Faith, Work, and Economics
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 59, No. 2 - Spring 2017
Managing Editor: W. Madison Grace II
Paul and the Trinity. By Wesley Hill. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. 224 pages. Paperback, $26.00.
In Paul and the Trinity, Wesley Hill’s premise centers around two interpretive questions. First, can the conceptual, Trinitarian language recognized by pro-Nicene theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries be utilized as a hermeneutical key for interpreting Paul? Second, was Trinitarianism thought inherent in the earliest days of Jewish Christianity instead of developing as a result of Hellenization? Besides answering these questions in the affirmative, Wesley Hill, assistant professor of biblical studies at Trinity School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pennsylvania, contends that his Trinitarian method of interpretation is not merely the preferred method, but the sole method.
James Dunn, James McGrath, and Maurice Casey represent a larger, modern perspective on Paul, which posits Paul’s Christology on a sliding, vertical scale ranging between a low and high-Christology. For these theologians, Paul’s staunch Jewish monotheism restrained his Christology, and since any Trinitarian development originated later after Hellenization, a low Christology is warranted. Interestingly, although Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham maintained that Trinitarianism existed at Christianity’s origin and posited a high-Christology, Hill nevertheless regards them alongside the first group, i.e. outside the bounds of proper Pauline interpretation.
For Hill, Christ and the Holy Spirit are realized only by determining their relationality. Thus, Hill exchanges the vertical axis of Christology for a horizontal axis of relational Trinitarianism, thereby avoiding the “static conceptuality” plaguing the modern perspective. Using a “web of multiple intersecting sectors,” Hill not only identifies the relational character of Christianity, but also preserves Paul’s commitment to monotheism, albeit completely re-working his concept of one God to include the relational Trinity. Ultimately, this “anachronistic” interpretation of Paul, to quote Dunn, is the major source of contention between Hill and the modern perspective (19).
In chapters two through five, Hill offers an exegetical analysis of key Pauline passages to contend that the external relations (ad extra) within the Godhead determine its ontological identity (ad intra). Using passages such as Galatians 1:1, Romans 4:24 and 8:11, Hill maintains that God’s identity is specified by means of Jesus’ work, even prior to the historical Christ event. To maintain the necessary distinction between the Father and the Son, Hill proposes a bi-directional dimension, whereby the asymmetrical relations of the Father and the Son are maintained.
Devoting ample space to Philippians 2:6–11, a proof-text for the modern perspective, Hill advances the need for an interpretive concept known as redoublement. Undergirded by this interpretive method, particularly useful for Philippians 2:6–11 and 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hill asserts that the unity and relationality of the Father and the Son “operate in concert, as descriptions of the same reality from two vantage points” (119).
By affirming the Spirit’s activity in the action of the risen κυριὀς in 1 Corinthians 12:3, Galatians 4:4–6, and 2 Corinthians 3:17, Hill’s final chapter proves the Spirit’s divinity. Ultimately, Hill’s premise of the Holy Spirit’s divinity, which allows him to avoid the Binitarian tendency of the high-Christology proponents, is dependent on a minority reading of Romans 8:11 by which the Spirit is portrayed as the means of Jesus’ resurrection.
In Paul and the Trinity, Wesley Hill has entered a charged debate within the field of Pauline theology and, in so doing, has implicated many premier Pauline scholars in the guilt of having missed the boat by failing to recognize Paul’s inherent Trinitarianism. However, Hill apparently believes he has managed to publish a work that focuses exclusively on Pauline Trinitarian theology without interacting with other aspects of Paul’s theology. Even though Hill’s volume is not a treatment of Paul’s entire theology, he has nevertheless treated many facets of Pauline theology. For this reason, his omissions of Pauline anthropology and Jewish messianic expectation are unjustified and inexcusable.
Hill’s lengthy consideration of Philippians 2:6–11, in light of the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 45:21–23, is undoubtedly the climax of his entire argument. After demonstrating Paul’s intentional inclusion of Jesus into the divine name κυριὀς, Hill’s proficiency in clarifying why κυριὀς should be understood as a reference to identity, instead of to role, is central to his overall thesis.
While Hill’s effort to expose the dangers of a purely Christological view of Paul is helpful, his method of argumentation, in at least two areas, is equally hazardous. First, His relaxed allocation of fourth- and fifth-century Trinitarian concepts to Paul is alarming. At various points, Hill remarks that these Trinitarian concepts will “serve as exegetical prompts and heuristic aids,” and also, at points, are “foreign to the texts themselves” (88, 46). In an apparent contradiction, he affirms his final effort is not to “find a Trinitarian theology in Paul,” but instead only to “read Paul afresh,” which is noteworthy considering this freshness seems to posit a Trinitarian understanding within Paul (104–05).
Second, Hill’s association of Hurtado and Bauckham, both proponents of a high-Christology, with Dunn, McGrath, and Casey, proponents of a low-Christology is surprising. While Hill excuses such association by claiming that both factions ultimately result in heretical teaching, it seems Bauckham and Hurtado, outside of focusing exclusively on Trinitarian relationality, stand near to Hill. For example, Bauckham affirms that Jesus is not added to the monotheistic God as merely an agent, but instead “included within the unique divinity as inseparable from God” (17). Additionally, Hurtado and Bauckham identify the climax of Christology at the earliest point in Christian existence, prior to the period of increased Hellenization.
Resisting the trend of modern perspectives on Paul, Wesley Hill’s Paul and the Trinity is as a necessary contribution to Pauline theology and biblical exegesis, two fields which Hill rightly contends are ontologically inseparable. Although many readers might disagree with the fundamentals of Hill’s interpretation of Trinitarian theology, one must affirm the usefulness of Hill’s thesis for Pauline studies.
