Reading Paul: The New Perspective and why it matters.

Some topics in biblical scholarship rarely, if ever, make their way outside of academic circles into the lives of everyday followers of Jesus. This breaks my heart. 

I get it, I do. 

But sometimes, these topics quite literally revolutionize the way the present-day church reads the bible, which will, in turn, transform Christian communities, worship services, prayer verbiage, outreach, and numerous other life elements for the people of God.

The New Perspective on Paul is one of those beautiful discoveries that rarely leaves academic circles but sheds light on some common misunderstandings about God’s mercy and the purpose of the Old Covenant (specifically, the law). 

This is my attempt to share some of the deeply valuable truths that came out of the New Perspective on Paul conversations over several decades and why this understanding can enrich your depth of love for God and scripture.

**Disclaimer** Many will take issue with my attempt to reduce this topic to such a narrow scope and explain it so minimally; however, I believe that in this brief overview, I have maintained the integrity of the arguments and have not misrepresented perspectives on Paul in my attempts to simplify and sum up the discussion.

“The Problem of the Law” in Paul.

For centuries (pretty much since the Protestant Reformation), ancient Judaism was viewed as a “works-based religious system.” This means that if faithful Jews followed/obeyed God’s law (given to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai), they essentially “earned” God’s promises of provision, favor, and rescue in times of need. In other words, if we follow all the rules, we legally earn our right to freedom and blessing. Scholars also looked at Romans 7:7-25 and believed Paul was saying, “No one can actually follow the Law perfectly; it’s too challenging. If obeying the law is how we all get to receive God’s goodness, we’re all doomed because we just can’t.” Paul’s letter to the Romans seems to provide the antidote to this problem by contrasting “good works” that merited God’s favor with grace through Jesus Christ, a greater avenue for God’s favor.

In 1977, a scholar named E. P. Sanders challenged this understanding. In his famous work Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Sanders argued that ancient Jewish law functioned within a covenant framework where God is gracious and merciful, providing rescue through repentance and sacrifice. Sanders pointed out (correctly, by the way) that ancient Jews never believed the law could exist apart from God’s grace and mercy, and thus Jews never believed that people could be “saved” (or protected and blessed by God) simply by obeying the law. Sounds good, right? We focus so much on how the law falls short of what we need that we forget the Bible is riddled with promises in the Old Testament where God always made it clear; His grace and mercy make up for where we fail the Law. So Sanders gives us a “new perspective” from which we view God’s Law and covenant that recovers things lost over time.

Here’s the rub though. 

Paul seems to contrast the Law of Moses with the grace of Jesus Christ (Rom. 9:30-10:13). Paul makes it sound as though Jewish Christians are seeking their own righteousness through the Law, but not through grace and mercy. How is this possible if the Law includes God’s grace and mercy? There’s a contradiction here. Paul even says, “No one will be justified in his sight by the works of the law” (Romans 3:20a; see also Galatians 2:16, 3:10). Paul makes it sound as though God’s law requires perfect obedience for it to work. And since no one can perfectly obey, it doesn’t work.

Hang on. Keep reading.

Sanders decides in his book that because ancient Jews did not believe the promises of God were earned by good works, apart from His grace, then Paul’s theology is self-contradictory, heavily un-Jewish, and in conflict with the Old Testament.

You’re thinking, “So this guy decided that Paul, the author of most of the New Testament, has bad theology‽”

Yeah… Hence the phrase “The problem of the Law in Paul,” which showed up in academic circles.

Okay. So what are the solutions to this problem in the New Perspective?

Real quick, and stay with me here.

There were a few solutions presented over the last few decades that scholars offered to this supposed problem with Paul’s theology.

A renowned scholar, James Dunn, is actually the guy who coined the term “The New Perspective.” He argued that Paul’s “works of the law” do not mean moral commands of the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament) but only Jewish ceremonial markers, specifically circumcision, food laws, and sabbath keeping. Said differently, the things that made a person Jewish in a pagan world are the things that make a person right with God, according to Jewish opponents of Paul, and therefore, gentile Christians (and everyone else) cannot be included in God’s covenant. According to Dunn, Paul was just pushing back against this specific teaching but was not rejecting God’s Old Covenant entirely.

This perspective has been somewhat debunked over time. The biggest reason why? Paul is definitely talking about both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 1:18-3:20) and specifically refers to moral works of the Law as well (Rom. 4:1-8). Paul cannot be referring only to pious Jews when all mankind is referred to as being “under sin” (3:9-20).

Other solutions were offered, and they created new problems instead of solving old ones.

So what is the answer? 

Ready?

Psalm 143.

Read it.

Paul is actually quoting from Psalm 143:2 in Romans, “No one alive is righteous in your sight” (CSB).

The psalmist believes it is impossible to be righteous before God apart from God’s covenant promise of mercy. The source of God’s mercy is not the Law or the sacrifices offered; it is God’s “covenant love and truth” (Exod. 34:6-7; Ps. 25:10, 40:11), and when the psalmist responds to God’s heartfelt love and mercy, he chooses to obey God. This means that in ancient Jewish thought, God always planned on human beings not measuring up, having them approach him with repentance, and forgiving them because He is merciful, something He promised to be within His intimate covenant relationship (Psalm 143:1, 6, 8, 9). In this view, God’s mercy is not a response to sacrifices and rituals. Instead, sacrifices and rituals are a response to God’s mercy.

To recap: Where Sanders was correct - 

Israelites never believed they could be saved by works alone. They always believed in God’s mercy to save them. Christians misrepresented Judaism for centuries by assuming otherwise.

Where Sanders missed the mark -  

Paul was not being incoherent or contradictory and was not misrepresenting ancient Jewish theology.

Paul was pointing out to all human beings that God’s grace and mercy are not a response to good works. Instead, God’s grace and mercy draw human beings into obedience and deeper love, and there is no obedience and good works outside of covenant love with God (See also Psalm 130:3-4; Isaiah 59:1-15; Daniel 9:4-19).

It is impossible to “observe the law” outside of the gracious framework of God’s covenant promises.

Okay, Joey, why does any of this matter? This sounds like it could have stayed in academic circles.

Here’s why it matters.

Many Christians misunderstand the Bible and think it teaches that God used to force people to try to obey laws they could never obey, just so he could guide them into wanting to accept grace through Jesus. In actuality, people in ancient cultures would have become very good at following laws like this. We blow out of proportion the difficulty of following the Mosaic Law. Paul himself points out how successful he was at being a law-following Pharisee (Philippians 3:4-6). Obeying the law is not Paul’s issue, and we are grateful to Sanders for pointing this out to us. Israel always believed that God’s promises needed His mercy for when the people veered into idolatry and made mistakes.

Now we know that the issue Paul was addressing is that many people believed they could obey the law of Moses apart from being in a loving, committed relationship with God Himself. Paul states that this simply isn’t possible because it is God’s loving grace that makes God’s Law profitable in the first place (Rom. 3:21-23), and that grace has now been perfectly revealed in Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:23).

In the end, ancient Jews did not believe good works could save them without God being merciful. They did, however, believe God’s mercy was a failsafe for sin, and Paul set the record straight: All those who confess Jesus is lord are, in fact, saved by God’s law, because God’s law always depended on Him being merciful first, and sought our obedience second (Rom. 10:9-10).

By the way, biblical scholars Frank Thielman, Andrew Das, Jean Noel Aletti, and N. T. Wright are to thank for these beautiful solutions to “the problem of the law in Paul” proposed by E.P. Sanders.

Okay, that was longer than I wanted it to be. But now you can appreciate what the apostle Paul did for us in the New Testament, and hopefully, you have a more robust understanding of God’s beautiful grace, the Law of Moses, and how Christ perfectly fulfilled it all.

Sexual Immorality, the Human Body, and Community Holiness.

Paul’s first address to the church in Corinth articulates a unique theology of the human body and its purposes in God’s inaugurated kingdom on earth. In examining 1st Corinthians 6:12-20,  Paul addresses boundaries and abuses of freedom in the Christian life (6:12-13), God’s purpose for the human body in Christ (VS 14-20), the sinful practice of sexual immorality against both the body and the Lord (VS 14-18), and communal holiness for the collective church as Christ’s body (15-20). This paper will endeavor to explain and support the position that Paul’s theology of the human body, explicitly expressed and supported in this passage, was unique in Paul’s day and is coherent and consistent within greater Pauline literature. It will begin by addressing the wider issue at stake in Paul’s entire letter to the Corinthians.