Seven Pillories of Wisdom

Critical scholarship of the Bible over the last few centuries has built itself quite a castle for interpretation, whose objective foundation has been set by the best of human reason, and whose walls’ stones have been well hewn by scientific analysis and reconstructed with historical precision, and whose inner rooms serve as safe-havens for those running from the dogmatic sword of a distant king’s servants. From the outside looking in, this towering fortress looks intimidating and inpenetrable. However, having peered through the portcullises to see the insides of this castle, David R. Hall has found its fortifications wanting. Indeed, from the inside looking out, it is nothing but painted cardboard.

This illustration may be too simplistic in communicating all that Hall presents in The Seven Pillories of Wisdom (1990), but it does justice in portraying how he dismantles the loose thinking of much critical scholarship in the past century and a half (both ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’). With seven chapters of sharply perceptive argumentation, clear illustrations from an assortment of literature (fiction and non-fiction), coupeled together with honest humor, Hall critiques the seemingly ’settled’ results of much modern criticism that has pilloried wisdom in understanding the New Testament. Nevertheless, in each section Hall moves well beyond mere criticism of the critics. Based on his breadth of knowledge in New Testament studies, he shares needed warnings for the naïve acceptance of the latest fads, addresses the proper place of presuppositions in research, and cultivates prudent judgment for the future of biblical interpretation.

His seven pillories of wisdom could be summarized briefly as follows. A quote succeeds each.

1. The Argument from Up-to-dateness: Do not assume that because an argument is modern it should be preferred to the ancient: “…our ignorance always exceeds our knowledge, and the latest opinion on any subject is just as limited, and just as likely to be wrong, as any that have preceded it” (18-19).
2. The Argument from Probable Certainty: Do not treat matters that are uncertain as if they were certain on the grounds of their probability: “Motive hunting is like hang gliding: it lifts us from the firm ground into the pure air of academic speculation; where we land depends on how the wind is blowing” (35).
3. The Argument from Primitive Culture: Do not assume that those who lived in the New Testament times were primitive in the sense that they could not understand the world properly: “We need to realize that the apostles were people who thought and reasoned much as we do today. Moreover, they were priveleged to witness some of the most exciting events the world has ever known–the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and the explosion into life of the early church. If we can be delivered from our feeling of cultural superiority and our fond belief that, compared to us, the early Christians were primitive, we can become free to sit at their feet, and to learn from them things that we in the twentieth century desperately need.” 
4. The Argument from Silence: Do not look for all the things you think the author should have included, note which ones did not appear in his work, and then deduce conclusions from these omissions: “…since we never know the reason why [something has been left out], and often have no solid grounds even for guessing it, it is better to follow the simple rule, ‘Respect with your own silence the silence of others’” (64).
5. The Argument from Creative Background: Do not assume that in order to understand an author’s thought, you have to study the background from which that author came: “Jesus and the apostles were not related to their background as a chicken is related to an egg. They were the creative agents of a creative God. The New Testament is not a mechanical response to external influences; it is the record of people inspired by God to see new things, and to see old things in a new way” (82).
6. The Argument from Consistency: Do not assume that an author must always use the same style of writing, or the preacher always the same style of proclamation: “These [New Testament] authors used words as a composer uses a musical instrument, taking advantage of its full range, and where necessary making creative use of discord” (86).
7. The Argument from Specialization: Do not bank on the so-called ’specialist’; use some common sense: “When scholars lay down what early Christians were capable of doing, they are really stating what they themselves are capable of believing. …Those who declare which of these events are possible and which are impossible tend to reflect the ‘internal limits of human belief’ in theological circles in the twentieth century rather than inside knowledge of what happened in the first century” (118-19).

Hall closes rather cleverly in his appendix parody, where he, having employed a form critical appraisal of Rudolf Bultmann’s works in their own Sitz im Leben, concludes they must be “masterpieces of twentieth-century comedy” (126).

Though written eighteen years ago, Hall’s contribution speaks wisdom for today, and I presume that his thoughtful assessment of trends in modern criticism and urgent plea for careful scholarship in biblical interpretation will remain a helpful resource for many years to come. With others who have spoken well of this book (e.g. I. H. Marshall, John I Durham, B. Paul Wolfe), I highly recommend it for students of both Testaments.

Calvin’s 3 Phases for Biblical Interpretation

For Calvin, biblical interpretation must pass through three phases if it is to be done properly and so result in the edification of the church: (1) exegesis (i.e. understanding what the text means), (2) dogmatics (i.e. the framework in which exegesis is to be interpreted), and (3) preaching (i.e. the application of the exegesis and dogma). Gerald Bray provides some helpful disharmonizations which I have put into equations here that help us to see what happens when one of these phases is missing.

• Exegesis + Dogmatics – Preaching = Dry, academic lessons with no application for the people of God
• Exegesis + Preaching – Dogmatics = Subjective, contentless, & inconsiderate of the whole of Scripture
• Dogmatics + Preaching – Exegesis = Propaganda

Observations taken from Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present (Downers Grove: IVP, 1996), 203-204.

Seven Reasons Why Outlines are Helpful

Recently, I added another section to the “Theology & Exegesis” page. It consists of links to outlines I have drawn up of several books of the Bible (more will be added later). I hope you will be able to make use of them, and that they will aid in your understanding of Scripture. The outlines attempt to give the main idea of the author’s argument and/or purpose in writing each section and then analyzes how these sections relate to and make up the whole of his work. Here are seven practical reasons why creating such outlines are helpful for Bible study.

1. Outlines force readers to articulate brief, helpful summary statements for each passage/section of the biblical book, and then prepares him/her to articulate those summaries to others in biblical discussions or evangelism opportunities. In short, they help the Christian to tell others what the Bible teaches and where it does so.
2. Outlines help very detail-oriented, atomistic readers to see better the larger picture in the biblical narrative or argument, and thus grasp the main purpose(s) of a book. For example, each cycle in the book of Judges (Israel Rebels; Enemies Attack; Israel Cries; God Responds Mercifully; Land has Rest), when read together, paints a larger picture of now-Canaanized Israel’s need for a covenant-keeping king.
3. Outlines aid in Scripture memory because they enable one to memorize the main point of complete sections of the Bible as well as how the individual memory verses fit into the larger picture. John 3:16, for instance, will thus include an understanding of the work of the Spirit, the Son’s mission, and the wrath of God that abides on all who reject 3:16’s message about them.
4. Outlines act as quick reference guides (that have been memorized by the way) when searching for a verse or section of Scripture that might encourage a discouraged brother/sister, or address a difficult situation with another person, or answer an unbeliever’s question, “What does the Bible say about…?”.
5. Outlines serve preachers and teachers by helping them map out how many sermons they should expect to preach after choosing to work through a certain book. The structure of the biblical book, then, shapes the sermon series and helps to prepare him to speak and the people to listen.
6. Outlines, when developing them, force people to read the entire narrative, psalm, letter, etc. multiple times, in their parts and as a whole; and rereading the text (esp. in large blocks) is never a bad thing.
7. Outlines look really neat and organized, and both of these are very cool

ESV Study Bible

I normally do not recommend many study Bibles to people since there is a tendency to be always relying on the study notes and commentary instead of reading (and rereading) the biblical text. However, when used properly as a tool for further study, they can be very helpful. After reading over the new website for the forthcoming ESV Study Bible, I believe this study Bible will be one of the best contributions to the church in helping believers to mature in their knowledge of Christ. They have done a superb job in selecting some of the most significant evangelical scholars and pastors to contribute and edit this study Bible. I am looking forward to purchasing one myself this October. Take some time to peruse their website, and note the helpful commentary, theological articles, maps, charts, diagrams, and much more.

Diagram for Paul’s Threefold Gospel Ministry

Last semester, I posted a four-part series that attempted to explain the important interconnectedness between right doctrine, persevering faith, and godly conduct. In sum, we saw that (1) right doctrine must inform and ground the Christian in the Gospel; (2) persevering faith must be placed in and encouraged by the Gospel explained by right doctrine; and (3) godly conduct must flow from a persevering faith as demanded by right Gospel-doctrine so as to reflect the truth of the God’s triumph for sinners in Christ. Together, these convictions make up “Paul’s Threefold Gospel Ministry”. I only mention these conclusions again here, because I have made up a chart/diagram that will hopefully help us to see and understand how these truths work together to produce a Gospel-centered ministry. Click here to view and save this diagram.

VIII. Conclusion on NT Theology & Its Application

This post concludes what we have been looking at concerning the coherent testimony of the NT and its theology. To be sure, I have only scratched the surface of all that this rich discipline entails. Thus, I pray such observations serve not as ends in themselves, but as lenses whereby we, together, might behold the majesty of Jesus Christ all the more clearly from the text of Scripture.

In sum, the observations in the previous posts show that the NT’s historical narrative about God’s revelation in Jesus is indeed a theological one; and despite the critics’ claims, these two are not at odds. “Christ died” (historical fact); and he did so “for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (theological truth) (1 Cor 15:3). Furthermore, all twenty-seven books of the NT, though unique in their own right, do provide its readers with one unified proclamation. Undoubtedly, this is because the main character in their authors’ lives is the one crucified, resurrected, and coming Lord and Christ, Jesus. In this Jesus, NT theology finds its beginning and end, and thus the church her master and head, for whom she lives, about whom she sings.

What, then, does a coherent theology of the NT mean for us and for the world? One of my professors, Dr. Paul Wolfe, answered this quite clearly at the closing of our last class meeting in the Fall. He stated,

“If even only the broad contours of the NT, or the inescapable central points, if you prefer, are correct, then the personal accountability to respond appropriately is a profound reality with which we must all deal. It truly is a matter of life and death, a matter of eternal consequence. Let the reader be warned, the subject at hand has a transforming claim upon your life and destiny from which you may never escape.”

If I may reiterate, the coherent message proclaimed by the writers of the NT means that Jesus Christ does have ultimate claim over all his creation, and none will thwart his purpose to redeem those trusting him, and to damn those rejecting him; to save those abiding in his grace, and to condemn those spurning his grace. There is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved. Therefore, repent of your sin; believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ; and you will be saved. Moreover, church, obey your Master. Submit to him in all things. Be filled with the Holy Spirit. Sing and shout for joy. Be devoted to prayer. And come, magnify the Lord.

VII. The Coherence of the NT’s Theology

If the NT’s twenty-seven books interrelate with one another in the respective roles mentioned in the previous posts, then theological synthesis becomes possible while simultaneously valuing the uniqueness of each book’s historical situation. From this approach, NT theology honors the historical nature of and theological proclamation in the apostolic word. With respect to the writers’ corporate unity in their individual diversity, the following is an attempt to summarize the theology of the NT using the aforementioned conclusions.

The testimony of the NT did not emerge in a vacuum; in a sense, its authors picked up the pen the Chronicler laid down and continued the Gospel-narrative set forth by the OT. Thus, Matthew opens his Gospel with the intriguing phrase biblos genesews (lit. “book of genesis”), which introduces a genealogy identifying Jesus with the expected Messiah from David’s royal line and Abraham’s progeny. Part of Matthew’s aim, then, is to acknowledge Jesus as the climax of redemptive history-hence his repeated fulfillment motif (Matt 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 5:17; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 27:9) (cf. G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the NT, 219). The other Gospels are not shy about such emphases either. They too see Jesus as the fulfillment of, doubtless the one exceeding, Israel’s hopes and longings, and around whom all salvation history revolves (e.g. Mark 1:1-3, 14, 24; 11:10; Luke 2:29-32; 4:21; John 1:41; 4:26; 6:12-14). Furthermore, under such umbrellas all the Gospels tell their readers about Jesus, his life, teachings, ministries, obedience, cross-death, and resurrection. Still more, they explain with unique testimony the theological meaning of these historical events. In unison they proclaim Jesus’ unswerving allegiance to his Father’s will (Matt 11:27; 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 5:17; 8:28-29), his atoning cross-death in light of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant (Isa 53 [cf. Matt 8:17; Mark 9:12; 14:49; Luke 22:37; John 12:38]), his triumph over evil in the ushering in of God’s kingdom (Matt 12:28; Mark 1:1-14; Luke 4:18-19 [Isa 61:1-2]; 10:9; 11:20; John 3:5), his victory over death in the Christ-exalting resurrection (Matt 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20-21), and the forgiveness and bounty he bestows on his followers (Matt 26:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 1:77; 24:47; John 10:7-18).

Acts of the Apostles shares the Gospels’ testimony. In this book, Luke portrays the extended ministry of Jesus, post-Easter. His and the apostles’ concerns are not with new doctrine, but new emphases of eschatological proportions (cf. Ladd, 353). Jesus is both Christ and Lord by the resurrection and now ministers by the Holy Spirit through his apostles and his rapidly growing church. Furthermore, he shows the promises of the OT and Jesus regarding the Gentile’s soteriological participation in God’s covenant people to be true. By the preached word, “the ends of the earth” become the primary participants in “repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8; 13:36-48). Therefore, in the apostolic ministry there is a swift unfolding of redemptive history that can only be explained by the supernatural work of Christ’s Gospel and the irruption (not eruption) of the kingdom of God.

With Acts of the Apostles, the missionary journeys have taken their course and communities of believers now gather all over the Mediterranean. Without question, these sinners-turned-saints are in need of great instruction. Without doubt, they know Jesus. Still, they need Jesus (i.e. all that they have received in the Gospel traditions) explained for their varying situations. Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, and the General Epistles, serve these ends with pastoral care and urgency. By interpreting the person and work of Jesus, they all agree that (1) Christ suffered for sinners, was raised from the dead, and is the exalted and reigning king; (2) justification is by faith in his finished work; (3) holiness accompanied by good works should characterize the church; (4) the nature of this age demands perseverance through suffering, yet is promised by God; (5) and the new age has dawned, yet awaits its consummation. In sum, the letters inform their recipients of the present reality and meaning of Christ’s kingdom and further exhort them in how they must live until its consummation.

Revelation, then, asserts to be “the revelation of Jesus Christ“. Its central concern is Jesus, who existed before history, entered history, and will bring history to its designed end (Rev 1:4, 8, 17, 18). He is the slain Lamb (5:6; 13:8), the root of David (22:16), the King of kings and Lord of lords (19:16). Essentially, therefore, it is Christological in its focus as are the previous twenty-six (sixty-five!) books. Nevertheless, largely accompanying its testimony about Jesus are also the severe and glorious events he will cause to transpire for the final establishment of God’s kingdom. This apocalypse explains more thoroughly, what was more so implicit in the rest of the NT; that is, redemptive history is not merely a matter of prophecy-fulfillment, but a matter of God’s sovereign control and omniscient guidance of all history. Nothing will thwart his purpose in Christ to set up his reign among his redeemed society in the New Jerusalem forever free from evil (21:1-22:5). With regard to NT theology, therefore, what Gospel-narrative beginnings the Evangelists articulated, Acts of the Apostles continued, and the epistles interpreted, Revelation concludes.

VI. The Role of The Revelation

What role does the Revelation play in doing NT theology?

Though this final canonical book is distinct when compared to other NT genres, the Revelation still continues much of the central theological concerns of the NT. It testifies of the same Christ promised in the OT, revealed in the Gospels, and explained in the epistles (e.g. Rev 1:7 [Dan 7:13; Matt 24:30; 26:64; Acts 1:9-11; Phil 2]; Rev 5:5 [Gen 49:9-10; Isa 11:1-10; Matt 1:1; Rom 15:12; Heb 7:14]; Rev 5:9-10 [Dan 7:18; Isa 53; Mark 10:45; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 2:4-10]; Rev 7:17[Ezek 34:11-31; John 10:1-18]; Rev 20-22[Isa 65-66; 1 Cor 15:20-28]). Yet, it does something more that all of them do not; that is, it brings all of their Gospel-testimony, theological argumentation, and practical application to their appropriate climax in Jesus, the King of kings and Lord of lords. It gives the final declaration that the sovereign Lord of history directs all reality of the present age and will bring all things to their proper place under the feet of the slain-though-standing Lamb (Rev 5:6). Whatever major themes one may find the NT carrying on at this point (e.g. Salvation History, New Exodus, Kingdom of God, End of Exile; etc.) the Revelation proves are only means to an end, namely, to magnify the Christ of all of Scripture, not shove him to the peripherals of one’s reconstruction. In a word, such themes become merely episodes in the grand Christocentric narrative of the whole Bible as the Revelation places God in Christ on the throne front-and-center, to whom the universe bows. Therefore, Revelation plays the unique role of wrapping up the NT canon and bringing its theological agenda to its expected consummation.

V. The Role of Hebrews & General Epistles

Do the other NT epistles function like Paul’s? Are they in unison with Paul?

The remaining NT epistles, Hebrews and the seven “general” epistles, seem to function in the same manner as Paul’s. Their explicit references to the Jesus traditions are almost nonexistent, with the exception of Peter’s “Transfiguration” experience (2 Pet 1:17-18). This, however, does not mean the traditions were unknown to them or their audiences. Textual evidence supports that they at least presupposed the Jesus traditions in their letters, especially the testimony passed on by the apostles (e.g. Heb 2:3; 13:7; Jam 1:19; 1 Pet 1:12; 2 Pet 1:16-18; 3:2; 1 John 2:24; 3:23; Jude 3, 17). Thus, they too interpreted Jesus for the people in the believing communities spread abroad. For the purposes of theology, then, they function primarily as explanatory or instructive epistles.

The question of whether or not these writers agreed in interpretation of the Gospels’ testimony for their communities should not be a large concern either, considering the noticeable agreement among them and in their teaching. For example, despite their disagreement at Antioch (Gal 2:11-14), Paul still shows that he and Peter (and the other apostles) are “servants of Christ” for the common cause of stewarding the “mysteries of God” (1 Cor 1:10-4:21). Furthermore, Peter readily speaks of Paul as a “beloved brother”, and affirms his writings as Christian Scripture (2 Pet 3:15-16). On an even larger scale, Markus Bockmuehl keenly points out that the mere decision of the “implied interpreter” to bind together into a single canon “writings in the name of Paul and the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ Peter, James, and John” surely highlights there was a common subject among them, namely, the Gospel (Seeing the Word, 132). Therefore, not only do these latter letters function like Paul’s, but they also do so in union with him.

[I would like to insert a brief parenthesis here, and mention something my wife and I had the opportunity to observe this past weekend at the Kimbell Art Museum. Recently, this museum has been displaying some of the earliest Christian art in their "Picturing the Bible" exhibit. The exhibit contains paintings, sarcophagi, mosaics, sculptures, medallions, etc. dating from the late third century on into the sixth. One room seemed to be devoted particularly to the apostles Peter and Paul. What was fascinating about each piece in this room was the fact that Jesus, Peter, and Paul were in union with one another. In several cases, Jesus was passing on a scroll to Peter while Paul applauded or raised a hand of affirmation. In others, the two of them were embracing one another. They even had a fourth-century belt-buckle with Paul and Peter embracing on the face of it. What a great addition to the wardrobe!  What made it so meaningful was that these pieces revealed what the early church believed about the apostolic testimony, namely, it was unified. There was no pitting Jesus against Paul, or Paul against Peter, as the critics have done with their hermeneutic of suspicion in the wake of the Enlightenment. Instead, the Church saw all of the apostles and their writings as applauding and explaining the Son of David.]

This leaves us with one more book to consider, the Revelation.

IV. The Role of Paul’s Contribution

What is the problem between Paul and Jesus for critical scholars in interpreting the NT?

Even if the previous conclusions regarding Acts of the Apostles are valid, critics have not been so welcoming to Paul following their journey from the Gospels’ picture of Jesus. Since the days of F. C. Baur (1792-1860), who argued that significant variations existed between Paul’s theology and the beliefs of the Jerusalem church, NT scholarship has been rather suspicious of any affirmations of continuity in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle to the Gentiles. Scholars arguing along the same lines as William Wrede (1859-1906) have insisted that Paul’s “innovative” ideas, theological commitments, and pioneering mission work wrecked the original intentions Jesus had for his followers. Consequently, today’s Christianity would be better off without Paul’s emphases. If the critical scholars are right, then the search for theological coherence and synthesis even within the first two-thirds of the NT is vain.

David Wenham’s thorough and very helpful contribution in showing unity between Paul and Jesus.

In his Paul, Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), David Wenham finds such claims about Paul’s dissimilarity to Jesus unwarranted. On the contrary, he argues that Paul was not so much an innovator of Christianity as he was a follower of the Christ, who died and rose again on his behalf. Although his epistles make few explicit references to Jesus’ life and ministry, Paul provides plenty of theological connections that bear witness to his own awareness and embrace of the historical traditions of Jesus (11).

Despite the complicated and interrelated issues surrounding the comparative study of Paul and Jesus (e.g. Pauline authorship, the so-called “New Perspective[s]“, the Synoptic problem, various quest(s) for the historical Jesus), Wenham maintains that a survey of the NT material, based on cautious historical and textual-linguistic analyses, produces a much larger, cohesive portrait that is often forfeited for the details. He develops and substantiates his argument with several components.

First, Wenham hones in on the teachings of Paul and Jesus through a wide array of “tradition indicators,” verbal links, and similar-thought connections, paying special attention to the unifying theological elements between the two men (26-29). Both Paul and Jesus taught that (1) Jesus’ incarnation inaugurated the presence of God’s eschatological kingdom on earth, promised by the OT and to reach its consummation at his Parousia; (2) Jesus, God’s Son and the expected Davidic king, suffered “redemptively” on behalf of others through his cross-death; and (3) Jesus’ mission as Israel’s Messiah included the post-Easter celebration of God’s soteriological benefits encompassing the Gentiles, and thus the ingathering of an eschatological community zealous for fulfilling the Law through love wrought by the Spirit (chs. 2-7). Therefore, Wenham finds theological congruity between Paul and Jesus, a synthesis not hindered even by their differing expressions of these great truths.

Second, Wenham sets out to discover whether Paul was familiar with the complete “story” of Jesus, from his birth to his resurrection, or only Jesus’ teachings. The data shows that Paul knew something of Jesus’ birth and Davidic lineage (Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4), as Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospel traditions portray (338-43). There is a good case he knew of his baptism and connected it with entrance into the Christian community (344-48). Moreover, Paul was well aware of the disciples’ ministry under Jesus, some of Jesus’ miraculous healings, his humble lifestyle, and the nature of the transfiguration event (350-63). Most familiar to Paul from these traditions, however, were the events surrounding the Passion and resurrection narratives, both of which played a large role in shaping Paul’s theology and mission (363-71). Paul’s letters, then, indicate a large dependence on at least a Gospel tradition, if not several. Jesus’ life and ministry, therefore, was for Paul “common knowledge” (371).

Lastly, Wenham summarizes his interconnected findings and draws all-encompassing conclusions in order to answer the question with which he began his quest: Did Paul found Christianity, or follow Jesus? The evidence of the Jesus tradition(s) in Paul’s teachings surely points to the latter. Many differences do remain between Paul and Jesus; and the very few explicit references to Jesus’ life and ministry could cause disbelief in any unity at all. This, however, makes perfect sense for Wenham since Paul ministered post-Easter, following the commencement of the Gentile mission and the birth of many churches struggling to understand and live out Jesus’ teachings (378-80). Paul, therefore, presupposes the Jesus traditions in his letters and writes “to clarify what was unclear or disputed” (405). For Wenham, Paul was faithful to explain the truth of Jesus in new contexts with which he was involved (409). Without question, this identifies Paul as he would like to be remembered, “a slave of Jesus Christ [Gal 1:10-11], not the founder of Christianity” (410).

What does this mean, then, for our understanding between the Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s epistles in doing NT theology?

Wenham’s observations allow students of the NT, therefore, to link closely the teachings of Paul with those of Jesus instead of pitting them against one another. The Gospels’ testimony concerning Jesus is primarily foundational and assumed among the believing communities, while Paul’s epistles then become primarily instructive for the outworking of Gospel-truth within those communities. The people need to understand the soteriological and ecclesiological implications of Jesus’ life, cross-death, resurrection, and glorification. The testimony of Jesus, therefore, continues to be passed on within the Christian communities as Paul consciously writes Scripture to expound the Jesus tradition, clarify what may have been disputed, or rebuke those undermining its message. For NT theology, then, Paul’s epistles are explanatory and exhortative.