Research On Religion » New Testament

Brandon O’Brien on Paul Behaving Badly

tonygill — Sun, 09 Oct 2016 08:00:26 +0000

The Apostle Paul (née Saul) was a central figure in early Christianity, with his adventures being written about in Acts and his many writings making their way into the New Testament, earning him the title of Saint Paul in some Christian circles. But a careful reading of Paul’s writings through 21st century eyes would give the appearance that he was a racist, chauvinistic jerk. Prof. Brandon O’Brien, an assistant professor of Christian theology at Ouachita Baptist University and co-author with Randolph Richards of Paul Behaving Badly: Was the Apostle a Racist, Chauvinist Jerk? joins us to talk about who Paul was and what he represented in the culture of his time. He also helps us understand Paul in our own contemporary terms. The conversation begins with Brandon’s rationale for writing the book, which is a response to other popular titles such as God Behaving Badly and Jesus Behaving Badly. We review Paul’s history, including his pre-Christian life, his conversion, his proselytism, and his time in prison. Tony asks what his Roman captors were thinking when they allowed him to write letters while incarcerated, and Prof. O’Brien explains a bit of what Paul’s imprisonment entailed — from wallowing in a cistern to being under house arrest. Brandon then goes over the case for Paul being a jerk, with the principle reason being his brash arrogance that is contrasted with Jesus’s softer style. Paul’s tenor undoubtedly rubbed some of the original disciples the wrong way. Brandon also notes that Paul was an “occasional writer,” meaning not that he wrote here and there, but that he wrote to individuals and groups under very specific occasions. Indeed, Prof. O’Brien points out that we really only have one side of the conversation when we look at the various epistles in the New Testament; it is likely that there was much more context and give-and-take dialogue that formed the basis for his communications with the Galatians or Ephesians, to name a few. We then go through point-by-point some of the harsher criticisms that could be levied on Paul, including that he was a puritanical killjoy, that he was racist, that he didn’t denounce slavery, and that he was a male chauvinist pig. Brandon gives each of these critiques their full due, but also places them into context. Along the way, we learn about how race/ethnicity/religion were often combined in regional stereotypes in the first century after Christ, what slavery entailed in those early years, and what the life of women was like. We also learn why Brandon didn’t drink ginger ale as a kid! Brandon points out that while we might see Paul as being very culturally backwards in our day, he was indeed very progressive in his views for the era in which he lived. Along the way, we discuss how our cultural context can affect the way we view the historical record. Prof. O’Brien finishes the discussion with some reflection on what he learned by studying Paul more closely, and how pastors might approach the writings of Paul as they preach in the cultural ethos of our modern era. Recorded: September 30, 2016.

Jim Papandrea on the End of the World and Revelation

tonygill — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:00:16 +0000

If we are to believe the hype surrounding the Mayan calendar controversy, we only have a few more months until the end of the world. So, what better way to celebrate than to have a podcast devoted to the book of Revelation? Prof. James Papandrea, an assistant professor of church history at the Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary discusses his new book The Wedding of the Lamb: A Historical Approach to the Book of Revelation. Before digging into the historical context of first century Christians, Jim sets Tony straight on the whole Mayan calendar apocalypse thing, making your humble host fret about his recent spate of spending on end-of-the-world party supplies. Fortunately, Jim tells us, more Mayan calendars have been discoved pushing out the date of any eventual calamity. We then begin to discuss the book of Revelation, setting it in its historical context — an increasingly oppressive Roman Empire at a time when the Christian Church is expanding. We talk about who wrote it and when, with Jim favoring the thesis that its author was John, the Beloved Disciple, who also authored the Gospel of John. He further pinpoints the drafting of this book at approximately 95 A.D., making Tony wonder if it was possible or probable that John could have lived long enough to write that text. By Tony’s estimate, John would have been in his 80s at the time Revelation was written. Following this interesting discussion, we review what life was like for Christians in the latter half of the first century and why this is important in understanding Revelation. Prof. Papandrea, in addition to noting that much of the vivid imagery in Revelation was used to relate a vision that was difficult to describe, points out that there is a great deal of allusion back to texts in the Old Testament, of which Christians would have been familiar with at that time. We investigate the meanings of various numbers and symbols in the book of Revelation with Jim pointing out that numbers were not just numbers, but had very important symbolic significance. We run through numbers such as three, seven and six, as well as larger numbers such as 144 and 1,000. Along the way, we ponder some of the more impenetrable mysteries of life such as why there is a unit of measurement that is twelve dozen (i.e., a gross) and why the number of hot dogs in a package never matches the number of buns in a package. We then look at the more visual imagery such as the beast, the lamb, and the lampstands. Jim explains to Tony that the imagery of seven horns and seven eyes, while creepy to the reader, actually conveyed a message of strength and omniscience. The issue of time then is brought into play, and Jim discusses how there are several different diachronic perspectives that we have to be aware of when reading Revelation; it is not just a book that is written “outside of time,” but rather refer’s to the author’s past, present, and future. Part of that future — most notably the collapse of the Roman Empire — is now part of our past. Nonetheless, we bring up our own future with a discussion of eschatology. Throughout this interview, we make reference to a number of individuals who have interpretted Revelation in a more literal fashion or who have tended to miss the historical context and thus end up using the book to make wild predictions about contemporary events. Jim finishes with his thoughts on what he’s learned in studying this book in such detail, relaying the important point that Revelation is not about the “doom and gloom” so many people make it out to be, but rather is consistent with the good news of the other portions of the New Testament in that it signals a promise to be fulfilled — a wedding of the lamb. Recorded: August 1, 2012.

Jim Papandrea on the Church Fathers & Patristic Exegesis

tonygill — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 08:00:11 +0000

Who were the early Church Fathers? How did they interpret the Scripture? And how did their interpretations change over time and shape Christianity? Prof. Jim Papandrea of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary (on the campus of Northwestern University) takes up these questions in a fascinating discussion of “patristic exegesis,” or how the early Church Fathers understood and interpreted the Scriptures. Our conversation begins with an examination of who qualifies as the early Church Fathers and whether or not this list is consistent across different denominations. We also chat about the difficulties early Christian bishops and theologians had in trying to create a relatively unified doctrine of the faith, though Jim reveals that there was much more agreement and harmony that one (particularly your host) would think. Dr. Papandrea then walks us through what he defines as the four main phases (or eras) of patristic exegesis, showing how the different eras varied by the degree to which they favored literal/historical or more allegorical interpretations of the Scriptures. Interestingly, Jim makes that point that most of the disagreement in interpretation tended to revolve more around the Old Testament, although the divine nature of Jesus was also up for debate by different theological factions. In this discussion, we talk about the role that the First Council of Nicaea played in solidifying Church doctrine and how different theological schools, notably Arianism, reacted to the Nicene Creed. Jim makes the case that patristic exegesis tended to move in more allegorical directions during the latter second century through the fifth century, but then moved back towards a more historical-contextual (or some might say “literal”) meaning in subsequent centuries, eventually reaching a balance between allegory and more historical interpretations in the fifth century. Prof. Papandrea provides some examples regarding interpretations that are overly-allegorical. Throughout this discussion, we touch on some specific Church Fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Augustine. The podcast also veers in some other interesting directions, examining whether or not Augustine was the patron saint of the hippopotamus, if Christians can now safely eat weasels, and the profound implications relating to clothing tags at Sunday services. It is also revealed what theatrical performance both Jim and Tony were in during high school, and that they were “neighbors” in Los Angeles without ever realizing it. Recorded: July 11, 2011.