|
|
Introduction: Johan Christiaan Beker was a professor of New
Testament Theology in Princeton Theological Seminary. He taught in this
prestigious institution for more than thirty years and published several books
and articles on Pauline studies. He died in 1999. His major works include Paul the Apostle (1980), Paul’s Apocalyptic
Gospel (1982), Suffering and Hope (1987), The Triumph of God (1990) and Heirs
of Paul (1991). He is a renowned scholar in the sphere of Pauline studies especially
for his approach to the Pauline hermeneutics. His main thesis is that Paul is a
“hermeneutic theologian” rather than a systematic theologian and his
hermeneutic is shaped by the complex interaction of both coherence and
contingency. For him the coherent theme of Pauline hermeneutic is an
apocalyptic theme that centers on the coming triumph of God. He claims that
Paul’s hermeneutic translates the apocalyptic theme of the gospel into the
contingent particularities of the human situation.[1]
"The great
Christian word hope has fallen on hard times: existential theologians have
redefined it as openness to a vague future; apocalyptic sensationalists have reduced
it to a time table of escapism. In his study of Paul's Apocalyptic Gospel Beker
has recaptured the meaning of hope. To a church fettered to her past or
consumed by her present, no perspective is more helpful than Beker's conclusion
that the Gospel embraces the future and that the future's clearest feature is
the victory of God. Preaching will come to life and Bible study take on new
vigor for all who walk through Paul's letters with Beker as a guide."[2]
Such
is a remark made by David Allan Hubbard, Former President, Fuller Theological
Seminary, on Beker. This paper too deals with how J. Christiaan Beker
interprets Paul and his thought.
1. The person of Paul: The
history of interpretation of Paul presents us with a bewildering variety of
evaluations- Paul as a rationalist, a systematic theologian, of Paul the
mystic, a religious genius from purely a Jewish provenance etc. But as for
Beker, an understanding of the ‘whole Paul’ is possible by focusing on two
fundamental questions- What is the coherent theme of Paul’s thought and what is
the texture of his hermeneutic?[3] He
traces the origin of Paul’s hermeneutic or the root of his theological thought
in his call. He believes that Paul’s conversion was absorbed by the greater
reality of his apostolic calling where Paul himself understands his conversion
experience as a commission to proclaim the Gospel. This is the reason why Paul
never used his conversion experience as an example for self-pietism, though
Luke and the Pastoral Epistles mentioned his conversion experience in a
pietistic term. Paul's own lack of narcissistic self-concern and introspection
is not due to any personal sense of timidity or humility. More than any other
apostle in the New Testament, Paul is extremely self-conscious about his
apostolate. He has an acute sense of authority and of territorial rights over
his mission field. Texts like 1 Cor. 4:15 and 2 Cor. 10:13-18 demonstrate that
Paul exercised his "father right'' over his churches as a claim to his
apostolic authority. In the meantime it is not correct to cast Paul as a humble
man but neither should we view him as a passionate fanatic who identifies his
ego with the truth. What is intriguing about Paul is the concurrence of his
sense of authorship and his lack of pious self-concern. He is extremely
reticent about his conversion experience and yet extremely outspoken about his
apostleship. For Beker, Paul is not a disciple in the sense as compared with
the case of Jesus’ disciples, who were first disciples and later appointed as
apostles after Jesus’ resurrection. But he is
a true disciple considering the resurrection appearance of Jesus to the
disciples as identical with his Damascus experience and their apostolic
mission/commission. Paul’s call is therefore unique. He is a called apostle to
be the direct mediator of the gospel and its authoritative interpreter. Besides
these, his call is unique in that he is called to be the Apostle to the
Gentiles. Thus, for him, the call is to the apostolate. He does not celebrate
his conversion experience to mark his own spiritual grandeur, because he
understands it as the commission to proclaim the gospel, that is, to serve
Christ among the Gentiles.[4]
2. PAUL’S
THOUGHT:
2.1
Content of the gospel and His Hermeneutics: Beker
traces the origin of Paul’s hermeneutic or the root of his theological thought
in his call. His gospel, therefore, is both Christocentric and Theocentric
where both are fused into the one cosmic redemptive purpose of God for the
whole creation where the universality of the gospel is matched by the
universality of his apostolic task. In addition, the objective context and the
universal claim of the gospel compel Paul to give an orderly intelligible
account of God’s act in Christ to each specific need and situation. The gospel
for Paul is not contracted to a personal subjectivism that would reduce his
preaching of the gospel to a pious retelling of his conversion experience.
