All Comments for: What Did Paul Really Mean? | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > August

Christianity Today, August, 2007 |

What Did Paul Really Mean?

'New perspective' scholars argue that we need, well, a new perspective on justification by faith.

Simon Gathercole | posted 8/10/2007 08:48AM

Pick up any recent Bible commentary or theology textbook, and you will read about something called the "new perspective on Paul." Seminaries have buzzed for decades about how they might apply to Paul ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

tony	Posted: August 16, 2007 3:41 AM

One of the more interesting theories about the (self-proclaimed) "Apostle" Paul is that he suffered from temporal-lobe epilepsy and was hence prone to delusion. This hypothesis is actually supported by the NT descriptions of Paul's "conversion" experience. So, perhaps Paul should be taken with the same seriousness as we take present day TLE's - ie with a nod and a wink. The self-righteous, semi-coherent rantings of most of the commentaries here is clear evidence that "interpretation" of Paul's writings (and pseudo-writings) could just as easily be determined with the roll of (several) dice.

Walt Mead

Posted: August 15, 2007 6:30 PM


What's all the hoopla? As one who has been saved, I can say with certainty --- Jesus saves! Seems like I read someplace that the most simple things of God would confound the grandest thinking of man.

Darren E.

Posted: August 15, 2007 9:06 AM

Generally, Gathercole presents a fairly well-balanced treatment of the 'new perspective'. Those of the Dispensational view will have a tough time with it. The central point regards the issue of the Cross and that there is no separate plan of salvation or justification for the Jewish people outside of the Cross. Paul is very clear about this that for both Jew and Gentile, justification is through the Cross alone. What can be pointed out is that the sacrificial system in the Old Testament is a grace-based system, in particular the Atonement sacrifice that foreshadows Christ. Upon the lamb the sins of Israel were laid. There is no Law, but only Gospel hidden in that institution because it is God-initiated free justification for the sinner. But that was only until Christ. For Dispensationalists to say that when Jewish people reject the fullness of that sacrifice in Christ there is another means of justification for them that God accepts, that is completely incorrect.

Ambrose

Posted: August 15, 2007 8:57 AM

Good article, though it seems to suffer from the typical maladies: 1) It sounds great as long as one accepts penal substitutionary atonement. Any other model of atonement would not work with the thoughts and conclusions of this article. 2) It is easy to get the view of justification put forward by Mr. Gathercole if one only references Romans and Galatians in reference to New Testament justification. Again, it plays to its crowd well, but doesn't really make an argument that would be appealing to anyone outside of a particular reformed background.

ervinl@aol.com

Posted: August 14, 2007 10:54 PM


You talk to each other too much... and listen to each other to little. please remove me from your list. Thank you

Steve Brown

Posted: August 14, 2007 10:31 PM

This "New Perpective" on Pauline theology, appears to be just another version of the false belief (LIE) that Jews are justified by keeping the Law, and Christians are justified by faith in Jesus. Or in other words, Jesus is for the Gentiles, not the Jews. We in the 21st century tend to forget just how gory, ghastly, and bloody the Old Covenant was with the Temple sacrifices. These sacrifices were a graphic reminder of just how awful sin is in God's eyes and they foreshadowed the Greatest Sacrifice of all. To say now that ANYONE can be justifed by keeping the old covenant is to disdain the One who paid our Debt. Even the author stumbles when he says that: ""righteousness" is the status that an Israelite received when he or she fully observed the requirements of the law." Righteousness is a relative term in the Old Testament and does not necessarily mean "Justification" in the sense of Salvation. God commanded the sacrifices long before the Law was given.

Forrest Long

Posted: August 14, 2007 7:15 PM

This article and the problems relating to Paul and justification are interesting. Unfortunately our touchstone here seems to be the Reformation, with Rome being the culprit. A whole new perspective would be to bypass the reformers and Rome and go back to the Early Church Fathers to deal with these issues. It seems the evangelical church has written off anything prior to the Reformation as a source for sound theological argument. Much could be learned from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its rich theological heritage on this issue, which is firmly rooted in the Councils and the Fathers.

Wan Chee Keong

Posted: August 14, 2007 1:49 AM

The article is an informative and concise survey of the NPP. Gathercole's assessment and criticisms are generally valid, in particular point 1. Whilst Sanders' portrayal of first century Judaism as 'covenantal nomism' is in the main valid, Gathercole's contention that some Jews believed obedience to the Law will be rewarded on the final day of salvation (as demonstrated in his Ph.D thesis written [surprise!] under Dunn's supervision) does provide a needed corrective to Sanders'. My criticism of the article: 1. 'Inclusion' or 'covenant membership for Gentiles thru faith' whilst not a primary component of Justification, is nonetheless an integral and important facet. This is particularly so in Galatians ('covenant' appears in 3.15,17 and 4.24). It is not merely the 'scope' or 'application' of Justification, but part of the 'content'.It is not merely the 'tail'. 2. 'Flesh' does imply also ethnic lineage,religious and national exclusivity besides carnality. 3. NPP not in Rom.16.17-20.

Rev. Dr. Wally Landes

Posted: August 13, 2007 10:41 AM

Several somebodies need to re-read Dr. Krister Stendahl's "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West." Therein he cautions against reading Pauline texts through any modernist lens; in particular the psychologizing and moral relativizing perspectives of modernity. Faith/Pistis? Law? Works? Sarx/Flesh? What audaciity for any of us to claim that we positively know what Paul meant by such terms in his context...given that his realm was cosmopolitan, polylingual and inter-faith! Egads!

T2	Posted: August 11, 2007 3:07 PM

Righteousness by diligent works is given to us in the words of Peter in Scriptures. Peter wrote: "Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace (2 Peter 3)." This translation is from the ESV which the Reformation Study Bible uses and should be acceptable to reformationists. It means we have to put in an effort to be without spot and blemish by our diligent effort while God remains patient as he waits for his people to come to repentance. Repentance being the work of challenging yourself and reforming your actions in accordance with doctrine. Peter continues "15And count the patience of our Lord as salvation". The patience of the Lord being the chance to actively reform. So, where does this leave mere intellectual/mental agreement with the bare bones of doctrine without the active working towards one's own salvation? Paul wrote:Phil2:12 "Therefore...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

Darren King

Posted: August 11, 2007 10:40 AM

To the person who wrote: Tony Jordan Posted: August 10, 2007 7:28 PM Justification by Grace (alone) through Faith (alone), cannot ever be altered!... 'The Law of Non-contradiction' emphatically state, that two competing truth claims, cannot be both right at the same time and same place. I think you need to submit your "logic" to the Kingdom of God. Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not arguing for an anti-intellectual position, but I am saying that your near "logic-proofing" expels not one, but two major streams of Christianity, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. What makes you think that you can place so much of Church history and apostolic teaching at the feet of your "logic"? Stop applying "Enlightenment-inspired" perspectives to your understanding of the Kingdom of God. Ultimately, your narrowloy-defined "logic" should serve the Kingdom, not the other way around. I think your modernistic lens is making you miss the forest for the trees.

Kenneth Macari

Posted: August 11, 2007 9:32 AM

This article was invaluable in my Doctor of Ministry work. My thesis is on preaching on Paul's teachings on the person and work of Christ in Colossians. I have read many of the works quoted by Simon Gathercole including some of his articles. The firestorm over the New Perspective is hard to get into perspective. This summary is superb as an introduction. I have already forwarded it to those I know interested in this topic Thank you for posting this Rev. Kenneth J. Macari Pastor, Community Presbyterian Church of Edison, NJ Candidate for the Doctor of Ministry Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

dntheol

Posted: August 11, 2007 6:45 AM

A very interesting article. I can see how the new perspective on justification reaches its conclusion re. law keeping as a way of national distinction. If you exclude Romans 7,8 you might manage it. However, Romans 7 makes it clear that Paul's concern about law keeping extends far beyond Sabbath keeping, circumcision and kosher foods. He utilizes the example of covetousness to illustrate his despair over attaining righteousness via the law. Breaking the law re. covetousness has nothing to do with Israel's national distinctiveness. Also, Hebrews argues that the blood of Christ saves while the blood of animals does not. Jesus blood actually atones for sin. It is not just a means of identifying Christians as God's people. Faith in it means the difference between eternal salvation or eternal loss.

James Reid Ross

Posted: August 11, 2007 3:17 AM

We need to remember the Gospels the whole bible and the essential element of our faith the Cross I need to read this a couple of times but I got a sense that the new perspective is accepting those of the Jewish faith by something less than belief in Chirst alone. Paul's writings are Scripture and much of it was revealed to him by the Risen Lord but let us always keep in mind the Red Letters of the New Testament especially the Gospels and remeber that the only way to the Heavenly Father is belief in His Son. God bless in Christ. JRR

Chris Barrigar

Posted: August 11, 2007 2:53 AM

Defining the term "justification" is not the only challenge -- so too is defining the other key term, namely "faith". We have traditionally translated the Gk word as "faith", but as Dr Gathercole points out it equally means "belief". Yet faith is generally taken to be a more comprehensive concept than belief -- faith includes hopeful trust and obedient commitment along with simple belief (which we have seen from Dr Gathercole's discussion of Rom. 4:18-22, though I think he reading these qualities into this passage, since I think we see here just mere belief.) So which is it that justifies us: "mere belief", or "belief plus hope/trust/obedience"? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ", along with much evangelical evangelistic tradition, indicates mere belief; "Even the demons believe", along with Bonhoeffer's concern with cheap grace, indicates more than mere belief. Answering this question is also crucial to understanding what we mean by "justification by faith".

Jim Maier A man Christ died for

Posted: August 10, 2007 10:14 PM

My star rating got messed up, I meant to rate this 4 stars. I have got to wonder, what bible are these so called new perspective scholars reading? In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth and everything in and on the earth. God created justification through faith in Jesus Christ. God is the creater not us and if we start changing the word of God, well its a fearful think to fall into the hands of a angry God. I think we all need to get back to basic bible principles and ask God to renew that child like faith. Come quickly Lord Jesus.

George T.

Posted: August 10, 2007 10:12 PM


What a great and insightful article. I cannot add further to such a good work. It anwers all the questions that are now "in vogue" about Paul.

T2	Posted: August 10, 2007 7:56 PM

Justification by faith isn't understood by proponents of salvation by faith.When God accepts us, for whatever divine reason, and gives us faith by His grace, then we know we are saved. That knowledge of salvation means we have met Jesus just like Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus in our inner being. The one divine reason that we are saved is the death and resurrection of Jesus and our heartfelt warmth towards his name and his way, having encountered Him on the way.Such a work! We surrender deeply and have yielded to the truth. Then that response of surrender shows that faith lives in us and that we are saved. Surely that type of faith is what saves, it is a work of faith. That is why Jesus said the work that people must do to receive salvation is to believe. He specifically said it is a work. Easy-believism i.e. intellectual agreement with faith-speak is just lip-service and is empty. Surrender to Jesus is what is required. Then you will be anointed with the Holy Spirit to work !

Tony Jordan

Posted: August 10, 2007 7:28 PM

Justification by Grace (alone) through Faith (alone), cannot ever be altered! Because, to the Grace alone in Christ, corresponds the Faith, alone in believers. If the Roman Catholicism would see and accept this, her sacerdotal, sacremental religion would literally crumble! One of the fundamental principles in Logic, 'The Law of Non-contradiction' emphatically state, that two competing truth claims, cannot be both right at the same time and same place. Therefore, Justification, is either by Faith + sacraments + works, as taught by Catholicism; or as Paul states in God's Word, solely by Grace through faith alone. It is not both/and, according to Catholicism, eastern dialectic logic, which is illogical, but either/or, you simply cannot have it both ways. So that, the grand, entirely biblical truth, as rediscovered by the Reformers, must stand, and be vigorously defended at all times. Truth by definition, is absolute, exclusive, it never changes.

Ted Voth jr

Posted: August 10, 2007 2:32 PM

Having dear, good-hearted, socially activist Jewish friends, I know I've been dealing with the problem of the purported anti-Semitism of the NT, but Somebody recently pointed out to me that the OT could hardly be called'pro-Semitic, that for most of the time dealt with in the OT He'd had great difficulties with them. And despite that every time they cried out He repented and took them back: Graciously.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment