Amazing Rando
September 15th 2004, 08:57 AM
As part of my Christian Tradition class, I was required to read an article by the theologian Krister Stendahl and to write an abstract/review/reaction to it. So, here it is! Stendahl offers some very interesting observations about Paul's main focus and proceeds to tear down the prevailing Western Pauline interpretive framework, but also leaves a few key questions unanswerd. Hope you enjoy!
Christian Tradition I
9-16-04
Review: Stendahl
Stendahl, Krister. “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.” In Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays, 78-96. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.
Abstract: Krister Stendahl argues that Paul has been misinterpreted as having been overly concerned with conscience and personal sin, when in fact the chief concern throughout his letters is the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in God’s Church. He traces this misreading of Paul back through its climax in the writings of Martin Luther and postulates its origin as having come from Augustine, whom he says, “may well have been one of the first to express the dilemma of the introspective conscience” (83). Stendahl makes the bold claim that Paul, rather than having a weak and troubled conscience, actually had a “robust” conscience (80) and cites several Pauline passages dealing with Paul’s “perfect” and “blameless” adherence to the Law to justify this conclusion. He deals with Romans 7, the classic proof-text for interpreting Paul via the traditional Western introspective format, by explaining how it is really an interpretation and exposition of the purpose of the Law, rather than a guilt-ridden treatise of Paul’s personal struggles with sin.
Krister Stendahl argues in this article for a radical return to the early church’s interpretation of Paul. He postulates that ever since Augustine in the Fourth Century CE, and climaxing in the theology of Martin Luther, the Western Church has been viewing Paul’s writing through the lens of personal piety more than anything else, but that this is a grievous error and misses Paul’s main focus entirely. Paul’s primary concerns, Stendahl asserts, were actually his role among Jews and Gentiles and the relations between Jewish and Gentile believers.
As support for this thesis, Stendahl offers several lines of reasoning. First, he comments on the lack of focus on personal piety inherent in Paul’s letters themselves. For example, the lack of emphasis on “forgiveness” from sins is brought up, to support this. As further support against the idea that Paul suffered from a “weak” conscience, Stendahl cites several passages, particularly Philippians 3, in which Paul claims to have been “flawless” as to the righteousness required by the Law. He concludes on this basis that Paul actually had a “robust” conscience that paid little attention to his own personal sins.
According to Stendahl (89), Paul’s main Sin, with a capital “S,” was in his preconversion persecution of the Christian Church “unto death.” However Paul was not troubled any more by the grievous sins of his past because of his assurance of the promise of heaven and justification by faith alone apart from works. While Paul was not under the assumption that believers are without sin, he does not seem troubled by sin; in fact, he explicitly refers to his sin in the past tense. Stendahl also argues that because much of Paul’s writing is an apologetic for his apostleship, it serves as “the antipode” (90) to Augustine’s Confessions in that while Augustine was deeply troubled in his own introspective conscience by his personal sin, Paul’s epistles are rather brimming with confidence and assurance of his salvation. I find Stendahl’s argumentation convincing in that it does seem likely that one so “robustly” assured of his salvation by grace would not dwell tremendously on the sins of his past.
If a true and accurate analysis of the Pauline literature, Stendahl’s writing ought to be a wakeup call for the Western Church to read Paul in concert with his First Century context. That is, Paul ought not to be read as if he were writing directly to us, but rather, his writings need to be understood in terms of the conflicts he was addressing. Since Paul’s primary focus was not on personal piety but rather Jewish-Gentile relations, his work needs to be understood as such. This has even broader implications for the way we read the rest of the New Testament as well. Stendahl would deem it critical that all the writings of the New Testament be understood to be First Century and not Twenty-First Century documents.
While I can completely understand the importance of appreciating the author’s original reasons for writing, one thing I cannot escape when considering Stendahl’s arguments is the question of “What therefore, should we do?” How should we modern readers of Paul interact with his letters and find meaning for the Church today if the primary issue of the Pauline literature (Jewish-Gentile relations) has long since been addressed and settled? Stendahl notes that for the first 350 years of the Church (i.e. pre-Augustine) Paul was paid little attention despite reverence and citations of his letters. If we are we to return to the pre-Augustinian understanding of Paul, what exactly does that mean for believers today, since we’ve satisfactorily answered Paul’s chief concern? These are some of the questions I came away with after reading Stendahl’s arguments. He notes on page 96, the theologian should try to “do more justice to other elements of the Pauline original than those catering to the problems raised by introspection.” What are those other elements Stendahl would have us focus on? He is quick to tear down the prevailing interpretive framework, but much slower in offering alternative foci.
