I began sorting through the differences between the “Lutheran” view of Paul versus the so-called “New Perspective” in some posts last fall. Below is a summary with links of the ground we've so far plowed:
1) First, some historical background regarding Luther's conflict with the Catholic hierarchy which led him to respond with some task theology on righteousness and justification:
Why Luther Opposed Indulgences
2) Second, the popular Protestant view on righteousness and justification based upon Luther's work:
Is Imputed Righteousness Really a Thing?
Righteousness in Protestant Theology
Righteousness in Protestant Theology II
3) Third, The "New Perspective" on Paul's Theology of Righteousness and Justification:
New Perspective Challenges to the Protestant Theology of Righteousness
We're now ready to move on as I continue to pursue the background of Luther's views and critique his views in light of the New Perspective, while continuing to review where we've been.
Martin Luther, like most biblical interpreters, turned to Scripture for guidance in every day life. He discovered what he believed to be something of a parallel between the situation Paul addressed in books like Romans and Galatians and what Luther himself confronted in the Catholic Church. The parallel that Luther saw was that of legalism in both the Judaism of Paul’s day and the Catholicism of Luther’s own time.
Both the Judaizers of Paul’s day and the Catholic hierarchy of Luther’s were allegedly teaching salvation by works. Paul’s proclamation of “justification by faith” was understood by Luther as a corrective against Jewish legalism, especially as it had infiltrated the church.
Perhaps Luther’s first mistake was equating “justification” with “salvation” as if they were synonymous terms. His second mistake was to assert that Paul was opposing legalism, or “salvation by works.” As N.T. Wright has explained, Luther and later Protestantism had wrongly assumed that Jews of Paul’s day thought they made themselves right with God by pulling themselves up by their moral bootstraps. [1]
E.P. Sanders was the first to publish a comprehensive study to demonstrate that Second Temple Judaism had long been misinterpreted as a legalistic religion. His book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, defends Judaism against the charge of legalism by quoting extensively from primary Jewish sources. What Sanders did not develop, however, was a theology of “justification” that went beyond the Lutheran understanding. [2]
Here is where N. T. Wright has picked up the ball and ran with it. He argues that Paul’s phrase “justification by faith” was not a corrective against Jewish legalism. The Hebrew Scriptures had already taught that salvation is by faith and not by works.
'Justification' does not refer to a point in time at which one is saved, but it is the declaration that one indeed demonstrates being in a right standing with the court. As opposed to being a polemic against legalism, “justification by faith” is how one demonstrates that they are in the right. This demonstration is not by works, meaning not by works of the law which set people apart based on “ethnic identity markers” prescribed by Moses. On the contrary, Paul argues that the justification of one’s belonging to God and his people is by faith in Christ and not by works of the law of Moses.
The issue in Romans was not whether one is saved by faith or by works, but that one's right standing before God is declared by one's faith in Jesus apart from Jewish rituals such as circumcision and Sabbath keeping. Gentiles do not have to become Jews to show that they’ve been incorporated into the people of God. All they need is faith in Christ. Through this faith they are justified as belonging to the membership of God’s people.
This faith is not passive, however, but is proved genuine on the basis of works—not works of the law, however, but works of love. One cannot claim to have faith by simply telling a needy person to be warmed and filled without meeting their needs (James 2:14-19). One is justified by works and not faith alone. But again, this justification is not the same as salvation. We are not made right before God by our works. But our good works declare that we have indeed been made right.
We don’t do good works to be saved but because we are saved and its vitally important that we get that order right. To do otherwise is indeed legalism, but “New Perspective” scholars contend that legalism was not the problem Paul was up against in Romans and Galatians. This means that Luther was mistaken in his comparison of Second Temple Judaism with the legalistic Catholicism of his day.
The question is how any of this changes how Romans is taught or understood. That's next.
[1] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 19.
[2] Ibid., 114.
Comments