HOW DOES THE ‘NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL’ AFFECT

OUR UNDERSTANDING OF GALATIANS

Allan Falk

 Submitted to Jean-Claude Verrecchia

 in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the module

BDBS323 Acts and Epistles

30-04-2007

NewboldCollege in partnership with the University of Wales Lampeter

 How does the ‘New Perspective on Paul’ Affect

our Understanding of his Epistles?

Introduction

Interpreting Biblical texts is always a challenge, because they are from another period of time, and probably also from another culture and worldview, than the one naturally known to the reader. Considering for example Paul’s epistles, they might not be safely interpreted without knowing his background, culture, beliefs and education, as well as the core beliefs in 1st century Judaism and Hellenism. Luther modernized Paul in the sense that he interpreted Paul in his own 16th century context, and many others have been doing the same.[1] It has however not been easy for the scholarly world to establish either Paul’s personal worldview, the actual content of Jewish beliefs in his time or Paul’s opponents.[2]

        For centuries Paul was interpreted through the eyes of Luther, creating a lot of tension between Judaism and Christianity. Basically the new perspectives on Paul, which is originating from mainly James D. G. Dunn, E. P. Sanders and N. T. Wright have allowed interpreters to read Paul seeing him in his own Jewish context. That has enabled Judaism to inform our Christianity.

        Having these new perspectives in mind, which will be explained further in the next section it is therefore the purpose of this study to examine how the ‘New Perspective on Paul’ does effect or does not affect our understanding of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians. The right understanding of Paul’s message in Galatians is significant because it to a large extent discuss issues related to salvation or how humans get accepted by God. To do real justice to this study, several of Paul’s epistles should have been involved, but for this limited paper a portion of the epistle to Galatians must suffice.  

Methodology

First the paper will provide a very brief introduction to the developments leading to what James D. G. Dunn coined as the ‘new perspective on Paul’.[3] Secondly Dunn’s view on covenantal nomism in the Galatians will be briefly discussed. Thirdly Dunn’s new perspective on Paul will be used on Galatians 2. 14 - 21. Finally it will assess whether this new perspective on Paul were useful or not.

Developments Leading to this New Perspective on Paul

The initial reading for this paper gave me the impression, that the term ‘the new perspective on Paul’ touches at least three aspects. One related to Paul, clarifying what had influenced him the most Judaism or Hellenism. Number two related to Judaism, clarifying what Jewish soteriology was like in the 1st centaury AD. Number three related to whom Paul’s opponents were. Therefore this section will follow these three themes.

Paul Influenced by Judaism or Hellenism

        Looking at Paul’s background, it is easy to understand that many have seen him ‘in the light of his Hellenistic environment.’[4] According to Jerome Paul was born in Galilee and according to his own words he grew up in Tarsus.[5] This implies that he was educated in Tarsus, and his scriptures indicate that he was familiar with the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.[6] Considering Paul’s ability to speak into the Hellenistic culture,[7] it is tempting to suggest that he might have been educated at the University of Tarsus,[8] before he went to Jerusalem and became a Pharisee trained under Gamaliel.[9]

        Schweitzer saw Paul as entirely Jewish,[10] and Davies saw him as a Rabbi who had become a Christian, but still with his Pharisaic concepts.[11] The point might be that Paul’s worldview has been greatly discussed, and that there lately have been some scholars thinking that Paul was not primarily Hellenistic, but also greatly influenced by Jewish thinking.

Jewish Soteriology in the 1st Century AD

        The second theme relate to how scholars have viewed Jewish soteriology. Weber saw Judaism as legalistic, based on that Thackeray meant that Paul’s theology was antithetical to it.[12]  This view has been widely accepted by scholars. However in the middle of the twentieth century some scholars saw Christianity as the fulfilment of Judaism, not as the antithesis of it.[13] Sanders saw 1st century Jewish theology this way:

1) God chose Israel and gave the law.

2) The law implies:

a) God’s promise to maintain the election.

b) The requirement to obey.

3) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression.

4) Atonement is provided and results in maintenance of covenantal relationship.

5) Everybody maintained in the covenant will be saved.

In short he called it ‘covenantal nomism,[14] and Dunn called it Sanders ‘new perspective on Second Temple Judaism.’[15]

        Based on Sanders view, Dunn speaks of ‘the new perspective on Paul’ putting emphasis on two major points:[16]

1) Both Judaism and Christianity build on God’s grace, and are therefore not legalistic.

2) The ceremonial laws like circumcision and the dietary laws were Paul’s core problem.

Paul’s Opponents

          If Dunn is right then the question concerning Paul’s opponents is solved. Paul’s opponents must be the legalistic Judaizers, trying to disturb his mission.

        With these new tools of understanding, it is now my intention to read Galatians 2. 14 – 21, but before doing that it would be right to mention that other scholars like N. T. Wright might have seen the new perspective different from Dunn.

Dunn’s View on Covenantal Nomism in Galatians

Dunn thinks that the epistle to Galatians is Paul first work where he really deals with the issue of covenantal nomism.[17] Whether this is true or not is not our interest, in this section our aim is to familiarise our self with a few of Dunn’s understandings in regard to some elements occurring in Galatians.

        First we have the widely used phrase “works of the law” which Luther surely sees as meaning any work done in accordance with either the civil law, the ceremonial law or the Decalogue.[18] However Dunn’s view is that Paul uses the “works of the law” expression in a strictly nationalistic sense, meaning ‘maintaining Jewish identity.’[19]

        Explaining Galatians chapter five and six, Dunn admit that Paul still ‘believes in a kind of “covenantal nomism”! But it has markers different from the ancestral customs of the Jews – love Spirit, not circumcision.’[20] Obviously there must still be a Christian lifestyle lived out in practice.

Dunn’s perspective used on Gal 2. 14 – 21

I chose this portion of text, because here Paul speaks in a very frank way to Peter as one of the leaders of the Jewish Christians about the social issues which is separating the Gentile and the Jewish part of the new Christian church. The portion of text is easily identified because in Gal 2. 11 – 13 Paul narrates about Peter’s unsocial behaviour, which is the reason for his speech to Peter in Gal 2. 14 – 21, and from the beginning of chapter 3 Paul speaks to the Galatians.

Exegesis

        In preparation before Dunn’s new perspective on Paul is applied, I will make a very brief exegesis of some main words in the text. For this purpose I will work with the NRSV (1989).

        Gal 2. 14a: But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all,

‘They’ are Peter and the ones redrawing from the table fellowship together with him. The truth of the gospel would according to Luther be the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  

        Gal 2. 14b: "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

If Peter had already shown the congregation that he was free to live as a Gentile, how would it then be possible for him to convince anybody to convert to Jewish customs?

        Gal 2. 15: We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;

We ourselves are Paul and Peter born within the covenant given to Abraham and therefore not sinners.

        Gal 2. 16a: yet we know that a person is justified[21] not by the works[22] of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.

This seems to imply that nobody is brought in a right relationship with God by doing good things required by any law.

        Gal 2. 16b: And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.

‘And we’ seems to indicate that Peter and Paul had this understanding in common.

        Gal 2. 17: But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not!

According to the previous translation of dikaiwqh/nai, the meaning is, in our effort to gain a proper relationship with Christ, …..

        Gal 2. 18: But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor.

Paul had among other things torn down the Jewish rituals like circumcision and dietary regulations.

         Gal 2. 19: For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ;

Paul’s dead to the law and life to God as well as his crucifixion with Christ is symbolic.

        Gal 2. 20: and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh[23] I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

It is no longer law keeping which holds Paul on track it is a faith relationship to God.

        Gal 2. 21: I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

dikaiosu,nh is also here the state of being in a proper relationship with God.

Interpretation

In this section I will apply Dunn’s new perspective on Paul, seeking after what might be the real message of Paul. That is if Dunn has understood Paul and Judaism, and if I have understood Dunn. It might seem unnecessary to repeat all the verses again, but I am doing it to make my point more clear.

        Gal 2. 14a: But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all,

To Paul the truth of the gospel was Christ centered, and also a uniting factor bringing both Jew and Gentile together. Here Paul saw that Peter began to bring in Jewish customs which would be a dividing factor in the new Christian church, and against the core of the gospel, Christ.

        Gal 2. 14b: "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Peter you have already shown the Gentiles that it is okay with your conscience to live like a Gentile, how will you be able to compel the Gentiles to become Jews?

         Gal 2. 15: We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;

Both Peter and Paul were born Jews within the covenant God made with our father Abraham, and not Gentiles born outside the covenant.

        Gal 2. 16a: yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.

We both know that a person is brought right with God or included in the covenant, not by observing Jewish rituals and customs like circumcision and dietary laws, but through a faith relationship with Jesus Christ.

        Gal 2. 16b: And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.

We have got a faith relationship to Jesus, so that we might be brought right with God by faith in Christ, and not by following ceremonial laws from Judaism, because no one will be brought right with God by ceremonial directives.

        Gal 2. 17: But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not!

In our effort to become right with God, we ourselves might be found not living in a Christian manner, meaning that we might transgress the moral law or the Decalogue, is Christ then promoting law braking? Absolutely not. At the same time as Paul makes clear that no one is saved by keeping laws, then he is also especially in chapter five and six promoting good Christian living, which is also including a kind of law keeping, but the are not nationalistic or separating laws.[24]

        Gal 2. 18: But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor.

If I bring in circumcision and dietary laws, which I towards the Gentiles have declared as not necessary, then I really demonstrate that I have broken these laws.

        Gal 2. 19: For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ;

I have tried to follow all the Jewish regulations, but I gave it up, and now I am focusing only on God. I am now accepting atonement only through Jesus Christ.[25]

        Gal 2. 20: and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

        Here Paul might be saying that it is no longer Paul the Pharisee living according to laws, but through faith he is living a new life where Christ is the center.

        Gal 2. 21: I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

I did not reject the grace of God; if man could become right with God through keeping Jewish regulations like circumcision and dietary laws, then Christ did not need to die.

        In line with this interpretation inspired by Dunn’s new perspective on Paul, the following summary could be made:

1) Paul opposes Peter and defends the truth, which he defines as Christ centered and therefore uniting Jews and Gentiles.

2) Paul makes clear that there is no consistency in Peter’s social behavior, and that his testimony is therefore also not convincing.  

3) Both Paul and Peter are born within the covenant, and therefore both of them know all the cultures and ceremonies of the Jews.

4) Both of them know that ceremonial law keeping can not bring people right with God, only faith in Christ can do that.

5) They do not only know this new gospel to be the truth, both Paul and Peter are actually believing in it.

6) The fact that Paul does not believe in salvation by keeping ceremonial laws, does not mean that he is not supporting good Christian living according to the moral laws of Moses.

7) What Paul is really against is the ceremonial Jewish laws separating instead of uniting.

8) Paul has tried to obtain salvation through ceremonial law keeping, but failed.

9) Paul now lives only through a faith relationship with Christ.

10) If ceremonial law keeping had salvation power, then Jesus died in vain.

Assessment of the Usefulness of Dunn’s New Perspective on Paul

To assess critically Duns new perspective on Paul based on the interpretation of such few verses in the epistle to Galatians is obviously not possible, but maybe it can give some direction, hinting to whether there are some positive elements in it or some dangers to be aware of. To do this I will first discuss the positive elements coming from this interpretation, then the possible negative outcomes and finally asses the results.

Positive Elements

The most obvious advantage of this new perspective on Paul is that the reader really gets very close to the problem in Antioch. It is as if someone was present and sensed the conflict in Peter, as he is pondering what to do. Should he stick to his belief and offend the visiting Jews or should he change while they were there, and then disappoint his new Gentile friends? At the same time it becomes clear what was at stake for Paul. He had taught the Gentiles that they could get salvation by faith only, and now he saw how Peter’s behavior gave the impression that it was by faith plus certain Jewish rituals. It is seen that Paul is not only grabbing another chance to teach, he is defending both the gospel and his own integrity as an apostle.

        The new perspective is also helping readers to realize how great the challenge was, bringing the gospel from the Jewish culture where it originated and give it to Gentiles with a total different world view. At the same time it is bringing out the thought that there should be unity in the church. That again raises the question, how was that unity to be realized? Should the Gentiles have adapted some of the Jewish rituals or should the Jews have given up som of the most separating customs?

        In short this new interpretation allows the reader to understand what Paul wanted to teach both the Jews and the Gentiles present in Galatia.

Negative Elements

Looking at this interpretation from a Lutheran point of view, it obviously lacks a major element. This interpretation does not make it clear, that works what ever kind of works it might be can not justify people before God. As already mentioned Luther would call it a miss interpretation, he would read all the biblical laws presented in the Old Testament into the text. In short this interpretation does not support the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone at all.

Assessment

This interpretation of Gal 2. 11-21 seems to indicate that it is essential how the Pauline corpus of texts is read. It does matter whether the text is read within its Jewish context or through the eyes of Luther. The text is becoming more alive when the reader actually arrives at the real scene, and becomes part of the experience. This new perspective also allows the reader to read out of the text, instead of reading Luther’s doctrine on justification into the text. Thus the paper have also shown that this new perspective on Paul can shake or remove some of the foundation for long held and cherished doctrines like justification by faith alone.

Conclusion

This paper therefore revealed that Dunn’s new perspective on Paul allows the Pauline texts to speak in their own context and culture. The new perspective brings to the forefront the issues relevant to the first readers of the text, revealing the real message of Paul. Thus Dunn’s contribution to the new perspective on Paul seems to be a useful tool interpreting Pauline texts.

        At the same time the new perspective reveals, that Paul might not have emphasised the doctrine of justification by faith alone as much as Luther made us believe. Here might be an area worthy of further study.

Bibliography

Davies, William David., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology,

        (London: S P C K, 1948)

Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, ed. by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid,

        (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1993)

Dunn, James D. G., The new perspective on Paul: collected essays,

        (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005)

Luther’s Works: Lectures on Galatians, ed.by Jaroslav Pelican, 55 vols

        (MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1963)

Mattison, Mark M., ‘Summary of the New Perspective on Paul’,

       <http://www.thepaulpage.com/Summary.html> @accessed 19 April 2007#

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome, Paul his story, (Oxford University Press, 2004)

New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. by T. D. Alexander, Brian s. Rosner,

        (Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 2000)

Sanders, Ed Parish., Paul, (Oxford University Press, 1991)

Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion,

        (London: SCM Press, 1977)

Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, ed. by Francis D. Nichol, 7vols

        (WA: Review and Herald, 1980), VI

[1] James D. G. Dunn, The new perspective on Paul: collected essays,  (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), p. 93

[2] Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, ed. by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid,

        (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p. 668

[3] Mark M. Mattison, ‘Summary of the New Perspective on Paul’,

       <http://www.newbold.ac.uk/e-learning/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=65> @accessed 12 April 2007#, p. 5

[4] William David Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology,  

        (London: S P C K, 1948), p. 1

[5] Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul his story, (Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 2

        Acts 21. 39

[6] Paul his story, p. 4

[7] Acts 17

[8] Paul his story, p. 5

[9] Acts 22. 3

[10] Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, p. 1

[11] Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, p. 16

[12] Ed Parish Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion,  

        (London: SCM Press, 1977), p. 2

[13] Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, p. 323

[14] Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, p. 422

[15] The new perspective on Paul: collected essays, p. 15

[16] The new perspective on Paul: collected essays, p. 15

        In summary: (a) It builds on Sander’ new perspective on Second Temple Judaism and Sander’ reassertion of the

        basic graciousness expressed in Judaism’s understanding and practice of covenantal nomism. (b) It observes that a

        social function of the law was an integral aspect of Israel’s covenantal nomism, where separateness to God

        (holiness) was understood to require separateness from the (other) nations as two sides of the one coin, and that the

        law was understood as the means to maintaining both. (c) It notes that Paul’s own teaching on justification focuses

        largely if not principally on the need to overcome the barrier which the law was seen to interpose between Jew and

        Gentile, so that the’all’ of ‘to all who believe’ (Rom 1.17) signifies in the first place, Gentiles as well as Jew. (d) It

        suggests that ‘works of law’ became a key slogan in Paul’s exposition of his justification gospel because so many

        of Paul’s fellow Jewish believers were insisting on certain works as indispensable to their own (and others?)

        standing within the covenant, and therefore as indispensable to salvation. (e) It protests that failure to recognize

        this major dimension of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith may have ignored or excluded a vital factor in

        combating the nationalism and racialism which has so distorted and diminished Christianity past and present.

[17] The new perspective on Paul: collected essays, p. 167

[18] Luther’s Works: Lectures on Galatians, ed.by Jaroslav Pelican, 55 vols

        (MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1963), p. 122

[19] The new perspective on Paul: collected essays, p. 178

[20] The new perspective on Paul: collected essays, p. 173

[21] dikaiou/tai to justify, vindicate, declare righteous. To put someone in a proper relationship with another.

[22] e;rgwn work, deed, activity, task, job

[23] sarki, means flesh, body; by extension human, with a focus on the fallen human nature.

[24] The new perspective on Paul: collected essays, p. 171

[25] Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, ed. by Francis D. Nichol, 7vols

        (WA: Review and Herald, 1980), VI, p. 950

Del siden