Читать книгу Ecclesial Solidarity in the Pauline Corpus - James T. Hughes - Страница 5

This book is an investigation of ecclesial solidarity in the nine letters written to churches within the Pauline corpus, with a focus on interchurch solidarity. In this introduction, I will define ecclesial solidarity and show why interchurch solidarity deserves particular attention (section one), outline my approach to the Pauline corpus (section two), and deal with some additional methodological considerations (section three).

Defining Ecclesial Solidarity

I have chosen to use solidarity here for three reasons. First, solidarity is an essentially non-metaphorical term, referring to the unity of a group. This will be useful when dealing with a number of metaphorical terms and concepts with a sometimes disputed meaning. Second, solidarity is a recognizable term in the discussion of early Christian groups. For example, Ogereau examines the Jerusalem collection, links solidarity with economic equality in the collection, and associates solidarity with sociability, communality, and interdependency,1 and Horrell links solidarity with difference, fostering group identity and dealing with boundaries.2

Third, to choose one of the available biblical terms or metaphors would be to privilege it and to make assertions about the metaphor or the term that are not warranted at this stage, as this dissertation will involve a reexamination of key terminology related to ecclesial solidarity. Here I would argue that the advantages of using a nonbiblical term outweigh the disadvantages.

Ecclesial: Inter- and Intrachurch Relationships

Throughout this study I will use intrachurch to refer to relationships within one local church, and interchurch to refer to relationships between one local church and another. I will seek where possible to distinguish between the first-century Greek word ἐκκλησία and the subsequent English word “church,” which has often come to carry with it wider connotations.

I am defining local church as the church that meets within a clearly defined local area. In the Pauline corpus, this local area is a city, as Thessalonica or Corinth, but not a region, such as Galatia or Macedonia. Any given local church may be made up of one or more domestic churches, and this seems to be the case for some of the churches to which Paul writes.3

I am defining domestic church as that which meets regularly together in a single defined space. I acknowledge that not all these settings are necessary domestic, nor even in a building.4 However, some form of shorthand definition is helpful, and I have sought to avoid the language of house church, as that has associations with twentieth-century developments.5

I will use universal and whole church interchangeably, but with a preference for whole church, given the subsequent theological usage of the “church universal.” I will use this term to include every local church extant in the period in which the letters were written. Other descriptions of church, such as regional or provincial church, will be explained as they occur.

These definitions raise two issues. First, the issue of how the relationship between local and domestic church in any given locality, what Gehring calls “a plurality of house churches within the whole church at one location,”6 should be defined. Should these be considered intrachurch or interchurch relationships? Whether or not relationships between domestic churches in one local church (or one local area, such as a city) are considered to be intrachurch or interchurch relationships will depend on the context; what may be true of the church in Corinth may or may not be true of the church in Rome, so I will examine these issues as I approach each letter. However, the general principle here would be that relationships between domestic churches are intrachurch when there is a realistic possibility of those churches meeting together.

Second, not all scholars would accept that there is any designation of “church” beyond the local. The use of the word ἐκκλησία noted above for the “whole” church, or for “the totality of Christians”7 is challenged by some scholars, and this has implications for how ecclesial solidarity is understood. Thus, Knox states “in the New Testament the word ‘church’ always means ‘a gathering’ or ‘an assembly.’”8 As for ideas of the universal church, Knox states “It is impossible to discover in the New Testament any other link or relationship of the local churches one with the other than this invisible bond of mutual love of the members one for the other.”9 He argues that using the word church “to describe all our Christian brethren at present living in the world” is a nonbiblical usage.10 Similarly, Donald Robinson states that “although we often speak of these congregations collectively as the NT church or the early church, no NT writer uses ekklesia in this collective way.”11 O’Brien writes: “Although we often speak of a group of congregations collectively as ‘the church’ (i.e. of a denomination) neither Paul nor the rest of the New Testament uses ekklēsia in this collective way.”12 Finally, after surveying usage in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Banks concludes: “the idea of a unified provincial or national church is as foreign to Paul’s thinking as the notion of a universal church.”13

The implications of this understanding of ἐκκλησία are significant for this study, in particular for the interchurch dimension of ecclesial solidarity. The argument of Knox and others requires further investigation, which will require engagement with usage in Greek literature and the Septuagint (chapter 2 of this book), before examining the Pauline corpus (chapters 3 to 6).

As can be seen from the foregoing, these definitions are in a sense provisional, and in the conclusion to this study I will comment on their suitability.

Interchurch Relationships: A Neglected Area

This study will highlight interchurch relationships, because they are a neglected area of study for five reasons.

First, interchurch relationships are neglected when the church beyond the local is excluded from the discussion of church. O’Brien asks “What then are the responsibilities which the New Testament sets before the people of God who live in the overlap of the ages, between the first and second comings of Christ, and who already partake of the life of heaven while still dwelling on earth?”14 His answer is to examine Colossians 3:1—4:6, putting his focus squarely on the individual and the local church. Knox states “Interdependence, not independence, is the true Christian relationship. Congregations should be in fellowship with one another.”15 However, the dynamics of that fellowship are not explored. Robinson argues that the New Testament guidance on this is “that there should be some point or points at which the members of all churches in the area sometimes meet together,”16 but that what happens when they meet is not stipulated. He is more concerned here to show what is not mandated than what is. The validity of the focus of Knox, Robinson, O’Brien, and others will be examined in chapter 2; here I wish to note this practical outworking of it.

