As Tom eloquently expresses it, the ethics of Paul is an eschatological ethic, that involves both the already and not yet of things. “The people who are called to stand at the crossroads of time, the strange interval between the now and the not yet, the present and the future, are also called to stand at the intersection of heaven and earth, sharing the pains and puzzles of the present creation, but sharing also in the newly inaugurated life of the Spirit.” (p. 127). But what does that look like, and what does it call for in terms of ethics and behavior? What are Christians to do in the interval between the already and not yet? Well for one thing Tom stresses the interval reflects God’s mercy. Time is given for repentance and amendment of life (pp. 1111-12). This explanation is plausible to a degree, but if this were the whole answer, it would mean that God keeps extending the time of mercy, generation after generation for over 2,000 years. In short, this raises questions about whether judgment is ever coming. Nevertheless, the exhortation is to leave judgment in the hands of the Lord, who will return and take care of it. In the meanwhile one needs to look to one’s own formation and behavior (see 1 Cor. 4.5). In fact, Tom suggests that the main reason for the interval between now and not yet is so God’s people could be character formed into Christ likeness, and so be properly equipped to be judges of the world, and angels with Christ.
Tom concludes that at its heart or center of Pauline ethics is what is normally called virtue ethics, or the ethics of character development (p. 1115), which as Tom admits is where, in some respects Paul’s ethics is closest to Greco-Roman ethics, but not entirely so, as we shall see. What was the function of his ethic—- “Paul had a goal in view, but his goal is not Aristotle’s [or for that matter most modern aesthetes] happiness, eudaimonia. Nor is the attaining of that goal a matter, as it is in Aristotle, of the self-made man producing the cardinal virtues of courage, justice, temperance, and prudence… Paul’s goal…is the mature humanity which reflects the divine image and which will be reaffirmed in the resurrection. The attaining of that goal is as much a matter of self-denial as of self-fulfillment. And the virtues which are to be produced include four which no ancient pagan would have recognized as positive character-traits: patience, humility, chastity, and above all love.” (p. 1116). As Tom goes on to point out: 1) no sexual offenses appear in all the vice lists of Paul, but do not appear in Hellenistic vice catalogs; 2) further, “Instead of pride and power, humility and service, instead of military victory, suffering, something Paul never tires of emphasizing”, which makes perfectly clear that Paul is not simply cribbing from Greco-Roman virtue and vice catalogs, contra H.D. Betz. Nor is he mainly influenced by the latter. Paul’s ethic is not utterly difference from Hellenistics ones, but it is just as clearly not reducible to them. At the same time Paul could commend the virtues of pagans when compatible with Biblical and the new eschatological ethics (see Phil. 4.8).
Tom is right, following Hays, not to suggest that Paul’s ethic could simply be reduced to love. Love is however one of three virtues (the others being faith and hope) that survive the crossing of this life into the eschatological kingdom life. Love heads the list of fruit of the Spirit, is said to fulfill the Law in some sense, it is the means by which the Body is held together, it is the way one should speak the truth… and so on (pp. 1118-19). Love is central to Paul’s ethic, but it is not all-encompassing of that ethic, and central to a degree that is not true of other early Jewish or Greco-Roman literature (see pp. 119-20 and note 326). On p. 1120 Wright defends Hays against the charge of R. Burridge than Hays has dismissed or abandoned the notion of love as central. I agree with Tom, this is not a fair analysis of Moral Vision of the NT. Hays simply says love will not do as an overall theme for the whole of NT ethics, and he is right. Love is just not the central organizing principle for all those ethics.
A central emphasis by Wright is how Paul talks about the formation and renewal of the mind— see of course Romans 12.1ff. There is further the emphasis that believers should have the same mind and mindset as existed in Christ (Phil. 2.5ff.). Paul emphasizes clear thinking, and the link between thought and behavior (for instance in Rom. 1.18-32 seen in a negative way– fallen thought processes lead to fallen behavior). “Paul here assumes three things. First the human mind can in principle grasp the truth about the creator God. Second the mind determines the behavior. Third the mind is closely linked to the heart; the reasoning faculty is linked to the divine centre of the personality, with its emotions and longings.” (p. 1112). What is strangely lacking in this whole discussion is what Paul says about the human will, for example in Rom. 7.114-25 where the person in question knows what is right but cannot will and do it. The discussion of the sanctification and empowerment of the will (along with the mind and heart) is strangely absent from this otherwise very good discussion. It’s not just about getting one’s mind and thoughts aligned with those of God. It’s also about willing and doing the right things (see e.g. Kierkegaard on Purity of the Heart and willing the one thing).
On p. 1124, Tom takes ‘work at bringing about your own salvation’ to mean not save yourself by your own good works, but figure out what your own version of salvation is going to look like in practice.’ While I would agree that a Christian does need to figure that out, this is not where the emphasis lies in this expression. What the word work means as applied to God (for God is working in you to will and to do) is what it means as applied to the believer— they are to work out in willing and doing what God is enabling them to will and do. In other words, it is indeed about ‘works’, not just a mental working of things out. Not works apart from grace, or as a substitute for grace, but works enabled by grace. I quite agree as well that the figure of the self-denying, self-humbling love of Christ, especially on the cross lies in the background of what Paul says about the more distinctive Christian virtues of love and humility etc. The ethics of Paul involves both something OT, and something NT, including from the teachings and example of Jesus.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In