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
Identifying a center in Pauline theology
Day 2 of the conference began with Dr Gaffin. He continued his methodical approach into Paul's theology by asking a number of general questions.
The question of the "center" of Paul's theology has come under a great deal of discussion for well over a century; Gaffin broached this issue here. He suggested that Paul does have a center, although one must not take this too narrowly - it will not do to latch onto a single key concept and suppose that from that everything can be deduced.
By center, then, Gaffin does not intend a narrow solitary doctrine. Rather, he means that Paul's letters are not a "wax nose," despite their occasional character.
When I talk about a center, I mean that in Paul's letters there is an overall set of concerns that is identifiable, and among those concerns, some matters are more important than others. All perspectives are not equally controlling - [a factor] pointing to a circle of interests in which each of those interests are more or less central - "relative centrality."
What then is this circle of interests, and how can it be identified? Gaffin suggests that there are numerous "synoptic" passages which quite evidently "express core concerns of the apostle."
Elemental among these: the confession of Jesus as Lord in 1 Cor 12.3 (cf Rom 10.9-10); 1 Cor 2.2, where Paul says he "knows nothing else" than Christ and Him crucified: "his exclusive comprehensive epistemic commitment is the crucified Christ." So too Gal 6.14: Paul boasts only in the cross of Christ 2 Tim 2.8: the key memory is that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead according to Paul's gospel. The gospel is encapsulated in Romans 1.3-4; Rom 4.25 (Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our justification) is also such a synoptic statement.
On the basis of these texts, Gaffin observes that a general profile of the Pauline theological center is plain enough. The focus is on Christ, not in generalized or abstract terms, but on Christ "specifically in His death and/or resurrection." References to the death alone, or the resurrection alone are synechdochic - "to speak of one always entails and implies the significance of the other."
The text which Gaffin chooses to hone in on, however, is 1 Corinthians 15.3-4 (not surprising, given its traditionary context in the chapter; Gaffin suggests that Paul may be utilizing a confessional fragment).
This passage has Paul's message in its entirety in view. "The center of Paul's theology is the gospel, and at the center of the gospel are the death and resurrection."
Yet these are not in view as mere occurrences, uninterpreted facts: they are "according to the Scriptures;" Christ's death is "for our sins."
The matter of application in Paul
Paul's center is not one or other applied benefit; rather it lies in the historia salutis. "He is concerned with matters of appropriation only as they are tethered to his redemptive-historical focus."
This does not "de-center" justification (or for that matter, the work of the Spirit), but puts it in proper fundamental perspective.
And with this, Gaffin concedes: "This does represent a difference in accent from what has often been dominant since the Reformation." It is a fair generalization to say that Paul has been read primarily as an exponent of sola fide - forensic concerns focusing upon sin as guilt - "such are held as centrally controlling in Paul."
Gaffin observes that others have challenged this Reformation understanding, going so far as to say that Paul's employment of justification was a mere tactical measure, while his primary interest with sin has to do with its destructive power.
For some time, debate over Paul focused on application - matters of ordo salutis: is his center justification or renewal? and how do they relate? More recently, however, there has been broad consensus that Paul's greater focus is upon eschatological or redemptive-historical concerns. Specifically: Christ's death and resurrection in their eschatological significance are the center; "In my view, this is sound, as confirmed in 1 Corinthians 15.3-4."
This again raises the question of how historia salutis and ordo salutis relate in Paul's theology.
"According to the Scriptures"
This refers to eschatological fulfillment. There is a strong consensus that Paul's eschatology has a dual focus, the future and already present, referring to Christ's first and second comings.
We see this dual thought most explicitly and directly connected in Galatians 1.4: Christ gave Himself for our sins, to rescue us from the present evil age. This reflects Paul's distinction between this age and the one to come; these two ages are "considered consecutively and - given the fall - antithetically." Christ's death inducts believers into the coming order, so that eschatological deliverance is already a present reality. There is a new ktisis (creation, not merely creature). One who is in Christ is already a participant in God's new and final order for the creation.
For our sins
Gaffin suggests that in saying Christ's work is "for our sins" (1 Cor 15.3-4), we should understand this comprehensively - sin in all its facets. After all, the next occurrence of the word "sins" (v 17) surely is comprehensive. "Surely Paul's point is not that 'still in some respects,' but comprehensively, entirely, unrelievedly" one is still in his sins if Christ is not raised.
Gaffin notes further that sin is the only extra element introduced alongside fulfillment in 1 Corinthians 15.3-4. "Apart from sin, Paul sees no place for Christ and His activity." (I almost wonder if Gaffin is overstating here. As he himself noted earlier, the antithesis between the ages arises due to sin, but there is no implication that sin creates the situation of two ages. Moreover, given what Paul will say later in this very chapter, it certainly sounds like the creation of "the man of dust" anticipates the coming of "the man from heaven." And that is not a concept rooted in the fall. But a minor point for our purposes.)
What this means is that there are "no Christological interests that are not also soteriological." (This, one would think, is one way of getting at the question whether Paul had a soteriological dispute with Judaism. But of course, the term would be being used in a somewhat different fashion than is usual, since in the debate the point at issue has to do with the "systemic structure" of how salvation is achieved. Still. . . .) Gaffin implicitly takes a shot at Sanders by observing that while "the plight is made clear in the light of the solution, yet [the plight] already exists and is even clear apart from the solution; it specifies what the solution must remedy."
Paul's teaching on sin
This raises the issue of plight; Gaffin suggests that while recent discussions of Paul have given considerable focus to the "solution," the plight has been downplayed.
The sin issue is "extensive and multi-faceted." Sin is theocentric - primarily against God, and only then against fellow humans and onself. It is relational - that is, it is anti-relational, a repudiation of and recoil against the Creator-creature relationship.
This, suggests Gaffin, is the illegality of sin: in its relationality it is illegal. The law is the will of God, revealing sin (Gaffin here appeals to Rom 3.20 and 7.12).
Gaffin appears aware that such a reading of the texts is not open and shut. He notes that Sinai marks out a particular period of covenant history, which terminates in Christ. Yet, it "seems difficult to deny" that for Paul there are "imperatives that transcend the Mosaic economy and are indicative of Creator-creature relationship from the beginning," which are thus encumbent upon both Jew and Gentile. (Here Gaffin refers not only to Rom 7.12, but also to 13.9 and 1 Cor 7.19.)
This illegality of sin renders the sinner guilty, a universal condition, not only by virtual of actual sins, but because all are sinners by birth; all are born with "a disposition to sin which is itself sinful (Rom 5.12-19). Paul would not recognize the notion argued by some, that there is such thing as original sin, but not original guilt.
But sin is not only guilt-producing; it is also an enslaving and corrupting power, which is captured most emphatically in Romans 6-7. The sinner is a slave to sin; is dead in transgressions and sins. And in this deadness and corruption, sinners are as culpable as they are helpless.
Thus: sin elicits divine wrath, which is "neither an impersonal process nor a reflexive leaving of sinners to the inner consequences of their sinning," but rather God's own personal recoil against sin in His holiness and justice. The divine wrath is necessarily punitive and retributive in view of those concerns of His person. Human death in Paul is punitive and penal. (Mark this well; it will be an important point later, when Gaffin deals with final justification.)
Thus the "for our sins" of 1 Corinthians 15.3-4 has reference to this dual profile of sin; "Christ's death has to do with destroying both guilt and corruption together." Christ's death is applied efficaciously both forensically and re-creationally, which Gaffin labels "justification and sanctification." (It is to be noted that sanctification in these lectures is thus used more broadly than is frequently done; Gaffin is not limiting it to the progressive subduing of sin in the cooperation between the believer and God, but more largely employs it to refer to re-creation and renewal. This broader terminology was a matter of confusion of sorts for Wright at one point.)
What this means is that while Paul does not confuse justification and sanctification, "Paul sees them together more easily than is often the case in many evangelical circles." Gaffin noted that a speaker at a recent conference suggested, "What Christ has done for us is Christianity; what He does in us is His own business." Gaffin took strong issue with this; it is not a statement Paul would make, and in fact, it "significantly abridges the scope of Paul's 'for us.'"
Union with Christ
Although Gaffin is here focusing on 1 Corinthians 15.3-4, and "union with Christ" lies beyond that passage's scope, yet he insists that the thought is "decisive for what falls within what for Paul is of 'first importance.'"
The Pauline doctrine of union with Christ draws from the Old Testament, "and as much as anything shows him to be a covenant theologian." In the OT, God Himself is depicted as being the portion of His people; reciprocally, Israel are the Lord's portion (Gaffin cites Isaiah 53.12).
This covenantal bond finds its "climactic realization" in union with Christ, which is "the central truth of salvation" for Paul. It is true that the literal phrase union with Christ does not appear, but the "in Christ" construction is unquestionably dominant. The use of this idea is highly varied; something of its scope can be seen in the contrast between Adam and Christ (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15), where "what each does is determinative for those in Him."
Brief Thoughts
I think Gaffin's lecture was reasonably solid, but already here there is a sense that he is not working as directly with the text as Wright is. I think especially of Gaffin's generalizing of "the law" into some sort of overarching principle. Although he appeals to Scripture (Rom 3.20; 7.12), he certainly makes no attempt to establish that this is the correct reading of these texts, and such a reading is a highly controverted point. He recognizes the issue, as we've seen, but in effect he skirts it. Although in his previous lecture, he has spoken of the importance of exegesis regulating systematic theology, in effect Gaffin is labouring as a systematician and not an exegete or biblical theologian at this point.
These are to be taken less as criticisms than as observations. And the fact is that as I have reviewed this material, I have appreciated some of it more at "second look" than I necessarily did at first hearing. The thought I drew attention to earlier, that there is no Christological concern that is not also soteriological, for instance, is worthy of further reflection.
I suspect that the temptation for some of my readers may be to skip over the Gaffin reports and only read the ones on Wright. In some respects, I understand that - even on paper, Wright appears to be more interesting. Yet it would be a mistake to suppose that we have to do here with something bland, unimportant, or uninteresting. Gaffin's lectures hold together with a great deal of coherence, and while his final session was far and away my favourite, it remains true that the groundwork he is laying in the early sessions is making that last one possible. (Which is, in part, why I occasionally draw attention to a point necessary to keep in mind for the long term.)