Smith has challenged the normal assumption that Paul sees suffering under three classifications and claims that he can divide the material into seven headings, allowing him a better interpretations of Paul’s thought. Smith follows the normal methodology of identifying the theme on OT material, tracing its development through second temple Judaism, and finally bringing these insights into the NT as a key to deciphering the levels of Paul’s thinking.

The fact that Smith effectively subdivides the normal divisions in an attempt to discern deeper levels of meaning in Paul’s understanding than is normally understood is helpful but to this reviewer not particularly significant. I think that most readers would discern the range of meanings Smith identifies without going to the effort of formal subdivisions.

What this reviewer does find unexpected is the inclusion of a subheading ‘Suffering Leading to Death as Atoning’ under the heading ‘Suffering as Remedial’ (84). He takes the case of incest in 1 Corinthians 5:3–5 and comes up with an unexpected phrase. Referring to Paul’s statement, ‘For though absent from the body, I am present in spirit’, Smith comments: ‘It is probable that Paul means by being present in spirit, though absent in body, that his spirit was actually present in Corinth—a sort of bi-location—whereby he acquired sufficient information to be able to pass judgement’ (85).

The only way I can interpret this is that Smith thinks Paul indulged in some sort of astral travel in which he presented himself in Corinth. I prefer D. Hill’s understanding (Greek Words with Hebrew Meanings), that Paul is expressing the Semitic concept of solidarity, as far more likely. There is no suggestion that Paul indulged in such esoteric practices as suggested by Smith. When Paul describes his spiritual experiences elsewhere, as in 2 Corinthians 12:1–7 (assuming that he spoke of himself), it is the Spirit’s work on him (‘caught up’) that causes the experience, rather than some self indulged extra sensory flights from physical reality.

However, the main concern I have with this important section of Smith’s study is his argument that suffering can be atoning. Certainly suffering can be corrective and spiritually beneficial, which he has argued under another section, but to claim that it is atoning undercuts clear statements by the NT writers concerning the uniqueness of Christ’s suffering to achieve salvation. Smith goes on to say of the discipline which the incestuous man is to be put under, ‘Because he has hitherto refused to repent, the only means of atonement available to him now is through his suffering and death, which is an extreme manifestation of God’s mercy’ (88).

Lest it seem that I am misrepresenting Smith, I cite another passage to show that this is really his understanding. He says:

Without a doubt, Paul views Jesus’ death and resurrection as the means of universal atonement; faith in Christ includes an appropriation of the atoning benefits of Christ’s death. But room still remains in Pauline theology for a sort of ad hoc atonement of particular offenses by means of the suffering and death of the offender (93).

Smith’s basis for this interpretation is found in the inter-testamental literature. He appeals to Rabbinical literature, 1QS 8.3 and The Psalms of Solomon in which suffering is taught to be atoning. He brings this into the Pauline literature and makes it the hermeneutical key for understanding Paul.

This raises questions about the use of this literature. Clearly it has been of tremendous help to detect what the key subjects were that spanned the interest of the many groupings within Second Temple Judaism, but to use it beyond this very restricted limit is academically dangerous. The method of collecting texts from a range of independent Second Temple documents and from them constructing a theological argument that supposedly represents the Jewish understanding of that era is theologically irresponsible. To do so denies these texts the voices of their own authors and their theological view points.

It is this fundamental methodological error that to this reviewer’s mind is the cause of Smith’s confusion. In this example he has assumed that, because the ideas are in the inter-testamental literature, the same ideas must be present in the NT. He has assumed uniformity and transferred ideas uncritically across documents and traditions. Smith, however, is not alone in this. He represents a methodology that is used widely but cannot provide the insights that its proponents believe it promises.

---