New
Testament Interpretation II
Leander
Keck
1/9/95
A pre-occupation to reconstuct the facts of early
Christianity. Read as a history. Problematic in hist. crit. use: what was
written in Acts, rather than what was not stated. It was assumed that it was a historical
account. Not so with the Gospels, because
there were four of them (with contradictory statements). Acts now seen as a historical narrative
written to teach a lesson or mold an opinion.
How history was written in the past.
Pervo sees Acts as a historical romance narrative. Yet, this approach
does not mean that historicity is absent.
But, to some critics, the picture of history in Acts does not accord
with the picture of early Christianity vis a vis the Jesus of History. Recall that a reconstruction of the real
Jesus carries with it a reconstruction of the real Church. Much of the Historical Jesus stuff fails on
its lack of the latter. Other critics
consider Acts to distort the historical Paul.
So, there have been many critics of Acts in historical
criticism. Yet, Acts is perhaps the most
successful of the books in the N.T. It provided the Ch. with the most influencial
account of its origins. It was Acts
which ended the canon. Perhaps this
success has led to the historical critical criticism. According to Keck, exigesis important to understanding
the book itself.
Some features of Acts: Acts is vol. 2 (Luke being vol. 1).
Acts written 85-90 CE. Yet, not sure
exactly when. Christianity was already
55 years old. A basic consensus: Acts,
as well as Luke, idealizes the early Ch.
A spin. Not the golden age. At what points was the story 'touched
up'? This literary quality is not
necessarily the function, or intent, of the book. Keck: why did Luke tell the story in his way?
How was the text supposed to function? A private communication? Yet, the Gospels had been read in
Churches. Is the purpose: Look how much
progress we've made? Or, nastalgia? Or,
does he want to impress a patron (Theopholus)? If so, why? We don't know the
answers, yet good to ask the questions because it shows how little we
know. Does he see the original church as
normative? Also, can ask: what effect on
me? Would I have liked such a church? Did Luke want to 'rewrite history' in the
face of disputes over how the church should be?
What did Luke have to work with in writing Acts? Acts begins with a link to Gos. of Luke. Acts covers about 30 years A relatively wide geography. A continuing narrative, one character at a
time. Simultanity rare (ch.s 8, 9, 10, and 19).
But, usually, one thread of action.
Especially chapter 13 on with Paul as protagonist. This makes it easy to follow the plot.
The narrator is not identified. Sources not identified.
Impression given that he was there; a reporting quality. The narrator knows what Paul is thinking, he
knows what happened in the Sanhedrin.
Keck: remarkable. Narrator uses
'we' at some points. So, the narrator
relied on others. Yet, did he include
everything that he knew. Keck: success
in imparting the impression that more is learned than what is actually
revealed. Omissions seem rare. Done by stories and speeches. Stories of particular events, with a
generalizing summary. Gives one the impression that one knows more than one
does.
A key phrase in Acts: 'in one accord'. Action united.
Unity/agreement evidenced? Advocated?
Also, prayer is imp. What happens is not accidental; imp: receptivity to
divine influence. Prayer precedes
important events. Also, as in 2:46, prayer precedes Church activity 'in one
accord'. Prayed with one voice. 18:22
also. Any dissent is merely
temporary. Keck: memories of a day when
we were all in agreement? Leadership in
the Church seen as a family matter. How
did James become the leader? Seems
divine act. Also, 'twelve' as a fixed
number is emphasized. Twelve tribes
(eschat imp.) or witnesses were twelve? The replacement story assumes the
former, but for Peter the disiples are witnesses of J.C., so no replacement
according to Peter. Why is Luke
interested in the story of replacement?
The story of charismatic speech turned into intelligible
speech; reversal of Tower
of Babal Jerusalem and Peter's conversion of them; the
renewal of Isreal. A theme in Acts:
Christianity fulfilling Judiasm.
1/11/95
Acts 2:22 contains a famous summary. Agreement/unity stressed. 4:32--another
summary. 'having everything in common', 'great grace upon them all',
'distribution as any had need'. 'laid (property) at the apostles' feet'. first
use of the word 'Church' in acts, after the man and woman died at the apostles'
feet for cheating. Keck: but we learn
little about the distribution. It was
for those in need; not a total pooling of resources (e.g. communalism). No hint that everything was disowned. Also, it was not for the production of
income--maybe because they thought the KOG would soon come and the world end.
No hint that any other Xn church did this.
A hint that this practice didn't work well--during famine--accepted
funds from the church at Antioch . Keck: at issue is not why they had this
communal living (Jesus never required it) or how it worked or why it
stopped. Instead, why did Luke report it
and why did he did he report it as he did. Perhaps it went back to the ancient
Greek world's view of friendship (sharing goods) and of a golden age (when no
money). Luke is drawing on a trad. in
portraying an idealic past in order to strengthen his portrait of the early
church in idealistic terms. A pessimism
of the present (at the time of the writing of Acts) in this view. Imagery of the ideal past. He also knew that the O.T. made reference to
helping the poor.
But, in chapter 16, tension in the ideal community. Hellonists (Hellenized Jews) weren't given
their fair share of the distribution.
Class distinction. Apostles:
devoted selves to praying and preaching, leaving admin. to others
delegated. Keck: did they think they
were too important to be involved in 'serving tables'? Especially important is how the controversy
was resolved: the administrators were Greek--those of the minority were chosen to govern.
Acts 5: 12, 9:31 and
12:31--the church was growing. Success summaries. 5:12--an enchanted movement. Like the ministry of Jesus. Theme: a divinely ordinated movement.
Many speeches in Acts.
See Marian Soards, The Speeches of Acts.
Five speeches in the first 12 chapters.
Most by Peter and one by Steven.
They are the work of Luke, so they have a unity and consistent. Speeches allow the narrator to portray the
protagonist to say what the narrator thought was imp. So, the speeches are impacted by the context
of Acts. Also, addressed not only to the
characters in the story, but the readers as well. Not as in Mt where speeches have teaching
passages woven in; rather, woven into the narrative.
Luke's view of the early church emphasized the quality of
being spirit-driven. The emphasis on the
Spirit is consistent with the book of Luke (The Spirit comes to Jesus in his
baptism). Jesus is a spirit-driven
historic Son of God. Pentecost: all filled with the Spirit. Spoke in different languages. Spirit-driven.
It spread, full of the Holy Spirit. See
6:3, 11:24. The story itself is moved by
the Spirit (i.e. not just the characters).
The persecution disbursed all but the apostles (Keck: odd that the
leadership structure would be spared or left alone). Phillip baptizes (where is v. 37 of ch. 8?
Thought to have been added). Impact of
the Spirit. Most imp. act of the Spirit:
9:42--Peter raised the dead. He stayed
with Simon the Taner (tanned leather)--bottom of the social ladder. Peter's
vision: he disobeys the voice. v. 44: the Spirit was poured out even onto
Gentiles after Peter spoke. He commanded
that they be baptized. Because baptism
and the Spirit go together, Peter has no choice but to baptize those
gentiles. Jewish Christians
objected. Verse 18: Peter silenced them
with his speech. Although the apostles
heard Jesus tell them to go on to all nations, they were staying in Judea . But, Peter,
led by the spirit, led them to spread the faith to the gentiles.
So, the Spirit saw to it that there was a church in 80. Peter
and Paul played roles in this, being Spirit-driven. The H.S. is the guiding
power in Acts. Visions, miracles, etc.
all driven by the power of God. Why does Luke think that the other Christian churches
needed to hear about the church in Jerusalem ?
1/13/95
Greco-Roman
(Hellenistic) Environment
There was tension between continuity and discontinuity as
Christianity spread beyond its base. How
did Christainity remain true to itself while adapting to the different
cultures? In Acts, Peter and Paul preach
in much the same way.[1]
According to Keck, this is not a persuasive historical case. Acts tells little about Christianity outside Palestine . Maybe it was
taken for granted? Maybe the author saw Palestine ,
rather than Greco-Roman, as normative in Christianity? Luke was interested in
the continuity in his church. Yet, he
describes changes within the Jerusalem
church. According to Keck, the Gospels
can tell us about Christianity outside Palestine
if we read them right (differences bet. the authors).
The earliest Christians didn't go to church; rather, they met
at homes. Before Paul, the Lord's Supper and the Eucharist were not
separated. Sunday was not a day of rest
for the church. They met at night, at
odd hours. They had leaders, such as
teachers and preachers, but no ordained ministers or priests. Leadership probably emerged gradually. There was little formal organization. No committees. No vestments or Gospels.
The spread of Christianity as a historical phenomenon. Christianity was one of many religions that
came out of the East and went West.
Already religions were in the West.
The challenge was to offer something better and different. Miracles were thought (used?) to demonstrate the presence of the
deity. Acts 8:5-8; 9:32; 9:42 Miraculous healings caused many to
believe. Acts 13:5-11: Paul chastized a
false prophet and did a miracle against him. Acts 14:3; 16, and 17:11 include
extraordinary acts by Paul. People held
the Jesus that Paul preached to be of God and they used his name to drive out
evil spirits. The power of the occult, of miracles, was operative in that
case. Romans 15 and 18 attest to the
power of signs and wonders. 2 Cor. 12: The signs of a true apostle were performed
among you... People changed religions by
seeing miracles, but there was preaching that went along with the
miracles.
When writing to gentile churches, Paul did not cite the Old
Testament. Some converts had been
hangers-on at synagogues, which was a major institution. Converts stopped participating in other
religions. Paul wanted them to practice
Christianity exclusively. Christianity
was a faith of the confession about the identity of Jesus. Converts didn't
have to go to shrines anymore. Made
folks less overtly religious (e.g. going to public worship). Christianity could not stay within the
hellonistic synogogue because Christianity had crossed ethnic boundaries. In this way, it was more like pagan religions.
With regard to the spread of Christianity as a religious and
theological phenomenon, no religion has been pure--not influenced by other
religions, especially in regard to practices and holy days. Bousset wrote on getting to Jesus and Paul
via the Hellonistic world. There was a
Hellenistic Unity into which Paul was baptized which saw Jesus as the
Lord. Greco-Roman Christianity
emphasized a 'Lord' or 'Curius' centered-Christianity. So, Paul did not invent this view of Jesus,
but gained it from his church. 'Curius'
was already used by the Hellonists.
Boultman was an existentialist.
Jesus as eternal-Christ was gained from non-Christian sources. And the redeemer myth was scattered around
the Hellonistic world. Pre-Chrisitan
Gnosticism had it. The key to the success of Cristianity was in relating
Jesus to this myth. Keck maintains that
no pre-Christian redeemer myth has been found, but Bultman was on to
something.
The lang. of redemption applied in the O.T. to an ethnic
community became applied in Christianity to people in general. Christianity became a religion of redemption
as if to repudiate the hellonisation of it.
According to Keck, this tension between Judiaic and Hellonistic strains
gave Christianity its vitality.
1/16/95
The contribution of the
History of Religion to the study of early Christianity
Until the 1800's, it was thought Gnosticism was a Christian
herasy of the 2nd century. But scholars in the history of religion argued that
this is too simple. Gnostic
thinking was not depend on Christian
thinking, so it must have developed
before and along side it, and so it was an influence on early Christianity.
Gnosticism was Stoicism upside-down.
Stoicism claimed that we are governed by reason, or Logos, which each
person has. So, each person can understand the cosmos. The implication is to live reasonably,
according to the laws of nature (of the cosmos), rather than according to
passion. A person would see himself as
part of the whole cosmos.
The Gnostic outlook was that the essence of the self is not
part of the cosmos, but is at home in the world of light or truth. The cosmos functions according to laws, but
they are the laws of a prison camp--we are connected to it by our bodies which
are governed by these alien laws (laws of nature). The body of matter makes us unaware of our
true origin and nature (in the realm of light or truth). Redemption from the cosmos by a savior, who
teaches saving knowledge that makes it possible for the soul to go home after
the body dies. Key: Gnosticism offered
redemption of the soul.
This pattern was assumed in early Christianity. It might have contributed to the development
of Gnosticism. 2nd thru 4th century
Gnostic material discovered at the Nag Hammadi library supports claim that it
existed apart from Xnity. Yet, related
to it. Influenced Paul.
Peter
and Paul in Acts: Peter-a gallian
fisherman whom the sanhadren disliked as uneducated. Paul: a hellonized Jew who
was a Roman citizen and a pharasiaic education.
Peter stayed in Palestine ,
then left. Paul went to the Bosnia
area (Asia Minor ). Parallels: 11 of them. Both heal a lame man (Act 3. 14), both have
healing clothes, a pharasee defended each, both confront magician, both confer
H.S. by laying hands, both bring the dead back to life, both are imprisoned,
both are for gentile conversion, similar preaching. Yet, their backgrounds differ. Baur: The Peter in Acts is not the real
Peter. Also, a disparency bet. the Paul
of Acts and of the letters.
Paul's
churches: in Acts, he travels. Yet,
nothing said about those churches he founded.
Acts doesn't mention Titus. Acts
says nothing about the house churches.
It does say that his mission was resisted by Jews. In the letters, the
opposite. Paul having trouble with the
churches. Trouble on the inside; in
Acts, trouble from the outside.
Paul's
theology in Acts and Letters. Different
sit.s. Letters is more of Paul's
thought; the other (Acts) more on Paul's action. Paul wasn't interested in a distinct Pauline
theology, but in carrying on what had been believed in the church. Different agendas of Paul. So, the Paul of Acts looks different from
the Paul of Letters. Neither gives a
fair cross-section of Paul. Both are
interpretative of Paul.
Paul's
mission: different in Letters and Acts.
In Acts, he is an apostle sent by the church. In Letters, he is an apostle sent by the
Lord. In Letters, he sees himself as
preaching to gentiles; in Acts, more complex: he is God's emassary to both Jews
and Gentiles. He leaves the synogogue
but goes back, then goes out to the gentiles.
Paul goes to the gentiles because he can't make it with the Jews. Acts seems to be in conflict with itself: he
is in tension with the Jews but he goes back.
Luke's
treatment of Paul. Act. 20:18-35
Testament form. Paul defends
himself. Clues to the reason Paul is portrayed as he is in Acts. The only time in acts that Paul gives a major
address to the Church. Four parts to his speech: his troubles, his fate, his
mission, and his own life-style. He held
nothing back. He saw himself innocent of their blood. The Church viewed as
belonging to the Lord, due to the atonement.
But Luke is not interested in the Atonement.
Ronald
Hock has analyzed the social context of Paul's ministry (tent making). Acts omits here that Paul accepted
hospitality from prominant people.
Contoversy in Paul's churches omitted in Acts. Acts is silent on the
developments such as gnostic dualism in Xn thought that took place while it was
being written. Paul is claimed by
gnostics. Is Luke trying to take Paul away from the gnostics? After Acts was written, the gnostics appealed
to Paul. But, was this the case when
Acts was written--possible that Acts was written later. On how the gnostics saw Paul, see Pagel's
book.
In
general, Paul's speeches in Acts are not successful (Acts 13: to Jews in Antioch in Asia Minor --emph.
resurrect. and forgivenness of sins; Acts 17: to gentile intellectuals--a
hellonistic stoic plus resurr, but they laugh at him). Xnity not on trial, but Paul and his
mission. Jewish resistance.
Paul
does not refer much to the Kingdom
of God
The Paul of Acts is vindiated and legitimated. Luke portrays Paul: defends him against the
charge that he is an apostate jew. So,
Paul is seen in Acts as observing Jewish holy days. Paul as a Xn Jew. Acts may also be protraying Paul in such a
way to leave no room for the hellonization of Xnity.
1/18/95
Paul
and His Corpus
Why
did Paul say nothing about the teachings or life of Jesus; Paul's thought isn't
governed by Jesus' thought, but of the meaning of the Passion. Paul was closest to Jesus in time as a
writer, yet said so little about the historical Jesus outside of His
Passion. The Churches he visited or
founded were those that produced the gospels :Mt(antioch ),
Mk (rome ).
etc. One would expect the later Gospels
to reflect Paul, but they do not.
Wouldn't Paul have been in the oral trad. of those churches? The gospels do not build on the theology of
Paul.
Moving
from Acts to Paul: from narrative to real letters. The latter are more intimate. So, Paul himself is vividly involved with the
reader of the letter. Intimate, personal character of the letters. There is a history behind letters. So, the letters can assume and allude to
things. Reading someone else's mail
requires knowledge of these, but we only have Paul's side (the answers). What were the questions/problems. Imp: who
was Paul writing to.
Why
are Paul's letters absent from Acts? In
Acts, Paul is a letter carrier, rather than a writer. Luke was a part-time traveling companion of
Paul. How could Luke not know that Paul wrote letters? Even is Luke didn't want to use the content
of Paul's letters, he could have at least mention that Paul wrote letters or go
to Rome . The letters are important to Paul. Acts--30
yr.s after Paul's letters. Had Paul
fallen in the Church by then?
Paul's
letters entered the N.T. as a collection.
A package. Why included if he was
considered not on track by the gospel writers?
Deissmann
studied the letters on pupirous. They
are still being discovered. A common
people's Greek. More like N.T. than Aris or Plato. Moulton-Milligan lexicon. Deissman: Paul's letters were letters, not epistles. But, his distinction is too rigid. Deissmann's book, Paul, is a classic. Going
back to the historical Paul. The real Paul was not so doctrinare; rather, he
had an inspiration. Paul belongs not to
Theology but to Religion. His place is with the normal pious person rather than
the great theologians. Mysticism,
stronger than speculation.
Paul
Shubert, Keck's teacher, did the first form-crit. study of a Pauline
letter. The letter form. Keck: the form only goes so far (don't get it
from the pupirous letters); need to consider the content (Greek reteric) as
well. Malhurbe also did work on Paul. Keck: Paul's letters serve as surragates
for the various house churches that existed because of his preaching. He could not be there in person. Letters were read out loud in a group back then,
so he knew that his rhetorical skill would be imp. He dictated the letters. His rhetorical skills were built into the
text of a letter. So, the letters were like speeches today except given by
surrogates (giving someone else's speech).
So, Paul was brought to speak to the congragation--as scripture is read
today in church.
The
letters give a partial Paul in two senses: 1. Only part of Paul appears, due to
the nature of a letter (addresses issues in the churches that set the agenda;
that of Paul himself or other things he believed were secondary or left out). He may have had other beliefs than what were
mentioned in the letters. So, can't
combine the letters to get 'the theology' of Paul. The issues of the churches differed and stuff
of Paul was left out due to having particular focuses. This is not to say that there are not
continuities in his letters. But, hard
to say that his thought developed by looking at his letters which were governed
by the different issues of the churches.
The
letters were written in the fifties, yet he preached from 35 A.D. We have nothing of early Paul. But this part was longer (15 yrs). Is it the same as what came out in the
letters? Can't tell. Many talk as if the letters came just after
his conversion.
2.
the letters give us a part of Paul because they show him defending his
apostolicity. So, he shows a biased
personal point of view.
We
don't know the number of letters he wrote.
We don't know which of his letters really came from Paul. Timothy and Titus are thought to have come
from others. Some think Ephesians is not
from Paul. Keck: it is not from Paul.
Opinions divided on Collosians.
Keck: not from Paul. So,
universal agreement that seven letters of the fourteen in the canon were
written by Paul. Modern study of Paul is
based on these seven. Can then allude to
the others. So, Keck refers to the seven as 'The Letters of Paul'.
Paul
mentions two letters that no longer exist.
Walter Schmithals argued that there were more than twenty letters. A unique opinion. Yet, we know he wrote at least one we don't
have. How did we get what we got: the
creation of the corpus. No one knows how
created as a collection. How, by whom,
and when? It has been argued that it was
published. Edger Goodspeed (Chicago) and
John Knox (Union ) believe this. They said that Onesimus (a runaway slave) did
it. Who was the publisher? Some say Paul
went into eclipse in the church, and his letters were collected by a group of
his followers. MK. excluded the Pastoral
letters from mention, so ten letters probably first collected. Then, the letters were probably edited. 'Literary integrity' means that the
collection was edited-parts omitted, expanded (by interpolation). Edited about 85-90 A.D. This is when Acts was written. If Paul was not in eclipse, his letters still
would have been read before Acts was written.
Goodspeed: the letters were put in church chests, collected, and
published after Acts. Knox: once the
letters were published, someone wrote Acts (as late as 125 A.D.). Hard to tell which came first, or if the
issue was Paul's status in the Church when Acts was written.
1/23/95
Corinthians
Xn
faith as the disturber of whatever equil. existed. Paul took it to Greco-roman
cities whith diverse pop. in which honour and shame were imp. in scale of
values. Civic religion was imp. Private religion: coping with disease. No evidence that Paul added Gospel belief to
everything else that was believed in society.
Paul's message required some basic realignment and some
repudiations. Not affirming a heritage,
but a commencing of a journey without a clear trail. No creed nor canon nor clergy to guide the
community. So, variety in any
issue.
So,
in Corinth ,
Xnty came as a disturber of the peace.
Self-disciplined
church. The idea of a pure church. For Paul, it mattered who was in and who was out. See: Wayne Meeks, Early Xns. We know little of the pre-Xn beliefs of
Paul's churches. Some were hellonized
jews and gentiles who attended synogogue.
Had the gentiles been inititated into the hellonistic pagan
religions? Was the Corinthian mindset
gnostic? Schmithals argues that Paul's
problems with his churches came from a pre-existing gnosticism. In Corinth ,
we find a pre-existing dualism which gnosticism later had developed. So, precurser to gnosticism in the pre-Xn Corinth mindset.
Another
problem for Paul in Corinth
were his teachings themselves. We don't
have transcripts of his preachings or how he did it. The problems with Corinth
occurred after Paul had left Corinth . New folks joined his church after he left, so
his message had been mediated for them.
New, different questions and problems brought in. Hassles result. So, when Paul writes to the Corinthians, he
is contending agn distortions and misunderstandings which had occurred since
his visit. For instance, he corrects a
misreading of one of his previous letters.
From Gk. Phil., Corinthians were interested in cosmology.
1
Cor 1-4:
Evidence
comes only from Paul. It is his reading and his response. This may differ from the reader's own reading
of what was going on. So, one-sided. We
have to infer from Paul's 'yes', a Corinthian 'no'; mirror reading. The sit. in Corinth was fluid, so allow for changes in
Paul's letters to them. Keck: What is
going on there that would briing about Paul's responses?
A
problem of favoured teachers; of divisions within the Corinth church. F.C. Baur tried to account for the factions,
seeing two groups: one looked to Paul and one to Peter. Keck: Paul's Xnity in
tension with Xnity in Jerusalem , but this is not
the problem in Corinth . Murphy O'Connor writes of various house
churches there and the role of socio-economic status as giving rise to division. Paul himself came from a hellonistic family
of wealth. Yet, cut off from this when
he became Xn. Keck: we don't know much,
so don't take these views of 1Cor. 1-4 too seriously. Possible that Paul overshot the mark, his
response exceeding what the question required.
Background:
Ch. of Corinth
founded by Paul, so helpful if we knew what he had taught. He gives clues. Ch. 2:2--J.C. as crucified; 1:15--trad. of
the resurr. He also told them of the
trad. of the Last Supper. What is
implied in the Church's believing in the resurr? Paul believed in the resurrection before he
was Xn. He had been a Pharasee. The question for him was: Was what happened
to Jesus a miracle or an eschat. event? Only the latter changes
everything. Jewish apocoliptic thought:
Deut 1 is bankrupt; history is not the progress of humanity to the KOG but a
battle bet. good and evil. The resurr and last judgement will mark the end of
this world and the beg. of God's. So,
Paul thought that J.C.'s resurr meant that this age was ending. This view came out of his jewish apocolipic
view. The gift of the spirit showed this
to Paul. Jesus would come in the dawning
of the new age. Xn faith was eschat. for
Paul. Faith for Paul was shaped by
eschat. belief from the start. Xn faith
forged bet. the already and the not yet.
No ready-made rules because it was an interum time; a tension between
the two ages; the already and the not-yet, in which Paul preached. This tension caused problems. Esp. when gentiles unaware of this eschat.
trad. became Xns. In Corinth ch, a stronger emph. on the already,
and with that a growing dislike of Paul. He emph.'ed the not-yet as well as the
already. 1Cor. 4:14-21. He wants them to imitate him; he wants to be
a role-model. Possible that the
Corinthians agreed to this, yet found his absences too much for this. In his absence, they thought they had
out-grown them. Paul does not strengthen
the position of his own followers in the church, but wants to destroy the basis
for factions. So, 1:13-17, he shows how
silly factionalism is. 1:18-2:5;
2:6-3.5; 3.6-4:21. He appeals to the
cross rather than eloquant wisdom. What
about the latter would erode the power of the former? To believers, the cross is God's power; to
outsiders, it is foolishness. Scripture
shows God destroying the wisdom of the wise.
The world thinks that it finds wisdom itself, but it misses the point;
the world's wisdom is foolish. The cross
shows that true wisdom is the opposite of what the world would say. For a crucified man to be resurr.'d does not
make sense to worldly wisdom. God is in
a crucified one; not a sage.
Significance in the humiliation of the cross. To the worldly wise, nothing honourable in
this. The criteria of the age is called
into question. The cross gospel is an
offence to Jews and nonsense to Greeks.
Paul implies that the Corinthian Ch. had broken through earthly wisdom
via faith in the cross, but in engaging in factionalism, they had relied on
criteria of this world, showing a denial of the basis of their Xn existance:
the criteria of the cross. The Cor. Xns
were marginal. This is itself evident
that what counts for wisdom in the world has no part of what God stands for. Paul preached a message of power brought to
them by a weak man crucified. Yet, by earthly
wisdom, Paul as a powerful preacher would be lionized. So, he refuses to be lionized. It is because he refuses to be a hero that he
shows that it is God's power, in the weakness of the cross, that counts. His message has informed his style. If the Corinthians imitate him, there will be
no more factions.
1/25/95
Corinthians
1-4,
con't.
The
standpoint in which Paul dealt with the factions. Factionalism is wrong because
of the cross which radically called into question the criteria of this world
which puts one above another. Christ, as
the lowest, was of God.
2:4-16--We
impart a secret wisdom not of this world.
This secret wisdom is taught by the spirit. In v. 4, he says he speaks wisdom, yet in v.
6 he says he does not speak of earthly wisdom.
A switch from a negative view of wisdom to a positive view. Of the latter is the secret wisdom, not of
this age which is on its way out. Paul
speaks of God's wisdom meant for the age to come. Such wisdom was not borne in
time, but in eternity. This age is
opposed to God's rule, so its rulers did not understand God's wisdom. v. 8: who were the 'earthly rulers' who did
not recognize J.C.'s identity? Christ's coming was a secret decent. Gnostics made much of this. What is God's wisdom? Centers on the cross. v.s 9-10: it was determined before time. v. 9: not in O.T. Where did Paul get it. Paul's message: like is known by like. In
stoic thought. By living by the logos,
can be part of the harmonious whole. But
for Paul, it is the special gift of the spirit, not participating in logos, by
which we get the secret wisdom. v. 15:
the spiritual (psychikos) man judges everything, but is not judged by
anyone. Talbert thinks it is a quote of
a Corinthian slogan. Keck: possible. For
Paul, the spiritual person goes not grade another person. The Corinthians were doing so in forming
factions. To Paul, we have the mind of
Christ. Why the emph. on the
spirit? Spirit has been seen as a sign
that the eschaton had arrived. Not just in Jewish Xnity but in Xn
gentiles. From Judaism. In Corinth ,
a special interest in the spirit. It had
been imp. in light of the old Greek dualism of body and spirit. The power of the spirit: taken as a
confirmation that the body is a hindrance to the spirit. The spirit relativized social
distinctions. A radical egalitarian
experience--imp. to those in the house churches. The spirit may also have been responsable in
guarding agn. taboo. Folks in Corinth may have
segregated on the degree to which folks were spirit-filled. This was dividing the community--looking down
on others as less spiritual. So, the
spirit itself became the criterion for partician, when it is to have the
opposite effect (humility) according to Paul.
Ironic. Paul says they were still
of the flesh while in factions. Paul:
'you think you are so spiritual, but the
way you act shows you are not.'
4:8-15--
the Corinthians think they are of the 'not yet' world to come. He uses irony to expose the
self-contradictions that they manifest.
v. 10 We are the fools..., but you are wise in Christ. But they were not.
Ch.
5 makes a transition: to addressing bodily immorality. Idea of the pure
church--drive out those who are acting immoral.
v. 12: Paul's ethics is a body ethics: the body is for the Lord. See v.
18. Porneia: related to porne
(prostitute), has to do with sexual immorality.
The person who thinks he is of the spirit thinks he can do anything. Paul: not so. Corinthians: Sin has to do with
my relation to the spirit, so can do with the body what I want. Paul: your body is the temple of the
spirit. So, glorify God in your body.
Our bodies will be resurrected as was that of Jesus. This is nec. for Jesus'
resurr to signal a new age rather than just a miracle. Keck: Paul often uses a
different framework to answer a question.
In this passage, he does not reject their slogans. The problem is not
with the slogans, but in the use to which they are put--the larger attitudes
that they support. He does not challenge
the view of the Xn who is living in the already/not-yet, but he signals a
larger concern--a different concern: not everything is helpful. Paul had a concern for the well-being of the
community. Too much freedom does this. One can be dominated by freedom--a
compulsion.
The
Corinthians, with their greek dualism, did not want to hear Paul link the body
with the soul. Paul deals with their
attitude of indifference to the body.
It is the whole self that is involved in the body of Christ. Soma means
the whole self. For Paul, sex integrates
selves: the two become one flesh.
Baptism, too, unites selves. The
body is not a mere thing, but is a temple of the holy spirit. You should be making yourself into a shrine
of the holy. Agn the view of the
gnostics, who viewed the body as the tomb of the soul. The greeks viewed the body indifferently, vis
a vis the soul, and the Corinthians felt free to act with the body freely. Paul: the whole self is destined for
salvation because the creator will claim the entire creature.
1/27/95
Corinthians
The eschat.
and eccles. character of Paul's letters to the Corinthians. Eschat. and eccles together show a link bet.
faith and ethics. The Corinthians
orer-emph'd the alreadyness of salvation (emph. the spirit) gave rise to
factionalism. Paul's concern for the
unity of the community. See 1 Cor.
1:2. He did not write to a number of
house churches, but to 'the church' of God at Corinth .
v. 10: appeal to unity. This can
be regarded as the thesis of the letter. Appealing for agreement and
peace. No divisions. Reconciled in the same mind. This is different than our view of the
church. Keck: let its otherness stand so
to interrogate us, rather than getting it to say what we want.
Unlike
the popular moralists of the day, he deals with practical pastoral problems
such that the community will be found faithful when the Lord comes. Paul's
'ethics'. But, not a systematic
reflection. Rather, he wants to shape a
life-style.
The
text implies a certain set of values and beliefs. What were they?
Paul's
view: he was a diasperant Jew, at home in the Greek bible. He had been a
Pharasee. He thought in acopoliptic way, and he knew Jewish moral
teaching. But, modified by the
Gospel. He saw himself as an apostle (an
emissary of Christ called by God) rather than a disciple. So he writes with a sense of authority, given
by Christ to be His representative to the gentiles. He must bear and embody the message of the
teacher. This view was common at that
time. His message was different so he
thought he should be different. See Ch. 9: Jesus said it was O.K. for his apostles to
live off others. Yet, he makes no use of
this right. The Gospel is preached free
because it is the appropriate expression of free grace. He extends this to a life-style: he made
himself a slave to all men. Like his
teacher, Jesus. He lives as a Jew when
with them and as a gentile when with them, because he follows only one Law:
that of Christ. Trouble, when he met
with a status-minded people in Corinth . Social practices and institutions can have
the same name but mean different things because they have different
values. Divorce can mean different
things to different communities. Same
too with slavery.
In Corinth , food caused
trouble in matters of faith and friendship.
No meat industry. Got it through
the meat market from the temple.
Slaughter had been part of sacrifice by the pagans. Pagans could go to
any number of temples to get meat. Conversion to the gospel messed this
up. An exclusiveness in Xnity. No Xn butcher shops, so did this mean that
Xns could not eat meat? Paul: no, one
can eat meat that had been offered to idols, for the idols are not really gods
anyway. For us, there is one God, the
Father. No others. He uses the logos theology. But, some Xns were eating meat believing that
it had been offered to another god. They
were troubled by their conscience. Paul told them that they should not have trouble
with this and it should not cause division between Xns. Consideration of another's conscience, rather
than your own, should govern whether you eat sacrificed meat. If it bothers someone else, then don't do
it. But don't abstain just out of your
own concern, because it is not against Christ to eat it.
7:29-30--don't
take things so seriously, because the distinctions of this age (such as
marriage) won't last with the new age coming shortly. Don't get caught up in making changes in
these disctinctions of this world. It
won't last.
1/30/95
Recall,
for Paul the imp. thing is the cross and resurr. as the act of God to redeem
the world. They were inseperable (cross through the lense of Easter, rather
than a tragedy of a good man; the resurr. through the cross). Missing: what he said about the resurr. to
convert people. It must have upset
people. Compare 1 Cor 14 to 1 Thes
4. The latter: the dead in Christ will
rise first, then the living will join them.
This must have influenced 1 Cor 15.
The
Corinthian problem with the resurr. Cor dualistic view. So, didn't matter whether the dead rose
first. Being raised with the body was
nothing to look forward to. So, they
would not have been impressed with 1 Thes 4.
Salvation was about liberation from the body to the Corinthians. So, why
have even a resurrected body?
1
Cor. 15 is the found. of the letter. A
self-contained unit without links to other chapters. It begins with a reminder, then two
questions. Both questions: designed to
expose the contradictions made by the Corinthians. It implies that they would not have a problem
with the resurrected body if they had not believed in the resurr itself. The resurr. is the teaching of all the
apostles. See v. 12. They believed that Christ was raised from the
dead, but deny resurr. of the body and the general resurr. of the dead (in their
case). Paul repudiates this distinction.
v. 39: If no resurr, why baptized?
v. 33: why suffer if no resurr for us?
Why subject the body to suffering if it is not to be resurrection?
Paul's
response to the repudiation of the resurr of the dead: v.s 12-3. He holds
together Christ's resurr and that of Xns.
If no resurr of Xns, no resurr of Christ. Otherwise, Christ's resurr would be merely a
miracle. If Christ had not been
resurrection, their faith would have no point and Paul would have been lying. A hope not mean much if spuriously based.
Christ's
resurr sep. from ours only in time.
First fruits. Given to God. It rep.s the whole harvast. The rest of it is assured. The already/not-yet theme is here for
Paul. Human solidarity with Adam is
matched with that to Christ. Christ's
resurr installed him into a cosmic office in which he defeats evil. The Christus Vistora. Christ is becoming Kosmokrator: ruler of the
cosmos--until no more opposition to God.
The last hold-out is death itself.
Death is the opposite of God as the author of life. The Son's role: bringing creation back to
God.
What
kind of body (Soma)? Paul uses Diatribe
(imagining an interlocker) in raising a question and then answering it. From a dualist view, the body is the material
crate of the immaterial spirit or soul. Death releases the soul from it. If resurr is re-animation, then resurr of the
body would have to be done before the old one decomposes. But that body would not be mine. How can we understand the raising of the
dead. Why must the dead be raised? v.
15. Paul's answer. Death is nec. for resurr. Celestrial and earthly bodies. A spiritual and physical body. The physical is first. What is sowed is not what is harvested. Discontinuity comes out of continuity. Keck: he wants est. differences within a
category. Resurr is not reanimation of
our earthly body. What is raised is
imperishable, what is of the earth is perishable. The one implies the other. If a phys. body, then there is also a
spiritual body. Why? Phys. and spiritual: each makes sense in
terms of the other. The one becomes the
other: what Paul needs to establish.
Continuity through opposes. Gen
2:7. 'And the anthropos became a living
being...' Paul says 'the first
anthropos, Adam, became a living being'.
Adam/Christ contrast then used by Paul.
The first anthropos was transformed into a living being. Christ is the last Adam, transformed into a
life-giving spirit. First and last,
life-receiving and life-giving(via resurr, giving us life). The physical is first, then the
spiritual. The prevailing dualism had
them reversed: a body is gotten for a pre-existant spirit. Paul: the body got a spirit. Gnostics: the spirit was first. Every religion of the transmigration of souls
takes this view. To Paul, the spiritual
body, in where we go, is what counts.
Resurr'd heavenly anthropos.
Christ after his resurr. v.s
48-9: Christ's resurr not restricted to himself. Both Adams
are both individuals and have a corporate personality. The person is both a person and the
personality of the clan (corporate realities).
When do we share this of the resurr. of christ? Corintinans thought they already had it by
baptism. Already resurr'd. Paul's answer depends on which reading of the
Greek text we use. Most texts use
Phoresomen (let us bear); others use it in the future tense. Keck: the latter is right. Paul promises that they will be
resurrected. Present image as a
possiblity that they must actualize. v.
15: why there must be resurr. Flesh and
blood can't inherit the KOG just as what is transcient can't inherit what endures. It must be transformed. So, Paul agrees with the Corinthians that the
temporal body stands agn salvation. For
Paul, salvation is a transformation of this body rather than escaping from
it. He solves the problem of Greek
dualism in which we have two elements which don't go together.
Victory
is changed. How? Paul: a mystery. A revelation.
In assuming the parasua, he states that some will be saved, invulnerable
to death. Others will die. Mortality is not a given, but a consequence
of an event (Adam's sin). Death is an
intruder into creation. Having to die is
the ultimate form of being dominated. No
choice. So, a tragedy that befell
creation. Paul is apocoliptic, but his
roots are in Genesis. For Paul, freedom
from it is not only hoped for (happened once), but is more than promised if
Jesus is the first fruits. The defeat of
the tyrant is in the future, but that he will be defeated has already become
established. At issue: understanding of
God: did God in making a body make something to be dropped or redeemed. This is a vision of that at the edge of time,
not of the future. Do we de-mythologize
it to hold on to its basic idea? Keck:
perhaps. Or, wait for the vision of
reality to come to us.
2/1/95
2
Cor. 10-13
The
complexity of 2 Cor.: could be a
composite book. Keck: yes. More complicated, because more situations to
reconstruct. Difficult to get the pieces
in the right order. See: Talbert's
commentary as background.
Ch.s
10-13: implications for the history of Paul.
Clues of what is going on in Corinth . Also, Paul uses irony and parody as well as
boasting (diff. styles). His
self-understanding as an apostle.
Deterioration of Paul's standing in Corinth : from the time of the first or second
(painful) letter. These seem to have
made matters worse. Problems in 1 Cor.
arose from within the Cor. house churches, in 2 Cor. rival teachers made the
matters worse, occasioning a problem for Paul. They were Jewish Xns (11:21-2). But, what kind? A 'truth squad'? Gnostic? Hellonized Jewish
Xns?
The
image of Paul in Corinth
and in Acts. He says he was stoned and
beaten (in both accounts). Acts 9:23-25:
the Jews ploted to kill him. Rescued in
a basket. In 2 Cor, Paul tells it as
having a different context. He also
talks of his estatic experiences. He
refers to his miracle working, though Acts doesn't mention it. Acts 28: Luke
does not mention them, even though miracles by others are mentioned.
Keck:
Acts supports what Paul says and it does not.
2/13/95
Galacians
3-end
Of
Paul's rivals and opponents. In Corinth , the situation
deteriorated. Factionalism around leaders.
No evidence that they were led by apostles. Yet, later Paul was against them on the
matter of the Jewish law. In the end,
Paul won in Corinth .
Not so in Galcia. There, the other
teachers were not the apostles. Such teachers, called Judaizers, taught
circumcision. Keck: no evidence that the
teachers in Galcia were imposing Judaism on them. So, not Judaizers. Those teachers urging circumcision did not
urge them to keep all the jewish laws.
Paul suggests that those who are circumcized should keep the whole
Jewish law. Implies that those teachers
did not.
Implications
of Galacians for Paul. Letter probably
written at same time as letter to Corinthans.
Freedom from the law is basic to Galacians and then to Romans. Luther and Calvin used Galacians for
'Justification by faith' to critique the Roman Church. Albert Switzer: Paul's justification by faith
is not central; rather being in Christ is the center of Paul's theology. Keck: a false alternative.
Paul's
rivals: we don't have their side except through Paul. The rival teachers regarded Paul as the heart
of the problem. Namely, the content of his preaching. Questioned his apostolic validity as well.
Mirror-reading: when Paul says 'I am', assume that his critics said he was
not. But, his defense may have been set
in his terms of what they were saying, and Paul used a rhetorical style. Paul tries to set the record straight with
his back against the wall (his problematic status in the Jerusalem Church
The
issue turned on circumcision. Why was
this a problem for the other teachers.
They taught it because it made one a member of a covenant people(to whom
the promises were given). Otherwise, still on the outside looking in. They wanted them to be full members. Also,
circumcision may have been seen as a sign of mastering the flesh in order to be
faithful to God. Deut. 10: circumcise the foreskin of your heart. Philo
insisted that the O.T. laws represented symbols of spiritual truths. Do the practice
because one knows what it means. Keck:
the teachers may have made the same point.
Paul's
response: Gal. 3. Exposes a
contradiction in the rival teachers by asking questions: was it by faith or
works of the law that you received the Spirit?
No compromise here. On what basis
did they get the spirit? Their own
experience should have kept them on track.
Paul took circumcision as a fleshly act.
They were going backwards. v. 5
repeats v. 2: how did the Spirit come to you? By works of the law? If so, it
contradicts your own experience. Yet, you ignored this and took the rival
teachers seriously.
What
makes one 'Abrahamic'? Paul does not deny the importance of this. v. 6: Paul quotes Genesis. Men of faith are sons of Abraham. To be son in the O.T. meant not geneology but
what defines you. So, a son of God is one who is defined by God. Paul uses the word 'Pistis' (faith, or
belief--but Keck uses trust which holds together what faith and belief
separate). People of pistis are sons of
Abraham. Paul appeals to five passages of scripture. All the gentiles (ethne) will be blessed by
Abraham. To Paul, God preached the Gospel that Paul was preaching here to
Abraham: emph. faith and promise. So,
circumcision not nec. Gentiles with
faith are of Abraham. v. 14: the
blessing is that we might get the spirit through faith. To be 'of' (ek)
something is to have one's existence derived from it. v. 16: justified by
faith--not by works of law. Basis: the faithfulness of (not 'in') Christ. So,
3:9--those of faith are those whose life is lived through trust have a
structural identity with Abraham.
v.s10-12--the blessing of the Spirit can't come through works of the
law. If rely on obedience to the law to be righteous, then one is under a
curse. Living is a matter of trust.
Quoting Lev., the law is not
about faith because it is the doer who lives.
But, in Deut., it says that if not follow the law, one is cursed. Against the system of reward and punishment
is that of faith. Not the doer, but the believer. Christ was cursed by the law because he was
crucified. Everyone should have been
cursed because they followed the law. Christ is not just Jesus but a figure
greater than an individual (a corporate reality like Adam). So, Christ's being cursed means that we don't
have to be. We don't have to follow the
law. We won't be cursed by not following
the law. The promise made to Abraham
concerning his seed was fulfilled with Jesus.
Then what is the point of the law?
It was given as a remedy to control sin before Christ came. To put on Christ is to enter Christ. 'In
Christ', you are all sons of God. Heirs
according to the promise rather than to Moses. We are the seed. So, why need the law now that Christ has come
in fulfilment of the promise.
2/15/95
Galacians
4 (cont)
5:3--Can't
just be circumcized without being a slave to the law. Can't therefore be a free son of God if
circumcized. Work vs. Trust. Adding Moses to Christ is going
backwards.
6:15--New
creation matters. Circumcision isn't
wrong; rather it is irrelevant. So,
shouldn't be imposed.
We,
like the Galatians, say faith is necessary, but also have to have...
To
Paul, freedom does not mean that immorality of the flesh is fine. So, walk by the spirit rather than the vices
of the flesh. Fruits of the spirit
include self-control.
Philippians
A
warm, engaging personal letter. But also
a problematic letter. Paul accepted funds from them for his livlihood. No clear why he accepted money only from
them. He regards it as a
partnership. Is the letter a composite
of several letters? Keck: several letter
endings. Seems to be a break at the
beginning of Ch. 3. Or perhaps he did
not worry about smooth transitions. Or
perhaps he was interrupted. Still, need
to account for his rough transitions.
For instance, his outburst at the beginning of Ch. 3 against those who
circumcise. 3:18-19--he is putting
'them' down. 3:4-11 are imp. because
Paul writes of his life before Christ. Why did Paul become a believer? Was it because he felt guilty? From a persecuter to an advocate of
Xnity. Was Paul uneasy with his Jewish
faith so he felt threatened by the new faith so he persecuted? But, no hint in this passage that Paul was
dissatisfied with his faith in Judaism.
He was 'blameless'. Keck: his
problem as a Jew was not failure but success, in light of what he then had in
Christ. Perhaps the Philippians, like
the Corinthians, thought they had already made it. Paul: I press on. Don't think you've got it made. Xn existence as struggle, rather than as
achievement. Strive, don't achieve.
2/20/95
Romans
What
did Paul send to the Romans in Rome ? Ch. 14 may have been an abreviation. Was there a Ch. 15 and 16 as part of the
original letter? Still, the letter has
probably been changed (eg. 16:20-4 seems like an addition).
What
prompted him to write to them? 15:24--he wants to see them on the way to Spain . He wants
money to take to Spain
as an offering. But, 3:8--he knows that
his reputation has preceded him. He
wants to defend himself. He reveals
anxiety over his arrival in Jerusalem :
regarding both the Jews and Xn Jews.
Acts: 24:17--mentions it a little.
Strange reference: they found him purifying himself in the temple. He assumes in his letter to the Romans that
he will be arrested in Jerusalem . He wants the support of the Romans. Nec. for him to be freed in Rome
so to go on to Spain .
Keck: why does this stated purpose
involve so much theology in his letter?
Possible that he knew that the Roman house churches were divided on
daily life. It may have been that the
gentile Xns had had trouble with the returning Jews (after the Jews could
return to Rome ). But Paul doesn't mention this. This is debated. Also possible that Paul needed to lay out his
theology to make it clear why he planned to go to Spain . It also was geared to his defence at Jerusalem . Keck: his motives were not the same as the
content of what he wrote. The occasion
and purpose for writing are not identical.
Romans
contains the longest account of Paul's theology. But, doesn't mention the parasea, the cross,
or the Last Supper. So, not a summary of
Xnity as Paul understands it. Rather, it
is an argument. Not just a function of
rhetoric. It uses so much scripture (the
O.T. relied upon). Persuasion. So, what is being argued? What is the bottom
line?
In
Romans and Galacians, justification by faith argued. It was a side-issue for Paul, because it was
not in his other letters. His real
center was being in Christ. Keck: not
mutually exclusive. Luther used Romans
and Galacians to find a gracious God.
Stendahl: indiv. salvation
concern and the guilty conscience linked back to Augustine. Whereas for Paul, a way of talking about Jews
and gentiles. Romans 9-11 is most
salient of the letter: the relation between Jews and gentiles. Justif. by faith not central. So, God's dealing with these two groups,
rather than salvation of the individual was Paul's concern. Kasemann:
Justif. by faith in Romans was not just a defense of the gentile
Xns. Salvation history is problematic
(Bultman as an existentialist would agree).
It is not observable because it is a matter of faith. Folks tend to use salvation hist. to say that
they are on the right side. Paul, in
contrast, sees everyone on the edge.
Paul emph. justif. by faith to justify the ungodly. It is his christology: the true God joins
himself to the ungodly. Jesus'
identification with the sinners is related to Paul's theology of justif. and of
the cross. In Christ, God is reclaiming
creation. Stendahl: Paul's justif. by
faith functions within his view of the salvation of the world. Keck: a misunderstanding of Kasemann. But, they exposed a fund. issue in
Romans. Keck: Romans is Paul's last
letter. So, his most mature thought. Perhaps free from the need to respond to
brush-fires in his home churches.
What
is at stake in Paul's understanding of faith.
Reliance on God vis a vis one's identity. Past an intellectual understanding to a
day-to-day concern. Salient in this
chapter. Some roman Xns were not
meat-eaters (no evidence to say that they were the Jewish Xns). Paul: agn observances such as particular diet
mandated in Xnity. Keck: piety often
gets scrupulous. Paul is agn. this. Those who are weak on such regulations should
not be judged by others. The problem
was that these two groups were passing judgement on each other. Theologically at state: the fine-print in
religion. Paul is against such
judging. It is unclean is you think it
is: respect a person's practice even though you don't believe in it. In forcing one to do one's own practice, one
harms the other's own faith. Whatever
does not come out of faith is sin. Keck:
we want to define sin as transgression.
For Paul, sin is anything which is not an expression of one's trust in
God. Keck: is faith enough? Why then is there Torah or any kind of
law? What is the point of being a Jew?
2/22/95
Romans
Important
to see Paul's flow of thought.
v.
16-7: the theme of the letter.
Righteousness is by faith. 'For'
(gar) points to what has already been said.
So, one way of reading is in the sense of 'therefore'. The Gospel is God's good news and the good
news of God (objective and subjective)--1:1.
Jesus' identity is emphasized.
Not even mentioned the cross. v.
16: the gospel is God's power--the message is God's means of salvation. Salvation is available to all who trust. To everyone.
Ignores distinctions between people.
So in what sense to the Jew first?
In time or rank? Romans doesn't
tell us. Why is the gospel power? God's fidelity is revealed in it. Present tense. The gospel does not simply inform, but is now
being revealed. God's character via
saying something about Jesus that has saving power for the person who
believes. And the righteous by faith
shall live. To what does 'by faith'
refer? To how one should live or by how
one is to be righteous? Not clear.
v.
18-32: The gospel is God's saving power
to one with faith. The gospel is God's
answer to the human cond. So, the gospel
pertains to everyone--part of his rationale for going to Spain . A theology of mission. A gospel true for one must be true for all. But what of the special election of Israel ? He reaches for the 'human'. One gospel for one dilemma. But what of the distinctions between Jews and
gentiles? He shows that there is a human
cond shared by all. He blames Adam,
rather than the devil. Also, he does not
appeal to the sense of victomization, but to that which puts us in the same
human condition---of being wrongly related to God from which one can not free
himself.
3:19-20--
through the law comes the knowledge of sin. Salvation exposes the real nature
of sin just as justice determines what is unjust. Paul did not have problems keeping the law;
rather, his faith in Christ showed him that his problem had been that he
succeeded in keeping the law. The future
discloses what is wrong with the present.
But in Romans, he begins with the problem and moves to the
solution. Romans is his argument rather
than an account of his own conversion.
The solution involves faith.
Whatever is not of faith is sin.
So, faith shows sin. But in Romans,
to persuade his readers, he begins with the sin and goes on to faith.
3:21-31--Paul
turns to the gospel. Righteousness apart
from the law, since all have sinned.
He
writes only what he needs to to persuade the reader. Not a summary of his view
of Xnity.
The structure:
1:18-3:20. v.s 18-9 give a thesis
statement. v.s 20-32 express the sit. of
the gentiles. No excuse for not being
righteous--since creation. How apply to
the gentiles? Things that are made imply a maker. So, no excuse. They knew God but refused to acknowledge
their creaturehood. The root sin of
humanity: refusing to honour God as God.
Results in confusion. In
worshiping images, they made god a thing and deified themselves. They thought the lie was a better truth. The human cond. is a sign of the wrath of
God. For example, mortality. The gospel
reveals this plus God's salvation. v.
32: Judgements of morality are based on
a transcendent order. What does
judgement say about the human cond.? The
doers of the law will be justified. A
contradiction to justif. by faith? Keck:
no. The point: is there anyone qualified
to do the law? Don't judge another
because there are no candidates. There
is such a thing as moral judgment, regardless of the culture--some sense of a
right and wrong. Recogn. of a norm.
A sign of this is the conscience.
So, gentiles know themselves morally accountable--that there is an
ought--the law written in the heart. So,
the gentiles are to be held accountable without having known the Torah. A standard--a sense of right and wrong. 2:1-16--not necessarily addressed to a
jew. v. 17-addressed to a Jew. Then, he uses questions and answers, and then
scripture, to support his argument.
2/24/95
Romans
Ch.s
7 & 8
Two
major problems in Ch. 7. Paul's is
theological: having put the law with sin and death and agn. grace, what is the
relation between law and sin. Is law
sinful in itself? How can he avoid this
conclusion? By going into the human
condition, he exposes the nature of sin.
The second problem: ours--how does Paul develop his argument. He writes in the first person. Is it autobiographical? Or rhetorical? If so, who is he speaking of? v. 14--he switches to the present tense vis a
vis the first person. Is he talking about the Xn? Simul Justus et Peccator: justified and
sinner. Is this what Paul is
saying? Is this the Xn condition? Keck:
v. 14 is not referring to the Xn experience. The Xn in Christ is not so under sin. Such status (being under sin) is
pre-Christian existence. Paul's thought
moves from solution (in Christ) to the problem (described in terms of the
solution). So, not autobiographical. The 'I' is the self in Adam. The third reference to Adam in this
letter. Using Adam to express the human
condition (what is wrong) and the solution.
Ch. 8 (solution) is presumed in Ch. 7 (the plight). So, while his thought moves from solution to
plight, his argument moves from plight to solution.
On
the plight: the human condition, given the solution. 5:13--sin was before the law. The law increased the trespass. 6:14--sin 'under law' (was used in 3:18). 7:7--the law is not sin. 7:11--The law is
holy. Sin was in the world before the
law. It had not yet become a tyrant, but
it was there. Sin as a reality or a
force existed before. Yet not yet in
transgression. So, we hear the law as
sinners. The law prompts us to do the
opposite, provoking sin as transgression.
Ch.
6--sin is death (not just mortality).
Sin uses the law to gain power over the self. That doesn't make the law sinful. The law, though holy in itself, is
ineffective. Instead of beating sin, it
is used by sin. Who is the culprit? How
is law related to sin? Sin, rather than the law, was the culprit. The human condition can't be blamed on the
law. I am the 'done to' by sin. The self is flesh, vulnerable to sin. The self can will but it cannot do. Some other power. Sin is the real doer. It is not I that uses the holy law to
transgress, but it is sin that does it, and in so doing takes over the
self. v. 18--wrongly translated as
'nothing good lives in me'. Rather, 'the
good does not dwell in my flesh'. He is
not saying how much good there is in me, but is asking if good dwells in
me. He does not deny an inherent
goodness. But, sin presides over it in
the self. A war of good and sin within
the self. Not that nothing good lives in
me. So, Paul does not preach the utter
deprivity of the self, but the utter captivity.
Ch.s
1-3, the problem was a wrong relation to God.
The solution: to be rightly related.
Then, he saw the problem as being in Adam. The solution: baptism into Christ. Then, the problem is worse: sin is not a
structure of power over the self (as in Adam).
