I seem to have overdosed on Paul in the last three months. The problem, in my view, is that having dealt with the Gospels (pretty thoroughly) in the first term, it is Paul’s 13 letters which form the bulk of the superstructure of the “post-Gospel” New Testament. Since most of these are allocated one chapter in de Silva’s text, we have been reading Paul, and reading more of Paul, and reading still more of Paul since then. Of course, the fact that I’m doing my paper on a Pauline topic means that I’m reading even more which is focused on Paul outside of our class lectures and text. It’s fascinating – Paul is a riveting, larger-than-life character who jumps out of the New Testament as a very three-dimensional figure, and I had previously read, like, zippo about his theology and work in establishing the new church. Still, the discussion is starting to seem a bit repetitious.
These are three letters, which for several hundred years have been called “The Pastoral Epistles,” which claim to be from Paul to his companions and co-workers Timothy (1 and 2 Timothy) and Titus, at a time when Timothy had been left in charge of the church in Ephesus and Titus in charge of the churches on the island of Cypress. It is noteworthy that the Pastoral Letters did not appear in some of the earliest collections of Paul’s letters, such as that of Marcion, the 2nd. Century “Roman heretic.” Marcion, I believe, was especially antagonistic toward the Jews and was a proponent of Gnosticism in the Christian church, a battle which was ultimately lost, of course. (Marcion gave pride of place to Galatians, the letter which may be said to contain Paul’s most vehement attacks on Judaizers.) Perhaps that provides some explanation for why he may not have included the gentle Pastoral epistles in his collection of Paul’s letters.
Despite the omission from Marcion’s collection, the Pastoral Letters appeared by reference fairly early. Paraphrases of sayings in the letters to Timothy appear in the letter that Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna, wrote to the Philippians before 112-113 A.D. De Silva notes that they were accepted as Pauline by Irenaeus and Tertullian, as well as Eusebius in the early fourth century. De Silva concludes that if they were actually post-Pauline, they must have been composed closer to the time of Paul’s death than at the turn of the First Century.
The other books I have been reading include The First Paul by John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, “The Pastoral Epistles,” by Arland J. Hultgren in The Cambridge Companion to St Paul, edited by James D.G. Dunn, and The Letters of Paul: Conversations in Context, by Calvin J. Roetzel. Most of the other sources I have read – including the foregoing but also others since commencing our course last Fall – seem to treat the Pastoral Epistles as almost certainly “post-Pauline,” in the sense of not having actually been penned by Paul during his lifetime. Putting de Silva’s consideration of the Pastorals in that context, it appears that he has taken the most “expansive” interpretation (or narrow, depending on one’s point of view). While considering the arguments on both sides of the issue, he seems to fall in the end on the side of legitimacy, both in the sense of having written by Paul himself and in the sense of being authoritative scripture. I think his view can be fairly summarized as follows: given that they were included in the canon from a fairly early date, and given the fact that the arguments against legitimacy are not conclusive, one should accept them as the church fathers have for centuries, as inspired works of scripture. De Silva even goes so far as to say that if some new, genuine letters of Paul were by some chance discovered, they would not therefore automatically become authoritative scripture.
Here are my thoughts in a nutshell – Voltaire once said, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” I think, for the infant church, “If Paul did not exist, it would have been necessary to invent him.” Furthermore, I think that also applies to the Pastoral Epistles, given their importance in the establishment of the earliest offices of the church, their earnest exhortations and gentle remonstrances which provided wise counsel to the early overseers, elders and bishops who followed Timothy and Titus and their proclamation of respectable moral codes, which have even been referred to as “bourgeois.” They do not preach the revolutionary message of Jesus – “The Kingdom of God is at hand!” They do not even preach the radical message of Paul, as in Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.” (Gal. 3:28) But they do preach a message of upright living, with purity and restraint, a moral code which was designed at least in part to deflect as much as possible the hostility of non-Christian society and power structure. They are important for pastors even now, facing somewhat different challenges, and this argues powerfully for their continued inclusion in the canon.
Showing posts with label Letters of Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Letters of Paul. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Part II, week 6 - Letters to the Colossians and Ephesians
In the “Excursus” de Silva provides a detailed introduction to “pseudepigraphs” – writings attributed to another person. Pseudepigraphs were commonly attributed to prophets, patriarchs and monarchs of the Old Testament period (like Enoch and Solomon) and also for the New Testament period – The Apocalypse of Paul and The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and many others. So the question inevitably arises as to whether some of the New Testament epistles are actually pseudepigraphic. (This doesn’t apply to the Gospels and Acts, since they are anonymous writings.)
De Silva agrees with many other scholars of the New Testament that there are a “cardinal four” of Paul’s epistles, whose authenticity is almost unquestioned. These are: Romans, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians. There are others whose authenticity is disputed to a greater or lesser degree, including Colossians and Ephesians, and then there are the almost-universally challenged “Pastoral Epistles” of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.
De Silva notes that there are close connections between Colossians and Ephesians. They seem to have been written from the same time and place of imprisonment. They share certain emphases on an exalted Christology which differs somewhat from that in Paul’s other letters. I would point out that there are also close connections between Colossians and Philemon, although the latter of course lacks much of the elaborate theological expression of Colossians and Ephesians as well as the other Pauline letters, which is logical given Philemon’s more personal nature and short length. Again the place and date of writing appear to have been the same, and many of the personages that appear in Philemon also appear in Colossians, including Onesimus, who is said to be traveling with Tychicus to Colossae.
De Silva’s analysis of the authorship of Colossians considers 1) some differences in style and vocabulary from the undisputed letters (which appear to be minor), 2) the fact that the author is writing to a church which he didn’t found, unlike Paul’s usual practice (which overlooks his connection to Epaphras), 3) a perhaps more exalted view of Paul’s own position than he would have expressed of himself (which overlooks his recognition of the importance of his place in apostleship, plus his acknowledgement of the efforts of his companions), and, more importantly, 4) some evolution of Paul’s theology beyond that expressed in his other letters, including exalted Christology, affirmation that the salving effects of Christ’s resurrection have already occurred, with “future eschatology” moving more into the background, and Jesus Christ said to be the head of the church.
Both letters may be authentic Pauline letters, or one or both may have been written by a colleague perhaps shortly after Paul’s death. Lastly, either or both may have been written by a disciple of Paul’s after Paul’s death with no participation by Paul. De Silva indicates that the question of legitimacy of a pseudepigraph might well be if it was intended to deceive. He notes that by that standard, 2 Timothy and Titus are the most nefarious, because “they include so many personal details and fabricate a plausible historical setting.” (pg. 687) If Colossians is a pseudepigraph, by that standard it would be more egregious than Ephesians, because Colossians contains more personal details, including a statement that Paul’s signature appears at the end to attest to its authenticity. “The general nature of Ephesians, however, would give it a better claim to be the benign work of a modest disciple, if it is indeed judged to be pseudonymous.” (Ibid.)
I would like to suggest a possible fairly legitimate rationale if either or both letters are pseudepigraphic. I am imagining a scenario with someone like Onesimus for example – obviously a devoted follower of Paul’s. You will recall that Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus when Ignatius of Antioch traveled that way on his way to martyrdom in Rome in about 117 A.D. I think it is possible that, if a devoted disciple of Paul’s were faced with an incipient heresy, he would be motivated to put down on paper what he could be fairly sure Paul would have said had he been able to do so. And I would think it even possible that Paul might have expressed many of the thoughts to his disciples but perhaps didn’t have a chance to set them down on paper. Perhaps there was no need to do so during his lifetime. But at a time when the challenge arose to the young churches – well, there would have been a powerful motivation to write what the followers could have been fairly sure Paul would have written had he been able to do so.
De Silva does note that more scholars doubt Ephesians’ authenticity than Colossians,’ largely because the tone of the former is relatively impersonal, especially considering that Paul spent between two and three years evangelizing in Ephesus. There is no particular adversary doctrine dealt with in Ephesians; rather it appears to be a vehicle for the fuller expression of the exalted Christology which was expressed in Colossians. The letters are so similar that de Silva notes that some of the material from Colossians (about one-third) is reproduced in Ephesians – or vice versa. The theories of borrowing resemble the theories explaining the “Synoptic Problem” of Matthew, Mark and Luke. In the case of Colossians and Ephesians – the author of one may have relied on the other for his text – or then again, de Silva notes that the similarities might just be a result of the same author writing both at roughly the same time. In that case, these two letters are evidence of the flexibility of Paul’s reasoning and ability to deal with new and varied challenges as they arose.
De Silva agrees with many other scholars of the New Testament that there are a “cardinal four” of Paul’s epistles, whose authenticity is almost unquestioned. These are: Romans, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians. There are others whose authenticity is disputed to a greater or lesser degree, including Colossians and Ephesians, and then there are the almost-universally challenged “Pastoral Epistles” of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.
De Silva notes that there are close connections between Colossians and Ephesians. They seem to have been written from the same time and place of imprisonment. They share certain emphases on an exalted Christology which differs somewhat from that in Paul’s other letters. I would point out that there are also close connections between Colossians and Philemon, although the latter of course lacks much of the elaborate theological expression of Colossians and Ephesians as well as the other Pauline letters, which is logical given Philemon’s more personal nature and short length. Again the place and date of writing appear to have been the same, and many of the personages that appear in Philemon also appear in Colossians, including Onesimus, who is said to be traveling with Tychicus to Colossae.
De Silva’s analysis of the authorship of Colossians considers 1) some differences in style and vocabulary from the undisputed letters (which appear to be minor), 2) the fact that the author is writing to a church which he didn’t found, unlike Paul’s usual practice (which overlooks his connection to Epaphras), 3) a perhaps more exalted view of Paul’s own position than he would have expressed of himself (which overlooks his recognition of the importance of his place in apostleship, plus his acknowledgement of the efforts of his companions), and, more importantly, 4) some evolution of Paul’s theology beyond that expressed in his other letters, including exalted Christology, affirmation that the salving effects of Christ’s resurrection have already occurred, with “future eschatology” moving more into the background, and Jesus Christ said to be the head of the church.
Both letters may be authentic Pauline letters, or one or both may have been written by a colleague perhaps shortly after Paul’s death. Lastly, either or both may have been written by a disciple of Paul’s after Paul’s death with no participation by Paul. De Silva indicates that the question of legitimacy of a pseudepigraph might well be if it was intended to deceive. He notes that by that standard, 2 Timothy and Titus are the most nefarious, because “they include so many personal details and fabricate a plausible historical setting.” (pg. 687) If Colossians is a pseudepigraph, by that standard it would be more egregious than Ephesians, because Colossians contains more personal details, including a statement that Paul’s signature appears at the end to attest to its authenticity. “The general nature of Ephesians, however, would give it a better claim to be the benign work of a modest disciple, if it is indeed judged to be pseudonymous.” (Ibid.)