Second, interchurch relationships are neglected by a focus on particular elements of the doctrine of the church. This can be seen in the discussion of the relationship between the “local” church and the “whole” church. Bultmann argues that the “whole” church is the prior idea, because the church as the people of God as a notion came before the local church,17 and because of the eschatological consciousness of the first church in Jerusalem as the church in the last days.18 Guthrie is representative of a number of scholars who would disagree with this analysis, arguing from Paul’s letters that Paul talks of “the community of believers in a specified locality,” and that the universal church only becomes explicit in Ephesians and Colossians.19 However, in both Guthrie and Bultmann, there is a tendency to view the issue of interchurch solidarity as solved once the universal and local distinction is defined. So Guthrie states: “for any adequate understanding of Paul’s view of the nature of the church, both local and universal aspects must be given full weight”;20 however, his conclusion to this section is “that each local group was in its own right a church of God, but none could be isolated from the rest.”21 This conclusion may or may not be valid; it certainly does not offer much in the way of clarifying interchurch solidarity. Similarly, Bultmann’s discussion of “church consciousness” is a discussion of life in the local church, with only a passing reference to the Jerusalem council and the importance of church unity.22

There is also a related concern with church structures. So Schnelle, having defined the local congregation as representing the whole church in a particular location, states that Paul “knows no hierarchical structure that connects local congregations and the whole church, but each part or manifestation of the church can in turn stand for the whole.”23 While this comment may be a necessary corrective to certain dogmatic positions, it does not answer the question of how one church should relate to another in terms of ecclesial solidarity.

Third, there is a tendency to focus on the local congregation in a way which deliberately or practically excludes discussion of interchurch relationships. Samra focuses exclusively on maturity within the local congregation.24 Hellerman focuses on the church as a family, and his attention is on individual churches. His approach is similar to many, in that once he has defined the community, he then deals with life together, decision-making, and leadership.25 The precise topics may differ in other treatments, but the focus on the internal dynamics of the individual church remains.26 For all the work done on the internal workings of the ἐκκλησία in the first century—for example, how they were led,27 how members related to one another,28 and parallels with other first-century organizations29—there is still need to examine how churches did or should relate to one another.

The focus on the internal dynamics of the community is perhaps most explicit in the work of Banks, who begins his study of the Pauline church by saying “it is the internal dynamics of Paul’s communities that we are chiefly concerned to investigate, not the external responsibilities of their members to the world around them.”30 In acknowledging only two sets of relationships, those internal to the community and those with the world outside, Banks explicitly (and others implicitly31) exclude a third potential set of relationships: those between one ἐκκλησία and another ἐκκλησία: interchurch solidarity.

Fourth, in examining how ἐκκλησία is used in the Pauline corpus, there is a focus on development in Paul’s letters. A classic statement of this developmental case in the Pauline corpus can be found in the work of MacDonald. Beginning with the premise that “it is generally held that from the middle of the first century to the middle of the second century the church became more tightly organised,”32 MacDonald explores various aspects of institutionalization. MacDonald then develops a case for three periods of development in the Pauline corpus, from the community-building institutionalization of Paul’s letters, through the community-stabilizing institution of Colossians and Ephesians, to the community-protecting institutionalization of the Pastoral Epistles.33 In arguing for development, MacDonald argues for changes to attitudes to the world, ministry, ritual, and belief: so, for example, she sees in the Household Codes of Colossians and Ephesians the emergence of stabilization of relationships within and outside the church,34 with a greater focus on established authority structures,35 and the cosmological language of Ephesians and Colossians is seen as bolstering the ongoing continuity of the church and of existing relationships, with again a focus on authority.36

MacDonald’s analysis presents two issues for this study. The first relates to development and authorship: how should the Pauline corpus be approached when looking at interchurch relations? This will be examined below. The second issue is that the arguments about development tend to move the discussion of ἐκκλησία in the Pauline corpus away from interchurch relationships. That can be seen from the topics MacDonald discusses: they are about the internal dynamics of the church, or the relationship between the church and the world. Thus, whilst questions of development present important methodological issues for this study, they have not contributed much to our understanding of the practical realities of interchurch solidarity.

Fifth, there is a practical neglect of interchurch relationships because of a lack of clarity in determining terminology. The understanding of “church” in the New Testament is not limited to understanding the meaning of ἐκκλησία, and within scholarly literature there is a concern to relate ἐκκλησία to other images of the church, principally the church as a body,37 as a bride,38 as a building,39 and as the people of God.40 However, there is a lack of agreement over the relationship between the images.

Many view the body of Christ as the principal image.41 This again promotes a discussion of the priority of the local, the worldwide, or universal,42 and introduces a host of theological issues and problems relating to origins, anthropology, and imagery.43 Others begin with the image of the people of God, and here the relationship between the local and the “whole” becomes blurred. So, for example, Brower begins with the global “community of God’s holy people,”44 but focuses on how Paul deals with particular communities. In commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2:13, he identifies Paul’s converts as “part of God’s elect people, part of God’s holy people,”45 but the application of this is only to holiness within the community.46 Harrington discusses the people of God, taking Galatians 3:29 as his key Pauline text;47 and focuses on the development of the people-of-God idea through the Bible, and on the importance of unity as an implication of Galatians 3:29.48 There is little here on how unity is to be understood or expressed, or on the interaction between the local and the “whole.”49 These studies highlight areas for examination, but also the need for clarity on interchurch solidarity.