Moreover, the gospel is not primarily an intra-psychic phenomenon that limits
itself to the conversion of individual souls climbing out of a lost world into
the safety of the church. Rather, the gospel proclaims the new state of affairs
that God has initiated in Christ, one that concerns the nations and the
creation. Individual souls and their experience are only important within that
worldwide context and for the sake of the world. Christ as the object and
content of the gospel is not simply the means for individual holiness and
private experiences; rather, he remains the transcendent Lord and Judge over
all people’s experiences: "we shall all stand before the judgment seat of
God" (Rom. 14:10). Thus, Paul's conversion experience is taken up and
absorbed by God's redemptive purpose for his whole creation.[5]
The
correlation of apostle and gospel means that "the clarity of conscious knowing"
is an integral part of Paul's apostolate. Indeed, experience and thought are
defined by the content of the gospel. Faith and the Spirit, for example, are
never extolled as saving virtues in and by themselves, as if their opposites,
"works" and "the body," are by definition inferior religious
categories; they are saving virtues only in terms of Christ as their object and
content. The objective content and universal claim of the gospel compels Paul
to give an orderly intelligible account of God's act in Christ to each specific
need and situation. Faith in Christ, then, is never divorced from knowledge and
intelligible coherence (cf. 1 Cor. 14:19). Paul's apostolic task does not
exhaust itself in charismatic enthusiasm or miraculous sensationalism (cf. 2
Corinthians 10-13), because he must convince and convict the nations with a
timely and intelligible kerygma.[6]
2.2 The
dialectic of coherence and contingency:
The coherence-contingency scheme rests on the supposition that Paul is neither
a systematic theologian nor a successful missionary, but foremost an exegete.
An adequate interpretation of Paul must focus on the character and function of
his hermeneutical reflections, that is, on his specific thought structure,
without which all other facets of his theology cannot be solved. By coherence, Beker means the unchanging
components of Paul's gospel, which contain the fundamental convictions of his
gospel: Paul himself calls them "the truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:5,
14), and threatens those who would pervert them with an apocalyptic curse (Gal.
1:8, 9; cf. Phil. 1:27; cf. 2 Thess. 1:8; 2:2). The term contingency denotes the changing, situational part of the gospel,
that is, the diversity and particularity of sociological, economical, and
psychological factors that confront Paul in his churches and in his missionary
work and to which he had to respond.
Paul's proclamation focuses on the interplay between
coherence and contingency in response to the question. How can the truth of the
gospel be proclaimed in such a way that it fulfills its intended purpose in
concrete situations? For this reason it is necessary to be always mindful of
the interaction between fundamental content and situational context. For
content not only influences context but it is also shaped by context.[7]
Paul's hermeneutic not only extrapolates a
specific core from the rich diversity of ecclesial gospel traditions, but also
concretizes this core in such a manner that it can become a word on target for
every particular historical context. Because Paul is able to combine
particularity and universality, diversity and uniformity, the gospel is neither
reduced to an orthodox, timeless system nor to a series of disconnected and
incidental thoughts. In this context it is important to notice that the
"coherent center" of Paul's thought becomes diluted into an abstract and
powerless system whenever it is severed from its concrete context. Conversely,
the hermeneutic of Paul disintegrates into an opportunistic and arbitrary scheme
whenever the contingent character of the gospel loses its connection with the
coherent core, that is, with its solid foundation.[8]
2.2.1 Theory and Praxis: For Beker, Paul’s theological thinking and
theological method go hand in hand. His gospel is therefore gospel because his thought
and method have a practical objective. For this reason Paul's gospel cannot be
reduced to a philosophically abstract structure. Thought leads to praxis and
praxis evokes thought. Paul's hermeneutic is a combination of both.[9]
Thus, the gospel is for Paul both ‘truth’ and ‘effective word’. It is verified
not only by its content but also by its ‘fruit’ or effectiveness.[10]
2.3
Apocalyptic as the basis of Paul’s gospel: Beker contends that the Jewish apocalyptic
forms the basis of Paul's thought. It constituted-
(a) the thought world of Paul the Pharisee
and, therefore,
(b) the fundamental grammar and context through
which Paul filtered the Christ event and interpreted it as the apocalypse of Christ (Gal. 1:12; cf.
1:16; 2:2). The co-incidence of "conversion" and "apostolic
call" in the Damascus experience (Gal. 1:15) shows that "the truth of
the gospel," that is, the apocalyptic interpretation of the cross and the
resurrection of Christ, provided not only the solution for Paul's own personal
and contingent crisis but also the abiding answer for the manifold crisis situations
that confronted his communities. But having said this, Beker is cautious not to
be misquoted that Paul used Jewish apocalyptic as a literary genre or employed
Jewish apocalypses as a literary source, but rather claims that Jewish
apocalyptic motifs dominate Paul’s thought.[11]
Thus, the coherence of the gospel of Paul
actually consists of the apocalyptic interpretation of the death and
resurrection of Christ that has been shaped by apocalyptic thought, and
consequently, cannot be separated from their ultimate goal, the imminent
apocalyptic triumph of God. And so he enabled people to discern the glorious
rays of the coming kingdom and to work redemptively in the world in order to
prepare for its glorious destiny.
2.3.1 The
motifs of Paul’s apocalyptic gospel:
They are- Vindication, Universalism, dualism and imminence.
