Q. What I would like to ask as we draw this fruitful dialogue to a close is— what impact do you think it has on the way we evaluate Paul’s thought in general if this is his earliest letter we have? Among things I would suggest it shows that ‘developmental models’ of Paul’s theology are often wrong. Paul’s theology, as Hengel used to say, seems mostly to have developed before he wrote any of the extant letters. Would you agree? And what would it mean for us today in the twentieth century to take seriously this call to unity based on a profound grasp of the history changing death and resurrection of Jesus which in turn led to the crucifixion of the old Saul, and his becoming a new creature in Christ— crucified to the world and the world to him? Galatians suggests the way to unity is not by watering down this very challenging theology and the ethic that is a part of it, but rather through embracing it, embodying it, letting it change us from the inside out in both our belief and our behavior towards both the household of faith and the world. This, in any case, is what I see you pleading for in the final reflections on the last few pages of this very fine commentary.
A. Totally agree. And of course Hengel was right. ‘Developmental’ schemes tended to be advanced because people wanted to avoid this or that aspect of P’s thought and so were eager to suggest that he’d changed his mind etc. Of course this backfired because then the same people often didn’t want to have Ephesians or Colossians in their Pauline collection – much too high Christology, too high a view of the church!! – to which Paul would have said, ‘You obviously haven’t understood what I was saying in Galatians, the Corinthian letters, and Romans!’
Thanks so much for the chance to engage! I suspect we’ll do it again some day! Warm greetings to your many readers!
Tom Wright
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In