CHAPTER 3: ROMANS 12-16 CONFLICT EXEGETICAL STUDY
3.2 Presuppositions (stipulations)
3.2.1 New perspective on Paul
While it is recognised that “there is no singular view on Paul within the new perspective on Paul”
(Witherington & Myers, 2020:1), Waldschmidt (2016:1-2) presents four key hermeneutical presuppositions of NPP:
1) Since first-century Judaism13 was a religion of grace, Paul was not critiquing works- righteousness, 2) Justification was not meant to answer the question ‘How can a sinner find a gracious God?’ but rather ‘How can Gentiles become part of the people of God?’, 3) The justification vocabulary in Paul is covenant language, and 4) Individual passages should be interpreted against a specific overarching narrative which N. T. Wright calls ‘God’s single plan through Israel for the world’.
Although the focus on an accurate reflection of the understanding of first-century Judaism that is not influenced by contemporary thinking is laudable and appreciated, a key contention is that the statement of the Word of God seems to be sublimated by the historical records.14 God’s Word alone claims and demonstrates inspiration; therefore, the perspective of Scripture stands in judgement of all other documentation. That is not to say that these secular documents are inaccurate, but that what Scripture teaches puts the documents’ possible, accurate reflection of the thinking of that time under God’s scrutiny. In Romans, for example, the historical understanding of first-century Judaism may say this is how they see the Law, but God declares that they are viewing it in a different way from how He views it. For this researcher, the NPP position is the abstraction of God’s discussion on the Jewish perspective to a secondary and inferior position.
arrogant, but that is not the reason for the position. The motivation is due to Romans 14:10-12, where each individual will be answerable to a holy, righteous, awesome God before whom no acceptable answer will be “so-and-so said this or believed that”. I want my response before God to be that I chose this understanding based on what made the most sense in this context. Dovetailing with this explanation is the very definition of conflict – how am I going to respond to this encounter? A choice must be made if resolution is to occur.
13 Sometimes it is also referred to as “second-temple Judaism” by Waldschmidt, Yinger, and others. Gilley (2012:52) believes that the NPP “stands or falls on its understanding of Second Temple Judaism”, so this is a crucial aspect of the position.
14 For example, Gilley (2012:46) believes that the NPP “places more confidence in rabbinical sources than in the New Testament”. He goes on to state emphatically that “it is impossible to study the New Testament and not conclude that first-century Judaism is clearly legalistic. Acts 13:38-39, Luke 18:14, Galatians 2:16, and Romans 3:20 and 9:30-32 would be difficult to refute.” Snyder (2004:61) points out that E.P. Sanders indeed viewed the traditional perspective on Paul (TPP) as troublesome based on its
“dependence on the New Testament and other early Christian writings for our picture of Judaism at the time of Paul”. Wendland (2015:3) credits this focus to the prevalent context of anti-Semitism at the time.
The reorientation of justification from a forensic position to an ethnocentric position15 seems to be saying that God is more concerned with the group16 than the individual17 even though He expresses His concern for the individual, and eternal punishment is what He has prepared for the unbelieving individual and not the group (Rev 20:15).18 While it is certainly insightful to highlight the “East versus West” outlook distinction, as well as underscoring the greater similarity of the Jewish culture to the Eastern perspective, it is also uncomplicated to see how Paul would be confronting the errors of that kind of thinking and not simply endorsing those thoughts. There are too many scriptural passages emphasising the sinfulness of the Jews and their rejection of Jesus19 to embrace this redefinition of justification.20
15 This concept is how Dunn’s definition has come to be understood. Dunn (1990:190) wrote: “God’s justification is God’s recognition of Israel as his people, his verdict in favour of Israel on grounds of his covenant with Israel”. The question addressed then by NPP is how to integrate the Gentiles into this community. Seifrid (2010:21) summarises the resulting conclusion as follows: “In varying ways, interpreters subsume Paul’s understanding of ‘justification’ within God’s election of Israel, an election in which Gentiles now may share”. In addition, Waldschmidt (2016:10) highlights that “it is a central New Perspective belief that Paul is not dealing with general questions about sin and salvation, but about the very specific historical issue of Gentiles being admitted into the people of God”. As Seifrid (2010:29) rightly concludes, “Paul is a defender of ‘ethnic boundary markers’! He insists only that we see them in the light of faith in Jesus Christ, in whom there is ‘neither Jew nor Greek’ (Gal 3:28)”. Seifrid’s statement aligns much more with this researcher’s observations on Romans.
16 Some refer to this as “nationalistic identity markers” (Waldschmidt, 2016:12).
17 Seifrid (2010:21) echoes this observation of NPP as he writes: “Not the salvation of the individual, but the community of those being saved stands alone at the center of interest”. However, there are those, like Gaventa (2016:41), who make a point to include the salvation of the individual within this cosmic view, but she does see this individualised view as problematic (2016:124).
18 The dearth of focus, by the NPP, on the individual leads to a deficiency of understanding that the uniqueness of the Roman context does not necessarily equate to a lack of similarity in the sinful character of man. The impact of sin brings a unity across culture and time. We are all sinners, but the only way to escape that predicament is by an individual choice. The study of conflict aids in this awareness. Even though, as Worthington and Clark (2020:15) highlight, Wu succeeds at exposing the individualistic tendencies of the West as compared to the communal tendency of the East (and that is commendable), that does not change what Paul writes in Romans. This is the renewal of the mind that 12:2 references for all believers, regardless of their biases and prejudices. Our perspectives are brought in conformity with His perspective through obedience to His Word and not simply via cultural observations. It is Wu’s conclusion that the NPP position is rightly emphasising the communal role that is problematic to understanding Romans for this researcher. This disagreement is observed and noted in several pericopes throughout the chapter. Worthington and Clark (2020:22) also note this situation;
they write: “For example, even though Romans is clear that the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome are in significant tension with each other – and this is more crucial to recognize for the entire letter than many traditional interpreters have realized – one of the ways Paul seeks to help with this major social tension is to ‘charge’ that ‘Jews and Gentiles alike’ are all ‘under sin’ (Rom. 3:9)”. And they add that
“personal sin is the corporate problem. Individual forgiveness and justification is God’s relational remedy” (2020:23).
19 Barrick (2005:291) emphasises that “if the Jews in the first century had exhibited the spirituality demanded by the OT, they would not have rejected the Messiah and they would not have been judged by exile and dispersion”. In addition, Acts 18:6 indicates Paul’s change in ministry focus due to the rejection of the Jews to the message of Christ.
20 Barrick (2005:281) bluntly states: “Paul’s antagonists were not simply first-century Jews with a grace perspective practicing so-called ‘covenantal nomism’ nor were they ‘“right wing” Jewish Christians.’
Clearly, they were first-century enemies of the faith and opponents of the gospel in particular. It is not an issue of admitting the Gentiles into the faith, but of the Judaizers themselves not being in the faith.”
As one who advocates for an overall narrative as seen in God’s Word, this researcher believes that the discussion of a metanarrative hits much closer to home and is a cautionary warning of trying too hard to fit God into a framework (which needs to be heeded), and for that the NPP is to be commended. However, the distinction that the understanding that Israel is the only mode21 of this narrative is an alteration that is objectionable to this researcher. And the focus on the restoration of creation as more significant than the reconciliation of an individual to God seems disproportionate.22 Furthermore, the idea that Jesus’ faithfulness took the place of unfaithful Israel again does not fit the discussion in Romans.23 So, while it is amenable that there is a metanarrative to God’s Word,24 to see disobedient Israel as key to that role and not an aspect of it, is difficult for this researcher to appreciate in the book of Romans.25
21 Wright (2013:497) himself states: “Paul in this passage is quoting, summarizing, and strongly affirming the sense of Israel’s vocation which we find in various strands of Jewish tradition: that Israel was the means chosen by the creator God through which to rescue the world from the plight described in Genesis 3-11”. The problem with this idea is that sin was present before the Israelites existed – God’s narrative predates Israel, but it doesn’t predate the Promised one of Gen 3:15.
