신약학회월례회의 ( 신촌성결교회 ) 2002.06.29 10:00 1 The Meaning of Christ and Pauline Theology Contents 1. Introduction 2. Expression and Meaning 3. Dikaiosuvnh ejk pivstew~ as One of Many Expressions in Paul 4. The Meaning of Christ 1. Introduction In 2 Peter 3.16 we find perhaps the earliest witness to the struggles of the early church in Pauline interpretation in the wake of Paul s missionary work and his literary legacy: ejn [tai`~ ejpistolai`~ Paulou`] ejstin dusnovhtav tina, a} oij ajmaqei`~ kai; ajsthvriktoi streblou`sin wj~ kai; ta;~ loipa;~ grafa;~ pro;~ th;n ijdivan aujtw`n ajpwvleian. 1 Since at least as early as the time of 2 Peter, the task of understanding Paul has been one full of unresolved tensions and disputes among those who claimed to have understood Paul s theology. This unresolved unrest has not changed in two thousand years. In fact, contemporary interpreters critically analyze even the concept of Pauline theology. Recent summary works by the members of the Society of Biblical Literature s Pauline Theology Group (such as James D. G. Dunn s In Quest of Paul s Theology: Retrospect and Prospect and Paul W. Meyer s Pauline Theology: Some Thoughts for a Pause in Its Pursuit ) 2 make clear the lack of precision and clarity when it comes to terms as seemingly simple as Pauline theology. The frustration has reached such a high degree, that one member of that group, Steven Kraftchick, suggested a moratorium on further papers until questions of definition and procedure are more fully agreed on. 3 1 There are some things in [Paul s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 2 James D. G. Dunn s paper can be found in Society of Biblical Literature: 1995 Seminar Paper (ed. Eugene H. Lovering, Jr.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 704 21. Paul Meyer s paper can be found in the same volume on pp. 688 703. 3 Steven J. Kraftchick, Seeking a More Fluid Model: A Response to Jouette M. Bassler, in 1 & 2 Corinthians (ed. David M. Hay; vol. 2 of Pauline Theology; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 34. Cf. Wrede, who, even though he considered Paul to have taken the first elementary steps toward theological thought, doubted whether the term theology was appropriate for describing what we find in Paul s letters: Moderne Vorstellungen muß man ausdrücklich verbannen, wenn man Paulus einen Theologen nennt. Er besaß keine
신약학회월례회의 ( 신촌성결교회 ) 2002.06.29 10:00 2 With regard to the meaning of Christ in Pauline theology, some may note a discrepancy between the meaning of Christ in Paul, that is, as we find it in Paul s mere seven letters, and the meaning of Christ for Paul, that is, the meaning Christ had for Paul s entire life, including the letters but obviously encompassing much more. These two can conceivably be different. What Christ meant for Paul is probably more comprehensive than what we find in Paul, that is, in the New Testament letters of Paul. All we can conjecture is based on the textual evidence, hence the meaning of Christ for Paul as it is mediated in Paul s letters. To know the meaning of Christ for Paul would necessitate an interview with Paul that spans all of his life from his earliest memories. And even then we would have to assess the development of Paul the individual as he was molded by his ever-changing historical contexts. That sort of knowledge lies beyond our ken. In that regard, Kraftchick s somewhat pessimistic note in the aforementioned paper is quite understandable: Regardless of the methods of inquiry we have adopted, the full recovery of Paul s thought has remained beyond our collective grasp. The complexity of this process may find its origin not in the vagaries of the letters or the murkiness of their historical origin but in the complexity of the human being who wrote them. Lamentably we have few avenues of access open to us which reveal that person. 