The following was initially a blog post. I have refrained from editing out matters of informality etc.
Disclaimer: While I am a reasonable typist, I nonetheless cannot type at speech-speed at the best times, much less on a laptop keyboard. Consequently, these notes vary from word to word to close summary, and much of the ground in between. To be sure of precise wording, you will of course need to consult the tapes or CDs.
Dr Richard Gaffin: General Observations on Paul and His Theology
Richard Gaffin gave the final lecture for the opening evening of the conference. His set of lectures were collectively entitled "By Faith, Not By Sight" (from 2 Cor 5.7). While I have provided a title for this session, it must be noted that he ran his material from one lecture to the next, picking up where he left off. So if what you see as we go along does not look like clean breaks, it's not an illusion.
I should also add that while Gaffin did have a handout outline, I have made no attempt to match the headings below to the outline - so any fault you see in the subheadings is wholly my own.
Biblical theology
Gaffin began by explaining how he conceives the task of biblical-theological work. Biblical theology gives attention to the historical, situational and occasional character of the biblical writings. Responsible biblical theology must, however, be done with the recognition that the biblical writers are not isolated, but belong to an overarching history; all belong within the unfolding of God's self-revelation. This history of self-revelation begins at the time of the fall, largely incorporates the history of Israel, and reaches its culmination in Christ, who is God's final and supreme self-revelation (citing Heb 1.1ff).
Three factors are particularly important in considering God's self-revelation: (1) the historical process; (2) diversity; and (3) Christ as the eschatological end-point of this process.
Paul is of interest to us, not ultimately due to his theological genius (and he is indeed profound), nor to his fascinating religious experience (although that is deep and exemplary). Rather, it is due to his apostolic calling; he is an instrument of God's revelation, authorized by the exalted Christ to attest and interpret the salvation manifested in Him. We must therefore receive his teaching as did the Thessalonians: that is, as the very Word of God (1 Thess 2.13). This is not only a spiritual, but an academic necessity. Paul would have found foreign the Enlightenment dichotomies between God's speaking and the biblical text.
Paul's Word as God's Word
Because Paul's writings are the Word of God, a number of implications follow:
1. The canonical context holds a place of privilege and primacy. The ultimate controlling context for Paul is "the expanding horizon in the rest of Scripture, beginning in Paul's letters as a whole." This observation is not anchored in some "abstract Scripture principle" (as some would have it), but in the redemptive-historical factor. Scripture is our only normative access to this history. (Emphasis mine.) Gaffin, I take it, is taking a careful line between biblicism (which would make the claim that "only the Bible matters," such that study of extrabiblical material to aid us in understanding the text would be largely inconsequential or even detrimental) and the predilection in critical scholarship to collapse the distinction between the canonical text of God's Word and other historical materials. Those other historical materials may well be very valuable, but they are not normative. With reference to Pauline studies, I would guess that Gaffin would apply this to the current fascination with Second Temple literature to determine what Paul could or could not have opposed; such non-canonical literature is not normative, and therefore may not be allowed to override (say) the witness of Matthew to the character of (at least some) Judaism. (Again, please understand that this is my application, which Gaffin did not draw out.)
2. Essential clarity. In its central elements, Paul's teaching is clear. This does not mean that no problems exist in interpreting him. (As Schweitzer cited one biblical scholar saying to another: "No one has ever understood Paul, and the only one who did, misunderstood him.") Paul's trials in 2 Corinthians 11.23ff could be a description of the mistreatment his interpreters have put him through (Ridderbos)! And the New Testament itself indicates the nature of this situation (2 Pet 3.16). Not only our sinful limitations, but also the fact that Paul writes of "the deep things of God" offers us difficulty. Yet, paradoxically, Gaffin suggests, "The central clarity of Paul's teaching is rooted in the impenetrable depths of God's incomprehensibility."
Other factors, too, raise interpretive problems. There is the "prosaic factor" - the occasional nature of Paul's writings. These writings are not doctrinal treatises; they are letters directed to concrete pastoral and practical situations, and this is the case even where doctrinal reflection is at its most apparent (such as passages in Romans). While Paul has a "decidedly doctrinal bent," that bent comes before us only with reference to church situations and problems, not in a "formalized" theology.
Then further: some of the letters presuppose prior personal contact which is unknown to us. We only see what projects above the surface, while below that surface is presupposed a submerged mass of instruction. Hence, Westminster rightly said that doctrine may and must be formulated by way of "good and necessary consequence;" apart from that, we cannot make "full sense of Paul's theology as a whole."
Nonetheless, we must not exaggerate the difficulties - Peter does not say "all things difficult to understand," but "some."
