Thesis Now Online

Sex, Slogans and Σώµατα: 

Discovering Paul’s Theological Ethic in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20

My MTh thesis is now available as a PDF online. Read and enjoy! If you are new to the blog why not add me to your feed reader, you never know, you might like it and you can always delete me if you don't. 

My thesis conclusion is here and my examiners' comments are here if you want to do some research before diving right in. 

PS. If you do read it and find any mistakes or bones of contention please do let me know!

brick-a-brack 14/12/10

• A Douglas Campbell interview
• Paula Fether riffs on the theme of diaspora
• Marc shares a quote about an apophatic anthropology
• Duane wonders where the craftiness of the serpent came from (Gen 3)
• Mike Bird directs us to a trio of interesting posts about women in leadership (sometimes I feel embarassed to even be having this discussion, but it still needs to be had, although one of the links in particular show how silly this can get, i'll let you work out which one)

a refined quartet of posts

• Marilynne Robinson on the human mind and the new atheists (HT)
• A charismatic Christian thoughtfully critiques the charismatic practice of "tongues" (HT)
• Do you need biblical inspiration for a get well card?
• And more on biblical beer drinking (Hat Tip)

Thesis Conclusion: Paul’s Theological Ethic in 1 Cor 6:12-20

[This is the conclusion from my thesis which I just submitted for marking yesterday, remember this is not a bunch of unfounded assertions but the conclusion to 40,000 words of argument worked out over a year and a half of research.  Not that that means you should agree with them, but remember this is just a teaser, before I publish the whole thing online.  I'm interested in your reactions, especially which areas you would like me to share/argue in more detail on the blog, but if you spot a typo don't tell me, it's too late! PS the cartoon is not in the actual thesis, but seemed appropriate for my premature moment of triumph. :-)]

 
This study has examined the notorious crux that is 1 Cor 6:12-20.  It has arrived at a reading which traces a clear and logical progression of thought through the pericope that is fully coherent with Pauline thought on Christian freedom elsewhere.  Attentiveness to the images and metaphors underlying Paul’s logic, and a desire to let them all influence the reading without privileging one over another, has exposed the intricacy and the consistency of Paul’s argument.   Even though some statements might appear un-Pauline in isolation, within the context of the pericope every phrase operates as Paul’s own words.  It is, consequently, unnecessary to attribute any of the phrases therein to the Corinthians as slogans. 

Within the pericope the citation of Gen 2:24 (1 Cor 6:16) functions as a central explanatory concept, both for the arguments preceding and the statements to follow.  For Paul, the sexual act constitutes an “oath-sign” which creates “one flesh” from the joining of the two bodies.  Πορνεία results in the removal of the believer from union with Christ, because union with Christ excludes such behaviour.  The believer unwittingly makes the prostitute his wife but treats her as if she was as insignificant as food, there only to serve an appetite.  The statement of 1 Cor 6:18, that only fornication is a sin against/into the σῶμα, is to be understood as hyperbolic, indicative of the unique seriousness with which Paul views πορνεία, rather than an absolute statement.  The pericope’s emphasis on σῶμα is indicative of a wider concern within 1 Corinthians to increase the Corinthians’ esteem for the body.  For Paul, the σῶμα is not a discrete part of the human being but an integral aspect, one that is essential both for glorifying God in this life and for the believer’s future hope.  Paul’s argument reveals how he understands the believer’s σῶμα relates to God as creator and eschatological judge, to Christ as “husband” and redeemer, and to the indwelling Holy Spirit.  When this argument is examined it is found to be theological in both form and content, constituting a dinstinctive Trinitarian argument against πορνεία, which stands in stark contrast to 1st cent. Jewish or Greek treatments of the same subject. 

Ultimately, the study of 1 Cor 6:12-20 yields rich insight into Paul’s understanding of and response to fornication.  It shows how Paul interpreted the received tradition of Jesus’ life and teaching to formulate and apply a Christian ethic in Corinth, a place removed geographically and culturally from Palestine of the same era.  It is an ethic that is radically opposed to an anti-somatic spirituality or to traditional notions of uncleanness and defilement.  It is also an ethic rooted in religious experience.  It demands that the believers situate their bodies in a matrix of relationships with God, Christ and Spirit, and also with the prostitute they seek to use for their own gratification.  Only when the Christian is attentive to their relationships with God, Christ, Spirit, and the human other can they truly exercise their Christ bought freedom as freedom from domination and as freedom for the good.

