^{page 163 note 1} Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, I (New York: Scribner's, 1951).Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 2} The advantages of Bultmann's approach to the theology of Paul are discussed by Dahl, N. A., ‘Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments,’ Theologische Rundschau N.F. XXII (1954), 38 ffGoogle Scholar.; cf. also Conzelmann, H., An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (New York: Harper, 1969), p. 159Google Scholar; and Käsemann, E., New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), p. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 3} Bultmann, , Theology, I, 191Google Scholar (cf. p. 270).

^{page 163 note 4} Ibid.

^{page 163 note 5} E. Käsemann's characterization of Bultmann's presentation as ‘exclusively’ anthropological (NT Questions, pp. 14 f.) is miselading (cf.Bultmann, , Theology, I, 191)Google Scholar. The problem is not that Bultmann interprets the gift of redemption as a ‘new self-understanding’, given the meaning of this phrase for Bultmann, but rather the character of the self-understanding he unfolds. In this regard, however, Bultmann's presentation does exhibit certain problems. For it is possible to misunderstand his account (as Käsemann seems to do) in such a way that not πλστις, but man as such is regarded as the subject of theological reflection (cf. Conzelmann, , Outline, pp. XV and 159 ff.Google Scholar). Given this misunderstanding, it might be assumed that what is referred to by πλστις is some form of religious piety (cf. Conzelmann, p. 159; also Stuhlmacher, P., Gerechtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), p. 85Google Scholar n. 2; N. A. Dahl, op cit. p. 44; Whiteley, D. E. H., The Theology of St Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), p. 165)Google Scholar. Related to this is the fact that Bultmann's interpretation of human existence seems to be highly individualistic. The exphasis falls almost entirely upon man as an individual and his personal decision for or against the demand which encounters him in the gospel; but relatively little attention is given to the community of faith in which and through which faith becomes possible (Cf. Ott, H., Geschichte und Heilsgeschichte in der Theologie Rudolf Bultmanns (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1955), pp. 181 ff.Google Scholar, and Käsemann, E., NT Questions, pp. 14Google Scholar f. (cf. pp. 176 f.).

^{page 164 note 1} Bultmann does not give enough attention to the formal character of theological thinking as the unfolding of those traditional linguistic statements in which faith has found expression at other times and in other situations, and which serve as the objective reference for theological reflection (cf. N. A. Dahl, op. cit. pp. 26 ff., 38 f.). Thus, for Bultmann, Paul is a ‘real theologian’ not because he stands within and interprits Christian (or Jewish) tradition (cf.Conzelmann, , Outline, pp. 161 ff.Google Scholar), but because ‘what he thinks and says…lifts the knowledge inherent in faith itself into the clarity of conscious knowing’ (Theology, I, 190). Bultmann is concerned lest theological statements as such, which are always incomplete and relative, should be objectively conceived as ‘revelation’ (cf. Theology, II, 237 ff.). But merely to affirm that the objective reference of faith is the ‘kerygama’ does not solve this problem, for in Bultmann's discussion the ‘kerygma’ is a very ephemeral entity. The distinction he makes between ‘kerygmatic’ statements, which are the object of faith, and ‘theological’ statements, in which faith itself comes consciously to expression, is problematic. For, as Bultmann recognizes, even the ‘kerygma’ only finds objective expression through words and sentences, and thus always participates in the relativity of theoretical language (cf. Theology, II, pp. 240 f.). Bultmann rightly observes that the kerygma is not merely the ‘passing on of historical tradition’ (p. 250). But it must also be emphasized that the kerygma finds linguistic expression only as theological interpretation of historical tradition in the light of faith.

^{page 164 note 2} James, Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford University Press, 1961)Google Scholar, cf. pp. 206 ff., 262 ff. In certain instances, however, Bultmann is perceptive in this regard: e.g. his recognition of the Pauline distiniction between existence έν σαρκί and existence κατά σάρκα, and the difference in meaning of κατά σαρκα when used with nouns and with verbs (cf. Theology, I, 232 ff.).

^{page 164 note 3} The confusion between ‘faith’ as a theological concept and the word πίστις is evident when Bultmann speaks of the ‘revelation of πίστις’, of ‘life in πίστις’, or the ‘structure of πίστις’. In his New Testament Therology Bultmann speaks not of theological ‘concepts’ (Begriffe), but rather of theological ‘thoughts’ (Gedanken), but the difference is not crucial. In his discussion of πλστις in the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Kittel, G. and Friedrich, G., eds., Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 7 vols. 1933 ff.Google Scholar), VI, he speaks of the ‘concept (Begriff) of πίστις, Bultmann's discussion here exhibits many of the difficulties which James Barr has identified with reference to other articles in these volumes.

^{page 165 note 1} It is true that Bultmann interprets the salvation event as a ‘deed of God's grace’ (Theology, I, 288 ff.), and refers to πλστις as ‘the obedience of constantly living out of the grace of God’ (p. 324). Even here, however, the semantic contribution of the word χάρις in Paul's interpretation of salvation, and the semantic relationship between χαρις and πίστις, through which Paul's understanding of ‘faith’ comes to expresion, is obscured. What does not become clear is the relationship between the theological concepts of ‘faith’ and ‘grace’ and the words πίστις and χάρις in terms of which Paul's own understanding of these concepts is unfolded. This confusion is evident in a statement such as the following: ‘The world is kerygma, personal address, demand, promise; it is the very act of divine grace. Hence, its acceptance – faith – is obedience, acknowledgement, confession. That is the reason why χάρις as well as πίστις can likewise be named as the opposite of εργα to designate the basis of right wising; for πλστις is what it is only reference to χαρις which is actively present in the word’ (p. 319; cf.German edition, 4. Auflage, 1961, p. 319). We would suggest that such a statement does not really clarify the theological thinking of Paul (cf. below, p. 171 n. 4).

^{page 165 note 2} This is not always recongnized. Nugren, A., for example, ignores the problem entirely (Commentary on the Romans (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949), pp. 169 ff.Google Scholar). cf.Sanday, and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 5/1902), p. 98Google Scholar; also Bultmann, , Theology, I, 280Google Scholar. The ambiguity of Paul's asgument here is discussed at length by Michel, O., Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), p. 114.Google Scholar

^{page 165 note 3} Cf. in general: Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch III (München: C. H. Beck'sche, 1926), 186 ff.Google Scholar; Bousset, W. and Gressmann, H., Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, H.N.T. XXI, 4/1966), pp. 193 ff.Google Scholar; Schatter, A., Der Glaube im Neuen Testament (Stuttgart, 1899), pp. 9–42Google Scholar; and Bultmann, R., T.W.N.T. VI, 199 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 1} Cf. Schlatter, , Glaube, pp. 32 ff.Google Scholar; Strack-Billerbeck, , III, 186 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 2} See, for example, Schoeps, H. J., Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), pp. 202 ff.Google Scholar: ‘This new tearing asunder of polarities, this absolute opposition between faith, on the one hand, and law, on the other… has always been unintelligible for the Jewish thinker’.

^{page 166 note 3} Lietmann, H. (An die Römer (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, H.N.T. III, 1906), p. 21Google Scholar) recongnizes the problem here, and assumes that Paul must use the verb λογίзεσθαι in a special sense; otherwise the argument would be ‘meaningless’. Heidland, W. (T.W.N.T. IV, 292 ff.Google Scholar) attempts to show that Paul's interpretation corresponds to the original meaning of the Abraham narrative. His distinction, however, between the common Jewish and Greek meaning of the word λογίзομαι, in the sense of ‘sales-man's accounting’, and a theologically determined Hebrew meaning, which Paul supposedly derived from the LXX, is highly problematic from a semantic point of view: cf. Barr, J., Semantics, pp. 246 ff.Google Scholar, 263 ff. (particularly p. 250).

^{page 166 note 4} Cf. Strack-Billerback, III, 186; also Bousset-Gressmann, op. cit. p. 196. According to Rabbinic teaching, the law was not only completely known to Abraham, in unwritten from, but Abraham also fulfilled the law completely, as a reward for which he received blessing from God (cf. Gen. xxvi. 5).

