Full Text for Romans- Volume 40 - Paul according to Non-Lutherans (Video)

No. 40. >> This study of Romans has been terrific. Thank you so very much. As we close I want to ask one more question about Paul's writings. Especially Romans and Galatians. I understand that these two epistles have been very important in Lutheranism. And that Lutheran theology has been greatly influenced by Paul. What is said today about Paul by those who are not Lutherans? >>PROFESSOR DAVID I. M. LEWIS: Nick, I would like to thank you for your kind words. And Nick, I would like to thank you and the others for your questions and for your interest and for your participation in this study of the epistle to the Romans. And I encourage you to read through this great letter of Paul again and again in your daily devotions and in your study and preparation for preaching to make use of what you've learned as you approach the epistle to the Romans. And then as you approach the other letters that Paul has written. And to make use of this not only in your devotional life. But then to bring this out in your teaching and preaching. And to with the Spirit's help apply this to your people in a way that would make what Paul says real and living for them today. This is the challenge of us as pastors when we study God's Word. To bring this to our people in ways that will have an impact upon their faith and upon their Christian life and their walk with Jesus. And our life together in the community of the church. Again, I thank you for your kind words. And in closing I think it is important that we do briefly discuss other interpretations of Paul. Again, Romans and Galatians are very central to our Lutheran theology. They are two books that Luther praised above all other books along with the Gospel of John, Ephesians, I Peter and I John. Romans and Galatians were favorite epistles. And he argues the Gospel was made most clear here than anywhere else in the Bible including the rest of the books of the New Testament. And very central to Luther's understanding was that theme of justification. That one motif of talking about salvation that we as Lutherans tend to see as the center of our theology. That our standing before God depends upon his declaration, his verdict, that we are righteous for the sake of Jesus Christ through faith in Jesus Christ. That understanding is very central to Lutheran theology. But now you ask: How do others today speak about Paul who are not Lutheran. I would first like to very briefly summarize the eastern Orthodox and the general Roman Catholic position when they approach Paul. And this is one traditional argument that they have always made about Romans and Galatians. Is that when they think about the law, a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from the law, it has been a traditional interpretation of eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism that the law there is referring only to the ceremonial law. In other words, the Gospel means that we do not have to be circumcised, eat kosher, observe the Old Testament feasts and the Sabbath. That we are free from those things. But the understanding, of course, is that the moral law is applied and we are called to live according to the moral law in an effort to win God's favor. This is an aspect of both eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic preaching. Now, among Protestants the Lutheran understanding of Romans has predominated throughout the centuries. Yes, there are the Calvinists who have read double predestination into Romans Chapter 8 and Romans Chapter 9. But the Lutheran understanding that justification by faith has been the central motif of Paul has been the understanding of Protestantism until about the middle of the last century. And you've heard me mention this before: The new perspective on Paul. Well, the new perspective is a reading of Paul that is going against that traditional Lutheran understanding. Three names that I think you should know about in this new perspective are EP Sanders, James Dunn and NT Wright. EP Sanders is the man that's credited with first bringing the new perspective into prominence. James Dunn is a scholar that has done some work beyond EP Sanders. And then NT Wright is a famous evangelical conservative Bible scholar today who also represents the new perspective in his own way. Now, the historical background for the new perspective really does arise from the end of World War II and the Christian community becoming mindful of the Holocaust and the role that anti-Semitism has played in our relationship with the Jewish people. And I would argue on the basis of Romans 11 that there is never any room for anti-Semitism in Christianity based on the heart that Paul had for the Jewish people. But nevertheless, when Christians realized this, they began to reevaluate our relationship to Judaism. And this brings us to the work of EP Sanders who studied Christianity in light of First Century Judaism. And EP Sanders argued that the Lutheran understanding of Paul was actually incorrect. And this is how he would argue it: When we say that the central motif of Paul is justification by faith that is always held in opposition to justification by works. So then what is being held in contrast is faith and works. And justification by works is then read as being the way that righteousness is attained in Judaism. And therefore Judaism has been characterized as a religion of law where Christianity is a religion of grace. And EP Sanders, in studying Judaism, made the case that Judaism was not a religion of law. That in fact, grace was important in Judaism, too. That for the Jews, they were very much aware of the fact that it was by grace that God called them, brought them out of Egypt and made them his people. And so Judaism officially was not by trying to earn God's favor by doing works. It was actually about the Jews being God's people and therefore living according to the mosaic code because they were God's people. So Sanders then said that that Lutheran distinction of justification by faith as opposed to works, tended to characterize Judaism in an unfair way as being a religion of works. And so what Sanders proposed was a term called covenantal nomism as the relationship of what Judaism was really about. That they were in the covenant by grace. But now they remained in the covenant by obeying the torah, by obeying the law of Moses. And this was kind of a unique approach that Sanders argued is that every religion has two major points: How do you get in and how do you stay? Well, Judaism you get in by God's grace and call. You stay in by observing the mosaic law. And Sanders would argue that the Jews didn't have to do it perfectly. There was some knowledge that they might stumble along the way. But they had to try their best. That's how they stayed in the covenant. And then he said that all Paul learned was not that works aren't effective. But Paul learned that Jesus was the Messiah. And this is what then led Paul to leave Judaism and go into Christianity was the assumption that Jesus was Messiah and Savior. And so because Jesus has come, this is why the mosaic code doesn't apply anymore in the new age. Because something decisive has happened. Jesus has come. But now in Christianity you have the same issue of getting in and staying in. And this is what Sanders says Paul argues is that we get in through justification. We stay in through participation with Christ. And now this is why for Sanders, instead of justification by faith being the central motif, participation with Christ becomes the central motif. In other words, how do we stay in the Christian faith? Well, by participating with Christ in his crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection. By living that new life in the Spirit. And I would say two things: I think Sanders gives us a good challenge. Because our study of Romans has shown that that participation talk is in Paul. Romans Chapter 6. We Lutherans should learn to talk that way. However, the dangers of Sanders is that he does present this in a very legalistic way. In other words, he argues that both religions are religion of grace. However, if the focus of my life is I've gotten into the religion by God's grace but now what I do keeps me in the faith, I would argue in a roundabout way, you still get back to the law. And in fact, I would say this is what was going on in First Century Judaism. Yes, theoretically it may have been a religion of grace. But what we meet in the gospels and then in Paul is that many Jews did believe that their standing before God depended upon their observance of the law, including the ceremonial law. And they erred in that. And Paul even makes the case that's why they miss Jesus because they thought their obedience established their relationship. And actually it's Jesus that does. Well, this was EP Sanders. James Dunn modified Sanders only in a bit. Sanders was willing to see Paul as contradicting himself in his writings in many and various ways. One way Sanders points out is that Paul on the one hand says that the law does not apply. And then on the other hand he says that the law does apply. And Sanders believes that Paul was simply contradicting himself. And what Dunn said in response to this is that Paul was not contradicting himself. But Dunn actually goes back and says that eastern Orthodox-Roman Catholic understanding was right. That when Paul says law in Romans, he refers only to the ceremonial law. So that the ceremonial law does not apply to the Christians anymore. But the moral law does. And of course this is very different from Luther who says that Christ was the end, the termination of the law. That none of the mosaic law applies anymore. And then NT Wright is probably the biggest name today in the new perspective. And Wright differs from Sanders and Dunn in a lot of his arguments. But the big thing about Wright is he says the Gospel is not a system of salvation. But it's really more of a political reality. It's that Jesus is Lord. And then stemming from this, Jesus is Lord. He will judge some people and save others. And so that salvation is actually a corollary of the Gospel. But that the Gospel is really that God's reign is established in Jesus. And then NT Wright argues then that the Lutheran emphasis upon salvation gets the Gospel wrong. Wright also believes that justification is not the central focus of the Gospel. That actually it is God's election and predestination and calling. And no surprise, NT Wright happens to be a double predestination Calvinist. You can look for the works of these three men. I would recommend "Paul: A Short Introduction" by EP Sanders. And I would recommend "What Paul Really Said" by NT Wright for very brief introductions to what two of these men think Paul meant. And note the new perspective is very much an interpretation of Paul that is going against the traditional Lutheran interpretation especially as saying that the doctrine of justification by faith was not the central motif to Paul's teaching but that something else was instead. And so this is indeed a very big challenge to us as Lutherans.