and diplomacy. Still, Paul describes himself as “called to be an apostle” in
order “to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles” (1:1, 5).
Later in the same Epistle, speaking of the Gentile mission and its place in
the divine scheme of things, while Paul refers to himself anarthrously as
“an apostle to the Gentiles” (11:13) and “a minister of Christ Jesus to the
Gentiles” (15:16), he nevertheless gives no indication that he is to be seen
simply as one among many. Indeed, given the fact that both terms are
found in the predicate of sentences with einai,it would be possible to ren-
der them as articular, namely, the apostle, the minister (as do several trans-
lations in the case of Romans 11:13; for the construction with einai,see
BDF § 273). Perhaps the ambiguity of this construction—the fact that these
terms could have been read either way—was in keeping with Paul’s rhetor-
ical purposes here. Munck’s comment on Romans 15 is apropos: while Paul
acknowledges that others have worked among the Gentiles, “he alone is the
priest who is to prepare the Gentiles’ offering” (1959, 52).
Paul’s Sense of Territory Paul seems to have a sense of territory commen-
surate with this elevated view of his own role. Indeed, such a sense would
almost necessarily be implicit in the apostolic agreement of Galatians
2:1–10, as Paul understands it. A claim to have been entrusted with “the
gospel for the uncircumcised” carries with it definite territorial implications.
As for the agreement itself, it is not clear whether the division agreed to
by Peter, Paul, and the others was understood ethnically (Jews/Gentiles)
or territorially (the land of Israel/the land outside Israel); commentators
are divided on the issue (for the ethnic reading, see, e.g., Betz 1979, 100;
for the territorial, E. W. Burton 1921, 97–99). Probably there was a degree
of ambiguity in the agreement from the outset (Bruce 1982, 125). In any
case, what is more significant for our present purposes is how Paul under-
stood it.
The nature of the evidence requires a nuanced answer to the question.
On the one hand, it seems clear that Paul thinks more in territorial terms.
In his missionary activity, he seems to have no compunction about preach-
ing to Jews (1 Cor. 9:20). Further, in an important passage in 2 Corinthi-
ans 10:13–16, he speaks explicitly of a geographical sphere of jurisdiction
that God has assigned to him. In and of itself, the terminology in 2 Corinthi-
ans 10:13 is somewhat obscure: kata to metron tou kanonos hou emerisen hêmin
ho theos metrou.But the spatial terms in what follows: “we were not over-
stepping our limits when we reached you,” “we were the first to come all
the way to you,” “so that we may proclaim the good news in lands beyond
you,” seem to require a territorial reading of the term kanôn.Victor Paul Fur-
nish renders it “jurisdiction,” an appropriate term in that it combines the
“The Field God Has Assigned” 127