Download JESUS TRADITION IN PAUL AND PAULINE CIRCLE and more Summaries Anthropology of religion in PDF only on Docsity!
LEONARD THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE
SUBJECT : JESUS TRADITION IN PAUL AND PAULINE CIRCLE
TOPIC : PAULINE UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN PERSON (ANTHROPOLOGY)
SUBMITTED TO : REV. ASHOK RANA
SUBMITTED BY : KAMLESH R. PETER (B.D. IV)
SUBMISSION ON : 30TH^ MARCH, 2022
1. INTRODUCTION: Anthropology is one of the central aspects of Paul’s thought world, his theology. He used a variety of words to describe human beings. Statistically, flesh and body occupy first place, play a central role and are sometimes closely related to each other. Rudolph Bultmann’s famous observation that by body Paul means “the whole person” has influenced scholars’ approach to Paul’s anthropology for decades. His formulation that “man does not have a σῶμα, he is σῶμα, for in not a few cases σῶμα can be translated simply as “I” (or whatever personal pronoun fits the context) is central.” Bultmann also connected body with other anthropological specifications by saying that “the σῶμα is not something that outwardly clings to a man’s real self (to his soul, for instance), but belongs to its very essence.”^1 This paper is an attempt to understand the human person according to Paul, i.e., Pauline anthropology. 2. PAUL’S WRITINGS: 2.1. Principal Literary Period: It has been mentioned that the third missionary journey closed with a flying visit to the churches of Greece. This visit lasted several months; but in the Acts it is passed over in two or three verses. It was probably little marked with those exciting incidents that naturally tempt the biographer into detail. Yet we know from other sources that it was nearly the most important part of Paul’s life; for during this half year he wrote the greatest of all his Epistles, that to the Romans, and two others only less important-that to the Galatians and the Second to the Corinthians.^2 2.2. His Inspiration: It was God by His Spirit who communicated this revelation of truth to Paul. Its own greatness and divineness supply the best proof that it could have had no other origin. But none the less did it break in on Paul with the joy and pain of original thought; it came to him through his experience; it drenched and dyed every fiber of his mind and heart; and the expression that it found in his writings was in accordance with his peculiar genius and circumstances.^3 2.3. The Man Revealed in His Letter: It would be easy to suggest compensations in the form of Paul’s writings for the literary qualities they lack. But one of these so outweighs all others that it is sufficient by itself to justify in this case the ways of God. In no other literary form could we, to the same extent in the writings, understand the man. Letters are the most personal form of literature. A man may write a treatise or a history or even a poem and hide his personality behind it; but letters are valueless unless the writer shows him-self. Paul is constantly visible in his letters.^4 3. PAUL’S CHARACTER: 3.1. Physique: To begin with what was most simply natural-his physique was an important condition of his career. As a lack of a musical ear may make a musical career impossible or a failure of eyesight stop the progress of a painter, so the missionary life is impossible without a certain degree of physical stamina. To anyone reading by itself the catalog of Paul’s sufferings and observing the elasticity with which he rallied from the severest of them and resumed his labors, it would naturally occur that he must have been a person of Herculean strength. On the contrary, he appears to have been little of stature, and his bodily presence was weak. This weakness seems to have been sometimes aggravated by disfiguring disease; and he felt keenly the disappointment that he knew his bodily presence would excite among strangers; for every preacher who loves his work would like to preach the gospel with all the graces that conciliate the favor of hearers to an orator. God, however, used his very weakness, beyond his hopes, to draw out the tenderness of his converts; and so, when he was weak, then he was strong, and he was able to glory even in his (^1) Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, Vol. 1 (London: SMC Press, 1988), 194. (^2) James Stalker, The Life of St. Paul (Michigan: Academie Book Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 89. (^3) James Stalker, The Life of …, 93. (^4) James Stalker, The Life of …, 93.
infirmities.^5 3.2. Enterprise: There was a good deal that was natural in another element of his character on which much depended-his spirit of enterprise. There are many men who like to grow up where they are born; to have to change into new circumstances and make acquaintance with new people is intolerable to them. But there are others who have a kind of vagabondism in the blood; they are the persons intended by nature for emigrants and pioneers; and, if they take to the work of the ministry, they make the best missionaries.^6 3.3. Influence over Man: Another element of his character near to the one just mentioned was his influence over men. To some it is painful to have to accost a stranger even on pressing business; and most men are only quite at home in their own setting-among men of the same class or profession as themselves. But the life he had chosen brought Paul into contact with men of every kind, and he constantly had to be introducing to strangers the business with which he was charged. He might be addressing a king or a consul one hour and a roomful of slaves or common soldiers the next. One day he had to speak in the synagogue of the Jews, another day among a crowd of Athenian philosophers, another day to the inhabitants of some provincial town far from the seats of culture. But he could adapt himself to every man and every audience. To the Jews he spoke as a rabbi out of the Old Testament Scriptures; to the Greeks he quoted the words of their own poets; and to the barbarians he talked of the God who gives rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.^7 3.4. Unselfishness: This popularity was partly due, however, to another quality that shone conspicuously in his character, the spirit of unselfishness. This is the rarest quality in human nature, and it is the most powerful of all in its influence on others, where it exists in purity and strength. Most men are so absorbed in their own interests and so naturally expect others to be the same that, if they see anyone who appears to have no interests of his own to serve but is willing to do as much for the sake of others as the generality do for themselves, they are at first incredulous, suspecting that he is only hiding his designs beneath the cloak of benevolence; but, if he stands the test and his unselfishness proves to be genuine, there is no limit to the homage they are prepared to pay him. As Paul appeared in country after country and city after city, he was at first a complete enigma to those whom he approached. They formed all sorts of conjectures as to his real character.^8 3.5. His Mission: The two most distinctively Christian features of his character still have to be mentioned. One of these was the sense of having a divine mission to preach Christ, which he was bound to fulfill. Most men merely drift through life, and the work they do is determined by a hundred indifferent circumstances; they might as well be doing anything else or they would prefer, if they could afford it, to be doing nothing at all. But, from the time when he became a Christian, Paul knew that he had a definite work to do; and the call he had received to it never ceased to ring like an alarm in his soul. “Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel”; this was the impulse that drove him on.^9 3.6. Devotion to Christ: The other uniquely Christian quality that shaped his career was personal devotion to Christ. This was the supreme characteristic of the man, and from first to last the mainspring of his activities. From the moment of his first meeting with Christ he had but one passion; his love to his Savior burned with more and more brightness to the end. He delighted to call himself the slave of Christ, and had no ambition except to be the propagator of His ideas and the continuance of His influence.^10
4. PAUL THE PRISONER: Paul’s reception by James and the elders of mother church was not over-friendly. One suspects difficulties arising from the fact that Paul was generally regarded as an apostate, because they could not accept his unlegalistic Christianity. Paul was required to clear himself of this suspicion by making a vow. That was a tremendous demand to make of the Apostle to the Gentiles. The fact that he made it, nevertheless, shows how much the unity of Christendom meant to him. It was one of the most difficult decisions (^5) James Stalker, The Life of …, 94-95. (^6) James Stalker, The Life of …, 96. (^7) James Stalker, The Life of …, 97. (^8) James Stalker, The Life of …, 98. (^9) James Stalker, The Life of …, 99. (^10) James Stalker, The Life of …, 100.
that his stories encouraged immorality and gave a false account of the soul and its life after death, but he still remained ‘the educator of Hellas, studied as a guide by whom to regulate your whole life’. There is, of course, no direct relationship between Homer and St. Paul, but Paul was influenced more by popular thought than by the great teachers, and Homer played a leading part in shaping popular thought.^15
7. THE HEBREW VIEW OF MAN: 7.1. The Old Testament: The word ‘psychology’ used in reference to Hebrew thought does not mean the study of mental life apart from the study of the living body, for the Hebrew did not recognize such a distinction. The dualism of soul and body is a Greek idea which can only be traced in some extra-canonical books such as the Wisdom of Solomon. To the Hebrew, the various parts of man were not contrasting elements, but different aspects of one vital personality. The Hebrew regarded the soul as almost physical and the physical parts as having psychical functions, so that, whatever activity a man was engaged in, the predominant aspect, be it soul, heart, face or hand, represented the whole person and included the other aspects. The spilled blood, the cut hair, the sweat, the spittle, the footprint, could be charged with the vital force of the whole personality. The distinction between physical and metaphysical did not exist. Hebrew psychology began with man as a totality, thinking, feeling and expressing himself through both physical and non-physical media.^16 7.2. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: The basic conception of man in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha is the same as that in the Old Testament, but there is both development and accommodation to outside influence. The in-filtration of Hellenistic ideas into the Judaism of Palestine, and even more into that of the Diaspora, has already been mentioned. It was rarely open and obvious, but it was real. The chief vehicle was the Greek language. Many of the books to which we now turn were first written in Greek and in a measure they deal with Greek thoughts about these terms. Part of our purpose must be to examine the influence of Greek psychology upon the Hebrew conception revealed in the Old Testament.^17 7.3. The Teaching of the Rabbis: The Rabbinic view of man is dominated by the fact that man was made in the image of God (Gen. 9:6). Man is thus elevated to pre-eminence in creation, and his life is sacred. In the discussions, the old terms re-appear, but the number of terms is smaller and each term is more precisely defined. Contact with the clear thought of Greece had whittled away Hebrew prolixity. Precise definitions are now hampered, not by vagueness so much as by the lack of reference to the subject. It is odd that in such a vast literature there should be so little discussion of the constituent elements in man.^18 8. MAN OUTSIDE OF CHRIST: Paul’s view of man and the world illustrates his basic eschatological out-look. Paul has often been interpreted against the background of Hellenistic dualism, which involved a cosmological dualism and closely associated with it an anthropological dualism. Cosmological dualism contrasted two levels of existence: the earthly and the heavenly; and anthropological dualism contrasted two parts of man: his body and his soul. His body belonged to the earthly level while his soul belonged to the heavenly or spiritual level. In Plato the material world was not thought of as being actually evil, but it was considered an obstruction to the soul or mind by which man was related to the divine. The soul was pre-existent and by nature indestructible, immortal. In gnostic thought this dualism is sharpened to the point where matter is conceived to be the realm of evil. Thus redemption, both in Plato and in later gnostic thought, consisted of the escape of the soul from the realm of matter and of the body that it might take its flight to the world of ultimate reality. The Greeks had no idea of a creating God. In Plato the Demiurge “begat” the world, but he did so by imposing form upon prior existing matter.^19 8.1. The World: In this connection, it is instructive to study Paul’s view of the world (kosmos). Kosmos is a Greek word that has no Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent; the Old Testament speaks of “heaven and earth” or “the all” (Ps. 8:6, 15a; 44:24). However, the Hebrew word olam, which is strictly speaking a temporal word meaning “age,” gained new nuances from the contact of Jewish thinkers with the Hellenistic world. The word assumed spatial connotations, and thus olam came to mean both age and the world.? This is the background (^15) W. David Stacey, The Pauline View of Man (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1956), 59. (^16) W. David Stacey, The Pauline View …, 85. (^17) W. David Stacey, The Pauline View …, 96. (^18) W. David Stacey, The Pauline View …, 108. (^19) George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971), 396.
for the interchange of aiōn and kosmos in Paul (I Cor. 1:20; 3:19; 2:6).8 Ephesians 2:2 combines the two words to speak of “the age of this world.”^20 8.2. Spiritual Powers: A prominent element in Paul’s thinking about the nature of the old age is the conviction that it is in the grip of evil super-natural powers. Paul conceives of both good and evil spirits. Angels are viewed as spiritual beings engaged in the service of God. The Law was given through the mediation of angels (Gal. 3:19). Angels are spectators of the human scene (I Cor. 4:9; 11:10; I Tim. 5:21). Angels are cited as witnesses of Jesus’s ascension (I Tim. 3:16), and they will accompany the Lord Jesus in his revelation from heaven to inflict judgment upon the unrighteous (II Thess. 1:7). On the other hand, there are intimations that angels are also hostile to God and men; they would tend to separate men from God’s love (Rom. 8:38); a day of judgment is awaiting them (I Cor. 6:3). Angels have become objects of worship and thus have turned men away from the worship of God (Col. 2:18).