Two Pauline Allusions to the Redemptive Mechanism of the Crucifixion

Author(s): Daniel R. Schwartz

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 102, No. 2 (Jun., 1983), pp. 259-268
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3261162 .
Accessed: 07/01/2015 14:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:59:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JBL 102/2 (1983) 259-268

TWO PAULINE ALLUSIONS TO THE REDEMPTIVE

MECHANISM OF THE CRUCIFIXION
DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

I. The Problem
As Paul writes in 1 Cor 1:23, the notion of a crucified messiah was a
"stumbling block" (skandalon) for Jews. This, apparently, was due to the
fact that Deut 21:23, at least according to the Septuagint rendition
(which Paul follows in Gal 3:13),1 states that all who are "hung on a
tree" are accursed: the idea of an accursed messiah is ridiculous, at least
at first sight. Paul must have grappled with this problem, both alone and
in debates with Jews. Therefore, in addition to the general problem of
why Christ died, a problem which Paul answered by pointing to the
soteriological significance of Christ's death, Paul must also have had to
deal with the specific problem of the mechanics of this saving event:
How did it occur through crucifixion, which brought not only death but
also, according to Deuteronomy, curse? How could such a death bring
redemption?
Paul explicitly deals with this problem only once, in the aforementioned section of Galatians. There, after stating that the Jews had
I is use of fTzrKarapaTo? instead of KEKaTrrpaiE,vO9is explained by the assimilation to
Deut 27:26, quoted a few verses earlier (3:10); see M. Wilcox, "'Upon the Tree'-Deut
21:22-23 in the New Testament," JBL 96 (1977) 86-87. The LXX rendition's assumption,
that Deut 21:23 means that God cursed/curses him who is hung (and not that he who is
hung cursed/curses God, as in the standard rabbinic interpretation, e.g., m. Sanh. 6:4), is
shared by Tg. Neofiti ad loc. and, perhaps, by the Temple Scroll 64:11-12; on the latter, see
1t.-W. Kuhn, "Jesusals Gekieuzigter in der fruhchristlichen Verkindigung bis zur Mitte des
2. Jahrhunderts," ZTK 72 (1975) 33-34 (but cf. D. R. Schwartz, "'The Contemners of Judges
and Men' [11Q Temple 64:12]," Les 47 [1982/83], in Hebrew). Thus, if it is true, as generally
assumed, that Paul's grappling with the verse reflected not only his private meditations but
also polemics with Jews who cited it in order to disprove Jesus' messiahship (so, for example,
Kuhn, loc. cit., and P. Stuhlmacher, "Jesus als Versohner," Jesus Christus in Historie und
Theologie: Neutestamentliche Festschrift fir Hans Conzelmann zum 60. Geburtstag [ed.
G. Strecker; Tubingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1975] 93, n. 14), it is no longer certain that such
Jewish disputants were necessarily "Septuagint-Jews."

This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:59:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

260

Journal of Biblical Literature

become accursed due to their incomplete fulfillment of the law (3:10),

which at any rate could not have been expected to bring justification (vv
11-12), Paul explains that Christ became a curse (as shown by Deut
21:23) in order to redeem us from our curse. By itself, however, this
argument does not explain how his death redeemed the Jews from their
curse, for one could just as well conclude simply that Jesus had been
added to the ranks of the accursed (or that the curse he shared in common with other Jews had been supplemented by one applying to the
crucified).
Although Paul does not treat this question directly, I believe that an
analysis of his language in Galatians can indicate an answer. Moreover, it
seems that another Pauline response is alluded to in Rom 8:32. An investigation of the allusions of these passages may, therefore, fill an important gap in the Pauline explanation, or explanations, of Christ's death. I
will begin with the passage in Galatians, where the allusion to the crucifixion is explicit but requires further interpretation, and I will then proceed to the passage in Romans, where the reference to the crucifixion
must first be uncovered.
II. Gal 3:13; 4:4-5
We may begin by noting, in the wake of others,2 the striking similarity of the above mentioned passages: both speak of Christ's buying
free (keayopdaw) the Jews, and they share a common structure (each has
a statement of fact followed by its two purposes 'va .... 'va ...]). Now
one might note a serious problem regarding 4:4-5: while it states that
God redeemed the Jews by sending forth His son, it does not state how
this redeemed them. This problem is a weighty one, for 4:1-7 explicitly
compares the redemption of the Gentiles to that of the Jews,3 and
each was accomplished as a result of God's sending forth (vv 4,6:

His son (or the spiritof the latter).But while in the case
aTrEo-reAyXEv)

of the Gentiles this redemption was accomplished by the said spirit's

emancipatory proclamation (vv 6-7), in the case of the Jews, as noted,
2 See
especiallyJ. Blank,Paulus und Jesus: Eine theologischeGrundlegung(SANT 18;
Munich:Kosel,1968) 262-63; E. Schweizer,"huios,"TDNT 8 (1972) 383.
3 Note the use of the firstpersonin vv 3-5 and the second person(t-re, eT)in vv 6-7; if
j,iljv in v 6 is really original,as is generallyassumed,and V{iliva harmonizingcorrection
(so, for example, H. D. Betz, Galatians [Hermeneia;Philadelphia:Fortress, 1979] 210,
n. 86), then it appearsthat the latter was justified.(As Betz [ibid., 210] suggests,Paul may
have used the words "into our hearts"because they were traditional;cf. Rom 5:5 and
2 Cor 1:22.) On the successivetreatmentof Jews and Gentiles in this pericope, cf. ibid.,
208 and A. J. Bandstra,The Law and the Elements of the World:An Exegetical Study
in Aspects of Paul's Teaching (Kampen:Kok, 1964) 59-60. Other interpretationsare
discussedby G. Howard, Paul: Crisis in Galatia-A Study in Early Christian Theology
(SNTSMS35; Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity,1979) 67-82.

This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:59:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Schwartz: Two Pauline Allusions

261

we are not told how the sent forth son redeemed them. This problem is
very similar to that already noted above with regard to 3:13. In view of
the proximity of the passages and their other similarities, it is likely that
their common problem, the mechanics of redemption, invites a common
answer.
I would suggest that the key to the problem can be found in Paul's
use of f'aTrooTrEAArin 4:4 (and, for symmetry, in 4:6), for apart from
these two instances he never uses this verb. Why does he not use his
more usual 7rdT,rco
or aTroorTCAAo?4Hatch and Redpath indicate that in
Paul's Bible, the Septuagint, 4faTroorrTAAfXmost often represents the
Hebrew slh (pi'el), and that the latter accounts for the great majority of
the appearances of eaaTroo-reAAo.5 If acting on this one now checks a
concordance of the Hebrew Bible for cases of slh (pi' l) similar to that in
Gal 4:4-5, namely cases in which sending forth X redeems Y, two cases,
and only two, immediately appear. In Leviticus 14 one reads that to
abrogate certain impurities a priest must send forth a live bird having
first transferred the impurity to it, and in Leviticus 16 one reads of the
scapegoat ritual of the Day of Atonement, wherein the high priest transfers the people's sins to the goat and then sends it out into the desert; in
both cases, the verb used is slh (pi'el) = efaTroo-rreAco.6 Moreover, scholars agree that the basic principle underlying both procedures is the
same, as is readily evident.7 I would therefore suggest that in Gal 4:4-5
Paul does not need to explain how sending forth Christ saved the Jews,
for already the word

faTrEo-reA~?Ev, at least in his own mind if not in

that of his readers, carried the explanation: Christ's action was that of a
scapegoat.
The objection that the scapegoat of Leviticus 16 was not killed, but
only sent forth into the desert, while Christ died on the cross, may be
answered by the simple recognition that by Paul's time, at least, and
probably much earlier as well, the scapegoat was in fact killed, by being
4 The formerappearsfifteentimes in the Paulineepistles,the latter-four (andcf.
Paul's extensive use of aTrrodT-Ao). Note especially the use of 7rE',uTr for God's sending

His son in Rom 8:13; why did Paul use another verb in Gal 4:4, 6? Scholarlydiscussion
regardinge'arroare'xxw has concentratedon the question of whether it implies the son's
preexistence;see K. H. Rengstorf,"exapostello,"TDNT 1 (1964) 406; Blank, Paulus und
Jesus, 264, n. 17; Betz, Galatians, 206. But whatever position one takes regardingthat
question, it is clear that such is at most an implicationof the word, but not the reasonit
was used.
5 Specifically, slh (pi'el) is translated 273 times in the LXX, 159 times by cEa7roo-rrE')o (in
second place: arroro-rEAAo,
71 times); apart from these 159 appearances of iearro-reAAXo

thereareonly 88 others,spreadover fifteen Hebrewequivalents.