(a)
Vindication: It is in the
context of Israel’s yearning for God’s vindication over the created world that
Jesus Christ is proclaimed as the manifestation and confirmation of God’s
faithfulness to his redemptive plan- the Messiah of God (2 Cor. 1:20). The
faithfulness of God has been inaugurated in Jesus Christ, and therefore God's
public self-vindication as the climax of his faithfulness to himself and his
world is imminent. And so the ‘faithlessness’ cannot ‘nullify the faithfulness
of God’ (Rom. 3:3) – that is, God’s self vindication: “Let God be true though
every man be false” (Rom. 3:4a).[12]
Hence, Beker concludes, Paul's gospel is
anchored in a theocentric, that is, God-centered, view of the universe. And the
manner in which he interprets this theocentric view marks him as an apocalyptic
theologian. Consequently, Paul's interpretation of the gospel is an
interpretation in the mode of hope because he believes in the God of Israel
whose self-vindication and faithfulness to his promises have been inaugurated
in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and will shortly be fully
actualized in his creation.[13]
(b)
Universalism: The apocalyptic
motif of universalism-or the cosmic extension of God's majesty and glory--involves
Paul in a profound modification of its place and character in Jewish
apocalyptic. The expectation of God's universal reign in Jewish apocalyptic is anchored
in the self-awareness of Israel as the people of the election, the covenant,
and the Law (the Torah). God's vindication-and-faithfulness is primarily
directed to the vindication of those in Israel who are faithful to the Law of
God. For Paul, God's intervention in Christ profoundly modifies this
apocalyptic motif. The division in humankind is constituted not by those
faithful to the Torah and those who are wicked and "Gentile sinners''
(Gal. 2:15) but rather by the death of Jesus Christ as the focal point of God's
universal wrath and judgment. This estimate of the death of Christ enabled Paul
to radicalize not only the effect of God's wrath but also the sway of the
powers of sin and death. There can be no favorite-nation clause or claim to
privilege before the apocalyptic judgment of God in the cross of the Christ. Although
this radicalization of the human condition in the cross of God's Messiah
logically seems to lead to a conception of universal salvation, Paul refrains
from any unequivocal assertion of this point. The time between the cross and
the end-time is a time for commitment, decision, mission, and endurance. Those
who are disobedient to the gospel will be judged and destroyed in the last judgment
because they behave as if the powers defeated by Jesus Christ still rule the
world. Thus the thrust toward a notion of universal salvation is balanced by an
emphasis on responsibility and obedience for those who have heard the gospel.[14]
(c) Dualism: Becker holds that Paul’s dualism specifies
not only the obstacles – the powers of evils- to the universal vindication of
God’s plan of salvation but also describes its anticipated character in the
present- the power of the Spirit in our midst- in a provisional way.[15] In
the midst of this battle, there is necessary suffering- not only suffering to
be endured passively because of the onslaught of the powers of this world but
also suffering as a result of active engagement with the world because the
church has a redemptive mission in the world for the world in accordance with
the redemptive plan of God. The church, then, lives in continuous tension
between being against the world and being for the world. If it emphasizes too strongly
withdrawal from the world in a dualistic fashion, it threatens to become a
purely sectarian apocalyptic movement that betrays the death and resurrection
of Christ as God's redemptive plan for the world; but if it exclusively
emphasizes participation in the world, it threatens to become another "worldly"
phenomenon, accommodating itself to whatever the world will buy and so becoming
a part of the world. Christians have been set free from the power of sin and
will be set free from the power of death, once death, "the last
enemy" (1 Cor. 15:26), will have been defeated in the final triumph of
God. In other words, although Paul claims with Jewish apocalyptic that death,
and thus suffering, is to be attributed to sin, he in fact leaves room for the
thought that there is a crucial and mysterious "dark" residue of evil
and death in God's created order. This evil residue-of evil and death-that
cannot be attributed to human sin causes suffering and will be removed only at
the hour of God's final triumph.[16]
The motif of dualism then stresses that God's
plan for the world engages the Christians in a battle against the present structures
of the world. It points to the reality that God's victory in Christ motivates
Christians to a hope that incarnates itself in a cruciform existence, that is,
in a life under the cross.[17]
(d) Imminence: The apocalyptic motif of imminence or the
impending actualization of God's reign is closely related to the three motifs
discussed above. It intensifies the others and thus heightens the hope for the
actualization of God's vindication and universal reign, whereas it hopes as
well for the elimination of all dualistic structures and their concomitant
suffering. There are three aspects to the theme of imminence in Paul-
Necessity, Incalculability and dialectic of patience and impatience.[18]
Here Beker observes that the intensity of Paul’s apocalyptic religion is
characterized by a hope which itself is a characteristic of faith and contends
that this faith is identical with the attitude of the Old Testament believer
whose faith is simultaneously a hoping in the Lord. However, in another sense
this faith is special because it is the ‘saving faith’ where Christ is the
object and the content of that faith. And this hope is about the glory of the
age to come, the redemption of the body, the victory over evil and death in the
coming of parousia of Christ that brought cosmic peace (Rom. 8;23).[19]
2.3.2 Eschatology and Apocalyptic: Paul did not divorce the centrality of the
death and the resurrection of Christ from the apocalyptic coordinates. However,
according to Beker, Paul does not simply equate the apocalyptic worldview with
any other worldview. It is because of this reason that Beker uses apocalyptic
instead of the term Eschatology. He contends that unlike the Greek dualistic apprehension
of divine reality, in which time will be eventually swallowed up by eternity,
Paul views God as the coming one who has already come to his creation in
Christ. And at the time of his final glory and triumph, his living and presence
in Christ and in the Spirit will be manifested, now which is only visible in
the eyes of faith (2cor. 5:7). [20]
2.3.3
Christ and Apocalyptic:
(a) The
Death of Christ: The Defeat of the Apocalyptic Powers: The death of Christ is not merely a moral act
but an apocalyptic event where Christ defeated the apocalyptic power of the
evil one. It defeated the power of sin that engulf human’s destiny. It conquers
the power of death which is the last enemy (1 Cor. 15:26). The death of Christ
also changes both the condition for life after death and the particularistic
view of the Jewish apocalyptic. It transforms the Jewish apocalyptic
exclusivism into a universal one that embraces all humanity under the sun. The
cross, in this sense, is then the apocalyptic turning point of history.[21]
(b) Resurrection:
The Apocalyptic Triumph of God: For
Beker, the resurrection language itself is an end time language and remains
unintelligible apart from the apocalyptic thought to which resurrection
language belongs. Resurrection language belongs to the domain of the new age to
come and is an inherent part of the transformation and the recreation of all
reality in the apocalyptic age. Thus, the resurrection of Christ, the coming of
the reign of God, and the future resurrection of the dead belongs together. The
resurrection marks the beginning of the process of transformation; it marks the
appearance of the end in history.
