John Locke & Eternal Punishment

Locke made it known that many considered the doctrine of eternal torment to be of “little consistent with the justice or goodness of the great and infinite God…thereby doing violence to the whole tenour of the New Testament.”[1] Far from post-modernism and the emergent movement, Locke nevertheless considered such the doctrine of eternal torment to be inconsistent with justice and goodness of God. This should not be dismissed as sentimentalism, but rather an acute awareness of the world around him and possibly reflects the heart of a man who had the potential for being a powerful preacher. One wonders to what extent his influence would’ve increased or decreased had he chosen to pursue the clergy. Locke says, “this [mortality] is so clear in these cited places, and so much the current of the New Testament, that nobody can deny, but that the doctrine of the gospel is, that death came on all men by Adam’s sin; only they differ about the signification of the word death: for some will have it to be a state of guilt, wherein not only [Adam], but all his posterity was so involved, that every one descended of him deserves endless torment, in hell-fire.”[2] The debate about ‘death’ and ‘immortality’ has apparently been raging since Locke’s day, and modern annihilationists may rest in comfort that we may indeed continue to be misunderstood as Locke was.[3]

Locke continues, “I shall say nothing more here, how far, in the apprehensions of men, this consists with the justice and goodness of God, having mentioned it above: but it seems a strange way of understanding a law, which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. Could anyone be supposed, by a law, that says, “For felony thou shalt die,” not that he should lose his life; but be kept alive in perpetual, exquisite torments? And would anyone think himself fairly dealt with, that was so used?”[4] While one may simply and silently concur with such an acute observation, there are arguments made against Locke and he takes it upon himself to clarify his remarks. 

The rejoinder deserves to be quoted in full: 

“To this, they would have it be also a state of necessary sinning, and provoking God in every action that men do: a yet harder sense of the word death than the other. God says, that “in the day that thou eatest of the forbidden fruit, thou shalt die;” i. e. thou and thy posterity shall be, ever after, incapable of doing any thing, but what shall be sinful and provoking to me and shall justly deserve my wrath and indignation. Could a worthy man be supposed to put such terms upon the obedience of his subjects? Much less can the righteous God be supposed, as a punishment of one sin, wherewith he is displeased, to put man under the necessity of sinning continually, and so multiplying the provocation. The reason of this strange interpretation, we shall perhaps find, in some mistaken places of the New Testament. I must confess, by death here, I can understand nothing but a ceasing to be, the losing of all actions of life and sense. Such a death came on Adam, and all his posterity, by his first disobedience in paradise; under which death they should have lain for ever, had it not been for the redemption by Jesus Christ. If by death, threatened to Adam, were meant the corruption of human nature in his posterity, ’tis strange, that the New Testament should not any-where take notice of it, and tell us, that corruption seized on all, because of Adam’s transgression, as well as it tells us so of death. But, as I remember, every one’s sin is charged upon himself only.”[5]  

Locke even takes up the challenge of the issue of the unevangelized, offering several thoughts. One being the promise of God to Israel, to persuade people to embrace what was revealed to them.[6] The more interesting is that Locke didn’t believe that all men had to have perfect doctrine, suggesting, “I desire those who tell us, that God will not (nay, some go so far as to say, cannot) accept any, who do not believe every article of their particular creeds and systems, to consider, why God, out of his infinite mercy, cannot as well justify men now, for believing Jesus of Nazareth to be the promised Messiah, the King and Deliverer.”[7] While he was not a systematic theologian[8], he was acutely aware that each idea was built upon each other. To remove one isn’t to devolve the other argument; each argument is independent, but yet related to the other argument. Therefore, Locke’s views were reciprocal with each other, never exclusive. Immortality and resurrection are married, and this appears in the shadow of the eschatological cross.

NQ

---

[1] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 8.

[2] Ibid, 9

[3] Modern Annihilationists may also take comfort in the knowledge that with an advocate as articulate as Locke, he was surely not alone in expressing his views.

[4] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 9.

[5] Ibid, 9.

[6] The Reasonableness of Christianity, 81. Locke appears to embrace a view of ‘limited’ knowledge for those who haven’t heard. To believe in a little, or what has been revealed to them, is enough for God. God doesn’t expect more than what he has given.

[7] Ibid,  81.

[8] Similarly, some scholars and theologians have claimed that Paul wasn’t a systematic theologian either. C.f. E.P. Sanders, Paul. This does not diminish the brilliance of Paul and John Locke; it merely showcases that perhaps they were closer aligned than many have assumed.

Karl Barth & the Resurrection

Its short and happy.

"Within history Jesus as the Christ can be understood only as Problem or Myth.

As the Christ He brings the world of the Father.

But we who stand in this concrete world know nothing, and are incapable of knowing anything, of that other world.

The Resurrection from the dead is, however, the transformation: the establishing or declaration of that point from above, and the corresponding discerning of it below."

--Karl Barth.

Karl Barth, Romans & Satan Falling as Lightning

In this fragment of the world there is detached from the world -- before the very eyes of men an in their actual hearing! -- something which gleams in the darkness and gives to the world a new brilliance; and this 'something' is -- Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased! -- God Himself, who willeth to draw the whole unto Himself, and to fashion a new heaven and a new earth. As yet we see but the image of this world and its dominion. Mighty it is, and lifted up, and very magnificent, terrible to behold, an image of gold and silver, or iron and clay and brass. But in the hidden Life of Jesus we see also the stone fashioned and detached, which smites the image upon its feet and, without any aid from human hands, breaks it into pieces. The whole image is crushed, and the wind carries it away like the chaff of the summer threshing floors. But the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth (Daniel 2:24-35). Satan as lightning is fallen from heaven, his dominion has ended; the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the heralds of His Kingdom are assuredly present.

Karl Barth, Romans regarding ch3:24-25. pg104.

Paul and the Gospel of God

I thought about going through the entire book of Romans to really deconstruct everything, but got hung up on the very first verse. Lucky me. The purpose I suppose is to really discover the text and avoid as much as possible reading into Paul what simply isn't there.

Anyway.

These are more musings and scattered thoughts. 

I got hung up on the phrase translated "gospel of God" rendered εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ in the Greek New Testament 2nd Edition. The genitive ending of θεοῦ gives us "of." But, what would be the "gospel of God" according to Paul? It is quite reasonable to assume that the Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ phrase indicates that to whom Paul considers the εὐαγγέλιον to be located in Christ. However, it isn't made explicit in this opening verse.

Thankfully, Paul explains later in v16 that he is not ashamed of this εὐαγγέλιον for (γὰρ seeming to indicate an explanation) it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes. Karl Barth says, "the Gospel is not a truth among other truths. Rather, it sets a question-mark against all truths" (1). Barth goes onto say that the resurrection is the δύναμις (power) of God (2).

In short, I think resurrection (ἀναστάσεως) is at the heart of Paul's gospel. Here are the seeds of Paul's εὐαγγέλιον which he explains in 1 Corinthians 15 and elsewhere. The δύναμις of God is shown forth in the resurrection. I think this is why Paul's εὐαγγέλιον ends not with a dead rebel but a magnificent appeal to not only the preeminence of Christ, but also that death itself is nowhere to be seen in 1 Corinthians 15:55. Death has been remade into the image of Jesus, restored beyond the grave.

Of course, this begins with Christology, as Scot McKnight suggests. This also goes far beyond what Paul says in the immediate context and far more beyond anything I am prepared to muse about at this present fading hour.

--Nick

Footnotes:

1. Barth, The Epistle to the Romans pg 35.

2. Ibid.

Lagunitas IPA, Romans and Applying to Seminary

After talking it over extensively with my girlfriend, we agreed that I should apply to Fuller Theological Seminary's MAT in Theology and Biblical Studies. I have some training in this already, having my Minor in Biblical Studies from Biola University, so that helps quite a bit, especially since I've been reading and studying like crazy for the past year, accumulating a crap load of books. Everything from Christology to gender studies to eschatology. So I applied.

I also drank an above average IPA last night.

So it's been a fun week.

I think my end-goal in seminary is to become a professor. Most likely within the realm of Systematic Theology. A good friend of mine has declared that it is his goal to one day write his own Apocrypha. I want to do him one better and write an extensive Systematic Theology that has a major appendix on the Apocrypha, maybe written by a zombified version of John Goldingay. I've just begun to plunge into the Romans debate (doing my best to remain unbiased, which won't happen) and I've compiled an extensive reading list:

Commentaries by Karl Barth, Douglas Moo, Ben Witherington and Thomas Tobin. More popular level works by Andrew Perriman will cover the other base.

Thus far, I don't quite know what to do with Romans, in the sense of theology. The historical aspect is quite clear and the themes are strong, but the area of systematizing Paul's thought remains an incoherent mystery to me. Universalism in Romans 5, Particularism in Romans 9, and Egalitarianism in Romans 16. 

A guy can dream.

Anyway, the beer was decent. You should try it. Grapefruit. Pine. A little lacking in bite.

--Nick

Karl Barth, Universal Responsibility and Hearing the Gospel

"Faith, therefore, is never identical with 'piety', however pure and however delicate. In so far as 'piety' is a sign of the occurrence of faith, it is so as a dissolution of all other concrete things and supremely as the dissolution of itself. Faiths of its own, because it lives of God. this is the Centrum Pailinum (Bengel).

There is no man who ought not to believe or who cannot believe. Neither the Jew nor the Greek is disenfranchised from the Gospel. By setting a question-mark against the whole course of this world and its inevitability, the Gospel directly concerns every man. As surely as no one is removed from the universal questionableness of human life, so surely is no one excluded from the divine contradiction that is in Christ, by which this questionableness seeks to make itself known to men. The Jew, the religious and ecclesiastical man, is, it is true, FIRST summoned to make the choice; this is because he stands quite normally on the frontier of this world and at the point where the line of intersection by the new dimensional plane (i. 4) must be veritably seen (ii. 17-20; iii. I, 2; ix. 4, 5; x. 14, 15). But the advantage of the Jew provides him with no precedence. The problem 'Religion or Irreligion' --  not to speak of the problem 'Church of World' -- is not longer a fundamental problem. The possibility of hearing the Gospel is as universal as is the responsibility to hear it, and as is the promise vouchsafed to them who do hear it."

Karl Barth, "The Epistle to the Romans" pg40, ch1 vv16-17

Karl Barth, Romans and Wrestling with God

For, where the grace of God is, men participate in proclaiming the transformation of time and of things, the Resurrection--however reservedly and with whatever skepticism they proclaim it. Where the grace of God is, the existence of the world and the very existence of God become a question and a hope with which and for which men must wrestle.

Karl Barth, "Romans" pg31, vv.4-7.

In my own life, thinking about God brings forth a paradoxical result: fear and hope. I can already see Barth's emphasis on a dialectical approach to Scripture. Negation and contradiction, or in something more akin to Kierkegaard, "paradox." Fear and hope. The fear that I will be forever separated from him. Fear of the idea that He may not exist.

Fear of God in that He exists and that He is anything less than anything that can be improved upon.

Hope that is He is better than anything I can possibly ever imagine.

--Nick

Karl Barth on the Mission of Saint Paul

Barth:

v. 13. And I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you--and was hindered hitherto--that I might [celebrate a harvest] among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles.

Many times Paul had planned a visit to Rome to satisfy his own longing and the well-known longing of the Christians who lived there. But there were still places where no beginning had been made. And since his life's work was to plant in virgin soil (xv. 20-2), he had never been allowed to choose the road which lead to Rome. Nevertheless, it remained his desire and intention to reap where he had not sown, and to cultivate ground which others had already plowed. By the will of God (i. 10), however, this had not yet been possible.

Karl Barth, "Romans" pg34, vv12-15.

For my own part, Paul's mission seems consistent, given the centrality of Rome in the early century. The center of the known world. Rome became symbolic for Paul, as when the blazing string hits the powder keg, you get cosmic fireworks. The jumping off part was Rome.

--Nick

Barth, Romans and Kierkegaard

"The man [Paul] who is now speaking is an emissary, bound to perform his duty; the minister of his King' a servant, not a master. However great and important a man Paul may have been, the essential theme of his mission is not within him but above him -- unapproachably distant and unutterably strange. His call to apostleship is not a familiar episode in his own personal history: 'The call to be an apostle is a paradoxical occurrence, lying always beyond his personal self-identity' (Kierkegaard).'"

 --Karl Barth, "Romans" pg 27 vv1-7.

Barth, Romans & Paul's Authority of God

Paul's position can be justified only as resting in God, and so only can his words be regarded as at all credible, for they are as incapable of direct apprehension as is God Himself. For this reason he dares to approach others and to demand a hearing without fear either of exalting himself or of approximating too closely to his audience. He appeals only to the authority of God. This is the ground of his authority. There is no other.

Karl Barth, "The Epistle to the Romans," pg 28. vv 1-2. CH 1.

Paul hasn't yet been to Rome that we know of, and the church has already been established. He is eager to stress his credibility and his calling, of that towards the Gentiles (Acts 18:6; Eph 3:1-3). His calling is manifest in his most comprehensive letter (that we know of), and he is eager to not only go to the symbolic "center of the (known) world" but he is also interested in possibly going further into Spain (Rom 15:24, 28). Much of the early church believes Paul journeyed to Spain, and we seem to have manuscripts that suggest it, such as 1 Clement 5. We don't know if Paul made it there, though Clement and other manuscripts seem to suggest that he did.

Either way, Paul claiming the authority of Israel's God and taking this to the already established (fledgling?) church of Rome was a strong example not only of a miracle (given the transportation and fiances required for such a letter, delivered by a woman no less [Rom 16:1-2 indicates Phoebe carried the letter and implies a possible teaching role as she explained the words Paul had written, though Barth accepts the poorly mistranslated 'Junias' and indicates that he is less likely to accept the role of female apostles in a footnote, "Epistles to the Romans" pg 535-36]). For strong textual/exegetical cases for Junia as an apostle, see footnote.

Either way, this commentary is fascinating (save for the unfortunate aspect of "Junias"). Especially for those interested in a more theological treatment of Romans.

For a bit of background, enjoy it here.

--Nick

FOOTNOTE

Eldon J. Epp, "Junia" (the entire book is a textual treat).
Richard Bauckham, "Gospel Women" pgs. 166-169.
Philip Payne, "Man and Woman, One in Christ" pgs. 65-7.
Cranfield, "Romans" Book 2, pgs. 788-90.
Dunn, "Romans 9-16" pg. 894.

Karl Barth, Romans & Human Longing

There is good reason for Paul's longing. When pilgrims on the road of God meet one another, they have something to say. A man by of value to another man, not because he wishes to be important , not because he possesses some inner wealth of soul, not because of something he is, but because of what he is--not. His importance may consist in his poverty, in his hopes and fears, in his waiting and hurrying, in the direction of his whole being towards what lies beyond his horizon and beyond his power. The importance of an apostle is negative rather than positive. In him a void becomes visible."

--Karl Barth, "The Epistle to the Romans," pg 33. On vv. 11,12. CH. 1.

James Dunn on Junia

Jimmy Dunn has written an excellent commentary on Romans. I thought his commentary on Romans 16:7 was illuminating. Cannot believe it took me this long to find this gem.

Dunn:

The full phrase (v2) almost certainly means "prominent among the apostles," rather than "outstanding among the apostles" (see, e.g. RSV, NEB, NIV, NJB, Cranfield, Kasemann and those cited by him). The straightforward description "the apostles" (contrast 2 Cor 8:23 and Phil 2:25), and the following clause, together strongly suggest that Andronicus and Junia belonged to the large group (larger than the twelve) of those appointed apostles by the risen Christ in 1 Cor 15:7 (Schnackenburg, "Apostles," 293-94, surprisingly ignores 1 Cor 15:7 when he argues that Andronicus and Junia [sic] had never "seen the risen Lord"). That is, they belonged most probably to the closed group following apostles appointed directly by the risen Christ in a limited period following his resurrection (Paul himself being aborted = born early, in order to enter this circle is uniquely appointed apostles before it closed--"last of all as to the abortion" [1 Cor 15:8]). This would give Andronicus and Junia a higher status in the eyes of Paul and others. . .We may firmly conclude, however, that one of the fiondation apostles of Christiniaty was a woman and wife."

James D.G. Dunn, "Romans 9-16" pg 894-95.

I'm not certain Junia was the wife of Andronicus, as it is never explicitly stated in the text. the inference could be there, but as it simply isn't explicitly stated, I'm content to step back and shrug. I'm with Dunn on this one.

--Nick

David Congdon, "Paul, Evangelicals & The Problem of Universalism"

David is quickly becoming a blogger that I keep returning to. Like a bad habit. Here are his thoughts about the aforementioned title. He's got a book coming out on Universalism, and he works at IVP. He's a charming fellow. Go check him out.

Congdon:

1. The Problem: Rom. 5:12-21

Few passages have exercised such a profound influence on the shape of Christian theology as Rom. 5:12-21. Moreover, as William Barclay notes, “no passage is more difficult for a modern mind to understand”[1]—though, of course, not only modern minds. The famous so-called Adam-Christ typology in these verses has vexed interpreters for centuries, particularly the universal dimension of “πάντας ἀνθρώπους” (Rom 5:12). In his treatise, “On Marriage and Concupiscence,” Augustine states that Paul does not mean “that Christ removes to life all those who die in Adam.” He then offers this interpretation:

[Paul] said “all” and “all,” because, as without Adam no one goes to death, so without Christ no man to life. Just as we say of a teacher of letters, when he is alone in a town: This man teaches all their learning; not because all the inhabitants take lessons, but because no man who learns at all is taught by any but him.[2]

Calvin, for his part, offers the standard Protestant interpretation in his commentary:

[T]he benefit of Christ does not come to all men, while Adam has involved his whole race in condemnation; and the reason of this is indeed evident; for as the curse we derive from Adam is conveyed to us by nature, it is no wonder that it includes the whole mass; but that we may come to a participation of the grace of Christ, we must be ingrafted in him by faith.[3]

Augustine and Calvin reflect the general consensus of the Christian tradition, which has insisted that passages such as Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22 are not to be interpreted as favoring a universal salvation.

Recently, the issue has become more acute among English-speaking Protestant evangelicals, who have been unimpressed with the options historically available to them: (1) a so-called Arminianism which locates salvation anthropologically in the free decision for Christ, and (2) a so-called Augustinianism-Calvinism which locates salvation in the decretum absolutum of double predestination. Two notable examples of this ongoing conversation include Universal Salvation? The Current Debate,[4] which takes its cue from the work of philosopher Thomas Talbott, especially his book, The Inescapable Love of God,[5] and The Evangelical Universalist,[6] a recent pseudonymous publication that seeks to offer a biblically grounded position on universal salvation. In these works, as well as in other articles, Rom. 5:12-21 is a central passage. While patristic theologians like Origen[7] and Gregory of Nyssa[8] and modern theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar[9] are frequently mentioned, Karl Barth is often at the center of these discussions both as a theologian and as an exegete. Barth is often accused of (or praised for) being a universalist, generally with reference to his later theology post-Church Dogmatics II/2.[10] Few, however, consider Barth’s exegetical insights into Rom. 5. By first examining the arguments for and against a universalist interpretation of Rom. 5:12-21, I argue that while Barth’s interpretation of Romans does justice to the central concerns of each side in his formulation of a dialectical anthropology in the “shadow” of a “consistent eschatology,”[11] there are certain aspects to the Pauline text itself which Barth does not touch upon that are important in the debate over universalism.

Footnotes:

1. William Barclay, The Letter to the Romans (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), 78.

2. Augustine, “On Marriage and Concupiscence,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1.5 (New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1886), Book II.46, 302.

3. Commentary on Rom. 5:17.

4. Robin A. Parry and Christopher H. Partridge, eds., Universal Salvation? The Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

5. Thomas Talbott, The Inescapable Love of God (Parkland: Universal Publishers, 1999).

6. Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2006).

7. See Origen, On First Principles, trans. G. W. Butterworth (London: SPCK, 1936).

8. See Gregory of Nyssa, The Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssa (Early Church Classics), trans. J. H. Srawley (London: SPCK, 1917); On the Soul and the Resurrection (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2.5), trans. W. Moore (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988). See also M. Ludlow, Universal Salvation: Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

9. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Dare We Hope ‘That all Men be Saved?’ with A Short Discourse on Hell (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988).

10. Oliver Crisp, in particular, has presented a cogent argument for why Barth’s theological positions in the Church Dogmatics necessitates universalism. Of course, on purely logical grounds, Crisp is entirely right. But of course Barth’s concern for divine sovereignty and his rejection of human logic as the highest value in theology prevents him from drawing the conclusion of universalism. See Oliver D. Crisp, “On Barth’s Denial of Universalism,” Themelios 29:1 (2003), 18-29.

11. See Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909-1936 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 207-40. 

For my part, Romans 5 is quickly becoming the standard text by which Universalists stake their claim. Talbott offers his opening argument based on the exegesis of Romans 5, though it should be noted that Robin Parry builds his (cogent and compelling) case around Colossions 1:15-20.

Also, having just read David's opening, I'll confess that I simply don't know what to do with Romans 5. I will read through the remainder of his arguments and see what happens.

Something else I am considering (and this would have to be explained via a scholar like Parry, Talbott and Condgon) is Paul's use of 'anthropos' in Romans 5. Is he referring to simply humanity (or specifically a human being) or is it more specific? 'Anthropos' seems to have a wide lexical use, and doesn't necessarily mean the "historical" Adam. Could it just mean "human?" Or is Paul singling out the "original" human, Adam? We shall see what happens. I'm loving this so far.

Fan boy moment: I also own Barth's commentary on Romans. I shall read his section on Romans 5 and see what comes about.

For the entire post, enjoy it here.

--Nick

An Arminian Interpretation of Romans 9-11

 I'm just now really studying the infamous Romans 9-11. Came across this.

SoEA:

Dr. Picirilli regards Romans 9:14 as the key to the passage. Romans 9:14 says, “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!” (NKJV). Paul’s point in Romans 9-11 is to show that the answer is no! God has not failed in His promises to Israel nor is He unjust in rejecting Israel because of their lack of faith.
So Paul’s main point: God is not unrighteous in His present rejection of Israel.
Sub-points in developing this main point:

1. God elects and rejects whom He pleases (Romans 9-10)
   1. He never promised, unconditionally, to save all the fleshly descendants of Abraham, Isaac, or Israel (9:6-13).
   2. He is Sovereign and has the right to save (or damn) whomever He pleases (9:15-24).
   3. He always made clear (in prophecy) that not all of “Israel” would be saved (9:25-29).
   4. He has rejected Israel because Israel has rejected salvation by faith in favor of salvation by works (9:30-10:21).
2. God has not rejected Israel after all (Romans 11)
   1. In fact, God has not rejected Israelites: any who will can be saved by grace through faith (11:1-10).
   2. The present rejection of Israel opens the door of salvation for all nations (11:11-22).
   3. Indeed, the present rejection of Israel is not “final”: Israel will yet be converted (11:23-32).

One point that Dr. Picirilli makes that I found comforting was that God desires to show mercy (Romans 9:18). If we can show that His mercy is extended on the basis of faith in His Son then we can likewise conclude that His damnation is based on the rejection of His mercy. It would follow that if Paul is establishing conditional salvation upon faith in Jesus (Romans 10:13) then he would not conclude that God would predestine the reprobate. His desire is to show His grace and mercy to all (Romans 11:32; 2 Peter 3:9) and to save all who come to Him in faith (John 6:37; Acts 13:38-39; 1 Timothy 2:3-6).

 For the link, enjoy HERE.

--Nick

McKnight, "Campbell & The New Perspective Revised"

McKnight:

In Mike Bird’s new book, The Apostle Paul, there are four views of Paul: the Reformed view by Tom Schreiner, the Catholic view by L.T. Johnson, the post New Perspective view by Douglas Campbell, and the Jewish view of Mark Nanos. Today’s post will look at Campbell’s piece.

What do you see as the major problems with the traditional reading of Paul? What do you see as the major problems with the New Perspective on Paul? Do you think Campbell’s reading helps us forward?

In essence, and Campbell gets this right when many don’t, the core of the New Perspective is a new view of Judaism and a new view of Paul rooted in that new view of Judaism. The “old” perspective on Paul, it is argued, overcooked Judaism into a works-based religion. This led to religion being man’s attempt to justify himself, and the whole gospel of Paul was read as a response to this fundamental anthropological pride. Hence, we read in folks like Tim Keller of two options: 

performance vs. grace/faith. 

I see this all over, so Keller’s not alone. The New Perspective calls this into question because it argues that “performance” stuff emerges from a view of Judaism and from a Judaism Paul was opposing.

Campbell, however, goes beyond anything being said by the New Perspective, though he agrees completely with its view of Judaism. He thinks the New Perspective explanations of Paul — Dunn, Wright, oddly not really dealing with Sanders — are not good enough and so he revises those explanations. I would say he radically revises.

For the entire review, enjoy it

--Nick