Engaging the Bible in Mission Theology Scholarship: Scholarship, James M. Scott
This book proposes that a uniquely Jewish understanding of
geography, based on the Table of Nations in Genesis and variously explicated in
subsequent Jewish literature, provides understanding for Paul’s missionary
strategy as seen in Paul and Acts.
Conclusion on Hellenistic-Jewish literature: 3 senses of ev,qnh [ethnē, 'people, nation, Gentile'], in LXX: nations of the world, including
Israel; all the nations, distinct from Israel; individual Gentiles over against
the Jews (120). Three contexts for a
salvation-historical framework appear in this literature, as in the OT: Table
of Nations; Abrahamic Promise; Covenant with Israel. Israel occupies a central position among the
nations (Gen. 10 and 1 Chr. 1.1-2.2).
The Abrahamic promise ‘sets in motion a trajectory whose ultimate
fulfillment takes place in the time of Israel’s Restoration, when Israel will
again become a great nation, and all nations (i.e., those listed in the Table
of Nations) will be blessed in Abraham and his seed’ (121). Israel ‘languishes in protracted exile among
the nations, anticipating that day when God will restore her fortunes and
gather all nations to himself’ (121).
This latter is well developed in Qumranic literature (4Q385-389
4-6.2-10. Qumran saw itself as the
remnant returned from Exile (4QdibHam 5.1-14).
Paul:
Usage: ev,qnh [ethnē] is used of nations, including Israel (Gal. 3.8, citing Gen.
12.3). Israel is frequently called a lao,j [laos, 'people'].
Paul uses ev,qnh [ethnē] of the Gentile
nations, but he never uses the singular for a ‘Gentile’—instead he uses {Ellhn [Hellēn, 'Greek'] (123).
Paul’s use of the OT/Jewish Concept of ;Eqnh [ethnē]: ‘all Israel’ means all 12 tribes
in Rom. 11.26, since Paul identifies himself in Rom. 11.1 as from Benjamin and
is arguing that a remnant of Israel has already come to faith (p. 127, n.
472). ‘the full number of the nations’
(Rom. 11.25) means the 70 or 72 nations of the world (Dt. 32.8 in the Table of
Nations tradition—Dt. 32 is ‘crucial to Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11’) (127).
Abrahamic Promise in Paul:
Rom. 4.16—Abraham is the father of many nations (includes
Jews and Gentiles) (128). Rom. 4.13
includes the traditional expectation that Abraham and his seed will be ‘heir of
the world’.
Gal. 3.8—Blessing for all nations in Abraham and his
seed. Paul modifies Gen. 12.3 with Gen.
18.18. Over against those arguing that
here Paul excludes the Jews (D.-A. Koch), Scott argues that Paul refers to both
Gentiles and Jews. Scott has a good
argument here. Note one of his points:
Gen. 12.3 (+ 18.18) ‘is filtered through Ps. 71.17 LXX, where panta ta eqnh [panta ta ethnē] clearly means ‘all nations’ (129).
The Covenant with Israel:
1. The
sin of Israel. Gal. 2.15 ‘Jews by birth,
not Gentile sinners’ goes against the OT view of Israel as sinful—it is irony on
Paul’s part, due to Peter separating from Gentiles at table in the previous
verses (131). Gal. 3.10 sees Israel as
under a curse and in protracted exile (v. 10b) (131).
2. The
exile of Israel. Rom .2.24 cites Is.
52.5, and this assumes that Israel is in exile.
Israel’s lack of response to the message (Rom. 10.18) is seen as
jealousy of the Gentile mission (v.19), and Paul ‘cites in this regard Deut
32.21, referring to the exilic situation of Israel: ‘I will make you jealous of
those who are not a nation….’ (132).
