Connection Between the Scriptures of Israel and Pauls Theologizing - Essay Example

Paul’s Theologizing: A Combination of the Scriptures of Israel and Contemporary Issues in hisIndividual Communities A recent academic recognition ensuing from earlier ideas is that there is an intrinsic connection between the Scriptures of Israel and Paul’s theologizing. A great deal of these recent explorations focus on Paul’s ‘application’ of the Scriptures and/or the Old Testaments and its importance for elaborating and justifying his ‘canon’ of faith (Ridderbos 1997). For Paul, the Scriptures are viewed simply as a theological evidence documents for his doctrine. Notably, together with such a focus on Paul’s ‘application’ of the Scriptures indicates a rejection of the Scriptures for Paul’s leadership of his communities in contemporary issues of moral conduct and practical life (Dunn 2006). Such a mode of theologizing indicates a definite duplicity, actually a divided mindset in Paul’s ‘application’ and understanding of Scripture (Stanley 1993). There are further spiritual components which mention prophetic vows, while other components deal only with the material features of life, and moral conduct. This essay will discuss the assumption that Paul’s theologizing is an outcome of interaction between Scriptures of Israel and contemporary issues in his individual communities. While several of the more contemporary studies focus mainly on the clear references of Scripture by Paul, others find organizations of particular sections of Scriptures as the central arrangement of one specific epistle or parts of it (Gorman 2004). In spite of the differences of these scholarships, they appear to share to some extent a view of the connection of the Scriptures and Paul which highlights the and in this expression in a manner that builds some gap between the two elements, the Scriptures and Paul, instead of merging them (Gorman 2004). Though stressing the value of the Scriptures for Paul, the connection is portrayed as one between two different elements: there is the Scriptures of Israel on the one hand and there is Paul and the gospel he is declaring on the other hand (Campbell 2006). The Scriptures are distinguished as providing support, providing the language, providing evidence documents for Paul’s Christian premises in his epistles (Campbell 2006). Paul is believed as ‘applying’ the Scriptures as a kind of prize to serve his own intention. In contrast, several scholars argued that the Scriptures are the symbolic dimension within which Paul inhabits, within which he is entrenched in his life and ideas prior to and following his call (Kern 1998). Hence he is viewed as thinking, acting and living from within this symbolic dimension while making sense of the repercussions of life in Christ for his individual communities (Martin 1990). The power of the Scriptures as that which molds his worldviews is hence presumed in this view of Paul’s frame of mind. The Jewish Milieu of Paul’s Theologizing Paul’s theologizing is not simply entrenched in the Scriptures but is built alongside, and in the backdrop of, contemporary Jewish scripture and mindset. Paul operates within the dimension of biblical thought and applies its language and expression but he did not obtain his Bible in nothingness (Dunn 2006). Paul experienced the test of Scripture through a Jewish paradigm. His frame of mind was largely molded by the Scriptures but it was also shaped by his knowledge of existing Jewish interpretation (Campbell 1992). As claimed by B. Rosner (1992), “The significance of many portions of the Pauline paraenesis can only be appreciated by taking full account of Old Testament background as well as the conceptual development of Old Testament ideas in early Jewish paraenesis” (p. 5). This is actually to claim that Paul shares similarities with fellow Jewish theologians, in spite of other deviations from them. Gone, in this case, is the representation of Paul, the secluded theologian exercising the Old Testament for his own theological objectives in a way which, while stressing his use of the Scriptures (Ridderbos 1997), concurrently proposes that his theological hermeneutic completely isolates him from all modern-day Judaisms (Campbell 1992). To recognize Paul’s connection to contemporary Jewish frame of mind is simply to place Paul in his social milieu, to acknowledge the sociality of his approach and interpretation. He shared and dwelled in the symbolic dimension, the cultural-linguistic structure of Judaism (Campbell 1992) in the first century. The Power of Scripture for the Gentile Community The way Paul connects the Scriptures to his predominantly Gentile communities is enlightening (Gorman 2004). It is not simply in Galatians and Romans that Paul roots his premises in Scripture, but in his supplementary epistles, particularly the Corinthian letter, his reliance whether overt or covert, is simply self-evident (Gorman 2004). Interestingly then, even his Gentile parishioners are seen to be entrenched in Scripture. Paul expected