Paul

The central theme that can be found within Paul: In Fresh Perspective by theologian N.T. Wright is that Paul was not a man who sought to reform or react against Judaism, but rather Paul sought to redefine the main tenants of Judaism in light of the Messiah. For Paul, the resurrection of Messiah was the apocalyptic event that changed the course of history and would define the future for all people. With the fulfillment of the covenant brought on by the messiah, the religion of Judaism, the religion of the one true God, was not to be forever changed or reformed so that it did not resemble the Judaic roots; Judaism simply needed to be re-evaluated and redefined. Wright holds that Paul never undermined monotheism, but provided a monotheism that still held to the strict beliefs of Judaism while including the Messiah and the Spirit. Wright ascertains that Paul did not view Jesus as someone through whom God fulfilled his will, but Paul saw Jesus as God himself in human form. Wright supports this high Christology of Paul by discussing the term “kyrios”. Although the relationship of Messiah and God has caused much debate throughout the centuries, Wright argues that for Paul the matter was simple. The Messiah was God in the flesh.

Within Biblical Studies the term kyrios has caused much discussion and disagreement among Biblical scholars. This term has historically portrayed many different meanings and titles. When kyrios appears in the New Testament it has been translated as “Lord”, but in modern English, “Lord” has come to have a very divine connotation. Perhaps for the modern English speaker a better equivalent for kyrios would be “sir”. “Sir” is meant as a title of honor and respect, and so kyrios was for the Greek. Within the biblical texts, the term kyrios has been translated to mean several things. Specifically in the Synoptic Gospels, the term “lord” does not hold a divine status. Within these texts, the title of “lord” refers to a teacher or leader. Several times, Jesus is addressed as “Lord” but never in such a way as to declare divinity. Even the gospel of John with its high Christology does not equate the address of “Lord” to denote divinity. This term, used to refer to Jesus most often in John, was used as a title of respect since Jesus is often addressed as “lord” by strangers and others who did not recognize or accept him as divine. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, kyrios is used as the term to denote YHWH. The literal translation of the word does not mean God, but since the Hebrew Scriptures are careful with how and how often they use the name of God, kyrios is one of these substitutions that clearly refer to God without making the mistake of uttering his holy name. Even for the Hebrew Scripture kyrios was a substitution for the name of God, not a title reserved for God himself. It should not be automatically assumed when one sees kyrios that one is seeing a title exclusive to God.

In light of this information, Wright argues that while Paul would have known about the nuances of the term kyrios, Paul knew exactly what he meant when he referred to Messiah as “Lord”. For Wright, since Paul used the Septuagint as his source material for quotations of scripture, it should be assumed that Paul had a divine understanding of the term kyrios. When Paul used Hebrew scripture that used kyrios, Paul understood that to be a direct address to God; therefore, to connect Messiah to this term was to equate Messiah to God. If Wright is correct with this interpretation of Paul’s usage of kyrios, then Paul’s “redefinition” of Judaic monotheism was controversial indeed. Although some may see Paul’s high Christology as challenging to the idea of monotheism, Wright maintains that Paul was not challenging monotheism at all. Paul was adhering to strict monotheism while placing Messiah and Spirit into that framework.

This understanding of kyrios has caused Paul to see Messiah as the embodiment of God. No longer did God choose to work through humans like Abraham, Moses, and Elijah. The time had come within his covenantal plan for God to get directly involved. Wright believes that Paul saw the death and resurrection of Jesus as the death and resurrection of God himself. The Messiah becoming in “the likeness of sinful-flesh” and being a “sin offering” for the people of the world depicts a God of love, a shift from a harsh God of law and punishment. The Torah was meant to show the chosen people of God that even though they were special among men, even they could not live up to God’s standards. In order for man to be justified with God, it took the faithfulness of the Messiah to fulfill the covenant, not the actions of men. The fulfilling of this covenant occurred with the death and resurrection of the Messiah. This was the apocalypse so often referred to by Paul. The imminent second coming was the resolution to the climax that had already occurred. The God of Jewish monotheism was a creator God and a covenantal God, attributes that never escaped Paul. The creation of God was corrupted by evil (i.e. sin and death), and a plan had to be put in action in order to redeem the fallen creation into a new creation, and this plan was the covenant. First there was the Torah which served as a means of illustrating the imperfection of man and his unequivocal status to the righteousness of God. When it became sufficiently clear that God’s elect could not keep the righteousness of God, God sent the Messiah, the fulfillment of the Torah, to die and resurrect. By keeping with righteousness while in the flesh, as only God can do, the Messiah defeated the power of sin. By resurrecting after his execution, the Messiah had conquered the power of death. The defeat of these two forces that had corrupted God’s good creation was the climactic event of God’s covenant; therefore, the parousia was the resolution and declaration of the new creation. The covenant at this point, since it perfected creation, was meant for all creation not just the Jews. The faithfulness of the Messiah to fulfill the covenant justified all people regardless of ethnic identity, and anyone can now take part in the covenant. This universal covenant offers justification beyond the Jews and on into the Gentile nations. Since the Torah had been fulfilled, there was no need for these new members of the covenant to adhere to the rules of the Torah. The point of the Torah had been made.

God becoming incarnate and dying on the cross as a sin offering is essential to Wright’s portrayal of Paul’s theology. Wright, on page 96, stresses the importance of the cross within Paul’s theology that is often overlooked or taken for granted. The fundamental problem between God and humanity is that humanity is unable to live up to the holy and righteous standards that have been set forth by God: Torah. The death of God upon the cross solves this problem for Paul. Since man was unable to fix his own wrongs, God had to become incarnate so that He in His righteousness could make the ultimate sacrifice in a grandiose show of love for all his creation, The problem with man’s inability to become justified through Torah is solved when the death and resurrection defeat the great enemies of creation and allow people to become justified by the faithfulness of the Messiah.

Since this theology is focused around the covenant that was made through the Torah with the Israelites, Wright holds that Paul did not see his new conception as a challenge to Judaism, but rather as a challenge to the pagan world that surrounded Judaism. Paul’s inclusion of the Messiah within the essence of God, Wright argues, was perfectly in keeping with Judaism’s monotheism, but this idea of monotheism has raised some issue with the classically held belief in the oneness of God that makes up strict monotheism. If Wright is correct that Paul includes the Messiah in the Shema and other monotheistic formulas because Paul sees the Messiah not just of a similar substance but of an identical substance of God, then why does Paul never seek to expound to his followers the physics of this arrangement? Within Wright’s argument Paul makes very bold statements that Paul knows are bold, but never seeks to give an explanation for how the divine essence of God that is entirely one could share his essence with the physical world. How can God combine himself with “sinful-flesh” without challenging the oneness of God? The answers to these questions appear absent from Paul. If Wright’s view on Paul’s beliefs concerning the divinity of the Messiah is accurate, Paul has made claims that actually do challenge the monotheistic perception of God within Judaism. Although Islam is not within the discussion, Wright does mention that the idea of God incarnated within a “son” would not hold within the Islamic faith, because it challenges strict monotheism. Although Wright argues that Paul’s main focus was to the paganism that surrounded Judaic monotheism, it seems that the inclusion of the Messiah as “son”, kyrios, and equal with God would have also challenged the systems within Judaism.

Wright portrays Paul’s belief in the Messiah as undeniably equal to God. Since Paul used the concept of kyrios from the Septuagint, Wright concludes that Paul believed the Messiah to be God Himself. Wright has concisely shown this idea of Messiah as God plays well into the theology of Paul, but at times it seems as if Wright speaks through Paul. Throughout his argument Wright falls back to the other members of the covenant that appear in the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e. Abraham and Moses), but Wright has failed to tie in another important figure to the narrative that Paul would have known so well. Wright has excluded Adam from the discussion; however, Paul did not. Wright provides the reader with the passage Romans 5:6-11. Wright claims that this passage exposing the love of God can only be understood if the Messiah is the “embodiment” of God. This argument makes sense at long as the reader is faithful to stop at verse 11 and not continue on onto the end of the chapter. Romans 5: 12-21 continue the story of the fallen creation and the role that Adam has played in the covenantal narrative.

