361

Chapter Ten

Righteousness, Justice and Holiness within Koinonia: The Theological Perspective of Development of the Jewish-Christian Dialogue in Slovakia

František Ábel

Introduction One of the challenges – yet also one of the opportunities of Christian

Churches in Post- Communist Slovakia arising from the heavy burdens of the past – is to help develop cooperation with the Jewish religious community. The totalitarianism of the communist era in some respects continued the ways of Nazi terror. Because of this fact, the formerly plentiful Jewish religious community in Slovakia with its rich history, especially as a seat of religious learning, became a small, barely surviving group with an enormous measure of distrust and skepticism. A necessary precondition for carrying out this challenge and opportunity is to develop a Jewish-Christian inter-religious dialogue based on the outcome of up-to-date mutual theological research. The challenge is directly interrelated with the important task of Christianity as a whole: that is, to recognize and better understand the very roots of Christianity. Fulfilling this task brings promising opportunity to continue the main goal of the Apostle Paul to create a koinonia of Jews and non-Jews on the basis of God’s love revealed in the event of Jesus Christ. All of this is related to the main questions of the project, which are how can we draw from and build upon our biblical foundations in facing the current challenges of today, and what can we learn from the rich history of the Christian Church’s interaction with society throughout the ages. In this context, there are four (or five) main terms, with their proper theological content and meaning, as regards establishing a solid basis in the development of fruitful

362

interreligious dialogue for the future: righteousness, justice (justification), holiness and koinonia. Therefore, the aim of our conversation will be a thorough theological analysis of these terms within the context of Paul’s proclamation, and an effort to establish the relevance of this approach to the fruitful development of Jewish-Christian dialogue. This is crucial not only to the advancement of the Christian Churches in Slovakia, but also to a fuller koinonia on both the Jewish and the Christian sides.602

Developments within the multicultural societies of the European Union indicate more and more that one of the main tasks of the people of the conglomerate of nations is to sustain and guarantee a common life, one founded on tolerance, respect and ability to live like good neighbors, despite many national, racial, culture or religious differences. In other words, dialogue among different cultures and religions is needed, and not just in a formal sense, or in the field of academic interest. Mainly, it is necessary in the daily life of all of the people. It is well known that these developments, as they have been arising within the countries of Europe during the last two or three decades, testify to radical changes in the life of both society and in individuals.603 At the same time, however, it is necessary to emphasize that this age finds itself in the midst of a radical “clash of cultures,” which results from the continual increase in awareness of national, cultural and religious identity, including the effort to demonstrate and assert uniqueness by all means possible. Accompanied by numerous challenges of the so-called global era, these changes have affected both theology and religious life: both have been pushed aside to the very edge of social interest. Naturally, this reality is not only the result of events of the last two or three decades. As

602 Since the topic is closely related with the theme and particular results of my research project VEGA num.1/0107/10 titled Corpus Paulinum, the contents of this study follow also parts of the results of this project.

603 Here I proceed from the opening part of my essay “The Apostle Paul as a paradigm of the Interreligious Dialogue,“ where are considered thoughts about next perspective of theology including Christianity in a global era. See in more detail Ábel, František. “The Apostle Paul as a paradigm of the Interreligious Dialogue.” In Doing Theology in a Global Era. A Festschrift for the Rev. Prof. Dr. Hans Schwarz on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, edited by Craig L. Nessan, and Thomas Kothmann, 17-23. Bangalore, India: Asian Trading Corporation, 2009.

363

concerns theology, nearly the whole twentieth century was involved with characteristic efforts to enrich the age with new concepts, ideas and solutions.

Therefore, it is relevant to ask what can be done (theologically) about this situation. It is essential to enrich theological research with new concepts, ideas and solutions, which are to be introduced and applied in the life of Christian congregations. A theological approach that is favorable to the global perspective is grounded in the effort to highlight the universal dimension of theology – theology is to be addressed to all people around the world. In this context, without abandoning our own religious tradition as the Christians, it is expected to have the courage not to emphasize the exclusiveness of Christianity as the only true religion. Hope coming into the world as a result of God’s action in Jesus Christ is the hope for the entire world regardless of religious tradition.604

A specific example can be observed in Slovakia, despite the fact that most people in Slovakia still have an opposite conviction. The reason for the latter is an illusion about a strong Christian society in Slovakia where there are no difficulties with other cultures and religions. This conviction can be observed especially within Slovak Christian churches. On the one side, Slovakia is a Christian country where only very small communities of other religious traditions live, and where the Roman Catholic Church is predominant. Despite the fact that in an

604 According to a statement of Martin Luther in his commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians from 1531, „our neighbor is every man, above all the one who needs our help” (WA 40.II, 73). Among others, another source of inspiration can be found in the Theology of Hope, as it was introduced by Jürgen Moltmann. Some of the key ideas from Moltmann’s lecture titled “To Create a Peace and to Overcome a Dragon: Power and Violence in the Christianity,” which took place during his second visit in Prague (2004), are: “There are two references to the power of redemption from destructive violence in the New Testament. First of all, it is Jesus’ acceptance of suffering: by his own death on the cross, he put hostility to death (Eph 2:16). Secondly, it is Jesus’ appeal and invitation to love enemies as a way in which we can prevent rotation of a deadly spiral of violence that is in accordance with the law of retaliation. The first step of this way is not to let an enemy to impose hostility on you; the second step is rooted in knowing the others (and thus in finding out how similar they are to us); the third step should lead to recognition of the reasons of enmity.” Quoted according to the resume of Moltmann's lecture made by Vladimir Roskovec (April 23, 2004), translated into English by the author. Available online: http://www.portal.cz/scripts/modules/issues/artlist.php?issueid=426. Quo-ted by František Ábel, “The Apostle Paul as a paradigm of the Interreligious Dialogue,” in Doing Theology in a Global Era, edited by Craig L. Nessan, and Thomas Kothmann (Bangalore, India: Asian Trading Corporation, 2009), 18 including notes 1, 2.

364

environment where one would expect cultural and religious exclusivism with sizeable support of the political power of the biggest Christian churches (whose power is granted by the state itself), the latest results of sociological research show a continuing trend of growing tolerance toward the “others” in Slovak society.605

On the other side, a Jewish community lived as early as the Roman era in the territory of contemporary Slovakia, and as Martin Winstone has remarked, “the level of settlement fluctuated until a period of steady growth commenced in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, accompanied by growing equality in civil rights.”606 The Jewish community in Slovakia, with its rich history and significance, contributed to the development of the country today, and should be a strong and relevant reason for supporting the trend of tolerance toward the “others,” especially when we look at the reality of the growth and development of Christianity. Therefore, we consider the development of Jewish-Christian relationship in Slovakia, especially dialogue between Jewish religious community and Christian Churches in Slovakia, as both a challenge and an opportunity for three main reasons. These reasons are historical, theological, and societal. They all mutually correlate and form the three main perspectives from which discussion should proceed about the future of the development of Jewish-Christian relations in Slovakia. In the first part of this study, we present a short history of the Jewish community in Slovakia by pointing out its most significant particulars, especially in regard to religious life. The second part will introduce in more detail the bases that support the idea of the next development of the Jewish-Christian

605 On the conditions of multiculturalism and equality in Slovak society – and also the analysis based on several indicators that envisaged the distribution of three main types of attitude toward inherent and other religious or cultural traditions (exclusivist, relativist, inclusivist) which was realized in Slovakia in 1998 and 2008 – see in more detail Tížik, Miroslav. “The Dialogue Between Non-equals: About Conditions of Multiculturalism and Equality.” In The mission of Paul and the multicultural society. The collection of lectures from the international interdisciplinary academic research conference, October 14-15, 2010 in pursuance of the research project VEGA num.1/0107/10 titled Corpus Paulinum as interreligious dialogue paradigm in multicultural society, edited by František Ábel, 15-32. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta, 2010.

606 See Martin Winstone, The Holocaust Sites of Europe: An Historical Guide (London, New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010), 181, http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uniba.

365

relationship, as grounded on the outcome of up-to-date mutual theological research. In this regard, the second part will transition smoothly into the third where, ultimately, we focus on the societal aspects of Paul’s usage of key terms. The argumentation will be based on the main goal of Apostle Paul to create a koinonia of the Jews and non-Jews on the basis of God’s love revealed in the event of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the aim of our conversation will be a theological analysis of the four (or five) main terms – righteousness, justice (justification), holiness and koinonia – with their proper theological content and meaning in regard to establishing a solid basis of the next development of fruitful interreligious dialogue, or at least the development of interrelationships between Jews and Christians in Slovakia.

Historical Perspective607 The long-standing history of Jews in Slovakia underwent radical change

during World War II (WW II). Following the aftermath of the Munich agreement, Slovakia became an autonomous region, and in March 1939, after Hitler’s division of Czechoslovakia, it was established as an independent country. However, in reality it was only a satellite of Nazi Germany. Before this time, the Jewish population in Slovakia was about 89,000.608 At least 70,000, or approximately 80 % of Slovak Jews, died on account of anti-Jews measures on behalf of Nazi regime, including the weighty deal of the collaborationist government by which Slovakia

607 In this part I follow primarily the summary of Martin Winstone from his monograph The Holocaust Sites of Europe: An Historical Guide (London, New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010), 181-189 (chapter 8). In regard to the other research sources focusing on the Holocaust, Winstone remarks that there is much less material for Slovakia than for other countries of Europe. He says: “There is much less material for Slovakia although Livia Bitton-Jackson, I Have Lived a Thousand Years (Simon & Schuster) is a classic survivor’s account. Eastern Slovak Jewish communities such as Bitton-Jackson’s are covered in histories of the Holocaust in Hungary. The most comprehensive of these latter works is Randolph L. Braham, The Politics of Genocide (Wayne State University Press) whilst Krisztián Ungváry, Battle for Budapest (I.B.Tauris; published in the USA as The Siege of Budapest, Yale University Press) recalls the chaotic last days of Nazi and Arrow Cross rule in the city. Béla Zsolt, Nine Suitcases (Pimlico/Random House) is an unflinching survivor’s memoir.” Martin Winstone, The Holocaust Sites of Europe: An Historical Guide, (London, New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010), 431.

608 The 1930 census listed 135,918 Jews lived in Slovakia. Ibid, 181.

366

was “the first to willingly hand over its Jews to the Germans.”609 The rest of the destructive process occurred through post-war pogroms initiated by the incoming Communist regime, where approximately 25,000 to 30,000 survivors decided to leave the country between 1948 and 1949.

At the beginning of WWII, the Jewish population in Bratislava numbered about 15,000.610 Very early after Slovakia’s independence, Jews in Bratislava faced growing persecutions by the Tiso regime, which resulted in dramatic reductions of the Jewish population in the city. By March 1942, 6,700 Jews had been banished from their houses and relocated to other sites or labor camps. Their property was confiscated and handed out to non-Jewish population/Slovaks. In 1942, and during direct German occupation in 1944, most of the remnant was deported. In Bratislava, only small number survived the horrors of Holocaust. Just one year after end of WWII, the survivors had to face a two-day anti-Semitic riot. The final works of destruction following this violence came during the Communist regime. Based on Winstone’s data, today’s Jewish population in Bratislava is less than 1,000.611

The Jews in Slovakia were known mostly as a religious community, particularly as rigorous Orthodoxy. Bratislava had a reputation as a center of Orthodox Judaism. The Jewish community was formed and developed from the 10th century, with the most intensive development taking place from the 17th to 19th centuries when Bratislava, as Pozsony, was capital of Hungary.612 However, besides Orthodox Judaism, a sizable assimilated Jewish community lived in the regions where Hungarian language was dominant. In regard to the Orthodox community, it was divided between mainstream traditionalists and the Hassidic movement located mainly in the east of Slovakia. In the early nineteenth century, Bratislava became a leading center of Orthodox Judaism. Later, it was affected by the schism between Orthodox and Neolog communities.

609 Ibid, 181. More about particular measures of the Slovak government against Jews in a general sense see ibid, 181-189.

610 Martin Winstone has the number 15,000 for the end of 1940. Ibid, 184. 611 Martin Winstone, The Holocaust Sites of Europe: An Historical Guide, (London, New York: I.B.

Tauris, 2010), 185. 612 Ibid, 184.

367

In this context, a remarkable period of development in the Jewish Orthodox community of Bratislava came under the leadership of Rabbi Chatam Sofer. Chatam Sofer, a German-born Jew living and working in the early 19th century, was one of the most respected and honored religious thinkers. He used his rabbinate and yeshiva in Bratislava as a means of strong opposition to the Jewish Enlightenment.613 Despite the fact that Chatam Sofer is rightfully considered to be a strong defender of traditions and Jewish Orthodoxy, he was represented during the later period as an example of tolerance, respect and understanding. Baruch Myers, a recent Rabbi of the Jewish Orthodox religious community in Bratislava, assesses the person and work of Chatam Sofer in the same spirit.614 The words of Baruch Myers characterizing the person of famous Jewish scholar and authority are well expressed:

“When people ask me what was special about Chatam Sofer, I answer as follows: 'Throughout Jewish history, there have been many different kinds of Rabbis. Many Rabbis were great Talmudic scholars. Others excelled as legal experts and judges. There were those that were gifted as teachers and established great institutions of learning. And still others were capable community leaders and untiring public activists. Some of them authored great Biblical commentaries; some of them authored great Talmudic commentaries. Yet others were knowledgeable in the Kabbalah. Many Rabbis were models of piety, praying at length and devoting time to meditation and personal perfection. Others involved themselves in unending charitable projects to benefit the poor, orphans, widows, and the ill. There were those that were demanding disciplinarians. And those that radiated kindness and compassion. One thing is certain: to find a combination of even three of the above mentioned attributes in one Rabbi is rare indeed. What was special about Chatam Sofer was that he embodied all of them.'”615

The work of this great and well-known Rabbi is a well-founded reason for the development of Jewish-Christian relationships in Slovakia. The famous Jewish yeshiva, which Chatam Sofer established in Bratislava and which became the

613 Ibid, 186. 614 See in more detail Myers, Baruch. Gan Sofer. Bratislava: Commercium, s.r.o., 2003. In this book

Baruch Myers introduces a compilation of selected parts of the writings and thoughts of Chatam Sofer, and in an understandable way explains them.

615 Quoted by Baruch Myers, Gan Sofer (Bratislava: Commercium, s.r.o., 2003), 137.

368

biggest in Europe and flourished right up until WWII, can be mentioned as one of the examples. In addition to this, there are many famous thoughts of his that are of great value and are in many respects similar to Christian thoughts. In one example, a part of the commentary of Chatam Sofer on the issue of doubt (Sidrah Shoftim),616 the remarks are based in the biblical text from the book Devarim, chapter 17, verse 8 (Deut 17:8): If a matter of judgment will be hidden from you…you shall rise and ascend to the place that Hashem, your God, shall choose. Chatam Sofer explains this text metaphorically: “There are times when something being hidden from us can eventually bring us to rise and ascend to a higher level than the one that we were previously on.”

In looking at this further, Chatam Sofer continues by indicating the response of Israel: “There are two possible responses. The correct response is to realize that this uncertainty arises because the Creator wants us to attain a new level of understanding. The difficulty should spur us on to intensify our meditation on a deeper level, in order to attain a more fundamental grasp of the issue.”

Then, he deduces: “New examination of the topic will bring us to a clearer understanding of the matter. But more significantly, our understanding of the issue will be deeper than it ever could have been had we never experienced this uncertainty. As such, it was actually the difficulty that brought us to this new, higher level of comprehension. It is this response that Hashem wants of the Jewish people.”617

In addition to this comment and explanation, very apt and instructive are the words of Chatam Sofer about “Spiritual healing for the children of Israel”: “regarding Israel, however, Hashem tells us, ‘I am Hashem, your Healer.’ The path that Hashem has given to the Jewish people is that when we are confronted with the question, ‘Who is Hashem,’ we contemplate the topic more deeply until we attain an even higher level of understanding than we had before.”

After all, Chatam Sofer is coming close with the words: “This is the metaphorical meaning of the verse: ‘If a matter of judgment will be hidden from you’ – if you encounter uncertainty in your thinking, ‘you shall rise and ascend’ –

616 It is a part of the commentary of Chatam Sofer on the issue of doubt (Sidrah Shoftim), compiled and explained by Baruch Myers. Ibid, 262-264.

617 Ibid, 263.

369

you should persist in trying to resolve the problem. This will result in an ascent for you, in that you will attain a higher level of comprehension than you previously had.”618

We think the content of these words are valuable and relevant not only for the Israelites as God’s chosen people, but also for Christians, and moreover, for all humankind. This is the main reason why Chatam Sofer is an appropriate example of tolerance, respect and understanding. All of this proves that despite two millennia of separated existence between Jewishness and Christianity, regardless of their differences, there is also a great deal of common thought as to what leads us both to the common roots that are part of Judaism in the Second Temple Era. Therefore, in Slovakia we could illustrate by particular examples that efforts to continue, or rather to renew the development of Jewish-Christian relations, are justifiable and could become very beneficial for both sides.

Theological perspective Besides historical reasons, there are many theological arguments which, in

my opinion, can play an important role in the development of Jewish-Christian relations in Slovakia. First of all, Christianity has common roots with Judaism: in other words, it is based in Judaism of the Second Temple Era. Despite the developments in Christianity and Judaism during late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, the common roots shared by the two are highly important because they can help us to find not only what connects both of these religions, but also, more importantly, what are the relevant themes that could cultivate positive attitudes on both sides. Therefore, the common roots of Judaism and Christianity are the alpha and omega of the process.

Both Jesus and Paul were Jews devoted to their own religious and cultural tradition. Both of them founded their mission on the proclamation of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God and the consequences entailed. Naturally, Paul based his mission on the gospel of Jesus Christ, centering on thoughts like the crucified and risen Lord. However, both Jesus and Paul pointed out that the most important proclamation, and the very core of the gospel, is the

618 Ibid, 264.

370

astonishing love of God towards humankind and the world as a whole. In other words, the universalism of salvation which knows no particularities and borders is the central thought of Jesus as well as Paul. This especially represents an inherent part of Paul’s mission among pagans (non-Jews) as a whole. Yet another important point is that the initium of Paul’s characteristic theology lies not in its Hellenistic surroundings, as supposed in the past especially under the influence of historical criticism, traditionally closed to German Protestantism,619 but in Paul’s Jewish background. This statement is also highly important for argumentation in favor of the main goal of the study. All of what Paul taught and did during his mission among pagans was formed and influenced first of all by his own Jewish faith and cultural tradition. This is so despite the fact that the Judaism of those times was also influenced by Hellenistic surroundings. Therefore, the mission of Paul, the Jewish Pharisee and the apostle of Gentiles, can be considered as an integral part of the paradoxical actions/work of God in the whole of history. Paul’s life and mission serve the universal dimension of the Gospel. At the same time, they both show the basic fact that God’s actions in a historical context cannot be wholly encompassed. Yet we can try to learn to understand it somewhat in order to bring peoples of all nations and cultures the message that God’s concern is about humankind. In this, God’s actions encompass all of humanity, as well as exceeding the temporal.620

619 This opinion was held notably by Wilhelm Bousset and Richard Reitzenstein and under their influence, also R. Bultmann. See Bousset, Wilhelm. Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfangen des Christentums bis Irenäus. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921; Reitzenstein, Richard. Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen. Nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1927; Bultmann, Rudolf. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 5th ed. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1965. See in more detail Peter J. Tomson, “Paul’s Jewish Background in View of His Law teaching in 1 Cor 7,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U. K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., [1996] 2001), 252 including notes.

620 I have engaged these thoughts in the study about Paul’s mission within a multicultural society of that time. See Ábel, František. “Tois pasin gegona panta – Paradoxes of Paul’s Mission in a Multicultural Society (1 Cor 9:19–23).” In The mission of Paul and the multicultural society. The collection of lectures from the international interdisciplinary academic research conference, October 14-15, 2010 in pursuance of the research project VEGA num.1/0107/10 titled Corpus Paulinum as interreligious dialogue paradigm in multicultural society, edited by František Ábel, 81-98. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta, 2010.

371

Paul’s strong roots in Judaism of the Second Temple Era is sufficient reason enough for looking at Paul’s re-integrating, not denying, his Jewish past.621 Discussions about the consequences of Paul’s conversion for the change in his thoughts, and the emphases he was laying during his missionary work are still very intensive, especially among Protestant theologians. The positions of involved scholars range from the older traditional viewpoint that Paul’s post-conversion faith in the justifying grace of God excluded Judaism and its Law, to the increasingly prevailing opinions in recent times that Paul still remained rooted in second Temple Judaism which was far from a monolithic religious phenomenon.622 In this context, emphasis must be placed on the mysticism and apocalypticism that played primary roles in the process of the formation of Paul’s person and his theological thinking. Despite the fact that it is hard work to analyze and interpret the relation between Pharisaism and mysticism within Judaism of the Second Temple Era, we cannot avoid it because mysticism is decidedly a firm

621 Peter J. Tomson proceeds this way in his study about Paul’s Jewish background in view of his Law teaching in 1 Cor 7. See in more detail Peter J. Tomson, “Paul’s Jewish Background in View of His Law teaching in 1 Cor 7,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U. K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., [1996] 2001), 255.

622 It is E. P. Sanders’s seminal work Paul and Palestinian Judaism. A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Sanders, Ed P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977) that started the large interest about Paul and Judaism of the Second temple Era, and laid the bases for the continuing theological discussions titled as the New Perspective on Paul. In many respects it is a pioneer work pointing out diversity of the Jewish religious tradition and its specifics of the Second Temple Era. In this context we have to point out, as Michal Valčo rightly remarks in his essay “The ‘New Perspective’ on Paul and the ‘Introspective Conscience’ of the West,” that “there is no single new perspective on Paul’ but rather many ‘new perspectives’ which vary to a greater or a lesser degree, the proponents tend to have a common view about what went wrong in the history of theology.” In Valčo, Michal. “The ‘New Perspective’ on Paul and the ‘Introspective Conscience’ of the West.” In Justification According to Paul: Exegetical and Theological Perspectives. The Collection of Lectures from the International Interdisciplinary Academic Research Conference, May 5 – 6, 2011 in pursuance of the research project VEGA num. 1/0107/10 titled Corpus Paulinum as Interreligious Dialogue Paradigm in Multicultural Society, edited by Ondrej Prostredník. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta, 2012 (in printing process). On this topic, see also a useful discussion in chapter 7 “’New, Old, and Different Perspectives’ on Paul (Augustine and Luther)” of Paul R. Hinlicky, Luther and the Beloved Community: A Path for Christian Theology after Christendom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 221-257.

372

part of Paul’s theological thinking.623 Also, in our opinion, it was apocalypticism that vehemently spurred Paul to activities in order to convince others Jews about fulfilling God’s purpose to save the faithful and righteous. Moreover, it is here where the hope for foreign nations and their deliverance exists from the Messiah, and by this, also the embodiment of pagans into Israel as an entity with the possibility to participate in the promises of salvation. The stressing of this concept has much to do with Paul’s personal effort to pursue his mission in a universalistic manner, and also to solve the problems among Christians,624 Jews and pagans in Rome. However, the Parousia has not occurred yet, and from the traditional Jewish notion about full dependence of a believer in God’s grace and mercy, we should also give sufficient thought to a discussion of continuing the process begun by Paul – to try to bring Judaism and Christianity closer by putting greater emphasis on the universalistic aspects both of these religions possess.625

623 In favor of the mystical view which in fact constituted Paul’s true theological center over against the forensic approach especially in the key texts of Paul’s theological thinking (Rom 1–8, Gal 2–3) are well- known German proponents like G. Adolf Deissmann (Paulus. Eine kultur- and religionsgeschichtliche Skizze, Tübingen: Mohr, 1911, 2d edn. 1925 (ET of 1st German edn. St. Paul; a study in social and religious history. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1912; ET of 2nd German edn. 1927) and Albert Schweitzer (The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Trans. W. Montgomery. New York: Seabury, 1968 [1931]). Albert Schweitzer was the first who decisively expressed his disagreement with the consensus of leading Protestant scholars at the turn of the 20th century, that Paul’s characteristic theology lay in Hellenistic surroundings and the radical difference between pre-conversion and post-conversion Paul would have coincided with the equally decisive boundary between Judaism and Hellenism. See Peter J. Tomson, “Paul’s Jewish Background in View of His Law teaching in 1 Cor 7,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U. K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., [1996] 2001), 252. On the issue of Paul’s mysticism see especially Seagal, Alan F. Paul the Convert. The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990.

624 It has to be stressed that Paul never used the term “Christian” but speaks about “believers,” and it is so on both sides, Jews or gentiles.

625 Note in this regard the monograph of recent French philosopher Alain Badiou titled „Saint Paul: La fondation de l’universalisme“(Badiou, Alain. Svatý Pavel zakladatel universalizmu. Translated by Josef Fulka. Praha: Svoboda Servis, 2010), where author considers the apostle Paul to be a founder of European emancipative universalism. Badiou puts Paul among the most important persons of history. According to this author, Paul’s thoughts in the relatively meager collection of letters which he addressed to small and in general less important communities confessing to belief in Jesus Christ, are holders of universality that could become an effective tool in a struggle against recent strain of particularities, nationalism, racial, and it

373

In light of all the above, it should be beneficial for developing Jewish-Christian relations to give special attention to the five key terms of Paul’s theological thoughts: righteousness, justice and justification, holiness and koinonia. The close analysis of these terms within the context of Paul’s key texts and their proper theological content and meaning should be a small, yet very important step on the way of fulfilling a necessary precondition for fruitful development of the Jewish-Christian relations, including interreligious dialogue in Slovakia. On the one hand, this means that the dialogue has to be based on the outcome of up-to-date mutual theological research, while on the other, it means these terms all reflect the main goal of Paul’s mission – to create a koinonia of the Jews and non-Jews on the basis of God’s love revealed in the event of Jesus Christ, with the perspective of final salvation for all of them. This challenge is directly interrelated with the important task of Christianity as a whole: to recognize and understand better the very roots of Christianity.

is needed to add, also religious intolerance. Badiou stresses that despite the fact that all of authentic Paul’s letters are the occasional interventions leading by the intention of author to react and solve particulars problems or answer specific questions of community to which the letters were addressed, Paul “relentlessly focuses requirements of the truth as an universal singularity.” This idea is further elaborated by the author in four basic points where he stresses the event of Christ’s resurrection, including the preaching of it, as the primary point of Paul’s mission. The truth which is the content of the preaching, and which is based on a conviction considering this event, is fully subjective. Therefore the truth can’t be subordinate to any particularity or any law or social class or nation, not even gender. Equally the truth included in Paul’s preaching cannot be an ownership of one particular group of people whether religious or whatever else. Actually, this truth is a process not enlightenment. Finally, the truth which is a content of Paul’s preaching is indifferent toward the situation around it and it is free of any kind ordering of subsets prescribed by this state. The subjectivity of both the preaching and content has an inevitable distance from the state and from all which in the content of human mentality correspond to the preaching. In other words, it has inevitable distance from all of particular systems of various minds. For the author, the truth is “concentrated and important process which must not to compete with well-established thinking.” See in more detail Alain Badiou, Svatý Pavel zakladatel universalizmu, trans. Josef Fulka. Praha: Svoboda Servis, 2010, 15 – 16 (Translation of the quotations from Czech language are own). In František Ábel, “Tois pasin gegona panta – Paradoxes of Paul’s Mission in a Multicultural Society (1 Cor 9:19–23),” in The mission of Paul and the multicultural society, ed. František Ábel, (Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta, 2010), 81-82.

374

Koinonia and its meaning in Paul’s theological thinking Since all three (or four) terms for our consideration are an inseparable part

and parcel of the central term koinonia (fellowship), we start our analysis in reverse order. From the point of view of its usage within the New Testament corpus, the term koinwni,a is completely absent in the Gospels. But thirteen times we find it in the Paul’s letters. For Paul, it is obviously one of the characteristic theological concepts. Before we make the closer analysis of Paul’s usage of the term, we must look briefly at its development and meanings within the Greek and ancient Hebrew milieu.