4 theologische Gelehrsamkeit in unserm Sinne und hat auch mit unsern Dogmatikern und Ethikern geringe Ähnlichkeit. Niemals hat er ein System seiner Lehre entwickeln wollen, selbst im Römerbriefe nicht. Er schreibt immer als Missionar, Organisator und Volksredner, entwickelt seine Gedanken auf gegebenen Anlaß hin, und immer nur nach einzelnen Seiten. So könnte man überhaupt irre werden, ob Theologie hier der rechte Name ist. Aber er ist nicht zu entbehren (Paulus [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1907], 47 [ When we call Paul a theologian we must expressly exclude modern associations of the word. He possessed no theological learning in our sense, and has very little affinity with our dogmatic and ethical writers. He never attempts not even in the letter to the Romans to unfold a system of doctrine. He writes always as a missionary, an organizer, a speaker to the people, is guided in the setting forth of his thoughts by the occasion given, and treats only of particular sides of his subject. We might well doubt, therefore, whether theology is here the right word to use: but it cannot be avoided. (Translation from Paul [trans. Edward Lummis; Lexington: American Theological Library Association, 1962], 74)]). Wrede reminded interpreters that they should move their attention away from the expressions to the experiences which arose in the development of the Christian religion as the means of understanding the expressions. For that reason he issued a warning against detailed, dogmatic examinations of words and concepts, and against those who believed that figuring out the meanings of the terms individually meant getting at the meaning of the text. Cf. Heikki Räisänen s opening words in Paul and the Law: Paul never defines the content of the term novmo~ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983, 16). Likewise is the significance of the fact especially in the light of debates about the ambiguity of the expression pivsti~ Cristou` that Paul never bothers to define as crucial a concept as pivsti~. 4 Kraftchick, Seeking a More Fluid Model, 34. Note the similarities Kraftchick s comment has with
신약학회월례회의 ( 신촌성결교회 ) 2002.06.29 10:00 3 I mention this issue (i.e., in vs. for) at the outset, although its ramifications run throughout this paper, not only to register my own awareness of the topic s complexity, but also to signal a suggestion that emerges from Wilhelm Dilthey s (1833 1911) view of Erlebnis (lived-experience) and Nacherleben (re-experiencing), especially with regard to written texts. As he explores hermeneutical issues, Dilthey points out and accentuates the capacity of human beings to understand others or the expressions (literature, art, music, etc.) of others that they encounter. Following Dilthey s approach to interpretation, then, I do not separate so sharply what Christ meant for Paul from what Christ means in the expressions we find in the extant letters of Paul. The distinction between the person Paul and his expressions, though instructive for our own analyses of the texts, need not keep us from affirming the common ground upon which Paul and we stand (the world, life, time, space, etc.), thereby allowing us to understand Paul, at least to the extent that the letters permit. Even when scholars most familiar with Paul s writings run up against seeming impasses, they cannot ignore their almost intuitive grasp of the sense or thrust of what Paul means to say by what he wrote. After all, it is the presupposition of all interpretation that we can in fact understand others works. That means that we share with Paul some fundamental structures in experiencing life and in giving expression to our experiences. Thus admitting the constraints of searching for the meaning of Christ in Paul, that is, in his letters, I would, however, dare hope that by getting at the meaning of Christ in Paul we will also be able to understand the meaning that Christ had for Paul. 2. Expression and meaning In exploring the meaning of Christ in Paul, I have found Dilthey s Lebensphilosophie to be a helpful theoretical framework. According to Dilthey s tripartite interrelations of Erlebnis (lived-experience), Ausdruck (expression), and Verstehen (understanding), I Albert Schweitzer s conclusions concerning the quest for the historical Jesus in Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1906), 397: [Jesus] does not stay; He passes by our time and returns to His own. What surprised and dismayed the theology of the last forty years was that, despite all forced and arbitrary interpretations, it could not keep Him in our time, but had to let Him go. (The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede [trans. William Montgomery; New York: Macmillan, 1968], 399).