Now, the sovereign is internal.
The solution: to evict the usurper and replace it with another internal
power, the Spirit. Ch. 8 is about the
Spirit.
If
in the Spirit, you are not in the flesh.
The spirit over the power of sin.
All who are led by the Spirit are sons of God. Heirs of God.
Needed: one who could identify with us but was not living by the
flesh. Jesus. Spirit enables one to do what the law is
about: to love. Spirit by definition
fights against flesh. So, if in the
flesh, one cannot be in the Spirit. A
conflict between two powers; two ages.
Not metaphysically. A struggle
between two domains of power. The
creation will move from one realm of power to the other. We have the first fruits of this in the
redemption of our bodies. The whole
creation is subject to decay. Everything
that lives has to die. But the gospel
for creation also will be revealed in a new age. Having the Spirit does not separate us with
the creation that sorrows, but intensifies this, but in the sense of waiting
for the new age in an age governed by the other power. Xns are the first fruits of God's pledge that
creation will not die ultimately. Keck:
it is mythic language, and is stronger than facts.
3/3/95
Romans
Walter
Wilson on Rom. 12-13:
Their
place in the letter: they belong to what
follows; 12-15 seem a unit. Two subsections within. 12:1 begins with Paul's ethics. Broad scope.
Moral means and objectives. A basis for 13:1-15:13 where these are made
concrete.
God's
mercy in 12:1 fits in God's righteousness which goes through his letter. Moreover, four ways 12-15 fit within the
letter:
1. A theme in ch.s 5-6, deliverance
from sin and death, yet not free but are slaves of God's righteousness. Ch. 12 on articulates what this
slavary/deliverance means in our lives.
2. Ch. 8--living in the Spirit. How does the Spirit conform how one thinks
and acts morally? How uniquely Xn
experience? Shown in ch. 12 on.
3. Paul has articulating Xnity's
distinctiveness and place in history.
Ch. 12 on: Xnity is not just unique principles but is a unique way of
life.
4. Paul's apologetic
motivation. His critics thought this
lacked a moral aspect. Ch. 12 on--his
response which presupposes the place of Torah in Xn life and the relation of
Jews and Xns in the Xn Church (i.e. included gentiles). No need to impose practices on gentiles that
came from Jewish ethnic practices.
Theol: no need for a change in status once have faith in Christ. Paul respects cultural differences.
Three
units: v. 1-2, 3-8, and 9-21.
1-2:
intro to Xn ethics and essential principles thereof: a new religious and social
intellectual paradigm, based on rtousness of God based on his mercy. Emph: discern God's will. In terms of a self-offering--of one's
life. v. 1: the somatic(body) aspect of
Xn ethics. Give up one's self. v. 2: the
noetic (mind) side. Be transformed by the mind to discern God's will. Not spiritualization. A sacrificial ritual included which also
marked group identity. A balance between
individual discernment and real practice.
A balance between human ability and divine grace in the
transformation. The key: the infusion of
the Spirit (ch. 8). Intervention of the
spirit liberates the human intellect, enabling it to discern the will of
God. Once renewed, Xns can adjudicate
moral priorities and conduct thereof.
The individual must do this. A
life-long process of testing and reflection.
After
1-2, 'operationalization' of these principles.
v.
3-8: a model of Xn community: Church as the body of Christ. The context for establishing moral
priorities. Roles to individuals. v. 3 extends the renewal of the mind concept:
the gift of discernment derives from grace.
Here, personal preogatives are subordinated to those in the body
(community). No room for self-serving
attitudes.
v.
9-21: make agape the standard that governs relationships within the body. Rooted in Wisdom lit. Agape establishes the goals and conduct of
one's morality. Love to each other is as
God's love to us (see 5:5). The
principle of Xn ethical conduct.
Three
topics of his admonitions: mutual support within community (communal
relationships), transcendent relations (how relate to God--fear Him and give
him the preogrative to judge), and intellectual relations (no room for
arrogance). These cover human
relationships.
A
Jewish nature to agape. A connection
between his ethics and Jewish Wisdom traditions. Fits into his apologetic on the place of
Judaism in Xnity: that Israel
has a role in God's salvation. He
demonstrates this here.
The
use of gnomic Wisdom (proverb). This
mode of communication used by Paul here.
Not abstract laws or binding rules, but are moral assertions limited or
contingent, being flexible. They invite
critical reflection and yet are practical. Consistency between belief and
practice.
13-15:
Paul applies his ethical principles to specific issues. Moral obligation was of interest to latins at
the time. Three issues: authority,
Torah, and weak vs. strong(mutual obligations thereof). Authority and Torah are in Ch. 13.
v.
1-7: Seems to advocate unconditional obedience because government given by God,
possessed as His authority and provide a check against moral
irresponsibility. Xn morality excludes
attempts to escape from or contravene in human social organization. He has theological presuppositions regarding
such authority:
1.
That the governing authorities are God's servants to estab. moral order. They are not divine; their power comes from
God.
2.
That these authorities promote moral good while punishing the other. What government should be.
3.
v. 5: respect for such authority should take into account that of one's
conscience (intuitive sense of right and wrong).
4.
Within an eschat. context. Paul's theol.
in general is such. Given the new age
coming, not make sense to change it.
5.
Expediency: Roman Xns were marginalized,
so they had to submit to government authority.
This impacted his view.
The
Torah: Xn obligations vis a vis the law (see ch.s 7 and 8). in Ch. 13, he links his conclusion there to
agape. Ch. 8: Xns fulfil the Torah. The requirement of the law (doing God's will
) is different than its dicates. In
agape, Xns fulfull the requirement of the law.
God's requirements transcend human criteria and categories.
Conclusion:
What
are the salient aspects of Paul's ethics?
Christological: presupposes what God has done in Christ where God's
grace and mercy were shown. Agape has
its basis in God's love. A place for
human reason. Indiv. discernment. The social context is salient as well: the Xn
community as a body. Engagement of Xns
with the world.
3/20/95
The
Deutero-Pauline letters: some scholars assume six are such. Some claim that only the pastoral letters are
not genuine. So, no agreement concerning
the six. Keck: Col. may be
genuine. See John Knox. What counts for
Pauline authorship? Imp.: that I come to
my own judgment based on something.
Characteristic
of Jewish and Xn writings to be depicted as written by an important prior
figure. Psydopygraphy was of an
apoliptic kind in ancient Israel .
Reinforces the idea that everything is happening just as God knew. Xns applied this practice to letters:
attributed to prior teachers. To let a
respected figure of the recent past speak to a new a different situation. The author say himself as dependent on the
alledged author, so not fraud but of honour and respect.
The
six letters are diverse.
The
genuine seven are also diverse: for ex, in Gal, Paul opposes Xn teachers who
insist on circumcision, so the law is regarded by Paul is more negative than he
does in Rom. In Rom. , the law is holy. There, the problem is not the law but
sin. The law is a problem not in its
content but in its incompetence because sin was in the world first. So, a different agenda produces a different
view of law. Also, justifation by faith
not mention in all of the seven. The
themes reflected different agendas which reflected different problems. Yet the same general point of view.
The
six letters: 3 grps. Col.
and Eph.: the latter seems to depend on the former. They emphasize the church in a way that Paul
does not. The church itself is regarded
as the goal of the plan of God. Cosmic
status. The Pastorals: concerned with
the church, but not theologically (ecclesialogy), but with the order of the
church as an institution. 2 Thess: focus
on the parousia.
Could
be that the six were while he was in prison and his secretary wrote them. But,
the problems raised in the letters arose after Paul's lifetime.
Some
scholars have talked of a Pauline school.
Keck
once thought that the six letters reflected struggles after Paul in his
school. But, the Pastorals are later
than the others. Also, none of them had
the others in mind. More likely that
several attempts to give Paul another voice.
The
rest of the N.T. doesn't mention Paul's letters. We assume that everyone in the first century
knew of Paul, but this is hard to show.
No sign of his influence until 1 Clement. The six letters may show a Pauline legacy,
however.
What
difference does it make if Paul wrote the six?
It does matter. If he wrote one
or more of the six, then they would have to be integrated into the theology of
the seven. Harder the more one assumes
he wrote, because the six are diverse.
There was an early and late Augustine, so why not so with Paul? But he was killed in the mid-60s. So, no 'late Paul'. Did he escape and live on? But Col.--he was still a prisoner.
However,
for the authority and truth of the letters, it doesn't matter. Some think the authority of scripture is
fractured if Paul is not the author of all of his letters. But this is a prior theol. consideration not
to be considered in exigesis.
The
identity of the author is a historical question, so requires historical
methodology and evidence. The Church
canonized texts, not authors. Even not
from the hand of Paul, the voice of Paul as heard later is conveyed. The theol. qu: whether what they say is true
such that they can be considered scripture.
3/20/95
Collosians
Similarity
between it and Ephesians. Also to
similar Philemon(use same names).
Philemon met Paul. Philemon was
to receive his runaway slave, Ephesus ,
as he would Paul.
1983,
Mark Kiley argued that Col.
was deutero-Pauline and depended upon Phillipians; that Col. was a letter of recomendation for Ephesus . So, the material is traditional.
The
haustafel: Col. 3: 18-4:1. May be the oldest form of the Xn
haustafel. Found elsewhere in N.T. the word means household table (of
duties): household duties. In 1913, Martin Dibelius (a form critic)
wrote a commentary on it.
The
Xn haustafels are not alike, but state a general pattern of conduct. The pattern was not invented by Xns. Stoics, for instance. The haustafel: a way of organizing one's
duties, encoded the basic morality of graeco-Roman culture. See Malherbe.
A tradition of household management.
But the Xns didn't borrow it; it was already part of theirs before they
became Xns. To various degrees, Xnized it.
Or,
can regard the use of this material in the N.T. as 'hellonized' by the general
culture. Xn ethics no longer as a
counter-counter ethos, but gave in to the values of the general culture.
The
haustafel trad. doesn't depend on the teachings of Jesus.
How
is the haustafel related to the literary context. How is it structured? Who gets most attention and why? What was its purpose? What of the nature of the household? What is specifically Xn about it? What is being urged on the six groups? What issues in household life are not
addressed? Compared with Paul, what
similarities and differences?
Resurrection
and Col. 2:12 and 3:1. Xns participate
with Christ through baptism. Rom.
6:3--baptized into his death. not 'so
christ was raised so we will be raised, but will have a newness of life'. 'Shall live with him'. Also, not already, but yet to come. Rom. 8:11--'will give' life to your
immortal lives. A different
understanding of resurrection in Col. Keck: so Paul did not write it. Also, Col. 2:13 forgiveness of sins--not part
of Paul's vocab.
The
Col. phil. 2:8-- phil. is empty and
dangerous. What does he mean by
'philosophy'? Has to do with an
understanding of salvation. What kind of
tradition was he referring to?
What
Paul is arguing against: A concern for cosmic powers. See Gal.4.
Astrology involved. Angels and
asceticism. Mystical experiences. Likely gnostic. Paul: Christ has defeated these powers.
Resurrection: as having defeated these powers.
The
hymn of Ch. 1: statements of salvation. From deliverance to redemption(as
forgiveness of soms) to reconciliation.
Each implies something about the human condition. References to what the Father has done,
through the Son. And references to what
the Son has done. To reconcile to himself all things. vv. 15-20 is a hymn. Two stanzas beginning with 'who is'. 15 and 18b.
The first stanza: the Son's role in creation; the second: his role in
salvation. Was v. 16 expanded because it
seems to overdo its point. Also, 'the
church' added to 18a. If so, then it is
the universe is Christ's body. By saying
that this body is the church is a fundamental shift. Is the church destined? Is it to be the all? Note: Paul spoke of the Church as the body of
Christ. But the seven letters don't state that Christ is the head. But this is said in Col. here. Was it Paul's
idea? Keck: No.
3/24/95
Collosians
Hymn
1:15-20. 'image(eikon) of the invisible
God': the hymn begins by asserting that the invisible God has a visible
dimension. Plato called the cosmos the
image of god. Also, hellenized Judaism:
Sophia--the image of God's goodness. 2
Cor 4:4--the gospel is the image of God.
So, already a concept.
'the
first-born of all creation'--that Christ is pre-eminant; not that he is a creature. Athanaeus vs. Arius later.
'because
in him all things were created'--all things, heavenly and earthly
entities. Everything that 'is'. So, 'being' is owed to God through Christ. Keck: the is the Father's Son's world. The Son is before all things: the
pre-existence of Christ. He is the head
of the body (the cosmos). This was an
old motif: that the cosmos was a body.
Now, a new addition: the Church is Christ's instrument in the
cosmos. Cosmological status of the
Church--not just a society on earth. Not
that the Church is the ruler of the cosmos; rather, the Son is. This is not an extension of the idea of us
being the body of Christ.
Second
stanza:'he is the first born of the dead'--the first born of the new
creation. The resurrection, not the
cross, marks the turning point. 'because
the fullness of God was in him' The
plenitude of God resides in Christ. The
result of decision: 'the fullness was pleased to dwell'. it pleased God to reconcile all things into
him through the cross. Why a need for
reconciliation of that which was created by God is not stated. The rebellion not referred to. Hymns
celebrate rather than explain. Due to
the cross, the cosmos is restored to it rightful status. The cosmic powers have lost their capacity to
control human life.
Keck: the christology is breathtaking. That little house churches would make such
cosmological claims. Not simply of a
teacher; rather, the image of God having cosmic import. We share in this reconciliation--we have been
raised with him. So this reconciliation
is not just a personal subjective experience, but a cosmic reorientation as
having already occurred. The invisible
powers such as the horoscope have been disarmed. We are no longer victims of them. Ch. 3: put to death what is earthly
in you. You have already been
reconciled--raised, because it is a cosmic change. Put on love, which gives harmony.
The
mythological character is obvious.