As to the Greek and Hellenistic milieu, the oldest references point out that the term was used within a religious sphere. This word expressed an evident and unimpaired fellowship among gods (or God) and people.626 However, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (Septuagint) does not use the word in this narrow sense. Later on, in the Greek surroundings, this term referred to a close relationship, that is, fraternal ties among people connected by a same idea, a way of life or an ideal of common life found in some philosophical schools, for example Pythagoreans (h` tou/ bi,ou koinwni,a = fellowship of life). The term also denoted an ideal state of society, as described by Plato in his writings (The Republic, Laws). The term was also used by stoics who worked on the assumption that properties in ownership should be considered common property. Therefore, the friends have to share it among themselves. These demands, however, were based on the ideal picture of the so-called Golden Age, a period lost forever in its primordial perfect form. The essential difference compared with the New Testament is that the latter is focused on the future, not the idealized mythical past. The new age which brings the redemptive act of Jesus Christ has to break with the present time.627

A Hebrew equivalent of this term is absent in the Old Testament canon. As to a meaning that describes perfect relationship between God and humans, this absence results from the fact that human effort by itself has forfeited a unique

626 The characterization to follow comes from the analysis of this and related terms made by Johannes Schattenmann. See Johannes Schattenmann, “koinwni,a,” in NIDNTT 1/ 639 – 644. See too Friedrich Hauck, “koino,j, koinwno,j, koinwne,w, koinwni,a, sugkoinwno,j, sugkoinwne,w, koinwniko,j, koino,w,” in TDNT 3/ 789- 809.

627 See Johannes Schattenmann, in NIDNTT 1/ 640.

375

relationship with God (Gn 2-3). And at the same time, this forfeit has brought to humanity a loss of perfect unity among people. Another reason for its absence in the oldest texts of the Old Testament is the negative attitude of ancient Hebrews to abstract terms as such, including abstract thinking. Despite a proclamation of the biblical message about humans having lost the perfect relationship with God and neighbors, God acts in favor of humankind and gives people the ability to find it again and to participate in its making. However, for the individual, it is necessary to abandon the old way of life and to turn to God. To change one’s thinking (meta,noia) is a necessity. The stories of the patriarchs of Israel, and later of Israel as God’s chosen people (for example, Gn 8:21f; 12:3; Ex 20:1ff) bear witness to the theological motif of disrupted human relationship with God. The issues of maintaining and developing relationship in accordance with God’s will as it is recorded in Torah, and the meaning of such relationship as a final goal of God’s creation play an important role in the Old Testament (see Isa 5:8; 49:6; Gn 12:3). Therefore, it is partly surprising that equivalents expressing “fellowship” (koinwni,a) are not found until the earlier canonical and deuterocanonical writings of the Old Testament. This refers especially to Wisdom literature (Qoh, Prov, Wis, 1 – 4 Macc), mostly as translation variants of the words with stem hābar (join, unify; habûrâh = fellowship, bond). In the Old Testament context, fellowship and its meaning was related to the covenantal relationship of God with Israel. The only God (adonai) is the founder and guarantor of the fellowship. Through this word and its derivatives, the Septuagint expresses a general meaning of joining and participation in something (cf. Prov 21:9; 25:24; Qoh 9:4; Job 34:8).

Making and developing the fellowship of believers (to. avllh,louj e;cein

koinwni,an) is the primary function of the Church, and it means those who are called up by God on both sides, Jews as well as non-Jews. This thought has large importance and reaches central significance in the Pauline corpus. Analysis of the usage of this term, including its derivatives, proves that Paul never uses the word koinwni,a in a secular sense.628 It is always used in a religious sense that cannot be compared with the stated meanings the word had in Greek, Hellenistic and Jewish surroundings. Paul, by using this word, does not have in mind an ordinary fellowship of people or a society (societas), nor the Church (evkklhsi,a) or the local

628 See Johannes Schattenmann, in NIDNTT 1/ 643.

376

congregation. Neither does the term koinwni,a in Paul’s letters correspond with the meaning of the Hebrew term habûrâh (fellowship, bond), or with the meaning in the Stoa where it symbolized the life of a group of persons bonded by a common idea or lifestyle based on the teaching of a particular philosophical school. The term koinwni,a in Paul’s theological thinking differs on principle from the idea systems both of the Greek world and the world of Judaism.629 Paul’s thirteen uses of this word (Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 1:9; 10:16 [twice]; 2 Cor 6:14; 8:4; 9:13; 13:13; Gal 2:9; Phil 1:5; 2:1; 3:10; Phlm 1:6) shows the importance he attaches to this term. It is closely connected with faith in God’s actions in Jesus Christ, and in each example of its usage (by genitive construction) it is expressed in the subject of the fellowship of the faith in which it is applying. The following are some examples:630

The fellowship of God’s Son Jesus Christ:

pisto.j o` qeo,j( diV ou- evklh,qhte eivj koinwni,an tou/ ui`ou/ auvtou/ VIhsou/ Cristou/ tou/ kuri,ou h`mw/nÅ

God is faithful; by him you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. (1 Cor 1:9)

The fellowship of the blood and body of Christ:

To. poth,rion th/j euvlogi,aj o] euvlogou/men( ouvci. koinwni,a evsti.n tou/ ai[matoj tou/ Cristou/È to.n a;rton o]n klw/men( ouvci. koinwni,a tou/ sw,matoj tou/ Cristou/ evstinÈ to.n a;rton o]n klw/men( ouvci. koinwni,a tou/ sw,matoj tou/ Cristou/ evstinÈ

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? (1 Cor 10:16)631

The fellowship of the Holy Spirit:

629 Ibid. 630 See in more detail Johannes Schattenmann, in NIDNTT 1/ 643. 631 An especially characteristic expression of a believer's participation in Christ’s suffering appears in

Phil 3:10. Knowing of Christ means not only participation in the power and resurrection of Christ but also participation in his suffering (Rom 8:17; 2 Cor 1:5) and also his death (Rom 6:5; 2 Cor 4:10). In Ondrej Prostredník, “Ta pathémata tou Christou – pokus o explikáciu Kol 1, 24; 2 K 1, 7 a F 3, 10,” in Explikácia – aplikácia – aktualizácia. A collection of papers from international theological conference on March 21th 2005 at EBF UK in Bratislava (Žilina: publishing of Žilinská univerzita in Žilina, EDIS, 2006), 71.

377

~H ca,rij tou/ kuri,ou VIhsou/ Cristou/ kai. h` avga,ph tou/ qeou/ kai. h` koinwni,a tou/ a`gi,ou pneu,matoj meta. pa,ntwn u`mw/nÅ

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you. (2 Cor 13:13)

Ei; tij ou=n para,klhsij evn Cristw/|( ei; ti paramu,qion avga,phj( ei; tij koinwni,a pneu,matoj( ei; tij spla,gcna kai. oivktirmoi,(

If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, (Phil 2:1)

The fellowship (partnership) in the Gospel:

evpi. th/| koinwni,a| u`mw/n eivj to. euvagge,lion avpo. th/j prw,thj h`me,raj a;cri tou/ nu/n,

... because of your sharing in the gospel from the first day until now, (Phil 1:5)

The fellowship (sharing the faith) of the faith:

o[pwj h` koinwni,a th/j pi,stew,j sou evnergh.j ge,nhtai evn evpignw,sei panto.j avgaqou/ tou/ evn h`mi/n eivj Cristo,nÅ

I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective when you perceive all the good that we may do for Christ. (Phlm 1:6)

Even the use of the term in Gal 2:9 does not solely refer to the formal gesture of the handshake as a symbolic confirmation of agreement between Christian missionaries. Here, it is about something broader, and at the same time, it has an exceptionally important meaning when the handshake expresses the fellowship between Jews and non-Jew Christians in mission. In other words, it is about the unity of the faith in Christ, as well the awareness of a new form of being in the faith in the redemptive act of Jesus Christ that transforms every believer into a “new creation” (kainh. kti,sij; see 2 Cor 5:17). It essentially means that Paul’s usage is primarily the eschatological connotation, which gives the term its specific and unique meaning.

We find a similar meaning of the word in Rom 15:26 and 2 Cor 8:4 where it is related to making a collection that Paul organized in Macedonia and Achaia, and also in Galatia (1 Cor 16:1; Gal 2:10). Here it is about the fellowship which is created by the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem:

378

euvdo,khsan ga.r Makedoni,a kai. VAcai<a koinwni,an tina. poih,sasqai eivj tou.j ptwcou.j tw/n a`gi,wn tw/n evn VIerousalh,mÅ

for Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to share their resources with the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. (Rom 15:26)

meta. pollh/j paraklh,sewj deo,menoi h`mw/n th.n ca,rin kai. th.n koinwni,an th/j diakoni,aj th/j eivj tou.j a`gi,ouj(

begging us earnestly for the privilege of sharing in this ministry to the saints, (2 Cor 8:4)

The collection has two dimensions. The first is willingness to provide communal aid under Jesus’ command to love each other. This kind of love has to have a particular form. It means that it takes place just out of the willingness to help brothers and sisters who live in poverty. The second, but not less important dimension is the fact that Christians this way also prove that all are the members of the one community, the fellowship of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:12-26). The awareness of mutual togetherness was an important aspect of overcoming the distrust among communities that were mainly composed of former pagans (non-Jews), and those of Christians who were Jews. Paul put great stress on this fact and did his best to point out the fact that all believers have the same spiritual home and base. This denotes the fellowship of the faith (h` koinwni,a th/j pi,stew,j) in Jesus Christ.

For Paul it is only one stimulus of the activity. It is God’s grace (ca,rij) offered in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Cor 8:1-7).632 This unique connection with Christ by faith in his redemptive act, which is also manifested in the willingness to participate in the essential living needs of poor people, is at the same time the base of the common fellowship of believers. They are and have to become an example for others and express their obedience to the Gospel of Christ. In this way, believers (Christians) become a part of the one great entity – Christ’s resurrected body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12ff). This appears in 2 Cor 9:13 where Paul by the

632 The term charis found at the beginning of the chapter is Paul's leading motive behind the collection. In Ondrej Prostredník, “Cirkev ako koinónia u Pavla,” CL 129, no. 7-8 (2005): 40. The collection which has been organized by Paul in Macedonia is therefore a manifestation of God’s grace, and of the fellowship of the churches, above all the “saints in Jerusalem.” Ibid, 41.

379

collocation a`plo,thti th/j koinwni,aj eivj auvtou.j kai. eivj pa,ntaj (sincereness of the fellowship in sharing with them and with everyone else) expresses the serious and sincere concern of believers in Corinth to share with and help all who need it:

dia. th/j dokimh/j th/j diakoni,aj tau,thj doxa,zontej to.n qeo.n evpi. th/| u`potagh/| th/j o`mologi,aj u`mw/n eivj to. euvagge,lion tou/ Cristou/ kai. a`plo,thti th/j koinwni,aj eivj auvtou.j kai. eivj pa,ntaj(

Through the testing of this ministry you glorify God by your obedience to the confession of the gospel of Christ and by the generosity of your sharing with them and with all others, (2 Cor 9:13)

As noticed in the analysis, the term koinwni,a in Paul’s theological thinking also incorporates the thought of fellowship between Christians, both Jews and non-Jew Christians. This is still very important and relevant, especially in the context of our presumption that the development of Jewish-Christian relations is the challenge, as well as the opportunity, for Christian churches in Slovakia, most particularly Protestant churches that are based on the well-known sola scriptura. This kind of fellowship also incorporates the imperative for every believer – Jew as well as Christian – to make every effort to participate in God’s righteousness and justice in daily life. It does not mean to abandon one’s own religious tradition, nor mean a necessary religious assimilation. The very basis of the next development of the one great fellowship of believers is to continue and participate in Jesus’ life and teaching. It is not only an ideal. The crucified and resurrected Christ became for Paul a decisive event in the history of salvation, confirming its relevance and importance for all humans in this world. Therefore Paul does not yet take interest in knowing Christ from a human perspective, but only the exalted Christ – Kyrios (see 2 Cor 5:16: {Wste h`mei/j avpo. tou/ nu/n ouvde,na oi;damen kata. sa,rka\ eiv kai.

evgnw,kamen kata. sa,rka Cristo,n( avlla. nu/n ouvke,ti ginw,skomenÅ). However, this does not mean one must abandon the historical facts of Jesus’ life. The words kata. sa,rka are not related to Jesus of Nazareth, but rather to the way of understanding his person. This means that we can understand Jesus and his life’s work in its fullness only from the point of view of his resurrection.633 The remembrance of Jesus’ death on the cross – the historical event – was for Paul an

633 See too Jan A. Duss and Petr Pokorný, eds., Neznáma evangelia: Novozákonní apokryfy I. (Praha: Vyšehrad, 2001), 19-22.

380

inseparable part of the proclamation about Jesus’ resurrection. One could also understand that Jesus’ story becomes in Paul’s thinking a paradigm of God’s merciful bending to man with its appeal to humbleness and tolerance.634 This important fact also signifies that all believers should remain in a state of holiness; in other words, they are called to remain the children and the servants of God.

Righteousness, justice and holiness within the koinonia These three terms should express the basic characteristics of the life of

believers within the koinonia – fellowship. A consideration about first two (or three) of them – righteousness635 and justice including justification – within Paul’s proclamation is closely connected with the issue of relation between God’s righteousness and justice – the process of its realization in the world, and the consequences following from it on the side of believers including the final reward for it. Thus we first have to look into the issues of justification and the last judgment. Moreover, within Paul’s theological thinking, there is a dominant question about the relationship between God’s mercy and reward, as two basic concepts related to the final destiny of individual. This relationship is also dominant in the Jewish literature of the post-biblical era. In this context, it is necessary to make a brief excursus about the development of the main interpretative concepts shaping this theological question.636

634 Ibid, 20. 635 James D. G. Dunn pointed out that discussion of the subject suffers from some terminological

problems, particularly the fact that English uses two different words, “justify” and “righteousness” to translate the Greek terms diakioō, dikaiosynē. See in more detail James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 341.