^{page 168 note 1} Circumcision was the ‘sign of the covenant’ (Gen. xvii. 11) and the presupposition for participation in the promises of God Cf. Moore, G. F., Judaism (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 2 vols. 1958), II, 16 ff.Google Scholar; Meyer, R., T.W.N.T. VI, 75 ff.Google Scholar; Strack-Billerbeck IV, 30 ff.

^{page 168 note 2} Cf. Michel, Römer, p. 123; ‘Promise and faith go back to the grace of God and are themselves an expression of the grace of God… The promise is grounded and fulfilled only if it depends… on the grace of God alone.’ Thus, when Paul asserts that if the inheritance were founded upon the law the promise (i.e. the salvation-historical purpose of God) would be ‘void’ (v. 14), he refers not merely to the ‘failure’ of the law to achieve God's purpose, which it was never intended to do (cf. Bultmann, , Theology, I, 266 ff.Google Scholar), but in a deeper sense to the jusitification of both Jews and Gentiles through the salvation deed of God in Christ ‘according to grace’ (vv.15f.). The issue here is christological; it is a question of nothing less than the salvation significance of the Christ event itself. In this sence, Kuss, O. (Der Römerbreif (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1963), p. 188)Google Scholar rightly observes: ‘If the law were able to create salvation… the event of Jesus Christ would be meaningless’, But when he continues with the assertion, ‘Faith would not be… the only way to win salvation’, the grace-character of the salvation event is misunderstood, and ‘faith’ itself again seems to be conceived as a human accomplishment.

^{page 169 note 1} Cf. Bultmann, , Theology, I, 45Google Scholar; also Käsemann, E., ‘Zum Verständnis von Röm. 3: 24–26’, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, I (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), 96–100Google Scholar; Reumann, J., ‘The Gospel of the Righteousness of God,’ Interpretation, XX (10 1966), 432–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Löhse, E., Märtyrer und Gottesknecht (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), pp. 149–54Google Scholar, limits Paul's use of confessional material to vv. 25–26a; cf. C. Talbert, ‘A Non-Pauline Fragment at Romans 3: 24–26?’, J.B.L. LXXXVI (1966), 287 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 169 note 2} Bultmann, , Theology, I, 45, 281, 289.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 1} J. Reumann, op. cit. p. 441.

^{page 170 note 2} Cf. Reumann, ibid.; also Michel, , Römer, pp. 103, 106Google Scholar. In the writings of Paul the word δωρεάν occurs in only two other passages: II Cor. ix. 17; Gal. ii. 21. In neither case does Paul use this word to refer to the gift character of salvation. χάρις and δωρεά appear together in Rom. v. 17. The text is somewhat uncertain (τ$$$ς δωρεάς is missing in B, Origen), but it seems probable that here also the traditional designation of salvation, δωρεά τ$$$ς δικαιοσύνης, is conditioned by the preceding reference to χαρις. This is confirmed by the preceding correlation in v. 15: ή δωρεά έν χάριτι, where the reference to χάρις clearly interprets the meaning of δωρεά. So also in the paraller formulation of v. 16; δώρημα in 16 a is interpreted through δάρισμα in 16 b. A similar relationship occurs IICor. ix. 14 f. where the gift of salvation is referred to first as δάρις τοũ θεοũ (v. 14), and is then characterized in a traditional thanksgivng formula as God's άνεκδιήδητος δωρεα (v. 15). It seems clear, therefore, that in the theological thinking of Paul the ‘gift of salvation’ (δωρεά) is interpreted as a ‘gift of grace’ (δωρεά έν χάριτι).

^{page 170 note 3} Schoeps, , Paul, pp. 206 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 4} Cf. Bousset-Gressmann, op. cit. pp. 382 ff.; Moore, G. F., Judaism, I, 389–400, 535 ff.Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., T.W.N.T. II, 475 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 5} Schoeps, op. cit. pp. 202 ff. (cf. above, p. 166 n. 2); cf. Strack-Billerbeck, III, 163 ff.; Bousset-Gressmann, op. cit. p. 386.

^{page 170 note 6} Cf. Wetter, G. P., Charis. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des altesten Christentuns (Leipzing, 1913), pp. 7–11Google Scholar; Moffatt, James, Grace in the New Testament (New York, 1932), pp. 21–44.Google Scholar

^{page 171 note 1} This is pointed out by Käsemann, E., E.V.B. I, 111Google Scholar n. 2.

^{page 171 note 2} Cf. Stuhlmacher, P., Gerechtigkeit Gottes, p. 89Google Scholar, n. 4. The most obvious example is in the traditional Jewish greeting έλεος καί είρήνη, which in Paul's writings always appears as χάρις καί είρήνη (e.g. Rom. i. 7; I Cor. i. 3; etc.). Cf.Lietzmann, , Römer, p. 3Google Scholar; Foerster, , T.W.N.T. II, 412Google Scholar n. 78. The exception of course is when Paul is obviously using traditional Jewish formulations (e.g. Rom. ix. 23; xi. 32; Gal. vi. 16). Bultmann asserts that in Rom. xi. 32 Paul uses the term ἒλεος ‘in place of χάρις’ with ‘substantially the same meaning’ (Theology, I, 282); Conzelmann, however, sees that in Rom. ix–xi, έλεος is understood by Paul in the light of χάρις (Outline, p. 214).

^{page 171 note 3} Cf. Wetter, , Charis, pp. 12–18Google Scholar. Thus Philo can refer to such things as earth, fire, and water as χάριτες τοῦ θεοῦ. And in Hellenistic inscriptions χάρις can refer to the benevolence of the Emperor.

^{page 171 note 4} Thus, Bultmann misses the significance of Paul's argument when he states: ‘“Righteousness through faith” (Rom. iii. 22) has an equivalent in v. 24: “justified by his grace as a gift” …Therefore, “grace” like “faith” can be placed in direct antithesis to “works of the law”’ (Theology, I, 281). It is precisely the reverse; Paul interprets ‘faith’ in the light of ‘grace’, and on this basis places ‘faith’ in direct antithesis to ‘works of the law’. Bultmann thus obscures the christological character of Palu's interpretation of faith. Also Käsemann (E.V.B.. I, 100) asserts, with regard to iii. 24f.: ‘To the “sola gratia”, which the Jewish formula already (sic!) proclaimed, is now joined the “sola fide”.’ Käsemann seems to overlook the fact that the ‘sola gratia’ in v. 24 is also an interpolation by Paul, and also seems to disregard what he himself says elsewhere about the theological significance of χάρις in the language of Paul (cf. E.V.B. I, 109ff.). Bultmann argues that in the theology of Palu the antithesis πίστις–έργα stands beside the antithesis χάρις–έργα and has the same meaning (cf. T.W.N.T.. VI, 221; also above, p. 165 n. I). There is no doubt that in the language of Paul πίστις stands as the antithesis to έργα (Rom. iii. 27f.; iv. 2f.; Gal. ii. 16; etc.). But from a semantic point of view, the antithesis between χάρις and έργα is not so obvious, certainly not in the passages cited by Bultmann (i.e. Rom. iv. 16; xi. 5f.). The real semantic antithesis to χάρις is νόμος (Rom. vi. 15). In the language of Paul πίστις also stands in antithesis to νόμος (Rom. iv. 16), but only because the man of faith no longer stands ύπό νόμον, but now stands ύπό χάριν. Bultmann characterizes Christian existence as such as existence ‘under πίστις’. Actually, Paul never refers to Christian existence in such a way!

^{page 172 note 1} The conceptuality which Paul draws upon here presupposes the mythology of Jewish Gnosticism: cf.Bultmann, R., ‘Adam and Christ in Romans 5’, Old and New Man (Richmond, Va.: JohnKnox Press, 1967), pp. 49–79Google Scholar; also Brandenburger, E., Adam und Christus (Neukirchen, W.M.A.N.T. VII, 1962)Google Scholar. Another point of view is represented by Scroggs, R., The Last Adam (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966)Google Scholar. Most important, however, is to recognize the way in which this mythology is interpreted by Paul (cf.Conzelmann, , Outline, pp. 207ff.Google Scholar). E.g. the determinism implied by Paul in v. 12 a is qualified by Paul in 12 d: ‘…because all men sinned’. In the thinking of Paul this phrase is by no means ‘superfluous’ (Bultmann, Old and New Man, p. 62), but is an intentional qualification of the appropriated mythology: Cf. Bornkamm, G., Das Ende des Gesetzes (MünchenGoogle Scholar: Chr. Kaiser, 1961), p. 84; Conzelmann, Outline, pp. 196 ff.

