The Love of God (Romans 5:5): Expansive Syntax and Theological Polyvalence

INTERPRETATION ANO THE CLAIMS OFTHETEXT

Resourcing New Testament Theology

EssAYS IN HoNOR OF CHARLES H . TALBERT

]ason A . Whitlark Bruce W. Longenecker

Lidija Novakovic Mikeal C. Parsons

Editors

BAYLOR UNIVERSITY PRESS

CHAPTER II

THE LOVE OF GOD (ROMANS 5:5) Expansive Syntax and Theological Polyvalence

Bruce W. Longenecker

Surveying the Issue

~otwithstanding the view of Augustine and Luther that che Greek phrase ~ ò.yò.n~ Toù 8eoù in Romans 5:5 speaks of our love for God, rhe vasr majoriry ~f commentators side with Origen, Ambrosiaster, and Chrysostom in thinking thar rhe phrase refers to God's love for us.1 Tue basis for this preference for the subjective genitive (God's love for us) aver the objecrive genitive (our love for God) is relatively simple: the verses that follow speak of God's self-giving lov~ for us (5:6-8). Moreover, a number of features from Romans 5 appear again in Romans 8, as if to bring the early discourse in Romans 5 full circle in ~omans 8-with God's love for us being explicitly referred to on three occasions in Romans 8 (8:35, 37, 39).

Of course, the love of Jesus-followers for God is also highlighred in Romans 8 (v. 28), and this alone might give a foothold to those who argue rhat ;e ~h.ould nor be thinking of srark alternatives when interpreting ~ àyam1 TOÙ FEou in Romans 5:5. Karl Barth for instance seems to read rhe verse this way.

bor him, God's love for us enabJes our love f~r God, so that all love ulrimately elongs to d · an transp1res from God. 2

1 Similarly, in his synractical grammar of the New Testamenr Dan Wal-

ace a h · · h rgues r at rhe phrase ~ àyanri TOù 8eoù in 5:5 oursmps e1r er-or

145

146 BRUCE W. LONGENECKER

categorizations.3 Wallace grants that the phrase includes a reference to God's love for us. But the fact that this love has been poured out "in [tv]"

us (as opposed to simply upon or toward us) suggests to Wallace that such love "is the source fora reciprocated love."4 So Wallace advocates the "pie·

nary genitive" in rhis instance, in which both the objective and rhe subjec· tive senses are seen to be included simultaneously. Consequently, Wallace proposes that the full sense of Romans 5:5 is this: "the love that comes Jrom God and that produces our love Jor God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit." Here the single genitive is thoughr to be doing double duty, conveying two senses of the phrase ~ ayanri wu 0EOii simultaneously, both the objective and the subjective.

None of this is very surprising for anyone who has ever spent five min· utes studying the genitive in a syntactical grammar of the New Testamene. Terms like "rhe gospel of God," "the revelation of Jesus Christ," "the faith of Jesus Christ," "the hearing of faith," and "the righteousness of God" have

ali been candidaces for similar proposals regarding "plenary" meaning pack· aged up within the single genitive case. Accordingly, one scholar has recently characterized Paul's discourse as frequendy exhibiting "genitive flexibiliry,· noting, as a case in poim, that while the term "the righteousness of God" is

bes~ ~nderstood as involving a subjective genitive rather than an objeccive genmve or a genitive of quality, the term also "tends to break out of such categories" altogether. s

I wam to propose that something similar may well be evidenr in che phrase ~ ayan'l TOu 8eou. But I don't rhink it is necessary to resrrict rh.e semanric spheres simply to God's love for us and our love for God, as evi· denced in che interpretations of Barrh and Wallace. Since Paul has much co say thr~ughour his letters about our love for others by means of che Spi.rit, I would hke to consider the case for including even this ethical aspect wichin the phrase . a , -e . . ould . 'l yanri TOU eoù. If this proposal has merit, the genitIVe w 10clude a "ge · · f d " . . h d s love nmve o pro ucer -that 1s God 1s the one w o pro uce for ochers· " h I h ' . h arts · t e ove t at God produces has been poured out mro our e by the Ho! S · · "6 I b · h che . Y pmt. n a sense, we are back to Barth's view ur wit prov1so rhat th I h G d . . e G d bue love e ove t at o produces 1s not s1mply love ror o for ochers as well.

Although eh· I d . . h I I d'scuss1on f

is proposa oes not have tract1on m se o ar Y 1

o Romans 5·5 · h 1· h ansia· . · ' It may ave some traccion in at least one Eng is rr t1on. For inst · h I · (dat· . ance, 10 t e popular Catholic Oouay-Rheims trans anon . 10g back to 1582) h h d " h chanrr ' t e P rase under consideration is transiate t e '

THE LOVE OF GOD (ROMANS 5:5) 147

of God," which is poured out imo our hearts. Of course this looks like a straightforward handling of the Latin Vulgate's "caritas Dei," which itself is a translation of ~ ayan11 TOÙ 8e:où. But caritas appears in other insrances in the Vulgate of Romans (i.e., "cari tate Christi" in 8:35; "cari tate Dei" in 8:39),

and in those cases the English translation provided is simply "love." I rake it, rhen, that the Oouay-Rheims translators thought that the Larin phrase in Romans 5:5, caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctt4m, references not simply God's love for us but che charirable quality of God's character, which has been poured out into our hearts by che Holy Spirit-a charitable character rhat finds expression in relation to other human beings.'

Surveying Romans

Can this proposal survive wirhin the discursive arena of Romans itseW Does the immediate context permit this proposal? And what about the broader discursive A.ow wichin Romans in generai?

In my view, the immediate context ofRomans 5:5 does nothing to dislodge the proposal. In Romans 5:3-4, Paul listed a series of qualities that

are at work within the !ife of Jesus-followers as they awair sharing in the glory of God. So, he says, suffering produces endurance, produces character, produces hope. At rhis point, Paul introduces ~ ayanri TOÙ 8eoù into his discourse. He claims rhat hope does not put us to shame and he foregrounds ~ àyétrr'l TOù 8eoù as che reason for this assertion. Is it simply because we love God that we are not put to shame (i.e., the objective genitive)? Tue flow 0.f thought is possible, but may not get to the heart of the matter. Alrernatively, is the reason that hope does not put us to shame because God loves us (i.e., the subjective genitive)? Tue flow of thought in this case probably works better than the objective genitive oprion. Or perhaps hope does nor puc us to shame because God's other-directed character has already taken root even within our hearts throughout the whole process from suffering ro hope? That incerpretation seems to me to make perfectly good sense to~. Our hope is secure because we see God's other-directed love already mani· fese in th d' · l've in che "hope e or mary processes of our lives, even now, as we 1 . . of sharing the glory of God" (5:2). Jesus-followers can be confidenr ~n cheir hope and will not be pur to shame because they have che Spirit, as evidenced 10 ~ àyarrri Toù 8eoù-their love for God and for others.

In this way, che proposal of this essay seems to work well in relation ro che · . . 5 5 Wh find in Romans verses 1mmed1ately pnor ro Romans : · at we 5:6-8 rh · · I , . . f d' · f the multifacered ' en, 1s s1mp y Paul s d1scuss1on o one 1mens1on °


phrase ~ ày6.TI'l TOÙ ewu-rhat is, God 's own love for us. If Paul discusses rhis dimension of rhe phrase ~ ày6.m1 TOÙ Swu again in Romans 8, he will

also discuss other dimensions of it larer as well, such as our love for God {8:28) and our love for orhers, as will be shown presendy.

Does rhe proposal regarding ~ ày6.TI'l TOU ewu work well within rhe overarching flow of Paul's discourse in Romans? Nothing would exclude ir, and in many ways it firs snugly wirhin rhar broader conrext.

For instance, if ~ ày6.TI'l Toù Swù is rhoughr ro include an erhical, orher-direcred dimension, it would assist in sharpening the rherorical conrrast berween Jesus-followers and those described in Romans 1:18-32, who define rhe realities of rhe world in relation to rheir own self-idenriry

(which is largely what that passage is ali about). 8 Tue character of rhose described in Romans 1:18-32 is fundamentally self-referential (or based on

self-referenrialiry). By contrast, Paul would be saying in 5:5, Jesus-follow

ers {are ro) define themselves in relation to rhe needs of orhers, a norion encapsulated by rhe phrase ~ ày6.TI'l Toù Swù. This orher-directedness of rhe Christian !ife is itself a manifestation of God's own other-direcred character, itself fearured in 5:6-8.

It is Paul's mention of the Spirit in Romans 5:5 that allows usto gather

up orher passages wirhin Romans that are suggestive in relarion ro the pro·

posai under consideration. Frequenrly when his discourse rraverses erhical conrours, Paul highlights rhe role of the Spirit within the lives (i.e., hearrs)

of !~s~s-followers. This is how Paul speaks in his final reference to r~e Spim IO rhis letter (15:30): "I appeal to you ... by our Lord Jesus Chri~t and by the love of the Spirit (<'5tà T~c; ày6.TI'lc; Toù nvEuµaTOc;), ro join me.in

;~:nes~ ~~~y~r to G~d ~n my behalf." It is unlikely that TOÙ TivEuµaT,o<; ( of .. Spine ) 15 an obJect1ve genitive in the phrase T~c; ày6.n11c; TOÙ nvEuµato<:

( rhe love of the Spirit"). Paul is not asking the Romans to engage in earnes:

pra~er because rhey ha ve love" for the Spirir." It is much more likely rhar tOU

TIVEuµaToc; has a subjective sense-something like "love thar resulrs from rh S · ·' · R

e pinrs IOvolvemenr in your !ife." Paul is askingjesus-followers in ome to engage in b · h. rheir earnesr prayer ecause rhe Spirit has raised up w1t 10 . hearrs rhe k' d f l h . h inve _ IO 0 ove t at cares for others. 9 What we ha ve m t e gen TOU TIVEuµaT . . . f h s . it as oc; is a genmve of producer, with Paul speaking o t e ptr . rhe one who p d 1 e h siuon h , ro uces ove ror others. This matches exactly t e suppo . t ar '1 ày6.nri Toù 9Eoù in Romans 5:5 might well be thought of as including orher-directed h h h fJesus· e concern t at as been poured out within rhe earrs 0

rollowers by m f h S . . eans o t e pmt that has been given to them.


Tue erhical aspect of the Spirit's activity (somerhing proposed for our undersranding of Rom 5:5) is also evidenr nor only in Paul's final reference

co the Spirit but also in his first reference to the Spirit beyond Romans

1:4. In Romans 2:29 Paul links the Spirit and the transformed heart of

Jesus-followers in precisely rhis fashion: "real circumcision is a matter of

che heart, by the Spirit nor by the letter (tv nvEuµaTt où yp6.µµaT1)." For Paul, che transforming work of rhe Spirit wirhin rhe heart of Jesus-followers does nor bypass the erhical sphere; instead, the "heart" is rhe piace from

which erhical obedience flows when Jesus-followers align themselves with

the power of the Spirit. Paul makes the point explicirly in Romans 6:17, where he speaks of Jesus-followers having become "obedient from the heart

(un'lKOUcrUTE ... ÈK Kap<'5iac;)."10

Thar this contrast between rhe Spirit and rhe flesh impacts our inreresrs is further suggested by Paul's comments in Romans 7:6, where precisely rhe same two components are conrrasted. Paul announces, "we are

slaves to the newness of the Spirit (tv KatVOT'lTl nvEuµaTOc;) and nor to th'e exhausted letter (où naÀatOT'lTl ypé.tµµaTOc;)." This verse, building on Paul s commenrs in Romans 6, provides rhe basic structural scaffolding for rhe

remainder of Romans 7-8: slavery to "the exhausted letter" is elabo.r~te~ rhroughout Romans 7:7-25, while slavery to the newness of rhe Spmt is elaborated throughour Romans 8.11 Paul's discourse concerning "slavery ro

the exhausted letter'' is amplified in 7:7-25 initially wirh reference ro r~e erhical characrer of covetousness. Coverousness is, of course, rhe opposire

of a !ife directed toward the benefit of the other, and as Paul depiccs chings

in Romans 7 the law had no leverage in uprooring coverousness or cir~u_mvenring the power ofSin. In Romans 8:3-4, however, Paul highlighrs divine i . · · d d · R 5·5-8· nmarive as rhe corrective to the problem, as he ha one m omans · ·

For God has clone whar the law, weakened by rhe flesh, could nor

do: by sending his own Son in rhe likeness of sinful flesh, and ro dea! wirh sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so rhar rhe righteous

requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk nor

according to che flesh bur according to the Spirir.

What God has done rhrough self-giving love (i.e., sending his own Son) resulrs in che transformation oflives by the Spirir, wirh those lives emb~dying nor self-directed covetousness but the fulfillment of what Paul calls che

righreous requirement of che law."


What he means by "rhe righteous requirement of the law" is made clear in Romans 13, where he clarifies how the fulfillment of the law's righteous

requirement transpires:

Love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law .... The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covec"; and any ocher commandment, are summed up in chis word, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore,

love is che fulfilling of the law.

These two passages (8:4 and 13:8-10) reinforce each other, each supplying one of cwo dimensions in Paul's discourse of fulfillmenc of the law: in 8:4, the righteous requirement of che law is fulfilled in Jesus-followers through the power of the Spirit; in 13:8-10, this same fulfillment of the law is spoken of in terms of self-giving love. Once again, then, the Spirit and self-giving love converge in the lives, or we might say the hearts, of Jesus-followers.

Precisely the same dynamics are in play in Romans 8:6-11. There Paul contrasts life in the "flesh" with life animated by the Spirit. The Spirit pro: duces "!ife and peace" (8:6), in contrast to those who "cannot please God (8:8) because they live by the "flesh"-which for Paul (as we have al~ea~y seen) frequently connotes brute self-interestedness. Tue alternative, which 15

spelt out elsewhere in terms of self-giving, results from the Spirit of God who "dwells in you" (8:9, 11 [ twice]), giving !ife to the "mortai bodies" of !esus· followers. lt would be surprising if this giving oflife to morrai bodies failed co include an ethical component (see also the link with "righceousness" in 8:10?·

Severa! passages in Paul's letter have been noted thac resonace with hi.s discourse in Romans 5:5. All of chem have a strong foochold in a rheologi· ca! matrix that foregrounds che transformation of the human heart by che divine Spirit, uprooting self-interested living and establishing in its pla~e a character chat enhances the lives of others-a character that Paul idennfies

"l " I l' h f R mans as ove. n 1g t of this cheological matrix thac stretches rom 0

2:29 through to 15:30 by way of 7:5-6 (and thus 7:7-15 and 8:lff.), 8:4, an~ 13:8-10, it is hardly a Stretch CO imagine that the notion of ~ ayéutll tOV e - . R e CO che

t:ou m omans 5:5 might be broad enough to include a rererence other-directed concern that transpires within the hearts of Jesus-followers by means of the Spirit. Hearers and re-hearers of Paul's letter to Jesus· followe · R .fi e m hearcs

. rs in ome are ~otl ed chac the Spiric operaces to ~ransror ical (2·29) away from self-mterestedness (7:5, with 7:7-25) m eschacolog newness (7:6) that fulfills the law (8:4) precisely in self-giving love for ochers


(13:8-10) that is produced by the Spiric of God. With a platfor~ like ~h~s constructed from key components of Paul's letter to che Roma~~ itself. lt 15

h . l d' · f ,s. ayémn wf> 0wu m Romans hard to imagine why an et tea 1mens1on o 11 • ·1

5:5 fails to have a foothold within the incerprecanve debates. . . That we are on stable ground in reconstructing this theological mamx

h h h · · nfuses all of the excanc is attested by the fact that muc t e same t mg 1

h . . f R Tue poinc can be demon-Pauline letters prior to t e wntmg o omans. . al (b l ) · h · sing too much exegenc strated in a few paragraphs e ow , w1t out exerc1

h · 't demonstrates that even muscle.12 The point is important, owever, smce 1

R J fi li wers Paul would have

prior to composing his letter to oman esus- 0 0 ' . . h I

been known to link God's own love for us to our love for others m ng r Y

knit relation.

Surveying Previous Letters

, . . l d fi ence co God's love for Paul s earliest letter, 1 Thessalomans, mc u es re er d" (l

4) Tu'

h "b l d b Go : · 15 us when referring to che addressees as t ose e ove Y

l ng Jesus-followers, so follows upon che first of seven references to ove amo

1. . I

. "'l b fl ve" in 1·3 tanta 1Z1ng Y that Paul's reference to the Thessalomans a or 0 0

· h' hl' h he . ' f, h . 1·4 s· ocher verses 1g ig e e resonates w1th God s love or t em m · · ix fi

· rhat almost pre gure relationship of love among Jesus-followers m terms . f

. . . . 4.9. 5:8 13).13 It 1s noc out o the Johannme emphas1s on love (2:8; 3.6, 12, · ' ' h h · h

l . reec eac ot er w1t piace, then for Paul to advise the Thessa omans to g 1. · I ' l e G d is not exp 1c1c Y a holy kiss (1 Thess 5:26). Tue motif of our ove ror 0

. h • h · l' d not least m t e nur

found in the letter, even if it is everyw ere imp te ' d h h ses . f, Il (4·9) an t at e cau

tunng of love that God expects of Jesus- o owers · e li s . 'f ked how Jesus-ro ower

to increase among them (3:12). In fact, 1 we as . Id b ille-h " (4·9) it wou noc e

were [are] "taught by God to love one anot er · ' . f R ans . . . h' I ng the hnes o om

gmmate to expect Paul to have sa1d somet mg a 0 ,,

5:5-"through the Holy Spirit that has been given to u~. P I I err . h f 2 Th salomans was au . 1t 1s disputed whether the aut or o es . · h much

d hold that v1ew w1c on the side of Pauline authorship, but I 0 not . I f, the sake

. l · here s1mp Y or tenac1ty. I include consideration of 2 Thessa omans . . f h d ba te. f h d th1s s1de o t e e 0 completeness, for those like me w o err towar ther since

N . . . d one way or ano , othing is skewed by entertammg its ata .d . That is, it

. . . . . d r cons1 eranon. it 1s s1m1lar to 1 Thessalonians in the 1ssue un e

6) . h n empha-

. ( Th s2·131 w1t a combmes references co God's love for us 2 es · ' ) Th hrase "che . fi li s (1·3 e P

sis on love being expressed among Jesus- 0 o~er d · · ub'ective genitive love of God" in 3:5 is probably best thoughc to mclu e a s ~

152 BRUCEW.LONGENECKER

(i.e., God's love for us), with the same being true as well for the phrase "the endurance of Christ" (i.e., the endurance exhibited by Christ). So stricrly speaking, there is no explicit mention in 2 Thessalonians of our love for God. Of course, it is easy to see how each phrase in 3:5 can broaden out to include other dimensions oflove and endurance; in essence, Jesus-followers are engulfed within divine love that over.flows to others, just as they are engulfed within Christ's endurance that over.flows within rheir own lives. It is notable for our purposes that Paul speaks of this in relation to the "hearts" ofJesus-followers, just as the God who loves us is said to strengrhen our hearrs for every good work (2:16).