3. The
Restoration of Israel: ‘If we read Rom. 13.1-7 in the context of Paul’s
imminent expectation of the Parousia (13.11-12) and the Final Judgment (12.19),
then the exhortation to the Roman addressees to be subject to the divinely
ordained government presupposes that Rome is the Fourth Empire of Daniel, the
final empire before the Kingdom of God is established and the saints of the
Most High rule the world’ (132). Paul’s
mission to the Gentiles is ultimately for the salvation of Israel, since either
some Jews will become jealous (Rom. 11.11, 13-14) or the full number of nations
will come in and then the Deliverer will save ‘all Israel’ (11.25f). ‘Paul’s concept of the coming in of the
nations derives from the OT expectation of the eschatological pilgrimage of the
nations to Zion (cf. Isa. 2.2-4 = Mic. 4.1-3)’ (132f). ‘In Rom. 9.24, Paul argues that God has
called ‘us’ not only [from the Jews] but also [from the Gentiles]. In support of this statement, the Apostle
cites Hos 2.25 and 2.1, both of which contain the word [‘to call’]….’
(133). In Rom. 15.10, Paul quotes Dt.
32.43 about the joint worship of the nations, including quotations from the
Psalms and Is. 11.10 in the surrounding verses.
Chapter 3
In ch. 3 of this book, Scott looks at the Table of Nations notion and Romans 15.
In ch. 3 of this book, Scott looks at the Table of Nations notion and Romans 15.
1. Why
‘from Jerusalem and in a
circle’? Paul’s mission was not from
Jerusalem. He does go and preach there,
though. ‘In a circle’ in the OT means
the surrounding areas, frequently in ref. to Jerusalem (Ps. 78.3; 124.2; Jer.
39.44; 40.13; Ezek. 34.26) (138). This
puts Jerusalem at the centre of the world with the nations surrounding it, as
in the Table of Nations tradition (138).
2. To
Illyricum and Beyond. Paul’s mission and
the tripartite division of the world.
The Table of Nations sees Jerusalem at the centre and the rest of the
world as divided between Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Following this, ‘…Paul conceives of his missionary activity as focused
on the sphere of the Japhethites, for the swath of territory thereby described
includes all of Asia Minor (with Galatia!) and Europe as far as the Adraitic
Sea, which amounts to approximately half of the territory traditionally
ascribed to Japheth and his sons’ (141).
Paul’s plan to go to Rome and on to Spain would complete the evangelisation
of Japheth’s territory. ‘Both Jubilees (8.23, 26; 9.12) and Josephus (Ant. 1.122) mention Gadir/Gadeira near
the Straights of Gibraltar in southern Spain in their respective expositions of
the Table of Nations’ (142). 1 Chr. 1
lists the nations of the world in a circle, going counterclockwise from the
north (142). Paul’s references to Roman
provinces instead of Japhethite names concurs with other Jews updating the list
with Roman provinces (cf. ch. 1 of this book).
Paul’s mission to the ‘Greeks’ (Rom. 1.16) may reflect Jewish tradition
that this was the language of Japheth (p. 144, n. 46 and ch. 2). R. Riesner, Früzeit, pp. 216-225, says Rom. 15.19 should be seen in light of
Is. 66.19 (pp. 145f). Also, as Hays
notes (Echoes, p. 162), Isaiah is the
most important source for Paul because it is the clearest vision of the
restoration of Israel involving a universalistic ingathering of Gentiles to
worship the Lord (146f). But Riesner
tries to fit every detail of Is. 66.19 into Rom. 15, and this is a strain—it
doesn’t fit (147). Paul’s mission was to
Jews and Gentiles in a geographical region, not to the Gentiles alone (152f),
and this may go back to the Table of Nations (154). This also tallies with Acts 15’s decision
about abstention laws for the Gentiles based on Gen. 9.1-7 (cf. Lev.
17-18)—Noah is tied to the territorial mission division here too. Qumran (4Q252 2.6-7) interpreted Gen. 9.27 in
light of Gen. 12.3—a promise to Noah’s 3 sons in the Table of Nations, and this
may be what was going on in Acts 15 (155).
Scott pushes his argument further, as he needs to (!): Peter’s
jurisdiction may have been Shem (1 Pt. 5.13’s Asia Minor, a letter written from
‘Babylon’); and we don’t know about Africa (Ham) (156f).
2 Cor. 10 also shows Paul has a conception
of ‘his’ territory in mission (159ff).
