The New vs. The Old
If you don’t know what the New Perspective on Paul is read this article from Credenda/Agenda. Importantly, the New Perspective denies that Paul’s focus was on the individual’s relationship to God; that Judaism was a religion of merit; and that Judaism did not resolve Paul’s burden of guilt.
I converted to the New Perspective on Paul about two years back due to the writings of Bishop Tom Wright. What confirmed it was reading Galatians over and over again. I couldn’t make the traditional reading of Galatians fit with the text. I remember reading Wright echoing something similar. He could make the Reformational/Cranfield reading work with Romans, but not with Galatians. Paul’s concern in Galatians does seem to be with Jewish Christians forcing Gentile Christians to observe the Mosaic law, but does that necessarily imply works-righteousness? Tom Wright says not really. And there’s something to this point. Tim Gallant has pointed out that if the old Reformation reading of Galatians is correct, Paul argued incorrectly. He should have argued against the Galatians attitude towards circumcision instead of arguing against circumcision per se.
I still think the New Perspective reading of Galatians is correct, but I noticed a flaw in it last night. Galatians 4:8-11 reads:
8Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.
According to Tom Wright, Paul is referencing Judaism here. The weak and miserable principles are the Mosaic covenant (see v.10). Paul always has eschatology in mind when writing, and he sees that post-cross / resurrection, the Mosaic covenant has been fulfilled. To return to it is to ignore what God has done – creating one universal family defined by faith and not by Torah. So far so good.
Now look at verse 8. Paul is clear that those to whom he is speaking did not know God before they placed their faith in Christ. This is easy exegesis from an old perspective Reformation reading. Certain Jews thought they could merit God’s favour by trusting in their obedience to Torah.
A new perspective reading is much more difficult. How can Paul say that those Jews did not know God before Christ? What was keeping them from Him if it wasn’t works righteousness?
This is an honest question. I’m not sure where to go from here.
Keith:
Remember, the Galatians were Gentile converts that were tempted to become Jews (edit: this is obvious from the fact that the Judaizers wanted to circumcize them, in case any OPPers want to dispute that). It is true that, as former Gentile pagans, they did not know God. Wright is pointing out that, for Paul, a return to the Torah post-Christ is effectively returning to the same place they were before they met Christ, without God in slavery to the elementary principles of the world.
But with enough regularity to suggest it was a priority to Paul, he makes clear the point the Law was transitory and temporary.
How does that jive? How can Judaism be a great thing for today, but also kind of a waste of time and not germane to a post-Christ world?
If it has intrinsic value, then it should be for the Gentiles too, right?
I think if we were to systematize Paul’s statements he would probably say something more comprehensive, but saying the law has some abiding value does not contradict what he says in Galatians: if you act like Christ never happened, that Christ did not bring a change to how we obey the law, then Christ died for nothing.
Oh it must have abiding value. It proceeded from God, and Christ came to fulfill it. I could never dismiss it as being useless. But again, it really has been framed for us as having a somewhat temporary nature (though paradoxically, nothing of God’s true heart can ever really be temporary).
Probably the best book on Galatians, that I highly (highly) recommend, is Moises Silva’s “Interpreting Galatians.” It might help in your understanding of Galatians.
I’d love to interact more with this, but I’m stymied by homework!
Silva is the one author I’m nervous about reading. He is a great OPP scholar and seems to have specialized in Galatians.
What’s “OPP”? Old ___ Paul ?
Old Perspective on Paul. Sorry.
I think Silva is one of the most balanced biblical scholars out there today. Very well respected, incredibly learned, and a great read. You really should check him out.
I think the judaizers’ insistence upon circumcision was more about being saved by their heritage than it was works righteousness.
The Pharisees thought they were in good with God simply via the Abrahamic blood running through their veins. They didn’t think they needed to do any work to get God’s favor. But Jesus told them they were about to get cut off from Abraham because they did not bear fruit in keeping with repentance (Matt. 3:8-10).
Paul says something similar to Jews in Romans 3. To them the oracles of God were given (vs 2), but they did not think they had to keep them. They thought being a Jew was the same as being righteous. So Paul proves them wrong by quoting a host of Psalms about unrighteous Jews (vs 9-20).
I think this fits with Paul in Gal 4 telling them that they were formerly in bondage. They didn’t even see their sin. That’s why he says the purpose of the Law was to reveal sin.
Grace and Peace in Christ.