The first time I ever heard anyone trying to describe the ‘New Perspective on Paul’, ‘covenantal nomism’, and the groundbreaking work of Sanders, Dunn and Wright in this respect, my immediate question was "And where does Romans 7 fit in?" The quick reply from the front was "With difficulty!" But now I need some urgent help.
I am still encountering those difficulties, whilst accepting that the findings, as developed through the persons mentioned above, Dunn in particular bringing a corrective to Sanders, and Wright seeing the significance for the larger picture as whole, are largely unassailable and irreversible.
Moreover, the findings enshrined in the NPP are significant for a forward momentum in a theology in a postmodern era. Wright is non-committal about this - it is not his purpose to explore theology with the needs of the postmodern environment in mind, but he does provide a theology which, in particular, moves us away from the somewhat exclusively individualistic lenses of the modern period - and the shaping effect that has on our understanding of salvation, and the corrective brought through a healthier focus on the more corporate understanding of Paul’s theology - profoundly influenced by a different understanding of the meaning of ‘justification by faith’.
But Romans 7? Doesn’t that really takes us right back to the individual, angst-ridden conscience, on which ‘modern’ theology has rested since the time of Luther? (Maybe even since the time of Augustine - in which case, it could hardly be said to be modern). The best that I’ve seen yet from the NPP apologists is that Paul is using metaphorical language, personifying the struggles of ‘the flesh’ in the argument, from which the ‘ego’ is distinct - eg Romans 7:14-19 contrasting with Romans 7:20 - "It woz sin wot made me do it, your honour!" But there is still a heck of a lot of the first person pronoun in 7:14-19.
Any flashes of illumination on Romans 7 would be much appreciated, as on Thursday evening I face trial by teaching when I meet with a group to plan a teaching series on Romans in our church community. I can’t (and don’t want to) with integrity pretend to them that the NPP has never happened, and that the introspective conscience underpinning the interpretation of Romans since Luther holds supreme sway as a framework of understanding.
Re: Romans 7 and the New Perspective on Paul
Isn’t the personal struggle that Paul describes in Romans 7 simply an illustration or exemplification of the moral ineffectuality of the Torah in contrast to the law of the Spirit of life? Not a metaphor, therefore, but a synecdoche - a part representing the experience of the whole. If that’s the case, the ‘angst-ridden’ intensity of Paul’s experience is not in opposition to a more corporate or narrative-historical account - it simply anchors the larger theological argument in the actual experience of someone who more than most sought zealously to embody the law in his own behaviour.
Paul is not ‘every man’ here. He is not the type of every person since who has found forgiveness in Christ. He is Paul the Pharisee who thought that he represented all that was right and righteous about Judaism - or about covenantal nomism. He runs into Christ on the road to Damascus and his life is turned upside down; he is no longer leading Israel down a road that will end in disaster. But he remains Paul the Jew, who suffers ‘great sorrow and unceasing anguish’ over the alienation of Israel from Christ (Rom. 9:2-3). The law is deeply engrained in him, and that personal dimension - the continuing personal experience of sin described in terms of sin’s exploitation of the law - must inevitably be taken into account when he speaks to other Jews (7:1) about how the law has been superseded in Christ.
Re: Romans 7 and the New Perspective on Paul
The first part of Romans 7, as a continuation of Romans 6, describes ‘death’ to the law, which Paul himself has already experienced - Romans 7:1-4. The passage then goes into the past tense - Romans 7:5 - reverting to present freedom in v.6. Romans 7:7-13 describes past experience; 14-24 is in the present tense, but only, it would seem, to dramatise the experience of 7:7-13. Romans 8 dramatically moves away from this experience - through the fulcrum of 7:25a and 8:1.
I can’t see that Paul anywhere suggests that he is a person still struggling with the experiences of much of Romans 7. His ‘great sorrow and unceasing anguish’ over unbelieving Israel is his pain at the majority of Israel’s rejection of her messiah, isn’t it?
I also can’t see (and neither can the NPP advocates) any suggestion anywhere else in Paul’s writings that his past experience mirrored much of Romans 7 - so the argument is that it is not autobiographical. In fact the evidence is that Paul’s conscience, then and subsequently, was very robust - eg Philippians 3:4-6. There is no suggestion elsewhere of the inner soul-searching which is what the law should have produced, according to the reformers’ understanding of Paul, and the function of the law. Neither is there much evidence that Jews in Paul’s time or since, to the present day, are people experiencing turmoil of conscience akin to Romans 7. (Though they are very picky about obeying the Torah if they are strict Jews).
