The Apostle Paul’s Perspective on Jewish Law

An overview of Paul’s theology regarding Judaism and the Law. How did Paul understand the Law after his conversion? How did Paul view the religion of Judaism after his conversion? How does the New Perspective help us understand Paul’s writings?

F. F. Bruce explains that Paul’s religious heritage included belonging to the Jewish ancestry of Benjamin, being born a Hebrew, and following the Law as a Pharisee.[1] However, Paul’s encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road caused a tectonic shift in Paul’s religious paradigm. The life changing experience ultimately revealed to Paul the the Law was weak, and the boundaries of Judaism used to distinguish itself from the Gentiles and Hellenistic way of life were no longer necessary (See Hebrews 7:18; Galatians 6:15 [NASB]).

Regarding the Law, Paul’s Damascus Road experience completely altered his perspective. Bruce explains that Paul’s conversion left him with the realization that his previous view of religion was incomplete.[2] In contrast with Paul’s Jewish heritage, his encounter with the resurrected Christ led to an understanding that keeping the Law was impossible.[3] Specifically, Paul’s revelatory experience offered a different manner for obtaining the righteousness necessary to reconcile life with a holy God.[4] Instead of attempting to achieve righteousness by keeping the Law through self-effort, Paul recognized that righteousness came through “faith in Christ” (Philippians 3:9). In fact, Bruce continues, even an amalgamation of having faith in Christ and following the Law is incomprehensible, since the Law “actually led him [Paul] to sin” (Romans 7:5; 1 Corinthians 15:56).[5] The question remains that if the Law is not sufficient, then what was the purpose of the Law. Douglas Moo answers the question by referring back to the faith-based Abrahamic covenant that God delivered Israel prior to the Mosaic Law.[6] In other words, prior to the seed of Abraham arriving in the form of Jesus, the Law provided a custodial or supervisory role until the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ (Galatians 3:24-25; 4:1-2).[7]

Paul’s life-altering encounter with Christ also significantly modified Paul’s perspective of Judaism. Certain theologians, such as James Dunn, suggest the term “conversion” is not accurate since Paul never left the Jewish faith, and instead, refer to Paul’s Damascus Road experience as a commissioning.[8] Although it is true that Paul always referred to himself as a Jew even after the experience, G. Walter Hansen points out that, subsequent to Paul’s blinding encounter, he never used the term “in Judaism” to describe himself, but referred to himself as “in Christ.”[9] Accordingly, the distinctive Jewish identity markers, such as circumcision, food, and Sabbath laws, are no longer meaningful subsequent to Paul’s conversion.[10] In fact, Paul advances the argument most poignantly by stating, “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Galatians 6:15). Furthermore, Brian Rosner points out that Paul says that Jews rely on the law, know the law, do the law, observe the law, keep the law, and possess the law (Romans 2:17-29).[11] However, Rosner continues, “Paul never says that Christians relate to the law in any of these ways.”[12] In other words, subsequent to the Damascus Road experience, a radical shift occurred in Paul’s perspective of the law as it pertains to believers. Accordingly, Moo appropriately concludes: “conversion and commission came together.”[13]

D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo explain that the Protestant Reformers believed that Paul’s Jewish opposition based salvation on meritorious works.[14] Accordingly, the Reformers countered Roman Catholic theology, just as they believed Paul countered Jewish legalism, by declaring that righteousness comes through faith alone.[15] However, in 1977, E. P. Sanders published a book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, arguing that Judaism in Paul’s day was not legalistic, but instead, viewed salvation as an extension of God’s grace to the nation of Israel through His covenants (“covenantal monism”).[16] Covenant nomism maintains that “Jews did not do the law to ‘get in’ (“legalism”) but to ‘stay in’ (“nomism”).”[17] Sanders’ work laid the foundation for the New Perspective on Paul.

The responses, both supporting and opposing the New Perspective, have been colossal. One of the more recent laudable attempts at summarizing the major views is Stephen Westerholm’s book, Perspectives Old and New on Paul.[18] However, the primary opposing responses to the New Perspective are threefold. First, Carson and Moo recognize that although covenant nomism certainly must have occurred within early Judaism, the New Perspective overstates its case if it assumes other soteriological perspectives did not exist.[19] Second, the New Perspective precariously assumes that God’s covenant was the foundational belief for all first century Jews, but the evidence regarding the sectarianism of early Judaism proves otherwise.[20] Third, even the New Perspective admits to the synergistic nature of first century Judaism.[21] In other words, if the New Perspective admits that works are required to “stay in,” then faith is not salvific, but instead, faith plus works is salvific, which has been the traditional concern of the Reformers representing the Lutheran perspective. The synergistic concern is highly relevant for modern Christianity because, as Timothy Keller points out, “It is so much easier to move from the gospel to religion than the other way around.”[22] Accordingly, even if the New Perspective’s view of Judaism is completely correct, it lends itself to distorting the true gospel message that evangelicals must clearly communicate in today’s churches (Galatians 1:6-7).

Although the traditional Lutheran view opposes the New Perspective, it is necessary to concede that the recent scholarship provided by its supporters has contributed to an understanding of Paul and early Judaism in at least three significant ways. First, Carson and Moo note that the New Perspective helps correct a misrepresentation of Judaism operative in more traditional academic environments that has devalued the importance of election in Paul’s writings.[23] Furthermore, the New Perspective highlights the important connection between Paul and Judaism, which appropriately reinvigorated the emphasis on salvation history.[24] Finally, Erik Heen notes that one of the most important contributions of the New Perspective is its ability to increase awareness of Christian anti-Semitism in certain segments of New Testament Pauline study.[25]