Krister Stendahl, former professor at Harvard and bishop of Stockholm, died yesterday. I consider his brief article, "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," the single most important piece of scholarship on Paul since the Reformation. If you think you understand Paul and haven't read this article, go no further until you have read it.
Chiefly, Stendahl argued back in 1963 that the common reading of Paul was anachronistic in the extreme.
1. Paul did not struggle with a sense of moral failure either as a Christian or before he believed in Christ (still a common misreading of Romans 7). Paul had a "robust conscience" that considered himself blameless as a Pharisee (Phil. 3:6), rarely used words like repentance and forgiveness, and regularly admonished his churches to follow the example of his life.
2. Romans is not an abstract theological discussion of how individuals have sinned and need to be saved but about how Gentiles can become part of the people of God. In Romans 3:23 Paul was not thinking "all individuals have sinned" but that "all--both Gentile and Jew--have sinned." Romans 9-11 is not an appendix to the first 8 chapters but in some sense the climax of what he has been discussing all along.
3. Luther read Paul in the light of his own personality struggles and conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. But Paul was a Jew, not a Catholic, and his issues with the Roman Catholic Church were not the same as those Paul had with his fellow Jews.
4. Paul does not have the Augustinian sense that "I" am thoroughly corrupted and thus that sin flows from my sin nature. Rather, the "I" of Romans 7 wants to do the good but is unable to because of the power of sin over me. Paul absolves his "I" of blame for sin--"It is not I that does it but sin that dwells in me."
5. The Law is not a schoolmaster to beat me over the knuckles as a failure but a guardian, a custodian to take me to school and help me learn.
There were some extremes to Stendahl's thought, especially as time went by, but I wholeheartedly agree with all these points from his key article. When I first read them, they seemed so obvious, like a breath of fresh air. My own anachronistic assumptions suddenly seemed so clear.
If you want to understand Paul, read nothing else until you have read this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Any chance you have a link to it?
I'm not sure of the legality of linking to it, although it was an article at one point. It is a chapter of his book, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, so I think it is small enough that it can be distributed to a class legally.
Perhaps I can privately direct you to it legally?
See a lengthy and heartfelt reminiscence of Krister Stendahl by David Hartman on the Hartman Institute website. Stendahl was a director there and managed the annual Theology Conference, which brings together Christian, Jewish and Muslim theologians and clergy.
Men -
I was wondering if you were familiar with the growing trend of a radical view on prophecy called "Full Preterism?" It says ALL prophecy is fulfilled, including the 2nd coming and the general resurrection!
Tell us more. I've heard of preterism. John Robinson wrote Redating the New Testament in which he understood the prophecies in relation to AD70. Tom Wright sees a good deal of NT prophecy also in relation to this event.
But I don't know this as a movement with a title.
Well, there are two kinds of preterism - partial and full. The partials will say many prophecies are fulfilled and that 70AD was a coming in judgment, although the second coming and the general resurrection has not occured. The Full Preterists will say the 2nd coming occured in AD 70, the resurrection from the dead was spiritual, and it is now ongoing. We will not all be raised with our bodies on the last day, but wil be given a new, spiritual body. And this means that "new heavens and new earth" is referring to the new covenant, and all the apocalyptic language is referring to the change from the Old to the New.
As you can see, this puts them outside creedal orthodoxy, but they claim that "time determines nature." Because Matt 24 and other places seem to suggest that these events were going to come to pass in that generation, they interpret everything based upon that.
Thanks for putting me on this trail, Ken. I just read it at google scholar (which I won't link, but it's there).
I like the unassuming way in which he closes the piece (he sort of says: Perhaps this view of Paul will enable us to pursue other interpretations of Paul in addition to the introspective conscience approach which met a need felt in people at one time.)
That extensive backing for a "new perspective" but then simple short and inferential tone reminds me of another brilliant but understated Bible scholar at IWU that I admire. :-)
-DD
Post a Comment