Much the same is evident in Paul's next letter, Galatians.14 Tue lirsr reference to love in thar letter is the love of the Son of God "who loved me and

gave ~i~self forme" (Gal 2:20). This christological rooting for the notion of self-givmg love is amplilied in the later chapters of the letter where Christ· like love for others becomes rhe foundarion for rhe Spirit~filled ethos of J~us-groups (5:6, 13-14, 22; 6:2, 9-10; cf. 4:12-15). There is no explicit men· tlo.n of our love for God in Galatians-although it is assumed throughour, bemg embedded within centrai notions such as the paterna! relationship of God to Jesus-followers (i.e., "Abba farher" in 4:6), and being manifested in relationships of cr ·e e h · b d" ucuorm care ror or ers as reflect1ons and em o 1menrs of the Son's own loving and giving.

/

Tue love of Jesus-followers for God is mentioned explicidy in che nexr letter we have from p l . . f . . 1 e . . ,, au ' appeanng m a quotation rom Scnpture in or-mthi,:ins 2:8 ( for those who love him") and then in Paul's own words in 8

=3 ( anyone who loves God is known by him"). There are no explicit refer·

encestoGod'slovefi . lC. h. 1 g or us m ormt 1ans, but five references to ove amon Jesus-followers are spread throughout the text (4:21; 8:1; 14:1; 16:14, 24). If love strengthens . . f . . . communmes o Jesus-followers, it does so because 1t par· t1cipates in the char f h d. · · · he f . acter o t e IVme, as Paul poetically expresses 1c in r amous thmeenrh chapter of this letter.

I will skip ove p l ' · 1 ·r· ,, . r au s next extant letter, what Paul called his eccer wn ten W1th ma " (2 C 13 Th

. 1

ny tears or 2:4), which I take to be 2 Corinrhians 10- · 1S etcer cannot b 1 k d . f ·al . e over oo e , and m fact will become the focus o speci

attenuon mom ·1 B . . _ . entan Y· ecause 1t 1s the only undisputed letter chat con

ta1ns the same phr R . . . d ve .11 ase as omans 5:5, tt reqmres special attennon an • as ~ wi see, has notabl · ·fi e

Wh. . e signi canee ror the proposal of this essay.

I (2 ile statmg that "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor 9:7), Paul's nexr

etter Cor 1 9) k f 1 . s - spea 5 0 ove betweenJesus-followers on seven occasion


(2:4, 8; 6:6; 7:1; 8:7-8, 24). But it also speaks cantalizingly of "che love of Christ" (~ yàp àyétnTJ TOÙ Xptcnoù) in 5:14: "the love of Christ urges us on, because we are convinced rhat one has died for ali; rherefore ali have died." While many debate whether this is a subjective genitive (Christ's love for us) or an objective genitive (our love for Christ), some have preferred to understand the phrase within a larger rheological canvas than the eicher-or permits. Here, for instance, is what Alfred Plummer does with the phrase, when interpreting it in relation ro the verbal participle of Galatians 2:20, "the one who loved me (TOù àyan~oavT6c; µE)": "Tue love which Christ has for us ... keeps us back from ali self-seeking, and confines our aims to the service of God and of our fellow-men."15 Plummer moves his discussion from Christ's love for us to our love for God and for others. This may be an amplilication of what Paul says explicitly within the passage, but is ic not cheologically illegitimate. Paul's discourse regularly .flows from God's love for us to our love for others in a seamless and organic fashion.

Identifying rhe Precedent

At this point, the data from the letter written with tears (i.e., 2 Cor 10-1~) needs co be considered. This lecter was noc included in che above survey 10

d F. · · h I undis-or er co give it a place of its own, for rwo reasons. 1rst, te 1s t e on Y puced Pauline letter to contain the phrase rhat we lind also in Romans 5:5, ~ àyétrtTJ Toù 0wù. Second, rhe nature of its evidence goes beyond whac the survey of Pauline texts prior ro Romans has shown. More tha~ indicacing how God's love for us and our love for ochers incertwine and mtersect ac various points in Paul's letters, Paul's tearful letrer offers a direcc precedent for taking the phrase ~ àyétnTJ TOÙ 0wii in precisely che same multivalent way

chat is being proposed here for the phrase in Romans 5:5. In the closing words of the painful lerrer, Paul highlighc.s th~ lov~ of

God on two occasions: first, in the phrase ò 0Eòc; T~c; àyanT)c; Kat dpTJ~TJc; 1.n 2

Corinthians 13:11, and then again rwo verses later, wirh the phr~se TJ àya~TJ toii 9Eoii in 13:13 (also enumerated as 13:14 in some rranslations; 1 will

enumerate it as 13:13 rhroughout this essay). . W . - · ' l ' nvnc; in 13:11 nonce tth regard to the phrase 6 0Eòc; TTJc; ayanT)c; Ka Etp., · 1 • ' • •

thac the genitives àyanT)c; and EÌp~vflc; are unlikely to be ar~ribun~e ge~m~es referencing "the loving and peaceful God." Rather rhan stmply idennfymg characceristics of God, something more seems to be in play ~ere. Th,e phrase "the God of peace," for instance, shoors beyond demarc~tmg ?od sf

e . . · il porate relat1onsh1ps o own peacerul character, pomtmg pnmar Y ro cor


peace withinJesus-groups. This is most likely, since immediately before this phrase Paul instructed the Corinthians to "put things in order, agree with one another, live in peace (EipT)VEUETE)." While it may well be that che phrase "the God of peace" includes some reference to a divine attribute and possibly

also ro resrored relationships of peace between God and individuals, within the immediate context of 2 Corinthians 13 the phrase has yet another

dimension as its primary referent-that is, the corporate !ife of the community, into which God's peace flows as Jesus-followers "live in peace" with each other. Tue phrase ò 0tòc; T~<; ... eip~v11c;1 then, seems to include a genitive of product, with God himself as che one who ulcimately produces peace wichin the community.16 And if chis is che case for the second genitiva! form

in the phrase, we should probably expecc che same co apply co che first genitiva! form, ò 0eòc; T~<; àyanric;-chat is, che loving God produces love wichin

che community by way ofloving relacionships becween Jesus-followers. Something similar emerges from Paul's comments in 13:13. There he

speaks of ~ Ko1vwv(a TofJ ày(ou nveuµaTOc;, "che communion of che Holy Spirit." While this phrase assumes a communion between the Spirit and i~dividual Jesus-followers, it al so must be seen as having a corpora te dimen

