PAUL, NEW PERSPECTIVE ON

Paul, New Perspective on. A distinct scholarly viewpoint regarding the Apostle Paul’s attitudes toward Judaism, , righteousness, law, and salvation. Introduction The New Perspective on Paul (NPP) stands against the attitude that views the Judaism of Paul’s day as legalistic and driven by “works-righteousness.” This attitude asserts that Jewish hope of salvation rested on the attempt to earn God’s favor by meritorious works. This perspective may have been largely shaped by ’s reading of the New Testament against the backdrop of his own struggles with the . Thus, modern interpreters import a legalistic framework of Judaism into the reading of Paul’s letters, where Paul’s grand vision becomes “justification by faith”—a movement away from the merit-based justification of Judaism. In contrast, the NPP posits that Second Temple Judaism is based on a covenant that also valued the grace of God and the faith of humans in His mercy. The NPP argues that when Paul criticizes “works,” he is referring to the Jewish law— the . Paul is not arguing against doing good things for God, nor is he prioritizing inner faith over outward deeds. The NPP sees Paul as opposing that form of Jewish that would require Gentiles to adhere to the requirements of the Torah in order to be part of the people of God. From this angle, Paul was not against “works,” but against the idea that Gentiles were required to obey Torah in order to be welcomed into the Church of God in Christ . Thus, the NPP has always had a strong sociological/ecclesiological dimension, viewing Paul’s contribution to an understanding of salvation and faith as not only a vertical doctrine (about the individual and God), but a horizontal one as well (welcoming Gentiles into the covenantal community as Gentiles and not as converts to the Jewish religion). History and Formation of the New Perspective on Paul: Key Figures K. Stendahl Stendahl’s article, “Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” retrained New Testament scholars to read and interpret Paul in terms of his own religious environment—reacting to the problems of his own day. He discourages Pauline interpreters from reading the experience and rhetoric of Paul through the lens of Martin Luther’s “introspective” struggle. Stendahl argues that neither the religious environment of Paul’s Jewish context, nor the evidence of his letters, suggest that Paul should be treated as someone who sought God’s justification as a hopeless sinner. E.P. Sanders In his 1977 work, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Sanders argues that the Second Temple “pattern” of Judaism was not a predominately legalistic religion based on good and bad works. Rather, he proposes that Palestinian Judaism relied on God’s election of Israel and grace toward His people. While Torah obedience had its place, Jews of that period demonstrated a religious attitude and practice that incorporated divine mercy as well as human responsibility and action. Sanders calls this “covenantal nomism”—a relationship with God founded on divine grace and mercy (“covenantal”), but also driven by the expectation of Torah-obedience (“nomism”). He emphasizes that the sacrificial system presumed that the covenantal people would fall short of the high expectations of the Torah, and provided a means for restoration and atonement when such transgressions occurred. Even though Sanders’ “covenantal nomism” model has faced some criticism, his findings greatly influenced New Testament scholarship because they brought about a renewed interest in the Jewish roots and background of the New Testament. Sanders argued that the texts of early Judaism must be treated with more care and a keener eye. Sanders also proposed that Paul did not follow the “covenantal nomism” model after his encounter with Christ, but this view is less accepted. He believes that Paul was so focused on participating in Christ that his own religious approach could not be reasonably compared to the “common Judaism” of his time. For Paul, Christ was the unique solution to humanity’s problem with sin. Sanders argues that Paul was not desperately in search of a solution to the problem of sin prior to meeting Christ. Rather, texts like Phil 3:6 show that Paul would have felt sufficiently acceptable to God within the Jewish covenant. Once Paul was confronted by Christ, his reflections on sin and salvation worked from “solution to plight”; only after encountering the crucified and risen Christ did he realize that he and his Jewish people were in need of rescue from a desperate situation. James D.G. Dunn Dunn first introduced the phrase “New Perspective on Paul” during a university lecture in 1983 that was subsequently published. While crediting Sanders for aiding biblical scholars in their understanding of the nature of Second Temple Judaism, especially the model of “covenantal nomism,” he has shown concern over the disjunction Sanders drew between the Judaism of Paul’s time and Paul’s new pattern of religion “in Christ.” Using Sanders’ model of “covenantal nomism,” Dunn notes that the law functioned socially as an ethnic boundary marker or badge. He reasons that Paul was not arguing that it was wrong to perform works in general; rather, he was concerned that a Jewish obsession with the Torah had become a barrier between Jews and Gentiles—one that Christ had abolished so that humankind could be unified by faith in Him. Dunn views Paul’s language of “justification by faith” apart from “works of the law” as both a social and pietistic issue. N.T. Wright Wright has brought the discussion to a broader audience through his international lectures, popular works, and commentaries. He reacts favorably to Sanders’ “covenantal nomism” pattern and Dunn’s argument that Paul’s terminology of “works of the law” was particularly focused on the social dimension of Torah in dividing Jews from Gentiles. Wright focuses on drawing implications from the work of Sanders and Dunn with a view towards biblical theology. He emphasizes that Jesus as the Jewish Messiah has fulfilled the role of Israel in Yahweh’s plan of redemption and salvation, especially in fulfillment of the promise-covenant to Abraham. Key Supporters of the New Perspective on Paul Francis Watson In his 1986 monograph, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, Watson applies some of the insights from the NPP to a sociologically focused reading of Paul’s relationship with the Judaism of his day as demonstrated in his letters. Watson draws from a model of how reform movements become sects, arguing that Paul’s socio-rhetoric strategy could be seen as a move to separate his Jesus communities from the Jewish synagogues of his time. Terence Donaldson Donaldson questions how Paul became the apostle to Gentiles. He argues that Christ restructured the “system of convictions” in a way that Gentiles could be part of the fulfillment of the great plan of God’s restoration without themselves becoming Jews. While Torah used to be the boundary marker, now it is Christ. Kent Yinger Yinger addresses Paul’s judgment language, especially his tendency to refer to a judgment where “deeds” done in the body are important (2 Cor 5:10). Yinger argues that the tension between justification by “grace” and judgment according to “deeds” is not a contradiction, and did not create a problem for Paul because this same tension was present in the Judaism of his time. Yinger applies the pattern of “covenantal nomism” to Paul’s justification-judgment theology and argues that it is consistent with the pattern of Judaism, but accounts for the centrality of faith in Christ as determinative of covenantal membership. Other supporters include Richard Hays, Scot McKnight, Michael Gorman, and Don Garlington. Critical Reactions to the New Perspective on Paul Frank Thielman: From Plight to Solution Thielman questions Sanders’ attitude that Jews of the Second Temple period did not see themselves as stuck in a “plight.” By analyzing second temple texts, Galatians, Romans, and the Torah, Thielman argues that Jews did see themselves as “tainted with sin” and in need of God’s eschatological rescue. He argues that Paul’s language of the law fulfilled in Christ offers the kind of climactic hope that Jews had been anticipating. Simon Gathercole: The Problem of Jewish Boasting Gathercole challenges the NPP, focusing on the language of Jewish boasting in Rom 1–5. He argues that, when Paul treats Jewish boasting as inappropriate, he seems to be confronting the idea that a person could rely on Torah obedience for “final vindication at the eschaton.” Gathercole insists that Paul was criticizing both ethnic pride and the faulty soteriological perspective that seemed to depend heavily on works. Stephen Westerholm: Rehabilitating Luther as Pauline Theologian Westerholm defends a Lutheran reading of Paul, arguing that the apostle concentrated on Christ’s unique ability to deal with sin beyond what was possible before. He seeks to bring a soteriological component back into the discussion of Paul’s language of righteousness/justification, and to rehabilitate the scholarly treatment of Luther’s reading of Paul (as well as Augustine, Calvin, and Wesley). Justification and Variegated Nomism: Not “Covenantal Nomism” In Paul and Variegated Nomism, a book edited by Carson, O’Brien, and Seifrid, a group of biblical scholars test Sanders’ theory of “covenantal nomism” to see if this pattern of grace and obligation holds up under close scrutiny of the evidence from Second Temple Jewish texts. The editors conclude that these Jewish texts were diverse enough with respect to Torah obedience, salvation, and judgment that it is difficult to cast them all together under one rubric, as Sanders does. The Lasting Influences of the NPP The NPP has impacted the study of Paul in three predominant ways: 1. Paul must be studied within the religious and social milieu of his own time. The terms and expressions he uses need to be examined in respect to the closest texts of his environment—Second Temple Judaism. 2. Those studying Paul must not make hasty presumptions about what he was arguing against, as if his Jewish opponents were tallying up merit points in view of final judgment. Jewish texts must be read closely and judiciously. The NPP has brought about a greater awareness that early Jewish texts contain a strong element of the mercy and committed love that Yahweh shows for His people. 3. Paul was a social advocate and agent as well as a “theologian”; he was concerned for the unity of God’s people, both Jews and Gentiles. Bibliography Carson, D.A., P.T. O’Brien, and M.A. Seifrid, eds. Justification and Variegated Nomism. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2001 and 2004. Dunn, J.D.G. Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1990. ———. The New Perspective on Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008. Garlington, D. “The Obedience of Faith”: A Pauline Phrase in Historical Context. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II/38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Gathercole, S.J. Where is Boasting?: Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1–5. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. McKnight, S. Galatians. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995. Sanders, E.P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1977. Stendahl, K. “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.” Paul among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1976. Westerholm, S. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004. Wright, N.T. “The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith.” Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978): 61–88. ———. The Climax of the Covenant. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1993. ———. Paul: In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2005. Yinger, K. The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction. Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2011.

1 NIJAY K. GUPTA

1 Benjamin Laird, “Paul and Seneca, Letters of,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).