Tag: justification by faith

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 4 Part 3

Are we all family? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Galatians 3 speaks about how Abraham was given a promise. Abraham is normally Exhibit A. He’s the father of the faithful and he was declared righteous in the sight of God for believing the promise.

Bates contends we have misunderstood what the promise is. It is not justification by faith. That would make sense since according to Paul, Abraham was justified by his faith in his own lifetime. Why would the promise be that Abraham would have what he already had?

In Galatians 3: 8 the gospel that Scripture announced in advance to Abraham is not justification by faith but expressly all nations will be blessed in you. The gospel here pertains to the arrival of the Messiah as a fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham regarding his singular seed (3: 16).

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1557-1559). Kindle Edition.

So what does this have to do with being in the same family?

We often talk about Jesus is the only way to God, but we really don’t talk a lot about what’s the way to Jesus. How does one come to be in the community of believers? If it is done in multiple ways, then there is not a common bond between us. You can be justified by faith or justified by the Law.

What Peter is doing in Galatians 2 then is creating a rift in the family by saying that if you were a Gentile, you had to live like a Jew. That was the way to show you were a part of the covenant people. Of course, pre-Christ, that would have been entirely correct. After Christ, you show you are a part of the covenant people by allegiance to Jesus.

Through the king’s loyalty to God and to God’s people the gospel creates one worldwide family out of the many nations. That is, the gospel does this when people give their allegiance to the king as a response to it. In Galatia, table-fellowship rules that reinstituted distinctively Jewish “works of the law” practices were splitting that one people into Jew and gentile factions, denying the truth of the gospel in its one-family purpose and result. In other words, justification by pistis is not the gospel (nor part of it) but rather is a key doctrine that safeguards the unity of the one true church. It shows that those who create false dividing walls, such as Jew and gentile, within the one true Jesus-is-king church are massively and dangerously in the wrong.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1568-1574). Kindle Edition.

Side topic on this from me personally, this is my problem with many people on the dispensational side of things. There is often seen as being that God has a plan for the Jews and then God has a plan for the Gentiles, but if Romans 11 is true, God has one covenant people only. Christians do not replace the Jewish tree. We are grafted into it.

Next time, we’ll see what Bates has to say about what he calls, the sad irony of justification.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 4 Part 2

How does Bates see faith? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Faith is one of the most misunderstood words in Christianity. A lot of atheists see it as belief without evidence, and unfortunately, a lot of Christians seem to agree with them. This hasn’t done the discussion any favors. I have written my own article on the meaning of faith here.

Bates meanwhile says:

I contend that Protestant-Catholic wrangling has been plagued by overly restrictive understandings of “faith.” How faith is used today or how related terms were used at the time of Protestant-Catholic split in the sixteenth century may or may not correspond to the Greek word pistis. What matters is the meaning of the ancient word pistis.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1442-1445). Kindle Edition.

This is something we should all consider. We could be taking a first-century concept debated in 16th century thought and applying it with 21st century understandings. No wonder we’re so confused! Writing that sentence was even confusing!

The problem Bates sees is not the content of the gospel was disagreed with. In Galatians, you do not see Paul arguing for the resurrection of Jesus. You do not see him arguing for the deity of Christ. What you see him arguing about is more on how people live in light of those realities.

Peter’s behavior wasn’t moving toward or in alignment with the truth of the gospel. This suggests not a compromise in the gospel’s content but a compromise of the gospel’s lived effect, actualized benefits, or practical results. Peter had not compromised the gospel’s raw content but its theological truthfulness as this pertained to its behavioral outworking. In Galatians 2: 14 Paul uses “the gospel” in a part-for-whole fashion to refer to behavior that results from the gospel’s truth that affects the wider community.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1532-1537). Kindle Edition.

Let’s acknowledge also that to some extent, we all struggle with this. We all claim the kingship of Jesus, and many times we live as if He is not the king. We live like we are the ones that have to maintain control in our lives. I am not at all endorsing frivolous living, but I am saying we should trust that the king cares deeply for His subjects.

So what this means is that the Galatians were living as if allegiance to Jesus was insufficient for salvation. Not only do you have to swear allegiance to Jesus, you have to undergo circumcision and follow the Old Testament Law. Paul is writing to tell them that the Law was always insufficient for salvation in itself. It was always by grace through faith. If the Law was sufficient, there would be no need for Jesus. The only reason you need to keep the Law for salvation then is if you believe the sacrifice of Jesus and swearing allegiance to Him is insufficient for salvation.

While there could have been parallels to some events in the time of the Reformation, we should not read Galatians as if it was written to deal with a 16th-century question. It is a 1st-century text for a 1st-century question. Of course, it has relevance for us today, but we must see what the relevance was for them first and then apply it today.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 4 Part 1

Does Galatians destroy Catholic soteriology? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Ah, Galatians. It’s a favorite for many Protestants to go to. Some passages seem exceptionally fitting, such as if an angel from heaven delivers another gospel, let him be accursed. That seems to work well for Mormonism. Of course, we all know the big message of Galatians is justification by faith and that works aren’t required for salvation and thus, Catholicism has a big problem.

What if those are misunderstood ideas?

I will argue that Galatians does forcefully critique Catholic soteriology, but not in the way described by classic Protestantism. Meanwhile, a close reading of select portions of the letter also shows why Protestants have been misapplying justification by faith.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1368-1370). Kindle Edition.

So could Protestants have the right text but the wrong argument? Could we also be misunderstanding Galatians and have our readings read more in light of the Reformation? Could the reformers have been misreading the book themselves in light of their present situation?

Bold claims.

Bates says we Protestants tend to read the book like this:

1. the gospel is being perverted in Galatia by certain troublemakers (1: 6– 9; 2: 5, 14);

2. the principles of grace alone and justification by faith alone were being compromised by the troublemakers who were seeking instead to be justified by works (2: 16; 3: 11; 5: 2– 4);

3. these troublemakers were seeking to be justified by works, since they were trying to earn personal salvation by keeping the law perfectly (3: 10; 5: 3);

4. but personal faith is uniquely and exclusively saving (5: 6).

In light of 1, 2, 3, and 4, the temptation to conclude the following is powerful:

5. personal justification by faith alone is the gospel or at least central to it.

Once this conclusion is drawn, another becomes inexorable:

6. Catholics are preaching a different gospel because they violate the principle that a person is justified by grace alone through faith alone, so they are cursed and cut off from Christ by Scripture’s own standard.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1386-1398). Kindle Edition.

That does sound quite fair to how many read it. If it is true on all the counts, then it would follow that Catholicism is teaching another gospel. However, Bates has already said that he thinks that Catholics and Protestants both agree on the gospel. So what is going on here?

Paul describes the gospel otherwise. The conclusion that “justification by faith” is central to the gospel is an inference drawn from a certain customary way of reading Galatians. It probably is a false one. When Paul and other New Testament authors actually describe the gospel’s content, they never mention personalized justification by faith, let alone make that the centerpiece. Instead, they consistently give a royal narrative (akin to the ten events in part or in whole [listed in chap. 2]) about the Messiah (e.g., Rom. 1: 2– 4; 1 Cor. 15: 3– 5).

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1406-1410). Kindle Edition.

And we are back to points made earlier. It is the royal message that is to be embraced. Once you embrace that, there will be outcomes that come from that which will include justification by faith. It sounds as if Bates is saying that justification by faith is the gospel, but saying that because the gospel is true, justification by faith is true. If the gospel is not true, then there is no justification by faith.

Okay, but what if we read the text in light of Romans?

Furthermore, if we use Romans to help interpret Galatians, Paul does not say that justification is the gospel but rather that the righteousness of God is revealed in (or through) the gospel (Rom. 1: 17). The difference is crucial.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1412-1414). Kindle Edition.

For Bates, the righteousness of God is not the gospel. It is the gospel that reveals the righteousness of God. This can be further understood since Jews knew long before Christianity that God is righteous. It would not make sense to say “Good news. God is righteous.” Jews would be thinking “Yes. That is good news, but we already knew that.” The difference is it is revealed to the world when Jesus takes the throne.

Does Scripture show this?

Peter states that personal receipt of forgiveness is conditioned on an adequate response: “all those who give faith unto him receive forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10: 43 AT). Potentially all can receive it, but only those who perform the “faith” (pistis) action actually attain personal forgiveness. Performance of the pistis action is the condition.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1430-1433). Kindle Edition.

Bates contends that what this boils down to is the usage of the Greek word pistis, the word we normally read as faith.

Which is a good point to pause for now. We’ll pick up next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

A Response to The Gospel Coalition on Beyond The Salvation Wars

How does the Gospel Coalition respond to what goes against their system? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have been reviewing my friend Dr. Matthew Bates’s excellent book, Beyond The Salvation Wars, and I saw today he left a post about how The Gospel Coalition has left a very negative review saying he teaches a revisionist gospel.

The gospel is central to Christianity. Protestants and Roman Catholics have been reflecting on and debating the gospel’s content for centuries. However, Matthew Bates argues that most of Western Christianity to date—Protestant and Roman Catholic—has completely misunderstood the gospel.

Now my first thought is that TGC has reached such a level that if they go after you, I consider that a badge of honor. Looking at his Facebook post and seeing the comments, I concluded that I was right in that. Many people are saying similar sentiments.  But hey, I read books I disagree with. How about reading this review?

Reading this review reminded me of reading internet atheists who think the cosmological argument says that everything has a cause and then ask “Who caused God?” It was written by Harrison Perkins.

So let’s start.

The gospel is central to Christianity. Protestants and Roman Catholics have been reflecting on and debating the gospel’s content for centuries. However, Matthew Bates argues that most of Western Christianity to date—Protestant and Roman Catholic—has completely misunderstood the gospel.

Completely misunderstood the gospel?

Well, no.

Here is what Bates says is the content of the gospel:

The gospel is that Jesus the king

1. preexisted as God the Son,

2. was sent by the Father as promised,

3. took on human flesh in fulfillment of God’s promises to David,

4. died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

5. was buried,

6. was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

7. appeared to many witnesses,

8. is enthroned at the right hand of God as the ruling Christ,

9. has sent the Holy Spirit to his people to effect his rule

10. will come again as final judge to rule.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 734-747). Kindle Edition.

Which of these do classical Protestants disagree with? None. Roman Catholics? None. Orthodox Christians? None. The Gospel Coalition? None.

Since they agree on all of these, how can it be that they have completely misunderstood the gospel? The saying of the word “completely” is a problem for TGC. Had they just said that they misunderstood the gospel, that would be more understandable. For Bates, the problem is not that they have got the gospel wrong so much as they have included the benefits of the gospel as part of the gospel.

My analogy I use is from November of 2024 when whichever party you belonged to, the news would be “A new president has been elected!” A large number of people would say “This is good news!” A large number also would say “This is horrible news!” However, it would be a mistake to include Trump’s policies as part of the proclamation of him being the new president. His policies, like them or not, are a result of his being elected president.

In Beyond the Salvation Wars: Why Both Protestants and Catholics Must Reimagine How We Are Saved, Bates, professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary, claims that the traditional Protestant view of justification by faith alone and the traditional Roman Catholic view of justification by imparted righteousness, distributed through the Roman sacramental system, are thoroughly mistaken understandings of salvation. He attempts to set everyone straight.

A bait and switch has been done here. In the first paragraph, Perkins spoke about the gospel. Now he has switched it with salvation. Part of Bates’s claim is that salvation is a benefit of the gospel and not part of the gospel itself. Salvation is the response of humanity to the gospel. Bates does not disagree with justification by faith. As he says:

This doesn’t mean that justification by faith has been rejected. It means that justification by faith, while remaining a true doctrine, finds a better fit in our overall understanding of salvation within rearranged categories.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1070-1072). Kindle Edition. (Emphasis mine)

Finally, if we are wrong on something, should we not want to be set straight? In all of our debates, should we not listen to the other side regardless to see if we are misunderstanding? I read books by atheists and other non-Christians regularly to make sure I am getting their positions right and to see if there is something I have misunderstood in mine.

Bates’s counterproposal is what he calls the “king Jesus model” or “gospel allegiance model.” In this paradigm, he argues salvation is by faith but redefines faith as allegiance to Jesus, which is primarily about our commitment to Christ as well as social and political action. Although belief must play some role in Bates’s articulation of faith, the emphasis is squarely on our works of allegiance to Christ as the way to receive gospel benefits. Bates’s gospel and his arguments for it have several significant flaws.

He redefines faith?

It’s hard to say that this is a redefinition when nowhere in this paragraph is a definition given of faith. What is faith? Is it belief? If so, then what about James 2:19?

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

The demons know the content of the gospel. They do know that Jesus is King. That was part of their fear when Jesus came. They knew the judge had come. This would mean that demons also know that Christians are justified by grace through faith.

If they believe that, why are they not saved?

Because they do not honor Jesus as King. They will acknowledge He is king, but they will work against His being king. A democrat today could fully acknowledge that Trump is president and believe he won the election fairly, and still decide not to support him or his policies. A Republican could have done the same with presidents like Obama and Biden.

In the social context of the Mediterranean world of Jesus, faith did indeed refer to loyalty to a cause.

Faith/Faithfulness

“These terms refer to the value of reliability. The value is ascribed to persons as well as to objects and qualities. Relative to persons, faith is reliability in interpersonal relations: it thus takes on the value of enduring personal loyalty, of personal faithfulness. The nouns ‘faith’, ‘belief’, ‘fidelity’, ‘faithfulness,’ as well as the verbs ‘to have faith’ and ‘to believe,’ refers to the social glue that binds one person to another. This bond is the social, externally manifested, emotionally rooted behavior of loyalty, commitment, and solidarity. As a social bond, it works with the value of (personal and group) attachment (translated ‘love’) and the value of (personal and group) allegiance or trust (translated ‘hope.’)

p. 72 Pilch and Malina Handbook of Biblical Social Values.

I have also written about this here.

Throughout this work, Bates says the primary reason someone would reject his new articulation of the gospel is out of blind commitment to prior confessional traditions. He asserts, “All too often denominational leaders are more committed to actions and social politics that will reinforce their brand than they are to the truth” (2). In contrast, Bates promotes himself as “striving toward a truth-based unity for the future of the church” (2). He claims that his “gospel-allegiance model seeks to expose the truth about how salvation happens according to Scripture and early Christian history” (3).

Blind commitment? I don’t think he says so at all. This is a mischaracterization and unfortunately if anything, works against Perkins since he is one who seems to hold to his own personal commitment as Bates says. There is no idea of self-reflection on this. Nothing in here says “And yes, we should be examining ourselves and our commitments and making sure we are not holding them for the wrong reasons.”

I have a personal saying that if a person cannot conceive that they can be wrong in anything, I have no reason to think that they are right in anything.

So let’s look at the three points that Perkins mentions here.

Is it true that some leaders are often more committed to an ideology than they are to truth? Who among us would say otherwise? Has every denominational leader out there has somehow avoided this human tradition?

Does Bates think he is striving towards a truth-based unity for the future of the church? Unless Perkins can somehow do mind-reading, then let us take Bates at the benefit of the doubt until we are shown otherwise. He has the well-being of the church in mind with this. Does his allegiance model hope to show how salvation takes place in Scripture and early Christian history? Again, the same problem.

The trouble is that Bates doesn’t escape his own prior theological commitments. As the endnotes show, he relies prominently on a certain strand of revisionist New Testament scholarship. At least since E. P. Sanders, there has been a revisionist trend among New Testament scholars such as James D. G. Dunn, N. T. Wright, David deSilva, John Barclay, and Scot McKnight to claim new insight that freshly demonstrates how the church has been seriously mistaken. Dismissing traditional theological arguments is nothing new within New Testament Studies. Yet dismissal of historical theology became much more acceptable during the controversy over the New Perspective on Paul over a decade ago, when N. T. Wright implied his work is the theological equivalent of a heliocentric model supposedly enlightening John Piper’s soteriological geocentrism.

Brace yourselves people. To argue his point, Bates actually cites scholars that agree with him!

Shocking! Horrid! How dare he cite people who agree with him to make his case?!

Now if this was all that Bates did in his book, I would be concerned, but he doesn’t. When I read an atheist book, I often check the bibliography first. Do they interact with those who disagree with them. I have generally found that, no, they do not. Bates does interact with disagreement. He interacts with MacArthur, Piper, Gilbert, Roman Catholic theologians, etc. He is up-to-date on the scholarship.

Also, let’s give something to TGC. It is so fascinating to see a group that wants to show the problems with the RCC position going after scholars like the above because they go against the traditional understanding that has been held for centuries. Apparently, TGC doesn’t like it if someone challenges tradition. The irony is so rich.

Bates hasn’t locked himself into any formal churchly confessional tradition. He argues that “the creeds are not a good stand-alone teaching tool about the gospel without an intervening reframing” (54). Presumably his reframing. Nevertheless, he embraces the arguments of a particular New Testament guild as the new standard of orthodoxy. This is most obvious in his chapter about justification in Galatians, where he takes the New Perspective on Paul interpretation of Galatians for granted. So, when confessional Protestants feel bruised by Bates’s accusations that they are neglecting exegesis for tradition, we need to see that he succumbs to the same problem of precommitments that he views as a fatal flaw in others.

Question for TGC. Could you know how to be saved from reading the creeds alone? No. You need the understanding of the background to them. You need the New Testament, and the Old as well. The creeds already assume you have a knowledge of what is in the New Testament and formulate it down to a simple message. That’s what creeds do.

Also, Bates does not take any position for granted. He argues for them and in previous books in this line of thinking has shown why he holds the positions that he does. If the problem is taking a position for granted, could we not say that TGC takes theirs for granted? If they say, “But we have argued in other posts for our position!” then the same applies to Bates and the objection fails. If they do take it for granted, then they have no grounds for going after Bates for doing the same.

As for feeling bruised, who really cares about how we feel about what someone says about our interpretation of Scripture? What Scripture says is the most important. Bates is challenging us instead to see if we are holding to tradition more than exegesis. Again, that TGC that takes such a strong stance against the RCC writes like this is incredible irony.

Bates presents himself as offering fresh theological structures to explain the gospel and how to receive its benefits. However, he regurgitates historically held ideas without owning them as such. According to Bates, the biblical teaching about election and justification reflects corporate rather than individual categories. He specifically labels this statement as erroneous: “The gospel includes the personal receipt of justification by faith” (56, emphasis original).

The problem for Perkins is that this is actually something that would be more sensible to the New Testament world. They were collectivists in that the good of the group was above the good of the individual. They held to a group identity of sorts, hence that Christians were supposed to identify as being in Christ.

Instead, he argues that God has predestined a group, namely those who choose to swear and practice allegiance to Jesus Christ as King, and has granted justification to that group. As he summarizes, “There is no valid scriptural basis for claiming that individual salvation truly begins with God’s predestining election of certain individuals before the foundation of the world rather than when a person responds to the King Jesus gospel with loyalty” (156). Individuals by their unbound free will must choose to become part of that group elected to receive salvation.

Actually, this is secondary. The real position is that God has predestined an elect one in Jesus the King. With the ancient mindset of group identity and not individualism, group identity makes more sense here.

This structure of election (perhaps uniquely applied also to justification) reflects a classic Arminian argument. It isn’t new, though it is selective. He follows some, but not all, historical Arminian arguments in claiming that faith itself (redefined as personal allegiance) is credited to us for the righteousness of justification, not Christ’s active and passive obedience imputed to us.

Ooooooh. Arminian arguments! *Shudder* Again, the irony here of a group that goes against the RCC going after someone for holding to a different tradition is rich. Unfortunately, they don’t understand Bates’s position. Bates is saying that our justification comes by trusting in Christ who did live that perfect life and by identifying with Him as our King, his obedience is imputed to us.

I’m not so much concerned that Bates is wrong by arguing Arminian positions (though I think he is) but that he’s rearticulating historically Arminian theological structures while claiming to argue for fresh, strictly exegetical positions that supposedly transcend any historical Protestant or Roman Catholic bounds. Bates seems either not to know the relevant historical theology or to assume his readers are unfamiliar with the history of these debates. I fear that a little of both is true.

They transcend Protestant or Roman Catholic bounds? How? It would need to be shown that Bates falls outside of both positions and it hasn’t been shown. Look again at the ten points of the gospel. Which does Bates deny? None of them.

Yet Bates diverges from the entire Western Christian tradition in its Protestant and Catholic understandings by positioning himself as consciously anti-Augustinian. For example, he affirmingly summarizes Justin Martyr as he rejects the idea “that we have inherited a sin nature from our parents that leaves us in total bondage” (132, emphasis original). Thus he discards the doctrine of original sin.

All Bates did was summarize what Justin Martyr said. His point was arguing against infant baptism. Note Perkins. You can summarize what a position is without agreeing with it. Also, in response to Joshua Neilsen on the post by Bates on Facebook, he says:

I don’t have time today to nuance my positions (it might take another book!) but I’ll say that I definitely affirm prevenient grace and that, contrary to the review, I affirm original sin. I favor the Eastern articulations for original sin (that tend to stress recapitulation) rather than Western (as part of our nature as passed on through intercourse via concupiscence).

Moving on:

Against Augustine, Bates also minimizes the discussion of grace at the beginning of or throughout the Christian life. He explicitly rejects the idea that “God must act alone in giving pre-faith assistance via regeneration” (169). According to Bates, “One opts to undergo baptism to be reborn because she or he has seen a more enlightened way and wants forgiveness and a new lifestyle. Regeneration or rebirth is what happens after we have seen enough of the light that we choose to believe, repent, and be baptized while expressing fidelity” (131, emphasis original).

Once again, amusing that Bates is going against the tradition of Calvinism. If you hold to Calvinism, this is convincing to you. If you don’t, it is not. In other words, this is only preaching to the choir.

Bates’s gospel amounts to us working our way into heaven, tinged with the prospect of forgiveness. He announces,

The gospel is not individualized justification by faith. Rather, the gospel is the power of God for salvation, because it announces the reign of Jesus as king. . . . He is the justified one who lives by allegiance so that we can be justified by allegiance too, and in so doing tap into his resurrection life.

The fact that Perkins speaks about working our way into heaven shows that he does think the gospel is about how we get to heaven instead of that Jesus is King. This is the kind of thinking I argue against regularly. It makes the goal of the gospel to be only what happens after you die instead of what is relevant to the world right now. Of course, hypothetically, he could be right on this, but this argument amounts to, “This position is wrong because it disagrees with my position which is right.” In essence, circular reasoning.

None of this also means that we work our way into righteousness hoping for the prospect of forgiveness. If anything, historically, Calvinists had a need to know they were elect by the works that they did. Christian proclamation has never had a problem with good works. Bates’s position here is classical. We do not do good works to hold allegiance to Jesus. We do good works because we hold allegiance to Jesus.

Notably, in Bates’s gospel, we receive justification by performing the same actions as Christ, stressing Christ as exemplar rather than Savior. If faith is justifying for Christ and for us in the same way, Bates’s model of salvation diminishes—if not displaces—Christ’s role as the mediator who saves his people.

False on all counts. We receive justification by trusting in the work that Jesus already did on behalf of humanity. Perkins has thoroughly misunderstood his position. In doing so, he is actually backing his claim about people strongly holding to their traditions prior.

At times, Bates invokes part of the Roman Catholic structure of justification, saying, “Allegiance-based good works performed with the assistance of the Spirit are part of the basis of our final justification” (233). At other times, Bates goes further than Rome in asserting that allegiance “is the sole instrument of justification” (235). Still, he rejects Rome’s sacramental structure as a way to provide grace and emphatically focuses on our works.

They are the basis but they are not the cause. They show that we are indeed treating Jesus as king. Also, if allegiance is faith, and if allegiance is the sole instrument of justification, then faith is the sole instrument of justification. By Perkins’s own standards, Bates upholds justification by faith alone. Perkins confuses the sign of our salvation with the cause of our salvation in critiquing Bates.

Now, I have no sympathy for the Roman sacramental structure. However, I can appreciate that their sacramentalism at least intends to provide the grace that enables those works needed for final justification. In contrast, Bates seems not to have a clear outline for how grace comes to sinners. He also seems to reject the idea that one can even know which good works that we need to do for final salvation. Accordingly, he claims we cannot develop a list of universally binding commands that God expects of us.

Then I do not know what book Perkins has been reading. It doesn’t seem to be the book I read. Did they even read the book or just do a word search for keywords? Bates give a clear view. We are justified when we proclaim Jesus as the righteous King risen from the dead and as a result of our justification and salvation, we live our lives in allegiance to Him.

Beyond the Salvation Wars is theologically presumptive and often dismissive. Bates’s goal is to unite Protestants and Roman Catholics around premises of salvation. Based on his work, there’s perhaps one question we can all ask in agreement: Can Bates’s paradigm for salvation even be considered a gospel at all?

So we conclude once again at the end with TGC confusing the gospel with salvation once more, showing no real interaction with Bates’s book. TGC really needs to take a long look in a mirror at what they have become. They are quite good at saying that which appeals to their crowd, but those on the outside are more and more rejecting them. TGC has effectively becomes its own papacy.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars Chapter 3 Part 3

What do Protestants get wrong about the gospel? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

While working on my Master’s, part of the requirements for the scholarship I had were to go out and do evangelism on a weekly basis. (And if you would like to become a supporter for me on my PhD scholarship, go here.) You need to understand that for me, speaking behind a computer screen is super easy, but speaking face-to-face is horrid. Therefore, since we went out in pairs, the other person usually initiated the conversation.

I knew where that conversation would normally start. “If you died today, do you know if you would go to Heaven?” I hated it. Imagine that question. It doesn’t ask you anything about what you think about Jesus. It doesn’t ask you about God. It asks about you and you alone. It is all about you.

Now I know my fellow evangelicals mean well with this, but I inwardly cringed every time. Not only that, if you encounter someone who is in their 20’s, they’re thinking they won’t die for a long time and odds are, they’re right. It’s as if Christianity is only relevant when you die.

Bates says that Protestants do indeed get the gospel wrong. As he says, Protestants think that:

The gospel is primarily about how an individual person can get saved.

The gospel is that Jesus has done it all for you so that you don’t have to do anything yourself for salvation.

The gospel can be accurately summarized as Jesus died for your sins so that you can be forgiven when you die.

The gospel is the Romans Road: God is righteous, humans are sinners, Jesus Christ is the savior, so repent and believe.

The gospel is uniquely centered on the cross. The gospel is Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection. Period.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1027-1032). Kindle Edition.

I would want to be happy when I heard someone became a Christian through our efforts, but I am a cynic. I want to see this person a year later and see how they are doing. That is when I will be more assured that they did something serious when they made the decision.

Bates has two more errors he wants to add:

The gospel includes the personal receipt of justification by faith.

The gospel does not include social and political action.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1042-1044). Kindle Edition.

In other words, Bates says that how you respond to the gospel is not part of the gospel itself. Also, the typical view says becoming a Christian does not mean you are expected to do anything politically or socially. He argues, and I agree, that indeed you are expected to.

Not holding back, Bates says the problem goes all the way back to the beginning:

When Martin Luther launched the Protestant Reformation, he identified “justification by faith” as the essence of the gospel. Thereafter Protestants have tended to follow suit. For example, in various books John MacArthur, John Piper, and R. C. Sproul— the list could be multiplied— all claim that justification by faith is the heart of the gospel. MacArthur calls justification by faith “the core and touchstone of the gospel according to Paul” and summarizes, “Justification by faith is the linchpin of Paul’s teaching on the gospel.”  R. C. Sproul states, “Justification by faith alone is essential to the gospel.”  John Piper is even more effusive: “I am thrilled to call justification the heart of the gospel.”

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1059-1064). Kindle Edition.

So to my Catholic and Orthodox friends, Bates isn’t holding back. I personally think there were a number of errors in Catholicism that needed to be dealt with and I suspect many Catholics today would say that there were indeed problems that Luther addressed. If you think people can buy their way into eternity by purchasing an indulgence, that is a problem. That being said, could it be that Protestantism and Catholicism were not really arguing about the gospel in reality but were differing over secondary issues?

Bates says that justification by faith is never described as the gospel in the Bible. Not even once. He also says that when the gospel is described as good news, it is communal good, not individual. To use an analogy again, the recent election outcome was good news to some people, bad news to others, but those who thought it good news thought it good news for everyone and vice-versa for those who thought it bad news.

This also means that when someone becomes a Christian, they enter into a community. The community exists prior. The gospel is there before they are. They are entering the group of those who swear allegiance to King Jesus. This gets us to where justification by faith comes in.

As part of the gospel, corporate justification has already been won by King Jesus for himself and whoever happens to be part of his church. The gospel itself does not include personal justification by faith but does include the promise that a person can be justified by faith if that person meets the condition of faith.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1208-1218). Kindle Edition.

Some might ask about the good news still. How is it good news if the person doesn’t become a Christian? Bates has in mind people like Greg Gilbert and John Piper. To them, he says:

Piper and Gilbert’s position inadvertently taints the gospel with our culture’s narcissistic individualism: the gospel can’t count as good news unless I personally get something out of it.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1227-1229). Kindle Edition.

Even if no one ever became a Christian, Jesus would still be king. God would have still been on the throne. Of course, it is good when someone becomes a Christian, but the quality of the news does not change based on what we do with it.

What about issues of justice and political action? Those are worth their own coverage. We’ll deal with them next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Gospel Allegiance

What do I think of Matthew Bates’s book published by Brazos Press? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

What is the gospel? Many pastors today write books on the topic and talk about how central it is and how important it is to be proclaiming the good news. Sadly, many of them don’t have the good news right, and these are not the liberals. These are conservative God-honoring pastors who truly want to build up the church. The gospel becomes all about what happens individually in a person’s life. Justification by faith is said to be the gospel or in some cases I’ve seen such as saying Calvinism is the gospel.

My wife and I once attended a church where the pastor at the end of every sermon gave a call to accept Jesus as savior. Unfortunately, it seemed like the whole goal every time was to get someone to go to heaven. It’s as if it’s decided that the whole point of Jesus coming and dying and rising again is all about the next life and not here.

Matthew Bates says this must change. Now while it sounds like he’s wanting to change the gospel, what he’s wanting to change is our perception. He wants the gospel to go beyond forgiveness of sins. He’s not opposed to that as it’s certainly included in the message and he’s not opposed to justification by faith, but what is the gospel?

The gospel is about Jesus coming and living and dying and rising again and thus, being the Messiah, the King of the Jews, and everyone else for that matter. We treat Messiah like it’s a name. I have even had atheists ask me why a Jewish guy would have a Greek last name, as if Jesus was the son of Mr. and Mrs. Christ. The religion of Islam stresses that Jesus is the Christ, but it gives no content to this whatsoever.

When we say Jesus is the Messiah, we mean He is the king and He came to institute the Kingdom of God on Earth. Our response to this is not intellectual assent which is normally meant by faith. Instead, what is required is a life of allegiance. This does not mean that we earn our salvation, but that our lives model what we say we believe.

The kingship of Jesus means that we are not just agreeing with a proposition, but living lives of loyalty to the king. When we get the gospel wrong, we make the gospel be all about what happens to us. The gospel is all about what Jesus did and who He is. You could give a gospel presentation today to people that would not require Jesus being the Messiah or being the king. We are doing something wrong at that point.

Bates’s message then is that this a more biblical way of viewing salvation. Salvation is something that God does in us, but we willingly submit to him with a life of faith lived outward in allegiance to him. Bates does take on some of our modern pastors who emphasize too much justification by faith. He doesn’t disagree with them, but he does say that we need to move beyond that. He does have some problems with Catholicism, though he does not say Catholics are not Christians and is concerned when any Christian is restricted from partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

This is stuff I have already believed, but once you see it spelled out, it’s hard to not see it in other places. When I hear someone give a gospel presentation or read it now, it seems so lacking. While this is something I have even done a sermon on, it is something that needs to be stressed. We have made Christianity be about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, which is reducing Jesus down to the buddy Jesus idea, and not about Jesus being king. When I introduce myself at a Celebrate Recovery meeting, I do not describe myself as a faithful believer in Jesus, but rather as a faithful servant of king Jesus.

I hope more pastors and more Christians read Bates’s book. Bates is doing the church a great service. He is taking the material of scholars and giving it to the public on these issues in a way that is easy to understand. This book is highly readable for the layman and I recommend it greatly.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: In Search Of Ancient Roots

What do I think of Kenneth Stewart’s book published by IVP Academic? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Historically, many times different denominations have not gotten along. Today, there is much more communication and with the internet here, many people are coming across other belief systems they would have no access to before. Many an orthodox Protestant can be wondering about their belief system. Where did it come from?

Stewart’s book is written to help those searching Protestants. While not for any one particular denomination, he does work to show that many of the beliefs and such that we have today go back to our ancestors. Not only that, there was great theological development even on core doctrines. One quick example is the Trinity. It’s not that Jesus rose from the dead and immediately the apostles got together and wrote the Nicene Creed. The outworking of that event took at least three centuries to get to Nicea and today we can look back and see the development of the doctrine.

One great theme of this book is that the Fathers matter. I remember asking someone well over a decade ago in talking about apologetics if they could name an early church father. The only name that came to mind was John Wesley. That’s why we have to do a better job educating. So many people know so little about these great people that many times gave their lives for the Christian faith. We not only don’t know our doctrines, but we don’t know the history behind those doctrines.

Stewart definitely wants us to return to the Fathers. He tells us that early Protestants were known for doing this. Today we think of other traditions scouring the Fathers, but he says in the past the Protestants were the ones doing this the most. There’s no reason Protestants today can’t be doing in-depth research on the Fathers.

He also speaks about examples of debates that we have today. The two he chooses are the frequency of the Lord’s Supper and if we should participate in infant baptism. Both of these chapters bring up points that will be of interest to anyone in these debates.

There’s also a chapter on the history of Newman with the look at the claim that to study church history is to cease to be Protestant. Stewart contends that there are two different Newmans. One is the one presented in many popular writings. The other is one the Catholic Church itself was unsure about.

Towards the end, he starts looking at the harder issues. Many of these chapters I thought would actually work better at the beginning of the book. These include the claim that the Roman Church does have the highest authority due to the seat of Peter being occupied. Stewart argues that the data for this is not as strong as would be like and the claim is not helped by the fact that many times there were rival popes and each pope was busy excommunicating the other.

There’s also a chapter on the history of justification by faith. I find the fact that so many have written on this to show that the early Fathers taught this as fascinating, but there was one blind spot here. I did not see any quotations from the Fathers. I would have liked to have seen some of those at least. One could not get an encyclopedic look of course, but something would be nice.

Finally, it ends with why people abandon Protestantism and go the other way. Again, the message is that we need to really study our history and our doctrine. We have had a sort of anti-intellectualism come over the church and too many have the idea that everything just fell down from heaven and the history is irrelevant. We need to know not only where we are and where we are going, but how we got here.

Those interested in church history will benefit from reading this. It would be good for those on all sides of any such debate. I hope we can return to some serious look at our history. In an age of greater skepticism, we need it more and more not just because of the constant changing of churches, but because of outside attacks on all churches.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

 

What is the Gospel?

When we talk about the Gospel, what do we mean? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yesterday after my post, I went back to David Wood’s page where there was a debate on ecumenism and whether Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ or not. Now I am not Catholic of course, but I do ministry at times with Catholics and with Orthodox as well, but Catholics are usually the favorite target. We have no problem accepting one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. Normally, I don’t enter this debate at all, but this time, I figured I’d do it since it involved the defense of a friend.

So when the charge comes up and the Gospel is mentioned, I notice that it looks like we all think we know what the Gospel is, so I ask first if Jesus and Paul preached the same Gospel. I know where I’m going and I think this is problematic for some of these and I get told yes. I ask what that Gospel is and I get told the message of justification through faith. Wonderful. So I ask, where exactly do you see Jesus teaching this? After all, in Mark 1:15, Jesus shows up on the scene telling people to repent and believe the Gospel. Is He telling them to repent and believe that they are justified through faith?

Of course, if you know the Gospels, this isn’t a central theme of Jesus’s. Of course, Jesus does point to internal realities more than external ones, but the main teaching of His life is the Kingdom of God. In fact, I’m told that the words of Jesus aren’t just limited to red so you go and look at Paul and you see that this is what Jesus taught. I find this problematic. If we want to understand the Gospel, shouldn’t we start with Jesus? I don’t disparage Paul after all. Paul is immensely valuable and sacred Scripture as well, but isn’t Jesus the original teacher we should look to first?

I found it sad that no one could point this out to me. Here I am supposed to be told that justification by faith is the Gospel that Jesus taught and yet nowhere do I see this being His teaching. Nowhere do I see this being a point of debate between Him and the Pharisees. Of course I know about “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” and I know about the tax collector and the Pharisee, but you don’t see an out and out soteriology in Jesus. In fact, we all know he has some statements such as “Sell all you have and give to the poor.” We also know he has “Believe on the one whom God sent”, but the whole Pauline emphasis is not really there.

So finally after having these guys who were all about the Gospel being unable to answer enough, they finally turned to ask me. Interestingly, I was also asked such questions as if do I believe Jesus is God. After all, if you fellowship with Catholics, well your whole doctrine entirely needs to be called into question. (And I don’t even like “Is Jesus God?” That could be easily mistaken for modalism. I prefer to say Jesus possesses fully the nature of God and man as the second person of the Trinity, but I understand the theological shorthand.)

So what is the Gospel?

God created Adam and Eve to live in union with Him. He would be their God and they would be His people. Unfortunately, they decided to go it their own way and partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In response, God kicked them out of the garden and they were separated from Him.

Then Jesus came and……wait….that sure seemed to skip a lot didn’t it? I mean, do we really need all that stuff from Genesis 4 to Malachi 4? Is that really relevant to the story of Jesus?

Maybe, just maybe, maybe it is.

Tell you what. Let’s go through and see.

After Adam and Eve fall, mankind gets wickeder and wickeder. Their own children have a case of one brother killing the other. Eventually, God decides he will flood the world save for one man and his three sons and their wives and start anew.

After this, mankind decides to build a tower. Can’t have that happening again. God decides to confuse their languages and send them out as different peoples then. He chooses one person from one group of people and makes a covenant with him. That man was Abraham. God promises that all the peoples on Earth will be blessed through him.

Through miraculous means, this old man has a son and he is promised that through his son the promise will be fulfilled. God then tells Abraham to sacrifice this son named Isaac. Abraham is willing and God stops him. Abraham showed that he believed God would fulfill the promise even if he had to kill Isaac. God showed Abraham meanwhile how different He is from all the pagan gods. They would have demanded child sacrifice. YHWH puts a stop to it.

Isaac does grow up and have descendants and the story of Abraham is passed on until eventually, the people arrive in Egypt due to a famine. 400 years later, the people are in slavery and cry out to return to the land of Abraham. God hears them and sends them Moses. Moses delivers them through the Red Sea and takes them to Mount Sinai where they form a covenant relationship with YHWH through His Law. The Law will be how the people show the world that they are a unique people of God.

The people enter the land, but soon become unfaithful. God sends judges to them to return them to YHWH, but that is not enough. Eventually, a king is installed. The first one is a failure, but the second one is David, who is seen as the best king Israel ever had. God makes a covenant with David that one of his descendants will sit on his throne forever. This is in response to David wanting to build a house for God. God says David will not do that, but that his son will.

David’s next descendant, Solomon, does indeed build a temple. This is where God dwells with His people again. The temple becomes a symbol of the presence of God with the people, but the people grow arrogant and complacent about it. They think that God will never abandon it, as if He needs His temple. God sends them prophets when they neglect His Law, but they do not listen. Eventually, the people are sent into exile and the temple is destroyed.

About seventy years after that, the people are allowed to return to the land and build a new temple. The people are back and they have a temple, but something is wrong. Foreigners are in charge of the land. At the time of Jesus, it is Rome. How could it be that God is with His people and yet He lets pagan people rule the land? When is the Kingdom of David going to return? The people might be in the land geographically, but they do not have the charge of the land. It is still incomplete. Has God abandoned His people? Will He return?

Then Jesus came.

When Jesus shows up, He speaks about the Kingdom of God and even says it is right there. He asks people to believe the Gospel. What is the Gospel? God has returned to His people. God is present in Jesus. Even more startling, Jesus does signs to show that He is the Messiah of Israel and the one who will sit on the throne of David and through whom God will reign.

The rulers don’t like Jesus coming in on their turf and they fear a revolution. In a series of political events, they crucify Jesus. This will silence the claims of Him being a Messiah. If He is the Messiah, He will not be crucified. God will rescue Him. Unfortunately for His followers watching, Jesus dies. He is not rescued. He is buried in a tomb. Done. Kaput. Game Over. Let’s move on with our lives now.

But the game is not done. The story is not ended. The tomb is found empty and Jesus is alive again. What does this mean? If true (And it is), it means that God has vindicated Jesus. Jesus is indeed the Messiah. He is the one through whom God will reign.

This is why resurrection is so central to Paul. The resurrection is how God has shown who Jesus is. It’s more than “Jesus is alive and therefore He’s the Messiah.” It’s just as much about what Jesus did before the cross as what happened after. After all, as N.T. Wright says, if one of the thieves next to Jesus had been raised the Jews would say “YHWH is doing some strange things.” They would not say “The Messiah has come!”

This is why Paul does preach the same Gospel. The good news is God has come to be with His people. Jesus says it beforehand promising He will be that one. Paul says it after showing that by His resurrection, Jesus is the promised Messiah. God has returned to be with His people through Jesus. It was not just the land that was to be redeemed. It was indeed all the nations of the world.

Okay. So what about justification through faith? What does that have to do with it?

As I said earlier, in the past, you obeyed the Law not to be justified, but to show that you were. We often have this idea that Paul wrestled with the Law. Not at all. Go read his autobiography in Philippians 3. He was faultless before it. Yes. But what about Romans 7?

I don’t see that as autobiographical. I see that as Paul playing out a part. This is not a new view. Even Origen held this view. How would Paul describe himself as alive apart from the Law for instance? He never knew a life apart from it. I also think it’s problematic if you interpret this text as the Christian struggle. If you identify yourself with Romans 7, you will likely miss out your real identity in Romans 8.

Here’s the real deal then. Paul never wrestled with the Law and then said “Oh! Following Christ! I’m free from this burden!” No. Instead he said that he was blameless before the Law, but he counted that all as rubbish. The Greek word here is Skubalon and I have even been told that that can be translated as if it were something I would not say on this blog. That is how strong Paul’s language is.

The new marker then for showing you’re one of God’s is not keeping the Law. It is if you trust in Christ. Of course, this trust will result in good works. No one should oppose good works, but those good works are not done to obtain salvation but because you have already been given it. This is where justification comes in. It is not the faith that saves you so much as the object that you put your faith in. If you say “Justification by faith” I have to ask “Faith in what?” Then we get to the meat of the Gospel.

Now some might think this went long. It should. Israel was not something God tried for awhile and then said “Forget this. I’m going with the church.” Israel is part of the Gospel just as much. It is essential to know that Jesus is the Messiah. It’s so essential that Paul references it so much that some people, ignorantly of course, have thought that Christ was a last name as if Jesus was born to Mr. and Mrs. Christ. Today, we treat it as an afterthought. Oh yeah. Jesus is the Messiah. Paul didn’t treat it that way. Paul saw it as central.

And for that to be central, Jesus has to be the Messiah of Israel. For that to matter, we have to know Israel’s story. We dare not leave it out. Israel’s story is ours. We are just as much the people of God.

This is the good news. This is the Gospel. It reaches its full fulfillment in Revelation, but we are ambassadors of this good news for now. Jesus is not just the savior. He is not just the forgiver of your sins. He is the Messiah. He is your King. He is THE King.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Paul Was Not A Christian. The Original Message Of A Misunderstood Apostle

What do I think of Pamela Eisenbaum’s book published by HarperCollins? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I often read mythicist material so when I see a book titled “Paul was not a Christian” I immediately start to suspect that this is the kind of material I’m going to be looking at. I must say I was pleasantly surprised. She is actually a rarity in that she is a Jewish New Testament scholar and she does have a Ph.D. in the field. If someone comes here thinking they will find something along the lines of a mythicist argument or conspiracy theory nonsense, they will not find it. Instead, one will find interaction with other leading scholars in the field and a scholarly argument from Eisenbaum’s side.

And yet, if the title is an indication of the message she wants us to get, I ultimately think she fails. Before I say why that is, let’s look at what she does say.

Eisenbaum is rightly concerned about a negative view of Judaism that too many Christians have. In this, she is correct. We often have this idea that Jews were suffering under the weight of the Law and wondering how they could be holy before a God who was just demanding so much of them and would have loved any chance of grace. This in spite of the fact that the OT regularly speaks about forgiveness and grace. This despite the fact that in Philippians 3 Paul describes himself as blameless with regard to the Law. Sure, there were disputes in Judaism over who was and wasn’t a Jew and what got one to be considered a Jew, but it was not really the legalistic system that some Christians make it out to be. More power to Eisenbaum in critiquing this view.

I also agree with Eisenbaum that too often we make the central message of Paul to be justification by faith. Is this a message of Paul? Yes. Is it the main message? No. His message would have also been that of Jesus and justification by faith was an outworking of that message. Paul’s message would have centered around Jesus being crucified and resurrected. The emphasis on justification by faith assumes the point above being contested, that Paul lived in a world where Jews were struggling under the Law and that they just wanted a way to be righteous before God. Most of them already saw themselves as righteous before God. The Law was not followed so they would be righteous, but to show that they were righteous.

Eisenbaum is certainly also right that we should take Paul’s identity as a Jew seriously, especially since he himself said he was one. Paul should be seen as a Jew who was well-learned in the Hellenistic culture of the time. One of the great realities that has had to be learned in the quest for the historical Jesus is that Jesus was a Jew. The same needs to be said about Paul as well. Paul was a Jew. It’s important also to note that while Eisenbaum wants to make sure Paul is not seen as anti-Jewish, and he is not, Eisenbaum herself is not anti-Paul. Nothing in the book is meant to put Paul in a negative light. In fact, Paul is highly respected throughout Eisenbaum’s work and she seriously wrestles with what he says.

Eisenbaum does say that the social context Paul wrote in was not monolithic or homogeneous due to multiple writings going around and the canon was a fourth-century development, but this could be a kind of all-or-nothing thinking. Were there disputes and factions and such? Yes. Were there however unifying beliefs that we find? Yes. We could be sure Paul would not include anyone in the body who did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus in a bodily sense. After all, in 1 Cor. 15 if Jesus has not been raised then our faith is in vain, which has the assumption that the faith of all of us is that Jesus has been bodily raised.

Eisenbaum is also right that Paul does not use the language of conversion. Does he speak of a call of Jesus and the appearance of Jesus to Him? Yes. Eisenbaum is certainly right that this does not mean that Paul ever ceased to be a Jew and too often we have used the language of conversion. In fact, Richards, Reeves, and Capes in their book Rediscovering Paul also agree and say we should speak more of the call of Paul than we should speak of the conversion.

I also agree with Eisenbaum that Romans 7 is not an autobiographical account of Paul’s personal struggles. I see it more at this point as a description of Adam who was the last named character. Paul would not have described himself as alive apart from the Law for instance and when we read his account in Philippians 3, we see no such idea of a struggle with Paul. This is something in fact that Westerners have read into the text.

Throughout the book then, the reader will find relevant material on the new perspective on Paul, what makes a Jew a Jew, and the early Christian view of Jesus. Now there were some points I did disagree with. I disagree with her view on Christology and I think the work of scholars like Bauckham, Tilling, Hurtado, and others have definitely shown that the earliest Christology is the highest Christology. I also disagree with her that the crucifixion would not necessarily have been seen as falling under the Deuteronomic condemnation of those who were hung on a tree. I think Evans has made an excellent case in his latest book, though to be fair this definitely came out after Eisenbaum’s writing.

So in all of this, why is it then that I disagree with Eisenbaum’s claim that Paul was not a Christian? There’s a very simple reason.

Nowhere did I see Eisenbaum state what a Christian is.

It could be tempting to say that of course we all know what a Christian is, but that still needs to be addressed. For instance, if being a Christian means citing the Nicene Creed and affirming a formulaic view of Trinitarian theology, then would we say that it could be there were no Christians and no Christianity until later in church history? This sounds like an absurd position to take. If we say that a Christian for Paul would be someone who saw Jesus as the resurrected Messiah and Lord of all, then we could definitely say that Paul was a Christian. The problem is that Eisenbaum argues throughout that Paul never ceased to be a Jew so he would not have been a Christian, but this makes it be that if one is a Jew, one cannot be a Christian, and vice-versa. Ironically, Eisenbaum who is arguing that Christianity does not mean opposition to Judaism has herself created an opposition to Christianity in her work. That one cannot be a Jew and a Christian both would certainly be news to many Messianic Jews today.

This is the main problem then I find. Eisenbaum has written that Christians have imposed a split and she herself has that exact same split the other way. This should not detract from the excellent material in her work and we should take the views of Judaism from such a scholar seriously and we should learn to read Paul as a Jew, but we should still also read Paul as a Christian and in fact, because he was a Christian, he was exceptionally Jewish. After all, if Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and He is, what could be more in line with being a Jew than believing in the Messiah of the Jews?

So by all means go out and read this work for the scholarly insights within, but the main point is still not established. Much of what Paul said has been misunderstood due to what our culture has imposed onto the text, but the dichotomy is not really there and we as Christians should embrace the Jewishness of our Christian brother Paul.

In Christ,
Nick Peters