636 In this part I draw from my essay “The Concept Regarding the Coming of the Messiah as a Basis for Understanding of Romans 3:21-26,” where I consider the question of the relationships between Paul’s doctrine of justification, especially in Rom 3:21-26, and the concept of the coming of the Messiah in the Psalms of Solomon. See in more detail Ábel, František. “The Concept Regarding the Coming of the Messiah as a Basis for Understanding of Romans 3:21-26.” In Justification According to Paul: Exegetical and Theological Perspectives. The Collection of Lectures from the International Interdisciplinary Academic Research Conference, May 5 – 6, 2011 in pursuance of the research project VEGA num. 1/0107/10 titled Corpus Paulinum as Interreligious Dialogue Paradigm in Multicultural Society, edited by Ondrej Prostredník. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta, 2012 (in printing process).

381

As is well-known, the interpretation of Paul’s concept of justification has developed in several directions and has been a constitutive point of theological research of Protestant theologians.637 Traditionally, Paul’s doctrine of justification was interpreted as an anticipation of God’s emancipative verdict within the Last Judgment as a consequence of the faith in deliverance and salvation, which are the results of Jesus’ death on the cross and his resurrection. Naturally, with this kind of interpretation a problem comes: how can Paul’s statements be appraised concerning the Last Judgment according to deeds, or what is the function of the deeds of humanity within the Last Judgment.638 The attempts to answer all these questions have gradually become the foundation of a variety of attitudes and approaches, which are often contradictory or unsatisfactory when it comes to all aspects of the given matter.639

The best known attempts to solve these questions of Paul’s theology include the traditional concept, which states that Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith represents the proper formulation of Paul’s theological thinking and his interpretation of the history of salvation. Protagonists of this concept argue that the notion of the Last Judgment according to deeds is only a relic of the contemporary Jewish or Early-Christian eschatological ideas, which Paul did not remove thoroughly from his own theological thinking.640 Again, the other concept considers both of the concepts, the justification by faith and the Last Judgment

637 Van Landingham rightly remarks that most Roman Catholic scholars in the past have not had problems with reconciliation of these two ideas because they were considered as two unrelated and separated events. See Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 10.

638 In this context VanLandingham asks a justifiable question: “If the acquittal is based on faith, how can it also be based on works, which for Paul stand in direct opposition to faith?” Ibid, 10.

639 In next introduction of the basic conceptions concerning Paul’s doctrine of justification, I primarily refer to Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 9 – 15 including footnotes.

640 See for example Nigel M. Watson, “Justified by Faith: Judged by Works–an Antimony?” NTS 29 (1983): 211 and 220, n. 8. See too Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 10 n. 24.

382

according to deeds as contradictory, focusing on the tension between them.641 A more popular attitude to this question comes from the presupposition that the judgment according to deeds is appointed for unbelievers. Judgment according to deeds is reserved for Non-Christians, possibly apostates, and justification is appointed for believers.642

In the second half of 20th century, there appeared several theses which differed from the preceding traditional patterns in solving the problems of judgment and justification in Paul’s theology. One of them, for example, presented a conception where both of aspects of Paul’s theological thinking, God’s mercy and reward, are regarded as compatible, which means that both mercy and reward are interconnected in a process by which the mercy of God acts upon a believer, and as a result, the saving act of Jesus Christ makes that believer able to act in a responsible manner.643 Others have tried to solve the problems on the grounds of Ernst Käsemann’s analysis and interpretation of key terms in Paul’s theology, namely, “justification” and “righteousness of God” (dikaiosu,nh Qeou/).644

641 For example Harry A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul’s Conceptions of the Last Things (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1904), 201, Wilfried Joest, Gesetz und Freiheit: Das Problem des Tertius Usus Legis bei Luther und die neutestamentliche Parainese (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951), 177-185. In ChrisVanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 10 n. 25.

642 For example Peter Stuhlmacher, Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 163 where the author claims that final justification is promised to believers even in the case that their acts prove failing before God.

643 Haufe, Christoph. Die sittliche Rechtfertigungslehre des Paulus. Halle: VEB Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1957.

644 Käsemann, Ernst. “The Righteousness of God in Paul,” in New Testament Questions of Today, 168-182. Philadelphia: Fotress Press, 1969; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980), 112. Karl Kertelge (Kertelge, Karl. Rechtfertigung bei Paulus. Münster: Verlag Aschendorf, 1966) follows the interpretation of Käsemann and broadens it. He argues that justification rests partly on the state which is characterized by freedom from sin and obedience to God’s will. God’s saving activity is successful only where obedience is. Justification and the Last Judgment exist close together and no tension exists between them, because for Paul, justification is a part of the eschatological system “already– not yet.” Therefore, salvation is not complete in this age and needs to be fulfilled and consummated within the Last Judgment. See too Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 12. In this context see too Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand

383

This kind of interpretation understands justification as a gift of God’s grace and mercy, which makes the believer forensically righteous and simultaneously responsible for his behavior and actions. In the process, justification makes the believer able to do morally just actions. Those who refuse this gift are disobedient to God’s will, and will be punished by God.645 The other solution, also picking up the threads of Käsemann’s interpretation of justification, comes from the presupposition that all tendencies to solve the issue of the Last Judgment in relation to justification by faith are false, and that for Paul, the thoughts related to the Last Judgment are parallel with eschatological conceptions in Jewish apocalyptic literature. Paul has integrated them into his own theological thinking. This fact points out that the emphasis on the Last Judgment in Paul’s theological thinking is primarily related to the community as a whole, not to the individual,

Rapids/ Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 188-192. Douglas A. Campbell argues that for real understanding of Paul’s message, irrelevant and outside ideas must not intrude; basically, theologically incorrect interpretations are the result because individualistic conceptions of the teaching about justification reflect, more or less, attitudes of modern religious-philosophical interpretation of the period when it came into the existence. This result itself is more common with modern political traditions than with orthodox theology of Jewish-Palestinian, or the more open theology of Hellenistic Judaism of the 1st century CE.

645 Donfried, Karl P. “Justification and Last Judgment in Paul.” Int 30 (1976): 140-152, see especially page 142. Donfried understands the relationship between justification and the Last Judgment as a three-phase process: justification, sanctification, salvation. Justification is the initiating event actualized in an individual and built upon through sanctification. Sanctification is a process that depends on justification and will have future implications, culminating in salvation, which is a future gift that is already anticipated and experienced through justification and in sanctification and clearly dependent upon them. In Donfried’s argumentation, the criterion for the Last Judgment is the evaluation of one’s life as it was oriented towards Christ in obedience to Christ. See Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 13. Karl Donfried is also known as the one who precipitated a sharp discussion about the provenance of Romans which brought a lot of hypotheses concerning the composition of this Paul’s letter and its proper meaning and goal within his mission. See Donfried, Karl P. (ed.). The Romans Debate. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991 [1977]. Quoted by Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 3 including n. 8 (p. 937).

384

just as it is in Jewish apocalyptic literature where righteousness has two sides: salvation and condemnation.646

Interesting also is the interpretation which tries to solve the issue from the point of view of the interpretation of the second chapter of the Paul’s Letter to the Romans and its relation to the letter as a whole, including its meaning for the contemporary Judaism. From this standpoint, Romans 2 presents the essentials of the traditional Jewish view on the Last Judgment. God’s grace is acting only during the life of the believer, not within the judgment itself. However, the intent of the believer to be obedient to the Law, which was understood as a part of covenantal relationship with God, does not suffice alone. Eternal life and condemnation both depend on the final judgment of life of the believer, which means judgment on his or her deeds. However, it is not about “righteousness from the deeds.” Regardless, results from the awareness of dependence on God’s grace and deeds are therefore always and only the result of God’s activity in the event of Jesus Christ. God’s gift of eternal life depends on Christ’s redemptive act; his death and resurrection. It means that justification by faith presupposes judgment according to works.647

All these theses express the basic effort to bring consonance to the idea of God’s judgment according to deeds and God’s justification of the believer. However, each of them contains some unanswered questions and some unsolved problems. On this basis, it is very useful, and at the same time very important for a better understanding of the real meaning of God’s righteousness and justice, including the relation between justification and judgment, to go back to the times and surroundings within which all of these thoughts and conceptions were

646 Roetzel, Calvin. Judgment in the Community: A Study of the Relationship Between Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Paul. Leiden: Brill, 1972.

647 The protagonist of this kind of interpretation is Klyne R. Snodgrass .See Snodgrass, Klyne R. “Justification by Grace–To the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the theology of Paul.” NTS 32 (1986): 72-93. See too Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 14.

385

formulated and developed. In other words, we have to return and go back to Second temple Judaism and Jewish literature of that time.648

A thoroughgoing analysis of Jewish literature of the Second Temple era shows that it is the event of Last Judgment that decides human’s eternal destiny. This axiom is equally an inseparable part of the proclamation of the apostle Paul. The behavior of a human thus prepares the criterion for the final evaluation and decision within the judgment.649 At the same time, a human has during one’s life the possibility to participate in God’s grace, which helps him or her in the daily struggle for right decisions and living in accordance with God’s will. However, the final judgment will mean final evaluation of the particular life as a whole, which happens on the basis of the deeds of an individual. In this aspect, Paul is consistent with his Jewish contemporaries. What is new in Paul’s thoughts is that the salvation is possible only on the basis of faith. The saved one can be only one who is a believer. Then the question remains as to what extent the final deliverance depends upon God’s election and the covenantal relationship with God, and to what extent it is dependent on a human’s actions, and his or her deeds. Equally, there is another question as to what extent is the election of Israel is an act of God’s grace and mercy, and to what extent it is the reward for right conduct on the side of people. This also relates to the question as to what extent the act of election of Israel automatically presupposes the eternal destiny of every one of Jacob’s descendants.

648 In this context, Chris Van Landingham introduced his own thoroughly developed conception of this relation. He explores the notion of God’s reward within the framework of God’s grace and mercy as they are understood in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple Era and in the Pauline letters. VanLandingham argues in favor of the thesis that a human’s eternal destiny – this both the teaching of the apostle Paul and also in the majority of Jewish literatures of Greek-Roman era – depends on the Last Judgment. See Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 15ff.

649 In Pauline letters there are many texts that specifically mention judgment and the notion of the Last Judgment or allude to it in clear manner: Rom 2:1-16; 3:6. 19-20; 11:20-22; 12:19; 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:5-17; 4:1-5; 5:1-5; 6:2-3, 9-10; 9:24-27; 11:27-32; 2 Cor 5:9-10; Gal 5:16-21; 6:7-9. For analysis and interpretation of these texts from the point of view of this approach, see in more detail especially Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 188-241.

386

The ongoing discussion about the meaning of the term justification, as well as of God’s righteousness and justice, is connected with all of these questions. The intent of the term might be more about forgiveness as an emancipative judicial verdict regardless of the deeds, or it might be necessary to understand it650 rather as a forgiveness of sins and making the believer to be free from the power of sin.651 In any case, most important is the primeval purpose of God to create the world and humanity with a positive perspective to preserve, develop and deliver the life of humankind for the final salvation of the universe as a whole. In Paul’s letters, the text of Romans 3:21-26 – which is a central passage of Paul’s argumentation over the content and meaning of God’s righteousness and a

650 There is essential distance between biblical thought and word usage of the terms with dikai-stem and the understanding of “righteousness” in Greco-Roman tradition. As Mark A. Seifrid rightly acknowledges the concept of “righteousness” in Greco-Roman tradition “has its roots in the Platonic-Aristotelean concept of righteousness as an “ideal” state of the po,lij and of the human soul. Here “justice” (to. di,kaion) generally is understood as distributive (dianemetiko,n) or corrective, i.e., retributive (diorqwtiko,n).” See Mark A. Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Tübingen / Grand Rapids: Mohr Siebeck / Baker, 2004), 43.

651 In this context arises the question of when it happens: at the very beginning of Christian existence (the life of believer Christian) or at the end of his life? Naturally, this does not exclude the eventuality that the beginning effects what will happen in the end within the Last Judgment, as VanLandingham notes: “With only a couple exceptions, contemporary scholars impose a forensic interpretation on justification by faith in such a way that it refers to the verdict of acquittal a believer will receive at the Last Judgment. I contend that ‘justification’ is an improper translation and understanding. It describes what occurs at the beginning of one’s Christian existence, not at the end. The terms involved refer to righteousness as it describes the person forgiven of his or her sins and freed from the power of sin. Even though what occurs at the beginning (i.e.forgiveness and freedom) does necessarily have an impact on what occurs at the end (i.e. the judgment), the Greek terms are not forensic and do not refer to the Last Judgment.” See Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 17, including n. 49. On the meaning of the Greek terms concerning “justification” see in more detail Gottlob Schrenk, “di,kaioj, dikaiosu,nh( dikaio,w( dikai,wma, dikai,wsij.” In TDNT 3/ p. 182 – 225. VanLandingham pays attention to the analysis of the dikai-groups of terms in chapter 4. In Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 242-331. In line with scholarly convention, he employs the term “forensic” when referring to the dikai-group of terms, but he prefers the term “judicial” when describing a context that refers to or implies a judgment. See Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in early Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 245 n. 17.

387

human faith in God’s righteousness – is known as the locus classicus of the doctrine of justification by faith.652 Not only in this place, but everywhere in the corpus of Paul’s letters, it is crucial to gain a right understanding of the meaning of the dikai- group of terms.653 In Paul’s theological thinking, the concept of God’s righteousness is a central point. This fact is confirmed also by the wider use of the terms diakiosynē (“righteousness”) and dikaioō (“justify”).654 Divergence in the interpretation of these terms within the traditional Jewish background and in the Greco-Roman surroundings, especially to the extent that is focused on the relation to God and God’s actions in history (diakiosu,nh qeou/),655 is a key factor in

652 This fact is confessed by repeating of the key terms dikaiosu,nh (3:21, 22, 25, 26) and pi,stij (3:22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31). See James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1 – 8. WBC 38A (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1988, Word [UK] Edition, 1991), 163. Note the argumentation of Alan F. Segal that Paul by using the language of justification may not have meant to define a new kind of theology, rather “he was trying to define a new apocalyptic community.” Segal continues: “although Paul’s use of the terminology of justification by faith in original, it is not unprecedented in first-century Judaism or Christianity. The precedents were not particularly evident until the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of the Essene community at Qumran, were read closely. A similar vocabulary of justification was used by the Qumran community in describing God’s justice for the believer and the coming apocalyptic end.” (For example 1QS II). See in Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990), 174-183. In Ábel, František. “The Concept Regarding the Coming of the Messiah as a Basis for Understanding of Romans 3:21-26.” In Justification According to Paul: Exegetical and Theological Perspectives. The Collection of Lectures from the International Interdisciplinary Academic Research Conference, May 5 – 6, 2011 in pursuance of the research project VEGA num. 1/0107/10 titled Corpus Paulinum as Interreligious Dialogue Paradigm in Multicultural Society, edited by Ondrej Prostredník. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta, 2012 (in printing process).

653 Here, I follow part of my essay “The Concept Regarding the Coming of the Messiah as a Basis for Understanding of Romans 3:21-26.” In Justification According to Paul: Exegetical and Theological Perspectives, edited by Ondrej Prostredník. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta, 2012 (in printing process).

654 Paul uses the term dikaiosynē 57 times in total (in Rom 33 times; 91 times in NT as a whole). The term dikaioō Paul uses 27 times in total (in Rom 15 times; 39 times in NT as a whole). The other related terms: dikaiōma (“requirement, righteous deed”) 5 times (in Rom 5 times; 10 times in NT as a whole); dikaiōsis (“justification”) 2 times (in Rom 2 times; 2 times in NT as a whole); dikaiokrisia (“righteous judgment”) 1 time (in Rom; also in NT as a whole). Quoted by James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 341 n. 25.

655 James D. G. Dunn notes in regard to the phrase and its meaning: “The debate on whether ‘the righteousness of God’ was subjective or objective genitive, ‘an activity of God’ or ‘a gift

388

the problems of interpreting Paul’s doctrine of justification. However, it is also very important in the process of ongoing discussion about the new perspectives in the field of Jewish-Christian relations because the term righteousness and its meaning is a key point in finding and developing common thoughts. In traditional Jewish understanding, the righteousness language does not have its basis in the idea of acquittal as it is in the Greco-Roman world where, alike in the courtroom, the accused receives from the Judge acquittal; it means to receive a great pardon within the Last Judgment.656 For example, in his comments to Romans 1:17, James D. G. Dunn notes this essential difference in the meaning of the term in connection to God’s actions:

bestowed by God’ can too easily become another piece of either-or exegesis. For the dynamic of relationship simply refuses to conform to such analysis. In contrast, Paul took it for granted that God’s righteousness was to be understood as God’s activity in drawing individuals into and sustaining them within the relationship, as ‘the power of God for salvation.’” In James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 344.

656 In this context Mark A. Seifrid argues: “In the first place we found reason to conclude that righteousness language in the Hebrew Scriptures (as in the Ancient Near East generally) has its basis in creational theology rather than in the framework of covenantal ideas. This assessment is especially relevant with respect to those passages that have to do with the administration of justice, and divine administration of justice in particular. It is these which serve as the background to Paul’s proclamation of the revelation of God’s righteousness and his further statements on the justifying work of God in Christ. In such settings, God appears as the ruling king, who effects justice (or ‘righteousness’) in (and for) the world that he has made.” In Mark A. Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Tübingen / Grand Rapids: Mohr Siebeck / Baker, 2004), 40. To the issue of righteousness language in the Hebrew scriptures and early Judaism see Seifrid, Mark A. “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 1 – The Complexities of second Temple Judaism, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 415-442. Tübingen / Grand Rapids: Mohr Siebeck / Baker, 2001. However, Mark A. Seifrid warns about the elementary difficulty in the process of interpretation of Paul’s statements concerning righteousness and justification, which lies between philology and theology. It is a common temptation to confuse the analysis of word-usage with theology. Therefore it is very hard to interpret the true meaning of these statements especially in the context of particular letters. See Mark A. Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Tübingen / Grand Rapids: Mohr Siebeck / Baker, 2004), 39-40.

389

“dikaiosu,nh is [a] good example of the need to penetrate through Paul’s Greek language in order to understand it in the light of his Jewish background and training. The concept which emerged from the Greco-Roman tradition to dominate Western thought was of righteousness/justice as an ideal or absolute ethical norm against which particular claims and duties could be measured (cf. von Rad, p. 370-371; Stuhlmacher, Gerechtigkeit, p. 103). But since the fundamental study of H. Cremer, it has been recognized that in Hebrew thought is qd,c, // hq'd'c. essentially a concept of relation. Righteousness is not something which an individual has on his or her own, independently of anyone else; it is something which one has precisely in one’s relationships as a social being…So too when it is predicated of God–in this case the relationship being the covenant which God entered into with his people.”657

However, in this connection, Mark A. Seifrid argues against the claim that “righteousness” in Hebrew literature is a relational concept or that it involves merely fidelity to a relation. This claim, he points out, is problematic in so far as it obscures the idea of normativity associated with the word-group. Seifrid explains that: “the application of righteousness terminology to various inanimate objects, its association with uprightness’ and ‘truth,’ its connection with retribution in forensic settings, and its relation to parallel conceptions of ‘righteousness’ in cultures in the Ancient Near East all render dubious any attempt to dissociate the terminology from the idea of a norm.”658

However, Seifrid also confirms that the Hebrew Scriptures speak of “norms in application,” and nowhere define “righteousness” in terms of an ideal.659 Despite the diversity of opinion, we can justifiably argue in favor of the presupposition that in Hebrew thought, as well as in Paul’s argumentation, the concept of

657 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1 – 8. WBC 38A (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1988, Word [UK] Edition, 1991), 40-41. The references to the other authors and literature are cited by the author.

658 Seifrid too states that Hermann Cremer was probably the first to offer this interpretation of “righteousness” in response to Ritschl’s conception of it as “correspondence to the ideal of salvation.” See Hermann Cremer. Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen. 2d ed. (Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1900), 33-37.

659 See Mark A. Seifrid, “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Tübingen / Grand Rapids: Mohr Siebeck / Baker, 2004), 43 including notes 12, 13 and 14.

390

“righteousness” is a more relational concept than that of the typical Greek worldview where it is foremost an ideal against which the individual action can be measured. Therefore, the Jewish perspective on the term “righteousness” expresses primarily an obligatory fulfillment on the side of the individual.660 Righteousness has its basis in God’s righteousness which is realized in the world from the beginning of creation. Therefore, use of the terms dikaiosynē (righteousness) and dikaioō (justify) within the Pauline corpus is not accidental, as was said earlier. It is quite the opposite: the wider use of the terms confirms the centrality of the concept.661 This also explains why Paul could formulate the main theme of the Letter to Romans as “the revelation of the righteousness of God” (Rom 1:16-17):

16 Ouv ga.r evpaiscu,nomai to. euvagge,lion( du,namij ga.r qeou/ evstin eivj swthri,an panti. tw/| pisteu,onti( VIoudai,w| te prw/ton kai. {EllhniÅ

17 dikaiosu,nh ga.r qeou/ evn auvtw/| avpokalu,ptetai evk pi,stewj eivj pi,stin( kaqw.j ge,graptai\ o` de. di,kaioj evk pi,stewj zh,setaiÅ

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith."

It is the righteousness of God which is the power of God for salvation. This means the righteousness of God expresses the fulfillment of God’s obligation laid upon God in the act of the creation of the world, humankind, and particularly in the calling of Abraham and the choosing of Israel to be God’s people.662 It can be said that it is about God’s faithfulness to the promises made towards humankind to create a life, preserve and keep it, develop it and save it for the higher dimension of being. All of these were fulfilled in the life and actions of Jesus Christ who is the telos of the Torah for everyone, and who has the confidence and faith

660 James D. G. Dunn defines it: “‘righteousness’ as the meeting of obligations laid upon the individual by the relationship of which he or she is part.” As a classic example Dunn gives the text of 1 Sam 24:17. In James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 341 including note 27.

661 Ibid, 341 including note 25. 662 Ibid, 342.

391

in the decisiveness of God’s purpose in the history of salvation (Rom 10:4: te,loj

ga.r no,mou Cristo.j eivj dikaiosu,nhn panti. tw/| pisteu,onti). It is the content of the Gospel of God for humankind as a whole. The life of Jesus was as a whole focused on this decisiveness of God’s purpose where the leading idea is not the boundary markers (the national understanding of own religion) of a particular nation, for example Israel, but the universalism of salvation (God’s mercy and love for humankind and the world, for creation as a whole which is the object of God’s love). God’s purpose is to bring final salvation to everyone who is faithful to this is part of God’s purpose (Isa 65:17-25; 66:18-24).

Inseparably connected with God’s purpose is the mandate for people to become holy. In other words, God’s calling is to holiness. It means to be called by God is to participate in realizing God’s righteousness and justice in the relationships within the community. It is a mandate for all people, Jews as well as non-Jews, particularly Christians. It is a calling to holiness within the fellowship (koinwni,a). God gives to people mercy and the Spirit in order that they could bear “the fruit of the Spirit” up to the end; it is a calling to holiness. Therefore, in Paul’s thinking, faith has a significant role because God’s grace comes by humanity realizing the inevitable demands of full trust on the side of humans. God’s purpose is realized universally. It goes beyond the borders of Israel as a covenantal nation (covenantal nomism).663 God’s grace is the decisive basis of

663 See for example Rom 9:1-5. The term covenantal nomism delineates and defines the relation of Israel to the law (Torah). God’s grace is showed by his making a contractual relation with His people This relation is an unconditioned manifestation of God’s sovereign will and His grace to Israel. It is terminus technicus by which E. P. Sanders has named and at the same time defined as a character of Jewishness in the second Temple period. This term contains in itself the two basic aspects of the relation of God to the Israeli nation: God’s initiative based on the grace (covenant) and the consequence of the act on the side of people, which is obedience and faithfulness to the law – Torah (nomism = fulfilling of the law). Obedience to the law (Torah) expresses the way in which the member of the relationship is with the Lord. It means a person keeps a relation with God and his status within the covenant. It is not primarily about obedience to the law (Torah) with the goal to gain favor with God by the person's own effort, acts or performance, and by doing this to strengthen the person's status within this relationship with God. See in more detail Ed P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 420. To this issue see also Dunn, James D. G. “The New Perspective whence, what and whither.” In The New Perspective on Paul, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 5-17. Revised edition. Grand Rapids, MI:

392

overcoming all borders within the framework of human society (Gal 3:6-9, 26-29). It does not mean that all differences among nations or races and genders have to be abolished. That kind of interpretation is defective and improperly idealistic. It properly means one can become a fellow heir of Abraham while still remaining a member of a particular nation. The sense of this key idea is precisely expressed by Mark D. Nanos who argues “Paul is not arguing, on my reading, that the boundary has collapsed so that there is no longer Jew or Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised, any more than he is arguing that the social boundary of difference between male and female or slave and free has been eliminated; both kinds still exist, and they are different with respect to one another. These Gentiles have not become Jewish proselytes but fellow heirs of Abraham while remaining members of the nations. For Paul, the differences of identity remain, but the discrimination that accompanies such roles in the present ‘evil’ age does and must not remain, for those in Christ, those of the age to come (cf. 3:26-4:7). They have become the equivalents of proselytes–righteous ones of God though not of Israel, of a new community creation consisting of Israel and the nations worshipping together–by the act of God in Christ. This is how he now calls them to live.”664

In other words, faith makes even pagans to be “the righteous” and puts them under the power of Christ as the new being (kainh. kti,sij) and brings them at the same time into the entity of Israel (Rom 2:25-29; cf. 11:24.26), but not exclusively on the basis of the boundary markers of nationality. It means that all that is and remains is particular. Through the Spirit of God, who makes from the particular the universal and moves it to a higher level, comes the fulfilling of the Law itself. It is a great paradox which can scarcely be explained satisfyingly. However, in present time, this is God’s paradox, and it remains a great opportunity and yet a challenge for both Jews and Christians to participate in God’s righteousness and justice, not separated, but together with each other.

All these things are closely related to another important aspect of what it means to live within the fellowship (koinwni,a). This is the holiness of the

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008; James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 338-339, 354-355, 373, 632.

664 Mark D. Nanos, The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002), 99-100 including notes 28 and 29.

393

fellowship (a`giwsu,nh and the related terms).665 The proper sphere of the term “holiness” in the New Testament context “is not cultus but the prophetic, which means that the sacred no longer belongs to things, places or rites, but to the manifestations of life produced by the Spirit.”666

In Paul’s proclamation, this is primarily the holiness of the ekklēsia. Those who name Jesus as their Lord are called the saints (oi` a[gioi), which means that they are “called” (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2, 6:2; 2 Cor 1:1), “elect” (Rom 8:33; Col 3:12) and “faithful” (Col 1:2).667 Again, on an Old Testament basis, the Christian fellowship is holy as a temple of the Spirit centered on Christ as the holy servant. As a holy people, Christians are to be holy, and this is a special emphasis in Paul’s proclamation. Paul stresses that believers are sanctified by Christ (1 Cor 1:2), and in him Gentiles (non-Jews) are now numbered among the saints (Eph 2:19). The churches as well as the church are holy (1 Cor 14:33). Holiness is by the calling of grace in Christ (Rom 1:6; 1 Cor 1:24; Phil. 1:1), not by nature, and the holy people have a divine inheritance (Eph 1:18; Col 1:12; cf. Deuteronomy). This has direct connection to the life of believers. A believer is to be holy as one who is called by God to become a member of the covenant people. Christians are to offer themselves as holy sacrifices (Rom 12:1), with the mutual service of love giving expression to this act (Gal 5:13; Rom 15:25; 16:2). Those sanctified in Christ sanctify their family circles (1 Cor 7:14). Holiness here has a moral content and stands opposed to impurity, especially in Gentile sexuality (Acts 10:14; Eph 5:5). Its cultic reference keeps it from being mere morality. Holiness in this sense is a principle of judgment (1 Cor 6:2). Despite the fact that Paul first of all and primarily focuses on his proclamation to pagans (non-Jews), he stresses that faith in God’s actions in Jesus Christ, the content of what it is to be holy, means that holiness relates primarily to God’s holiness and God’s purpose in the world. Therefore it has to have a direct impact and consequences in the life of humanity, Jews as well as non-Jews. The term includes the consequences for the daily life of God’s people, as well as includes the eschatological aspect as “a condition of

665 See in more detail Otto Procksch, “a[gioj, agiazw, agiasmo,j, agio,thj, agiosu,nh“ in TDNT 1/ 88-115. See too Horst Seebass, Colin Brown, “a[gioj, agiazw, agiasmo,j, agio,thj, a`giosu,nh, agi,asma, agiasth,rion“ in NIDNTT 2 / 223-232.

