Beröer Suche

Schlagwort: NPP

  • The new perspective on Paul – Part 5

    The new perspective on Paul – Part 5

    By Christian

    Having dealt with the new view of Paul in the first four parts, we want to look at some aspects of exegesis in this final part. After all, what matters to us (at least to me) is what we can take from the text of the New Testament, and not so much what scholars have worked out (made up?) as theology on top of it over the centuries:

    THE PROOF of any theory about interpreting Paul’s letters lies, of course, in the pudding of exegesis (= method of interpretation). That is, can the theory actually make good sense of what Paul said—and not just some of what the apostle wrote, but all of it?

    Chapter 6

    [Also in this part, the quotes are from the book „The New Perspective on Paul – An Introduction“ by Prof. Kent L. Yinger, which forms the basis for this series.]

    Prof. Yinger discusses some of these points in more detail in Chapter 6.

    Works of law

    What is the status of the discussion on this?

    Of course, most deeply in dispute is whether or not “works of law” has something to do with legalism. When Paul objects to justification “by works of law” (Gal 2:16), does this refer to the more traditional conviction that doing these works will earn justification (= legalism), or that one must belong to the covenant group, Israel? …

    This exegetical debate seems to have reached an impasse. …

    Whether Paul opposed legalism is a larger issue than the exegesis of one phrase. Like most Jews of the day, Paul surely thought that legalism—doing enough to put God in our debt so that he “owes” us salvation—was ludicrous, even if that’s not what he’s talking about with “works of law.”

    Chapter 6

    Paul: Converted or called?

    In the context of the new perspective on Paul, a perhaps surprising question arises for us:

    Was Paul converted? That is, after the Damascus road experience, did he remain an adherent of Judaism, or did he convert to something else?

    Chapter 6

    Yinger elaborates on three arguments:

    First, to speak of Paul switching religions to Christianity is anachronistic. That is, we are taking a later situation and imposing it on an earlier, quite different, situation. In the middle of the first century there was not yet an identifiable religion called “Christianity.” Occasionally Jesus-followers were called christianoi (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16), but this was simply the way some antagonists tried to label and differentiate these folks from others as supporters of a particular figure or party, Christ.4 Paul did not have to quit Judaism to become a Christ-follower.

    Second, this use of “conversion” for Paul muddies the water as to one of the main issues in his letters. Paul’s gospel, rather than being an attempt to persuade folks to leave (legalistic) Judaism for (gracious) Christianity, is the key in his struggle over the identity of this Christ-movement in the Roman Empire. …
    Some preachers, like Paul, are saying they don’t even need to bear the marks of Jewish identity in order to belong to this Jewish movement. They can be justified by faith in Christ rather than by being Jewish (“works of law”). Others are just as adamant that they do need to become Jewish (“it is necessary for them to be circumcised,” Acts 15:5).

    And third, Paul himself uses the language of prophetic calling rather than conversion for this element in his life. “But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace . . .” (Gal 1:15; see also Rom 1:1). …
    Paul did not view himself as preaching a change of religions, but as a Jewish prophet calling Israel and the nations to follow the God of Israel who has now revealed himself at the end of time in Messiah Jesus.

    Chapter 6

    What exactly was the curse of the law?

    One passage in Galatians is also discussed in the context of the new view of Paul:

    For all who rely on the works of the law [lit. “all who are of works of law” (see pages 20–21 and 21n6 above)] are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” But the law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, “Whoever does the works of the law will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.”

    Galater 3:10-13 NRSV

    Protestants and others have interpreted this passage in this way since the Reformation at the latest:

    1. The Law pronounces a curse upon anyone who fails to keep it. (Paul quotes Deut 27:26.)
    2. No human being can keep the Law perfectly.
    3. Thus, all human beings fall under the Law’s curse.
    4. However, Christ took upon himself humanity’s sin and curse at the cross, and thus purchased release from this curse.

    Chapter 6

    Authors of the new perspective on Paul have rightly questioned the conclusion from points 1 and 2. They pointed out that the sacrificial system, the possibility of repentance and divine forgiveness indicate that less than perfect obedience was allowed, i.e. that they make provision for imperfections.

    Personally, I think this argument is not only very plausible, but also extremely important. Anyone who reads the Torah with an open mind will notice that a lot is said about the sacrifices. But it is never about appeasing unpredictable, angry gods. Among other things, it is about repeatedly calling to mind the holiness of Yahweh and, by contrast, the status of the people. But it doesn’t stop there. It describes exactly what needs to be done so that the people in this covenant are freed from their „sins“. In addition to the sacrifices, this is also depicted very vividly:

    “When he finishes atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the wrongdoings of the sons of Israel and all their unlawful acts regarding all their sins; and he shall place them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands ready. Then the goat shall carry on itself all their wrongdoings to an isolated territory; he shall release the goat in the wilderness.

    Leviticus 16:20-22 NASB

    What then is the curse of the law that Paul speaks of? There are different views here, but there is also a common ground: this is about the nomism of the covenant, and blessing or curse are linked to faithfulness to the divine path revealed in the covenant.

    Did Paul have a burdened or a clear conscience?

    According to the Lutheran tradition, Paul must actually have had a burdened conscience. In the New Testament, however, we find this statement by Paul:

    as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.

    Philippians 3:6 NRSV

    That doesn’t sound like a burdened conscience due to his sinfulness, does it? And late in his life, according to the Acts of the Apostles, he even says so himself:

    While Paul was looking intently at the council he said, “Brothers, up to this day I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God.”

    Acts 23:1 NRSV

    And Paul also addresses the Corinthians accordingly:

    I am not aware of anything against myself.

    Indeed, this is our boast, the testimony of our conscience: we have behaved in the world with frankness and godly sincerity.

    1. Corinthians 4:4, 2. Corinthians 1:12 NRSV

    Some have argued with various texts that Paul did have a troubled conscience and that these texts should be interpreted quite differently. However, the arguments are complicated and seem rather forced to me. I would therefore like to leave it at a reference to the book.

    Romans 10:3

    But doesn’t Romans 10:3 speak of salvation by one’s own works?

    For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness.

    Romans 10:3 NRSV

    And in contrast, Paul says about himself:

    be found in [Christ], not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.

    Philippians 3:9 NRSV

    But is Paul really contrasting self-righteousness through their own works here? Or not the righteousness they had by works according to their covenant? „It was “their own,” their Jewish covenantal righteous status, theirs as opposed to someone else’s or some other sort. Their problem is not legalism, but ignorance in their commendable zeal for God (Rom 10:2). Wright’s translation brings out the NPP sense nicely:“

    They were ignorant, you see, of God’s covenant faithfulness, and they were trying to establish a covenant status of their own; so they didn’t submit to God’s faithfulness.

    Romans 10:3 Wright‘s translation

    Works-righteousness for Abraham in Romans 4

    Finally, I would like to take up Romans 4 here, because it is an important argument for those who want to refute the new view of Paul:

    What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness

    Romans 4:1-5 NRSV

    In short, the context must also be taken into account for the exegesis of these verses. The context has a strong reference to God’s covenant with the Jews. „In 3:29–31 Paul noted that God justifies both Jews and Gentiles “by faith” rather than by “works of law.” Since the identity of God’s covenant people seemed to be tied up in the OT with Jewish identity (“works of law”), but Paul denies that connection, this raises the question which leads into chapter 4: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?” (Rom 3:31)“

    In relation to verse 4, an argument is given by Dunn:

    Dunn adds, this reckoning as a gift versus as a calculation of prior faithfulness refers to Abraham’s initial justification, whereas traditional interpretation usually has final justification in view (“saved by works”). The point is actually quite simple: God’s initial reckoning of Abraham to be righteous occurred prior to (apart from, without) any acts of faithfulness, any works, on his part.

    Chapter 6

    Conclusion

    In this series, we have been given an overview of the current state of research into the new perspective on Paul. Of course, there are still many details and passages in Paul’s letters that need to be discussed. However, please refer to Prof. Yinger’s book and the literature cited therein.

    In conclusion, I would just like to point out once again why the new perspective on Paul is important for our faith:

    The new view of Paul is not new at all, but corresponds to what Paul originally said and meant.
    „NPP writings are trying to get “back to Paul,” not “back to Rome” or “Luther” or any other theological movement or church historical period.“

    1. First-century Judaisms were not legalistic, but were characterized by covenantal nomism—saved by God’s grace and obligated to follow his ways.
    2. Since Jews were not espousing works-righteousness, Paul was not opposing legalism in his letters.
    3. Instead, at issue was a question of social identity: “Who belongs to the people of God and how is this known?” i.e., does one have to be Jewish—be circumcised, keep food laws, celebrate Sabbath, etc.—in order to inherit the promises to Abraham?
    4. Paul does not differ from most other Jews as to the roles of grace, faith, and works in salvation; where he differs is the conviction that Jesus is Israel’s Messiah and the Lord of all creation. No longer is Torah the defining center of God’s dealings; what counts now is belonging to Christ.

    Better grasp on Paul’s letters.

    We avoid focusing on Western individualism (how do I get saved).

    Moving from the Old to the New Testament is made easier.

    Paul is not founding a new religion, any more than Jesus did, but Paul is in line with Jesus‘ statements.

    And I put it somewhat provocatively: Anyone who believes (*) that faith in Christ alone is necessary for salvation in order to receive this grace, and that one’s own works are completely unimportant, is not following Christ or Paul, but Martin Luther and traditional Protestantism.

    (*) I will leave out theological subtleties such as justification, sanctification, synergism etc. here.
  • The new perspective on Paul – Part 1

    The new perspective on Paul – Part 1

    By Christian

    Is it possible that 2000 years after Paul, we can still say something new about his teachings? For example, about our hope of salvation? In short, we know this:

    • In the 1st century, the Jews, full of self-righteousness, believed that they could earn salvation through their works.
    • Jesus condemned them for this and abolished the Mosaic Law.
    • Paul also argued against their idea and explained that we are saved by faith and grace alone. Our works play no role at all.

    Correct? What if all three statements would be wrong? That they are not in the New Testament, that Paul did not say them that way, but that they are interpretations of the Reformation and that some of the reasons have only emerged in the last 200 years? I wouldn’t be surprised if some people now shake their heads. „Is he just trying to show that greats like Calvin or Luther were wrong?“ Or perhaps your reaction is more like this:

    At stake is nothing less than the gospel itself, the church’s proclamation of the good news of salvation in Christ. [ . . . ] The new perspective ultimately offers a different gospel than that to which the Reformation bore witness.

    The current revision of the doctrine of justification as formulated by the advocates of the so-called New Perspective on Paul is nothing less than a fundamental repudiation not just of that Protestantism which seeks to stand within the creedal and doctrinal trajectories of the Reformation but also of virtually the entire Western tradition on justification from at least as far back as Augustine.

    Rejection of the Reformation . . . is a big plank of the New Perspective.

    Chapter 7

    But there are also comments that say exactly the opposite:

    The Reformation tradition’s approach to Paul is fundamentally wrong.

    Chapter 7

    Let’s take a closer look at what the text of the New Testament itself says, taking into account the context and not 2000 years of theological considerations. You may be surprised which of your beliefs may not come from Paul but rather from Luther and others.

    This series is based on this very good overview of the state of scientific research on this topic in the three decades up to 2011: „The New Perspective on Paul – An Introduction“ by Prof. Kent L. Yinger.

    Instead of polemic, my desire is that this book be a place where all who genuinely seek to better understand Paul’s thought, the central message of this Jewish apostle of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, can gather and reason together.

    Chapter 1

    The book is structured like this: When and how did the new perspective on Paul emerge? How did the discussion among scholars develop? What exegetical and theological concerns and objections are there to this new perspective? And finally, a chapter on the perspectives opened up by this new perspective.

    For the impatient among us: in this part, we will first discuss what this new perspective of Paul is supposed to be. In the next part, I will explain what it changes. Only then will I go into more detail and the pros and cons.

    Chapter 2: Where Did This All Begin?

    The change began when scholars increasingly recognized a discrepancy between the established perspective on Judaism in the Second Temple period and more recent historical findings.

    The established view of Judaism in the Second Temple period

    The view, which was developed by scholars in the 19th and 20th centuries in particular, can be summarized as follows:

    The Jew takes it for granted that this condition [for God’s acquitting decision] is keeping the Law, the accomplishing of “works” prescribed by the Law. In direct contrast to this view Paul’s thesis runs . . . “by, or from, faith.”.

    Chapter 2

    Yinger summarizes it like this:

    It is not hard to see how the gospel was perceived to contrast at nearly every point with this religion.
    • grace versus works
    • the Spirit’s enablement versus the Law’s hard yoke
    • joy versus toil
    • confidence versus fear, and
    • “God with us” versus a remote deity
    Scholars even called the Judaism of this period “late Judaism,” meaning it was in serious decline and on its last legs.

    Chapter 2

    Turning Point 1977

    Scholars increasingly contradicted this idea. The turning point came with the publication of E. P. Sanders‘ Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977.

    Rather than earning divine favor by their works of obedience to his Law, Jews emphasized God’s free election of Israel. They were made members of the elect people of God by grace alone. Salvation was a gift, not something they had to first earn.

    Rigorous obedience to the commandments was the expected response to God’s prior act of saving grace, not an attempt to earn it. Both the nation and individuals within the nation kept the commands not in order to be redeemed but because they had been redeemed or saved (think exodus from Egypt).

    Chapter 2

    Sanders coined the term covenantal nomism for this and summarized it in 8 points:

    1. God has chosen Israel. [Thus, election, or grace, not meritorious works, is the fundamental datum for salvation in Judaism.]
    2. And God has given the law. [Torah is a gift to Israel instructing her in the way of life with which God has already graced her; it is not a burden.]
    3. The law implies both God’s promise to maintain the election and
    4. the requirement to obey. [The maintaining of election does not depend solely on the efforts of Israel, but is enabled by God himself. Nevertheless, the importance of actual obedience may never be toned down.]
    5. God rewards obedience and punishes transgression.
    6. The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in
    7. maintenance or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship. [Through repentance and the sacrificial system provisions are in place should Israel sin.]
    8. All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God’s mercy belong to the group which will be saved.

    Since then, there has been agreement among scholars on at least these points:

    • First-century Judaism was not the legalistic religion of past caricatures.
    • Covenantal nomism is a fair description of Jewish soteriology of the period.

    [Soteriology is the doctrine of the redemption of mankind in a Christian context.] And why did this make such a big splash?

    „One of the central building blocks of Protestant soteriology is salvation by grace not by works. This discovery of the unmerited grace of God in Jesus Christ has been seen as one of the great advances of the Christian gospel over Judaism. The gospel of free grace has replaced Judaism’s hard yoke of keeping the Law, its supposed typical legalism.“

    Let’s take just one statement from Paul: „“We know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal 2:16). Traditionally, “justified by the works of the law” points to Jewish legalism. But if Judaism was not particularly legalistic, what in the world is Paul talking about?“

    You may not have realized it yet, but this is not a small matter:

    If, in fact, Jewish theology of the first century was not particularly legalistic, we’re going to have to re-read these and other central passages, and possibly re-envision the Christian understanding of salvation.

    Chaptzer 2

    And that’s what we’ll be doing in the next parts of the series.