신약학회월례회의 ( 신촌성결교회 ) 2002.06.29 10:00 4 understand Paul s letters as expressions of his lived-experience, most significantly his experience of Christ, which, as all interpreters would agree, became for him the center and power in his life, determining his understanding of all his experiences, past and present. I also make use of Dilthey s concept of an erworbener seelischer Zusammenhang (acquired psychic nexus) to understand Paul in terms of an ever-developing nexus of acquired experiences in dynamic contact with his world. Perceived and experienced, the objektiver Geist (objective spirit), or the historical world, provides the conditions and data for the developing psychic nexus of an individual, such as Paul (e.g., language and social conventions). The concepts of the acquired psychic nexus and objektiver Geist are especially important in understanding his thinking as coherent in the face of the variety and flexibility of his language (e.g., apocalyptic, Stoic) and the lack of systematic coherence on the discursive level of his expressions. My contention is that the forensic language of justification (dikaiosuvnh, dikaiovw) is one that Paul found readily at hand at opportune moments to bring to expression his experience of Christ. Not only does the language of justification belong to the level of expression, but so do the equally significant concepts of novmo~ and pivsti~. Part of the interpretative problem for us is that Paul never defines such terms in his letters. Instead, he uses them freely in various places at varying frequency, depending on the situation at hand. 5 These three concepts, dikaiosuvnh, novmo~, and pivsti~, interrelate and appear closely together mainly in Romans (Rom 3 4; 10) and Galatians (Gal 2 3) and have been the subject of numerous books and articles, although without any satisfactory consensus. Upon closer scrutiny, we can discover that these three terms are particularly related to the Jew-Gentile issue in the early church, most notably discussed in Galatians and Romans. Recent works on Paul and the law reveal the perennial problem of Pauline interpretation with regard to the use of such terms and concepts in Paul. 6 For example, in Romans Paul can write ouj ga;r oij ajkroatai; novmou divkaioi para;»tw/`¼ qew/`, ajllæ oij poihtai; 5 Cf. Wrede; see footnote 3. 6 E.g., Ed P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983) and Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
신약학회월례회의 ( 신촌성결교회 ) 2002.06.29 10:00 5 novmou dikaiwqhvsontai (Rom 2.13: For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified) and then shortly thereafter confuse the issue by claiming that ejx e[rgwn novmou ouj dikaiwqhvsetai pa`sa sa;rx ejnwvpion aujtou`, dia; ga;r novmou ejpivgnwsi~ ajmartiva~ (Rom 3.20: no human being will be justified in his sight by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin). E. P. Sanders views Rom 1.18 2.29 as an expendable anomaly, thus downplaying the palpable tension in Paul s claims. But the real reason for Sanders s position is that the passage does not fit nicely into his own interpretation of novmo~. On the other hand, Heikki Räisänen is more honest and blunt to admit that contradictions and tensions have to be accepted as constant features of Paul s theology of the law. 7 My proposal is that we return again, with more precision, to the hermeneutical distinction espoused by various scholars in the past, most notably Rudolf Bultmann, viz., between expression and meaning. With this fundamental hermeneutical apprehension comes the freedom to permit Paul to speak using his own language as he wishes, instead of our tendency to project our theological agenda into Paul s text. We will also benefit from the freedom from the search for a coherent center on the level of the text, i.e., in the letters themselves. No single expression on the textual level not even J. Christiaan Beker s suggestion of apocalyptic as the coherent center 8 can exhaust the meaning of Christ. The coherence of Paul s gospel is his experience of Christ itself, constantly active in his life and free to search out new ways of bringing that experience to expression. 3. Dikaiosuvnh ejk pivstew~ as One of Many Expressions in Paul In the light of the above, I would like to suggest, even if too briefly, a few theses for consideration. First is that the so-called doctrine of justification (Rechtfertigungslehre) is not the center of Paul but one of many expressions of his experience of Christ. Secondly, Paul s statements about dikaiosuvnh, especially in Romans and Galatians, are means for expressing 1980). 7 Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 11. 8 J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress,