22 Yinger (2011:28), who is pro-NPP, states that “for Wright the story is less about sinful individuals being rescued from judgment for guilt (although it is, for him, also about that) and more about God’s fulfilment of his purposes for all creation through Israel”. Waldschmidt (2016:24), who is not pro-NPP, states that
“for Wright, the main plot of Scripture is the story of God and all of creation … the reconciliation of humans is a sub-plot within this main plot of God and all of creation”. With less sensitivity (but likely true enough), Wendland (2015:11) decries Wright’s aim; he writes: “The goal of his project becomes clear enough. In identifying Scripture as ‘story’ he becomes free to maneuver around its plain sense. If Scripture’s ‘big story’ is about God’s kingdom, and God’s reclaiming his proper Lordship, then it’s not
‘just about how to get saved, with some cosmology bolted on the side’.”
23 Wright (2013:107) plainly states that “Israel’s obedience/faithfulness should have been the means of undoing the problem of Adam, of humanity as a whole (2:17-24; 3:2f.); as we saw, the death of Christ
… functions as the true obedience/faithfulness of Israel through which this purpose is achieved”.
Waldschmidt’s (2016:32) comment is pertinent here as he states that “this narrative needs to be read into the text”. And Waldschmidt (2016:28) writes that “a natural reading of the flow of the letter is that in the gospel God supplies us with a righteous status that we would not otherwise have”. He adds: “Thus the way of reading Romans which Wright rejects (Humans lack righteousness, but God supplies us with the status of righteousness on the basis of the sacrifice of Christ) fits the data of the letter very well”
(2011:29) – much better than this idea of Jesus’ faithfulness replacing Israel’s faithlessness.
24 For the sake of clarity, this is a reminder that this research on conflict is not promoting the idea that conflict is the key to understanding God’s metanarrative in His Word, but it is saying that conflict is important to understand as viewed within the context of God’s metanarrative – how does God use, discuss, and explain conflict in His story. As Wright (2004:138-139) points out, any framework that is brought to bear upon God’s Word misrepresents it in some way and uses the analogy of a cartographer who makes certain decisions to best represent in a limited medium what is most important to see, know, and understand, and so it is with using conflict as a lens through which to view God’s story. In fact, “the more explicit the attachment to a specific perspective, however, and the narrower the scope of that perspective, the more there is the danger of elevating a part of Paul into the whole, while simultaneously missing much of the full range of the concerns addressed in his letters”, writes Johnson (2020:5), and these cautions are kept in mind for this research.
25 What makes much more sense is the position advocated by Sun (2015:7) where Romans is about cross- cultural communication. He writes that “Paul’s letters are situational, with each letter addressing issues relevant to the recipients. Yet, Paul was able to address these varying issues by a consistent use of the OT that allowed him to root his theology in the biblical story.” He adds that “Paul’s theology was both biblical and contextual” [Sun’s emphasis].
One of the characteristics of conflict is that not everything will be resolved,26 and one needs to be at peace with this actuality. For this researcher, NPP comes across as an attempt to resolve all the issues about Israel and creates more unresolved conflict than the historical, reformational outlook.27 So, in light of the debate over the NPP, Post-NPP, and the TPP, the conclusion of Smith (2013:32) is embraced in this study of the conflict principles in Romans 12-16:
For all the complexity of these debates, which can at times be quite bewildering, the early twenty first century is an exciting time to be engaged in the study of Paul and his letters. The lively discussions of the last decades have loosened the stranglehold of traditional interpretations of all varieties and breathed new life into the study of this most controversial Apostle. If the result is that we return to the letters of Paul with fresh eyes, ready to learn again from the man from Tarsus, that can only bode well for the future of both the academy and the church. The way forward must surely be to go back, time and again, to Paul’s own letters, to pay close attention to his use of language in its first-century context, to read each section as part of the narrative whole, and to listen to this very Jewish apostle to the Gentiles proclaiming God’s victory in Christ, with ears attuned to hear the echoes of the Scriptures of Israel, and eyes open to see his polemical engagement with the Greco-Roman world.