6 Lev 14:7,53; 16:10,21, 22, 26.
7 See, for example, G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925) 316; R. de Vaux, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice
(Cardiff:Universityof Wales, 1964) 96-97.

This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:59:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

262

Journal of Biblical Literature

pushed from a precipice onto the rocks below.8 This procedure is

described by the Mishnah and by Tg. Yerusalmi I (= Ps.-Jonathan), and
it is alluded to by Philo and by 1 Enoch.9 Tannaitic sources indicate just
how important the scapegoat's death was, for apart from supplying an
exegetical basis for the requirement,10 they also rule, according to the
majority opinion, that if the goat does not die from the fall the responsible agent (Lev 16:21's "ready man") is to follow him down and
dispatch him.11
Moreover, one may note that the comparison of Christ to the scapegoat is a familiar one in apostolic and later literature;12 all I am suggesting is that it was already assumed by Paul. Again, the similarity of the
scapegoat concept to that of the Suffering Servant, a similarity which
includes both essential and verbal parallels in the biblical texts (Leviticus
8 B. A. Levine (In the Presence
of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms
in Ancient Israel [SJLA 5; Leiden: Brill, 1974] 82) admits this may have been the ancient
practice as well, and G. R. Driver ("Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch," JSS 1
[1956] 97-98) indeed suggests that "Azazel" originally meant "(the) rugged rocks" or "(the)
precipice." (For some criticism of Driver's suggestion, see de Vaux, Studies, 97.)
9 See m. Yoma 6:6;
Kal
Tg. Yer. I Lev 16:22; Philo, De plant. 14.61 (... E. i a'/lara
8fedr1Aa Kal 8a3paOpaEI7TI7TTo)U
[Whitaker's translation in the LCL edition, "... to find
itself amid rocky chasms ...,"
inaccurately translates the verb and so obscures the
allusion]; note that 8a3paOpovwas especially known as the name of the cleft at Athens into
which criminals were thrown [see LSJ s.v.]); 1 Enoch 10:4-5. On the latter, S. Landersdorfer rightly observed: "Dass wir hier nichts anderes vor uns haben als die mythische
Ausgestaltung des in der Mischna geschilderten Vorganges-sogar die Ortsbezeichnung
(/saboovi bzw. Dudael = Chadudu) ist noch recht wohl kenntlich-, ist ohne weiteres
klar" (Studien zum biblischen Versohnungstag [ATAbh 10/1; Munster i. W.: Aschendorff,
1924] 21).
10 "'And he shall be stood alive' (Lev 16:10): this teaches that he is later to die" (y. Yoma
6.43c; similarly Sipra ad loc. [ed. Weiss, p. 81a]). Cf. the argument, based on this verse, as
to how long the scapegoat must remain alive: Sipra loc. cit.; t. Yoma 4(3).12 (Zuck. 188);
b. Yoma 40a-b, 65a, 71a.
11 See t. Yoma 4(3).14 (Zuck. 188); b. Yoma 66b; y. Yoma
6.43c-Josephus is noticeably
absent among the witnesses to the killing of the scapegoat; he states only that it is to be
"sent alive into the wilderness beyond the frontiers" (Ant. 3.10.3 241). (M. Olitzki's suggestion [Flavius Josephus und die Halacha (Berlin: Itzkowski, 1885) 47, n. 76] that
VirEpOptov here is to be derived from virep + 0opos,thus indeed referring to the precipice
of the other sources, is completely groundless, as both the context [Talv Vr7TpOplov Epeflav]
and the lexicons show.) This omission is due either to abbreviation (the whole rite is described in only half a sentence) or to an apologist's desire to avoid mentioning a practice
which could seem superstitious or pagan; cf. Josephus's omission of reference to the
Golden Calf in his paraphrase of Exodus. The rabbis were aware that Gentiles might cast
aspersions on this rite; see the baraita in b. Yoma 67b (wherein, according to the MSSand
old editions, "the nations of the world" are mentioned along with Satan).
12 See, inter alia, Barn. 7:6-11; Justin, Dial. 40:4; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 3.7.7. For a
comparison of these texts, see P. Prigent, Les Testimonia dans le christianisme primitif:
L'Epitre de Barnabe I-XVI et ses sources (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1961) 105-10, or idem,
Epitre de Barnabe (SC 172; Paris: Cerf, 1971) 136-37.

