In Michael Bird’s Four Views On The Apostle Paul, for my brief review see here, each of the authors was asked to give their thoughts on, “What is the best framework for describing Paul’s theological perspective?” And in my opinion, one of the most interesting things about the book was examining how influential each author’s answer to this one question is on their overall reading of Paul.
Without going into detail, here is my view of their answers to the framework question:
1. Tom Schreiner – the now, not yet nature of Paul’s gospel (he also refers to as prophecy fulfilled (now), mystery revealed (not yet))
2. Luke Timothy Johnson – a balance of religious experience (Paul’s and his readers) and cultural heritage (Jewish and Greco-Roman)
3. Douglas Campbell – revealed (revelation as the basis for Paul’s thinking on God), triune (the Trinity as the God who is revealed), missional (Paul is called to participate in the loving mission of God)…the primary focus is revelation (Greek apokalypto)
4. Mark Nanos – Paul (who never left Judaism and continued to be Torah observant) wrote from the viewpoint that because the Messiah had come the new age had come (the addition of the non-Jews was the sign of the coming)
Now lets look at how two of authors perceives the overall objective of Paul (obviously grossly understated) and how I think the framework plays a major role in determining their perception:
1. Tom Schreiner – Christ-Centered and Cross-Focused: Schreiner starts with defining the problem – sin, judgment, wrath and beginning with grace shows how humanity’s salvation (reversal of the problem) is secured in cross. Schreiner’s account focuses on the what has been done and I believe this arises mainly from his now, not framework (must focus on the now, especially given the not yet is seen as mystery). I think this accounts for, what I would consider to be a weakness in Schreiner’s account, the lack of attention given to resurrection. It is not that the resurrection is completed neglected, but since it falls in the realm of not yet (at least for all except Jesus Christ) it gets treated as a secondary issue. I would not want to suggest that Schreiner actually believes the resurrection is a secondary issue, only if one decides to work within the now, not yet framework this is a natural (necessary?) result.
2. Luke Timothy Johnson – Rescue from Death: Johnson focuses on Christ’s rescuing humanity from alienation from God (death) and giving us a share in the life that is distinctive to God. While he agrees with Schreiner that there is now, not yet quality to this life, he believes Paul focuses on “in-between-time” of salvation where Christians are to conduct themselves in manner worthy of calling. This leads to an interesting distinction which I believe flows out of his framing of Paul’s thought. For the Johnson, the cross is crucial because there is tension between cross (history) and resurrection (experience) and in his account, the cross becomes the hermeneutical key to reinterpreting Torah, God’s gift, etc. While the cross is certainly hermeneutical, is it not also more than that? This is where the interaction between experience and heritage becomes the lens to understanding Paul, and reveals how his framing plays a crucial role in how he reads Paul.
Campbell’s revelatory and Nanos’ Jewish expectation viewpoints could be analyzed the same way, but for the sake of time (my time that is!) I think these two show how important framework is for interpretation. Framing is found in all interpretation, and I am not suggesting we need somehow to leave framework behind, just that we need to be conscious of how frameworks influence our readings.
That is why I found it so interesting in this book, the authors had to explicitly state their framework along with their interpretation. With the frameworks there for all to see, their influence became obvious. And it led me to think,
Am I aware of my own framework for interpreting Paul? Could I write it down for all to see and analyze?
Can I see the influence my framework is having on my interpretation (both good and bad)?
Does my framework so override my interpreting that the text is never allowed to question it?