What did Paul really
say?
Reading Paul with
the Reformers: Reconciling Old and New Perspectives
Author: Stephen J.
Chester
Publisher: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (www.eerdmans.com)
Pages: 478
What drew me to
Reading Paul with the Reformers by Stephen J. Chester was its
selection as winner of the 2018 CT Book Awards in the Biblical
Studies Category. Another factor was an ongoing difference of opinion
with my mother over how a small segment of Christians interpret the
writings of Paul. Critics term the movement ultra- or
hyper-dispensationalism, labels rejected by those immersed in these
teachings.
I proposed that my
mom and I read this book at the same time to better understand Paul.
I naively hoped that it might shed some light on the doctrines of
this movement.
Though my mom
faithfully reads and studies the Bible daily, she would not have the
patience to wade through these 478 pages of technical analysis. This
is most accessible to the scholar and academic. I felt a little like
Billy Graham when he mentioned his difficulty in understanding Karl
Barth. Even though I enjoy reading books on doctrine, theology and
even bible commentaries, this is challenging.
Also, I should have
known better; this book does not begin to address those who believe
that only the words of Paul are formative for Christians. That
subject lies outside the scope of this book, which does not detract
from its relevance to a much larger debate.
The books succeeds
admirably in making clear what reformers like Luther, Melancthon and
Calvin taught about justification, sanctification and righteousness.
It’s a masterful synthesis of thought that serves as the foundation
for interaction with the “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP), which
isn’t addressed directly until page 321. It shows how much
background the author brings to bear on these issues. It’s
scholarly exegesis of the highest order.
For those not
familiar with the NPP, biblical scholars like like N. T. Wright and
Douglas Campbell believe that the reformers were too narrow in their
interpretations of Paul. As Alan Van Wyk, a reviewer of Wright’s
new biography of Paul puts it, the NPP “is itself a desire for a
more authentic Paul. Resisting 19th and 20th
century interpretations that distanced him from his Jewish
background, these new readings of Paul place him firmly in his late
second temple Jewish milieu. N. T. Wright has been an important
contributor to this new reading of Paul, and his forthcoming
biography, simply titled Paul: A Biography, functions as a
comprehensive popular introduction to this work. As Wright insists in
the introduction, this biography and the broader body of work of
which it is a part reflect Wright’s attempts to figure out what the
first-century Paul was actually talking about, what he ‘really
said.’”
This book is worth
reading just to get Chester’s critique of Wright and those who are
similar-minded. Wright is such a brilliant theologian that it’s
easy to agree with his reasoning when you haven’t read any
differing opinions.
The NPP see the
reformers as narrowing salvation truths to something contractual that
focuses on the forgiveness of sins and one’s standing; whereas
Wright is more concerned with the community aspects, one’s place in
the family of Abraham. Wright has more of a covenant view.
The author
acknowledges what the new perspective adds but he is not afraid to
point out where they detract. He admits that the reformers may have
neglected some of the broader aspects but throughout the volume
convincingly defends their views against misrepresentation.
What it comes down
to is that both old and new perspectives deserve a seat at the table.
Their different emphases do not have to be taken as mutually
exclusive. Both sides bring needed correction to the other.
The book includes a
glossary of medieval and reformation figures, a bibliography, and
indexes of authors, subjects, and scripture and other ancient texts.
I do not want to
discourage non-academics from giving this a try. Reading scholarly
material can increase the capacity for understanding and provide
wisdom. The fine points matter.
This is essential
for those who wrestle with the seemingly opposing views of these two
perspectives. It’s an excellent resource.
I will have to wait
for a scholarly analysis of hyper-dispensationalism. It has not
received the attention given the NPP. I would welcome the opportunity
to talk to someone like the author about this extreme form of
dispensationalism. Did Paul preach a different gospel than the other
disciples? Are his teachings different from those of Jesus? How do we
reconcile apparent discrepancies? Were the teachings of Jesus for the
lost sheep of the house of Israel; whereas Paul was entrusted with
the revelation of the gospel of grace, making his teachings the new
standard for all those who believe by faith?
It’s easy to get
lost in the minutiae of doctrinal differences. We can succumb to
weariness and think why bother? As in the case of
hyper-dispensationalists, who tend to be divisive, incorrect teaching
is misleading and produces bad fruit.
So I appreciate
books like this. The author is extremely knowledgeable, balanced and
charitable in his assessments. Even for those who might disagree with
some of the conclusions, it’s worth joining the conversation.