Paul’s Eschatological Anthropology: The Dynamics of Human Transformation by Sarah Harding

Abstract

Reviewed by: Paul’s Eschatological Anthropology: The Dynamics of Human Transformation by Sarah Harding Chris Tilling sarah harding, Paul’s Eschatological Anthropology: The Dynamics of Human Transformation (Emerging Scholars; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015). Pp. xvii + 451. $79. This monograph is a revision of a Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of Wales, supervised by Kathy Ehrensperger and Bill Campbell. Harding’s thesis, which foregrounds the import of Paul’s eschatological structure of thought, seeks to develop an anthropology that corresponds to this (temporal and spatial) eschatology. This eschatological dynamic will account for the various ways Paul evaluates any anthropological “part” (she uses the word “part” without wanting to endorse a “partitive” anthropology). Over against those approaches that would describe Paul’s anthropology in static terms, H. proposes a dynamic approach. In doing this, H. aims to overcome the various dualisms perpetuated in various accounts of Pauline anthropology. Following an excellent and detailed history of research, H. outlines various hermeneutical issues that impinge on her thesis, which, in a nutshell, states that Paul ascribes “no inherent value” to any particular anthropological “part” (p. 42). After all, Paul can speak of the νοῦς as something “debased” (Rom 1:28), as well as of the “νοῦς of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16). It follows that an “extrinsic condition or possibility” determines Paul’s “evaluation of any part or aspect constituent of humans” (p. 42), and, consequently, that this condition is dynamic, not static. That condition, as noted, is the eschatological structure of Paul’s thought, which involves three aeons (the old, the overlap of the ages, and the new). In this way, H. aims to develop an account of Paul’s anthropology that is original, systematic, and consistent (cf. language on p. 49). As is common in the guild of Pauline studies, “harmonizing” has become a rude word. H., aware of this, nevertheless seeks “unifying themes,” which therefore also lends her research particularly well to the scrutiny of systematic theologians. To execute this thesis, H. elaborates on her understanding of the term “eschatology,” in chap. 2. In this dense chapter, H. insists that to affirm the eschatological dimension of Paul’s thinking is to affirm that his theology is both temporal and forward-looking. She also maintains that Paul’s eschatological language is to be understood in both horizontal and vertical planes, with the former organizing Paul’s eschatology across time into aeons and the latter identifying “the powers” with the various anthropological correlates of that eschatology. As she puts it, the “entry point of Sin in humans is the νοῦς, which is manifested as idolatry; Sin then progresses through the καρδία and is finally objectified in the σῶμα” (p. 96)—claims that are further substantiated in chap. 4. In chap. 3, H. investigates the eschatological structures of the “old aeon,” which determine Paul’s anthropological discourse, namely, the “power of Sin” and Adam. Sin, as a power, “manifests itself in individual sins” (p. 131), while Adam’s sin, though contingent, creates a situation in which his descendants necessarily sin. Following this, in chap. 4, H. examines particular anthropological terms in light of this eschatological dynamic. By tracing Paul’s language in Rom 1:18–28, H. proposes that primacy is given to the νοῦς, such that when this “part” becomes “futile” (1:21), the καρδία then becomes “foolish” (1:21). Sin is, finally, “objectified” through the σῶμα, which involves, on one level, networks of human relationships (although H. is clear that Paul’s σῶμα language does other work too). In chap. 5, H. turns to “the overlap of aeons.” Deploying christological and pneumatological language, she outlines the way the result is anthropological renewal by means of a change of lordship. Hence, she maintains that, because “Sin and the Holy Spirit dominate [End Page 528] humans in their entirety, their influence over humans cannot occur concurrently, but only sequentially” (p. 239). In this way, believers enjoy freedom from Sin and for the Holy Spirit. In chap. 6, then, H. pursues anthropological terms in light of the “overlap of aeons,” which again presses the primacy of the νοῦς, while chap. 7 examines the same in terms of the “new aeon.” Indeed, in this final chapter, H. maintains that there is consistency in Paul’s...