Scott suggests that the overlap of territory between Paul and Peter
might be due to a difference between the Table of Nations in Gen. and that in
Jubilees 8-9, the latter including all Asia Minor. [This does not explain Peter in Corinth or
Rome.] (161f).
Acts ‘confirms’ Paul’s approach to
mission strategy based on the Table of Nations tradition. Luke has 12 sent out (Israel, 9.1-6) and then
70/72 sent out in mission (the number of the nations, Lk. 10). Lk. 24.46-47 has the disciples sent out to
all nations. (162f) Acts 1.8 seems to set up a structure for
Acts, and yet the expansion of the mission in concentric circles from Jerusalem
and in a northwesterly direction fits with 1 Chr. 1’s list of the nations in a
circle going counterclockwise (164). Acts
2.5-11 has people ‘from every nation under heaven’ coming to Jerusalem. Scott maintains that the partial list of
nations relates to the Table of Nations tradition (165). Another partial list is found in Is. 66.19,
and again in Sib. Or. 3.512-519. Philo Legat.
281-283 is closest to Acts 2.9-11’s list (165).
Ant. 1.122-147 has an updated
list of nations. P. S. Alexander,
‘Geography and the Bible (Early Jewish),’ ABD,
2 (1992) 977-988 (here p. 983) suggests Acts 2 is a reversal of Gen. 11.7’s
confusion of the tongues after the Flood, which also brings Acts 2 together
with the Table of Nations in Genesis.
The structure of Acts may relate to mission to Shem (Acts 2.1-8.25), Ham
(8.26-40), and Japheth (9.1-28.31) (167). [The connection to Genesis might be
there, but one does not have to see this as a structure to Acts, which is, as
Scott admits, disproportional.] Paul’s
missionary journeys appear to retrace the steps of the Japhethites (as Scott
argues on pp. 174f—but, as he admits, this leaves one without a reason why Paul
was not to enter Bithynia, Acts 16.7).
Acts 17.26 (Areopagus) mentions that God made from one man every nation,
‘having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation’ (176). This also is an allusion to Dt. 32.8 (set the
bounds of the nations according to the number of angels of God) (177). (cf. the role of Dt. 32 in Rom. 9-11).
Chapter 4
In Ch. 4, Scott examines ‘The Table of Nations and the Destination of Galatians’ (181ff). His conclusion (215ff): If one examines this question from Greco-Roman ethnography and geography, one can only conclude that the northern part of the Roman province is meant. But from Jewish topography based on the Table of Nations: Josephus identifies Gomer as Japheth’s first son (Ant. 1.123), and he sees this region as what was now Galatia for the Romans, divided into 3 parts for his 3 sons (215). All the inhabitants of this region for Jews were Gomerites/Galatians—the ethnic division in the traditional debate of north or south Galatia is not relevant (215). This removes one of the main obstacles for the south Galatia theory, which argues that these people were not ‘Galatians’, as Paul calls them. If so, ‘then Paul is most likely sending his letter to the churches of Ashkenaz, the firstborn son of Gomer, the first son of Japheth’—the region of Phrygia-Galatica, where Paul preached on his 1st missionary journey (215).
In Ch. 4, Scott examines ‘The Table of Nations and the Destination of Galatians’ (181ff). His conclusion (215ff): If one examines this question from Greco-Roman ethnography and geography, one can only conclude that the northern part of the Roman province is meant. But from Jewish topography based on the Table of Nations: Josephus identifies Gomer as Japheth’s first son (Ant. 1.123), and he sees this region as what was now Galatia for the Romans, divided into 3 parts for his 3 sons (215). All the inhabitants of this region for Jews were Gomerites/Galatians—the ethnic division in the traditional debate of north or south Galatia is not relevant (215). This removes one of the main obstacles for the south Galatia theory, which argues that these people were not ‘Galatians’, as Paul calls them. If so, ‘then Paul is most likely sending his letter to the churches of Ashkenaz, the firstborn son of Gomer, the first son of Japheth’—the region of Phrygia-Galatica, where Paul preached on his 1st missionary journey (215).
The book concludes after ch. 4 with a conclusion chapter.
Comments