sion. As Paul Barnett writes, chis single phrase signals cwo phenomena simultaneously-"boch (1) che individual's fellowship with che Spirit [i.e.,

the objective genitive) ... and (2) che fellowship created by che Spirit in the

asse.~bl~ (i.~;' che genitive of producer).''17 Tue first aspect of chis phrase is the vercical relationship of che Jesus-follower co che Spirit, and che second is the "horizontal," corporate relationship between Jesus-followers. What we see in this phrase is a complexity of meaning that corresponds to che proposal of this essay regarding ~ àyanri TofJ 0eofJ in Romans 5:5. In each case,

r~latedness to che divine overspills che lives of individuals, with a corporate

dimension transpiring as a resulc of che Spirit's (or God's) influence. On each side of che phrase ~ àyémri TofJ 0eofJ in 2 Corinthians 13:13,

then we h · I h " h ' ave precise Y t e same phenomenon occurring in che phrases t e God of love and peace" in 13:11 and "che fellowship of che Holy Spirit" in

l3:13. In each instance, a genitiva! phrase is used chat opens up concept~al . complexity, including a strong corporate dimension. In view of these significane and relacively straighcforward cases embedded on eirher side of che phrase 11' àyanri - e - . 13 . . . d fu s if TOU EOU tn :13, we mighc exhibit eone ea es ali w~ hear in chac phrase is a reference to God's love for us. Inscead, nestled tn among och b d · · l e che , er roa genmva phrases wich a corporate rocus, phrase 'l ayém11 TOÙ 0eoù in 2 Corinthians 13:13 in all probability overspills


syncactical categories, and includes a corporate expression. le is multivalenc in reference, without limiting che focus co God's love for us, or our love for God, or our divinely inspired love for others, although particular emphasis

is given co the corporace dimension of ~ àyanri TOÙ 0eofJ in 2 Corinchians

13:13.

Meaning from Corinth to Rome

At chis point we have caughc up once again, in a sense, wich Paul's leccer co

Jesus-followers in Rome, having overviewed che mocif of love in che lect~rs that best qualify as having been written prior to Romans. From that bnef survey, a consistenc pattern has emerged in which God's love for us merges with and animates our love for ochers. So chere can be liccle doubt rhat a connection becween God's love for us and our love for ochers is strong and natural for Paul; chis connection would have been known to any who knew Paul or had cognizance of any of his lecters prior to Romans. Of course, we

b . h h h ~ à · n rnfJ 0eofJ will refer to cannot assume on chac as1s t at t e p rase •1 yan., multivalent referencs in any given instance; chis is not how lang~age nece~sarily works. On che ocher hand, in che only ocher undispuced mscance 1~ which Paul uses che phrase ~ àyanri TOÙ 0eofJ beyond Romans 5:5, muln-

1 . b . l . . 2 e . chians 13:11-13 che va enc referencs seem prec1sely co e m p ay, m orm h . . . . . · h e a focus on che moral p rase tncludes w1chm 1cs expans1ve semannc sp er

ethos of Jesus-followers in relacion co ochers. For these reasons, ic is reasonable co assume chac che phrase ~ ày6.m1

- _ . d b · d single sense (whecher Tau 0eou m Romans 5:5 shoul nor e rescncce co a b. . . . · l " l " sense (i.e. boch-and). su ~ecnve or objecnve), nor even co a s1mp e p enary ' . .. . .

I . . · · e ofquahcy: Drvrne nstead, we mighc chink of 1t m some respeccs as a genmv I h b . h h h h H ly Spiric chac has been ove as een poured mto our eart t roug t e 0 ,

. ,, "d ' . l ,, . l d a reference to God s love g1ven to us. Does che phrase 1vme ove mc u e . e d l h e of che phrase 1mme-ror us? Of course it does; and Paul eve ops e ac aspec d. "d' · l " efer to our love 1ately after 5:5 in 5:6-8. Does che phrase ivme ove r for God? Of course ic does, a notion Paul makes explicit in 8:28. And does "d· · " · · · · d lf · · love for orhers? I want to ivme love refer co our Spmt-msp1re se -givmg d

f . . . h h racter of divine love, an say, o course it does since self-g1vmg 1s t e very c a . h ' ·11 h es coward orhers. Conse-smce t at character oflove oversp1 s our own ear " h .

h . · · he phrase che eanng

quently, whac Richard Hays says of t e genmve m e . h . of faich" in Galatians 3:2 and 3:5 (àKo~c; n(oTEW<;) probably appltes ~o eh is f, "P h h eh of che maccer is e ac ormulacion in Romans 5:5 as well: er aps r ecru ld l'k

P l' Il h questions we wou 1 e au s compressed language will nor answer a t e


to put to it and that he did not intend a clear distinction" between che various meanings.18

Perhaps, then, seeking for syntactical precision in the phrase ~ ayam1 Toù Swù leads to theological imprecision by means of semantic exclusion. In light of che theological fluidity of che notion of love in Paul's letters, we should not necessarily expect the phrase ~ à.yam1 TOÙ Seoù to be either an objective or a subjective genitive; although che subjective genitive has a strong exegetical foothold, imagining rhat che phrase has only one referent is like encasing che talons of an eagle in concrete. Imagining ~ ayam1 TOÙ Seoù to involve a plenary genitive is probably an improvement, in terms of recognizing that che phrase allows more semantic space than simply one meaning. But when employed (either explicitly or implicidy) by practitioners, che plenary genitive is usually understood to be inclusive of only two options: God's love for us and our love for God. Accordingly, the phrase ~ à.yan~ toù Seoù is effectively restricted to che semantic field of the so-called "vertical" dimension of relationship between God and human beings.

In this essay I have pressed beyond both a single and a plenary genitive meaning for the phrase ~ ayam1 Toù Seoù in Romans 5:5. Instead of restricting ~ à.yam1 TOÙ Seoù simply to the relationship between God and che individuai Jesus-follower, the phrase should also be seen to reference che divinely inspired love of the Jesus-follower in relation to others. When Paul p~e~ched his transforming gospel, he imagined it to be che means whereby divine love is set loose in this world in a holistic frame of reference, from God, to us, to others.

But we need to ask about che chances of this meaning surviving che trip from Co · h h p l' 1 h · . nnt , w ere au s etter was composed, to Rome, w ere lt was dehvered. What if aJesus-follower in Rome had asked how che phrase

~ ~yan~ TOÙ Seoù should be interpreted? Would the meaning proposed in th1s essay have arisen as an interpretative option?

Of course, we will never know what might have transpired in this hypo-thetical situatio B h . f . . n. ut t ere are two reasons to thmk chat the prospecc 0

•nterpretmg Toù Seou· · · f l" b sed . . as a gen1t1ve o qua 1cy mighc well have een propo withm Jesus-groups in Rome. First, it may be that Phoebe herself could have amplified th · f h h · l d . . e meanmg o t e p rase along the lines already arncu ate m th1s ess · h b · ay, eic er ecause of her prior knowledge of Paul's theology in

genera! or because of prior discussions with Paul about what he wanced co convey to Jesus-followers in Rome.


Second, perhaps the interpretation of ~ à.yarr~ Toù Seou would have fallen to Prisca and Aquila, who knew Paul well and were trusted by him; they would ha ve known che data collecced above from severa I of Paul's ocher letters, having been present in Corinth when Paul wroce his Thessalonian and Galacian letters, and in Ephesus when Paul wroce mosc of his letters to che Corinthians (both 1 Corinthians and che all-important "letter of cears"

now embedded wichin 2 Corinthians as chapcers 10-13).19

So it would not surprise me if an expansive syntactical and cheological sense had been in Paul's mind when diccating che phrase in 5:5, and it would not surprise me if that sense had survived che journey from Corinth to Rome.

In Conclusion

Much like a power plant rhac can be tapped inco by different cables channeling its power to various seccors of usage, Paul's cure discussion about "divine love" in Romans 5:5 may well serve as a key theological generacor wichin che letcer, producing che cheological "energy" necessary to resource chree of che primary theological scrands embedded chroughouc Paul's letcer to Jesus-followers in Rome.

lf the cerm "che love of God" can bear che weighc of a variety of meanings simultaneously in Romans 5:5, che sicuation might be similar to one described by J. R. R. Tolkien in his nove! The Hobbit. Tue initial enco~nter between Bilbo Baggins and the wizard Gandalf includes che followmg exchange:

"Good Morning!" said Bilbo, and he meanc ic. Tue sun was shining, and che grass was very green. But Gandalflooked ac him from under long bushy eyebrows that scuck out further than the brim of

his shady hat. "What do you mean?" he said. "Do you wish me a good morn

ing, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel good chis morning; or that it is a morning to be good

~Il on. "Ali of them at once," said Bilbo .. .. "Good morning!" · · · By

this he meant that che conversation was at an end. "What a lor of things you do use 'good morning' for! " said

Gandalf.20


Along similar lines, it is proposed here that Paul's mention of "divine loven in Romans 5:5 comprises a theological polyvalence that references quite "a lot of things."21 CHAPTER 12

DIAKONIA, THE EPHESIAN COMMA, AND THE MINISTRY OF ALL BELIEVERS

Loveday Alexander

One of the many virtues of Charles Talbert's fine Paideia commentary on Ephesians is the way it seamlessly interweaves the exegetical issues raised by the text with the overlapping contextual frameworks of ancient culture and today's church.1 Talbert has a gift for going straight to the point of a criticai question. Nowhere is this clearer than in rhe comment on Ephesians 4:12, where the inclusion or omission of a comma opens up a polar opposition of "catholic" and "protestant" patterns of ministry and ecclesiology. In this tribute to T albert's lifetime achievement, combining exegerical discipline with theological passion, I want to reexamine this well-worn crux in lighr of the new insighrs on <'51aKov(a offered by Australian scholar John N. Collins.2

Ephesians 4:12 and the Politics ofExegesis

In a magnificendy crafted sentence (a single period in the Greek), Ephesians 4:11-16 sets out the purpose of the apostolic ministry within the whole econ~my of the church. Tue ascended Christ (4:7-10) provides the church with apostles, prophets, evangelists, pasrors and teachers" (4:11), given to enable

the Body of Christ to grow up into unity, to attain to "rhe measure ~f t~e stature of the fullness of Christ."l The generai picture is clear, but chere is d1sag~eement among interpreters over the hierarchical relationships implie~ by this picture of the church. Tue crucial verse is 4:12, where English translanons

159

246 NOTESTOPP. 143-147

Genciles for gnostics). In his view of che relarionship oflsrael roche Way, Luke stands much closer to the pseudo-Clementines than to Barnabas! By reconnecting che pre· dominantly Gentile forms of Chrisrianity of his day to Israel's herirage-its God, its Scriprures, and ics customs (radically redefined), Luke also (re)incroduces some

rhorny theological difficulries, e.g., che rheodical issue ofhow ro defend che reputacion

of lsrael's God (who is, Luke has gone ro great pains co show, also che God of Jesus Christ and che Christian Way), whose honor and status had been challenged in che evems surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. and especially in the destrucrion of che tempie. On chis issue, see Bruce W. Longenecker, "Rome's Vicrory and God's

Honour: Tue Jerusalem Tempie and che Spirit of God in Lukan Theodicy." in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origim: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (ed. G. N. Stamon et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 90-102.

48 Moessner, Marguerat, Parsons, and Wolcer, "Mediacor, Miracle-Worker, Doccor of

che Church? Tue Cominuing Myscery of Paul and in che New Testamene and in Early Christianiry,• in Paul and the Heritage of Israd, 323.

CHAPTER 11: LONGENECKER

2

3

4

5

6 7

See, for insrance, commemaries by C. K. Barrerr, Brendan Byrne, Charles Cran6eld, James Dunn, Joseph Ficzmyer, Arland Hulrgren, Robert Jewett, Ernsr Kasemann, Orco Kuss, Franz Leenhardr, Frank Macera, Anders Nygren, Dierk Scarnirzke,

Charles Talberr, Ulrich Wilckens, and Dieter Zeller. Karl Barrh, The Epistle to the Roma11s (trans. and ed. E. C. Hoskyns; London: Oxford Universiry Press, 1933), 157-58. D · I B if h Ne"· ame · Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax o t ' Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 121; his discussion of che "plenary genitive· is on 119-21. Here he draws on Max Zerwick, Biblica/ Greek, Illustrated by Examples (Rome: Pontificio lsriruto Biblico, 1963); note Zerwick's comments on l3: "In inrerpreting che sacred texr ... we muse beware lest we sacrifice co clarity of mean

ing pare of che fulness [sic) of che meaning." . I am nor as convinced as Wallace rhac che verse includes che semancic oddicies of chis k. d ·r1 h · h h" · 1· beyondrhe m • even I s are w1c 1m an inceresc in exploring whecher meanmg ies . sub· · · · · I J M The Epistlt ~ecuve genmve mcerpreracion of che phrase. Contra Doug as · oo, to the Roma11s (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 304: "Tue context makes

it unlikely rhac borh genitive relacionships are intended." Wallace makes che follo~'" · I · (120 ) • · have been mg e aim n. 134 : One of che reasons chac most NT grammarians . ree" h" [ NT manans art icenc to accepc t 1s plenary) caregory is simply rhat most gram been Proresranrs. And che Procescant rradicion of a singular meaning fora rexc: · · has. I fundamencal in their chinking." He notes, however, thac Proresranrs are increasing y coming to recognize fuller meanings wirhin single rexcs. · Douglas Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of]ustific.itron

