paul’s argument in Romans 1–8, assessing the flow of the epistle, and making sense of its more complicated sections.

***

In Romans, Paul was concerned with how the story of Jesus continued the story of Israel.[1] He needed to understand the story of Israel in light of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul did not have the New Testament at his disposal when he wrote. He had the Old Testament (Jewish Scriptures), the writings of the period,[2] and the oral tradition about Christ. His challenge was to make sense of these sources in light of the life, teachings, and resurrection of Christ. This article proposes that understanding the theology of the Pentateuch is helpful in understanding Paul’s argument in Romans 1–8, assessing the flow of the epistle, and making sense of its more complicated sections.

Paul’s Use Of The Pentateuch In Romans 1–8

Some passages in Romans clearly quote the Old Testament. For example, Romans 9–11 quotes the Old Testament at least thirty times. However, Paul does more with the Old Testament than quote it.[3] In Romans 1–8 he also uses numerous conceptual and linguistic links to the Pentateuch to lay a foundation for understanding the work of Christ.[4] Thus, in some ways Romans becomes a Christological commentary on the Old Testament, in that the Old Testament sheds light on the work of Christ and the work of Christ sheds light on the Old Testament.

Watson argues that “Paul’s theology is intertextual in form, in the sense that it is constituted by its relation to an earlier corpus of texts that function as communally normative scripture.” He goes further, saying that Paul cites “individual texts not in an ad hoc manner but on the basis of a radical construal of the narrative shape of the Pentateuch as a whole.”[5] Wright argues further, “When we look at Scripture as a whole it does indeed offer a clear overall narrative: the Creator and the cosmos, the place of humans, the calling of Abraham and his family, and all finding resolution and renewal in Jesus. The point of the covenant with Israel, in the whole of Scripture, is that it was the means by which God was rescuing the children of Adam and so restoring the world.”[6]

When we consider Romans in view of such observations, we see that Paul uses primarily the Pentateuch to explain the work of Christ. When he uses the Prophets, he does so in support of his use of the Pentateuch. The question here is, How do key aspects of the Pentateuch surface in Paul’s theology as expressed in Romans 1–8? In keeping with Paul’s tendency to weave theological threads together over a longer text, the following suggestions are made for understanding how the Pentateuch impacted Paul’s theology.

Creation And Fall (Rom 1:1–3:20)

Even a glance at Romans 1:18–3:20 finds a strong tie to the account of creation and the fall. “What Paul says now must be placed against the backdrop of a wider story of creation and fall. Paul knows that the world has gone horribly wrong.”[7] A few examples will suffice.

The Genesis story of Adam and Eve exposes the nature of sin, which is fundamentally rebellion against God. It is a form of idolatry in that Adam and Eve refused to accept his sovereignty, instead choosing their own wisdom. Genesis 3–11 shows a number of reversals resulting from Adam and Eve’s decision to sin. Rather than rule on God’s behalf, Adam abdicates his authority to the serpent. The ground becomes the enemy. The helper becomes a hindrance. The brother becomes a murderer; the serpent is recognized as an evil force. The cascading effects of sin are devastating[8] as this section records the “almost unimaginable and unrestricted ability of the human race to revolt against God.”[9]

In Romans 1:18–32, Paul sets the stage for exposing the sinfulness of both the Gentiles and the Jews. His first indictment is that people suppress the truth of God’s righteousness. This may be an allusion to Genesis 3 and the fall of Adam (perhaps even 3:10, wherein Adam hides from God because his view of reality is now distorted).[10] If so, Paul is clarifying that this is an actual suppression of the truth. To use Paul’s language, in the Genesis account Adam is “without excuse.” This necessitates God’s redeeming action to both expose Adam[11] and clothe him and provide for him.

This is further bolstered by retelling the story of Genesis 3 in that humanity began to worship created things rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25). Paul makes this clear in Romans 1:23, where he uses language from Genesis 1:24–26 (LXX) to argue his point. Several key aspects of creation are now distorted, including εἰκών (“image”), ἄνθρωπος (“humanity”), πετεινόν (“birds”), τετράπους (“animals”), and ἑρπετόν (“reptiles”).[12] Humanity, rather than reflecting the image of God, has turned to idolatry. “The text asserts that God has revealed something of himself to all people in the world he has made. But it is equally obvious that this revelation is universally rejected, as people turn from knowledge of God to gods of their making (Rom. 1:21–23, 25). Why this is so, Paul will explain elsewhere (5:12–21).”[13]

As he continues his argument, he continues to reference creation and the fall. Paul’s argument that those who turned against God knew better seems to have in mind Adam and Eve as well as later generations (Gen 3–11).[14] The three uses of παραδίδωμι (Rom 1:24, 26, and 28) to describe God’s actions are captured well in Genesis 3–11, wherein God himself saw that every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood (Gen 8:21). “The result . . . is that the creator allows all to reap what they have sown.”[15] Paul concludes Romans 1 with an allusion to Genesis 3 in his reference to death.[16]

Redemption (Rom 3:21–5:11)

As Paul moves to the fall’s solution in Romans 3:21, he anchors his discussion in the Genesis story, using Abraham as the key example.[17] His basic argument is that redemption is made possible through both the faithfulness of Jesus and the faith of the believer.

Beginning with Genesis 12, God introduces his plan to rescue his creation from sin. As Genesis 12 opens, the division of the world into nations (Gen 10–11) provides the foundation for God’s choice to elect one particular nation to bless the rest. This comes in the form of a covenant with Abram and Abram’s obedience. It also reveals God’s continued sovereignty over history. The unfolding story in Genesis reveals God’s increasing commitment of himself to Abraham and his creation. He begins by promising to bless Abraham, to make him into a great nation, and to bless the earth through him (Gen 12). God puts this promise into the form of an immutable covenant (Gen 15) and then confirms the covenant (Gen 17). Finally, God swears to the covenant he has made (Gen 22).[18] The remainder of Genesis explains how Abraham’s family grew, how God protected them in the midst of sin and harsh conditions, and how he moved them to Egypt, where they were given space to grow into a nation. Throughout this section God’s sovereignty continues to shine through the story.

It should now be clear that the “righteousness of God” has surfaced as the key theme going forward (Rom 1:17; 3:21). While hotly debated in all of its various uses and nuances, God’s righteousness surely has as its core the idea of his faithfulness to his promises.[19] Paul has made the argument that Jews and Gentiles alike are in a similar position, and Israel’s failure to be a light to the world has made them part of the problem.

Paul now narrows his view of the solution to one person.

Through Jesus, God has kept his promise to Abraham. God has put Jesus forth publicly as proof of his covenant faithfulness. As noted by Wright, Paul’s use of προτίθημι (3:25) is fundamentally sacrificial in nature in that Jesus is being presented as a sacrifice of atonement.[20] While there is great debate about the meaning of ἱλαστήριον, of significance for this study is the word’s use in Leviticus 16 in the ritual of the Day of Atonement. When the two words are combined it becomes significant that, whereas the annual sacrifice was once hidden behind a cloud of incense in the most holy place, God has now put Jesus forth publicly for all the world to see.[21] “By referring to Christ as this ‘mercy seat,’ then, Paul would be inviting us to view Christ as the New Covenant equivalent, or antitype, to this Old Covenant ‘place of atonement,’ and, derivatively, to the ritual of atonement itself.”[22]

Paul then introduces Abraham as his primary example of faith “apart from the law.” Paul’s direct citations from Genesis 15:5 and 6 and 17:5 (Rom 4:3, 22; 4:17; and 4:18, respectively, not to mention the many allusions) demonstrate that for Paul, Abraham is the primary example of faith. Specifically, Paul is arguing that God justifies the “ungodly” (4:5). Abraham becomes the example of the Gentile included in the people of God by virtue of faith before the law was even given. Looking back to Genesis, Paul can now see that Abraham’s “monotheistic faith” brought him righteousness. Thus, Abraham serves as the key example of one who rejected idolatry for faith in the one true God.[23] In Paul’s argument, the story of Abraham from Genesis and the Day of Atonement in Leviticus come together to explain God’s reconciling love.

Paul further expands on the promise to Abraham, in that he would become “heir of the world” (Rom 4:13). Scholars have long recognized that the Old Testament nowhere makes such a direct promise. However, the idea of inheritance was a central tenet in Jewish understanding of their covenant with God, specifically the land of Canaan (Gen 12:7; 15:7; 17:8; 22:17). By the time of Paul, however, the concept had broadened beyond Canaan to include the whole earth.[24] Psalm 2 picks up the “notion of ‘inheritance’ and declares in no uncertain terms that this now consists, not of one small piece of territory in the middle east, but of ‘the nations’ and ‘the uttermost parts of the earth.’ ”[25] Romans 4:13 thus looks ahead to Romans 8:17–30, in which the inheritance will be the world. By the end of this section, Paul has developed his argument that all who believe the gospel are the “true, forgiven family of Abraham, no matter whether they are Jews or gentiles.”[26]

Before getting to Romans 6 and freedom from slavery to sin, Paul concludes the argument thus far, while building a picture of the Christian life in which the ancient promises are coming true in Christ (Rom 5:1–11).

Nygren argues that the Habakkuk quote in Romans 1:17 reflects the “whole message of this epistle.”[27] This is helpful, in that if Romans 1–4 focuses on the faith required of the righteous, then Romans 5–8 focuses on what it means to live. As noted by Watson, this is supported by the repeated use of ζάω and ζωή throughout Romans 5–8.[28] This focus on life thus “sums up the whole sweep of human history from creation to consummation in the two men Adam and Christ—the one marking out the era of sin and death, the other of grace and life.”[29] Therefore, it makes sense that Paul would introduce the issue of slavery to sin and the need to be freed from this slavery by the ultimate promise of life (5:10).

Paul introduces this emphasis on life by highlighting the reality of peace with God (5:1).[30] Paul is beginning to build the picture that all of the ancient promises of God are now coming true in Christ. As Wright has noted, “At the centre of these promises is the establishment of a loving, welcoming personal relationship between individual humans and the creator God himself.”[31]

Paul explains that this peace comes through Jesus, who has given us access into grace (5:2). With the use of προσαγωγή, Paul is most likely using cultic imagery, specifically referring to access to the temple. The verb προσάγω is used frequently throughout the LXX in a cultic sense, especially in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.[32] Its primary use is related to an offering or a sacrifice. Wright argues that, in light of Romans 12:1 and 15:16, where believers are described in language of offering, it makes sense here to understand this as temple language. “Just as the Temple symbolized and actualized Israel’s meeting with God, so now Jesus has effected such a meeting between this God and all who approach by faith.”[33] Murray notes this verb is used elsewhere only in Ephesians 2:18 and 3:12, which have cultic overtones.[34]

With this imagery in mind, one should not miss the emphasis on the joyful result of what has already occurred. Namely, the death of Christ has resulted in justification of the believer, peace with God, access to his presence, and genuine hope. As argued by Cummins, “The Creator God’s image-bearing but flawed humanity, who, rescued and renewed through Jesus and the Spirit, may ‘regain their noble status, their “glory,” ’ and now exercise their calling to be stewards of creation. The end of Israel’s exile, a condition recapitulating the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden, also means that the ‘exile’ of the whole human race has at last been dealt with.”[35] In other words, the promise to Abraham is now being realized in Christ.[36] Paul is using this imagery to set the stage for the long-awaited liberation from enslavement.

Enslavement And Exodus (Rom 5:12–6:21)

Paul now turns to the specific issue of death resulting from sin (Rom 5:12–20). Genesis 3 forms the basis for Paul’s argument in this passage, since death came as a result of Adam’s fall.[37] He explains how death occurred and also how God has successfully dealt with the problem of human sin. This lays the foundation for the true exodus from death and slavery to sin (Rom 6). Admittedly, Exodus language does not occur in this section per se, yet the connection between death (Gen 2:17), sin, and ultimately enslavement cannot be avoided.

McConville argues, “The Exodus tradition lies at the heart of the faith of the OT. It is the supreme example of Yahweh’s saving activity on behalf of his chosen people, and as such it becomes a paradigm for all acts of salvation.”[38] It is not surprising then that this theme would lie behind Paul’s argument in Romans 6—freedom from enslavement to sin with the resulting obligation to live faithful lives.

Exodus begins with the family of Israel together in Egypt, though in drastically difficult conditions. Israel is enslaved and in need of deliverance. They face extreme suffering and planned genocide. This surfaces the problem of God’s covenant with Abraham. God’s invitation for humans to share the blessing of being with him marks out the “tenor of the Bible,” yet this invitation seems to be threatened.[39] God then raises an unlikely deliverer in the person of Moses. Paul similarly argues in Romans that while death came through Adam, life came through Jesus.

Paul opens Romans 6 by arguing that the believer has been baptized with Christ into his death, with the result that the believer has died to sin in order to live a new life (Rom 6:1–4). This dying to sin through baptism relates back to the death that resulted through the human connection with Adam (5:12–21). Since Paul uses enslavement language in Romans 6, it makes sense that Romans 5 speaks in terms of death and enslavement.[40] The language of death reigning can now be understood in terms of enslavement. Because we died with Adam, sin reigns and we must obey it—this seems to be at the heart of the enslavement metaphor.[41]

However, all of the metaphors used throughout Romans 6 are polyvalent. It is as though Paul, who is introducing a new and unique concept, is tying together the salvation history of Scripture with the realities of his own world to create a picture accessible to Jews and Gentiles alike. For example, Paul uses baptism as a metaphor of the Exodus in 1 Corinthians 10:1–2, where he describes the Exodus experience of passing through the sea as being baptized into Moses. It is no surprise, then, that he begins Romans 6, on being set free from slavery to sin, with baptism language.[42] Fee argues that the use of baptism imagery in 1 Corinthians is a mixture of type and analogy. In other words, Paul relates Israel’s crossing of the Red Sea in terms of Christian baptism. “They genuinely prefigure us when it comes to our experience of ‘baptism.’ ”[43]

Similarly, the enslavement metaphor would have been easily understood by Paul’s audience because “somewhere between one- and two-thirds of the population were either slaves or former slaves. . . . This social reality is the basis of the comparison Paul draws with service to sin.”[44] Thus, the combination of baptism with enslavement provides a way out of the dilemma. Only death with Christ (baptism) frees people from such enslavement to sin.[45] In keeping with McConville’s earlier statement, the Exodus event is the perfect example of God’s saving activity.

This imagery, therefore, forms the basis for the four imperatives in Romans 6:11–13. As noted by Wright, “If you have been baptized, you belong to the people thus defined, and you must therefore draw the proper conclusions: you, too, have died and been raised. ‘You, too, must calculate yourselves as being dead to sin, and live to God in the Messiah, Jesus’ (6.11). You must work out the fact that you have been brought out of slavery, and stand now as free people on the way to your inheritance.”[46]

In this context, baptism becomes a defining symbol related to the true exodus from sin. As Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 10:1–13, even though the Israelites were baptized—they passed through the sea—God was not pleased with “most of them” (1 Cor 10:5). This leads to Paul’s use of their deaths as an example to keep believers from setting their hearts on evil things (1 Cor 5:6). This parallels Paul’s encouragement throughout Romans 6 to offer oneself as a slave to righteousness rather than to sin. His implied question is Since you have been set free from slavery to sin by going through the new exodus, why do you keep on sinning?

The Law And Wanderings (Rom 7)

Paul’s use of the law is complex and multifaceted. While it is impossible to deal here with all of its aspects, the following key points can be made.

In Romans 2:1–29, Paul introduces the law for the first time. His point in this section is not so much to condemn the Jews as to lay out the proof that Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners and therefore need justification.[47] He appears to begin with a moralist, but has much more in mind with his use of Psalm 62:12 (Rom 2:6).[48] His use of Psalm 62[49] introduces God’s covenant love. “The progression of thought [in Psalm 62:11–12] is that God is able to deliver, and his deliverance is an act of his faithful covenant love.”[50] Paul’s use of Psalm 62 to argue that God will repay all people according to their actions has roots throughout the Old Testament, including the Pentateuch. Paul is using a “widely accepted principle of biblical faith”[51] to describe the relationship between deed and reward. At Sinai, before giving the law, God declared that those who obeyed him fully and kept his covenant would be his treasured possession (Exod 19:5–6). Additionally, the contrast between obedience and disobedience at the end of the wanderings (Deut 28), as well as the offer of life (30:11–20), seems to underlie Paul’s discussion of obedience in Romans 2, especially as it relates to God’s generous gift of eternal life (v. 7).[52]

Further, Paul’s lengthy discussion of life either apart from or under the law (2:5–29) has overtones from the entire law (Exod 19–Num 10). The concept of holiness has at its core the idea that one’s life should be fundamentally different after receiving the grace of God, in marked contrast to a life ruled by evil desires. Oswalt has argued that “one of the functions of the covenant is to make that fact crystal clear to the Israelites.” In other words, the holiness that God expects of his people is behavioral, “and it is a behavior which cuts right across the grain of life, touching every aspect of it, whether personal, social, moral, civil or religious.”[53] This seems to account for Paul’s movement from a general argument (Rom 2:12–16) to a more specific and Jewishly nuanced argument (vv. 17–29) that addresses all of these holiness aspects.

Paul now gets to the main point with Isaiah 52:5 (Rom 2:24).[54] In the Isaiah passage, it appears to the world that Israel’s belief in God was false because he had been forced to surrender his people to superior gods. His reputation was held in contempt because of his apparent inability to defend himself.[55] Yet Isaiah makes it clear that it was because of Israel’s sin, not God’s inability, that they were exiled. Eventually, the world would come to know the truth (Isa 52:5–10). Paul is similarly arguing that it is because of Israel’s disobedience to the covenant that the Gentiles are now blaspheming God. As Dunn argues, “The implication is that just as the exile should have caused Israel then to recognize that they had been resting on a misunderstanding of what the covenant meant, so the Jew now should be reassessing the significance of his covenant status and not simply relying on the fact of his being a Jew and having the law.”[56]

Paul clarifies that the “bearers of the solution have become part of the problem (Rom 2:25–29).”[57] He has argued all along that the Jews are as guilty of idolatry as the Gentiles, and he uses circumcision to demonstrate his point—a reference back to Genesis 17:9–14.[58] His point seems to be simply that circumcision is of no value if the law is not kept. Therefore, the Jews themselves have become lawbreakers and have thus failed to fulfill their mission.

But Paul is not finished. The law led to the increase of trespass (Rom 5:20). Cranfield and Dunn both see this as intentional on the part of God.[59] Paul seems to be arguing that, while death occurred because of Adam, the law increased sin. Cranfield states, “If sin, which was already present and disastrously active in mankind, though as yet nowhere clearly visible and defined, were ever to be decisively defeated and sinners forgiven in a way worthy of the goodness and mercy of God and recreated in newness of life, it was first of all necessary that sin should increase somewhere among men in the sense of becoming clearly manifest.”[60]

This is the picture presented in the Pentateuch. The fall (Gen 3) resulted in death, which was then followed by the decline of humanity into the depths of enslavement to sin (Gen 4–11); the promise to Abraham, which includes the prophecy of actual enslavement (Gen 15); and finally, actual slavery (Exod 1–2). For Paul, this history provides the backstory for the exodus from slavery to sin (Rom 6) and anticipates the whole argument of Romans 7:7–25.

When we come to Romans 7, we have entered one of the most debated and complex areas of Paul’s theology. It is impossible to capture in a short article.[61] Although Romans 7 uses only one direct quotation (Exod 20:17 / / Deut 5:21; Rom 7:7), that quotation is significant, since it establishes the role of the law in exposing sin. In addition, as Watson has argued, Numbers plays a foundational role in establishing the background of Romans 7, especially the wandering section beginning with Numbers 10:11. Paul is moving from the Sinai experience of Exodus 20 to the resulting wanderings recorded in Numbers.

Paul begins by arguing that the believer has died to the law through the body of Christ (Rom 7:1–6). In chapter 7, νομός plays a critical role as it occurs twenty-three times as opposed to two times in chapter 6.[62] In this introduction Paul begins his careful explanation that our sinful passions have been aroused by the law. Rather than argue that the law is a moral guide to follow, he instead argues that the law has become part of the problem. Using the metaphor of marriage, he seems to be arguing that death releases people from obligations under the law. This is consistent with his negative appraisal of the impact of the law (5:20) and the fact that the believer is no longer “under the law” (6:14–15).[63]

This prepares for him to argue that he became aware of sin only because of God’s commandment (7:7–12). This caused sin to spring to life, and death resulted. The gracious gift of God to give his command and therefore the conditional promise of life in Leviticus 18:5 is now overtaken by the reality of death. This is exactly what the wandering section of Numbers describes. Paul’s opening reference to “those who know the law” (Rom 7:1) reveals how important the law is in redemptive history; Paul needs to “tell the story of Israel because it is the story of the world’s redemption.”[64]

Before arguing the possibility of the wanderings as a backstory, the following key points should be made about the law. First, the making of the covenant revealed that God intended his people to share his character. Second, the covenant revealed that Israel and God had entered into a new relationship. The purpose of the covenant was not to make Israel God’s people; they already were, as evidenced by God’s deliverance. Third, the material found between Exodus 19 and Numbers 10 revealed God’s righteousness so that he might live in their midst. “This is why the account of the Tabernacle follows the Book of the Covenant.”[65] Fourth, Leviticus 18 revealed that life is found in obedience to God and avoidance of pagan practices (Lev 18:1–5). In this case, life is more than just physical life.[66] Even more than that, this section revealed that Israel was to operate on a moral level that exceeded that of its neighbors, thus giving insight into what it meant to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod 19:5–6).[67] Fifth, in contrast to the life promised in Leviticus, Numbers recounts the immediate aftermath of Sinai and continues telling the story of the wanderings, in which the rebelliousness of Israel was revealed.[68] Finally, the call to renew the covenant in Deuteronomy revealed a continuing relationship between God and his people.

This sets the stage for Watson’s proposal that Numbers, specifically the wandering section, is the foundation for what follows in Romans 7:13–25. The first census identified in Numbers 1 turns out to be an “enumeration” for slaughter rather than identification for military service (Num 14:28–30).[69] All of those identified in the first census were later marked for death. In moving from Leviticus to Numbers, the giving of the law at Sinai resulted in death for the entire generation that stood before the Lord at Sinai. As Paul reflects back on this, it seems to become a paradigm, in that he perceives that the giving of the law represented a “sentence of death” for virtually all of its original recipients (Rom 7:10).

Paul more fully explicates Numbers in 1 Corinthians 10:1–13 in order to show that what happened in Numbers serves as an example of the perils of evil and resulting death for disobedience. After citing the golden calf incident (Exod 32:6), he refers to Korah’s rebellion (Num 16), the plague of snakes (Num 21), and the seduction by the daughters of Midian (Num 25). Each of these cases involves death in keeping with Israel’s failure to keep the law and God’s verdict that their bodies would fall in the wilderness (Num 14:29).[70] This seems to be an expansion of his argument in Romans 7:7–12, with the notable difference that the Romans passage focuses more on the role of the law.[71]

It also reflects Paul’s own experience (Rom 7:9–10). The first-person narrative throughout this section seems to arise out of Paul’s interpretation of Israel’s history, specifically Israel’s post-Sinai experience in the wilderness. All of the rebellions cited in 1 Corinthians 10 began with desire and ended in death. Here, Paul seems to have internalized the narrative of Numbers such that Israel’s story has become his own. This may account for the past tenses (Rom 7:7–11) as he engages in “scriptural interpretation.”[72]

Lambrecht argues that Paul is reflecting autobiographically, but that the key to understanding this complex section lies in Paul’s aspect as he thinks through his experience. “Romans 7 was written by Paul after his conversion. Only through justification has he achieved the correct insight into the actual tragic condition of his pre-Christian existence as Jew. One can estimate sin in all its negative dimensions only after having been set free from its domination. Romans 7 especially describes the not yet converted Paul, Paul under the law, in his hopeless situation confronted with this law. The dark, negative side of such a life was not fully realized by Paul prior to the Damascus event. Paul composed Romans 7 with a Christian view of this pre-Christian existence.”[73]

This allows for interpreting Romans 7:7–9 in a broader sense of Paul’s experience as a pre-Christian Jew,[74] the situation of Israel after they committed to keeping the law (the wandering section of Numbers),[75] and the general state of humanity as captured by Adam (Gen 1–3).[76] Once again, the use of a polyvalent argument allows Paul to reflect on a complex and important theological point in a way that ties together the salvation history of Scripture with the realities of his own world in order to create a picture accessible to Jews and Gentiles alike.

This raises the question of whether the law brought death (Rom 7:13). In spite of the complex history of interpretation of this passage, it seems clear that, first, the law is not to blame for death. Being a catalyst is not the same as being a cause. Second, sin used the law to bring about death. Third, giving the law results in the revelation of sin in all its ugliness and devastation. Fourth, the key subject throughout is the intricate relationship between the law and sin and death.

By the time we get to the final section (Rom 7:14–25), the focus is on the impact of the law—death—rather than the promise of life. What was supposed to bring life actually brought death to Adam, Israel, and Paul. The transition to present tenses may be understood in terms of the constant, failed attempt to obey the law and resulting frustration. The resulting death may lie behind Paul’s plea for deliverance from the “body of death” (v. 24).

If this is the case, then Romans 7:14–25 can be understood as an analysis of the failed attempt by both Israel and Paul to live out the Mosaic law. Throughout the Old Testament, obedience to the law is constantly frustrated by sinful behavior. Paul understands this frustration as the result of the desire provoked by the tenth commandment (which seems to summarize the entire law). This also explains the transition from past tenses to present tenses (v. 13): the death resulting from failure to keep the law has led to the present reality of death in all aspects of life (vv. 14–25).

For Paul, the struggles with keeping the law are more than a personal problem. These struggles represent a problem with the law itself. It was incapable of delivering the promised life, since death retained its grip. This explains Paul’s repeated statement about “sin living in me” (vv. 17, 20). If this is a simple explanation of the current life of all believers, then it seems to disagree with Romans 6,[77] where the believer has now been freed from slavery to sin. Rather, it is a retelling of the problem that Israel, too, is in Adam. “The life of Israel under Torah thus becomes like the life of Adam’s descendants, only more sharply focused—but with salvific intent: Israel’s plight, clinging to Torah for dear life but thereby finding it to be the means of condemnation, has one end only in view. The end in question is condemnation.”[78]

Paul’s plea for rescue (Rom 7:24–25) reveals that salvation is indeed unavailable through the law and can be realized only through Jesus Christ. As pointed out by Watson, in Galatians and Romans Paul’s citations from Deuteronomy are drawn from the concluding section (Deut 27–30). The repeated warnings throughout this section in Deuteronomy tend to lose their “conditional character.” Instead, judgment and exile in Deuteronomy are not just a possibility, but a certainty. If the wanderings captured by Numbers typify Paul’s own experience in Romans 7, then perhaps the certainty of Deuteronomy 30, including both exile and return from exile, also lays the foundation for Paul’s language in Romans 7 about the certainty of death and the need for Christ.[79]

Genuine Life (Romans 8)

Paul now turns from his Adam/Christ analogy begun in Romans 5 to the subject of life. Life was the gift of God that the law wanted to give but could not.

As noted earlier, the covenant revealed that life was to be found in obedience to God and avoidance of pagan practices (Lev 18:1–5). “What is envisaged is a happy life in which a man enjoys God’s bounty of health, children, friends, and prosperity. Keeping the law is the path to divine blessing, to a happy and fulfilled life in the present.”[80] God’s design for his people runs throughout the Old Testament. He desired to bring the Israelites out of slavery so that they would enjoy a land flowing with “milk and honey” (Exod 3:8). As noted by Garrett, this phrase occurs some twenty times and represents the language of promise. “In other words, it is a place where one can enjoy life and not merely survive.”[81]

Similarly, God promised a special relationship with Israel in that they would be his people and he would be their God (Exod 6:7). This reflects movement on God’s part to take the relationship to a new level of intimacy. As Oswald has argued, this is the language of matrimony. He is not simply rescuing them from Egypt. He is making Israel his bride.[82] This is what God intended in taking Israel to the Promised Land.

Paul’s argument thus far has demonstrated that this did not happen. The law was incapable of delivering this promise. However, what the law could not accomplish, God did accomplish through Messiah Jesus (Rom 7:24–25). The result, laid out in Romans 8, is breathtaking.

First, there is no longer any condemnation (Rom 8:1–11). Because of what Christ accomplished on the cross, the Holy Spirit has replaced sin as the indwelling power within God’s people. In 2:1–16 Paul left condemnation hanging over the heads of all people. Now he demonstrates that life in the Spirit has removed this condemnation. “The form of 8:1 is that of a dogmatic thesis, formulated without a verb, drawing the conclusion that believers have been set free from sin and death, which was the burden of the argument in the previous sections of 5:1–7:25. This thesis is elaborated in the rest of this pericope as well as in the final pericope of this proof (8:31–39).”[83]

The question of how is answered in Romans 8:3–4. The “righteous requirement of the law” has been fulfilled in us. Moo has argued that the key to understanding this phrase is found in Romans 8:3 in that the law was not able to free people from the law of sin and death. Therefore, Paul is arguing that freeing people from sin (the new exodus of Romans 6) is exactly what Christ accomplished on the cross. “As our substitute, he satisfied the righteous requirement of the law, living a life of perfect submission to God.”[84] The special life promised by God in Exodus is now becoming a reality.

Second, the inheritance is guaranteed (Rom 8:12–30). Wright argues that this “celebratory description” reveals present Christian experience in that the covenant faithfulness of God comes fully into view. “What God did for Israel at the Red Sea, what God did for Jesus at Easter, God will do not only for those who are in Christ but for the whole created order.”[85] We are now co-heirs with Christ and are to receive all that God has promised, since our legal status has changed because of our adoption (8:14–17).[86]

Third, the relationship with God is now guaranteed (Rom 8:31–39). All that Paul has been pointing to thus far is being realized. God’s deep and abiding love now surfaces with clarity. As Cranfield has summarized, “What distinguishes this passage from the others is . . . the fact that the confidence expressed in it is confidence not in the power of human virtue but in the grace of God in Christ.”[87] What was envisioned throughout the entire Pentateuch is finally being realized in Christ.

Conclusion

To understand Romans, it helps to step back and look at the Pentateuch broadly. In Genesis we find that the God of Israel is Creator of all things, but due to Adam’s sin, the curse was pronounced. Fortunately, that is not the end of the story. God stepped in, because of his love as expressed through his covenant, in the family of Abraham. This underlies Paul’s argument in Romans 1–4, where he explains the fall and impact of sin and reveals God’s redemptive program through Jesus, using Abraham as a key example.

Exodus, Leviticus, and the beginning of Numbers tell the story of the enslavement of Israel, the need for God’s redemption through the Exodus, and the making of the covenant. This underlies Paul’s argument in Romans 5–6 as he explains how slavery to sin occurred, using Adam as a key example, and argues for the release from slavery to sin (what Wright refers to as the new exodus).

Beginning with Numbers 10:11 we see that the hope that obedience to the law would result in life actually led to desire and death.[88] This underlies Paul’s argument in Romans 7, where he wrestles with the law and shows how it brought death to humanity in general and Israel in particular.

Finally, in Deuteronomy we see the covenant being reestablished. More importantly we see that God’s promise has not ended. Paul used this along with Leviticus 18:5 as a background to Romans 8 to argue that what was originally envisaged is finally being realized with the New Covenant and the coming of the Spirit. Thus, the genuine life that has overshadowed the entire story is now realized because of Jesus.[89]

Notes

The question of purpose for the epistle has long been debated. My statement here is not to lay that debate to rest but to place Paul’s approach within the scope of the Pentateuch and the theology with which he had been raised. In other words, he had to make sense of the Old Testament in light of Christ.
For an excellent introduction to the literature of Second Temple Judaism and its impact on Romans, see Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston, eds., Reading Romans in Context: Paul and Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015).
For example, NA28 identifies five direct citations and twenty-six allusions to the Pentateuch in Romans 1–8.
“Explicit scriptural citations are simply the visible manifestations of an intertextuality that is ubiquitous and fundamental to Pauline discourse.” Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 17.
Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, 3. Watson expands his study to include the extrabiblical Jewish writings with which Paul interacted. This article, though, looks only at Paul’s interaction with the Old Testament. Two excellent cautions come from Wright and Witherington. “How we label the various echoes and allusions (typology, allegory, or whatever) is not so important. What matters is how the relevant texts would be understood in the first century, both by Second Temple Jews in general and then by early Christians as they saw everything afresh in the light of Jesus and the Spirit.” N. T. Wright, “Responding to Exile,” in Exile: A Con-versation with N. T. Wright, ed. James M. Scott (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2017), 321. “The problem with too many intertextuality studies is they assume that we are just talking about the interaction between texts, when in fact we may be talking about the interaction between memory (faulty or good), oral traditions (recent or long-standing), and sacred texts.” Ben Witherington, Torah Old and New: Exegesis, Intertextuality, and Hermeneutics (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2018), 228. Even Jewett, who rightly emphasizes Paul’s rhetorical approach, states, “The intensive investigation in recent years of Paul’s use of Scripture has resulted in a consensus about its central role in the argument of Romans. A prominent emphasis in the opening of Romans is that the gospel about Christ was affirmed ‘in the holy scriptures’ (1:2).” Robert Jewett and Roy D. Kotansky, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 25.
N. T. Wright, “Yet the Sun Will Rise Again: Reflections on the Exile and Restoration in Second Temple Judaism, Jesus, Paul, and the Church Today,” in Exile: A Conversation with N. T. Wright, 75.
Michael F. Bird, Romans, Story of God Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 53.
Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 82.
Victor P. Hamilton, “Genesis: Theology,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 5:664.
This is the view argued by Barrett when he says, “We may suspect that Adam is somewhere in the background, characteristically hiding himself.” C. K. Barrett, From First Adam to Last: A Study in Pauline Theology, Hewett Lectureship (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1962), 1–2. See also M. D. Hooker, “Adam in Romans I,” New Testament Studies 6 (1960): 297–306; M. D. Hooker, “A Further Note on Romans I,” New Testament Studies 13 (1967): 181–83; James D. G. Dunn, Romans, 2 vols., Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1988), 1:53. Schreiner writes, “The passage as a whole is redolent of the fall of Adam, suggesting a reference to all humanity.” Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018), 87. For a dissenting view, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 274.
Allen Ross and John N. Oswalt, Genesis, Exodus, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2008), 54. Ross argues that God’s purpose was to draw from Adam an explanation as to why he was hiding.
The triad of birds, four-footed creatures, and reptiles appears together only in Genesis 1:24–26 (LXX) and Romans 1:23–25.
Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 117.
Moo, Romans, 96–98. He argues, “Moreover, their turn to idolatry is described in language reminiscent of OT descriptions of the Fall, suggesting that all humanity is in view.” Wright argues similarly that “Paul is deliberately, though covertly, retelling the story of Genesis 3.” N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 432.
Wright, Romans, 433.
Moo, Romans, 132.
NA28 identifies three citations (Gen 15:5, 6; 17:5) and five allusions (Gen 15:5, 7; 17:11, 17; 22:17) in this section—all from Genesis—and one allusion to Leviticus (Lev 16:13–15).
Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis, 193–94.
M. A. Seifrid, “Righteousness, Justice, and Justification,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 740–41; “Δικαιοσύνη,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Moisés Silva (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 1:740.
Wright, Romans, 474. See also Schreiner, Romans, 199–200.
Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans, trans. Carl C. Rasmussen (Philadel-phia: Muhlenberg, 1949), 157–58.
Moo, Romans, 253. See also C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975–79), 1:214–18; Dunn, Romans, 1:170–71; Wright, Romans, 472–77; Fitzmyer, Romans, 349–50. Jewett refers to this as a “kind of a renewed temple.” Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 285.
Nancy Calvert-Koyzis, Paul, Monotheism and the People of God: The Significance of Abraham Traditions for Early Judaism and Christianity, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 136.
For a discussion of the expansion of this idea within Judaism, see Dunn, Romans, 1:213.
N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 366. Mitchell has argued further that “the theme of how Yhwh’s mashiah will conquer all opposition and rule the world from Zion must be considered as one of the broad, overarching themes of the Psalms.” David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Books of Psalms, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 245. Similarly, Ross argues, “When God gives his ‘son’ the kingdom, these nations will be his ‘inheritance.’ Ultimately this will take place when the anointed king receives the kingdom.” Allen P. Ross, Commentary on the Psalms: Volume 1 (1–41), Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011), 209.
Wright, Paul, 1008.
Nygren, Romans, 81. Cranfield writes, “These verses make the point that the life promised for the man who is righteous by faith is a life characterized by peace with God.” Cranfield, Romans, 1:256.
Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 53. Ζάω is used in an eschatological sense six times in Romans 5–8 (6:10 [2x], 11, 13; 8:12, 13) and only once elsewhere in the letter (10:5). Similarly, ζωή occurs eleven times in Romans 5–8 (5:10, 17, 18, 21; 6:4, 22, 23; 7:10; 8:2, 6, 10) and only twice elsewhere in the letter (2:7; 11:15).
Dunn, Romans, 1:242.
This follows the reasoning put forth by the editorial committee of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament to treat this verb as an indicative rather than a subjunctive. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 452.
N. T. Wright, Paul for Everyone: Romans, 2 vols. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 1:81.
Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “ἀγωγή,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:131.
Wright, Romans, 516.
John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes, 2 vols., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 1:160. For other possible interpretations, see Dunn, Romans, 1:247–48.
S. A. Cummins, “Paul, Exile, and the Economy of God,” in Exile: A Conversation with N. T. Wright, 233.
It can be no accident that Paul similarly sums up the gospel message in Galatians with a quote from Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18 regarding the promise to Abraham (Gal 3:8) and follows this up with a quote from Habakkuk 2:4 (Gal 3:11).
Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 374.
J. Gordon McConville, “Exodus,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 5:601.
Ross and Oswalt, Genesis, Exodus, 269–70.
“This expression is linked with the Adam/Christ terminology, in which each establishes a dominion.” Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 403.
Dunn has pointed out that, within Romans 5–8, the language of ἁμαρτία (“sin”) and θάνατος (“death”) reaches a climax in chapter 6, in contrast to νόμος (“law”), which climaxes in chapter 7. Dunn, Romans, 1:301. Additionally, δοῦλος/δουλόω (“slave,” “to enslave”) is used eight times in reference to being enslaved to sin or righteousness, and ἐλευθερόω (“to be freed” from either legal claims or domination) is used three times in relation to sin. Clearly, Paul is putting forth the argument that the believer has died to sin and therefore been set free from slavery.
Watson argues that Paul uses the Exodus story and the miracle at the Red Sea as “testimony to God’s saving action on behalf of the people of Israel. . . . Paul reads them christologically, in order to emphasize the typological application to his Christian readers.” Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 383. However, neither Cranfield, Dunn, nor Moo connects Romans 6 to the Exodus event. Cranfield, Romans, 1:295–97; Dunn, Romans, 1:301–03; Moo, Romans, 375–78. This is the point made by Wright when he states that much of scholarship has “played off Romans 6 against Colossians and Ephesians” rather than the Exodus event. Wright, Paul, 422.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 443–44. Keener goes further and explains that Paul appeals to Israel’s history because even the Gentile Christians have been grafted into that history. Thus, Paul uses the wilderness narrative to challenge presumptions among his audience. Craig S. Keener, 1–2 Corinthians, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 84.
Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 416.
Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 404.
Wright, Paul, 422.
Colin G. Kruse, Paul, the Law, and Justification (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 174.
Wright, Romans, 439. Wright refers to this as a “deep-rooted Jewish tradition.”
See also Proverbs 24:12 and Psalm 61:13 (LXX).
Allen P. Ross, Commentary on the Psalms: Volume 2 (42–89), Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2013), 374–75.
Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 204. While the principle is found throughout the Prophets and Jewish literature, it is also established in the Pentateuch in passages such as Exodus 34:6–7 and 32:33–34.
As argued by Watson, Paul’s interplay with Deuteronomy in Galatians regarding the law and its curses underlies his use in Romans. “All who stand within the sphere of the law are under its curse.” This is worked out more fully in Romans 9–11. Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 432.
John N. Oswalt, Called to Be Holy: A Biblical Perspective (Anderson, IN: Francis Asbury, 1999), 33.
With an allusion to Ezekiel 36:20–22.
John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 363.
Dunn, Romans, 1:118.
Wright, Romans, 445.
Thomas R. Schreiner, “Circumcision,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 138.
Cranfield, Romans, 1:292–93; Dunn, Romans, 1:286. Contra Wright, who argues that it is a result of the law rather than its purpose: “Why would God, giving the Torah, intend trespass to increase?” Wright, Romans, 530.
Cranfield, Romans, 1:292–93.
Even Jewett, who engages the various theories of this highly contested section, provides the following assessment of Jan Lambrecht’s approach: “While I would prefer a more nuanced and more historically grounded formulation that avoids a psychological theory of covetousness, Lambrecht selects the most plausible of the basic approaches to the enigma of Rom 7.” Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 443. With this in mind, my proposal for how to understand Romans 7 follows Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 354–411 and Jan Lambrecht, The Wretched “I” and Its Liberation: Paul in Romans 7 and 8, Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs (Leuven: Peeters, 1992).
Dunn, Romans, 1:301.
Cranfield, Romans, 1:331.
Wright, Paul, 1015. As Cranfield states, “The implication . . . seems always to be that, if the people addressed really know—the assumption is that they surely must—the truth which is about to be stated . . . then they ought to recognize the truth.” Cranfield, Romans, 1:332.
Oswalt, Called to Be Holy, 29.
Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 253.
Allen P. Ross, Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 344.
While God does not punish the Israelites for faithlessness in Exodus, he does so in Numbers. This is most likely because they have now committed themselves to the covenant. In other words, the conditional promise of life found in Leviticus has now been overtaken by death. Yet, in spite of the sin of Israel, God continues to show himself faithful by his continued care throughout the wanderings. Roy Gane, Leviticus, Numbers: From Biblical Text . . . to Contemporary Life, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 472; Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 9; Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1976), 37.
“All of those enlisted according to the military conscription census of 1:1–46, indeed every one of those recruited to conquer the land but who were now guilty of rejecting the generous geographical gift, would die.” R. Dennis Cole, Numbers, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000), 236.
Cole, Numbers, 55. “In the rebellion cycles judgment or death or plague is meted upon those who rebel and reject God’s law.”
As Milgrom observes, “In Exodus, God does not punish Israel for its murmuring; in Numbers, He does so consistently.” Milgrom says that “there can only be one explanation”: the murmurings in the Exodus event are pre-Sinai, whereas those in Numbers are post-Sinai. “Before Israel accepted the covenant it was not responsible for its violation; indeed, it could claim ignorance of its stipulations.” See Jacob Milgrom, Numbers: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), xvi. Watson further argues that Deuteronomy 30:15 underlies Paul’s argument. “The first part of Paul’s analysis is determined by the life/death polarity (Rom. 7.7–12), whereas the second part is determined by the good/evil polarity (7.13–25).” Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 507.
Wright argues that Paul weaves together the story of Israel at Sinai with the story of Adam in the garden. The commandment that was intended to bring life was the Torah itself (cf. Lev 18:5). This, then, is the story of Israel under Torah and explains Romans 5:20 more fully. “The arrival of Torah precipitates Israel into recapitulating the sin of Adam.” Wright, Paul, 1014.
Lambrecht, The Wretched “I,” 86. Lambrecht’s proposal led Jewett to state that “a path leading to a potential resolution was opened by Jan Lambrecht.” Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 443. Fitzmyer argues similarly when he states, “In attempting to understand what Paul meant, it is important to keep his perspective in mind, which is that of unregenerate humanity faced with the Mosaic law—but as seen by a Christian.” Fitzmyer, Romans, 465.
Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 440–51.
Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 354–411.
Cranfield, Romans, 1:347–51.
As well as Galatians 5:16–25, where the answer is to live by the Spirit. This solution is noticeably absent from Romans 7.
Wright, Paul, 1017. “There is nothing wrong with being Israel; nothing wrong with Torah. What is wrong is ‘sin.’ ”
Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 416–27; Wright, “Yet the Sun Will Rise Again,” 70.
Wenham, Leviticus, 253.
Duane A. Garrett, A Commentary on Exodus, Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2014), 203.
Ross and Oswalt, Genesis, Exodus, 329–30.
Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 476, italics added.
Moo, Romans, 506.
Wright, Romans, 590; cf. Wright, “Yet the Sun Will Rise Again,” 62.
Moo, Romans, 518–20.
Cranfield, Romans, 1:435.
Watson, Hermeneutics of Faith, 380.
“Romans 4 tells the story of Abraham; after the wider perspective of Romans 5, where Paul surveys the entire sweep of God’s purposes from the highest possible point, we resume the story in Romans 6 by coming through the water, by which the slaves are freed, arriving at Sinai in Romans 7 and grappling with the question of Torah, constructing the tabernacle in 8.9–11 (the ‘indwelling spirit’), continuing the journey through the wilderness in 8.12–16 and glimpsing the promised ‘inheritance’ in 8.17–30. This sequence, I suggest, cannot be accidental. It is part of the conscious and deliberate structuring which Paul has given to this, one of his most obviously carefully composed passages.” Wright, Paul, 422.

The Significance of Minor Characters in the Gospel of John

By James M. Howard

[James M. Howard is Director, Southern Colorado Center, School of Adult and Graduate Studies, Colorado Christian University, Lakewood, Colorado.]

Several relatively minor characters in the Gospel of John were involved in the miracles Jesus performed. This article discusses how these characters contribute to the development of the plot and purpose of the Gospel.

A Word about Literary Characters and Signs

Culpepper notes that characters in narrative literature are seen primarily as autonomous beings with their own traits and personalities, or they are seen primarily as related to the plot and serving some inherent function in plot development.[1] The characters and plot in a story then work together to produce a certain effect.[2] As a result the way John chose to portray minor characters is basic to the development of the purpose of the Gospel.[3]

In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs are significant in that “the distinctive Johannine perspective” becomes evident through the presentation of the signs.[4] “Signs fulfill a specific literary function in the Fourth Gospel, summoning the reader, like the witnesses in the narratives, to either faith or rejection (with an emphasis on the former, 20:27–31).”[5] In John the characters and signs come together to call readers to a decision about their belief in Christ.[6] This is supported by John’s purpose statements (1:6, 31; 20:31).

