Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God— Part Sixty Five

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 10:52 pm by Ben Witherington

Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God— Part Sixty Five 2015-03-13T22:52:11-04:00 Ben Witherington

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

As Tom eloquently expresses it, the ethics of Paul is an eschatological ethic, that involves both the already and not yet of things. “The people who are called to stand at the crossroads of time, the strange interval between the now and the not yet, the present and the future, are also called to stand at the intersection of heaven and earth, sharing the pains and puzzles of the present creation, but sharing also in the newly inaugurated life of the Spirit.” (p. 127). But what does that look like, and what does it call for in terms of ethics and behavior? What are Christians to do in the interval between the already and not yet? Well for one thing Tom stresses the interval reflects God’s mercy. Time is given for repentance and amendment of life (pp. 1111-12). This explanation is plausible to a degree, but if this were the whole answer, it would mean that God keeps extending the time of mercy, generation after generation for over 2,000 years. In short, this raises questions about whether judgment is ever coming. Nevertheless, the exhortation is to leave judgment in the hands of the Lord, who will return and take care of it. In the meanwhile one needs to look to one’s own formation and behavior (see 1 Cor. 4.5). In fact, Tom suggests that the main reason for the interval between now and not yet is so God’s people could be character formed into Christ likeness, and so be properly equipped to be judges of the world, and angels with Christ.

Tom concludes that at its heart or center of Pauline ethics is what is normally called virtue ethics, or the ethics of character development (p. 1115), which as Tom admits is where, in some respects Paul’s ethics is closest to Greco-Roman ethics, but not entirely so, as we shall see. What was the function of his ethic—- “Paul had a goal in view, but his goal is not Aristotle’s [or for that matter most modern aesthetes] happiness, eudaimonia. Nor is the attaining of that goal a matter, as it is in Aristotle, of the self-made man producing the cardinal virtues of courage, justice, temperance, and prudence… Paul’s goal…is the mature humanity which reflects the divine image and which will be reaffirmed in the resurrection. The attaining of that goal is as much a matter of self-denial as of self-fulfillment. And the virtues which are to be produced include four which no ancient pagan would have recognized as positive character-traits: patience, humility, chastity, and above all love.” (p. 1116). As Tom goes on to point out: 1) no sexual offenses appear in all the vice lists of Paul, but do not appear in Hellenistic vice catalogs; 2) further, “Instead of pride and power, humility and service, instead of military victory, suffering, something Paul never tires of emphasizing”, which makes perfectly clear that Paul is not simply cribbing from Greco-Roman virtue and vice catalogs, contra H.D. Betz. Nor is he mainly influenced by the latter. Paul’s ethic is not utterly difference from Hellenistics ones, but it is just as clearly not reducible to them. At the same time Paul could commend the virtues of pagans when compatible with Biblical and the new eschatological ethics (see Phil. 4.8).

Tom is right, following Hays, not to suggest that Paul’s ethic could simply be reduced to love. Love is however one of three virtues (the others being faith and hope) that survive the crossing of this life into the eschatological kingdom life. Love heads the list of fruit of the Spirit, is said to fulfill the Law in some sense, it is the means by which the Body is held together, it is the way one should speak the truth… and so on (pp. 1118-19). Love is central to Paul’s ethic, but it is not all-encompassing of that ethic, and central to a degree that is not true of other early Jewish or Greco-Roman literature (see pp. 119-20 and note 326). On p. 1120 Wright defends Hays against the charge of R. Burridge than Hays has dismissed or abandoned the notion of love as central. I agree with Tom, this is not a fair analysis of Moral Vision of the NT. Hays simply says love will not do as an overall theme for the whole of NT ethics, and he is right. Love is just not the central organizing principle for all those ethics.

A central emphasis by Wright is how Paul talks about the formation and renewal of the mind— see of course Romans 12.1ff. There is further the emphasis that believers should have the same mind and mindset as existed in Christ (Phil. 2.5ff.). Paul emphasizes clear thinking, and the link between thought and behavior (for instance in Rom. 1.18-32 seen in a negative way– fallen thought processes lead to fallen behavior). “Paul here assumes three things. First the human mind can in principle grasp the truth about the creator God. Second the mind determines the behavior. Third the mind is closely linked to the heart; the reasoning faculty is linked to the divine centre of the personality, with its emotions and longings.” (p. 1112). What is strangely lacking in this whole discussion is what Paul says about the human will, for example in Rom. 7.114-25 where the person in question knows what is right but cannot will and do it. The discussion of the sanctification and empowerment of the will (along with the mind and heart) is strangely absent from this otherwise very good discussion. It’s not just about getting one’s mind and thoughts aligned with those of God. It’s also about willing and doing the right things (see e.g. Kierkegaard on Purity of the Heart and willing the one thing).

On p. 1124, Tom takes ‘work at bringing about your own salvation’ to mean not save yourself by your own good works, but figure out what your own version of salvation is going to look like in practice.’ While I would agree that a Christian does need to figure that out, this is not where the emphasis lies in this expression. What the word work means as applied to God (for God is working in you to will and to do) is what it means as applied to the believer— they are to work out in willing and doing what God is enabling them to will and do. In other words, it is indeed about ‘works’, not just a mental working of things out. Not works apart from grace, or as a substitute for grace, but works enabled by grace. I quite agree as well that the figure of the self-denying, self-humbling love of Christ, especially on the cross lies in the background of what Paul says about the more distinctive Christian virtues of love and humility etc. The ethics of Paul involves both something OT, and something NT, including from the teachings and example of Jesus.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 16, 2014

Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God-- Part Sixty Four

Next Post

August 18, 2014 Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God-- Part Sixty Six

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz