God has a program. A very big program. It’s a program that stretches from eternity to eternity, from heaven to earth, from saints to sinners. It’s a program that centres upon Jesus Christ, and intimately involves all those who trust in him. What does it mean to be part of this program? Find out as we explore this book of cosmic proportions – Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

What is this ‘New Perspective’ all about? Unfortunately, this is a very difficult question, because the New Perspective is such a diverse movement. It is a ‘perspective’, not a creed or a religion. Different New Perspective scholars (e.g. E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, N. T. Wright) emphasise different things, and in different ways. Furthermore, The New Perspective just won’t sit still. Many of its proponents have modified their earlier views. It develops, changes and grows with every new article and book published.

However, because it is so influential, ordinary Christians need to get some sort of handle on the New Perspective. At the very least, we need to be able to detect when our preachers are using New Perspective ideas so that we can evaluate what they are saying. How, then, can we approach such a seemingly impossible task? For those who have the time, there are big books available that survey the issues.[1] There are also articles focussing more directly on the doctrinal and pastoral implications of the New Perspective.[2] But in this article, I’d like to do something a bit more general. I want to present a ‘perspective’ on the New Perspective, to try to convey an overall feel for the emphases of the ‘New Perspective’, and to make some informed generalisations. I will concentrate on N. T. Wright, because he is very influential and is often in dialogue with conservative evangelicals.

What is the New Perspective reacting against?

The general aim of the New Perspective is to emphasise certain aspects of the Apostle Paul’s original teaching (mainly in his ‘early’ letters like Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians and 1 & 2 Thessalonians) that have been neglected by Protestants because traditional Protestants are (allegedly) too focussed on the debates of the Reformation. According to a well-known website called The Paul Page,[3] the New Perspective is a ‘revolutionary breakthrough’ in understanding Paul’s letters. The New Perspective claims to be ‘engaging first-century Judaism on its own terms, not in the context of the Protestant-Catholic debates of the sixteenth century’. The core issue is that

‘Paul’s argument with the Judaizers was not about Christian grace versus Jewish legalism [because the Jews were not legalists]. His argument was rather about the status of Gentiles in the church. Paul’s doctrine of justification, therefore, had far more to do with Jewish-Gentile issues than with questions of the individual’s status before God.’

So the ‘New Perspective’ aims to present ‘new’ ways of looking at old material—so that we can better understand Paul’s letters on their own terms. The New Perspective tends to redefine traditional Protestant words and concepts, sometimes explicitly, sometimes subtly. Often it’s a matter of changing emphasis rather than outright denial of anything in particular. N. T. Wright, for example, is able to affirm most of the evangelical creeds, slogans, articles, etc., sometimes because he agrees wholeheartedly (e.g. on the principle of ‘Scripture Alone’), at other times because he has redefined the words so that they mean something different to their traditional interpretation (e.g. ‘justification by faith’).

Because the New Perspective tends to see itself as correcting the errors of the (Protestant) past, a good starting point is to look at some of the ‘errors’ that the New Perspective is trying to rectify.

Individualism

The proponents of the New Perspective believe that they are correcting an unhealthy emphasis on individual salvation that Martin Luther began and later Protestants have perpetuated. In an influential article originally published in a psychological journal, Krister Stendahl claimed that Martin Luther’s ‘testimony of conversion’ involved a long introverted struggle with his individual conscience until finally the light dawned and he was ‘justified by faith’. According to Stendahl, Protestant theology has been unknowingly and illegitimately influenced by Luther’s individual psychological issues.[4] According to Mark Mattison, ‘One of the primary features of the traditional Protestant doctrine of justification is an emphasis on the plight of the individual before God, an individual quest for piety apart from concrete social structures.’[5] As I was listening to a sermon by N. T. Wright on Romans, he was outlining God’s grand plan for salvation from creation to new creation centring on Christ. He is an engaging speaker, and was beginning to get very excited and stirred up by this topic (understandably!) Finally it appeared he could contain himself no longer and he burst exclaimed: ‘Isn’t this so much grander than the little question of “how I can be saved”?’[6]

It must be said that this alleged ‘traditional Protestant doctrine of justification’ is not the ‘justification by faith’ that the sixteenth century Reformers believed and taught. Take Luther’s balanced summary statement in his early work about justification by faith, Concerning Christian Liberty: ‘A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.’[7] This work, all about ‘justification by faith’ addresses the effects of justification on all sorts of concrete social structures such as governments, neighbourhoods and churches. It concludes, ‘We conclude therefore that a Christian man does not live in himself, but in Christ and in his neighbour, or else is no Christian: in Christ by faith; in his neighbour by love.’ Hearing this, it is pretty hard to accuse Martin Luther of introspective individualism!

However, there are other movements that have done their bit to contribute to individualism in modern Protestantism. German pietism, consumerism, secular individualism, existentialism (via Bultmann), and Sigmund Freud, among others, can all share some of the blame. The New Perspective is reacting against a real contemporary problem, even if it misdiagnoses the cause.

Anti-Semitism

We might recall here the comic antics of Basil Fawlty (played by John Cleese), in the memorable episode of Fawlty Towers, ‘The Germans’. In this episode, the very English Fawlty goes to ridiculous extremes to avoid upsetting his German guests by mentioning World War II (and fails spectacularly). He constantly reminds himself and his staff: ‘Whatever you do, don’t mention the war!’.

The comedy works, of course, partly because it taps into a very serious and deep-seated sentiment in the modern Western psyche. Following the horrors of the Holocaust in Nazi Europe, ‘The West’ has an introspective corporate conscience, smitten to its core. This is, of course, understandable. Sin of this magnitude should smite our conscience!

However, some have traced the Nazi anti-Semitism back to Luther (with some cause, since Luther used harsh words for harsh times) and have thereby implicated the whole of Lutheran theology (with much less cause). The argument proceeds along the following lines. Lutheran theology was about individual faith-righteousness versus legalistic individualistic works-righteousness. Lutheran theology needed a foil, a bogeyman, an arch-nemesis which embodied legalism. Judaism became that foil, because this is Paul’s main sparring-partner. But then, enter E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977) whose attempt to ‘cleanse’ the West’s corporate introspective conscience has been the most successful:

‘Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.’[8]

Anti-historicism

Traditional biblical scholarship tended to treat Paul’s letters (especially Romans) as a ‘compendium of timeless theology’, and sometimes lost sight of the historical situation that Paul was actually writing from / to / about. The New Perspective proponents aim to restore the significance of the historical particularity of Paul’s letters (especially the Jew / Gentile issue).

The loss of biblical theology

One of the problems in modern biblical scholarship (and much contemporary preaching) is that the ‘big picture’ of what the Bible is all about has been all but lost. People are so busy focussing on the particular text of Romans or Galatians that they have forgotten the fact that these books were written in the context of the whole Bible, and need to be understood in light of the big biblical story. N. T. Wright attempts to provide a coherent, reasonable picture of the whole biblical story from creation to new creation using the overarching theme of ‘covenant’.

‘What I miss entirely in the Old Perspective, but find so powerfully in some modern Pauline scholarship, is Paul’s sense of an underlying narrative, the story of God and Israel, God and Abraham, God and the covenant people, and the way in which that story came to its climax, as he says, “when the time had fully come” with the coming of Jesus the Messiah.’[9]

According to Wright, the theme of ‘covenant’ can account for all of God’s dealings with humanity, Jew and Gentile. It is also the overarching theme behind the strong ‘community’ focus of the Bible, the death and resurrection of Jesus, the place of justification by faith and the historical specificity of biblical revelation.

A preliminary response

Unfortunately, the New Perspective tends to adopt an ‘either/or’ approach when it reacts against these perceived problems. For example, proponents of the New Perspective have perceived ‘individualism’ to be a real problem in contemporary Christianity. But their solution is often to emphasise the ‘community’ as more important than the individual, instead of trying to integrate individual and community issues together on an equal footing. This creates a tendency to lose sight of the very real individual issues that abound when it comes to salvation.

Furthermore, in reacting against anti-Semitism, the New Perspective has lost sight of the pan-human tendency for legalism and works-righteousness that was present among Judaism as it was also amongst medieval Catholicism; and as it is in our own day!