John recorded six signs and labeled them as such.[7] Grassi suggests that the seventh sign consists of “Jesus’ death and the accompanying issue of water and blood from Jesus’ side.”[8] If this is correct, the first six signs anticipate and lead to the seventh—Jesus’ death and glorification, as seen in the following chiastic structure.[9]

A The wedding feast at Cana (2:1–12; character: Jesus’ mother)

B The restoration of the dying son (4:46–54; character: the royal official)

C The Sabbath healing at Bethesda (5:1–16; character: the lame man)

D The multiplication of loaves and fish (6:1–71; character: Peter)

C´ The Sabbath healing of the blind man (chap. 9; character: the blind man)

B´ The restoration of Lazarus to life (11:1–44; characters: Mary and Martha)

A´ The great hour of Jesus’ death (19:25–37; character: Jesus’ mother)

The correspondences are immediately obvious. The sign at the center of the chiasm reflects John’s stated purpose of leading the reader to faith in Christ. After Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish, Peter, representing all the disciples, expressed his faith (6:68–69) followed by the counter example of Judas (6:70–71).[10] Among its other correspondences, the chiasm shows a close relationship between the first and last signs. As noted by Grassi, elements common to these two include “Jesus’ mother, the ‘hour,’ the thirst or lack of wine, the obedience motif, and the wine/blood/water.”[11]

The Mother of Jesus

Jesus’ mother appears in two scenes in the Gospel of John. The first is at the wedding in Cana where Jesus performed His first miracle sign (2:1–12). Her second appearance is at the cross (19:25–27). Because she remains unnamed in these two passages and is “scarcely defined,”[12] this has led to a variety of symbolic interpretations ranging among her “representing Judaism, Jewish Christianity, the new Eve, and the Church.”[13] While it is granted that John employed much symbolism and double meaning, nothing in the two appearances of Jesus’ mother confirms any of these suggestions. John’s primary reason for including her is something other than the suggestions mentioned and other than ordinary character assessment and application, since he gave relatively little information about her.[14]

The Wedding at Cana (2:1–12)

As the scene in Cana begins, Jesus’ mother appears with no introduction.

The scene is a wedding to which Jesus, His mother, and His disciples were invited (vv. 1–2). The story, although simple on the surface, leaves several details unstated. For example why would Mary tell her son about the wine in the first place, and why did He respond to her as He did? Her instructions to the servants followed by the miracle and the response of the headwaiter beg for further analysis and understanding. The reader is left with a simple story that has a deeper meaning and significance.

When Jesus’ mother told Him that the wine was gone, He spoke of His “hour,” which was yet future. The connection between the wine and His “hour” is more significant than it appears at first glance. “John’s account of Jesus’ conversion of such a large quantity of water into wine at a wedding feast is one way of announcing that. .. the eschatological time of salvation had arrived in the presence of the long-awaited Messiah.”[15] Thus Mary’s role prompts curiosity and helps carry forward the theology of John’s Gospel—the eschatological revealing of the long-awaited Messiah.[16] Her role, though brief, encourages the reader to anticipate this.[17]

When Jesus’ mother told Him, “They have no wine,” He responded, “Woman, what does that have to do with us?” (v. 4). This seems somewhat out of character for Him. In addition the use of “woman” seems to indicate some degree of distance between the two of them.[18] The key to understanding this enigma seems to lie in His words, “My hour has not yet come.” Here He made it clear that the governing will of His life had shifted from her to His Father and implied that His actions from now on would be in accord with His own will (and that of His Father) and not that of others.[19] This, then, at one level seems to be a story about a Son who was moving into the limelight of His service to God, and a mother who must give way to this.[20] Her response to the servant—“Whatever He says to you, do it”—indicates that she had done this. Moloney notes that “the mother of Jesus, is the first person, in the experience of the reader, to manifest trust in the word of Jesus. Her relationship with Jesus transcends the limitations displayed by the disciples, who attempted to understand him within their own categories in 1:35–51. The mother of Jesus is deliberately shown by the author as the first who commands action based entirely on the word of Jesus, without offering any supporting cultural, religious, or historical motivation for such a command.”[21]

At another level, however, the story plays a significant role in that it introduces several themes that are developed later in the Gospel.[22] The theme of water is seen in chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, and ultimately at the cross. The subject of glory—“This beginning of His signs. .. manifested His glory” (2:11)—is mentioned repeatedly throughout the Gospel.[23] Wine is referred to again at the cross. And ultimately what Jesus showed at Cana would be seen clearly “only through the seventh and last sign of the cross.”[24]

The Crucifixion Scene (19:25–27)

The presence of Jesus’ mother at the cross is “not incidental, but [is] central in the first and last signs.”[25] Jesus’ “hour” had now come. In the wedding at Cana she told the servants to do whatever Jesus commanded them. And then this idea of obedience is fully expressed in the crucifixion scene where Jesus Himself obeyed the Father in His death for the world (cf. Phil. 2:8).

This scene, like that at Cana, includes some enigmatic words by Jesus to His mother (John 19:26–27). Moments away from death, He looked at her and said, “Woman, behold, your son!” In this Gospel the first words spoken by Jesus on the cross were these words to His mother. “Jesus speaks to the woman who was the first to commit herself unconditionally to his word.”[26] He then looked at the disciple whom He loved and said, “Behold, your mother!” This link between Mary and John has often been debated.[27] If this disciple is John, the author of the Gospel, as seems likely, then the connection made by Jesus becomes clearer.[28] Jesus was thus claiming the beloved disciple as His true relative. And Mary and John would serve as witnesses of Jesus’ death to the community later on.

Jesus’ mother had witnessed the turning of water into wine at Cana, and she had directed the servants to obey Christ. Now she saw Him drink wine and obey the Father.[29] She had believed before He had performed any signs, and thus she became an example of a true believer. In this regard she became a “revealer” of Christ. Similarly the beloved disciple, the author of the Gospel, became a “revealer” to the believing community of the Messiah.[30] Both Mary and John were witnesses (19:35), and would testify about these events and their significance from that point on. The role played by Jesus’ mother, then, is of great significance in linking the first sign with the seventh.

The two events may be compared as follows.

The Wedding at Cana	The Crucifixion
Jesus’ mother is key in initiating the scene.	Jesus’ mother is key in receiving the beloved disciple.
Jesus altered His relationship with His mother by transferring His obedience to the Father.	Jesus altered His relationship with His mother by transferring her reliance to the beloved disciple.
There was a lack of wine.	Jesus thirsted and wine was brought to Him.
Jesus referred to the future as His “hour.”	Jesus fulfilled His “hour.”
The servants obeyed Jesus.	Jesus obeyed the Father.
Jesus’ glory was manifested.	The Father’s glory was manifested.

What was foreshadowed at Cana became reality at the cross. Jesus’ mother had an important role in both events. At Cana she acted in the role of mother, and at the cross she understood her son’s role (and her own role). At Cana she had little if any grasp of what would take place in Jesus’ life and death. At the cross she was a witness to a very gruesome event (more so because of her unique position). Thus she could testify to the events of that day as well as the entire life of her Son.

The Royal Official

A royal official was the beneficiary of Jesus’ second sign (4:46–54). The scene opens with a reference to Cana, which suggests that just as something significant had happened there earlier, so again something significant was about to happen.

Having been rejected by the leaders in Jerusalem, Jesus went back to Cana in Galilee.[31] While in Jerusalem at the Passover, the Jewish leaders had confronted Him about His cleansing of the temple. Their question set the stage for the story of the royal official. In this way they became a foil for the royal official and his genuine faith when they asked Jesus, “What sign do You show us, as your authority for doing these things?” (2:18). Displeased by His actions, they challenged Him by asking for a sign. When He answered them with the fact that the sign would be His death and resurrection, they did not believe.

In contrast, Jesus was warmly received in Samaria (4:1–42) and Galilee. Though rejected by the antagonistic Jewish leaders, He was welcomed by Galileans. His words were believed by those who heard Him, and His ministry expanded. However, in the middle of the scene with the royal official He said enigmatically, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe” (v. 48). This response may seem illogical, since the royal official came to Jesus out of need rather than out of wonder because of His miracles.[32] But the “you” is plural, suggesting that He was speaking not to the royal official but to the crowd. The Samaritans had believed because of Jesus’ word (v. 41), but the Galileans had believed (or at least followed Him) because of His miracles (v. 45). The royal official demonstrated that he was willing to believe apart from the signs.

There is no indication that the official had been in Jerusalem at the Passover. Coming out of need, he asked Jesus to come heal his son. Jesus responded to the crowd because of their hunger for sensationalism (v. 48), and so the royal official again asked Jesus to go to his house (v. 49), for he was not looking for a sign. His faith was placed in Jesus Himself, not in His deeds. He repeatedly asked Jesus to come to Capernaum to heal his son, but as soon as Jesus told him, “Go, your son lives,” he “believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and started off” (v. 50). The official became a model of what it means to believe apart from signs.[33]

Although change in the official’s character is not obvious, perhaps a subtle change may be noted. When the royal official first approached Jesus, he may not have been aware of what had transpired in Jerusalem. But when Jesus confronted the crowd, the royal official demonstrated tenacity by approaching Him a second time about his need.[34] He thus models what it means to approach Jesus with needs as they arise.

The Lame Man

The story of the lame man in Bethesda near Jerusalem is recorded in 5:2–16. Whereas the royal official requested a healing, the lame man was approached by Jesus. The fact that Jesus asked him whether he wanted to be healed set the stage for both dialogue and the presentation of the story line.[35] And whereas the royal official demonstrated faith in Jesus, there is no evidence that the lame man ever believed. In fact the details of the story suggest that the lame man did not believe. He did not at first know who had healed him. When asked, he was willing to point to another and to deflect the attention of the Jewish leaders away from himself in order to avoid being punished for carrying his mat on the Sabbath. Knowing that they were seeking to blame someone, when the lame man later learned it was Jesus who had healed him, he reported Him to the leaders (v. 15).

The fact that Jesus had returned to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews (v. 1) reminds readers of Jesus’ earlier visit to Jerusalem and of tension because the Jews had refused to believe without seeing a sign (2:13–25; 4:48).[36] What will happen in this scene? Will this incident be like the earlier one or different?

