New Perspective on Paul

[Hanseng]

Kirsten Stendahl, a one-time dean of Harvard Divinity School wrote a couple of articles in the very early 60s.They have been preserved in "Paul Among Jews and Gentiles." Later writers such as James Dunn, N.T. Wright, and E.P. Sanders followed, more or less, in his footsteps. Stendahl laid the egg that others hatched. His main point is that Protestantism has made a serious error in interpreting theology in the same vein as Luther. Luther and Paul had very different "conversion" experiences. As a result, Luther's  understanding of Paul is seriously flawed. Due to Luther's outsized influence on Protestantism, the church traveled a wrong path, even to this day.  One example of this wrong path is Luther's understanding of the roll of law in the Christian life. Luther held that the roll of the law is to bring guilt down upon people. This guilt drives them to Christ for salvation. This is known as the 2nd use of the law in Reformation theology. 

Stendahl disagrees with this view based on his understanding of Galatians 3:24,25, RSV: "So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith.
But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian;" Note that in this translation, decidedly different from the KJV, the roll of the law ended when Christ came. The law served only until the first advent. The KJV says that the law brings us to Christ. Many people understand this to mean that the law continues to work in bringing people to Christ. The RSV indicates that the function of the law ended when Christ came.

It doesn't matter in one sense. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would convince people of sin. 

[Gustave]

Is this the same "Krister" Stendahl who championed the idea of soul sleep & LGBT clergy ordination? 

 

[Hanseng]

Stendahl described the introspective conscience as one which asks, "On what basis may I find salvation?" He believed that this inquiry was not present in the Eastern churches. It started in the West with Augustine, according to Stendahl. Luther had an introspective conscience. Paul did not. He possessed a "robust conscience." He had lived with a clear conscience toward God all his life. He did regret persecuting the church of God, prior to his "call." While Luther's conversion approximated that of a down and out sinner, Paul's call was like unto that of an OT prophet.

Stendahl described the introspective conscience  as unique to the West; however,  the 7 penitential Psalms,  defined by medieval monk Cassiodorus as Psalms 6, 32, 38, 51, 130, and 143, describe the sufferings of man  troubled by an introspective conscience. Psalm 25 might be included in this number, although it is traditionally not.

Thomas Schreiner takes serious issue with Stendahl on a number of points:

Thomas Schreiner’s Critique of N.T. Wright’s View of Justification – Debating Justification with N.T. Wright and NPP. Part 7 – Krisis & Praxis

Dr. Stendahl  disagrees  with Luther in several areas. Both agreed, however, that Genesis 15:6 is central to the gospel. Stendahl saw in Genesis 15:6 proof that both Jews and Gentiles could comprise a single church comprised of those justified by faith.

Luther saw in the same passage the foundation of his justification gospel: “Hence our doctrine that we are justified before God solely through His accounting mercy has its foundation in this passage ”：“Abraham believed in the Lord and He counted it to him for righteousness."

[Gustave]

Stendahl was definitely an interesting man who could argue theology. Many in the Lutheran Church are still trying to sort out how he was able to argue that there were no theological or pastoral reasons standing in the way of practicing homosexuals (either in or outside of committed relationships) being ordained as clergy as the ordinations stood before God in faith be they married heterosexual couples or single practicing homosexuals that churned through same-sex partners. Back in the day this was a big deal and picked up by secular media. Here is one account of Dr. Stendahl's really putting his back into ordination for LGBT folks. Reading that article from the early 90's it's amazing to see how things worked themselves out. It's also amazing to see how the seeds of one particular theological slant can germinate and grow in fertile soil. 

Church Defied as Three Gays Are Ordained - Los Angeles Times

[Kevin H]

I don't know enough of the history and possible options to know if this is the same thing that I've been taught as the "New View of Paul" vs. the "Old View of Paul"

The difference is the context that we read into the words of Paul. The "Old View of Paul" tends to read Paul in how he has been applied over church history, especially in the church/synogogue split of AD 135, the work of St. Augustine and the reformers especially Martin Luther. Desmond Ford was an expert in "The Old View of Paul." We find both Adventists and non-Adventist approaches. Among the non-Adventist approaches you will find arguments that the Sabbath and Kosher was done away. At least one commentary had the line "I wish I could have seen the look on Paul's face the first time he had a ham and cheese sandwitch."

The "New View of Paul" tries to understand Paul's words in the context of when Paul wrote them. In recient years many Jewish scholars (including Rabbis) have rediscovered and fallen in love with the works of Paul. From a history of Jews saying "The man Jesus and the demon Paul" which viewed Paul through the "Old View of Paul" The New View of Paul makes Paul a faithful Jew, a true Sabbath keeper and eating only clean meats. That Paul offered the gentiles a non-nationalistic version of Judaism. An application of Judaism for outside of the Jewish world. For example the sacrifices we have the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. We have the feast days, but they were very much tied to the agriculture cycle of the land and does not have the same meaning to someone who is not connected to the agraculture of the land, so learn what you can but you don't need to try to follow them. 

Within the "New View of Paul" there is debate over whether he saw gentiles as needing to keep the Seventh-day Sabbath and eat kosher, but that he saw God expecting these from at least Jews even if they become Christians. Many (not all) believe that the church needs to make accomadations for Jews and those who want to keep the Seventh-day Sabbath to keep the Seventh-day Sabbath within the church. 

[Hanseng]

A central issue in Stendahl's position  is the understanding of Galatians 3: 24,25:

24  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. KJV

24  So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith.
25  But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; RSV

As evinced by the different translations above, one view is that the purpose of the law was to bring people to Christ, presumably by convincing individuals of sin and driving them to Christ for forgiveness. The KJV reflects this view.

The RSV translation says that the law was to keep us [safe] until Christ came. I agree with Stendahl on this point. Verse 25 says that we are no longer under a schoolmaster. That is what the RSV translation indicates. The law's purpose was to safeguard us until Christ arrived. Once Jesus came, the law ceased to have an active roll in our life. Luther held to a continuing roll for the law. This was his "second use" of the law. The NPP relinquishes the second use to the work of the Holy Spirit.

The traditional SDA interpretation of the law aligns with that articulated by Thomas Aquinas. He divided the law into different sections, as do SDA:

"Wherefore to worship God, since it is an act of virtue, belongs to a moral precept; but the determination of this precept, namely that He is to be worshipped by such and such sacrifices, and such and such offerings, belongs to the ceremonial precepts. Consequently the ceremonial precepts are distinct from the moral precepts."

 "Therefore besides the moral, judicial and ceremonial precepts, the Law contains others which are called "commandments." [The "commandments" (mandata) spoken of here and in the body of this article are not to be confused with the Commandments (praecepta) in the ordinary acceptance of the word.]"

 

"Furthermore the commandments may be distinguished from the precepts, so that those things be called "precepts" which God Himself prescribed; and those things "commandments" which He enjoined [mandavit] through others, as the very word seems to denote.

From this it is clear that all the precepts of the Law are either moral, ceremonial, or judicial; and that other ordinances have not the character of a precept, but are directed to the observance of the precepts, as stated above."

Question 99, articles 1-6

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The precepts of the old law (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 99)