바울의 예언적 비평의 해석학

Paul's Hermeneutic of Prophetic Criticism in Romans

It seems obvious from our investigation of Romans that Paul not only understands his apostolic mission in prophetic terms but also follows closely to the tradition of prophetic criticism of the later OT prophets. Traditionally scholars have tried to approach Paul's criticism of Judaism against the background of the intertestamental Judaism. Their prejudgment that the Judaism he criticized in his letters is a form of humanistic religion which deviated from the OT religion of Israel has produced this kind of approach. From our exegetical observations above, however, we are led to the conclusion that Paul's criticism of Judaism is much closer to the prophetic criticism of the later OT prophets. Especially, the vox populi as represented by the false prophets helps a lot to shed light to the character of Paul's critique on Judaism in Romans, because the common thought pattern of Israel which the false prophets represented so closely resembles the typical thought pattern of the Jews in Paul's own days. If such elements as (1) hermeneutical principle of continuity, (2) attitude of reliance on Temple, national election, circumcision, and the land of Canaan, (3) perception of God as the sustainer of covenant rather than as the Creator, and (4) nationalistic covenant constitute the fundamental characteristics of the false prophecy, we can also easily find out those elements from the thought patterns of the Jews Paul criticized in Romans. Just as the great prophets like Isaiah, Jeremias, and Ezekiel challenged the narrow theological traditions of the false prophets, Paul also made a scathing criticism upon the nationalistic and physical descent-oriented covenant theology of the Jews in his days. Just as the OT prophets did, Paul also did not give up the concept of God's covenantal faithfulness and rather reinterpreted it in terms of the 'remnant' theology. At the same time, like the later OT prophets, he also repudiated the Jewish nationalistic covenant theology but strongly advocated the sovereign freedom of God the Creator who is free to call his people among the Gentiles. This suggests that Paul stands within the tradition of prophetic criticism of the later OT prophets, He fighted on both fronts: On the one hand he challenged the narrow tradition of the Jews who attempted to confine God as their own national god of Israel, and on the other hand he also challenged the superior consciousness of the Roman gentile Christians who tried to turn Christianity into an anti-Jewish movement. God is never a god who simply cares for immediate needs and concerns of one people. Rather He is the Creator of all men: God is free to create His people according his sovereign will. Thus He is the God of Gentiles as well as the God of Jews(3:29). Just as God judged disobedient Israel, He is also free to judge recalcitrant Gentiles. However, God's sovereign will is never arbitrary, without a purpose. God shut up both Jews and Gentiles under sin in order to show His mercy upon them all(11:32). All the elements that we noted above are found within the hermeneutic of prophetic criticism of the later OT prophets. Then we can finally reach the conclusion that Paul, as the apostle who has a prophetic call, stands within the tradition of prophetic criticism of the OT prophets. Just as the OT prophets were the hermeneuts of prophetic criticism, the Apostle Paul also was a hermeneut of prophetic criticism who, following the revelatory understanding he received, positively applied the prophetic traditions of the OT to his own situation and explained them for the sake of the Gentile churches he served. God or Christ was the ultimate source of his revelatory message, but he never proclaimed it mechanically. He is a hermeneut of prophetic revelations by positively making use of the OT prophetic traditions and applying them to his situation in accordance to his revelations he received.