[Let me know what you think. :-)]

Rick Warren vs Elisha and Paul

I haven't read this book myself, but I saw over someone's shoulder yesterday that in The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren writes this:

You have heard people say, "I can't make it to the meeting tonight, but I'll be with you in spirit."  Do you know what that means?  Nothing, it's worthless! As long as you're on earth, your spirit can only be where your body is.  If your body isn't there then neither are you. (p105)

Which makes me wonder what Rick would make of 2 Kings 5, where Elisha's heart/spirit (לִבִּ֣י) follows Gehazi as he commits his crime and so consequently is cursed with leprosy.  Or more pertinently, of Paul in 1 Cor 5:4 where says he will be with the Corinthians in spirit (πνεύματος) when they assemble to deal with the incestuous man.  Of course Elisha did not mean that he was there but only that he was aware of what was happening (Elisha could work out the intentions of enemy kings from a distance, so his own bumbling servant would not pose much problem) and Paul did not mean he was there except by the fact that the Corinthians knew his decision on the matter and he wanted them to behave as if he was there giving his full apostolic weight to his opinion.  I'm sure most people who use the expression "with you in spirit" do not mean that they will actually be there, but instead mean that they will be thinking of you and praying for you and want you to know and feel their support in that time.  Which is nothing like worthless at all. 

Bultmann on why Theology = Anthropology

Bultmann is much maligned for reducing Theology to anthropology.  Which is worrying because I find him hard to disagree with about this issue.  I think the key text in which he does this is in his Theology of the New Testament, vol 1, p190-191.

. . . Pauline theology is not a speculative system. It deals with God not as He is in Himself but only with God as He is significant for man, for man’s responsibility and man’s salvation. Correspondingly, it does not deal with the world and man as they are in themselves, but constantly sees the world and man in their relation to God. Every assertion about God is simultaneously an assertion about man and vice versa. For this reason and in this sense Paul’s theology is, at the same time, anthropology. But since God’s relation to the world and man is not regarded by Paul as a cosmic process oscillating in eternally even rhythm, but is regarded as constituted by God’s acting in history and by man’s reaction to God’s doing, therefore every assertion about God speaks of what He does with man and what He demands of him. And, the other way around, every assertion about man speaks of God’s deed and demand — or about man as he is qualified by the divine deed and demand and by his attitude toward them. The christology of Paul likewise is governed by this point of view. In it, Paul does not speculatively discuss the metaphysical essence of Christ, or his relation to God, or his “natures,” but speaks of him as the one through whom God is working for the salvation of the world and man. Thus, every assertion about Christ is also an assertion about man and vice versa; and Paul’s christology is simultaneously soteriology.

Of course he is not really "reducing" theology to anthropology but arguing that meaningful theology is anthropological, and therefore does not just say something about God in the abstract but also realtes it to human reality and human response.  I'm sure Bultmann had his sins, but I'm not sure this is one of them.

What if God was one of us?

I am one of those people who always likes to read the prefaces and ackowledgements of a book just to get a bit of insight into the personality of the author.  Correspondingly, I also like the "about" pages on peoples blogs, although those are often dissapointing lists of abstract interests rather than any real self revelation as such.  Clayboy, AKA Doug Chaplin has a great "about" page, which reads pretty much as a short and pithy manifesto for theology.  (My own blog manifesto is here)  I've actually found Doug's worth returning to just for its own sake.  One phrase has been giving me thought recently:

as the Scriptures suggest, if you’re going to anthropomorphise the eternal reality who dwells in unapproachable light you might as well do it outrageously.

Which nicely pins down the absurdity of the revelation of God in the Bible, of our attempts to talk about such a being, and most of all of the absurdity of the incarnation itself.   We have permission to to anthropomorphise God, the one who is so supremely other, because God does so in God's own self revelation.

But there is a danger in this. It may be done outrageously, but it must also be done critically and rigourously.  I recently formatted the proofs for a forthcoming book on evangelical views on God and gender (review to follow once it actually gets published).  As well as the fare I expected, regarding gender equality in home and church (or lack of it), I was surprised by the number of chapters that used the topic to actually talk about God.  (perhaps I shouldn't have been, but I was.)  I realised that in the last few years God had been getting increasingly distant and abstract for me, mainly as a resuly of the particular areas I was studying in.  That book reminded me that God reveals himself to us anthopomorphised, sometimes as male and sometimes female.  God, he/she/it, is someone we can relate to.  The danger comes when we take this extraordinary gift of God and confuse which direction the morphing actually operates in.  God may anthropomorphise God's self in revelation, we may need to use anthropomorphic analogy to describe God (e.g. God is "love"), but we absolutely must not reverse this and deify or theomorphise our own selves, especially not our gender. 