This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:59:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Schwartz: Two Pauline Allusions

263

16 and Isaiah 53),13 is another factor which could have suggested to Paul
the use of the scapegoat image.14
Finally, this suggestion may be supported on the basis of Gal 3:13.
Not only does it "work," in that it solves the logical problem of how
Christ's becoming a curse redeemed other accursed ones; it may also be
supported by the fact that, again by Paul's day if not earlier, the scapegoat was considered to become accursed. This is shown by Philo, "Barnabas" and Tertullian, and is also reflected in words which the Palestinian
Talmud attributes to Alexandrian Jews of the predestruction period.15 In
other words, Paul's thought behind Gal 3:13; 4:4-5 is as follows: Christ
was hung on a tree, and so became a curse, and so could become a
scapegoat which, by being sent forth to its death, redeemed the Jews
from their curse.
III. Rom 8:32
In this verse, "He who did not spare His own son but gave him up
for us all, will He not also give us all things with him?" (RSV), we find
again the logical problem raised by the verses in Galatians: How does
God's "giving up" His son help mankind? The verse also supplies a certain stylistic problem: Why does Paul note that God did not spare His
son? Why did the positive statement ("gave him up for us all") not
suffice? Commentators generally use the latter question in solving the
former, assuming that Paul here alludes to Abraham who did not spare
his son (Gen 22:12, 16); as this was followed by a blessing (vv 17-18), so
too is God's not sparing of His son, according to Romans, followed by
13 See T. H. Gaster, Myth,
Legend and Custom in the Old Testament: A Comparative
Study with Chapters from Sir James G. Frazer's Folklore in the Old Testament (New
York: Harper & Row, 1969) 581. As Gaster notes (p. 699, n. 6), nigzar in Isa 53:8 echoes
gezera in Lev 16:22; to this one might add that both the Servant and the scapegoat are
said to carry (nasa') the sins of the people (Isa 53:12; Lev 16:22).
14 For Paul's referral of the
Suffering Servant to Christ in Phil 2:5-11 and elsewhere, see
W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (2nd ed.; London: SPCK, 1965) 274;
R. N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (SBT 2/17; London:
SCM, 1970) 106.
15 Philo, De spec. leg. 1.35 188; Barn. 7:6; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 3.7.7. Cf. G. Alon,
Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud (2 vols.; Tel-Aviv: Hakibutz Hameuchad, 1957-58) 1.304, n. 19 (Hebrew). According
to y. Yoma 6.43d, Alexandrian Jews used to hasten the scapegoat on its way, complaining
"How long will you keep (tolin, literally = hang!) the qalqala among us?" Qalqala not
only sounds and looks like qelala (= curse) but also its meanings (degradation, disgrace,
corruption, sin, mischief) are similar. See M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the
Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (2 vols.; New York: Pardes,
1950) 2.1382, s.v. For examples of the exchange of qeilal and qalqial, see the critical
apparatus and notes to Gen. Rab. 20.3 (on Gen 3:14) in the edition of J. Theodor and Ch.
Albeck, p. 183, lines 4-5. Cf. F. Schwally, "Miscellen," ZAW 11 (1891) 170-73.

This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:59:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