^{page 172 note 2} We can leave open the question here as to whether the intention of Paul in these verses is critically to reject the correspondence between Adam and Christ implied in v. 14 c (cf. Brandenburger, op. cit. pp. 219–31), or rather to interpret this correspondence (Jüngel, cf. E., ‘Das Gestez zwischen Adam und Christus,’ Z.Th.K. LX (1963), 42ff.Google Scholar). However these verses may contribute to his argument as a whole, Paul is clearly concerned here to elaborate the dissimilarity between Adam and Christ, and thus the particularity of Christ in relation to Adam.

^{page 173 note 1} The difference between χάρις and χάρισμα in the language of Paul does not seem to be essential. Thus, in this passage χάρισμα (v. 15 a) can alternate with χάρις (v. 15 b). In general Paul tends to use χάρισμα when he refers to the actualization of the salvation event in the Christian present: cf.Conzelmann, , Outline, pp. 259fGoogle Scholar.; Bultmann, , Theology, I, 291, 325.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 2} Cf.Strack-Billerbeck, III, 223–6; also Brandenburger, op. cit. pp. 221f.

^{page 173 note 3} Cf. Brandenburger, op. cit. pp. 221, 223.

^{page 173 note 4} For examples, cf. Bornkamm, G., Gesetzes, pp. 85fGoogle Scholar; Michel, , Römer, p. 141Google Scholar; Sanday, and Headlam, , Romans, p. 141Google Scholar; Wetter, , Charis, p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 5} Cf. Brandenburger, op. cit. p. 226; Bultmann, Old and New Man, p. 66; Michel, , Römer, p. 141Google Scholar; Kuss, , Römer, p. 236.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 6} Cf. Brandenburger, op. cit. p. 223.

^{page 173 note 7} Bornkamm, Cf., Gesetzes, p. 85Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper, 1957), p. 113Google Scholar; also Bultmann, , Old and New Man, p. 64.Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 8} Bultmann, , Theology, I, 288ff.Google Scholar; cf.Conzelmann, , Outline, pp. 213ff.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 1} The same critique applies to G. Wetter's interpretation of χάρις as a divine power ‘which over-comes man and transforms him’ (Charis, p. 41). There is no doubt that the word χάρις expresses Paul's understandingn that ‘it is God who works with man, and not man himself’, and in this sense emphasizes that Christian existence ‘is only made possible by the power of God’ (cf. p. 49). With regard to the theological thought of Paul, however, what is important is not that χάρις is conceived of as a power, but rather that the power which determines Christian existence is interpreted by Paul through the word χάρις as a gift which no man can appropriate for his own glory. Thus, Wetter observes (p. 50), in II Cor. xii. 9 a reference to χάρις is followed by a reference to δύναμις but it is clearly the understanding of δύναμις which thereby becomes interpreted as δύναμις τοῦ Χριlsgr;τοῦ, i.e. in such a way that human weakness does not contradict, but actually withnesses to the reality of the divine power at work in the life of the apostle. The approach to biblical interpretation represented by Wetter obscures the semantic values of individual words. Thus, Wetter can assert that such terms as χάρις, δώρημα, τῆς χάριτος, as well as πνεῦμα, πίστις, and δικαισσύνη, as references to divine power, are all essentially ‘synonymous’ (cf. pp. 43, 54). R. Bultmann and E. Käsemann stand within this same tradition. Thus, Käsemann asserts that the expression ‘righteousness of God’, as well as such ‘parallel’ expressions as ‘energy’, ‘love’, ‘peace’, and ‘wrath of God’, ‘can all be used equally in peresonified form to connote divine power’. In the same way he asserts that χά$$$ις ‘means primarily the power of grace’ (NT Questions, pp. 173f.). It is simply a question of how various words in the theological language of Paul actually function. In Käsemann's discussions the semantic contributions of individual words tend to become muddled.

^{page 174 note 2} Jüngel, , Z.Th.K. LX (1963), 62ff.Google Scholar

^{page 175 note 1} Ibid. p. 55; Cf. Klein, G., Rekonstruktion und Interpretation (MüunchenGoogle Scholar: Chr. Kaiser, 1969), pp. 181ff.

^{page 175 note 2} According to Bultmann (Old and New Man, p. 68), the ‘basic difference between Adam and Christ’ consists in the fact that ‘for adamic man there was no choice between life and death, but all men were subject to death’, while after Christ ‘all men must now decide whether they want to belong to those who receive (life)’.This interpretation, however, is not only simplistic (see above, p. 172 n. 1), but misses the essence of Paul's argument. For Paul is concerned here not with how man may appropariate the inheritance of Adam or Christ, but rather with how – i.e. on what basis – the in heritance is made available to man. The dissimilarity between Adam and Christ is grounded, first of all, The dissimilary between Adam and Christ is grounded, first of all, in the character of the events themselves. The primary emphasis here is christological; the amthropological consequences are developed by Paul in chapter vi.

^{page 175 note 3} Bultmann, Cf., Theology, I, 209ff.Google Scholar; Conzelmann, , Outline, pp. 259ff.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 1} Cf. Kleinknecht, H. and Schweizer, E., T.W.N.T. VI, 337ff., 387ff.Google Scholar; also Schweizer, E., ‘Gegenwart des Geistes und eschatologische Hoffnung’, Neotestamentica (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1963), pp. 153–79Google Scholar; Reitzenstein, R., Die hellenisttischen Mysterienreligionen (Darmstand: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1927Google Scholar; Nachdruck 1957), pp. 284ff.

^{page 176 note 2} Schweizer, E., T.W.N.T. VI, 413ff.Google Scholar; Bultmann, , Theology, I, 153ff.Google Scholar; Conzelmann, , Outline, pp. 37ff.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 3} cf.Lütgert, W., Freiheitspredigt und Schwärmgeister in Korinth (Gütersloh, 1908)Google Scholar; Schmithals, W., Die Gnosis in Korinth (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965), pp. 146ff., 206Google Scholar; Conzelmann, H., Der erste Brief an die Korinther (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Meyer Kommentar, 5. Abt., II Aufl., 1969).Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 4} πνευματικῶν can be either neuter (‘spiritual gifts) or masculine (‘spritual men’). Most interpreters prefer the neuter translation, in accordance with χαρισμάτων (v. 4) and πνευματικά (xiv. I). Schmithals, however, prefers the masculine translation which fits well with his own speculation concerning the Corinthian situation (Gnosis, pp. 161ff). He must argue, however: (a) that the question of the Corinthians relates only to the incident supposedly alluded to in v. 3, but not to the situation discussed in xii. 4 – xiv. 40, and (b) that xiv. I is a later interpolation. These arguments seem improbable.

^{page 176 note 5} Besides the commentaries, cf. G. Bornkamm, ‘Zum Verständnis des Gottesdienstes bei Paulus’, Gesetzes, pp. 113ff.; Conzelmann, Outline, pp. 259ff.

