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?

Anthony Thiselton has a new popular-level introduction to Paul that will be coming out soon:

I haven’t read it, but I hear that the publisher (SPCK) is thrilled about the content.  It has come together quite quickly – Thiselton’s other new book (Intro to Hermeneutics) spent about a year at the publishers, whereas this one was ready in a couple of months.  So anyway, if this topic interests you, it might be worth checking out.

If there were a new book on the topic of Paul and Hermeneutics, with various contributors, what scholars would you value contributions from?  This is just hypothetical at this stage – but I’d be very interested to hear any thoughts that people have.

A while ago, my Bible study group watched the documentary by Conor Cunningham (who is based at the Theology Dept here at Nottingham) entitled “Did Darwin Kill God?”  There was some vigorous discussion afterwards.  To be honest, this is not an issue that really super interests me – but it did get me thinking afterwards. 

I think Conor was right to point to Augustine as an early Christian interpreter who insists that the “days” of Genesis 1 are not to be taken “literally”… but I don’t think that this is the the most pressing issue that Christian creationists have with evolution: I think the bigger stumbling block is Paul, because of his insistence in Romans & 1 Corinthians that death came into the world due to sin: If death came into the world as God’s response to human sin, how could the creation of the creatures of the world (including humans) have depended upon death and mutation – as would necessarily be the case with evolution?  I think this is the bigger question that Christian readers of the Bible face.

But how true to Paul is this tension?  Here are a few thoughts:

• It is arguable that for Paul, humans were created mortal: It is God alone who is immortal (1 Timothy somewhere)
• God provided the “tree of life” in the Garden of Eden, so that humans would be able to eat of it and so live off his immortality indefinitely.  Sin resulted in removal from this source of life – thus the (eventual) onset of death.  Thus Paul can say “death came through sin” (Romans 5)
• For Paul, humans are still mortal… in fact, this ought to be obvious to us from the fact that we die.  But when Christ appears, those who belong to him will be raised and clothed with his immortality.

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…

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):

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.

Not in 1 Corinthians…

But don’t light the torches and grab your pitchforks just yet: Why isn’t justification by faith alone in 1 Corinthians?  Because Paul doesn’t talk about justification by faith in 1 Corinthians at all.  I think one of the unhelpful legacies of the Protestant Reformation is this idea that “justification by faith” is central to Paul’s expression. 

I do think that the concept of “divine grace” is present throughout Paul’s letters, along with a strong insistence that this grace is found in Christ alone, and is applied by the Spirit to those who have a (divinely granted) orientation of humble reception (that rules out boasting).  Sometimes this is expressed forensically, as “justification by faith”; sometimes it’s expressed relationally, as “reconciliation of enemies”; sometimes it’s expressed bodily, as “resurrection of the dead”.  Always this “orientation of reception” is emphasised as being the corollary of the insistence that salvation is of God; and if any human activity - whether knowledge or spiritual ability or visions or even baptism or sharing the Eucharist – effectively operates as a denial of this orientation of humble reception, then salvation is in question.  All of these activities are to be pursued by the church as an expression of receptive identification with Christ in his death and resurrection, and not as, in themselves, a ground for human confidence or assurance.

In other words, Paul’s major problem with the Corinthians seems to be that they are “puffed up” and “boasting in humans” – and that this puffed up attitude finds expression in their corporeal bodily life as well as their corporate bodily life – thus bringing into question their very knowledge of God.  Paul challenges their puffed up practices of bodily ownership, knowledge, freedom, baptism, tongues-speaking, and participation in the Lord’s Supper:

“What do you have that you did not receive?  And if you did receive it, why do you boast, as though you did not?” (4:7)

So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall.  (10:12)

A genuine orientation of humble reception – that is, of dependence on God in Christ - must, for Paul, be at the base of everything a Christian is and does.  It is, I think, reductionistic to always label this “justification by faith” – nevertheless the pattern is the same.

[These are just my rambling thoughts, given that last night there was a debate here at the Uni of Nottingham over the question: "Is justification by faith (in Christ) alone?"]

The more I’ve looked into Colossians, the more I’ve been intrigued at intricate and deep affiliations with 1 Corinthians.  For this reason, I’ve revisited the question of authorship.  Thankfully, discussion of authorship has largely moved on from issues of vocabulary and style, which should never have been thought of as decisive – or even of much interest at all.  The more significant questions concern the alleged theological/ecclesial development evidenced in the letter.

Moo notes:

Four theological issues are consistently mentioned in terms of the Pauline character of Colossians: the teaching of the letter on authority, on Christ, on the church, and on eschatology.  (Moo, p32)

Given that I spend all of my time considering these sorts of topics (authority, Christ, church, eschatology) in 1 Corinthians, perhaps it’s worth just noting a few of my humble reflections:

In terms of authority (ie of Paul), I don’t find anything in Colossians that goes beyond 1 Corinthians: 1 Corinthians vigorously emphasises Paul’s authority, as the one whose message founded the church, whose life is a model for the church, and whose words are to be treated generally by Christian churches as “spiritual” – and indeed as the “Lord’s command” (14:37).

