Christianity Today: "Rethinking Paul"

The most recent edition of Christianity Today has an article by Simon Gathercole on the so called "new perspective" on Paul. We're in a phase right now of strong reaction to Sanders, Dunn, and Wright, as I've mentioned before. The Presbyterian Church of America is actually disciplining any of its ministers who are sympathetic to it, and thus the politics of religion are alive and well in the twenty-first century.

Gathercole is not as rabidly against the "new perspective" as some others. For a more detailed explanation of it, see the series that Scot McKnight is doing on his blog: http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2688. To be honest, there is a good deal of variety even within the new perspective camp. I disagree with Dunn and Wright on a number of issues, but would generally be sympathetic to the trend.

Gathercole begins by saying what it is and what it isn't. It isn't a rethinking of everything about Paul. It basically has two parts: first, a rethinking of Judaism and then a rethinking of Paul in that light. The rethinking of Judaism is an acknowledgement that Luther interpreted the Judaism with which Paul sparred far too much in the light of the Roman Catholicism of his day, that Judaism was not a works religion.

Gathercole and others have pointed out that works were a significant element in Jewish religion in relation to ultimate acceptance before God. So we have this dialog:

1. Bultmann--the Jews believed they could earn their salvation by good works.
2. Sanders--the Jews did good works in response to the gracious election of God. It was about "staying in," not "getting in."
3. Gathercole--OK, Bultmann and friends completely missed that grace and election were important to the Jews, but Sanders also underestimates the role that works played in Judaism.
4. Schenck--Who cares? Judaism involved both election and works in the mix of salvation... Paul does too!

That brings us to the second part, the application of the new perspective on Judaism to Paul himself. Here we have significant diversity.

Sanders: Paul is arguing from solution to problem. He knows the Gentiles are in. His theology is his attempt to explain how that can be the case without denying God's faithfulness to His covenant with Israel. His arguments over justification by faith are all about showing that the Gentiles are in--it is not the centerpiece of his theology but a result of his arguments with opponents.
Dunn: When Paul talks about works, he is primarily talking about works of Jewish law. Not on justification by works in general. The "works of law" that do not justify are things like circumcision, sabbath observance, food laws, etc...
Wright: The problem was that Israel boasted in national righteousness and thus withheld God's grace from the Gentiles, a grace God always intended for everyone. So Paul is not talking about individual works but about national works of righteousness. Faith is a badge of covenant identity, not a means of justification. Faith shows you are in. It doesn't get you in.

Gathercole critiques six tendencies of the "new perspective":

1. Works were a part of final salvation for Judaism and Jews talked about them as if a person could do them on their own. Paul believes only the mighty acts of God make salvation possible.

Fair enough. The New Testament does exactly the same thing, Paul included. The empowerment of the Spirit for works is the unique element in Paul's theology, as Simon indicates elsewhere. But basically this is a big fuss because of the Pelagian controversy of Augustine and the Reformation arguments. Paul himself, on the other hand, doesn't care nearly as much about dotting these i's as everyone else does.

2. Gathercole disagrees with Dunn's assessment that "works of law" primarily refer to boundary issues like circumcision and so forth (Westerholm is also a significant contender here as well). He thinks works of law refers to works of the whole Jewish law. So when Paul tells the Romans they are not justified by works of law, he means they cannot be justified by doing those parts of the law that are particular to Jews.

I personally think Dunn comes closer to the right balance on this issue. Dunn has recently made it clear that he was not restricting the phrase just to Jewish boundary works like circumcision (in The New Perspective). But I agree with Dunn that this is primarily what Paul has in mind.

What did we find that Paul was thinking about in Galatians 5:3 when he was talking about being justified by the law? Circumcision! They are observing sabbaths and other festivals (4:10). And in Romans, what example does Paul focus on in regard to not being justified by works? It's circumcision again (Rom. 4:10).

So while Paul can and does broaden his argument to say that works of any kind cannot result in justification (e.g., Rom. 9:6), the boundary issues are clearly what he is picturing in his mind in all these cases.

3. Simon disagrees with the move to talk about corporate righteousness among new perspective advocates like Wright. Individual and corporate are not at odds with one another.

I also think that Wright goes overboard with some of his corporate stuff, particularly his signature "Christ=Israel" motif. I suspect Gathercole errs just a tad on the individualistic side, but not too much. The ancient world thought of individuals through the lens of the groups to which they belonged. I believe this is the appropriate language through which to read Paul as well.

4. Gathercole argues that some new perspective scholars confuse the consequences of justification with justification itself. In particular, justification becomes inclusion in the people of God to the exclusion of justification being about how believers can be considered righteous before God. Thus,

5. It can lead to a downplaying of the sin of Israel. Some extreme new perspective scholars see Paul as only added another house to the house of God, not modifying Israel's part of the house at all (Stendahl, Gager).

6. So Romans can become a politically correct commentary on mutual acceptance and ecumenism between Jew and Gentile.

On these last three points I substantially agree with Simon. I continue to understand justification to be about the legal acquittal of a person, whether Jew or Gentile. I remain unconvinced of Wright's sense of justification as a word referring to inclusion within God's people. It results in that, of course, but I remain unconvinced that the word itself means this.