Publication | Desire in Paul's Undisputed Epistles

My study of “desire” (epithymeō, ho epithymētēs, epithymia, hereafter “desire”) in the Roman Empire arose because of the lack – at least as far as I am aware – of a single thesis or book examining the use of these lexemes within the Greek literature of the early Roman Empire.[1] To be sure, studies of “desire” in the Roman Empire and in Paul have been published, but, to my knowledge, only as brief essays or journal articles or as relatively short sections in larger dictionaries and lexicons, commentaries, and monographs.[2] I applied John Lyons’s theory of semantic analysis to the use of “desire” in Roman imperial texts, proposing a thesis concerning the references, sense relations, and denotations of these lexemes (cf. ch. 2).[3] Before looking at Paul’s use of “desire” in his undisputed epistles (cf. chs. 9–10), I first tested this thesis by examining the use of these lexemes in Dio Chrysostom (cf. ch. 3), Epictetus (cf. ch. 4), Lucian of Samosata’s text The Tyrannicide (cf. ch. 5), the Cynic epistles (cf. ch. 6), Second Temple Jewish texts (cf. ch. 7), and then summarized these observations (cf. ch. 8). After analyzing Paul’s use of “desire” (cf. chs. 9–10), I drew conclusions, examining how these semantic observations on the uses of “desire” in the Roman Empire illumine Paul’s use of these lexemes in his undisputed epistles (cf. ch. 11). By first considering the use of “desire” in these texts before examining Paul’s use of these lexemes in his letters, I was able to clarify how Paul, like his contemporaries, relates these lexemes with various vices in addition to sexual immorality (Rom 1:24a; 13:14; Gal 5:16, 17; 1 Cor 10:6; 1 Thess 4:3), with the law (Rom 7:7; 13:9; Gal 5:16, 24), with positive objects (Phil 1:23; 1 Thess 2:17b), and with the metaphors of enslavement and freedom from enslavement (Rom 6:12; 7:8; 13:9; Gal 5:16).

Based on this study, I arrived at the following conclusions:

1. For Paul, like numerous other Roman imperial authors I examined, “desire” belongs to the semantic field of “wanting” (thelō / thelēsis) and alongside lexemes that including “longing” (oregomai / orexis, epipotheō / epipothia, spoudazō) and “love” (agapaō / agapē).[4]

2. Roman imperial authors often classify “pleasure” (hēdonē) as a superordinate lexeme[5] when speaking about objects of wanting.[6]

3. Common objects of “desire” in Roman imperial texts include “money” (chrēma, argyrion, chrysion), “food” (trophē, brōma, sitos), “wine” (methē), and sexual intercourse (synousia) with other people (cf. e.g., “women” [gyna]; “a servant” [pais]).

4. Contrary to the conclusion of some scholars,[7] “sex” is indeed one possible object of “desire” in Roman imperial texts but is neither the only object nor the primary object of “desire.” Although the Septuagint uses “desire” positively and negatively, many New Testament scholars[8] have concluded in light of the final commandment in the Decalogue (cf. Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21), which prohibits desire for a neighbor’s wife, that “desire” carried sexual connotations in the Roman Empire. For several reasons, I have argued that this is simply not the case. As G. Wallis points out, sexual desire cannot be intended by this commandment, since adultery and sexual relationships between a man and the wife or the betrothed of someone else was already been prohibited in Exod 20:14 / Deut 5:18.[9] Additionally, Wallis notes that the Hebrew lexeme in Deut 5:21 translated in Greek as “desire” (epithymeō) cannot refer exclusively to sexual desire, since this lexeme also appears in Deut 7:25 with reference to desiring the silver and gold of idols.[10] Furthermore and contrary to popular opinion, 4 Maccabees, which references the Tenth Commandment in 4 Macc 2:5, applies this prohibition not only to desire for the wife of a neighbor, but also to anything that belongs to a neighbor. In this way, the author reminds his or her audience that the law forbids “all desire” (pasēs epithymias, 2:4), rather than merely desire for a neighbor’s wife.

5. People in the Roman Empire sought to “obtain” (e.g., tynchanō, echō, pherō, lambanō, plēroō, harpazō) objects of “desire.”[11]

6. To describe a positive form of “desire,” Roman imperial authors frequently make use of the syntagm “desire + to see / to hear / to be with + an individual.” For example, Dio Chrysostom says in Oration 4 that because Alexander “desired to see” (epethymei theasasthai) Diogenes and converse with him (4.11), he decided to approach him (4.12). This “desire to see” Diogenes expresses a wish to see someone that is not bad. Similarly, Epictetus says in Disc. 2.19.24, “By the gods, I desire to see a Stoic,”[12] instead of a statue of Zeus or the gold and ivory image of Athena (2.19.26). Rather than constituting an exception, Dio Chrysostom and Epictetus demonstrate a common syntagm in the Roman Empire associated with “desire.”[13]

7. In each chapter, I paid special attention to how these Roman imperial texts relate “desire” with the metaphors enslavement and manumission, and demonstrated the frequent use of this metaphor.[14]

Having considered the use of “desire” in many Roman imperial texts in chs. 3–8, I applied these findings to Paul’s use of the lexemes in chs. 9–10, proceeding through the epistles in the order in which they were written (i.e., 1 Thess, 1 Cor, Phil, Gal, Rom). As a result, I immediately encountered Paul’s positive use of the syntagm “desire + to see + individuals” in 1 Thess 2:17b: “We eagerly longed with great desire to see your face.”[15] The words “with great desire” (en pollē epithymia, 2:17b) describe the extent to which Paul and his companions longed to see the believers in Thessalonica. Naturally, Paul’s desire arose because of his separation from them, which could be overcome by visiting (erchomai) them again (2:18). Paul therefore does not always relate “desire” to negative objects or specifically to sex. Instead, like other Roman imperial authors, he makes use of the positive syntagm to express a “desire” to see specific individuals. Paul’s “desire” or “longing” to see individuals is found in many other instances in his letters (cf. Rom 1:11a; 15:23–24; Phil 1:8, 23; 2:26; 4:1; 1 Thess 3:6b, 10a). In every instance except Phil 1:23, Paul’s “desire” or “longing” can be obtained by “coming” (erchomai) and seeing the believers again. In the case of Phil 1:23, “desire” can be obtained by dying (analyō) and being with Christ (syn Christō einai).

Paul’s next use of “desire” occurs in 1 Thess 4:5 – a paragraph that consists of 4:3–12. According to Paul, holiness involves “abstaining from sexual immorality” (apechesthai apo tēs porneias, 4:3). Recognizing that “sexual immorality” could take several nuances in the Roman Empire, Paul clarifies his understanding of this lexeme in 4:4–12. “Abstaining from sexual immorality” means, among other things, avoiding obtaining a sexual partner “with the emotion of desire” (en pathei epithymias, 4:4–5). In this particular instance, yet certainly not in every occurrence in Roman imperial texts, “desire” relates to “sexual immorality.” Whether single or married, believers in Thessalonica must control their sexual urges (4:4), in contrast to their fellow citizens, who pursue sexual partners “with the emotion of desire” (4:5).

The next occurrence of “desire” appears in 1 Cor. As in 1 Thess 4, Paul rebukes the Corinthian believers for tolerating “sexual immorality” in 5:1–7:40 and answers their question regarding “eating meats offered to idols” in 8:1–11:1. If “desire” primarily directs itself to matters of sex and “sexual immorality” in the Roman Empire, it is quite surprising that in 1 Cor 5:1–7:40 – which deals with “sexual immorality” among Corinthian believers – Paul does not mention a cognate of “desire” a single time. Rather, Paul waits to mention this lexeme until 1 Cor 10:6 (cf. epithymētas kakōn) when discussing whether believers could eat meats that had been offered to idols (cf. 1 Cor 8:1–11:1). Here, Paul categorizes “not being idolaters” (10:7), “not engaging in sexual immorality” (10:8), “not testing the anointed one” (10:9), and “not grumbling” (10:10) as specific expressions of “those who desire bad things (10:6)” – the vice that introduced the list.

Finally, Paul like other contemporary texts of his era that I examined, makes use of “desire” in relation to the metaphor “enslavement” and “freedom from enslavement” in his letters to the Galatians and to the Romans. In Galatians, Paul argues that the Jewish law constitutes the metaphorical slaveholder who enslaves people. When referring in Gal 5 to slavery to and freedom from the law, Paul links this metaphor three times with “desire” (cf. 5:16, 17, and 24). Paul teaches in Gal 5 that having been metaphorically freed from the law of works and circumcision, Gentile believers should serve the law of Christ (6:2) – a law that consists in “love” (agapaō). As a result, believers who walk by the Spirit no longer fulfill the desire of the flesh (epithymian sarkos ou mē telesēte, 5:16). Thus, according to Paul in Galatians, freedom from enslavement to the law comes to those who put their faith in Jesus. The law makes use of the “desire of the flesh” to enslave people. Having been freed by means of the Spirit, believers choose to serve a different master by loving others as they themselves want to be loved. Bearing these findings in mind, Paul’s use of this imagery in Rom 1, 6–8, and 13 may be better understood.[16]

I sought to accomplish two objectives in this study. First, my goal was to assist Greek lexicographers to capture more effectively the quasi-synonyms, antonyms, super- and subordinate lexemes of “desire” in Roman imperial texts, thereby shedding light on both the word- and semantic fields of “desire,” as well as lexemes that commonly stood alongside “desire” in these texts. Second, I hoped to make an exegetical contribution to Pauline studies by demonstrating that Paul makes use of “desire” in very similar ways to other Greek speakers of his time, regardless their philosophy or religion. It is my hope that this semantic analysis of “desire” in Roman imperial texts reveals new insights on the use of these lexemes in the Roman Empire.

Andrew Bowden obtained his Th.D. in New Testament in 2020 from Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich. Currently he is employed as a wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter (“Research and Teaching Fellow”) at Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, where he is examining food and drink in the Gospel of Matthew. The contents of this article are adapted from his book, Desire in Paul’s Undisputed Epistles: Semantic Observations on the Use of epithymeō, ho epithymētēs, and epithymía in Roman Imperial Texts, WUNT 2/539 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2020).

[1] The Roman Empire began with the overthrow of the Roman Republic, which culminated with the victory of Julius Caesar’s adopted son Octavian over his chief rival for power, Marcus Antonius (Mark Antony) at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE (Colin M. Wells, “Roman Empire,” ABD 5:801–06 [801]). Wells explains that “Antony fled with his ally Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, to her capital Alexandria, where the following year both committed suicide” (p. 801). Octavian took on the name Augustus and concentrated power in a single individual. The (Western) Roman Empire lasted until 476 CE, when Emperor Romulus Augustus was deposed by the Germanic King Odoacer in the city of Rome; cf. Joshua J. Mark, “Roman Empire,” Ancient History Encyclopedia, last modified March 22, 2018.

[2] Cf. Friedrich Büchsel, “θυμός, ἐπιθυμία, ἐπιθυμέω, ἐπιθυμητής, ἐνθυμέομαι, ἐνθύμησις,” TWNT (1938) 3:168–72 // ET: TDNT (1965) 3:168–72.

[3] Cf. John Lyons, Semantics, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).

[4] Cf. e.g., Rom 7:7–20; 13:8; Gal 5:13–22; Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 4:5–9; T. Iss. 4:2.2–3; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 4.1.1–3; Epictetus, Disc. 4.1.74–75; 4 Macc 5:3.

[5] Lyons explains superordinate lexemes with the formula “x is a kind of y,” thus where “a cow is a kind of animal”; cf. Lyons, Semantics, 1.292.

[6] Thus, various objects of wanting or desire, such as “money,” “fame,” or “sex,” can be classified as particular kinds of “pleasure.” When discussing the nature of desires (τὸ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν γένος), Dio Chrysostom, e.g., says in Or. 5.16–17, “when we love luxury, or wealth, or sensual indulgence, or glory, or any other pleasure …” (ὁπόταν ἢ τρυφῆς ἢ χρημάτων ἢ ἀφροδισίων ἢ δόξης ἢ ἄλλης τινὸς ἡδονῆς ἐρῶμεν …). This provides one of numerous examples where Roman imperial authors classify various objects of desire as subordinates of ἡδονή. See also Plato, Phaedr. 238A; Philo, Leg. 3:113; Plut., Quest. conv. 746D; Mor. 750E; Lib. aegr. 1; DChrys., Orr. 6.16–17; 8.23–26; Ep. 46, 17–18 of Diogenes (a Cynic epistle); ClemAl., Strom. 2.20.106; and Lucian, Tyr. 4; Merc. cond. 8.1.

[7] Cf. e.g., William D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (London: SPCK, 1955), esp. 17–31; David Charles Aune, “Passions in the Pauline Epistles: The Current State of Research,” in Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought, ed. David Charles Aune, RMCS, London/New York: Abingdon, 2008), 221–37; Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1994), esp. 158–179 (i.e., ch. 7 in Boyarin’s text); Kathy L. Gaca, The Making of Fornication: Eros, Ethics, and Political Reform in Greek Philosophy and Early Christianity, Hellenistic Culture and Society (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 2003); Jennifer Wright Knust, Abandoned to Lust: Sexual Slander and Ancient Christianity, Gender, Theory, and Religion (New York: Colombia University Press, 2005); William Loader, The Septuagint, Sexuality and the New Testament: Case Studies on the Impact of the LXX in Philo and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), esp. pp. 9–11 and 118–19.

[8] Cf. e.g., Gaca, The Making of Fornication, esp. 11–20; Knust, Abandoned to Lust, esp. 6–12; Loader, The Septuagint, esp. 9–11, 118–19.

[9] Cf. Wallis, “חָמַד,” in TDOT 4:457.

[10] Cf. G. Wallis, “חָמַד,” in TDOT 4:457.

[11] Cf. e.g., James 4:1–3; Diogenes Laertius, Lives, 10.128; Dio Chrysostom,Or. 4.16, 29, 31, 139; Epictetus, Disc. 4.1.4; Anacharsis, Ep. 9, 28–35; Lucian, Tyr. 3; Wis 16:3; Philo, Migr. 155; Spec. 4.127.

[12] Cf. Disc. 2.19.24: ἐπιθυμῶ τινα νὴ τοὺς θεοὺς ἰδεῖν Στωικόν.

[13] For illustrations of this positive syntagm, see e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 1.24; 19.1; Epictetus, Disc. 1.6.24; 2.18.19–20; Plutarch, Pelopidas 28.5.4 (ἐπεθύμησεν ἰδεῖν); Demetrius 9.4.1 (ἐπιθυμῶν ἰδεῖν); Lucian, Charon 1.4 (Ἐπεθύμησα … ἰδεῖν); Calumniae 16.2 (τοῦ ἀκούοντος ἐπιθυμίας); Toxaris 27.13 (τού των ἐπιθυμήσας Δημήτριος, θέας μὲν τῶν πυραμίδων, ἀκροάσεως δὲ τοῦ Μέμνονος); Josephus, Ant. 8.165 (ἐπιθυμία τῆς ὄψεως αὐτοῦ); Ant. 8.182 (τούς τε πανταχοῦ βασιλεῖς ἐπιθυμεῖν εἰς ὄψιν αὐτῷ); Ant. 18.325 (ἐπεθύμησεν αὐτοῖς ἐλθεῖν δι’ ὄψεως); Apion 1.232 (τοῦτον ἐπιθυμῆσαι θεῶν γενέσθαι); Epistle of Barnabas, 16.1 (ἐπιτεθυμηκέναι ἀκούειν); Irenaeus, Haer. 1.13.2 (πολλάκις ἐπεθύμησα ἀκοῦσαι).

[14] Cf. e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 4.66; Epictetus, Disc. 4.1.12–13, 86–88; Anacharsis, Ep. 9, 34–36; Heraclitus, Ep. 9:5, 8–12; Socrates, Ep. 1:11, 6–8; Lucian, Tyr. 19; 4 Macc 2:21–23; Wis 6:12–17.

[15] περισσοτέρως ἐσπουδάσαμεν τὸ πρόσωπον ὑμῶν ἰδεῖν ἐν πολλῇ ἐπιθυμίᾳ.

[16] In Rom 1, Paul explains that despite God revealing himself to Gentiles by means of creation, the Gentiles chose to worship creation, rather than the creator (cf. 1:16–23). God responds by delivering these people (παραδίδωμι, cf. 1:24–28) into the hands of their enemies. These enemies consist of “the desires of their hearts” (ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν, 1:24a), “impure emotions” (πάθη ἀτιμίας, 1:26a), and an “unruly mind” (ἀδόκιμον νοῦν, 1:28b). The list of vices mentioned in 1:29–31 clarifies additional specific manifestations of these three metaphorical enemies. Paul makes use of this metaphor again in Rom 6–8, where he explains that Gentiles became enslaved to sin after encountering the Jewish law. In 7:7 he provides an example of the specific law “do not desire” (οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις, cf. Exod 20:17 LXX; Deut 5:21 LXX), since cognates of this lexeme were often associated with the language of slavery in Roman imperial texts (cf. chs. 3–7). Because of their faith in Christ, Gentile believers are now subject to a new, loving master, God, who gives them eternal life (cf. e.g., Rom 8:11). Finally, Paul makes use of the language of slavery in Rom 13 in a more subtle manner, saying that earthly rulers are servants of God (13:4, 6). I suggested that 13:1–7 is linked with 13:8–14 by means of the noun ὀφειλή (“owe”; 13:7) and the verb ὀφείλω (“to owe”; 13:8). Although believers owe no one anything (13:7), they owe “love” to all people (13:8). “Love” is the fulfillment of the law (13:8b–10), including of the specific commands “do not commit adultery,” “do not murder,” “do not steal,” “do not desire” (13:9; cf. Exod 20:2–17 LXX; Deut 5:6–21 LXX).