It was inevitable



 

For my Pauline Epistles class, we are reading An Introduction to the Study of Paul by David Horrell as a brief overview before we dive into each of his letters. (By the way, this is the first of 10 REQUIRED books we will be reading. I am torn between giddiness and fear. Such is the nerd lifestyle.) Anyways, in the introduction, Horrell notes that his aim in writing the book is not to necessarily to present what he "thinks Paul said, one particular interpretation of Paul" (p. ix); rather, he hopes to give the reader an idea of the current critical topography in Pauline studies.

 

So far, so good. But then I started getting a little nervous, for various reasons:

• The above quote is Horrell's paraphrase of a statement by N.T. Wright. I probably don't even have to list anything else.
• In attempting to remain critically neutral, Horrell also takes a theologically "neutral" stance on the historicity of Luke's account of early church life in Acts or traditional, orthodox doctrines such as inerrancy and inspiration.
• He suspects whether half of Paul's epistles were really written by him, or even during his lifetime.

Then there was this kicker:

• "Conversely, the title 'Christ' is never found directly on the lips of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, but appears frequently throughout Paul's letters. Most scholars would agree that the early church developed  an increasingly high 'Christology' - that is, its view of the person of Christ - which may have been an appropriate reflection of who Jesus was, seen in light of his resurrection, but can hardly have been a reflection of how Jesus himself understood his identity." (p. 10)

Aaaanndd I am only two chapters in. This is going to be an interesting read.

 

But to depart from all of my naysaying, there are a few observations I've appreciated in the book. One of the most interesting things it highlights is Paul's tendency to utilize preexisting formulae such as creedal statements or hymns throughout the text of his letters. Some of the more obvious which come to mind:

• 1 Timothy 3:15-16
  "By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness:
  He who was revealed in the flesh,
  Was vindicated in the Spirit,
  Seen by angels,
  Proclaimed among the nations,
  Believed on in the world,
  Taken up in glory."
• Ephesians 5:14
  “Awake, sleeper,
  And arise from the dead,
  And Christ will shine on you.”

I've only mildly followed the current debate amongst Reformed Baptists over the issue of Confessionalism, so I'm not the person to consult for earth-shattering arguments. However, seeing how Paul makes robust use of creedal statements in his own apostolic writing speaks to the high value he placed on such tools in church life. In light of the arguments promoting a Bible-only approach to theology, what do we make of passages of Scripture which include preexisting creedal statements? It's kind of a paradox. All in all, I find this to be one of the strongest incentives for adopting a confessional perspective in my theology. So there's my two cents.