It’s difficult to prise Romans 7 away from Paul’s personal experience, because of the abundance of first person statements, reaching a crescendo in 14-20. It’s just difficult, to my mind, (and NPP asserts this generally) to relate the Romans 7 passages to anything we see of Paul elsewhere. It’s very difficult to relate them to on-going Christian experience, because of the freedoms enjoined in 6, 7:1-4, & 8 - and Paul’s more or less continuous battle against the Judaisers throughout his apostolic ministry.
On the other hand, Romans 7 has been enlisted ever since in the service of a gospel aimed at anxious moralists, fearful of God and eager to please him in any way to earn his favour. This is a useful tool to deploy in speaking to serious devotees of Islam, Hinduism etc., since an an anxiety to please or placate an arbitrary deity through ‘good works’ is so much at the heart of their collective psyche. But it is not very evident these days in the average citizen of the developed world. It may be buried somewhere in strict Judaism. It may be buried in most people who are sensitive to some form of personal moral obligation. It may apply to all who strive to succeed, but are conscious of their failure. But the NPP has shown that this is almost certainly not what was meant by ‘works of the law’ - which in its 1st century meaning was to do with practices (circumcision, sabbaths, food laws) which separated Jews from the rest of mankind and boosted their sense of racial superiority. Paul was stridently opposed to these, but not to practices which had some missiological purpose (eg circumcising Timothy for the sake of doing mission in Jewish areas of Asia Minor).
It’s preplexing, unless there was some secret access Paul had to the Jewish psyche which was hidden from public view; or he was providing an otherwise hidden insight into the workings of his own soul, when he practised Judaism.
It would be convenient for me to go down the ‘everyman’ route of ‘civil war in the soul’, but though this is no doubt some (many?) people’s Christian or pre-Christian experience (and verses 7:18a-19 have been shown to echo similar statements from Roman philosophers), it doesn’t seem to me (or NPP generally) to be entirely what Paul is describing.
Or maybe it is! I’m still somewhat perplexed. Everyone seems to find these verses powerfully descriptive of some sort of personal experience - but what on earth is Paul intending to describe?
Re: Romans 7 and the New Perspective on Paul
If you could respond quite like I’m a two-year-old, I would appreciate it. I do still feel like an infant when it comes to this emerging framework. First, I wonder if you could help me understand why the NPP model and the JF model are mutually exclusive. Why can’t they be explaining relatively the same thing but through disciplines? For example, theological model and historical-narrative model.
Second, I wonder if Paul’s soul searching is akin to "working out our own salvation in fear and trembling." Isn’t this the struggle the Galatians are facing? Or the author of I John’s statments on sin. That is, "I am writing to you so that you don’t sin, but if anyone does…" At the same time, isn’t possible that Paul recalls this struggle, but has been set free from it? 7:24-25, "who will rescue me? Thanks be to God!" Followed by 8:2-3, "For the law fo the Spirit of life is Christ Jesus has set you/me free from the law of sin and of death."
Finally, are you saying that this is not a struggle that you face? I can certainly relate to these words. I do delight in God’s law in my inmost self, but rarel fulfill that law.
I may be missing the point entirely, but your response (and that of others) will be much appreciated. We are planning a conference for our denomination with a working title of "Emergent and Reformed: Church for the 21st Century." I imagine many of these kinds of things should be addressed. Thanks.
Re: Romans 7 and the New Perspective on Paul
The NPP and JF models are not mutually exclusive - but Tom Wright suggests that what has been called ‘justification by faith’ is a misapplication of the phrase, if Paul is to be understood correctly. We can still have the traditional meaning of the phrase, but it is inaccurate to call it ‘justification by faith’.
Incidentally, if it’s of any interest, I found Andrew’s first paragraph above helpful, but the second paragraph less so. I was responding mostly to the second paragraph. Also, we had the first meeting of our teaching team on Romans last night, in which I tried to summarise the difference (as I understand it) between the reformation view of JF (going back to its origins in Luther), and the NPP view - amongst many other things to do with Romans. It was a lively occasion, generating at least as much light as heat, if I can put it that way.
Romans, to me, illustrates much of the whole argument concerning NPP and JF. If the theme of the letter is taken to be "the righteousness of God" - Romans 1:17, you can see the differences in a nutshell. Traditional evangelical theology takes ‘righteousness’ as something which the gospel transfers from God to the sinner. Romans 1:16-17 tends to be interpreted this way, and the NIV mistranslates the verses in order to bring this interpretation across; likewise much of chapter 3, where ‘righteousness’ is discussed further.
If, on the other hand, you view ‘righteousness’ in a covenant framework, and take its meaning, in relation to God, to be ‘faithfulness to the covenant’, then Romans becomes a developed argument showing how God has remained faithful, and fulfilled the covenant in Jesus. (Within this framework, the problem of Israel in 9-11 is in the central flow, and not an afterthought following 6-8).
Historically, the issue of God’s faithfulness to the covenant was of crucial importance to 1st century Jews, in the light of their experiences and disappointed expectations since the return from exile. Seen in this historical light, the actions and thinking of Paul before and after his Damascus road experience can be better understood.
Within the ‘covenant’ framework, there is a secondary metaphor, that of the law court, with God as judge, in which Israel is placed through her disobedience and national failure to experience ‘forgiveness of sins’ (a topic of pressing concern to 1st century Jews). Here, God’s ‘righteousness’ is his character as judge - impartial, fair, defender of the helpless. ‘Righteousness’ only applies to the defendant (the accused) if they are acquitted of the charges brought against them. Until Jesus stood in the dock for Israel, there was no such possibility. Because Jesus was acquitted, he was vindicated as righteous. Israel’s righteousness now depends on trusting in Jesus as her representative, and obeying him as her Lord. But here is Wright’s point: the righteousness of God is distinct from the righteousness of the defendant. The metaphor does not allow for the righteousness of the judge to be transferred to the defendant.
Returning now to JF - the word ‘justification’ means ‘to be declared righteous’. (If there were a verb or noun in the English language to make clear its root identity with the word ‘righteous’, that would be very helpful). In reformation thought, ‘justification by faith’ is the gospel; it is that which describes our transfer into the kingdom of God. According to Wright et al, ‘justification by faith’ is not a description of how you are transferred into the people of God, but a description of how the people of God are to be identified. In this sense, the term is brought forward from Jesus’s vindication through his resurrection to a vindication (justification) of all who believe in him now, and brought backwards from the vindication of all who believe in Jesus on the day of judgement, so that the people of God may be identified in the on-going present.
This distinction may seem small, but it has huge implications. For we now have to ask: if justification/justified by faith is a term describing the identity of the people of God, how did the people of God appropriate that faith? Wright suggests that it works like this. There is the proclamation of Jesus’s death and resurrection: his victory on the cross over sin and death. The Holy Spirit works to create faith in the hearer. The hearer responds by giving their life in obedience, confessing with their mouth as well as believing with their heart, as Romans 10:10 has it.
So now, the gospel has become a proclamation, such as Peter gave on the day of Pentecost, before it is an explanation. To put it even more succinctly, the gospel is Jesus, before it is a doctrine about him - eg justification by faith in its traditional meaning.
Underpinning this is a view of the old and new covenants as providing ‘boundary markers’ for identifying the people of God. In the old covenant, the boundary marker was observation of the Torah - for diaspora Jews in particular: circumcision, sabbaths and food laws. In the new covenant, the boundary marker is faith in Jesus, to which one would have to add the presence of the Spirit.
Traditional reformation theology sees the function of the law as showing up our moral failure. The Jews are viewed as legalists, proto-Pelagians, trying to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. To the more honest, it leads to the cry of failure which Paul expresses in Romans 7. But Luther was profoundly influenced by the effect of medieval Catholicism (and his translation of the Latin Vulgate bible), and may have misunderstood some key aspects of 1st century Judaism. In the former (medieval Catholicism as Judaism), ‘works of the law’ are seen as efforts to win God’s favour. In the latter (1st century Judaism), ‘works of the law’ are seen as compliance with the Torah as a boundary marker of the covenant - over-zealously and ethno-centrically applied as they were. In the former, ‘boasting’ (Romans 2:17, 23; Romans 3:27) is the misguided arrogance of the moralist. In the latter, it is Israel’s sense of ethnic superiority, used by her to separate herself from the surrounding nations in a way God never intended.
In my understanding of Wright, Romans 7 in particular, and much that Paul says about the law elsewhere, show that the law had two functions: it provides the boundary marker identifying the people of God, but on a profounder level it also confines and corrals sin. God never intended that the Torah in itself should be the means of fulfilling the ultimate purpose of his covenant, which was to redeem the entire creation. That would only come through the one that Israel and the Torah brought forth - Jesus, through whom the entire distinction between Jew and Gentile was demolished - on the principle of faith.
I’m sorry this has been such a long reply. For myself, I feel the truths highlighted in the reformation understanding of JF do have to be preserved - while recognising that they sit within a rather broader perspective of Paul, which makes better sense of Romans, and his other letters: Galatians in particular. I agree with Alister McGrath, who has written a history of the doctrine of JF, when he says that if Wright is correct (about JF) then Luther is wrong; but they can’t both be correct! He concedes that the church’s historic understanding of JF may not have reflected the primary meaning of the term in Paul, for all the biblical truth which it may have contained.
Romans gains new light with these insights. In particular, the gospel is not just Romans 1:16-17 (however we interpret those verses), but Romans 1:2-4 as well - where the proclamation of Jesus as one to be believed in and obeyed now emerges with full force. There is no longer a split between ‘faith’ and ‘obedience’ - which has always dogged evangelical interpretation. Peter’s address in Acts 2 is now seen as the gospel in its full colours; Isaiah 52:7 is the ‘evangelion’ (LXX) proclaimed in its application to Jesus’s victory and reign.
Romans 1:16-17 now becomes ‘the faithfulness of God to his covenant - - - from faithfulness to faithfulness’; the latter use of ‘faith/faithfuless’ can mean God’s faithfulness, Jesus’s faithfulness, or even the faith of one party (God/Jesus) to the faith of the other party (Jew/Gentile). It relates rather more directly to verses 2-4, which previous interpretations have tended to detach from each other.
romans 7
Andrew,
I confess not to have read each comment here thoroughly, but (1) it would probably not be fair to say the NPP has a read of Romans 7, since we are dealing with three widely-different scholars — Sanders, Dunn, Wright, but (2) I suspect there is something here in the “Jewish Ego” — the one that finds “justification” (Wrightian sense) as a sociological boundary-making and that Paul struggled, as representative of that Ego, with the newness of a Gentile inclusive community.
The same Jewish Ego is found in Gal 2:15-21, at least that is the case I tried to make in my work on Galatians.
Maybe I’m off base on this on this post.
Romans 7
Thanks for the comment. It’s an honour to enter into conversation with Scott McKnight. I wasn’t wanting to suggest that Sanders, Dunn and Wright were presenting the same ‘NPP’ view of Paul and Romans 7, since Dunn and Wright in their own different ways were critiquing Sanders - as far as I can see.
I’d appreciate anything further you have to say on ‘the Jewish Ego’, as I confess I can’t see how it explains Romans 7: if one assumes that the basic thought is justification as ‘sociological boundary making’. There is too much of a struggle between wanting to do the good but being unable to do so in Romans 7 - too much of a recognition of the law highlighting the power of sin (Romans 7:8-11), as a direct echo (or re-run?) of Genesis 3, which leads to Paul’s declaration “What a wretched man I am!”.
I can only think that a combination of reformed and NPP viewpoints is needed here - not ‘either/or’, but ‘both/and’ - unless there is some different definition of ‘sin’ and ‘good’ which firmly underpins the ‘sociological boundary making’ interpretation.
I do see, however, that Galatians 2:15-21 primarily has the law and Judaism in view - especially v.17-18. But here, by saying “if I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a law-breaker”, Paul is referring to attempts to combine or reintroduce Judaistic practice on top of faith in Jesus, as in Peter’s hypocritical ‘drawing back’ from the gentiles in 2:11-14. If something like that was also the case in Romans 7, the argument would be over; but where is the suggestion that this is also the thought which provides the key to Romans 7?
Maybe you give the answer in your commentary on Galatians, or The Jesus Creed, or one of the numerous other titles listed against your name!
key to understanding Romans 7
The key to understanding Romans 7 or more particular 7:14-18, by understanding verse 9. Paul says, “I once was alive apart from the Law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died”
I present the question, “When was Paul ever alive ‘apart from the Law’?”
Never. Never is the answer if you are thinking that Paul is talking about himself as a person in the 1st century.
You have to take into account that Adam was our “Federal Head” He represented all of humanity legally before God. Adam was also the “humanity head”.
Paul is speaking in a form of speach common in his Rhetoric day. He was speaking not in the first, second, or third person but in the person of humanity. It was common to change characters when speaking, well still is today.
Now, ‘when the commandment came’ what commandment? The only commandement given to Humanity before the ‘Fall’. Then Adam sinned. Sin man, or sin nature now comes alive! wow!
Is sin dead before Paul the person came to “age of accountablity” surely NOT.
How about before he understood God’s will (Law)? maybe, but I think not. It sure wasnt in humanity, sin is very much alive in man.
Sin is being personified by Paul. He gives it a person attribute.
Now, ‘and I died’. Yes, after the command, it was disobeyed, sin “came alive”(human characteristic), then humanity died. “Dieing you shall die”
Get it? Now try that on for size when you read the rest of chapter 7. Try to change flesh with “sinfull nature” (sin person)
Oh, it gets greater on chapter 8:1 “no condemnation” both legally, and after proccess of sanctification, naturally as well. We actually stop sinning through empowerment of Holy Spirit. ( A heart change that results in action change) The law could not change the heart. Paul talks about covetiousness somewhere in his writings, that teaching goes right along with it.
key to understanding Romans 7
chrisheye - I think there is a lot more of the Law (Torah) in Romans 7 than your suggestion allows, but I agree that there is a great deal more of the original command and sin of Adam than has perhaps been properly granted in the chapter.
There are clear echoes in Romans 7:8-11 of the commandment given in Eden (and the original disobedience), but the major emphasis of the whole of Romans 7 is the Mosaic law and covenant. This is seen in Romans 7:1-4, which contains the idea of Israel’s marriage to God through the wedding contract of the Torah; Romans 7:4-6 - the parallel of Galatians 2:15-21 concerns a similar argument about the Law; Romans 7:7 - a glance backwards to Romans 3:31 and forwards to Romans 7:12 in which Paul refutes any idea that the Law (Torah) itself is an agent of sin.
And yet I think your suggestion, whilst not reflecting the main thrust of Romans 7, does highlight the argument concerning Adam’s sin in the chapter by drawing attention to the Law’s role in increasing the problems created by that sin (echoing Romans 5:20). Romans 7:14-24 shows how much greater are the problems of Paul/Israel in the light of the Law (Torah) compared with the embryonic arousing of ‘the flesh’ in Genesis 3:1-6.
It occurs to me in looking at this that the references to ‘covetousness’ in Romans 7 also take us back to the ‘coveting’ of the fruit which was aroused in Genesis 3, rather than a particular sin which Paul personally had problems with.
This would indicate that the Law, as described in Romans 7:7-24, instead of bringing about freedom from sin and ethnic/racial superiority for the Jews, actually did the opposite and increased their captivity to sin. The evidence of Israel’s own history would bear this out. Instead of the Law separating Israel from Adam, it took her right back to where Adam was.
The big difference between Adam and Paul/Israel, which weakens your suggestion, is that before he disobeyed God, Adam did not experience the struggles of ‘the flesh’ in the way that Paul, living in the consequences of Adam’s disobedience for all mankind, did. But there is an embryonic arousing of ‘the flesh’ in Eve in Genesis 3:1-6, which forms a template for all subsequent operations of ‘the flesh’.
As regards the language of Romans 7:8b, I suggest that it does contain a backward glance at Genesis 3, but its primary reference is to the experience of sin through the Law - using hyperbole for effect, rather than an intended literalism. Romans 7 is full of such literary devices.
I’m disagreeing with the some of the specifics of your suggestion, but finding that it illuminates a great deal in the process. Thanks!
The "New Perspective" is on shaky ground
I would be as hesitant to accept the “new perspective” as I am to accept the older views.
For Romans (and for any epistle), we have to be careful not to get into reading into the text precisely because it is an epistle. All of Paul’s communications are epistles!
we have to be conscious of previous communication or news from the community to which the author was replying.
Especially with Romans, I often have the feeling that Paul is responding to a longish communication or perhaps to a series of different ones from the community at Rome. Without knowing precisely what the question was, building elaborate theologies based on the answers seems to me to be foolish.
Romans 7, though is very 1st person, why not just take it as that?
Live to serve : Serve to live