Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:29:38.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘The Lord Commanded…but i Have not Used…’ Exegetical and Hermeneutical Reflections on 1 cor 9.14–151

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

David Horrell
David Horrell
Affiliation:
Department of Theology, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QH, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The main focus of this paper is upon just two short verses. They are verses which are interesting, however, partly because they raise questions and relate to debates which are much wider than such a restricted focus might suggest. Like a stone dropped into a pond creating ripples in concentric circles, the exegesis of these two verses is, for me, located within the context of wider debates which, for the sake of openness of method and intention, should briefly be outlined.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , October 1997 , pp. 587 - 603
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Cf. the comments of Watson, F. B., The Open Text: New Directions for Biblical Studies? (London: SCM, 1993) 1.Google Scholar

3 Well–known, and respected is the work of Hays, R. B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven & London: Yale University, 1989)Google Scholar; also more recently Stanley, C. D., Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature (SNTSMS 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 An overview of the debate from Baur to Bultmann is given by Furnish, V. P., ‘The Jesus–Paul Debate: from Baur to Bultmann’, Paul and Jesus: Collected Essays (ed. Wedder–burn, A. J. M.; JSNTSup 37; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989) 17–50.Google Scholar For a brief survey of more recent debate see Barclay, J. M. G., ‘Jesus and Paul’, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (eds. Hawthorne, G. F., Martin, R. P. and Reid, D. G.; Downers Grove, Illinois; Leicester, England: IVP, 1993) 492–503.Google Scholar

5 Recent introductions to the area include Furnish, V. P., Jesus According to Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar) and Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Jesus Tradition in Paul’, Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (eds. Chilton, B. and Evans, C. A.; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 155–78.Google Scholar For a recent statement of the ‘maximalist’ case see Wenham, D., Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995).Google Scholar

6 Cf. Thompson, M. B., Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13 (JSNTSup 59; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991) 37–76,Google Scholar who helpfully outlines the range of possible reasons for this lack of explicit citation.

7 E.g. Sanders, E. P. & Davies, M., Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM, 1989) 323–30 with 352Google Scholar n. 13; Neirynck, F., ‘Paul and the Sayings of Jesus’, L'Apôtre Paul: Personnalité, Style et Conception du Ministère (ed. Vanhoye, A.; Leuven: Leuven University, 1986) 306–20Google Scholar; Goulder, M. D., Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974) 144–7.Google Scholar

8 Further possibilities are listed by Kim, S., ‘Jesus, Sayings of’, Dictionary of Paul, 475–80Google Scholar; Wenham, Paul. Allison, D. C. Jr, ‘The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels’, NTS 28 (1982) 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar, also lists 1 Cor 7.25 and 14.37 as references to ‘“Words of the Lord” in Paul's epistles’.

9 Cf. also Gal 5.10; Phil 1.14; 2.24; Walter, N., ‘Paul and the Early Christian Jesus–Tradition’, Paul and Jesus (ed. Wedderburn, ) 57Google Scholar; Neirynck, , ‘Paul and the Sayings of Jesus’, 307–8.Google Scholar

10 Neirynck, , ‘Paul and the Sayings of Jesus’, 308–11Google Scholar; Walter, , ‘Paul and the Early Christian Jesus–Tradition’, 66–7Google Scholar, citing Stuhlmacher, P., ‘Jesustradition im Romerbrief? Eine Skizze’, TBei 14 (1983) 243Google Scholar; also Allison, , ‘The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels’, 26 n. 18Google Scholar; Dunn, , ‘Jesus Tradition in Paul’, 161 n. 17.Google Scholar

11 Walter, , ‘Paul and the Early Christian Jesus–Tradition’, 54–5.Google Scholar

12 Walter, , ‘Paul and the Early Christian Jesus–Tradition’, 60Google Scholar, see 62–3 on 1 Cor 11.23–5 and the question of Paul's knowledge of a passion narrative; also Wenham, , Paul, 4 n. 11.Google Scholar

13 Neirynck, , ‘Paul and the Sayings of Jesus’, 277.Google Scholar

14 Neirynck, , ‘Paul and the Sayings of Jesus’, 320.Google Scholar

15 Cf. Allison, , ‘The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels’, 22–3Google Scholar: the uses of παρ⋯σωκα/παρ⋯λαβον in 1 Cor 11.23 and 15.3 support the view that tradition was imparted during missionary activity; the Lord's supper narrative is only cited again because of problems in the Corinthian community. Cf. also Dunn, , ‘Jesus Tradition in Paul’, 159–68Google Scholar; Thompson, , Clothed with Christ, 64–76Google Scholar; Wenham, Paul.

16 Cf. Walter, , ‘Paul and the Early Christian Jesus–Tradition’, 80 n. 60Google Scholar; Neirynck, , ‘Paul and the Sayings of Jesus’, 321Google Scholar, where each refers, in conclusion, to the parallel work of the other; cf. also Wedderburn, A. J. M., ‘Paul and Jesus: Similarity and Continuity’, Paul and Jesus, 117 n. 1.Google Scholar

17 Wenham, , Paul, 3–4.Google Scholar It is surprising that P. Richardson regards 1 Cor 7.10 (tentatively) as a word from the exalted Lord rather than (earthly) Jesus tradition (‘“I say, not the Lord”: Personal Opinion, Apostolic Authority and the Development of Early Christian Halakah’, TynBul 31 [1980] 70–1).Google Scholar

18 A substantial section of the original paper dealt with this passage, but has been summarized here for reasons of space.

19 Cf. Catchpole, D. R., ‘The Synoptic Divorce Material as a Traditio–Historical Problem’, BJRL 57 (1974–5) 105–6Google Scholar; Allison, , ‘The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels’, 3.Google Scholar

20 It is debatable whether Paul's statement that the believer ‘is not bound’ (7.15) allows remarriage (and thus goes against the Lord's teaching) or not. Dungan, D. L. doubts that Paul's intention was to allow remarriage (The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Life [Oxford: Blackwell, 1971] 97–9).Google Scholar Catchpole and Fee doubt whether Paul addresses the question here at all: ‘this is not to say that Paul disallows remarriage in such cases; he simply does not speak to it at all’ (Fee, G. D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians [NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmanns, 1987] 303Google Scholar; cf. Catchpole, , ‘The Synoptic Divorce Material’, 109Google Scholar n. 2). It is notable that, even in the case of someone whose partner has died (Paul clearly regards death as ending the marriage bond: see Rom 7.2–4), Paul counsels against remarriage, though he does not forbid it (1 Cor 7.39–10).

21 See esp. Dungan, , Sayings of Jesus, 97–9.Google Scholar

22 Nolland, J., ‘The Gospel Prohibition of Divorce: Tradition History and Meaning’, JSNT 58 (1995) 31–5.Google Scholar

23 Sanders, and Davies, , Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 328Google Scholar, suggest that Jesus’ original teaching was most likely ‘a complete denial of divorce’. However, the existence of the saying specifying remarriage as adultery in both a Mark and a Q form makes its claim to authenticity strong; cf. Catchpole, , ‘The Synoptic Divorce Material’, 111–13Google Scholar; Hooker, M. D., The Gospel According to St Mark (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1991) 237Google Scholar; Nolland, , ‘The Gospel Prohibition of Divorce’, 25–35.Google Scholar

24 E.g. Weiss, J., Der erste Korintherbrief (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) xl–xliii, 210–13Google Scholar; Héring, J., The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1962) xiii–xiv, 75Google Scholar; Jewett, R., ‘The Redaction of 1 Corinthians and the Trajectory of the Pauline School’ (JAAR 44/4 Supplement B, 12. 1978) 396–04Google Scholar; Sellin, G., ‘Hauptprobleme des Ersten Korintherbriefes’, ANRW 2. 25.4, 2964–82.Google Scholar See also overview in Hurd, J. C., The Origin of 1 Corinthians (London: SPCK, 1965) 43–7, 131.Google Scholar

25 See defences of the unity of these chapters by Hurd, , Origin of 1 Corinthians, 131–42Google Scholar; Merklein, H., ‘Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes’, ZNW 75 (1984) 163–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The unity of1 Corinthians as a rhetorical whole is well demonstrated by Mitchell, M. M., Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation (HUT 28; Tübingen: Mohr, 1991).Google Scholar

26 See further argument in Horrell, D. G., The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996) 204–16.Google Scholar

27 The exemplary function of ch. 9 is stressed and examined, for example, by Willis, W. L., ‘An Apostolic Apologia? The Form and Function of 1 Corinthians 9’, JSNT 24 (1985) 33–8Google Scholar, and Mitchell, , Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 243–50.Google Scholar

28 The defensive aspect of ch. 9 is stressed by Fee, First Corinthians, 390 n. 71, 392–1, 402, and Hurd, , Origin of1 Corinthians, 126–31.Google Scholar

29 Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 2nd ed. 1971) 201–2Google Scholar; cf. RSV. Willis, , ‘An Apostolic Apologia?’, 34Google Scholar, suggests that the participle ‘could legitimately be understood as future’, seeing Paul as anticipating rather than answering criticism (against this see Fee, First Corinthians, 401 n. 24).

30 Schrage, W., Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 6,12–11,16) (EKKNT 7.2; Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995) 280–91Google Scholar, suggests that the ‘defence’ relates to Paul's apostleship (vv. 1–3) whereas vv. 4ff. are primarily an exemplum.

31 Fee, First Corinthians, 412; cf. Harvey, A. E., ‘“The Workman is Worthy of His Hire”: Fortunes of a Proverb in the Early Church’, NouT 24 (1982) 211.Google Scholar

32 Cf. Schrage, , 1 Kor, 308–9.Google Scholar

33 There is some ambiguity concerning the implied meaning contained within toutcov. The usual interpretation is to take Paul as referring to ‘rights’, as is clearly the case in w. 12 and 18; see Schrage, , 1 Kor, 319–20.Google Scholar Alternatively τо⋯των might refer to the preceding list of grounds on which a right to support could be legitimated. On this reading τо⋯τω and τα⋯τα. (v. 15a and b) refer to the same thing, namely, the reasons Paul has given which would support a claim to material support. Dungan, , Sayings of Jesus, 21–2Google Scholar n. 2 makes this argument, against which see Fee, First Corinthians, 416 n. 12. Dungan comments that: ‘The translation, “I have not used any of these rights” … is inaccurate if for no other reason because Paul is speaking of only one right anyway.’ However, this assertion is easily countered: Paul mentions three ‘rights’ in 9.4–6.

34 Cf. Dungan, , Sayings of Jesus, 20–40Google Scholar; Theissen, G., The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982) 43–4.Google Scholar

35 Willis, , ‘An Apostolic Apologia?’, 35 (italics original).Google Scholar

36 This translation differs from most published translations in making ‘those who proclaim the gospel’ the direct object of the Lord's command; see further below on this decision.

37 E.g. Resch, A., Der Paulinismus and die Logia Jesu in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhaltnis (TU 12; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1904) 51Google Scholar; Dautzenberg, G., ‘Der Verzicht auf das apostolische Unterhaltsrecht. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 9’, Bib 50 (1969) 216Google Scholar; Harvey, , ‘Fortunes of a Proverb’, 211Google Scholar; Fee, First Corinthians, 413; Barrett, , I Corinthians, 208.Google Scholar Otherwise Goulder, , Midrash and Lection in Matthew, 145.Google Scholar

38 A few texts bring Matthew into line with Luke.

39 Dungan, , Sayings of Jesus, 79–80.Google Scholar He suggests, as with the Lord's teaching on divorce, that the Corinthians were already aware of this ‘command’ of Jesus (27–8,147).

40 Fjarstedt, B., Synoptic Traditions in 1 Corinthians. Themes and Clusters of Theme Words in 1 Corinthians 1–4 and 9 (Uppsala: Theologiska Institutionen, 1974) 65–77Google Scholar; see Allison, , ‘The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels’, 9Google Scholar (see 6–10 on Fjarstedt).

41 Allison, , ‘The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels’, 13Google Scholar, who explains this with reference to the fact that no one synoptic account is wholly more primitive than the others. ‘Each version contains early and late elements.’

42 In neither place is the proverb explicitly attributed to Jesus. 1 Tim 5.18 appears to quote it as scripture. See esp. Harvey, ‘Fortunes of a Proverb’.

43 Fee, First Corinthians, 413, n. 96. He asserts that ‘Jesus’ word itself is not a “command” but a proverb’ (413).

44 Bruce, F. F., Paul and Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1974) 73.Google Scholar

45 Kim, , ‘Jesus, Sayings of’, 475.Google Scholar

46 Cf. Schrage, , 1 Kor, 278, 310.Google Scholar

47 There are also occasions, though far fewer, where an indirect object after διατάσσω occurs, naturally in the dative: e.g. Luke 8.55: διάταξεν αύτ δοθναι φαγενî though here the aorist passive infinitive διθναι makes the sense clear.