Interchurch relationships in the Pauline corpus are then a neglected area of study. In examining ecclesial solidarity, this neglect needs to be addressed. In addition, the foregoing discussion has highlighted a number of points for clarification. I have already highlighted the need for a thorough examination of the meaning of ἐκκλησία, which will begin in chapter 2. In the section below on authorship, I will consider some of the issues raised by the idea of development. Finally, there is a need to establish what will be studied in examining ecclesial solidarity: both in terms of the relationship between ἐκκλησία and other imagery used for the church, but also any other areas that will contribute to our understanding of ecclesial solidarity in the Pauline corpus. It is this issue which I will now address.

Intra- and Interchurch Solidarity

In examining what is meant by solidarity, and how it will be examined, I will first interact with the work of three scholars: Horrell, Trebilco, and Meeks,50 who, whilst approaching issues of early Christian51 identity in slightly different ways, all show the kind of material which might be examined and illuminate the direction I will take in this study.

While Meeks’s work on the social world of the apostle Paul is now thirty years old, it remains a foundational text for the study of the social world of Paul. Meeks sets out to ask questions about how the early Christian movement worked, to look at the environment of early Christian groups and “the world as they perceived it and to which they gave form and significance through their special language and other meaningful actions.”52 Meeks sets Pauline Christianity within its urban, social, and economic context,53 before examining the question of “What makes a group a group?”54 Here Meeks notes similarities and differences between the ἐκκλησία and other groups,55 before examining the language of belonging, separation, and boundary,56 to show how early Christians regarded their own groups. Meeks suggests several useful avenues of inquiry for this investigation. First, some of the material he investigates under the headings of language of belonging and language of separation will be investigated here. Second, Meeks argues that one of the peculiar features of the early Christian groups was “the way in which the intimate, close-knit life of the local groups was seen to be simultaneously part of a much larger, indeed ultimately worldwide, movement or entity.”57 Here Meeks highlights the peculiar way in which the early Christians used ἐκκλησία, the movement of letters, leaders, and messengers between churches, traditions of hospitality, and economic support, particularly the Jerusalem collection.58

David Horrell has written extensively on the issue of corporate solidarity. In his 2005 monograph “Solidary and Difference,” he examines various ways in which Paul seeks to promote corporate solidarity in Christ. Horrell focuses on reading Paul’s ethics, particularly in relation to liberal and communitarian approaches to ethics59; nevertheless, his examination of solidarity yields a number of potentially fruitful lines of enquiry. Horrell focuses first on the construction of community, examining baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the language of brotherhood, appeals for unity by Paul (particularly in 1 Corinthians 1–4), and the language of the body,60 to show how “the first and most fundamental moral norm in Pauline ethics is that of corporate solidarity.”61 He then examines holiness language,62 issues of distinction, diversity, and regard for others in 1 Corinthians 8–10 and Romans 14–15,63 the use of the example of Christ to promote “other-regard,”64 and how Christians are to relate to outsiders, with particular reference to Romans 13:1–7.65 Whilst I will not be examining ecclesial solidarity in order to read Paul’s ethics, but rather to understand how Paul fosters solidarity, many of the areas examined by Horrell will feature in this study, in addition to those already covered by Meeks. One noticeable element of Horrell’s study is how interchurch solidarity receives only the briefest treatment.66

A somewhat different approach to ecclesial solidarity can be seen in the recent work by Paul Trebilco. His stated aim is to examine self-designations, and what they say about “the early ‘Christian’ movement, its identity, self-understanding, and character.”67 Trebilco highlights four key terms which are relevant for a study of ecclesial solidarity in the Pauline corpus: brothers, believers, saints, and the assembly. In addition, his analysis of “communities of practice,” picking up on work in the field of sociolinguistics, highlights self-designations as informing and being informed by group identity.68 However, Trebilco, like Horrell, does little with the interchurch implications of self-designations other than to describe Christians as part of a large family or worldwide assembly.69

There are then several potentially fruitful lines of enquiry for examining ecclesial solidarity in the Pauline corpus in these three works. In addition, there are a small number of other treatments of Pauline ecclesiology which do deal with the issue of interchurch relationships, and here I will summarize the findings of these scholars in order to highlight potential areas for further study.70 I will do so under three of the headings which have already been mentioned by Meeks: communication, provision (hospitality and support), and belief.

These three areas can be seen in the recent work by Dunn, who argues that Paul’s letters suggest that “he inculcated a sense of belonging to and responsibility in relation to a large network of churches, with the Jerusalem congregations as the mother church.”71 In support of this conclusion, he discusses communication: Paul knew lots of people in different churches, traveled extensively (as did other teachers), and hears reports of other churches. He also mentions provision (the collection for Jerusalem) and belief.72 He concludes that, whilst ἐκκλησία is used for individual churches, Paul did not think of them as “independent and autonomous from each other.”73

Kloha, Stenschke, and Thompson also argue that interchurch relationships are maintained through communication. Kloha includes Paul’s reports on one congregation to another, the exchange of greetings (some from multiple congregations), and the sending of individuals from one church to another here.74 Stenschke notes the importance of salutations and greetings,75 and Thompson argues that the survival of the body of Christ was dependent on a network of support, and that a hunger for news, the various early controversies that the letters indicate, and the movement of coworkers all demonstrate this communication happening.76

Communication overlaps with the second area, where interchurch solidarity can be observed in shared support and provision. Stenschke notes here the references Paul makes to funding he received,77 the Jerusalem collection,78 the provision of hospitality for strangers and visitors,79 and prayer.80 Kloha deals with Paul’s request for support from the church in Rome, as well as the collection for the church in Jerusalem as evidence of a shared mission.81

The third area where interchurch solidarity can be observed is in the area of belief. Kloha argues that the existence of shared beliefs and practices can be seen from the encouragement to read other letters82 and the appeal to the practice of “the church of God” in 1 Corinthians.83 Thompson highlights the importance of example and imitation.84

This examination of scholarly approaches to solidarity, as well as intrachurch and interchurch relationships, reveals a number of potentially fruitful lines of enquiry. I will examine ecclesial solidarity in the following ways, and for the following reasons.

First, foundational to an understanding of ecclesial solidarity is an understanding of the range of meaning of ἐκκλησία. This is the word that Paul uses from his earliest letters for the “church,” and therefore needs to be examined. This examination will begin in chapter 2, and then continue through the following chapters looking at the Pauline corpus.

Second, there are also a potentially large number of images used for the church, such as temple, body, bride, or building, and descriptions of the church, such as brothers, people of God, and holy people, which also need to be examined. Here, my focus in chapter 3 and following will be on those images and descriptions which are prominent in the letters, and which might contribute to a deeper understanding of ecclesial solidarity between churches.

Third, there are several different activities done by and between churches which foster group solidarity, such as the appeal to the word or Christian tradition, communication between churches, hospitality, and mutual support. At the same time, in the Pauline letters, Paul as apostle and as one to be imitated looms large. In examining these areas in chapter 3 and following, I will focus on the role of Paul, looking at all these areas, again with a particular focus on interchurch relationships. Two areas will not be explored in this book, due to limitations of space: the ecclesial implications of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and of various designations for “church leaders” in the Pauline corpus.

This approach to ecclesial solidarity should allow access to the neglected question of how interchurch relationships in the Pauline corpus are intended to function, examining what the implications of interchurch solidarity are.

Approaching the Pauline Corpus

In the section entitled “Interchurch Relationships: A Neglected Area,” I highlighted one of the questions raised by MacDonald’s analysis of development in the Pauline corpus: how should the Pauline corpus be approached when looking at ecclesial solidarity? The fact that not all of the thirteen letters that bear Paul’s name as author and/or cosender85 are universally considered to have been written by him cannot be ignored in an analysis of the Pauline corpus; however, it is not my intention in this thesis to offer any significant contribution to debates on authorship. Nor is this a study of development in the Pauline corpus. The challenge is to find a methodology which takes account of these issues.

First, one of the reasons for treating some letters as post-Pauline is because their content is considered to have developed beyond, or in some cases against, Paul’s ideas as expressed in the letters with undisputed authorship. For example, one of the reasons Lincoln argues that Ephesians is pseudonymous is because of the development in content in relation to Colossians, particularly ecclesiological developments,86 and a number of authors see the development from church as “assembly or gathering” to universal church as indication of a later setting, moving towards “early catholicism.”87 I am seeking to avoid a methodology which establishes “Paul’s” view before looking at the “later” letters. As I noted, some of the development cruxes in relation to ecclesiology are the areas which I am planning to investigate. So, the question of whether ἐκκλησία is used universally in the Pauline corpus,88 or how body imagery is used by Paul, are often resolved in terms of authorship and development. This tends to prevent engagement with the issue of how the whole and local ἐκκλησία might relate to one another. If authorship questions can be left to one side, then there is the possibility of a more fruitful engagement with the Pauline corpus.

Therefore, this is a study of the nine Pauline letters written to churches,89 which seeks to identify similarities, differences, and developments without seeking to establish whether they are down to authorship or cosenders. Rather, this study presupposes that issues of authorship may be informed by the findings of this study, rather than needing to be presupposed.

Second, there is disagreement about the amount of development, and how much development can be anticipated from a single author. So, for example, when discussing titles of church leaders, Clarke argues for “a pattern of notable consistency” across Pauline communities, with no significant difference in institutionalization between the earlier and the later letters.90 Best argues that even across five letters (1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians), we should not expect “surface consistency” from Paul, but neither would we expect “great variations” from him.91 Certainly, development should not be assumed, and development should not be assumed to indicate a different author, and this might argue against using a three-part scheme like MacDonald’s, particularly one which divides along lines of assumed authorship.92

Third, I wish to avoid a scheme which prioritizes certain letters for determining Pauline ecclesiology. Yet any scheme must begin somewhere. My proposal is to look at these letters in approximate and relative chronological order. I propose to look at the Pauline corpus in a number of chapters, approaching them diachronically rather than synchronically. These letters are ordered as they would have been written by Paul, but the order also follows that of MacDonald and others who would view a number of these letters as Post-Pauline. The scheme I am proposing is as follows:

I will look first (in chapter 3) at Paul’s earliest letters: Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians. I am dating Galatians to around AD 49–50, based on a south Galatian destination, agreeing with those who argue that Paul uses the term provincially rather than ethnically,93 and that the narrative of Galatians fits best with Acts 11:30/12:25 or Acts 15.94 Paul’s authorship of 2 Thessalonians has been challenged on theological, historical, and literary grounds.95 However, a plausible account can be given for all three of these areas that enables 2 Thessalonians to be grouped with 1 Thessalonians by noting how the rest of the NT treats eschatology,96 the importance of the signature in 2 Thessalonians 3:17,97 and the different rhetorical purposes of the letters.98 This offers sufficient basis to examine the ecclesiological content of the letter by placing it amongst Paul’s earliest letters. 1 Thessalonians is generally dated to approximately AD 50. For the present, I will adopt the working assumption that 2 Thessalonians was written soon after, with both letters probably originating from Corinth.99

In chapter 4, I will cover the Corinthian correspondence. 2 Corinthians has been subject to a number of partition theories, which have impacted upon how this letter (or letters) is seen to relate to the concerns and problems described in 1 Corinthians.100 Whilst recognizing that it is not possible to prove the literary integrity of 2 Corinthians, there are two reasons why I will treat 2 Corinthians as a unity in this study.101 First, there is no textual evidence for the separate existence of parts of 2 Corinthians, or for the editorial composition of one letter from a number.102 Second, I would argue that the integrity hypothesis is a plausible hypothesis because the assumptions it makes are reasonable; for example, finding a digression rather than a split at 2:14 and 7:5,103 and noting overlap in terminology between 2 Corinthians 1–7 and 8–9.104 If necessary, the issue of the relationship between the letters will be revisited in the conclusion. 2 Corinthians was probably written quite soon after 1 Corinthians,105 around AD 55.106

Chapter 5 will cover Romans and Philippians, as belonging to the next period of Paul’s ministry. I am assuming Romans to have been written from Corinth.107 I will treat the letter as a unity, as the arguments for Romans 16 being an integral part of the letter are sufficient from a textual, rhetorical, and theological point of view, and more persuasive than any of the alternatives,108 although the unitary nature of the letter is not essential to this study. I am also treating Philippians as a single letter,109 written by Paul, from prison or house arrest in Rome,110 to the church in Philippi which he founded.

Chapter 6 will examine Colossians and Ephesians. Here a pragmatic decision to treat Colossians and Ephesians separately from Philippians, which belongs to the same time period if all three letters were written by Paul, has been made to avoid assuming common authorship.

This scheme is not an attempt to find five periods of development within Pauline understanding of interchurch relations. Rather, it is an attempt to look at things in an approximate and relative order; but I will note similarities and dissimilarities throughout the thesis.

In general terms, I would defend this scheme because it gives the scope to look at ecclesial solidarity in the Pauline corpus, whilst remaining open, as far as possible, on authorship. It will also allow sufficient attention to be given to some aspects of the setting of each letter.

Methodology

In this chapter, I have sought to define ecclesial solidarity, particularly identifying interchurch solidarity as a neglected area. I have also outlined my approach to the Pauline corpus. However, two methodological questions remain unresolved, which I will address here: first, my approach to the study of the meaning of words, and second, my general approach to exegesis.

Approaching Word and Language Study

Chapter 2 of this study will examine the meaning of the word ἐκκλησία in Greek literature prior to the first century, and throughout this study I will be concerned with the meaning of words. However, ever since Barr’s critique of “certain methods . . . of using linguistic evidence from the Bible,”111 word study has been a precarious enterprise that needs to be undertaken cognizant of recent developments in linguistics and lexical studies.112 In this section, I will briefly outline these developments before outlining my own approach.

I will begin here with the work of Thiselton, as he outlines the concerns of Saussure and Barr and provides a summary of semantics in biblical studies into the 1970s, including the work of Nida on transformations and kernel sentences.113 He summarizes the problems of traditional assumptions about language,114 highlighting the importance of context,115 and the arbitrary nature of grammatical constructions.116 He argues that, whilst context is critical, words do have meaning, and therefore word studies are not without value.117 He also distinguishes between synchronic and diachronic approaches to language study.118

Thiselton’s general approach is similar to that of Cotterell and Turner, whose position can be summarized as follows: “the significance of the words cannot arbitrarily be changed by the individual if his signals are to be correctly perceived by others. On the other hand it is not possible arbitrarily to insist that the significance of the signs shall not change.”119

Cotterell and Turner then make several arguments which are relevant to this study. First, they note the respective places of diachronic and synchronic study of language, and the limits of both.120 Second, in their discussion of the nature of meaning,121 they define discourse meaning (in relation to 1 Corinthians) as “searching for the meaning of what Paul expressed when it is understood as the record of an (admittedly lengthy) contextualized utterance.”122 Using this sense of discourse meaning, this study seeks to examine the discourse meaning of Paul’s letter to churches, in relation to ecclesial solidarity. Third, Cotterell and Turner note the importance of defining relevant “presupposition pools,” to understand the referent of an expression, and therefore its significance;123 in chapter 2, I will be diachronically studying the potential presupposition pool of ἐκκλησία. Fourth, they provide a model for analyzing different senses of a word, emphasizing the importance of synchronic analysis;124 synchronic analysis of the meaning of ἐκκλησία and other key terms is a key component of chapters 3 and following of this study.