^21 8.3. Stoicheia: A problem is found in the phrase ta stoicheia tou kosmou. In the older versions this phrase is translated “the rudiments of the world”; but in the RSV it is rendered, “the elemental spirits of the universe” (Gal. 4:3, 9; Col. 2:8, 20). The word stoicheia originally meant a series of things, such as the letters of the alphabet. Thus the word came to connote the A-B-C’s of the subject, the basic elements necessary for a rudimentary knowledge (see Heb. 5:12). The word also came to refer to the basic materials of an organism, such as the elements of the physical world (II Pet. 3:10, 12). In later Greek of the third century A.D. the word was applied to the series of stars and astral deities that were supposed to be identified with the heavenly bodies. It is in this last meaning that the translators of the Revised Standard Version interpret the phrase in Paul to refer to an order of astral deities to whom false worship was addressed.^22 8.4. Adam: Paul sees men outside of Christ not only as constituting the world that is in bondage to supernatural powers of evil; he sees them also as responsible sinners, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. The source of sin is traced to Adam. It is quite clear that Paul believed in “original sin” in the sense that Adam’s sin constituted all men sinners. When Paul says “in Adam all die” (I Cor. 15:21), he is expressing a common Old Testament idea of human solidarity, which is very different from our modern individualistic thinking. The entire race is one with Adam, and his sin and death is the sin and death of the entire race. A crucial text is Romans 5:12: “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” Grammatically, this can mean that all men died because they have personally sinned, or it can mean that in Adam, all men sinned. Adam’s sin became their sin and his death their death. In view of the context, the Augustinian interpretation is to be preferred rather than the Pelagian. This seems clear because of the statement in 5:19, “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” This is balanced by the statement, “by one man’s obedience [i.e., Christ’s] many will be made righteous.” In this context men are not righteous because they do righteous deeds; they are righteous in Christ. So in this context men are not sinners because they do sinful acts; they are sinners in Adam.^23 8.5. Natural Revelation: While Adam brought sin and death upon all men, they are guilty because they are themselves sinners. Paul argues this most forcibly when discussing the situation of Gentiles who do not have the Law. Men who have not known the revelation of the Law will be held accountable to God, for all men have available to them some knowledge of God. God’s invisible nature, that is, his eternal power and deity, can be seen in the created world. This is not intended as a rational proof from nature that God exists; this is assumed. Paul wishes to assert that certain characteristics of God are revealed through nature: his power and his deity. His main objective is a polemic against idolatry. Men are without excuse for substituting the worship of idols for the worship of God. “Although they knew God they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him.” (Rom. 1:21). They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.^24 8.6. Conscience: Not only are men responsible to worship God, they are responsible to do the right because of conscience. God has implanted in all men a moral instinct that gives them a sense of right and wrong. “When (^20) George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of …, 397. (^21) George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of …, 400. (^22) George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of …, 402. (^23) George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of …, 403-404. (^24) George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of …, 404.
rhetorical and grammatical sources. Origen had already reached the same conclusion in the third century. Origen’s discussion both provides evidence for 7:7-25 as speech-in-character and illuminates the development of an orthodox Christian reading of the passage. On general grounds even before observing Paul’s specific use of προσωποποιία, the level of education reflected in the letters makes it likely that Paul received instruction in the subject. Paul’s Greek educational level is roughly equivalent to that of someone who had primary instruction with a Grammaticus or a ‘teacher of letters’ and then had studied letter writing and some elementary rhetorical exercises. προσωποποία was important at two points in the kind of education Paul had.^31
10. MAN’S RESPONSE: The emphasis in Paul’s writings is always on what God has done for man’s salvation, not on any human effort whatever. The cross is the means whereby sin is put away. Over and over again Paul stresses the priority of the divine, and with it man’s total inability to do anything at all to bring about salvation. Nevertheless, and though its place must be understood carefully, Paul does not think of man’s response as lacking importance. It is not in any way meritorious and this truth must not be obscured. It is not the cause of salvation, but it is the means of receiving salvation. Paul thinks of God as having done in Christ all that is necessary for dealing effectively with man’s sin. But man must receive the proffered salvation, else he will not have it. 32 10.1. Repentance: If men are to be saved from sin, then they must put away sin. Salvation and sin are incompatible. Like the other New Testament writers, Paul calls for a complete break with every evil thing. Per-haps no passage is more illuminating for his view of repentance than 2 Corinthians 7:9-11. Here Paul says that the Corinthians had been ‘made sorry unto repentance’. He points out that ‘godly sorrow worked repentance unto salvation, a repentance which brought no regret’. With this he contrasts ‘the sorrow of the world’. This, he says, only ‘worked death’. That is to say, a man may be very sorry about his sin, but that brings no salvation.