48 Cf. also RSV, NIV, REB, Barrett, , I Corinthians, 208.Google Scholar

49 The synoptic accounts vary: Mark 6.8–9 allows a staff and sandals, forbidden in Matt 10.10 and Luke 9.3; 10.4. Cf. Harvey, , ‘Fortunes of a Proverb’, 218Google Scholar; Crossan, J. D., Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: Harper, 1993) 117–19.Google Scholar

50 Allison, , ‘The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels’, 12–13.Google Scholar Otherwise Tuckett, C. M., ‘Paul and the Synoptic Mission Discourse?’, ETL 60 (1984) 376–81.Google Scholar Only on the grounds that the ‘worker is worthy’ proverb was regarded at this time as an isolated saying could one accept the comments of Haraguchi, T., ‘Das Unterhaltsrecht des fruhchristlichen Verkiin-digers. Eine Untersuchung zur Bezeichnung ⋯ργατης im Neuen Testament’, ZNW 84 (1993) 183–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘Die paulinische Uberlieferung betont die Norm oder Pflicht der Verkiindiger (vgl. κ⋯ριος δι⋯ναξεν) auf Kosten der Gemeinde zu leben, wahrend die synoptische Tradition das Recht der Wanderprediger begriindet, sich von der Gemeinde unterhalten zu lassen (vgl. ᾄξιοςδ⋯ρ ⋯ ⋯ρδ⋯νης).’ It seems much more likely to me that Paul knows and agrees with the synoptic tradition which regards the instruction to live from the gospel as a command of Jesus addressed to the apostles. Paul, however, is prepared to set this command aside, treating it as a right which he chooses not to use.

51 Cf. esp. Theissen, , The Social Setting, 27–67.Google Scholar

52 Harvey, , ‘Fortunes of a Proverb’, 219.Google Scholar

53 Cf. Marshall, P., Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with the Corinthians (WUNT 2nd Series, 23; Tubingen: Mohr, 1987)Google Scholar; Horrell, , Social Ethos, ch. 5.Google Scholar

54 Dungan, , Sayings of Jesus, 39.Google Scholar

55 Theissen, , The Social Setting, 45.Google Scholar

56 Theissen, , The Social Setting, 45–6.Google Scholar

57 Theissen, , The Social Setting, 44.Google Scholar

58 Bruce, , Paul and Jesus, 73Google Scholar; Dungan, , Sayings of Jesus, 54–5Google Scholar; Tomson, P. J., Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Assen/Maastricht: Van Gor-cum; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 127–8.Google ScholarM.Aboth 1.13 quotes Hillel: ‘he that makes worldly use of the crown shall perish’, cited again at 4.5 with this elaboration: ‘Thus thou mayest learn that he who makes profit out of the words of the law removes his life from the world.’

59 Davies, W. D. & Allison, D. C. Jr, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. II (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991) 170Google Scholar: ‘These four words … are presumably redactional’; Dungan, , Sayings of Jesus, 69.Google Scholar

60 Dungan, , Sayings of Jesus, 69–70.Google Scholar

61 Conzelmann, H., The Theology of Saint Luke (London: Faber & Faber, 1969) 13 and 186–7Google Scholar n. 1; Dungan, , Sayings of Jesus, 72.Google Scholar

62 Harvey, , ‘Fortunes of a Proverb’, 217; though cf. Luke 6.30.Google Scholar

63 Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971) 595Google Scholar n. 5; cf. Ludemann, G., Early Christianity According to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary (London: SCM, 1989) 229Google Scholar; Thucydides 2.97.4; 1 Clem. 2.1; Did. 1.5.

64 Harvey, , ‘Fortunes of a Proverb’, 217Google Scholar writes: ‘Apart from this passage, we should not have known (sicl) that Jesus said this. But this is hardly important.’ On the contrary, Luke’s attribution of the saying to Jesus is highly significant in its context.

65 In a recent lecture in Cambridge, Theissen made a similar point: in Luke's view, congregational leaders should support themselves. Luke quotes Jesus (in Acts 20.35) because he is aware that Paul's activity is against the word of Jesus regarding support and seeks to make Paul appear in harmony with Jesus. (‘Gospels and Church Politics in Early Christianity’, The Reid Lectures, given at Westminster College Cambridge, June 1994 [as yet unpublished]). Cf. also Harvey, , ‘Fortunes of a Proverb’, 216–17.Google Scholar

66 Cf. Acts 6.14 (a report of Jesus' threat against the temple); Acts 9.5; 22.8; 26.15 (the risen Jesus addressing Saul/Paul).

67 Schrage, , 1 Kor, 310Google Scholar, insists that this conclusion cannot be avoided: ‘Man kommt nicht um die Erklarung herum, daB selbst ein verpflichtendes und nicht in die Beliebigkeit abzuschie-dendes Gebot des Herrn seine Grenze am Dienst der Verkiindigung des Evangeliums findet.’