them to be knowledgeable with Scripture. More importantly Paul undervalues the fact that the power of Scripture reaches his gentile communities and that it must be influential for their individuality in Christ (Campbell 2006). As seen by Stanley (1993), it is certain that “Paul regarded the words of Scripture as having absolute authority for his predominantly Gentile congregations” (Campbell 2006, 60). Paul supposes that gentiles who dwell in Christ will join the symbolic dimension of the Scriptures (Stanley 1993). Furthermore though, and even if he deviated from his Jewish colleagues, Paul’s dependence on the power of Scripture is something he has in common with, and that is entirely in agreement with, contemporary Jewish tradition (Gorman 2004). Likeness or equivalence is not principles of early Jewish reasoning or of eventual rabbinic reasoning. That contemporary Jews and Paul differed over specific concerns is not yet justification sufficient for a separation of the ways but fraction of their shared practice of Scriptural interpretation (Dunn 2006). This indicates that in linking the Scriptures to the moral values of his Gentile communities Paul may have come into disagreement with Jews who rejected this (Beker 1982). Because these adversaries also characterized themselves and their lifestyle within the domain of the Scriptures Paul was unable to sidestep interaction and discussion with them and their view on the Scriptures (Beker 1982). Hence Paul is not merely in discussion with Apollos and Peter but he was unable to function independently from contemporary Jewish theologians (Ridderbos 1997). Fundamentally what this implies is that Scriptural interpretation for Paul is basically a communal and social task rather than being wholly private and individual. It links him to other devotees of Christ, Gentiles and Jews, as well as non-believing Jews (Campbell 1992) as a community which in spite of its differences nonetheless forms around the passages of the Scriptures. The Spheres of Paul’s Scriptural Interpretation Most academics would recognize that a core focus in Paul is the Christ episode, as understood in the first ‘Christian’ practice, which must obviously be the groundwork in trying to develop the disciple’s frame of mind (Dunn 2006). This does not mean concerning the Scriptures and the Christ episode as two independent components roughly associated, or viewing one as defeat or retracted by the other (Campbell 1992). The first Christ belief attempted to interpret this decisive episode from the Scriptures with regard to their contemporary interpretation. Aside from the Christ-episode and the Scriptures would definitely not have been clear nor would it have functioned as a starting point for what was in due course to arise as a revolutionary new movement (Martin 1990). For his contemporaries and Paul himself in the Christ crusade, the Christ-episode was not only viewed as a momentous episode in the past but perceived instead as a past episode with continuing impacts as shown in the gospel proclamation (Gorman 2004). The gospel as the operating Christ-episode in the world was yet again interpreted and appreciated through the viewed relationship between contemporary occurrences and the Scripture, these being regarded as equally enlightening each other (Rosner 1992). Hence the Christ-episode, the Scriptures and the relationship between these two and the continuing existence of the Christ trusting communities in their political and social backdrop are the three primary spheres that influence Paul’s procedure of scriptural interpretation (Rosner 1992). It is in the active interaction between these that Paul is capable of making sense of God’s will for his gentile communities in the varying theologies of everyday life. Such a force sustains for Paul and his individual communities the continuing relevance of the Christ-episode not as something viewed in its ancientness but instead as a contemporary influence operating in the world (Gorman 2004). It is the Scriptures that furnish the paradigm with which to elaborate and assess what is occurring in the procedure of gospel proclamation in the world. The Christ believing communities perceive themselves as built and summoned by God through Christ in harmony with the Scriptures (Campbell 2006). These consequently lead the communities in the face of damaging social and political occurrences to a sufficient self-perception, hence determining both their identity and trust as God’s disciples. Neither the Scripture nor the Christ-episode themselves are viewed as accomplished elements in the past but as existing truths in the present (Campbell 2006). It is with regard to this that these individual communities might be assumed to dwell in the Scripture and that equally Scripture dwells within them. The Scriptures as Influential of Individuality This actually indicates that Paul and his individual communities dwell in the individuality of the biblical symbolic world. Obviously it may be reasonably claimed that Hellenistic Judaism was directly shaped by Hellenistic thought and culture (Stanley 1993). Certainly Paul took over much interceded to him from this starting place. Nonetheless, this does not imply that Paul was merely ‘a Hellenistic confluence of ideas’ (Gorman 2004, 71) as recently proposed by Engberg-Pedersen. Hellenistic effect on Paul and his theologizing needs to be recognized but this does not imply either that it prevailed his thinking or that it implied for Paul a bewildered individuality (Grenholm & Patte 2000). As shown by Niebuhr, early ‘hellenistic Jewish paraenesis’ (Rosner 1992, 46) was influenced mostly by the Torah in spite of the effect of Greek thought. This means considering seriously the reality that the symbolic dimension of Paul was Jewish; specifically, the God who summoned him was the prophets’ God, not of the God of Greek thinking (Grenholm & Patte 2000). Paul was rooted in one specific tradition, yet to be rooted does not imply to be attached. This Jewish practice was component of the Hellenistic dimension but it had its own characteristic worldview, its own assumptions and its own frame of mind reinforced by powerful written as well as oral traditions (Stanley 1993). In Derrida’s deconstruction of Western logocentrism and its assertion to general truth, he questions the concept of there being simply one frame of mind as had been believed to be the pattern throughout ages (Dunn 2006). This frame of thinking has also prevailed biblical understanding. In reality, it still does due to the fact that it is the discourse people have learned to reflect in from early years (Dunn 2006). People cannot run away from it entirely but should attempt to become familiar with another interpretation from another viewpoint. What is maintained at this point is that whatever influences of Hellenism worked in Paul’s upbringing and education in this setting, it was the Torah and its practices of reasoning that guided his thinking and furnished him with a specific and unique individuality entrenched in the biblical dimension though not entirely attached in opposition to other influences (Grenholm & Patte 2000). Fragment of Paul’s objective for his essentially gentile communities was to anchor them in the legacy of Abraham not as Jews but as rightful gentile inheritors of the promises (Martin 1990). This actually implies to anchor them in the biblical symbolic dimension as those summoned by God from among the nations (Campbell 1992). The Scriptures, for gentiles in Christ hence become a new symbol of individuality, embodying their membership into a new symbolic dimension. Galatians 3:28 The issue under discussion regarding this portion of early Christ belief in Galatians has two features which are explained most notably (Kern 1998), is it a suggestion that the pattern of creation is prevailed over in Christ, and if this is the case does Paul controlled such an alleged ‘original’ message of this Christ belief to serve his intention? The view of Gal 3:28 as the portrayal of a new reality in Christ which surpasses and substitutes variations in creation as narrated in the creation accounts of the Scriptures in fact positions the Scriptures and ‘to be in Christ’ against each other (Kern 1998). It molds the connection of scriptural belief and Christ belief as independent entities, as equally special (Dunn 2006). Provided that Gal 3:28 is a baptismal procedure, and by itself a kind of agreement of the first Christ crusade as an equal movement of contemporaries where all variations have become outmoded, some recognition has to be granted to such a reasoning (Dunn 2006). It is then important to find out whether Paul reestablished differences and hierarchies into this first egalitarian campaign. Paul, in dealing with the contemporary condition in the Galatian communities in his response, links the Scriptures, early Christian practice and the actual milieu in an ingenious and associative manner which have been discovered to be characteristic of scriptural interpretation (Kern 1998). What is suggested by this is that there is somewhat rationality and uniformity in Paul’s form of theologizing and also that scholars must be reluctant to be improperly opposed to Paul’s ‘application’ of scripture (Campbell 1992) before they have taken into account all the alternatives accessible to him. Romans 9:24 The expression ‘not my people’ are viewed as Paul and the gentiles hence appears to accommodate scriptural interpretations to serve his own intentions (Grenholm & Patte 2000). Dodd asserts the sentiments of numerous critics when he claims “It is rather strange that Paul has not observed that this prophecy referred to Israel, rejected for its sins, but destined to be restored—strange because it would have fitted so admirably the doctrine of the restoration of Israel which he is to expound in ch. 11” (Grenholm & Patte 2000, 198). Nevertheless, this excerpt is not what it may appear to be. It can be demonstrated that the main concern in this chapter is with the God’s historic people and their obvious doubt in Christ (Ridderbos 1997). The