Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe

Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg) Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

296

Moral Language in the New Testament

The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in Early Christian Writings

Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik/ Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics

Volume II

Edited by Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. van der Watt

in Cooperation with Susanne Luther

Mohr Siebeck Ruben Zimmermann is Professor for New Testament Studies at the Johannes Guten- berg-University of Mainz.

Jan G.van der Watt is Professor for New Testament Studies at the Radboud-University of Nijmegen/NL.

Susanne Luther is currently research assistent (wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin) at the Chair of New Testament Studies of Professor Zimmermann at the Johannes Gutenberg- University of Mainz.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-1 51639 - 9 ISBN 978-3-16-150354-2 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio- graphie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

© 2010 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany. Foreword

This volume is the result of a “Humboldt-Kolleg” conference that was held at the University of Pretoria (South Africa) in September 2008 and was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt-Foundation (Germany). It was part of the joint research project of Jan van der Watt and Ruben Zimmer- mann on Ethics in the New Testament, which was undertaken in 2008 and supported by a Feodor Lynen-Fellowship of the Alexander von Humboldt- Foundation. This project is to be seen in the context of other research projects by the editors on Ethics in the Ancient World at the Universities of Mainz (Center for Ethics in Antiquity and Christianity) and Nijmegen. It represents the second volume in the series “Context and Norms of New Testament Eth- ics”. Among the various aspects of an “implicit ethics” in Early Christian writings the important role of language has often been underestimated. This volume specifically focuses on the relationship between language and ethical expression. The participants were asked to consider at least three aspects related to moral language: the intratextual level, the intertextual level and the extratextual level.

We would like to extend our gratitude to the Alexander von Humboldt- Foundation for their support and the University of Pretoria for providing the facilities. We would also like to thank Elise Henning for practical arrangements during the conference. Jutta Nennstiel and Susanne Luther were responsi- ble for the editing of this volume and deserve our sincere gratitude. Thanks also to Almuth Peiper and Charlotte Seiwerth, who helped with the indi- ces.

Jan G. D. van der Watt Mainz, July 2010 Ruben Zimmermann

Table of Contents

Foreword ...... V

Ruben Zimmermann / Susanne Luther Moral Language in the New Testament. An Introduction ...... 1

I. Ethics and Language

Ruben Zimmermann Ethics in the New Testament and Language: Basic Explorations and Eph 5:21–33 as Test Case ...... 19

Etienne de Villiers Defining Morality in Christian Ethics and the Study of New Testament Ethics ...... 51

Sean Freyne In Search of Identity: Narrativity, Discipleship and Moral Agency ...... 67

II. Jesus and the Gospels

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr Jesus’ “Conception of Man” as an Expression of his “Ethics” ...... 89

Matthias Konradt “Whoever humbles himself like this child ...” The Ethical Instruction in Matthew’s Community Discourse (Matt 18) and Its Narrative Setting ...... 105

Jan G. van der Watt Ethics through the Power of Language: Some Explorations in the Gospel according to John ...... 139 VIII Table of Contents

Kobus Kok As the Father has sent me, I send you: Towards a missional-incarnational Ethos in John 4 ...... 168

III. Pauline Literature

Hermut Löhr The Exposition of Moral Rules and Principles in Pauline Letters. Preliminary Observations on Moral Language in Earliest Christianity ...... 197

Jeremy Punt “Unethical” Language in the Pauline Letters? Stereotyping, Vilification and Identity Matters ...... 212

Friedrich Wilhelm Horn Putting on Christ: On the Relation of Sacramental and Ethical Language in the Pauline Epistles ...... 232

François S. Malan Moral Language in the New Testament: Language and Ethics in 2 Corinthians 3 ...... 245

Pieter G. R. de Villiers Moral Language in Philemon ...... 255

IV. Later New Testament and Early Christian Writings

Jörg Frey Disparagement as Argument: The Polemical Use of Moral Language in Second Peter ...... 275

Gert J. Steyn Some Possible Intertextual Influences from the Jewish Scriptures on the (Moral) Language of Hebrews ...... 311

Susanne Luther Protreptic Ethics in the Letter of James: The Potential of Figurative Language in Character Formation ...... 330

Lambert D. Jacobs

The “Ethics” of Badmouthing the Other: Vilification as Persuasive Speech Act in First Clement ...... 365

Table of Contents IX

V. Hermeneutical Questions

Richard A. Burridge Ethics and Genre: The Narrative Setting of Moral Language in the New Testament ...... 383

Elijah Mahlangu The Familial Metaphorical Language of Inclusion in the New Testament and HIV/AIDS Destigmatization in Africa ...... 397

Authors and Editors ...... 415

Index of References ...... 417

Index of Modern Authors ...... 435

Index of Subjects and Key Terms ...... 444

Moral Language in the New Testament An Introduction

RUBEN ZIMMERMANN / SUSANNE LUTHER

Morality requires language. Language carries ethical meaning. These two basic statements probably find general consensus, but ques- tions arise as soon as the interrelatedness of language and morality is specified. This volume proposes to address this problem and shed more light upon morality and language in the New Testament. In more concrete terms the following questions may be addressed: How do Ethics and Lan- guage belong together? Indeed, do they belong together at all? Does lan- guage have a special ethical value – or is morality related solely to particu- lar contents without being influenced by means of the linguistic medium in which it is communicated? Is there a certain form or genre of “moral lan- guage” – is, for instance, the imperative grammatical form the only way to express an ethical statement? Or can any grammatical form, or any form of language be used to communicate a sense of ought, or moral obligation?

