Since Romans is such an important book for understanding Paul’s theology, this is a good place to pause in our survey of Paul’s letters and think about what effect the New Perspective has had on our perceptions of Faith and Works, justification and other classic Pauline topics.
The so-called New Perspective on Paul offered a critique of the traditional view of Paul’s doctrine of justification and generated a fierce debate on both sides of the issue. Most of the writers who have challenged the established view of Pauline reconciliation have emphasized reconciliation as only one of many metaphors which Paul uses in order to describe salvation. E. P. Sanders, for example, does not want to privilege any one metaphor as the main or controlling idea for Paul’s soteriology, whether that metaphor is justification or not.
The core of Sanders’ argument is that Jews of the Second Temple period believed that they were a part of the covenant because of God’s election, and they remained part of the covenant on the basis of their good works. But even here it is not complete and totally adherence to every part of the Law, since no one could keep everything perfectly.
Sanders therefore suggests that there was a sub-set of the Law which functioned as “boundary markers,” things which could function as defining who was “in” the covenant and who was “not in.” Sanders’ conception of Second Temple period Judaism under the rubric of “covenantal nomism” is an application of these last two emphases. Election is what gets one into the Covenant, if you are Israel then you are “in”; but what is it that maintains that relationship with God? Can someone find themselves outside of the covenant?
Most of the literature of this period asks this sort of question: What is it that defines “in the covenant.” In Maccabees it is Sabbath, circumcision and dietary Laws which are clear boundaries; in Jubilees and Enoch, the Qumran literature proper Calendar is included as a boundary marker, in Sirach it is a life of wisdom that marks out the elect.
With this in mind, one could argue that Romans or Galatians does not say that Jesus ended the Law, i.e., no one has to keep the Law anymore at all. Rather, Jesus ended the “boundary markers” which defined who was in or out of the covenant. Circumcision no longer was the sign of the covenant; the day of worship was not longer an issue; food taboos were no longer clear signs of right-standing with God. I am inclined to think that the calendar issues found in much of Second Temple period literature are behind some of Paul’s statements in Col 2:16, for example. The old boundary markers are done away; the people are God are to be defined as those who are “in Christ.”
What then does this do to the classic reformation formulation of Justification by Faith? Perhaps nothing, the doctrine may still be a correct inference from scripture. But if justification is simply one metaphor for salvation among many, perhaps the emphasis placed on justification as the central theme of Paul’s theology is over-played. I am not convinced it is, but the door is now open to other ideas from Paul which have been under-played for the last 400 years.
9 thoughts on “New Perspective on Paul and the Book of Romans”
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Reblogged this on thescripturesays.
I am pretty convinced that the central “idea” or lens of Paul’s theology is NOT justification. I cannot say with any kind of confidence what that central lens might be in place of justification, but there are so many underlying themes that it is hard to say one way or another. For example, Paul writes about the faithfulness of God so much that it is hard to ignore that as a candidate. Really, anything could be this lens. For those who attend an Assemblies of God Church this lens is the Holy Spirit and day of Pentecost is Acts. Everything Paul says is “funneled” through this. As far as the question of Luther’s theology is concerned however, I see no reason to abandon it. The controversy really doesn’t seem to be much of a controversy at all when viewed in the light of cultural context. If a Gentile was “outside” of the covenant than Paul’s words about the law and justification were focused and delivered to them in a way that they would understand their role. The Gentiles did not have to adhere to this law, and the issue was that the people of ethnic Israel felt a certain jealousy as a result. (Longenecker/Still 169)
So, in my view the two ideas are not necucisarlily mutually exclusive but rather apples and oranges. Perhaps I am not fully understanding everything (and rightly so being that I am not a scholar myself) but I would think that these ideas do not negate what Luther previously concluded.
You might find this series interesting Phil. Hope your doing well and thanks for all your posts. http://thescripturesays.org/early-church/justification/
The problem with the ideas of a ‘new perspective’ is that it is too exclusive which means ‘salvation’ is not for everybody, but only for a particular group who were tied to the Jewish covenant. That’s the main reason why the Jewish sects were convinced that they are called to (works of the laws) and being obedient to the covenantal commands. If being fully obedient to God’s law is the only requirement for salvation, then this Jewish legalism stands against the concept of justification by faith alone and the teaching of Jesus. Paul clearly tells us in Romans 3:20 “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law, we become conscious of our sin.” The Bible mentioned ‘law’ as a mirror which only helps us realized our inability to follow the laws, therefore ‘faith alone’ in Christ is the only option for salvation. The new covenant is Jesus Christ Himself and is freely available to anyone who put their faith in Christ.
To be honest I don’t know much about the bible compared to “bible scholars” so this is my first time ever hearing about this perspective. I myself was always taught that in order for someone to be saved all they had to do is believe in Christ and that he died for our sins, and live a righteous life and you’ll be saved. So hearing that people believe that you have to be Israel in order to be in the covenant is crazy to me. And I found it very interesting when the question ” Can someone find themselves outside of the covenant?” was asked because that was also my first thought. If someone who meets the qualifications as a Israel can they no longer do something wrong which can lead them to being outside the covenant. And what would that mean for all the believers who come to God in different ways other than that.
Something that I have always struggled with was where did the Jews stand after Christ died and rose again. Did they still have to do things like follow the laws and things of that nature? I also didn’t realize the rival that started between the Jews and the Gentiles because of the new circumstances. I really like how Moo talks about the topic of the Jews vs. the Gentiles in the sense of the covenant. They were His chosen people, and they did have the covenant with God, but they didn’t follow it (Romans 2:25) (Moo 49-52). As stated above, they didn’t follow the “boundary makers,” resulting in His promise being broken whether their sin was intentional or not. As much as the Jews probably hated to hear and admit to it, but Jesus dying on the cross allowed salvation for everyone. Even when the Jews didn’t hold the covenant that they already had with God, that salvation was still available for them. I feel like this is an example of I find the topic of common ground as believes so relevant to our situation today. We have so many opinions that divide us and that cause a lot of chao in the world and even the church sometimes, but as believers, we can always find the common ground that we are sinners and are in need of a Savior. I feel like that is something Paul was trying to use to show both the Jews and the Gentiles that they had a common ground despite background.
Why do we need salvation and justification? Paul argued that “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:22b–23). We are image bearers of God in holiness (Gen. 1:26-27), but our sin tarnishes this image. Therefore, Christi is needed to be transformed and be able to be image bearers of God untarnished (Justification by Grace through Faith). Unlike the Catholic Church, Evangelical Christians believe in justification through faith alone, not needing to perform other works to gain salvation. While we as Christians should not be doing good works, they are not a mandatory part to gain salvation.
I guess I had always assumed based on how I was raised that if someone was not a Christian, including Jews, they would not enter Heaven and would spend eternity in Hell. No one ever said specifically that Jews would not spend eternity with God, but the fact that they are not Christians made me assume they would not. Election is also a fuzzy area for me. I know from a Calvinist point of view, they believe in election and predestination, but others would say that there is free-will and no one is predestined. The Bible does not specifically say one or the other, rather having verses referencing both. So, what is the right belief: predestination or free-will, or is it a mixture of both? In my personal conviction, I think it is a mixture of both: we have the ability and free will to choose and become a Christian, but God technically knows who will become a Christian and who won’t. There are also people throughout scripture who God predestined for something to fit in his plan (i.e., Judas betraying Jesus, Pharaoh hardening his heart and refusing to free the Israelites, etc.). I would be interested in hearing your take on this Dr. Long. Based on your study of scripture, what is your take on predestination and free-will?
Justification by Grace through Faith. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/justification-grace-through-faith
ESV Study Bible
Since the Reformation, Justification has been at the forefront of Christian theology, with many promoting this as the center of Paul’s theology. Yet, with the advent of the New Perspective, this traditional understanding has been questioned. This has resulted in much debate and conversation between both those who challenge and those who defend the doctrine of Justification. Many of those who challenge the dominance of Justification, as Long notes, often argue that it is only a single metaphor among many others. One of the major contributions to this conversation is made by E.P. Sanders, who argues that the Jewish community of Second Temple Judaism held to a view called “covenant nomism”, which believed that they were part of God’s covenant through birth but remained in His covenant by following the law. Yet, no one can perfectly follow the law, which leads to Sanders suggesting that certain “boundary markers” existed to help understand who was in or out of the covenant.
In Second Temple Literature, the question of what defines someone in the covenant is often given attention. For example, the book of Maccabees maintains that keeping the sabbath, dietary laws, and circumcision is what defines if one is in the covenant or not. While other Second Temple Literature, such as Jubilees and Enoch, tend to view the Qumran literature proper calendar is considered a boundary marker. This understanding of covenantal boundary markers provides us insight into the book of Romans and Galatians’ treatment of law. It seems that one could argue that Jesus did not “end” the law, but rather removed the boundary markers that indicated whether one was in the covenant or not. While this may not remove the effects and contributions of the Reformation, it can help us understand the potentially over-stated nature of justification when considering what is the central theme of Paul’s theology.