신약학회월례회의 ( 신촌성결교회 ) 2002.06.29 10:00 6 the meaning of Christ in terms of the problem of Jew-Gentile relations. Paul uses dikaiosuvnh language to argue that the separate missions to the Jews and the Gentiles are parallel and equally valid. That the Gentiles are justified as Gentiles, and should not become Jews through circumcision is the meaning of Christ that Paul brings to expression with regard to the Jew-Gentile issue. Finally, if my contention is correct, then not only should the concept of justification relinquish its privileged status as Paul s central doctrine (pace Martin Luther), at least among the Protestants, but there are also serious consequences for interpreting any and all claims on the level of the text. All of Paul s statements in all the letters must be understood with respect to Paul s continuing experience of Christ and with respect to the concrete situations at hand that call for particular expressions of the meaning of Christ. As I mentioned already, the three terms dikaiosuvnh, novmo~, and pivsti~ are particularly related to the Jew-Gentile issue in Paul s letters, most notably in Romans and Galatians. But for many interpreters, this concrete, historical reality has taken a back seat since the doctrinal disputes of the sixteenth century. It is mostly under the enduring influence of Martin Luther and other Reformers that we still tend to see Paul s emphasis on dikaiosuvnh ejk pivstew~ as the coherent center of Paul. In the twentieth century, Ernst Käsemann once again focused on dikaiosuvnh (tw`n ajsebw`n) as Paul s central teaching and key to the rest of Paul s thought. Against such a strong tide of Protestant interpretation of Paul, Joseph Fitzmeyer cautions that the focus on dikaiosuvnh ejk pivstew~ as a supposed center compromises our apprehension of the larger, richer tapestry of Pauline letters that contain multifaceted understandings and expressions of what he would consider the center of Paul, viz., christocentric soteriology. 9 Fitzmeyer thinks that two extremes should be avoided with regard to the center in Paul. On the one hand, Albert Schweitzer s position does not do justice to the prominence of the theme of justification since his focus on mystical experience of Christ relegates justification to the margins of Pauline thought. On the other hand, Käsemann s 9 Conference on Rereading Paul Together, University of Notre Dame (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1 2 Feb 2002). At the same conference Margaret Mitchell argued that the center of Paul s theology was the death and resurrection of Christ.
신약학회월례회의 ( 신촌성결교회 ) 2002.06.29 10:00 7 claim of justification of the ungodly as the center of Pauline theology bypasses other significant expressions in Paul s letters. That is to say, both Schweitzer and Käsemann fail to appreciate the multifaceted expressions of soteriology that we find in Paul. In the light of the variety of centers that have been proposed by previous scholarship, my contention is that a center is not to be found on the textual level in the form of a proposition or doctrine in the dogmatic sense. 10 Rather, the letters bear witness to a dynamic process of continual theologizing in which the apostle Paul engages his readers in any way that would convince them to recognize hj ajlhvqeia tou` eujaggelivou (Gal 2.5, 14) 11 with respect to their particular and peculiar situation. 4. The Meaning of Christ It can be argued that for Paul the meaning of Christ had to do with individual salvation (e.g., Rom 10.9 10; Gal 1.15 16; 2.19 20; 5.21; Phil 2.12; 1 Thess 1.9 10). On the other hand, from the very same letters, we can argue instead that the meaning of Christ concerns cosmic salvation (e.g., Rom 5.12 21; 8.19 23). Neither of these understandings of the meaning of Christ for Paul is wrong; but neither can, on its own, exhaust the meaning of Christ for Paul. Both the individual dimension and the cosmic dimension are important in Paul. The important thing to remember, however, is that the letters are letters; i.e., they serve a practical purpose in a concrete situation. In that sense, then, Paul s statements about justification can be and must be read in the context of the particular situations in which he finds the language of justification as helpful in communicating the meaning of Christ. So, for example, the meaning of Christ is communicated to the Galatians through statements about justification aimed at the concrete problem of circumcision among believers in Galatia. 10 Wrede insisted on a liberation of New Testament interpretation not only from canonical boundaries, but also from what he referred to as the method of doctrinal concepts ( The Task and Methods of New Testament Theology, in The Nature of New Testament Theology [Naperville: Allenson, 1973], 73). He criticized the way in which many Pauline interpreters analyzed concepts like pivsti~ or savrx as if Paul had developed his concepts systematically and applied them precisely and with full awareness of their content and range of meaning (77). 11 Cf. ajlhvqeia Cristou` in 2 Cor 11.10.
신약학회월례회의 ( 신촌성결교회 ) 2002.06.29 10:00 8 In that particular case, where Gentiles wished to undergo circumcision, Paul used justification language to argue that the Gentiles are justified as Gentiles and therefore should not become Jews through circumcision. The meaning of Christ that Paul brings to expression in Galatians is that Jews in Christ and Gentiles who follow Jewish tradition have no soteriological privilege or advantage. That is to say, Gentiles who remain Gentiles are just as righteous in Christ as Jews, a view that apparently did not win the day in Antioch according to Paul s report in Gal 2.11 14. Paul was certainly a prominent figure, especially in the Gentile mission field, but according to the Antioch incident, his views do not seem to have been popular among the Jerusalem leadership. Both in Romans and Galatians Paul emphasizes the same meaning of Christ for Jews and Gentiles, using in both letters the figure of Abraham to present his argument (Rom 4; Gal 3.6 29), although in a slightly different manner. The practical message for believers in Rome as well as in Galatia is the same: whether Jew or Gentile, in Christ there is no privilege, no advantage or disadvantage when it comes to justification before God. If that is the case, dikaiosuvnh ejk pivstew~ is another way of proclaiming what Paul formulates in concrete socio-political categories in Gal 3.28: oujk e[ni ÆIoudai`o~ oujde; {Ellhn, oujk e[ni dou`lo~ oujde; ejleuvqero~, oujk e[ni a[rsen kai; qh`lu: pavnte~ ga;r ujmei`~ ei ~ ejste ejn Cristw/` ÆIhsou`. If this is the truth of the gospel in Christ, then the thrust of Paul s letters to the Galatians and Romans has not so much to do with a dogmatic explication of justification, but rather with the practical problem of Gentiles and Jews coexisting in Christ. Furthermore, this understanding of the meaning of Christ leaves a great assignment of reconciliation still to be completed by the contemporary church, in which claims of soteriological privilege are still a regrettable reality.
신약학회월례회의 ( 신촌성결교회 ) 2002.06.29 10:00 9 그리스도의의미와바울신학 The Meaning of Christ and Pauline Theology 차례 1. 시작하는말 2. 표현과의미 (Expression and Meaning) 3. Dikaiosuvnh ejk pivstew~: 바울의여러표현중하나 4. 그리스도의의미 (The Meaning of Christ) 1. 시작하는말베드로후서 3.16에기록된것은바울사도의선교와쓴편지들후에초기교회가바울서신해석을문제로삼았다는증거다 : ejn [tai`~ ejpistolai`~ Paulou`] ejstin dusnovhtav tina, a} oij ajmaqei`~ kai; ajsthvriktoi streblou`sin wj~ kai; ta;~ loipa;~ grafa;~ pro;~ th;n ijdivan aujtw`n ajpwvleian. 12 그때부터지금까지바울에대한충분한이해가이루어지지않았다. 현재해석자들은 바울신학 이란개념까지도비판적으로분석하고있다. 최근 Society of Biblical Literature 의바울신학연구분과의회원들의의견들도바울신학의정의에대해서분명한주장을결하고있는것을볼수있다. 13 그래서 Steven Kraftchick 학자는어휘와정의에대해서충분한합의가있을때까지는더이상에주장을펴지말자고했다. 14 12 [ 바울이쓴편지에는 ] 알기어려운것이더러있어서, 무식하거나믿음이굳세지못한사람은, 다른성경을잘못해석하듯이그것을잘못해석해서, 마침내스스로파멸에이르고말것입니다. 13 James D. G. Dunn s paper can be found in Society of Biblical Literature: 1995 Seminar Paper (ed. Eugene H. Lovering, Jr.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 704 21. Paul Meyer s paper can be found in the same volume on pp. 688 703. 14 Steven J. Kraftchick, Seeking a More Fluid Model: A Response to Jouette M. Bassler, in 1 & 2 Corinthians (ed. David M. Hay; vol. 2 of Pauline Theology; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 34. Cf. Wrede, who, even though he considered Paul to have taken the first elementary steps toward theological thought, doubted whether the term theology was appropriate for describing what we find in Paul s letters: Moderne Vorstellungen muß man ausdrücklich verbannen, wenn man Paulus einen Theologen nennt. Er besaß keine theologische Gelehrsamkeit in unserm Sinne und hat auch mit unsern Dogmatikern und Ethikern geringe Ähnlichkeit. Niemals hat er ein System seiner Lehre entwickeln wollen, selbst im Römerbriefe nicht. Er schreibt immer als Missionar, Organisator und Volksredner, entwickelt seine Gedanken auf gegebenen Anlaß hin, und immer nur nach einzelnen Seiten. So könnte man überhaupt irre werden, ob Theologie hier der rechte Name ist. Aber er ist nicht zu entbehren (Paulus [Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1907], 47 ( When we call Paul a theologian we must expressly exclude modern associations of the word. He possessed no theological learning in our sense, and has very little affinity with our dogmatic and ethical writers. He never attempts not
신약학회월례회의 ( 신촌성결교회 ) 2002.06.29 10:00 10 바울신학에서그리스도의의미를따질때 the meaning of Christ in Paul 과 the meaning of Christ for Paul 을다룰수있다. 바울을직접만나볼수없는우리는바울이가졌던그리스도의의미를그의편지들을통해서만알수있다. 그럼에도불구하고 Wilhelm Dilthey 의생의철학 (Lebensphilosophie) 을통하여바울서신을살펴보면우리가바울이가졌던그리스도의의미의상당한이해에도달할수있다. 아무리학자들이해석으로결론을못내리는문제가많아도우리는바울이의미하는바를파악할수있다. 그이유는우리는다른사람이쓴것을읽고이해할수있다는것이해석의기본적인전제가되기때문이다. 이것은우리가인생의경험을통해서기본적인것들을바울과나눌수있다는것을의미한다. 바울서신에있는그리스도의의미를찾을때어떤제한이있는것을인정하지만우리는바울서신에있는그리스도의의미를추구해나갈때바울자신이가졌던그리스도의의미를찾을수있다는확신을가질수있다. 2. 표현과의미 (Expression and Meaning) Dilithey 에게배우는여러가지중에바울해석에합당한것이많은데한가지중요한것은경험 (Erlebnis) 과표현 (Ausdruck) 을구별해야한다는이론이다. 내가주장하는것은, 바울의 dikaiosuvnh 라는법적인표현은바울이그의전생을통한그리스도의경험을나타내는것들중의하나일뿐이라는것이다. 즉 dikaiosuvnh 만아니라바울신학에서중요한의미를가지고있는 novmo~ 와 pivsti~ 도그리스도의경험을표현하는주제어들이다. 바울해석에서큰문제는바울사도가이런주제어들을그의편지안에서한정하지않았기때문이다. 바울은 even in the letter to the Romans to unfold a system of doctrine. He writes always as a missionary, an organizer, a speaker to the people, is guided in the setting forth of his thoughts by the occasion given, and treats only of particular sides of his subject. We might well doubt, therefore, whether theology is here the right word to use: but it cannot be avoided. [Translation from Paul (trans. Edward Lummis; Lexington: American Theological Library Association, 1962), 74]). Wrede reminded interpreters that they should move their attention away from the expressions to the experiences which arose in the development of the Christian religion as the means of understanding the expressions. For that reason he issued a warning against detailed, dogmatic examinations of words and concepts, and against those who believed that figuring out the meanings of the terms individually meant getting at the meaning of the text. Cf. Heikki Räisänen s opening words in Paul and the Law: Paul never defines the content of the term novmo~ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983, 16). Likewise is the significance of the fact especially in the light of debates about the ambiguity of the expression pivsti~ Cristou` that Paul never bothers to define as crucial a concept as pivsti~.
