Book Review by Marilyn Williams
The Problem with Paul, by Brian J. Dodd
Brian J. Dodd begins his text, The Problem with Paul, with a quick lesson on hermeneutics. Dodd begins by previewing a paradox he will explore throughout his book. “For nearly two thousand years Paul has been a pillar of the Christian tradition, yet now he is a problem for many readers,” most specifically in the areas concerning women singlehood, sex and slavery (Dodd 11). Dodd, while suggesting a virtual dialogue with Paul rather than a defense of Paul, proposes that good hermeneutical principles can solve this modern, yet false paradox.
Dodd begins by explaining the common hermeneutical error most readers make when attempting to interpret Paul for their own situation. He explains this common approach begins the reader and focuses directly on Paul. Even with the recognition of the Holy Spirit enabling the modern reader with insight into Paul’s theology, Dodd explains the fallacy of this approach is that it is one-sided. If the reader merely interprets Paul from his or her own view, even with the help of the Holy Spirit, the reader is only getting half of a conversation from which Paul is responding. Dodd explains the danger in this one-sided interpretation is because “Paul did not write with you and me in mind, nor did he realize he was writing chapters of the Bible” (Dodd 13).
In order to better understand the conversation Paul was engaging in when he wrote his letters, one must begin interpretation through Paul’s response with his “Original readers” (Dodd 13). Unfortunately, we do not have the full spectrum of this ancient literary conversation, but by simply acknowledging this fact we can begin to dispel some of the modern misinterpretations of Paul. Further, Dodd explains we can begin to piece some of this lost conversation by adding another framework from which to interpret Paul: “Other readers” (Dodd 14). These other readers “are, at a minimum, scholars who read Hebrew or Greek, and who have translated the Bible into our language” (Dodd 14). This is helpful because translators generally see their craft as something to be continually refined and updated. In this way, when one includes “other readers” of Paul, most especially other scholars of Pauline Theology, a wealth of contextual and linguistic insight can aid in the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters. With this formula, Dodd proposes today’s modern reader to embark on the journey of interpreting Pauline theology as: “Me – Other Readers—Paul—Original Readers” (Dodd 9). Thus, Paul must be interpreted from his own ancient era, through today’s advanced understanding of Paul’s world, instead of from our modern 21st century and individualistic context.
With the help of the Holy Spirit, this formula proposes five significant groups to interact with in order to more fully and even accurately interpret Paul. While Dodd’s formula contains key players, one might also propose a different order with the same players involved. Instead of adding the Holy Spirit in as a last minute comment, it may be significant to work with the Holy Spirit before conferring to “other readers.” Perhaps a different order could be considered: Me – Holy Spirit—Paul—Original Readers—and Other Readers. In this way, a modern reader can enjoy both the benefit of modern day scholarship while also enjoying intimate interaction with the Lord as one reads the Word of God. All of the key elements are still in place, but the exercising of one’s spiritual ears develop as one dialogues with the Lord while engaging in Paul’s conversation with his original readers. It is to be expected that modern untrained minds will miss much in the beginning of this venture; but over time, the modern reader may become an increasingly refined vessel for the Lord to speak to and through. Not only would this order aid the believer in learning to hear the voice of the Lord as he or she reads the Word, but the believer will also benefit from an intimacy with God as he or she reads the Word which cannot be replaced, only enhanced, by technical analysis.
In addition to a new formula by which to interpret Paul, Dodd also proposes people who have a problem with the Apostle Paul’s theology are interpreting Paul from their own side of a bridge. Dodd uses the analogy of crossing over a bridge in order to fully understand and appreciate Paul’s theology. The one side of the bridge represents our modern world and the other side represents Paul’s first-century world. Before one jumps to unfair judgments regarding Paul as a person, theologian and Apostle, it is necessary to first cross over to Paul’s cultural context. While in Paul’s world, the modern reader must resist the temptation to judge Paul according to our 21st century culture and perspectives. Paul lived in a very different world. Therefore, the modern reader must not only visit Paul’s world, but sift through Paul’s cultural context to find the timeless principle which can then be brought back over to our 21st century.
For instance, even though many modern readers accuse Paul as being a male chauvinist, Dodd explains that Paul would have been referred to what we might call today a “Feminist” in his own day. To interpret Paul according to our cultural advancements in the perspective and treatment of women in our day is unfair and inaccurate. Paul lived in a day and age when women were silent, rarely allowed to speak for themselves and almost never spoken for in a positive light. In
this cultural context, Dodd points out in chapter two that Paul actually esteems women above their immediate context by praising women ministry partners, teaching mutual submission, and proclaiming both men and women as children of God who are equally gifted and sent out for the work of the Gospel (Galatians 3:28; 1 Cor. 11:4-5 & Romans 16:1-5).
Noting the trouble passages of I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2 where Paul is most often accused of arrogance and chauvinism, Dodd points out that in comparison to Paul’s wealth of positive and supportive notations regarding women in ministry work, these troubling passages can logically be isolated from the rest of Paul’s theology as culturally relevant to their specific situations. Their incongruence with the majority of Paul’s statements about women lends to a specific cultural context rather than a theological timeless principle. In this way, Dodd encourages the modern reader to take in all of Paul’s letters before judging Paul’s apparent theology, instead of passage by passage.
By interpreting Paul’s theology regarding women through the lense of Paul’s whole theology, as well as the cultural contexts he was addressing, Dodd proposes a timeless principle for us to take away from such troubling passages. We must recognize that Paul had one goal in mind; and it was not to change the cultural and political climate for women. Paul’s tunnel vision was to proclaim and defend the Gospel of grace. Contrary to both Greek culture and Hebrew Law, God’s grace could only be found through faith in Jesus Christ, making otherwise sinners righteous before a Holy God. The Gospel of Grace was indeed a radical message for Paul’s time. It proclaimed a freedom for the human soul which was unprecedented. No longer did humanity have to search for approval from God through sacrifice, rituals, appeasing mystical gods or even obeying God’s revealed Law. Instead, male or female, slave or free, a human being could now find acceptance from God through confession of one’s sin and faith in Jesus Christ, God incarnate.
Based upon 1 Cor. 9:19-23, Dodd proposes Paul’s intent for such troubling passages, “He wanted not-yet Christians to receive his God-given message about liberation through Christ without needlessly offending the sensibilities of those in the surrounding community and thus hindering their way to Christ” ( Dodd 34). Thus, Dodd suggests it can be accurately understood that Paul was not pro-silence or one-sided submission of women. Paul was clearly protecting this Gospel of Grace from any misunderstandings and abuse. The freedom this gospel brings to both male and female must be understood to be an edifying and selfless freedom, not offensive and self-serving. Perhaps Paul was dealing with the flagrant abuse of this freedom in the Corinthian Church and therefore he had to reign in the Corinthians in order to protect its testimony?
If the testimony of the Gospel of Grace is Paul’s motive, then one might also be able to bring this timeless principle back to our 21st century through the exact opposite cultural application. If we learn from Paul to protect the witness of the Gospel of Grace, so as not to misrepresent nor to offend anyone away from it, then in our modern 21st century, where women’s rights have risen in the west to an almost equal status with men, would it be just as responsible for us to go out of our way to ensure women’s equality in church as well as in marriage? Dodd’s interpretive conclusions of Paul would then logically follow such modern day applications; which of course would be just as radical in some of our churches today as Paul was in his time.
Dodd not only deals with Paul’s troubling passages concerning women, but also Paul’s modern day controversial issues such as sex, single hood and Paul’s seemingly aghast approval of slavery. Dodd proposes the issues of sex single-hood and slavery can also be properly understood when one crosses over the interpretive bridge before making a claim on this side of one’s 21st century cultural context. Dodd’s careful journey into the 1st century regarding these issues is just as thought provoking as Dodd’s journey into the troubling passages concerning women. While Dodd’s exegesis and logically driven hermeneutics are extremely helpful, they are a bit redundant. Reading through the book with such detail attended to each controversial issue is helpful, but tedious and perhaps tiresome when trying to read the book as a whole. Once one has caught the hermeneutical formula to correctly interpret and evaluate Pauline theology, it would seem Dodd’s book is best served as a reference book.
In the closing chapters, Dodd expands his interpretation of Pauline theology by acknowledging Paul was not perfect. For some modern day readers, this is problematic. But this would not be news to Paul; he was the first to affirm his imperfections and thereby affirm the very Gospel of Grace he proclaimed to others (2 Cor. 4:7 & 12:7-8). Paul rejoices in his own imperfections because it affirms God’s power amidst such jars of clay. In this way, even if today’s modern day reader is troubled by Paul’s imperfections of outbursts of anger, sarcasm and seemingly egocentric behavior, Dodd explains, “Paul’s weaknesses qualify, rather than disqualify, him as God’s messenger” ( Dodd 155). Just as Paul’s imperfections testify to the redemptive and transforming power of this Gospel of Grace, we must therefore read Pauline theology within the framework of God’s revelation of Grace through His Son Jesus Christ. Every other issue and problem, ancient or modern, stands in the shadows. In this light, as Dodd defends, “Paul is not always a problem” (158).
Works Cited
Dodd, Brian, J. The Problem with Paul. Downers Grove: IVP, 1996.
