Some echoes of the land in Paul’s

missionary understanding

Student: John-Paul Harper (12999008)

Supervisor: Prof J. Punt
Programme: Postgraduate Diploma in Theology (PDT)
Department New Testament Studies, Faculty of Theology, Stellenbosch University
Abstract

Since W.D. Davies’ seminal work in The Gospel and the Land (1974), various studies have
examined how this significant Jewish symbol was appropriated in earliest Christianity. In this
regard, N.T. Wright has recently argued that Paul’s worldwide mission in particular ‘was
part of the enactment of the revised and reborn symbol of the land’. In this study we seek to
further substantiate this claim, utilizing criteria proposed by R.B. Hays, to search for ‘echoes’
of the land in places where Paul reflects on his mission. We begin by studying key
terminology for the land in the Old Testament, especially in the patriarchal narratives, and
with particular emphasis on sacred ‘places’ that mark out the land and that foreshadow the
temple. We then argue that these sacred ‘places’, where worshippers call on YHWH’s name
and that stand in contrast to the surrounding idolatry, form part of the background of how
Paul conceives of his geographically separated ἐκκλησίαι. After briefly reflecting on Paul’s
missionary understanding in Romans 10 and 15, we focus on three key texts which seem to
echo these sacred ‘places’ to various degrees. We conclude that Paul seems to understand his
mission as establishing ‘places’ of true worship, scattered now throughout the world, and that
in some sense mark out the final ‘inheritance’ of the Messiah’s people.

1
Introduction

One of the perennial questions in Pauline studies is how the apostle perceived his mission.
What sources did he draw on and did this develop over time? To what extent did he live out of
an essentially Jewish story (and which one) and to what extent was he an innovator, drawing
on the Greco-Roman context of his mission? I take the position that he remained a thoroughly
Jewish thinker who, at the same time, saw himself living in a new moment of history that had
dawned with the Messiah’s coming1. This of course raises the crucial question of how his
essentially Jewish worldview was reshaped around his convictions about the Messiah and
how this impacted his mission. This study seeks to further investigate some aspects of how
Paul reshaped one such important Jewish symbol, namely that of the land, and explore the
bearing of this on his mission.

The pioneering work in this regard was W.D. Davies’ The Gospel and the Land (1974), which
argued that for Paul the land promise was fulfilled ‘in Christ’ (1974:164-220). To be ‘in
Christ’ was the fulfilment of being ‘in the land’ and living under the Law and therefore ‘his
interpretation of the promise is a-territorial’ (1974:179). Davies further points out that the
main places where Paul reflects on the land are in relation to Jerusalem and the temple which,
in Second Temple Judaism, were the ‘quintessence of the land’. He highlights Paul’s
relationship with the ‘pillars’ in Jerusalem (Gal. 2) as well as his collection for the ‘poor’ in
Jerusalem, both of which point to some ongoing significance of the land for Paul. He thus
concludes that even though Paul seems to spiritualize the promise, he may have retained some
eschatological expectation centred around Jerusalem.

While Davies’ thesis is nuanced in ways the above summary cannot fully capture, it
nevertheless seems not to tell the whole story. Davies himself insists that ‘such a Jew as Paul,
we can be sure, would have felt the full force of the doctrine of the land, Jerusalem, and the
Temple’ (1974:166). Could the promise of the land, so intimately tied to the covenant, be that
easily transformed without remainder to being ‘in Christ’? If not, we are left with the puzzle
of the lack of explicit reference to the land in Paul.

N.T. Wright has recently argued that in Paul the symbol of the land can more fully be seen as
reshaped around the eschatological expectation of a renewed cosmos2 and indeed in the
‘symbolic praxis’ of his worldwide mission (2013:364-365). Wright draws attention to the

1
See N.T. Wright’s Paul and His Recent Interpreter’s (2015) to situate this position within contemporary
scholarship
2
Which has been inaugurated ‘in Christ’ by the resurrection (Rom. 8; 1 Cor. 15 etc.)

2
Jewish expectation of a worldwide messianic kingdom (Ps. 2; Is. 11 etc.) which would
ultimately be the ‘inheritance’ of all the Messiah’s people. Amongst other things, he
highlights how the promise to Abraham is stated in terms of his being ‘heir’ of the ‘world’
(Rom. 4:13) and how Paul’s mission constituted the calling together of the worldwide people
of the Messiah drawn from both Jews and gentiles. Wright thus concludes that ‘Paul’s entire
mission to the pagan world was part of the enactment of the revised and reborn symbol of the
land’ (2013:365).

For the purposes of this study, we will divide Wright’s proposal into two dimensions based on
the implied inaugurated eschatology. The ‘not yet’ dimension relates to Paul’s expectation of
resurrection and a renewed world, when the Messiah establishes his consummated kingdom
(1 Cor. 15; Rom. 8 etc.). The ‘now’ dimension is taken up in the ‘symbolic praxis’ of Paul’s
worldwide mission. Since Pauline scholars are generally agreed on the former dimension
(especially in relation to Paul’s ‘inheritance’ language)3, and since we are particularly
interested in this study in Paul’s mission and praxis, we will primarily be focussing on the
latter.

Wright’s proposal can further be illuminated with reference to several recent biblical-
theological studies of the theme of ‘land’ and related concepts. The monographs of particular
interest to our purposes are Martin’s Bound for the Promised Land (2015), which deals
directly with the ‘land’ and Beale’s The Temple and the Church’s Mission (2004), which
treats the related theme of ‘temple’. For further background on the theological significance of
the land, especially in relation to the New Testament, we also consider Walter Brueggemann’s
The Land (2002), Christopher Wright’s Old Testament Ethics (2004), and Gary Burge’s more
recent Jesus and the Land (2010). These generally acknowledge the lack of explicit reference
to ‘land’ in Paul and agree with Davies’ basic thesis that a particular geographic territory no
longer seems to be significant to Paul. Furthermore, they generally interpret the land promise
as primarily reshaped by Paul as the eschatological inheritance of the Messiah’s people, i.e.
the ‘not yet’ dimension highlighted by Wright. In a more recent treatment, Beale has
discussed the inaugurated dimension and concludes something similar to Davies. For Paul,
Jesus’ resurrection is the ‘first fruits’ of the new creation and ‘in Christ’ believers become
‘heirs’ and already ‘experience part of their new creational inheritance through their
resurrection experience’ (2011:762).

3
See for example Dunn (1998:492) or (1988:463), Moo (1996:505-522), Schreiner (2001:329), Ridderbos
(1975:203)

3
Although Beale does not directly pick up on Wright’s proposal that Paul’s mission itself was
predicated on the reshaped land theme, his conclusions regarding the temple are of particular
interest to our investigation. Like Davies, Beale recognizes the ‘umbilical’ relationship in
Second Temple Judaism between the land, temple, and Jerusalem. In particular, he suggests
that the boundaries of the land were always idealized and draws attention to Old Testament
and other Second Temple texts which ‘universalize’ the land. He argues further that Israel is
presented in the texts as a ‘corporate Adam’ with the task of expanding the borders of the land
and filling it with the divine presence (2011: 750-755). He also highlights some texts that
envision the breaking out of YHWH’s presence from the holy of holies (Is. 4:4-6; Jer. 3:16-
17; Zech. 1:16-2:11) and covering the whole earth (Ezek. 37:25ff; Is. 54:2-3; Dan. 2:34-35;
Jub. 32:16-19). These texts and others give shape to what he calls an ‘expansive temple-land
theology’ which seems to corroborate Wright’s thesis from another angle (2011: 750-774).
Did such a theology perhaps underlie the ‘symbolic praxis’ of Paul’s worldwide mission?

Of further interest for our purposes is also the recent work of Nili Wazana in All the
Boundaries of the Land (2013) which carefully investigates the various conceptions of the
land in the Old Testament. One of her significant conclusions is that many of the ‘spatial
merisms’ we find (e.g. ‘from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates’ Gen.
15:18-21; Deut. 11:24-25 etc.) are actually intended to evoke world rule. Bartholomew,
quoting Wazana’s work, highlights the following, ‘the spatial merisms in promise
terminology reflect a land that has no borders at all, only ever-expanding frontiers; they are
referring to universal rule, using stock terminology of Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions’
(2011:46). Wazana’s work in some ways further corroborates Beale’s claim of an ‘expansive
temple-land theology’ and helps explain the ‘universalizing’ of the land in later Judaism’s
eschatological reflection.

Also of relevance to our study are questions related to the geography of Paul’s mission and
his basic eschatological outlook. More than 50 years ago Johannes Munck classically argued
in Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (1959) that Paul’s worldwide mission should be
understood within the apocalyptic frame of the pilgrimage of the nations to Jerusalem and in
which the Jerusalem collection played a central role. Davies rightly pointed out, however, that
regardless of how one reads Romans 9 - 11, Paul’s eyes at the end of the letter are fixed
beyond Jerusalem to Rome and Spain and that he did not appear to be expecting an imminent
‘apocalyptic’ event in Jerusalem (1974:203-204). More recently, the discussion has centred
around the basic geographical frame of reference for Paul’s statement, ‘from Jerusalem all the

4
way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ’ (Rom. 15:19). James
Scott argued in Paul and the Nations (1995) that Paul was working from an essentially Jewish
geographical perspective informed by the Table of Nations, whereas K. Magda, drawing on
earlier work of W.P. Bowers, has recently argued in Paul’s Territoriality and Mission
Strategy (2009) that Paul is working within a Roman frame. These studies all explore ways in
which Paul conceived of his worldwide mission and bear on our present study.

Research question and hypothesis

The basic question this research seeks to address is whether the latter dimension of Wright’s
thesis can be sustained, i.e. whether the symbol of the ‘land’ in some ways undergirds Paul’s
understanding of his worldwide mission. If this is true and if, as is widely accepted, Paul lived
within and sought to inscribe his communities into Israel’s story (Campbell, 2008:54-67),
should we not expect to find some further evidence of the reshaped land promise in his
letters?

This will require a close reading of the texts because, as Wright points out, much of Paul’s
praxis grows out of his implicit worldview and it is something he more commonly looks
through than something he looks at (2013:562). Moreover, observations like Paul’s use of
‘world’ instead of ‘land’ in Romans 4:13, merely highlight Paul’s understanding of the
believer’s eschatological ‘inheritance’ and are not directly pertinent to the question of his
mission.

This study therefore seeks to further explore Wright’s proposal by looking more narrowly at
texts within the Pauline corpus that share some of the key terminology of the ‘land’ and
‘temple’ and are significantly related to his mission. Meeks observed various strategies by
which Paul sought to instil in his communities a sense of being part of a larger worldwide
movement, not least his making his communities aware of the gospel’s progress in other
places (1983:107-110). We will be particularly interested here in those texts where Paul is
thinking about his travel plans or about the state of his communities spread throughout the
Mediterranean world. Is it possible that some of his ‘worldwide’ rhetoric might have its roots
in the promise of the land?

For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you not only in Macedonia and
Achaia, but in every place (ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ) your faith in God has become known. (1
Thess. 1:8 NRSV)

5
 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus,
called to be saints, together with all those who in every place (ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ) call on
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours. (1 Cor. 1:2 NRSV)

But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and
through us spreads in every place (ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ) the fragrance that comes from
knowing him. (2 Cor. 2:14 NRSV)

To anticipate later arguments, this rhetoric does not seem too far removed from some of the
language associated with the land in both the Pentateuch and the Prophets.

In every place (ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ LXX) where I cause my name to be remembered I will
come to you and bless you. (Ex. 20:24b NRSV)

Every place (πάντα τὸν τόπον LXX) on which you set foot shall be yours; your
territory shall extend from the wilderness to the Lebanon and from the River, the river
Euphrates, to the Western Sea. (Deut. 11:24 NRSV)

Does Paul perhaps see the conquest of the land, or Abraham’s ‘symbolic possession’ of the
land during his sojourns, as in some way related to his worldwide mission? The basic
hypothesis of this research is that something like this seems to be the case (although in a
nuanced way) and therefore we ought to find some intertextual echoes of the land in Paul’s
writings. It seems to me that it is the past tendency to read Paul merely as one who
‘universalized’ the gospel that has led scholars to miss some of Paul’s more concrete language
in this regard.

Furthermore, if Paul transformed the promise and/or conquest of the land into the ‘symbolic
praxis’ of his worldwide mission, there is an inevitable ‘political’ dimension to it. The above
quote from 2 Corinthians, for example, quite clearly evokes a Roman imperial image
(although in a surprisingly transformed way). Does some of Paul’s language perhaps echo
what we find in Roman imperial statements, or would his hearers at least (which is a slightly
different question) have heard some counter-imperial claims? We merely note this further
dimension here as a prospect for further study, but will not further discuss it here.

Methodology

In light of the above discussion, this study will proceed mainly by seeking persuasive
intertextual connections between Paul’s letters and the LXX and other Second Temple Jewish
literature which bear on the theme of ‘land’. Because of the scope of this paper and plans for

6
further research, we will limit ourselves to a few key texts. Furthermore, our focus here is not
so much on the social function of Paul’s language, as on uncovering the worldview and
mindset that evoked it4.

The first task of this study will simply involve studying some of the key terminology related
to the land in the Old Testament and observing connections to other significant themes,
especially ‘places’ of worship in the land and the broader ‘temple’ theme.

Next we will identify relevant texts in Paul by focussing on those places where Paul’s mission
is in view and which contain language that falls within the semantic range of ‘land’, ‘place’,
‘inheritance’ etc. and language that is relevant to the theme of ‘land’ and temple worship
generally in the Scriptures (e.g. γῆ, κληρονομία, τόπος, κόσμος, ἐπικαλέομαι, ὄνομα etc.). We
will furthermore focus on the texts where the language is used in a concrete and not merely
abstract or universal sense.

Having identified key texts, we will seek intertextual connections and ‘echoes’. In this regard
we will use the criteria proposed by Hays’ in his classic study on intertextuality in Paul
(1993:1-33). We will thus for every proposed ‘echo’ aim to establish, insofar as possible, the
following criteria (some of which we will aim to do generally and some more specifically)

 Availability – was the proposed source of the echo available to the author and/or original
readers?
 Volume – what degree of repetition and distinctive vocabulary from the echoed text into
the Pauline text do we find?
 Recurrence – does Paul allude to this text or theme in his other writings?
 Thematic coherence – does this proposed allusion fit with Paul’s developing argument?
 Historical plausibility – could Paul have intended the ‘meaning effect’ of the echo and
could this possibly have been understood by his hearers?
 History of interpretation – have previous interpreters seen this potential echo in Paul?
 Satisfaction – does this proposal, regardless of the other criteria, help illuminate Paul’s
meaning?

Having established ‘echoes’ of the land promise, we will conclude with some reflections on
Paul’s understanding of his mission and a proposal for further research.

4
See for example Adams’ Constructing the World (2000) for the social function of Paul’s use of ‘world’ in the
Corinthian correspondence.

7
Key terminology and preliminary observations

The land promise is first introduced in the Abrahamic narratives of Genesis (Gen. 12:7; 15:7;
17:8; et passim) where the key language used is simply ‘the land’ (‫)הָ אָ ֶרץ‬, usually with the
verb ‘to give’ (‫)נָתַ ן‬. At the inauguration of the covenant with Abraham, the key word ‘to
inherit/possess’ (‫ )י ַָרּש‬is introduced and this is closely linked to ‘the seed’ who would be ‘heir’
of the promise (Gen. 15:3; 15:7). This produces an interesting connection between ‘sonship’
and ‘inheritance’ that Paul is well aware of (Rom 8:17; Gal. 4:6). With reference to the root
‫י ַָרש‬, Hartley writes ‘In Israel’s history the root takes on its double force, to inherit and to
dispossess, in relationship to the covenant’ (1999:409). That the inheritance of the land
includes the idea of conquest/dispossession is already evident from the climactic restatement
of the covenant promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:17, ‘and your offspring shall possess
(‫ )וְ יִ ַרׁש‬the gate of their enemies’ (NRSV).

While the key themes of the land are introduced in Genesis and Exodus, the language of
‘inheritance’ occurs far more frequently in Numbers and Deuteronomy, where the allotment
of the land of Canaan is in view. Here the other key root word related to inheritance, namely
‫נָחַ ל‬, also comes to the fore. Coppes explains that this verb, ‘basically signifies giving or
receiving property which is part of a permanent possession and as a result of succession’
(1999:569).

Of particular significance for our purposes is also the language of ‘place’ (‫)מָ קֹום‬, closely
associated with the land, and often with a particular cultic reference. There is frequent
reference, especially in the patriarchal narratives, to particular ‘places’ which marked out the
land. These are ‘places’ where YHWH appeared to the patriarchs and where they
subsequently built altars and ‘called on’ (‫ )קָ ָרא‬YHWH’s ‘name’ (‫)ׁשֵׁ ם‬5. Jacob’s vision and
declaration as he is fleeing the land is one memorable case, ‘How awesome is this place
(‫ !)הַ מָ קֹ ום‬This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.’ (Gen. 28:17
NRSV). Beale highlights many conceptual and linguistic parallels between these ‘sacred
spaces’ and the later sanctuary (2011:625).

These ‘places’ also seem to underlie the regulation for the construction of altars where
worshippers might call on YHWH’s name upon entering the land. One of the first injunctions
of the ‘Covenant Code’ (Ex. 20-23) has to do with appropriate worship at these ‘places’.

5
See Gen. 12:7; 13:4; 13:18; 22:9; 26:25; 35:1;

8
 You need make for me only an altar of earth and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings
and your offerings of well-being, your sheep and your oxen; in every (‫ )כָל‬place
(‫ )הַ מָ קֹ ום‬where I cause my name (‫)ׁש ִמי‬
ְ to be remembered I will come to you and bless
you. (Ex. 20:24 NRSV)

The simple worship envisioned here echoes that of the patriarchs and is explicitly set against
the danger of idolatry in the previous verse6. What is also interesting here is that multiple
‘places’ in the land are in view and that the altar appears to be accessible to all (Hamilton,
2011:362-366).

Just as the simple ‘places’ of worship in the land are a precursor to the later sanctuary,
Wenham has argued that the patriarchs journeying through the land (e.g. Gen. 12:5-9)
represent a precursor to the later conquest and a type of ‘symbolic possession’ of it
(1987:280-282,298). Beale suggests that, in particular, the activity of building altars
throughout the land was something like planting a flag and claiming the land (2011:626). The
book of Jubilees also gives interesting further evidence that in Second Temple Judaism these
Genesis texts were read eschatologically as ultimately promising possession of the world.
Furthermore, we observe that this future possession was tightly tied to the theme of sacred
‘place’. In chapter 32, which is effectively an elaboration on Jacob’s vision at Bethel, the
covenant promise is restated along with the interesting note of Israel judging the world, a
theme which we will later notice that Paul picks up on in 1 Cor. 6:27.

I am the Lord who created the heaven and the earth, and I will increase thee and
multiply thee exceedingly, and kings will come forth from thee, and they will judge
everywhere wherever the foot of the sons of men hath trodden. And I shall give to thy
seed all the earth which is under heaven, and they will judge all the nations according
to their desires, and after that they will get possession of the whole earth and inherit it
for ever. (Jub. 32:18b-20a)8

When we come to texts in Deuteronomy and Joshua, where the conquest is more clearly in
view, we again find an interesting connection between the whole land and significant ‘places’
within it. There is firstly the concrete language that ‘every place’ and ‘all the land’ where the

6
Even within the patriarchal narratives the fact that many of the ‘places’ are situated near trees also suggests
the danger of idolatrous worship (Deut. 12:2), while at the same time being suggestive of Eden.
7
Although we are not claiming that Paul refers back to this text in particular, which would be impossible to
determine
8
See (Charles, 1917:164)

9
Israelites tread will belong to them (together with the ‘spatial merisms’ that echo the
patriarchal promises).

Every (‫ )כָל‬place (‫ )הַ מָ קֹ ום‬on which you set foot shall be yours; your territory shall
extend from the wilderness to the Lebanon and from the River, the river Euphrates, to
the Western Sea. No one will be able to stand against you; the Lord your God will put
the fear and dread of you on all (‫ )כֹ ל‬the land (‫ )הָ אָ ֶרץ‬on which you set foot, as he
promised you. (Deut. 11:24-25 NRSV)

Every (‫ )כָל‬place (‫ )מָ קֹום‬that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you,
as I promised to Moses. From the wilderness and the Lebanon as far as the great river,
the river Euphrates, all (‫ )כֹ ל‬the land (‫ )הָ אָ ֶרץ‬of the Hittites, to the Great Sea in the west
shall be your territory. (Josh. 1:3-4 NRSV)

Furthermore, the language of ‘place’ continues to have a particular cultic focus. Within the
context of the restated land promise above, there follows an injunction to both destroy the
‘places’ of idolatrous Canaanite worship and to institute the worship of YHWH at the ‘place’
he chooses.

You must demolish completely all (‫ )כָל‬the places (‫ )הַ ְמקֹ מֹ ות‬where the nations whom
you are about to dispossess (‫ )יֹ ְר ִׁשים‬served their gods, on the mountain heights, on the
hills, and under every leafy tree. (Deut. 12:2 NRSV)

But you shall seek the place (‫ )הַ מָ קֹ ום‬that the Lord your God will choose out of all your
tribes as his habitation (‫ )ׁשֶ כֶן‬to put his name (‫ )ׁשֵׁ ם‬there. (Deut. 12:5 NRSV)
Here again, as we saw in Exodus, we find the close connection between idolatrous and true
worship. The latter phrase, ‘the place that the LORD your God will choose’, occurs 24 times
in various forms in Deuteronomy and is usually linked to the place of ‘dwelling’ (‫ )ׁשָ כַן‬of the
divine ‘name’ (‫)ׁשֵׁ ם‬. The centralization of worship thus becomes a dominant theme in
Deuteronomy and alternative ‘places’ of worship are expressly forbidden, ‘Take care that you
do not offer your burnt offerings at any (‫ )כָל‬place (‫ )מָ קֹ ום‬you happen to see.’ (Deut. 12:13
NRSV).

This centralization of worship stands in tension with the earlier regulations we observed in
Exodus 20:24, which envision worship taking place at multiple places in the land. Indeed
already in Exodus there is a tension between the simple earthen altar and worship available to
all and the regulations for the elaborate altar of the tabernacle only accessible to the priests

10
(Ex. 27:1-8). Scholars have usually identified the former as being part of the ‘Covenant
Code’, representing earlier more primitive Israelite worship, and the latter with the ‘Priestly
Code’, representing later more complex and regulated worship.

As Sailhamer points out, however, one needs to account for the obvious dissonance in the
final text between two quite different forms of worship and, in particular, two very different
‘altar laws’ in close proximity (2009:357-360). Sailhamer’s intriguing suggestion is that there
is a deliberate literary strategy at work in the final composition of the Pentateuch. This is
evident in the fact that the golden calf incident (the archetypal idolatry) and the subsequent
‘renewal’ of the covenant (Ex. 32-34) break into the ‘Priestly Code’ and divide it into
instructions for the tabernacle (Ex. 25-31) and a description of its completion (Ex. 35-40).

The narrative point, which we may assume would not be missed by an astute Jewish reader
like Paul, is that the golden calf incident changed everything. Worship which was going to be
simple, is now going to be complex and tightly regulated. Interestingly for our purposes,
when the promise of the land is restated after the incident, the explicit threat is that YHWH’s
presence will not follow them (Ex. 33:3). Moses intercedes and the crisis is averted, but not
without a cost. Sailhamer summarizes it thus, ‘Set over against the rather simple patriarchal
earthen altar, Israel is now given a large and expensive altar and a priesthood to serve it.
Along with both of these, they also receive a tabernacle, a sacred place, where Israel can come
before God on a representational basis only.’ (2009:362).

Thus Sailhamer argues that a single ‘place’ of worship and representational worship (through
a priesthood) is in some ways a concession that is given because of the persistent threat of
idolatry9. That multiple places of worship present a real threat coheres well with the
subsequent idolatry of the northern kingdom when alternative places of worship are
established (1 Kgs. 12:25-33)10.

We also note other significant strands in the Old Testament that recognize the limitations of a
single ‘place’ of divine dwelling. Solomon’s prayer of dedication for the temple, which we
note for its deuteronomistic theology and its poignant expression of the ‘umbilical’
relationship between the land and temple (1 Kgs. 8:46-51), expresses this limitation
memorably11.

9
We note the similarity to the kingship which is in some ways also a concession (1 Sam. 8)
10
Note the powerful echoes of the golden calf incident
11
With six references to this ‘place’ (‫ )מָ קֹ ום‬in the chapter

11
 But will God indeed dwell on the earth (‫ ?)הָ אָ ֶרץ‬Even heaven and the highest heaven
cannot contain you, much less this house that I have built! (1 Kgs. 8:27 NRSV)

If there were limitations to the first temple, these become even more poignant in the second.
The return to the land and reconstruction of the temple looked very little like the
eschatological vision of the prophets. N.T. Wright has argued extensively that the majority of
Pharisaic Jews in the first century still regarded themselves as living in exile (2013:139-162).
The real restoration was yet to take place. In this regard Malachi’s indictment on the temple
worship of his day is particularly interesting.

Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not
kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord of hosts, and I
will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting
my name (‫ )ׁשֵׁ ם‬will be great among the nations, and in every place (‫ )מָ קֹום‬incense will
be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the
nations, says the Lord of hosts. (Mal. 1:10-11 ESV)

This is a fascinating passage, not least because it envisions pure worship of YHWH among
the nations, worship which would generally be regarded as idolatrous by definition. Having
investigated various exegetical options, Verhoef concludes most probably, ‘that Malachi
wanted to make an announcement concerning the messianic age’ (1987:225-232).
Interestingly for our purposes, he also draws attention to various texts, especially Exodus
20:24, as evidence that, ‘the priestly function originally belonged to all members of the
covenant family’ (1987:232). His conclusion is that within Malachi’s eschatological frame,
‘the whole earth is deemed worthy of being a sacred place of worship’ (1987:232).

While the dominant eschatological vision in the prophets is of the return of YHWH to Zion,
the renewal of pure worship, and the ingathering of the nations (Ez. 43; Is. 40, 2:1-3 etc.), this
theme of pure worship throughout the land is not far off. The final outcome of the return of
YHWH to Zion is after all that, ‘the earth (‫ )הָ אָ ֶרץ‬will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as
the waters cover the sea.’ (Is. 11:9 NRSV, see also Hab. 2:14). Ezekiel’s vision is particularly
interesting in this regard, because out of the restored temple flows a life-giving river into the
world (reminiscent of Eden). Furthermore, there follows a significant discussion (on which
Ezekiel ends) of a renewed land in which the ‘alien’ is also granted an inheritance (Ez. 47:13-
21).

12
In conclusion, we have noted in this section the perhaps underappreciated Old Testament
theme of sacred ‘places’, where the early ideal of unmediated access to YHWH is highlighted.
This theme helps us better appreciate the ‘democratization’ of the spirit envisioned by the
later prophets and indeed the eschatological vision of direct access to YHWH by all and in all
places.

Then afterward I will pour out my spirit on all flesh…

Then everyone who calls (‫ )קָ ָרא‬on the name (‫ )ׁשֵׁ ם‬of the Lord shall be saved. (Joel
2:28,32 NRSV)

Furthermore, we have seen how these ‘places’ of worship in Israel’s foundational narratives
marked out the land in advance as a type of symbolic possession and stood in contrast to the
surrounding idolatrous worship. The covenantal gift of the land, in other words, becomes
closely tied to the true worship of YHWH and possession of the land is thus intimately tied to
covenant faithfulness (Burge, 2010:3-5).

Before considering how Paul may have appropriated some of these themes, we briefly
tabulate below how the LXX (Paul’s primary reference) generally translated the key
terminology we’ve highlighted.

Hebrew root/derivatives Greek root/derivatives

‫הָ אָ ֶרץ‬ γῆ
‫י ַָרש‬ κληρονομέω for ‘inherit’ and ἐξολεθρεύω for
‘dispossess’
‫נָחַ ל‬/‫ַנ ֲחלָה‬ κληρονομέω/κληρονομία,κλῆρος,ἔγκληρον
‫הַ מָ קֹ ום‬ τόπος
‫קָ ָרא‬ ἐπικαλέομαι
‫ׁשֵׁ ם‬ ὄνομα
‫ׁשָ כַן‬ κατοικέω, ἐπικαλέομαι (interestingly more
frequent in Deuteronomy in relation to the
‘name’)

Exegesis of key texts in Paul

It is frequently noted that Paul could easily move between referring to both the church as a
whole and individual believers as the new ‘temple’ (1 Cor. 4:16; 6:19), yet exactly how this
transition is made is not often reflected upon. One wonders how Paul reconciles the reality of

13
multiple geographically scattered ‘temples’, represented by the various ἐκκλησίαι he had
established, with the sheer preponderance of Old Testament weight placed upon Zion and its
temple12. Wright indirectly picks up on this tension in relation to Paul’s mission when he
observes, ‘The central symbol of Israel’s life, of second-Temple Jewish aspirations, is being
reconstructed – in bits and pieces, scattered all over the pagan world’ (2013:729, emphasis
mine).

While it is true that Paul can use the image of temple construction as a blueprint his mission13,
what is usually in view is the individual ἐκκλησία and one does not get the impression that he
regarded all of the collective ἐκκλησίαι as a type of cosmic temple, except perhaps in an
abstract sense14. He must have looked elsewhere for a more appropriate image for what he
was doing on a larger scale. It is our contention that as Paul is reflecting on the Old Testament
Scriptures in light of the coming of the Messiah and spirit15, that the sacred ‘places’ we find in
Israel’s earlier worship, especially in the Genesis narratives, would be ready material to
theologically ground his communities as places of true worship, geographically scattered now
not throughout the land but throughout the world16.

We begin by briefly addressing the first of Hay’s criteria in establishing ‘echoes’, namely that
of availability. It hardly needs mentioning that Paul was very familiar with Genesis and the
Abrahamic narratives and indeed that he sought to ‘inscribe’ his readers into these
foundational narratives (Gal. 3-4; Rom. 4). Furthermore, we note that for Paul the order of
‘salvation history’ revealed in these narratives was significant, so that one of his fundamental
points regarding circumcision (and the Law) is that Abraham was declared righteous while
still a gentile (Rom. 4:10). Indeed we can assume that he would not have missed the point that
Abraham also ‘called on’ the name of YHWH while still a gentile (Gen. 12:7).

Furthermore, we know that Paul was very familiar with the foundational narrative of
redemption found in Exodus and indeed sought to ‘inscribe’ his readers also into this story17.

12
There is of course a precedent for the one dwelling place of YHWH moving around as at the Exodus, which it
seems Paul utilizes in his language of being ‘led’ by the Spirit (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 5:18).
13
See for example 1 Cor. 3:10-15 and his cultic language in relation to his mission (1 Cor. 9:13; Phil. 2:17; Rom.
15:16)
14
Here Eph. 2:11-22 would be an obvious example
15
Which Paul understood as nothing less than the return of YHWH to Zion (Wright, 2013:619-773)
16
And indeed individuals in whom the spirit dwells now call on YHWH wherever they are, much like the
patriarchs
17
See for example, ‘For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed’ (1 Cor. 5:7 NRSV) and ‘I do not want you
to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea
‘ (1 Cor. 10:1 NRSV)

14
Important elements from Deuteronomy such as the Shema (6:4) and especially the vision of
the later chapters (chs. 30-32) that foretell the exile and relate to the covenant and life in the
land also occur frequently in Paul. In conclusion, all the material we have discussed thus far
would have been readily available to Paul and probably to many of his readers as well. In the
discussion that follows we will make reference to other relevant criteria proposed by Hays
and then attempt to bring everything together at the end.

We begin by briefly commenting on one of the few places where Paul mentions the land in
any concrete sense.

But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have; for
“Their voice has gone out to all the earth (πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν),
and their words to the ends of the world (πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης).”
(Rom. 10:18 NRSV)

This forms part of Paul’s intense reflection on the question of God’s covenant faithfulness to
Israel as well as his own mission and the surprising point he makes in his quotation from
Psalm 19 is that the gospel message has in some sense gone out to ‘all the earth/land’. Moo
suggests that what is in view is probably a representative universality (‘all nations’ or ‘Jews
and gentiles’) or indeed is simply hyperbole (1996:667). In any case, for our purposes, one
cannot help see in this statement and in its context an expression of Paul’s relentless drive to
proclaim the gospel in all the earth. What brings about this drive is ultimately his conviction
expressed a few verses earlier that the eschaton Joel had spoken of had arrived so that,
‘Everyone who calls (ἐπικαλέομαι) on the name (ὄνομα) of the Lord shall be saved’ (Rom.
10:13 NRSV). It was this conviction that the time of universal salvation had arrived that drove
his worldwide mission.

We also note that when he reflects on his missionary purpose even more explicitly a few
chapters later, he interestingly uses cultic language of bringing the gentiles as an offering
(Rom. 15:16), and indeed states his own ambition in terms of the Messiah being ‘named’ in
ever new places.

Thus I make it my ambition to proclaim the good news, not where Christ has already
been named (ὠνομάσθη), so that I do not build (οἰκοδομέω) on someone else’s
foundation (θεμέλιος). (Rom. 15:20 NRSV)

15
Here the ‘naming’ is clearly naming in worship, and the cultic metaphor is slightly transmuted
into a building metaphor, with the same verb οἰκοδομέω used as for the building of the
patriarchal altars and the temple. The root θεμέλιος/θεμελιόω is relatively rare in the LXX and
often relates to the temple or, interestingly, to YHWH’s laying the foundations of the earth18.
This interesting connection between Paul’s view of his mission as ‘laying a foundation’ for a
new temple (see more explicitly 1 Cor. 3:10-15) and the frequent portrayal of YHWH as
‘laying a foundation’ for the earth deserves further investigation, but could be construed along
the lines of a new-creational theme and as perhaps corroborating Beale’s ‘expansive temple-
land theology’19.

But here we note that the reason Paul is moving toward Rome and beyond is that there is ‘no
further place (τόπον) for me in these regions’ (Rom. 15:23 NRSV), an odd expression unless
he is thinking of representative ‘places’ where true worship is already taking place and that
already mark out the regions he has worked in. What constituted sufficient representation for
a region and whether Paul was working within a Jewish or Roman geographical frame is
beyond the scope of this study. Paul’s ambition thus seems to be the establishing of true
places of worship where people call on the name of the one true Lord and which now fill the
whole earth/land.

Something similar seems to be the case when we come to Paul’s Corinthian correspondence.
We note firstly Paul’s conviction stated here, as in other places, that the whole world is
ultimately the ‘inheritance’ of the Messiah’s people. In an admittedly highly rhetorical
conclusion to his argument against the factionalism in Corinth, he reveals what nevertheless
seems to reflect his core convictions.

So let no one boast about human leaders. For all things are (ἐστιν) yours, whether Paul
or Apollos or Cephas or the world (κόσμος) or life or death or the present or the
future—all belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.
(1 Cor. 3:21-23 NRSV)

What is striking here is that he uses the present tense, which reveals some flexibility in the
way his inaugurated eschatology ‘works’, even in relation to the ‘world’! In many ways this
points us forward to chapter 15, where he is more cautious in highlighting that the last enemy

18
See 1 Kgs. 6:1 for the temple (second of only six uses of θεμέλιος in LXX). The more common θεμελιόω is
often used in relation to creation (e.g. Jb. 38:4; Ps. 8:3, 24:2, 78:69, 102:25; Is. 48:14, 51:13).
19
See interestingly Psalm 78:69 where these come together ‘He built his sanctuary like the high heavens, like
the earth, which he has founded forever.’ (ESV)

16
of ‘death’ has not yet been overcome. We also note in this regard Paul’s throwaway rhetorical
question a few chapters later, ‘Do you not know the saints will judge the world?’ (1 Cor. 6:3),
which expresses a fairly familiar theme in Jewish eschatology which we also noted in Jubilees
(Fee, 1987:233).

What this demonstrates is that Paul already in some inaugurated sense regards the ‘world’ as
the possession of the Messiah’s people and, therefore, we should not be surprised if he may
have regarded his mission as establishing communities that in some ways reflect this
possession. It is interesting that it is in this letter that we also first find a reference to the
church as the new ‘temple’ (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19) and indeed to some of Paul’s significant cultic
references in relation to his own ministry (1 Cor. 3:10-15; 9:13). These communities that Paul
is establishing, moreover, are places of true worship, where the one true Lord is confessed and
where all idolatry is exposed20. Interestingly we find this emphasis in the letter and again in
one of the few places where Paul actually uses the terminology γῆ (‘earth’/‘land’).

Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “no idol in the world
really exists,” and that “there is no God but one.” Indeed, even though there may be
so-called gods in heaven or on earth (γῆ)—as in fact there are many gods and many
lords—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom
we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom
we exist. (1 Cor. 8:4-6 NRSV)

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of
conscience, for “the earth (γῆ) and its fullness are the Lord’s.”
(1 Cor. 10:25-26 NRSV)

Here is Paul’s classic restatement of the Shema, the most fundamental confession of Jewish
creational monotheism, but now with Jesus included within the divine identity of YHWH.
This conviction that the ‘earth’ belonged to its Creator and Lord, now freshly revealed in
Jesus, is what makes the question of food sacrificed to idols ultimately indifferent, but also
undoubtedly a conviction that drove his mission.

This brings us to his introduction to the letter, which contains an interesting departure from
his regular greeting.

20
Indeed Wright has argued that the ἐκκλησία in its holiness (especially over against pagan idolatry) and unity
is the central symbol of Paul’s worldview which bears the load that temple, land, circumcision etc. played
within Second Temple Judaism (2013:563)

17
 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified (ἡγιασμένοις) in
Christ Jesus, called to be saints (ἁγίοις), together with all those who in every place (ἐν
παντὶ τόπῳ) call (ἐπικαλουμένοις) on the name (ὄνομα) of our Lord Jesus Christ, both
their Lord and ours. (1 Cor. 1:2 NRSV)

We firstly note the interesting phenomenon that Paul mentions other ἐκκλησίαι, which are
certainly not also intended as recipients, in his greeting. Many commentators follow Fee in
suggesting that Paul’s primary reason for mentioning other gatherings is probably that, ‘The
pneumatikoi in Corinth seem to have struck an independent course, both from Paul and
therefore from the rest of the churches’ (1987:33)21. This is no doubt the case, but what
interests us is how the other gatherings are conceived as ‘places’ where people ‘call’ on the
Lord’s ‘name’.

This seems to be an echo of Exodus 20:24 and perhaps also Malachi 1:11, which themselves
echo the patriarchal narratives.

In every place (ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ LXX) where I cause my name (ὄνομα LXX) to be
remembered (ἐπονομάσω LXX) I will come to you and bless you. (Ex. 20:24b NRSV)

And in every place (ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ LXX) incense will be offered to my name (ὄνομα
LXX), and a pure offering (Mal. 1:11 ESV)

What strengthens the echo is the repetition of the ἁγιάζω root in 1 Corinthians 1:2, which
almost seems redundant, but fulfils a significant theological point (the Corinthians are ‘holy’
already, but are also called to be ‘holy’). This root occurs only once in Genesis in the LXX
(and not with this sense) and is used for the first time in relation to people in Exodus 19 (and
with significant repetition). It is here where Israel are constituted as YHWH’s holy people for
the first time (19:6,10,14) and it is this community that Deuteronomy looks back to as the
ἐκκλησία in the desert (Deut. 4:10)22. It was to this original ἐκκλησία that YHWH has
promised blessing ‘in every place’ of worship in the land.

Ciampa and Rosner also observe this echo with Deuteronomy and Genesis and indeed with
Malachi 1:11, although they do not directly pick up on Ex. 20:24 (2007:696 also 2010:57-

21
See also Thiselton (2000:74)
22
Which is also the first use of ἐκκλησία in the LXX

18
58)23. They suggest that Paul regards his communities as eschatological fulfilments of the
Malachi prophecy, which we would also agree with, although the language does not seem
distinctive enough to me to say that he is certainly echoing Malachi. He almost certainly is,
however, echoing the theme of sacred ‘place’ we have been investigating.

We firstly want to argue that there is sufficient ‘volume’ (Hay’s second criteria) here to
constitute a genuine echo, especially as it relates to the distinctive phrase ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ in
close proximity to ὄνομα24 and the frequent use of the ἁγιάζω root in Exodus 19. Moreover,
we have tried to demonstrate some ‘recurrence’ (Hay’s third criteria) of this theme in Romans
where Paul is reflecting on his mission as bringing ever more people in new places to confess
the ‘name’ of the Lord. It also seems that there is further ‘recurrence’ of this distinctive
vocabulary when Paul is reflecting on the results of his mission in his first, and probably
earliest, letter to the Thessalonians.

For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you not only in Macedonia and
Achaia, but in every place (ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ) your faith in God has become known, so
that we have no need to speak about it. (1 Thess. 1:8 NRSV)

What is in view here is clearly the other ἐκκλησίαι in the regions, because of the previous
verse which suggests that the Thessalonians became ‘models’ to them and indeed the next
verse which mentions that they ‘report’ to Paul and Silas what they had heard about the
Thessalonians conversion in positive terms. Why did Paul use this distinctive vocabulary if he
could just as well have said, ‘all the other ἐκκλησίαι have heard of your testimony’? It does
give a sense of universality, which Paul may have wanted to stress (without losing the
particularity of ‘place’), but coupled with the content of the report, ‘how you turned to God
from idols, to serve a living and true God’ (1 Thess. 1:9) this does seem to support Paul’s
underlying perspective on the other ἐκκλησίαι. The ἐκκλησία is once again a ‘place’ of true
worship, scattered throughout the world, where idolatry is challenged and exposed.

Less certain, but a possible similar usage is in 2 Corinthians 2:14, where Paul also explicitly
reflects on his mission.

23
Garland points to some evidence for ‘every place’ reflecting Jewish usage for meeting-places (2003:28), but
of course we would expect this Jewish usage to have some antecedent roots. Thiselton sees a probable echo of
Joel 2:32 in reference to ‘calling’ on the ‘name’ of the Lord (2000:78).
24
See also the frequent repetition of ὄνομα in the introduction ‘Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by
the name (ὄνομα) of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Cor. 1:10) then also 1 Cor. 1:13, 15. Whose name are the
Corinthians fundamentally calling on and being called by?

19
 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and
through us spreads in every place (ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ) the fragrance that comes from
knowing him.
(2 Cor. 2:14 NRSV)

Most commentators agree with Harris that although the original image of the ‘triumphal
procession’ is Roman, Paul’s change in terminology in the next verse echoes Old Testament
cultic texts, especially from Leviticus (2005:245-248)25. Harris also briefly mentions the work
of T.W. Manson in this regard which concluded that here and in 1 Cor. 2, 1 Thess. 8, and 1
Tim. 2:2, ‘place’ probably refers to places of worship (2005:247).

We have also drawn some attention to the ‘thematic coherence’ of this cultic theme of ‘calling
on’ the Lord’s name, which is consistent with Paul’s view of the church as the new ‘temple’,
its standing in opposition to idolatry, and indeed its links to the ‘land’. The question of
‘historical plausibility’ in Hay’s criteria is a difficult one as it relates to how his audience
would have heard him. It seems to me that although the echoes of ‘sacred places’ may have
been lost on many, those who had read Genesis and Deuteronomy in the LXX would have
noticed the repeated emphasis on ‘place’ and drawn some connection. As regards history of
interpretation we have pointed to the work of T.W. Manson and more recently Ciampa and
Rosner who have picked up echoes from Malachi, Deuteronomy and Genesis in at least 1
Corinthians 1:2. I have not found any commentators who find an allusion to Malachi 1:10
specifically in 2 Corinthians 2:14 (which would strengthen the case), probably because,
although the context fits and the terminology ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ is present, a different word is
used for ‘incense’ (θυμίαμα instead of ὀσμή or εὐωδία).

Finally, we have attempted to demonstrate the ‘satisfaction’ of this way of reading some of
Paul’s concrete language about the ἐκκλησίαι of God as sacred ‘places’ scattered throughout
the land and that echo especially the patriarchal narratives. This reading seems to illuminate
Paul’s own understanding of his mission and his ambition to preach Christ where he has not
been ‘named’ (Rom. 15:20) as well as explain further some of Paul’s cultic language in
reference to his mission. This reading also helps us appreciate how Paul made the transition
from a singular divinely instituted place of worship to the multiple ‘independent’ and equally
legitimate ‘places’ of the one Lord’s dwelling.

25
See also Barnett (2022:151-152)

20
Furthermore, we can see now how territory is both unimportant to Paul, in the sense that no
one place is more sacred than any other, and yet at the same time important, in that the
‘inheritance’ of the Messiah must in some sense be claimed. Paul can use the language of
‘saving’ as many as possible in relation to his mission (1 Cor. 9:22), yet this does not explain
his drive to go to new places, because there were certainly many whom he did not regard as
‘saved’ on the circle between Jerusalem and Illyricum (Rom. 15:19)! One might argue that
Paul was primarily driven by an interest in winning more ‘nations’ (ἔθνη) and that territory
was only a consequence, but his repeated reference to regions seems to militate against such a
reading. He does indeed appear to be interested in territory because he believes that, ‘The
earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof’ (Ps. 24:1 ESV).

We thus conclude that it is highly likely, in light of the evidence proposed by Wright and
further explored here, that the ‘symbolic praxis’ of Paul’s worldwide mission was indeed
predicated by a reshaped ‘land’ theme inherited from his Jewish worldview26.

Scope for further research

There are many potential avenues for further research arising from this study. For one, the
state of current scholarship of the ‘land’ in Second Temple Judaism and in Paul could be
explored more fully. The theme of the ‘temple’ and its relationship to the ‘land’ could also
certainly be further explored, as well as Paul’s appropriation of Judaism’s cultic heritage.
Moreover, as mentioned earlier, we could explore the ‘political’ dimensions of Paul’s
reshaped land theme and look for echoes of Paul’s language in imperial rhetoric.

We propose therefore to explore these themes further under the preliminary title ‘The roots
and resonances of Paul’s worldwide rhetoric’. This study would further explore the ‘roots’ of
some of Paul’s language in relation to his mission that we have studied here, as well as the
‘resonances’ in imperial rhetoric that his audience may have heard. We propose a similar
methodology to what we have followed here in relation to the search for ‘echoes’ of the land
in Paul using Hays’ criteria. A rough breakdown of chapters for an MTh would be as follows.

1. Introduction: Paul and the land.

Here we would survey the current state of scholarship on the ‘land’ in Second Temple
Judaism as well as how this has been reshaped in Paul. We would also highlight our
proposed methodology for substantiating the hypothesis that Paul’s worldwide mission

26
We may want to nuance this and say it was at least partially predicated and probably significantly

21
 arises out of a reshaped ‘land’ theme. This would include an elaboration on Hay’s criteria
and a more in-depth discussion on the current state of research on intertextuality
generally.
2. Land, Jerusalem and Temple in Second Temple Judaism.
This chapter would further investigate the nexus between these three significant ‘symbols’
of Judaism with particular focus on ‘sacred places’ that we have highlighted. We would
also further explore the nature of priesthood in Judaism, exploring further the proposal of
Sailhamer and others on the narrative shape of the Pentateuch.
3. The worldwide rhetoric of empire.
This chapter would survey Roman imperial rhetoric, especially as it relates to the theme of
‘land’, ‘world’ and ‘territory’, with a view to highlighting key language and themes that
emerge.
4. Exegesis of key texts in Paul.
This chapter would investigate further key texts in Paul that bear on his mission as well as
his reshaping of the themes of ‘land’ and ‘temple’. As such we will also explore Paul’s
cultic language more carefully and make proposals as to how he has appropriated and
revised Israel’s cultic heritage. We also plan to investigate how Paul conceived of his
mission as ‘conquest’ in challenge to the surrounding idolatry (e.g. 2 Cor. 10:1-6) and
whether the allotment of the land of Israel might to a certain degree inform Paul’s
reflection on his geographic strategy in relation to be wider movement (e.g. 2 Cor. 10:12-
18). We hope to demonstrate echoes of both the ‘land’ and of Roman imperial ideology in
the texts we investigate.
5. Conclusion.
This chapter would draw together the previous findings and attempt to relate this to
contemporary missiological and ecclesiological reflection on Paul.

22
Bibliography

Adams, E. 2000. Constructing the World: A Study in Paul’s Cosmological Language.

Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Barnett, P. 1997. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Second
Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bartholomew, C. 2011. Where Mortals Dwell: A Christian View of Place for Today. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic.

Beale, G.K. 2004. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling
Place of God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Beale, G.K. 2011. A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament
in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Brueggemann, W. 2002. The land: place as gift, promise, and challenge in biblical faith. 2nd
ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Burge, G.M. 2010. Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to ‘Holy Land’
Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Charles, R.H. 1917. The Book of Jubilees or The Little Genesis. London: SPCK.

Ciampa, R.E. & Rosner, B.S. 2007. 1 Corinthians, in G.K. Beale & D.A. Carson (eds.)
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic.

Ciampa, R.E. & Rosner, B.S. 2010. The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The First Letter
to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Campbell, W.S. 2008. Paul and the creation of Christian identity. London: T&T Clark.

Coppes, L.J. 1999. 1342 ‫נָחַ ל‬, in R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (eds.).
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press. 569–570.

Davies, W.D. 1974. The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial
Doctrine. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Dunn, D.G. 1988. Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 1-8. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Dunn, D.G. 1998. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

23
Fee, G.D. 1987. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle
to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Fee, G.D. 2009. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First and
Second Letters to the Thessalonians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Garland, D.E. 2003. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: 1 Corinthians.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Hamilton, V.P. 2011. Exodus: and Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Harris, M.J. 2005. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Second Epistle
to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Hartley, J. E. 1999. 920 ‫י ַָרׁש‬, in R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (eds.).
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press. 409–411.

Hays, R.B. 1993. Echoes of Scripture in the letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University
Press.

Köstenberger, A.J. & O’Brien, P.T. 2001. Salvation to the ends of the earth: A Biblical
Theology of Mission. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Magda, K. 2009. Paul’s Territoriality and Mission Strategy: Searching for the Geographical
Awareness Paradigm Behind Romans. WUNT 266. Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck.

Martin, O.R. 2015. Bound for the Promised Land: The Land Promise in God’s Redemptive
Plan. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Moo, D. 1996. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the
Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Meeks, W.A. 1983. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New
Haven Yale University Press.

Munck, J. 1959. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Translated by F. Clarke. Richmond: John
Knox Press.

Ridderbos, H. 1975. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John Richard de Witt.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Sailhamer, J.H. 2009. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and
Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

24
Schreiner, T.R. 2001. Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press.

Scott, J.M. 1995. Paul and the Nations: The Old Testament and Jewish Background of Paul’s
Mission to the Nations with Special Reference to the Destination of Galatians. WUNT 84.
Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck.

Thiselton, A.C. 2000. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The First Epistle
to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Verhoef, P.A. 1987. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Books of
Haggai and Malachi. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Wazana, N. 2013. All the Boundaries of the Land: the Promised Land in Biblical Thought in
Light of the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Wenham, G.J. 1987. Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15. Waco: Word Books.

Wright, C.J. 2004. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Leicester: InterVarsity Press.

Wright, N.T. 2013. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

———. 2015. Paul and His Recent Interpreters: Some Contemporary Debates. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press.

25