If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercise dominion through [Adam], much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ (Romans 5:17 NRSV)

This passage seems to suggest that since man played a key role, man must also play a key role in fixing the problem. Creation fell through the act of one man, Adam; therefore, creation must be made whole again through the actions of one man, Jesus Christ. The oneness and holiness of God that belongs to the belief of a strict monotheism like Judaism, could not allow for God to become partially combined with the fallen, sinful flesh. Also, man must correct his own wrongs through the power of God.

¹⁸Therefore just as one man’s trespasses led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.¹⁹ For just as by one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18-19)

These passages don’t quite refute Wright’s argument, but they blur the lines that Wright sought to make so clear. Wright portrays Paul as clearly viewing the Messiah as God Incarnate, but moving outside the selected passages muddles that clarity.

There are other problems with the argument that Wright makes concerning Paul and Jesus. Wright fails to directly take on the issues of Paul’s relations to other apostles, the Historical Jesus problems that arise from Paul’s theology. Paul claimed apostleship for himself as is restated multiple times within his own writings; however, Paul did not meet the requirements of apostleship set forth by the other apostles, the men who had known and travelled with Jesus. These credentials are set forth in Acts 1-21-22. The apostles sought an apostle to replace Judas Iscariot, so they looked for someone who had been with Jesus from his baptism by John the Baptist to his departure from the earth. Thus, this person would have been witness to Jesus before and after resurrection. Paul had never encountered Jesus outside of his mystical experience on the Damascus Road while the other apostle had seen and touched Jesus. The human side of Jesus was not important to Paul, because it was this human side of Jesus that was his handicap. Focusing on the humanity of Jesus brought to light the fact that Paul had never known Jesus unlike the apostles who sometimes opposed Paul. If a portrait of Historical Jesus were to be constructed from the Pauline Corpus, very little would be known about the figure. Pal concerned himself more with the metaphysical concepts of the Messiah than the man that was proclaimed to be that figure.

Just like Paul, Wright seems to attempt to dodge the topic of Historical Jesus. Much of what Wright claims that Paul held within his Christology is easy to understand when talking of metaphysical concepts, but try applying these concepts to a historical figure and the Christology seems to become foggy. Wright tries to make it easy for the reader to understand Paul’s high Christology by comparing the concept of God within flesh with the idea of Wisdom being an agent of God found in the Hebrew Scriptures. This works so far as the reader doesn’t consider that there wasn’t a man named Wisdom who walked the earth, gathered disciples, was executed by the state, and found his way into historical record. The high Christology portrayed by Wright through Paul helps to make the idea of God Incarnate clearer just so long as the reader doesn’t consider how this concept can fit within a historical figure.

Although at times it seems as if Wright is placing his own Christology onto Paul, Wright has created s fresh perspective for considering Paul’s theology. Wright has reminded the reader of the Jewish context of Paul. If Wright is correct that Paul only challenged paganism while only redefining the Jewish concepts around the Messiah, there seem to be many holes. Perhaps the biggest of these holes is how Wright claims that when Paul used kyrios to describe Jesus he meant it in the divine sense that could be found within older Hebrew writings. Paul’s inclusion of the Messiah into the oneness of God does not only challenge paganism, but Judaism as well. The high Christology held by as depicted by Wright, may not fit into Judaic monotheism as well as Wright hoped to purvey.

Wright’s discussion of the use of kyrios to describe Jesus Christ within the Christian scripture opens up the debate not only for Paul’s view of Christology, but also how it compares to the Christologies presented in the Synoptics and John. The confusing terms with which Paul describes the Messiah could be the basis for much discussion concerning the nature of the Messiah and how that concept fits into a historical figure like Jesus of Nazareth. The covenantal slant and justification through faithfulness that come into play when considering kyrios provide fodder for many modern Christians, especially for those who interpret Paul’s theology in opposition to Wright’s understanding. This is the beauty of the Christian scriptures. These documents have survived for nearly two thousand years, yet they still have not become stagnant. They still inspire despite all the time that has passed between Paul and N.T. Wright.

Religious Experience

The acquaintance of differing cultures has illuminated the stark contrasts between sects of humankind, but in spite of difference, many seek to discover commonality. While the particulars of world religions may not agree, some hold that there is a core to religion that is universal. Religious experience is often seen as the common thread that ties together all world religions. There appears to be two levels to authority in relation to religious experience: primary and secondary. The primary authority is that which affects the life of the individual who has experienced. The secondary authority derives from the primary. It is authority taken from the experience of the primary. Limited by the attributes of religious experience set forth by William James and like-minded scholars, the religious experience of an individual can hold no secondary authority. Although primary authority may seem safe from the same criteria that defeat secondary authority, it is questionable whether religious experience can truly hold authority in a primary context.

William James presented two fundamental qualities to describe a mystical experience: ineffability and noetic quality. The experience is beyond description while holding a revelational knowledge. Two secondary qualities can also accompany religious experience: transience and passivity. Secondary authority cannot be derived from a religious experience that is outside of conventional language and explanation. The noetic quality of the experience cannot be communicated due to the supposed ineffable quality inherent to the experience, thus rendering the experience incapable of authority over anyone outside of the experience. [1] As James postulates, the authority of religious experience is for the individual. James claims that mystical experience may offer hypotheses for reality, but cannot say anything of reality to the outsider.[2] With all that being said, there are fundamental problems with the quality of ineffability. There are many texts used to describe mystical experiences. These texts are both descriptive and evocative. Without these texts and descriptions, it would seem impossible to propose that all religion is rooted in experiences regardless of doctrine or culture.

While some scholars like Rudolph Otto followed similar patterns in describing religious experience[3], there are plenty who see otherwise. Wayne Proudfoot sees this quality of ineffability as not something that actually describes the experience as it is experienced, but as a quality applied in retrospect. By applying this quality, the one who has experienced has made the experience mystical. A religious person who wishes to have a religious experience would apply this label to the experience so that he or she may not have to face critique or explanation of the experience. The experience has been taken out of the realm of explanatory language and placed into a category protected from critical approach. By protecting the experience from scientific inquiry, it cannot be reduced by other areas of science.[4]

Jill Bolte Taylor experienced oneness with the universe. She gained knowledge through experience. She felt large yet aware of how small she truly was. Taylor was not touched by an angel; her brain was bleeding. Being a neurologist, Taylor was able to recognize her condition as medical not meta. Knowing this did not change the impact of the experience, but it did cause Taylor to take a different approach to her experience. While Taylor cannot find the words to exhaustively explain her experience, she does do an adequate job in conveying the emotion, feelings, and thoughts that accompanied her experience. Taylor’s perspective on her experience is different from someone who believes her experience to be from a spiritual causation. Rather than protect her experience with terms like ineffable, Taylor seeks to study her condition and share her experience through language.[5]

Taylor entered her experience with a scientific preconception which resulted in a scientific analysis of her experience. No doubt someone who enters a similar experience under the influence of religion will interpret her experience as religious. The doctrines one has already been exposed to will affect the way in which an experience is interpreted. As Sharf writes about alien abductees, the images and experiences described reflect the popular images of movies and comics that pre-dated the alleged abductions. These images were no doubt in the minds of these people before abduction. While some abductees claim to have not believed in aliens prior to the abduction, they were not ignorant of the alien abduction concept.[6] Religious preconceptions therefore could very well taint the interpretation of a religious experience, causing the experience to lack in both primary and secondary authority.

Schleieremacher, James, and Otto attempt to separate religion from the doctrines and dogmas that create belief systems. For this to be possible, it must be assumed that all experiences labeled ineffable are congruently ineffable. The Sufi and the Kabbalist may have experiences that are both ineffable, but this ineffability may prevent the noetic quality from being properly shared. The knowledge gained from the respective experiences, which are cultivated strictly according to tradition and mentorship, may differ. If this is the case, neither secondary nor primary authority can be taken from these experiences.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has beliefs that make mainstream Christians squirm in their pews. Those outside of the LDS church find it hard to believe that someone could believe LDS beliefs, but members of the LDS Church know the beliefs they hold to be true. Religious experience gives them this authority. The moment a prospective Mormon feels a “burning in the bosom”, that person knows that the teachings and authority of the LDS Church are true. Admittedly, the line between primary and secondary becomes fuddled here, but the secondary authority informs prior to primary authority. The burning of the bosom holds qualities of ineffability (it’s not like heartburn), noetic quality, passivity, and transience. These qualities pass James’ test, but along with this experience come doctrine and belief. This particular religious experience confirms that American Indians are descended from an evil race, spirit babies, and gays and lesbians can never be of equal standing as their straight counterparts. These beliefs are affirmed by a primary religious experience.

Scholars like Schleiermacher and James attempted to preserve religion by stripping it of its particulars and searching for the universal core. Religious experience seemed the most apparent common factor among world religions, but the idea of experience was a Western concept that was applied to non-Western systems.[7] Religious experience not subjective experience does seem to be cultivated by religious scholars as a means to protect religion from the reductionism of science and the scrutiny of critics. (Some suggest these scholars are interested in creating systems to ensure job security, but that would make them bureaucrats not scholars.) The authority derived from an already dubious concept is suspect. It seems impossible for religious experience as described by religious scholars to hold any authority for both the one who has experienced and the one to whom the experience is recounted.

---

[1] Daniel L. Pals, Introducing Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) 121-24

[2] Pals, 191

[3] Ibid 212-29

[4] Wayne Proudfoot Religious Experience (Berkley: University of California Press, 1985) 124-27

[5] Taylor, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

[6] Robert H. Sharf “Experience”, 108-110

[7] Sharf, 96

Racial Inferiority in the Age of Enlightenment

The Age of Enlightenment was a time in human history when men and women approached life with a sense of reason and rationality. Empiricism became more valuable, and superstition came under attack and brushed aside. The thinkers of this age prided themselves on their use of reason to come to logical conclusions concerning government, economics, aesthetics, and theology. In spite of all this growth, some of the most prominent thinkers of this time were vehement racists. How could these men who made such contributions to society hold such racist views? Slavery was an important part of certain economies in this age, but functionality may not have been the only root of these racist beliefs. Although by today’s standards the racism found within the writings of thinkers like David Hume and Immanuel Kant may seem irrational, the virtue of reason so highly regarded by this men may have actually been the grounds for these racist views. Reason has been used to champion the equality of men and overcome harmful, superstitious beliefs, but it was also used to perpetuate the idea of white superiority visible in the writings of some Enlightenment thinkers.

David Hume wrote in his essay “Of National Characters” that of all the races on the planet, whites are naturally and evidentially superior. The evidence for this stance is presented as the phenomenon of civilization. Hume believes that the white race is the only race to produce a civilized nation. Hume sees the rubric for “civilized” as a nation who manufactures, and excels in arts and sciences. The Egyptians, Nubians, Arabs, Chinese, Japanese, and so forth are not counted by Hume as “civilized” and thus are naturally inferior to whites. Hume is especially harsh towards the “negroes”. When he hears someone tell of an intelligent non-white, he refers to this person as “like a parrot” merely mimicking that which he or she hears. Muslim theologians, Egyptian engineers, and Chinese philosophers are ignored and counted as inferior. The key to why Hume rejects these societies and their achievements is based upon his concept of reason. Hume lived in a time when reason and rationality was the base of a nation that manufactured. This idea of commerce was a product of this age of reason. Since the other nations did not have the same manufacturing economy, thus not the same reason, these societies were inferior.

Immanuel Kant also wrote on the issue of race. In his writing Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime Kant compares the world’s races. Kant creates a hierarchy with whites at the top and blacks at the bottom. Kant finds the religions and customs of other races to be inferior to those of whites. Even the art produced by these people is described as “grotesque”. Instead of appreciating the difference between the varying cultures, Kant saw this difference as a sign of inferiority which leads one to believe that Kant viewed his own society and tastes to be intrinsically superior. Thomas Jefferson, the man who penned the Declaration of Independence, saw blacks as inferior to their white counterparts. Jefferson believed that the blacks lacked creativity and ingenuity. He did not find their poetry pleasing and thought their speech was abrasive. The fact that slaves were not allowed to receive the same education as their white masters did not factor into Jefferson’s consideration in the difference between the poetry, rhetoric, and imagination of the races; rather, Jefferson saw this as tied to genetics. Jefferson feared that freed slaves may reproduce with whites, thus muddying the gene pool. Two of the most famous Enlightenment thinkers were not immune to succumbing to the racist views that were prevalent. Although the Enlightenment was a time of challenge to irrational beliefs, ideas of racism were able to live on under the disguise of rational thought.

Perhaps the root of this problem can be found in the writings of other Enlightenment thinkers. While Adam Smith may have been writing about poetry and art in Theory of Moral Sentiments, his ideas regarding custom and fashion may help to shed light on how atrocious racial views could be upheld in a time of reason. Adam Smith argued that while people seemed to think that “reason and nature” decided what was seen as acceptable and beautiful, “custom and fashion” played a very large role most people would be reluctant to admit. Since some Enlightenment thinkers considered their particular society to be superior due to a base in reason, anything that differed from this was irrational and outside of reason. Reason was a very strong virtue to these thinkers; therefore, anything that seemed outside the realm of reason was a vice. If Enlightenment thinkers confused the role of “custom and fashion” for “reason and nature”, it becomes clear why the societies of others seemed barbaric and superstitious. Jefferson saw the poetry of blacks as inferior when it was simply different. Kant saw the religious traditions of Indians grotesque, but they were simply different than the traditions to which Kant was accustomed. Since Enlightenment thinkers viewed themselves as rational thinkers, they did not see themselves as susceptible to custom and fashion. They believed what they found beautiful and acceptable was grounded in reason. Anything that differed from their tastes was not only different, it was irrational. The culture of reason was believed to be intrinsically good and transcend culture, a product of reason not custom. If a poem written by an author of another race did not match the custom of the Enlightenment thinker, it had no value. The inferiority of non-whites arises from their inability to produce white culture.

This idea is also present in Robinson Crusoe. Although Crusoe was eager to share his language and customs with Friday, he did not show interest in learning the same from Friday. The only information from Friday that interested Crusoe was information pertaining to Crusoe’s escape from the island. The customs and religion of Friday were assumed barbaric since they were not the customs and religion with which Crusoe was familiar. Since Crusoe came from a culture that viewed its customs grounded in reason which was intrinsically good, any thing that deviated from that was outside of reason and thus intrinsically inferior. This inferiority was seen not as a matter of circumstance and culture, but it was linked to the nature of the race that man represented.

Enlightenment thinkers valued reason to such a degree that it could at times be harmful. While preconceived notions of race play into these ideas, these thinkers were able to apply reason to their beliefs. Fortunately, not all thinkers in the 18^th century employed reason in this same manner. The rise of abolitionism and equality also has its roots in the 18^th century. These 18^th century thinkers who perpetuated racism were not evil men who used reason to intentionally harm others. They are products of their time and context. Clearly reason did not prevent the abolition of slavery and the advancement of non-whites. Like many human faculties, reason can be employed in such a way that supports the status quo, but it can also be used to overcome long held beliefs of racial superiority and exploitation.