Resurrection and Redemption, Part II

As Part I begins, Gaffin notes that major shifts in the understanding of Paul have usually been accompanied by major shifts in methodology. His purpose in this first section of the book, therefore, is to take note of the methodological shifts that took place in Vos and Ridderbos.

The biggest shift, he argues, is the recognition of Paul as a theologian. He notes that in The Pauline Eschatology, Vos sees Paul as the "father of Christian eschatology" and the "greatest constructive mind ever at work on the data of Christianity." For Vos, Paul is engaged in a theological task that is fundamentally continuous with that of later generations of interpreters, notwithstanding the fact that Paul has a unique apostolic authority. Gaffin contrasts this approach with Kuyper's. For Kuyper, "Scripture itself is not theology but underlies it. The biblical writers must not be called theologians, because theology is unthinkable apart from previously formed dogmas, and dogma is a product of the life of the (institutional) church. Thus stress is placed exclusively upon the disjunction, the discontinuity in principle, between Scripture and the biblical writers on the one hand and the dogmas and theologians of the church on the other. The Bible itself contains no dogmas but rather the 'material' out of which the church 'constructs' dogma."

Gaffin suggests that Vos's approach is truer to Scripture. He notes that "revelation is a differentiated phenomenon, coming as acts or words." The words, he says, have two functions: they describe and record the acts, but they also explain the acts. This often occurs at the same time (which itself could be discussed at length and is rife with hermeneutical implications - when it reports history, the emphasis of Scripture is both on what happened and on the meaning of what happened). In some cases, however, the accent of the words will be on one or the other, and in the case of Paul the accent is on explanation. "The almost exclusive concern of his writing and preaching is expounding, 'exegeting' the history of redemption as it has reached its climax in the death and resurrection of Christ. In Paul's perspective, Christ's place in the history of revelation is conditioned by and exponential of a specific redemptive-historical context." Viewed this way, it is more appropriate to see Paul as Vos sees him. Paul is not, as Kuyper seems to think of him, simply an eyewitness to events which, once inscripturated, serve as data for the theological task. His writings are not simply attestation, they are exposition; he is commenting on what he has seen and what has already been seen by others - principally, the resurrection of Christ - so as to draw out its full theological significance.

Looking at Paul this way carries a number of implications. For one thing, it means that there may be methodological norms in Paul and not just norms of content. "If, in the common activity of theologizing, Paul, as apostle and instrument of revelation, is distinguished from his interpreters by providing part of the inspired and indispensable foundation...for subsequent theological activity, it follows that his interpreters should be concerned not only with the material, the particular concepts found in Paul, but also with the way in which Paul himself handles this material and structures the various conceptions." Gaffin also suggests that this might help us see why the interpretation of Paul is so vexing (as Peter himself attests). In Paul we encounter a theologian of enormous depth, but we encounter him only in the context of applying that theology to specific, occasional problems. One could imagine trying to work backward to the full shape of Einstein's theories armed with nothing but an email of his (pardon the anachronism) to a university student who wrote asking a specific question. "The Pauline epistles may be aptly compared to the visible portion of an iceberg. What juts above the surface is but a small fraction of what remains submerged. The true proportions of the whole lie hidden beneath the surface. The contours of what can be seen at a first glance may also prove deceptive. Put less pictorially, that conception or line of thought having relatively little explicit textual support, on reflection may prove to be of the most basic constitutive significance. This state of affairs makes the interpretation of Paul, particularly a comprehensive attempt, an inherently difficulty and precarious undertaking." Of course, an immediate further implication is that the principle task of Pauline interpretation is to unearth this underlying structure of thought - to be attentive not only to what is explicit, but to that which is implicit.

Having said all this, Gaffin returns to the question of the ordo salutis, long thought to be the central concern in Paul. He closes by noting that whatever conception of the ordo salutis Paul has, it will be controlled and governed by his understanding of the history of redemption. He promises that exactly what this means and its full implications will become clearer as the study progresses. As he says, "it may be maintained here as a working principle, subject to further verification, that whatever treatment Paul gives to the application of salvation to the individual believer is controlled by his redemptive historical outlook."

In Part II, Gaffin begins to get into the meat of the study - the place of the resurrection in redemptive history and Paul's theology.