Pauline Theology

Frauen Friday: Beverly Roberts Gaventa

~ Jessica Parks ~ 4 Comments

Happy Frauen Friday, everyone!  This week’s featured scholar is Dr. Beverly Roberts Gaventa.  She is one of the top Pauline scholars around and currently holds the position of Distinguished Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Baylor University in Waco, Texas.  Just a reminder, Dr. Gaventa is one of the keynote speakers for HBU’s ‘Paul and Judaism’ conference happening next week.  You don’t want to miss out so register soon and get on down to Houston, Texas!

“Beverly Roberts Gaventa joined the Baylor faculty in 2013. She previously taught at Princeton Theological Seminary, Columbia Seminary, and Colgate Rochester Divinity School. She has been active in a number of professional societies, including Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, the Society of Biblical Literature, and the American Theological Association. She has served on a number of editorial boards and lectured widely in the United States, Canada, Europe, South Africa, and Australia.” (from her faculty page at baylor.edu)

I am currently reading Our Mother Saint Paul in which Gaventa considers the significance of maternal imagery used by Paul throughout his New Testament epistles… I hope to share more about this book as I work my way through it.  She has also written commentaries on Acts and 1 & 2 Thessalonians, a number of other books, and 70+ articles and essays.

While I am still getting acquainted with the works of Dr. Gaventa, I highly recommend her article “Is Galatians Just a ‘Guy Thing’?” (2000), a theological reading of Paul’s letter to the Galatians and how its message might speak to the experience of women today.

“The inquiry I propose is neither ahistorical nor anti-historical. It simply urges the importance of asking other questions in addition to the conventional questions about the attitude of the historical Paul to women and their leadership in the Christian community. Those conventional questions inevitably become questions of permission and prohibition: What does Paul’s interpretation of the gospel permit women to do and what does the gospel prohibit women from doing? That way of putting things has the effect of truncating our reflection and, more important, it bears little resemblance to the dynamic character of Paul’s letters, letters that over and over again speak about vocation rather than about per- mission. These letters, instead, call for the question: What is God doing in the gospel of Jesus Christ and what does that gospel mean for the lives of women?” (269)

She concludes:

“Perhaps as Paul dictated this passionate letter, he saw in his mind’s eye the faces of women in the Galatian congregations and cast about for language that would persuade them of the impossibility of the Teachers’ version of the gospel. Or perhaps he gave the women not even a passing thought. As engaging as those and other scenarios may be, neither one constitutes an answer to the question of what Galatians may contribute theologically to women in the present. If, instead of asking only about the relationship between Paul and the historical audience of this letter, or about Paul’s attitudes toward women, we ask about the letter’s fundamental theological dynamics, then Galatians emerges as a powerful voice articulating God’s new creation, a creation that liberates both women and men from their worlds of achievement and identity.” (278)

Books to read by Gaventa:

Check out these articles:

  • “Is Galatians Just a ‘Guy Thing’? A Theological Reflection.” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 54, no. 3 (2000): 267-78.
  • “Pentecost and Trinity.” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 66, no. 1 (2012): 5-15
  • “The Cosmic Power of Sin in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Toward a Widescreen Edition.” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 58, no. 3 (2004): 229-240.
  • “Reading for the Subject: The Paradox of Power in Romans 14:1-15:6.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 5, no. 1 (2011): 1-12.

Videos of Gaventa teaching:

A [Just] War for Romans 13: Towards a Nonviolent Reading

~ Mike Skinner ~ 7 Comments

“The text has disappeared under the interpretation.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

Romans 13:1-7 has a long and rich history as the classic biblical prooftext for the justification of lethal violence.  The “classical interpretation” goes something like this: the state has divine authority to inflict violence and go to war in order to punish evil and work for peace.  Such an interpretation is axiomatic to most Christians, who find it hard to even imagine that the passage might mean anything significantly different.  But what if Romans 13:1-7 does not justify Christian participation in violence?  While such an idea is difficult for many to even entertain, I’ve found the interpretive work of recent anti-imperial scholars and Christian pacifists [such as N.T. Wright and John Howard Yoder] to be just the catalyst needed to push my reading into a more faithful direction.[1]

One of the most significant decisions for one’s interpretation lies in how they understand the Greek participle tetagmenai translated as “instituted” [NRSV, ESV], “ordained” [KJV], or “established” [NIV].  This participle form of tasso is the same root verb used for the command to be “subject” (upotassestho) earlier in verse 1 and might be better understood as “arranging in an orderly manner.”  In fact, “ordered” is the gloss that Yoder argues for while Wright renders the participle “have been put in place.”[2]  The difference in decisions is subtle, yet important.  It is a question of direct divine involvement and moral approval.  Yoder compares God’s work here to that of a librarian: “The librarian does not make the books, does not write them, does not necessarily approve of them, but simply puts them in order.”[3]

