Skip to main content

The Deliverance of Paul: Problems for the NPP

In chapter 12, Campbell critiques key Pauline interpreters who at some key points reject Justification Theory. If you've read my Galatians posts you can tell that I rely heavily on the work of James Dunn, so I thought that I might address some (but not all) of the issues that Campbell raises for Dunn's interpretation of Paul here in this post.

The largest issue is the question of how to interpret the phrase 'works of the law.' Is Dunn correct in arguing that they should be understood as boundary markers, that Paul is essentially saying that one is not justified by being Jewish, or is the traditional understanding of works correct? Campbell argues that the traditional viewpoint is closer to the truth than Dunn. I will make this comment up front. Earlier, Campbell makes the point that we have to distinguish between an action and its sociological effect. The issue in Galatia could have been the sociological effect of a traditional legalism, and perhaps not boundary markers per say (perhaps they were convenient targets). So whether or not Campbell's critique below is right on or not, does not completely invalidate the insight of Dunn and others. Now onto the critique.

At the heart of Campbell's critique is that Dunn can't actually prove his case. Paul never clearly associates works of the law with boundary markers. Particularly key is Campbell's claim that 2:15-21 looks forward to the rest of the letter and that we can't use 2:1-14 to define works of the law in 2:15-21. Campbell also observes that boundary markers don't come into the discussion in 3:2, 5, and 10. (450)

He presses Dunn for this kind of iron clad proof because he does not see a Judaism that is obsessed with boundary markers as such. Additionally, he doesn't think that there is enough proof that Jewish Christians were opposed to Paul's mission because they were offended by the elimination of the boundary between Jew and Gentile and nothing else. (449).

To make matters worse, in Campbell's eyes, Dunn carries over this tenuous meaning of works of the law to Romans with no textual warrant. If anything, the discussion there comes during a discussion of judgment by dessert. Works in Romans seem to be meritorious good works. (450-1).

I'll briefly respond to some of what Campbell says here. The heart of Campbell's argument related to Galatians seems to rely on seeing a major break between 2:1-14 and 2:15-21, almost as if there's no tie. I don't think that is the case. Yes 2:15-21 does look forward, but why does that eliminate it looking backwards? 2:15-21 is Paul's response to the problems in 2:1-14. The question is, is Dunn's understanding of works of the law correct or is Paul getting fired up because of the really really bad implications of bad theology (of an understanding of justification that separates God's people)? In Galatians, at least, I lean towards the former, but then Romans is harder to integrate. However, if Romans 2 represents the Teacher's teaching to wayward Jewish Christians, then the problem may be solvable (it also may not be), but we will address that in more detail in a future post.


Popular posts from this blog

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Commentary Review: Daniel

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpfu…