Posts
Today, I didn't get much read of Stephen Westerholm's Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The "Lutheran" Paul and His Critics. In terms of the question I have asked as I've read his book and N.T. Wright's Climax of the Covenant---whether Paul viewed the law as for Israel alone or for Gentiles as well---I got a little more light on Westerholm's views on this. For Westerholm, Paul maintained that God gave the law to Israel, and the Gentiles who were trying to become a part of God's covenant people through circumcision and Torah observance were barking up the wrong tree, for Paul argues that the Torah did not help Israel all that much on account of Israel's disobedience. At the same time, Westerholm states that Paul regards Gentiles as under the curse of the law because they have violated God's moral requirements of them, which happen to be in the Torah of Israel.
My impression so far is that Westerholm essentially believes in the Lutheran Paul, the one who emphasized justification (being declared in the right by God, or forgiveness) by receiving God's free grace, rather than through obedience to the Torah, which involved doing works and could encourage boasting. I think that Westerholm does well to interpret Paul's writings in this manner, but I'm curious about how he'll handle passages that are not exactly consistent with the Lutheran Paul. The Lutheran Paul, prior to his conversion to Christianity, was wracked with guilt at his own inability to observe the Torah, but Paul in Philippians 3 says that he was blameless in his Torah observance before he became a Christian. The Lutheran Paul after he became a Christian, like many evangelicals, perhaps would have recognized his own sinfulness and weaknesses, notwithstanding his innocent status before God, but Paul, by contrast, says at times that he has a clean conscience and is blameless. Westerholm has referred to these points as he has fairly summarized the views of New Perspective scholars, but I wonder how he addresses them.
