First-century Judaism played a critical role in the development of Paul's theology, both in his upbringing and in his interaction with various Jewish and Jewish-Christian viewpoints. This interaction is most obvious in Galatians and Romans, but it is present in varying degrees in all the letters. Determining just what the Judaism of Paul's day looked like is therefore quite significant for accurately interpreting Paul's letters.
What Is the "New Perspective"?
An extremely simplified historical sketch is necessary to set the scene for the modern debate on the "new perspective." The Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially Martin Luther and John Calvin, decisively influenced how people have traditionally understood Paul's Judaism. While reacting to certain legalistic elements in the salvation teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of their day, they tended to find the same kind of legalism in the Judaism that Paul opposed in letters like Galatians. They believed that the Jews of Paul's day held to a form of "works-righteousness": a person gained right standing with God by performing "the works of the law," meritorious deeds of obedience to the law that compelled God's favor and blessing. Against this legalism, Paul proclaimed that justification before God could be attained only by faith in the completed work of Christ, a faith that excluded any meritorious deeds. The Reformers took on the mantle of Paul, proclaiming that justification is sola fide (by faith alone) and sola gratia (by grace alone).
Most scholars embraced the Reformers' view of Judaism until E. P. Sanders challenged it in 1977 with his groundbreaking Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Sanders argues that Judaism was not characterized by legalism but by "covenantal nomism," that is, the covenant based on law (nomos). The basis for the Jews' salvation was that God chose them and entered into a covenant with them. They did not have to obey the law to be saved; they were already saved. They obeyed the law, rather, to maintain their covenantal status. Jews did not obey the law to "get in" (legalism) but to "stay in" ("nomism").
What does this new view of Judaism have to do with Paul? Sanders argues that Paul rejected covenantal nomism because he believed that salvation was found in Christ alone, not through the law and its underlying covenant. Most scholars, even those who agreed with Sanders' portrayal of first-century Judaism, were not satisfied with this response. The most satisfying and popular suggestion came from James D. G. Dunn, followed up by a host of scholars including N. T. Wright.
Dunn, who coined the phrase "new perspective," claims that what Paul opposes is the tendency of the Jews to confine salvation to their own nation and to exclude Gentiles. Paul opposes Judaism's ethnic exclusivism, not personal legalism.
The difference between Dunn's view and the traditional interpretation of Paul can perhaps be seen most clearly in their conflicting interpretations of texts such as Romans 3:20: "no human being will be justified in his [God's] sight by works of the law" (RSV; cf. also Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10). To the Reformers, Romans 3:20 attacks Jewish works-righteousness: a person was justified by doing "works." To Dunn, Romans 3:20 attacks Jewish ethnic exclusivism: a person was justified by maintaining his covenant status by faithfully observing the Jewish law, including distinctive practices such as circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws.
Dunn and those in his wake offer a new way of reading Paul. In general, three tendencies mark the "new perspective on Paul."
1. Paul's theology is read against the background of the "story" of salvation history. (N. T. Wright is a prominent example.) The effect is to take many of the theological categories in Paul's letters that have traditionally been interpreted in terms of individual experience and restrict them to the corporate experience of Israel and the people of God.
2. The Reformers' foundational contrast between "faith" and "works" as two opposed means of being saved is reduced or even eliminated. Paul's central contrast is not with how a person gets saved but how Gentiles in the new era of salvation can be added to the people of God.
3. Paul's teaching on justification is shifted from a vertical focus (a human before God) to more of a horizontal one (Gentiles as equal partners with Jews within God's people).
In these ways, the "new perspective" tends to offer a serious and potentially damaging challenge to a hallmark of Reformation theology: justification before God by faith alone, by grace alone.
Response to the New Perspective
The new perspective on Paul has made some important contributions, correcting a skewed view of Judaism in traditional scholarship. Jews in Paul's day were certainly less legalistic than many traditional portrayals have suggested. Sanders rightly highlighted the importance of the covenant as a foundation for Jewish life and thought. Jews thought of themselves as a special people because God had chosen them by grace. Many Jews undoubtedly viewed their obedience to the law within this covenant context. They did not claim any special merit for their obedience and saw it, as Sanders has insisted, as a means of maintaining their status within God's people. The general tendency of the new perspective as a whole to redirect our attention to the Jewish matrix of Paul's thought and teaching is a welcome one. Traditional studies of Paul have sometimes focused almost exclusively on how a person gets saved and neglected how Gentiles in the new era of salvation are added to the people of God.
Nevertheless, Sanders' interpretation of Judaism and the "new perspective" is an over-reaction in the other direction. His "covenantal nomism" requires qualification:
1. Covenantal nomism was not the only understanding of salvation within first-century Judaism. Sanders' methodology is deeply flawed. Further, even if all the existing theological sources taught covenant nomism, one might still find significant pockets of legalism among the "Jews on the street." Any faith that emphasizes obedience, as Judaism undoubtedly did, is likely to produce some adherents who, perhaps through misunderstanding or lack of education, turn their obedience into a meritorious service that they think God must reward. Christianity, with considerably less emphasis on law, certainly produces such adherents. Is it not likely that, as the NT suggests, first-century Judaism did also?
2. Sanders and those who have followed him wrongly base their interpretation of first-century Judaism on the assumption that God's covenant with Israel was the starting point for Jewish obedience to the law. Many Jewish sectarian groups flourished at this time, and for some of them "getting in" was not simply a matter of God's grace revealed in the covenant, but included human works.
3. In practice for first-century Jews, salvation was through both grace and works, and it is just this combination that Paul seems to be attacking in a number of passages.
Ultimately, the new perspective, as a comprehensive explanation of Paul's relationship to Judaism, must be rejected on the basis of the single most important issue: it does not offer a better interpretation of the key texts than competing schools of thought.
1. While the Reformers may have missed some of the nuances and implications of Paul's argument regarding how Gentiles in the new era of salvation are added to the people of God, they were right to discern in Paul a key antithesis between faith and works as the means of accessing God's salvation.
2. The attempt to redefine justification in terms of covenant identity and entrance into the people of God reverses what is primary and what is secondary. Justification language refers primarily to a person's right relationship with God (vertical). A secondary consequence of justification is that the person enters the people of God (horizontal).
Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2010). Introducing the New Testament: A Short Guide to Its History and Message (76–79). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
What Is the "New Perspective"?
An extremely simplified historical sketch is necessary to set the scene for the modern debate on the "new perspective." The Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially Martin Luther and John Calvin, decisively influenced how people have traditionally understood Paul's Judaism. While reacting to certain legalistic elements in the salvation teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of their day, they tended to find the same kind of legalism in the Judaism that Paul opposed in letters like Galatians. They believed that the Jews of Paul's day held to a form of "works-righteousness": a person gained right standing with God by performing "the works of the law," meritorious deeds of obedience to the law that compelled God's favor and blessing. Against this legalism, Paul proclaimed that justification before God could be attained only by faith in the completed work of Christ, a faith that excluded any meritorious deeds. The Reformers took on the mantle of Paul, proclaiming that justification is sola fide (by faith alone) and sola gratia (by grace alone).
Most scholars embraced the Reformers' view of Judaism until E. P. Sanders challenged it in 1977 with his groundbreaking Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Sanders argues that Judaism was not characterized by legalism but by "covenantal nomism," that is, the covenant based on law (nomos). The basis for the Jews' salvation was that God chose them and entered into a covenant with them. They did not have to obey the law to be saved; they were already saved. They obeyed the law, rather, to maintain their covenantal status. Jews did not obey the law to "get in" (legalism) but to "stay in" ("nomism").
What does this new view of Judaism have to do with Paul? Sanders argues that Paul rejected covenantal nomism because he believed that salvation was found in Christ alone, not through the law and its underlying covenant. Most scholars, even those who agreed with Sanders' portrayal of first-century Judaism, were not satisfied with this response. The most satisfying and popular suggestion came from James D. G. Dunn, followed up by a host of scholars including N. T. Wright.
Dunn, who coined the phrase "new perspective," claims that what Paul opposes is the tendency of the Jews to confine salvation to their own nation and to exclude Gentiles. Paul opposes Judaism's ethnic exclusivism, not personal legalism.
The difference between Dunn's view and the traditional interpretation of Paul can perhaps be seen most clearly in their conflicting interpretations of texts such as Romans 3:20: "no human being will be justified in his [God's] sight by works of the law" (RSV; cf. also Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10). To the Reformers, Romans 3:20 attacks Jewish works-righteousness: a person was justified by doing "works." To Dunn, Romans 3:20 attacks Jewish ethnic exclusivism: a person was justified by maintaining his covenant status by faithfully observing the Jewish law, including distinctive practices such as circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws.
Dunn and those in his wake offer a new way of reading Paul. In general, three tendencies mark the "new perspective on Paul."
1. Paul's theology is read against the background of the "story" of salvation history. (N. T. Wright is a prominent example.) The effect is to take many of the theological categories in Paul's letters that have traditionally been interpreted in terms of individual experience and restrict them to the corporate experience of Israel and the people of God.
2. The Reformers' foundational contrast between "faith" and "works" as two opposed means of being saved is reduced or even eliminated. Paul's central contrast is not with how a person gets saved but how Gentiles in the new era of salvation can be added to the people of God.
3. Paul's teaching on justification is shifted from a vertical focus (a human before God) to more of a horizontal one (Gentiles as equal partners with Jews within God's people).
In these ways, the "new perspective" tends to offer a serious and potentially damaging challenge to a hallmark of Reformation theology: justification before God by faith alone, by grace alone.
Response to the New Perspective
The new perspective on Paul has made some important contributions, correcting a skewed view of Judaism in traditional scholarship. Jews in Paul's day were certainly less legalistic than many traditional portrayals have suggested. Sanders rightly highlighted the importance of the covenant as a foundation for Jewish life and thought. Jews thought of themselves as a special people because God had chosen them by grace. Many Jews undoubtedly viewed their obedience to the law within this covenant context. They did not claim any special merit for their obedience and saw it, as Sanders has insisted, as a means of maintaining their status within God's people. The general tendency of the new perspective as a whole to redirect our attention to the Jewish matrix of Paul's thought and teaching is a welcome one. Traditional studies of Paul have sometimes focused almost exclusively on how a person gets saved and neglected how Gentiles in the new era of salvation are added to the people of God.
Nevertheless, Sanders' interpretation of Judaism and the "new perspective" is an over-reaction in the other direction. His "covenantal nomism" requires qualification:
1. Covenantal nomism was not the only understanding of salvation within first-century Judaism. Sanders' methodology is deeply flawed. Further, even if all the existing theological sources taught covenant nomism, one might still find significant pockets of legalism among the "Jews on the street." Any faith that emphasizes obedience, as Judaism undoubtedly did, is likely to produce some adherents who, perhaps through misunderstanding or lack of education, turn their obedience into a meritorious service that they think God must reward. Christianity, with considerably less emphasis on law, certainly produces such adherents. Is it not likely that, as the NT suggests, first-century Judaism did also?
2. Sanders and those who have followed him wrongly base their interpretation of first-century Judaism on the assumption that God's covenant with Israel was the starting point for Jewish obedience to the law. Many Jewish sectarian groups flourished at this time, and for some of them "getting in" was not simply a matter of God's grace revealed in the covenant, but included human works.
3. In practice for first-century Jews, salvation was through both grace and works, and it is just this combination that Paul seems to be attacking in a number of passages.
Ultimately, the new perspective, as a comprehensive explanation of Paul's relationship to Judaism, must be rejected on the basis of the single most important issue: it does not offer a better interpretation of the key texts than competing schools of thought.
1. While the Reformers may have missed some of the nuances and implications of Paul's argument regarding how Gentiles in the new era of salvation are added to the people of God, they were right to discern in Paul a key antithesis between faith and works as the means of accessing God's salvation.
2. The attempt to redefine justification in terms of covenant identity and entrance into the people of God reverses what is primary and what is secondary. Justification language refers primarily to a person's right relationship with God (vertical). A secondary consequence of justification is that the person enters the people of God (horizontal).
Carson, D. A., & Moo, D. J. (2010). Introducing the New Testament: A Short Guide to Its History and Message (76–79). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
No comments:
Post a Comment