Westerholm, Stephen. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The Lutheran Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, pp. $40.00.

Transcription

1 Westerholm, Stephen. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The Lutheran Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, pp. $ In the past quarter century, no single discussion in New Testament studies (perhaps biblical studies) has elicited as much debate and division as the doctrine of justification. The debate has become, in many eyes, a battlefield of sorts. In fact, the battlefield may serve as a metaphor for the manner in which the lines have been drawn. Though seemingly each scholar has his or her own unique twist on interpreting Paul, he or she is but a single militia that serves part of a greater army. Regardless of the number of militia, there seem only to be two sides to the battle: Old and New. Usually traced to the publication of E.P. Sanders s work Paul and Palestinian Judaism, the new perspective on Paul has arisen since as a dangerous threat to the old ( Lutheran ) perspective. Some thirty years later, the debate seems only to be increasing, rather than abating, and one wonders how it might end. In battles such as these, one often loses sight of the areas of agreement and the exact beginnings of the conflict. In his work Perspectives Old and New on Paul, a substantial revision and addition to his earlier Israel s Law and the Church s Faith, Stephen Westerholm attempts to present the issue of Paul s view of justification by means of an assessment of the history of interpretation, beginning with Augustine and moving to the present. Summary Westerholm divides his work into three parts. Part One is a survey of the Lutheran Paul through an appraisal of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. Part Two is a survey of twentieth century responses to the Lutheran Paul. Part Three contains more of Westerholm s own thoughts as he discusses the historical and Lutheran Paul through a discussion of various definitions, biblical evidence, and issues related to the Law. 1

2 2 Part One consists of five chapters. The first four chapters survey, in turn, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley s understanding of Paul. In each chapter, Westerholm attempts to give each author his own voice, yet common themes of human nature after the fall, the function of the Mosaic Law, justification apart from works, and election are discussed in each chapter. Westerholm completes each chapter with a summary of the main points of each one s understanding of Paul. In chapter five, Westerholm attempts to find points of comparison among the four views. He thus presents seven theses, the first five which are points of agreement, while the final two mark areas of disagreement that will become important in later scholarly arguments. The five similarities are: a common understanding of the corruption of a formerly good human nature at the fall; justification by grace through faith apart from works; a belief that humans can contribute to their justification would open the door to presumption; those justified by faith apart from works will still do good works as believers; and the Mosaic Law was given to awaken humans to sin, though it could not fix their situation (88-95). The two points of difference relate to an understanding of the remnants of sin in a believer s life after justification and the manner of divine grace that leads to justification (i.e. unconditional election or freedom of the will, 95-97). Part Two then consists of nine chapters that survey various scholars understandings of Paul s view of justification. In chapter six the emphasis is on Wrede and Schweitzer. Wrede sees Paul s fundamental point as being one of redemption, rather than justification (105). The doctrine of justification is secondary and is designed to meet a double challenge, namely that Gentile believers should observe the law or that there was a legitimate Jewish alternative to the Christian faith that saw law-keeping as the way to salvation (106). Schweitzer focuses his attention on eschatology. As Westerholm notes, Every single aspect of Pauline thought will be

3 3 explained as a consistent, logical deduction from early Christian eschatological convictions (109). Schweitzer argues for three doctrines of redemption: eschatological, mystical, and juridical. The least important of these is the juridical (justification by faith), and while eschatology is the starting point, it was in Paul s mystical views that one discovers the heart of his theology and personal religion (115). In chapter seven, Westerholm highlights the work of Montefiore, Schoeps, and Sanders, each of whom argued that Judaism is wrongly cast as a foil for the doctrine of justification by faith, not works (118). In chapter eight, Westerholm states Kümmel s case for seeing the I of Romans 7 as rhetorical, referencing the situation of all humanity, not Paul himself. Thus, Romans 7 cannot be used as an autobiography of Paul and is thus not indicative of his psychological condition before conversion (145). From this starting point, Stendahl then argues that the central concern of Paul, one that has been lost in Western tradition, is that of the relations between Jewish and Gentile believers, and the understanding that justification by faith apart from works of the law is the assertion that Gentiles would become part of the people of God without having to pass through the law (147). Chapter nine returns to discuss Sanders s position in more detail, along with the work of Bultmann and Wilckens on the righteousness of the law. The question that arises in these scholars works is whether Paul saw the righteousness of the law as something good (Wilckens), bad (Bultmann), or indifferent (Sanders) (150). Chapter ten looks at Drane, Hübner, and Räisänen and their agreement that any attempt to reduce Paul to a coherent scheme is a failure (165). Chapters eleven and twelve then pit the views of Wright, Dunn, and Donaldson against Lutheran responses from Cranfield, Schreiner, Das, Thielman, and Seifrid. Chapter thirteen considers other perspectives such as Laatos s discussion of Paul s anthropology, Thuren and Aletti on Paul s rhetoric, Martyn on Paul s apocalyptic worldview, and Becker on Paul s