In terms of Christ, I find that 1 Corinthians and Colossians evidence a striking harmony: Christ is the one in whom all of God’s riches are found; and thus the Corinthians/Colossians must understand their Christian identity as lacking nothing, so long as they are “in Christ”.  So in Colossians 2:2-3 we read, “…in order that they might know the mystery of God: Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”  In 1 Corinthians 1:30 we read, “…you are in Christ Jesus, who has become wisdom for us from God: righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”  In principle, Christians therefore have fullness in Christ; but this fullness will not be seen until Christ himself is seen.  In 1 Corinthians 15:22-3, we read, “for just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.  But each in its own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming, those who are of Christ.”  In Colossians 3:4 we read, “When Christ is revealed, who is your life, then also you will be revealed with him in glory.”  This latter passage should not be passed over as an “exception” in Colossians: Not at all – this verse represents the heart of the conception of Christian life in Colossians: identification with Christ in his death, resurrection, and future appearing.

In terms of church, I can see that Colossians emphasises “the (universal) church”; whereas Corinthians speaks of “the (widespread) churches”.  Perhaps there is a development here.  It should be recognised that 1 Corinthians certainly emphasises the concept of Christians “in every place” who, together, “call upon the name of Christ Jesus” (see opening verses); but, it is true: this is not called “the church”.

In terms of eschatology, there is clearly a difference of emphasis between the two letters: 1 Corinthians emphasises the present participation in Christ’s death, and future participation in Christ’s resurrection glory.  Colossians emphasises the present participation in Christ’s death and resurrection, and future participation in Christ’s glory (akin to Romans 6).  This difference of emphasis, however, does not seem to represent development or contradiction: The same general idea of identification-with-Christ is maintained, along with both realised and deferred applications of this identification.  The difference of emphasis is attributable to different situations.

Conclusion:

I really think it’s bold to say that the theology of Colossians is so obviously developed that it can be attributed to a post-Pauline author.  The evidence certainly doesn’t bring me to that conclusion.  Furthermore, I just don’t see the evidence that a paraenetic letter, including the name and personal details of a just-dead author, was ever considered acceptable.

I think things are finally feeling somewhat clear, in terms of understanding the essence of what I’m trying to argue, and how I need to argue it.  There is still a lot of work to do – but this is currently how I see the dissertation coming together:

Paul and Identification with Christ:

Messianic Rhetoric in 1 Corinthians

A New Examination of the Arrangement of 1 Corinthians

Chapter One

The Unity of 1 Corinthians: Textual, historical, rhetorical and exegetical arguments for the unity of 1 Corinthians

Chapter Two

Paul’s Personal and Rhetorical Contexts: Roman Citizen; Greek Epistolarist; Hebrew Pharisee; Apostle of Christ

Chapter Three

1 Corinthians 1-4 and Paul’s Theology of the Cross: Over-manifest boasting in Corinth is confronted with the necessity of the crucified Christ

Chapter Four

1 Corinthians 5-14 and Paul’s Ethics: The Christological cruciform corrective is applied to a recognisable pattern of ethical issues, moving from sexual immorality, greed and impurity of bodies (5-7) to issues of exploitative relationships within the body (8-14)

Chapter Five

1 Corinthians 15 and Paul’s Theology of the Resurrection: Over-manifest confidence in Corinth is confronted with the necessity of future post-mortal resurrection

Chapter Six

Conclusion: Four Contributions of This Project to the Study of Paul:

a) Pauline rhetoric

b) The flow and theme of 1 Corinthians

c) Pauline theology

d) Pauline ethics

Tied up with the New Perspective on Paul has been a re-assessment of Luther, and his emphasis on a Pauline dichotomy between ‘grace’ and ‘works’/legalism:

“Paul’s argument with the Judaizers was not about Christian grace versus Jewish legalism.” – The Paul Page: http://www.thepaulpage.com/

“Paul was not trying to persuade the Romans that they could not justify themselves and therefore needed the gift of grace.” – Purpose & Cause in Pauline Exegesis, by Wendy Dabourne, p202: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1uzCuUijna4C

“It has made clear once and for all what interpreters should not derive from Romans: the old caricature, associated with traditional Lutheranism, of Judaism as a religion of works-righteousness, which Luther found reprehensible in Catholicism.” – Brendan Byrne, ‘Interpreting Romans Theologically in a Post-”New Perspective” Perspective’ Harvard Theological Review 94/3 (2001) 227-41

“The likelihood that Paul adopted elements of the Jewish teaching regarding justification blocks from the beginning a Lutheran viewpoint where there is a fundamental antithesis between Paul and Judaism, gospel and law.” – Maico Michielin, ‘Bridging the gulf between biblical scholars and theologians: Can Barth and Wright provide an answer?’ Scottish Journal of Theology 61/4 (2008 ) 420–434

My own thinking is that Luther was right to see a defiant emphasis on grace in Paul – but the legacy of the Reformation has been such that this emphasis has been couched in rather narrow terminology – more narrow than that of Paul himself: Paul’s emphasis on grace has come to be equated with the phrase “faith not works“.  But Paul himself only sometimes uses this sort of terminology.  I wonder if it is more attentive to the breadth of Paul’s writings to say that he generally emphasises grace in terms of “God not human“: It is essential for Paul that life/salvation/justification/sanctification/glory/honour/hope/etc etc etc arise from God’s accomplishment in Jesus, rather than from human autonomy.  He pushes this theme far more widely than simply a few sections of Romans and Galatians.  1 Corinthians, for example, never talks about “faith versus works” – but is filled with the urgent need to rely on that which is of God, rather than that which is human.  Colossians, similarly, doesn’t emphasise “faith versus works”, but does emphasise the urgent need to remain in Christ rather than being swayed by human traditions.

So perhaps in trying to read Paul in a way that’s unencumbered by Lutheran spectacles, we should be careful that we’re not simply trading in one inadequate summary (“faith not works”) for another (“inclusion not exclusion”).