Therefore, the resurrection of Christ inaugurated the apocalyptic
triumph of God.[22]
(c) Parousia:
The Final Triumph of God: Beker
observes that the all of Paul’s contingent interpretation of the gospel points
to the imminent cosmic triumph of God. The resurrection of Christ inaugurated
this apocalyptic triumph of God and yet, the final triumph of God is still
impending. The resurrection of Christ is just an anticipation of the final
glory of God. The final hour of Christ glory and Parousia will coincides with
the final glory and the actualization of the redemption of God. Indeed, after
the Christ event, the imminent apocalyptic presence in history to the eyes of
faith in the power of the Spirit and so foreshadow its public manifestation in
glory, when “God will be everything to all” (1Cor.15:28). The triumph is still future and unrealized, even
if the end is sure.[23]
Thus, Paul’s coherent
theme is not confined in one particular passage or a book. However, it is
demonstrated in his entire letter in their contingency. In other words, the
apocalyptic triumph of God is demonstrated in the dialectical relationship of
the contingency and coherency. Paul therefore is an apocalyptic theologian who
preached the apocalyptic triumph of God in all his letters.[24]
3. Major themes
of Paul’s Theology
3.1 The
Theology of the Cross: Although
Paul distinguishes the death and resurrection of Christ as events, he often
interprets them as constituting a single meaning. The context determines in
each case whether the elements of judgment or those of love and life prevail.
This is especially true in Paul's theology of the cross. Paul's theology of the
cross is his unique contribution to the interpretation of the death and
resurrection of Christ. Contrary to widespread opinion, the theology of the
cross is rare in the New Testament. It must be distinguished in some ways from
a theology of the death and resurrection of Christ and from that of the
suffering of Christ. The interactions among these various forms of reflection
on the death of Christ do not permit us to fuse them, because they have
distinct meanings. The motif of "the cross" never appears within the
traditional sequence of "he died and rose again/was raised." The only
passage where Paul probably interprets Christ's sacrificial death in terms of
the "cross" is 1 Cor. 1:13. The cross is Paul's most succinct
interpretation of the death of Christ and functions as its specific apocalyptic
hermeneutic. Because the terminology of "the cross" (and "to
crucify") occurs infrequently in Paul, the specificity of its occurrence
suggests its profound meaning, just as the specifically Pauline meaning of
"grace" (charis) is
quantitatively inversely related to its qualitative importance. Nevertheless,
the cross contains not only the aspect of “death” but also that of
“resurrection” and “life.”[25]
3.1.1 Theologies
of suffering and the theology of the cross:
The terminology of the cross is never directly associated with human suffering
or with the suffering of Christ and God. The cross of Christ does not permit us
to interpret it in terms of a passion mysticism, a meditation on the wounds of Christ,
or in terms of a spiritual absorption into the sufferings of Christ. Paul never
sanctifies or consecrates death, pain, and suffering. He takes no masochistic
delight in suffering. The death of Christ is effective only because it stands
within the radius of the victory of the resurrection (Rom. 6:8, 10; 14:9; 2
Cor. 13:4; 1 Thess. 4:14). Although the death of Christ qualifies the
resurrection of Christ as that of the crucified one, the death of Christ does
not in and by itself inaugurate the new age or by itself sanctify and
legitimize suffering and death as the way in which God exercises his lordship
in an evil world, that is, as suffering love. Paul is in many ways unique among
other early “theologians of the cross" such as Ignatius, 1 Peter, Mark,
and John. Whereas the vocabulary of suffering and a notion the "Imitation
of Christ"--or at least the idea of Jesus' passion as paradigm of Christian
discipleship-are prominent themes in these early writers, in Paul the motif of
Christian suffering is limited to only a few passages (Phil. 1:29; 1 Thess.
2:14; 2 Cor. 1:6; Rom. 8:17) and never refers to the death of Christ. For Paul
the cross constitutes the climax of his apocalyptic interpretation of the death
and resurrection of Christ. It occurs exclusively in three contexts: (a) the
cross and wisdom (1 Cor. 1:17-18, 23; 2:2, 8); (b) the cross and the law (Gal.
2:20; 3:1; 5:11; 6:14); and (c) the cross and "the new creation"
(Gal. 5:24; 6:14; Rom. 6:6).[26]
The theology of
the cross embodies Paul's unique apocalyptic interpretation of the
Christ-event. The future age already dawns in the cross just as the old age
comes to naught in it. And so the cross directs Christians to their present
mission in the world; they are not to flee from the world to a premature
resurrection glory in the Spirit. Therefore, the cross is a reminder of the
"now" of life in Christ and of its hidden victory. It has this power
because it points to the future triumph of God, when the glorious resurrection
of all creation will not only confirm but also succeed the cruciform existence
of Christians. Then the dialectic of
cross and resurrection in this life will be transformed into the sequence of resurrection life after our cruciform life in the final
victory of God.[27]
3.2 The
Dilemma of Sin and Death: Equal or Disparate Powers?
3.2.1
Relationship of Sin and Death:
Ambiguity seems to abound when we consider the relation between sin and death
in Paul. Sin (hamartia) and death (thanatos) are the supreme powers of the
old age, which in turn determine the function of the law (nomos) and flesh (sarx)
in the world. Sin and death are intimate "allies" and appear as
personified powers or hypostases. They both "reign" over the old age
(Rom. 5:12-21); sin is able to "deceive" (Rom. 7:10) and death has a
"sting" and a victorious reign (1 Cor. 15:55). In fact, sin is the
procreator of death: "As sin came into the world through one man and death
through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom.
5:12). "Sin reigned in death" (Rom. 5:21) and "the body of
sin" (Rom. 6:6; trans. mine) is the equivalent of "this body of
death" (Rom. 7:24). The poisonous instrument of death (its "sting")
is sin (1 Cor. 15:56) and "the provisions of sin are death" (Rom.
6:23; trans. mine). The alliance of sin and death is intimate indeed: "When
the commandment came, sin came to life and I died" (Rom. 7:9- Beker’s own
translation).[28]
3.2.2 Sin:
the impossible possibility- Paul's
language of sin-even apart from its relation to death-seems ambiguous. Scholars
have been divided for decades on the question of the place of sin in Christian
life according to Paul. Pre-Christian life is indeed "under the power of
sin" (Rom. 3:9). A person has "no possibility not to sin" because
he is under slavery to sin (Rom. 6:20). And yet, sin is not the tragic
signature of an evil world and a person's blind fate but rather his own
responsibility: "Sin came into the world through one man… because all men
sinned" (Rom. 5:12). Paul radicalizes the Jewish concept of sin stating
that once a person has transgressed the option to obey or disobey ceases. Sin,
so to speak, grows over a person's head and traps him into bondage. In other
words, sin commences as a seemingly corrigible transgression by the person but
ends as a power over the person. All are primarily victims of sin (Rom. 5:12),
because all are descendants of Adam, that is, all are in Adam.[29]
It is at this juncture that the Christ-event
has broken the power of sin. There is no ambiguity on this point in Paul.
Romans 6:1-14 speaks unequivocally about an "either/or," not a
"both/and": "Our old man has been crucified with
Christ," and "the body of sin has
been destroyed", “He who has died is freed from sin" (v. 7; cf. I
Pet. 4:1); "Sin shall have no dominion over you since you are not under law
but under grace” (v. 14- Beker’s translation).
Paul’s view of Christian life is a posse non peccare ("the possibility
not to sin") set against the non
posse non peccare of the old age ("the impossibility not to sin")
and the non posse peccare of the
future resurrection-life ("the impossibility to sin"). Sin has become
an impossible possibility-impossible because of the victory of Christ over sin,
which is mediated to us through the Spirit, and possible because Christian life
remains threatened and liable to Anfechtung
(attack or temptation). As Christians, we no longer live the life of "the
body of sin" or the life of the "spiritual body", but that of
the "mortal body". To be sure, "weakness” is still a fact of
Christian life, for it is an inherent part of historical life in the mortal
body but is not to be equated with life under the power of sin. In fact, Paul
uses the term in different contexts with a variety of meanings.
3.2.3 The contradiction: Beker argues that Paul's statements on sin
and death actually contain a contradiction that cannot be harmonized. This
contradiction reflects a problem that has plagued Christians throughout the
centuries: the relationship between suffering and evil to sin and death.
According to Paul death is "the last enemy" (1 Cor. 15:26), and not until
it is destroyed can one speak of God's complete victory. Thus the reign of
death in the world intensifies as well the suffering of the church. Although
Christians have a share in the reign of Christ, who has conquered death through
his resurrection (Rom. 6:9), and although they are human beings "who have
been brought from death to life" (Rom. 6:13), death still leaves its
poisonous mark on the church in the world as on the world itself. In agreement with
Jewish apocalyptic, Paul nevertheless proclaims that suffering is caused by
sin, the sin of Adam, which brought death into the world (Rom. 5:12). This
casual relationship between sin and death involves Paul in a contradiction that
concerns the reign of death as reflected in Christian suffering in the world.