3. Paul as theologian. Some have suggested that calling Paul a "theologian" devalues his authority; it drags him down to our level. Not an imaginary concern, as reflected by the historical-critical approach. Yet this danger is offset if we retain Paul's apostleship in our view. Paul the theologian is Paul the apostle; his teaching is God-breathed in its authority, and thus unlike post-apostolic theology. While our theologizing is Spirit-led, it is not Spirit-borne (2 Pet 1.21).
There is value in approaching Paul as a theologian. Despite differences in matters of authority and direct revelation, yet we share the same redemptive-historical era; our standpoint looks back at the climactic point of redemptive history in the death and resurrection of Christ.
Biblical theology's relationship to systematics
"Systematic theology ought to be radically non-speculative." It lives or dies by sound biblical interpretation. It is concerned to set forth the Scripture's inherent unity that lies within its diversity. It is not necessary for the theologian to manufacture this unity, since God Himself is the primary author and guarantees that unity.
Biblical theology is not merely a descriptive exercise; it is "indispensable for regulating systematic theology." When systematics and BT go their separate ways, negative results follow.
Primary sources
Unapologetically, Gaffin noted that the primary sources for the study of Paul are the 13 New Testament letters, as well as pertinent materials from Acts.
The study of Paul today
Gaffin noted that current discussion in Pauline studies is dominated by the New Perspective on Paul. Nonetheless, he said, "My concern is not to engage these developments formally, but only as they engage my development." (I.e. how they impinge upon how he himself works out Pauline theology.) Gaffin's self-understanding is that he sees himself within the Reformational reading of Paul and his theology (particularly that of Calvin), but that he is building upon Geerhardus Vos and Herman Ridderbos, who have drawn particular attention to the redemptive-historical (or covenantal-historical) dimension of Paul's theology.
Preliminary points
Gaffin next tackled the thorny question of whether we make speak of an ordo salutis in Paul's theology. Does Paul have interest in such concerns?
Gaffin distinguished between two possible ways of speaking of an ordo, a specific, technical sense, and a more general sense. He noted that the former (which develops logical and causal connections, and even chronology in some cases) apparently first arose in the 18th century in emerging Pietism, and ultimately found its way into Reformed and Lutheran orthodoxy. Gaffin suggests, however, that the terminology can also be used in a more general way to refer simply to the ongoing application of salvation (in distinction from its once-for-all accomplishment), and in this sense it is not necessarily concerned with nor presupposes "sequenced acts" in the granting of salvation. It is in this latter sense that Gaffin speaks - "whatever may be its specific shape or profile."
The question then becomes: along with Paul's undeniable historical focus, does he concern himself with individual appropriation? "Is Luther's question of finding a gracious God foreign or uninteresting to Paul?"
Gaffin answers that Paul is indeed concerned with individual appropriation. Such concerns are reflected, for example, in Paul's observations that not all have faith (2 Thess 3.2), and that believers are distinguished from those who have no hope (1 Thess 4.13), as well as in Paul's direct calls to faith (Rom 10.9; Acts 16.31). "The salvation accomplished by Christ is realized only where faith is present;" outside of that it is not effectual. "Without application, redemption is not redemption."
With that, Gaffin ended the session with a brief introductory comment upon his overarching theme, "By faith and not by sight" (2 Cor 5.7). The immediate context of this Pauline statement has to do with a concern for bodily resurrection, as well as with being with Christ at death: these are future, rather than present realities. "This statement fairly serves as a basic window [into] the Church's present possession regarding the salvation purchased by Christ." In other words: 2 Corinthians 5.7 provides us an outline of the fundamental "now/not yet" dialectic that defines Paul's approach to individual salvation. (That is my comment, not Gaffin's.)
Brief Thoughts
One scarcely needs to revisit my notes on Wright's opening lecture to sense that there is a great deal of stylistic and conceptual difference between the two men, both in way of thinking and presentation. While Wright's speaking style reflects serious - even rigorous - scholarship, his lectures were not "academic" in tone. By contrast, as a seminary graduate, I immediately recognized Gaffin's approach: he was giving a seminary lecture. (In fact, this is not the slightest exaggeration - I later heard former Gaffin students say that much of the material in this session was straight out of an introductory seminary course, which did not surprise me.)
This is not in any way a criticism of Gaffin, even at the most implicit level. He is not N. T. Wright, nor should he be. While his choice of vocabulary was not very accessible - I think he frequently lost the laypeople in the audience - Gaffin's presentation is necessary groundwork for responsible study, particularly within a confessional context. But I will put off making further comment on Gaffin's approach until we wrap up.