integration of Gentiles has already been determined in Rom 3-4 (Grenholm & Patte 2000), and apparently in Paul’s earlier epistle to the Galatians (Kern 1998). If the context is regarded more thoroughly it is noted that this excerpt is followed by two others which overtly can denote only Israel. It appears odd that Paul would add random mention of gentiles in such a combination (Dunn 2006). A better clarification of Paul’s structure of quotation is that these excerpts maintain their principal mention of Israel and that the first expression denoting the ‘not my people,’ while maintain its allusion to Israel (Gorman 2004), can also by comparison be expanded to add gentiles who in a more characteristic interpretation are ‘not my people’ (Grenholm & Patte 2000). Such a focus is much more in coping with the earliest Hosea setting where God’s mercy is a prevailing issue. It would appear odd if actually in a quotation where the disciple denotes God’s forgiving transactions with Israel but subsequently in Paul’s rendition of the same excerpt Israel is merely left under verdict and the gentiles assume her place (Dunn 2006). In this quotation it has been witnessed Paul operating in his scriptural dimension. He progresses within countless quotations to enlighten and build his premise gradually with minor and major scriptural arguments; but he makes use of these innovatively not against their earliest milieu and content but chiefly to denote Israel and simply them by expansion to gentiles. Here particularly, because he converses quite profoundly with Scripture, an analogy could be made between Paul’s relevant applications of his Jewish scriptural inheritance and the action of jazz musicians (Stanley 1993). As portrayed by Brown, various cadences are played all together and in conversation with each other: each group member has to listen to the other in order to respond and simultaneously focus on his/her own creativity (Stanley 1993). In similarity to this it can be argued that Paul plays with the diverse cadences of Scripture with a hint of creativity and resourcefulness. Conclusions In positioning Paul in the symbolic dimension of contemporary Jewish theology and of the Scripture this essay suggest viewing him as thinking, acting, and living from within this system of culture and language with its own particular sorts of interpretation. These sorts are viewed as similar to scriptural interpretation, a process of dialogic reflection around a passage which is not critical of, but differed from, Western philosophical understanding. This essay discussed that Paul’s theologizing is a dynamic procedure of dialogic interplay between the Christ-episode, the Scriptures, and the contemporary life of his individual communities within which Paul in his epistles is making sense of the implications of the gospel on the specific situations of his essentially gentile communities. The exploration of Roman quotations has show that in considering the scriptural backdrop of Paul’s theologizing seriously he is found creatively linking scriptural principles with the contemporary concern of the obvious skepticism of Israel. Taking this into account, the entire section is viewed with regard to God’s mercy. Paul, in that case, is viewed as not abruptly altering theme and referring to the gentiles after dealing with Israel at the chapter’s beginning, but as consistently making sense of the unpredictable God’s mercy for his people and for the nations. To view Paul not as an essentially sound theologian of Western logic and its dichotomies but as a person who is imaginatively playing with the Scripture’s cadences associated with life in Christ may prove essential for a theologizing of Christian identity outside the limitations of dualistic interpretation References Beker, J. Christiaan. "The Challenge of Pauls Apocalyptic ." Beker, J.C. Pauls Apocalyptic Gospel: The Coming Triumph of God. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. 105-121. Campbell, William S. Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity . London: T. & T. Clark Publishers, 2006. Campbell, William S. "Christianity and Judaism: Continuity and Discontinuity." Campbell, William S. Pauls Gospel in an Intercultural Context: Jew and Gentile in the Letter of Romans. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1992. 68-80. Dunn, James. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. UK: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006. Gorman, Michael. Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. Grenholm, C. & D. Patte. Reading Israel in Romans. New York: Continuum, 2000. Kern, Philip. Rhetoric and Galatians: Assessing an Approach to Pauls Epistle . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Martin, Ralph P. Reconciliation: A Study of Pauls Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. UK: Eerdmans Publishing Co. , 1997. Rosner, C.F. Paul, Scripture, and Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Stanley, Christopher. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Read More