Abstract
In this important study, Moser proposes two central themes that undergird the argument of the book. First, that according to Paul, God enacts deliverance and salvation for humanity as a display of divine righteousness. This idea is seen as arising from the thought contained in the book of Isaiah, which resonated with Paul’s proclamation of the gospel. Second, that redemption entails divine self-sacrifice and this then requires human response and imitation in regard to inter-personal relations.
After the brief preparatory remarks, the argument is constructed in six tightly sequenced chapters which articulate the case for seeing ideas of self-sacrifice at the heart of Paul’s theological understanding. The opening chapter ‘Gospel of Righteous Self-Sacrifice’ (pp. 1-41) sets out the basis for seeing the notion of self-sacrifice as being fundamental to Paul’s understanding of his gospel proclamation. In order to construct his argument Moser sees a primary connection between Paul’s gospel and the theological vision articulated in the book of Isaiah (p. 5). At the heart of the argument, according to Moser, stands Paul’s understanding of the means by which God provides a remedy for the human predicament. Thus in regard he states, The remedy for the human predicament of sin, in Paul’s gospel, comes from God. It arises from a divine gift of self-sacrifices, intended for human redemption through righteous mercy found in Christ. The gift, undeserved by humans, aims to repair the problem of sin that alienates humans from God and divine righteousness. . . . The undeserved gift of a remedy is this in divine self-sacrifice as a costly offering aimed at repairing humans by their righteous redemption through Christ (p. 11).
In many ways this is a classic understanding of Pauline theology with a stronger emphasis being placed on the notion of self-sacrifice. The innovation that is built on this understanding of Paul’s gospel involves the human reciprocal actions that this requires. In particular, Moser identifies Rom 12.1 as a key text with its injunction that believers should present their ‘bodies as a living sacrifice.’ This act of human sacrifice is viewed as reciprocal, being predicated on the example of Christ’s sacrifice. Such reciprocity is seen as being reinforced by Paul in his letter to the Philippians where the recipients are commanded to have the same mind as Christ who ‘humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death’ (Phil 2.5-8). Next Moser introduces the idea of ‘righteous agitation’ in order to argue that in Pauline thought God acts as a divine agitator seeking to provoke wayward humans to embrace righteousness. In this regard, Moser states that ‘Paul thinks of righteousness as characteristic of the Spirit and the life of God’ (p. 33). Furthermore, God is seen as actively and perhaps provocatively agitating ‘among humans by seeking for them as a shepherd searches for scattered sheep’ (p. 39). It might be asked why it is better to portray this divine activity as ‘agitation’ rather than simply ‘working’ for righteousness. Perhaps here Moser would suggest it is because of the way existing human understandings are destabilized. However, here a little further explanation might have made the argument clearer.
The second chapter is entitled ‘Faith Grounded in Self-Sacrifice’ (pp. 42-79). Key to this chapter is understanding how faith and love (agapē) relate to one another in Pauline thought, with special focus on the phrase in Gal 5.6 ‘faith working through love’, πίστις δι’ἀγἀπης ἐνεργουμἐνη. Here Moser argues for a reciprocal understanding of the verb. Thus he comments, ‘[t]he NRSV translation “made effective” [from the margin] serves well as long as we allow for the effectiveness to be bimodal, made by God (allowing for a passive sense) as well as by humans (allowing for a middle sense)’ (p. 47). This is an intriguing suggestion. Perhaps it could be further strengthened if it were to be shown that in specific contexts a verbal form can simultaneously be intended to express two voices, and hence that authors exploit the ambiguity of the two voices which are written with morphologically identical forms.
The third chapter explores the ‘Incarnational Ethics of Self-Sacrifice’ (pp. 80-104). Here Paul’s understanding of self-sacrifice is taken as a means by which it is possible to relate his ideas of law and ethics. Moser sees Paul as not rejecting but upholding the law in some sense. This sense relates to an incarnational view of the law, which seems to understand life in Christ and the gift of the Spirit as the means by which people can live to God, and thus are enabled to receive the life of reconciliation that was not possible through the law (p. 89). This leads Moser to assert that Paul held to an ‘incarnational nomism’ that was aimed at upholding the law, but recognised the law to be ‘the law of the Spirit of life’ (Rom 8.2), and in line with the book’s central thesis it is argued that Christ’s dying to the law enacted reciprocal divine self-sacrifice. Although the argument is extensive, it is not altogether clear how the Mosaic law is actually upheld in this scenario. Believers live under a new pattern of life in the Spirit and carry out the things required by the Mosaic law but not through being bound by that law. There is more that needs to be unpacked here.
The final three chapters continue to develop the claim about the centrality of divine self-sacrifice in Paul thought. Thus is chapter four Moser suggests human fear of divine judgment is mitigated though God’s intervention on behalf of humans through an act of self-sacrifice. Fear, therefore, motivates reconciliation with God, but divine self-sacrificial love allows humans to move beyond a state of fear. Chapter five discusses ‘Responsible Agency towards Divine Self-Sacrifice’ (pp. 151-183). The primary point of this chapter is that of suggesting ‘a role for human power in redemption, according to Paul, as a response to the gospel of divine self-sacrifice’ (p. 151). For Moser, this solves a theological problem since human agency means God is blameless in this process. Key to Moser’s argument is his claim that ‘[i]f, as argued, human faith in God is voluntary and responsible in Paul’s thought, then the divine reckoning of faith as righteousness assumes a voluntary and responsible human role, in his thought’ (p. 167). It is striking that there is no real discussion of Rom 9.19-23 where Paul compares God to a potter who makes some vessels for destruction and others to receive mercy. There appears little room in these verses for the type of human agency that Moser advocates. Admittedly, Rom 9.19-23 is not the totality of Paul’s thought on this issue, but these verse do require discussion and integration into Paul’s larger thought in order to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between the divine and the human in the process of receiving grace and being drawn into the life of faith. The final chapter ‘Assessing God’s Gambit in Self-Sacrifice’ (pp. 184-229) seeks to establish the centrality of reciprocal self-sacrifice in Paul’s understanding of the gospel . Thus Moser comments, Paul’s message of self-sacrifice in Romans 12:1-2 itself holds the key to suitable assessment of his good news. A key contribution is that suitably apprehending divine righteousness in self-sacrifice will confirm God’s reality and redemptive will. Such apprehending enables one to experience firsthand the divine self-sacrifice in one’s own life, with its distinctive power to obey God. There is no circularity here, because the relevant experience is not the same as a message of divine self-sacrifice, but it can be a truth indicator, and thus evidence, for such a message (p. 184).
Here the discussion has moved beyond that of explicating Paul’s thought to that of articulating the theological claim of the continuing veracity of a self-sacrificial understanding of the Pauline gospel. Moser’s study helpfully focuses attention on self-sacrificial language in Paul’s writing and the potential for seeing that as a reciprocal response enjoined on believers in Christ. There are perhaps still some exegetical challenges to the larger theory espoused by Moser. However, the study of Paul’s thought will be enriched by a fuller consideration of the apostle’s reflections on the idea of divine self-sacrifice.