Sunday, October 16, 2005

An Interesting Distinction

I had one of those "aha" moments while reading a response from my Asbury Romans class. I know that at some point during my education I started reading the words of the Bible differently, trying to read them in context, but I can't fully remember how I read them before. Sometimes I find words to express the difference.

A couple of conversations with students both at IWU and at Asbury have clarified yet another way to conceptualize the difference between:

pre-modern vs. modern
as Scripture vs. as contextual texts
with universal application vs. with local application

Here it is: my students at Asbury and some here come to the text asking "What is true?" not "What did Paul mean here?" For example, when it comes to a question like, what did Paul mean by the phrase "the righteousness of God" in Romans. 1:16, I ask, "What specific meaning or meanings did Paul understand by these words?" But my students come to the phrase asking, "what is true about the righteousness of God?" So I say something like, "Given the background of this phrase in Judaism, Paul was almost certainly thinking about God's righteousness rather than human righteousness when he used this phrase." The student says, "Both are true, maybe the text means both: God's righteousness and a righteousness from God."

I'm not sure I'm presenting the distinction very clearly. I've been working with an anonymous IWU student (you know who you are) on N. T. Wright's view of justification in Paul. The student frequently wants to approach this question as "What do Christians believe about justification?" But that's not the original meaning question and that's not how Wright is approaching Paul. The question Wright is asking is how did Paul use this word, with the question of what we should believe about justification being a slightly different one. We find many theological meanings that are fine theology, but they're not the way Paul put it. They may not contradict Paul, but they are not Paul in the same way James is not Paul.

So I find the way IWU professors and the evangelical milieu uses Scripture is in this pre-modern way. They are looking for absolute truth in the words--the "biblical" perspective on whatever issue. I am not saying that this is bad. What I'm pointing out that Paul did not originally understand himself to be writing for all times and all places. Originally, his words had specific meanings in the light of specific situations... When Christian communities use the words of the Bible as the source of their beliefs, most of the time they are working out modern theology and speaking far afield of what Paul originally had in mind.

Well, enough of that...

4 comments:

Ben Robinson said...

As my paradigms have been challenged and have shifted (sometimes dramatically) new questions confront me. How crucial is it to understand the New Testament's original meaning in order to develop orthodox theology? Is it actually possible to develop a biblical perspective without acknowledging and seeking the original meaning? It seems to me that we run the risk of great misrepresentation of the text when we first jump to "absolute truth" without asking, "What did Paul mean? What did John mean? What did Matthew mean?" If our theology is based upon a misrepresentation of the text can it be orthodox?

Ken Schenck said...

I suppose the biggest reason I can think of for an awareness of the original meaning is to place a caution on the person who assumes his or her apprehension of the text's meaning is God's meaning. It is one thing to say, "Now this is not exactly what Paul was saying, but Christians have always believed not only that God is righteous but also that God transforms our lives as we are in fellowship with Him." It is another to say, "The biblical view of righteousness is [insert some personalized interpretation]."

Unknown said...

I'm wondering, how are we actually able to get behind the words to see what Paul was thinking prior to writting them? How do we know that Paul was unaware of the future use of his words? Of course he wrote within a historical context, but any more so than any other pastor who believes himself/herself to be rooting their sermons in broader framework? Also, while sure it's a cliche' argument, it's the same Spirit in the Church that wrote the Scriptures. I suppose it makes me a bad Lutheran/Protestant, but I believe in an apostolic tradition apart from the Scriptures which would have provided a framework for their interpretation.

Heather Cooper said...

So, here's my struggle Ken. As an indoctrinated IWU grad :), I have a hard time not swinging to far in the other direction. I also believe that we need to study the original context and historical background. Yet, if we are to study the text and try to learn its original understanding, then we also have to acknowledge that the writer can act as a middle man. The revelation of God that is being revealed to us is controlled through the mind and opinions of the author. For instance, in 1 Samuel 15:11 God says, "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands", so are we to believe that God makes mistakes and that He didn't see what was coming or was this the author's way of explaining the situations happening around him? And if this is the opinion of a writer that lived over a thousand years ago, how can we know the real reason for God's actions? Is this where faith kicks in?