Dynamic Oneness

The Significance and Flexibility of Paul's One-God Language

Nicholson

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2010
• eBook ISBN: 9781630877934
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

The apostle Paul affirms in several places that there is only one God. Yet in the same letters Paul also gives praise to the Lord Jesus Christ, often using language similar to his descriptions of God. How can this self-avowed Hebrew of Hebrews reconcile these ideas? This book explores the strongest one-God statements in Paul's undisputed letters and asks how Paul's Jewish monotheistic understanding informs his overall argument. These three texts--1 Corinthians 8:6, Galatians 3:20, and Romans 3:30--occur in very different contexts and address different issues. By looking at the historical, cultural, and grammatical contexts of these passages, as well as Paul's language about God and Christ elsewhere in these letters, Dr. Nicholson argues that Paul's understanding of the one God is not static or perfunctory; rather, it is dynamic and flexible, influencing significant aspects of Paul's Gospel message. Paul's ethics, his view of salvation history, and his soteriology are fundamentally shaped by his understanding of the one God of Israel.

1

Introduction

The Need for Further Study

The Problem

Despite the vast amounts of energy expended by biblical scholars toward an understanding of the theology of Paul the apostle, most of the effort has been devoted to Paul’s soteriology, Christology, eschatology, ecclesiology, and ethics. Few scholars start at the beginning: Paul’s understanding of God. James D. G. Dunn highlights the dilemma when he comments, “The problem for us, however, is that Paul’s convictions about God are all too axiomatic. Because they were axioms, Paul never made much effort to expound them. They belong to the foundations of his theology and so are largely hidden from view.”1 As a result, scholars all too often skip over Paul’s convictions about God in favor of the more obvious statements he makes about justification, grace, and works of the law. Indeed, one proposition on which most scholars would agree is that Paul was consumed with a passion for spreading the gospel of Christ. As scholars focus on exploring this christological emphasis, they frequently become myopic, narrowly focusing on Christ’s identity without exploring the interrelationship of Christ and God.2 Thus, this present study will attempt to address this gap in scholarship by investigating the meaning and significance of Paul’s strongest monotheistic statements.

A few examples serve to illustrate the necessity for such a study. Calvin J. Roetzel, while offering an investigation into Paul, spends very little time considering the question of the place of God in Paul’s belief system.3 Paul’s strongest monotheistic statements receive scant attention in Roetzel’s work. In particular, he does not mention Paul’s monotheistic reference in Gal 3:20; his comments on 1 Cor 8:4–6 and Rom 3:30 are very brief and serve only as a way of referring to the factions in Corinth in the former and to Paul’s universalizing tendency in the latter. When Roetzel does broach an in-depth discussion of God in his book, he does so within a discussion of how Paul’s ethics are connected to the holiness of God.4 In a section that summarizes Paul’s theological views, he offers a single paragraph on God as creator, redeemer, and judge.5 Similar to Dunn, Roetzel notes that Paul’s theological presuppositions were not explicit: “Like the grammar and syntax of the language he spoke they were simply taken for granted.”6 Unfortunately, however, Roetzel misinterprets this lack of explicit God language as an indication that Paul’s theology is only peripheral to his Christology. The study presented here will suggest that the opposite is true: Paul’s understanding of God was never merely an assumption, but rather provided a conscious foundation that intentionally shaped the rest of his arguments.

Other scholars have adopted an approach similar to that of Roetzel. C. K. Barrett has organized his discussion of Paul’s theology into the following categories: the reign of evil, law and covenant, grace and righteousness, Christ crucified, the church, and the Holy Spirit and ethics.7 Although Barrett does discuss Paul’s understanding of God peripherally and sporadically within these various subsections, he does not directly address Paul’s fundamental understanding of the one God. Once again it is taken for granted and thus, perhaps unintentionally, depreciated.

