Context and the Pauline Epistles
As with my last two posts, I am once again going to tread into water slightly over my head, but that’s one of my purposes for this blog. Not for me to drown(!), but for me to have a place where I can throw something up against a wall, have my very smart readers go at it, and see what (if anything) sticks.
This weekend two blog pieces have got my wheels turning again about context in our hermeneutic of Scripture. In particular, these have dealt with issues in the Pauline epistiles. The first is found in my previous post concerning a possible mistranslation of one of the primary texts used in conservative churches to bar women from the teaching ministry, at least insofar as they might end up teaching men. The other is an intriguing post by the Internet Monk (aka Michael Spencer) in which he asks if we have come to idealize a perfect Paul in our interpretation of his letters. In the latter, Spencer worries that we are two quick to emulate everything Paul says or does, as if we believe that not only are the words in his epistle the inspired Word of God, but also his very life. A frequently seen example of this is the “Galatians defense” of rudeness or vindictiveness in Christian debate (particularly on the Internet). The assumption is that if Paul could call names and blast his opponents, so could we. Spencer gives a number of other examples of behavior by Paul that we would never allow in the leadership of our churches.
In both of these cases the underlying issue seems to me to be what we make of the genre of “inspired epistle.” How much do we take into account that the New Testament epistles were personal letters, written to individuals, local churches, or specific groups of Christians? Is there a way to see them as still authoritative for us, the Word of God, and still realize that some things in them may not be universally applicable or even be negative examples (such as Paul’s behavior in some instances)? Is it possible that the Holy Spirit gave us Paul’s harshness in Galatians not as an example for us to emulate but as an example to be avoided? (Keep in mind that scholars are nearly unanimous that Galatians is one of Paul’s earliest, if not the earliest, letters.) Are we seeing there a Paul still in-process, still having years of sanctification to be worked out, just like any of the rest of us?
Similarly, much of Witherington’s contention about women in the church in the first post cited above is based on this issue of recognizing the letters of Paul as, originally, localized and personalized documents which sometimes are addressing localized and particularized situations. If this is so, I would not rush to the judgment that it undermines our view of Scripture. I could easily cite numerous examples from the Old Testament where someone’s speech or acts are included in the canon, yet most of us would assume that it is there as a negative example, even in cases where the Bible itself gives no critical commentary one way or the other.
What think ye?
Click "Digg It" to let Digg.com users know they should read this post!
February 26th, 2006 at 11:23 am
:yes:
February 26th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Mark, excellent post. I’m sure you’re familiar with Wright’s five act play analogy of Scripture and authority. One of the points he makes is that to be faithful to the play (Scripture) the answer is not to simply re-enact the earlier acts, but to engulf ourselves in a deep understanding of the first acts (character development, storyline, antagonist, etc.) to better understand how our act should be played out. I absolutely love this analogy because it holds onto the authority of Scripture as our sole source of guidance, yet also gives some space for the localized context of many (if not all) of the Pauline corpus.
One more reason N.T. Wright is the man.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
I do find it curious that Paul calls the Corinthians to imitate him immediately before he tells people who talk big that it’s time to throw down: when he shows up he’ll see who talks and who has power. Something to think about . . .
February 26th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Oops - more to say.
What hermeneutical principle should we use to decide what is and isn’t imitation-worthy in Paul? On what ground can we assert that Paul was being inappropriate?
I’m not down with people excusing their own rudeness by pointing to Paul, but it seems like most of the book cited in the blog post reduces to the presupposition that Paul and Jesus were doing totally different things and that Paul was off his rocker. But much of what people may want to call inappropriate in Paul (especially his own self-defenses) is actually fundamental to the authority of his apostolic preaching. Is it no problem at all for someone to undermine the word of an apostle? Should Paul have just taken his lumps? Not if he’s an ambassador of the king.
And right there is perhaps (or perhaps not) one indication as to how we should or shouldn’t emulate Paul. Perhaps there’s something in the difference between our redemptive-historical position (apostle vs. a bunch of people who aren’t apostles) and how we should act. But who knows? On the other hand, I would say that a pastor who was treated how Paul was treated by the Corinthians would have every right to defend himself - and not on personal grounds or integrity, but on the integrity of the office held. Anyway, I’m rambling.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Jason,
Seems to me the question of how we interpret what in Paul is a good example and what is bad would be no more complex, nor any more simple, than our tasks of doctrinal interpretation. My question remains, though: must we view everything that Paul does in Scripture and the way he says things or approaches things as “perfect,” as unquestionable examples for all time in all situations? Do we really want to push our doctrine of inspiration, and even inerrancy, to the very personality and spiritual maturity of the writers?
Perhaps this question rears its head in Paul more than elsewhere in Scripture because Paul projects himself into his writing more than any other biblical writer. He is writing highly personal letters to people whom he passionately loves and cares about. He’s not writing artful pieces of literature like the Gospels or Hebrews. So, given that his canonical letters were probably written over several decades, is it unreasonable to think that even the Apostle Paul progressed in his personal sanctification during that time? And if that is so, and I don’t see how we could deny it, then isn’t it reasonable to expect that we would see that progressive sanctification reflected in his letters? The only alternative I see to that is a divine dictation theory.
February 26th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
I like this comment on iMonk’s original post: