Paul’s Ethics: Any different to other Jewish ethics?

I presented a paper on “Paul and Bodily Habitation” at the Tyndale conference last month.  I suggested that the general logic of much (not all) Pauline ethics may be summed up as follows: Those who are brought into union with Christ in his bodily accomplishments are called to offer their bodies selflessly to God through Christ, and participate lovingly within the body of Christ.

I argued that this logic is evidenced in a common arrangement of Pauline ethics.  It seems possible to detect a common movement of concepts within Paul’s logic of sin/sanctification, as follows:

• Theme I: Sanctification of the church that involves avoidance of sexual immorality, impurity, and greed/passionate desire – in relation to bodies
• Theme II: Sanctification of the church that involves the avoidance of inter-relational sin, and the promotion of love – particularly expressed in self-restraint/submission within the body of Christ

I then suggested that this pattern of ethical arrangement identified in Paul is his Christocentric development of the ethical model that he had inherited from his “former life in Judaism” (Gal. 1:13) as a Pharisee.  In particular, three features of ethical arrangement in Jewish/Christian works of the Hellenistic-Roman period are worthy of note:

1. An emphasis on the fundamentality of (idolatrous) sexual immorality, greed and impurity
2. The latter placement of discussion of sins of interpersonal social interaction
3. A logic in which the behaviour of the individual goes on to affect the community

Anyway, at the end of question time, someone asked how I thought Paul’s ethics were practically any different to the Jewish ethics he had inherited.  My response was that the concrete specifics of Paul’s ethics weren’t that different at all.  The person presiding then said, “And on that controversial note, we’ll have to end!”  So now I’m wondering: Is that a controversial claim?

Do liberal abortion laws save mothers’ lives?

I found this report from the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute really interesting.  In part, it says:

According to WHO, the country with the lowest maternal mortality rate in South America is Chile, which protects unborn life in its constitution. The country with the highest is Guyana, with a maternal mortality rate 30 times higher than in Chile. Guyana has allowed abortion without almost any restriction since in 1995. Ironically, one of two main justifications used in liberalizing Guyana’s law was to enhance the “attainment of safe motherhood” by eliminating deaths and complications associated with unsafe abortion….

Worldwide, the country with the lowest maternal death rate is Ireland, a nation that prohibits abortion and whose constitution explicitly protects the rights of the unborn.

Obviously arguments for and against legalised abortion are not limited to this issue, but I did find this really striking.

Without raising questions: Living with Idols

I’ve just been thinking about the Lechaion Road in Corinth, where the meat market was situated.  It’s clear that the place was inundated with shrines and temples and idols – and I can’t imagine that it was possible for people to buy non-idol meat.  And so I assume that it’s for this reason that Paul ends up saying, “Eat anything bought in the marketplace without raising questions on the grounds of conscience.”  In other words, for practical daily-living purposes, ignorance is bliss.  Buy & eat the meat, without asking questions about it…  but if someone draws to your attention the fact that it’s been sacrificed to an idol, then avoid it, for their sake.

I wonder if there’s some sort of parallel in cultures that are immersed in capitalism – where it’s impossible to eat without participating in the (arguably) idolatrous system: We are, for practical daily-living purposes, to participate without raising questions on the grounds of conscience – we’re not called to be hermits.  But if someone asks us whether our participation in a certain scheme or money-making venture is effectively pursuing the idolatry of greed… what then?  I don’t know…

Adultery, chief of the commandments…

Following on from my last post, I note (drawing on the observations of P.W. Van der Horst, 1978) that there are numerous other places (including the NT), in which adultery is given priority of place in lists of the commandments:

Luke 18:20: 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”

 

Romans 13:9: 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

 

James 2:11: 11 For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

 