More recently, Gene Green has advocated relevance theory as “a framework within which we may understand the way words mean in context.”125 Relevance theory emphasizes the importance of context, and the need for gaps between the meaning of a sentence and an utterance to be filled by the hearer; hearers (or readers) must interpret to understand.126 Furthermore, all concepts are ad hoc, arising for specific purposes at particular times.127 This may appear to lead to linguistic indeterminacy, and the arbitrary change which Cotterell and Turner argue against. However, relevance theory argues that communication is constrained by the principle of relevance: that the communication received is worth processing, and that the addressee will decode the utterance following the path of least effort.128 Green concludes that traditional approaches to word study based on semantic range are inadequate given the ad hoc nature of concepts, and therefore the focus must be on understanding the shared knowledge of writer and first readers, the context.129

Finally, I want to note the insight of sociolinguistics, recognizing that language is used for group definition; shared language can be used to reinforce identity.130 For example, Trebilco argues that early Christ-followers used designation for the other creatively, to define and redefine outsiders and insiders;131 language needs to be understood in its social context.

In the light of these developments in linguistic and lexical theory, my own approach is as follows. First, studying the use of words remains a worthwhile endeavor. Whilst the meaning of words is not fixed, nor is it entirely arbitrary. Meaning is constrained; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that when Paul communicates, he is using words to be understood. Therefore, the referents are understandable, and there is some relationship between meaning in a specific context and meaning elsewhere.

Second, diachronic and synchronic approaches are complementary if carefully handled. This is particularly the case in approaching the meaning of ἐκκλησία because, as has already been noted, the semantic range of this term has been disputed. In seeking to understand Paul’s use of the term, one of the useful lines of investigation is diachronic, recognizing that this provides a context, not a prescriptive semantic range, for understanding Pauline usage.

Third, and most importantly, words must be understood in context. Therefore, this study will focus on contextual interpretation. My purpose is to seek to discover Paul’s intentions from a close examination of the text in context.

Careful word study remains a legitimate endeavor. I will now examine the second methodological consideration here, my general approach to exegesis.

Approach to Exegesis

There is an obvious overlap here between this section and the previous one, as exegesis involves the meaning of words and sentences. However, here I will comment briefly on three other considerations when approaching the Pauline corpus.

First, this study is rhetorical, in that it is concerned with how Paul seeks to persuade his audience. It is a synchronic analysis, concerned with the text itself.132 I am seeking to understand, not critique, Paul’s construction of reality.133 My focus is then on the intentions of the author, insofar as those intentions are revealed by the text, and with sensitivity to how the text would have been understood by its first hearers or readers.134 However, this study is not tied to any particular approach to the rhetoric of the letters,135 but recognizes the letters as letters and speeches.136

Second, in this study I will be examining a number of Pauline metaphors, and therefore it is appropriate to briefly outline my approach to metaphor, an area of significant scholarly interest in recent years, where various approaches have been proposed.137 A recent example is the work of Gupta, who argues for a series of interpretative principles to allow for richer interaction with metaphorical language. These principles involve identifying metaphors, then interpreting them according to five principles: exposure (whether author and reader share a common field of knowledge), analogy (is similar usage found elsewhere, in the same general historical context?), contextual coherence (establishing the metaphor within its literary context), history of interpretation, and intertextual influence.138 In dealing with metaphors in this study, I will be concerned with the issues Gupta summarizes, although I will not be formally adopting any particular methodology. Rather, I will be seeking to recognize that which is common to all approaches: attention to what is being done in metaphorical language, and attention to how that operates in context.139

Conclusion

The purpose of this introductory chapter has been to define ecclesial solidarity, to show why interchurch solidarity is worthy of particular attention, to outline my approach to the Pauline corpus, and to deal with a number of methodological issues. In doing this, I have also highlighted the need to examine more fully how ἐκκλησία should be understood, and therefore chapter 2 will be devoted to this. In chapters 3 to 6, I will examine Paul’s letters in five roughly chronological sections, as explained and justified above. In chapter 7, I will return to some of the issues raised in this chapter regarding authorship, as well as indicating what can be said from the Pauline corpus about ecclesial solidarity.

1. Ogereau, “Jerusalem Collection as Κοινωνία,” 360–78.

2. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 2.

3. See for example Gehring, House Church, 130–55; Linton, “House Church Meetings,” 233–34. For a somewhat contrary view, see De Vos, Church and Community Conflicts, 250–61.

4. See for example Adams, Earliest Christian Meeting Places, 201–2.

5. For a discussion of the relationship between house church in the NT and house churches today, see Gehring, House Church, 300–11.

6. Gehring, House Church, 155.

7. Trebilco, Self-designations, 178.

8. Knox, Sent By Jesus, 55.

9. Knox, Sent By Jesus, 59–60.

10. Knox, Sent By Jesus, 64.

11. Robinson, Selected Works, 222.

12. O’Brien, “Church,” 92.

13. Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 30.

14. O’Brien, “Church,” 116. Emphasis original.

15. Knox, Sent by Jesus, 64.

16. Robinson, Selected Works, 249.

17. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 93.

18. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 36–37.

19. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 743. See also Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 560–61.

20. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 743.

21. Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 744.

22. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 94–108.

23. Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 561.

24. Samra, Being Conformed. As an example of this, see 136–52 on 1 Corinthians.

25. Hellerman, When the Church, 144–204. See Banks, Paul’s Idea, 88–117; Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 742–78; Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 566–73. A discussion of the sacraments is often considered important here: Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 311–14.