264

Journal of Biblical Literature

bounties (8:32b).16 This assumption may be buttressed not only by the

general consideration that Paul regularly refers to Abraham, in Romans
and elsewhere, but also by the identity of the verbs used for "sparing"
(Elbol,al) and by the probability that Gen 22:17-18, the conclusion of
the Aqedah story, was alluded to just a few chapters earlier, in Rom
4:13.
The assumption that Rom 8:32 alludes to the Aqedah is very old and
widespread,17 scholars differing only as to whether Paul meant that
God's giving of Jesus was merely analogous to Abraham's binding of
Isaac or (as Dahl has argued) a reward for it, and as to whether Paul
originated the comparison of the crucifixion to the Aqedah or inherited
it from other early Christians. However, while Dahl begins his study
with the observation that Rom 8:32 is "obviously reminiscent of Gn 22,
as has been recognized by exegetes from Origen onward ... the allusion
is unambiguous," he does later admit, after setting forth his own interpretation of the meaning of this allusion, that "caution forbids us to postulate that Paul's statement may not be explained otherwise."
With all due respect to exegetical tradition, I will enter the door
Dahl opened, for the above explanation of Rom 8:32 seems questionable.
First, one notes that if its reference were indeed to the Aqedah, this
would be the clearest such reference in the Pauline corpus;18 even if
Rom 4:13 does allude to Gen 22:17-18, which is not certain,19 those
16 For references to some scholars sharing this assumption, see below, notes 17, 19.
17 For what follows, see N. A. Dahl, "The Atonement-An Adequate Reward for the
Akedah? (Ro 8:32)," Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black
(ed. E. E. Ellis and M. Wilcox; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969), esp. pp. 15-20 (the quotations are from pp. 16 and 20); H. Paulsen, Uberlieferung und Auslegung in Romer 8
(WMANT 43; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1974) 165-68. Both supply ample references to the literature. The assumption that Rom 8:32 reflects Gen 22:12, 16 is so
imbedded that some will even insert an explicit reference to the Aqedah into their paraphrases of Romans; so, for example, W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, The Epistle to the
Romans (ICC; 5th ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902) 219: "As Abraham spared not
Isaac, so He spared not the Son...."
18 On other Pauline passages which have been seen as referring to the Aqedah, see Dahl,
"The Atonement," 23-27; G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic
Studies (SPB 4; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 218-21; J. E. Wood, "Isaac Typology in the New
Testament," NTS 14 (1967/68) 587-89. Interestingly enough, in the present context, is the
fact that it is none other than Gal 3:13-14 which is, according to Dahl (p. 23), "apart from
Ro 8:32 the clearest Pauline allusion to Gn 22"; so too Vermes, p. 220. (But Paulsen [Uberlieferung, 167] calls this allusion, and another in Rom 3:25, "kaum m6glich.") Here, in
any case, as in Rom 4:13, the allusion to Genesis 22, if it is one, is to a point in the chapter
after the completion of the Aqedah (vv 17-18) and does not hint back to the preceding
account.
19 Note, for example, that neither Sanday and Headlam (Romans, 111) nor 0. Michel
(Der Brief an die Romer [5th ed. = MeyerK 4, 14th ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1978] 168) refers to Genesis 22 in their commentaries on Rom 4:13, although
they both see an allusion to the Aqedah in Rom 8:32. Since Rom 4:17, 19 definitely refer

This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:59:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Schwartz: Two Pauline Allusions

265

verses of blessing, as far as they are reflected in Romans, give no hint as

to the merit which preceded them. Indeed, in the context of Romans 4,
where faith is contrasted with works, the fact that Paul did not mention
any meritorious act by Abraham is a fair indication that he did not
intend to refer to it. Again, one notes that even many of those who recognize an allusion to the Aqedah in Rom 8:32 agree that Paul did not
develop this theme,20 which might also hint that the allusion is so subtle
that it might actually be doubtful. In fact, the parallel between the Aqedah
and Christ's death is very weak: Isaac is not meant to be "given,"21he did
not die, had he died it would have been on an altar and not on a cross, and
his death would not have been for anyone, although Paul emphasizes here
that Christ's death was for us all. Finally, we may underline another
problem: while Genesis 22 consistently, even monotonously, calls Isaac "his
son" or "your son" or "my son," the pronouns referring to Abraham,22 Paul
here speaks of "His own son" (rov ll'ov viov) as if we might have supposed,
otherwise, that it was someone else's son who could have been spared.
Why?
Another biblical passage fits the bill much better: 2 Sam 21:1-14.
Here we read that God afflicted Israel with a famine on account of the
unavenged blood of Gibeonites killed by Saul; when David asked the
Gibeonites how this might be expiated, they replied that they would take
no ransom of silver or gold, but rather demanded that seven of Saul's
sons be hanged.23 However, while one would suppose that the expiation
would be all the more effective the more prominent the sons of Saul thus
given up, David nevertheless spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the
most prominent survivor of the line (v 7).24 Seven others were given to
to Genesis 17 (vv 5, 17), one should perhaps prefer to see in Rom 4:13 an allusion to Gen
17:6-8.
20 So, for example, Dahl, "The Atonement," 16: ". . the allusion is
unambiguous, but
Paul in no way draws it to the attention of his readers .. ."; Paulsen, Uberlieferung, 167:
". . . im Kontext von V. 32a die Aufnahme von Gen 22 nicht reflektiert wird." In light of
the above, one might well sympathize with G. Bornkamm's summary dismissal of the
subject: Paul "makes no use of Genesis 12 and 22" (Paul [London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1975] 143). Admittedly, however, this does not speak to suggestions, such as those of
Vermes, Dahl, and especially Paulsen, that in Rom 8:32 Paul repeated traditional phrasing
which contains such an allusion, without himself making use of it.
21 No verb of
giving appears in Genesis 22 (MT or LXX).
22 Gen 22:2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16. In all these
cases, the LXX uses the simple o-ov,
avTro (and in vv 7-8 the Hebrew "my son" becomes TrKvov).
23 See below, n. 26.
24 Mephibosheth is considered the last of Saul's house in 2 Sam 9:1-8 and
19:28; he may
have entertained hopes of regaining the usurped throne (16:1-4; 19:24-30). In contrast,
David surrendered to the Gibeonites two sons of a concubine (3:7; 21:11) and five sons of
Saul's daughter Merab, whose hand in marriage David once refused (1 Sam 18:17-19). (As
1 Sam 18:19; 2 Sam 6:23 and various textual witnesses indicate, Merab, not Michal, was
the mother intended by 2 Sam 21:8.)

This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:59:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of Biblical Literature

266

the Gibeonites, who hanged them; later, after their corpses and those of
Saul and Jonathan were properly buried, God relented (v 14).
Here, then, we have the same verbal parallel to Rom 8:32 offered by
the Aqedah: David spared (LXX: EcEio'aro) Mephibosheth. Here, furthermore, people were given25 (to the Gibeonites), they were actually
killed, by hanging (or crucifixion),26 for the people (to end the famine).
On all counts the parallel with Christ is closer than that offered by Genesis 22. Again, we may now understand Paul's emphasis on Christ's being
God's own son, for in the parallel the man spared was not the son of the
sparer. Paul's argument turns out to be a persuasive argumentum a
minori ad majus (qal wahomer),27 the terms of which are as follows:
David
someoneelse's son
spared

God
His own son
did not spare

If David brought blessing despite the fact that he spared someone else's
son, how much more certainly will God bring blessing if He did not
spare His own son!
IV. Conclusion
By analyzing some peculiarities of Paul's arguments and language in
the passages discussed above, we have attempted to discover Paul's
answer to the question with which we began: How did Christ's death on
the cross bring redemption? More specifically, we have assumed that
Paul viewed this death via some biblical category, and have attempted
to discover what category that might be.
In fact, we found two answers. To borrow later terminology, we
would say that Paul found Christ's death on the cross "typified" both by
the scapegoat ritual and by the hanging (crucifixion?) of Saul's sons. It
may well be that other passages will be found to support one of these
answers to our question, or both, or others; just as Paul used various
25 2 Sam 21:6 (bis), 9; in all three instances the LXX uses b8i81tL. In Rom 8:32, Paul used
in line with usual NT practice regarding the execution of Christ (see
TDNT 2 [1964] 169). Cf. below, n. 29.
F. Buichsel, "TrapaSbwp8lL,"
26 On the meaning and ancient translations of hoqia see S. R. Driver, Notes on the
Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of Samuel (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon,
1913) 351; Driver concludes that the word in any case implies hanging, and probably a
special form thereof, such as crucifixion. For additional evidence to the effect that the
latter (crucifixion) was indeed the current Jewish understanding of the word in antiquity,
see D. J. Halperin, "Crucifixion, the Nahum Pesher, and the Rabbinic Penalty of Strangulation," JJS 32 (1981) 39; but cf. J. M. Baumgarten, "Hanging and Treason in Qumran
and Roman Law," Eretz-Israel 16 (1982) 8*-9*.
27 Paul uses this type of argument more explicitly in Rom 5:9, 10, 15, 17; 11:12, 24;
1 Cor 6:2-3; 2 Cor 3:7-8, 9. Cf. J. Jeremias, "Paulus als Hillelit," Neotestamentica et
Semitica, 92.
7rapaSblbw8L,

This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:59:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Schwartz: Two Pauline Allusions