Philo, Specialibus legibus 3:8:      

 e)n eiãdei no/mouj. e)n de\ tv= deute/r# de/lt% prw½ton gra/mma tou=t’ e)sti¿n: “ou) moixeu/seij”, oÀti, oiåmai, pantaxou= th=j oi¹koume/nhj me/ga pneiÍ h( h(donh\ kaiì ou)de\n me/roj th\n dunastei¿an au)th=j e)kpe/feugen, ou) tw½n kata\ gh=n, ou) tw½n kata\ qa/lattan, ou) tw½n e)n a)e/ri: xersaiÍa/ te ga\r kaiì pthna\ kaiì eÃnudra pa/nta dia\ pa/ntwn te/qhpe … kaiì perie/pei kaiì toiÍj e)pita/gmasin au)th=j u(pei¿kei pro/j ti ble/mma kaiì neu=ma a)forw½nta kaÄn ei¹ frua/ttoito u(p’ a)lazonei¿aj a)smeni¿zonta kaiì mo/non ou) fqa/nonta ta\j prosta/ceij

Rearranging the Ten Commandments… the worst sin

Here is the order of the Ten Commandments according to Exodus 20 in the Masoretic Text:

1. No other gods
2. No idols
3. Using the name of the LORD
4. Keeping Sabbath
5. Honouring father & mother
6. No murder
7. No adultery
8. No stealing
9. No false witness
10. No coveting

But in the Septuagint (in Exodus 20, but not Deuteronomy 5), The “second table” is rearranged, so that it begins with adultery rather than murder:

1. No other gods
2. No idols
3. Using the name of the LORD
4. Keeping Sabbath
5. Honouring father & mother
6. No adultery
7. No stealing
8. No murder
9. No false witness
10. No coveting

When Pseudo-Phocylides appears to summarise the Decalogue (circa 50 bce – 40 ce), he seems to begin with a version of this rearranged second table, before summarising the first table:

1. No adultery or homosexual passion
2. No deceit or bloodshed
3. No unjust wealth
4. No taking what is another’s
5. No lying
6. Honour God, and then your parents

And this sort of prioritising of topics (beginning with the problem of sexual vice) seems to have been a relatively common way of summarising how God thinks people ought to live, from the perspective of Hellenistic Judaism… 

The Book of Jubilees (circa 164-100 bce) indicates that sexual immorality is the greatest sin (33:20), quitessentially expressing the impurity of the Gentiles.

Book III of the Sibylline Oracles (circa 80 - 40 bce) seems to summarise the impure idolatry of the Gentiles as involving:

1. Sexual depravity (including adultery and homosexual activity)
2. Unrestrained greed (envying and chasing wealth)

The Psalms of Solomon (circa 65 – 30 bce) characterise the chief sins of Israel as the Gentile-like exhibition of sexual immorality and impurity.  So, for example, PsSol 8:7-14 explains why God’s judgement is coming upon Israel:

1. Sexual sin (incest, v9; adultery, v10)
2. Impurity (plundering God’s sanctuary, v11, offering impure sacrifices, v12)

And the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (in terms of final redaction, early Christian) evidence a similar logic in lists of ethical topics:

1. Sexual Immorality, adultery
2. Greed
3. Looking after bodily needs
4. Covetous desire
5. Stealing
6. Arrogance
7. Lying
8. Evil-speaking
9. Zeal
10. Destruction
11. Deceit
12. Fighting

It seems that, for a Hellenistic audience, Godward/godless lifestyle is summarised in terms reminiscent of a rearranged second table of the Decalogue, prioritising the avoidance of sexual immorality.  Curious…

Pauline Ethical (vice) lists [updated & expanded]

Just to further illustrate the stuff of my previous post, here’s a comparison of Niebuhr’s summary of the ethical lists of the XII Patriarchs alongside ethical sections of a few letters of the Pauline Corpus.  You’ll notice that there is a comparable movement of topics.  Of course, the XII Patriarchs cannot be dated as pre-Pauline in terms of final form, but the comparison is interesting:  Generally, these passages deal with sexual immorality, passion, & greed first; and subsequently deal with mouth-oriented vices of social interaction…