Christian Tradition I
9-16-04
Review: Stendahl
Stendahl, Krister. “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.” In Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays, 78-96. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.
Abstract: Krister Stendahl argues that Paul has been misinterpreted as having been overly concerned with conscience and personal sin, when in fact the chief concern throughout his letters is the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in God’s Church. He traces this misreading of Paul back through its climax in the writings of Martin Luther and postulates its origin as having come from Augustine, whom he says, “may well have been one of the first to express the dilemma of the introspective conscience” (83). Stendahl makes the bold claim that Paul, rather than having a weak and troubled conscience, actually had a “robust” conscience (80) and cites several Pauline passages dealing with Paul’s “perfect” and “blameless” adherence to the Law to justify this conclusion. He deals with Romans 7, the classic proof-text for interpreting Paul via the traditional Western introspective format, by explaining how it is really an interpretation and exposition of the purpose of the Law, rather than a guilt-ridden treatise of Paul’s personal struggles with sin.
Krister Stendahl argues in this article for a radical return to the early church’s interpretation of Paul. He postulates that ever since Augustine in the Fourth Century CE, and climaxing in the theology of Martin Luther, the Western Church has been viewing Paul’s writing through the lens of personal piety more than anything else, but that this is a grievous error and misses Paul’s main focus entirely. Paul’s primary concerns, Stendahl asserts, were actually his role among Jews and Gentiles and the relations between Jewish and Gentile believers.
As support for this thesis, Stendahl offers several lines of reasoning. First, he comments on the lack of focus on personal piety inherent in Paul’s letters themselves. For example, the lack of emphasis on “forgiveness” from sins is brought up, to support this. As further support against the idea that Paul suffered from a “weak” conscience, Stendahl cites several passages, particularly Philippians 3, in which Paul claims to have been “flawless” as to the righteousness required by the Law. He concludes on this basis that Paul actually had a “robust” conscience that paid little attention to his own personal sins.
According to Stendahl (89), Paul’s main Sin, with a capital “S,” was in his preconversion persecution of the Christian Church “unto death.” However Paul was not troubled any more by the grievous sins of his past because of his assurance of the promise of heaven and justification by faith alone apart from works. While Paul was not under the assumption that believers are without sin, he does not seem troubled by sin; in fact, he explicitly refers to his sin in the past tense. Stendahl also argues that because much of Paul’s writing is an apologetic for his apostleship, it serves as “the antipode” (90) to Augustine’s Confessions in that while Augustine was deeply troubled in his own introspective conscience by his personal sin, Paul’s epistles are rather brimming with confidence and assurance of his salvation. I find Stendahl’s argumentation convincing in that it does seem likely that one so “robustly” assured of his salvation by grace would not dwell tremendously on the sins of his past.
If a true and accurate analysis of the Pauline literature, Stendahl’s writing ought to be a wakeup call for the Western Church to read Paul in concert with his First Century context. That is, Paul ought not to be read as if he were writing directly to us, but rather, his writings need to be understood in terms of the conflicts he was addressing. Since Paul’s primary focus was not on personal piety but rather Jewish-Gentile relations, his work needs to be understood as such. This has even broader implications for the way we read the rest of the New Testament as well. Stendahl would deem it critical that all the writings of the New Testament be understood to be First Century and not Twenty-First Century documents.
While I can completely understand the importance of appreciating the author’s original reasons for writing, one thing I cannot escape when considering Stendahl’s arguments is the question of “What therefore, should we do?” How should we modern readers of Paul interact with his letters and find meaning for the Church today if the primary issue of the Pauline literature (Jewish-Gentile relations) has long since been addressed and settled? Stendahl notes that for the first 350 years of the Church (i.e. pre-Augustine) Paul was paid little attention despite reverence and citations of his letters. If we are we to return to the pre-Augustinian understanding of Paul, what exactly does that mean for believers today, since we’ve satisfactorily answered Paul’s chief concern? These are some of the questions I came away with after reading Stendahl’s arguments. He notes on page 96, the theologian should try to “do more justice to other elements of the Pauline original than those catering to the problems raised by introspection.” What are those other elements Stendahl would have us focus on? He is quick to tear down the prevailing interpretive framework, but much slower in offering alternative foci.