4 4 theology of the cross. Finally, Part Two ends with a collection of quotes from those who challenge the Lutheran view of Paul. Part Three begins with three chapters on definitions. The first of these chapters (chapter 15) attempts to define righteousness in Paul. In order to accomplish this task, Westerholm creates English equivalents to the various Greek terms with the dikaio- root. His primary focus is on dikaiosness, otherwise dikaiosune in the Greek. He then discusses ordinary, extraordinary, and divine dikaiosness and the relationship of dikaiosness to the covenant. In chapter sixteen, Westerholm defines nomos, or the law, in Paul. Westerholm notes that some of the discussion on dikaiosness overlapped with discussions of nomos so his goal in this chapter is to extend the discussion to include five main observations: 1) Paul typically uses law to refer to the Sinai legislation, though it can at times be used for the whole of the OT Scriptures; 2) Paul understands the Sinai laws as commandments that need doing ; 3) law and gospel are in contrast with each other; 4) Paul does not use nomos to mean a perversion of the law held by legalistic Jews of his day ; 5) Paul s use of nomos is paralleled by Hebrew use of torah (297). In chapter seventeen, Westerholm responds to Sanders s view of grace in Judaism. He first presents and then subsequently critiques Sanders s position that getting in to the people of God was by grace, whereas staying in was by works (341). The next section in Part Three is the biblical evidence that Westerholm marshals in defense of his understanding of Paul s view of justification by faith. In chapter nineteen, he then attempts to demonstrate Paul s understanding of the role of the law for the Christian by means of a presentation of several theses. Finally, chapter twenty briefly summarizes both Westerholm s perspective on the subject as well as highlighting some of the main contentions by the old and new perspectives espoused throughout the work.

5 5 Critical Evaluation Westerholm has done superb work in bringing the various perspectives on Paul to the reader s attention. Many who discuss these issues force scholars into Old or New Perspective and neglect the specifics of each approach. Westerholm, however, gives each individual their own voice and faithfully presents each scholar s position. In this way, one can see how even those in the New Perspective camp have radically different conclusions (e.g. N.T. Wright and E.P. Sanders). Westerholm s addition of Augustine, Calvin, and Wesley in this volume is also helpful. Presenting only Luther s position on justification would do the reader a similar disservice to those who simply define all of the New Perspective scholars under a few main ideals. When Luther alone is surveyed, one may get the impression that every reader of the Bible from Luther until Wrede read Paul the same way. However, Westerholm shows the ways in which Calvin and Wesley diverge from the position of Luther, but he also notes the significant parallels between their positions. Consequently, he is able to speak of five commonalities among the various Lutheran positions on Paul s view of justification. Additionally, the discussion on Augustine helps solidify the legitimacy of Luther s questions as they had precedent in the early centuries of the church. Moreover, Westerholm s presentation of these four Lutheran positions sets a strong foundation upon which Westerholm can show where later scholars have diverged in their understanding of Paul s view of justification. In Part Two, Westerholm provides similarly helpful discussions. As mentioned above, each scholar is given his own voice. This serves several purposes. First, it provides the reader with a clear articulation of various positions on Paul s view of justification. Consequently, one is familiar with the wide range of positions and the broad scope of the conversation. Second, providing each scholar his own voice helps the reader see influences that one scholar had upon

6 6 another. Were Westerholm simply to enumerate some central points to the New Perspective and several points of Lutheran responses, the reader would likely miss the influence that Sanders had on subsequent studies, or that Kümmel had on Stendahl, or that Wright and Dunn have had on eliciting Lutheran responses. Third, giving each scholar his own voice helps show the progression of the conversation. Though the initial factor was Sanders s work on Palestinian Judaism, the discipline has also moved to the understanding of the dikaois- root in the New Testament, and most recently to debates over the Old Testament. For example, in a recent debate at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in November 2010 in Atlanta between Wright, Schreiner, and Thielman, Schreiner spent much of his time describing the differences between his position and Wright s position by arguing that Wright sees the Old Testament as primarily ecclesiological (who are the people of God), while Schreiner himself sees it primarily as soteriological (who is and how is one saved). Westerholm s decision to discuss each scholar on his own terms helps bring out some of these emphases to show just how far the conversation has come. Though Parts One and Two are well done and extremely useful, Part Three is less so. In Part Three, Westerholm begins to discuss his own understanding of the issue. In general, the reader understands that Westerholm has aligned himself with the Lutheran camp. However, in numerous places, Westerholm uses language, arguments, or examples that can easily confuse the reader as to his precise position. There are numerous examples of such confusion. The first example is with respect to his understanding of Romans 2. This passage presents difficulties for many interpreters because Paul, so frequently in Romans (and elsewhere) declaring that justification is by faith apart from works, here says that doers of the law will be justified. More difficult still is that this passage speaks not only of Jews who were under the law, but of Gentiles.

7 7 Westerholm seems to asserting that while Jews and Gentiles are both free from the full scope of the Mosaic commandments, nevertheless they are both still responsible for the moral aspects of the law. This seems to be the best option available for Westerholm, given his following statement: Paul insists that the good spelled out in the law is the responsibility of Jews and non- Jews alike, and that all will be judged by whether or not they have done this good (273). The only other clear option available would be to interpret Westerholm as saying both Jews and Gentiles are under obligation to keep the law, but this is clearly against his position elsewhere. It seems unlikely that he is inconsistent on this point, so it must be the moral commandments that both Jews and non-jews are to keep. The problem, however, is that Westerholm has left many questions unanswered. Most obvious is the fact that he omits any mention of the moral commandments here (he does mention them elsewhere) and merely says the good spelled out in the law (273). The reader is left with little context to interpret what this good is. Second, it is unclear keeping the moral commands does not put Westerholm in the same problematic place as if he were to say that they needed to keep the whole law. Regardless of how much of the law they are required to keep, if it is the doers of the law who are justified, how can it be by faith apart from works? Westerholm certainly affirms elsewhere faith apart from works for justification, so why does he leave off his discussion of Romans 2 without solving this difficult riddle. Even if he has succeeded in showing that the Jew and non-jew only need to do the moral commands and not the whole law, he still has not cleared up the role of Romans 2 in Paul s epistle. Yet even his defense of the moral law is weak. He does too little in the chapter to defend a position for a moral law, or the good spelled out in the law, as something that ought to be kept.

8 8 Yet another confusing aspect of his work is with respect to his discussion on divine dikaiosness. He argues: God s dikaiosness is his rightness, his truthfulness (cf. v. 4), as demonstrated in his faithfulness to his commitments (cf. v. 3): a rightness that is vindicated whenever called in question by (sinful, lying, unfaithful) human beings (cf. v. 4) and by which he (rightly) judges the world (cf. vv. 5-7). (284) This definition is confusing in two ways. First, the language of faithfulness to commitments and vindication is eerily similar to the manner in which N.T. Wright describes God s righteousness, though Westerholm disagrees at most points with Wright. Yet Wright speaks regularly of God s vindication as well as his faithfulness to the covenant he has made. The second point is directly related. When Westerholm writes that God s righteousness is faithfulness to his commitments, to which commitments is he referring? It seems only natural that the commitments would be the stipulations of his covenant, thereby making covenant loyalty or faithfulness the grounds by which God is vindicated as righteous when charges come against him. Yet Westerholm spends the rest of the chapter arguing such a view. He goes so far as to say that Pauline texts never link the vocabulary of righteousness with mention of the (or even a) covenant ( ). Why, then, would Westerholm define God s righteousness as faithfulness to his commitments? At best Westerholm is confusing, while at worst he is woefully inconsistent. Conclusion The scope of Westerholm s work is quite impressive. His ability to survey with clarity and brevity the work of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and the dozens of others since is a valuable tool to anyone interested in the history and development of the debate on Paul s view of

9 9 justification. Moreover, Westerholm serves his readers well by discussing each scholar in his own right, rather than arbitrarily assigning positions to Old or New Perspective without further detailed discussion. Nevertheless, Westerholm s own position lacks sufficient clarity to contribute substantially to the debate. He does, however, provide a good starting point for further study with his attempts to define righteousness, law, and grace as they relate to justification. Thus, while one who is looking for a clearly articulated view of Paul s view of justification will likely be dissatisfied, it is unlikely that anyone seriously interested in the topic will find Parts One and Two anything other than extremely helpful. For many, Parts One and Two are so helpful that they will justify the price of the book despite its weaker third section.