If there is a causal connection between sin and death, it is only a logical
deduction that Christ's victory over sin brings with it a victory over death.
But why then are Christians still subject to death? How can Paul simultaneously
conjoin and disjoin the powers of sin and death? Paul becomes entangled in this
contradiction because he is unwilling to grant something that must be acknowledged,
that is, that sin and death are to some extent independent powers. Indeed, in
human experience suffering caused by sin and suffering caused by death cannot
simply be placed on the same level. There is a suffering in the world that cannot
be traced back to human sin. Despite this inconsistency in his thought, Paul is
nevertheless able to give a more differentiated conception of the matter in some
contexts: Christians are already freed from the power of sin Rom. 6:1-14) and
someday will be freed from the power death, when death, "the last
enemy" (1 Cor. 15:26), will be destroyed by the final triumph of God.[30]
3.3 The
Enigma of the Law: Beker
finds enigma of law in Paul’s thought- On one hand Paul maintains that the law
is the instrument of God, but he asserts at the same time it is the servant of
sin. The law is God’s holy will, obedience to which is the condition for life;
but God also gave the law to increase sin in order to indict its deadly
character. Here Beker suggests two basic issues to tackle against this enigma:
i) The context of the discussion where Paul argues and ii) The posture or
perspective from which Paul argues. Considering these points, Beker concludes
that the underlying coherence of Paul's view of the law consists in his radicalization
of the Jewish position on "the evil impulse" and sin. Whereas for
Judaism sin can be dealt with in its sacrificial system, for Paul a sinful act
leads to bondage under the power of sin, that is, into the human plight of
"no exit". This radicalization of sin is the consequence of the
Christophany, where a crucified Messiah was vindicated by God as Lord and as
the inaugurator of the new age. Because Christ atoned on the cross for our
sins, committed under the law, he not only unmasked sins as the power of sin
but also defeated that power of sin in his death and resurrection. Henceforth,
the function of God's holy law was taken up and absorbed by Christ in whom
"the just requirement of the law was fulfilled" (Rom. 8:4) and its
deadly function under sin was ended. Christ was both the fulfillment and end of
the law (Rom. 10:4).[31]
3.3.1 The
Works of the Law and the Work of Faith: For
Beker, Paul's attack on "the works of the law" is often
misunderstood. However, Paul's radical attack on the works of the law is not
simply the opposition of faith and work or the celebration of motivation and
intentionality over actual deeds. To the contrary, Paul's Hebrew anthropology
is marked by the intentionality-action partnership of human existence. He commends
the Thessalonians for their "work of faith" and "labor of
love" (1 Thess. 1:3); he warns that "each man's work will become
manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire,
and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done" (1 Cor. 3:13);
and he reminds the Romans that "it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous
before God, but the doers of the law who, will be justified" (Rom. 2:13;
cf. 2:27). Just as Paul integrates rather than contrasts the last judgment with
justification by faith, so he does not oppose faith to works.[32]
Beker further asserts that Paul does not
oppose motivation or intent to doing; he does not blame Judaism for adhering to
an alleged externality of "doing works" rather than researching the
inner impulses of the heart, and he does not psychoanalyze the mistaken intent
of the Jew. Rather, he opposes "the works of the law" primarily
because the system of Judaism has come to an end in the new lordship of Christ.[33]
Believers in
Christ live by faith in God's liberating act of justification. They live the
life of the "undivided self" that manifests itself in the unity of
intention and deed. To be "crucified with Christ" means to be dead to
the law and its works (Gal. 2:16-20), but it also means to live in the
"new domain of the Spirit" (Rom. 7:6). Faith transfers the believers
to a domain where they are freed from self-concern and thus free for the
neighbor. The freedom of faith, then, is inseparable from the work of faith. However,
the work of faith is qualitatively new. Paul's frequent appeal to “doing"
(poiein; prassein; ergazomai; kopian; perisseuein)
demonstrate that he does not dismiss "doing" as an ethical deed. Nevertheless,
because Christ is the fulfillment of the law (cf. Rom. 8:4) and ''love is the
fulfilling of the law" (Rom. 13:10; cf. Gal. 5:14), works are now defined with
a new focus. "The law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2; cf. 1 Cor. 9:21) is
indeed the law of love that makes the Christian's work transparent to God’s
redemptive purpose.[34]
3.4 The
Gift and Demand of Salvation:
The “indicative” of God’s redemptive act in Christ is insolubly linked to the
“therefore” of the ethical “imperative”. Paul exhorts that Christians must be
alerted to "the imperative" of Christian life, because their
exclusive celebration of the indicative-of participation in Christ-threatens to
dissolve the necessary correlation of the indicative and the imperative. In
this context, Paul argues the "not yet" of Christian life (i.e., the
so-called eschatological reservation) in conjunction with a specific ethic. The
"therefore" is thus not invariably motivated by the indicative of the
Christ-event but can also be grounded in the future indicative of the last
judgment and the final triumph of God; for example, "The night is far gone,
the day is at hand. Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness and put on
the armor of light" (Rom. 13:12, cf. Gal. 6:10; 1 Cor. 4:5).[35]
3.4.1 Symbols of Salvation: In liberation
symbolism, images of social power predominate. Salvation takes place as
liberation; bondage and suppression represent the unredeemed state. The enslaving
powers are Satan, death, sin, and the law. Here redemption is portrayed as a
change in power structures. Justification
symbolism deals with the problem of guilt. The unredeemed state is represented
by people’s failure to obey the law, and their redemption consists in acquittal
of a merited death sentence before the divine judge (cf. Rom. 14:10; cf. Rom.