26. See also Roetzel, Judgement in the Community, 109–76; Schnackenburg, Church in the New Testament, 118–40.

27. See for example Clarke, Serve the Community; Clarke, Secular and Christian; Clarke, Pauline Theology.

28. See for example Chow, Patronage and Power.

29. See for example Ascough, What Are They Saying.

30. Banks, Paul’s Idea, 2. See also De Vos, Church and Community Conflicts.

31. For example, Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 308–10.

32. MacDonald, Pauline Churches, 2.

33. MacDonald, Pauline Churches, 29, and generally. For a similar approach to the Pauline corpus, see Dunn, “Body of Christ,” 146–62

34. MacDonald, Pauline Churches, 121–22.

35. MacDonald, Pauline Churches, 138.

36. MacDonald, Pauline Churches, 146, 156.

37. Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 563–64; Best, One Body, 83–159; Schnackenburg, Church in the New Testament, 83–85; O’Brien, “Church,” 105–14.

38. Best, One Body, 169–83; O’Brien, “Church,” 114–15.

39. Best, One Body, 160–68.

40. Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 564–66. Cerfaux, Church, 7–8, begins here. See also Schnackenburg, Church in the New Testament, 77–81, who focuses on importance of people-of-God imagery.

41. Minear, Images of the Church, 173–220. Dunn, Theology, 548, states that the body of Christ “is the dominant theological image in Pauline ecclesiology.” See also Guthrie, New Testament Theology, 744.

42. So Best, One Body, 189–92.

43. Dunn, Theology, 549–52, provides a helpful summary of issues relating to source. See Dawes, Body in Question, 1–78, on issues regarding metaphor in relation to the body of Christ.

44. Brower, Living as God’s Holy People, 4.

45. Brower, Living as God’s Holy People, 45.

46. Brower, Living as God’s Holy People, 45–46.

47. Harrington, God’s People in Christ, xvii–xviii.

48. Harrington, God’s People in Christ, 115–16.

49. For a critique of the people-of-God idea see Aletti, “Le Status de l’Église,” 153–74.

50. Horrell’s work has been chosen because he engages with the issue of solidarity; Trebilco’s work provides a close focus on ἐκκλησία amongst other NT self-designations, and Meeks’s work remains standard.

51. I acknowledge here that the terminology of “Christian” is anachronistic in discussing the Pauline Church, and therefore I will seek to avoid using it. However, there are occasions when no other term is any better. For a discussion of this see Trebilco, Self-designations, 3–4.

52. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 8.

53. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 9–72.

54. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 74.

55. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 75–84.

56. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 85–103.

57. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 75. Note that Ascough, “Translocal Relationships,” 223–41, argues that the translocal links between associations are more extensive, and the translocal links between Christian groups less extensive than is normally assumed. I will argue in following chapters that translocal links and expectations are both extensive and significant in Paul’s letters.

58. Meeks, First Urban Christians, 108–10.

59. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 47–82.

60. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 101–24.

61. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 129.

62. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 133–65.

63. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 166–203.

64. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 204–45.

65. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 246–72.

66. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 115.

67. Trebilco, Self-designations, 1.

68. Trebilco, Self-designations, 6–9.

69. Trebilco, Self-designations, 22–23, 179–80.

70. See also Stenschke, “Significance and Function of References,” 185–228.

71. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 655.

72. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 655–56.

73. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 657.

74. Kloha, “Trans-Congregational Church,” 180–81.

75. Stenschke, “Significance and Function of References,” 217–21.

76. Thompson, “Holy Internet,” 56–60.

77. Stenschke, “Significance and Function of References,” 195–96.

78. Stenschke, “Significance and Function of References,” 204–5.

79. Stenschke, “Significance and Function of References,” 208–17.

80. Stenschke, “Significance and Function of References,” 200–201.

81. Kloha, “Trans-Congregational,” 183.

82. Col 4:16; Kloha, “Trans-Congregational,” 181.

83. Kloha, “Trans-Congregational,” 181–82; see also Stenschke, “Significance and Function of References,” 206–7.

84. Thompson, “Holy Internet,” 56–60.

85. On the role of these coauthors (or cosenders), see Fulton, “Phenomenon,” 230–34.

86. Lincoln, Ephesians, li–liv.

87. So Käsemann, “Ephesians and Acts,” 288.

88. Dunn, Theology, 541.

89. This is not to deny that Philemon and the Pastoral letters apply to local churches, but to set some necessary limits to the study due to space.

90. Clarke, Pauline Theology, 77.

91. Best, Paul and His Converts, 25–26.

92. MacDonald, Pauline Churches, 3–4.

93. Burton, Galatians, xxvii. See also Magda, Paul’s Territoriality, 82–102, who argues that Paul’s toponymy is consistently Roman, and that this is consistent with Paul using Galatia as a designation for the Roman province. See also Longenecker, Galatians, lxx who notes Ramsay’s research showing that provincial Galatia included these cities during the time in which Paul was writing.

94. Both Longenecker, Galatians, lxxiv–lxxxiii, and Morgado, “Paul in Jerusalem,” 60–67, argue for an identification of Galatians 2:1–10 with Acts 11:30/12:25, and therefore date these events, and Galatians, before the Jerusalem council, to AD 49. However, Silva, Interpreting Galatians, 132–39, and Phillips, Paul, His Letters and Acts, 80–81, both argue for a later date based on the identification of Galatians 2:1–10 with the Jerusalem council. Given the polemical nature of Galatians, it seems unlikely that Paul in writing a historical narrative would risk missing out a visit to Jerusalem which might undermine his claim to independence, whilst at the same time, it is hard to account for why he would avoid the rhetorical and polemical opportunity presented by the decree of the Jerusalem council to demonstrate to his readers that his position was the correct one. However, even if Galatians 2:1–10 and Acts 15 describe the same event, Galatians still belongs to the earlier part of the 50s and can still be considered one of Paul’s earliest letters.

95. Hughes, Early Christian Rhetoric, 82–83. See also Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 365; Nicholl, From Hope to Despair, 4–8; Green, Thessalonians, 60–61.

96. Green, Thessalonians, 63; Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 10–11; Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 365–66.

97. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair, 9–11; Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 181–86.

98. Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 29–36; Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 68–87; Debanné, Enthymemes, 54–55. Note here Nicholl, From Hope to Despair, 187–98, who develops an extensive argument for a setting of 2 Thessalonians within Paul’s ministry.

99. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, xxi; Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonians, 73.

100. For example, Mitchell, Paul, the Corinthians, 6–8, who argues for five different letters.

101. Harris, Second Epistle, 42–43, notes the large number of twentieth-century commentators and writers who have held to the hypothesis that chapters 1–13 constitute a single document, despite the arguments to the contrary of those who propose partition as the “scholarly consensus.”

102. Barnett, Corinthian Question, 232, raises the problem of beginnings and endings of letters being removed to form one letter, and the difficulty of understanding why that would have happened.

103. Harris, Second Epistle, 14.

104. Harris, Second Epistle, 27–29; see also Hall, Unity, 100–102.

105. So, Harris, Second Epistle, 64–67, dates 1 Corinthians to AD 55 and 2 Corinthians to AD 56. Witherington, Conflict & Community, 352, dates 1 Corinthians to 53 or 54, 2 Corinthians not before late 55, and probably in AD 56.

106. The following commentators all adopt dates for 1 Corinthians between AD 53 and 57: Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 43; Thiselton, First Epistle, 29–32; Garland, 1 Corinthians, 20.

107. The letter is generally dated to AD 56 to 58, although the precise dates are not critical to this study. So, Moo, Romans, 3; Kruse, Romans, 2; Jewett, Romans, 19–20.

108. Lampe, “Roman Christians,” 216–30.

109. Witherington, Philippians, 15–17; Fee, Philippians, 21–23; Alexander, “Hellenistic Letter-Forms,” 242–46.

110. Witherington, Philippians, 9–11; Fee, Philippians, 34–37; O’Brien, Philippians, 19–26.

111. Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language, 1.

112. On Barr’s critique, see also Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 106–28; Thiselton, “Semantics,” 80–85; Piñero and Peláez, Study of the New Testament, 457–63; Du Toit, “Contributions,” 295–303.

113. Thiselton, “Semantics,” 95–98.

114. Thiselton, “Semantics,” 76–78.

115. Thiselton, “Semantics,” 78–79.

116. Thiselton, “Semantics,” 85–88.

117. Thiselton, “Semantics,” 83–84. He notes here that Barr’s critique of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament relates not to word study per se, but “illegitimate totality transfer.”

118. Thiselton, “Semantics,” 80–82.

119. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 18.

120. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 25–26.

121. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 53–71.

122. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 64.

123. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 100–101.

124. Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 178.

125. Green, “Lexical Pragmatics,” 800.

126. Green, “Lexical Pragmatics,” 803–4. For further examples of this in practice, see Wilson, “Relevance Theory,” 136–39.

127. Green, “Lexical Pragmatics,” 806–7. For discussion of the relationship between metaphor, narrowing and relevance theory, see Wilson, “Relevance Theory,” 139–42; Wilson, “Relevance and Lexical Pragmatics,” 343–60. For an analysis of ad hoc meaning see Hanks, “Word Meanings Exist,” 125–34.

128. Green, “Lexical Pragmatics,” 807–8.

129. Green, “Lexical Pragmatics,” 808–12. See also Hanks, “Word Meanings,” 133.

130. Trebilco, Self-designations, 11–13; Adams, Constructing the World, 25–28.

131. Trebilco, “Creativity at the Boundary,” 201.

132. Piñero and Peláez, Study of the New Testament, 500.

133. In that sense, this is a study of the rhetoric in, not of, the bible. For this distinction see Amador, “Word Made Flesh,” 53–55.

134. I acknowledge that this is disputed territory. Lategan, “New Testament Hermeneutics,” 65–105, summarizes the hermeneutical issues relating to a historical, structural, or reader-response approach. See also Lampe, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 21, who argues that whether Paul used rhetorical elements deliberately is irrelevant, if the focus is on what the ancient recipients could detect.

135. For critiques of this approach see, for example, Weima, “What Does Aristotle,” 458–68; Porter and Dyer, “Oral Texts,” 323–41.

136. For a reconstruction of how this may have worked, see Richards, Paul and First-century, 201–9.

137. See, for example, Gupta, “Towards a Set of Principles,” 169–71; Aasgaard, Brothers and Sisters, 23–31. See also Dawes, Body in Question, 25–78, for a fuller interaction with various authors, again highlighting the importance of interpretation in context.

138. Gupta, “Towards a Set of Principles,” 171–75.

139. For a similar approach to metaphor that does not work within an explicit methodological framework, see Longenecker, “Metaphor of Adoption,” 71–78.