Introduction

The last chapter opened with the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of sin as ‘A transgression of the divine law and an offence against God, a violation (especially wilful or deliberate) of some religious or moral principle.’ Such a definition of sin has little relevance in a modern secular society where God no longer occupies a central position in most people's symbolic universe. Consequently the symbol of sin has lost its potency to identify and restrain deviant behaviour and the concept of sin is perceived as largely irrelevant. Yet on the margins of modern society other conceptions of sin emerge. Environmental pressure groups view the pollution of the earth as the prime sin of humankind. In New Age thought, the essential divine goodness of each individual is emphasised; evil is perceived as a matter of ignorance, and is transcended by the enlightened individual.

These different views of sin correspond to four types of society that Douglas identifies with her Grid and Group model, which she uses to analyse different cultures. In hierarchical societies, sin is perceived as transgression; it is regarded as irrelevant in societies which value individual competition; sin as pollution is the characteristic perspective of the sect or enclave, while sin is associated with a state of mind by those who enjoy unstructured social relations. These four different types of society Douglas plots on a matrix, the axes of which measure two variables.

‘Beyond the pale’ is a well-known English phrase, generally applied to anything beyond the boundaries of acceptability. Christian theology in the west has often emphasised the doctrine of original sin, according to which every individual is inherently sinful and ‘beyond the pale’, acceptable to God only on the basis of the atoning death of his son, Jesus Christ. In his struggle against Pelagianism, Augustine sought to ground the doctrine of original sin in the writings of the apostle Paul, who portrayed sin as an active agent enslaving all humanity in its power and condemning the world to death. Accordingly the apostle is often credited with – or blamed for – a radically pessimistic assessment of the basic sinfulness of human nature.

This book endeavours to set aside Augustine's agenda and understand the apostle in the light of his own socio-cultural context. A cross-cultural model, developed by social anthropologist Mary Douglas, is employed to analyse Paul's letters and, as a result, a different picture emerges. It is argued that Paul developed the symbolism of the power of sin as a way of safeguarding the position of law-free Gentile believers within the small, bounded social groups that made up the early church. He sought to remove the ethnic boundary that separated Jew from Gentile and replace it with a new, eschatological boundary between the righteous and the sinful. In effect, Paul was seeking to redefine his readers' perception of who is and is not ‘beyond the pale’.

Introduction

Paul uses the noun ἁμαϱτία in the singular 45 times in Romans, and 41 of these references are concentrated in chapters 5–8. These chapters therefore hold the key to our understanding the symbolism of sin as a power. Traditionally, these chapters have often been read as a doctrinal exposition of the new life available to those who are saved by the gospel. Such an approach insulates one's understanding of the power of sin from the socio-historical situation in which these chapters were written. If Paul wrote Romans with a view to reconciling the strong and weak factions referred to in Romans 14–16, that raises the question as to how his emphasis on the power of sin at this point in the letter relates to his overall aim in addressing this particular social situation.

Using Douglas' matrix, it will be shown how the symbolism of the power of sin in Romans is grounded in the socio-cultural context of the letter. In keeping with the cosmology of the small bounded group, Paul sees sin as an external danger that threatens the boundaries protecting the good inside of the physical and social body. His letter reflects the characteristic high group/low grid concern with boundary definition, as he responds to the question of whether Gentile believers should have to keep the Jewish law by redrawing the boundaries around the community of the righteous along eschatological, rather than ethnic, lines.

This study opened with the observation that references to sin as a power in Paul's letters are to be found within the context of his discussion about the social question of the relationship between Jewish and Gentile believers in the church. While Augustine recognised this, the theological need to counter Pelagianism resulted in a reading of Paul's letters that neglected the socio-historical setting of Paul's sin language in favour of developing an anthropology that stressed the radical sinfulness of the individual. With the Enlightenment came a fresh recognition of the importance of the Jew–Gentile question, but this insight did not lead to an analysis of Paul's sin language within that context. Instead, the recognition that Paul was not concerned with formulating a doctrine of original sin opened the door to a more optimistic view of human nature, and responsibility for the traditional emphasis on human sinfulness was placed at Augustine's door.

In the twentieth century, Bultmann's attempt to recover a Lutheran theology of sin that was relevant to individuals in a secular society was effectively challenged in the 1970s. Bultmann had interpreted Paul's letters using the existential question about the authenticity of our existence as a hermeneutical bridge, but Stendahl argued that this approach was anachronistic, on the grounds that such personal introspection could be traced no further back than Augustine: Paul was concerned with the social question of Jewish–Gentile relations, not with the individual's search for a gracious God.