^{page 177 note 1} Paul can speak of the ‘Spirit’, the ‘Spirit of God’, ‘Christ’, or the ‘Spirit of Christ’ (cf. Rom. viii. 9ff.) without implying any theoretical speculation as to how these concepts are related (cf. Schweizer, E., T.W.N.T. VI, 431ff)Google Scholar. Presupposed here (v. 3) is that the Spirit is the ‘Spirit and the Lord’ (cf.Conzelmann, , Korinther, p. 247Google Scholar n. 31). The relationship between the Holy Spirit and the exaltation of Jesus was already established in the pre-Pauline tradition (cf. Rom. i. 3); Cf. Schweizer, , T.W.N.T. VI, 414ff.Google Scholar; Bultmann, , Theology, I, 153ff.Google Scholar; Conzelmann, , Outline, pp. 37ff.Google Scholar Can Paul presuppose agreement, however, on the part of the Corinthians concerning the relationship between the ‘one Spirit’ and the ‘one body’? Paul seems to create an argument ad hoc: i.e. there is one Lord Jesus Christ (cf. viii. 6); therefore there is one spirit (xii. 3); therefore is one body of Christ (xii. 12). The basis for his argument seems to be a baptismal formula: ‘… all were made to drink of the same Spirit’ (xii. 13). We see Paul working out here the theological statement which later became a confessional standard (cf. Eph. iv. 6). In Corinth, however, this understanding cannot yet be presupposed.

^{page 177 note 2} Conzelmann, , Korinther pp. 242ff.Google Scholar Presupposed here is the characteristic Pauline distinction between ‘once’ and ‘now’ (cf. Rom. vi. 20ff.; Gal. iv. 8f.; I Cor. vi. II). Paul begins by reminding the Corinthians of their previous existence, in which ecstasy as such was the criterion for the working of the Spirit, even though they wever actually being ‘led astray’ by dumb idols. Over agsinst this stands their present existence ‘in the Spirit of God’, in which the Christ event istelf become the nents’ and ‘heretics’ behind almost every statement by Paul in his writings to the Corinthians. Conzelmann makes sense here when he dismisses the speculation that there were those persons in Corinth who actually ‘cursed Jesus’. The phrase 'Ανάθεμα 'ίησοῦς (v. 3) is rather to be understood as an ad hoc construction of Paul. Cf. also Lähemann, D., Das offenbarungsuerständnis bei Paulus und in paulinischen Gemeinden (Neukirchen, W.M.A.N.T. XVI, 1965), pp. 28f., 148ff.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 1} Cf. Hahn, Ferdinand, Christologische Hoheistliel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), pp. 119ff.Google Scholar; Lührmann, op. cit. p. 29.

^{page 178 note 2} cf. Conzelmann, , Outline, p. 63Google Scholar; also Fuchs, E., Studies of the Historical Jesus (Naperville, Ill.: Alec Allenson, 1964), pp. 11ff.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 3} cf.Conzelmann, , Korinther, pp. 241ff.Google Scholar; Weiss, J., Der erste Korintherberief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Meyer Kommentar, 5. Abt., 9 Aufl., 1910), p. 298Google Scholar; KÄsemann, E., E.V.B. I, 111Google Scholar. In vv. 4–6 we have a triad: διαιρέσεις χαρισμάτων (v. 4); διακονιῶν (v. 5); ένεργμάτων (v. 6). According to Käsemann (E.V.B. I, 110f.), this implies that κάρις must be understood as a ‘power’ which demands ‘service’. But this reverses the point Paul wants to make. That which actually become interpreted here by Paul is not the meaning of χάρις, but rather the understanding of ‘works’ and ‘services’, which are characterized by Paul, through his reference to χάρις as ‘gifts of grace’, and not as praiseworthy human achievements: cf.Weiss, , Korintherbrief, pp. 297ff.Google Scholar

^{page 178 note 4} Again, Bultmann refers simply to the ‘synonymity’ of χαρίσματα and πνευματικά in this passage (Theology, I, 291); but the semantic function of χάρις for the interpretation of the πνευματικά is not clarified thereby. According to Käsemann (E.V.B. I, 111f), the argument of Paul presupposes that ‘one has Charis’ which Paul understands basically as power, in so far as it takes possession of us and brings us into the Lordship of Christ’. To speak of χάρις in such a way, however, does not serve to clarify the theological thinking of Paul. How Paul (or the Corinthians) understood χάρις is not the issue. The real issue concerns the way in which God's salvation deed in Christ determines Christian existence in the present, and χάρις is the word Paul uses to unfold his own interpretation of this event. What is significant in this regard is not regarnd is not that Paul conceives of χάρις as a ‘power’, but rather that the interprets the power which determines Christian existence with reference to χάρις (i.e. christologically) as a ‘gift of grace’.