267

sacrificial images when speaking of Christ's death in general,28 there is

no reason why he might not find more than one biblical "type" for the
specific mode of death.29
We should state that we readily admit that these allusions to
Leviticus 16 and to 2 Samuel 21 are only that; Paul has not troubled to
make them explicit to his readers, and many may well have missed
them.30 Their importance, apart from the clarification which they offer
to the verses in question, is rather in the further light which they shed on
Paul's understanding of the crucifixion and on his adaptation, to his new
worldview, of categories taken from Jewish tradition and history.
Finally, one might broach the possibility that the interpretations of the
crucifixion alluded to in Gal 3:13, 4:4-5 and Rom 8:32 did not originate
with Paul but were rather received by him from earlier Christians. This
possibility could be supported not only by general considerations, namely
the assumption that the fact the allusions are not explained indicates they
are traditional31 and the assumption that already the earliest Christians
must have searched the Bible diligently for "types" of Christ's death,32 but
also by the specific observations that (1) both Gal 3:13 and Rom 8:32 speak
of Christ's death as "for us," using a phrase (v7rep4El v) usually considered
28 Rom 3:24-25; 8:3; 1 Cor 5:7; 15:20; 2 Cor 5:21;
Eph 5:2. On these and other sacrificial
images which Paul uses of the death of Christ, images which are not identical although
not necessarily contradictory, see H. Wenschkewitz "Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe: Temple, Priester und Opfer im Neuen Testament," Angelos 4 (1932) 180-89 (=
Angelos Beiheft, 1932, 116-25); Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 230-53.
29 One could, moreover, suggest how the scapegoat image and that of Saul's sons could
come to be combined: via the common denominator of the Suffering Servant. The fate of
Saul's sons recalls that of the Servant, and we have already noted the similarity of the
latter to the scapegoat (above, n. 13). This could also help explain Paul's substitution in
Rom 8:32 of wrapabibwJALfor the 8bWIAL/ of 2 Samuel 21, for the former is used of the
Suffering Servant in LXX Isa 53:6, 12 (bis) (cf. above, n. 25). Finally, one may note that if
a minority view is correct and hoqi'a (Num 25:4; 2 Sam 21:6, 9) does not mean hang/
crucify (above, n. 26) but rather "hurl down to death" (so NEB, following W. Robertson
Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites [2d ed.; London: Black, 1914] 419, n. 2),
then we would have here a close parallel to the scapegoat ritual (above, nn. 8-9).
30 Certainly the reference to 2 Samuel 21 was unlikely to be recognized; indeed, there is
no reference to that chapter in either volume of Biblia Patristica (ed. J. Allenbach et al.;
Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1975-77). (Jewish sources, in contrast,
devote much attention to this chapter; see L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews [7 vols.;
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968] 4.110-11, 6.269-70, nn. 114-18, and the
further references listed by A. Hyman, Torah Haketubah Vehamessurah [rev. ed. by
A. B. Hyman; 3 vols.; Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1979] 2.73-74.) On the other hand, to continue with
this same instance, we note that also those who see in Rom 8:32 an allusion to the Aqedah
admit that Paul's readers, as some modern commentators, may not have noticed the allusion; see Dahl, "The Atonement," 16.
31 On this assumption I would agree with those who see an allusion to the Aqedah in
Rom 8:32; see above, n. 20.
32 Cf. Stuhlmacher,
"Jesus als Versohner," 89-90.

This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:59:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

268

Journal of Biblical Literature

to be a Pauline inheritance from earlier Christians,33 and (2) two of the

pericopes (Gal 4:4-7 and Rom 8:31-34) have indeed been claimed as
remnants of pre-Pauline material.34 At this point, however, I do not see
any basis for more than simply broaching the possibility.
33 On the traditional nature of this phrase, see 1 Cor 15:3, also E. Stauffer, Die
Theologie des Neuen Testaments (4th ed.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948) 111-12;
R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (5th ed.; Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1965)
49.
34 On Gal 4:4-7, see the references given by Blank, Paulus und Jesus, 261-62. (Blank
himself denies the passage is Pauline, but this is, apparently, only due to its great resemblance to 3:13-14, "eine Aussage . . .bei der es kaum jemand einfallen wird, sie Paulus
abzusprechen.") On Rom 8:31-34, see Paulsen, Oberlieferung, 137-47; he and others see
here a pre-Pauline hymn.

This content downloaded from 184.168.27.152 on Wed, 7 Jan 2015 14:59:39 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions