The Creator is the Redeemer

Rich and Norm,

I find your thoughts particularly interesting in their awareness of the importance of different kinds of context; and, especially, with an eye on the significance of Israel as a category, if you will, for Paul. If indeed the kind of “Hebrew” matrix you advocate is the proper one for Paul, interpretations of his writings open up that certainly cut across how many read him.

That said, I am unclear on how the points about Paul being “a Hebrew” have the analytical value you ascribe to them. What is a “Hebrew view of ‘soma’” as opposed to “our acquired literal” one or one reflecting “a Greek worldview” (whatever that means)? For you this seems to involve a corporate notion of body that you identify as Hebrew, which somehow also implies not distinguishing a “literal” or individual body?

The corporate and representative dynamics and categories in Paul’s letters do not stem from some unique “Hebrew mindset” with different ontological categories for “bodies” that are essentially “Hebrew” as opposed to Greek. These parts of Paul’s discourse demonstrably work within specific notions about ethnicity, kinship, patrilineal descent, and (perhaps most importantly for Paul) pneuma…

(cont.)...notions appearing throughout the ancient Mediterranean and, more relevant for Paul, throughout Hellenistic (which does not mean non-Jewish) sources. These notions do not indicate a fundamental “non-literal” understanding of bodies, but rather certain sensitivities about how bodies essentially relate to other bodies of the same ethnicity and/or ancestry. While ideas about the physics and ontologies of bodies differ for people across the ancient Mediterranean in certain ways, the corporate, representative, and “anthropological” sensitivities about the body relevant for reading Paul are just as Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc. as “Hebrew.”

Holland’s ideas about distinct “Hebrew” mindsets and categories, in contrast to Greek and Hellenistic ones, for Paul also seem confused. Paul’s letters work within certain levels of common Greco-Roman philosophical, moral-philosophical, rhetorical, etc. sensitivities, tropes, and ideals…just as, by the way, the writings of many other roughly contemporary Jews do as well. Holland’s methodology problematically treats Hebrew and Jewish “thought” and language as things hermetically sealed from their environments…

(continued…again) ... Why does something being Jewish inherently mean non- or less-Greek? Should we not determine cultural-intellectual locations through precise comparative-analysis as opposed to problematic essentialist assumptions? Why does Paul positioning himself as a Hebrew (in a context that gives no indication that he means Hebrew as opposed to Greek) mean we automatically insulate him from his ancient Mediterranean Hellenistic contexts?

Sorry for the lengthy comment. I would be happy to discuss all this in relation to the interesting more-specific points Rich and Norm make here.

Stephen,
Thanks for the response.  I want to keep this as simple as I can by illustrating that our concept of the Body of Christ is the starting point for understanding how Paul utilizes “soma”.  This “body” concept finds its fleshing out if you will in 1 Cor 12 where the nature of the “Body” is discussed.  What happens is that as we continue reading we start to drift into an individual “body” concept without realizing that Paul hasn’t shifted gears on us.  Basically Paul will often speak of the body as he does in 1 Cor 12 without us catching on.  The classic example is Rom 7:24 in which Paul is again using the physical “body” attributes to describe a corporate manifestation of Covenant Israel’s members. 

Rom 7:23-25 but I see in MY MEMBERS another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that DWELLS IN MY MEMBERS.  (24)  Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from THIS BODY OF DEATH?  (25)  Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

continued
The reason this is important to grasp is that Paul’s arguments are inclusive of what we call the Body of Israel as epitomized in the description of the body of sin in Rom 6:6. This becomes especially important in understanding fully the nature of the transformation of the Body of Israel (sin & death) into the new body of Christ (life eternal) as seen in Phi 3:21. This transformation is the essence of the covenant change from the old covenant headship of Adam to the new covenant headship of Christ which is what 1 Cor 15:40-49 is all about.  Body of Adam (Israel old church) conformed to the Body of Christ (the new church).  This concept goes back to Ezk 37 in which the figurative dead bones of Israel (representing Adamic death) are raised to life through the reception of the Spirit of God.

Eze 37:10-11 … and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, … “Son of man, THESE BONES ARE THE WHOLE HOUSE OF ISRAEL.

continued
Basically the Hebrew value is to understand the context from the OT as Paul develops it and not to impose an individual body personage so that you lose the concept of Paul’s collective intent.  If you can get your hands on John A.T. Robinsons book the “Body” he will lay out the understanding in great detail and concerning Holland you should think about it a little more after you have fully investigated the subject.  I had to force myself because at first it doesn’t seem natural but after a while you realize that things won’t fully make sense until you grasp his concept in much deeper detail.  I don’t want to argue the point as that is not my intention but instead is to give folks a heads up on why the literature reads as it does.  It is one of the little jewels of NT theology that doesn’t often get addressed because of its difficulty in discerning and the ramifications for some theological distinctions.

Pete - do you think Genesis was redacted during the Babylonian exile?
Thx.

Great stuff, Pete, thank you for this.

When I think about “the creator is the redeemer” myself, I think of the fact (according to the prologue of John’s gospel and a few other texts) that the creation was accomplished through the Second Person of the Trinity, which is another way to think of the creator as the redeemer.  This places more emphasis on the creator being “the crucified God” (as Jorgen Moltmann has it), or “the cosmos in light of the cross” (as George Murphy has it), or divine kenosis (as many would have it).

My understanding, Pete, is that the idea of divine kenosis was first applied to Christology and soteriology by German Lutheran theologians in the 17th century, but that it has not been applied to theology of creation until recent decades.  I think this is very important for developing an orthodox theology of nature that includes biological evolution.  Please comment if you can.

Deb in BC—I think, along with most biblical scholars, that Genesis was not redacted until after the return from exile. Israel was back in the land and asking how their postexilic community was in continuity with what came before. As others put it (and I am thinking here of Walter Brueggemann whom I recently read on this), the Pentateuch—and the OT as a whole—is a response to the “crisis of exile.” That does not mean that nothing was written until then (although some books certainly were, e.g., Chronicles), but that the final collection and shape reflect the trauma of the exile and questions surrounding Israel’s return.

Ted,

I agree strongly with the potential benefit of kenotic theology for constructing a theology of creation. This would engage traditional Christian theology to move beyond other traditional formulations that have impeded the much needed synthesis between Christian faith and evolution. Beyond that I don’t have much to add specifically as to what that would look like. I will say, though, that what you are raising should remind us all that the synthetic work needed requires a lot of background in numerous areas—biblical studies, historical theology, philosophical theology, not to mention fluency in the sciences. It is not a matter of who can find the best prooftexts to support their opinions. It is a “higher level synthesis” that involves the riches of various disciples brought together for a great goal.  The problem is that this issue has such a visceral component for many Christians (understandably so, particularly given the culture war dimension of all this) that not everyone may be patient enough to walk through the paces.

Pete - some thoughts:

In the Genesis story, that pre-fallen humanity was given the vocation to “subdue” the earth indicates that, although it was very good, there was still room for improvement - it still being wild & untamed, yet full of potential, and although God’s work had, in some sense, been finished, humanity’s had only begun - as junior partners with God and his creation in an ongoing work of creation. Within this wider untamed world, the garden of Eden was a special place, which existed because of this partnership. As humanity multiplied, Eden would have been expanded to fill the earth by virtue of this partnership. Adam’s sin broke the partnership with both the Creator and creation. The finished work of God in Christ through the Spirit has begun the New Creation, more than restoring the creative partnership.

Imagine a glorified, immortal human race, which no one could number, uncorrupted by folly, lust, and pride, motivated by love, with all the powers demonstrated by the risen Christ, able to fully interact with the material creation yet not be limited by it or harmed by it in any way, and seething with God’s own creative energy, unleashed upon the universe. What could we accomplish over billions of years?

Norm,

I would personally concede that there is merit in the interpretation of Paul you present, but only in a “lesser included” sense. For me, it just seems too small a vision for Paul.