When we turn to Paul we're faced with similar challenges. On the surface, Paul's letters are full of tensions and seeming contradictions. Many scholars chalk this up to the fact that Paul was firing off situational pastoral letters in a complex missionary context. Paul wasn't writing treatises on systematic theology. He was solving problems. Plus, we should also consider that Paul's thought was developing over time, and that we are getting snapshots of that development as we read his letters. And, finally, if you're so inclined to consider this, there's also the debate about which of Paul's letters are authentically his. That's not to say the letters not authored by Paul aren't canonical, they are, just that those letters might not agree 100% with Paul's authentic letters. All this is simply to say, the textual "data" of the entire Pauline corpus is complex, messy, and hard to completely reconcile.
My use of the metaphor "data" here, as it was in Part 2, is intentional. We can approach the biblical text like a scientist approaches observations. Scientists collect data/observations and look for connections among them. Scientists make hypotheses and these hypotheses aggregate to create a theory. The goal of a theory is to account for and explain all the relevant data in a way that is comprehensive, consistent, and parsimonious. By parsimony I mean that the theory is simple and compact. And by comprehensive we mean that the theory explains all of, or most of, the data and observations on hand. Of course, there are always loose ends, anomalous data points that can't be explained or shoehorned into the theory. Regardless, the goal of a scientific theory is to have a simple explanation that explains a whole lot of data with as little contradiction as possible.
We approach Paul in a similar way. For example, Calvinism is a theory we use to explain the "data" of Paul. Talk to a Calvinist and they will marshal biblical texts and organize them in a pattern that supports their theory. Those who debate with Calvinists, by contrast, will point to the anomalous texts that seem to contradict the Calvinist theory. And this isn't to pick on the Calvinists, everyone who reads the Bible has a theory, a set of ideas that help you organize and arrange the biblical text into a comprehensive, self-consistent whole.
One of these ideas, a theory of reading Paul, is that in Paul justification and judgment are synonymous. Phrased differently, as discussed in the last post, the theory is that justification functions proleptically: justification is vindication at the Judgment which is then backdated and operative today. Because I will be vindicated then I stand vindicated now.
That's the theory. But does it explain all the data? Are there anomalous texts that suggest a different hypothesis?
Here's a passage to consider, from 1 Corinthians 4.1-5:
This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.
