Pauline Interpretation of Christianity: ROMANS

1. Pauline Interpretation of Christianity:ROMANS RLST 212/Div/Rel 3162 Tuesday March 1

2. Today’s Schedule • 4:00-- 5:10 Forensic/Theological vs New Covenant/Pastoral vs Apocalyptic/Messianic Readings of Paul and Rom 6 • 5:15–5:20 Setting up the rest of the semester • 5:20 Rom 6:1-23 Roundtable: Its F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M teaching about • The Newness of Life in Christ “Being slaves of righteousness/justice” (instead of “slaves of sin”) • “The Dominion of Sin”being “slaves of sin” • 6:10-6:30 Reports on Roundtables

3. Newness of Life in Christ” “Being slaves of righteousness/justice • LEADER: ___IRIS ANKROM (vs Byrne) • LEADER # 2: __ROSS STACKHOUSE__ (vs Moo) • Julie Carli • Derek Axelson • Jonathan Baynham • Jeremy Snow • Amy Lentz

4. The Dominion of Sin” “Being slave to Sin” • LEADER: KARNEY CARNEY (vs Byrne) • LEADER # 2: MURIELLE WYMAN (vs Jewett) • Arden Henderson • Jason Jones • Madeleine St Marie • Julianne Snape • Steve Staggs

5. Today • 1) Romans 6:1-23 • 2) N.T Wright Paul in Fresh Perspective, 21-79 • 3) Beker, The Triumph of God, 15-36 • 4) Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity “Sin,” “Death,” “Sanctification” (multiple articles)

6. Beyond the PROPOSAL … toward your RESEARCH PAPER defending a “thesis” • The thesis(presented in an introduction that shows the importance of this issue; and tightly argued in the conclusion) must argue that: • “One of two interpretations of the chosen passages from Romans on a chosen theme is the best for believers in a particular present-day situation,both • because it best conforms to basic Christian convictions (“loving God”) and • because it best addresses the needs of these believers and their neighbors (“loving neighbors”).” • Can be ANY TYPE of interpretation, according to the actual ROO-PROBLEM in the particular CONTEXT (individual issue, F/T; Community/ideological, NC/P; Religious A/M)

7. Beyond the PROPOSAL … toward your RESEARCH PAPER • The body of the paper is your argument that grounds your conclusion that an interpretation is “the best” in a given life-context must necessarily compare two interpretations: • 1) YOUR interpretation (as supported by your companion scholar; closest to yours) and • 2) ANOTHER interpretation, the most different from yours. • For this you will have to show the differences between • their theological choices, • their textual choices, and • their contextual choices differ.

8. Your PROPOSAL: A Contextual Biblical Interpretation • I have asked you to self-consciously develop contextual biblical interpretation in Part B & C of your proposal • As believers do when they read Paul’s letters as Scripture. • Need to begin to think about Step 2 of our process (body of your paper) = comparing different contextual interpretations • Surprise! All scholarly interpretations are contextual • Especially when they pretend not to be contextual

9. Scholarly interpretations are contextual whether they find what is meaningful/most significant • behind the textWhat Paul meant; what was “in Paul’s mind”; the newness of his teaching by contrast with earlier teachings; his theological views by contrast with what precedes--Jewish teaching, Jesus’ teaching, etc.; historicalexegesis, philology • Contextual: Western view of History as progressing through the production of new meaning by the individual author; for the benefit/needs of theindividual readers. • In front of the text • In the text.