2:11; 2 Cor. 5:10). Reconciliation
symbolism stresses the contrast between enmity and peace, hate and love
(cf. Rom. 5:1-12; 8:31-39; 2 Cor. 5:14-21). The basic metaphors are
"reconciliation," "peace," "love". Whereas the
liberation-and justification-symbolism functions in vertical categories
reconciliation symbolism operates on a horizontal plane: the language of
"appeal" (2 Cor. 5:20) or separation of parties predominates, not
that of oppression.[36]
However, the reconciliation symbolisms are consonant with each other because
they are both connected with victory over separation, either as a quality of the
Redeemer or that of the redeemed.[37]
3.5 The Spirit and the Flesh: For Beker, Paul occasionally identifies
"the spirit" and "the flesh" (2 Cor. 2:12 = 7:5) when he
refers to the natural human being. But normally he opposes "flesh"
and "Spirit" as antithetical spheres and powers (Rom. 8:1-11; Gal. 5:17)."
The flexibility of Paul's use of "flesh" is illustrated in 2 Cor.
10:3, where "flesh" means both the sphere of historical existence and
an antidivine sphere: "For though we walk 'in the flesh', we do not fight
'according to the flesh". However, Paul can also equate "life in the
flesh" (Rom. 8:8, 9) with "life according to the flesh" (Rom.
8:12). In this instance, both spheres are antithetical to "life in"
or "according to" the Spirit (Rom. 8:4, 9). "The flesh"
usually epitomizes everything that opposes the new life in Christ: "While
we were living in the flesh, the passions of sins stirred up by the law were at
work in our members" (Rom. 7:5). "The works of the law" are equated
(Gal. 3:2, 3) with the flesh, and so are "passions and desires" (Gal.
5:24). Believers are no longer "in the flesh, but in the Spirit"
(Rom. 8:9) and serve "in the new life of the Spirit" (Rom. 7:6).[38]
4. Beker counters other scholars: Beker, much like Ernst Käsemann, decisively
rejects Bultmann’s constriction of Paul’s Gospel to the offer of a new
self-understanding to the individual.[39]
He argues that Bultmann demythologized formula cannot do justice to the
particularity of the letter situations. For him, Bultmann’s existential
hermeneutics blurs the historical distinction between Paul’s kerygma and the
twentieth century situation. The “core” for Bultmann which is the word of the
kerygma of the cross and resurrection is not a specific identifiable content,
and the “particularity” is not the historical particularity of the Pauline
letters.[40]
What is husk to Bultmann is the core of Paul’s gospel for Baker. He observes
that the existential interpretation of apocalyptic distorts the truth of the
gospel.[41]
However, though Beker and Käsemann stood together against Bultmann’s towards
his demythologize formula, Beker also criticized Käsemann for using one
symbolic structure or coherent theme as the theme of Paul’s thought. He
observes that Käsemann fuses the theme of “righteousness by faith” with
apocalyptic that he characterizes the symbol “righteousness” as the theme of
Paul’s thought. For him, Käsemann identifies one theme as the theme and does
not distinguish the primary language of the symbolic nature from the variety of
symbols that interpret it. For him, righteousness must be viewed as one symbol
among others and not as the center of Paul’s thought.[42]
5. The Pseudo-Pauline Letters: Beker’s position on the issue of
pseudo-Pauline letters and the Pastoral Letters can be observed when he accused
the Catholic Church for making Paul “catholic” with their inclusion of these
letters in the canon. However, suppose if only the undisputed letters are
included in the canon we will be left only with the one-sided self-description
of Paul and the other side of Paul will be unknown to us. He himself agrees that these letters,
including the Acts of the Apostle are the early interpretation of Paul in the
New Testament and in one way appreciate their ways of interpreting and
imitating Paul with their creative imagination.[43]
Evaluation and Conclusion: Beker is consistent in his arguments and stick
to his main thesis throughout his writing: the interaction of coherence and
contingency and the coherent theme as the imminent victory of God through
Christ. Instead of confining Paul in the narrow Christological realm, he sees
the broader Paul whose worldview is Theocentric and apocalyptic. However, he
over-emphasizes the Theocentric of Paul’s thoughts at the expense of the
Christological teachings of Paul and this sometimes even blurs the Christocentric
nature of Paul’s thought and hence often demeaned most of the sotereological
metaphors in Pauline hermeneutics. Despite the prominence of soteriology in
Paul’s letters, Beker holds that God and his triumph is the central theme and
that should not be replaced by any other metaphor. However, the over-emphasizing
on the triumph of God has made God the subject of the whole discussion, and
hence, gave less importance to the object, the transformed human being. This
could be probably because of his Reformed background where he sees everything
from the predestination of God. Evidence of this influence could be found throughout
his writings. In his argument on the source of Paul’s apocalyptic theology, he
relates Paul’s apocalyptic theology back to his Judaism tradition and fails to
recognize his conversion and Antioch experiences. Ralph Ρ. Martin, a Professor
from Fuller Theological Seminary, could not agree with Beker’s final thesis
(apocalyptic triumph of God) and wonders how a series of events on a cosmic
scale can be made normative for and binding on, various human situations?[44]
Though Beker is
content with the Apocalyptic triumph of God as the center theme or the coherent
theme of Paul, the search for the coherent theme will continue as human
reasoning and language continue to grow. Like the way he treated those
Christological metaphors (righteousness, sanctification, in Christ, etc) his
Apocalyptic triumph of God can also be considered as one way of interpreting
those symbolic languages. We know that Käsemann is content with the
Righteousness of God, and Schreiner with the Glory of God. Therefore, one can
say that there is nothing new with Beker’s center theme. However, Beker has
taught us how wonderfully Paul transmitted his coherent theme in the process of
dealing with the various contingent problems of his different churches with his
sophisticated methodology. The way he interpreted and linked together various
historical events and religious tradition with the Christ event as God’s
apocalyptic victory is a wonderful masterpiece.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beker,
J. Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph
of God in Life and Thought. Philadelphia:
Fortress
Press, 1980.
Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel: The coming
triumph of God.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.
Beker, J. Christiaan. The
Triumph of God: The Essence of Paul’s Thought. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.
Beker,
J. Christiaan. Heirs of Paul:
Paul’s Legacy in the New Testament and in the church Today. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1991.
Beker, J. Christiaan. “The Faithfulness of God and the
Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to
the
Romans”. Harvard Theological Review.
1986.
Martin, Ralph Ρ. Book
Review of Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought,
by J. Christiaan Beker”, Journal of
Biblical Literature 101. 1982.
http://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Apocalyptic-Gospel-Coming-Triumph/dp/0800616499
as on 6th December, 2011.
Notes
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] J. Christiaan Beker,. “The Faithfulness of God and the
Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans”, Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986), 10.
[2]
http://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Apocalyptic-Gospel-Coming-Triumph/dp/0800616499 as
on 6th December, 2011.
[4] J. Christiaan
Beker, Paul the Apostle., 6.
[5] Ibid., 8.
[6]
Ibid., 9.
[7]
J.
Christiaan Beker, The Triumph of God: The Essence of Paul’s Thought (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1990), 15.
[8]
Ibid., 16.
[9]
Ibid., 18.
[10]
J.
Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle.,
17.
[11]
J.
Christiaan Beker, The Triumph of God., 20.
[12]
J.
Christiaan Beker, Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel: The coming triumph of God (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1982), 32.
[13]
Ibid., 34.
[14]
Ibid., 36.
[15]
Ibid., 39.
[16]
J.
Christiaan Beker, Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel., 41.
[17]
Ibid., 44.
[18]
Ibid., 45.
[19]
J.
Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle.,
146-149.
[20]
Ibid., 19.
[21]
Ibid., 189.
[22] Ibid., 191.
[23]
J.
Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle.,
193.
[24]
Ibid., 194.
[25]
J.
Christiaan Beker, The Triumph of God., 86.
[26]
J.
Christiaan Beker, The Triumph of God., 89.
[27]
Ibid., 91.
[28]
J.
Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle.,
214.
[29]
Ibid., 215.
[30]
J.
Christiaan Beker, The Triumph of God., 111.
[31]
J.
Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle.,
243.
[32]
J.
Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle.,
245.
[33]
Ibid., 246.
[34]
Ibid., 248.
[35]
Ibid., 256.
[36]
Ibid., 258.
[37]
J.
Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle.,
259.
[38]
Ibid., 287.
[39]
Bultmann argues that unless the kerygma (the mythological-apocalyptic worldview
of Paul) is demythologized, the core of the gospel cannot speak authentically
to the modern person. With this attempt, Bultmann undercuts Paul’s reflections
on Israel’s destiny, his apocalyptic eschatology, social solidarity, and cosmic
horizon in J. Christiaan Beker,
Paul the Apostle., 35.
[40]
Ibid., 36.
[41]
Ibid., 18.
[42]
Ibid., 17.
[43]
J.
Christiaan Beker, Heirs of Paul: Paul’s
Legacy in the New Testament and in the church Today (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991).
[44] Ralph Ρ Martin, Book Review of Paul the Apostle:
The Triumph of God in Life and Thought, by J. Christiaan Beker”, Journal
of Biblical Literature 101(1982): 663-46.
Hi Matana, Thank you for excellent work! How can I formally cite your work for a research?
ReplyDelete