Paul's Perspective on Judaism

An excellent work on the subject of the New Perspective on Paul is Stephen Westerholm's Perspectives on Paul Old and New: The "Lutheran" Paul and His Critics. It is an excellent defense of the "Lutheran" or "Protestant" Paul with a careful and sympathetic examination of his (the "Lutheran" Paul's) critics. The first part of the book deals with the perspectives of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. He then goes on to explain many of the major contributors to Pauline studies in the modern era. Finally, he gives his own explanation of Pauline teaching.

As I read his discussion of the various modern expositors is that they think of Paul as defending a grace religion over against what in Paul's view is the works religion of the Judaizers. When modern scholars read Paul's statement of Judaism as a works religion, some have believed that Paul is making a caricature of Judaism that is inaccurate and unhelpful.

Take, for example, the work of Claude Montefiore, who was a Jewish scholar who tried to shed light on the New Testament from a Jewish perspective. He believes that Paul gave an inaccurate caricature of Judaism. Montefiore's explanation is as follows:

1. Rabbinic Judaism regarded the law as a gracious gift of God to His people. It was given to them to give them life, happiness, and peace. He sees the essence of Judaism in the familiar phrase "the joy of the commandments." The fact that Israel had more commandments than others gave them a position of honor amongst the nations.

2. God was a God who was ready to forgive. "Let a man repent but a very little, and God will forgive very much. For He delights in the exercise of forgiveness far more than punishment" (Quoted in Westerholm, 121). Westerholm summarizes Montefiore's critique of Paul's view of forgiveness this way:

The need for such a ‘tremendous cosmic and divine event’ as the incarnation and crucifixion was simply not felt by rabbinic theology, where "God was so good and near and kind," and where "man, through the Law and through repentance, had such constant, easy, and efficacious opportunities of access to him." It follows, surely, that Pauline soteriology is "impossible upon a purely Rabbinic basis" (Ibid.).

3. Jewish thought was not as pessimistic as Paul's. "Human goodness is as real as human evil. God's help was of course thought essential, but it was 'not supposed that human efforts count for nothing'" (Ibid.). Montefiore understands well the implication of such a view: there is no need for the cross. "Man could receive salvation, and get the better of sin (for God was always helping and forgiving) even without so strange and wonderful a device" (Quoted in Westerholm, 121-122).

The result of Montefiore's research is that he concludes that Judaism was a "better, happier, and more noble religion than one might infer from the writings of the Apostle" (122). Montefiore believes that Paul derived much of what he thought from the spiritual anxiety of the Hellenistic world.

Critique

Whatever Paul's views may have been before his conversion, Montefiore's statements do help us understand Paul much better. It seems to me that the picture that Montefiore draws of Judaism is precisely the one that Paul is dealing with. Paul is dealing with a Judaism that did not understand either atonement or its need for atonement.

Works religions are not as pessimistic as Paul is about human nature and efforts. Someone who believes that one sin is enough to condemn someone to hell and that perfect obedience is what is required to get into heaven will not hold to a works religion (Gal. 3:10-14). Works religions bring the bar down much closer to sinful man.

Thus, when Paul was arguing for the truth of the Gospel, he had to argue not only that Christ and His atonement were necessary but also why Christ was necessary. He wanted to show the Jews and all others that the law was not simply something that you could dabble in and thereby attain salvation. It requires perfect obedience. He wanted to show them that man does not just do wrong things but is in fact desperately wicked and unable to change from doing evil to doing good.

Paul understood that the Jews thought the law was possible for them to keep and that with some effort they could attain eternal life by it. Paul argues that this is not the case. By the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified (Rom. 3:19-20).

Conclusion

Even though most of the Jews were wrong in Paul's day about the law, we should not think of this as a Jewish problem. It is a sinful human problem. We all want to think that righteousness is basically within our grasp. We all want to bring the law down to our level. We are slow to see our own sin.

We need to learn the lesson that Paul taught the Jews and the Gentiles of his day. We cannot be justified by doing the law. This is not because the law is bad but because we are bad. We must rely totally and exclusively on the law-keeping and suffering of our Divine Savior, Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:24-26). We must learn that there is no hope either for transformation or justification except in the cross of Christ (Gal. 6:14).

Paul did this not only by proclaiming Christ. He also proclaimed the true nature of the law. The two go hand in hand. When we see the true nature of the law, all our hope of attaining righteousness or sanctification by our works will disappear. When we understand Christ's death, we will understand the true depth of the requirements of the law.