Finally, in using ‘covenant’ as the key to biblical theology, N. T. Wright has not considered other strong and coherent ways of understanding biblical theology that don’t use ‘covenant’ as their integrating theme. For example, Graham Goldsworthy’s very helpful biblical theology is based on the ‘Kingdom of God’, not on ‘covenant’.[10]

N. T. Wright and ‘the covenant’

N. T. Wright claims that he is adopting ‘a covenantal reading of Paul’.[11] For Wright, ‘covenant’ is the key to understanding all of Paul’s letters. Righteousness is ‘covenant membership’, justification is ‘the declaration of covenant membership’, faith is ‘the badge of covenant membership’, etc. Although Wright never really defines ‘covenant’, here (in broad brushstrokes) is what I think he means by the concept.

Basically, ‘covenant’ is the way that God relates to humanity. ‘Covenant’ defines a closely-related or even synonymous entity called the ‘people of God’ (or ‘God’s worldwide family’, or ‘The Church’). This ‘people’ has distinct ‘boundaries’ which define who is ‘in’ or ‘out’. Diagrammatically, I think this is a fair representation of Wright’s schema of the relationship between God and his people:

Wright’s view of the covenant:

This ‘people of God’ idea is very important for Wright, because it means that there are two distinct places where God works. Firstly (and most importantly), God works at the level of the ‘covenant’ between God and his ‘people’. The ‘covenant’ is where things such as righteousness, election, salvation, atonement and even (possibly) wrath belong. Secondly (dependent on the first, and quite distinct from it), there are individuals moving (or being moved) inside and outside the boundaries of God’s people.

So if you asked the question, ‘Did Jesus die to turn away God’s wrath from the sins of God’s people?’, Wright would answer, ‘Yes, absolutely!’. Because according to Wright, Jesus’ death happens at the level of God’s covenant. But if you asked the question, ‘Did Jesus die to turn away God’s wrath from me, a sinner?’, the answer tends to something along the lines of, ‘Wrong question! That’s your introspective conscience talking. That’s not what Jesus’ death was about. Just join the covenant, and everything else will be taken care of.’

What was the problem with Judaism, according to Wright? Judaism had no problem with their understanding of how God relates to the covenant. But they had too narrow a view of the extent of the people of God!

Wright’s New Perspective on Judaism:

When Christ came, he fulfilled God’s covenant by his death and resurrection. Hence the only valid ‘boundary marker’ for who is in or out of the covenant is faith in Christ, not Torah.

Wright’s New Perspective on Paul:

How ‘covenant’ redefines other concepts

Here is a summary of some of Wright’s statements in his commentary on Romans that help us to see how he redefines certain traditional Protestant words in the light of his ‘covenantal’ reading.[12] According to Wright:

• the gospel is not a message first and foremost about how humans get saved but an announcement about Jesus, the Messiah, i.e. the covenant head of the people of God.
• the law is not a principle or a moral regulation but it is the Torah, which includes ceremonies that can estrange Jew and Gentile but whose ultimate ground is faith.
• sin is not individual transgression of the rules of the law but The fall of Adam, in which all humans are incorporated. Its main effect is estrangement between people, particularly Jew and Gentile.
• God’s righteousness is not God’s justice in rewarding the godly and punishing the ungodly but God’s faithfulness to his covenant, which may even involve forgiving sinners in order to remain faithful to the covenant.
• our righteousness is not an undeserved, imputed state of non-condemnation from God but membership of the covenant people of God.
• justification is not a description of how somebody becomes a Christian but the verdict of righteousness at the last day based on covenant membership, now able to be pronounced on all who have the badge of covenant membership (faith).
• grace is the work of Christ in bringing us into the covenant plus the work of the Spirit in making us act in line with the covenant.
• sacrifice / propitiation is the mysterious and complex removal of God’s wrath at sin from his covenant people (not so much from the individual) by the death of the Messiah.
• faith is not a spiritual act which gains merit for the sinner in place of works [N.B. this is Wright’s understanding of the Protestant view, but not the Reformer’s view] but the badge of membership in the people of God, given by God’s sheer grace, which includes Christlike trust and active Christlike loyalty to God.
• works are not the keeping of moral regulations to earn God’s favour but ceremonies which distinguish Israel from the nations

So the most serious consequence of Wright’s ‘covenantal reading of Paul’ is that he has drastically reconfigured the idea of ‘justification by faith’ in Paul’s letters. According to Wright, justification is simply one aspect of the covenant between God and his people.[13] ‘[J]ustification is the covenant declaration, which will be issued on the last day, in which the true people of God will be vindicated [. . .] the verdict, can be issued already in the present, in anticipation.’[14] This means that for Wright, the covenantal ‘people of God’ becomes a sort of mediator between the individual believer and Christ’s cross. Once you join the ‘people’, your vindication is guaranteed. The individual is not so much justified by faith (according to the traditional Protestant understanding) as declared a member of the covenant people by virtue of wearing the ‘covenant badge’ of faith. Wright claims that when Paul says that we are now ‘justified by faith’ what he means is that we are members of the people of God—and since we will therefore be vindicated on the last day, we can even now be declared ‘vindicated’ on the basis of our covenant membership.[15] Paul was not primarily interested in the justification of the individual sinner. He was much more interested in whether an individual was a member of the people of God.

Problems with ‘the covenant’

‘The people of God’?

I hope that the above discussion has already shown the absurdity of drawing a distinction between the ‘people’ of God and the individual persons who make up that people. Let me take a familiar example (at least to me!). I love my family. When I say this, I am saying absolutely synonymously that I love my wife, I love my daughter and I love my son. My ‘family’ consists in the individuals who make it up. It does not exist, in either practice or in theory, apart from these individuals. It would be absurd to say, ‘I love my family. What is my family? My family is defined by certain covenantal boundary markers – we live together, we eat together, you trust me, etc. If you are part of my family, then I will love you as an individual, too.’ This is a crazy distinction. But it appears this is the way ‘people of God’ is, in practice, used by Wright.

I think the following diagram presents a better understanding of the ‘people of God’.

Covenant: What Saint Paul Rarely Said?

There is also an important question that Wright does not appear to have properly addressed in his writings: Is ‘covenant’ really the primary category of relationship in the Bible? Does ‘covenant’ really hold the testaments together? Jesus’ first words in his public ministry were ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel’ (Mark 1:15), not ‘The covenant has reached a climax’![16] Paul uses terms like ‘faith’ and ‘righteousness’ far more often than he uses the term ‘covenant’ (only nine times in all his letters). When Paul does use the term ‘covenant’, he usually speaks of covenants (plural), or of a ‘new covenant’ (Gal 3:15, 3:17, 4:24; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6, 14; Rom 9:4; Eph 2:12). Wright is too quick to assume that ‘covenant’, rather than (for example) ‘gospel’ and ‘kingdom’, is the main link that ties Paul to his Old Testament background.

I argue in my essay The Fulfilment of the Covenants: an Acovenantal Perspective on Paul that the way that N. T. Wright and others in the New Perspective use the term ‘covenant’ is unbiblical. The New Perspective’s use of the term ‘covenant’ is more akin to the sociological notions of the ancient Qumran sectarians than it is to the Old or New testaments. Rather, Paul’s view of the relationship between God and Christians is ‘acovenantal’. ‘Covenant’ is an inappropriate category for describing the fundamental character of a Christian’s relationship with God. Rather, the covenants were instruments that God used historically to bring about such a relationship. The ‘new covenant’ is not a ‘new relationship with God’, but Christ’s atoning death and the apostolic preaching of the gospel. The covenants inform our relationship with God, but the relationship itself is not a covenant. The relationship is best expressed as spiritual union with Christ by faith.

Learning from the New Perspective

While the New Perspective has some pretty serious flaws, it also has a number of helpful things to say. Before moving on to the dangers in the New Perspective, it’s worth pointing out some of the things we can learn from it.

The proponents of the New Perspective are good at pointing out things in Paul’s letters that a lot of contemporary evangelicalism tends to neglect. Although the New Perspective tends to overreact (e.g. by neglecting the importance of individual justification by faith), we can still learn it by asking ourselves if the critiques do actually apply to us. For example, are we too individualistic in our daily life and worship, spurning community and society? Are we too human-centred in our Christianity, forgetting that the gospel is actually about God’s work through Jesus, and not ‘all about us’? Are we insensitive to the historical character of Paul’s letters, treating them as direct solutions to our own problems before we understand what issues Paul was faced with in his own day?

The New Perspective is especially good at picking up ‘representative’, ‘participatory’ elements of Paul’s teaching. How often do we hear about the importance of corporately dying and rising with Christ as a basis for Paul’s ethical commands (e.g. Romans 6:3-6)? Too often, we talk about obedience to God as if it’s just a matter of being ‘grateful’ for our salvation, instead of an intrinsic aspect of who we are in Christ.

Dangers in the New Perspective

However, there are many grave dangers in the New Perspective on Paul which can’t be ignored.

Sidelining Justification by Faith

According to Wright, ‘The gospel’ of ‘Jesus is Lord’ is primarily for the world, not the individual.[17] It is a royal pronouncement comparable with the pronouncement of an ancient emperor.[18] The individual’s response and experience is acknowledged by Wright, but sidelined in the interests of community.[19] But when the question, ‘How can I be saved?’ is sidelined as secondary, it doesn’t disappear. The individual believer will keep asking the question, and the answers he or she receives will be inadequate because Christ’s work has not been used to properly define his person. Jesus is Lord because of his atoning death which justifies individual sinners through faith; the two cannot be separated (e.g. Rom 4:23-5:2, 1 Cor 6:11).

Asking the question, ‘Is the gospel about Christ’s lordship or justification by faith?’ is a bit like asking the question, ‘Which leg do you want me to chop off?’ Why ask it in the first place? Are you planning to get rid of one or the other? Even though Wright protests the importance of justification by faith, by redefining it he has really made it a ‘subsidiary’ issue that is relegated to second place in the overall scheme of things.

We need to realise that there are other motivations driving these dichotomies. If justification by faith can become secondary, then there have a basis for fellowship with Catholics, Orthodox, etc.[20] Fellowship is not bad, of course! But we need to be aware of this ecumenical agenda.

Imposing a theology of inclusion / exclusion on the whole Bible

I was recently listening to a sermon on Romans 8, directed at gospel ministers. Romans 8:1 says ‘There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.’ The preacher asked us: ‘How could you be (wrongly) exercising a ministry of condemnation?’ This is a great question to ask gospel ministers! Since ‘condemnation’ is all about pronouncing guilt, announcing God’s wrath, etc, then I would have expected the preacher to go on and warn us about the danger of imposing guilt upon Christians, making them think that they are worthy of God’s anger for their sin despite Jesus’ sacrifice for them, excessively questioning them about their private lives, etc.

However, what the preacher meant by the ‘ministry of condemnation’ was a ministry that subtly ‘excluded’ certain people from the ‘evangelical camp’ because of unsavoury beliefs and not being like minded. So the ‘ministry of condemnation’ at this point means ‘exclusion’ from the theological ‘camp’.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this application. It is, in fact, sorely needed. Sometimes theology is treated as a club to bludgeon the ‘other side’ in a kind of tribal warfare. But this application should come from elsewhere (e.g. Ephesians 2:11-21, ‘So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,’). This application doesn’t really seem to follow from the context of Romans 8:1. If we mute the aspects of personal sin, wrath, condemnation, salvation, etc in those passages which most clearly speak about it (e.g. Romans 8:1), then a theology of ‘inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’ may effectively end up dominating over these other very fundamental aspects of the gospel.

(Note: at first, I had thought that the preacher was operating within a framework in which ‘condemnation’ was always equivalent to ‘exclusion’, but after interaction with the preacher himself I’ve changed my mind and I have removed statements from this section of my article that implied this).

Muting the gospel

I also find intriguing a recent newspaper article by a non-Christian journalist describing her experience of having friends in a Christian group. The journalist describes how she was both attracted to and repelled by the group. The attraction, to her, was the sense of ‘community’ that gave the group cohesion and caused her to envy them. But she was also overwhelmingly repelled by their use of the word of God which, in her mind, placed ‘boundaries’ on who was ‘in’ and who was ‘out’. She had seemingly not heard about the death and resurrection of Christ (which is what she should have been attracted and repelled by!). That is, she had not actually heard the gospel. However, she had surmised from the speech and behaviour of this group that Christianity was all about whether you were included or excluded from the community. This may be just her misunderstanding, and certainly she does not have the full picture. However, it is worrying, because, at least in this case, the idea of ‘community’ had replaced the work of Christ as the central tenet of Christian witness to an unbeliever. The New Perspective may well have been at work in this group.

Being found outside of Christ

The greatest danger I can see is that the ‘people of God’ (in Wright especially) has been drastically redefined. It has morphed away from being the community of individuals whom God loves, and has become a separate entity which one must join. This new so-called ‘people of God’, if it isn’t held in check, may well turn into a beast that claims to be a mediator between the individual and God. In seeking to be justified by joining this alien entity, we may find ourselves outside of Christ and his benefits (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). This is a very grave danger indeed!

Footnotes

• [1] E.g. Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The ‘Lutheran’ Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004); D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien and Mark A. Seifrid (eds), Justification and Variegated Nomism (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001 & 2004), 1-38.
• [2] E.g. Robert S. Smith. Justification and Eschatology: A Dialogue with ‘The New Perspective on Paul’. (Reformed Theological Review Supplement 1; Doncaster: RTR, 2001).
• [3] Mark Mattison, The Paul Page. This is is a great compendium of New Perspective scholarship and critiques.
• [4] Stendahl, ‘The Apostle Paul and Introspective Conscience of the West’, HTR 56 (1963), 199-213.
• [5] Mattison, The Paul Page.
• [6] I’m not sure if I’ve quoted him verbatim, but this was certainly the point that he was making!
• [7] Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian
• [8] Mattison, The Paul Page.
• [9] N. T. Wright, New Perspectives on Paul (2003 Rutherford Lecture)
• [10] Graham Goldsworthy, According to Plan: the Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible (Leicester: IVP, 1991).
• [11] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Oxford: Lion, 1997), 132.
• [12] N. T. Wright, ‘The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections’, in The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary In Twelve Volumes, Vol. 10 (ed. Leander E. Keck; Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 393-770, esp. 464-93.
• [13] Wright, Saint Paul, 117-18, 160.
• [14] Wright, Saint Paul, 131.
• [15] Wright, Saint Paul, 131.
• [16] cf. N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant (London: T & T Clark, 1991).
• [17] Wright, Saint Paul, 153-57.
• [18] Wright, Saint Paul, 157.
• [19] Wright, Saint Paul, 157-58.
• [20] Wright, Saint Paul, 158-59.

Introduction

It is undeniable that Paul’s letters contain both declarations and commands, theology and ethics, indicatives and imperatives. Yet Paul himself never explicitly lays out the logical connection between these two elements of his thought. Certainly, indicatives generally precede and are connected to imperatives, sometimes broadly (e.g. Eph 1-3 then 4-6; Rom 1-11 then 12-15) sometimes in the same breath (e.g. Gal 5:1, Gal 5:25, 1 Cor 5:7; Phil 2:12-13).¹ Yet Paul employs a wide variety of individual motivations for ethical injunctions, ranging from God’s mercy (e.g. Rom 12:1) to God’s eschatological judgment (e.g. 1 Thess 4:6, Gal 5:21; 1 Cor 6:9-10), from the example of Christ (e.g. Phil 2:5), through the work of the Spirit (e.g. Rom 8), to the self-awareness of Christians (e.g. 1 Cor 6:1).² Can we comprehensively account for this variety? This question is one, not just of the existence, but of the implicit nature and logic of the connection between indicative and imperative in Paul’s thought.³

As we explore this connection, we will make certain assumptions. Firstly, we will assume (along with Classical Protestantism) that Paul’s controlling indicative is one of assurance of salvation for the individual believer. In Grogan’s words,

‘The Christian’s acceptance with God is grounded in Christ’s atoning work, accepted by faith [. . .] however ethical activity is to be conceived, whether as evidence of grace or as grateful response to grace, or as both, it cannot be rightly viewed as the means of acceptance with God’⁴

Secondly, we will assume that Paul does indeed operate with a coherent, if implicit, ethic.⁵ Thirdly, we will assume that Paul himself is tacitly aware of his ethic, in such a way that he can apply it in various contingencies without requiring a direct divine command (e.g. 1 Cor 7:25).⁶ On this basis, our task is to explore Paul’s rationale for moving from assurance of salvation to ethical injunction. We will then show how Paul applies his rationale to the particular connection between the Christian’s freedom and the Christian’s responsibility to love.

Separation?

Earlier studies tended to see little or no connection between indicative and imperative. The Lutheran tradition in particular, with its tendency to focus exclusively on the forensic element of justification and neglect participation in Christ, has often struggled with the connection.⁷ Freedom from ‘the law’ (e.g. Rom 7:4, 8:2) can often be understood as freedom from all imperatives. Pauline imperatives are then viewed as temporary pragmatic injunctions designed to protect the spiritually immature from sin or lead them in despair to the gospel.⁸

The tendency to view Pauline ethics in purely consequentialist categories is not limited to Lutheranism. The British Congregationalist C. H. Dodd, for example, was influential in distinguishing the gospel kerygma—the gospel proclamation of God’s mercy and judgment—from the didache subsequently given to those who respond.⁹ The initial purpose of this didache was to help Christians conform to their surrounding culture in terms of family life, etc.; to be prudent, non-provocative and non-eccentric.¹⁰ Paul went some way towards ‘transforming’ this didache by connecting it back into the kerygma, but imperfectly.¹¹ The USA, too, has advocates of a radical separation between salvation and ethics, in which assurance is linked to Christ’s atoning work whilst ethics is linked to the wholly separate sphere of Christ’s ‘lordship’.¹²

Necessity?

This separation of indicative and imperative, however, is inadequate to account for either the depth or the breadth of the theological grounds for ethical injunctions in Paul. As Rosner points out, Paul’s ‘ethics make no sense without his eschatology, soteriology, and ecclesiology’.¹³ Ethics is about preparing the church for the day into which it has already entered (e.g. Rom 13:11-12), following the paradigm of Christ’s death and resurrection (e.g. Romans 15:1-3; Phil 2:1-13), building the community through love (e.g. 1 Cor 12-14). This interrelatedness has led many scholars to posit a much closer connection between indicative and imperative which is often presented as a relationship of necessity.

Bultmann’s 1924 essay ‘The Problem of Ethics in Paul’ was a watershed in this regard.¹⁴ It made indicative and imperative the ‘basic formula’ of Pauline ethics and set the agenda of subsequent reflection.¹⁵ Bultmann saw the formula in terms of existential necessity. What is accomplished (indicative) must gain real existence in my moment of decision (imperative).¹⁶ ‘Since it is concrete, empirical man [. . .] who becomes justified, whose sin is forgiven, the relation of the justified to the life beyond does not exist apart from or beside his concrete conduct and destiny.’¹⁷

Bultmann seriously attempted to safeguard the reality of both God’s free grace and human decision.¹⁸ However, his existential categories cannot deal with the theological objectivity of the indicative: the existence of life ‘in Christ’ before it is ‘in me’ (Gal 2:17-21, Eph 2:5, Rom 5:6-10). For Bultmann, the indicative is only real ‘in me’. But others since him have realised that in Paul being precedes act; the imperative is grounded upon, appeals to and develops the implications of a given reality (past, present and future).¹⁹

Furnish, while rejecting Dodd’s separation of kerygma and didache, does not go down Bultmann’s existentialist track.²⁰ Rather, he sees the relation of indicative and imperative in terms of Christological necessity, particularly when it comes to the command to love. Indicative and imperative, ‘though they are not absolutely identified, [. . .] are closely and necessarily associated.’²¹ For Paul, the command to love ‘is the necessary manifestation within Christ’s body of the new creation already underway in the working of God’s Spirit.’²² ‘If one has received the gospel then he has already received God’s love, and with it the command to love his brethren.’²³ Why? Because ‘Christ’s love’ is both a gift and a claim, a benefit to receive and a power to display.²⁴

Furnish is certainly more theocentric than Bultmann. This enables him to distinguish a logical order in which indicative precedes imperative: the gift of Christ’s love is prior to its application to the believer. Yet for all this, it is hard to see how Furnish accounts for the contingency inherent in the imperative. He affirms that the imperative must be taken seriously, yet does not really explain how something that is necessary can also be commanded.²⁵ This is seen most acutely when we look at negative examples. When, for example, the Corinthians failed to love each other (1 Cor 1:11), then we must conclude that either Christ’s love had failed, or the connection between Christ’s love and their love was not ‘necessary’.

Similarly, Deidun argues that the indicative and imperative are connected by ‘theological necessity’.²⁶ He takes dei/ (1 Thess 4:1) in strong terms, ‘it is necessary’.²⁷ The ultimate ground of the imperative is the indwelling of God’s Spirit, impelling obedience.²⁸ As with Furnish, this is a helpful, Trinitarian corrective against Bultmann’s existentialism.²⁹ However, it is again difficult to see how to take the imperatives seriously in Deidun’s schema.³⁰ For Deidun, the imperative is about human freedom ‘not resisting’ God, ‘co-operating’ with God, ‘yielding’ to God and saying ‘yes’ to the ‘necessary effect of God’s inward activity’.³¹ Yet if God is necessarily involved in our obedience, isn’t the possibility of resisting him ruled out? Where is the place for the contingency that Deidun seeks to affirm? Deidun is ultimately forced to exchange Paul’s prolific second person imperatives for his own third person imperative: ‘Let God be what he is’.³²

Teleology

If necessity is inadequate to explain the connection between indicative and imperative, is there a better way? Furnish himself points in the right direction when he notes that ‘redemption is not just deliverance from the hostile powers to which [the Christian] was formerly enslaved, but freedom for obedience to God.’³³ This idea of an end goal or purpose for salvation is very promising, and we shall explore this connection in what follows.

O’Donovan, in discussing the Pauline material, points to the far-reaching effects of Christ’s resurrection.³⁴ The resurrection does not simply assure us of salvation from death; it entails a re-ordering of fallen creation. At its centre, the resurrection is a reaffirmation of God’s created order in all its richness: God, humanity and the creation are rightly related by Christ’s resurrection. Like Deidun, O’Donovan affirms both the Spirit’s work and the reality of human freedom in the imperative. However, he relates these two realities in a more coherent manner.³⁵ The gift of the Spirit in me means not only that I must ‘put to death’ what is opposed to God’s order (e.g. Col 3:5ff)³⁶ but also that ‘in the redemption of the world I, and every other “I”, yield myself to God’s order and freely take my place within it’.³⁷ The imperative is thus a call to yield to God’s necessary resurrection order rather than a necessary yielding to God’s order (as in Deidun); hence the imperative preserves its integrity. Our freedom is that of Spirit-indwelt Sons, ‘humbly and proudly in command’ of the natural order yet subject to the facts of this order.³⁸

O’Donovan then goes on to discuss the implications of this re-ordering.³⁹ Hill’s article in many ways parallels O’Donovan’s argument but is applied directly to Paul’s Letter to the Romans; it is worth a brief summary.⁴⁰ Hill argues that an overarching indicative of Romans is that the created ‘generic order’ (i.e. the set of relationships between classes of persons and things) is both deformed and concealed by sin (Rom 1) but has been restored by God’s work in Christ. This restored generic order has an historical goal that is yet to be reached at the last day, particularly freedom from decay and the redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:19-25). The incompleteness of this historical goal explains the frustration, suffering and sin that characterises our lives. Yet the renewed generic order in Christ also implies a presently renewed telic order; that is, a re-orientation of purpose for all those ‘in Christ’ rather than ‘in Adam’ (5:12-21). This renewed telic order, which is the basis for ethics (the imperative), is grounded on the renewed generic order (the indicative) that is only knowable by the renewal of our minds (12:2) by the Spirit (8:1-8).

We conclude that the relationship between the indicative and the imperative in Paul is neither incidental nor necessary, but naturally teleological. The indicative assures us not only that we have been saved from generic disorder in its fullest sense (‘death’) but to generic order in its fullest sense (‘life’), beginning with ‘righteousness’: right relationship between God and humanity ‘in Christ’ (e.g. Rom 5:17-18, 8:10; Eph 4:24; Phil 3:9).⁴¹ The imperative, then, is contingent upon the natural telic re-orientation of our being. This logic is evident in Romans 6: our new generic order in Christ (5:12-21) involves death to sin and life to God (6:1-10). Thus the first imperative in Romans is ‘account yourselves dead to sin but living to God in Christ Jesus’ (6:11), followed closely by commands to ‘yield’ your created members to God as tools of righteousness (6:12-13). The gift of ‘eternal life’, then, is not just a promise of immortality but the creation of a new person with re-oriented purposes (6:23). Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 15, we see that those who have no hope of life also have no imperative (15:32-33), but the knowledge of our bodily resurrection in Christ climaxes in a sweeping ethical imperative to labour ‘in the Lord’ (15:58). In Christ, we have not ‘abstract, ideal potentialities’⁴² but a real purposeful nature.

Freedom, love and Paul

A good example of the teleological structure of Paul’s ethics is the relationship between our freedom in Christ and our love for others. The connection is evident in Gal 5:13: ‘For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as (eivj) an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.’ Freedom is oriented toward love. This orientation is explored at more length in 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14-15, where, as we shall see, what Christians are saved to is given priority in ethical decision-making over what they have been saved from. As Barth observes, sanctification (which includes love) is the goal of justification and therefore has teleological priority.⁴³

1 Cor 8:1 raises the question about whether it is right to eat food offered to idols. Paul’s answer is lengthy and complex, but illuminating. He answers neither ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but gives a number of indicatives interspersed with imperatives. He begins by contrasting ‘knowledge’, which ‘puffs up’ (and is inherently divisive),⁴⁴ with ‘love’ which ‘builds’. It soon becomes evident that the ‘knowledge’ that he is disparaging is that knowledge which only considers what we have been saved from: in this case, bondage to polytheistic idolatry (8:4, cf 10:19). Paul appears to agree in principle with this ‘indicative’, identifying it with the beliefs of a group called ‘the strong’ who felt free to eat the food.⁴⁵ However, he also identifies a group called the ‘weak’ who do not have this knowledge (8:7), yet are Christian and are not perverse (8:9-12).⁴⁶ It seems that the ‘weak’ have accepted monotheism (8:6) but this has not filtered down into their attitude to idols; they have not yet realised that an idol is nothing (8:4).⁴⁷ Paul does not seem immediately concerned to correct this misunderstanding; and he certainly does not use the ‘correct’ attitude to idols as a basis for any imperatives. Rather, Paul’s controlling indicatives are those which describe what the Corinthians have been saved ‘to’. These two indicatives can be characterised as monotheism and brotherhood.

In 8:6, Paul weaves Jesus Christ into the classic Deuteronomic statement of monotheism (Deut 6:4); and then expands the statement to show its implications for the generic order of creation (‘all things’) and our own existence. Wright has dubbed 8:6 a statement of ‘Christological monotheism’, and sees it as the controlling indicative of the rest of the passage.⁴⁸ Horrell, on the other hand, argues Paul completely overrides 8:6 by his subsequent argument; Horrell posits that Paul’s ethics are not based on doctrinal considerations at all but rather on the competing notion of the imitation of Christ (11:1).⁴⁹ However, there are good reasons to agree with Wright that Christological monotheism is crucial to the rest of Paul’s argument. If we have been saved to worship ‘One God and Lord’, then the critical imperative is to worship God alone and nothing else. If the weaker brother really believes that idols are something, and he eats idol food, then his action will violate monotheism. Hence he is ‘destroyed’ (8:12).

The second controlling indicative of chapter 8 is brotherhood (8:11-13). The strong must realise that their generic order under Christ entails brotherhood with the weaker Christian, who through Christ’s death participates with them in the new creation (cf 12:13, Gal 3:27-28).⁵⁰ Paul, when applying this to his own situation, describes it as being ‘in-lawed of Christ’ (e;nnomoj Cristou/, 9:22)—an expression that shows that believers are governed by their new order of being in Christ and belonging to him, which leads to a life of service to others.⁵¹ Therefore the strong must lovingly ‘build’ the brothers, not to idolatry (8:10) but toward their telos which is worshipping the one true God (8:6, cf 10:23). This may require abstaining from idol food if it causes the weaker brother to stumble (8:9-13).

Paul brings brotherhood and monotheism together in chapter 10. Here Paul’s prohibition of idolatry is much stronger. This is probably best explained by the observation that chapter 8 discussed the individual’s use of his ‘authentic right’⁵² while chapter 10 has the redeemed community as a whole on view, as seen by the propensity of plural pronouns and words such as ‘participation’ and ‘body’ (10:16-20). Thus Paul’s ultimate intention in chapters 8-10 is to persuade the ‘knowers’ to forego their individual rights and seek their neighbour’s good (10:24).⁵³ The member of the redeemed body will not eat idol-meat even though as an individual it is perfectly acceptable, for this would be sinful for the church. This is truly a teleological ethic. It recognises the objective and necessary existence of a right but decides not to use that right in the interests of love, which is the purpose of the redeemed community which worships the one true God. This logic extends even to unbelievers (10:27-28). The implications of monotheism for what we are saved to overrides its implications for what we are saved from.

Romans 14-15 presents a similar argument in a different situation. The ‘weak’ here are vegetarians (14:2), observe special days (14:5-6) and abstain from wine (14:21). Most commentators see this as a more specifically Jew-Gentile issue than in 1 Corinthians.⁵⁴ Yet the overall shape of the ethic is similar. The ‘strong’ were in danger of basing their actions simply on the truth of what Christians have been saved from. Because they knew that purity regulations were of no consequence (14:14, 20), they were tempted to despise those who adhered to them.⁵⁵ Yet, once again, Paul bases his imperatives on what we are saved to. Because we are those welcomed by God and Christ into a community of the welcomed, the strong are to welcome those who have not yet worked out the full implications of their salvation (14:1-3, 15:7).⁵⁶ Conversely, since we belong to the Lord through Christ’s work and are thus accountable to him (14:6-12), the weak must not pre-empt God’s role by judging their brothers (14:3, 13).⁵⁷ Because we are in brotherhood with those for whom Christ died (14:15), we are to love them, thus serving Christ (14:15, 18; 15:1-2, 6). The ‘kingdom of God’ is God’s generic order which has the shape ‘righteousness and peace and joy’ rather than ‘food and drink’ (14:17). Although this saves us from scruples about eating and drinking, this fact alone is insufficient for ethics. For (ironically) if we remain with this fact alone, we end up making the ‘kingdom of God’ a matter of food and drink and destroy God’s real work (14:20-21).

Furnish, in discussing these chapters, is certainly right when he observes that ‘Paul regards love as an act of freedom’,⁵⁸ and that love is ‘the means by which one’s freedom in Christ is authentically realized.’⁵⁹ Yet a teleological understanding of the relationship between indicative and imperative is required to illuminates the inner logic of these observations. Freedom is not just about the destruction of bonds, it is about the restoration of right order in which the restored agent is free to fulfil the full range of potentialities inherent in that order: in this case, to love. Conversely, to use one’s freedom as an opportunity for the flesh (Gal 5:13) is just a different form of slavery.

Freedom, love and us

This understanding is very pertinent for our world in which people of many different backgrounds and convictions live, work and play together. Multiculturalism tests the limits of tolerance, e.g. how far can the secularist ideal of ‘reasoned debate and compromise’ really go when people who believe in animal sacrifice and female circumcision live side by side with those who find it morally repugnant?⁶⁰ This variety is also reflected in contemporary churches: in a single church, one could find somebody who struggles with alcoholism sitting next to a wine collector, or somebody who believes that the wearing of robes is vital to preserve the dignity of church order sitting next to somebody who believes robes are superstitious medieval trappings.

In responding to this diversity, some have proposed that the solution involves subordinating ‘truth’ to ‘love’. In order for us live in harmony, doctrinal propositions must be sacrificed. Horrell, as we saw, proposed that this is exactly what Paul did in 1 Corinthians 8-10.⁶¹ Stanley Grenz, for example, posits that a loving Christian community defines God’s truth.⁶² This sort of argument is even used to justify the blessing of same-sex unions by church authorities.⁶³

However, as we have seen, Paul’s solution is not to sacrifice doctrinal propositions, but rather to teleologically order and prioritise such propositions. If female circumcision, however ‘unnecessary’, enables women of a particular culture to freely serve and enjoy their family relationships, we should not prohibit it. But if it means ongoing frustration or degradation for such women, we should oppose it. It is never loving to bless same-sex unions, for this moves people away from the order of creation that is revealed in the law and restored in Christ. Similarly, if wine, robes or T-shirts lead my brothers and sisters towards drunkenness, superstition or irreverence and thus away from God’s good purposes, I must avoid them as far as I am able.

Paul says, ‘if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat’ (1 Cor 8:13). This is not because Paul has decided to jettison all indicatives, but because he regards the indicative ‘an idol has no existence’ (8:4) as teleologically subordinate to the indicative of his salvation into a brotherhood in which God alone must be glorified. Thus Paul’s strongest imperative is to do nothing to prevent God being glorified by his brother for whom Christ died.

Bibliography of Sources Cited

Barth, Karl. The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Church Dogmatics Vol. IV, 2. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1958.

Bornkamm, Günther. Paul. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971.

Bultmann, Rudolf. ‘The Problem of Ethics in Paul’. Pages 195-216 in Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth Century Approaches. Edited by Brian S. Rosner. Translated by Christoph W. Stenschke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995

Chattaway, Peter T. ‘Canadian Anglicans Face Off’. Christianity Today 48/1 (2004): 24.

Coles, Clifton. ‘Testing the Limits of Tolerance’. Futurist 37/2 (2003): 14-15.

Deidun, T. J. New Covenant Morality in Paul. Analecta Biblica 89. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981.

Dennison, William D. ‘Indicative and Imperative: The Basic Structure of Pauline Ethics’. Calvin Theological Journal 14/1 (1979): 55-78.

Dodd, C. H. Gospel and Law: The Relation of Faith and Ethics in Early Christianity. Cambridge: University Press, 1951.

Furnish, Victor P. ‘Belonging to Christ: A Paradigm for Ethics in First Corinthians’. Interpretation 44/2 (1990): 145-57.

______. The Love Command in the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972.

______. Theology and Ethics in Paul. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968.

Grenz, Stanley J. Revisioning Evangelical Theology: a Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century. Downers Grove: IVP, 1993.

Grogan, Geoffrey W. ‘The Basis of Paul’s Ethics in His Kerygmatic Theology’. Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 13/2 (1995): 129-47.

Hill, Michael. ‘Theology and Ethics in the Letter to the Romans’. Pages 249-62 in The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission. Edited by Peter Bolt; Mark Thompson. Leicester: Apollos, 2000.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free: a Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Horrell, David. ‘Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?: Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1’. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997): 83-114.

Kolb, Robert and Timothy J. Wengert (eds.). The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Translated by Charles Arands, Eric Gritsch, Robert Kolb, et. al. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.

Martin-Schramm, James B. ‘Justification and the Center of Paul’s Ethics’. Dialog 33/2 (1994): 106-10.

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Mott, Stephen C. ‘Ethics’. Pages 269-75 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid. Leicester: IVP, 1993.

O’Donovan, Oliver. Resurrection and Moral Order: an Outline for Evangelical Ethics. 2nd ed. Leicester: Apollos, 1994.

Parsons, Michael. ‘Being Precedes Act: Indicative and Imperative in Paul’s Writing’. Pages 217-47 in Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth Century Approaches. Edited by Brian S. Rosner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Rosner, Brian S. ‘Paul’s Ethics’. Pages 212-23 in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Cambridge Companions to Religion. Cambridge: University Press, 2003.

______. ‘“That Pattern of Teaching”: Issues and Essays in Pauline Ethics’. Pages 1-23 in Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth Century Approaches. Edited by Brian S. Rosner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995

Ryrie, Charles C. So Great Salvation: What it Means to Believe in Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody, 1997.

Seifrid, Mark A. ‘Righteousness, Justice and Justification’. Pages 740-45 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. D. Alexander, Brian S. Rosner. IVP Reference Collection. Leicester: IVP, 2000.

Shogren, Gary S. ‘“Is the Kingdom of God About Eating and Drinking or Isn’t it?” (Romans 14:17)’. Novum Testamentum 62/3 (2000): 238-56.

Still, E. Coye. ‘Paul’s Aims Regarding EIDWLOQUTA: A New Proposal for Interpreting 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1’. Novum Testamentum 44/4 (2002): 333-43.

Wright, N. T. ‘Monotheism, Christology and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8’. Pages 120-36 in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991.

² Deidun, New Covenant Morality, 51-52.

³ Rosner, ‘Pattern of Teaching’, 17-20.

⁴ Geoffrey W. Grogan, ‘The Basis of Paul’s Ethics in His Kerygmatic Theology’, Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 13/2 (1995), 143.

⁵ Michael Hill, ‘Theology and Ethics in the Letter to the Romans’, in The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission (ed. Peter Bolt; Mark Thompson; Leicester: Apollos, 2000), 249.

⁶ Grogan, ‘Basis in Kerygmatic Theology’, 130.

⁷ James B. Martin-Schramm, ‘Justification and the Center of Paul’s Ethics’, Dialog 33/2 (1994), 108; e.g., the Augsburg Confession (1530) in Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (trans. Charles Arands, Eric Gritsch, Robert Kolb, et. al.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 39-40, separates justification from the Spirit’s work.

⁸ critiqued by Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: an Outline for Evangelical Ethics (2nd ed.; Leicester: Apollos, 1994), 154; Stephen C. Mott, ‘Ethics’, in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid; Leicester: IVP, 1993), 269.

⁹ C. H. Dodd, Gospel and Law: The Relation of Faith and Ethics in Early Christianity (Cambridge: University Press, 1951), 9-10.

¹⁰ Dodd, Gospel and Law, 20-24.

¹¹ Dodd, Gospel and Law, 24.

¹² Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation: What it Means to Believe in Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1997); Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: a Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989).

¹³ Brian S. Rosner, ‘Paul’s Ethics’, in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul (ed. James D. G. Dunn; Cambridge Companions to Religion; Cambridge: University Press, 2003), 216-17.

¹⁴ Rudolf Bultmann, ‘The Problem of Ethics in Paul’, in Understanding Paul’s Ethics: Twentieth Century Approaches (ed. Brian S. Rosner; trans. Christoph W. Stenschke; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 195-216.

¹⁵ William D. Dennison, ‘Indicative and Imperative: The Basic Structure of Pauline Ethics’, Calvin Theological Journal 14/1 (1979), 59.

¹⁶ Dennison, ‘Indicative and Imperative’, 61-62; Parsons, ‘Being Precedes Act’, 222.

¹⁷ Bultmann, ‘Ethics in Paul, 212; italics original.

¹⁸ Bultmann, ‘Ethics in Paul’, 216.

¹⁹ Günther Bornkamm, Paul (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971), 201-3; Parsons, ‘Being Precedes Act’, 229 & 247.

²⁰ Victor P. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968), 98-112.

²¹ Furnish, Theology and Ethics, 224-25; italics mine.

²² Victor P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 94; italics mine.

²³ Furnish, Love Command, 95.

²⁴ Victor P. Furnish, ‘Belonging to Christ: A Paradigm for Ethics in First Corinthians’, Interpretation 44/2 (1990), 153.

²⁵ Furnish, Theology and Ethics, 227.

²⁶ Deidun, New Covenant Morality, 60.

²⁷ Deidun, New Covenant Morality, 53-63.

²⁸ Deidun, New Covenant Morality, 55.

²⁹ Deidun, New Covenant Morality, 230-31.

³⁰ see Parsons, ‘Being Precedes Act’, 231.

³¹ Deidun, New Covenant Morality, 63, 67, 81-83.

³² Deidun, New Covenant Morality, 83.

³³ Furnish, Theology and Ethics, 226; italics mine.

³⁴ O’Donovan, Resurrection, 11-27.

³⁵ O’Donovan, Resurrection, 24.