12 Patriarch	Galatians 5:16-21	Ephesians 4:17-32	Colossians 3:5-8	1 Thess 4:1-12
πορνεία        μοιχεία   πλεονεχία   ἔλεος   ἀπληστία	πορνεία   ἀκαθαρσία   ἀσέλγεια   εἰδωλολατρία   φαρμακεία	ἀσέλγεια   ἀκαθαρσία   πλεονεξία   ἐπιθυμία	πορνεία   ἀκαθαρσία   πάθος   ἐπιθυμίαν κακήν   πλεονεξία	πορνεία   πάθει ἐπιθυμίας   πλεονεκτέω   ἀκαθαρσία
κλοπή   ὑπερηφανία   ψεῦδος   καταλαλία   ζῆλος   φθόνος   δόλος   μάχη	ἔχθρα   ἔρις   ζῆλος   θυμός   ἐριθεία   διχοστασία   αἵρεσις   φθόνος   μέθη   κῶμος	ψεῦδος   λαλεῖτε ἀλήθειαν   ὀργίζομαι   κλέπτω   λόγος σαπρὸς   πικρία   θυμός   ὀργή   κραυγὴ βλασφημία	ὀργή   θυμός   κακία   βλασφημία   αἰσχρολογία   ψεύδομαι	φιλαδελφία   ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλους

The Ordering of Ethical Instruction in Paul

From time to time I make the claim that Pauline ethics exhibits a usual ordering of issues, moving from:

Issues related to “corporeal” bodies – particularly involving the avoidance of sexual immorality, greed, and impurity…

through to

Issues related to the “corporate” body of Christ – particularly involving the pursuit of mutually edifying love

This seems to occur both when Paul is being ‘negative’ – eg Romans 1, where the progression of idolatry begins with sexual sins and moves toward social sins – and when Paul is being ‘positive’ – eg Romans 12, which begins with the offering of renewed bodies and moves to loving participation within the body of Christ.  But the emphasis in Paul’s ‘negative’ mode is on corporeal issues; and the emphasis in Paul’s ‘positive’ mode is on corporate issues. 

So, to over-simplify, Paul seems to envisage the Christian life as a movement from godless bodily habitation (expressed quintessentially in self-owning sexual immorality) to Godward bodily habitation (expressed quintessentially in other-centred love).

So anyway – here are some further thoughts I’ve been having about this: I think that for Paul, the sense of this ethical movement is bound up with his conception of Christianity as essentially involving union with Christ (particularly in his bodily achievements of cross & resurrection).  But the general pattern seems to be inherited from Diaspora Jewish ethics, which often seems to exhibit a similar ordering of topics (though without the unifying “body” terminology sometimes found in Paul).

Here’s an example: Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, in his 1987 book on early Jewish literature, notes the following movement of ethical topics exhibited throughout the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs – a work which he sees as bearing a general likeness to the other (earlier) expressions of Jewish ethics that he explores (if you can’t read it or the font doesn’t show, just see below for an explanation of it):

πορνεία        μοιχεία   πλεονεχία   ἔλεος   ἀπληστία

κλοπή   ὑπερηφανία   ψεῦδος   καταλαλία   ζῆλος   φθόνος   δόλος   μάχη

Notice how the opening issues are especially related to sex and greed (fornication, adultery, greed, desire); while the latter issues especially emphasise daily social interaction – particularly verbal interaction (arrogance, lying, jealousy, deceit).  The dividing line is Niebuhr’s.

So I’m gradually working my way through early Jewish literature – as well as Greco-Roman examples of ethical discussion… and we’ll see where all of this goes.

Conflict in Nottingham; Conflict in Gaza: An Interview

What does theology have to do with the events in Gaza?

The New York Times gives a useful insight into what has been happening in Gaza - if you are not really sure what the fuss is about, this article will give you some idea.

Over the weekend, a group of Nottingham students who were occupying a lecture theatre to express solidarity with the Palestinian people of Gaza was forcibly removed by the university.  According to the University of Nottingham, this was done to avoid disruption to the education of the student body, and the removal took place “sensibly, professionally, and expeditiously”.  I was not involved, but I spoke to one person who took part in the occupation, and he agreed to a brief anonymous interview.  This is worth reading, particularly for the reflection on the relationship between theology and the recent events in the Gaza strip.  I asked him three questions.

