Ecclesial Solidarity in the Pauline Corpus
Relationships between Churches in Paul’s Letters
James T. Hughes
ECCLESIAL SOLIDARITY IN THE PAULINE CORPUS
Relationships between Churches in Paul’s Letters
Copyright © 2019 James T. Hughes. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.
Pickwick Publications
An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers
199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3
Eugene, OR 97401
www.wipfandstock.com
paperback isbn: 978-1-5326-5874-7
hardcover isbn: 978-1-5326-5875-4
ebook isbn: 978-1-5326-5876-1
Cataloguing-in-Publication data:
Names: Hughes, James T., author.
Title: Ecclesial solidarity in the Pauline corpus : relationships between churches in Paul’s letters / by James T. Hughes.
Description: Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2019 | Includes bibliographical references.
Identifiers: isbn 978-1-5326-5874-7 (paperback) | isbn 978-1-5326-5875-4 (hardcover) | isbn 978-1-5326-5876-1 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Pauline churches. | Bible. Epistles of Paul—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Christian communities—Mediterranean Region. | Mediterranean Region—Church history.
Classification: lcc bs2545.p47 h8 2019 (print) | lcc bs2545.p47 (ebook)
Manufactured in the U.S.A. 06/28/19
Preface
This book is a revised version of my thesis “Ecclesial Solidarity in the Pauline Corpus: Relationships between Churches in Paul’s Letters,” completed in 2015 under the skilled and patient supervision of Andrew T. Clarke at Aberdeen University. However, it began life as an MPhil on Ephesians in 2002, working initially with David Peterson at Oak Hill College in London, and I want to express my appreciation to him also for his early encouragement, along with the many other conversation partners who have assisted in the gestation of this project over many years.
I would also like to thank my wife Kirsty and our four children, for their patience and encouragement along the way, and the good folk of Christ Church Greenbank who assisted me in more ways than they knew.
James T. Hughes
Duffield, Autumn 2018
1. Introduction
This book is an investigation of ecclesial solidarity in the nine letters written to churches within the Pauline corpus, with a focus on interchurch solidarity. In this introduction, I will define ecclesial solidarity and show why interchurch solidarity deserves particular attention (section one), outline my approach to the Pauline corpus (section two), and deal with some additional methodological considerations (section three).
Defining Ecclesial Solidarity
I have chosen to use solidarity here for three reasons. First, solidarity is an essentially non-metaphorical term, referring to the unity of a group. This will be useful when dealing with a number of metaphorical terms and concepts with a sometimes disputed meaning. Second, solidarity is a recognizable term in the discussion of early Christian groups. For example, Ogereau examines the Jerusalem collection, links solidarity with economic equality in the collection, and associates solidarity with sociability, communality, and interdependency,1 and Horrell links solidarity with difference, fostering group identity and dealing with boundaries.2
Third, to choose one of the available biblical terms or metaphors would be to privilege it and to make assertions about the metaphor or the term that are not warranted at this stage, as this dissertation will involve a reexamination of key terminology related to ecclesial solidarity. Here I would argue that the advantages of using a nonbiblical term outweigh the disadvantages.
Ecclesial: Inter- and Intrachurch Relationships
Throughout this study I will use intrachurch to refer to relationships within one local church, and interchurch to refer to relationships between one local church and another. I will seek where possible to distinguish between the first-century Greek word ἐκκλησία and the subsequent English word “church,” which has often come to carry with it wider connotations.
I am defining local church as the church that meets within a clearly defined local area. In the Pauline corpus, this local area is a city, as Thessalonica or Corinth, but not a region, such as Galatia or Macedonia. Any given local church may be made up of one or more domestic churches, and this seems to be the case for some of the churches to which Paul writes.3
I am defining domestic church as that which meets regularly together in a single defined space. I acknowledge that not all these settings are necessary domestic, nor even in a building.4 However, some form of shorthand definition is helpful, and I have sought to avoid the language of house church, as that has associations with twentieth-century developments.5
I will use universal and whole church interchangeably, but with a preference for whole church, given the subsequent theological usage of the “church universal.” I will use this term to include every local church extant in the period in which the letters were written. Other descriptions of church, such as regional or provincial church, will be explained as they occur.
These definitions raise two issues. First, the issue of how the relationship between local and domestic church in any given locality, what Gehring calls “a plurality of house churches within the whole church at one location,”6 should be defined. Should these be considered intrachurch or interchurch relationships? Whether or not relationships between domestic churches in one local church (or one local area, such as a city) are considered to be intrachurch or interchurch relationships will depend on the context; what may be true of the church in Corinth may or may not be true of the church in Rome, so I will examine these issues as I approach each letter. However, the general principle here would be that relationships between domestic churches are intrachurch when there is a realistic possibility of those churches meeting together.
Second, not all scholars would accept that there is any designation of “church” beyond the local. The use of the word ἐκκλησία noted above for the “whole” church, or for “the totality of Christians”7 is challenged by some scholars, and this has implications for how ecclesial solidarity is understood. Thus, Knox states “in the New Testament the word ‘church’ always means ‘a gathering’ or ‘an assembly.’”8 As for ideas of the universal church, Knox states “It is impossible to discover in the New Testament any other link or relationship of the local churches one with the other than this invisible bond of mutual love of the members one for the other.”9 He argues that using the word church “to describe all our Christian brethren at present living in the world” is a nonbiblical usage.