EL ENLACE COVALENTE

Paul’s words in Rom 9:3 also bring to mind other similar instances in the OT where the prophet-leader expresses his wish to take the place of his people in receiving God’s punishment for sin. In 1 Chr 21:17 David wishes that God would punish him instead of the people for the census. Then again in 2 Sam 18:33 David wishes that he would die instead of Absalom. Even the example of Jonah, who takes the opposite pattern of wishing that he would rather die than see the Ninevites being spared from God’s judgment (Jon 4:3), can be seen as a parody of the normal prophetic pattern.

All these instances are fundamentally different from the situation in Rom 9:3.In 1 Chr 21:17, David asks to be punished because he is the one who committed the sin of initiating the census. In 2 Sam 18:33, David is not acting in the capacity of prophet concerned about the destiny of the nation, but as a father who is mourning over the death of his beloved son. Finally, in Jon 4:3, the situation is opposite to what we have in Rom 9:3—Jonah wishes that God would judge the Ninevites rather than spare them. Nonetheless, these texts serve to characterise a prophet or a leader who feels so closely for the people he loves that he is willing to sacrifice himself in their stead.

More importantly, Paul’s entreaty to God over the situation of the Jews entails a profound personal involvement with his people that is mirrored in the prophets. In his work entitled The Prophets, Abraham Heschel examines the dynamics of pathos in the ministry of the prophets of Israel.184 _{The prophet is not simply an} ‘instrument’ who channels God’s messages, he is also intimately involved at a personal level, frequently identifying, not only with the people to whom he ministers, but also sympathetically with the heart of God—the divine pathos. This triangular relationship between God, prophet, and people results in a tension that

85

generates anguish in the prophet at a deep-seated level, and is featured most prominently in Jeremiah.185 _{Caught in between a divine message that portends} punishment for an unrepentant nation on the one hand and a people that persistently rejects the warning that comes from God’s true prophets on the other, the prophet frequently internalises this conflict, which is expressed in grief. It is this pattern of divine message, collective unresponsiveness on the part of the people, and prophetic anguish, that sheds light on the dynamics underlying Paul’s words in Rom 9:1-3.

4.3.2 Paul’s Use of aÓna¿qema

Just as significantly, Paul’s shocking disclosure that (on account of the Israelites’ situation), he prays that he would be ‘accursed’ (aÓna¿qema), and ‘[cut] off from Christ’ (aÓpo\ touv Cristouv) for their sake is rich in intertextual significance. Paul’s use of the word aÓna¿qema in 1 Cor 12:3; 16:22; and Gal 1:8-9 makes it unlikely that he simply has ‘excommunication’ in mind, a sense which the word acquires later, mainly during the time of the Church Fathers.186 _{In the Pauline} usages (Rom 9:3 included), the word is used in connection with the gospel that is preached (Gal 1:8, 9), or in the context of our attitude to Christ (1 Cor 12:3, 16:22). In Rom 9:3, both contextual aspects appear to be present—Paul is preaching a gospel of the Christ, but the Jews are not putting their trust in Christ, which leads to his intimation that he would rather suffer anathema for the sake of his fellow countrymen.

In the writings of Josephus and Philo, aÓna¿qema almost invariably denotes a gift or offering that is dedicated to God and presented in the temple, a sense that does not seem to accord with Paul’s point in Rom 9:3.187 _{In this instance, the data}

185 _{See also Sandnes, Paul, 177.}

186 _{The word does not appear in any of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, but is found} in the writings of the Church Fathers.

86

taken from their texts, along with Judith 16:19; 1 Mac 5:5; 2 Mac 2:13; 9:16; and 3 Mac 3:17, is largely representative of the Second Temple writings. The only exception is 1 Macc 5:5, where it carries the connotation of ‘destruction’ against an enemy—the sons of Baean (probably a nomadic tribe) whom Judas fought against.

Among the non-Pauline writings in the New Testament, the word is usually used in connection with the swearing of an oath, where the subject ‘anathematised’ himself to carry out an act (Acts 23:12, 14, 21) or to vouchsafe the truth of his speech (Peter, in Mk 14:71). Used in this sense, the subject places himself potentially under divine condemnation or judgement, which will come unless he fulfils his vows or (in the case of Peter, who vows that he is not a follower of Christ, Mk 14:71) speaks the truth. These usages are compatible with Paul’s use of the word in 1 Cor 12:3; 16:22; and Gal 1:8–9 even though they do not convey the same level of severity that the Pauline texts seem to warrant.188 _{In the case of} Luke 21:5, however, the word (aÓnaqh/masin) denotes gifts devoted to the decoration of the temple—in the sense of something being dedicated to God— which is more akin to the use of the word in the Second Temple writings surveyed earlier in this dissertation.

Given this analysis, it may be argued that the significance of Paul’s use of the word in Rom 9:3 (and also in 1 Cor 12:3; 16:22; and Gal 1:8–9), should be differentiated from the other contemporary Jewish writings. This is especially so since in Rom 9:3 Paul says in apposition that he is to be cut off from Christ as well. The full import of Paul’s words can never be fully appreciated unless we draw from the intertextual connection of the word to the Old Testament.

77, 249, 354; 13:78; 17:151, 156, 158, 162, 265; 19:7; War 1:425; 5:562; 7:44–45, 428, 433–434; Apion 1:11, 113, 199. Philo: Mos 1:253.

188 _{In Rev 22:3, a related word, kata¿qema, is used in the sense of something that is} divinely condemned.

87

With respect to the Septuagint, the word aÓna¿qema, along with its alternate spelling, aÓna¿qhma,189 _{in all instances (24 verses) translate the Hebrew word M®rDj.} These can take one of three senses: (1) an offering to God in the context of a worship ritual, or a gift / donation presented to the temple (Lev 27:28; Num 18:14; and Ezra 10:8);190 _{(2) a curse, usually in connection with idolatry or} apostasy (Deut 7:26; 13:18; Zech 14:11); or (3) the destruction of an enemy in response to God’s command, as an act of devotion to him (Num 21:2–3; Deut 13:16 [13:15]; 20:17; Josh 6:17–18, 21; 7:1, 11–13; 21:20 [22:20]; Judg 1:17; 21:11; 1 Sam 15:3; 2 Kings 19:11; 1 Chr 2:7; 4:41). It may be argued, in the case of the third scenario, that when the Israelites totally annihilate their enemies (including the destruction of all material possessions and livestock), it is an act of divine judgment upon the nations that Israel is executing on behalf of Yahweh. As Dunn notes, the sense ‘accursed’ becomes dominant as a result of the LXX use of the word in translating the Hebrew M®rDj.191 _{The implication of being ‘cursed’ is} the divine judgment that leads to destruction or annihilation. It is this sense of the word that must be understood when Paul says that he prays to be anathema. In addition, the discussion should also extend to the use of a pair of close synonyms in the LXX—kata¿ra (and the verb katara¿omai) and the related

189 _{Although Cranfield sees a difference between the two forms of the word and argues} that aÓna¿qhma (with the longer h) is used to denote ‘gifts’ in the LXX ‘except for 2 Macc 2:13 and Judith 16:19(A)’, the evidence seems not to be so clear-cut. In addition to what Cranfield has cited, we may also add Deut 7:26, where aÓna¿qhma denotes a cursed thing, not a gift or offering. On the other hand, the shorter aÓna¿qema is used positively to denote gift or offering in Lev 27:28. Furthermore, Cranfield has curiously cited the variant in Codex Alexandrinus (A) in Judith 16:19; the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus (a*) has the same reading as well, whereas Codex Vaticanus (B) and ac,a _{has aÓna¿qhma.} Similar textual variants are also found in Lk 21:5. What this suggests is that, at least to some of the early scribes or readers of the texts, the two forms are more or less interchangeable, the sense being derived more from the context than the spelling. Cf. Cranfield, Romans, 457.

190 _{To these we may add Judith 16:19; 1 Mac 5:5; 2 Mac 2:13; 9:16; and 3 Mac 3:17 as} noted earlier. They were originally written in Greek and therefore do not translate any of the Hebrew texts. In the case of Ezra 10:8, the confiscation of the property of those who failed to assemble in Jerusalem within the prescribed time (three days) by the council of rulers and elders may be taken to be an involuntary ‘donation’ to the temple.

88

e˙pikata¿ratoß (with the verb e˙pikatara¿omai), which are used to translate the Hebrew rArDa (‘to curse’) in 49 out of the 52 verses that the Hebrew word occurs.192 They stand for the antithesis of divine blessing (e.g. Gen 12:3 and especially the curses / blessings in Deuteronomy as well as James 3:9) and generally denote a state of divine judgment and disfavour. Paul uses these words in Gal 3:10, 13 in relation to the curse of those who are under law(!). It is significant that, even though both words (or word-groups) are accessible to Paul, he carefully chooses to use the word aÓna¿qema in certain contexts and not in others. While the meaning of these words do overlap and, together, they form the negative picture of being under divine judgment, the significance of these usages in Paul’s epistles should nevertheless be differentiated. In Rom 9:3; 1 Cor 12:3; 16:22; and Gal 1:8–9, the word is used to denote a situation of severe divine judgment that implies eternal damnation. Just as the cursed objects in the Old Testament narratives are bound for total destruction, in Paul’s epistles it implies forfeiture of eternal life.

Thus, I would differ from Käsemann with regards to Rom 9:3.193 _{Käsemann thinks} that it refers to ‘sacramental counterworking’ which ‘eliminates the sacramentally established fellowship’, and not to ‘eschatological judgment’, even though when he states that it means being cut off from the body of Christ, it is coming back to the same effect of being anathema—for to be cut off spiritually from the body of Christ (not the ‘church’, but Christ himself) or to reverse ‘the integration into Christ accomplished in baptism’ is to be excluded from eternal salvation.