 

1) Tell us about the University’s response to the “Occupation Nottingham” protest.

 

The main problem was that they refused to negotiate with us.  They refused to speak to us in the room that we occupied.  Plenty of discussion was happening in the room, but the University wouldn’t take part.  They didn’t want to talk about what we were saying at all.  At least at the occupation in Cambridge, the group was given the dignity of having their demands specifically addressed, even though those demands weren’t granted.  Furthermore, the University of Oxford, the University of Bradford, the London School of Economics and Political Science, The University of Sussex, The University of Leeds, University of Warwick, Kings College London, School of African and Oriental Studies, London etc, all not only talked to the protesters and negotiated, but allowed many of their demands to be met, and dignified them with a response.  The University of Nottingham simply told us to leave the room.  They gave us the offer of a token future dialogue, without actually engaging directly with us or our specific concerns.  The threats and physical violence involved in our removal from the room just seem out of step with a supposedly educational environment.

 

2) How do the events of the last weekend relate to the conflict in Gaza?

 

Our suffering is not at all comparable to the suffering of those in Gaza – there is no direct parallel.  But it does show how the dynamic of power operates generally.  The protest is not about us facing off the University management – although we are opposed to the University continuing to accept funding from companies that have contributed to the manufacture of the F16 fighters used in the recent conflict…  We just want to make people aware of what’s going on.  For me, the main point of the occupation was this: The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza needs to be recognised – as does Britain’s arms trade to the state of Israel, which apparently increased during the ceasefire.  That’s our tax money.  We have some responsibility toward other people.

 

3) My own academic interest is theology – specifically, Biblical studies.  Why should these issues concern me?

 

It’s quite stark that, although this is not a purely religious conflict, it already involves theological assumptions and arguments.  So a critical theological voice – in terms of theological exegesis, reflection on what “peace” is, reflection on what “conflict” is – these things can make a contribution.  In Christianity there are also traditions of peace-making and discussion of forgiveness.  Right now I find it difficult to talk about forgiveness – but maybe, along with the pursuit of justice – this is where things need to end up.

Theology wants to talk about everything as though it has cosmic significance – as part of a cosmic narrative.  And so the things that are done on earth are given wider significance.  My question is: How can academic theology evaluate, critique, and inform the way in which this happens?

Ethics in Cambridge

Yesterday I was at a little study day in Cambridge, focusing on Christian ethics – specifically, peace-building.  It was worthwhile, helping me to think through applied ethics/practical theology, whereas usually I’m focused on textual/hermeneutical issues.  I have three observations:

1. Peace building is a complex issue, and requires cooperation at various levels – Top down (eg world leaders), mid-level (eg community leaders), and grass roots (including relief & development)
2. If anyone ever starts a question with “It’s just a very brief comment/question really…” you can be sure they are lying.  If it really were a brief comment/question, they wouldn’t need to preface it like that!!
3. Drawing ethical trajectories from social conceptions of the trinity is the new black

How do we protect the weak?

“Kiwanja was a disaster for everyone. The people were betrayed not just by rebels who committed terrible war crimes against them but by the international community that failed to protect them.”
ANNEKE VAN WOUDENBERG, of Human Rights Watch, on a massacre in eastern Congo.

I’m reminded of Rwanda.  It’s events like this, and WWII, and others, that make me see the weight of “just war theory” – the idea that in this fallen world, sometimes the need to protect others must reluctantly involve the use of force.  On the other hand, one major thorn in the side of just war theory seems to be Jesus’ rebuke (in Matthew, Luke, and John) to the one who tried to protect him with the sword at his arrest: Surely if there was ever a time to protect the innocent by force, it was when the Son of David was being lynched by the Roman invaders… but no: “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.”

I suppose the question to continue to struggle with is this: What do we do when creative attempts at non-violent peace-making (on behalf of others) seem to have been exhausted?