1 / 32

Pauline Interpretation of Christianity: ROMANS

Pauline Interpretation of Christianity: ROMANS. Tuesday April 19. Today. Lecture Amy Lentz Response by Stephen Staggs. RESEARCH PAPER: Due Friday APRIL 29, before noon E-Mail & Hard copy. Introduction = of your “paper”; it must develop an argument defending a “thesis.” 

rasia
Download Presentation

Pauline Interpretation of Christianity: ROMANS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pauline Interpretation of Christianity:ROMANS Tuesday April 19

  2. Today • Lecture • Amy Lentz • Response by Stephen Staggs

  3. RESEARCH PAPER: Due Friday APRIL 29, before noon E-Mail & Hard copy • Introduction = of your “paper”; it must develop an argument defending a “thesis.”  • presented in an introduction that shows the importance of this issue; and tightly argued in the conclusion: • “One of two (three for PhDs) interpretations of the chosen passages from Romans on a chosen theme is the best (as compared with the other one) for believers in a particular present-day situation, because • it best conforms to (my/our) basic Christian convictions (“loving God”) and • it best addresses the needs of these believers and their neighbors (“loving neighbors”).”

  4. In the body of the paper, • your argument that grounds your conclusion must compare two (or three) interpretations: • 1) YOUR interpretation (supported by the scholarly interpretation which is the closest to yours – your companion scholar) and • 2) ANOTHER (two other) interpretations which is the most different from yours. • SHOWING that they are different on 3 counts: • Different plausible theological choices • Different legitimatetextual choices, • Different responsiblecontextual choices

  5. Part # 1 THE TEACHING OF THE TEXTS FOR YOUR CONTEXT 20% • Why you chose the(se) text(s): the Teaching that you perceived from the start in the (two) Texts of Romans for Christian believers Todayin a Particular Context of your choice (we expect you will focus on the text in the second part of Romans) • Presentation of the particular present-day situation/context(a “story”) • First Analysis of the context: what is the problem? The root-problem? • What is the theological theme to which this teaching is related (in your texts and in the context)? • The role of Scripture through which the text can address this problem? • Tentative formulation of the “teaching” (how what the text says applies to your audience in your context) which, you believe, will best address this problem; this teaching must embody the role of Scripture.

  6. Part # 2 50% 2[3] Theological Choices & 2[3] Textual choices • a) YOU MUST show that BOTH [3] interpretations are • EQUALLY plausible= for each their different understandings of the main theological themes make theological sense • Different theological choices: choosing one understanding or another of the key themes of your topic in terms of: • Either salvation through individual faith (“that” Christ died for our sins, thus we are forgiven) = forensic • Or the mission of the Christian community/body of Christ carried with faith as faithfulness to one’s collective call (as Christ was faithful to his own mission) = New Covenantal • Or Paul’s basic convictions that Christ/Messiah is the resurrected Lord who intervenes with power in our present (“the end”), defeating the powers of evil (spiritual warfare against idols and freedom from their bondage) = Apocalyptic

  7. Part # 2 50% 2[3] Textual choices & 2[3] Theological Choices • b) YOU MUST show that the interpretations are • EQUALLY legitimate = well grounded in the text; both correct interpretations of the text • Yet With Different Textual Choices: emphasizing one aspect of the text or another, because focusing on: • Either the theological argument of the text • Or the rhetoric (what Paul wants to convince the Romans to do as a community = Mission) • Or the figures & the religious symbolism= all apocalyptic and messianic figures

  8. Part # 2 50% 2[3] Theological & Textual >> Contextual Choices • c) Formulating the differences in teaching and thus in contextual choices. • How different will be the teaching of the text based on the 2nd (& 3rd) interpretation(s) (vs. the 1rst) -- since the themes are different? • What is the different Root Problem & Problem each presupposes as it analyzes YOUR SAME CONTEXT in a different way? • What is the different role of scripture? • How is the different teaching shaped using this different role of scripture

  9. Part # 3 Conclusion = 20% • You have now TWO [3] interpretations of your passages, and you have shown that • Each is PLAUSIBLE: • Each is LEGITIMATE: • Each leads to a particular CONTEXTUAL teaching • NOTE: Your original interpretation has been developed following your original analysis of the problems & root-problem in your context; • For Your alternative/different interpretation(s) the problems & root-problem in your context MUST be REDEFINED; • No longer a wrong/lack of will BUT a wrong ideology/vision

  10. Part # 3 Conclusion: Still comparative • Now the question is: Which is the best in the life-context discussed in Part # 1? • What needs (different needs!) does each effectively and successfully address or fail to address in this specific context? Who benefits? • What problematic effects (different effects!) does each have (or could potentially have) in a specific context? Who is hurt? • What is, in each case, the role of convictions and values in the choices of particular interpretations of the theological themes?

  11. Part # 3 Conclusion • Thus in conclusion of your paper, you are expected to defend one interpretation as the best (or the worst) = always a relative claim. • The key question:  what difference does it make to choose one interpretation rather than the other?   = always a judgment call. • Which will truly and realistically be effective in addressing the problems in your context? • Assuming moral responsibility for our choice of interpretation with two criteria:  • loving God & loving neighbor.   • And loving neighbors also involves readingwiththem, and thus never making an absolute claim, only a contextual claim

  12. Contrary to Rumors • I/we do NOT posit and presuppose that any one of the THREE types of Interpretations is necessarily “wrong” and “bad” or necessarily “right” and “good” • Contrary to most of the scholarly interpretations we discussed this semester – each arguing in favor of one interpretation as “right” and “good” against the others • But I posit and presuppose and explained and hopefully taught you that • Any claim that ONE interpretation is the only one that is legitimate, plausible,and the only that can offer a contextual teaching for a specific context • Is necessarily “wrong,” “bad,” “evil,” “destructive,” “oppressive,” “death-giving” – = idolatrous.

  13. This course is an application of my Apocalyptic Interpretation of Paul,yes • But the statement that • Any claim that ONE interpretation is the only one that is legitimate, plausible, and the only one that can offer a contextual teaching for a specific context is necessarily “wrong,” “bad,” “evil,” “destructive,” “oppressive,” “death-giving” – = idolatrous • Applies to Forensic, and to New Covenantal, interpretation and also to an Apocalyptic Interpretation of Paul • This is why Paul’s Faith and the Power of the Gospel is out of print… I refused to give the permission that it be reprinted, because its argument is too much: “here is the only legitimate and plausible interpretation…” • It can be used – as we do in this class – only in a situation when I can warn you; be careful, this is ONE among several legitimate and plausible interpretations.

  14. For this, Keep Straight the 3 Types of Interpretation • I did not invent these 3 types – they are found in existing interpretations of Paul, in many variations • Through the centuries • Today in the readings of Scripture by Christians in different religious and cultural contexts, • In Biblical Scholarship of the last 2 centuries • Because, each is inscribed (written) in Paul’s text • In his theological argument, in which he refers to the views of potential opponents • In his rhetorical discourse, trying to convince Roman Christians to help with the projected mission in Spain • In the symbols and figures he uses to express and convey his religious experience and his convictions and faith

  15. 3 types of interpretations • 3 Types of Interpretations of Paul: BUT 2 of these are always hidden from the reader • Hidden by the translations = interpretations • Pay attention to the different translations from the Greek proposed by each commentary • Hidden by our theological presuppositions • Hidden by our contextual concerns • But each accounts for all the features of Paul’s text

  16. 3 Types of Interpretations of Paul: 2 of these are hidden: Judgment • Forensic interpretation—focuseson God’s Judgment—understood as final judgment of individuals (Paul speaks about it) • BUT • Covenantal and Apocalyptic interpretations also account for judgment • Both emphasizing that Paul also emphasizes God’s Judgment as already present and collective • Romans 1:17-18 17 For in [the Gospel] the righteousness/justice of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith." 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness • Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, … 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions…. 1:28 God gave them up to a debased mind = this is the judgment/condemnation

  17. 3 Types of Interpretations of Paul: 2 of these are hidden: Salvation • Who needs to be saved? From what? • Forensic:Individuals; from God’s anger against us; salvation = being forgiven, Propitiation • Apocalyptic: Individuals, usually in community; from bondage to evil powers (power of sin = powers of idol) and self-destructive attitudes; Salvation = liberation, redemption • Covenantal: Communities; from our anger against God (because we believe God favors others) and self-destructive attitudes; Salvation = our reconciliation with God; = needed by us (need to be saved from ourselves), but also needed by God • God put Godself to the mercy (in the hands) of humans; without them God’s name will not be glorified.

  18. 3 Types of Interpretations of Paul: 2 of these are hidden: “Atonement” • the effect of “Atonement” (Christ’s death) is • Forensic:Being forgiven from my sins, being counted as righteous despite my sins, as a result of the vicarious death of Jesus • Covenantal: Being incorporated into the body of Christ, whoever we might be, and thus being set in the right relationship with God • Apocalyptic: Being redeemed from bondage to the powers of sin and evil which separates us from God

  19. 3 Types of Interpretations of Paul: 2 of these are hidden: Sin • Forensic:Not doing God’s Will because one does not know what is God’s Will or (more likely) not being willing to do God’s Will • Covenantal:Rebelling against God and against God’s beloved (ostracizing those that God includes among God’s people) • Apocalyptic:Serving an idol and being in bondage to its power; being slave to death

  20. 3 Types of Interpretations of Paul: 2 of these are hidden: Boasting as Sin • Forensic:Not doing God’s Will = boasting as a form of human pride • Covenantal:Rebelling against God = boasting as a form of ethnic prejudice = boasting against God’s beloved (ostracizing those that God includes among God’s people) • Apocalyptic:Serving an idol = boasting as a form of idolatry, that leads to oppressing, ostracizing, rejecting others and God

  21. 3 Types of Interpretations of Paul: 2 of these are hidden: Hope • Forensic:Ihope because of my faith/knowledge that Christ died instead of me, that Jesus died on the cross for me, while I was a sinner (5:8); God loves me • Covenantal: We hope because of our faith/trust that God and Christ are faithful to their covenant with us • Apocalyptic:We hope because of our faith that Christ lives (freed from the power of death) and that the power of God (of the Spirit, and of the resurrected Christ) is at work in front of us, freeing people from bondage, transforming people into servant of God = people standing in God’s grace (powerful intervention in our lives), and sharing the glory of God with others

  22. 3 Types of Interpretations of Paul: 2 of these are hidden: Faith • Faith as the Way of Salvation • Forensic:Faith is believing in Christ, i.e, believing in what Christ has done in the past (on the cross) • Covenantal:Faith = Faithfulness toward Christ and God in our daily life as Christ was faithful to God and to us in the past (on the cross) • (emphasizing subjective genitive of “the faith of Christ”= faith that Christ had, the faithfulness of Christ); • Apocalyptic: Faith = Recognizing through the eyes of faith that the promises/types (that Christ’s cross and resurrection are) are fulfilled in our present and submitting in faith to God’s power as manifested in these fulfillments

  23. 3 Types of Interpretations of Paul: 2 of these are hidden: “in Christ” • Forensic: “in Christ Jesus” = being forgiven by Christ = at the benefit of his death • Covenantal: “in Christ Jesus” = being part of the body of Christ • Apocalyptic: “in Christ Jesus” = being in the sphere of the power of Christ (rather than in the sphere of the power of sin/evil)

  24. 3 Types of Interpretations of Paul: 2 of these are hidden: Love • Forensic:Love = being ready to give and giving of one self to others what they lack (charity…), even if it means depriving oneself of what we give • Covenantal:Love = reciprocal giving and receiving brothers and sisters reciprocal relationship in the people of God • Apocalyptic:Love = recognizing others as better than ourselves, first, receiving, being indebted to others, recognizing them as Christ for us and then responding to them as indebted to the other

  25. 3 Types of Interpretations of Paul: 2 of these are hidden: Mission (15:1-33) • Forensic:Mission = Paul as model = proclaiming a message- -the good news of the gospel (1:15, 10:8; 10:14-15; 15:19-20) • Covenantal:Mission = Planted Church as model = missionary centers; body of Christ (12:4-5), the people of God (15:10); “called to be saints” in Rome (1:7) or elsewhere (8:27; 12:13; 16:2, 15) or in Jerusalem (15:25-26, 31) = called by God to carry out a special mission in its particular Gentile context = bringing people to glorify God (as Israel) • Apocalyptic:Mission = God’s Doing = God’s interventions in Paul’s and our present experience = recognizing God’s on-going interventions and proclaiming them, pointing to them… as Paul does in 15:18-19 and since 1:1!

  26. Teaching: Context: swearing: should Christians be free to swear? • Class exercise. • Forensic Teaching: PROBLEM swearing; should Christians be free to swear?

  27. Teaching: Context: swearing: should Christians be free to swear? • Class exercise. • Forensic Teaching: PROBLEM swearing; should Christians be free to swear?

  28. Teaching: Context: swearing: should Christians be free to swear? • Class exercise. • Forensic Teaching: PROBLEM swearing; should Christians be free to swear?

  29. Teaching: Context: eating or not eating (Yak-hwee Tan vs. K.K. Yeo) • Class exercise. On Rom 14 • The story of Dawn: Problem # 1: “to eat of not to eat” food offered to idols (ancestor worship) or used in cultural, family rituals affirming family relationships; freedom for the strong 9who has faith); legalism of the weak? … Problem # 2: Judging, ostracizing. Excluding people from the church community or including them. • What is the ROOT-PROBLEM ? # 2 = WRONG VIEW/VISION of the family of God (who belongs to the Church); ROOT-PROBLEM ? # 1: = WRONG VIEW/VISION of the relationship of individual to the community (kuan-hsi) = organic relationship between ‘individual” and “group”

  30. K. K. YEO, An Eminent NT Scholar and Confucian Scholar • Read Yeo’s summary of Yak-Hwee Tan’s argument (p. 63b-64t) • Faith = understood as “faithfulness” // with ren as harmonious community relationship (see Covenantal reading) • Judging = ostracizing = sinning (Covenantal view) • What is the ROOT-PROBLEM ? # 2 = WRONG VIEW/VISION of the family of God (who belongs to the Church); ROOT-PROBLEM ? # 1: = WRONG VIEW/VISION of the relationship of individual to the community (kuan-hsi) = organic relationship between ‘individual” and “group”

  31. Teaching: Context: eating or not eating (Yak-hwee Tan vs. K.K. Yeo) • Role of Scripture needed to address this Root Problems: ???? (tell me!) • Then what is the TEACHING of Rom 14? • FORMULATE THE TEACHING using the ROLE OF SCRIPTURE

  32. K. K. YEO, An Eminent NT Scholar and Confucian Scholar • Problem? Ancestor Worship and its Cosmological (= religious) Assumptions … • Problem? Not spelling out what it means to accept others “in Christ” (p.67) • Problem in ancestor worship: Placating demons and cursing others

More Related