Here is another way to approach the same issue: is the proper Old Testament background to these “governing authorities” the theocratic nation of Israel or the foreign empires of Assyria and Babylon?  The difference in one’s decision is again very important.  Many believe that since God directly commanded some of the wars of Israel that he also morally approved of them.  However, the relationship between God and the actions of Assyria and Babylon is a little more nuanced throughout the Bible.  Wright locates the conceptual background of this passage in Old Testament texts such as Isaiah 10, Isaiah 44, and Jeremiah 29.[4]  These texts speak of the providential sovereignty of YHWH over the foreign rulers of Assyria, Persia, and Babylon. Yoder thus argues that just as YHWH used the human evil of Assyria and Babylon for his good divine purposes, so Romans 13 is “an affirmation of providence overriding human rebellion, not ratifying it.”[5]  While God, in his providence, fit the Assyrian and Babylonian empires into his plan of redemption, he in no way morally legitimized the actions of these governing authorities.  Likewise, if read in this way the text does not grant moral authority to the governing powers but simply reassures believers of God’s divine, if not mysterious, sovereignty.

This understanding fits in nicely with the historical context of the passage.  It is important to remember that at this point in history the Christian community was on the outside looking in when it came to participating in government.  Rome was no modern liberal democracy and the early Christians did not feel the affinity for their government that is so common to current Westerners.

In turn, these decisions help clarify the apparent contradiction between Romans 12:9-21 and Romans 13:1-7.  As Stanley Hauerwas puts it, you simply must not read Romans 13 without first reading Romans 12.  Indeed, a close reading should take note of the fact that there is an interesting “verbal interplay around the concepts of vengeance and wrath” in the immediate literary context of Romans 13.[6]  For instance, Romans 12:19 instructs Christians to never exercise vengeance but to leave it to God.  Paul then describes the governing authorities of v. 1 as the ones who execute this role, a role that he has clearly excluded Christians from.  Yoder believes that “this makes it clear that the function exercised by government is not the function to be exercised by Christians.”[7]  Paul doesn’t directly address the issue of Christian participation in government, but it should be fair to say that he most likely wouldn’t exempt believing government officials from the universal commands of Romans 12.

When read in this way, Romans 13 does not contradict the non-violent statements made by Paul in Romans 12 or by Jesus in the Gospels.  Paying close attention to 13:6-7 helps us in this regard.  Many scholars believe that Romans 13:6-7 refers to the temptation to revolt against oppressive taxes that existed in Rome in the first century (which might make for an interesting understanding of America’s founding).  This would make Romans 13 say basically the same thing that Paul had already told them in Romans 12, but now applied to the specific context of the Roman government: Christians should not repay evil with evil, but should overcome evil with good.[8]  As Yoder says, “Romans 12-13 and Matthew 5-7 are not in contradiction or tension.  They both instruct Christians to be nonresistant in all their relationships, including the social.  They both call on the disciples of Jesus to renounce participation in the interplay of egoisms which this world calls “vengeance” or “justice.”[9]  Or again, “The call [of Romans 13:1-7] is to a nonresistant attitude toward a tyrannical government.  This is the immediate and concrete meaning of the text, how strange then to make it the classic proof for the duty of Christians to kill.”[10]

It is time for the text to reappear over the interpretation.  In a violent world, it is time for Jesus’ people to undertake a [just] war for biblical texts, like Romans 13:1-7, that have been commandeered to support political theories fundamentally at odds with the message and hope of Christ.

What do you think?
Are you convinced that it is possible to read Romans 13 in a nonviolent way? 

[1] This post is a shortened version of a paper I read at the 2013 Regional SBL/AAR conference in Dallas, TX.  The paper was a comparison and evaluation of Augustine’s reading of Romans 13:1-7 with the reading of N.T. Wright and John Howard Yoder.
[2] Yoder, Politics of Jesus, 201-202; Wright’s The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation.
[3] Yoder, Christian Attitudes to War, Peace, and Revolution, 329.
[4] Wright, New Interpreters Bible Commentary on Romans, 718.
[5] Yoder, Politics of Jesus, 198.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Wright, NIB Commentary on Romans, 720: “The methods of the Messiah himself [Romans 12:14-21] must be used in living out his kingdom within the present world.”
[9] Yoder, Politics of Jesus, 210.
[10] Ibid., 202-203.

Adam, Jesus, and the Divine Economy (1)

~ Mike Skinner ~ 2 Comments

I’m currently writing my Master’s thesis on Cyril of Alexandria’s exegesis of Romans 5:12-21 and his use of the Adam-Christ typology throughout the rest of his writings.  As I’ve studied Cyril, I’ve been struck by how important the parallel between Adam & Jesus is throughout many of his works.  In turn, I’ve been increasingly thinking about the relationship between Adam & Christ and its implications for our theology.

Cyril is of course inspired to utilize this typology by the theological work of the Apostle Paul.  In three texts in the New Testament, Paul places Adam & Jesus in a typological relationship: Romans 5:12-21, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, and 1 Corinthians 15:42-49.  There are two questions that stand out to me regarding this theme in the Pauline literature: 1) To what extent is Paul influenced by this theological connection? and 2) What does Paul wish to achieve by making these parallels?

I’d like to start a series of blog posts in which I explore the answers that various scholars (including Cyril) have given to the above questions.  Along the way I’ll try to tease out some of my own thoughts as well.  We’ll start with the first question:

 To what extent is Paul influenced by his view of the Adam-Christ typology?

Gordon Fee lays out three possible ways of answering this question:*

1)  The “Minimalist” Position

  • Believes that the Adam-Christ typology should only be found in the three texts where Paul explicitly mentions it.

2) The “Maximalist” Position

  • Finds that the Adam-Christ typology is an implicit theme in much of Paul’s thought & can be found underneath the surface of many other texts.

3) The “Middling” Position

  • Acknowledges that the Adam-Christ typology might be in play outside of the three explicit texts, but cautions against attempting to detect it everywhere.

What do you think?  How important was this typology for Paul’s theology?  Is it something that he has deeply considered and that forms a foundation for much of his theology or is it simply something he formulates ad hoc on occasion in his letters?  Is there a middle ground where we might be able to land between these two poles of opinion?

Comment and let me know what you think.  In my next post, I’ll survey some of the interesting thoughts that N.T. Wright has offered on the matter.

* Fee, Gordon D., Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 513. [Available on Amazon.]

Paul and Scripture

~ Chad Chambers ~ 1 Comment

Like seemingly most things Pauline, Paul’s use of Scripture is an oceanic field of study. A steady stream of books, articles, and lectures flow from what seems to be an endless high tide of material.

Obviously, there are several reasons for the great interest in this subject but these three quotes help in finding a bearing:

N.T. Wright –  One of the central tensions in Paul’s thought, giving it again and again its creative edge, is the clash between the fact that God always intended what has happened in fact happened and the fact that not even the most devout Israelite had dreamed that it would happen like this. (Paul: In Fresh Perspective)

Richard Hays – The message Paul finds in the Old Testament is the gospel of Jesus Christ proleptically figured, a gospel proclaiming the inclusion of the Gentiles among the people of God…He saw himself…carrying forward the proclamation of God’s word as Israel’s prophets and sages had always done, in a way that reactivated past revelation under new conditions. (Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul)

Steve Moyise – Paul believed that the Scriptures were the very ‘oracles of God’ (Rom 3:2) and thus carried supreme authority in all matters. However, he had also come to believe that the divine plan revealed in Scripture had taken a significant step forward in the coming of Jesus Christ…This revelation caused Paul to look at the Scriptures with new eyes, sometimes clarifying what was written and sometimes reinterpreting it. (Paul and Scripture) 

Paul redefines, reactivates, even reinterprets scripture in light of God’s revelation of Jesus Christ. While his readings may not seem that foreign to many of us, that is only because we are conditioned to read the Old Testament through the eyes of Paul. Paul was our original guide through the Old Testament and so it hard for us to imagine how shocking many of interpretations must have been to the first hearers of his letters.

So how did Paul arrive at his conclusions? Steve Moyise (Paul and Scripture) lists three modern approaches to Paul’s use of scripture: 

  1. Intertextual –  A text is not discreet packet of meaning but part of web of other texts. Quotes/Allusions bring in more than cited words but also associations from surrounding verses. (e.g. Richard Hays)
  2. Narrative – A text (quote, allusions) brings with it is a narrative framework. The key to understanding its meaning is finding the larger story on which it hangs not in investigating the surrounding context. (e.g. N.T. Wright)
  3. Rhetorical –  Highlights what Paul does with the text in order to persuade his readers to accept his interpretation. Rhetorical views focus on those things to which Paul draws attention and not to those things he conceals. (e.g. Christopher Stanley)

Which view (or whose view) do you find the most helpful? Which views (or whose views) do you find the most suspect? Is there a view missing from the list?

Classic Works in Pauline Scholarship?

~ Chad Chambers ~ Leave a comment

Richard Hays identifies three ways a work can be deemed a classic in his Forward to Victor Paul Furnish’s Theology and Ethics in Paul. (Hays’ examples listed)

1. Comprehensive marshaling of data – they gather up what is known about a subject in an all-inclusive way (e.g. Martin Hengel’s Judaism and Hellenism)

2. Provocative, paradigm changing thesis – often highly controversial and generate ongoing debate within the discipline for many years after their publication ( e.g. E.P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism)

3. Consensus forming – concise but sagacious study that enters a confused, amorphous area of inquiry and articulates balanced synthetic judgments that promote the formation of a new consensus (e.g. Victor Paul Furnish’s Theology and Ethics in Paul)

Obviously Hays already identified several, but what other books are ‘classics’ within Pauline Studies? Why are they a classic?