신약학회월례회의 ( 신촌성결교회 ) 2002.06.29 10:00 11 구체적인상황에따라필요할때만유리한주제어들을자유롭게쓴다. 15 Dikaiosuvnh 와 novmo~ 와 pivsti~ 는서로상관성을가짐으로로마서와갈라디아서에서가깝게나타나며많은학자들의주제가되어왔다. 자세히보면이세주제어는초기교회에있었던유대인-이방인관계문제를따질때바울이사용한표현들이다. 근년에발표된바울학자들의책들과논문들을보면끊이지않는이런해석문제들을연구하는모습을볼수있다. 16 예를든다면바울이로마서 2.13에ouj ga;r oij ajkroatai; novmou divkaioi para;»tw/`¼ qew/`, ajllæ oij poihtai; novmou dikaiwqhvsontai ( 하느님앞에서는율법을듣는사람이의로운사람이아닙니다. 오직율법을실천하는사람이라야의롭게될것이기때문입니다.) 라고쓴바로후에 3.20에는오해하고혼동하기쉽게 ejx e[rgwn novmou ouj dikaiwqhvsetai pa`sa sa;rx ejnwvpion aujtou`, dia; ga;r novmou ejpivgnwsi~ ajmartiva~ ( 율법을지킴으로써하느님앞에서의롭다고인정받을사람은아무도없습니다. 율법으로는죄를인식할뿐입니다.) 라고썼다. 그래서 E. P. Sanders 는롬 1.19 2.29을이례적이라고이해하며부기 (appendix) 에서따로다룬다. 그러나더실제적인이유는그율법의개념이 Sanders 의율법의개념과일치하지않기때문이다. 그와대비하여 Heikki Räisänen 은솔직히말하며 대립과긴장은율법에대한바울신학에서계속적으로수용되어야한다 고했다. 17 내가제안하는것은과거의학자들이, 그중특별히 Rudolf Bultmann 이강조한바표현과의미를구별하자는것이다. 그렇게해서, 우리의입장에서바울의신학을만들어내는것보다도바울로하여금그자신의말을자유롭게하게하는것이옳은해석법이라고생각한다. 본문으로는어떠한하나의표현이 J. Christiaan Beker 이중심점으로삼는묵시사상도 18 그리스도의의미를다나타낼수없다. 바울의복음의 coherence (Mitte) 는그의역동적인그리스도경험자체이고언제나자유롭게여러상황을따라표현방식을찾을수있는것이다. 15 Cf. Wrede; see footnote 3. 16 E.g., Ed P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1983) and Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). 17 Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 11: contradictions and tensions have to be accepted as constant features of Paul s theology of the law. 18 J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).
신약학회월례회의 ( 신촌성결교회 ) 2002.06.29 10:00 12 3. Dikaiosuvnh ejk pivstew~: 바울의여러표현중하나이러한생각을하며나는몇가지논제를우리의토론을위하여제의한다. 첫째로는개신교회의전통적인이신칭의 ( 以信稱義 ) 교리가바울신학의중심이아니고그리스도의경험의여러표현들중의하나라는것이다. 둘째로는바울이로마서와갈라디아서에서 dikaiosuvnh 에관하여말하는것은그리스도의의미를그당시에있었던유대인-이방인문제를따지며사용한하나의표현이다. 그때에유대인들과이방인들에게따로있었던선교운동들이동시에, 또동등하게유효한선교라고할때에쓴주제어들중의하나다. 하느님은이방인들을이방인으로, 할례를통하여유대인이안된상태로의롭게한다는말이다. 셋째로는내가제안하는것이옳은경우에는, 이신칭의교리나 dikaiosuvnh 에관한말들이 Luther 이래로가졌던바울신학에서의특별한위치를유보하여야하고, 또바울이쓴본문에있는모든표현들을다시새롭게해석해야한다는것이다. 앞에말한것처럼 dikaiosuvnh 와 novmo~ 와 pivsti~ 는유대인-이방인관계문제를따질때많이사용하는그리스도의경험을표현하는주제어인데, Luther 이래로그실제적이고역사적인사실을 16세기의교리의관심때문에새롭게이해하기어렵게되었다. 특별히개신교전통에들어있는많은학자들과목사들은 Käsemann 을따라 dikaiosuvnh ejk pivstew~ 를 19 바울신학의중심점으로생각하고있다. Joseph Fitzmeyer 은이개신교의이신칭의교리의중요성을의문시하며바울이쓰는다른여러표현들도옳게평가할수있어야한다고강조한다. Fitzmeyer 의의견은바울신학의중심은그리스도중심의구원론 (christocentric soteriology) 이라고주장하고, dikaiosuvnh ejk pivstew~ 는바울신학의중심적인논제도아니고주변적인논제도아니라고생각한다. 20 나도 Fitzmeyer 의견해에동조하며 dikaiosuvnh ejk pivstew~ 가중요하지만가장중요한것은아니라고생각한다. 우리가주장해야하는것은바울신학의중심은본문의차원에서교리의형식으로찾을수없다는것이다. 21 그것보다는오히려바울서신은바울의독자들에게 19 Käsemann: dikaiosuvnh tw`n ajsebw`n (Rom 4.5; 5.6). 20 Conference on Rereading Paul Together, University of Notre Dame (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1 2 Feb 2002). At the same conference Margaret Mitchell argued that the center of Paul s theology was the death and resurrection of Christ. 21 Wrede insisted on a liberation of New Testament interpretation not only from canonical boundaries, but
신약학회월례회의 ( 신촌성결교회 ) 2002.06.29 10:00 13 어떠한표현으로든지복음의진리를 ( 갈 2.5, 14: hj ajlhvqeia tou` eujaggelivou) 22 확신하도록그들의특수한상황에맞추어계속해서역동적으로신학적인증언을하는 모습을나타내는것이라고생각한다. 4. 그리스도의의미 (The Meaning of Christ) 바울서신에는개인적구원론도있고 ( 예 : 롬 10.9 10; 갈 1.15 16; 2.19 20; 5.21; 빌 2.12; 살전 1.9 10) 우주적구원론도있지만 ( 예 : 롬 5.12 21; 8.19 23) 그둘중의하나만으로그리스도의의미를이해할수없다. 둘다중요하지만무엇보다도선행되어야할것은바울의편지는우선편지자체로서이해해야된다고하는것이다. 바울의편지들은구체적인상황에실천적인목적을가지고있다는것이다. 바울의 dikaiosuvnh 의선포는특별한상황에맞추어서필요를따라쓴것이다. 예를들면갈라디아서에서는갈라디아교인들의할례문제를해결하기위하여 dikaiosuvnh ejk pivstew~ 를다룬것이다. 바울은갈라디아교인들이할례를받기원했을때할례를통하여유대인이되지않기를경고하기위하여 dikaiosuvnh ejk pivstew~ 를다루는편지를보냈다. 갈라디아서에서나타나는그리스도의의미는하느님이이방인들을이방인으로, 할례를통하여유대인이안된상태로의롭게한다는것이다. 유대인이나이방인이나간에그리스도사건으로말미암아하느님앞에서는어떠한특권의유무의차이가없이의롭게된다는것을가르친것이다. 유대인이나이방인이나간에의롭게되는것은그리스도의 / 를믿음으로말미암아되는것이라고주장한것이다. 그러나바울은초기교회의대인물이었지만대인기는끌지못했다. 갈 2.11 14에보면안디옥에서자기의뜻대로공감을불러일으키지못한답답한바울을볼수있다. 바울은로마서와갈라디아서에서는아브라함을들어유대인이거나이방인에게똑같은그리스도의의미를강조했다. 그리스도안에는아무도특권이없다고했다. 그렇다면 dikaiosuvnh ejk pivstew~ 는바울이갈 3.28에서구체적인여러사회정치적인 also from what he referred to as the method of doctrinal concepts ( The Task and Methods of New Testament Theology, in The Nature of New Testament Theology [Naperville: Allenson, 1973], 73). He criticized the way in which many Pauline interpreters analyzed concepts like pivsti~ or savrx as if Paul had developed his concepts systematically and applied them precisely and with full awareness of their content and range of meaning (77). 22 Cf. ajlhvqeia Cristou` in 2 Cor 11.10.
신약학회월례회의 ( 신촌성결교회 ) 2002.06.29 10:00 14 범주안에서형성하고선포한다른하나의표현방법이다 : oujk e[ni ÆIoudai`o~ oujde; {Ellhn, oujk e[ni dou`lo~ oujde; ejleuvqero~, oujk e[ni a[rsen kai; qh`lu: pavnte~ ga;r ujmei`~ ei ~ ejste ejn Cristw/` ÆIhsou` ( 유대사람이나그리스사람이나, 종이나자유인이나, 남자나여자나차별이없습니다. 그것은여러분이그리스도예수안에서다하나이기때문입니다 ). 그것은이신칭의교리에대한말이아니라유대인과이방인이그리스도안에서공존하는문제를실제적으로다룬것이다. 그러므로오늘날우리들의과제는이러한그리스도의의미를이해하여그어떤구원론적특권도일부의그리스도인에게한정하지않고화해와일치의큰테두리안에서이해해야된다고하는것이다.