Jürgen Becker takes a more direct approach to downplaying the role of God in Paul’s theology when he argues that it is a mistake for scholars to describe Paul as first trying to extend Old Testament Judaism into the new Christian religion; rather, everything is grounded in Paul’s experience of the gospel of Christ.8 Having declared this, he nonetheless discusses (albeit briefly) Paul’s understanding of God the creator, humans as creatures of God, and the imminent judgment of God. Becker quickly dismisses Paul’s statements about Christ’s involvement in creation, concluding that “Paul understands the final determination of human beings and the God of salvation christologically but otherwise deals separately with God as creator and with God’s relationship to creation.”9 This compartmentalization of Paul’s thought about God and Christ, and of Old Testament Judaism and the new Christian perspective, is simply not born out in Paul’s letters, as this study will show.10

In contrast to many scholars, then, this study explores what it may mean to take Paul’s understanding of God as a point of departure for his understanding of Christ. More specifically, this study asks how a Jew like Paul—who had been “zealous for the traditions of [his] ancestors”11—could simultaneously proclaim loyalty to the one God of the Jews and affirm Jesus Christ as Lord. Thus, this study investigates the question of how Paul’s monotheistic convictions affect his overall christological argument.

The Methodology of the Study

Rather than approach the conundrum just described from a perspective of christological monotheism, i.e., investigating all of the texts regarding Christ and his exalted status in relation to God,12 this study will approach the question from the opposite direction. We will examine the contexts and themes of the most explicit one-God statements in Paul’s undisputed letters—1 Cor 8:4–6, Gal 3:20, and Rom 3:30—and inquire into how these monotheistic passages contribute toward an understanding of Paul’s further argument. What role does this one-God language play? What does this tell us about Paul’s conception of God and the rest of his argument? Furthermore, we will explore whether this strong one-God language affects Paul’s language about Christ elsewhere in the letter. How does Paul conceive of the relationship between God and Jesus within the text? In those contexts where his monotheistic language is the strongest, does Paul’s language about Christ diminish Jesus’s lordship, or does it nevertheless remain unaffected? What does this tell us about Paul’s understanding of the identity of Christ?

Such an in-depth study of these three passages has not been undertaken previously; often, the texts are referred to in scholarly works, but rarely have they undergone intense scrutiny that focuses specifically on Paul’s understanding of the relationship between God and Christ contained therein.13 Many commentaries provide only a cursory description of the one-God formula, treating the language as mere background material.14 As a result, these commentators miss the significance that Paul’s monotheistic theology has within his larger argument.

The title of this book reflects my desire to correct this oversight. The main thrust of the term “dynamic” emphasizes that Paul’s one-God theology is not an unreflected concept that occasionally appears in Paul’s writing by rote; rather, Paul intentionally utilizes his understanding of the one God in order to underscore his overall argument. It is crucial for Paul’s logic. Thus, my primary use of this term concerns Paul’s argumentation; nonetheless, a secondary nuance of the term alludes to Paul’s specific understanding of the oneness of God, which focuses on uniqueness more so than numerical oneness. Indeed, in chapter 2 I will argue that Paul’s understanding of God involves a complex oneness.

My use of the term “flexibility” also reflects Paul’s argumentation. Paul applies his one-God language in very different contexts and with different goals in each case. Whereas the term “dynamic” suggests the intentional shaping of Paul’s arguments with one-God concepts, the term “flexibility” emphasizes that such shaping occurs within a variety of contexts. Paul is not constrained to use his monotheistic ideas in only one setting.

Prolegomena

As we explore Paul’s one-God language, a number of related issues must be investigated. Because these issues touch upon more than a single text, it is best to begin the discussion here.

One of the key presuppositions of this study is that Paul was firmly grounded in, and drew upon, his Jewish heri...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: The Function and Coherence of Paul’s Monotheistic Concepts
• Chapter 3: The Superior Mediator
• Chapter 4: The People of the One God
• Chapter 5: Conclusions: Dynamic Oneness in Paul’s Thought
• Bibliography