I would like to suggest a possible fairly legitimate rationale if either or both letters are pseudepigraphic. I am imagining a scenario with someone like Onesimus for example – obviously a devoted follower of Paul’s. You will recall that Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus when Ignatius of Antioch traveled that way on his way to martyrdom in Rome in about 117 A.D. I think it is possible that, if a devoted disciple of Paul’s were faced with an incipient heresy, he would be motivated to put down on paper what he could be fairly sure Paul would have said had he been able to do so. And I would think it even possible that Paul might have expressed many of the thoughts to his disciples but perhaps didn’t have a chance to set them down on paper. Perhaps there was no need to do so during his lifetime. But at a time when the challenge arose to the young churches – well, there would have been a powerful motivation to write what the followers could have been fairly sure Paul would have written had he been able to do so.
De Silva does note that more scholars doubt Ephesians’ authenticity than Colossians,’ largely because the tone of the former is relatively impersonal, especially considering that Paul spent between two and three years evangelizing in Ephesus. There is no particular adversary doctrine dealt with in Ephesians; rather it appears to be a vehicle for the fuller expression of the exalted Christology which was expressed in Colossians. The letters are so similar that de Silva notes that some of the material from Colossians (about one-third) is reproduced in Ephesians – or vice versa. The theories of borrowing resemble the theories explaining the “Synoptic Problem” of Matthew, Mark and Luke. In the case of Colossians and Ephesians – the author of one may have relied on the other for his text – or then again, de Silva notes that the similarities might just be a result of the same author writing both at roughly the same time. In that case, these two letters are evidence of the flexibility of Paul’s reasoning and ability to deal with new and varied challenges as they arose.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Part II, Week 5 - Chapter 17 - Philemon!
I appreciate that, in this week sandwiched between Simpson Week and Study Week our reading and blog topic is Paul’s Letter to Philemon, “the shortest and most personal of all Paul’s letters.” (pg. 668) As such, de Silva writes, it “might easily be overlooked.” (Ibid.) However, he notes that Philemon merits attention because it offers insight into the affairs of a house church, into Paul’s pastoral finesse, and into the transformation of human relationships that occurs in the community of believers.
This is the last of Paul’s letters that is almost universally acknowledged to be from Paul himself, rather than perhaps being “deutero-Pauline” or a pseudepigraph. It is in the form of a friendly letter and a commendatory letter, written by Paul and Timothy and addressed to Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus and the entire church that met in their home (which suggests to me that the named recipients were family members). It is another of Paul’s “prison letters;” but there is no indication of the place or date the letter was written. The usual suspects are trotted out, and de Silva concludes that it may well have been written during a short imprisonment in Ephesus. De Silva feels that a Caesarean or Roman provenance is unlikely because of the distance it would have required Onesimus to travel to meet with Paul.
Paul had apparently converted Philemon, although he had not proselytized in his city, which was almost certainly Colosse. De Silva suggests that Philemon may have become acquainted with Paul in Ephesus, while Colosse was one of three nearby towns where the churches were most likely founded by Epaphras.
Wherever Paul and Timothy are located, Onesimus, one of Philemon’s slaves, is with them. De Silva notes that he may have fled to Paul as a friend of Philemon’s. In such a case, the slave would not have been considered a runaway once he was received by the friend. In such a case, the slave could ask the friend to plead his case with his owner. That, indeed, is what seems to be occurring in the brief letter to Philemon.
After the formalities, the salutation and prayer of thanksgiving, Paul gets to his point. He refers to himself as an old man in chains. He states that he could order Philemon to do as he wishes Philemon to do, but rather than that, he appeals to Philemon on the basis of love. (v. 8-9) He calls Onesimus his son (v. 10) and says that formerly Onesimus was useless to Philemon but now has become useful to both of them. (v. 11) He states that he would liked to have kept Onesimus with him, but he didn’t want to do anything without Philemon’s consent, so he is sending him back. He refers to him as “my very heart.” (v. 12) He says that perhaps the reason that Onesimus and Philemon were separated for a little while was so that Philemon could have him back as more than a slave, as a “dear brother.” (v. 16)
He tells Philemon that, if he regards Paul as a partner, he should welcome Onesimus as he would welcome Paul. If Philemon feels that Onesimus has wronged him or owes him anything, he should charge that to Paul’s account. Paul states, I’ll pay you back – but on the other hand, “you owe me your very self.” (v.19)
We have seen that Paul frequently utilized the concepts of patronage, clientage, and brokerage, and honour and shame language, both as illustrations of the mediation by Christ Jesus on behalf of believers before his Heavenly Father, and also in Paul’s earthly relations with believers and the churches. In the case of the letter to Philemon, Paul says that if Philemon feels that if Onesimus has wronged him or owes him anything (de Silva suggests he might have taken a small amount of money to make the trip to Paul), Paul will make good for it – although Paul reminds him that Philemon is already in his deep debt. Onesimus has come to him in prison – perhaps to offer assistance that Paul would have liked to get from Philemon himself. Paul was able to convert Onesimus, and now he is more than a slave, he is a “dear brother” and will prove useful from now on to both Paul and Philemon. Therefore, Paul relies on Philemon’s good will and generosity to “do the right thing.” The fact that what would have been a private letter is addressed to the whole church shows that there was some subtle – or not so subtle – pressure being applied.