Ephesians
Opinions
divided on this on authorship. The
author recasts Paul's thought but recasted it for the then-current
context. Seems like a cover letter--no
specific names mentioned. Two parts:
ch.s 1-3, 4-6. Sentences are long,
unlike Paul's seven letters. Also,
transitions are not as rough. Yet the
vocab is Pauline, but used in ways that don't sound like Paul.
Begins
with the Father, then talks of Christ, then the Spirit. Of Christ, three 'in whom' parts vv. 7, 11,
13. Beg. with v. 11, the verbs become
passive of God.
Forgiveness
of trespasses, and to unite all things in Christ are not Pauline ideas.
v.3:
'in heavenly places. See v.13. Also, ch.
2 'raised with him'. The cosmic
dimension of the Christ event and the salvation it brings. v. 10 not Paul but close: 'plan for the fullness of time' the cosmos is united in Christ. Anakephalaiosthai is the verb used:
'unite'. Rom 13:9--this verb used in
'the whole law is united in the command to love. In ephesians it seems to mean 'to head
up'. Christ is the place where the
cosmos is integrated again. Christ is
above cosmic powers. At that time, how high up you were in the cosmos showed
how powerful you are. v. 22 the head of the church which is his body. A cosmic re-organization under the one head
has occurred. Not through the Church but
before it. The cosmic Church body is the
goal of God's activity.
The
cosmic powers are not to be defeated (as in Col. ), but are to be informed and
converted. Yet, Ch. 6:10-20--doing
battle against them. A macro-body that
constitutes the cosmos. Gnostics like
this.
Emph.
on the using of the church. No hint of
Paul's suggestion that the leaders of the church might be part of the
problem. We see glimpses of problems, so
a need to strengthen the idea of the unity of the church. The key to the sol. to the problem of
fragmentation is the church. Unlike
Paul, particular offices. To Paul, ch. leadership by those who are of the
spirit. Now, specific offices rather
than just functions. This is the work of
Christ, not the spirit, according to the writer of Ephesians. From 'you received gifts' to 'you were given
gifts'. Christ came down and ascended
gave gifts of the offices of the church.
Did Christ decend to earth or to below?
Opinion divided.
3/27/95
The
Pastorals(1 and 2 Tim; Titus)
The
only letters addressed to an individual. Yet, not personal letters because the
individuals addressed are the church leaders.
Acts mentions Timothy but not Titus.
Also, Timothy appears as the co-author of four authentic and two
inauthentic Pauline letters. Goodspy: both
the writer and the individuals written to were fictional.
Theologically
and ethically, these letters come up short.
They also seem institutional.
Concerning the latter, look for what is left unsaid as well as for what
is said.
Paul
of the seven uncontested letters is known best in the Church today. Also, the Paul of the Pastorals who is
against women's rights is known. Like 1
Cor. 14. Keck: the real Paul has been
made a wreck from the Pastorals.
The
unity and disunity of the Pastorals:
Johnson: should look at them separately.
They were not included in Marcion's canon, which may put them late. Commonly assumed that the same author wrote
the three. But, differences between
them. 2 TIm. is more personal, with a thanksgiving paragraph and more said of
Paul. He seems to be ending his life abandoned by his friends. 1 Tim. has little on Paul, but is concerned
with the institutional church. So, need to assess authorship of them
separately.
On
authorship, using vocabulary is problematic because the topic had changed. We know little about the last days of Paul
and this doesn't help us to identify whether he wrote the Pastorals.
1
Tim.: Paul portrayed here as having been aweful beforehand. This is not so in the seven authentic
letters. He was blameless. Only in 1 Tim., Paul is called a keryx (the
name for a Stoic teacher).
3:1--the
Church now has a bishop and deacons.
Seems to have been an established office. Only in Phil. is bishop
mentioned--but was this a function rather than an office. If Phil. is composite, then it could have
been undated to have Paul mention bishops and deacons. No where else in the seven letters is the
bishop or deacon mentioned.
In
the requirements for being a bishop, common sense ethics, rather than being
uniquely Xn. Husband of only one
wife. Married only once probably
meant. Also, no lover of money. From popular ethical discourse. Must not be a recent convert. But in Paul's day, all Xns were recent
converts! What is missing is the
prophet. The Holy Spirit is mentioned in
2 Tim. 1:14 and Titus 3:5, but not in 1 Tim.
But life in the spirit doesn't have the same centrality as it did in the
seven authentic letters.
Emph.
on dress code shows that the church had folks of higher social standing. Also, the Church had its own welfare program,
but it had abuses so standards were set to deliniate the worthy poor.
On
slaves and masters. Unlike the other
letters, only the slaves are given duties.
A general reference to the second coming, but less emph. than in the
seven letters. So, the foundation of
giving the slave's duties is not here eschatalogical. Due in part to the
stabilization of the institutional communities.
This is consistent with more attn. to structure and procedure and less
to charis. lead(everything depending on the spirit without a top dog). Paul's type of lead. is the latter.
Theol. disputes.
1 Tim 1, 3, and 4. Don't promote
mythic speculation. 6:20--avoid gnosis
approach. 2 Tim. 2:16-8--avoid those who
teach that the resurrection has taken place.
Keck: is there one threat, or various?
Is it gnosticism. On
resurrection, Jn and Col.
notes that the believer has already passed from death to life. Yet here this is
denounced. Rom. includes a warning against
following false teachers.
Paul
has become reliable truth and tradition.
Titus:
on baptism, suggests regeneration. So,
the letter offers a high sacramentalism.
Jn 3--begotten of the water of the spirit.
3/29/95
2
Thessalonians
If
it is a genuine Pauline letter, what happened to his apocoliptic
timetable? How much of his theology is
dependent on it? What can we do with his
timetable? Early Xns thought the end was
emminant. But it was not. So, need to translate it for the modern
reader. This is so, regardless of the
problem of authenticity.
What
was Paul getting at? It really matters
what you do in this life. Apocaliptic
language reinforces this.
The
structure of the letter: intro,
thanksgiving(1:3-4 and 2:13), body, and conclusion. Why two thanksgiving at two places in the
letter. 1 Thess. has this too. No so in the other Pauline letters. The body: judgment, the day of the Lord, and
a warning agn. idleness. Of the latter,
1 Thess. 5:2--we don't know when it will came.
Also 1 Thess 4:11--importance of work.
So, it is as if 2 Thess is a commentary on selected aspects of 1
Thess.
The
author of 2 Thess does not want to be viewed as a forgery. He wants to distinguish this letter from
false letters. This may raise the
question of its authenticity.
The
situation of the Church: if Paul was not
the author, it could have been a more generally-addressed epistle, rather than
indicating the situation at Thessalonia.
Perhaps later in the first century when Revelations was written, there
were questions about what Paul would have said on the subject. The apocoliptic langauage is probably geared
to the Jews. Also, eating meat offered
to idols was also a Jewish-Xn issue.
The
occasion of the letter: people are idle
because they think the present age will soon end. There is supposedly a false letter that
indicates that the day of the Lord has arrived.
This tells us that letters were already being written in Paul's
name. That letter may have been aimed at
1 Thess, perhaps hostile to it. 2 Thess
may be a reaction to this reaction. So,
2 Thess may have 1 Thess in mind (as well as reactions to it).
On
the day of the Lord: the persecutors will be punished by the coming Jesus. There will be a figure from satin too. Before the new age comes, there is someone
who restrains the evil one, keeping back the day of the Lord. At the Day, judgment. 1 Cor. 3:
the sort of work of each will be revealed. 1 Cor. 15: we will not all die but will be
changed. 1 Thess: the Lord will come and
raise those who are saved. But, resurrection is not included in the Day in 2
Thess. Suggestion of judgment and
resurrection(restoration) on the day of the Lord in the minor prophets. Eg.
Amos. Joel: the Day has a more cosmic
scope. Peter took this and added a
pouring out of the Spirit. So, these
ideas were not new. Already in
Judaism.
Considering
how the Day is described in 2 Thess, it should have been clear that it had not
yet happened.
In 1
Thess, the Day is to come in surprise.
Not so in 2 Thess (there was a schedule). Does this contradiction mean that Paul didn't
write 2 Thess? No. The two versions are different but not
contradictory. Rather, 2 Thess has a relative
emph. on that of the 'not yet'. 1 Thess
5: emph. that Xns are already living in the Day of the Lord and will be
spectators when the Day comes. A
different emph: relative to 2 Thess, more of a balance between the already and
the not yet.
Is
this apocoliptic thought what Paul rests on?
4/3/95
Hebrews
The
author was not Paul. The author was a
well-educated hellonized Jewish Xn. Not
clear that it was written to the Jews.
No clear when it was written.
Could be as early as 64 A.D.
Keck: 80's. Key to the date: it
effects how you understand the readers, which in turn effects how we understand
the ideas (which were oriented to some readers). Consensus that they were in Rome .
The title is a traditional inference made from the content of the book. Keck: the readers may have been hellonized
Jewish Xns. No reason to think that they
were going back to Judaism. The author
sees the danger as of a different sort.
We have to assume that the writer is not distorting to assess who the
readers were. See 2:1--'drifting away'
or 'being lost'. Doesn't sound like
reverting to another religion. Unlike Rom. , not
unrelenting theology then applied.
Rather, here they are intermixed.
13:9--'strange and different doctrines'. What were they? They author emphasizes Christ's superiority
over angels, yet this does not mean that the readers had been worshiping angels
above Christ. Rather, the key is in the
exortations. There seems to be
discontent with the leadership of the Church.
Perhaps over-eager waiting for the parasia or an over-realized
eschatology. The writer threatens: there
is no second repentence. So, he may have
been writing to slackers. He gives a
christological argument as the basis of his exortations. His assp: if they see who Christ really is,
then their tendency to turn away would dissapate. Keck: was he naive? Appealing to their minds to rejuvenate. Scripture is quoted alot in present
tense. Most from Pentitude and
Psalms.
Kasemann
(a student of Bultman and teacher of Keck): studied Hebrews. Roy Harrisville translated. Emph. imfluence pre-Xn gnosticism on
Hebrews. Emph. non-biblical thought
patterns. He, like Bultman, assumed a
pre-Xn redeemer myth. But, there may
have been pre-Xn gnosticism with the idea of a god that comes down to earth to
redeem it and then ascend back to the spiritual.
Hebrews
uses the idea of the two ages. 'These
last days' and 'The world to come'. Christ came at the end of the present age. A sense of this age and the age to come,
reading the scripture and Christ in this context. Successive ages--a motif. A horizonal view.
A
platonistic view of reality (overlaps with gnostic view): A vertical view of
two ages: the visible and invisible.
Probably from hellonized Jewish background. Perhaps Philo. Earthly phen. represent heavenly
reality. A movement of the soul to the
movement of God. Philo has no interest
in eschatology; rather, interested in the movement of the soul to God in the
practice of Judaism rather than in the sequence of worlds.
Disagreement
about the relation between the horizonal and vertical views. Cambier:
Hebrews replaces a future hope with a celestrial hope because of
frustration over the fact that the age did not end. Others insist that the emphasis is not
platonic but on Jewish hellonistic eschatology. Keck: rather, it is the
conjunction of the vertical and horizontal views of reality (two-levels and
futurist) is precisely what is important.
Together, they revitalize the faith.
Hebrews
assumes that the visible world is transitory and is a copy of the real world
which is invisible. Salvation is future and heavenly because a heavenly
invisible salvation is more real than anything that is visible. The other-worldly is more real than the temporal
world. This world is a shadow of the
invisible world(platonic). If the
readers are deflated because of the 'not-yet', then the importance of the
invisible gives hope to the future; the future is of the invisible, so don't be
depressed about the 'not yet'. The
'not-yet' is the foreshadowing of the real.
A time factor inserted into the vertical reality. A temporal shift from the visible to the
invisible. The future exists in heavenly
realm which is really real and invisible.
We can't see it by definition.
So, faith is the conviction that the heavenly realities really
exist. So, seeing only the visible 'not
yet' should not discourage one from believing that it is really coming. The Gospel on earth is only as promise. Why should one believe that the object of the
promise really exists? The writer uses
Christology: it is Christ that bridges the two world--not as a cosmic body as
implied in Eph. and Col. but as a heavenly event that moves from the heavenly
world to the earthly world and then back.
Pre-existence, incarnation, and post-existance of Christ are
assumed(1:2-3). They are one event. The assumption that it is one event (it is
one person) is that upon which the Christology rests on and upon which one can
have faith in the coming (temporal) of the invisible realm. We see the earthly part in Jesus, and from
which we have faith in the invisible realm.
Can know that the heavenly world exists by looking at Jesus incarnated
on earth because it is all one piece.
Xn
revelation: that of scripture comes to its completion in God's Son. A status superior to angels. 1:1-4.
The three stages of the Christ-event follows. So, if the Son has spoken, least we drift
away from it.
4/5/95
Hebrews
The
superior of the Son over the angels and Moses. Superiority is the theme of this
Christology.
Ch.
4-10: On the Aaron priesthood
A
kyastic str:
4:14-16--solidarity
of the high priest and the people
5.1-4--general view of a priest.
5.5-10:an exortation
5.11-6.2:
Christ as the high priest
7.1-28
8:1-10:18
11-14:38
The
heavenly sanctuary is the real one. As
priests have something to offer for sins, so Christ offered himself for our
sins, which was a perfect sacrifice so does not need a second. 9:11--Christ is the priest who entered the
true sanctuary in his own blood to appear in the presence of God on our
behalf. The old order of priesthood
(Aaron) had limited possibility. Yearly
atonement not sufficient. 9:8--the outer tent is symbolic of the present
age. Activities there are not sufficient
to rectify the inner self but only external pollution. 10:1-4--the law was the fore-shadow of that
which was to come: Christ's perfect offering.
10:22--hearts cleansed with a superior offering.
On
Melchisedec: Philo allogorizes him.
There was an early Xn gnostic sect called Melchisedecs. Ps. 110 and Gen. 14 used in Hebrews. So, Hebrews of only one fragment of the use
of Melchisedec. Hebrews uses it to
legitimate calling Christ a priest since Jesus was not of the priest clan. He was Davidic, rather than Aaronic. Also, it establishes the superiority of Jesus
as priest. Abraham voluntarily gave
tithe to Melchisedec. Shows the
superiority of that priesthood. Gen.
14:17-20. Imp. Melchisedec's identity
(king of righteousness and peace) and the transactions between Abraham and
him. Both show that Mal. foreshadowed
Christ. Christ is superior to Abraham. No geneology for Mal. So it means that he never began or
ended. A priesthood of eternal, unlike
that of Aaron's or the Levites. So,
Mal., unlike the other two lines of priests, must be like the Son. Abraham, by paying the tithe, shows the
superiority of Mal. Mal. blessed Abraham (the superior did the blessing at that
time). So, the Levitical priesthood
didn't really succeed. A changed
priesthood implied a change in the law.
The new priesthood was by an oath, meaning that it would not continue
for ever. In contrast, the eternal
priest always lives so does not need an oath (a succession of the priesthood
from one to another person). Likewise,
the Son didn't need to take an oath.
All
this suggests the superiority of the Son.
To answer those who would turn from it.
The
author combines various aspects of the human condition that must be dealt with
before one can enter the presence of God.
An objective view of sin: of defilement.
Ancient origin of this view. See
Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil. People who feel that they have been defiled
and need to be cleansed. It could happen
by accident. An objective way of
removing it: ritual. De-toxify or
purify. The subjective view of sin: the
inner state of the doer. External
purification alone won't do the job.
Heb. 9:9-10--sacrifices offered can't purify one's conscience. 10:3-4 also.
In
2:15, another way of understanding the human condition: bondage. Fear of death.
Also,
a sense of moral imperfection. What
rectification is for Paul, perfection is for Hebrews. 10:14--Christ has perfected for all time
those who are sanctified. 12:22--Jesus
is the mediator of a new covenant. A
sense of the transcendent. Christ gives
us this sense because he was perfected. 2:6 is imp. From Ps.8. Is the interest in the word
'man'? If so, Hebr. is concerned
Anthropologically with the role of humans in creation. If the interest is 'son of man', Hebr. is
concerned Christologically with the role of Christ in creation--interest in
Christ's status in creation. To Keck,
referring to the pre-existance of the Son.
2:9--He suffered death either by the grace of God or because of God's
abandonment of him. If the latter, then
it is a severe humiliation of the Son because it is the pre-existant Son who
was abandoned. He entered so far in the
human condition that he died apart from God.
The Son is made perfect by suffering.
Only by being like us then could he deliver us from bondage to satin
from a fear of death.
5:1-10--Ps.
2 and Ps. 110 are quoted. v.7: the prayer of Jesus was heard---seems to be
implied. Harnack: he was not heard. Or, Jesus prayed to be delivered from death
rather than to avoid death. Keck favors
the latter. Chirst prayed as a
priest-to-be, who suffered due to humanity.
Heb. emph.s the humanness of Jesus (as well as the cosmic status). The human Jesus and the cosmic event of the
Son are the same. Only so could he
perfect us.
4/10/95
Hebrews
It
emphasizes that Christ in his resurr. entered the real sanctuary as a priest
representing us. Thus, he was a
pioneer. In history, on earth, the
people who have been perfected for salvation are pilgrims with faith that there
is a heavenly rest in the really real because Jesus has gone there. Not an eternal life now, for that would give
us a heavenly rest now. Strong emph. on
the 'not yet' of the heavenly rest. See Ch. 11: faith
as the conviction of the things not seen; that the things invisible do in fact
exist. Examples of O.T. figures who
lived by faith. Abraham, Sarah, Noah,
etc. They died in faith not having
received what was promised. God has
prepared for them a city but they did not receive what was promised. Why? That on account of us they would not be made
perfect. Even their greatness did not
make them achievers. It is our getting
to the goal that perfects them. Keck:
the image of the relay race. If the last
falls, the first will have run in vain.
So the author exhorts the Xns to run the race and not fail, so that all
may be perfected.
Revelations
'Apocoliptic'
is difficult to define. Apocolipses are
usually not attached to an author, but Revelation is said to be written by a
'John'. Also, such books are usually
sealed until the time is near, but this one was directed to be known as a
contemporary writing from a known author.
Called a letter, but this is too simple.
Yet, features of apocol. such as visions. 'Apocoliptic' is an adj. as of a type of
world-view. Can be found in writings
which are not apocolipses. Keck:
Revelation does not fit a simple type of apocoliptic writing: it resists simple
classification.
Language
and symbols: the book wants to
communicate rather than to conceal.
Ironically, this makes it hard to explain the symbols. There is a sort of code in the use of the
symbols. An alternative way of reading
reality. Interest in the immanent future:
'soon'. But the symbolic language is not
a coded set of predictions to be 'ticked off'.
Rather, it portrays the character of the impending end. It is the meaning of the end that pertains to
a different reality that matters. This
meaning requires a different type of discourse: visual vocab., much of which
derived from the O.T. Material from
apoliptic material from other sources as well.
This visual vocab. connotes more than it denotes, conveying values and
complexes of ideas all at once as in a painting. The vision gathers a cluster of meanings so
the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Let the vocab. make its point in its own visual way.
Austin
Farrar: the purpose of 'symbol' is the inclusion of ambiguity. It does not appeal to rationality but to the
will and the emotions. So, a problem:
John used sentences to describe what he saw.
We read in sequence what he saw simultaniously. He saw the painting as a thing as a whole,
but it can only described in words in sequence.
So, we go from sequence to seeing the thing as a whole. Let the text guide my seeing--building up a
picture. Don't look for logical
relations between the symbols--this would turn it into an allegory (a
code).
Further,
the text was meant to be heard. Also, it
was bad Greek. You need to hear it to
see it. 1:9ff-- political exile. Charismatic.
He was directed to write what he saw by a voice. A human between seven splenders. The churches have a heavenly counterpart--in
Jesus' right hand (seven stars).
Keck:
key to understanding this book: learn what the right questions are. Don't try to figure out a code or ask of
practical matters.
Overlapping,
spiralling of the same ground. Esp. Ch.s
16-8. There are pauses which shift the
action to another level. For ex., Ch.s 7, 15, 19. These visions are 'time outs' before
something new. The visions in sequence
expresses the not yet over and over again.
The hymnic interludes express the 'already'.
There
are seven letters, each having the same structure. They all begin: 'I know your works'. E.g Ch. 2:2-8 is a letter.
An
open door to heaven: access. As in the
baptism of Jesus: the heavens were split open. The animals come from Ezek.
1. The throne is imp. A symbol of power and authority. God is enthroned in heaven, regardless of
what happens on earth. So, harassed Xns
can endure their sufferings knowing that God is still in power in heaven. So He still rules on earth. God's continuing sovereinty. In heaven, God's godhood is celbrated in
continual praise. The elders represent
the redeemed. An act of submission to
God. Taking off one's crown.
And God has a scroll in his hand: the destiny
of history of which no one has earned the moral right to see. But Jesus, whose experience has combined
defeat and conquest, has earned that right.
The creatures and elders in heaven acknowledge this.
4/12/95
Revelations
Historical
content: How representative was this
book? A late first-century throw-back to
an earlier Xnity or a strain that was there all along? The later church gave little place to such a
view. Insists that loyalty to Christ
must not be compromised. But it uses
myths and motifs from other religions.
Emph.s the debt of early Xnity to ancient religions. This combo of exclusiveness and inclusiveness
is interesting.
Interpretative
questions: what do we do with this book now?
How do we assess its content? If so, what criteria? Persecuted Xns have found the book to be
reassuring. It is addressed to such
people. So, what do modern Xns do with
it? Don't use it to de-code
history.
The
slain lamb is the one who can open the seals. First three seals: a white, red,
and black horse, respectively. Fourth
seal: a green horse (death). Doesn't
matter if a logical or historical sequence.
The fifth seal: cries of the martyred for justice. The idea that there is a set number of the
redeemed; that God knows in advance and that the martyred would have to wait.
The sixth seal: cosmic signs of impending doom.
The seventh seal is so decisive that it turns into seven parts of the
wrath of God. Old idea: the end will be
preceded by disaster. When creation
receeds back into chaos, it is a sign that this age has come to an end.
Those
sealed by God are of the twelve tribes of Israel . Washed in the blood of the lamb.
Silence
in heaven at the opening of the seventh seal. Seven angels with trumpets
delivered censors that destroyed the earth.
Ch.
9:20-1
The
destruction is not causing repentence.
The
ark of the covenant is seen.
Ch.
12-14
A
shift from the ending to the meaning of the ending. The earthly chaos reflects a cosmic conflict
between good and evil. On earth, this
battle is set between the dragon and the woman.
Don't try to allegorize this.
Unlike Daniel, the animal features come together in one beast. The dragon had given his authority to the
beast. The beast was worshipped. Who gave the beast a mouth--God or Satin? The beast was given authority over the earth.
Then, another beast which made the earth worship the first beast and made
miracles. 666 was his number. It has signs and wonders just as the church
does. 666 was the Arabic numerals for Nero Caesar. This is very different from Rom. 13 which
states that there is no authority other than God.
One
like the Son of Man comes.
The
fall of Babylon . The great harlot. She was drunk with the blood of the martyrs
and Jesus. Babylon : everything is for sale. This is why whoredom is the symbol of Babylon . The merchants
become upset when no one buys her anymore.
The hate for Rome
is evident here.
An
angel drags the dragon in the pit for 1000 yrs. Resurrection for the
martyrs. The old view of resurrection as
vindication of the righteous. The first
resurrection. Other Xns resurrection
after the 1000 years and the ensuing battle with the dragon. Then, a second resurrection in which everyone
is judged. Keck: two understandings of
resurrection. Then, a new heaven and
earth. Not rejuvenated, but completely
new. A heavenly city came down. Don't demythologize it but enter it.
4/17/95
The
Johanne Letters
They
belong together and in relation to the Gospel.
But not clear how. Johnson sees
them as a packet. 1 John is hard to
classify. No clue about the author. A
series of exortations of a situation marked by conflict. No reference to Jews. Emph. on expiation of sin. Like James, little
str. and argument. Inconsistencies. 2
John is a circular letter.
The
phen. of false teaching in the first century.
Don't idealize the early Xns.
Acts does this, but even it can't hide the fact that there was
conflict. False teaching is different
than heresy. The latter is not used in
the N.T. Haeresis, root of 'heresy', is
used to denote a school or faction (Gal 5:20).
Not until late 2nd century does it mean deviant doctrine. In that sense, heresy presupposes
orthodoxy. False teaching was not
'heresy' in this latter sense. Second,
what is orthodoxy has never necessarily been a majority view. Also, not necessarily true that those in
power are always right or that they are always wrong. We find polimics in religion
distasteful. A disconnect bet. religion
and truth. For many, religious claims
are valued for their utility rather than their truth. This has not always been so. Religious claims were taken seriously as
truth claims and there were power-struggles in the early church. Paul, in Gal., opposed false teachings by
those who wanted to provert the Gospel.
He did not regard it as a sect, but as the annulment of the Gospel. 2 Cor.11: he calls them false apostles who
distorted his teachings whereas in Gal. the new teaching was an inport. Mk 13:21 on false prophets: they will show
signs and wonders. Mt 7: beware of false
prophets in sheeps' clothing. Acts. 20: warns against false wolves from the
leaders themselves after he is gone.
Col. 2:8--phil. and empty human tradition. Eph. 5:6-14--let no one deceive you with
empty words...therefore don't associate with them. 2 Thess 2--concerning the coming of Christ,
watch out for false letters. (Keck: this
shows that this letter was not by Paul).
1 Tim. 6 and 2 Tim. 2:16--avoid godless chatter. Don't get involve in fruitless
controversies. Heb. 13--false teaching
of revelation. A growing sense towards
the end of the century that someone has crossed the line and that there is a
struggle over the Xn faith. The only
book in the N.T. that does not argue agn false teachings explicitly is
John. John 17: he prays for the unity
of the church, not orthodoxy. But is
unity a problem because of orthodoxy?
Yet in the John letters, a bitter attack on false teaching. What happened in the Johannine
community? Was the Gospel or the letters
first? Keck: the letter was first.
The
Gospel of John is the result of a tradition history which absorbed earlier
sources. The Johinne community knew some
of the traditions that went into the synoptics, but this may not be so in the
Johinnine letters. But Johinne Xnity
existed along side Pauline Xnity, and James Xnity and the synoptic Xnity. Not sequential. We don't know how much contact between the
streams. Why don't they refer to each other?
Was it assumed that they did, so did not write about such
discourse? Yet, exortations for hospitality. Cross-fertilization would be expected.
2
John: a test for false teaching. A
specific doctrine must be stated. Pretty
severe. Clearly, a split in the ranks. The elders are being challenged by a
schizmatic church. A
power-struggle.
1
John 2:18-9--many anti-Christs have come so we know it is the last hour. An actual scism. The anti-Christ are those who deny that Jesus
is the Christ. 4:1-6--the false prophets
deny that Jesus of the flesh is of God.
Christology
is at the heart of the conflict. Raymond
Brown: the Gospel of John is the result of a school. The authors of the Gospels
and each of the three letters are different but in the same school. The school emph.d the work of the holy spirit
in working out the revelation--especially in Christology. The high Christology and the realized
eschatology went together, advocated by the powers that be of that school. But a schizmatic church objected. A fight over the legacy of the beloved
disciple. The left-wing schizmatic
church left. Brown: Christology, ethics,
love, eschatology, and the spirit
divided the school. Unlike Heb.,
the Jesus of the fourth gospel doesn't learn anything via suffering but
teaches. How do the letters of John deal
with this?
4/19/95
Unity
and Diversity in the N.T.:
'Unity
and Diversity' is a problematic title; it suggests either that unity preceded
diversity or was more salient. These
were not so. Actually, diversity more so
than unity. Also, the unity and
diversity of the texts does not reflect the condition of early Xnity. This lecture is on the texts, seeing the N.T.
as a whole mostly in terms of its diversity and its possible unity.
The
phenomenon of diversity in the texts.
Types of literature. The N.T. has
five narrative books, twenty letters(some to particular individuals, to partic.
churches, and others are circular; some are composite), one homily (Hebrews),
one apocolipse (but it names its author).
Some texts are authentic, some are anomomous (gospels, Hebrews), and
some as psudonomous. The texts were
produced between 50 and 150 CE. Written
in various regions. Syria , Greece ,
Rome , etc. Distinct regions. Some texts rely on written texts (sources).
Mt and Lk use Mk and Q. John may have
used a 'signs' source. Most texts cite
traditions that circulated orally. Oral
trads. that circulated independently.
Miracle stories, Wisdom tales, proclamations, etc. There are also texts used in liturgy. Hymns, for instance, used in the texts. Also, some texts used in liturgies. Hymns in Luke, for instance. A variety of hymnic material. There are also the kergyma and last supper
traditions as well as doxologies (Rom. 11:36) in the texts which had been used
in liturgy. There were also the
teachings used in the moral life of the church put into the texts. So, various sources written down. Also, various ways of talking and
writing. For instance, the diatribe
(Paul speaks to an imaginary person) and the midiash pesher (Rom. 10) where a
pre-existing text is quoted and told what it means. Also, a farewell discourse (at the lord's
supper) as a way of dealing with the future.
There is also the formal structure of the letter. Intro., tranksgiving, body, and conclusion. Also, there is the autograph at the end of a
letter. Also, letters of introduction (e.g.
Rom. ). Also, speechs such as are in Acts. Also, apocoliptic language. Also, O.T. quotations.
Why
is knowing this diversity important? The
used reveals the user and the readers, so points to things about early
Xnity. This is the value of form crit. The N.T. was embedded in the lives of the
Churches which in turn were embedded in the surrounding cultures. Also, form is a clue to meaning and content. Also, the different forms shows that the N.T.
is complex. More levels of meaning to
discern. A more sophisticated reading
may result. It means that exigesis is
more complicated. Also, the creativity
of the authors can be seen. Appreciate
the individual as he has used his context.
The
phenomenon of unity: not a presumed starting-point, but as a question and a
quest. 'Unity' may not be the right
word. Maybe constancy is better. If so, what are its elements? What holds the N.T. together? The N.T. is Xn. They are all distinct from the writings of
other religions of the times. Second,
they all have a positive relation to the teaching of the O.T., even if the
meanings claimed differs from that claimed at the synogogue. Third, Jesus is the concenter upon they all
point. His decisiveness is religious for
the relation between man and God. Only Jesus
has this decisiveness. This runs through
all the writings of the N.T. It is
assumed that he is decisive. His
humanness is assumed to be important, even as different meanings of his
divinity is shown. He is never a Christ
figure, but is a unique figure--a real person.
He is always known to have been a Jew, rather than a generic human. Fourth, it is assumed that the readers are of
a community that looks to Jesus and that in doing so they are not looking away
from God. They assume that Jesus and God
must be seen together. Different ways of
seeing this.
4/21/95
N.T.
Ethics
Why
is it a problematic sub-field? Not due
to the lack of N.T. material on conduct.
Rather, that there is so much and so diverse content on conduct which
makes it a problematic sub-field. So,
focus on the ethics of particular books of the N.T. Jesus, Paul, James, John, etc. But, a series of ethics in the N.T., which
intensifies the question of whether there is a N.T. ethics. Also, contension over what the N.T. says about
particular topics. Contradictions. E.g. attitudes toward Rome .
Also, basic disparity. Love of
enemy in sermon mount but Johinne letter: love only brethren. Spotty treatment on some issues such as divorce
and treatment of slaves, so can't say that it speaks for the whole of the
N.T.
Moreover,
what is ethics? Ethics concerns proper
behavior. How one comes to a proper
decision about competing values. Paul
shows reasoning about divorce. But
little in the N.T. about how to reason through a decision about proper
behavior. Ethics also can be seen as
discourse about what is the good. No
sustained reflection on this in the N.T.
Lists of virtues but nothing on what makes them virtues or how to
cultivate them. Never do we learn what
love is or how it is related to justice.
Still,
there should be a sub-field called N.T. Ethics.
What is called Xn ethics today needs this. So, what is it. Start with distinction bet. ethos(a
consistent pattern of behavior: lifestyle; the moral life of people and their communities). N.T. not have an ethos; early Xns had
one. Wayne Meeks works on this. Their values, habits and general lifestyle of
the early Xns. The N.T. texts themselves
became part of the ethos. The authors
themselves were early Xns. The writers
reflect the early Xn ethos (what they did and valued). If ethos refers to the pattern of affirmed
behavior, ethics refers to critical reflection on it, including what should be
done. Includes moral exhortation: don't
do that, or do this. Ethics includes this
but grounds it: gives the reasons for, or rationale of, such behavior, as
well. So, N.T. ethics is not sep. from
the theology of the texts. A theological
grounding of the moral life of Xns that gives shape to the moral life of the
readers.
Easy
to distinguish ethos from ethics in principle; harder to carry it out. Why?
The texts do not always make this distinction. E.g.
You must be perfect as God is.
Ethos and ethics side-by-side.
But elsewhere not related: take up your cross. What does this ethos
mean? How do it? These are ethical questions. Complicating factors: One's reasoning is
influence by one's location. N.T. texts
written at different times in early Xnity.
Xnity had changed. Five changes
in location which effected the way the writers reasoned. First, from Palestalian villages to
Graeco-Roman cities. Assp: city-folk have different assumptions than
those of the country. Different
metephors used. Second, from small conventionals within Judaism ignored by the
state to being a persecuted community.
This changes one's outlook.
Third, from a Judaistic outlook to a cosmopolitan gentile outlook. Fourth, from council of Jer. to actual
schism. That changes how church is
thought of. Fifth, from charismatic
leadership (Pauline church) to an institutional church. These factors complicate distinguishing what
they were doing from what the text says they ought to be doing.
What
are the reasons in which N.T. exhortations are grounded. First, the will of God. Deotological ethics. Rom. 12. Second, the nature of the Christ event
including how the life of Jesus was remembered.
Phil. 2. Third, the already and
not yet of salvation. What is being actualized daily? What of this can be? Fourth, the well-being of the church and
those in it. No instrumental
understanding of the church as is today.
The integrity of the Church itself is a good. Fifth, accountability. Xns accountable to Christ or God as the final
judge of one's life. This has
disappeared from contemporary Xn ethics.
Accountability to a principle is not the same as to a person. Missing: happiness, self-actualization,
greatest good for the greatest number, fairness. Saved by grace, not by fairness.
Suppose
we get a sense of N.T. ethics, how does this result function today? N.T. ethics and early Xn ethos are embedded
in a different world. Caution to
translating it or trying to conform present behavior to that of the past. So, N.T. ethics more relevant than early Xn
ethos--to be appropriated by us. Because
N.T. ethics is on how to think about one's moral life as well as content. The doer and the deed are not separated in
N.T. ethics. A relationship; for instance, the identity of the Xns
listening to the sermon on the mount impacts the meaning of the teachings. N.T. ethics assumes that the doer is open to
the impact of Chirst. Not so in
contemporary ethics. The ethics of N.T.
should not be limited to rules. Images
of life before God help us to order and interpret our experience, failures, and
meaning. E.G. Body of Christ, KOG,
household of God. Also, as important is
it it is to see the diversity of N.T. ethics, to what extent is it saying the
same thing? Is not a call to service the
same as the call to love? Is there
continuity below the terminology differences?
But, let the differences stand.
The diversity of N.T. ethics legitimates that of Xn lifestyles. This does not mean that differing lifestyles
should use the N.T. differences for legitimation.
N.T.
ethics can teach us how to reason ethically for ourselves rather than do as
others did.
Bultman
insists that one must ask to what extent does the text deal with the
subject-matter (sachkritik). Barth:
questions this. Keck: like Bultman says,
there has to be some judgment about how well the text did with the subject-matter. The writers may have fallen short
ethically. E.g. slavery. Importance of using one's own reasoning. Did Paul's situation and stance do justice
to a particular topic? Risky. He may not have come out right. We might not reason it out right.
Recall
that justification by faith applies also to ethics.
N.T.
Interp: Seminar 1.
1/20/95
1
Thessalonians
The
greeting: relatively short. This was his
first letter. Use of 'Grace'--a
hellonized Xn greeting.
Background:
Acts 17: seems like Paul's ministry at Thessalonia was brief (three weeks).
Acts 18:5--Silas and Timothy remained.
1Tess: seems like only Timothy had been left. So, Paul was not there long enough to teach
them all he wanted, so he wrote a letter.
Was
Paul being critisized for being greedy or was he trying to differentiate
himself from the general stereotype of philosophers as being lazy? The church there was being persecuted. According to Acts, by the Jews. 1 Tess: not clear who. Me: Whomever were the persecuters, Paul seems
to have been defending himself against them.
2/3/95
Galatians
Trad.
view: it refers to the same events as Acts 15.
Luke tries to patch things up.
Problem: Table fellowship of Jewish Christians with Gentile Christians. Then, the apostolic council in Jerusalem which patched
things up.
Achtemeter:
the church was not as unified as Luke suggests.
Luke, in Acts, is not a history but a narrative. Luke did not know the
extent of the divisions. His theological
agenda supported his view of the events.
Luke did not have access to Paul's letters.
If
Paul lost, as Achtermeter claims, why did Luke show his as a winner?
Who kept Paul's letters? Who included them in the canon later. Maybe Paul was not a total loser. Paul won on circumcision but not on other
Mosiac laws. The Judaizing Church
Galatians:
5:12--the issue is circumcision. Paul is
set against this. Were the events of
Gal. 2:1-10 the council of Jer.? According to Achtemeter, Gal 1:18-21 is same
as Acts 9:26; Gal 2:1-10 is same as Acts 11:1-18; Gal 2:11-14 is same as Acts
15:36-41. The latter connection makes sense.
Acts 15:1-... is the council of Jer.
Achtemeter: Paul was not there.
Paul mentions a letter presumably from it. Then, Paul and Peter fought.
Acts
makes it clear that the Apostles remained in Jer. Never preached to
Gentile. Luke claims that they preached
to gentiles.
2/17/95
Philippians 2
The
'hymn' came before Paul. Look at its
content and form as well as how Paul intended to use it. So, it was used.
v. 5: Continue doing... rather than to change their
behavior. Possible meanings: one should imitate Christ. Kasemann argues against this meaning. Rather:
you think with the mind of Christ since you are part of Christ; you have the
mind of Christ (not that you should imitate Christ's actions). Do these different meanings make a difference
in what the Philipians are to take from the hymn? This depends on what the hymn is about, which
in turn is effected by its structure.
v.s 6-8: Christ, unlike Adam, does not snatch at equality with God but
takes on the role of a slave. So, Christ
is exalted. The contrast with Adam is
debatable. The pre-existence may be more salient.
3/31/95
James
Do
James and Paul disagree? Do they mean
the same thing by 'faith' and 'works'. Rom. 12 sounds like James. For Paul, 'works' is of the law. Ceremonial
works. Also, moral laws. For Paul, one should follow Christ's
law. Faith working through love. Gal. 5:14 and James 2:8--Love your neighbor
as yourself--this is the Law of God.
Proper works for both come out of that.
Both Paul and Luther are not against such works (as from the Spirit),
but the works of man's law (e.g. circumcision, sale of indulgences).
James
tends to use the sayings of the Wisdom lit. and Leititcus 11(e.g. no
partiality, don't judge, don't slander or swear, and don't withhold wages);
Paul tends to use the prophets. So,
Leviticus via Wisdom lit. gets into James.
Not so in Paul.
James
does not mention Jesus much (twice). Not
much of a Christology. So, it could be an early letter. Also, that he was talking to Jewish Xns may
indicate that it was an early letter.
Who
wrote it? The argument between James,
Paul, and Peter was on circumcision and table-fellowship. These were not in the letter, so it may not
have been James.
James
5:14-- the only use of oil in the N.T.
Not used for baptism but for healing.
4/7/95
1
Peter
Johnson:
Peter is the auther. Others dispute
this. Is Peter dependent on James or
vise versa? Compare Peter 5 to James 4. Devil advocacy language in both. Did both depend on another piece of
literature?
Stone
images in Peter. Is the name of the
letter (Peter: rock) a play on words? Also, is the Greek too good to have Peter
as the writer?
The
letter is supposedly from Rome , but it states
that it is from Babylon . Figurative meaning: exile language in the
text. Rome
might have been called Babylon because it was
decadant--not just after the destruction of the Temple in 70.
Emperor
Trajan advises Pliny (a governor) not to persecute solely on someone's name
(eg. Christian), yet 1 Peter refers to those persecuted because they proclaimed
that they were Xns. According to
Tacitus, Nero condemned Xns not so much from their name but from their
anti-social attitude. Peter may be seen
as advocating such an attitude. Another
Roman historian stated that the Xns were lumped in with the drunken robbers due
to the Xns' superstitions.
What kind of persecution is occurring in 1 Peter? Peter tells the Xns to honor the empire. Persecution seems to have come mainly from
their refusal to go along with social convention. Did Peter tell Xns to honor the authority of
the emperor to tell Rome
that the Xns were not a threat to them politically or was it from Christ's
teaching 'give unto Caecar that which is Caecar's'? Moreover, was he telling the Xns to form as a
community against the Roman society(separatist) or in conformity to it (even
though not to its practices which are idolotrous)? Maybe both.
Further, given the eschatological view of the emminant end of the world,
these concerns may not have mattered to the Xns.
[1]
C.
S. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching.
