Charles Kingsley Barrett, <t>Paul, An Introduction to his Thought</>. 
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox 1994. Pp. xii + 180.

Reviewed by Eric Yearley for R.Kraft's RelSt 436 course 
at UPenn (Spring 1999)


Right from the beginning, C. K. Barrett leaves no doubt about 
what he is trying to present in this book. He is trying to 
understand the theology and thought behind the letters of Paul. 
Barrett wastes no time arguing that not only is Paul one of the 
greatest Christian thinkers of all time, but then he also calls 
him, "THE Christian Thinker". Barrett writes: 
<quote>
If there is any question of Paul's place in a series of 
outstanding Christian thinkers is whether he ought to be 
described as The Christian Thinker. He first gave the Christian 
movement a theology, and the greatest of his successors have 
known that they were building on his foundation.</> 

Barrett goes out on a limb when he places Paul at the top of 
Christian thinkers, considering there were many throughout 
history. These men, naming a few: Philo [actually Jewish, but 
widely used by Christians; RAK], Jerome, Augustine, Martin 
Luther, and Thomas More were all great Christian thinkers, but 
Barrett explains that they were only building on the foundation 
of ideas laid down by Paul. First, Barrett explains, we must look 
at his life to understand his thought, since life and thought are 
closely integrated. We find information about his life in two 
sources: Acts of the Apostles and the letters in the New 
Testament.  It is agreed that Romans, 1 and 2 Corithinians, 
Galatians, Philipians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon are genuine 
letters written by Paul.  Barrett notes that
these have:
<quote>
...a sufficient unity of style and thought; one senses the same 
author confronted by various situations but dealing with them all 
on the basis of the same presuppositions and convictions. They 
fit together into a convincing picture of a single individual of 
unique mental and spiritual power, belonging to the first 
generation of Christians, and recognized -- by no means always 
with approval -- as a figure to be reckoned with in the affairs 
of the church.</> 

Barrett then warns us of the difficulty of using Acts as a source 
for Paul's life. He gives a convincing argument that the writer 
of Acts, "was more remote from Paul than appears at first sight."  
His examples of this include the observation that the writer of 
Acts, who was considered to be Luke, never mentions the fact that 
Paul wrote letters to the newly established churches. Barrett 
explains that Paul never mentions his Roman citizenship when of 
course the writer of Acts does. Finally, the writer of Acts 
records that Paul was a member of the Apostolic Council that 
produced the Decree (Acts 15). The Decree was the agreement of 
the Apostles that circumcision was not necessary in order to 
become a Christian. The writer even goes on to explain that Paul 
was in charge of spreading the word of this Decree. Barrett 
questions why Paul never even talked once about this Decree. 
Barret says: "As an exponent of Pauline Theology he (the writer 
of Acts) must be treated with reserve."  We can use the Acts of 
the Apostles for topography and chronology of Paul's journies, 
but not for his ideology. Barrett provides an excellent case for 
his arguments. He not only presents his ideas, but backs them up 
with hard evidence. 

Barrett then moves on to the controversies involving Paul. He 
presents Paul as a hated man, and for good reason. Jesus Christ 
had left his disciples with only one command, "Go ye therefore, 
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
and the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19)." He did not 
leave any commands on church order or behavior in the church. 
Paul had to cross lines with his theology. Jesus Christ suffered, 
so Paul thought he had to suffer just like his Lord. Paul never 
compromised on his idea of salvation. Paul compromised on some of 
his rules, but his idea of salvation could not be changed. That 
made some people very angry, especially the Jewish community. 

One of the most effective arguments Barrett presents is Paul's 
treatment of the battle between the flesh and the spirit. Barrett 
hits it right on the nail when he describes the word flesh. The 
word flesh means a self-centered existence or existence 
determined by desire. It makes sense that humanity has turned 
from God since He considers us sinners. Humanity has turned from 
God's will, and now enters a self-centered existence. Spirit is 
opposite of the flesh, according to Barrett. He explains: 
<quote>
Flesh and spirit are contraries not because they are higher and
lower parts of human nature, but because they denote respectively life
as directed by and for self and life directed by and for God.</>

According to Barrett, the Spirit directs a nonegocentric existence. The
Spirit guides a life for God. Barrett wraps up a successful argument by
saying:
<quote>
The Christian life means the end of a self-centered existence, 
the progressive detaching of the members from the service of sin 
and their presentation to God in the service of righteousness.</> 

Barrett reminds us that Paul said the only way to crucify the 
flesh is to belong with Christ.

Barrett finally argues that Paul, with his theology and thoughts, 
constructed the foundation of the Christian church. Barrett 
argues that Jesus left his followers with no church order or 
liturgy. Sure, Jesus' followers were left with dogmatics and a code 
of ethics, but Barrett explains: 
<quote>
...and dogmatics and ethics could for the most part be taken over 
and adapted from the Judaism in which the first disciples had 
grown up, though both found a new centre in the overwhelming 
experience of the resurrection appearances -- how overwhelming, it 
requires a considerable exercise of the historical imagination to 
conceive.</> 

Barrett explains that the disciples were driven to announce the 
resurrection of Jesus to all the nations, but they were not 
theologians. The Christian religion needed someone to set all the 
ideas of Christianity  floating around straight. This is where 
Paul comes in. His thought process changed even what Peter 
thought was correct. But more importantly, Paul's thought 
created the foundation for the Christian church. Paul changed the 
way we think of Christianity. Barrett argues this very 
effectively. He explains that Paul actually built upon the 
cornerstone of Jesus' ideas and resurrection. He set straight 
any confusion in the Christian religion. Barrett accurately calls 
Paul a systematic theologian. He explains: 
<quote>
...who does not need to qualify for the title by writing a large 
textbook of systematic theology but by his grasp of Christian 
principles and his ability to think them through and express them 
in terms of this own environment.</> 

In conclusion, Barrett describes Paul as "The Christian Thinker" 
that helped pave the way for the religion of Christianity. 

[needs page numbers for references]

//end//