68 Paul also makes mention of his labouring in order to support himself in 1 Thessalonians (1 Thess 2.9 cf. also 2 Thess 3.8). However, in this context there is no hint that the practice of manual labour was a cause of controversy or concern. The different social structures of the two congregations may well explain their different attitudes to Paul's practice in this regard. Cf. further, Barclay, J. M. G., ‘Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity’, JSNT 41 (1992) 49–74.Google Scholar

69 Cf. 2 Cor 11.9; 12.13–16; 1 Thess 2.9; (2 Thess 3.8).

70 See further Horrell, , Social Ethos, ch. 5.Google Scholar

71 Dautzenberg, , ‘Der Verzicht auf das apostolische Unterhaltsrecht’, 222, 225Google Scholar; noting the parallel specifically between 2 Cor 11.7 and Phil 2.7–8. See further n. 74 below.

72 Kim, , ‘Jesus, Sayings of’, 475.Google Scholar

73 Note the parallel in the description of Paul's own experience in 2 Cor 6.10. Cf. further Horrell, D. G., ‘Paul's Collection: Resources for a Materialist Theology’, Epworth Review 22/2 (1995) 74–83.Google Scholar

74 A well established tradition of interpretation argues that Phil 2.5–11 does not function as a paraenetic exemplar; from an extensive literature, see Martin, R. P., Carmen Christi: Philippians ii.5–11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983) xii–xix, 84–8, 287–97.Google Scholar However, in support of the view taken here, see Hurtado, L. W., ‘Jesus as Lordly Example in Philippians 2:5–11’, From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare (eds. Hurd, J. C. and Richardson, P.; Ontario: Wilfred Laurier, 1984) 113–26Google Scholar; Hooker, M. D., From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1990) 90–3Google Scholar; Fowl, S. E., The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul (JSNTSup 36; Sheffield, JSOT, 1990) 92–101.Google Scholar On the extent to which Paul's career and apostolic existence may be self-consciously patterned after the life of Jesus, as Paul saw it, see Wolff, C., ‘Humility and Self-Denial in Jesus’ Life and Message and in the Apostolic Existence of Paul’, Jesus and Paul (ed. Wedderburn, ) 145–60Google Scholar; and on Paul's use of Jesus as example, Dunn, , ‘Jesus Tradition in Paul’, 168–73.Google Scholar

75 See Thompson, , Clothed with Christ, 208–36.Google Scholar

76 A tradition of (Protestant) scholarship has attempted to deny the presence of the theme of imitatio Christi in Paul's letters. Certainly one may argue about the best terminology -‘imitation of Christ’, ‘conformity to Christ’, ‘Christ as exemplar’ etc. - but the idea surely plays a significant part in Paul's theology and ethics. See further nn. 73–5 above and Hooker, , From Adam to Christ, 7, 36Google Scholar n. 21, 47 n. 7, 90–3.

77 I am therefore in complete agreement with Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 166 and 225 n. 36, who observes in relation to Paul's use of Scripture (Deut 25.4) here in 1 Cor 9.9: ‘Still more remarkably, he [sc. Paul] follows a course opposed to what the text - on his own reading -requires … What this extraordinary fact demonstrates is that Paul allows the imitatio Christi paradigm (renunciation of privilege for the sake of others) to override all particular ethical rules and prescriptions, even when the rule is a direct command of Scripture.’ To which, on the basis of this study, I would add: ‘And even when the rule is a direct instruction of Jesus’.

78 Hays, , Echoes of Scripture, 178–92Google Scholar, also addresses this question in a section entitled ‘Paul's Letters as Hermeneutical Model’.

79 Dungan, Hence, Sayings of Jesus, 141–5Google Scholar, makes the point that as a preserver of Jesus tradition Paul is conservative. Unlike the gospel editors he does not edit or reshape the tradition in order to conform it to his own practice. Here he simply refers to the tradition, but sets his own practice against it!

80 Hays, , Echoes of Scripture, 181–3Google Scholar, argues forcefully against such a hermeneutical policy.

81 Hays' conclusions in this regard are based on his investigations into Paul's use of (OT) Scripture, but he also argues that: ‘Paul's … interpretive methods are paradigmatic for Christian hermeneutics … Above all, Paul provides us with a model of hermeneutical freedom … Those who would be faithful to Paul's word must take the risks of interpretive freedom.’ (Echoes of Scripture, 183,186,189). Hays also faces the important issue, not dealt with here, of the constraints upon legitimate interpretation. His criteria include the Christo-logical one: ‘Community in the likeness of Christ is cruciform; therefore right interpretation must be cruciform’ (191).

82 The language of ‘recovery’ and ‘resistance’ is used by Watson, F. B., ‘Strategies of Recovery and Resistance: Hermeneutical Reflections on Genesis 1–3 and its Pauline reception’, JSNT 45 (1992) 79–103Google Scholar, who also uses scriptural ‘models’ (the myths of Genesis and Exodus) to illustrate modes of Biblical interpretation.