So the answer to Joan's question, posed so well in the song above, is that God was one of us, God is one of us, and yet just because I am a slob, doesn't mean God is. :-)

Some more observations on Genesis 1-3

I am hoping to do a proper study on Genesis later this year for all sorts of reasons (do I need a reason?) but had a few thoughts last night while reading and this is a good place to drop them down, till later. 

So two very different creation narratives put next to each other and of course it is often observed that things happen in the opposite order.  In the first one the order of creation is plants, animals, humans.  In the second it is man, plants, animals, woman.  By wodging (a technical term!) the two narratives together two things happen. 

1. A chiasm of sorts is created around the Sabbath which is bookended on either side by the creation of man.  Could this be significant?
2. In the first story creation is completed by the creation of humanity, both male and female, but in the second creation is only completed by the creation of woman.  Both stories place the creation of a whole humanity (both genders) as the telos of creation.  What is the compound effect of these two narratives with such high anthropologies?

The other point is that last time I made some observations on Genesis ETB suggested that the serpent might have been a winged beast rather than a legged one.  But that seems contrary to the text's designation of the serpent as a חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה (beast of the field, 3:1) as opposed to a כָּל־עֹוף הַשָּׁמַיִם (bird of the air, cf. 2:19).  So the old saw about the snake 'not having a leg to stand on', still stands, if you catch my drift. :-)

Three Views on the Resurrection of the Body

[pic from here]

I'm currently wrestling with 1 Cor 15:35-58.  In this famous passage Paul juxtaposes the bodies we have now with the bodies that we will have at the resurrection.  Because much popular Christianity tends to focus on the "pie in the sky when you die" many of us don't think much about the resurrection and the life that it will entail.  But Christian hope is not actually centred on "getting to heaven" but on the new heavens and new earth which we anticipate at Christ's coming.  However interpretation of the scriptures' most detailed passage on the subject is notoriously difficult and has over the centuries resulted in three schools of thought (citations from Dahl).

1. The "traditional" view is that "the resurrection body is this body restored and improved in a miraculous manner." (p7)  But given the knowledge we now have about the way we are composed of the atoms that have been part of millions of other human beings and the way the body itself contains very little if any "original" material, such a view seem problematic.  However we might find continuity in our bodies it is not through the material that they consist of as this is always changing.

2. The view that has in modern times displaced the traditional view can be called "hetero-somatism" (p8) or if jargon is not your thing different-body-ism.  This simply argues that we are given totally new bodies, but we continue.  We then exist somehow apart from our bodies, we have bodies but we are not bodies and so our essential personality can be transposed into a new vehicle/vessel without any change in who we essentially are.  However if this is Paul's view, then it is hard to see why he places so much emphasis on the body per se in 1 Corinthians.

3.  A third view is that the resurrection body, while not "materially identical" to the original will be "somatically identical." (p10)  For Dahl this is the difference between saying a gold ring is the same object three years later and saying that a human is the same person three years later. (p94)  For a ring to be the same it must contain the same atoms or it will be a new ring, but for a human even though the atoms have changed we still recognise continuity.  "This identity is not simply a matter of having the same 'personality' . . . nor simply a matter of his having the same thoughts, memories, associations, character, etc., but also of having the same 'body' (in the modern sense)." (p94)  [Update, after a rereading of Dahl I realised I had misunderstood him, so I have altered this bit accordingly.  Although he is too dependent on the now very dated JAT Robinson's The Body, I think he is largely on the right track.]

Kasemann Quotes

Been enjoying reading Kasemann today.  Here is a smorgasbord of his brilliance!  All quotes from Perspectives on Paul, SCM 1973.
On idealism, 

Contemporary theology is still having to pay for the fact that it is still a victim of the heritage or curse of idealism to a greater degree than it cares to admit.  It could have learned as much from Marxism as it did from Kierkegaard and would then have been unable to go on assigning the absolutely decisive role to the individual. - p11

In relation to the interpretation of 1 Cor 2:11 as suggesting "as a spiritual being man is called to knowledge of himself," (p14) he writes,

We are bound to ask whether nineteenth-century New Testament exegesis was not the victim of a disastrous mistake, and that on the basis of a single verse. - p15

In conclusion to a chapter on anthropology (what it means to be human - excuse the non inclusive language, man person of his time and all that!),

Man cannot be defined from within his own limits, but he is eschatologically defined in the light of the name of Christ, just as Adam once received his name from God, thereby aquiring definitionas a creature.  It is true of both that they are unable to give themselves being and existence, but remain dependant on grace, which is new every morning and never finds an end. - p31

In an exegetically dubious but theologically neat meditation on the church as the body of Christ,

The human body is the necessity and reality of existential communication; in the same way, the church appears as the reality and possibility of communication between the risen Christ and our world, and hence is called his body. - 117

Let me know what you think, :-)

More on Paul and Sexual Purity

I've just been readnig Jerome Neyrey, Paul in Other Words, 1990, in particular the section on "Body Language in 1 Corinthians," (pp102-46).  Like Countryman, Neyrey makes extensive use of Mary Douglas' work on purity.  However while Countryman shows how Jesus and Paul radically reinterpret (or even subvert) the ancient Hebrew conceptions of purity found in the Torah, Neyrey seems determined to shoehorn almost anything Paul says into the polarised anthropological model he has distilled from Douglas.  Paul is thus portrayed as an authoritarian obsessed with physical and social purity.

As far as my own research goes a crucial illustration of the sort of thing Neyrey does that I dont find convincing is his treatment of 1 Cor 5-6.  Countryman observes that the common theme is that of property rights, the incestuous man has not respected his father's sexual property by having sex with his step-mum, other Corinthian Christians are taking their brothers to court to defraud them of their property rights, and Christian men are visiting prostitutes (or being tempted to do so) and thus defrauding God of his property rights over their bodies (Countryman 195-6). 

But for Neyrey 1 Cor 5-6 are held together by Paul's obsession with genitals as the marginal points of the body (Neyrey, 114).  That proposal fails because it cannot explain the presence of the discussion of law suits and neither does it account for the way Paul treats each of the "sexual" issues.  In treating the sexual issues of 1 Cor 5-6 Paul shows no concern for the mechanics of sexual purity but is deeply concerned about those who have what they should not (their father's wife or their brother's property) or who are being had by whom they should not be had (prostitutes!). 

Regarding social purity (1 Cor 5:6-8) the isue is not so clear cut, but it is worth pointing out that Paul's primary concern seems to be that the offender is brought to repentence and thus "saved in the day of the Lord." The remarks about the leaven might refer to the man's offense but more probably refer to the communty's "boasting."  It would not be then that the offender was tainting the community but that the community's boasting was.  After all in the NT the sin of others has lost its ability to stick to us (cf. 1 Cor 5:10) but our boasting (and resultant pride) can have terrible effects.  

The following section (1 Cor 5:9-13) about judging immorality is then an expression of concern that those who are living destructive lifestyles are brought to repentance through ostracism.  That may sound funny, but notice how not eating "with such a one" is not to avoid contamination but to bring them under "judgement." 

Let me know what you think :-)

Biblical versus 'Greek' anthropology

I am really enjoying the book by Gundry mentioned in the last post. One important thing his book does is to really crush the argument that 'Hebrew' or OT anthropology only knew humanity as animated bodies rather than a body/soul duality. And so what I wrote earlier on this subject definately needs some modification. So here are some thoughts about the differences between OT/NT Duality and Platonic Dualism.

• In biblical thought both the body and soul sin, in platonic thought the body is sinful, the soul pure.
• In biblical thought the soul survives the body but is diminished by the loss, in platonic thought the soul is liberated by the loss.
• In biblical thought salvation is either the preservation or the reunification of the body and soul, in platonic thought it is a purely spiritual affair.
• In biblical thought 'you' are truly your body and soul, but for the platonist 'you,' the soul, have a body.

Of course ancient Greek thought was pretty diverse and so any generalisations are by nature somewhat blunt and inaccurate.

Pauline Anthropology

Just came across this great quote from Robert Gundry in this book. A very useful sumary of Paul's anthropology.

“As a matter of fact, Paul’s anthropological duality does not display itself in a formally consistent use of any two terms. Sōma always refers to the physique, but so does sarx at times. A number of words refer to the incorporeal side of man and functions thereof: pneuma, psychē, kardia, nous, dianoia, phrenes, syneidēsis, ho esō anthrōpos. For the whole man, Paul uses anthrōpos. In other words, there is an ontological duality, a functional pluralism, and an overarching unity.” -p84

loose translation of terms:
Sōma = body
sarx = flesh
pneuma = spirit
psychē = self/soul/life
kardia = heart
nous = mind
dianoia = understanding
phrenes = thought
syneidēsis = conscience
ho esō anthrōpos = the inner human (man)
anthrōpos = human (man)

And another good point:

“Paul is not interested in anthropology as an independent motif. Rather, he treats man as the object of divine dealings and as the subject of activity in the order which God created.” - p84-5

I think it is particularly helpful to talk in terms of "functional pluralism", that for Paul it is possible to talk about the different parts of a human, but to emphasise "overarching unity", that a human is not a 'spirit inhabiting a body' or a 'body with a soul' but the human is both the physical and the "inner" and cannot properly exist apart from as both. This is why Gundry uses the term duality - to imply unity, rather than dualism, which implies opposition.

NT Wright on the call to holiness for God's people

"The major theme which marks out Paul's theology of God's people as renewed by the Spirit is the renewed call to holiness. It is a holiness not defined by Torah [OT law], and yet in much of what Paul says he can draw upon Torah for outline guidance... It is, as the prophets always wanted, a holiness which comes from the heart; and it is a holiness which ought to make the pagan nations see who the living God really is. It is in other words, not simply a matter of 'now you are saved, this is how to behave'; it is a matter of the genuine humanness envisaged as God's will for Israel being attained through the Spirit by God's renewed people. It is summed up well at the start of Romans 12, in the appeal for self-offering and transformation trough the renewal of the mind, resulting in the mutual upbuilding of those who, though many, are one body in the messiah."

[Source: N.T. Wright, Paul in fresh perspective, Fortress 2005, p124]

Christian Mission as Social Development

An interesting and impassioned article in the Times here. It is written by an atheist who acknowledges the importance of conversion to Christianity in African development. It links nicely into the previous post and how how one's world-view, in particular our view of what it means to be human (philosophical anthropology) can have a significant effect on our lives. Let me know what you think :)

Hebrew versus Greek Anthropology

So one of the central questions I will will be researching for my thesis is whether Paul is thinking like a Greek or a Hebrew when he talks about the church as being the 'Body of Christ.' Although Paul was a Hebrew and educated as a Rabbi he also grew up in a Greek city and seems to have been educated in Greek rhetoric, so either is possible. Anthropology is the study and philosophy of what it means to be human. Here are some differences:

• Greeks opposed form and matter, body and flesh. Hebrews did not, their word for body/flesh, basar, describes the whole life physical life substance of a human.
• Greeks contrast one and many, whole and parts, a body and its members. Hebrews had no word for the whole body, but almost any part could be used to represent the whole.
• Greeks had a body and a soul, the soul was the essential ego which would eventually be liberated from the material body. The Hebrews were an animated body. The Hebrew person did nothave a body, they were a body. (So dead Greeks were souls, while dead Hebrews were merely shadows)
• Greeks describe a body in terms of its boundaries. Being a body is a principle of individuation. Hebrews saw being a body as binding them to their neighbour, kin, and all creation. Individuality only came through being responsible to God, not as a product of a body's boundaries.
• Greeks could conceive of a human body distinct from creation, family and God. Hebrews simply did not think about the body for its own sake, but only in terms of its relation to something else.

So you are probably thinking that the Hebrew point of view doesn't make much sense. And if it doesn't it's probably because you are a Greek! (everyone raised in the western intellectual tradition is to some extent) But hopefully you can see how much difference it makes whether Paul was thinking in Greek or Hebrew categories. The respective world views and theological/philosophical implications are huge, not least for the way we read these words in the Bible.

(source: John A.T Robinson, The Body: A study in Pauline Theology.)

Thesis Proposal

For those who might be interested, what follows is the research proposal which I will be pursuing half time for the next two years. 40,000 words later and I will have my masters degree! I have just started reading towards this today and will be sharing questions and insights from my research with you as things go on, so here it is. Let me know what you think :)

[edit: in response to comments about the accessibility of this post a translation is provided here]

Paul's Somatic Ecclesiology: The background, function and effect
of ‘τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ’ as a metaphor for the Church

Σῶμα is a significant concept in Pauline theology, and ‘τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ’ is perhaps even more so in Pauline ecclesiology. However there is no consensus as to how the phrase should be understood. As a Hellenised Jew the apostle Paul could have potentially drawn upon Hebrew anthropology, Greek anthropology and Greek political philosophy to construct ‘the body of Christ’ as a metaphor for the Church. This thesis will examine Paul’s use of this metaphor in the four principal scriptural loci in which it is found, i.e. Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and Colossians.

The primary methodology of research will be detailed grammatico-historical exegesis of the texts and consideration of the rhetorical intention of the letters in the respective situations to which they were written. However, where theological or sociological insights are informative they will be employed. It is expected that the exegesis will illuminate which anthropological or philosophical source or sources Paul is drawing on to construct the metaphor. Once a reading of the individual texts has been completed they will be compared in order to examine how the function of ‘the body of Christ’ differs in each respective rhetorical context, if at all. Finally the contributions of the findings for Pauline theology will be explicated, with particular focus on ecclesiology. The thesis will hence be significant for reflection on contemporary ecclesiology and church praxis and for engagement with a number of interpretive conversations currently centred on these texts.