Posts
I'm almost done with Stephen Westerholm's Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The "Lutheran" Paul and His Critics. In my reading today, I appreciated Westerholm's swipes at the New Perspective, the view that Paul was concerned more about Gentile inclusion into God's people than salvation from sin. Westerholm asks why Paul would be preoccupied with Gentiles entering the community of Israel, when Paul notes that Israel, too, was sinful and under condemnation. Against the New Perspective argument that Paul before his conversion was not wracked by guilt over his inability to keep the law, since Paul in Philippians 3 says that his righteousness according to the law was blameless, Westerholm argues that Paul obviously saw flaws in his pre-Christian "righteousness", since it led him to persecute the church. That means that Paul thought salvation from sin through Christ was important. And, in response to New Perspectivists who take issue with the "Lutheran" interpretation of Paul because it superimposes Martin Luther's views on Paul's writings, Westerholm shows how some New Perspectivists superimpose liberal views onto Paul, as if Paul were a pluralist.
Actually, even in my previous days readings, I have enjoyed Westerholm's swipe at scholarly sacred cows. You know the debate about whether Paul intends "faith of Christ" or "faith in Christ" when he uses the phrase, pistis Christou? Westerholm goes with "faith in Christ", but he also does not see the point of the debate, since both sides agree that Paul thought people were saved by Christ's work of faithfulness, and yet needed to believe in Christ. And, against those who say that "Torah" and the Greek word Paul uses for it, nomos, are different, with "Torah" meaning "teaching", and nomos meaning "law", Westerholm demonstrates that the Pentateuchal writings present themselves as law, and also that the Book of Ezra uses an Aramaic word for "law" or "decree" when translating "Torah".
Overall, I have appreciated Westerholm's interaction with the issues of legalism and grace. He points out that Judaism had grace, as did Pelagianism (which Augustine attacked as works-based) and Catholicism (which Luther deemed to be legalistic). Yet, as Westerholm notes, there was a strong component of obedience in Judaism, as Jews needed to observe the Torah to stay in the covenant. Westerholm contrasts Paul with Judaism, portraying Paul as a believer in righteousness by receiving God's free grace. But, while Westerholm mentions the concern some have raised that Paul himself has a notion of obedience, he does not (at least so far) successfully exculpate Paul from the possible charge that his beliefs can lead to legalism, since Paul holds that doing good works coincides with being a justified person. Westerholm says that Paul views good works as a product of grace, whereas Judaism did not believe that one needed to be spiritually transformed to obey God's law. But, if good works are a product of grace, why does it feel as if I'm the one doing them? And why do they take effort, on my part?