1. Ethics and Language – Interactions

1.1 Ethics and Language – Two Contradictory Statements Putting the introductory questions into two contradictory statements, the subject of this volume may be defined with sharper clarity: 1.There is no language of ethics! 2. Language has always been ethical! “There is no language of ethics!” This first statement is based on a dis- tinction between language and ethics. “It is clear that ethics cannot be put into words. Ethics is transcendental.” By using such formulations in his Tractatus logico-philosophicus,1 the early Wittgenstein expresses his con- viction that statements must be logical and verifiable in order to satisfy scientific requirements. Ethical statements require no such logic or verifi- ability. Instead, they are based on non-rational value systems. Wittgenstein said, “In the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does

1 See Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (Suhrkamp-Edition 12; Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1963); cf. idem, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (trans. David F. Pears and Brian F. McGuinness; London: Routledge, 1971), 6.421, 147. 2 Ruben Zimmermann / Susanne Luther happen: in it no value exists – and if it did exist, it would have no value. If there is any value that does have value, it must lie outside the whole sphere of what happens and is the case.” (6.41) “Hence also there can be no ethi- cal propositions. Propositions cannot express anything higher.” (6.42) Questions related to values must be differentiated from propositions. Thus, in the end, language is immaterial for ethics – such are the conclu- sions of linguistic philosophy. Having a brief look at various works on “The Ethics of the New Testa- ment,” one might get the impression that this assessment also largely re- flects the opinions of the exegetes. Schrage speaks of Jesus’ “eschatologi- cal” ethics or “The Christological ethics of Paul;”2 in The Moral World, Meeks speaks of “social setting” and “Christian communities;”3 Marxsen searches for the origins of so-called “Christian ethics” among the various “ethics of the New Testament.”4 And these are only a few prominent repre- sentatives. The language and the linguistic form of ethics is not considered on its own because ethics relate completely to particular contents of indi- vidual writings, to one sociologically-definable community situation or to statements of faith or a theological concept in its entirety. “Language has always been ethical!” This second statement advocates the identification of language and ethics. This is clearly supported by the theme of this volume (and the corresponding conference), Moral Language in the New Testament, though not yet endorsed entirely. This title is an allusion to an epoch-changing work on meta-ethics – namely, Richard Mervyn Hare’s book, first published in 1952, The Language of Morals,5 in which he intends to prove, in the context of analytical-philosophical issues, that moral statements do indeed possess logic – or in other words – that there are ethical statements. Ethics makes use of particular statements that should be analysed with regard to their logic and structure. However, our second statement goes far beyond Hare. Ethics do not simply make use of linguistic statements; ethics occur in and through lan- guage. We act simply by speaking – this is an approximation of Austin’s

2 See Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament (trans. David E. Green; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1988). In a similar way also Eduard Lohse, Theologische Ethik des Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1988) including an analysis of the traditional background. 3 See Wayne A. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians (LEC 6; Philadel- phia: Westminster Press, 1986), here chapter 1: “The Social Setting” (19-39); chapter 4: “The Christian Communities” (97-123). 4 See Willi Marxsen, “Christliche” und christliche Ethik im Neuen Testament (Gü- tersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1989). 5 See Richard M. Hare, The Language of morals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964). Moral Language in the New Testament. An Introduction 3 well-known statement, “how to do things with words”6. Thus, completely independent of particular contents, structures and faith statements, lan- guage has always had an ethical dimension, related as it is to human ac- tion, to human action; language itself is a part of ethics.

1.2 A Linguistic Turn in New Testament Ethics? The purpose of this volume is to find a pathway between these two ex- tremes: the strict separation between language and ethics on the one hand, and their identification on the other. We would like to formulate a middle position that reflects the fundamental conviction providing the initial moti- vation for the Humboldt-Kolleg – that the ethics of the New Testament is linguistically constituted; it occurs in and through language. When we think about actions and their motives in the New Testament, and then want to communicate about this, we need language. To be precise, we are con- cerned here with meta-ethics – reflection upon ethics. However, we are not concerned only with the “language of morals,” or more precisely, with the meta-ethical question of the meaning of language in an “ethics of the New Testament” approach; instead, we are concerned with “moral language” in an extended sense, with linguistic statements in the New Testament that possess an ethical dimension in both context and effect. Regardless of whether we are talking about the New Testament and its moral claims in present-day ethical discourse, or whether we ourselves turn to the statements of the New Testament that fulfil an ethical dimen- sion on the level of a narrative or a letter, we are always dealing with lan- guage. The ethical dimension is accessible to us only by means of lan- guage – or more precisely – by means of the text. Thus, we have no other option: if we turn to the New Testament with ethical questions, then we turn to texts. Even if we concentrate our ethical reflection on such main ideas as “love” and “justice,” on the factual or fictional communicative situation, or on the sociological question of the “lived ethos,” we must al- ways begin with texts and must involve them in ethical reflection.

1.3 Three Dimensions of the Interrelatedness Apart from many interesting insights from the field of meta-ethics, we will not narrow our subject to a certain question of moral philosophy. Investi- gating moral language in the New Testament must serve to foster a better understanding of ethics in the New Testament in general. According to our point of view, three overlapping aspects can be distinguished, which may be helpful for the interpretation of concrete New Testament texts: an intra-

6 John L. Austin, How to do Things with Words (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer- sity Press, 1962). 4 Ruben Zimmermann / Susanne Luther textual level (linguistic and analytic philosophical methods: syntactical form, style and logic), a textual and intertextual level (form criticism, dis- course analysis) and an extra-textual level (speech-act analysis; rhetorical criticism; reader-response criticism). a) Intra-textual level (linguistic and analytic philosophical methods) On a first level, we can ask which aspects of syntactical form, style and logic are used in ethical statements. As Hare has pointed out, there are sev- eral forms of imperatives; but imperatives are not the only form of moral language. There are implicit imperatives; there is the complex difference between “is-” and “ought to/should-“sentences and between prescriptive and descriptive moral language; there are narrative, metaphoric, ironic texts, etc., which convey morality within their specific style. Why do we consider a certain text “ethical”? Where does the ethical quality of a statement come from? Which linguistic devices are used to express ethics in the New Testament writings? All of these questions sur- face in an intra-textual reading. b) Textual and intertextual level (form criticism, discourse analysis) The form of a certain text unit (on a macro- and micro-level) influences its meaning and moral quality. We can find a variety of genres in the New Testament, and each of them creates ethics in a certain way (e.g. parable, virtue list, hardship catalogue, household-code). According to genre the- ory, a form can only be found by comparison with other texts; moral texts are part of an intertextual system. However, intertextuality cannot be tied solely to genre. Ethical texts are – as any other texts – built within the ten- sion of reception and production, and include “tradition” as well as “inno- vation.” In which way does the genre of the text influence its ethical meaning? Which pretexts and intertexts are part of the ethical statements, and in which way does the text refer to them (e.g. the law)? c) Extra-textual level (but still in relation to the text – speech act analysis, rhetorical criticism, reader-response criticism) Texts are part of communication. As already Bühler and later Searle and Austin have pointed out, we do things with words. Texts are part of practi- cal ethics and play a formative role in the ethos of a community. What ethical impact did texts have, and currently do texts have, on their readers? Which linguistic and rhetorical style is used to connect with the addressees? Why do we consider a text powerful or polemical? Can we speak of an implicit ethical subject within the text? Moral Language in the New Testament. An Introduction 5

Of course the separation of these sections is primarily a heuristic effort, and the overlapping of various aspects is evident in interpreting concrete texts. However, all contributions refer to at least one of these aspects; while some concentrate on one, others try to deal with two or three aspects.

2. The Contributions

The first three contributions deal with methodological and conceptional aspects. In “Ethics in the New Testament and Language: Basic Explora- tions and Eph 5:21–33 as Test Case,” Ruben Zimmermann maps the field of language and ethics. He expounds on the distinction between “ethos/morals” and “ethics” and focuses on two aspects of New Testament ethics in particular: on “ethos remembered” (the ethos of a group rooted in the behaviours and rituals, put down in texts of certain genres, which allow the communication and reflection in order to exert an identity-building function) and on “implicit ethics” (as opposed to ethics as a systematic- theoretical examination of the lived ethos). Investigating the “implicit eth- ics” of the New Testament Scriptures is argued to involve the examination of the norms and maxims for action mentioned in the text, their traditional and contemporary context, the logic (i.e. the hierarchy) of values, the ethi- cal argument and structure of the motives, the carrier of ethical judgements or moral agent, the concrete ethos corresponding to or contradicting the ethical argument and the field of application. First, however, it involves the analysis of the linguistic forms in which ethical statements are pre- sented. As New Testament ethics are set down in textual form, the exami- nation must focus on textuality. Taking up the three levels of interrelated- ness between ethics and language (i.e. intra-textual, intertextual and extra- textual level) Zimmermann offers some examples for the different forms of ethical language in the New Testament: the imperative mood and the inter- nal structure or logic of the ethical statement are discussed on the intra- textual level, form and genre on the inter-textual level, and speech-act analysis of language on the extra-textual level. Finally, the house-hold ta- ble of Eph 5:21–33 is taken as a test case on which the merit of the lan- guage based approach on ethics is demonstrated, and the statement that ethics is based on language is corroborated from the analysis of the text. Etienne de Villiers, in “Defining Morality in Christian Ethics and the Study of New Testament Ethics,” makes a case against a one-sided and exclusive reliance on analytical moral philosophy. In defining morality in both the study of the moral language of the New Testament and Christian ethics, he advocates taking as the starting point a comprehensive account of the New Testament on the nature and shape of the original conceptions 6 Ruben Zimmermann / Susanne Luther of Christian morality in the early Christian church. Based on the observa- tion that New Testament scholars tend to turn to analytical moral philoso- phy in order to attain value-free, objective, universally valid concepts and distinctions as analytical tools for the study of the moral language or mo- rality of Christians, De Villiers provides an overview of the meta-ethical discussion in English analytical philosophy on the nature and definition of moral language. He thus refers especially to C. L. Stevenson, R. M. Hare and G. E. Moore and their quest for a purely formal definition of morality, as well as to opposed approaches of G. J. Warnock, W. K. Frankena and especially K. Bayertz, who denies the feasibility of providing a universally valid, objective definition, but regards the endeavor as historically and culturally multifaceted, variable and never neutral. In conclusion, De Vil- liers states that the diversity and divergence in defining morality in analyt- ical moral philosophy should advise New Testament scholars and Christian ethicists against attempting to formulate a neutrally descriptive definition of morality, which is then applied to Christian morality or the moral lan- guage in the New Testament. His suggested approach finds its point of departure in the New Testament texts, which apart from providing guide- lines for action, include a comprehensive vision of the Christian life. Sean Freyne’s essay, “In Search of Identity: Narrativity, Discipleship and Moral Agency,” investigates the significance of the relationship be- tween agency and action for moral discourse and concentrates on an inter- textual reading of Mark and John, focusing on their treatment of Jesus’ disciples from the perspective of the prescriptive and descriptive role of narrative in the development of human self-identity. Freyne’s methodology is based on the approach of Paul Ricœur’s model of selfhood with the ten- sion between Idem and Ipse, permanence and change, self and the other. Freyne suggests that the acquired character traits of the disciples as Gali- lean fishermen contributed to their failure to understand and appreciate the possibilities and challenges for a new selfhood that Jesus was offering them. The Johannine notion of “being true to one’s word” converges with Ricœur’s model of permanence over time once the Ipse has been freed from the constraints of the Idem and implies the role of the other in form- ing moral identity. The contrast between the Markan and Johannine repre- sentation of the disciples that emerges in their narratives, despite their con- formity concerning the imitatio Christi, is dependent on differences in their perception of the main character, Jesus. Freyne argues that in order for this narrative approach to identity-formation to lead to a narrative approach to Christian ethics, the stress of New Testament ethics must be put on the agent, rather than the content, in order to discern how a Christian self- identity is constructed and maintained. The consideration of the Idem-Ipse tension is presented as a fruitful way to explore this issue, with the inter- Moral Language in the New Testament. An Introduction 7 esting result that Christian moral agency is formed in different ways and with different consequences. The next section of the volume focuses on moral language in the Jesus tradition and the Gospels. As the title promises, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr’s contribution, “Jesus’ ‘Conception of Man’ as an Expression of his ‘Eth- ics,’” explores the relation between Jesus’ anthropology and the expression of his “ethics” as manifested in his ministry. By way of interpreting the contours of the ministry and the person of Jesus, i.e. by understanding the narrative complexes as an expression of an ethical intention, Jesus’ ethical orientation is determined. Niebuhr identifies three contexts of Jesus’ min- istry, which are definitive for his conception of man: the scope of creation (God as Creator and Father), the scope of Israel (the promises of the resto- ration; the 12 disciples as representing the tribes of Israel) and the scope of the Eschaton (impending judgement). From these bases his ethics develop, which are generally based upon the assumption of God’s beneficial will for his people and the modelling of their attitude of love founded upon God’s example. The fulfilment of God’s will is even represented in the final judgement, which constitutes the primary loving objective of ethical ad- monition and warning. Jesus’ ministry addresses first of all those marginal- ized from society with the effect of giving them life, which centres in the gift of eschatological communion with God and is characterized by the essential aspect of its surrender to the kingdom of God. This is regarded a main principle of Jesus’ ethics: the story of his life of austerity and depri- vation, and his death on the cross, tell of the surrender of his life for oth- ers. Through his example, the principle of surrendering one’s life was in- stilled into Christian ethics – an ethics of mimesis. Thus the narrated min- istry of Jesus text-pragmatically has the function of an implicit impulse for action, forms a “role model ethics,” which is theologically loaded through the narrative structures of the Jesus story. Matthias Konradt’s main thesis in his contribution, “‘Whoever humbles himself like this child …’: The Ethical Instruction in Matthew’s Commu- nity Discourse (Matt 18) and Its Narrative Setting,” is that the ethics of the Gospel of Matthew cannot be sufficiently comprehended by just consider- ing the passages which explicitly convey ethical teaching and instruction. Matthew rather conveys his ethics by constructing a narrative world, through which the foundations of his worldview are articulated, within which his ethical convictions are embedded and from which they gain their plausibility. This is illustrated by an analysis of Matt 18, read within the wider context of the communication process that encompasses the entire gospel. The analysis demonstrates that the ethical instruction – Jesus im- presses an ethos of humility or lowliness on his disciples – is closely linked to the narrative context, as the thematic focus of the Christological 8 Ruben Zimmermann / Susanne Luther story constitutes the basis for, substantiates and informs the ethical state- ments in this chapter. Matt 18:1–5 is presented as an example for convey- ing strong ethical imperatives by means of descriptive language, thus es- tablishing the ethical guideline of the following discourse. This strategy in turn corroborates the proposition through illustrative metaphorical and parabolic language, which allows the reader to interact in reaction to rhe- torical questions or through identification with the personae dramatis, thus conveying ethical guidance. Konradt demonstrates the importance of relat- ing Matthew’s ethical admonitions with the Gospel story: the evangelist’s ethical convictions form an integral part of his worldview, which in turn is unfolded in the narration of a story. This is why the Christological perspec- tive, his notion of God and Jesus (as merciful shepherd) and his anthropo- logical presupposition that human beings are dependent on God’s mercy constitute the foundation of his ethical argumentation. Jan G. van der Watt, in “Ethics through the Power of Language: Some Explorations in the Gospel according to John,” examines the influence of language on the dynamics of ethics and the way the author of John’s Gos- pel uses language to attain his ethical goals. The ethical system of John is characterized as primarily relational and grounded in Christology; i.e. ac- tions are embedded in identity, and ethics are inextricably linked with ac- cepting the faith in Jesus. Hence, ethical material is even to be found in the performative text, John 20:30–31, which formulates a central purpose of the Gospel: to lead the readers to faith in Jesus or to strengthen their faith through the words of the Gospel. John 8 serves as the basic text for an analysis of the ethical function of language in John. Among the linguistic techniques employed, the use of ethical topics or particular words and combinations of words (phrases and propositions) with ethical meanings are mentioned. Likewise, the ethical implications of literary features such as irony and contextual-semantic influences upon the meaning of a word, of breaks in the structure of the argument (open spaces, discontinuous and conflicting dialogue), of proverbial statements and of characterization, vilification of characters, forensic language and imagery are explored. It becomes clear that a large variety of not specifically ethical linguistic de- vices are employed to support ethical argumentation in giving the text an informative and simultaneously performative nature, serving to advance the Gospel’s communicative goal(s). Thus, although the close connection between form and content is evident, it is the content (conveyed through the vocabulary used), not the linguistic or rhetorical strategy, which func- tions as the decisive element informing the ethical dimension of a text. However, in order to identify ethical language, the pertinent “language codes” are to be taken into consideration, as communication is itself based upon social conventions. Moral Language in the New Testament. An Introduction 9