666 Horst Seebass, in NIDNTT 2/ 228. 667 Ibid, 229.

394

acceptance at the parousia and of entering upon the inheritance of God’s people (Col 1:12).”668 In all these aspects, holiness implies a relationship with God, one gained primarily not through cultus, but by a particular religious tradition, through the reality of leading by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:14)

o[soi ga.r pneu,mati qeou/ a;gontai( ou-toi ui`oi. qeou/ eivsin.

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.

James D. G. Dunn notes in his comments on this verse, that Paul “evidently understood the Christian life as an integrated balance between moral effort (v. 14) and yielding to deeply felt inward compulsions (cf. Gal 5:16, 18, and see further on 12:1-2; cf. cf. Murray).”669 Dunn, however, explains further that in the context within which Paul argues in this way, he “carefully circumscribes this potentially dangerous ethical ideal by identifying the pneu/ma only as the Spirit of Christ (v. 9) and ties the correlated experience of sonship into Christ’s sonship (vv. 15-17).”670 If the stress of Paul’s statement lays on the Spirit of Christ, this is also the Spirit of God with his purpose to realize God’s righteousness and justice within human relationships. Since the opening o[soi has to have both a restrictive (“only those who…671) and inclusive force (“all those who…”672), it should be understood as “as many as,”673 meaning with deliberate ambiguity in regard to the implications: inclusive – beyond the boundaries of Israel kata. sa,rka) and restrictive – only those who are led by the Spirit. It means as determined by the extent of the Spirit’s outpouring.674 As many as are led by the Spirit of God (and the Spirit of Christ), those are the children of God. It means that the divine childhood of individuals is determined by the Spirit of God. It was understood within Jewish tradition as the power of God choosing Israel to be God’s child and

668 Ibid, 230. 669 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1 – 8. WBC 38A (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1988, Word [UK] Edition,

1991), 450. The references to the other authors and literature are cited by the author. 670 “‘To be led by the Spirit’ is not a license for uninhibited ecstasy, as Paul would have been the first

to remind his readers (1 Cor 12-14; 1 Thess 5:19-22).” In James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1 – 8. WBC 38A (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1988, Word [UK] Edition, 1991), 450.

671 For example, Lagrange and Michel. In James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1 – 8. WBC 38A (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1988, Word [UK] Edition, 1991), 450.

672 So, for example, Cranfield, Schlier, ibid. 673 So James D. G. Dunn, ibid. 674 Ibid, 450.

395

Israelites as individuals being “the righteous whose living and dying was marked by faithfulness to the law” (see Deut 14:1)675 Now, it is understood in its eschatological meaning – the outpouring the Spirit of God on all people (see Joel 3; cf. Hos 1:10 quoted by Paul in 9:26).676

It also means, as Douglas J. Moo notes, that “being children of God also places believers squarely in the ‘already-not yet’ tension created by their belonging to the new realm of righteousness at the same time they continue to live in the midst of the old realm of sin and death. In a word, being a ‘child’ of God means to be an ‘heir’ of God also, and thereby one who must look to the future for the full embodiment of ‘sonship’ (v. 17, in relation to vv. 18–30).”677 In Paul’s proclamation, as well as in the Old Testament context, holiness is primarily a pre-ethical term (cf. Ex 19:5f`; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:6; Isa 61:6). It demands first of all behavior which rightly responds to God’s will by the Holy Spirit.678 Therefore, it does not depend on particular religious traditions, or on ethnic or national boundary markers. It depends only on the faithfulness to God’s will and purpose in the world – to realize God’s righteousness and justice among nations, within fellowship, headed by the perfect love of God.

As we can see in this approach, God’s will and purpose is to create a new eschatological community formed of all, Jews and non-Jews, who are led by the Spirit of God to participation in God’s righteousness,679 which has been realized in this world from the beginning till now. All of the particulars, the religious traditions, ethnic or national membership, have to be subsidiary to the status of being children of God. This means to realize God’s righteousness, justice and holiness within the fellowship (koinwni,a) of God’s people, and this demand is valid and relevant to the same degree for current Judaism and Christianity. This

675 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1 – 8. WBC 38A (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1988, Word [UK] Edition, 1991), 451.

676 Ibid. 677 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 1996), 496. 678 See Horst Seebass, in NIDNTT 2/ p. 230. 679 See Michal Valčo, “Luteránska reformácia a charizmatické hnutia.“ [Lutheran Reformation and

the Charizmatic Movements] In Acta humanica : Kapitoly z kresťanskej teologickej reflexie, č. I, (2006): 15.

396

means that they both could develop their relationships just on the meaning of the term that is also an integral part of Pauline proclamation.

Societal Perspective In the past, a lot of interpreters of Paul’s letters have failed to discover the

real meaning and sense of Paul’s proclamation, including the main goals of his mission. This occurred primarily because of following the traditional patterns and methods that often overlooked the context of the surroundings in which Paul existed, the conditions that formed his personality, his way of thinking and doing. The world of ancient societal rhetoric and politics is therefore very important for the understanding of Paul’s main thoughts. In all Paul’s key texts, especially in the key terms Paul uses, it is very important to find the meaning which comes out and was well-known in the contemporary society of the Greco-Roman world. Applying this approach to Paul’s thoughts of crucial importance, we find such key aspects, as for example, Hellenistic philosophy with its moral force in society, and the idea of society as a body with different members.680

Stephen C. Barton expressed precisely this fact in the essay “All Things To All People,” where in considering the text of 1 Cor 9:19-23 in its literary and historical context, one can see the light it throws on the question of “Paul and the Law.”681 Here, Barton pointed out the persistent tendency to interpret the problems of the house churches in Corinth and other issues in the letter as a whole in terms of

680 As it was stressed by Peter J. Tomson in the conclusion of his essay “Paul’s Jewish Background in View of His Law teaching in 1 Cor 7”: “This is the level where Paul developed his ecclesiological christology – or christological ecclesiology if you wish. The body is Christ, and his members, though different, are equal in value.” See “Paul’s Jewish Background in View of His Law teaching in 1 Cor 7,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U. K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., [1996] 2001), 269-270.

681 Barton, Stephen C. “‘All Things to All People’: Paul and the Law in the Light of 1 Corinthians 9.19–23.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 270-285. Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U. K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., [1996] 2001. Barton argues that Paul’s attitude to the law was governed “at least in part, by political considerations.” By term “political” Barton means “considerations which are closely analogous to the common topoi of contemporary rhetoric about leadership, public affairs, and the exercise of power for the building up of the social body.” In Stephen C. Barton, “‘All Things to All People’: Paul and the Law in the Light of 1 Corinthians 9.19–23,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U. K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., [1996] 2001), 283.

397

Religionsgeschichte. According to Barton, this approach has at least two shortcomings: “One is that it fails to give a satisfactory explanation for the shape of the letter as a whole… The second shortcoming is that the religions-geschichtlich approach overlooks the extent to which the language Paul uses, the topics he addresses, and the strategies of persuasion he adopts, are heavily indebted to the world of ancient politics.”682 Barton argues that “there is no simple way out of such hermeneutical complexities, which are at the forefront of contemporary debates in biblical interpretations.683 What is important, however, is to be aware of the issues, to attempt a reading which is sensitive historically and contextually, and to avoid claiming too much for one’s own proposal.”684

Stephen Barton has analyzed the text of 1 Cor 9:19-23 in its literary and historical context, especially from the point of view of political considerations “closely analogous to the common topoi of contemporary rhetoric about leadership, public affairs, and the exercise of power for the building up of the social body.”685 From this point of view, Barton argues that Paul’s attitude to the law is governed, at least in part, by political considerations. Paul is trying to establish a “new kind of polity,” as Barton says, “the eschatology polity of ‘the body of Christ,’ born out of separate polities – Jews and Greeks – which are

682 See ibid, 274. In this connection Barton refers to other authors: Welborn, L. L. “On the Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Ancient Politics.” JBL, 106 (1987), 85-111, and Marshall, P. Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987. Quoted by Stephen C. Barton, “‘All Things to All People’: Paul and the Law in the Light of 1 Corinthians 9.19-23,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U. K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., [1996] 2001), 274 n. 11.

683 Particularly, there is always danger to read Paul in ways which are anachronistic or conforming to a particular school of interpretation or in ways which are narrowly idealist or motivated only by pragmatic interests. Here, Barton refers to the works of Anthony C. Thiselton, in regard to the liberation theology and the socio-pragmatic aspects of liberationist hermeneutics. See Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (London: Harper Collins, 1992), chapter XII and to the edition of Francis Watson: Francis Watson (ed.). The Open Text, New Directions For Biblical Studies? London: SCM, 1993. See Stephen C. Barton, “‘All Things to All People’: Paul and the Law in the Light of 1 Corinthians 9.19–23,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U. K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., [1996] 2001), 272 n. 4, 5.

684 Ibid, 272. 685 In Stephen C. Barton, “‘All Things to All People’: Paul and the Law in the Light of 1 Corinthians

9.19-23,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U. K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., [1996] 2001), 283.

398

(ideologically and historically) estranged and at loggerheads.”686 Despite the fact that the law separates two social worlds and two communities, Paul is trying by his identification, on the one hand with “those under the law” (9:20) and on the other hand with “those outside the law” (9:21) “to build one single, eschatological community on the boundary (as it were) between the two, a boundary radically redefined of ‘the gospel of Christ’ and reflected in the relational phrase, e;nnomoj Cristou/.”687 This is an important final thought in Barton’s analysis.

Likewise, as Stephen Barton does in his above essay, we have to give a similar example from the Pauline corpus which is well expressed in this context. It is a crucial text from the ninth chapter of 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 9:19-23) where Paul argues comprehensively to defend his right as an Apostle, whose purpose is to proclaim the good news (euaggelion) to all nations and cultures. The way in which Paul argues and proclaims the good news entails the paradox within his own apostleship, while also pointing to the paradox of God's activity in human history. Having a universal character, the paradox of God's activity embraces a perspective – offered to all humankind – that is in all respects positive and exceeds the temporal.688

VEleu,qeroj ga.r w'n evk pa,ntwn pa/sin evmauto.n evdou,lwsa( i[na tou.j plei,onaj kerdh,sw\ kai. evgeno,mhn toi/j VIoudai,oij w`j VIoudai/oj( i[na VIoudai,ouj kerdh,sw\ toi/j u`po. no,mon w`j u`po. no,mon( mh. w'n auvto.j u`po. no,mon( i[na tou.j u`po. no,mon kerdh,sw\ toi/j avno,moij w`j a;nomoj( mh. w'n a;nomoj qeou/ avllV e;nnomoj Cristou/( i[na kerda,nw tou.j avno,mouj\ evgeno,mhn toi/j avsqene,sin avsqenh,j( i[na tou.j avsqenei/j kerdh,sw\ toi/j pa/sin ge,gona pa,nta( i[na pa,ntwj tina.j sw,swÅ pa,nta de. poiw/ dia. to. euvagge,lion( i[na sugkoinwno.j auvtou/ ge,nwmaiÅ

19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the

686 Ibid, 283. 687 Ibid, 283, including the note 41. 688 Here I proceed from the main part of my essay “Tois pasin gegona panta – Paradoxes of Paul’s

Mission in a Multicultural Society (1 Cor 9:19-23).” In The mission of Paul and the multicultural society, edited by František Ábel, 81-98. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta, 2010.

399

law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law) so that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.

Paul’s explanation here shows decidedly that the purpose, or more precisely the final goal, of his apostleship accords with the purpose of God that all the nations could achieve salvation. Because of this reasoning, all of the particular emphases have only secondary relevance and do not have influence on the salvation of a human being. Therefore, Paul is free in what he does, and moreover asserts his right as Apostle.

This part is crucial not solely in relation to the recipients of the letter in Corinth, but it is also important and valid in the same way for Paul’s mission as a whole. The words of Paul express paradoxes that are derived from the biggest paradox, which is the preaching of the Gospel (proclamation about the crucified and risen Christ). Paul’s defense of his apostolic status, including pointing out the very goal of his mission, have reasons that are apparently inclusive in their nature. Naturally, in relation to this fact, we have to ask if Paul is consistent in his statements towards the questions of the law (Torah) and God’s mercy. Thorough analysis of the whole corpus of Paul’s letters shows the presence of many contradictions (for example Rom 13:8-10 in relation to chapter 7 or 10:4; or part 2:14-15, 26-27 in relation to the main thesis of this part).689 It is impossible to allow these apparent contradictions to pass unnoticed, as in jumping to conclusions that Paul simply contradicts himself and accepting this statement without qualification. Paul’s theological and intellectual capabilities show that in his argumentation, including the meaning of the single words themselves, there is

689 H. Räisänen evaluates this fact as constant features of Paul’s theology of the law that have to be accepted: “contradictions and tensions have to be accepted as constant features of Paul’s theology of the Law.” In Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law. WUNT 29 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1983), 10-11. J. D. G. Dunn in this context argues that this way of interpretation is unsatisfying. He argues: “Basic to good exegesis is respect for the integrity of the text and, in the case of someone like Paul, respect for his intellectual caliber and theological competence.” In James D. G. Dunn, “Works of the Law and the curse of the Law,” in The New Perspective on Paul, ed. James D. G. Dunn. Revised edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), 121.

