Controversy, Conflict, Culture: Reading Paul | Trinity Talks Podcast

Hello, and welcome to this week's episode of

Trinity Talks. My name is Kyla, and I'm so glad

that you are joining us today. I am really excited

to be sitting down with Dr. Stephen Chester,

who is a professor of New Testament at Wycliffe

College, and his research areas really focus

on the theology of Paul. how Paul's texts have

been received throughout history, particularly

in the Reformation area, as well as focusing

on conversion in the ancient world and the theological

interpretation of scripture. So we're going to

dive in here to talk a little bit about the epistles

or those letters that are in the New Testament

and what they have to say to their ancient context,

but also what they have to say to us today. So

thank you so much for joining me, Dr. Chester.

Thank you. It's good to be with you. Yeah. So

maybe we'll start by just getting to know you

a little bit more. What prompted you to want

to study the New Testament or to look at Paul

and the epistles in particular? Okay. Well, the

first thing to be said, maybe it was a long time

ago. Okay. So we're talking here 1991. Okay.

So 30, 34 years ago. So I was born in the north

of England. But then when I was 21, I went for

a year to work for a church in Glasgow in Scotland.

And through that, I began to feel a call to ministry.

And it was a Church of Scotland congregation.

And so I finished up going to study theology

at the University of Glasgow, which was simply

the nearest place to where we lived. where you

could train for Church of Scotland ministry.

So I was going there to study theology, intending

to be a parish minister. But I can remember very

clearly the first class that I took was a class

on 1 Corinthians. And it was taught by a scholar

called John Barclay, who was at Glasgow at that

time. Through that class, I really fell in love

with studying the New Testament. I think what

I hadn't realized, because I'd just gone to Glasgow,

because it was nearest, what I hadn't realized

was at that time, Glasgow had a particularly

talented team of New Testament professors. And

so their teaching was excellent. And this class

in particular really inspired me. And I think

what was so compelling about it for me was that

you felt as if you could begin to understand

some of the life of the Corinthian congregation

and some of the challenges they were facing.

And you could begin to see yourself in their

place. And therefore, as you began to see yourself

in their place, you began to have a sense of

what the text might have to say to Christians

in subsequent eras like our own. And so I found

that Very inspiring because 1 Corinthians takes

you through all the challenges of living and

witnessing as a community of Jesus' followers.

You know, in that letter, there's material about

divisions in the church. There's material about

sexual ethics and marriage. There's material

about the challenge of idolatry. There's material

about worship. including how we should celebrate

the Lord's Supper and the use of the gifts of

the Spirit. And all of those practical issues

about church life are framed at the beginning

by a powerful reflection from Paul on the meaning

of the cross, and at the end by a powerful reflection

on Christ's resurrection and its implications.

And so there was just something as well about

that interaction between the theology and the

practice of the life of the church. And, you

know, some of the resources that were used in

that class were Gordon Fee's commentary. So Gordon

Fee is no longer with us. He died a few years

ago, but he was a particularly beloved New Testament

scholar who did great work in building up the

church. And then there was also a collection

of essays by a German scholar called Gerd Theissen,

who had. done a lot of work in thinking about

the life of the Corinthian congregation and how

we might use some insights from sociology in

order to understand what was happening in that

congregation. And so for me, that was all a heady

mix that I found really attractive. And then

I think the other thing is that it struck me

forcibly that this was a church that was having

difficulties. Because nobody in the church had

been a follower of Jesus for more than a few

years. Right. That this was part of this incredible

process by which a Jewish movement was reaching

out to Gentiles. And here in Corinth was Paul

as a Jewish apostle of Jesus working with a largely

Gentile congregation. Right. And so the challenge

is. that they were experiencing were really one

of the very first episodes of intercultural mission.

So I was also kind of drawn in by being able

to see how that's relevant for the life of the

church in today's world, especially. And I think

it's often a challenge in how we think about

the first generation of believers is sometimes

we read the New Testament epistles. as if they're

written to people who have a long history with

the Christian movement. But in fact, in many

cases, they're written to communities that are

working all of this out for the very first time.

And so I found that kind of intriguing and interesting

as well. So those are some of the things that

really drew me into New Testament study. And

to cut a long story short, instead of becoming

a parish minister, I finished up doing more study.

And so teaching became my ministry instead. Yeah,

no, that's really cool. And I think really helpful

to think about, like, we often think, at least

I often think of the early church as kind of

monolithic in some sense. You know, they're just

the early church. But actually, as you said,

they are these different cultures, these different

places. And they're working out the stuff we're

working out. Yes, that's right. They're having

to work it out for the first time. And you can

see some of Paul's frustrations with them. But

you can also begin to understand when you start

to think about their social world and you start

to think about what society was actually like

in first century Corinth, you begin to realize

why the Corinthians may have had some of the

challenges that they faced. they're going wrong

in various ways right but they're not going wrong

just because of their own perversity they're

going wrong because this is actually a challenging

thing to do to work out how to be the first you

know kind of gentile followers of jesus right

it's not a straightforward thing for them yeah

yeah for sure so you've spent 34 -ish years now

studying the New Testament and then teaching

it to students. So are there any common challenges

or misconceptions that you see as people try

to read the epistles? Oh, several, I think. Yeah.

I mean, I think a lot of them arise from the

fact that these texts are God's word for us.

Right. but they're not originally written to

us. They're written to groups of people in a

very different time and place. And so a lot of

our challenges in interpretation come from grappling

with the blessing and the difficulty of the Holy

Spirit having chosen to work in that way. Because

effectively, the Spirit is offering ongoing guidance

to the church. And I'm not saying this kind of

just Myself, I'm paraphrasing something that

Pauline scholar Richard Hayes wrote in one of

his commentaries. You know, the Holy Spirit is

offering ongoing guidance to the church through

us effectively reading somebody else's mail.

And so there are big blessings with that. And

there are challenges and ways in which we can

misunderstand. And so one of them, I think, is

that because we are reading somebody else's mail,

we're always hearing one side of an interaction.

And so in order to interpret the text that we

have, we, with the epistles, have to say things

or surmise things, work things out about the

situation into which those letters were speaking.

And that can go wrong. Sure. And the typical

way in which it goes wrong, I think, both in

scholarship and in the life of the church, is

overreach or being overly confident. So again,

maybe 1 Corinthians is a good example. In the

first chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul talks about

divisions in the church. And some of them say,

I belong to Paul. Some of them say, I belong

to Apollos. Some of them say, I belong to Peter.

Some of them say, I belong to Christ. And in

the history of scholarship, there are all kinds

of overconfident reconstructions of... four battling

groups in the life of the church at Corinth with

descriptions of their theologies. And really,

we just don't know that much. Or you could take

Paul's letter to the Galatians. It's clear that

sometime after Paul has left Galatia, there have

been other Jewish believers who've come along

and said to... The Gentile churches that Paul

has established that in order to be authentic

followers of Jesus, it's necessary for their

men to be circumcised and for them to become

obedient to the Mosaic law. And Paul says no.

Right. And argues passionately against that position.

But he never names his opponents. Right. And

beyond the fact that they advocate circumcision,

he doesn't say very much that enables them. enables

us to identify more about them than the things

I've just said. Right. But the history of interpretation

is littered with attempts to say a great deal

more in a lot more detail. Sure. And so I think

there's a challenge for pastors and for late

Christians, which is that if you're reading you

know, scholarship that does that, that is overly

confident in its own capacity to reconstruct

things, then you can finish up being misled in

various ways. So on the one hand, we can't avoid

saying something about the situation to which

these letters were written. Otherwise, we're

not really interpreting the text. Or at least

it becomes very difficult for us to have anything

very clear to say on the basis of the text. On

the other hand, we really need to be careful

in how we do that. Otherwise, we can finish up

reading in a great deal that isn't necessarily

true. So I'm actually always quite sympathetic

in sermons on the epistles when a preacher says,

it's possible that, or it's probable that, rather

than presenting something as this was the situation.

So that kind of, that kind of careful handling

of God's word so that we don't over -claim certainty

for our own interpretation or reconstruction

of the situation of an epistle. I think that

can be challenging, and it's a way in which sometimes

things go wrong. And I think it's a really easy

thing to do, right? Because we're reading...

paul saying these things and we're saying okay

well paul is obviously upset about something

yes or paul is trying to correct or respond to

something so yeah our minds want to make up the

other half of that story right yeah and it's

not even necessarily always just a process of

making up you know sometimes you can demonstrate

things that are happening in the life of ancient

city in the first century to which an epistle

is written. And you can say, well, this must

be the background to a particular issue in the

text. But in fact, these are cities. They're

not cities necessarily on the scale of our modern

cities, but they're cities. So there's substantial

populations. And the believers in Jesus are a

tiny group within that wider population. And

so We can't necessarily assume that because something

is happening in the life of the city, it's having

a direct impact on the group. Sure. So a good

example of this and, you know, one that's controversial

today would be, you know, where we have difficult

Pauline texts in relation to women in ministry.

Yeah. Those in favor of women in ministry sometimes

want to. those texts being of universal application

by finding something specific about the way in

which Greco -Roman religion was practiced in

a particular place that could provide the context

to Paul wanting to say something specific, limiting

the role of women in a way that was only intended

to apply to that particular time and place. Now,

I should be clear. I believe in the ministry

of women and in women's ordination and think

that that's justified on the basis of the New

Testament texts. But I have doubts about our

capacity to do those reconstructions with enough

certainty to make our claim on that basis. My

argument in favor of women in ministry would

much more be about... the texts where we can

see women engaged in ministry in the New Testament

and the texts where we can see Paul partnering

with women in the work of the gospel rather than

on our capacity to explain away the texts that

we find difficult. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Using those

like positive examples that we see rather than,

yeah, looking at trying to prove or argue our

way out of a particular verse or passage. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. No, that makes sense. So that's one

of the challenges that comes with it being, you

know, the text being written for us, but not

written to us. Another one would be we need to

understand something about the social world of

the New Testament in order to understand the

advice that's offered. So, for example. the New

Testament has a lot of advice to offer to slaves.

Now, there are ways in which the institution

of slavery in the ancient world was the same

as our experience of slavery in the early modern

world. But there are also ways in which the institution

of slavery in the ancient world was quite different.

And so it's really important to understand some

of those things. So, for example, in the ancient

world, there is no necessary... obvious difference

in race between those who were enslaved and those

who were owning slaves. And so slavery is not

directly connected to race in the same way that

it was in the early modern world. And that's

a fundamental difference. And there's a whole

host of ways in which there are also similarities.

And none of that is to say that slavery in the

ancient world was not a bad thing. I mean, everything

we have, everything we know about it suggests

it was an oppressive institution in lots of ways.

But we still need to understand some of the differences

if we're not going to misconstrue things. Or

another very good example would be in 1 Corinthians

7. Paul gives a lot of detailed advice about

marriage. Now, that advice. has profoundly important

things to teach us about marriage today. But

if we're going to understand what those are,

we also need to understand the ways in which

marriage in the first century was different from

marriage today. Right. Otherwise, we're going

to misconstrue the advice. Sure. So one of the

challenges is, you know, Well, maybe it would

be helpful just to give a couple of examples

of the ways in which things are different. Yeah,

for sure. So one of the big ways in which things

are different is that typically men are significantly

older than their wives in the ancient world.

Women marry very young, men don't. And so there's

that fundamental difference in age dynamics.

So another group the New Testament is very concerned

about is widows. There's advice at the end of

that chapter to widows about remarriage. And

one of the reasons is that widows are not necessarily

older women. Because their husbands were significantly

older than them at the age of marriage, there

are a lot more younger widows in the ancient

world. And so that's part of the context. we

need to understand divorce laws. You know, Paul

offers some advice about divorce. His fundamental

concern is to uphold Jesus' teaching that divorce

is a bad thing and that marriage is something

holy in the eyes of God. But nevertheless, he's

got to grapple with the fact that he's got to

grapple with the fact that in the greco -roman

world women could legally initiate divorce as

well as men okay whereas in the jewish world

formally speaking at least it was the husband

who had to legally initiate divorce so there's

a difference in context there um and we also

need to understand ways in which paul is counter

-cultural in his own world so he emphasizes the

value of singleness and celibacy. That was not

something that was highly regarded either in

Jewish culture at the time or in Greek and Roman

culture. And so his emphasis on singleness and

devotion to the Lord is really very significant.

And that would be something where I think the

church today also has something to hear from

this text. Because in our culture, we've got

two things going on. We've got the fact that

at the Reformation, the Protestant churches objected

to compulsory clerical celibacy. And I think

they were obviously, I think they were right

about that because Paul's clear that this is

about gifting. But in the Protestant tradition,

We've therefore tended to emphasize the value

of marriage. But actually, in the text, although

Paul makes it clear that singleness is for those

who are called to it, he does emphasize the value

of that calling and its importance in the life

of the church in a way that we don't necessarily

do today. And that might be a corrective we need

to hear. And understanding that Paul was not

simply repeating what was common in his own time

and place, but actually composing something quite

radical can be helpful in letting us see that

and letting us see how it might apply to us.

Yeah, yeah, for sure. Yeah. So we spent a bit

of time talking about... But Paul isn't the only

one who wrote letters that have ended up in our

scriptures. So what are some of the key similarities

or differences between Paul and other New Testament

writers? Yeah, well, I think here we need to

understand that it took a while before the New

Testament began to circulate. as the entire new

testament sure um so we're a few centuries into

the history of the church before we begin to

have surviving copies of the entire new testament

because of to state the obvious before the invention

of pre -printing all texts have to be hand copied

right yeah so what we what we typically have

circulating are portions of the New Testament

in single manuscripts. Okay. And were those mostly

like whole letters or even just portions of letters?

Well, they vary. Okay. But typically we have

two epistle collections in the New Testament.

We have the Pauline epistle collection. Okay.

And then we have the other epistles, which are

known as the Catholic epistles. Okay. And so

there are... There are differences. So with Paul's

13 letters, we know they're all written by him.

And we know typically which cities they were

written to or which individuals they were written

to. With the other epistles, the Catholic epistles,

so that's the epistles of John, 1st, 2nd, and

3rd John, 1st and 2nd Peter. and then the letter

of James and the letter of Jude, we then have

texts where tradition or the texts themselves

attach a name to the author, but don't tell us

anything else. Okay. And where typically we also

don't know to whom those letters were sent. Right.

Or if we do. they're sent to a very wide range

of churches. So 1 Peter, for example, is sent

to churches scattered over a large area of what

is now modern -day Turkey. So there is a difference

in that the other epistles appear much more general.

And this is why they get the name the Catholic

epistles. Right. Catholic here being used in

the sense of universal. Right. Yeah. So in some

instances in those letters, there clearly were

individual situations that prompted their writing.

But we really have a lot less idea about what

those situations were than we do with the Pauline

letters. Right. That's a kind of difference in

origin. And then there's a very broad difference

in content, I think. There's a general contrast

between Paul's concern to define the nature of

the gospel and of salvation, especially for Gentiles,

and the concern of the Catholic epistles with

holy living and the right way to behave. Now,

we can overdo that contrast because there are...

plenty of ethics in Paul and there's plenty of

theology in the Catholic epistles, but it works

as a very general contrast. And it kind of prevents

any temptation to read Paul in a way that focuses

only on the message of salvation and says how

we live doesn't matter. The Catholic epistles

kind of emphasize very profoundly the importance

of how Christians live. And so between the two

collections, they give us a kind of rounded view.

Sure, yeah. And then, finally, there's an epistle

that doesn't quite fit in either place. Yes.

There's Hebrews. Yes. And Hebrews is very interesting.

Because it's an anonymous text. We don't know

who wrote it. We don't know to where it was sent.

And so in those respects, it would seem to fit

more naturally with the Catholic epistles. Right.

But in fact, traditionally, for much of the history

of the church, it's been thought of as theologically

a perfect complement to the Pauline collection.

Yes. So Hebrews has this kind of dual identity.

And it's provoked a lot of speculation about

whether Paul could have written it. But the Greek

of Hebrews is so different from the Greek of

Paul's letters that that's quite unlikely. And

Hebrews itself weaves together theology and ethics

in a wonderful way all through its argument.

So it's the text that's a little bit different.

Sure. But essentially you have Hebrews and you

have two collections. You have the Pauline collection

and you have the Catholic epistles collection.

And with a text like Hebrews and there are other

epistles, you know, where authorship is a bit

debated, I guess, like how much weight do you

place on like figuring out exactly who wrote

it? Is that really important for us in the church?

I mean, obviously it has some value, but. I think

it's natural for us to be curious about it. Of

course, yeah. Because one of the things we're

doing in reading is, I think, inevitably kind

of taking ourselves to this far -off time and

place so that we can feel the foreignness of

the text, but then... Again, I'm kind of paraphrasing

Richard Hayes. You know, we can hear the foreignness

of the text, but then allow the text to draw

near and claim us again and to see how this advice

offered to people far away kind of speaks to

us today. So I think it's natural for us to want

to know as much as we can. Of course. But actually,

we can't answer this question. We just don't

have the evidence. And so there may be reasons

for that. I mean, actually, just yesterday, I

came across a quote about Hebrews in a new book

that's been written by the scholar Amy Peeler.

She says about Hebrews, Hebrews comes to us as

one unknown, as it has from almost its earliest

days. And so it provokes an existential encounter.

It is the word we hear, not the personality of

the author, not the identities of the first recipients,

but the God who speaks therein. And so she kind

of says, yes, this is not the way the Holy Spirit

chooses to work with every text. But with Hebrews,

from her perspective, and I think she's right,

there is something powerful about the fact that

this text comes to us in mysterious ways. know

so little about the author and the first recipients

yeah it removes some of those additional distractions

and questions and it just it comes to us as it

is and god speaks as it is yeah yeah and actually

although although hebrews clearly is addressing

a situation although the author is clearly concerned

about the potential for the first readers to

drift away from the faith and the author wants

to strengthen their faith. Apart from that very

general concern, we don't know much, and clearly

the text is drafted almost in sermonic form.

It almost reads like an ancient sermon. or series

of sermons yeah it would be very long sermon

but yeah yes that's right uh whereas if you if

you read some of paul's letters for example it's

there is this specific situation going on in

the life of the church yeah or maybe several

situations going on in the life of the church

as in first corinthians uh and he paul is feeling

like he needs to address those specific things

yeah and and provide people with guidance. But

in the text like Hebrews, there is this general

concern with persevering in the faith. But beyond

that, it's more crafted so that it's sermonic

in form. And so it's a very different kind of

reading experience. Yeah, yeah, for sure. So

all of these different authors that we have in

the New Testament, we have Paul, we have Peter,

James, John. I'm going to assume they don't always

agree. They don't always get along. And in particular,

I think there's this history maybe that comes

out of scripture. Maybe it just comes out of

context that, you know, Peter and Paul especially

don't always get along. Yeah, so maybe can you

shed some light on what is behind that and what

does that sort of tell us about the life of the

early church? Thank you. Yeah, I think it's a

really important question. I'm going to say something

general about it before I come. Paul and Peter

first. And the general thing I want to say is

that in some issues, Scripture has one voice.

So there are certain issues that Scripture just

says the same thing every time it addresses that

issue. But there are other issues where there

is more than one voice within the canon. And

when that happens, I take that to be part of

the Holy Spirit's provision. That actually it's

important that there's more than one voice for

the church to hear. And sometimes we feel like,

you know, Scripture can only have one voice.

But actually, sometimes it's about Scripture

providing us with a diversity of voices. And

sometimes it's about Scripture being painfully

clear about particular issues. So we need to

allow for that. Paul and Peter, I think there's

a couple of places where they seem to come into

tension. The main one is Galatians 2, where Paul

recounts a quarrel that they had in the church

in Antioch in Syria. And then, as you say, in

2 Peter, there's a reference to... There's a

reference to Paul's letters being difficult and

being misinterpreted by some people who twist

them in ways that are not right. So there's clearly

different tensions there. And that may play out

over a longer or shorter period because there

are questions about to Peter and the authorship

and whether it's written in Peter's own lifetime

or whether it's somebody else later writing in

Peter's name. But I think all the challenges,

arise from the same fundamental issue, which

is the first followers of Jesus are Jewish. They're

different from their fellow Jews because they

believe Jesus is Messiah. But in terms of other

aspects of their practice, they'll have been

just as committed as other Jews to obeying all

the commandments of the Old Testament law. Right.

But Paul understands himself to have been called

to be apostle to the Gentiles. Right. take the

gospel to people who are not Jewish, and he believes

that they can become authentic followers of Jesus

without themselves also first having to become

Jewish. The law doesn't apply to them in the

same way. Now, the New Testament portrays some

Jewish Christians as rejecting this view. So

clearly, Paul's opponents in Galatians actually

think that the Gentiles need to become Jewish

in order to be true followers of Jesus. And if

we read about the council at Jerusalem where

this issue was debated in Acts 15, at the start

there, there are some who Luke says belong to

the parties of the Pharisees who believe that

Gentiles need to be circumcised and to obey the

law of Moses. But Luke also portrays all the

significant leaders, including Peter, as accepting

Paul's view that Gentiles don't need to become

Jewish. However, that agreement doesn't in and

of itself solve all problems. Sure. Because Jewish

and Gentile believers still have to work out

how to live together as one community of believers

in Christ. If Jewish believers are committed

to obeying the law, they may accept that Gentile

believers don't need to, but there may be points

at which, in their life together, it's difficult

for Jewish believers fully to obey the law while

being in close fellowship with the Gentiles who

are following Jesus. And so this is the probable

context of the quarrel in the church at Antioch.

Peter's been eating with Gentiles, but Paul says

that when certain people came from Jerusalem,

came from James, the leader of the Jerusalem

church, the brother of the Lord, Peter withdrew

and stopped his previous practice of having table

fellowship with Gentiles. And so Paul is horrified

and feels that this is... This is excluding the

Gentiles. It's not clear to us completely whether

Peter has decided that it's okay to eat food

that is forbidden by the Old Testament law, and

that's what he's been doing in his meals with

Gentiles, and so that's why he then withdraws,

or whether, in fact, he may have been eating

kosher. But it's the actual practice of eating

with Gentiles that's a problem. Now, the Old

Testament law doesn't anywhere prohibit eating

with Gentiles. But the Old Testament law does

say, of course, that there's only certain kinds

of foods that Jews can eat. And there are also

some things in the Old Testament and then they're

elaborated in Jewish tradition about how food

has to be prepared. Right. And so. For a Jewish

person, it may have been difficult to be certain

that all those things about which food you eat

and how they're prepared are being honored if

you eat with Gentiles. It may have seemed easier

to be certain you are being obedient if you just

simply didn't eat with Gentiles. So the context

is complicated, but it is clear that from Paul's

perspective, the problem here is that Gentiles

are fully believers in Jesus, and they're just

as much authentic followers of Jesus from Paul's

perspective as anybody else. And yet he feels

that by withdrawing, Peter is implying that they're

not. And for Paul, this is kind of incompatible

with his whole call to be apostle to the Gentiles,

and it constitutes some kind of betrayal of the

gospel. And that's very interesting. He talks

about Peter and the others, you know, having

failed to walk in line with the truth. And so

they may have seen this issue as a practical

pastoral issue. And they may have seen it as

very important in terms of their standing with

other Jewish Christians and very important in

terms of the relationship of Jewish Christians

with other Jews. But Paul construes it as a dispute

about how people are accepted by God and put

right with God, how they're justified, the term

he uses. And he accuses those who disagree with

him. of putting something else alongside faith

in Jesus as a requirement for being justified,

of being authentic followers of Jesus. So whether

Peter and the others saw it as a question of

the fundamental nature of the gospel or not,

Paul does see it in those terms. And this is

one of the reasons why those letters, Galatians

especially, have always been ones that, Christians

have reached for down the centuries when they've

been debating issues to do with the fundamental

nature of the gospel. The Paul sees this as a

question that's about that. Are you put right

with God purely through faith in Jesus, or is

there something else necessary that has to be

put alongside of that? And he's very concerned

to say, no, it's faith in Jesus alone that counts.

Yeah, yeah, it's interesting, like, just as you

were describing these different approaches, I

even was in some ways drawn back to that distinction

that you made earlier between the Pauline epistles

and the Catholic epistles, where Paul is very

concerned about theological issues, whereas,

you know, Peter, I tend to see Peter, and maybe

this is just my perspective, but I tend to see

Peter as a little more pastoral, and Peter is,

or Paul, rather, is a little more academic. Yeah,

I mean, I think if you take 1 Peter, there is

a rich theology in that text. But you're right,

there's not a debate about the nature of the

gospel. But 1 Peter is more, we know what the

gospel is. How does that work out in terms of

how we live as followers of Jesus in a culture

that we're now... to some degree, alienated from

because we're following Jesus as Gentiles. And

again, 1 Peter is clearly written to largely

Gentile churches. They're following Jesus as

Gentiles, but that puts them at odds with some

of the most profound assumptions of their society

about religion and some of the most profound

assumptions of their society about how social

life works. And so the kind of controlling image

in 1 Peter is the image of being a resident alien

or an exile. And of course, the believers that

received the letter haven't gone anywhere. They're

probably living where they've always lived. But

because they have accepted Jesus, they're now

living in a very different way from the surrounding

culture. And 1 Peter is about how do we grapple

with that? So in the process, there is plenty

of theology, but it has this practical pastoral

edge. And it is somewhat different from what

we see in Paul, where there is this grappling

with the nature of the gospel in the context

of the earliest Gentile missions. Yeah. And I

think the other thing that sort of stands out

to me about that discussion is, again, that we

are dealing with different cultures here, right?

Like we're dealing with... the Jewish culture

and the Gentile culture. And those aren't just

religious differences. They are actually cultural

differences, which then I think helps us in the

Canadian church where Canada is such a multicultural

place, right? It then helps us to say, oh, like

Paul and Peter and all of these people are speaking

to our context, not in exactly the same way.

We're not talking about exactly the same cultures,

but it is about how do we bridge? culture and

the gospel and create some sort of church that

gets along well enough i guess yeah yeah so there's

uh there's interesting things for us to learn

there i think um you you're right it it's directly

relevant in that way um so we have to both hear

paul's insistence that people don't need to become

Jewish in order to be authentic followers of

Jesus. In other words, we have to hear his insistence

that there is not something that makes people

closer to God simply by virtue of their identity

or their cultural tradition. So that's one side

of it. But the piece that that has to be balanced

with, that we sometimes miss in the contemporary

church is that it's also true that the people

of Israel are chosen by God. And so their culture

is shaped by God's law and the principles that

are expressed in the Old Testament. And although

Paul is insistent that Gentiles don't need to

become Jewish, For a casual observer of Paul's

congregations in the first century, there are

various aspects of how they behave that would

have looked from a Gentile perspective as if

they were becoming very Jewish in certain aspects

of their practice. So first of all, there's their

devotion to the scriptures of Israel, what we

now call the Old Testament. And then there's

their ethical practices. The kind of teaching

about the holiness of marriage, the undesirability

of divorce, practices within marriage, all of

that is much more Jewish in flavor in the New

Testament than anything that you would find in

Greco -Roman society. Sure. So there are whole

strands of... identity and behavior where Gentiles

begin to take on Jewish practices. The other

big one, of course, is what the New Testament

calls idolatry. Because Greco -Roman religion

had many deities and Judaism believed in one

God. And Judaism was unusual in the ancient world

in worshipping only one God. And of course, from

the very start, although Christians develop the

concept of the Trinity and see Jesus as part

of that one God, they never compromise on that

kind of commitment to worshipping only one God.

Right. On the one hand, there is this kind of

insistence that we can't prioritize one ethnic

identity or one tradition in a way that excludes

other people. But on the other hand, there is

a profound recognition of Israel's election.

And the fact that there are features of the life

of Israel which are to become features of the

life of the church, which represent God's will

for human beings. Right. And at some points in

the past, the church has not been very good at

hearing the first half of that, which is the

kind of radical inclusiveness of the gospel.

But in our contemporary world. precisely because

we do live in societies that are so multicultural.

We often tend to be able to hear the piece about

the radical inclusivity of the gospel, but sometimes

we're less able to hear some of the specific

things that the New Testament says. First Peter,

again, would be a good example. First Peter,

at one point, talks to the Gentile believers

about them having left behind the worthless way

of life they inherited from their ancestors.

It is not it is not particularly accepting or

welcoming of Gentile culture because it sees

it as leading people away from God's purposes

in various ways. So there's that two -sidedness

to the New Testament's witness, and we need to

hear both sides. Yeah, it's not that the culture

in and of itself is the problem. It's the way

that the culture potentially leads you away from

God and the way that following Jesus, might call

you to leave behind some pieces of your culture,

but not because of the culture of them, but because

the way of Jesus is so radically different. Yes,

and I think the other thing we don't often understand

is the magnitude of all of this, given that they're

not living in a world where religion is perceived

as a private choice. We live in a world that

construes religion as one sphere of life. And,

you know, it's a sphere of life where we value

the capacity of individuals to make decisions

for themselves and to go in different directions.

And there are good reasons for that. But the

ancient world is very different. And so for the

first Christians, particularly if they're Gentile,

when they take the step of ceasing to worship

the deities of their particular city, or their

particular community or step out of practices

that have been hallowed by the traditions of

their particular ancestors then other people

in their community may have reacted very negatively

to that not just because they perceive it as

a a kind of insult to their identity but also

because they will have believed that the well

-being of the human community The gathering in

of the harvest, the prospering of their trade,

that all of that depended upon the favor of the

gods. And so from their perspective, by refusing

to worship those gods, the early followers of

Jesus may have been doing something dangerous

that put the welfare of the community at risk.

So they're living in a world where they're doing

something very radical by committing themselves

to following. the God of Israel with Jesus as

Messiah. So the other part of your research has

been looking at how some of these letters and

Paul's writings have been interpreted throughout

history, the history of the church beyond the

early church. So are there any sort of key differences

between how Paul was understood maybe in the

Reformation era versus how Paul is understood

now? Yeah, we live in a time of enormous debate

about how to interpret Paul, especially. So,

you know, the simplest way of putting this is

to say that although, of course, there are enormous

varieties in how people have interpreted Paul's

texts across time, broadly speaking, for 500

years following the Reformation, the interpretation

of Paul follows trajectories that were established

through the work of Martin Luther. Okay. In very

broad terms. But then from the late 1970s onwards,

we get a re -evaluation of Paul, which is called

the new perspective, which wants to say that,

in fact, Luther misunderstood Paul in very significant

ways and that we have to interpret Paul in...

in a radically new way and you know that's now

what 45 almost 50 years ago the new perspective

originates um and there are there are now ways

in which there are uh you know various movements

in interpretation that go on from the new perspective

and they may you know disagree among themselves

as as well as with traditional ways of interpretation

But nevertheless, there is that turning point,

that big change. And the nature of the change

is really to do with how people perceive Judaism

in the time of Jesus and his first followers.

In the past, Judaism was often perceived as a

religion of legalism, and Christianity was contrasted

with it as a religion of grace. And really what

the new perspective did was to recognize the

second temple Judaism. It's often called second

temple Judaism because it's the time or the era

of the temple as it was rebuilt following the

return from the exile. Right. Babylon. So it's

not the first temple of Solomon. It's the second

temple following the exile. The post -exile temple.

Yeah. So in that era, In Jewish texts, there's

actually plenty of evidence of an emphasis on

grace. Why does that matter for the interpretation

of Paul? Well, when Paul says, as he does several

times, that justification is not by works of

the law, but by faith in Jesus. Traditionally,

he was understood to be saying, it's not through

your own efforts. It's not through this kind

of legalism. where you spend your life trying

to put him to practice the works of the law.

And if you succeed, then you're justified before

God. But if you fail too much, then you're not

justified. And so that had been broadly what

Paul had been taken to mean. And the new perspective

wants to say, but hold on a minute. If Jewish

texts at the time actually emphasized grace,

that can't be what Paul means. He must mean something

else. And so the New Perspective argued that

when Paul says justification is not by works

of the law, he's particularly concerned with

the practices of the law that mark the boundary

between Jews and Gentiles. So he's particularly

concerned with the practice of circumcision for

men. with the practice of food laws, and with

the practice of Sabbath observance. Because these

are all things that Jews did that Gentiles didn't

do, and therefore all things that functioned

as a kind of boundary marker between the two

groups and served to maintain Jewish distinctiveness.

And so New Perspective scholars like James Dunn

and Tom Wright and E .P. Sanders, they argued

that instead, Paul is really saying, well, you're

not justified by works of the law. You're not

justified by these boundary markers. You're not

justified by maintaining Jewish distinctiveness.

That maintaining of Jewish distinctiveness may

be important in various other ways, but it's

not important in terms of your being put right

before God. Right. And so what that new perspective

movement did was to change people's sense of

what Paul is opposed to. Because in the traditional

view, Paul's preaching of the gospel was opposed

to legalism or the idea that we could earn our

own salvation. Right. Whereas in a new perspective

view, Paul's gospel is opposed to the idea that

being Jewish. is an essential part of what it

means to be justified before God. And therefore,

Paul is not opposing legalism. He's opposing

a kind of ethnocentrism. Okay. Yeah. And then

I think that then also sort of reinforces this

idea of Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles specifically,

right? Yes. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. So, I mean,

there's a question about how you would evaluate

that. And this change has been widely controversial

within Pauline studies. So lots of scholars would

have different viewpoints. But in terms of how

I think about it, I would say there's been a

big gain and a big loss with the new perspective.

The big gain is a more positive evaluation of

Judaism in the time of Jesus. Because there were

certain obvious dangers with Judaism being characterized

as a narrow -minded religion of legalism. Number

one, there's a sad and very long history of Christian

anti -Semitism where that kind of attitude on

the part of the churches feeds into creating

an environment where it's particularly in European

society. creating an environment where it's okay

for Jews to be discriminated against in various

ways. So there's that long, unfortunate history.

But there's also the fact that the kind of legalism

that's being talked about is a legalism that's

based on what we call the Old Testament. It's

a legalism that's based on portion of what is

God's Word to us. So, you know, yes, we may suppose

the ancient Jews got the interpretation of the

text wrong in various ways, but the idea that

the whole kind of legal structure around which

Judaism was organized was some kind of fundamental

mistake. That's a very odd idea for people who

believe in the Old Testament as God's word. It's

a very odd idea for people to propose. So there's

a big gain there, but there's also a loss. There's

a loss because, in fact, what the reformers actually

said about these issues was not quite as simple.

as what i've just described sure so so yes they

do think that when paul says no to the works

of the law he is saying no to attempts to earn

our own righteousness but they have a rather

more sophisticated view about how that relates

to the old testament law than than it had typically

become in modern scholarship okay um and and

secondly i think i would say You know, if you

think about the boundary marker view, why do

boundaries matter? Boundaries matter in the Old

Testament, not so much for their own sake, but

in order to preserve Israel's capacity to be

able to devote herself to obedience to God, to

be able to prevent Israel from being drawn into

sin. by adopting practices from the surrounding

societies that were incompatible with obeying

God. And so those boundary markers function as

a dividing line between a way of life with Jews

that is oriented around fulfilling and obeying

God's commandments and a way of life in various

Gentile cultures that is very different. The

boundary markers are not just communal boundary

markers. They're also boundary markers between

holiness and a way of life that's different.

And so I don't think that Paul is always, when

he talks about the works of the law, protesting

against the idea that we can earn our own righteousness.

But I do think that in that kind of context,

it is natural. if you're Jewish, to understand

your own practices as righteous and Gentile practices

as unrighteous. And so I do think there are occasions

where Paul is saying, hold on a minute, we're

right about Gentile practices. These are not

the things we're supposed to do. But let us not

imagine that. you know, our attempts to obey

the law actually can establish ourselves before

God. We're always fundamentally dependent upon

God's grace. And so I think he does emphasize

grace alone in a way that other Jews of his time

may not have done, which doesn't mean that they

didn't think grace was important, but that they

thought about God's grace in electing Israel

as being answered by Israel's obedience and by

Israel's efforts to put into practice God's will.

Whereas Paul, I think, partly on the basis of

his own experience of having fallen into the

sin of persecuting the church, is wanting to

say, no, you know, if we could do all the law

commanded, that would be fine. But in fact, we're

not able to. And so we need to recognize that

we're dependent on grace alone in a way that

we perhaps otherwise wouldn't have realized.

And that radical, total grace is what comes to

us in Jesus from Paul's perspective. Yeah, no,

I think that's really helpful because it... For

me, this conversation has been really helpful

to sort of balance out who Paul is. You know,

like I feel like we often fall into this trap

of, yeah, Paul is the theologian. Paul is the

guy who sort of sets some rules, but also says,

you know, like that our faith doesn't depend

on those rules. But yeah, this has been really

helpful to sort of think about how he interacts

with the life of the church and not just with.

you know pen on paper yeah yeah yeah so i mean

i think this is another thing that's really important

to understand about paul and you make a really

helpful point there um he he is saying that we're

not justified before god by our own efforts of

right behavior yeah that doesn't mean that for

him right behavior is unimportant yes what it

what it means is that our capacity to engage

in that right behavior, in Paul's view, flows

from the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

And so what's so important about that being put

right with God through Jesus is that it, number

one, brings forgiveness, but number two also

brings with it the gift of the Holy Spirit. And

therefore, from Paul's perspective, the capacity

to begin to put into practice the behavior that's

consistent with God's will and that therefore

produces the fruits of the Spirit in people's

lives. So it's not at all that right behavior

is not important to him or that it can be set

aside. It's rather that for him, right behavior

flows as a consequence of being. put right with

God through faith in Jesus rather than as a precondition

for being put right with God through faith in

Jesus. Simply because I think in his view, our

quote unquote attempts at good behavior could

never actually be good when measured against

the goodness of God. Yeah. Yeah, for sure. Yeah.

Well, thank you so much for taking some time,

sharing some of your knowledge with us. Like

I said, I think this has been a really helpful

conversation for us. as followers of Jesus to

understand how we read scripture and to understand

the real people and real messy situations that

gave us this sort of scripture in the first place.

Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. I've enjoyed it. And I,

yeah. And I think that is, that is an important

thing. You know, the, the texts, the texts are

God's word to us. They're, they're inspired by

the Holy Spirit. but they're inspired by the

Holy Spirit through ordinary people like us who

2 ,000 years ago were grappling with these messy

practical problems. And so Scripture emerges

for us as God's Word in the midst of all those

human difficulties and challenges. And so if

we're looking for something that kind of floats

down from heaven and provides us with this kind

of voice that simply and easily solves all problems,

then we are going to be disappointed. But on

the other hand, if we're looking for something

that speaks to us divine wisdom in the midst

of our human struggles, then that's exactly what

we've got with this collection of texts. That's,

yeah, again, super hopeful and I think a really

helpful way to sort of think about scripture.

Yeah, so thank you. And thank you for tuning

in to this week's episode of Trinity Talks. I

hope that this has also been an encouragement

for you and a place for you to learn a little

bit more about how we read scripture, but also

how God is working from the very beginning until

now through all of our messy situations. And

we'll see you again next week.