Pauline Interpretation of
Christianity:
ROMANS
RLST 212/Div/Rel 3162
Tuesday March 1
Today’s Schedule




4:00-- 5:10 Forensic/Theological vs New
Covenant/Pastoral vs Apocalyptic/Messianic
Readings of Paul and Rom 6
5:15–5:20 Setting up the rest of the semester
5:20 Rom 6:1-23 Roundtable: Its F/T vs. NC/P
vs A/M teaching about
• The Newness of Life in Christ “Being slaves
of righteousness/justice” (instead of “slaves
of sin”)
• “The Dominion of Sin” being “slaves of sin”
6:10-6:30 Reports on Roundtables
Newness of Life in Christ” “Being
slaves of righteousness/justice







LEADER: ___IRIS ANKROM (vs Byrne)
LEADER # 2: __ROSS STACKHOUSE__
(vs Moo)
Julie Carli
Derek Axelson
Jonathan Baynham
Jeremy Snow
Amy Lentz
The Dominion of Sin” “Being
slave to Sin”







LEADER: KARNEY CARNEY (vs Byrne)
LEADER # 2: MURIELLE WYMAN (vs
Jewett)
Arden Henderson
Jason Jones
Madeleine St Marie
Julianne Snape
Steve Staggs
Today




1) Romans 6:1-23
2) N.T Wright Paul in Fresh Perspective,
21-79
3) Beker, The Triumph of God, 15-36
4) Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity
“Sin,” “Death,” “Sanctification” (multiple
articles)
Beyond the PROPOSAL … toward
your RESEARCH PAPER defending a
“thesis”




The thesis (presented in an introduction that shows the
importance of this issue; and tightly argued in the conclusion)
must argue that:
“One of two interpretations of the chosen passages from Romans
on a chosen theme is the best for believers in a particular
present-day situation, both
because it best conforms to basic Christian convictions (“loving
God”) and
because it best addresses the needs of these believers and their
neighbors (“loving neighbors”).”
•
Can be ANY TYPE of interpretation, according to the actual ROOPROBLEM in the particular CONTEXT (individual issue, F/T;
Community/ideological, NC/P; Religious A/M)
Beyond the PROPOSAL … toward
your RESEARCH PAPER







The body of the paper is your argument that grounds your
conclusion that an interpretation is “the best” in a given lifecontext must necessarily compare two interpretations:
1) YOUR interpretation (as supported by your companion
scholar; closest to yours) and
2) ANOTHER interpretation, the most different from yours.
For this you will have to show the differences between
their theological choices,
their textual choices, and
their contextual choices differ.
Your PROPOSAL: A Contextual
Biblical Interpretation

I have asked you to self-consciously develop
contextual biblical interpretation in Part B & C of your
proposal
•


As believers do when they read Paul’s letters as Scripture.
Need to begin to think about Step 2 of our process
(body of your paper) = comparing different
contextual interpretations
Surprise! All scholarly interpretations are contextual
•
Especially when they pretend not to be contextual
Scholarly interpretations are contextual
whether they find what is meaningful/most
significant

behind the text What Paul meant; what was “in
Paul’s mind”; the newness of his teaching by
contrast with earlier teachings; his theological views
by contrast with what precedes--Jewish teaching,
Jesus’ teaching, etc.; historical exegesis,
philology
•


Contextual: Western view of History as progressing
through the production of new meaning by the individual
author; for the benefit/needs of the individual readers.
In front of the text
In the text.
Scholarly interpretations are contextual
whether they find what is meaningful/most
significant

behind the text

In front of the text How people are positively or
negatively affected? How Jews, Gentiles, Barbarians,
Greeks, slaves and frees, men and women (Gal 3:18) are
affected? How Gentiles are affected? How the poor and
oppressed people are affected? How marginalized
people are affected? Rhetorical Studies —as Gager,
Stowers, Jewett, etc.
•

Contextual: Hermeneutic of Suspicion: How community
members are affected; Jews, various Christians;; other
religious; non-religious; women and men; poor and rich; first
world people and colonized; lesbians and gays (LBGT)?
Feminist; Liberation theologians; post-colonial
interpretations.
In the text
Scholarly interpretations are contextual
whether they find what is meaningful/most
significant



behind the text or
in front of the text, or
In the text the literary character of the text; its
symbolism; how does this text as a religious text conveys
convictions, give a glimpse of Paul’s own religious
experience and opens the way to religious experiences
for its readers. Literary studies; History of religion
approach; structural approaches
•
Contextual: Hermeneutic of Suspicion: concern with
systemic/structural evil; anti-Judaism; anti-Semitism;
sectarianism; sexism; patriarchalism; marginalization;
economic, cultural, political oppression; colonialism;
imperialism Feminist; Liberation theologians; post-colonial
interpretations.
All Scholarly interpretations are
contextual

Gager’s (Stowers’s; Stendahl’s; Bill Campbell’s; Robert Jewett;
Kathy Ehrensberger etc. ) scholarly studies are
•
•
•

contextual: concerned by the effect of the text and its
interpretations on Jews, women; economic/political issues, and
community issues;
and scholarly: detailed study of the rhetoric of Paul’s letters
New Perspective/New Covenant /Pastoral interpretation
Stuhlmacher’s (Bultmann’s, Dunn’s; Beverly Gaventa’s
Elizabeth Castelli’s) scholarly studies are
•
•
•
contextual: concerned by the ways in which the text and its
interpretations help or fail to help individuals to gain salvation and
to be good members of the church, but also in their private and
family lives;
and scholarly: detailed study of Paul’s theological argument
and its “historical’ context so as to show what is new in Paul’s
teaching beyond Judaism and beyond Jesus’ teaching
Forensic/Theological interpretation
All Scholarly interpretations are
contextual… including N.T. Wright





Our Step 2 task includes discerning the contextual
character of his scholarly interpretation.
Complex interpretation (as often): Wright has read Forensic
interpretations (expressed in his previous books), New
Perspective interpretations, and Apocalyptic interpretations.
Provides helpful “narrative” to hold together our interpretation of
Paul: Creation and Covenant; Messiah and Apocalyptic;
Gospel and Empire
Acknowledges their contextual concerns (p. 14)… In view of the
holocaust: Should we worry about “hitching our wagons to the
scholarship” … i.e. to German scholarship?
But dismisses these concerns: No need to worry… contextual
concerns can be set aside? (p. 14) these are separable issues.
Let us establish what Paul meant… even if we keep an eye on
the contextual effects… (p. 15)
Discerning the contextual features
of Wright’s interpretation




“Do not despise the words of interpreters [prophets], but
test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from
every form of evil.” 1 Thess 5:20-22
“… be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that
you may discern what is the will of God-- what is good and
acceptable and perfect.” Rom 12:2
First… Discern which of the views of key concepts is
held by Wright
This choice shows the “context” from which he is
writing.
•
•
Of course, his choice is based upon his SCHOLARLY study of
the text. = textual choices
But he chose to find as most significant, either what is behind
the text, or what is in front of the text, or what is in the text
Wright incorporates the emphasis on the “Covenant”
of the New Perspective (e.g., Gager, Stowers, Jewett)
by tying it together with the theme of “Creation”

“(1) God made the covenant with Abraham as the means of
dealing with evil within the good creation, which meant dealing
in particular with evil within human beings, God’s image
bearers… (2) The family of Abraham… treated their vocation
to be the light of the world as indicating exclusive privilege.
This was their own meta-sin, their second-order form of idolatry,
compounding the basic forms they already shared with the
Gentiles [see (1) above]… ; (3) When God fulfils the covenant
through the death and resurrection of Jesus… this has the
effect both of fulfilling the original covenant purpose (thus
dealing with sin and procuring forgiveness) and of enabling
Abraham’s family to be the worldwide Jew-plus-Gentile people
it always intended to be…” (Wright, 36-37; italics in original.)
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
(see Handout)
WRIGHT using NC/P interpretations

Question : According to this quotation, in
which way does Wright understand evil and
grace, plight and solution, human predicament
and salvation?

A) Forensic/Theological ? or
B) Covenantal/Pastoral/ Mission? or
C) Apocalyptic/Messianic?


F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout)
(Human Predicament)
Which One did Wright Choose?



F/T Individuals under God’s condemnation; God is
angry against human (God’s wrath); God views
humans as God’s enemies,
NC/P Being jealous of God’s people and Enemy of
God; angry against God; suspicious of God (“God is
unjust”; God is partial; God prefers & favors others)
and jealous of God’s people
A/M In bondage to the power of sin, power of evil;
since humans serve evil, they are enemies of God
and of God’s people;
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
(see Handout)
Sin. Which One did Wright Choose?

F/T Sin = Willingly not doing God’s Will; or Willingly
doing evil

NC/P Sin = Rebelling against God and against
God’s beloved; participating in systemic sin

A/M Sin = Serving an idol and/or a power which is
not God, because it has power over them; being
slave to death. Lack of control
Wright incorporates the emphasis on the “Covenant”
of the New Perspective (e.g., Gager, Stowers, Jewett)
by tying it together with the theme of “Creation”

“(1) God made the covenant with Abraham as the means of
dealing with evil within the good creation, which meant dealing
in particular with evil within human beings, God’s image
bearers… (2) The family of Abraham… treated their vocation
to be the light of the world as indicating exclusive privilege.
This was their own meta-sin, their second-order form of idolatry,
compounding the basic forms they already shared with the
Gentiles [see (1) above]… ; (3) When God fulfils the covenant
through the death and resurrection of Jesus… this has the
effect both of fulfilling the original covenant purpose (thus
dealing with sin and procuring forgiveness) and of enabling
Abraham’s family to be the worldwide Jew-plus-Gentile people
it always intended to be…” (Wright, 36-37; italics in original.)
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
(see Handout)
WRIGHT using NC/P interpretations





Question: According to this quotation, in which way does
Wright understand evil and grace, plight and solution,
human predicament and salvation?
A) Forensic/Theological or
B) Covenantal/Pastoral/ Mission or
C) Apocalyptic/Messianic?
In a Forensic/Theological way: “dealing with evil within the
good creation, which meant dealing in particular with evil within
human beings,

community sin = (systemic evil) is a sin… but a second-order
sin

meta-sin, idolatry, is a sin… but a second-order
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
(see Handout)
WRIGHT using NC/P interpretations



Does Wright interpretation satisfy Gager’s concern about
anti-Jewish interpretations?
Wright: “(3) When God fulfils the covenant through the death
and resurrection of Jesus… this has the effect both of fulfilling
the original covenant purpose (thus dealing with sin and
procuring forgiveness) and of enabling Abraham’s family to be
the worldwide Jew-plus-Gentile people it always intended to
be…”
The problem for Gager in the statement “enabling Abraham’s
family to be the worldwide Jew-plus-Gentile people it always
intended to be” is that with such a perspective the RESULT is:
No longer any Jew (all became Christian)… a supersessionist
attitude… anti-Jewish >>> anti-Semitism
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
(see Handout)
Root-Problem of Sin Which Wright Choose?



F/T Either not knowing (wrong) knowledge or
not willing to do God’s Will and its goodness
NC/P Lack of or Wrong vision of God (as
partial, favoring others, and not us) and of
God’s people; wrong ideology.
A/M Lack of or Wrong Vision/faith (darkened
mind by idols) because blinded, and being
powerless under the power of idols
Wright incorporates the emphasis on the themes
“Apocalyptic” and “Messiah” of the Apocalyptic
interpretations (e.g., Käsemann, Baker, Patte)


“Paul believes that the ultimate dramatic apocalypse, the great
unveiling of all God’s mysteries, the full disclosure of God’s
secret plan, has already come about in and through the events
concerning the Messiah, Jesus, particularly through his death
and resurrection. . . . One of the things which is ‘unveiled’ is
precisely how the covenant has been worked out, how God has
at last done what he said he would do, even though it does not
look like what anyone had thought it would.” Pp. 52-53 (italics in
original).
(Wright, 52-53; italics in original.)
View of “revelation” presupposed
by Wright? (e.g. 1:17a)




F/T = Revelation = truth given from above that is
grasped/appropriated by faith for a life of faith = sola fidei
(NIV by faith from first to last)
NC/P Revealed = uncovered: What was hidden & is
uncovered? The "righteousness of God" = the historical act
in JC by which God brought people into right
relationship/new covenant with God was hidden and is now
revealed = uncovered by God when the gospel is propagated
Revealed = uncovered: What was hidden & is uncovered?
God’s Justice [the just relationship that God establishes
among people through the Risen Christ’s present powerful
interventions]. It is present yet hidden but revealed
=uncovered by (the eyes of) faith
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
(see Handout)
WRIGHT using A/M interpretations







According to this quotation, Wright understand
“apocalypse” (revelation, disclosure, unveiling) in
A) Forensic/Theological way? or
B) Covenantal/Pastoral way? Or
C) Apocalyptic/Messianic way?
Either ___A_____ or ____B___ but not ____C_____
“Paul believes that the ultimate dramatic apocalypse, the great
unveiling of all God’s mysteries, the full disclosure of God’s
secret plan, has already come about in and through the
events concerning the Messiah, Jesus, particularly through his
death and resurrection.” for W. APOCALYPSE = revelation is
PAST
In the Apocalyptic/Messianic interpretations of Paul: God’s
decisive intervention is TODAY and in the FUTURE
Wright incorporates the themes “gospel” and
“empire” as Apocalyptic interpretations also
do (e.g., Käsemann, Baker, Elliot; Patte)


After showing that Paul’s teaching involves a “counter-imperial
theology” Wright concludes:
“Those who receive God’s gift in the gospel will, Paul
declares, share the sovereign reign of the Messiah over the
world (5:17), a theme not sufficiently explored within
Pauline theology. Paul, it seems, is himself integrating his
theology of salvation from sin and death, here and
hereafter, with his call to allegiance to Jesus, not Caesar,
as lord… these usually differentiated strands were in facts
woven tightly together in a single fabric of his theology
and life” (pp. 77-79, my underline).
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
(see Handout)
WRIGHT using A/M interpretations






According to this quotation, Wright integrates
counter-imperial theology with what
understanding of Paul’s teaching?
A) Forensic/Theological understanding? or
B) Covenantal/Pastoral/ Mission understanding?
or C) Apocalyptic/Messianic understanding?
“integrating his theology of salvation from sin and
death, here and hereafter, with his call to allegiance
to Jesus, not Caesar, as lord…”
In the framework of a Forensic/Theological
perspective
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M (see Handout)
Primary locus of sin Wright?

F/T “Autonomous” mode of life;

NC/P “Relational” mode of life;

A/M “Heteronomous” mode of life;
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
(see Handout)
Modes of Existence Wright?



“Autonomous” mode of life; we function as
“individuals” with freedom to choose,
“Relational” mode of life; we live in
communities and in relations with others;
“Heteronomous” mode of life; we are
dependent on “Others” whom we trust, and to
whom we abandon ourselves (e.g., as infants);
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
(see Handout)
Modes of Existence Wright?




F/T “Autonomous” mode of life; we have
freedom to choose our life; self-confidence, liberty,
free-will,
NC/P “Relational” mode of life; we allow our lives
to be defined by our community and interactions with
others (peers, superiors, inferiors);
A/M “Heteronomous” mode of life; we allow our
lives to be structured by one’s religious experiences;
one’s experiences of the holy, one’s convictions and
spirituality;
Which one has the primary role in defining our
identity?
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
(see Handout)
Priority among Modes of Existence



F/T “Autonomous” mode of life; we have
freedom to choose our life; self-confidence, liberty,
free-will,
NC/P “Relational” mode of life; we allow our lives
to be defined by our community and interactions with
others (peers, superiors, inferiors);
A/M “Heteronomous” mode of life; we allow our
lives to be structured by one’s religious experiences;
one’s of the holy, one’s convictions and spirituality;
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
(see Handout)
Primary locus of sin



F/T “Autonomous” mode of life; freedom to choose our life;
self-confidence, liberty, free-will, but sin: misdirected will,
misdirected intention; wrong decisions in personal, individual
life; bad individuals make bad communities
NC/P “Relational” mode of life; privilege community life and
interactions with others; but sin: competition with others; wanting
to be better than others; power plays; oppression; wrongly
placed honor and shame; wrong ideology (see Salieri in
Amadeus)
A/M “Heteronomous” mode of life; allowing one’s life to be
structured by one’s religious experiences; one’s of the holy,
one’s convictions and spirituality; but sin: wrong, twisted
religious experience; misdirected worship; wrong vision;
fanaticism; idolatry; believing that our idols give us life, protect
us of all evil
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
NC/P “Sin”



(see Handout)
NC/P “Relational” mode of life; competition with
others; wanting to be better than others; power
plays; oppression; wrongly placed honor and shame;
wrong ideology
(see Salieri in Amadeus) “Make me great… famous
through the world… Let everyone speak my name
with love…”
Wanting to be superior in some way to others, who
are then inferior
•
•
Seeking to be better, stronger, faster, to have the best
grade; competition
Being loved, honored, instead of being shamed
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
(see Handout)
Dying to sin (6:2) =



F/T “dying to” Willingly not doing
God’s Will;
NC/P “dying to” Rebelling against
God
A/M “dying to” Serving an idol and/or
a power which is not God;
Paul’s Metaphoric selfdesignation as “slave.”




A “slave” is:
Someone owned by a master, and thus in bondage and totally
at the mercy of this master; someone worthless, powerless, in
an abject situation, with a shameful status (emphasized by the
Apocalyptic/Messianic Reading);
Someone who, althoughPresupposition: human are ALWAYS
slave … the question is: to whom/what? in a low status, is a
member of a household, and who, as a servant, acts in the
name of his/her master for the sake of the household; someone
totally defined by his/her mission in the name of a master
(emphasized by the New Covenant/Pastoral Reading);
Someone who is unconditionally submitted to the will and
authority of a master (emphasized by the Forensic/Theological
Reading).
Connotations of “Slave of
Christ Jesus”
1.
2.
3.
Christ’s power upon the “slave” (according to
the first view of slave chosen in the Messianic
Reading);
Christ’s mission which the “slave” prolongs in
the name of the Lord (according to the second view
of slave chosen in the Pastoral Reading);
Christ’s authority to which the “slave”
voluntarily submits (according to the third view of
slave chosen in the Theological Reading).
Showing “Obedience of faith” to
a Roman Legionnaire
Newness of Life in Christ” “Being
slaves of righteousness/justice







LEADER: ___IRIS ANKROM (vs Byrne)
LEADER # 2: __ROSS STACKHOUSE__
(vs Moo)
Julie Carli
Derek Axelson
Jonathan Baynham
Jeremy Snow
Amy Lentz
The Dominion of Sin” “Being
slave to Sin”







LEADER: KARNEY CARNEY (vs Byrne)
LEADER # 2: MURIELLE WYMAN (vs
Jewett)
Arden Henderson
Jason Jones
Madeleine St Marie
Julianne Snape
Steve Staggs
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
Jesus’ death
(see Handout)

F/T willingly doing God’s will: dying instead of us;

NC/P The cost of being absolutely faithful to God in
a world where people are in rebellion against God
and against God’s beloved. The cost of being
absolutely faithful to God’s children in a world where
God’s children define themselves against each other

A/M Jesus’ powerlessness under the power of death;
his being crushed by the powers of death and other
evil powers (incarnation)
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
(see Handout)
baptized into his death (6:3)



F/T putting ourselves at the benefit of his
death;
NC/P sharing in Jesus’ faithfulness;
accepting to share in God’s fate among
humans
A/M acknowledging that we are under
the dominion of death, and of other evil
powers (and need God’s intervention)
F/T vs. NC/P vs A/M
( 6:6-7)
our old self was crucified with him



F/T Willingly abandoning our old “will” (bad
intentions, etc.) in order to submit to God’s will
as Jesus did
NC/P No longer defining ourselves against each
other but defining ourselves for others (as
Christ did)
A/M Losing our identity as defined by our idols
and losing our confidence/trust in our idols