400

still plenty we do not yet understand. Therefore, it is necessary to recall continually that the issues Paul is concerned with in his letters are much more complex, and in many respects, are dependent on different sociological factors. These factors are the environment within which Paul has acted and which he has addressed through the preaching of the gospel. This is a cultural and religious background that has formed and influenced the life and customs of its people, and the very perception of the gospel from the side of the recipients of Paul’s message. This is so on two sides – on the side of Paul’s own nation Israel, and the side of the pagan’s (non-Jew) world.

Paul’s ultimate goal, however, is the salvation of others. Therefore, Paul insists that he himself belongs to Christ alone, and that he is under the law of Christ = e;nnomoj Cristou/ [9:21]). This results in different activities in various situations. In other words, in his freedom from others, Paul intentionally accommodates himself to a particular environment and community in order to bring others to salvation (toi/j pa/sin ge,gona pa,nta( i[na pa,ntwj tina.j sw,sw [9:22b]). 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 is rightfully considered as “the most surprising” part in the entire context of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.690 Paul expresses freely, and from his own will, that he became a slave to everyone in order to win all of them (tou.j plei,onaj)691 for Christ.692 In the following verses (vv. 20-23), Paul specifies what this means, all the while stating typical marks of the social background within the context where he worked as an apostle of Jesus Christ.

690 So, for example, D. A. Carson: ”Perhaps the most startling passage is 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Here Paul insists that he is not u`po. no,mon, but makes himself u`po. no,mon in order to win the Jews, who are upo. no,mon. On the other hand, to those who are a;nomoi, Paul makes himself a;nomoj, even though he is not himself a;nomoj, but is e;nnomoj Cristou/.” In D. A. Carson, “Mystery and Fulfillment,” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid (Tübingen / Grand Rapids: Mohr Siebeck / Baker, 2004), 402. See too the note 34.

691 The term tou.j plei,onaj (lit. “the many”) in this verse has rather the meaning ”more than I should have gained by another policy – the greater number that this policy brings in.” So John R. St. Parry in The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians (Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges. 2d ed., Cambridge, 1926), 142. In Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 427, n. 25.

692 Ibid, 426, n. 21.

401

In this text (9:21), the word-play a;nomoj – e;nnomoj Cristou/ has very interesting content. Through the word-play, Paul explains his behavior among the pagans (Non-Jews) who constituted the majority of the membership of the Corinthian congregation. Paul does not form only a hypothetical possibility. Therefore, Paul’s words should not be understood as if he was giving himself as an example of “self-control,” like Gordon Fee correctly notes.693 In particular, he expresses the way in which he behaved among non-Jewish members of the congregation, that is, in the environment where he could eat all that was given him without the necessity to search his conscience (cf. 10:27). In order not to give the impression he is thinking about a moral category of behavior (godlessness), Paul adds that he is in fact not without God’s law – he did not behave godlessly and did not act in a way that could be assessed as contrary to God’s will.694 Under the term a;nomoj we could not think inevitably about, expressis verbis, the law of God (Torah). However, it has to be noted, this possibility cannot be excluded. This is so because Paul’s words tell he died by the law so that he could live in God in order that he could justify his calling to be “apostle of pagans” (cf. Gal 2:19-20).695 In any case, Paul in a principal way notes that he is not without the law of God, and he continues by respectively adding that he himself is e;nnomoj Cristou/ = under the law of Christ, and therefore he is responsible to the law of Christ. Just as in 7:19, here Paul differs between observance of the “law” (Torah) and obedience of ethical imperatives that are consequences of Christian belief. In other words, we can see here very clearly an overcoming of the opposites. On the one hand, “to be under the law” expresses the national, culture and religious affiliation to Jewishness, or simply put, “to be a Jew.” On the other hand, Paul is a

693 Ibid, 429. 694 On the sense of the genitive qeou/ in the phrase, particular commentators express themselves

differently. See for example Charles F. D. Moule, An idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2d. ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 42, where the author is inclined to think about the phrase as a genitive subjective = “the law of God.” Barret proposes a translation of the phrase as “legal obligation towards God.” See Charles K. Barret, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1976), 212-213. Fee voices the opinion that here we have a genitive objective = “[doing] lawlessly, it means unlawfully towards God.” See Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 429-430, including n. 43.

695 See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 32 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 370.

402

new man, “a new creation in Christ” (2 Cor 5:17). Also in this state, Paul receives from the Spirit of God a power and an ability to live in accordance with God’s commandments (7:19), which is in accordance with the moral-ethical principles of “the new age” that are now “written on the flesh of our hearts“(Ezek 36:26-27).696

Within 9:19-23, we can feel that Paul is knowingly stating contradictions. On the one hand, Paul claims to be not u`po. no,mon, however, he immediately adds that he is able to be u`po. nomo,n in favor of gaining Jews for Christ, as well as those who are sympathizers of Jewish religious tradition. On the other hand, Paul claims that he is also able to be a;nomoj in favor to those who are a;nomoi, whereas he alone is not a;nomoj, but quite the opposite; he is e;nnomoj Cristou/.697 Through this, Paul expresses an authority under which he himself is bound. Paul, as a Jew, still remains a part of the covenant of God with the chosen people (covenantal nomism – see for example Rom 9: 1-5).698 However, Paul's relation to Christ (e;nnomoj Cristou/) is higher than all other particularities to be made by social background alone. The superiority of this status over all particularities allows Paul to say that under his given circumstances, it was as though he was not Jewish, and therefore he has to become one (w`j VIoudai/oj). Similarly in the non-Jewish environment, he has to become someone who is not Jew, meaning someone who is not under the law (u`po. no,mon).699 Thanks to this relation, in this new position

696 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 430.

697 The importance of this phrase is affirmed also by the fact that it is hapax legomenon. See ibid, 402.

698 See note 64. On the issue see also Dunn, James D. G. “The New Perspective whence, what and whither.” In The New Perspective on Paul, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 5-17. Revised edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008.

699 D. A. Carson in this connection notes that Paul by this does not mean the situation of making the mission among Jews. It means remaining in the position of comfortable conformity to everything which is u`po. no,mon, and after that when he is coming to pagans (non-Jews), Paul changes his stand and adapts himself to a new environment. Here Paul is speaking about himself rather than from a different point of view, a peculiar Christian position from which, in the context of his mission, he considers a particular environment and takes a special stand to it. In D. A. Carson, “Mystery and Fulfillment” in Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, eds. D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 402-403.

403

(e;nnomoj Cristou/), Paul is able to be free and adjust himself to the environment and conditions within which he is pursuing his mission.

Always and everywhere, first is “the case” of the gospel – the desire to gain others for Christ. It does not mean that Paul is trying to fulfill this goal by abandoning his own religious tradition, nor he is trying to fulfill this goal by supporting the pagans (Non-Jews) in their former way of life (keeping their former religious tradition). Thirdly, Paul does not preach a universal form of religion that could be an example of religious universalism. From the position of the new status in which Paul now finds himself (e;nnomoj Cristou/), he is looking for continuity in what is common to different social backgrounds within which he is doing the mission, or better said, where he is the apostle of Jesus Christ. Stephen Barton’s comment on the text of 1 Cor 9:19-23, and especially in the context of the title “Paul, the missionary,” notes: “To put it sharply, my point is that Paul was not a missionary, but avpo,stoloj Cristou/ VIhsou/ (1 Cor 1.1; cf. 4.9; 9.1.2; 15.9), a calling that meant being God’s ‘master builder’ in laying the foundations of the eschatological temple of God’s people in Corinth and elsewhere (cf. 3.10-17).”700

The moral-ethical requirements of the law (Torah), which are also requirements and sanctions in a pagan environment, can serve as an example of this kind of continuity. From all of the above-stated, it can be asserted that the new status Paul received from God – his apostolicity as a status to be e;nnomoj Cristou/ – is a substantial element by which we are able to understand the seemingly contradictory parts of Paul’s argumentation, and also have these paradoxes at least partially explained. The common base of all of these paradoxes is the gospel concerning the crucified and risen Christ. It has a universal dimension, and in the context of Paul’s mission, a potential to join people together701 instead of divide them. We can say Paul’s main intention within his apostleship was to be an apostle of the new universal community – the fellowship

700 Stephen C. Barton, “‘All Things to All People’: Paul and the Law in the Light of 1 Corinthians 9.19-23.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U. K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., [1996] 2001), 284, including the note 44. See too Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles (London: SCM, 1977), 1-77.

701 In Paul’s way of theological argumentation and thinking, the issue is the two elementary groups of humankind as a whole – Jews and pagans (Non-Jews).

404

(koinwni,a) of all believers – Jews, as well as non-Jews.702 This is so because the gospel overcomes all individual particularities by preaching about God’s concern for humankind, and by the promise of salvation, which is offered to all people through the event of Jesus Christ as a crucial manifestation of what it means to live in accordance with God’s will and purpose in the world. “This is the basis of the good news. For the promise of salvation, by way of the biggest paradox of history, we can be received solely by faith and in confidence that it will be fulfilled in the end in universal dimension.”703 And this is a mandate for all people of this world who have a faith in God’s purpose.

Conclusion In this study, our main goal was to introduce and interpret the decisive

arguments and reasons for supporting the development of Jewish-Christian relationships in Slovakia, this primarily understood as an impulse on the side of Christian churches. Most of these arguments lead off from theological arguments based on the analysis and interpretation of the crucial terms Paul used in the key parts of his proclamation. From the position of a biblical theologian, I am aware that this kind of argumentation is largely theoretical, and to a certain extent, hypothetical. However, the historical arguments and present conditions are proving that the perspective in the next development of the Christian churches in Slovakia is based just in this way – to return to the very roots of Christianity and to develop this common heritage together with Judaism. It also means to return to the apostle Paul and his proclamation, and to find the right understanding of its content. The common roots of Judaism and Christianity are the best point of departure for the next development of common themes that are firmly wedded to all issues of God’s righteousness and justice, divine benefits realized in the world from the beginning of the creation. Therefore, it is Paul, above all, who was

702 Alan Segal, in this context, says of Paul: “If Paul’s call for unity is taken seriously, he did not merely want to be the apostle to the gentiles. He wanted to be an apostle of all the church, for his vision was for a new community formed of all gentiles and Jews (1 Cor 9:22).” In Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert. The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990), 265.

703 František Ábel, “Tois pasin gegona panta – Paradoxes of Paul’s Mission in a Multicultural Society (1 Cor 9:19-23),” in The mission of Paul and the multicultural society, ed. František Ábel (Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta, 2010), 94.

405

and still remains a paradigm of interreligious dialogue, especially in the context of Jewish-Christian relations.

Within the analysis and interpretation of the terms “righteousness," "justice (including justification)," "holiness," and "fellowship,” in particular texts of the Pauline corpus, we could observe that the main thought which passes through Paul’s theological thinking is the universalism of salvation in its eschatological context. However, it does not mean that Paul was led only by religious enthusiasm or the ecstatic movement in his mind by the force of a mystical experience of the revelation of God’s Son and its goal: … avpokalu,yai to.n ui`o.n auvtou/ evn evmoi,( i[na euvaggeli,zwmai auvto.n evn toi/j e;qnesin( …(Gal 1:16). The event has decisively influenced not only Paul’s life itself, but it has brought decisive consequences into the daily life of the communities of believers, Jews as well as non-Jews where Paul gave his proclamation. The consequences particularly mean the obligation and responsibility to live as a new creation (kainh. kti,sij) within this age yet, in other words, in this world. All the while, time is continuing on and brings new things into the God’s creation with emphasis on the development of what is a part of God’s primeval intent in this world – the creation, deliverance and salvation of the life. All this development has proceeded in the history of mankind from the beginning of creation, and will continue until the time of universal restoration (cf. Acts 3:12-26). Therefore, living within “fellowship” (koinwni,a) does not have to be understood only in a christological context, but rather it means within the boundary of Christianity as a particular religion. Nor does it mean only within Judaism, but within the community of God’s people as believers in the One God and God’s creator’s purpose. All that is being done should be done for the benefit and deliverance of people as a whole, which means, for the benefit and deliverance of everyone if he or she wants to accept God’s offer and has the faith and trust in God’s actions in the world.

This kind of interpretation includes an important postulate. It is the ability and willingness to accept the elementary fact that God is still acting in the world. God is still doing new things, and by this action, He brings into history the necessity of new consideration of all that exists. This fact should also be applicable in the field of religions, especially in Judaism and Christianity. Humankind is a part of “God’s directing creativity,” which is a phrase of Paul Tillich's through which he

406

expressed the doctrine of providence.704 The people who feel their belonging to God, however, at the same time feel anxiety and tension originating from the estrangement from God, and that causes them the awareness of finiteness and possible non-being/existence. People desire to overcome this anxiety and achieve deliverance and salvation. God is the one who gives them the power and ability to do this, and the one who, by his Spirit, gives them the potential to be active and to try to change the current state of things, as well as bring them to a new state of existence. Therefore, it can be said that any time people are deciding for Christ – God as the very essence of being, which overcomes the non-being (existence) – there are conditions for creating an analogy between the Kingdom of God and this world. This is so because of fulfilling of God’s will on the earth, regardless of whether a certain person is or is not the member of a particular church or religious community.

In closing, an appropriate example of how one could understand keeping God’s will in the present time are words of Baruch Myers, Rabbi of the Orthodox Jewish community in Bratislava. These words express the thoughts of Chatam Sofer, the most famous, respected and honored religious thinker of the Slovak Jewish orthodox community. “Often we hear people say that they would like to keep Hashem’s laws, but it is just not practical in today’s world. This is based upon the assumption that physical laws are unchangeable, and that we can only fulfill Hashem’s Will to the extent that it does not conflict with the laws of nature. The truth is the exact opposite. It is the laws of Hashem that are absolute, and the laws of nature that must bend in order to enable Hashem’s Will to be actualized. When we realize this, we can begin serving Hashem with true confidence. Those worldly affairs that appear to be obstacles disappear in the face of our deep faith

704 Tillich argues: “We have seen that providence must not be understood in a deterministic way, in the sense of a divine design decreed ‘before the creation of the world,’ which is now running its course and in which God sometimes interferes miraculously. Instead of such supranatural mechanism we applied the basic ontological polarity of freedom and destiny in the relation of God and the world and asserted that God’s directing creativity works through the spontaneity of creatures and human freedom. Now that we are including the historical dimension we can say that the ‘new’ toward which history runs, both the particularly new and the absolutely new, is the aim of historical providence.” In Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Volume III “Life and Spirit, History and the Kingdom of God”) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967), 372. See too ibid (Volume I, Part II, Sec. IIB, 5c), 263-271.

407

that the same God who revealed to us His commandments, is the very same God who created the natural order, and it is He who can alter the natural order. And this principle is embedded in the very creation of the world.”705

If these words are applicable to the natural order of God’s creation which can be altered, they can also be applicable – always if it is God’s will – in a similar way for a particular religious tradition and learned way of life. This is especially valid when religious traditions have common roots, as in the case of Judaism and Christianity. In these words we can also observe something particular that could establish the basis or the starting point of the next development of Jewish-Christian relations in Slovakia. We believe that Slovak Churches should be the first to go to dialogue with the small but still living Jewish community in Slovakia. On the other side, Christian scholars in Slovakia should engage much more intensively in Jewish-Christian projects, especially in theological, social and cultural fields. Only then will be both, Christians and Jews in Slovakia, able to search for the main obstacles to a fruitful dialogue, and step by step break down all prejudices on both sides. Czech Republic could serve as a good example, at least in academic and cultural fields. In addition that that, we have to be very patient, and yet optimistic. This is the truth that for both faiths, there is the same God – the only God who is Creator and who is still acting in the favor of humankind and world as a whole, from the beginning to the end.

Bibliography

Bible Editions

Quotations from the Bible designated (NRSV) are from New Revised Standard Version Bible. Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. 1989.

705 Baruch Myers explains in this way the commentary of Chatam Sofer on the concluding words of the last sidrah of the Torah “Vezot Habracha,” (Miracles), particularly the part Devarim, chapter 34, verses 10-12 (Deut 34:10-12). In Baruch Myers, Gan Sofer (Bratislava: Commercium, s.r.o., 2003), 278. See in more detail ibid, 276-278.

408

The Greek text of the New Testament is quoted by Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, ed.27, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996. Work out by use of BNM databases: Buschel, Michael, Jean-Noel Aletti, Andrzej Gieniusz. BibleWorks. Norfolk: 1991 – 2009, BibleWorks LLC, Greek morphological databases used in the program BibleWorks 8.

The Greek citations from the Septuagint are cited according to the BGT BibleWorks 8 Greek LXX/BNT.

Sources and Lexicons

The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version Bible. Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. 1989.

Buschel, Michael, Jean-Noel Aletti, Andrzej Gieniusz. BibleWorks. Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament Morphology. Norfolk: 1991-2009, BibleWorks LLC. Greek morphological databases used in the program BibleWorks 8.

Nestle, Erwin, Aland, Kurt (eds.). Novum Testamentum Graece. Ed.27, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 1979-1996.

Rahlfs, Alfred (Ed.). Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX Interpretes (two volumes in one) Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979.

Brown, Colin (ed.). The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Volume 1, 2. Devon; Michigan: The Paternoster Press, Ltd. Exeter and The Zondervan Corporation Grand Rapids, UK, USA, Revised Edition 1986.

Kittel, Gerhard and Friedrich, Gerhard (eds.). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964-1976.

Liddel, Henri George, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, Roderick McKenzie. A Greek-English Lexikon. A New Edition Revised and Augmented. With a revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

Other Literature

409

Ábel, František. “The Apostle Paul as a paradigm of the Interreligious Dialogue.” In Doing Theology in a Global Era. A Festschrift for the Rev. Prof. Dr. Hans Schwarz on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, edited by Craig L. Nessan, and Thomas Kothmann, 17-23. Bangalore, India: Asian Trading Corporation, 2009.

Ábel, František. “Tois pasin gegona panta – Paradoxes of Paul’s Mission in a Multicultural Society (1 Cor 9:19-23).” In The mission of Paul and the multicultural society. The collection of lectures from the international interdisciplinary academic research conference, October 14-15, 2010 in pursuance of the research project VEGA num.1/0107/10 titled Corpus Paulinum as interreligious dialogue paradigm in multicultural society, edited by František Ábel, 81-98. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta, 2010.

Ábel, František. “The Concept Regarding the Coming of the Messiah as a Basis for Understanding of Romans 3:21-26.” In Justification According to Paul: Exegetical and Theological Perspectives. The Collection of Lectures from the International Interdisciplinary Academic Research Conference, May 5 – 6, 2011 in pursuance of the research project VEGA num. 1/0107/10 titled Corpus Paulinum as Interreligious Dialogue Paradigm in Multicultural Society, edited by Ondrej Prostredník. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta, 2012 (in printing process).

Badiou, Alain. Svatý Pavel zakladatel universalizmu [St. Paul the Founder of Universalism]. From French original Saint Paul: La fondation de l’universalisme, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1997 translated by Josef Fulka. Praha: Svoboda Servis, 2010.

Barret, Charles K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1976.

Barton, Stephen C. “‘All Things to All People’: Paul and the Law in the Light of 1 Corinthians 9.19-23.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 270-285. Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U. K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., [1996] 2001.

410

Bousset, Wilhelm. Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfangen des Christentums bis Irenäus. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921.

Bultmann, Rudolf. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 5th ed. Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1965.

Campbell, Douglas A. The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009.

Carson, D. A. “Mystery and Fulfillment.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 393-436. Tübingen / Grand Rapids: Mohr Siebeck / Baker, 2004.

Cremer, Hermann. Die paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre im Zusammenhange ihrer geschichtlichen Voraussetzungen, 2nd ed. Gutersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1900.

Deissmann, Adolf G. Paulus. Eine kultur- and religionsgeschichtliche Skizze, Tübingen: Mohr, 1911, 2d ed. 1925.

Donfried, Karl P. “Justification and Last Judgment in Paul.” Int 30 (1976): 140-152.

Donfried, Karl P. (ed.) The Romans Debate. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991 [1977].

Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1 – 8. WBC 38A. Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1988, Word (UK) Edition, 1991.

Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006.

Duss, Jan A., Pokorný, Petr (Eds.). Neznáma evangelia: Novozákonní apokryfy I. [Unknown Gospels: New Testament Apocryphal Writings]. Praha: Vyšehrad, 2001.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 32. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987.

411

Haufe, Christoph. Die sittliche Rechtfertigungslehre des Paulus. Halle: VEB Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1957.

Hinlicky, Paul R. Luther and the Beloved Community: A Path for Christian Theology after Christendom. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

Joest, Wilfried. Gesetz und Freiheit: Das Problem des Tertius Usus Legis bei Luther und die neutestamentliche Parainese. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951.

Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.

Käsemann, Ernst. “The Righteousness of God in Paul.” In New Testament Questions of Today, 168-182. Philadelphia: Fotress Press, 1969.

Kennedy, Harry A. A. St. Paul’s Conceptions of the Last Things. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1904.

Kertelge, Karl. Rechtfertigung bei Paulus. Münster: Verlag Aschendorf, 1966.

Marshall, Peter. Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987.

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996.

Moule, Charles F. D. An idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2d. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.

Myers, Baruch. Gan Sofer. Compilated by Rabbi Baruch Myers. Published by Israeli Chamber of Commerce in Slovakia in cooperation with Israel-Slovakia Chamber in Jerusalem. Bratislava: Commercium, s.r.o., 2003.

Nanos, Mark D. The Irony of Galatians: Paul’s Letter in First-Century Context. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002.

Parry, John R. St. The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges. 2d ed., Cambridge, 1926.

Prostredník, Ondrej. “Cirkev ako koinónia u Pavla [Church as koinonie in Paul].” CL 129, no. 7-8 (2005): 39-42.

412

Prostredník, Ondrej. “Ta pathémata tou Christou – pokus o explikáciu Kol 1, 24; 2 K 1, 7 a F 3, 10 [Ta pathémata tou Christou – An Attempt at explication of Col 1,24; 2 Cor 1,7 and Phillippians 3,10].” In Explikácia – aplikácia – aktualizácia. A collection of papers from international theological conference on March 21th 2005 at EBF UK in Bratislava, 68-74. Žilina: publishing of Žilinská univerzita in Žilina, EDIS, 2006.

Räisänen, Heikki. Paul and the Law. WUNT 29. Tübingen: Mohr, 1983.

Reitzenstein, Richard. Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen. Nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1927.

Roetzel, Calvin. Judgment in the Community: A Study of the Relationship Between Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Paul. Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Sanders, Ed P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.

Segal, Alain F. Paul the Convert. The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990.

Seifrid, Mark A. “Paul’s Use of Righteousness Language Against Its Hellenistic Background.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 2 – The Paradoxes of Paul, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 39-74. Tübingen / Grand Rapids: Mohr Siebeck / Baker, 2004.

Seifrid, Mark A. “Righteousness Language in the Hebrew Scriptures and Early Judaism.” In Justification and Variegated Nomism: Volume 1 – The Complexities of second Temple Judaism, edited by D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, 415-442. Tübingen / Grand Rapids: Mohr Siebeck / Baker, 2001.

Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Translated by W. Montgomery. New York: Seabury, 1968 [1931].

Snodgrass, Klyne R. “Justification by Grace–To the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Romans 2 in the theology of Paul.” NTS 32 (1986): 72-93.

Stendahl, Krister. Paul among Jews and Gentiles. London: SCM, 1977.

Stuhlmacher, Peter. Versöhnung, Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981.

413

Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. London: Harper Collins, 1992.

Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology: Three volumes in one. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967.

Tížik, Miroslav. “The Dialogue Between Non-equals: About Conditions of Multiculturalism and Equality.” In The mission of Paul and the multicultural society. The collection of lectures from the international interdisciplinary academic research conference, October 14-15, 2010 in pursuance of the research project VEGA num.1/0107/10 titled Corpus Paulinum as interreligious dialogue paradigm in multicultural society, edited by František Ábel, 15-32. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta, 2010.

Tomson, Peter J. “Paul’s Jewish Background in View of His Law teaching in 1 Cor 7.” In Paul and the Mosaic Law, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 251-270. Grand Rapids, MI / Cambridge, U. K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., [1996] 2001.

Valčo, Michal. “The ‘New Perspective’ on Paul and the ‘Introspective Conscience’ of the West.” In Justification According to Paul: Exegetical and Theological Perspectives. The Collection of Lectures from the International Interdisciplinary Academic Research Conference, May 5 – 6, 2011 in pursuance of the research project VEGA num. 1/0107/10 titled Corpus Paulinum as Interreligious Dialogue Paradigm in Multicultural Society, edited by Ondrej Prostredník. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, Evanjelická bohoslovecká fakulta, 2012 (In print).

Valčo, Michal. “Luteránska reformácia a charizmatické hnutia.“ [Lutheran Reformation and the Charizmatic Movements] Acta humanica: Kapitoly z kresťanskej teologickej reflexie, č. I, (2006): 5-20.

VanLandingham, Chris. Judgment & Justification in early Judaism and the Apostle Paul. Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006.

Watson, Francis (ed.). The Open Text, New Directions For Biblical Studies? London: SCM, 1993.

Watson, Nigel M. “Justified by Faith: Judged by Works–an Antimony?“ NTS 29 (1983): 209-221.

414

Welborn, Laurence L. “On the Discord in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Ancient Politics.” JBL, 106 (1987): 85-111.

Winstone, Martin. The Holocaust Sites of Europe: An Historical Guide. London, New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010. Quoted by the Ebrary Academic Complete: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uniba.

528

František Ábel

RIGHTEOUSNESS, JUSTICE AND HOLINESS WITHIN KOINONIA: THE THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN DIALOGUE IN SLOVAKIA

Abstract

One of the challenges – yet also one of the opportunities of Christian churches in Post-Communist Slovakia arising from the heavy burdens of the past – is to help develop cooperation with the Jewish religious community. The totalitarianism of the communist era in some respects continued the ways of Nazi terror. Because of this fact, the formerly plentiful Jewish religious community in Slovakia with its rich history, especially as a seat of religious learning, became a small, barely surviving group with an enormous measure of distrust and skepticism. A necessary precondition for meeting this challenge and opportunity is to develop a Jewish-Christian interreligious dialogue based on the outcome of up-to-date mutual theological research. The challenge is directly interrelated with the important task of Christianity as a whole: that is, to recognize and better understand the very roots of Christianity. Fulfilling this task brings a promising opportunity to continue the main goal of the Apostle Paul to create a koinonia of Jews and non-Jews on the basis of God’s love revealed in the event of Jesus Christ. All of this is related to the main questions of the project, which are how can we draw from and build upon our biblical foundations in facing the current challenges of today, and what can we learn from the rich history of the Christian Church’s interaction with society throughout the ages. In this context, there are four (or five) main terms with their proper theological content and meaning as to establishing a solid basis in the development of fruitful interreligious dialogue for the future: righteousness, justice (justification), holiness and koinonia. Therefore, the aim of our conversation will be a thorough theological analysis of these terms within the context of Paul’s key texts, and an effort to establish the relevance of this approach to the fruitful development of Jewish-Christian dialogue. This is crucial not only to the advancement of the Christian Churches in Slovakia, but also to a fuller koinonia on both the Jewish and the Christian sides.

529

Key Words: righteousness, justice, holiness, koinonia, Judeo-Christian dialogue

About the Author

Mgr. František Ábel, PhD. works as an assistant professor in the Department of New Testament, Evangelical (Lutheran) Theological Faculty, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia. Among his fields of interest are biblical theology, especially theology of the New Testament, research in the field of new perspective on Paul, Jewish-Christian dialogue, etc.

Contact information: The Evangelical Theological Faculty of Comenius University in Bratislava, Bartókova 8, 811 02 Bratislava, Slovakia (www.fevth.uniba.sk). Email address: abel@fevth.uniba.sk