10. Scholarly interpretations are contextual whether they find what is meaningful/most significant • behind the text • In front of the text How people are positively or negatively affected? How Jews, Gentiles, Barbarians, Greeks, slaves and frees, men and women (Gal 3:18) are affected? How Gentiles are affected? How the poor and oppressed people are affected? How marginalized people are affected? Rhetorical Studies —as Gager, Stowers, Jewett, etc. • Contextual: Hermeneutic of Suspicion: How community members are affected; Jews, various Christians;; other religious; non-religious; women and men; poor and rich; first world people and colonized; lesbians and gays (LBGT)? Feminist; Liberation theologians; post-colonial interpretations. • In the text

11. Scholarly interpretations are contextual whether they find what is meaningful/most significant • behind the text or • in front of the text, or • In the textthe literary character of the text; its symbolism; how does this text as a religious text conveys convictions, give a glimpse of Paul’s own religious experience and opens the way to religious experiences for its readers. Literary studies; History of religion approach; structural approaches • Contextual: Hermeneutic of Suspicion: concern with systemic/structural evil; anti-Judaism; anti-Semitism; sectarianism; sexism; patriarchalism; marginalization; economic, cultural, political oppression; colonialism; imperialism Feminist; Liberation theologians; post-colonial interpretations.

12. All Scholarly interpretations are contextual • Gager’s (Stowers’s; Stendahl’s; Bill Campbell’s; Robert Jewett; Kathy Ehrensberger etc. ) scholarly studies are • contextual:concerned by the effect of the text and its interpretations on Jews, women; economic/political issues, and community issues; • and scholarly: detailed study of the rhetoric of Paul’s letters • New Perspective/New Covenant /Pastoral interpretation • Stuhlmacher’s (Bultmann’s, Dunn’s; Beverly Gaventa’s Elizabeth Castelli’s) scholarly studies are • contextual:concerned by the ways in which the text and its interpretations help or fail to help individualsto gain salvation and to be good members of the church, but also in their private and family lives; • and scholarly: detailed study of Paul’s theological argument and its “historical’ context so as to show what is new in Paul’s teaching beyond Judaism and beyond Jesus’ teaching • Forensic/Theological interpretation

13. All Scholarly interpretations are contextual… including N.T. Wright • Our Step 2 task includes discerning the contextual character of his scholarly interpretation. • Complex interpretation (as often): Wright has read Forensic interpretations (expressed in his previous books), New Perspective interpretations, and Apocalyptic interpretations. • Provides helpful “narrative” to hold together our interpretation of Paul: Creation and Covenant; Messiah and Apocalyptic; Gospel and Empire • Acknowledges their contextual concerns (p. 14)… In view of the holocaust: Should we worry about “hitching our wagons to the scholarship” … i.e. to German scholarship? • But dismisses these concerns: No need to worry… contextual concerns can be set aside? (p. 14) these are separable issues. Let us establish what Paul meant… even if we keep an eye on the contextual effects… (p. 15)

14. Discerning the contextual features ofWright’s interpretation • “Do not despise the words of interpreters [prophets], but test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil.” 1 Thess 5:20-22 • “… be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God-- what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Rom 12:2 • First… Discern which of the views of key concepts is held by Wright • This choice shows the “context” from which he is writing. • Of course, his choice is based upon his SCHOLARLY study of the text. = textual choices • But he chose to find as most significant, either what is behind the text, or what is in front of the text, or what is in the text

15. Wright incorporates the emphasis on the “Covenant” of the New Perspective (e.g., Gager, Stowers, Jewett) by tying it together with the theme of “Creation” • “(1) God made the covenant with Abraham as the means of dealing with evil within the good creation, which meant dealing in particular with evil within human beings, God’s image bearers… (2) The family of Abraham… treated their vocation to be the light of the world as indicating exclusive privilege. This was their own meta-sin, their second-order form of idolatry, compounding the basic forms they already shared with the Gentiles [see (1) above]… ; (3) When God fulfils the covenant through the death and resurrection of Jesus… this has the effect both of fulfilling the original covenant purpose (thus dealing with sin and procuring forgiveness) and of enabling Abraham’s family to be the worldwide Jew-plus-Gentile people it always intended to be…” (Wright, 36-37; italics in original.)

16. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout)WRIGHT using NC/P interpretations • Question : According to this quotation, in which way does Wright understand evil and grace, plight and solution, human predicament and salvation? • A) Forensic/Theological ? or • B) Covenantal/Pastoral/ Mission? or • C) Apocalyptic/Messianic?

17. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout) (Human Predicament) Which One did Wright Choose? • F/TIndividuals under God’s condemnation; God is angry against human (God’s wrath); God views humans as God’s enemies, • NC/P Being jealous of God’s people and Enemy of God; angry against God; suspicious of God (“God is unjust”; God is partial; God prefers & favors others) and jealous of God’s people • A/M In bondage to the power of sin, power of evil; since humans serve evil, they are enemies of God and of God’s people;

18. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout)Sin. Which One did Wright Choose? • F/T Sin = Willingly not doing God’s Will; or Willingly doing evil • NC/P Sin = Rebelling against God and against God’s beloved; participating in systemic sin • A/M Sin = Serving an idol and/or a power which is not God, because it has power over them; being slave to death. Lack of control

19. Wright incorporates the emphasis on the “Covenant” of the New Perspective (e.g., Gager, Stowers, Jewett) by tying it together with the theme of “Creation” • “(1) God made the covenant with Abraham as the means of dealing with evil within the good creation, which meant dealing in particular with evil within human beings, God’s image bearers… (2) The family of Abraham… treated their vocation to be the light of the world as indicating exclusive privilege. This was their own meta-sin, their second-order form of idolatry, compounding the basic forms they already shared with the Gentiles [see (1) above]… ; (3) When God fulfils the covenant through the death and resurrection of Jesus… this has the effect both of fulfilling the original covenant purpose (thus dealing with sin and procuring forgiveness) and of enabling Abraham’s family to be the worldwide Jew-plus-Gentile people it always intended to be…” (Wright, 36-37; italics in original.)

20. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout)WRIGHT using NC/P interpretations • Question: According to this quotation, in which way does Wright understand evil and grace, plight and solution, human predicament and salvation? • A) Forensic/Theological or • B) Covenantal/Pastoral/ Mission or • C) Apocalyptic/Messianic? • In a Forensic/Theological way: “dealing with evil within the good creation, which meant dealing in particular with evil within human beings, • community sin = (systemic evil) is a sin… but a second-order sin • meta-sin, idolatry, is a sin… but a second-order

21. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout)WRIGHT using NC/P interpretations • Does Wright interpretation satisfy Gager’s concern about anti-Jewish interpretations? • Wright: “(3) When God fulfils the covenant through the death and resurrection of Jesus… this has the effect both of fulfilling the original covenant purpose (thus dealing with sin and procuring forgiveness) and of enabling Abraham’s family to be the worldwide Jew-plus-Gentile people it always intended to be…” • The problem for Gager in the statement “enabling Abraham’s family to be the worldwide Jew-plus-Gentile people it always intended to be” is that with such a perspective the RESULT is: No longer any Jew (all became Christian)… a supersessionist attitude… anti-Jewish >>> anti-Semitism

22. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout)Root-Problem of SinWhich Wright Choose? • F/T Either not knowing (wrong) knowledge or not willing to do God’s Will and its goodness • NC/PLack of orWrong vision of God (as partial, favoring others, and not us) and of God’s people; wrong ideology. • A/MLack of or Wrong Vision/faith (darkened mind by idols) because blinded, and being powerless under the power of idols

23. Wright incorporates the emphasis on the themes “Apocalyptic” and “Messiah” of the Apocalyptic interpretations (e.g., Käsemann, Baker, Patte) • “Paul believes that the ultimate dramatic apocalypse, the great unveiling of all God’s mysteries, the full disclosure of God’s secret plan, has already come about in and through the events concerning the Messiah, Jesus, particularly through his death and resurrection. . . . One of the things which is ‘unveiled’ is precisely how the covenant has been worked out, how God has at last done what he said he would do, even though it does not look like what anyone had thought it would.” Pp. 52-53 (italics in original). • (Wright, 52-53; italics in original.)

24. View of “revelation” presupposed by Wright? (e.g. 1:17a) • F/T = Revelation=truth given from above that is grasped/appropriated by faith for a life of faith = sola fidei (NIV by faith from first to last) • NC/P Revealed = uncovered: What was hidden & is uncovered?The "righteousness of God" = the historical act in JC by which God brought people into right relationship/new covenant with Godwas hidden and is now revealed = uncovered by God when the gospel is propagated • Revealed = uncovered: What was hidden & is uncovered? God’s Justice [the just relationship that God establishes among people through the Risen Christ’s present powerful interventions]. It is presentyet hiddenbut revealed =uncovered by (the eyes of) faith

25. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout)WRIGHT using A/M interpretations • According to this quotation, Wright understand “apocalypse” (revelation, disclosure, unveiling) in • A) Forensic/Theological way? or • B) Covenantal/Pastoral way? Or • C) Apocalyptic/Messianic way? • Either ___A_____ or ____B___ but not ____C_____ • “Paul believes that the ultimate dramatic apocalypse, the great unveiling of all God’s mysteries, the full disclosure of God’s secret plan, has already come aboutin and through the events concerning the Messiah, Jesus, particularly through his death and resurrection.” for W. APOCALYPSE = revelation is PAST • In the Apocalyptic/Messianic interpretations of Paul: God’s decisive intervention is TODAY and in the FUTURE

26. Wright incorporates the themes “gospel” and “empire” as Apocalyptic interpretations also do (e.g., Käsemann, Baker, Elliot; Patte) • After showing that Paul’s teaching involves a “counter-imperial theology” Wright concludes: • “Those who receive God’s gift in the gospel will, Paul declares, share the sovereign reign of the Messiah over the world (5:17), a theme not sufficiently explored within Pauline theology. Paul, it seems, is himself integrating his theology of salvation from sin and death, here and hereafter, with his call to allegiance to Jesus, not Caesar, as lord… these usually differentiated strands were in facts woven tightly together in a single fabric of his theology and life” (pp. 77-79, my underline).

27. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout)WRIGHT using A/M interpretations • According to this quotation, Wright integrates counter-imperial theology with what understanding of Paul’s teaching? • A) Forensic/Theological understanding? or • B) Covenantal/Pastoral/ Mission understanding? • or C) Apocalyptic/Messianic understanding? • “integrating his theology of salvation from sin and death, here and hereafter, with his call to allegiance to Jesus, not Caesar, as lord…” • In the framework of a Forensic/Theological perspective

28. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout)Primary locus of sinWright? • F/T “Autonomous” mode of life; • NC/P “Relational” mode of life; • A/M “Heteronomous” mode of life;

29. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout) Modes of Existence Wright? • “Autonomous” mode of life; we function as “individuals” with freedom to choose, • “Relational” mode of life; we live in communities and in relations with others; • “Heteronomous” mode of life; we are dependent on “Others” whom we trust, and to whom we abandon ourselves (e.g., as infants);

30. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout) Modes of Existence Wright? • F/T “Autonomous” mode of life; we have freedom to choose our life; self-confidence, liberty, free-will, • NC/P “Relational” mode of life; we allow our lives to be defined by our community and interactions with others (peers, superiors, inferiors); • A/M “Heteronomous” mode of life; we allow our lives to be structured by one’s religious experiences; one’s experiences of the holy, one’s convictions and spirituality; • Which one has the primary role in defining our identity?

31. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout) Priority among Modes of Existence • F/T “Autonomous” mode of life; we have freedom to choose our life; self-confidence, liberty, free-will, • NC/P “Relational” mode of life; we allow our lives to be defined by our community and interactions with others (peers, superiors, inferiors); • A/M “Heteronomous” mode of life; we allow our lives to be structured by one’s religious experiences; one’s of the holy, one’s convictions and spirituality;

32. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout) Primary locus of sin • F/T “Autonomous” mode of life; freedom to choose our life; self-confidence, liberty, free-will,but sin: misdirected will, misdirected intention; wrong decisions in personal, individual life; bad individuals make bad communities • NC/P “Relational” mode of life; privilege community life and interactions with others;but sin: competition with others; wanting to be better than others; power plays; oppression; wrongly placed honor and shame; wrong ideology (see Salieri in Amadeus) • A/M “Heteronomous” mode of life; allowing one’s life to be structured by one’s religious experiences; one’s of the holy, one’s convictions and spirituality; but sin: wrong, twisted religious experience; misdirected worship; wrong vision; fanaticism; idolatry; believing that our idols give us life, protect us of all evil

33. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout)NC/P“Sin” • NC/P “Relational” mode of life; competition with others; wanting to be better than others; power plays; oppression; wrongly placed honor and shame; wrong ideology • (see Salieri in Amadeus) “Make me great… famous through the world… Let everyone speak my name with love…” • Wanting to be superior in some way to others, who are then inferior • Seeking to be better, stronger, faster, to have the best grade; competition • Being loved, honored, instead of being shamed

34. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout)Dying to sin (6:2) = • F/T “dying to” Willingly not doing God’s Will; • NC/P “dying to” Rebelling against God • A/M “dying to” Serving an idol and/or a power which is not God;

35. Paul’s Metaphoric self-designation as “slave.” • A “slave” is: • Someone owned by a master, and thus in bondage and totally at the mercy of this master; someone worthless, powerless, in an abject situation, with a shameful status (emphasized by the Apocalyptic/Messianic Reading); • Someone who, althoughPresupposition: human are ALWAYS slave … the question is: to whom/what? in a low status, is a member of a household, and who, as a servant, acts in the name of his/her master for the sake of the household; someone totally defined by his/her mission in the name of a master (emphasized by the New Covenant/Pastoral Reading); • Someone who is unconditionally submitted to the will and authority of a master (emphasized by the Forensic/Theological Reading).

36. Connotations of “Slave of Christ Jesus” • Christ’s power uponthe “slave” (according to the first view of slave chosen in the Messianic Reading); • Christ’s mission which the “slave” prolongs in the name of the Lord (according to the second view of slave chosen in the Pastoral Reading); • Christ’s authority to which the “slave” voluntarily submits (according to the third view of slave chosen in the Theological Reading).

37. Showing “Obedience of faith” to a Roman Legionnaire

38. Newness of Life in Christ” “Being slaves of righteousness/justice • LEADER: ___IRIS ANKROM (vs Byrne) • LEADER # 2: __ROSS STACKHOUSE__ (vs Moo) • Julie Carli • Derek Axelson • Jonathan Baynham • Jeremy Snow • Amy Lentz

39. The Dominion of Sin” “Being slave to Sin” • LEADER: KARNEY CARNEY (vs Byrne) • LEADER # 2: MURIELLE WYMAN (vs Jewett) • Arden Henderson • Jason Jones • Madeleine St Marie • Julianne Snape • Steve Staggs

40. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout)Jesus’ death • F/T willingly doing God’s will: dying instead of us; • NC/P The cost of being absolutely faithful to God in a world where people are in rebellion against God and against God’s beloved. The cost of being absolutely faithful to God’s children in a world where God’s children define themselves against each other • A/M Jesus’ powerlessness under the power of death; his being crushed by the powers of death and other evil powers (incarnation)

41. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout)baptized into his death (6:3) • F/T putting ourselves at the benefit of his death; • NC/P sharing in Jesus’ faithfulness; accepting to share in God’s fate among humans • A/M acknowledging that we are under the dominion of death, and of other evil powers (and need God’s intervention)

42. F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M ( 6:6-7)our old self was crucified with him • F/T Willingly abandoning our old “will” (bad intentions, etc.) in order to submit to God’s will as Jesus did • NC/P No longer defining ourselves against each other but defining ourselves for others (as Christ did) • A/M Losing our identity as defined by our idols and losing our confidence/trust in our idols