^33 10.2. Faith: Paul never tires of pointing out the important place faith has in the Christian scheme of things. He does not see it as a mere intellectual adherence to certain doctrines, as has sometimes been thought. Faith for Paul is a warm personal trust in a living Saviour. Faith is a transforming attitude. When a man believes his whole personality is affected.” The entire Christian life accordingly is a life of faith, or, as Paul puts it, ‘we walk by faith, not by sight’ (2 Cor.5:7).^34 10.3. The Life of the Believer: Paul’s letters abound in exhortations to his converts to lead holy lives. He cannot say often enough or strongly enough how important it is that they should break with every evil thing and cleave to what is good. Their lives must reflect their Christian profession.19 They are men who ‘walk in newness of life’ (Rom. 6:4). They must be ‘unto the praise of his glory’ (Eph. 1:12). The gospel brings forth fruit (Col. 1:6). Paul says, ‘I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God’ (Gal. 2:19). He tells us that ‘they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof (Gal. 5:24). The world was crucified to Paul, and Paul was crucified to the world (Gal. 6:14). He prays concerning the Thessalonians that their whole body, soul and spirit be preserved blameless ( 1 Thes. 5:23).^35 11. CHRIST AND HIS PEOPLE: Paul’s understanding of Christ is not merely individualistic. Rather, Christ is the centre of a new people which is also an old people, both the fulfilment of historical Israel and the replacement of that part of contemporary Israel which rejected him. Before we take up the relation between church and Israel, we must first discuss one of the knottiest problems in Pauline study: the way in which Paul speaks of Christ in more than individual terms, what is sometimes called the corporate Christ. This is seen in three main areas, all apparently involving some sort of participation by believers in Christ.^36 (^31) Stanley K.Stowers, “Romans 7:7-25 as a Specch-in-Character (προσωποποία),” Paul in His Hellenistic Context (Scotland: T&T Clark LTD, 1994), 180-181. (^32) Leon Morris, The Cross in The New Testament (Michigan, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 260. (^33) Leon Morris, The Cross in …, 261. (^34) Leon Morris, The Cross in …, 262-263. (^35) Leon Morris, The Cross in …, 266-267. (^36) John Ziesler, Pauline Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 49.
11.1. Corporate Language - ‘In Christ’: He frequently speaks of Christians, individually and collectively, as being ‘in Christ’, ‘in the Lord’, ‘in him’. Even if we subtract those instances where the meaning could straightforwardly be something like ‘by the instrumentality of Christ’ (e.g. 1 Cor. 1: (e.g. 1 Thess. 4: 1), and those which speak of God or his love being in Christ (e.g. Rom. 8: 39; 2 Cor. 5: 19), a large number remains. Generally, believers exist in Christ, but Christ is active in believers, and so the two notions are not exactly parallel. The acting nature of the second notion is particularly evident where ‘in’ is not a separate preposition but is the prefix to a verb (see Gal. 2:8; Phil. 2: 13; cf. Col. 1: 29). Further, while Christ is usually in the believer individually, believers are often in Christ corporately, as a people, as in Gal. 3: 27.^37 11.2. Corporate language - The two Adams: In two important passages at least, Rom. 5: 12-21 and 1 Cor. 15: 20-3, 45-9, Paul contrasts being in Christ with being in Adam. The two are parallel but contrasting figures. He calls Christ not the second, but the last Adam (1 Cor. 15: 45). Now if we can discover what being in Adam means, we shall be well on the way to discovering what being in Christ means. We look first at the relevant verses in 1 Cor.15 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Adam is the means of death through sin and disobedience. Christ is the means of life through obedience and righteousness: ‘as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous’ (vv. 18-19). Christ’s act of obedience must be his death on the cross.^38 11.3. Corporate Language – The body of Christ: Paul uses ‘body’ (Greek soma) for the community of believers, the church. In the later letters, Colossians and Ephesians, the idea is significantly developed, but for the present we shall consider only the undisputed epistles. We shall also confine ourselves as much as possible to soma as applied to the church, without getting too involved in the debate about its anthropological meaning.^39
12. THEOLOGY OF PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY: 12.1. The Figure of the Divine Human Being: The belief in the greatness of individual human beings, who are acknowledged as benefactors of the city, the nation, and humankind, is as old as the beginnings of Western culture. The beginnings of the concept can be found in the momentous discovery by the Greeks and the Hebrews that gods resembled human beings. According to the book of Genesis, human beings, male and female, were created in the image of God. Therefore, the temptation becomes possible, eritis sicut deus: “You will be like God.” The ascription of such divinity to human beings, however, was not generally available. It is interesting that in the early classical period one finds few, if any, politicians or military leaders singled out for such honour. The rise of this belief in divine individuals is closely related to the growing sense of freedom and self-determination possessed by citizens of the Greek cities, especially Athens, after liberation from the rule of the tyrants. Poets, orators, philosophers, and athletes found their audience and their admirers from among these free citizens. The symbol for the divinity of human beings was therefore the great poet Homer, and philosophers and athletes had a better chance of becoming divine than did kings and generals. Three elements were important: (1) legitimate divine power was not tied to heredity or office, but could be found in the extraordinary life and achievements of any human being; (2) the fruits of such an individual’s life and deeds were benefactions given freely to all; and (3) the lives and deeds of such divine men could serve as examples, and their “virtues” could be imitated. In the subsequent Hellenistic and Roman periods, the belief in the divinity of human beings became a very important factor both in the shaping of philosophical theory and in religious propaganda. But its most powerful effects can be seen in the political realm, where it became the seminal concept for the development of the Hellenistic ruler cult and the Roman cult of the divine emperor. The limitations of this concept are evident also it is elitist and antidemocratic, since only the few chosen people could claim this status, giving them a position apart from the masses; it is also clearly a male concept, because the structures of the society did not allow women to withdraw from the regular pursuits of (^37) John Ziesler, Pauline Christianity …, 49-50. (^38) John Ziesler, Pauline Christianity …, 52-54. (^39) John Ziesler, Pauline Christianity …, 57.
Biblically, especially in New Testament usage, πνεύμα (pnueuma) suggests numerous things as presented by various writers each resonating the prevailing trend of thoughts. In the first instance, it speaks of air in movement, blowing and breathing as in Philo and Josephus etc, and particularly in Hebrews 1:7 where it is stated that God makes his angels winds πνεύματα as well as the breathing out of air, blowing (1 Thess. 2:8). The term also signifies that which animates or gives life to the body (Luk 8:55; Acks 7:59). The word is used in reference to a part of human personality and it denotes the immaterial part of him, as in 2 Corinthians 7: 1 and Colossians 2:5 and could also mean the whole personality, in its outer and inner aspects (1 Cor. 5:3-5; 7:34) the inner life of human is divided into ψυχή καί πνεύμα (psuchē and pneuma; soul and spirit) in which sense is believed that a divine spirit was actually in the soul. In this connection, the spirit is seen as the source and seat of insight, feeling, and will, generally as the representative part of human inner life. It is important to note here that there is a great similarity between the soul and the spirit. Other aspects of the spirit which essentially refer to an independent incorporeal being in contrast to a being that can be perceived by the physical senses that basically speaks of Good and Evil Spirits where much is said about God and His angels, and the devil and his demons is not the thrust of this paper and so, one may not bother to delve into that aspect of the spirit because such is considered obvious especially in context of the work. Paul’s knowledge of the Spirit was first hand. Paul did not gather ideas. He met a Person. And in intimacy with that Person, his knowledge of both Spirit and spirit grew. Knowledge can only be communicated in words, and in the Epistles we see Paul bursting to express what he had seen and known. He used the most accurate and effective ideas he could find. In the majority of cases these were ideas of Judaism, though there was nothing to prevent him drawing from Stoicism, if it could help him to convey his message. The resulting picture is vivid, naturally confused, but, above all, distinctive. It is not Jewish or Greek, but Christian.^43 12.5. Adam-Christ Typology: In Romans 5:1-11 Paul speaks of justification and reconciliation having its fulfilment in the salvation to come. In 5:12-21 he expounds the same theme in different words: it is through Christ that Christians have their hope of salvation. But Christ is the counterpart of Adam. Just as all mankind suffered the consequences of Adam’s sin, all mankind can share in the benefits of Christ’s redemptive act. Paul’s argument in this passage is modelled on the rabbinic argument of the fall in 2 Esdras 3:21-22;4:30,etc. The real logic of this argument lies in the ancient concept of human solidarity. The moral unit was the community rather than the individual. Thus the whole of humanity could be thought of as the tribe of Adam, and Adam’s sin is the sin of the whole human race.^44 12.6. Antithetical Anthropology (Inner Man – Outer Man – Rom. 7:;7- Romans 7:7-12, sound like an autobiographical reminiscence. But the problem is to know whether Paul is speaking of his pre-Christian experience or post-Christian experience, or whether it is about the state of every man who is not free from sin. C.H. Dodd takes it as the pre-conversion state of Paul. On the other hand, C.K. Barrett3 thinks that Paul is speaking in the first person on behalf of man in general, showing the miserable predicament of man. C.K. Barrett cites A Greek Grammar of the New Testament to show the use of the first and second person singular as representing any one in general, in order to express some truth of general validity in vivid style by using the example of a single person, as though he were really present. But this usage was not common in Greek as in other languages. It occurs first in Greek language in late classical period (as a peculiarity of vivid colloquial speech.^45 12.7. Meaning of Rom. 7:7- This is an extremely difficult passage for interpretation. Paul is using anthropological and psychological metaphors as well as metaphors from Hellenistic dualistic philosophy, the kind of ideas one may see in Gnosticism. Let us look at the context of the whole discussion. In chapter 7 Paul is discussing the relation between law and sin. Is law in itself bad (evil) and sin-provoking? Paul would say no. But Paul would also say that it is the law which made me (man) aware of sin (through its dos and don’ts - verses 7-10). Though the law was given with a good intention and for a good purpose, the law became an instrument of sin in the case of a depraved or fallen man. But for the law, which tells me what is right and wrong, I would not have (^43) W. David Stacey, The Pauline View …, 145. (^44) M.V. Abraham, Theology of St. Paul (Tiruvalla: Christava Sahitya Samithi, 2008), 66. (^45) M.V. Abraham, Theology of St… , 67-68.
known what sin is. Because of my fallen nature, I end up doing the very thing that I do not want to do, and I am incapable of doing what is right because of my fallen condition. In verses 13-20 Paul describes the strange contradiction and paradox of human personality. On the one hand, the person has become a slave of sin. On the other hand, there is still something in this carnal or sinful man (sarkikos) which tells him what sin is -the distinction between right and wrong (conscience - suneidesis in Greek). In one sense, the whole person is a slave of sin (an objective reality). At the same time there is still something of the divine in him which makes him feel restless and guilty. The very fact that this good sense in man tells him what sin is shows that it is not the law (torah) which is bad, but man himself who is the slave of sin. Verses 21-24 shows the climax of the conflict in man, the miserable predicament of man. In man there are two principals at war: (i)which tells him to do the right thing, that which glories in the law of God; (ii) the law which opposes the former and makes him captive of sin. Here the “law” (nomos) does not mean the OT law (Torah), but a psychological principle that controls human thinking. Dead Sea scrolls mention of two principles-yetzer tob (good principle) and yetzer hara (evil or bad principle) in man. Verse 25. Paul ends this discussion on an affirmative note, the exclamation of victory. What is possible in Christ as seen in verse 25 is described in detail in Rom. 8:28-39. The chapter entitled “Sin, Law and Death”- in Early Christian Experience by G. Bornkamm is a helpful reading on this discussion; also refer the article-“Romans 7 and the Anthropology of Paul” in Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann.^46
13. CONCLUSTION AND REFLECTION: Paul was debtor to both Jews and Greeks, and especially to the Jews but, in the crucial matter of God and His ways with men, he was a Christian, born beside the Damascus road. There, and in his subsequent experiences, he discovered a new idea of God, he became aware of a closer reality, a more personal power, a more holy love. As a Jew, his conception of man depended on his conception of God, so his understanding of man changed inevitably. Though he could speak with so much first hand authority, he was not concerned to supply Christendom with a Christian doctrine of man. He had a much greater mission, a mission for which he was ideally suited as he was not suited for the systematization of thought that is so often expected of him. In religion, and in anthropology seen from a religious point of view, Paul was a prophet of a new age. The validity of his vision, and the truth of its implications, have not changed. But in anthropology, from a scientific and systematic point of view, Paul was a child of his own day. His analysis, though he never analysed anything, stood for his, hearers only. We thus stand in a dual relationship to St. Paul. Where his understanding of the new life in Christ is concerned, we are, and men always will be, his pupils. But where the formulation of creeds and doctrines about the new life is concerned, we of the twentieth century may be Paul's successors. Paul has transmitted the experience, but we, in the light of it, may need to re-think and re-state his modes of describing it. From studying St. Paul, we have learnt little about the constitution of man, but very much about man in relation to God. The Christian believer will not regret this because it is for religion, and not for psychology, that we turn to the Bible. If we can understand what Paul said about man in relation to God, we shall have gained new light on the meaning and purpose of the Christian Faith itself. (^46) M.V. Abraham, Theology of St… , 68-69.