In his essay, “As the Father has sent me, I send you: Towards a mis- sional-incarnational Ethos in John 4,” Kobus Kok demonstrates that Jesus embodied a missional-incarnational ethos, which is conveyed through the inclusive moral language of the Johannine narratives, and which implicitly formulates the imperative ethical paradigm for his followers to imitate: Jesus’ unconditional love-ethics in their continued mission. Kok employs the narrative of Jesus and the Samaritan woman (John 4) to illustrate how ethics and the motivation of a particular conduct (ethos) is conveyed through narrative. Through the construction of a virtual reality, the actual world, replete with conventional perceptions and norms, can be changed by constructing a new worldview and thus establishing a new basis of un- derstanding and motivation. In John soteriology implies re-socialization and partaking in a new social reality; the new common identity of the fol- lowers of Jesus becomes now the new basis for their conduct, their ethos. In linking John 4 to the Johannine sending motif and the imperative of the missional ethos of Jesus’ followers (John 20:21), Kok integrates the micro- narrative of the Samaritan woman within the ethical dimension of the macro-narrative of the Gospel, thus arguing that John 4 implies the impera- tive of the embodiment of a Christ-like ethos, which is based on the under- standing of God’s loving mission in the world, and that Jesus’ mission is by implication the mission of his followers, who are to imitate Jesus’ love- ethics in their continuing mission. This ethical dimension of mission is explained as a reaction to the linguistic statement of John 20:21 and is characterized as an ‘MRI-ethos:’ missional, relational and incarnational. Kok presents the missional-incarnational ethos conveyed through the narr- ative in John 4 as an imperative for the church’s self-understanding, as a missional-incarnational spirituality and ethos results in a dynamic mis- sional movement. As the Pauline Letters are concerned with concrete problems in the life of the congregations the linguistic devices Paul uses to appeal to his audi- ence are of special interest. The following section wants to address the Pauline Writings, the first two essays in a more general way, the following by focussing on one special metaphor (“putting on Christ”), on one par- ticular writing (Philemon), and on one specific text (2 Cor 3). Hermut Löhr, in “The Exposition of Moral Rules and Principles in Pauline Letters: Preliminary Observations on Moral Language in Earliest Christianity,” analyses the language of the Pauline letters with a view to its linguistic and rhetorical means of conveying moral instruction. The de- scription of the moral language, the exposition of arguments, the terms and categories employed and the rhetorical techniques applied, e.g. of the manner of linguistic presentation of ethical statements, are presented as essential for understanding the relation between theology and ethics in 10 Ruben Zimmermann / Susanne Luther

Pauline thought. Repetition and extension, generalization, the argumenta- tive application of general and abstract (elementary and conventional) norms and virtues or theological concepts are identified as rhetorical means that serve the purpose of conveying basic moral rules and princi- ples. The use of general and abstract terminology in Paul’s moral language has its counterweight in the use of personification, where the ethical dis- course is transferred from the level of authoritative instruction and obedi- ence to set norms to the level of recommendation and self-responsibility and personal commitment resulting from personal choice. The reference to his apostolic authority and presentation of himself or Christ as an ethical example is an important strategy of Pauline argumentative persuasion. Moreover, the introduction of gradations of the general rules discussed, as well as the recognition of a concept of moral progress in Pauline literature, counters any oversimplification evoked through generalization. Löhr’s contribution illustrates that an analysis of the moral language used in the letters of Paul can help identify basic moral rules and lead to an under- standing of their implicit ethics, although there is no systematic ethical reflection or general theory, nor even a fixed set of values, to be found. Pauline ethics can be characterized as implied ethics, oscillating between authoritative ethics based on specific or general rules and ethics relying on responsible reflection and choice of the individual. Jeremy Punt’s contribution on “‘Unethical’ Language in the Pauline let- ters?: Stereotyping, Vilification and Identity Matters” locates the use of stereotype and vilifying language of the New Testament within the rhetori- cal conventions of antiquity, ascribing to “unethical” language the inten- tion of negotiating identity, of marking out identity of self and others, of defining the self through others. Since the identity in Christ constituted the new ethos, Paul was deeply concerned with negotiating this identity – both through ethical considerations and admonition and through his use of the language of stereotyping. Focusing on Galatians, Punt describes Paul’s use of stereotype and vilifying language and discusses its purpose, strategies and consequences. Owing to the situational context of insider-outsider con- flicts, Paul intends to deride his opponents by explicit and implicit vilifica- tion, through which he seeks to persuade his audience to accept and affirm their views against those of their opponents. The pragmatic purpose of the invocation of racial and ethnic categories, of stereotyped “othering,” curse rhetoric and stereotypical sexual slander is the negotiation (invention and maintenance) of categories of social identity, accompanied by Paul’s at- tempts at re-establishing his position in and his (social) control over the community. Punt situates these intentions within the context of imperial ideology and hegemony, and the latter’s influence on early Christian dis- course, and he concludes that the dominated are forced to use the language Moral Language in the New Testament. An Introduction 11 of the dominators, despite the danger of implicating themselves. Thus, vili- fying and stereotyping language is not opposed to identity, community and morality; rather, it controls the construction and negotiation of all three. Starting from Rudolf Bultmann’s distinction between indicative and imperative, Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, in “Putting on Christ: On the Rela- tion of Sacramental and Ethical Language in the Pauline Epistles,” elabo- rates on imagery encountered twice in the Pauline epistles that speaks of “putting on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 13:14) and “putting on Christ” (Gal 3:27) – the first statement being situated in an ethical context and the second in a sacramental one. While Gal 3:26–28 denotes baptism as a place where the separation into different religious, social, and gender groups is abolished, and unity among the baptized is generated by the new garment – Christ, the ethical-eschatological admonition of Rom 13:11–14 calls the addressees to cast off the works of darkness and to “put on” the Lord Jesus Christ. In contrast to Gal 3:27, putting on Christ is regarded as an action to be performed consistently, not only once in the context of baptism. Whereas secondary literatures has so far assigned both statements to the imperative and indicative mood, respectively, Horn postulates that the ethical use of the metaphor cannot be explained by the indicative- imperative model. As both the argumentation of Rom 13:11–14 and the context of Gal 3:27 lack any reference to a preceding indicative, Horn ex- plains the usage of the metaphor through the notion of a participatory Christology: “putting on Christ” implies embracing the reality of Christ and also the continuation of life in the presence of the elevated Christ. The distinctively Pauline use of the metaphor is characterized by the underly- ing conception of a participatory Christology, which encompasses the en- tire Christian life. Thus the metaphor must be regarded as an essential component of Pauline ethical argumentation and as the fundamental basis of all ethics. In “Moral Language in the New Testament: Language and Ethics in 2 Cor 3,” François S. Malan sets out to detect an ethical dimension directed towards the addressees of 2 Corinthians in Paul’s defence of his ministry. Although the text is not characterized by imperatives, prohibitions and prescriptions, an analysis of the rhetorical devices used by the apostle and the different levels of speech-act theory allow the detection of the implied moral impact of 2 Cor 3. Among the rhetorical devices used, Malan cites the repeated use of the pluralis sociativus, which bears on the motivation and direction of beliefs and behaviour. Initiating the discourse with two rhetorical questions (vv. 1–2), which engage the readers, the metaphorical depiction of the congregation as letter of Christ (v. 3) sensitizes them to live up to their responsibility. Paul’s defence of his adequacy as an apostle (vv. 4–6) implies the responsibility of the addressees to live according to 12 Ruben Zimmermann / Susanne Luther their status as God’s covenant partners in opposition to the Israelites (vv. 12–18). Vv. 7–11 state the empowerment of the congregation through the Spirit and challenge them to adapt their way of life to the example of Christ. Malan concludes that while 2 Cor 3 viewed from its context is an apologia for Paul’s ministry, its subtext is an appeal to the Corinthians to live up to their new identity. Paul directs them through such rhetorical methods as the conventional logical argument of “from the lesser to the greater,” the devices of antithesis and repetition or the climactic structure of the argumentation, by appealing to their responsibility towards God and the world, and through indirect warnings. The transformation of the ad- dressees’ hearts and minds is described as the progressive maturation of the believer – becoming more and more like Christ. In his contribution on “Moral Language in Philemon,” Pieter G. R. de Villiers argues that the letter to Philemon is not only a personal letter ad- dressing the specific problem of reconciling Philemon with his slave, One- simus, but a letter written to a house church, which has a collective moral impact with moral implications for a number of people within the Pauline missionary team and the house churches. Philemon’s behavior affected the ethos of the community of believers in challenging established relation- ships between members who shared a social system, thus motivating moral reflection. The letter provides insights in the identity and ethos of early Christianity, especially the Pauline tradition, and it can be read in the light of the relation between individual and social ethics. It does not provide a systematic-theoretical reflection on the ethos of the community, but prac- tical advice, expressed in metaphorical and implicit moral language. Apart from referring to ethical matters and binding norms and values explicitly (Phlm 8, 9, 14), the norms of fellowship, faith and love must be extracted from implicit references (e.g. in Phlm 4–7). By means of descriptive lan- guage Paul stresses the significance of certain norms and values and presents them as exemplary, thus hoping to stabilize the ethos of the churches and implicitly providing moral guidance. The ethical arguments Paul employs are not only deontological, but they also show a teleological focus. De Villiers also focuses on the motif of mission, stating that at the centre of Paul’s missionary work and preaching were reconciliation and salvation; this leads to the conclusion that the inclusive nature of Paul’s missionary work also functioned as an ethical norm. The ethical communi- cation in Philemon therefore goes beyond situational ethics, reflecting un- iversally valid norms and values that were based on the inclusive nature of the gospel and its implications for conduct in interpersonal relationships. The following passage groups several essays that look at various aspects of the interrelatedness between language and ethics in the later New Tes- tament and Early Christian writings. Jörg Frey’s contribution, “Dispar- Moral Language in the New Testament. An Introduction 13 agement as Argument: The Polemical Use of Moral Language in Second Peter,” demonstrates that the introduction of the so-called “false teachers” in 2 Peter 2:1–22 with polemical language and rhetorical standard charges serves the purpose of vilifying his opponents’ and disparaging their con- duct and character. Although the predominant issues between the author of 2 Peter and his opponents are addressed in the light of eschatological ex- pectation, the hope for the parousia and the reliability of the prophetic word, the opponents are accused of immoral behavior within an extensive polemic. They are described as people of not only dangerous and errone- ous teaching but also morally corrupt conduct and an animal-like, evil na- ture, whose eschatological condemnation is already certain. Frey interprets the rhetorical technique in 2 Peter 2 as used primarily for vilification and disparagement in preparation for the theological argument in 2 Pet 3:1–13, as a literary construct which might represent the author’s own views and interests more than the actual conduct and nature of the real-life oppo- nents. Thus, the disparagement of the opponents serves as an additional “argument” in the theological struggle for the “true” apostolic teaching. The essay considers such an “argument” as questionable, historically, theo- logically and also morally. While polemical vilification of opponents was a customary rhetorical device in antiquity, 2 Peter 2 cannot merely be ex- plained as an example of an ancient polemical convention, for “moral lan- guage” and high moral claims are used for rather immoral purposes – de- humanizing polemics always convey an inhuman and destructive force. Gert J. Steyn bases his contribution, “Some Possible Intertextual Influ- ences from the Jewish Scriptures on the (Moral) Language of Hebrews,” on the assumption that – as in Judaism and Christianity religion and moral- ity were closely associated – the Jewish Scriptures and their interpretation are of essential importance as intertexts for the composition of moral texts in the New Testament. Focusing on Hebrews, Steyn first engages with possible intertextual influences on the language and theology of Hebrews from the moral language of the Decalogue and other laws, and can demon- strate that traces of the moral language are adopted, but reinterpreted in the light of the Christ-event. Second, narrative intertexts, which represent a commemoration of the exemplary behaviour of characters from Jewish history, are investigated and their possible influence of the commemoratio of Heb 10–12 is described as serving as a general model for the readers concerning their faith and perseverance despite their present difficult situa- tion. Third, two of the maxim-like ethical formulas of Heb 13 (vv. 2, 5, the maxim-like formulas on entertaining strangers and against avarice), are compared with Jewish festival traditions. Just as Ps 118(117) was con- nected with the Passover, and Deut 31 with the Sabbatical Year and with the Feast of Tents, Hebrews might have been influenced by these Scriptur- 14 Ruben Zimmermann / Susanne Luther al intertexts linked with Jewish festival traditions. Steyn’s analysis of the moral language of Hebrews illustrates that the Jewish Scriptures wielded an important intertextual influence during the compilation of the letter, as did also other early Christian documents on different levels: unintentional or subconscious influence (implicit reference) with regard to law texts, intentional and conscious influence (explicit influence) as far as narrative intertexts and liturgical traditions in connection with the Jewish festival traditions are concerned. Susanne Luther, in “Protreptic Ethics in the Letter of James: The Poten- tial of Figurative Language in Character Formation,” focuses on the extent to which, and in which forms, the linguistic and psychological potential of metaphoric and generally figurative language was used in early Christian- ity and which function and significance are assigned to figurative lan- guage, illumined by the argumentative context of the “post-conversional discourse” in enhancing ethical admonition and teaching. With a focus on the Letter of James, two distinctive dimensions are developed: first, it is claimed that the ethical instruction conveyed is not paraenetic but protrep- tic, i.e. the letter does not primarily communicate specific explicit rules for concrete actions but rather advice on character formation. Second, James is not intent on conveying ethical standards by imposing prescriptive instruc- tion via cognitive discernment but aims at a radical and lasting ameliora- tion of character through the formal conveyance of ethics by means of figurative language. An exemplary range of Jacobean passages is presented to provide an overview of the form and function of figurative devices used, such as metaphors, moral agents, macarisms, parables and an ekphrasis. Moreover, the congruence of form, content and pragmatic purport charac- teristic of the author’s ethical teaching is demonstrated. The argumentation proceeds on a meta-level and is corroborated by figurative language, which both cooperate in advancing ethical instruction with a focus on character formation and intend to prepare within the recipients the foundation, the ethical grounding, for subsequent concrete admonitions and instructions. It is the formation of character which is aimed at – on the figurative level as well as through the kind of ethics conveyed within the entire argumenta- tive text – as the main stress concerning ethical instruction in the Letter of James is on protreptic ethics. In “The ‘Ethics’ of Badmouthing the Other: Vilification as Persuasive Speech Act in First Clement” Lambert D. Jacobs sets out to show by refer- ence to examples from 1 Clem in what ways the author used invective, vilifying language as a pragmatic rhetorical device in order to harm his opponents and to warn and direct his addressees to act in the right way. Considering the vilification within speech-act perspective, Jacobs asks how the language in 1 Clem achieved its goals of badmouthing and dero- Moral Language in the New Testament. An Introduction 15 gating its opponents. Accusations of hypocrisy and deceit, means of belit- tling the strength and appearance of the opponents by describing them as few, young and of no repute, accusations of arrogance and boastfulness, the charge of blasphemy, the adversaries’ portrayal as dark, shadowy char- acters with the intent of deliberately blurring their personalities, the accu- sation of their evil influence through sorcery, alleging their moral deprav- ity in sexual or financial or moral conduct and their intention of leading the addressees astray and their association with dubious historical charac- ters are presented as rhetorical means of vilifying the opponents and dis- couraging the audience from being associated with such people as those described. Apart from the vilification through ridiculing the opponents as persons, 1 Clem disparages their thinking and teaching, which is presented as ludicrous, limited and foolish. The argumentation of the letter is exam- ined and found corroborated with Scripture citations and warnings in the light of the impending Eschaton and the judgement of God, which both serve as admonitions to the addressees. Jacobs elucidates the rhetorical skill of the author of 1 Clem by highlighting his vilifying techniques, such as continuously showing the offenders in a bad light and caricaturing them as dubious figures, with the intention of warning his own community of addressees against the opponents and against conduct that models the con- duct of the opponents, seeking by contrast to define the correct conduct. The means employed to this intent are speech acts that serve the strategy of vilification. The last section includes two contributions that demonstrate the possi- ble impact of New Testament moral language on current ethical problems in South Africa, where the corresponding conference took place. Richard A. Burridge’s contribution on “Ethics and Genre: The Narrative Setting of Moral Language in the New Testament” pursues a twofold quest: it sets out to analyse which means of reading the ethical demands of the New Testament led to the distinctive use of the Bible by the Dutch Reformed Church during apartheid in South Africa, as well as which role it played in the struggle for liberation, as a test case for how the New Testament is ap- plied to ethics today. Burridge applies his biographical approach to Jesus and the gospels to ethical debates in stressing that in order to live up to the ethical demand of the gospel, Jesus’ ethical teaching must be grounded in his practical example, and his words must be considered, as well as his deeds, in the reconstruction of New Testament ethics. Based upon his analysis of the biographical genre of the gospels, he pleads for an ethics of imitating Jesus’ words and deeds thus hearing the biblical teachings within the context of an open and inclusive community, which includes the ex- periences of those marginalized from society (black and coloured people, women, homosexuals etc.) and is open to “voices of protest.” 16 Ruben Zimmermann / Susanne Luther

Elijah Mahlangu, in “The Familial Metaphorical Language of Inclusion in the New Testament and HIV/AIDS Destigmatization in Africa,” sug- gests that the immense social problems of stigmatization and discrimina- tion in connection with the AIDS pandemic in Africa should be addressed from a theological point of view with recourse to the familial metaphorical language used in the New Testament to describe the church, the family of God. By exploring five major perspectives of the use of familial language in the New Testament (Mark, Luke-Acts, Matthew, John and Paul), Mah- langu demonstrates that those living with HIV and AIDS can be affirmed by the ethical and moral language encountered in the New Testament to address the stigma associated with the disease. The stigma, which is de- scribed as a social construction relating to a deviation from an ideal or ex- pectation, leads to discrimination, rejection and exclusion. The New Tes- tament familial language of inclusion, however, can provide an interpreta- tive paradigm that might help to deconstruct the stigma and include people living with HIV/AIDS as part of God’s family: PLWHA can identify with those ostracized in the Gospels or find a new community in the ecclesiolo- gy expressed in metaphors like God as Father, Jesus as healer, God’s fami- ly etc. The metaphors of kinship language reveal an ethic of inclusion, which communicates the gospel’s message and conveys ethical instruction on how Christians should treat each other: as members of God’s family. Mahlangu stresses the practicability of this approach in indicating parallels between the ethics of God’s family in the New Testament and traditional African family ethics. I. Ethics and Language

