The New Perspective on Paul (6)

I've been posting reflections on the work of Jimmy Dunn, that great giant of biblical studies, my Doctorvater, who passed away this last Friday. Thus far we've looked at

1. The Evidence for Jesus (1985)
2. Baptism in the Holy Spirit (1970)
3. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (1977)
4. Christology in the Making (1980)
5. "Once more, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ" (1991)

Yes, I have also cheated a little. We have also briefly mentioned Jesus and the Spirit (1975), Romans 1 and 2 (1988), and Jesus, Paul, and the Law (1990).

1. I want to go a little out of order now. Although Jimmy is known for many things, probably the biggest thing he is known for is the "new perspective on Paul," a phrase that he popularized. [1] This was again part of his genius, his ability to sense the Zeitgeist, name it, channel it, and amplify it.

Yesterday, I mentioned this contribution in his book, Jesus, Paul, and the Law, which was a 1990 collection of presentations and articles. Because the new perspective on Paul was a key focus of his writing in the 80s and 90s, I want to jump now to a fuller compilation of articles and presentations from 2005 which included some of the same pieces. This volume is the full, mature collection of his writings on the new perspective and Paul and so is the best place to approach his contributions on this subject:

The New Perspective on Paul

2. In 1946, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. In a story that is interesting in its own right, they didn't fully get published until 1991. However, the main texts did get published fairly quickly and they prompted a re-examination of previous assumptions about Judaism among Christian scholars. The Holocaust also prompted self-examination among Christian scholars--to what extent had a pretty cardboard, straw man view of Judaism played a role in anti-Semitism?

In 1977, Ed Sanders published Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Sanders went through pretty much all of second Temple Jewish literature and showed that Judaism was not this sinister "works-righteousness" religion from which that "pure," grace-oriented Christianity broke away. The Jews did not have to do works to "get in." They were born in. Keeping the Law was more about "staying in" the covenant. (I always wondered if Sanders had this breakthrough in part because he grew up Methodist. :-)

Sanders coined the phrase "covenantal nomism" to express the idea that Jews kept the Law (nomism) because they were part of a covenant. Further, he argued that the logic behind Paul's soteriology (his sense of salvation) was not "I couldn't keep the Law so Christ did it for me." Paul's train of thought was rather "Christ is the solution so Law-keeping must not have been." Christ represents a change in the "system of righteousness."

2. In 1982, Dunn presented a seminal lecture titled, "The New Perspective on Paul" in which he began to think through the possible implications of a "new perspective" where Jews kept the Law because they were "in" the people of God rather than to get in. He did not find Sanders' account above entirely satisfying.

First, he suggests that language of justification in Paul was not about an initiatory experience but a confirmatory one. "God's justification is rather God's acknowledgement that someone is in the covenant" (107). Second, "Paul is fully at one with his fellow Jews in asserting that justification is by faith" (108). Therefore, "justification by faith is not a distinctly Christian teaching."

I'll confess that the first point has never fully gelled with me because Galatians is, after all, about the inclusion of the Gentiles. That is to say, the Gentiles were not already in before justification. Similarly, since I have taken the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" interpretation for the first pistis Iesou Christou expression in Galatians 2:16, I would agree that Paul's Christian opponents agreed with Paul here. However, it sure seems like Paul's claim of justification by faith is at least perceived as a different position than his opponents in Romans 4.

I have thus found a couple of Dunn's comments here suggestive, although not exactly in the way he took them. For example, I agree that in the expression, "through faith of Jesus Christ," "Paul appeals to what was obviously the common foundation belief of the new movement" (112). I just take that foundation to be "the faithfulness of Jesus Christ" to death, common ground between Paul and Peter.

I also agree that in Galatians 2:16 we are getting the distinction between James and Peter's understanding and that of Paul. They see faith and works as supplementary in justification--a person is not justified by works of Law except through the faith of Jesus Christ, the "most obvious grammatical sense" of ei me in Greek. Paul's insight is that these are "now posed as straight alternatives" (113). The alternatives for me, however, are Sanders' two "righteousing" systems.

3. Where I believe Dunn's real contribution in this discussion lies is his realization that the expression, "works of Law," is not primarily focused on "works" in the abstract. In Galatians especially, this expression refers to those marks of Jewish identity like circumcision, food laws, Sabbath observance. As N. T. Wright put it in his Oxford dissertation, these became emblems of "national righteousness" (114). [2]

Although Dunn received a lot of push-back on this position, it seems clear to me that circumcision is clearly the "work" that is under principal discussion in Galatians, and festival observance is also mentioned. Romans is slightly more abstract in its discussion of works, but even there Paul is dealing with the inclusion of the Gentiles. Accordingly, the works that primarily distinguished justification by works and by faith would still be these Jewish identity markers. [3]

In a 1984 presentation, Dunn expanded more on his position: "Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Gal. 3:10-14)." Dunn of course received a lot of push-back from Reformed and Lutheran circles. Several chapters in New Perspective are reiterations of Dunn's defense of this position: "Yet Once More--the Works of the Law" (1992), "Whatever Happened to 'Works of the Law'" (1998), and "Noch einmal 'Works of the Law': The Dialog Continues" (2002). In the new, quite long prefatory chapter in New Perspective, Dunn was still defending his interpretation of the phrase, although arguably softening his approach a little.

4. I was privileged in the spring of 1994 to be present for a "Paul and the Mosaic Law" conference in Durham, done jointly with the New Testament faculty from Tübingen. It was quite an event, with virtually all the key players there except Ed Sanders. Sanders had seriously offended the German scholars by assassinating the character of Joachim Jeremias in a scathing piece in JBL, I believe.

The Table of Contents says it all: Martin Hengel, N. T. Wright, Richard Hays, John Barclay, Hans Hübner, Otfried Hofius, Heikki Räisänen, Hermann Lichtenberger, Bruce Longenecker, Stephen Westerholm, Steven Barton.

Dunn was too optimistic about the possibility of consensus. Who is to say that any of these scholars really changed their perspective much because of the interaction. But the conference volume is the best snapshot of the state of the question in the mid-nineties, with the exception of Sanders.

5. There is one more article in New Perspective that I think should be mentioned. "4QMMT and Galatians" (1997). 4QMMT was a smaller document among the Dead Sea Scrolls that, unfortunately, was not officially published until 1994. The title of this document, "Some of the Works of the Law," was surely too close to Paul's phraseology to be coincidental. Surely when Paul uses the phrase, "works of Law," he was referring to a known quantity.

Dunn concludes that the expression, "works of the Law," was "a summary reference to a series of legal/halakhic rulings/practices." In MMT, Dunn finds that "righteousness is reckoned to those who are faithful in observing the ruings and following the practices (works) outlined" (344). If the contextual arguments from Galatians were not enough, here we have historical evidence that "works of Law" was a phrase with a background in Jewish disputes over how to keep the particulars of the Jewish Law faithfully.

6. I will not be featuring Dunn's Galatians commentary as one of my twelve books, but let me end this post by noting that the interpretations that Dunn worked out in more detail in these articles found their way into his 1993 commentary on Galatians. I personally think the articles are more helpful. He also wrote, The Theology of Paul's Letter to the Galatians in the New Testament Theology series.

[1] The phrase was actually first used by Tom Wright in a 1978 lecture, but Dunn's megaphone made it a thing.

[2] The word "national" probably doesn't work as well right now, given that one might think of nationalism. Nationalism would be an anachronistic framework and thus is potentially confusing language.

[3] Even Ephesians, where this discussion is the most abstracted of all into faith and works in general (Ephesians does not use the central Pauline expression, "works of Law"), the boundary wall between Jew and Gentile is in view.

Crash Writing 1: Paul and the Law

Going to try to write the better part of a chapter today. The first section of the chapter is called "Paul and the Law." Here is the outline to fill in over the next five hours or so:

6.1.1 Paul's Many Uses of Nomos

• The default reference of Paul's use of the word "law" (nomos) was to the Jewish Law... what else would it be?
• It is true that Paul does some word games with the word nomos especially in Romans to mean something like "rule."
• When Paul referenced the Law, he sometimes had different parts of the Law in view.
• When Paul used the phrase, "works of Law," for example, he especially had in view those parts of the Law that served as ethnic boundaries between Jew and Gentile. 
• At other times, such as when Paul spoke of upholding "law" (Rom. 3:31) or Gentiles keeping the Law (Rom. 2:14), he had something like the essence of the Law in view, which for him largely amounted to the love command (Rom. 13:10), which "fulfilled" the Law and was more or less what he meant by being "enlawed of Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21).
• When Paul spoke of previously being "blameless" in relation to the "righteousnessness in the Law," he largely referred to the performance of "works of law" to the expected Pharisaic standard.
• When Paul spoke in Romans 7 of not being able to keep the Law he referred more to the essence of the Law mentioned above, and he picks the one of the Ten Commandments that is often understood "internally."

6.1.2 Paul's Application of the Law

• For Paul Gentiles were not "under the Law" but he expected them to live out the essence of the Law, love. The Holy Spirit empowered them to do such. 
• He worked out these arguments in practice. So in 1 Corinthians, his approach is that "all things are lawful for me, but not everything is beneficial" (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). In 9:21 it is that he is "enlawed of Christ" although not technically under the Law.
• But the bottom line remained. If you do not show appropriate works on the Day of the Lord, you simply will not make it (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Believers would be judged according to their works when they die (2 Cor. 5:10). We can work out a system, but it is not entirely clear that Paul did.
• Did he expect Jews to continue to keep the Law? I suspect he more or less anticipated that they would and that he more or less did. However, he did not consider himself to be under the Law (1 Cor. 9:20) and argued strictly for justification by faith apart from works of Law (Rom. 3:28). 
• The real problem for him was when "works of Law" came into conflict with the full inclusion of the Gentiles, such as happened at Antioch. When there was any conflict of this sort, especially one that threatened the unity of the body of Christ, the Law was out the window.

Grafting Gentiles into the Tree

In the first chapter, we saw that one aspect of the recently revised perspectives on Paul and Judaism was a greater sense of the continuity between Israel and earliest Christianity. Indeed, throughout the book I have argued that it is much more accurate to speak of Christian Jews than it is to speak of Jewish Christians. Even Gentile believers in Christ were, at the beginning, something along the lines of Gentile converts to Israel. When I speak of "Gentile Christians," I am in a sense speaking of a certain species of "Gentile Israelite."

In this chapter, we now want to look at Hebrews in relation to the Jewish sense of election, covenant, and the Law in its environment. The previous chapter looked at the Christology of Hebrews in relation to Jewish "monotheism." Earlier chapters have looked at Hebrews in relation to the temple, which speaks to Jewish conceptions of land and redemption. [1] Now we want to ask to what extent Hebrews might reflect a partitioning or parting of the ways with Judaism in relation to election, covenant, and Torah. [2]

At this point it is perilous to enter into Pauline waters, even though we must. Much like the first chapter, we will simply have to take certain positions and more or less by-pass the significant amount of debate that surrounds an issue such as this one. The amount of literature on Paul and the Law is staggering to the mind. To some extent, we will simply have to comfort ourselves with the fact that the position we will take here in relation to Paul has already been defended elsewhere by others, even though we cannot hope to rehearse an exhaustive argument.

So we begin with Paul as potentially relevant background to Hebrews on the question of election, covenant, and the Jewish Law...

[1] In Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood  Apostle (New York: HarperOne, 2009), Pamela Eisenbaum considers redemption one of three key components of Judaism at the time, along with worship and Torah (68). N. T. Wright considers her category of redemption to correspond loosely to his third element, "eschatology," alongside monotheism and election, in Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 612 **.

[2] See chapter 1. For language of "partitioning," see especially D. Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2004).

D. A. Carson and "Variegated Nomism"

Working on a book I'm writing for Fortress called, A New Perspective on Hebrews.  This morning I wrote the following in relation to D. A. Carson's two volume project, Justification and Variegated Nomism:
_________________
No doubt there is some validity to this element of Carson’s critique. We cannot assume that the attitude of each Jewish individual and group toward the Law was uniform or consistent.  Indeed, we cannot assume that Paul’s own rhetoric toward the Jewish Law can be easily systematized into a neat theology. [1] At the same time, Carson and those like him clearly have their own theological axes to grind. His base camp is set in a particular Christian theology whose evaluative lens may or may not be appropriate for Paul, let alone for Jewish literature. For example, his understanding of what constitutes “merit theology” is arguably more a matter of the Protestant Reformer John Calvin than Paul himself. [2]

[1] The plethora of books and positions on Paul and the Law argues quite strongly to the contrary. For one failed attempt of a diverse group of scholars to come to such a consensus, see Paul and the Mosaic Law.

[2] In particular, Carson’s theology leads him to consider anything but “monergism” as a theology of “works righteousness” and “merit theology.” Monergism is the idea that human will plays no part in an individual’s righteousness before God. What if, however, Paul’s own theology proves to be “synergistic” in Carson's terms, involving a necessity of works to be finally justified (e.g., 2 Cor. 5:10) and a cooperation of human will with divine will? In that case, not only Second Temple Jewish literature proves to espouse a merit theology, but the New Testament itself. In that case, Carson’s bold project not only proves to have a lackluster result—the essays constitute only minor rather than major critiques of Sanders’ work. In that case, the project itself proves to be fundamentally unsuccessful.

Paul versus Peter (another excerpt)

I thought last night went well, very thankful.  Here's another excerpt from my novelistic portrayal of Paul:
_____________
When we got back to Antioch, it was clear that John Mark had been talking.  I could see that my decision not only to accept Gentile believers but to pursue them actively was going to cause a lot of controversy. I received a word from the Lord that I should go down to Jerusalem and lay out what Barnabas and I had been doing.  It seemed very important to have the support of the so called "pillars" of the church in Jerusalem.

Of course I knew I was right.  And God speaks to me every bit as much as to Peter.  Am I not an apostle?  Didn't Jesus choose to reveal himself to me?  Didn't he commission me to go and witness to his resurrection?  I would go up to Jerusalem, but I already knew God's will on the issue.

Barnabas and I took Titus with us as an object lesson.  He was a young Gentile who had believed. We thought it would make the issue real to them.  Were they going to consign him to destruction when he clearly had faith?

They agreed.  I think they viewed him a little like the aliens and strangers in the land of Israel of old. They were not Israelites, but Israel was to treat them kindly remembering that they, too, were once strangers in the land of Egypt.  Neither James nor Paul forced Titus to be circumcised.  I'm pretty sure it was their preference, that the best scenario of all was for him to convert fully to Judaism and get circumcised.  But they didn't compel him.

Their main concern was that I remember the poor in Jerusalem, and in fact that is exactly what I am doing right now as I prepare to depart from Corinth for Jerusalem.  After I leave here we will pick up key representatives of the churches I have founded here in the Diaspora and they will each take an offering from their church to give to the Jerusalem church.  I won't handle any of the money, so no one can accuse me of anything.

I was elated.  Barnabas and I returned to Antioch very encouraged.  Little did I know the firestorm that was about to erupt.

It turns out that James was very concerned about a slippery slope.  He had acknowledged that Gentiles didn't have to become Jews to escape God's coming wrath.  They didn't have to keep purity laws or observe the Jewish Sabbath to be saved.

But he was worried that some Jewish believers might get the idea that they didn't have to worry about these things anymore either.  He was insistent that they needed to perform these sorts of works of the Law just as much as ever.  He sent some representatives--and Peter--up to Antioch to make sure that the Jewish believers were still holding the line.

Frankly I don't think Peter cared.  In fact, it is ironic that it was exactly these sorts of issues that kept James from believing in his brother Jesus when he was on earth, because Jesus flaunted all the rules about purity and the boundaries of the Law. I can just hear what James probably told Peter, "Peter, you are the apostle.  You are the one Jesus first appeared to.  People see you as the leader.  You have to set the tone."

So Peter comes to Antioch and, all of a sudden, after so many years of Jewish and Gentile believer having fellowship together and eating together, they separate apart.  Now the Jewish believers are all concerned that they will become unclean for eating with uncircumcised men.  It became a kind of "separate but unequal" situation.

I couldn't stand it any more.  I stood up in front of a whole assembly and called Peter a hypocrite to his face.  It was completely absurd.  I had kept the Law.  As far as the righteousness that is in the Law, I had been blameless.  Peter hadn't fully kept the Law a day in his life.  It was a complete joke.

I lost that argument, and it created real barriers between me and many in that church to this day.  When it came time to go back out on a second mission, Barnabas and I had to part ways.  Sure, the surface issue was about taking John Mark, but it was really about the fact that our sense of the mission had changed.  He believed it was important to submit to the authority of James and the leaders in Jerusalem. I believed it was a hindrance to the gospel and had no intention of following their instructions on Jew and Gentile believer eating together.

So we agreed to disagree and went our separate ways.  He took Mark and returned to Cyprus.  I grabbed Titus and headed off for Asia Minor.

Paul's "Conversion" (part of tonight's presentation)

From my presentation tonight:
________
But while I was on my way to Damascus, Jesus stopped me and tapped me on the shoulder and told me that I had it all wrong.  Everything was exactly the opposite of what I thought it was.  The things I thought were important weren't important, and the things I thought were evil were actually good.  God rocked my world and turned me around 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

This changed everything.  It was going to take some time to work through.  It was going to take some prayer and it was going to take some reflection.  God led me to a man named Ananias in Damascus and he told me everything he knew about what Jesus had did and taught.

But you know, I found out that Jesus' followers were still trying to figure things out too.  Although he had warned them, no one was expecting Jesus to die.  Like me, they thought that messiahs were winners.  Messiahs won and kicked the Romans out of town. They had gone to Jerusalem expecting the heavens to open and for God to crown Jesus king of Israel before the whole world.

Then after he died, they weren't expecting him to rise again.  Of course as a Pharisee, I knew what resurrection meant.  If Jesus had risen from the dead, then the resurrection was beginning, the beginning of the end, the restoration of all things.  If Jesus rose from the dead then he was the last Adam, the one to undo all the problems created by the first Adam.

Of course my thoughts would only develop over time as I thought about such things.  I would more and more come to understand that sin and death had entered the world through the first Adam.  God had made us to be full of glory, but Adam's sin made us lose that glory.  And it wasn't only us humans but the rest of the creation too.  The creation decays and disintegrates because of Adam's sin.

Jesus is the antidote.  Jesus' death sets everything right again.  The cross was God's solution to world's problem.

I hadn't anticipated that.  I thought that what God wanted was for us to keep the Law perfectly.  And I did.  I had lived blamelessly, as far as the righteousness in the Law.  I had kept the works of the Law perfectly, as I understood them as a Pharisee.

But it wasn't what God was looking for.  The cross was the solution.  Therefore, my works of Law were not.  Works of Law must not play any role in being right with God, but rather trusting in the faithful death of Jesus on the cross...

Paul the Jew 2

Continued from yesterday...

... Nor is it likely that Paul viewed himself as a moral failure before he "discovered" justification by faith.  This was also one version of the older story.  Paul, plagued by his moral failures as revealed in Romans 7, finally realizes that he must depend entirely on Christ for his righteousness.  Now that he believes, he still cannot do the good he wants to do (7:19), but God now looks at Christ's righteousness rather than his.  Paul is both sinner and righteous, as long as he keeps repenting.

Again, this scenario is a fair description of Martin Luther's pilgrimage, but it is not Paul's. [1] In Philippians 3:6, Paul says that before he believed on Christ, he was faultless, "as for righteousness based on the law."  Indeed, Paul regularly tells his churches confidently to imitate his way of living (e.g., 1 Cor. 4:16-17; Phil. 4:9), and the word repentance rarely leaps from his subconscious in his writings--in fact never in relation to himself.  Paul was not a bad Pharisee.  He simply had an encounter with Christ that led him in another direction!

The vast majority of experts on Romans now agree that Paul never meant Romans 7 to depict a never-ending struggle for believers to do the right thing.  Indeed, we are reading this chapter exactly the opposite of how Paul meant it if we do not read it in the flow of Romans 6-8.  In these chapters, Paul contrasts what it is like to be a slave to sin with what it is like to have the Spirit within.  The end of the argument is Romans 8, where he talks about the Spirit setting a person free from the law of sin and death (8:2).

On the way there, Paul vividly dramatizes in Romans 7 the plight of the person, especially the Jew, who does not have the Spirit but wants to keep the essence of the Law, such as the command not to covet.  At the dramatic climax, he pictures this poor person crying out, "Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?" (7:24) The answer quickly follows, "through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (7:25).  Now by the power of the Spirit, we can fulfill the "just requirement of the law" (8:4, NRSV), which Paul later tells us is to love our neighbor (13:8-10).

Paul does say some things in his writings that paved the way for later Christians like Tertullian to consider Christians a "third race," neither Jew nor Gentile. [2]  In 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, Paul says that "to the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews... to those not having the law I became like one not having the law."  But this statement is really about keeping the Jewish Law--especially the parts like circumcision that distinguished Jew from Gentile--rather than about him abandoning his identity as an Israelite.  Romans 11 gives us the bigger picture.

For a time, the hearts of many Jews are hardened not to believe.  Certainly there remains a remnant of "true Israel" at present (e.g., Rom. 9:6), but most of ethnic Israel does not currently believe.  God is instead at this time grafting into the tree of Abraham the "full number of the Gentiles" (11:25).  Israel's lack of faith, in God's plan, has created an opportunity for the Gentiles to hear and believe the good news as well (e.g., 11:11).  But once that full number of the Gentiles comes in, then Israel itself will believe too: "all Israel will be saved" (11:26).  The "part" that is hardened (11:25) will become the "all" that believes (11:26).

For Paul, Israel thus remained the people of God.  Jews who believed remained part of true Israel.  Gentiles who believed could become a part of true Israel as well.

[1] We have Krister Stendahl, more than any other expert on Paul, to thank for these observations.  See "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," now in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (***).  I dedicated the second volume of this series to him and N. T. Wright.

[2] To the Gentiles 1.8.

1 Timothy and Law

1 Timothy focuses on a different part of the Jewish Law than Romans and Galatians do.  The focus of the Law Romans and Galatians is on “works of Law,” the things that most distinguished Jew from Gentile ethnically (e.g., Gal. 2:16).  In Paul’s central writings, the Law pertains to the former age—it is something to which believers die when they die with Christ (e.g., Gal. 2:19).  Believers are thus no longer “under Law” (1 Cor. 9:20), even though they now fulfill the “righteous requirements of the law” (Rom. 8:4).

By contrast, the focus of “law” in 1 Timothy is not on its “past-ness,” as in Paul’s central writings.  The law in 1 Timothy is the common moral standard for all people—basically the Ten Commandments.  It is still in force, but because Christians keep this standard, it is not something Christians need to think much about.  “[T]he law is not made for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels” (1 Tim. 1:9).  The list that follows roughly corresponds to the Ten Commandments.

It is for the “ungodly and sinful,” those who have other gods before God.  It is for the “unholy and irreligious,” those who would take God’s name in vain.  It is for “those who kill their fathers and mothers,” who do not honor their father and mother.  It is for murderers.  It is for the sexually immoral and men who practice homosexuality (1:10, ESV), sexual prohibitions related to the heading of adultery.  Finally, slave traders, liars, and perjurers relate to the commands not to bear false witness or to covet.

Unlike Paul’s central writings, 1 Timothy thus focuses on the law as basic and universal moral standard, something Christians do not need worry about because they already keep these requirements.  Those who need worry about the law are thus criminals and lawbreakers.  This is quite a strikingly different way of talking about the law than we find in Romans and Galatians, where the Law retains a strongly Jewish flavor and is relegated to the age before Christ.

How to be Saved (4.3)

The race is on to finish Paul 2...
______________
Enveloped in Paul’s thoughts about God’s plan for the Gentiles are some familiar verses. We have heard them in terms of “getting saved,” about “becoming a Christian,” about “getting to heaven.” For example, Romans 10:13 says "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved," quoting Joel 2:32.  Romans 10:9 features in the “Roman road,” a series of verses from Romans meant to lead a person through the logic of becoming a Christian. On the Roman road, Romans 3:23 first tells us that “all have sinned,” which of course includes me. Then Romans 6:23 tells me that the “wages” for my sin is death. But Romans 5:8 gives me hope—even though I was a sinner, Christ died for me. Finally, we come to our verse from this passage, Romans 10:9: “if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Hopefully the last few chapters have made it clear that, while this way of using these verses is not completely off, it approaches these verses a little differently than Paul did. For Paul, all these statements had to do with the question of whether Gentiles, non-Jews, could escape God’s coming judgment. This is what being saved and salvation means for Paul.  It refers to escaping God’s wrathful judgment on the day when Christ returns to the earth and everyone gives him an account for the deeds they have done on earth—including believers for the things they have done after God forgives their sins (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10). In that sense, no one is literally saved yet because salvation is something that is yet to come, on the Day of Judgment. When we speak of “getting saved,” we are really speaking of our assurance of something that has not yet happened.

So in Paul’s mind, the “all” in “all have sinned” meant "both Jew and Gentile" rather than just Gentiles—all, both, have sinned. And Paul’s arguments about the wages of sin and Christ dying for the ungodly were situated in his mind in a story in which the Jewish Law set the standard for sin and Israel would eventually recognize that Jesus was its messiah. Later Christianity has universalized Paul’s thinking in ways that are not wrong, but are slightly out of context. The Law becomes the universal moral law rather than the Jewish Law. The “all” in “all have sinned” shifts to the individual trying to be justified and ultimately saved, rather than the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

So Romans 10:9 is also situated in a passage where Paul is asking why it is that so many Gentiles are headed for salvation while most Jews were not. Why? Paul says it is because they insisted on doing it their way rather than God’s way.  God's way was to make the world right with him through trust in Jesus, but the Jews by and large wanted to be right with God through keeping the Jewish Law (9:30-33).  They stumbled over God's plan for "righteousness," in this case a right standing before God, through Jesus (9:33).  They tried to establish a right standing before God on their own, rather than what God had in mind (10:3). [1]

Christ is thus the goal of the Law, that to which the Jewish Law points (10:4).  Some traditions take the phrase "Christ is the end of the law" to mean that Christ brings an end to the law.  But it is far more likely that Paul is saying Christ is the goal, the telos of the Law.  As Paul says in Galatians 3:24, the Law was a guardian, a tutor for the Jews to be ready for Christ (NASB).  But now that Christ has come, born under the Law to redeem Jews under the Law (4:4-5), faith has come and neither Jews nor Gentiles need the tutor any more (3:25).  We have "grown up" in the maturity of salvation history now to have the status of sons and daughters who no longer need the Law as our guardian...

[1] The parallelism of 10:3 pushes us to take the phrase, "the righteousness of God" in 10:3 in reference to human righteousness more than God's righteousness as in 1:17.  Of course Paul may intend a double entendre, as he may in Romans 3:21.  Some like N. T. Wright insist that Paul always must mean God's righteousness when he uses the phrase (What Saint Paul Really Said ***), but this approach seems excessively rigid.  Wright and others are correct that the background of the phrase pushes us toward God's righteousness as the default.  But ultimately the immediate literary context must cast the deciding vote.

Sin and the Law 4

The key to understanding Romans 6-8 is to understand the clear "before and after" Paul presents repeatedly throughout the section. The first is in 6:17-18:

"But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness."

Notice the clear timing here. The Romans used to be slaves to sin before they believed. Now they are free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. Paul gives no middle ground. A person is either a slave to righteousness or a slave to sin. You are not both at the same time. The timing for Paul is not ambiguous. Before you commit to Christ you are a slave to sin. After you believe, you are not to "let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires" (6:12).

Paul gives the same contrast in 6:19-22 and then again in 7:5-6. His statement in Romans 7:5-6 is worth quoting because this statement is in the lead up to what he will say later in that chapter:

"For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit" (NASB).

Again, the timing is clear. Being "in the flesh" is a matter of a believer's past. And the "fruit for death" that Paul has in mind is also clear from the previous chapter. 6:19 puts it clearly: "you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness." And when Paul says we have "been released from the Law," is not talking about some legal hocus pocus where God treats us like we have become righteous even though we continue sinning as before. You would have to ignore everything he has said in the previous chapter to read him this way.

No, there is not the slightest ambiguity here. Paul is saying that we were slaves to sin. We used to act in ways that lead to death. Paul is saying believers no longer let their sinful passions control their actions. Believers are set free from the law of sin.

Romans 8 confirms this same train of thought yet one more time: "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death" ... "so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (8:1, 4). "Walking" is the Jewish word for how one lives (halakah), confirming that Paul is not talking about something only figuratively fulfilled in us. He is talking about believers actually keeping the essence of the Law, like the Gentiles he mentioned in Romans 2:15 who demonstrate the Law written on their hearts. [1]

Paul's overall train of thought in Romans 6-8 is thus quite clear. One is either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. Before the Spirit, a person is a slave to sin with the result that they act sinfully and follow the lead of the sinful passions inside them. However, after the Spirit, a person is set free from the law of sin, a person is freed from sin and becomes a slave to righteousness, with the result that they act righteously and actually fulfill the righteous requirement of the Jewish Law.

It is only when we have this context firmly in mind that we should approach Romans 7:14-25. The popular interpretation of these verses is so deeply engrained in the contemporary Christian's mind that it will take every effort to keep most readers even at this point from chucking Paul's clear train of thought out the window. Paul cannot be saying that he is still a slave to sin or that he continues to be unable to keep the heart of the Jewish Law unless he is saying he is not a believer.

"We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin" (7:14). Paul cannot be talking about himself at that very moment because he has said clearly, repeatedly, and emphatically that believers used to be slaves to sin but are now free (6:17-18; 19; 20-22; 7:5-6; 8:1-4). If Paul is talking about the default state of the Christian or of himself, then his train of thought here is fundamentally incoherent. The only way to read Romans 7 this way is to rip it completely from the rest of Romans!

The only way to read Romans 7:14-25 coherently is to see Paul putting himself into the shoes of the default Jew who has not yet believed, not yet been baptized into Christ, and has not yet received the Spirit. [2] It is a person who "wants to do good" (7:21, NASB) but is incapable because s/he is a slave to sin. In short, Paul is not talking about his current experience but he is explaining what the purpose of the Law was even though unbelieving Jews are unable to keep it even in its essence. [3]

Paul's theology would have starkly raised the question of the Law among Jews. Paul is saying that keeping the Jewish Law does not make a Jew right with God. Only the death of Christ and faith in what God has done through it can make a person right with God. Well then what was the purpose of the Law, then, Paul? He states clearly in Romans and Galatians that its purpose was to show me my need for Christ (e.g., Gal. 3:24). Romans 7:14-25 presents this need dramatically.

I am a Jew. I want to keep the Jewish Law. The Jewish Law tells me what God desires of me (meaning those core parts that apply universally). But I find in my default state that I am unable to keep it. I discover that I am a slave to sin, that I am "utterly sinful" (7:13). Who will free me from this body that makes me do things that lead to death?

"Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Rom. 7:25). That is to say, when I am incorporated into Christ, I am set free from this horrible default state in which humanity finds itself, including Jews. We have seen this exuberant exclamation before, "Thanks be to God." It was back in Romans 6:17, and it is worth quoting those verses all over again to show that Paul's train of thought here is exactly the same as it was there: "thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." [4]

Romans 8 thus continues with the believer, returning to much the same point Paul reached at the beginning of Romans 5. Paul had reached the point of talking about peace with God in Romans 5:1 after his lengthly discussion of the need and basis for justification in the first four chapters. Romans 8:1 returns to this point of "no condemnation" after over two chapters talking about the problem and overcoming of Sin in a person's life. The rest of Romans 8 will celebrate the real benefits of the Spirit's power in the believer, both now and in the redemption that is to come.

[1] It thus seems very likely that Paul had Gentile believers in mind in Romans 2:15. Therefore, in Romans 8:4, Paul is not thinking that the righteous requirement is literally fulfilled in Christ and only figuratively then fulfilled in believers. Paul is saying that the law of the Spirit literally empowers believers to keep the heart of the Jewish Law, what he calls "Christ's law" in 1 Corinthians 9:21).

[2] The suggestion that Paul has Adam in mind in 7:9 seems to overread the passage. Paul is presenting a logical, not an autobiographical or chronological sequence.

[3] Paul's claim here is difficult because Jews in general did believe they could keep the Law appropriately to God's expectations. Some have accused Paul of misrepresenting the Law or even of misunderstanding it. Nevertheless, we do find this same sentiment elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., Acts 15:10) and Paul implies the same in Galatians 6:13.

[4] From the standpoint of our understanding, it is unfortunate that Paul went on in the rest of Romans 7:25 to summarize the state of his hypothetical unbelieving Jew wanting to keep the Law--"I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin." Just this restatement is enough for many to ignore the victory his train of thought has just pronounced through Christ.

Sin and the Law 3

... In the first volume of this series, we argued that when Galatians uses the phrase "works of Law," Paul primarily had in mind those parts of the Jewish Law that distinguished Jew from Gentile. [1] In Galatians, circumcision in particular was the key issue under discussion when he said, "no one will be justified by the works of the law" (2:16, NRSV). The argument of Romans is more general, and certainly Paul did not think anyone could earn God's favor, but the key subject was still whether a Jew had any advantage over a non-Jew in being right with God. The underlying issue is not "Can you be good enough for God to accept you?" It is "Is there something about being a Jew that automatically makes you right with God?"

So when Paul says he is not under Law (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:20) and that right standing with God does not come by "works of Law" (e.g., Rom. 3:28), he primarily has things like circumcision, Jewish food and purity laws, and Sabbath laws in mind. Yes, as part of that argument he makes general statements about the impossibility of earning a right standing with God (e.g., Rom. 4:4-5; 9:32). But it is a supporting point, not the main one. When Paul distances believers from the Law, he primarily has the Jew-specific aspects of the Jewish Law in view, the boundary type laws that most distinguished Jew from Gentile.

What is confusing is that Paul also talks about the Law with a very different content in view. Sometimes he has a certain "core law" in view that is universal and timeless. When Romans 2:14 talks about Gentiles who "do by nature things required by the law," it cannot refer to Jew-specific elements. Gentiles by definition do not do such things. Paul can only have a certain universal, "moral" core in mind, if you would. It is this part of the Jewish Law that Paul has in mind in Romans 6-8.

The key to understanding Romans 6-8 is to understand the clear "before and after" he presents repeatedly throughout the section...

[1] Paul: Messenger of Grace

Sin and the Law 2

I am convinced that a great deal of our confusion comes from the fact that Paul glides seemlessly between a number of different meanings for the word "law" in these passages in Romans and Galatians. Perhaps a good place to start is to remember that the "Law" in general was the Torah, the Pentateuch, the first five books of our Old Testament. When Paul says that the "Law and the Prophets" witness to recent developments (Rom. 3:21), he is referring to the first five books of Scripture, a body of literature.

When we ask what sin was for Paul, we must very quickly get to this Jewish Law. Paul says in Romans 5:13 that sin is not reckoned where there is no law, even though it is present. This comment makes it very clear that one purpose of the Jewish Law was to identify exactly what sin was. Paul confirms this purpose a little later in Romans 7:7 when he says, "I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, 'Do not covet."

A key observation here is that Paul nowhere has some absolute definition of sin. Sin is not for Paul "missing the mark," as if anything short of absolute perfection is sin, any imperfection whatsoever. [1] Sin is, in one respect, to violate the Law, the Jewish Law, where the Law is a record of the actions that are wrong. As we might expect of the Old Testament, such violations were far more concrete than abstract. They were not some introspective flub where a less than perfect thought flew through your head. We suspect that even when Jesus spoke of looking at another woman with lust (Matt. 5:28), there was a level of intent to act that went well beyond what we would call a lustful thought. [2]

A great starter definition of the verb, "to sin," is thus "to do wrong," where wrongdoing is defined in the Jewish Law. Closely related is to wrong another person. Thus you can sin against someone (e.g., Matt. 18:21; 1 Cor. 8:12). Such definitions know nothing of the standard "sin every day in word, thought, and deed." This conventional Christian definition of sin does not come from the Bible but from later Christian theology. The Bible consistently treats acts of sin or wrongdoing as something that is avoidable and bad.

To be sure, Paul does not use the word sin in relation to every part of the Jewish Law. Paul never speaks of someone who touches a dead body as sinning nor does he say that someone who works on the Sabbath sins. Indeed, he very likely did not consider such actions to be sins for a believer, especially a Gentile believer. [3] We thus encounter the key ambiguity in Paul's rhetoric about the Jewish Law: sometimes he used the word "law" in relation to parts of the Law he did not apply to Gentile believers; sometimes he uses the word "law" in relation to parts of the Law that still applied to believers. But he does not clearly distinguish in his language between the two...

[1] Thus the quite incorrect translation of Romans 3:23 in the New Living Translation where sin is to fall short "of God's glorious standard."

[2] We have the Romanticism of the 1700s and 1800s to thank for our overly introspective orientations.

[3] Whether he might have considered them sins for an unbelieving Jew is a question we probably cannot answer given the evidence he has left us.

Sin and the Law 1

Paul has used a question/answer style earlier in Romans to raise possible objections to his way of thinking and then to answer them. [1] He resumes this approach in Romans 6. Romans 6 and 7 deal with one of the main objections to his teaching. He mentioned it back in 3:8. People are parodying him as if he were teaching, "Let us do evil that good may result."

So Paul hits this false accusation head on. "Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" (6:1). "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" (6:15). Paul's answer in both cases is an emphatic "no": "By no means!"

In truth, no mainstream interpreter of Paul has ever accepted the old parady of Luther, "Sin boldly that grace may come." Luther never made this statement, and you will not find support for such an approach to sin from any mainstream Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Methodist or any other major Reformation tradition. Christian groups may differ in their definitions of sin and they may differ in how much they think a Christian will normally sin, but no tradition worthy of the name Christian will teach that Christians will continue to sin no differently than before they received the Holy Spirit.

What is confusing to so many readers is the role that Romans 7:13-25 plays in Paul's argument. So many us identify with the words in 7:19: "what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing." Perhaps even the majority of Christian readers of Paul today latch on to this sentiment because it fits with their own personal experience and then they ignore completely the context in which Paul makes it. It is perhaps the single greatest misunderstanding of Paul's writings, as common as it is completely wrong.

In context, Paul's argument has pushed him to his single most vulnerable point. What was God doing with the Jewish Law all those years if in fact, as Paul is arguing, it is not an effective path to God? Paul was saying that Gentiles did not have to observe the parts of it that were Jew-specific, things like circumcision. And he was saying that Jews were not able to be right with God on the basis of how well they kept it. But he also says that getting right with God on the basis of his grace administered through Christ is no excuse to sin, to "do wrong," which of course was defined more than anywhere else in the Law.

This line of thinking is confusing to us and it may have also been not a little confusing to the Romans as well (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16). So what is the Law good for, Paul? You say we are not under it but you say we do not violate it. You say it was never effective but then why did God institute it in the first place? It is these sorts of questions that lead to Romans 7, where Paul explains the role of the Law in God's plan and how that applies to believers.

I am convinced that a great deal of our confusion comes from the fact that Paul glides seemlessly between a number of different meanings for the word "law" in these passages...

tomorrow: definition of sin, different uses of the law

[1] Usually called a "diatribe" style.

Law Upheld (3)

Final installment of the piece...
___________
So Paul certainly wanted his Jewish and Gentile audiences to conclude that the Gentiles did not need to keep the parts of the Law that related to specifically Jewish practices like circumcision (e.g., Gal. 5:2). With regard to Jews, he insisted that they should not keep purity rules that divided the body of Christ, such as when Peter and Barnabas stopped eating with Gentile believers at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-13). In this sense, he no longer considered himself to be under the Law, even though he was a Jew (1 Cor. 9:20).

Nevertheless, Paul saw the Christian as still being under Christ’s law (1 Cor. 9:21), what later Christians would call the “moral” law. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, he affirmed that Christians could now keep the “righteous requirements” of the Law. They were not “under Law,” which for Paul implied being under the power of Sin and the curse of sinfulness. They were now empowered, “set free from sin” and now “slaves to righteousness” (Rom. 6:18).

So do we “nullify the law by this faith” (Rom. 3:31)? “Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” We now keep the “moral” essence of the Law through the power of the Spirit. We do not “sin because we are not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6:15). Rather, we “do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires” (6:12). In a strange paradox, Paul affirmed that it is only when we are not under the Law that we can actually keep its righteous requirements.

Not Under Law (2)

Paul mentions several functions that the Jewish Law had in the story of salvation. One is that it informed Jews of exactly what God’s expectations were (7:7). At the same time, it demonstrated to those same well-intentioned Jews that they were unable to meet those expectations (7:14-15). The Law was like a child’s guardian, who taught Israel until it was old enough not to need the instructor anymore (Gal. 3:24). The coming of Christ points to that “maturity” in the story of salvation.

Paul even considered the Jewish Law to be the “power” of Sin (1 Cor. 15:56). Knowing the Law somehow seemed to aggravate the situation. The power of Sin over weak, human flesh seemed to thrive in the face of the Law (Rom. 7:13). The very fact of knowing God’s expectations seemed to make it even harder not to fail them.

When Paul speaks in such terms, he generally had in mind a part of the Jewish Law that later Christians would call the “moral law.” Here we refer to basic dos and don’ts like not killing or coveting or committing sexual immorality. What is confusing to us is that Paul also used the word Law to refer to other parts of the Jewish Law that later Christians would call the “ceremonial” law. This part of the Law included things like what Jews could not eat, touch, or wear. For Paul the Jew, the Law was of one piece, and so he used the same word for both parts of the Law. It is thus no wonder how much confusion and variation in interpretation we find out there!

So it is true that Paul did not believe a person could “earn” a right standing with God. He taught that all had sinned and that no one deserved God’s favor. But we would argue that this valid Protestant point was not really the focus of Paul’s own arguments. For Paul, the main issue he was facing was not faith versus works but Jew versus Gentile. Most of the time when Paul said that “works of Law” could not make anyone right with God (e.g., Rom. 3:28), he arguably was primarily picturing in his mind the parts that most separated Jew from Gentile—the “ceremonial” parts.

After all, it was the question of whether Jew and Gentile believer could eat together that sparked Paul’s teaching on this subject in Galatians. Romans 4 goes on to talk about Abraham’s circumcision as the main illustration in Romans. Paul’s basic point was that specifically Jewish practices like circumcision or food laws did not earn Jews any more of a right standing with God than the standing Gentiles started out having.

What is thus confusing about Paul’s argument is that he is saying two slightly different things when he said believers were not under the Law. In part he was arguing that Gentile believers did not have to worry about things like circumcision or food laws. But in part he was also saying that the power of Sin over us through the Law was done so that through the Spirit we might actually keep its basic moral expectations.

Law and Faith Introduction

Take 2 (for Take 1, click here):
_________
Introduction
Romans 3:31 is one of those verses that sounds so strange to us that we are prone to skip right over it: "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." Wait a minute--is Paul not known for saying that we are "not under law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:14)? Does not even Ephesians 2:15 say that Christ has "abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances"? Did Paul really say that we do not nullify the law after we have faith but in fact uphold it?!

This is a thorny issue indeed and one that different Christian groups have interpreted differently over the years. We face two extremes on either side of the issue. On the one side are those who lock on to verses like this one and others (e.g., Matt. 5:17) and do not see clearly enough how the new covenant has transformed our use of Old Testament Law. These individuals face the perils of legalism and the mistake of trying to earn God's favor.

On the other side are those who see no place for "law" in the Christian life at all. They are not perfect, just forgiven. They do not expect to see any real difference between the way they live and the way unbelievers live. They are just thankful that God does not care what they do in life, only that they have asked him at least once in their lives for his forgiveness.

Paul steered a careful course on this question in Romans. On the one hand, he surely has the Jewish Law primarily in view--what other law would a Jew be thinking of at that time? However, he wandered from talking about parts of the Jewish Law that were very Jew-specific (e.g., circumcision) to parts that he believed still applied to everyone (e.g., sexual prohibitions). Not only that, but he wandered from talking about the Law as a standard by which a Jew was once measured before Christ—and one to which no one could measure up—to the Law as a standard to which a believer could attain through the power of the Holy Spirit. Carefully distinguishing between these different ways Paul talked about law helps us make sense of his seemingly conflicting arguments.

More to come...

New perspectives on Judaism

I thought I would take down some notes on the change that took place in the late twentieth century on our understanding of Judaism at the time of Christ in relation to early Christianity. These changes brought on three movements in New Testament studies: 1) the new perspective on Paul, 2) the third quest for the historical Jesus, and 3) the partings of the ways discussion.

More than any other figure, E. P. Sanders catalyzed these movements with his 1977 Paul and Palestinian Judaism. In Jesus studies, his Jesus and Judaism was less momentous, but still significant. Prior to him, we might point to rumblings like W. D. Davies' Paul and Rabbinic Judaism. But Krister Stendahl's "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West" ranks up there for me as the real tour de force, my starting point.

Again, following my stream of consciousness to get these notes out, some basic shifts are:

New Perspective on Judaism
1. Judaism in general believed that acceptance before God was a matter of God's grace. No one could earn favor with God. All have sinned.

2. Jews kept the Law in response to God's grace, not to earn it. Keeping the Law was about "staying in" not "getting in."

New Perspective on Paul
1. Paul did not see himself as changing religions when he believed on Christ. Paul is not his Christian name but a name he probably had his entire life.

2. Paul did not consider himself a miserable failure at keeping the Law before he believed on Christ.

3. Even after believing, works remained a major part of Paul's equation, so much so that works might nullify one's salvation.

Third Quest for the Historical Jesus
1. Emphasis on the fact that Jesus was a Jew. Jesus' message likely fit within the spectrum of options current within Palestinian Judaism at the time. Jesus' message fits well within apocalyptic Judaism, as does John the Baptist's.

2. Jesus is not likely to have sparred much with Pharisees in Galilee, since they were overwhelmingly located in Jerusalem (Sanders).

3. The picture of Pharisees in Matthew in itself is not the entire picture. The portrait in the other gospels is more positive, especially in Luke-Acts. Pharisees were not all legalists, and Matthew's portrayal may have as much to do with conflicts at the time of his writing (ca. AD75-80) as with conflicts at the time of Jesus himself.

Partings of the Ways
1. Christianity was a form of Judaism in the first century, not a distinct religion. Gentile converts would have seen themselves converting to a form of Judaism. There was no official Roman policy relating to Christians in the first century. The question of whether Christianity was a "religio licita," a legal religion, was not a major factor in the first century.

2. The one of the Eighteenth Benedictions relating to heretics was not in play in the first century. There was no Jewish policy on expelling Christians from synagogues.

3. The early Christians did not see their worship of Jesus as a violation of monotheism, although different scholars explain this phenomenon in different ways.

4. The contribution I hope to make to this discussion is the claim that most Christians also stood within the main options for attitudes toward the temple while it stood.

What have I missed? I may edit this list as things occur to me...

The Message of Galatians (Mutiny 2)

To follow the chain back, see the previous entry of this chapter, The Setting of Galatians.

We continue with part 2 of chapter 8: "The Message of Galatians." Last night after long consideration, I finally conceded to myself that I need to give up the northern Galatia hypothesis. In any case, I can continue the chapter...
_____________
...
So the situation Galatians addresses is a primarily Gentile audience being urged to convert fully to Judaism by undergoing circumcision. Those who are trying to convince them are most likely Christian Jews, perhaps one key person in particular, who has come to Galatia from elsewhere, quite possibly from somewhere in Palestine like Antioch. It is important to recognize that their detractors claim to be Christians, not non-believing Jews. They are like the Christian Pharisees of Acts 15:5. Paul would probably consider them "false brothers" (e.g., Gal. 2:4), but they think of themselves as believers in Christ and the Jerusalem church likely would as well.

The central issue at debate is circumcision. If the meeting we call the Jerusalem Council was widely known, it is a little strange that we would find missionaries of a sort who are teaching that the Gentiles should get circumcised. [1] But we remember that Galatians 2:3 says Titus "was not compelled" to become circumcised, meaning it was still likely James and Peter's preference. It would thus be understandable if some were telling the Galatians they should fully commit and go the whole way.

One of the more peculiar features of the situation was the fact that these missionaries were apparently claiming that Paul himself agreed with them or at least had submitted to the authority of Jerusalem. They were apparently telling the Galatians that Paul himself thought it preferable for them to become circumcised (Gal. 5:11). How they made such an argument is puzzling to us, since we so strongly associate Paul with the opposite position. Perhaps he and Barnabas were still somewhat tentative on the subject when they came through the area on the first missionary journey. After all, it was after the first journey that Paul made the visit of Galatians 2 to Jerusalem. And Acts tells us that Paul circumcised Timothy at Lystra on his second journey (Acts 16:3), which certainly could have given the impression that circumcision was the optimal scenario.

Whatever they specifically argued, the undermining of his mission clearly infuriated him. This situation was personal, and no doubt reminded him of losing the argument at Antioch. Now they were tampering with his churches in his territory. One of the noticeable features of Galatians is the fact that Paul does not have a thanksgiving section at its opening, like his other letters. Instead, he launches into the Galatians in astonishment that they are beginning to act as if God's gracious acceptance of them is somehow not enough. They are beginning to observe aspects of the Jewish calendar (Gal. 4:10) and even to consider circumcision (5:2).

Paul's counterargument is not only that no amount of such "works of Law" could make one right with God. He is arguing that such Jewish particulars have no impact on one's status with God at all, particularly if one is a Gentile. To the Gentiles, God was offering a remarkable gift. Through the faithful death of Jesus the Messiah, he was offering both Jew and Gentile the possibility of being right with God regardless of how much wrongdoing a person had previously done. To try then to earn God's favor by keeping the particulars of the Jewish Law was a slap in God's face, tantamount to a rejection of His grace.

We have fallen off the log perhaps with the majority in thinking that Paul might be at Ephesus on his third missionary journey as he writes Galatians, perhaps not too long after he wrote 1 Corinthians. While many argue Paul's theology of getting right with God may have been intact very early on in his ministry, it does not really show itself in 1 Thessalonians and hardly in 1 Corinthians. [2] But just after our placement of Galatians in our reconstruction, we hear verses like Philippians 3:9 and then 2 Corinthians 5:21, culminating in Romans. Indeed, Philippians 3 and 2 Corinthians 10-13 address similar issues that Galatians does. We have from Galatians on a deeper exploration of what it might mean to be incorporated in Christ. [3] We even hear of "new creation" in Galatians (6:15) and 2 Corinthians (5:17).

Acts tells us that Paul rented out one Hall of Tyrannus while he was at Ephesus (19:9). Is it possible that Paul ran something like a school of interpretation while he was there? Is it possible that some of the arguments in Galatians are a product of his teaching there? These suggestions are all speculation, but they are not impossible.

The Message of Galatians
The heart of the message of Galatians is thus about what, in fact, makes a person right with God. The argument of Galatians is very thick, perhaps the thickest in the whole Bible. But the basic point is that Jesus is the only way to be right with God. Arguments over whether Gentiles need to get circumcised or whether you need to observe certain days certain ways are ultimately irrelevant to being right with God. Trusting in what God has done through Jesus--that's the ticket!

Of course there are countless debates both between scholars and churches over the details. Paul would no doubt be both perplexed and amused. It might be worth it to take just a little time to spell out what Paul was likely saying so that we can avoid some of the arguments between Christian groups today over theology.

First, it is important to hear exactly what Paul is arguing over concretely. Paul says that no matter how many "works of Law" a Jew might do, it will not make them right with God. It will not "justify" you. Five hundred years ago, Martin Luther heard Paul saying very generally that no one could earn God's favor. No matter how many good "works" you did, you could not earn a right standing with God.

Luther was of course correct. Paul did believe you could not earn God's favor (e.g., Rom. 4:4-5). Whether you were a Jew or a Gentile, all had wronged God and others at some point (e.g., Gal. 2:17; Rom. 3:23), thus requiring Him to overlook our sins. In other words, we all need God's grace, His "unmerited favor."

At the same time, Luther slightly changed the focus of Paul's argument. Particularly in Galatians, Paul is not really talking about faith versus good works in general. He is talking about whether "works of Law," that is the Jewish Law, could gain you right standing before God. [2] In other words, it was things like circumcision, the purity rules of Leviticus, and sabbath observance that were in the "bubble" above his head, not good works like feeding the poor or clothing the needy. One of the documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls has an argument over "works of Law," and the things it has in mind are squabbles between Jewish groups over what makes a person unclean, not good works.

What Paul is arguing over, therefore, is the parts of the Jewish Law that were most distinctly Jewish, the things that distinguished the Jews ethnically from other people. Around the world, people knew that Jews did not eat pork and did not work on Saturday. These were exactly the kinds of "works of Law" that Paul is targeting. These are the sorts of things at Antioch that got in the way of Jewish and Gentile believers eating together. Paul's main point in Galatians is that none of these things actually help a person get in right standing with God.

In fact, relying on such things can be a slap in Christ's face. Here God has offered a free gift through Christ's death on the cross. It is a gift so good, no one could possibly deserve it. Yet you are insistent on trying to pay for it, and you cannot accept the gift for what it is.

Peter and James apparently agreed that a person could not be in right standing with God apart from trusting in Jesus' death. Paul uses an expression in Galatians 2:16 that scholars debate over, but we think Paul is saying that both he and Peter agree that you could only be right with God if you trusted in the faithful death of Jesus on the cross that one can become right with God. [3] But where they disagreed is in the value of keeping the Jewish particulars of the Mosaic Law. Paul goes on to say that those particulars do not help a person be right with God at all, while Peter and others still saw them playing a role in "justification," in being pronounced right with God. Only trust in what God has done through Christ works.

Paul uses Abraham as his fundamental example of this principle: "justification by faith." Abraham was a superb example because Paul could use him both as a model for the justification of Jews and Gentiles. Paul interpreted Genesis 15:6 to say that Abraham had faith in God, and God considered him right with him as a result (Gal. 3:6). Thus Abraham was a model to Gentiles of how to be right with God. Have faith in what God has done through Jesus the Christ and God will consider you righteous, right with Him. Paul understood Genesis 12:3's promise that all the nations would be blessed through Abraham as a promise that they would get right with God through faith, with Abraham showing them the way (Gal. 3:8-9, 14).

Paul's opponents no doubt had some arguments of their own, and most think Paul is responding to some of them in Galatians. One of the key questions he needed to answer was what the purpose of the Jewish Law was. If it was not meant to show how to be in right relationship with God, then what was it for? Paul's answer is that the Law was like a child's guardian (Gal. 4:24) that watches over it until it comes of age.

So also, the Law served several functions before Christ came. For example, it taught us the difference between right and wrong (e.g., Rom. 7:7). Paul here has seemed to shift a little in what he is talking about. When he was talking about "works of Law," he seemed to be thinking of what many Christians think of as the ritual or "ceremonial" parts of the Jewish Law. [4] But now he is talking about the heart of the Law, what later Christians would call the "moral law." The fact that Paul can glide without notice between these various parts of the Jewish Law is the primary source of confusion over what exactly he meant.

Before Christ, we were all, Paul taught, under the power of Sin in the world. Before Christ, the Law pointed out our weakness in the face of this power (e.g., Gal. 4:3). But now that Christ has come, God's Holy Spirit is available to empower us to do what is right. We no longer need the instruction of our guardian, the Law. We have the power of the Spirit inside us to keep the essence of the (moral) Law.

Galatians thus turns to an exhortation to the Galatians not to let their freedom from works of Law to lead to sinful living. This is the tight rope Paul's theology walks. On the one hand, he argues that the Jewish particulars of the Law cannot make us right with God, nor were we able to live above sin before Christ. But now Christ has enabled us to receive the Spirit of adoption and sonship. Now if we walk in the Spirit, we will not fulfill the desires of the flesh (Gal. 5:16).

Works of law cannot make us right with God, but if we have the Spirit inside us, fruit will follow. The fruit of the Spirit are things like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23). Quite different are the works of the flesh, things like sexual immorality, strife, jealousy, anger, and so forth (5:19-21).

And so Paul closes his letter to the Galatians, likely to churches in south Galatia like Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and Pisidian Antioch. He points out the hypocrisy of those urging them to get circumcised. They are not models of Jewish Law keeping. And Paul would know, since he was once a Pharisee who paid close attention to such things. But in the end, it is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision that matters before God, he claims. It is the new creation of the Spirit made possible through the cross of Jesus the Messiah.

[1] Even though we called them "missionaries of a sort," we are not insistent at all that the main reason they have come to Galatia is to further instruct Paul's converts. They might just as likely have come into the area on other business.

[2] Another article in James Dunn's The New Perspective on Paul is a classic here, "Works of Law," ***.

[3] The expression is "the faith of Jesus Christ." To understand the debate, you have to look at a phrase like "love of God." What does this phrase mean? Is it God's love, as in "The love of God led Him to send His Son"? Or is it our love for God, as in "Your love of God should lead you to serve Him better"? The phrase Paul uses, "faith of Jesus," could also mean either the faithfulness of Jesus or faith in Jesus.

The three main reasons I finally concluded that the first expression in Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22 refer to the faithfulness of Jesus are 1) Otherwise these verses are quite redundant, Galatians 2:16 then referring to faith in Christ three times in the same sentence, 2) the parallelism between Romans 5:19--"through the obedience of one person many will be established as righteous" and finally, 3) 2 Corinthians 4:13, while the train of thought is hard to follow, seems to say that just as Jesus had faith and was resurrected, so we must have faith and be resurrected. It thus seems to substantiate the notion that Jesus' faith was indeed one of Paul's categories.

[4] It is significant to point out that a Jew, indeed Paul himself, would not not have categorized things this way.

The Law the curtain, and Paul the man behind it...

I'm writing, not blogging, this week, but that doesn't stop me from posting some thoughts. I was describing Paul and the Law to a Romans class today and here's what leaped from my, by all accounts bizzare, mind:

The Law (understood as the Jewish Law, the ethical part of the Pentateuch) is like a screen from behind which Paul talks to us. When he's talking, he uses the word "Law," but he talks from what seem to us to be different parts of the Law.

Now he says we are not under Law, and he is behind the screen talking from the parts that have to do with things like circumcision and food laws, the parts that have most to do with Jewish ethnic particularity. He just calls it the Law or works of Law.

Then he tells us we do not make void the Law through faith, and he speaks from the parts like the sexual prohibitions of Leviticus 18 or most of the Ten Commandments. But he just calls it the Law or even works of Law.

Then of course sometimes he leaves this reservation. He speaks of Law as the entire Pentateuch, the Law as the literary corpus. Or still again, he can use the word in reference to a "rule," like a "law" in my members.

In short, it's no wonder there are so many books and differing positions on what the Law means for Paul!

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.