Pauline Studies and Resources

The Opening text of Galations Fragment P 46.jpg

Book Reviews and Notices:

Although I read through the book after I first purchased it in 2020, it finally made its way to the top of my “unread” stack, which means it was time to give it a more careful “red-pen” treatment. Perspectives on Paul: Five Views offers a helpful overview of the five main current approaches to understand Paul’s Gentile mission. The introduction to the current state of Pauline “perspectives” on Paul by Scot McKnight and B. J. Oropeza is worth the price of the book, even if the volume is now five years old and important new works on Paul are being published non-stop.

Like other “Five Views” books, this volume is a bit of a mixed bag. E. P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism) stands at the headwaters of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) and the contributors debate how to understand the apostle Paul in Sander’s shadow. The various contributors, John M. G. Barclay, A. Andrew Das, James D. G. Dunn, Brant Pitre, and Matthew Zetterholm, interact with each other throughout.

Das represents the “Lutheran Paul.” I expected a defense of the confessional Protestant view of justification, but instead found Das presenting what he calls a “newer perspective on Paul.” His view has some merit in light of NPP, provided you think Sanders is largely correct about Second Temple Judaism and covenental nomism. Das tweaks Sanders’s view, but is much better (and more helpful) when responding to Dunn, Pitre, and Barclay.

Pitre’s chapter and the various responses to it focus on the Roman Catholic appropriation of NPP. In a PhD New Testament seminar, Don Hagner had us read Sanders, Dunn, and Wright. I wondered at the time, “how long will it take for Roman Catholic scholars to appropriate covenantal nomism into their anti-Protestant polemics?” Pitre’s chapter does exactly that. This chapter is helpful because Pitre exposes Sanders’s “get in by faith/grace but face a final judgment by works” view as perfectly compatible with Trent’s view on justification. No surprise there. The Federal Vision boys ought to take careful note. Pitre also cites a host of Pauline texts throughout which he is convinced support the Roman view of an initial justification by faith and a final justification by good works, with little realization that these texts have been discussed and addressed by countless confessional Protestants since the time of the Reformation—and who have all come to an entirely different and far more compelling understanding of these passages. No surprises here either.

Dunn’s chapter and various responses reaffirm what he has said many times before—although he does concede that Martin Luther’s view (even though Luther supposedly misunderstood Second Temple Judaism), was compelling at the time of the Reformation as a response to medieval Romanism. All in all, the chapter is a short introduction to Dunn’s thought. Dunn’s New Perspective on Paul is the place to start with Dunn’s approach to covenental nomism and ethnic badges.

Magnus Zetterholm offers a Paul “within Judaism” view, while contending that the apostle simultaneously taught a gospel intended to support the Gentile mission. The respondents politely respond to Zetterhom’s claim that Paul thought of himself as a Jew and operated within Judaism, but there’s really not much to say since his view has far and away the least biblical support.

Last up is John M. G. Barclay, whose work on the nature of “grace as gift,” (which he defines as both conditioned and unconditional), is changing the course of “Perspectives on Paul” (Paul and the Gift). My take is Barclay is a bit too amenable to Sanders’s thesis as well as the NPP definition of “works of the law” as “Jewish practices,” and not a reference to obedience to God’s commandments in the Decalogue (cf. Galatians 2:16). But much of his work on Paul is very supportive of confessional Protestant views on Paul and justification. Better yet, he speaks the king’s English. He is like Wright in that regard—very readable.

As an aside, one of the editors, B. J. Oropeza, (like me) was a graduate of the Simon Greenleaf School of Law back in the day. SGSL, is now the Trinity Law School in Santa Ana.

I recommend this volume to anyone wanting a good overview of the current direction of Pauline studies—just don’t lose track of it in your “need to read” pile.

The recent book, God’s Israel and the Israel of God from Lexham Academic (2023) is a mixed bag. The discussion of whether the church “replaces” Israel takes place at two levels. One level of debate over “supressionism” is that waged between dispensationalists (such as John MacArthur) and amillennarians who reject the dispensational understanding of Israel’s future. The label J-Mac tries to stick on us is "replacement theology,” while we Reformed amillennarians speak of the covenantal promises God made to Israel largely fulfilled in a believing Jewish remnant in Paul’s day with the gospel going to the ends of the earth (“expansion theology”) until “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:25-26). I interpret these words in reference to the end-times salvation of Israel as a harbinger of the end of the age (What Does the Future Hold for Israel? A Look at Romans 9-11).

The other level is the on-going debate in academic circles regarding Paul’s understand of Israel’s future in Romans 9-11 which this volume addresses. What exactly does Paul say about Israel’s future in light of the coming of Jesus Christ as Israel’s Messiah? Does the covenant God made with Israel come to an end when the gospel goes out to the Gentiles?

There are seven essays presented in this book—three relatively agreeable and helpful, with four quite unacceptable chapters, invoking the worn out shibboleths of colonialism, multiple truths (“we all have our own”), and Rome’s inclusion of Jews in its ecumenical embrace quite apart from the gospel as preached by Paul. Since this is more of a book notice and not a full review, I will cover only the chapters of the first thee contributors (Scot McKnight, Michael Bird, and Ben Witherington III). For what it is worth, I found the final four chapters (those from Lynn Cohick, David Rudolph, Janelle Peters, and Ronald Charles) deserved the largely negative response and evaluations given them by Scot McKnight in his summation. You’ll have to read those on your own if you think this volume will be of interest to you.

McKnight asks the question, “is Christianity’s belief in Jesus as God, or the Trinity, a sufficiently restrictive faith (or break) within Judaism to make most or many forms of Judaism uncomfortable?”(16). He presses the matter further,”how can one say Jesus is Messiah, and not at some level be suppressionist in one’s faith, in comparison with those who think Jesus is not Messiah?” (16). After evaluation of various interpreters of Paul (including N.T. Wright) McKnight concludes, “is Jesus the Messiah? If he is then . . . salvific supressionism makes the bold true claim that the New Testament affirms that salvation is only found in Jesus Christ” (40). The way to understand this difficult reality is be clear that “Israel is not done away with; Israel is not superseded; Israel is expanded to include gentiles” (42). I wholeheartedly agree with McKnight’s conclusion regarding expansion and inclusion of Gentile believers into God’s covenantal purposes. As a brief aside, editors who insist upon using lower case “gentiles” will meet my on-going resistance.

Michael Bird strives to explain how Paul relates to non-Christ believing Jews(47). He states up front that his “thesis is that Paul does indeed think of his gentile assemblies as belonging to Israel.’” Bird explains further that “Paul is supercessionist in the sense that he is sectarian; he believes that his view of God, gentiles, Messiah, the end, covenant fidelity, and community boundaries should be the norm in Jewish communities” (46-47). He concludes, “for Paul the advent of the Messiah has created a fissure within ethnic Israel between those who believe and those who do not” (59). Yet, Paul “simultaneously affirms that God has not rejected his people’” citing Romans 11:2 (59).

Ben Witherington’s chapter is similar in its conclusions to McKnight and Bird, although focusing largely upon Galatians. Yet, when discussing Romans 11:26, Witherington contends, “in the end . . . [Paul] foresees an eschatological miracle of conversion of Jews to Jesus Christ” (76). “For Paul, Israel still has a future but that future was `in Christ’” (77). He notes that, ”Jesus is both the Messiah for Israel and the savior of the gentile world” (77). Witherington points out that Paul’s understanding of Israel’s place in redemptive history eliminated any further sacrifices for sin, a Levitical priesthood, and a temple (78). Christ “was where the fulfillment of Israel’s future and Israel’s mission could be found going forward” (79).

God’s Israel and Israel’s God is a helpful survey of Paul’s relationship to Israel and his people. It provides us with the lay of the contemporary Pauline landscape. The volume also demonstrates how far from the Pauline center dispensationalists are and will remain when it comes to the eschatology of the New Testament.

I recently finished Christoph Heilig’s book dealing with Paul’s implicit and explicit critique of Roman power and emperor worship: The Apostle Paul and the Empire. Does Paul include hidden criticism of Rome in his letters as N. T. Wright contends? Or Is John M. G. Barkley correct when he challenges Wright’s contention that Paul was openly anti-imperial throughout his letters. Although Heilig sides with Wright, he wrestles with the basic question, “if Paul did include anti-Roman critiques in his letters, how would we know? What should we be looking for?”

Appealing to a wide array of ancient sources, Heilig makes an interesting case that Paul’s use of the phrase “triumphal procession” in 2 Corinthians 2:14 is indeed an embedded critique of Rome.

I’m finished working my way through John M. G. Barley’s book Paul & the Power of Grace—background work for season three of the Blessed Hope Podcast series on 1 Corinthians. It is an abridged version of his larger work, Paul and the Gift, which several (Moo and Schreiner) have pointed out is perhaps the most important book on Paul in the last twenty years. I am especially appreciated Barclay’s discussion of the new creation (Galatians 6:11-18) and his take on Romans 9-11. His treatment of grace and power in 1 Corinthians is also insightful.

Barclay aims to correct the New Perspective (NPP) view of “in by grace, stay in by works,” opting for “in by grace, stay in by grace,” while otherwise accepting the NPP understanding that Paul is primarily concerned with the Jew-Gentile relationship in the churches. I must confess, it is a joy to read

Richard Gaffin’s latest book has been long awaited by his former students as well as those who love the works of Geerhardus Vos, since Gaffin has done so much to perpetuate interest in Vos’s work and stands in the Vossian tradition. In the Fullness of Time: An Introduction to the Biblical Theology of Acts and Paul, is an expanded and edited version of Gaffin’s class notes from his Acts and Paul course, which he taught for many years at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia. I wish more professors would do this.

The book is packed with exegetical gems and insights drawn from Acts and Paul’s letters. These are largely tied to the central motif in Gaffin’s book—the centrality of Christ’s resurrection and its impact upon much of Paul’s theology. Although the Fullness of Time does not merely replicate Gaffin’s previous book on the subject (Resurrection and Redemption, P & R, 1978), he does expand and build upon a number of points first made in that volume.

Gaffin is particularly strong on discussing Pentecost in light of the broader course of redemptive history, noting that “Pentecost must be seen in the context of the coming of the kingdom, fully eschatological in its arrival in the person and work of Christ, the church is the dwelling place of God in the Spirit in its consummate form short of the return of Christ” (154). At Pentecost, God gives his church all it needs to thrive in union with the Lord until his return. Therefore, Pentecost is not a repeatable event, and its significance to the history of salvation must not be overlooked.

There are many insightful points Gaffin makes regarding the significance of Christ’s resurrection, but one illustration must suffice. Yet it is one which I think both theologically important, as well as comforting. “Christ’s resurrection is the guarantee of our resurrection in the sense that his resurrection is nothing less than `the actual beginning of the general epochal’ event”—a point he draws from Vos (306). Christ’s resurrection ensures both the certainty of the resurrection of all those presently in union with him at the end of the age, as well as Christ’s return on the last day. The one (Christ’s resurrection as the beginning, or “first-fruits”) guarantees the other (the Lord’s return as the epochal event).

My one gripe with the author reflects a long-standing difference of opinion within the Reformed camp. And that is Gaffin’s insistence that “justification flows from union with Christ” (196) and that “for Paul, justification flows from union; it does not occur prior to or apart from union” (406).

My take is that justification occurs through faith (the instrument), which establishes our union with Christ (and all his merits) through a bond now formed by the Holy Spirit. Paul speaks of God justifying the ungodly (Romans 4:5), not justifying those presently in union with Christ. I find Gaffin’s formulation confusing (especially given the priority of faith to justification in Paul’s ordo salutis), and theologically problematic because those justified are said to be sinful when justified, a point which Gaffin’s construction does not explain. Yes, union with Christ is an essential aspect of Pauline theology, and one which Gaffin correctly points out has been far too often overlooked. But the nagging question remains. “Which comes first, the chicken (justification) or the egg (union)?” I vote for the chicken. That said, it is correct to affirm that the justification of the ungodly through faith does indeed establish a union between the now justified sinner and the Risen Christ.

That criticism aside, this is an important book filled with useful exegetical insights.