Introduction
Introduction
Pauline scholars have rightly explored at great length Paul’s soteriology, Christology, and pneumatology and his views of Israel and Scripture. Yet even among the fewer discussions of Pauline anthropology, very rarely have scholars devoted extensive attention to his view of the mind, especially in a way that explains how he may have shaped his language to communicate to his contemporaries.
More recent insights into this subject by scholars conversant in ancient philosophy, such as Stanley Stowers and Troels Engberg-Pedersen, have not always been incorporated into exegetical or theological discussions to the extent that their contributions merit. I hope that subsequent interpreters will take more account of their contributions (and mine), although further research will undoubtedly draw on a wider range of sources and provide further nuance to our earlier discussions on these topics.
Previous interpreters have rightly emphasized the importance of believers’ righteousness in Romans, usually in terms of one’s status or relationship with God and/or in terms of moral righteousness or transformation. What interpreters have often missed, however, is how Paul uses cognition to connect these key elements. How does one move from righteous identity to righteous living? Paul emphasizes the importance of a right understanding corresponding to the divine perspective—an understanding that may complement, or even more likely that functions as another aspect of, what Paul calls faith.
What This Book Addresses
Chapter 1 of this book addresses Paul’s depiction of the corrupted pagan mind in Romans 1:18–32. In this passage the supposedly wise pagan mind became subject to passions, what philosophers viewed as the antithesis of self-controlled reason, after rejecting the knowledge of God. Chapter 2 explores the new way of thinking in Christ in Romans 6:1–11: having been righted with God in God’s sight through faith, believers are now invited to share God’s perspective on their union with Christ’s death (6:11). Chapter 3 is my longest chapter, due to the major issues in Romans 7:15–25 that must be surveyed before any further exegesis may be developed. Here I revisit the fallen mind, but in this case no longer the law-uninformed pagan mind of 1:18–32. The religious mind informed by God’s righteous requirements is all the more frustrated by passions, because it knows right from wrong yet is unable to silence passion.
Chapter 4 addresses the way of thinking empowered by God’s Spirit in Romans 8:5–7. Here, those already put right with God are now depicted as motivated and empowered to serve God by the internal life of God’s Spirit. Romans 12:1–3, surveyed in chapter 5, describes the renewing of the mind according to the standards of the coming age instead of the present one. Such a mind leads one to devote one’s individual body to the service of the larger body of Christ. Chapter 6 considers the mind of Christ in 1 Corinthians 2:16 and its context: the indwelling of God’s Spirit shares with the spiritually mature—those attentive to the Spirit’s explication of the message of Christ—a measure of God’s own wisdom. Here too the Spirit offers a foretaste of eschatological reality as well as experience of God. At the end of this chapter, I briefly consider also a passage from 2 Corinthians (3:18) that sheds some light on how the Spirit enlightens our minds in Christ.
Because Paul’s Roman and Corinthian correspondence sufficiently establish his interest in cognition and the divine, I sample the theme only more briefly elsewhere. Chapter 7 more briefly surveys some of this cognitive theme in Philippians: those who entrust their worries to God can experience peace (4:6–8); a Christlike way of thinking involves serving one another (2:5); and the new mind should look to heavenly rather than earthly matters (3:19–20). Finally, chapter 8 develops the theme of the heavenly mind in Colossians 3:1–2: a focus on the enthroned Christ that transforms how believers live on earth.
What This Book Is Not Addressing
In treating passages, I omit many exegetical details and surveys of views where they are not relevant to the matter in question; the reader interested in my perspectives on such topics often may find them treated, albeit briefly, in my short commentary on Romans, which I hope to revisit in the future with a larger work. The study of cognition in Paul does not depend on any specific major debated approach to other aspects of Pauline theology, with the exception of the chapter on Romans 7.
Although Paul uses a range of words treating the concepts of thinking, understanding, and the mind, my focus here is not lexical study, which can easily be addressed today with a variety of readily available tools. Addressing the wider ancient usage of all the terms on which Paul draws is a useful exercise, but it is not the point of the present study. Although I work from the Greek text, I render words in English where possible to keep the book less cumbersome for a wider range of readers. The reader should keep in mind that Paul uses various terms in the same semantic domain even though these terms are not always consistently differentiated in English translations.
I do not propose to treat every possibly relevant passage or every detail of the passages that I address; instead, I propose a fuller treatment of particular sample passages and of how discussions of the mind among Paul’s contemporaries may inform the ways that his first audiences would have understood him. In my major exception to this rule, I address Romans 7 in greater detail because it remains a point of some controversy. I will not elaborate in later chapters points already established (or at least argued) in earlier ones, with the consequence that the book’s final two chapters will be relatively brief. My translations opening each chapter are meant only to introduce some of the issues of some key texts in question; clearly, no translation can convey all the possible nuances implied by Paul’s literary context or intellectual milieu.
Although I am interested in Paul’s theology on the matter in question, I am not staking out positions on many of the contested issues of Pauline theology today. For example, the book’s primary contributions should not be affected by whether the reader supports the “new perspective” (really, perspectives) on Pauline soteriology or more traditional versions. I am trying to exegete texts fairly, which might make my approach eclectic on some points, but I have not sacrificed the space to qualify much of my language to repeatedly declare neutrality on contemporary debates. Admittedly, there are undoubtedly controversies on minor matters with which I am not yet familiar.
Too often scholars settle on a particular background for Paul’s language (e.g., Cynic or targumic) without having read more widely in ancient sources. Sometimes too they concisely classify other scholars’ works based on their focus (such as proposed rabbinic, Hellenistic Jewish, or Stoic backgrounds for Paul). By contrast, because our best sources suggest that Paul was a Judean with a Diaspora background and mission, the most helpful approach may be more eclectic, drawing on various sources where they each contribute most to particular points.
Given this book’s focus on cognitive themes in Paul, part of my attention to Paul’s context must address ancient philosophy, which shared this cognitive focus. In examining at many points a popular philosophic context for Paul, I am not claiming that Paul had a philosophic education; certainly, he did not study in a philosophic school. Nevertheless, Paul was interested in reaching urban Greek speakers in Roman Asia, Macedonia, Achaia, and Rome. The most influential people in his congregations were normally educated, which in these regions meant some exposure to philosophy (e.g., anecdotes about and sayings of philosophers), although a majority of those who received an advanced education opted to focus on rhetoric. Others, who often may have had little education (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26), nevertheless were exposed to some popular philosophy from speakers in markets and public competitions, as well as (for those who were citizens of their cities) allusions in speeches in public assemblies. Egyptian papyri take us closer to everyday village life, but common teachings of popular philosophy (if not always the technical details of various schools of philosophic thought) tell us something about the intellectual milieu for many people in the cities.
For better or for worse, our best access to this thought today comes from the works that have survived. I highlight Stoicism somewhat more than other schools because it was the dominant philosophic system in this period in this region; because it influenced nonphilosophic intellectual discourse through elite education; and because it influenced popular urban thinking through the control of the educated over most public discourse. (Middle Platonism may have already held a stronger grip among Alexandrian intellectuals; its eclectic approach and other factors made it dominant more widely after Paul.)
Roman background is relevant not only in Rome but also in Corinth and Philippi, both heavily romanized colonies. In both locations, however, the message about Jesus probably circulated first among Greek-speaking Jews, making Greek and Jewish contexts (not least Hellenistic Jewish contexts) no less relevant. I draw here on as wide a range of potentially relevant background as possible, while acknowledging (with other historians of antiquity) that it usually is not possible to provide parallels for the exact city and decade that Paul was addressing.
I provide here exegetical samples for Paul’s approach to the renewed mind and do not claim to treat all undisputed Pauline texts. I have given even less attention here to the theme in disputed Pauline literature. I personally do accept the Pauline authorship of Ephesians, but insights there would not alter significantly the results of this study. I treat Colossians here as Pauline, but those who demur will at least find my brief treatment of Colossians 3:1–2 relevant to early developments of Pauline thought, developments that cohere naturally, in a Diaspora context, with the undisputed Pauline works.
I respect Luke’s depiction of Paul more highly than do some other Acts scholars; my respect stems not from ignorance of critical scholarship (as critics sometimes suppose must be true of all who do not share their convictions) but from detailed research. The present work has little occasion to draw on Acts, but suffice it to say that Luke’s general portrayal of Paul as a skilled, literate, and brilliant thinker is consistent with what we find in Paul’s own letters. Luke’s Paul, like the letters’ Paul, apparently experienced no conflict as a believer between life in the Spirit and an intellect directed by faith.
Implications for Theological Reflection in Today’s Church
Modern thinkers have much to learn from ancient ones, sometimes even the seeds of modern thought. For Christians, Paul’s works are seminal and offer many insights for subsequent issues in the church. Some divisions that many modern readers assume are biblical in fact stem from postbiblical discussions.
The Reformation, in which scholars figured prominently, emphasized disciplined study of the biblical text. Not everyone had access to scholarly training and resources, however, and many other people of faith (including many Anabaptists, later Pietists, participants in North American frontier revivals, early African-American religion, early Pentecostalism, etc.) particularly highlighted dependence on the Spirit. Some circles have succeeded better than others at bringing together these sorts of emphases—for example, some of the early church fathers, many medieval monasteries, Jonathan Edwards, and John Wesley.
Nevertheless, at least among modern Protestants there sometimes remain serious divisions among those who emphasize the academic heritage of the Reformation and those who emphasize the heritage of some subsequent revival movements. (Among Catholics, different monastic orders have also tended to value different emphases, although such differences are undoubtedly less pronounced today than in the past.)
In principle, most of us would affirm the value of both exploring the biblical text cognitively and embracing the Spirit experientially; the biblical text invites such experience, and without the objective constraints of Scripture, experience can quickly lose its Christocentric mooring. But each Christian tradition has its own predilections, each has focused on some different yet genuine biblical emphases, and each therefore has something valuable to learn from the other. We need both Word and Spirit; for Paul, certainly, the two are inextricably bound together. This book will argue that, against some circles, the Spirit does in fact often work through the mind and not only apart from it.
Sometimes the dichotomy is less about the human mind versus God’s Spirit and more about the differences between the human mind and the human spirit. Yet, as whole persons, we need to cultivate both the cognitive and affective aspects of our humanity to fully honor the Lord (cf., for example, Paul’s interest in both aspects in 1 Cor. 14:15). Some of us naturally gravitate toward churches that emphasize rational exposition, and others of us toward churches that engage the emotions with rousing preaching, celebratory worship, or, in some more sacramental circles, the touch and sometimes smell of worship. Many of us undoubtedly feel torn and wish that more of our churches engaged both the mind and the spirit. Some may have already found churches that do both to their satisfaction.
Unfortunately, circles persist that value only one or the other approach to God, often despising the other as either irrational or unspiritual. Citing the Spirit bearing witness with our spirit (Rom. 8:16), some circles highlight our spirit as an organ of God’s Spirit in a way that they deem impossible for the mind. Some other circles almost substitute rational exegetical or theological skill for any other means of hearing God’s voice. Each of these two extremes often views the other approach to God with suspicion. Many of the rest of us simply feel more comfortable one way or the other without needing to denigrate those whose predilections differ. As a charismatic scholar, I feel comfortable embracing God’s transformation of both mind and spirit, although my own gifts and calling have often inclined my focus more toward the former. This book focuses more on affirming the value of the cognitive side, but biblically God works with both.
Another area in which Paul’s discussion of cognition raises questions concerns how to explain it in language more widely intelligible today. Paul communicated in the common language of his day, language that does not easily align with today’s psychological terminologies. For that matter, both the psychologizing philosophers of Paul’s day and the range of philosophic and psychological schools today often vary in their understanding and terminology from one school to another.
I hope that clarifying some of Paul’s psychology in this book will provide Christian psychologists and counselors better ways to articulate his principles in their own language. I hope also that through translating these principles we may learn to understand and apply Paul’s wisdom in new contexts. That objective, however, must be followed through in subsequent research cooperating between these disciplines; it is simply too far-reaching and too interdisciplinary to be achieved adequately in this book alone.
. There are exceptions, such as recently Wright, Faithfulness, 1121–26, as well as my own attempts in Keener, “Perspectives”; Keener, “Heavenly Mindedness”; Keener, “Minds.”
. In citing them, I am not implying agreement on every point but noting that their familiarity with ancient philosophy has allowed them to recognize and approach some issues in Paul from a vantage point too often neglected by scholars. Despite his helpful insights, some scholars have reasonably questioned Engberg-Pedersen’s disproportionate dependence on Cic. Fin. 3 for reconstructing Stoicism in Paul and Stoics (see Wright, Faithfulness, 1391, 1395). I deliberately draw on a wider range of sources for Stoicism here, highlighting not only Arius Didymus’s Epitome in particular but also various Stoic writers.
. Keener, Romans.
. At the scholarly high end one may consult TLG; nonspecialists (as well as scholars for less-detailed work) may consult Accordance, Logos, and BibleWorks.
. I base my own work in Paul on the Greek text but am writing in English. Those concerned about the particular terms used should consult the Greek text but also keep in mind that the wider semantic domain will be more crucial for our general purposes here than extensive lexical investigation of specific terms. This can be undertaken by concordance searches rather than the more conceptual work I have done by working through the wider range of ancient sources.
. As is often noted by proponents, e.g., Wright, Justification, 28; Wright, Faithfulness, 1458. Likewise, critics also recognize multiple “new perspectives”; see, e.g., Waters, Justification, 154.
. Sometimes differences can also be exaggerated. Thus, for example, Dunn (Perspective, 18–23, 28–30) notes that his focus on culturally specific issues highlighted in Romans is not meant to deny wider principles that such issues may reflect.
. If a reader feels that I lean too far toward either the old or the new perspective for their taste, the reader can, with minimal adjustments, make my exegetical observations work within her or his own system.
. Cf. here, e.g., Brookins, “Wise Corinthians.”
. See Keener, Acts, 4 vols. (esp. the samples in vol. 1, chap. 7). I believe that my work on Acts stands in the mainstream of Acts scholarship but hope that even those who are more skeptical will recognize the level of research in the commentary, which cites tens of thousands of primary references from antiquity.
. For fuller discussion of this point, see Keener, “Teaching Ministry.” For the Lukan Paul’s rhetorical sophistication, see Keener, “Rhetorical Techniques”; for his claim of a sober mind, see Keener, “Madness.” For Luke’s portrayal of Paul’s education before he became a follower of Christ, see the discussion in Keener, Acts, 3:3205–15. For the consistent but different depictions of Paul in both sources, see, e.g., Porter, Paul in Acts; for concrete analogies in other biographies about and letters by a single figure, see Hillard, Nobbs, and Winter, “Corpus.”
. Personality types sometimes make us better fitted for some environments than others; some individuals are more constitutionally (and sometimes environmentally) suited for analysis, for example, and some flourish most in a highly relational setting. As long as we appreciate other gifts and are willing to grow in our own weaker areas, our differences on these points may be complementary rather than contradictory. By way of illustration, I scored as an INFJ on the Myers-Briggs personality test, but (apart from being an extreme introvert) on some points just barely. I cannot easily play some aspects of my personality off against others; that concern presumably plays a role in how I approach this subject. As students of hermeneutics have long emphasized (e.g., Bultmann, “Exegesis”; Thiselton, “New Hermeneutic,” 86), our past experiences influence our perceptions.
. As discussed in chap. 4, however, the same context also addresses the “mind of the Spirit” (Rom. 8:5–7). Paul calls praying in tongues prayer with one’s “spirit” (1 Cor. 14:2, 14), a valuable gift from God; but the same context seems to identify the gift of interpreting prayer in tongues as praying with the understanding (14:13–15). Paul already identified both tongues and interpretation as gifts inspired by the Spirit (12:7, 10); prayer with the understanding in this way, then, is also prayer inspired by God’s Spirit. Elsewhere in early Christianity, worship “in Spirit and in truth” probably refers not to the human spirit but to God’s Spirit (so, e.g., Scott, Spirit, 196; Keener, John, 615–19; pace, e.g., Morris, John, 270; Collins, “Spirit”).