1"

Pau/ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 687 and 441, respecrively. Ali biblica! rranslacions are che aurhor's own unless orherwise nored. . A h · ' · "For ~e nor er translanon may also foreground rhis understanding of che verse. know h d I G I S · ·r ro fili our ow ear y od loves us, because he has given us che Ho Y piri r hearrs wich his love" (New Living Translarion of 2007). Here the rranslarors

1113

NOTES TO PP. 148-157 247

have supplied a double reference ro love in an attempt ro draw out cwo senses wichin che phrase ~ ày6.m1 TOÙ 0EOù. In rhis cranslation, che genitive of rhat phrase is amplified in relation co God's love for us and our own love-eirher for him, or for ochers, or perhaps even boe h. If the love of God is itself an ocher-direcced kind oflove in ics very character (as 5:6-8 demonscrace), chen ~ 6.y6.m1 TOÙ 0toù chac overspills from God imo our hearcs also should also be choughc to overspill our he:ms coward ochers, by

means of the Spi rie rhat has been given co us. 8 Self-referenciality moves in srages rhroughout rhis section, on a slippery slope in Paul's

lise of behaviors rhat run conrrary co divine preference. Inicially, che creaced human prefers to worship parcs of che created order rarher rhan che Creacor (e.g., 1:23, 25). As a consequence, a series of self-referential accions set in: sexually configured humans prefer sexual parrners of their own sexual identity (1:26-27); they exhibir a characrer of self-cencered concern (e.g., coverousness, envy, haughtiness, boasrfulness; 1:29-30); and rhey encercain attitudes and engage in accions char destroy orhers (1:30).

9 Douay-Rheims again translaces caritas as "chariry." 10 Robert Jewen writes, "Alchough ... commentacors ordinarily follow che lead of 2

Corinrhians in defining che anrirhesis [between che Spirit and che lemr] in a ~rricrly cheological manner, here (in Rom 2:29) ic is che socia! dimension thar is cenerai, even

though nvtùµa in rhis context clearly refers ro che divine rarher chan che human spirir" (Romans [Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 236). Even in 2 Cor 3, ho~· ever, Paul's reference co che Spirir includes an erhical aspecr; cf. 2 Cor 3:18. This echi· cal dimension is probably irself a pare of che "glory" rhar Paul fearures m 2 Cor 3:7-11 and 3:18.

11 The "rhen" of7:5 (lit. "when," èht) percains ro 7:7-25 (excluding 7:25a), and the "now" of7:6 is repeated in 8:1, which inrroduces che lengrhy discussion rhroughour Rom 8.

l2 Tue sa me is largely rrue of che letters written afrer Romans, bue I make no attempt 10

demonstrate rhar poinr here. . • 13 See, in parcicular, 1 John 3:17, where ~ ày6.m1TOÙ0toù is linked ro hclpmg orhm 10

need. 14 Fora chronological sequence of Paul's lerrers from 1 Thessalonians ro Romans, which

places Galatians prior to 1 Corinthians but afrer Paul's Thessalonian corresponden.<e. see Bruce W. Longenecker, "Salvarion History in Galatians: Tue Making of a Pauhne

Dìscourse,· }ournal Jor the Study of Paul 1111d His Ltttm (2012): 65- 87. l5 Alfred Plummer, II Corinthians (New York: Scribner, 1915), 173.

l6 See also Wallace, Gruk Grammar beyond the Basics, 107. . 99

,..) 17 Paul Barnerr, The Second Epistle to the Corintlnans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1 ' '

618. 18 R · h d ( G d Rapids· Eerdmans, 2002),

IC ar B. Hays, The Faitl1 of Jesus Chnst repr., ran · . • (Bìbl' 131. Compare also Zerwick's comments on che phrase "che gospel of Chmc . 1

,.

I G k ·fi d · h b"ecrive nor as obJecnve, ca ru , 13): "rhis genitive is co be classi e ne1c er as su ~

because 1t is both, and yet more." J . h r ·m~ 19 F e h" 10 13 urmg t e I • rom Ephesus Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and 2 onor ians - . \f

h p · · Th b bly nor wirh Paul 10 • ace• t ar rtsc11la and Aquila were also rhere. ey were pro 3

donia, where he wrore 2 Corinthians 1-9. 1.IB. H coun

20 J R . B H hron t.. 1 m ar • · · R. Tolkien, The Hobbit (Kindle edinon; osron: oug 2012), 3, 5.

248 NOTES TO PP. 158-164

21 My rhanks go co Grane Edwards and Perer Rice for providing helpful commenrs co rhe penulrimare drafr of rhis essay, and, of course, ro Charles Talberr, whose concribu· rions co New Testamene scholarship have been considerable, nor leasr in ineerweaving

fearures of New Tesramenr rexrs and Greco-Roman lirerarure. If only we ali could

enjoy such vasr knowledge and pur ir ro such proli.rable use!

CHAPTER 12: ALEXANDER

1 Charles Talberr, Ephesians and Colossians (PCNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007).

2 John N. Collins, Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources (Oxford: Oxford Uni· versiry Press, 1990).

3 Translarions are che aurhor's own unless orherwise indicared. 4 Talberr, Ephesians and Colossians, 113-14. 5 Similarly rhe 1545 Lurher Bible has: "daB die Heiligen zugerichcer werden zum Werk

des Diensres, dadurch der Leib Chrisri erbauc werde.'' 6 Cf., e.g., NEB/REB ("ro equip God's people for work in his service"); rhe Good Ne,:"s

Bible ("ro prepare ali God's people for rhe work ofChrisrian service"); or che NIV ( co

equip his people for works of service"). 7 Collins, Diakonia, 5-45. 8 Collins, Diakonia, 233-34.

9 Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesiam (WBC 42; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1990), 253. 10 Lincoln, Ephesians, 253.

11 Talberc, Ephesians and Colossians, 114.

12 Talberr, Ephesians and Colossians, 114 (emphasis originai). 13 Talberr, Ephesians and Colossians, 114-15. 14 See Talberr's incroducrion in Ephesians and Colossians, 7-11. 15 Lincoln, Ephesians, 253-54.

16 Collins, Diakonia, 23 (emphasis added). 17 Collins, Diakonia, 234. 18 Collins, Diakonia, 233. Collins' scaremenr char "reachers are che only figures men·

. d" . Eh . . . d d'ngofrhe rtone m p 4:11 1s puzzlmg. Ir seems ro be based on a m1sun ersran 1

double phrase "pascors and reachers" in 4:11. Mosc exegeres (wirh rhe exceprio~ ~f Calvin) accepr char che single arride implies rhac rhe rwo funccions overlap, bue c~is 1~ nor rhe same as saying rhar rhe aurhor • is speaking only of gifrs upon ceachers .< pas

' b · ak Id bv1ously cors emg r en as pare of rhese)" (Diakonia, 233). Tue inclusio wou more 0

be raken co funcrion che orher way, wirh reaching as pare of rhe pascor's role. 19 C Il' · · I · · k · · Neuen Tw 0 ms mam eone us1ons are supporred by Anni Hencschel, Dia oma 1111

tament (WUNT 2.226; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), and were anricipared .1"

pare by Dierer Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelp~~ Forrress, 1986), 27-32. Cf. also John Firzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel (SB~ 99; Arlanea: Scholars Press, 1988), 186. Fora cririque of Collins' generai conclusionsl

see Andrew D. Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leadm aiu Min'.sters (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 233-45.

20 Collms, Diakonia, 74. 21 Collins, Diakonia, 74, ciring Herodocus, Hist. 4.71.4; 4.72.2; 9.82.2. 22 Collms, Diakonia, 75.

NOTES TO PP. 164-172 249

23 Collins, Diakonia, 77-81, ciring Placo, Resp. 370-71. 24 Collins, Diakonia, 84-85, ciring Placo, Poi. 290c-d.

25 Collins, Diakonia, 90-92; 98-105; 156-64. 26 Collins, Diakonia, 89. 27 Collins, Diakonia, 87-89, cicing Placo, Gorg. 517b. 28 C. S. Lewis, Prince Caspian (London: Collins, 1974), 191. 29 Cf. 2 Cor 3:6-7; 4:1; 5:18; 6:3-4; 11:8, 23. 30 In che case of Onesimus, however (as possibly in Accs 19:22), a differenc dynamic

seems co be in piace: Paul's desire is ro keep che slave wich him in prison "in ordcr thar he mighc serve mc (µ01 01aKovfi) on your behalf" (Phlm 13). The well-arresrcd ancient

sense of"personal attendane" makes excellenc sense here. Luke uses rhe same cerms of rhe famine relief delivered by Saul :md Barnabas from

Aneioch co Jerusalem (Accs 11:29-30; 12:25).

31

32 To compiere rhe piccure, we may noce a similar pattern in a couplc of non-Pau!ine episrles. 1Per4:10-11 makes a similar poinr co Rom 12: "Jusr as each onc has receivcd a gifc, use ic for rhe beneli.c of one anorher," wherher ir be a gifr of speaking or of OtaKovia (v. 11). Heb 6:10 speaks simply of che "work" (Épyov) and of rhc love of Chrisc exhibired by rhe addressecs in cheir 01aKov(a co rhe saincs, pasr an~ p:csenc (cStaKov~oavn:<; wi<; ciy(o1<; Kaì 01aKovouVTE<;). Hcre is a "work of 01aKOVIQ asso· · d · · · d · l · h • h · • rcised by membcrs of che c1are qu1re explic1cly an rourme y w1r r e samrs, cxe

congregarion for rheir mutuai beneli.c. • . Presumably rhe sa me member of Philemon's house-church addressed as compamon 33

in arms" in Phlm 2. 34 Cf. rhe collocarion of OIQKOv(a wirh che xop!]y(a of God in 1 Per 4:11. . . . 3 O , . . f G Id p Pau/'s G1'ifirom Ph1/1pp1: 5 n Ko1vwv1a as a li.nancial conenbunon, e . era eccrman, ~· . .

e . h . . e· . (C b "dge· Cambridge Un1vcrs1ty onvent1011s of Gift-exchange and C rrst1an 1v111g am ri ·

Press, 1997). • Th f • h · · of rhc word ro Phocbc, 36 ough, oddly, Collins denies rhe privilege o r e mimsrry . .

224 25)

who is described simply as an emissary of rhe church ar Cenchrcac (Dialtoma, - · 37 Unlike 1 Pct 4:11, where che rwo acriviries are conrrasced.

38 Firzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel, 122-27, 188-201. ~ h N 39 h -r ifj b rhough nor ror r e cw A poinc Collins is happy co concede for r e .astament o 0 ,

Testamene rexrs; cf. Diakonia, 165. . • d" (nÉµ1jl<ll 40 The discincrion is clear ac Acrs 11:29-30, where rhe elders decide co sen b . d

,_ J I "b che hand of' Barna u an 1..11lOOTElÀaVTE<;) rheir "relief' (01aKov[a) co erusa cm Y , . lf.

41 S I I . d . · · h d ~ om rhe 01aKov1a 1r~ · au. Tue agency ofBarnabas and Sau is 1st1ngu1s e r

Collins, Diakonia, 234. "f h thc whole 42 The lasr poinc, incidencally, gains some supporc from 4:l6, rlof~ wl

0~ RSV Cf. b d . k' I pbuilds irsc m ove . o y ... when each pare 1s wor mg proper y, · · · u Lincoln, Ephesians, ad loc.; and compare 1 Thess 5:11. . be uen as Lincoln points our chac rhe "pasrors and reachcrs" of v.11 should m any case

locai minisrers (Ephesians, ad loc.). 44 A similar disrinccion seems ro lie behind Acrs 6:1-4.

43

45 Cf. also Acrs 9:36. . · b ochcrl}· love

46 b · · of pract1C1ng r Cf. Accs 20:34-35; 1Tim6:17-19; rhough che com m:mon I d .

1 Thess4:12{cf.

d k . . , .d b · · ed occurs a rea Yin an wor mg w1ch one s hands ro avo1 cmg m ne

The Love of God (Romans 5:5): Expansive Syntax and Theological Polyvalence

Documents

Transcript of The Love of God (Romans 5:5): Expansive Syntax and Theological Polyvalence