Richard B. Hays

THE CONVERSION OF THE IMAGINATION: SCRIPTURE AND ESCHATOLOGY IN 1 CORINTHIANS

This article argues two major theses: (1) Paul was trying to teach the Corinthian church to think eschatologically; (2) Paul was trying to teach the Corinthian church to reshape its identity in light of Israels Scripture. These theses entail two important corollaries: (1) the Corinthians did not have an ‘overrealized eschatology’; (2) scholars who contend that Paul engaged in OT interpretation only when his hand was forced by Judaizing opponents cannot explain Pauls rich and varied use of Scripture in 1 Cor. These theses are explained and defended with reference to 1 Cor 10.1–22; 1.18–31 and 5.1–13.

The Thorny Task of Reconciliation: Another Response to Nigel Biggar

Dear Nigel, I am glad to continue the discussion, and I appreciate your cordial and careful reply. Many differences between us remain unresolved, but perhaps it would be well to begin by noting some significant common ground. I am glad to see your agreement with me that the foundation for constructive Christian ethics is ‘the story of God’s saving work, as it finds definitive expression in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection’—something that was not entirely clear to me in your earlier critique of The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Likewise, I join you in affirming that ‘followers of Jesus are forbidden to be vengeful and hateful; that they are called to intend peace, to have compassion, and to forebear’. The overlap between our positions is a welcome reminder that Christian advocates of just war and Christian pacifists share much in common. As followers of Jesus we serve the same Lord, and we both know ourselves to be called to peacemaking. We both acknowledge that Jesus’ teaching constrains our natural impulses towards retaliation and summons us instead to compassionate responses even to our enemies. It is well to remind ourselves of these shared commitments. We also have no significant disagreement concerning the historical evidence about the actual practices of the early Christians. I acknowledge that their opinions were mixed, and you acknowledge that, for a variety of reasons, ‘many or most Christians in the second century were pacifist’. Our assessments of this state of affairs may differ slightly, as when you say that the early Christians ‘can easily be forgiven’ for holding such a position. But I assume that this is a wry, ironic turn of phrase on your part. I turn, then, to address our areas of disagreement. I shall try to do so concisely, expecting that readers will take these remarks as supplementary to our earlier exchange. I won’t respond to every point, but will focus on the most significant differences. First, Nigel, I’m not satisfied that you have understood my reading of the story of Jesus and its significance for the question of violence. You cite a single sentence from one of my summarising paragraphs (‘a Messiah who refuses the defence of the sword and dies Article

Scripture-Shaped Community The Problem of Method in New Testament Ethics

Reason and experience can hardly serve as warrants sufficient for the self-sacrificial service to which the New Testament calls the church; the commonsense counsels they dispense must be disciplined by the divine foolishness of Scripture.

Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Rejoinder

Bauckham’s response, while focusing on the historical dimensions of Jesus, is right to raise the question of the meaning of ‘identity’. It perhaps invests too much confidence, however, in memory and recollection. Riches’ thoughtful unpacking of some of the tensions in the volume nevertheless downplays the apocalyptic and the narrative contours of Paul’s thought. While Riches’ call for a wider global view might offer fresh perspectives on the situation of poverty in Jesus’ own context, it would hardly enable us to relativize the demonic realm. Seeking the Identity of Jesus calls for an epistemological approach that recognizes not only ‘the historical nature of theological truth’ (Riches) but also the theological nature of historical truth.

Is Paul’s Gospel Narratable?

Does Paul’s gospel have a narrative substructure? If so, what are the implications for our understanding of Paul’s theology? This review article reflects on the issues raised by Bruce W. Longenecker (ed.), Narrative Dynamics in Paul. The essay has six sections. Section 1 frames the problems. Sections 2-4 respond to issues raised by the book: the method for investigating ‘narrative’ in Paul, the shape and content of Paul’s gospel story, and the hermeneutical implications of a narrative approach. Section 5 offers constructive observations about the fundamental ‘grammar’ of Paul’s gospel narrative. The gospel story is explicated ‘according to the Scriptures’; it posits a tension between the present time and the hoped-for future glory; it focuses not on personal experience but on the death and resurrection of Jesus; and it proclaims a participatory soteriology, so that salvation has an inalienably ecclesial character. Finally, Section 6 replies to Francis Watson’s claim that the gospel is ‘nonnarratable’. On the contrary, as Karl Barth argued, whoever speaks of the gospel must narrate the story of what God has done in Jesus Christ.

“Why Do You Stand Looking Up Toward Heaven?” New Testament Eschatology at the Turn of the Millennium

Apocalyptic narrative and apocalyptic expectation are integral to the logic of the gospel. This essay surveys and critiques three unsatisfactory strategies for reinterpreting the gospel in non-apocalyptic terms: the Johannine “vertical” eschatology of union with Christ, the Jesus Seminars construction on a non-apocalyptic Jesus, and N. T. Wrights reading of synoptic apocalyptic passages as a symbolic references to events that occurred already in the first century. Christian theology cannot dispense with a future-oriented apocalyptic eschatology. Seven reasons for this claim are set forth and explained. The concluding part of the essay suggests that the difficulty of accepting apocalyptic eschatology has often been overstated and observes that “intratextual” Christian theology will necessarily interpret the story of Jesus in apocalyptic categories.