When Jesus asked the man if he wanted to be healed, one would naturally expect him to answer yes. It comes as a surprise, therefore, that the man did not answer as expected, but instead talked about his inability to enter the pool. When the Jewish leaders said the man should not be carrying his pallet on the Sabbath (because this would involve work), he offered “the somewhat feeble defence that his carrying of the bed was ordered by the itinerant healer.”[37] Staley argues that the man’s response was a bold witness, rather than weak and feeble.[38] However, this does not seem to be the most natural intent behind John’s presentation of the scene. What is significant is that John pointed out that the healed man, according to the Jews, broke the Sabbath law, and the man blamed Jesus, so that Jesus was seen as breaking the Sabbath.

Verse 13 states that Jesus had slipped away into the crowd; yet it is still strange that the man did not know who He was. One gets the impression that the man was somewhat “dull,”[39] and then once he had more knowledge, he did nothing good with it. There is no mention of gratitude or belief on his part (cf. 9:35–38), only persecution of Jesus as a result of the man’s learning who had healed him (5:16).

Jesus initiated this healing, as a kind of “nonemergency” miracle, and He intentionally did so on the Sabbath. (This is the first explicit mention of the Sabbath in John.)[40] This is confirmed by His response to the Jews that “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working” (v. 17). “It was clear to Jewish thinkers that God could not rest on the Sabbath; as his creation continued, people died and were thus judged, children were born, and thus life was given. God could not cease to be active, even on the Sabbath, or else history would come to an end.”[41] In Jesus’ response He revealed more about Himself than on previous occasions; He “was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God” (v. 18).

This is consistent with John’s manner of progressively revealing the Messiah throughout the Gospel. It also reveals the truth that God Himself was not bound by the Sabbath—indeed He worked on the Sabbath. Jesus’ healing of the lame man is therefore a statement that He is above the Sabbath; or more importantly, the works He does, which are always good, are allowable on the Sabbath. The lame man thus became a means for Jesus to reveal this next phase of His character and His work.

The lame man is an example of someone who responded inappropriately to Jesus’ signs. The man had everything to gain, and yet that was not enough. He was even given physical healing, and he still did not respond with belief in Christ. Thus he “represents those whom even the signs cannot lead to authentic faith.”[42]

Like other minor characters, the lame man experienced a degree of change as a result of his encounter with Jesus. At the beginning he was sitting by the pool waiting for someone to help him.

He was in a secure position and probably had not broken the Sabbath law. After Jesus healed him, he was walking around carrying his pallet. Rather than responding with joy or excitement, he blamed the one who had made him walk. Later when Jesus found him and talked to him, he told the Jews that Jesus was the one who had made him well. He progressed from being needy, to being indifferent, to denying responsibility for breaking the Sabbath law, to betraying Jesus to the leaders. This supports the conclusion that he did not believe in Christ, but rather moved further away from Him.[43]

The Blind Man

The blind man stands as a model of what it means to believe in Jesus and to grow in spiritual insight, and this growth is seen in the contrasts between the blind man and the leaders. Though the man received his “sight,” the Jewish leaders were “blind” (9:39–41).[44] He was the opposite of the authorities. “If they represent what it is to reject Jesus in unbelief, he most certainly is a model of what it is to accept him in faith.”[45]

The healing of the blind man is similar in some ways to that of the lame man, but the results are different. When first approached by Jesus, the blind man followed Jesus’ instructions and was rewarded with sight. From then on, he witnessed to “the reality, the manner and the author of the healing.”[46] Thus he was an able defender of Jesus to the religious leaders. In fact the man was so effective in this that the leaders kicked him out (v. 34). In contrast to the lame man, he was ready and willing to believe in Jesus and to worship Him. The character of the blind man was developed in detail to show his growing faith, whereas little attempt was made to develop the character of the lame man.[47] Culpepper compares and contrasts the healing of these two men in the following ways.[48]

The Lame Man	The Blind Man
His history: 38 years (5:5)	His history: from birth (9:1)
Jesus took the initiative to heal him (v. 6).	Jesus took the initiative to heal him (v. 6).
The pool had some healing powers (v. 4).	He washed in the pool and was healed (v. 7).
Jesus healed on the Sabbath (v. 9).	Jesus healed on the Sabbath (v. 14).
The Jews accused him of breaking the Sabbath (v. 10).	The Pharisees charged that Jesus violated the Sabbath (v. 16).
The Jews asked who had healed him (v. 12).	The Pharisees asked how he was healed (v. 15).
He did not know who or where Jesus was (v. 13).	He did not know where Jesus was (v. 12).
Jesus found him and invited belief (v. 14).	Jesus found him and invited belief (v. 35).
Jesus implied a relationship between sin and suffering (v. 14).	Jesus rejected sin as the explanation of the man’s suffering (v. 3).
He went to the Jews (v. 15).	The Jews cast him out (vv. 34–35).
Jesus said He must work as His Father is working (v. 17).	Jesus said He must do the works of the One who sent Him (v. 4).

John focused on the man’s response in recognizing who Jesus is. The titles and descriptions of Jesus throughout this scene include “the Light of the world” (v. 5, a title He used of Himself), “the man called Jesus” (v. 11), “a prophet” (v. 17), “from God” (v. 33), and “Lord” (v. 38). The man was growing in his belief as seen in his first recognizing Jesus as a prophet and then calling Him Lord. Thus the blind man serves as an example of what it means to be enlightened by Jesus (cf. 1:9, 12).

Like other minor characters, the blind man exhibited change throughout the scene. At the beginning of the story he is almost an innocent bystander. The opening conversation between Jesus and His disciples has little apparent regard for the blind man. However, Jesus said the reason for the man’s blindness was so that the works of God would be displayed (9:3). When the blind man entered the narrative, he willingly obeyed Jesus (v. 7). Other than Jesus’ opening remarks, there is no evidence that the man knew he would receive his sight, and yet the reward for his obedience was sight.

After he gained his sight he consistently gave credit to Jesus, first in answer to his neighbors (v. 8) and then to the Pharisees (v. 15).

In debating with the Pharisees about the one who had healed him, the man consistently answered truthfully and, when pushed, confrontationally. He was growing in boldness as well as understanding. His faith grew even to the point of being willing to be put out of the synagogue (vv. 22, 34). In contrast to the man’s acknowledgment of Jesus, the Pharisees stated that they were “disciples of Moses” (v. 28) and said they did not know where Jesus was from (v. 29).[49] The climax came when the man declared to Jesus, “Lord, I believe” and began to worship Him (v. 38).[50] In contrast to the lame man the blind man serves as a model of what it means to grow in genuine faith.

Mary and Martha

Mary and Martha figure prominently in the story of the raising of Lazarus (11:1–46). Throughout this scene they are contrasted and compared with each other. Like the narratives of the other minor characters, this story has a “carefully articulated narrative design which determines the shape and message of John 11.”[51]

In the opening scene the reader is told immediately who the characters are (v. 1). Mary is identified as the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet and wiped them with her hair (v. 2), as recorded later in 12:1–8. Jesus loved these siblings—Mary, Martha, and Lazarus (v. 5). After hearing of Lazarus’ illness, Jesus intentionally remained where He was for two additional days. This delay on His part leads the reader to ponder why Jesus acted as He did.

As the story progresses, the reader learns through a conversation between Jesus and His disciples that Lazarus had “fallen asleep” and that Jesus had to awaken him (v. 11). Jesus explained that one reason for His delay was to demonstrate His power to the disciples so that they might believe (v. 15). This raises the question about the belief of the disciples. What was it that they were to believe? Thomas’s enigmatic comment reveals that he understood to some degree the purpose of this event (v. 16). He realized that Jesus must die. Jesus’ travel to Judea would ultimately lead to His death. In a sense, then, Lazarus’ resuscitation set the stage for the death and glorification of the Son of God.[52] “John’s teaching [in this story] that suffering can provide the opportunity for divine intervention foreshadows the significance of Jesus’ own death and resurrection.”[53] This is what the disciples needed to believe. Again the purpose of John’s Gospel emerges.

This is supported by Jesus’ earlier statements about glory. Lazarus’ sickness would reveal not only God’s glory but also the glory of the Son of God (v. 4). The miracle of Lazarus being raised to life helped deepen the disciples’ faith in preparation for Jesus’ own death and resurrection (12:23–33).

When He arrived at Bethany, Jesus found that Lazarus had been dead four days, long enough for advanced decay to have occurred. In other words Lazarus was truly dead! When the women heard that Jesus had arrived, they responded in different ways. Martha ran to meet Jesus, while Mary remained at home (11:20). Martha’s comment that Lazarus would not have died if Jesus had been there shows that her faith in Jesus was genuine. She knew that He could have healed Lazarus if He had desired to do so.

Here the reader knows what Martha and Mary did not know—that Jesus had already planned to raise Lazarus from the dead. Martha was led by Jesus to express her belief in the coming Resurrection and in Jesus as the Messiah. However, Jesus was not content to leave her with only a partial understanding of the final Resurrection. Her inadequate faith is seen in her responses to Him in verses 21 and 24. He led her into a fuller understanding of the truth by revealing to her that, in fact, He is the resurrection and the life.[54]

When Mary came to meet Jesus, she fell at His feet and expressed the very same words used by Martha: “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died” (v. 32; cf. v. 21). Though the sisters’ words were the same, Mary’s faith evoked a different response from Jesus—a response of compassion and solidarity with both Martha and Mary (v. 33).[55] The faith of both women contrasts with the weaker faith of their comforters (v. 37).[56]

The sisters approached Jesus out of need—their overwhelming grief over the death of their brother. At this point in the Gospel of John the reader is fully aware of who Jesus is and His capabilities. In some respects the story of Martha and Mary prepares the reader for the challenge to believe in Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. His intentional delay also reveals that God often uses suffering as an opportunity for divine intervention, even though it is difficult in such situations to believe.

Conclusion

The minor characters and Jesus’ six miracle signs discussed in this article may be summarized as follows.

Character	Passage	Sign	Key Trait
Mother of Jesus	2:1–12	Turning water into wine	Revealer of Christ
Royal official	4:46–53	Restoring a dying son	Belief resulting from needs
Lame man	5:2–16	Sabbath healing	Unbelief in spite of signs
Blind man	chap. 9	Sabbath healing	Belief in the context of signs
Martha and Mary	11:1–46	Raising of Lazarus	Belief resulting from needs
Mother of Jesus	19:25–27	Crucifixion	Revealer of Christ

These minor characters play a dominant role in the presentation and development of Jesus’ miracles.

In each instance several things may be noted. First, each of the minor characters is a model of faith or unbelief. This is consistent with John’s purpose of leading the reader to believe in Jesus Christ. With each character the reader is led to side with or against that person about Christ.

Second, each minor character revealed the Messiah in a different way. This too is consistent with John’s method of increasingly revealing the Messiah throughout his Gospel.

Third, each character reflects some degree of change because of his or her encounter with Christ—either movement into a deeper relationship with Him or movement away from Him.

Fourth, three of the characters reveal that God allows the innocent to suffer in order to demonstrate His glory through healing or resurrection.

Fifth, several of the characters show that being a disciple of Christ involves faith, courage, tenacity, honesty, genuineness with emotions, recognition of needs, humility to seek help from Him, willingness to confront opposition, and willingness to confront doubts and long-held beliefs that may be in error. Thus these minor characters help convey several of the themes seen throughout the Gospel of John.

Notes

R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 101–4. In keeping with John’s purpose all the characters in the Gospel of John experienced some degree of change because of their encounter with Jesus.
Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 37.
Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 106. For a dissenting view see Colleen M. Conway, “Speaking through Ambiguity: Minor Characters in the Fourth Gospel,” Biblical Interpretation 10 (2002): 324–41. She argues that “the minor characters of the Fourth Gospel do more to complicate the clear choice between belief and unbelief than to illustrate it” (ibid., 325). Her primary argument is that the minor characters are presented in ways that introduce ambiguity and tension, and that these qualities draw the reader into the story, since this more accurately represents the “complex life of faith” (ibid., 340). Nevertheless she concludes that one of “many distinct features of the Gospel of John is the relentless way in which it pushes the reader toward a decision” (ibid., 324).
Barry L. Blackburn, “Miracles and Miracle Stories,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 555.
Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:251. See also Blackburn, “Miracles and Miracle Stories,” 556.
Francis J. Moloney, Belief in the Word: Reading John 1–4 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 12. See also Joseph A. Grassi, “The Role of Jesus’ Mother in John’s Gospel: A Reappraisal,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (January 1986): 67–80.
This assumes that Jesus’ walking on the water (6:16–21) is not a sign. The word shmei'on is used of each of the six miracles (2:11; 4:54; 6:2, 14; 9:16; 12:18) but not of His walking on the water. Of course Jesus performed many other miracles. The six sign-miracles are evaluated here for what they contribute to the plot and purpose of the Gospel.
Grassi, “The Role of Jesus’ Mother in John’s Gospel,” 68.
Ibid., 69.
Since the purpose of this article is to explore how minor characters are employed to develop the journey of belief in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus’ multiplying of the loaves and fish and Peter’s confession of faith are not discussed, except to complete the sign chiasm.
Ibid., 77.
Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 133.
Ibid.
David R. Beck, The Discipleship Paradigm: Readers and Anonymous Characters in the Fourth Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 132–36. He suggests that Mary’s anonymity helps the reader identify with her. Thus she represents a positive model for discipleship.
Duane F. Watson, “Wine,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 873.
Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1:501. He argues that Mary’s faith became the catalyst for Jesus’ action. Keener further argues the possibility that her instruction, “Whatever He says to you, do it” (v. 5), parallels Pharaoh’s instruction to the Egyptians about Joseph when Pharaoh said, “Whatever he says to you, you shall do” (Gen. 41:55). “Jesus, like Joseph, will provide abundance in time of need” (ibid., 509). Her expectation of Him is a model of what it means to demonstrate true faith.
Turid Karlsen Seim, “Roles of Women in the Gospel of John,” in Aspects on the Johannine Literature: Proceedings of Papers Presented at a Conference of Scandinavian New Testament Exegetes in Uppsala June 1986, ed. Lars Hartman and Birger Olsson, Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series (Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksell, 1986), 58. Seim makes the excellent point that John consistently presented women as competent, central, and well-known persons in the stories. They were not dependent on or subordinate to men’s authority but were independent in their own right. This further supports the idea that Jesus’ mother played a carefully defined role, in which male-femaleness was not a dominant issue.
D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 170; and Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1:505.
Grassi, “The Role of Jesus’ Mother in John’s Gospel,” 78.
Seim, “Roles of Women in the Gospel of John,” 62. Any mother can recognize the potential maternal difficulties of this situation.
Moloney, Belief in the Word: Reading John 1–4, 84 (italics his).
Ibid., 79.
The noun “glory” and various forms of the verb “glorify” occur in John 1:14; 2:11; 7:39; 8:50, 54; 9:24; 11:4 (twice), 40; 12:16, 23, 28 (three times), 41; 13:31, 32 (three times); 14:13; 15:8; 16:4; 17:1 (twice), 4, 5 (twice), 10, 22, 24; 21:19.
Grassi, “The Role of Jesus’ Mother in John’s Gospel,” 78.
Ibid., 71. Grassi notes that in both settings the word “mother” is used four times and in both scenes the word “woman” is used once.
Francis J. Moloney, Glory Not Dishonor: Reading John 13–21 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 144.
George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 349–50; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (XIII–XXI): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1970), 922–27; Carson, The Gospel according to John, 616–18; and Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2:1144–45.
Carson argues that possibly the sister of Jesus’ mother mentioned in verse 25 is Salome who is mentioned in Mark 15:40 and who is also “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” in Matthew 27:56–57 (The Gospel according to John, 616). If this is so, Salome would have been John’s own mother, and John would have been Jesus’ cousin.
Grassi, “The Role of Jesus’ Mother in John’s Gospel,” 74.
Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 134.
A. Gl. van Aarde, “Narrative Criticism Applied to John 4:43–54, ” in Text and Interpretation: New Approaches in the Criticism of the New Testament, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, P. J. Hartin, and J. H. Petzer (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 124.
Barry W. Henaut, “John 4:43–54 and the Ambivalent Narrator: A Response to Culpepper’s Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel,” Studies in Religion 19 (1990): 290.
Culpepper, on the other hand, says the royal official exemplifies those who respond because of the signs they see, but who are still ready to believe apart from the signs (Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 137). But it seems more natural to see the royal official as distinct from the crowd.
“In the first story Jesus’ mother is the suppliant and responds to Jesus’ rebuke by refusing to take no for an answer (2:3–5); in this passage the royal official acts in the same manner” (Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1:630). Moloney suggests that, as in the miracle of turning the water to wine, Jesus performed the miracle in His own way by not going down to the royal official’s home. Jesus chose to heal the official’s son in a different way because of the genuineness of the man’s faith (Belief in the Word: Reading John 1–4, 185–86).
Francis J. Moloney, Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 5.
David L. Mealand, “John 5 and the Limits of Rhetorical Criticism,” in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honor of George Wishart Anderson, ed. A. Graeme Auld (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 259.
Ibid., 260.
Jeffrey L. Staley, “Stumbling in the Dark, Reaching for the Light: Reading Character in John 5 and 9, ” Semeia 53 (1991): 61–63.
Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 138.
Harold Weiss, “The Sabbath in the Fourth Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (summer 1991): 312.
Moloney, Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12, 8. See also Carson, The Gospel according to John, 246–59; and Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1:641–45.
Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 138.
Moloney, Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12, 7. He argues that readers become aware of a “failure in faith.” This story then becomes a catalyst for readers to choose how they will respond.
Carson, The Gospel according to John, 359.
J. Warren Holleran, “Seeing the Light: A Narrative Reading of John 9, ” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 69 (1993): 20.
Ibid.
James L. Resseguie, “John 9: A Literary-Critical Analysis,” in The Gospel of John as Literature: An Anthology of Twentieth-Century Perspectives, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman, and Mark W. G. Stibbe (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 116.
Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 139–40.
Moloney, Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12, 126.
Ibid., 128. This is especially noteworthy since he already knew that it was Jesus (9:11). But he did not yet know Jesus’ identity. When Jesus approached him after his encounter with the Pharisees and asked him if he believed in the Son of Man, he looked to Jesus to point him to the Son of Man so that he might believe. It was this conversation with Jesus that moved him to a new level of both understanding and belief regarding Jesus’ identity. Jesus revealed what the blind man had already seen but had not yet understood.
Francis J. Moloney, “The Faith of Martha and Mary: A Narrative Approach to John 11, 17–40, ” Biblica 75 (1994): 472.
Moloney, Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12, 154–56.
Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2:839.
Ibid., 2:843; and Moloney, “The Faith of Martha and Mary,” 477.
Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 2:845.
Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 141. He says Martha had discerning faith and Mary had unlimited love. In contrast Moloney suggests that Mary was the one who typifies the faith that John was calling for, in contrast to Martha, who consistently fell short (“The Faith of Martha and Mary,” 483). However, this seems forced, especially in view of Martha’s statement in verse 22 that even after the death of Lazarus, God would give Jesus whatever He asked.

Eamon Younis

Tuesday 27 December 2022

🚫 The Lord's Treasure: The Fear of the Lord

The White House Just Opened The Gates Of Hell in America

Wednesday 21 December 2022

Re-Examining Romans 1–8 With The Pentateuch

The Significance of Minor Characters in the Gospel of John