Skip to main content

Was Paul a Trinitarian?

Eddie Fearon and Daniel Kirk have been reflecting on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture Colloquium that I also attended this weekend past, although neither of them found my paper worthy of mention ;-) but like the Murphy's i'm not bitter.  Kirk shares the following exchange,
In a side conversation with one of the presenters (whose paper I very much appreciated and whose overall position on theological interpretation I find quite congenial), I made a brief case for why Christian hermeneutics should be Christological rather than Trinitarian.
He sees these working together. And I get that. But in trying to situate my point I asked, “Was Paul a Trinitarian?” He said, “Yes.” End of conversation.
That’s a small picture of where a biblical scholar can’t say what a theologian presumes, and why scholarship’s Bible will continue to be an enigma to the church. Beyond whether scholars are approaching their exegetical task as Christians, theologians (and church people) often want the Bible to say what it does not say, to support what it does not speak to.
I do wonder if the church’s theology will need to learn to hear what it takes for throat clearing as the song of the Spirit before the chasm will bridged between theology and the Bible
Which raises a number of very interesting points.

It is certainly true that Paul never made anything approaching the trinitarian declarations of the historic creeds, but as the paper I shared attempted to show, Paul was certainly capable of theologising within a theological framework that gave significance to the work of God, Jesus and the Spirit.  many biblical scholars have been happy to call this something like a "latent trinitarianism" but you do need to be careful that that doesn't get confused with talking about ousias and stuff.  The kind of counterfactual arguing that this might lead to would go something like "would Paul have signed the Chalcedon Creed if he had been presented with the same circumstances as that creed was addressing?"  Which of course could only degenerate into a useless giving of opinions.  My useless opinion is that he probably would have but only after they added a substantial "therefore" section detailing the believer's ethical response to the theological mysteries contained in the Creed.

Asking Paul whether or not he is a Trinitarian is a waste of time, but, as Kirk eloquently puts it, if we listen to what "the song of the Spirit" through Paul is actually saying we may learn many things that will enrich our own Trinitarian (or otherwise) theology no end.

Comments

  1. In times like these I always go back to a Fee quotation. He says, "One way to do that was to assert, on a regular basis, that if the New Testament reflected Trinitarianism, it did so in an incipient, nonreflective way, so that, whatever else, “it was not the Trinitarianism of a later day such as Chalcedon.” but that seems so self-evident that one wonders why it needed to be repeated so often." (God's Empowering Presence, 827). See here for more context.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Much like your Pauline "therefore" addendum to the Chalcedon Creed, the point of his and the Gospelteers treatment of God's, Christ's and the Spirit's relationship is that it is not at all central to the Kingdom of God. Love God and your neighbor and you are most of the way there. The rest is commentary, as they say.

    If neither Paul nor the evangelists (or Jesus?!) thought it was important enough to spell out, then perhaps we shouldn't have burned people over it. On the other hand it is a little know fact that in the oldest and best manuscript evidence we have for the Pericope Adulterae Jesus actually says, "Go and believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in substance but three in person."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Scott, thanks for stopping by. I wouldn't burn anyone over anything, being a good anabaptist that I am. However I think you miss the point that in different historical circumstances people have asked different questions and needed to respond to different issues. Jesus and Paul didn't spell out their answers to those questions because in their time those questions weren't being asked.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think it's more likely he was a Rhino's fan.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Glenn, welcome to the blog, I've enjoyed yours before. I hope you didn't spend too long working out the odds of that one. ;-)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ANZABS 2018 program and abstracts

ANZABS CONFERENCE 2018
6-7 December, 2018


Venue: Wesley Hall, Trinity Methodist College,

202A St Johns Rd, Meadowbank, Auckland 1072

Thursday 6 December
9.30 am – REGISTRATION
10.00-10.10 – mihi
10.10-11.00 – Keynote speaker: Robert Myles – Fishing for Eyewitnesses in the Fourth Gospel
11.00-11.30 – Morning tea
11.30-12.00 – Lyndon Drake – Economic Capital in the Hebrew Bible
12.00-12.30 – Anne Aalbers – Resurrection and Celibacy: Two Sides of the Same Coin?
12.30-1.00 – Jonathan Robinson – "And he was with the beasts," (Mark 1:13): Ambiguity,
Interpretation and Mark as a Jewish Author
1.00-2.00 – Lunch
2.00-2.30 – Ben Hudson – Ethical Exhortation and the Decalogue in Ephesians
2.30-3.00 – Csilla Saysell – The Servant as 'a covenant of/for people' in Deutero-Isaiah
3.00-3.30 – Afternoon tea
3.30-4.00 – Jacqueline Lloyd – Did Jesus minister in Gaulanitis?
4.00-4.30 – Mark Keown – Jesus as the New Joshua
4.30 – AGM
Friday 7 December
9.30-10.00 – Ben Ong – Pākehā Readin…

Updated Current Research and Book Reviews

So, my PhD must be going well because I have just spent the morning updating my blog pages for Current Research and brand spanking new Book Reviews page. But it is not just procrastination, it is good to stop and and get an overview.

I had totally forgotten about half the book reviews I had done on this blog, they go back to 2009! I am still working on writing the sort of reviews I really enjoy reading, but now that I'm regularly doing reviews for journals it is great to also review books on this blog where I have stylistic freedom and no space limitations. I had always hoped this blog would be a good source of free books, but while it was a source of free books they were not good ones. Reviewing for journals (as a PhD student) has been much better and is helping me keep my broader education going even as I delve deep into my PhD subject. Looking at my old book reviews helps me realise how far I have come. Hopefully, much growth as a blogger, scholar and human being (perhaps not i…

How to use Google Docs and Translate to make a Quick Rough Translation of a Modern Language Document (for FREE)

We all know that there is no substitute for knowing the language and that Google translate can make amusing mistakes. However, the ability to quickly make rough translations saves a great deal of time and also allows you to (carefully) engage in language literature that doesn't come up frequently enough to be worth learning, but has that one article you really want to read.

1. Make a good quality PDF scan of the document with one page per scan. (this may mean twice the number of scan pages, but it will save you time in the long run, trust me) I use a piece of paper to blank the page I don't want to copy in each scan. Ensure the scans are straight and all on the same orientation.

2. Save the resulting PDF in Google Drive.

3. Right click on the PDF in Google Drive and [open with] [Google Docs]. This will open a new window in your browser and will take some time - now is a good time to recite some verb conjugations. This is because Google's OCR is turning the scan into text b…