Ethics in the New Testament and Language: Basic Explorations and Eph 5:21–33 as Test Case1

RUBEN ZIMMERMANN

The New Testament is a collection of texts. Thus we cannot speak about ethics in the New Testament without taking the textual medium into ac- count. Due to the dependence on texts, ethical discourse is called on to take a special look at the linguistic nature of the ethics of the New Testa- ment. However, such study is astonishingly infrequent within the literature on ethics of the New Testament.2 After a few remarks on the basic terms in the ethical discourse I will, first, demonstrate the role of language within other ethical aspects, which build a grid of “implicit ethics.” Taking up the three levels of interrelated- ness between ethics and language (i.e. intratextual, intertextual and ex- tratextual level), I will secondly offer some examples for the different forms of ethical language in the New Testament. Finally, and thirdly, the house-hold table of Eph 5:21–33 is taken as a test case, on which the merit of the language based approach on ethics can be demonstrated.

1. Terminological and Methodological Approach

The issue “moral language” requires clarity on the meaning of the term “moral.” More general all of the terms used within ethical discourse like “ethics,” “ethos,” and “morals” have to be defined, even more, because they are often used without providing a more precise definition. What do we mean when we speak of “ethics” or “morality” etc.? In which way does “language” play a role in this? Even though many of the contributors use the terms “ethics” and “ethos” precisely and reflectively, I think that it is valuable to begin a vol-

1 This paper is based on the introductory paper of the Humboldt-Kolleg-Conference in September 2008 in Pretoria/SA. The oral style of the paper has been kept in this arti- cle. 2 See the survey on most recent ethics by Richard B. Hays, “Mapping the Field: Approaches to New Testament Ethics,” in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testa- ment (ed. Jan van der Watt; BZNW 141; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2006), 3–19.