Insiders and outsiders

Having ascertained the location of Paul and the Roman community on the matrix, an attempt will now be made to read Romans 1–8, understanding the power of sin within the context of the high group/low grid preoccupation with boundaries. It will be argued that Paul is concerned with demolishing the ethnic boundary of the law in Romans 1:18–4:25, and replacing it with the eschatological boundary of baptism and Spirit reception in 5:1–8:39.

Paul first makes mention of the power of sin in this letter in 3:9, where he claims to have demonstrated that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin's power. This negative claim is the necessary precursor to his ensuing positive statement in 3:21–31, that all alike are equally justified through faith in Christ. This statement takes up Paul's summary of the theme of the letter in 1:16–17, where he proclaims that the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe, the Jew first and also the Greek. In order to show that both Jews and Greeks alike are justified on the same basis, Paul has to show that both groups alike stand in the same need of that justification. He therefore argues that the Jews have no advantage over the Gentiles by virtue of their possession of the Torah; on the contrary, Paul asserts in 3:9 that all alike are under the power of sin.

Paul's claim at this point in the letter seems, however, problematic for two reasons.

Introduction

Paul's letter to the Galatians contains one clear reference to sin as a power, where Paul says that scripture has confined all things under sin (3:22). The noun ἁμαϱτία also occurs in 1:4, but this time in the plural, where Paul refers to Christ giving himself for our sins, in order to rescue us from the present evil age. It also occurs in 2:17, where Paul addresses the question whether Christ is the servant of sin. In addition, the concept of sin is found elsewhere in the letter, even though Paul does not use the term ἁμαϱτία: in Galatians 5:16–21; 6:8, he describes sinful behaviour in terms of ‘works of the flesh’; in 2:15–21, he refers to ‘Gentile sinners’ and defends himself against the accusation that those who seek to be justified in Christ are found to be sinners in the process. Paul denies the charge, stating that if he is again building the things that he destroyed, he demonstrates that he is a transgressor.

Clearly these references to sin must be understood in the context of the letter as a whole. Paul wrote to the Galatians to counter what he regards as a false gospel (1:6–9), proclaimed by outsiders, who were attempting to persuade his Galatian converts to accept circumcision (5:2–3; 6:12–13). The emphasis on circumcision points decisively towards a Jewish identity for the agitators, while the fact that they proclaim a different gospel (1:6–9) indicates that they were also Christians.

This monograph has attempted to forge a new interpretation of a text central to any estimation of both Pauline theology and the early Christian church. Inasmuch as this has arisen from the cumulative weight of converging lines of evidence – often novel and significant in their own right – we may conclude by briefly recapitulating the most important contributions made at each stage of our enterprise. In sum, it has been contended that:

1. Constitutive of the Jewish response to the epic Maccabean crisis were two key interrelated themes: (a) the suffering and vindication of the people of God, especially as focused upon certain martyr figures; and (b) emerging from this, in relation to Daniel 7.13–14, ongoing messianic speculation concerning an eschatological redeemer who would deliver and restore afflicted Israel.

2. The ethos and religio-political aspirations of the Maccabees remained a living tradition in first-century Judaism, fuelling Jewish–Christian conflict – not least insofar as this involved Paul, whether as a zealous Pharisee or a Jewish Christian convert.

3. All this is of significant bearing upon the Galatian crisis, the conceptual framework governing Paul's response thereto, and his autobiographical narrative in Galatians 1 and 2. The Galatian scenario, attended by conflict and persecution, may be perceived as an inversion of the Maccabean crisis. Paul's conceptual framework may be understood as a Jewish apocalyptic (e.g., Danielic) schema now radically reconfigured through Jesus Christ, Israel's (unexpected) eschatological redeemer.

While it must remain an open question as to precisely where Paul's citation of his accusation against Peter in Galatians 2.14 ends, it is generally agreed that his pursuant remarks at Galatians 2.15–21 at least reflect the substance of the issues addressed during their Antioch confrontation. This will be borne out in the following estimation of Paul's complex and much disputed line of argumentation which, both in terms of its underlying theological framework and key constituent features, may also be the more clearly comprehended when viewed as a dramatic reworking of a Maccabean martyr model of Judaism. It is not feasible to itemize at the outset every aspect of what will prove to be an intricate summoning of various lines of evidence. However, it will prove useful if the overall shape and substance of the ensuing interpretation is briefly set forth in advance.

Paul continues to remonstrate against the position taken by Peter in Antioch by ironically appropriating a piece of intra-Jewish polemic espousing Jewish superiority over Gentiles (Gal. 2.15), which he immediately relativizes by locating it within his decidedly christological understanding of the people of God (Gal. 2.16). That is, he reminds Peter of what he already knows: a person's covenant membership – and hence vindication before God – is not a function of adherence to ‘the works of the law’ and the way of life they represent, but of conformity to the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah.