
Book Review
Paul’s Ethic of
Freedom by Peter Richardson (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1979) 181
pp., $6.95 paperback.
Reviewed by John M.
Frame, Associate Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology, Westminster Theological Seminary in California.
Peter Richardson argues that the apostle Paul taught and
lived a concept of freedom only described in his own writings. This concept includes the freedom of Gentiles
from Jewish law and customers (40ff.), freedom of women from male domination
(57ff.), freedom of believers to be “inconsistent” in their ethical behaviour
(90; cf. 79ff.), freedom of the church to follow the Spirit without a fixed
order or structure in its worship or government (142ff.). Richardson finds this concept most clearly expressed in the earlier writings of Paul. Later on, he thinks, Paul compromised these
principles under the pressure of various practical problems in the
churches. He developed a greater concern
for order, structure and principles as he came to realize that the return of
Christ would not be imminent.
The scholarship of the book is sophisticated and subtle, but
the formulations are not overly technical.
Most helpful to me were (1) the discussion of Paul’s principle of
‘adaptability’ (79ff.), especially Richardson’s account of the quarrel between
Paul and Peter (90-97); (2) the description of the ‘Corinth radicals’ and the
possible relation of these to Gnosticism (99-108); (3) Richardson’s discussion
of the ‘mutuality’ of concern and service between slave and master (51-55),
husband and wife (68-70, 117); (4) his analysis of the Pauline contrast between
‘strong’ and ‘weak’ (126-141).
On the concept of freedom itself, however, I find the book
rather confusing, perhaps confused. Sometimes it seems that this freedom excludes any authority
relationship: Richardson thinks Paul is not fully
consistent when he gives commands to the churches (78-82, 115) and when he
tells wives to obey their husbands (70-78).
Sometimes, though, it seems that Pauline freedom permits an authority relationship
as long as ‘in Christ’ the difference between parties ‘does not matter’
(49 – the discussion of slavery). Sometimes Richardson
argues as if Christian behaviour is to be totally unprincipled except for its
evangelical goal (87: Does he really mean to suggest that for Paul the end justifies any means whatsoever?) At other times, it seems that Christian
freedom is subject to all sorts of limits: love (80), the ‘law of Christ’ (80),
the content of the Gospel (95, 139), the ‘territorial imperative’ (96) and
others (e.g. 122f.). At times, even the
principle of adaptability itself becomes an absolute principle which limits
freedom (90ff.). Richardson’s frequent mention of the Spirit
as the one who ‘directs the Christian life’ (79) is not much help. He assumes a kind of antithesis between
Spirit and law (79, 97, 171) which is by no means obvious. (Why cannot the Spirit motivate us to obey
the law? Note how Paul speaks of
obedience to commands as a test of spirituality in 1 Cor. 14:37). Much more care must be devoted to the meaning of freedom and the relation of
freedom to law, limits, Spirit, and authority.
I am not persuaded that Paul’s concept is as unique in
Scripture as Richardson says. His analysis of the Old Testament
background (17ff.), says nothing about the Abrahamic covenant, even though he
concedes that that covenant was basic to Paul’s thinking (a5f.). He does recognize fundamental agreements
between Paul and Peter (90-97) in this area.
Nor does Richardson
do justice to the Gospels and Acts.
I can mention other problems only briefly for lack of
space: (1) A tendency to infer far too
much from what Paul does or does not emphasize or mention in a certain context
(instances of this problem on 70, 77, 144, 164); (2) a tendency to draw
historical conclusions from inadequate data (22, 23, 91, 146, 163) – but
Richardson is moderate in this respect compared with other liberal new
Testament scholars; (3) a tendency to make gratuitous value-judgments (55f.,
66, 73, 115, 118, 165, 167, 169).