De Silva states that this letter may usefully explain the attitude in some letters (e.g. Ephesians and Colossians) in which Paul seems to be upholding the “household codes,” encouraging the submissiveness of women and subservience of slaves. A scrutiny of Philemon suggests that Paul may have intended to encourage individuals to do the right thing on their own initiative rather than by way of command.
Lastly, de Silva notes that when Ignatius of Antioch was traveling to Rome to face execution, he met with several church leaders along the way. One of these, spoken of glowingly by him in his letter to the Ephesians, was the bishop of Ephesus, one Onesimus. De Silva notes that Onesimus was a common slave name, but that it would have been unusual to have another slave of that name rise to such prominence in the early church. If Onesimus was in his early teens at the time of Paul’s letter, he would have been in his 70’s at the time of Ignatius’ visit. The preservation of so personal and private a letter may be explained if indeed it was he whose cause had been so eloquently pleaded by Paul.
This is the last of Paul’s letters that is almost universally acknowledged to be from Paul himself, rather than perhaps being “deutero-Pauline” or a pseudepigraph. It is in the form of a friendly letter and a commendatory letter, written by Paul and Timothy and addressed to Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus and the entire church that met in their home (which suggests to me that the named recipients were family members). It is another of Paul’s “prison letters;” but there is no indication of the place or date the letter was written. The usual suspects are trotted out, and de Silva concludes that it may well have been written during a short imprisonment in Ephesus. De Silva feels that a Caesarean or Roman provenance is unlikely because of the distance it would have required Onesimus to travel to meet with Paul.
Paul had apparently converted Philemon, although he had not proselytized in his city, which was almost certainly Colosse. De Silva suggests that Philemon may have become acquainted with Paul in Ephesus, while Colosse was one of three nearby towns where the churches were most likely founded by Epaphras.
Wherever Paul and Timothy are located, Onesimus, one of Philemon’s slaves, is with them. De Silva notes that he may have fled to Paul as a friend of Philemon’s. In such a case, the slave would not have been considered a runaway once he was received by the friend. In such a case, the slave could ask the friend to plead his case with his owner. That, indeed, is what seems to be occurring in the brief letter to Philemon.
After the formalities, the salutation and prayer of thanksgiving, Paul gets to his point. He refers to himself as an old man in chains. He states that he could order Philemon to do as he wishes Philemon to do, but rather than that, he appeals to Philemon on the basis of love. (v. 8-9) He calls Onesimus his son (v. 10) and says that formerly Onesimus was useless to Philemon but now has become useful to both of them. (v. 11) He states that he would liked to have kept Onesimus with him, but he didn’t want to do anything without Philemon’s consent, so he is sending him back. He refers to him as “my very heart.” (v. 12) He says that perhaps the reason that Onesimus and Philemon were separated for a little while was so that Philemon could have him back as more than a slave, as a “dear brother.” (v. 16)
He tells Philemon that, if he regards Paul as a partner, he should welcome Onesimus as he would welcome Paul. If Philemon feels that Onesimus has wronged him or owes him anything, he should charge that to Paul’s account. Paul states, I’ll pay you back – but on the other hand, “you owe me your very self.” (v.19)
We have seen that Paul frequently utilized the concepts of patronage, clientage, and brokerage, and honour and shame language, both as illustrations of the mediation by Christ Jesus on behalf of believers before his Heavenly Father, and also in Paul’s earthly relations with believers and the churches. In the case of the letter to Philemon, Paul says that if Philemon feels that if Onesimus has wronged him or owes him anything (de Silva suggests he might have taken a small amount of money to make the trip to Paul), Paul will make good for it – although Paul reminds him that Philemon is already in his deep debt. Onesimus has come to him in prison – perhaps to offer assistance that Paul would have liked to get from Philemon himself. Paul was able to convert Onesimus, and now he is more than a slave, he is a “dear brother” and will prove useful from now on to both Paul and Philemon. Therefore, Paul relies on Philemon’s good will and generosity to “do the right thing.” The fact that what would have been a private letter is addressed to the whole church shows that there was some subtle – or not so subtle – pressure being applied.
De Silva states that this letter may usefully explain the attitude in some letters (e.g. Ephesians and Colossians) in which Paul seems to be upholding the “household codes,” encouraging the submissiveness of women and subservience of slaves. A scrutiny of Philemon suggests that Paul may have intended to encourage individuals to do the right thing on their own initiative rather than by way of command.
Lastly, de Silva notes that when Ignatius of Antioch was traveling to Rome to face execution, he met with several church leaders along the way. One of these, spoken of glowingly by him in his letter to the Ephesians, was the bishop of Ephesus, one Onesimus. De Silva notes that Onesimus was a common slave name, but that it would have been unusual to have another slave of that name rise to such prominence in the early church. If Onesimus was in his early teens at the time of Paul’s letter, he would have been in his 70’s at the time of Ignatius’ visit. The preservation of so personal and private a letter may be explained if indeed it was he whose cause had been so eloquently pleaded by Paul.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Part II, Week 4, Chapter 16 - Paul's Letter to the Philippians -
Paul’s (and Timothy’s) epistle to the “saints in Christ Jesus of Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons” (Phi 1:1) takes the form of a letter of friendship. De Silva lists a number of characteristics which indicate that this is the genre of the letter, including 1) the fact of absence, 2) the authors’ assurance of their interest in the recipients, 3) expressions of confidence in the interest of the recipients in the affairs of the authors, and 4) requests for assistance on the basis of mutual friendship. (pg. 653) This is the last major piece of correspondence (of the ones we have read about in de Silva’s text) whose Pauline authorship is almost universally accepted.
It is clear from Paul’s words that he is writing from prison, the question is “which prison,” as there is no clear evidence of either the place or the date of composition within the letter itself. But it appears that most scholars feel that it was probably written in Rome, near the end of Paul’s missionary career (ca 61-62 A.D.). I wasn’t so sure, thinking of his working in that part of the world in the early phases of his missionary career (one of the possibilities is that he wrote it when he was imprisoned in Ephesus about 48 A.D.). But Paul refers in the letter (at 4:15-16) to “the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel,” and says that it was only the Philippians who sent him aid when he set out from Macedonia and when he traveled to Thessalonica. That seems like Paul is writing some years later and reminding the believers of their history of giving him much needed assistance, even when other churches did not.
The overarching themes of the letter are proper conduct (“Only let us conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” – 1:27) and the unity of the church, even more than we have seen in Paul’s other letters. In fact, de Silva notes at page 640 that this letter might be called “Paul’s charter for Christian unity.” Paul’s language can occasionally approach real poetry, at least judging from the English translations. Here, the language of the thanksgiving and prayer in 1:3-11, as well as the more renowned “Christ Hymn” in 2:6-11, positively soar, and I am sure Paul’s fondest expressed wishes in 1:10-11 that the believers will be “pure and blameless” and “filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ – to the glory and praise of God,” must have been truly inspiring to them.
Besides, expressing his deep concern and constant prayers for the believers in Philippi, Paul recommends Timothy as one who takes genuine interest in their welfare (2:20) and Epaphroditus who “. . . almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help you could not give me.” (2:30), exhorts them to remain unified and live for service and suffering as Christ Jesus and Paul himself have done, and expresses his thanks for the assistance which the believers have given him, both in the past and more recently, when he received the gifts they sent with Epaphroditus to him in prison. He indicates that he does not need any more – and mentions that he has “learned to be content whatever the circumstances.” (4: 11) Yet, reading between the lines, I think Paul is inviting if not actually encouraging them to make further efforts, without actually coming out and asking, by making it clear that he is offering them his prayers, counseling, and the assistance of Timothy, which expresses the mutuality of the deep friendship that de Silva made reference to.
There are certain themes (e.g. Judaizers, false teachers) that recur in Paul’s letters, but there are certain features that make each one distinct. Here an interesting feature is that most of the believers in Philippi appear to have been female, and Paul attempts a tactful mediation of a dispute (the details of which he does not outline) between Euodia and Syntyche, two women who were apparently leaders of the church. The note to this verse in the NIV Study Bible indicates that it is significant that the dispute was serious enough for Paul to mention it in a letter which was intended to be read publicly. I am inclined to think (a rebuttable presumption) that Paul was a bit of a misogynist but also that his refusal to lay out the details of the dispute may have been a very canny way of avoiding the appearance of taking sides with one or the other. He simply pleads that they “agree with each other in the Lord,” and that one or more of the other followers (my NIV Study Bible says “yokefellow,” which sounds like he was addressing it to one person, but it’s not clear who) “help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers whose names are in the book of life.”
In addition to holding fast in unity of faith and trust in the face of hostility from the community, Paul holds out Christ Jesus’ example – and his own – of suffering and obedience as the evidence that they will eventually be resurrected in an immortal body as Jesus was resurrected. Again, in poetic hyperbole, Paul writes, “But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.” (2:17-18)
It is clear from Paul’s words that he is writing from prison, the question is “which prison,” as there is no clear evidence of either the place or the date of composition within the letter itself. But it appears that most scholars feel that it was probably written in Rome, near the end of Paul’s missionary career (ca 61-62 A.D.). I wasn’t so sure, thinking of his working in that part of the world in the early phases of his missionary career (one of the possibilities is that he wrote it when he was imprisoned in Ephesus about 48 A.D.). But Paul refers in the letter (at 4:15-16) to “the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel,” and says that it was only the Philippians who sent him aid when he set out from Macedonia and when he traveled to Thessalonica. That seems like Paul is writing some years later and reminding the believers of their history of giving him much needed assistance, even when other churches did not.
The overarching themes of the letter are proper conduct (“Only let us conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” – 1:27) and the unity of the church, even more than we have seen in Paul’s other letters. In fact, de Silva notes at page 640 that this letter might be called “Paul’s charter for Christian unity.” Paul’s language can occasionally approach real poetry, at least judging from the English translations. Here, the language of the thanksgiving and prayer in 1:3-11, as well as the more renowned “Christ Hymn” in 2:6-11, positively soar, and I am sure Paul’s fondest expressed wishes in 1:10-11 that the believers will be “pure and blameless” and “filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ – to the glory and praise of God,” must have been truly inspiring to them.
Besides, expressing his deep concern and constant prayers for the believers in Philippi, Paul recommends Timothy as one who takes genuine interest in their welfare (2:20) and Epaphroditus who “. . . almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help you could not give me.” (2:30), exhorts them to remain unified and live for service and suffering as Christ Jesus and Paul himself have done, and expresses his thanks for the assistance which the believers have given him, both in the past and more recently, when he received the gifts they sent with Epaphroditus to him in prison. He indicates that he does not need any more – and mentions that he has “learned to be content whatever the circumstances.” (4: 11) Yet, reading between the lines, I think Paul is inviting if not actually encouraging them to make further efforts, without actually coming out and asking, by making it clear that he is offering them his prayers, counseling, and the assistance of Timothy, which expresses the mutuality of the deep friendship that de Silva made reference to.
There are certain themes (e.g. Judaizers, false teachers) that recur in Paul’s letters, but there are certain features that make each one distinct. Here an interesting feature is that most of the believers in Philippi appear to have been female, and Paul attempts a tactful mediation of a dispute (the details of which he does not outline) between Euodia and Syntyche, two women who were apparently leaders of the church. The note to this verse in the NIV Study Bible indicates that it is significant that the dispute was serious enough for Paul to mention it in a letter which was intended to be read publicly. I am inclined to think (a rebuttable presumption) that Paul was a bit of a misogynist but also that his refusal to lay out the details of the dispute may have been a very canny way of avoiding the appearance of taking sides with one or the other. He simply pleads that they “agree with each other in the Lord,” and that one or more of the other followers (my NIV Study Bible says “yokefellow,” which sounds like he was addressing it to one person, but it’s not clear who) “help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers whose names are in the book of life.”
In addition to holding fast in unity of faith and trust in the face of hostility from the community, Paul holds out Christ Jesus’ example – and his own – of suffering and obedience as the evidence that they will eventually be resurrected in an immortal body as Jesus was resurrected. Again, in poetic hyperbole, Paul writes, “But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.” (2:17-18)
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Part II, Week 3 - Chapter 15 - Paul's Letter to the Romans
Some people more knowledgeable than I have said that Paul invented Christianity. If there is some truth to that statement, then Paul’s Letter to the Romans has to be his blueprint, because in it he lays out his theological concepts in the greatest detail.
De Silva provides a masterful analysis of the theological complexity of Romans. He encapsulates the significance of the letter in his introductory paragraph:
“. . . Christians have repeatedly broken off fellowship with other Christians over the interpretation of minute aspects of this letter, for example, the question of predestination versus free will, the degree of human depravity, the nature of “saving” faith and so forth. A tragic irony emerges when we consider that in Romans, Paul provides his fullest treatment of the way God has brought together people of diverse heritage and practice into the one body of the church, and he also gives several chapters of practical advice for preserving unity in the midst of this diversity.” (pg. 598)
The letter is presumed to have been written between 55 and 58 A.D. from Corinth or its port Cenchreae, toward the end of Paul’s third missionary journey in Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece. The letter was written because, as Paul states, he would have wished to travel to Rome at that point but was unable to do so, because he had to deliver the collection (presumably the same one that we have read about in earlier letters) to Jerusalem.
I note a difference in style between Romans and the other Pauline letters we have covered in our readings. Coincidentally or not, I believe this is the first letter in which the salutation does not include the name of one or more co-authors, and I cannot help wondering if this letter reflects more of the pure “Pauline” style as well as his theological concerns. The text in my view provides a bit of heavy slogging and some tendentiousness, especially in 1:24, 26, and 28, where Paul repeats the refrain that God “gave them over” (in effect, as he expresses it, God has allowed men to degrade themselves with sexual profligacy, the worship of created idols, lust and other acts of depravity, disobedience of parents, slander, gossip etc. etc.). While technically Paul may be right, it would sound less harsh if it were expressed in the form of God allowing us, his sinful creatures, free will – to act for good or ill. Jesus memorably said, “Judge not lest you be judged.” And although in 2:1 Paul expresses the same thought as Jesus, his words, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things” sound, well, more judgmental.
I love reading de Silva’s analyses, and in the case of Romans, I have enjoyed reading the chapter in the text considerably more than the letter itself. For one thing, I think de Silva has spent more time trying to understand Paul’s words than I have, and for another, his explanations have a more charitable aspect than a first glance at the letter itself indicates – although I think reading and maybe re-reading de Silva may help me to understand better what Paul was doing. As an example, on a positive light, de Silva notes that Paul has worked out in more detail than ever before the concept – and the theological underpinnings – for both Jews and Christians being joined through Jesus Christ in the worship of the one God – with neither able to justifiably lord it over the other. As de Silva notes, he repeats several themes from his earlier epistles, including the issue of eating meats (which may have been slaughtered improperly or sacrificed to idols), the distinctions of the “strong” in faith versus the “weak,” which he interprets differently than I would think – as he seems to class those who are more observant of the law, dietary rules and holy days as “weak.” He reiterates that some of the traditional beliefs are not binding – however he proposes that the “strong,” who don’t feel bound to follow them, continue to refrain from eating meat and doing other things which their “weaker” brethren might find problematical, as an aid to the continuing belief of the “weak,” whose consciences will be stricken if they follow the behaviour of their “strong” brothers. I find these very interesting concepts. De Silva also notes that Paul tackles the difficult issue of why the Jews, who have the advantage of the long-standing covenant with the Lord, have in the majority rejected the message of Jesus’ salvation. His reasoning is that by their holding back, they have enabled the Gentiles to be converted, and that at some point when all the Gentiles are converted “all Israel” will be united in the acceptance of Jesus.
Paul, near the beginning of the letter, notes that he is writing in part to counter “slanderous” misrepresentations of his gospel – namely that he was lax in his views of sin. I believe that his intention in Romans is partly to present the theological underpinning for a new code of ethical behaviour for Christians – to replace the law which he holds as no longer binding. Part of the problem in the letter is that words are of necessity an imperfect vehicle for conveying the ineffable. De Silva again memorably notes: “But the mystery of God is always more difficult to domesticate than our traditions tend to admit.” (pg. 598)
De Silva provides a masterful analysis of the theological complexity of Romans. He encapsulates the significance of the letter in his introductory paragraph:
“. . . Christians have repeatedly broken off fellowship with other Christians over the interpretation of minute aspects of this letter, for example, the question of predestination versus free will, the degree of human depravity, the nature of “saving” faith and so forth. A tragic irony emerges when we consider that in Romans, Paul provides his fullest treatment of the way God has brought together people of diverse heritage and practice into the one body of the church, and he also gives several chapters of practical advice for preserving unity in the midst of this diversity.” (pg. 598)
The letter is presumed to have been written between 55 and 58 A.D. from Corinth or its port Cenchreae, toward the end of Paul’s third missionary journey in Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece. The letter was written because, as Paul states, he would have wished to travel to Rome at that point but was unable to do so, because he had to deliver the collection (presumably the same one that we have read about in earlier letters) to Jerusalem.
I note a difference in style between Romans and the other Pauline letters we have covered in our readings. Coincidentally or not, I believe this is the first letter in which the salutation does not include the name of one or more co-authors, and I cannot help wondering if this letter reflects more of the pure “Pauline” style as well as his theological concerns. The text in my view provides a bit of heavy slogging and some tendentiousness, especially in 1:24, 26, and 28, where Paul repeats the refrain that God “gave them over” (in effect, as he expresses it, God has allowed men to degrade themselves with sexual profligacy, the worship of created idols, lust and other acts of depravity, disobedience of parents, slander, gossip etc. etc.). While technically Paul may be right, it would sound less harsh if it were expressed in the form of God allowing us, his sinful creatures, free will – to act for good or ill. Jesus memorably said, “Judge not lest you be judged.” And although in 2:1 Paul expresses the same thought as Jesus, his words, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things” sound, well, more judgmental.
I love reading de Silva’s analyses, and in the case of Romans, I have enjoyed reading the chapter in the text considerably more than the letter itself. For one thing, I think de Silva has spent more time trying to understand Paul’s words than I have, and for another, his explanations have a more charitable aspect than a first glance at the letter itself indicates – although I think reading and maybe re-reading de Silva may help me to understand better what Paul was doing. As an example, on a positive light, de Silva notes that Paul has worked out in more detail than ever before the concept – and the theological underpinnings – for both Jews and Christians being joined through Jesus Christ in the worship of the one God – with neither able to justifiably lord it over the other. As de Silva notes, he repeats several themes from his earlier epistles, including the issue of eating meats (which may have been slaughtered improperly or sacrificed to idols), the distinctions of the “strong” in faith versus the “weak,” which he interprets differently than I would think – as he seems to class those who are more observant of the law, dietary rules and holy days as “weak.” He reiterates that some of the traditional beliefs are not binding – however he proposes that the “strong,” who don’t feel bound to follow them, continue to refrain from eating meat and doing other things which their “weaker” brethren might find problematical, as an aid to the continuing belief of the “weak,” whose consciences will be stricken if they follow the behaviour of their “strong” brothers. I find these very interesting concepts. De Silva also notes that Paul tackles the difficult issue of why the Jews, who have the advantage of the long-standing covenant with the Lord, have in the majority rejected the message of Jesus’ salvation. His reasoning is that by their holding back, they have enabled the Gentiles to be converted, and that at some point when all the Gentiles are converted “all Israel” will be united in the acceptance of Jesus.
Paul, near the beginning of the letter, notes that he is writing in part to counter “slanderous” misrepresentations of his gospel – namely that he was lax in his views of sin. I believe that his intention in Romans is partly to present the theological underpinning for a new code of ethical behaviour for Christians – to replace the law which he holds as no longer binding. Part of the problem in the letter is that words are of necessity an imperfect vehicle for conveying the ineffable. De Silva again memorably notes: “But the mystery of God is always more difficult to domesticate than our traditions tend to admit.” (pg. 598)
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Part II, Week 2 - Chapter 14 - The Corinthian Letters
The long-established Greek city of Corinth was destroyed by the Romans in 146 B.C. (the same year that Thessalonica became the capital of Macedonia). The city was ordered reestablished by Julius Caesar in 44 B.C., with a new population hailing from the various parts of the Empire. The result seems to have been an ancient city with a heterogeneous and upwardly mobile populace seeking to sink roots in a new land of opportunity, profiting from a strategic location on the Isthmus of Corinth, a place where the well off were “nouveaux riches” who sought to outdo one another in giving public evidence of their beneficence to the community, and a place where the concepts of honour and shame exerted a powerful influence.
1 Corinthians is a lengthy and complex epistle, dealing with many issues which were brought to Paul’s attention by reports from at least two different sources. The issue of itinerant preachers recurs (although probably not the Judaizers of Galatians). Some of these men were apparently flashier and put on a better “show” than Paul, and his ministry suffered by comparison. De Silva indicates that, in accordance with the traditional concepts of honour and patronage, various factions in the Church had picked out their favourites and “boasted” of the support they gave to them. The preachers were thus receiving support from the Christian community, which Paul pointed out that he had eschewed. Paul had to persuade the community that his refusal to join in this competition for favour from patrons, his sincerity and lack of flashiness were all evidence that he was truly an emissary from the Lord. Paul then addressed the question of women’s participation in church services, the ongoing issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols, the continuing social distinctions marring the Lord’s Supper, unequal distribution of certain “divine gifts,” Christians suing other Christians in secular courts, and ongoing problems of sexual immorality (which had originally been the subject of an earlier letter which has not survived).
Paul again raises the issue of the collection for the poor in Judea. The collection appears to have been a strenuous effort in which Paul was engaged over a number of years. I can’t help but wonder if Paul had gained the endorsement of the Jerusalem pillars for his efforts among the Gentiles at least in part by proposing this fundraising effort. In one place (I think in de Silva) I read that this collection was considered by Paul a fulfillment of the OT prophecy that the wealth of all the nations would flow into Jerusalem. Then when Paul established the new churches in Asia Minor and Greece, in addition to conveying the saving message of the Gospel, he exhorted the brothers to generously share some of their surplus wealth with the poor in Judea. Now, turning to the issue of the itinerant preachers, I suspect that they may have benefited not only at Paul’s expense but at the expense of some of what had been intended to be included in that collection. Regardless, when Paul raises the issue of the collection in both Corinthian letters, he makes a persuasive theological/moralistic argument in favour of sharing blessings among the churches – material benefits flowing to the churches who needed them, with spiritual blessings being returned and thus a mutuality of benefits being shared so that all benefited and none were taken advantage of.
It was after his second visit to Corinth, during which Paul was confronted by an “offender,” and dispatching another epistle (the “tearful letter”) which has not survived, that 2 Corinthians was written. There is serious disagreement as to whether 2 Corinthians is one unified epistle, or whether a later editor “sliced and diced” at least two – or perhaps up to five – different letters, combining them into one. The main support for that is considered to be some rather abrupt changes of tone and subject matter. The arguments against this are the fact from antiquity the letter has been known only in its current form, the fact that there are problems of rough transitions and incongruity of vocabulary in the hypothetical reconstructions, the fact that other ancient letters have been found which also contain abrupt changes in tone, and that the overall themes really do form a logical whole. De Silva again does a good job of presenting the arguments for and against the different views, but it seems that on balance in the absence of some compelling evidence, the letter probably appears today as it was written by Paul.
In the Corinthian letters, in addition to his exhorting and chastising the sometimes wayward Christians, Paul provides them with some of his most inspirational and comforting spiritual assurances. Thus these letters find continuing relevance both because of the problems of factionalism and (im)morality which are still widespread today and because of the depth and sincerity of the spiritual nourishment Paul provides to the community.
1 Corinthians is a lengthy and complex epistle, dealing with many issues which were brought to Paul’s attention by reports from at least two different sources. The issue of itinerant preachers recurs (although probably not the Judaizers of Galatians). Some of these men were apparently flashier and put on a better “show” than Paul, and his ministry suffered by comparison. De Silva indicates that, in accordance with the traditional concepts of honour and patronage, various factions in the Church had picked out their favourites and “boasted” of the support they gave to them. The preachers were thus receiving support from the Christian community, which Paul pointed out that he had eschewed. Paul had to persuade the community that his refusal to join in this competition for favour from patrons, his sincerity and lack of flashiness were all evidence that he was truly an emissary from the Lord. Paul then addressed the question of women’s participation in church services, the ongoing issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols, the continuing social distinctions marring the Lord’s Supper, unequal distribution of certain “divine gifts,” Christians suing other Christians in secular courts, and ongoing problems of sexual immorality (which had originally been the subject of an earlier letter which has not survived).
Paul again raises the issue of the collection for the poor in Judea. The collection appears to have been a strenuous effort in which Paul was engaged over a number of years. I can’t help but wonder if Paul had gained the endorsement of the Jerusalem pillars for his efforts among the Gentiles at least in part by proposing this fundraising effort. In one place (I think in de Silva) I read that this collection was considered by Paul a fulfillment of the OT prophecy that the wealth of all the nations would flow into Jerusalem. Then when Paul established the new churches in Asia Minor and Greece, in addition to conveying the saving message of the Gospel, he exhorted the brothers to generously share some of their surplus wealth with the poor in Judea. Now, turning to the issue of the itinerant preachers, I suspect that they may have benefited not only at Paul’s expense but at the expense of some of what had been intended to be included in that collection. Regardless, when Paul raises the issue of the collection in both Corinthian letters, he makes a persuasive theological/moralistic argument in favour of sharing blessings among the churches – material benefits flowing to the churches who needed them, with spiritual blessings being returned and thus a mutuality of benefits being shared so that all benefited and none were taken advantage of.
It was after his second visit to Corinth, during which Paul was confronted by an “offender,” and dispatching another epistle (the “tearful letter”) which has not survived, that 2 Corinthians was written. There is serious disagreement as to whether 2 Corinthians is one unified epistle, or whether a later editor “sliced and diced” at least two – or perhaps up to five – different letters, combining them into one. The main support for that is considered to be some rather abrupt changes of tone and subject matter. The arguments against this are the fact from antiquity the letter has been known only in its current form, the fact that there are problems of rough transitions and incongruity of vocabulary in the hypothetical reconstructions, the fact that other ancient letters have been found which also contain abrupt changes in tone, and that the overall themes really do form a logical whole. De Silva again does a good job of presenting the arguments for and against the different views, but it seems that on balance in the absence of some compelling evidence, the letter probably appears today as it was written by Paul.
In the Corinthian letters, in addition to his exhorting and chastising the sometimes wayward Christians, Paul provides them with some of his most inspirational and comforting spiritual assurances. Thus these letters find continuing relevance both because of the problems of factionalism and (im)morality which are still widespread today and because of the depth and sincerity of the spiritual nourishment Paul provides to the community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)