³⁶ O’Donovan, Resurrection, 14-15.

³⁷ O’Donovan, Resurrection, 23-26.

³⁸ O’Donovan, Resurrection, 25-26.

³⁹ O’Donovan, Resurrection, 31-97.

⁴⁰ Hill, ‘Theology and Ethics’.

⁴¹ Mark A. Seifrid, ‘Righteousness, Justice and Justification’, in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (ed. T. D. Alexander, Brian S. Rosner; IVP Reference Collection; Leicester: IVP, 2000), 740-45.

⁴² Bornkamm, Paul, 201.

⁴³ Karl Barth, The Doctrine of Reconciliation (ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance; Church Dogmatics Vol. IV, 2; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1958), 507-511.

⁴⁴ Furnish, Love Command, 112.

⁴⁵ David Horrell, ‘Theological Principle or Christological Praxis?: Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997), 86.

⁴⁶ Furnish, Love Command, 113.

⁴⁷ Horrell, ‘Principle or Praxis?’, 88.

⁴⁸ N. T. Wright, ‘Monotheism, Christology and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8’, in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 129.

⁴⁹ Horrell, ‘Principle or Praxis?’, 88-91; 106-10.

⁵⁰ Furnish, Love Command, 114.

⁵¹ Furnish, ‘Belonging to Christ’, 155.

⁵² E. Coye Still, ‘Paul’s Aims Regarding EIDWLOQUTA: A New Proposal for Interpreting 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1’, Novum Testamentum 44/4 (2002), 335.

⁵³ Still, ‘1 Cor 8:1-11:1’, 337-39.

⁵⁴ Gary S. Shogren, ‘“Is the Kingdom of God About Eating and Drinking or Isn’t it?” (Romans 14:17)’, Novum Testamentum 62/3 (2000), 239-45; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 831.

⁵⁵ Furnish, Love Command, 116.

⁵⁶ Moo, Romans, 836.

⁵⁷ Furnish, Love Command, 116.

⁵⁸ Furnish, Love Command, 111-12.

⁵⁹ Furnish, Love Command, 116.

⁶⁰ Clifton Coles, ‘Testing the Limits of Tolerance’, Futurist 37/2 (2003): 14-15.

⁶¹ Horrell recognises (without resolving) the inherent dangers of this (‘Principle or Praxis?’, 107-9).

⁶² Stanley J. Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology: a Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), 73-129.

⁶³ Peter T. Chattaway, ‘Canadian Anglicans face off’ Christianity Today 48/1 (2004): 24.

‘In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach’, writes Luke, at the beginning of his second volume (Acts 1:1, emphasis mine). The implication is that Jesus continued to act and to teach after his ascension (So Köstenberger and O’Brien 2001, 128). So Paul, the dominant figure of the latter part of Acts, is presented as one who continues and fulfils the purposes of the risen Messiah Jesus by means of the Holy Spirit. This principle underlies Paul’s entire apostolic ministry, playing itself out in such areas as the tension between Jew and Gentile mission, practical mission strategies, Paul’s preaching, his understanding of suffering and his final destination.

Paul is no doubt the hero of the book of Acts. He dominates most of the narrative, confident and God-fearing even in the most trying of circumstances (e.g. Acts 28:25), (Bruce 1988, 15–16). The word ‘apostle’ (ἀποστολος) is only used of Paul in one situation, where he shares the title with Barnabas (Acts 14:4, 14), (Clark 1998, 182). However, Luke makes it clear that Paul has been ‘sent’ (ἀποστελλω) by Jesus to perform an important task (e.g. Acts 26:17), (Bruce 1993, 683). Paul shares many characteristics with the Twelve, such as witnessing the risen Lord Jesus (cf. Acts 1:22 and Acts 9:17) and receiving commands from him (cf. Acts 1:2 and Acts 9:6), (Clark 1998, 184–89).

Moreover, Paul’s conversion and commissioning on the Damascus Road occupies a prominent place in the narrative, and is crucial to Luke’s understanding of Paul’s apostolic ministry (Barnett 1993, 50). Luke places this event (ch. 9) just before the start of any truly Gentile mission (chs. 10–11), even though Paul’s own Gentile ministry does not begin in earnest until later (ch. 13). It is thus a significant turning point in the narrative (Everts 1993, 159). The Damascus Road experience is also recalled at length later in the text (Acts 22:1–21 and Acts 26:2–23), where it is retold with different emphases and purposes¹. Linked to the first retelling is an experience in the Jerusalem temple (Acts 22:17–21) where Paul’s mission is made even more urgent and explicit (Blair 1965, 19–26).

What is this commission that defines Paul’s apostolic ministry? Ananias is told:

‘[. . .] he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.’ (Acts 9:15–16, ESV)

This recalls the commissioning of the suffering servant of the Lord in Isa 49:1–7 at many points. The servant is a chosen instrument, fashioned by the Lord (Isa 49:1–3). He glorifies the Lord before Israel and brings back the preserved remnant of Israel (Isa 49:5–6). Furthermore, he goes to all the nations (Gentiles), the ‘ends of the earth’ (Isa 49:6). Kings and princes shall see and bow down (Isa 49:7). Yet, for the sake of the glorified name of the Lord, this servant also suffers (Isa 49:4), being despised and abhorred by Israel (Isa 49:7).

Paul is thus commissioned to complete the work of Jesus, the suffering Servant of the Lord. Jesus, whose suffering and vindication brought forgiveness of sins and restoration (e.g. Acts 13:38, and see Luke 24:46–47), now sends his apostles, pre-eminently Paul, to announce this forgiveness, to complete the restoration of the preserved children of Israel and to be a light to the Gentiles and the rulers of the whole earth. This task involves suffering; in particular rejection by many from Israel. Hence suffering at the hands of Jews is an essential part of his calling (Hafemann 1993, 919–21), as is Gentile participation in salvation (Köstenberger and O’Brien 2001, 125). Paul makes much of this as he recalls his Damascus Road experience before Festus (Acts 26:16–23). As Hansen (1998, 323–24) observes, ‘Not only was Paul’s mission a continuation of the mission of Jesus because Paul did the work of Christ, but also because Christ did his work through Paul.’

This apostolic ministry of fulfilling the mission of Christ is especially evident as Paul approaches the issue of Jew and Gentile evangelism. Although Paul’s commission unambiguously included a mission to the Gentiles, Paul himself does not inaugurate the opening of faith to the Gentiles (Bowers 1993, 609). It is Peter who preaches to the first truly Gentile convert (Acts 10:1–11:18) and a group of unnamed evangelists who preach en masse to Greeks at Antioch (Acts 11:20). Paul, however, begins his ministry by preaching to Jews at Damascus (Acts 9:19–22) and Jerusalem (Acts 9:26–29) and does not begin a specifically Gentile mission until commissioned at Antioch (Blair 1965, 23–24).

Furthermore, even in his missionary journeys, Paul repeatedly follows a pattern of going first to Jews and then to Gentiles (Tannehill 1986, 130–34). Paul goes to the synagogue first in Salamis (Acts 13:5), Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:14), Iconium (Acts 14:1), Thessalonica (Acts 17:2), Berea (Acts 17:10), Corinth (Acts 18:4) and Ephesus (Acts 18:19 and Acts 19:8), (Bornkamm 1968, 200). Even in Rome, at the end of Acts, Paul goes to the Jews even though there are Christians already in Rome (Acts 28:17), (Köstenberger and O’Brien 2001, 154). The only exceptions are Lystra, where circumstances are beyond Paul’s control (Acts 14:14), Philippi, where Paul intentionally seeks a ‘place of prayer’ on the Sabbath presumably because there was no synagogue (Acts 16:13), (Bruce 1988, 310–11) and Athens, where Paul preaches to Gentiles while waiting for his co-workers (Acts 17:16). Although the mission is universal, it follows a prescribed order with Jews being given priority (Tannehill 1986, 130). The suggestion that Paul went to Jews only to provoke jealousy and thus further the Gentile mission (Blair 1965, 32) does not hold, since there were significant Jewish conversions, for example at Berea (Acts 17:11–12).

Paul does not call upon his own countrymen to turn away from their Judaism and renounce the law (Bornkamm 1968, 205). Rather, he upholds the law when in the company of Jews. He circumcises Timothy because of the Jews (Acts 16:3), fulfils a vow (Acts 18:18) and is willing to go through a purification ritual to show his approval of the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20–26). Paul, as the Servant of the Lord, is sent first to the children of Israel, not to turn them into Gentile Christians but to turn them back to their God through his Messiah, Jesus.

Nevertheless, just as Jesus predicted, Israel’s rejection of the Servant is also a consistent pattern. The tension arising from Jewish jealousy of Gentile converts is practically resolved only at Antioch (Acts 11:19–23), (Towner 1998, 422–29). In Corinth and Ephesus, this ‘resolution’ is partial and temporary. The normal pattern is rejection by Jews of Paul’s teaching, especially when the implications for the salvation of Gentiles are spelt out. Paul is rejected by Jews from Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:45), Iconium (Acts 14:2), Thessalonica (Acts 17:5), Corinth (Acts 18:6), Ephesus (Acts 18:9) and Rome (Acts 28:25). This rejection is often in partnership with Gentiles and is usually violent.

The rejection of the Servant by Israel is not only consistent with the suffering Servant’s task; it also furthers his mission. On three separate occasions, Paul specifically turns to Gentiles after being rejected by Jews: Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:44–52), Corinth (Acts 18:6–7) and Rome (Acts 28:24–28)². There is a consistent pattern on each occasion. Firstly, Jews reject the word, either reviling Paul or disagreeing with one another. Secondly, Paul speaks of his obligation to go first to the Jews. In Pisidian Antioch he speaks of the ‘necessity’ of Jewish priority (Acts 13:46). In Corinth, he speaks in language reminiscent of the watchman of Ezek 33:4, saying that he has discharged his responsibility and is therefore innocent of their blood (Acts 18:6). In Rome, Paul takes upon himself the command of Isaiah 6 to ‘Go to this people’. Thirdly, having justified his actions from Scripture, Paul announces his intention to go to the Gentiles. God’s prophetic Suffering Servant has discharged his responsibility to the Jews, has suffered at their hands as predicted, and now turns to fulfil his wider mission to Gentiles.

At this point it is worth stating explicitly that Paul’s ministry is theologically driven. Isaiah’s Suffering Servant can provide salvation to the ends of the earth (Isa 49:6) only because he sacrificially bore the sins of the people (Isa 53:4–6). Hence salvation is not contingent upon works of the law, but upon faith in the sacrifice of Jesus, which is open to both Jew and Gentile. This is the only satisfactory theological basis for Paul’s apostolic ministry and Paul refers to it on a number of occasions (Acts 13:38–39, 20:21, 26:18). We cannot say that Paul’s mission (to Gentiles) drove his theology (of justification by faith), since both his mission and his theology are present in the person of Isaiah’s Suffering Servant³. This theology is confirmed by the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:6–11), which is a central turning point in the narrative of Acts. After the apostles of the Jerusalem church confirm the doctrine of justification by faith, Gentile mission is no longer under threat but it is given impetus to flourish and expand (Köstenberger and O’Brien 2001, 151).

How, then, does Paul achieve his mission as the light to the Gentiles? Ramsay (1902) has gathered geographical and historical evidence of a deliberate ‘imperial’ strategy by Paul to render Christianity co-extensive with the Roman Empire. Others disagree, claiming that the Christianisation of the Roman Empire happened by default (Bowers 1993, 612). The book of Acts speaks of a state of affairs where Paul does appear to have a deliberate strategy but this is guided and, in some cases, overruled by the providence of God through the Holy Spirit. Paul plans to revisit the churches of Asia (Acts 15:36), and often seems to move with definite aims in mind (e.g. Acts 14:21, 16:40, 18:1). However, his movements are often directed by circumstances (note the many times he is forced to leave because of opposition) or by the intervention of the Holy Spirit (e.g. Acts 13:2–4, 16:6–7) or by visions from God (Acts 16:9–10, 18:9–10). It is sufficient to conclude that Jesus achieves his purposes through Paul both by Paul’s deliberate planning and by the operation of the Holy Spirit (Bruce 1993, 687). There is a deliberate strategy, but it is the risen Messiah’s strategy before it is Paul’s strategy.

Nevertheless, there are discernible features in the strategy. Paul targets important population centres situated on rapid lines of communication (Bruce 1988, 16–17). Luke mentions the particular strategic value of Philippi (Acts 16:12) and Ephesus (Acts 19:10), not to mention Rome! Paul is often pushing at geographical frontiers (e.g. Acts 16:9–10), (Bowers 1993, 609–10). However, an additional priority for Paul is the strengthening of established churches, both by revisitation (Acts 14:21–23, 15:36, 15:41, 18:22–23) and by residential missions (Acts 18:11, 19:10), (Bowers 1987, 189). The implication is that the work of mission will continue after Paul has left the region, with strong churches founded in strategic areas acting as ‘self-propagating cells’ (Bruce 1993, 687). Paul does not act alone, either; he works side-by-side with people such as Barnabas (Acts 13:2ff), Silas (Acts 15:40ff), Timothy (Acts 16:3ff), Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:3ff).

The last quarter of Acts, however, describes Paul adopting a very different strategy. Although the reason for Paul’s trip to Jerusalem may have been to deliver relief for the poor, there is nothing within Acts itself to suggest that this is the reason beyond a possible allusion in 24:17 (Bruce 1988, 371–72). Acts, rather, includes Paul’s Jerusalem trip to further highlight his role as the suffering servant of the Lord. He resolves to go to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21), presses on despite warnings from God himself that he will suffer there (Acts 20:22–23, 21:4, 21:11) and indeed does suffer ‘for the sake of [Jesus’] name’ (9:16)⁴.

That Paul is fulfilling Jesus’ ministry is shown by the remarkable parallels between Jesus’ passion and Paul’s circumstances in Jerusalem. Both set out resolutely for Jerusalem (Luke 9:51, Acts 19:21), send disciples ahead (Luke 9:52, Acts 19:22), predict their suffering (Luke 9:22, Acts 20:22–24), prepare their followers for their ‘departure’ (Luke 21:5–36, Acts 20:13–38), come in front of the crowds in Jerusalem (Luke 22:47–23:25, Acts 21:27–22:29), are accused of leading a rebellion (Luke 22:52, Acts 21:38), are seized by the crowd (Luke 22:54, Acts 21:30), are flogged (Luke 22:63, Acts 22:24) and are falsely accused (Luke 23:2, Acts 21:28). In both cases, Jews stir the crowds (Luke 23:5, Acts 21:28), there is mob rule (Luke 23:18, Acts 22:22), they shout for the accused to die (Luke 23:20, Acts 22:22) and the secular ruler is powerless (Luke 23:24, Acts 22:29). There are trials before the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:66–71, Acts 22:30–23:11), the Governor (Luke 23:1–7, Acts 24:1–25:12) and the King (Luke 23:8–12, Acts 25:13–26:32)⁵.

However, there are also important differences between the two accounts. Jesus, when face to face with earthly rulers, says nothing to defend himself and so goes to his sacrificial death (Luke 22:66–71, 23:3). Paul, however, takes the opportunity afforded by his arrest and trial to defend himself at great length against charges of Jewish apostasy and Roman insurrection (e.g. Acts 25:8, 28:17–18), both of which are important apologetics for Paul (Hansen 1998, 318–19). The real issue, however, is the resurrection of Christ (Acts 23:6, 24:15, 24:21) and in his trials Paul soundly proclaims Jesus’ resurrection and its corollaries to the worldly rulers—the Roman governors (Acts 24:24), the king (Acts 26:27) and indeed all the leaders of the city (Acts 25:23). Furthermore, in line with God’s promise in Acts 23:11, Paul goes to Rome and has the opportunity to testify before Caesar himself. So the Lord’s Servant, through suffering, trials and rejection by his own people, testifies to the name of the Lord and his Christ before ‘kings’ (Isaiah 49:7).

Acts finishes with Paul having achieved his apostolic ministry. Christ has commissioned him and worked through him to achieve his purpose as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah who brings salvation to the children of Israel and to Gentiles. Paul, through suffering and rejection by his own people, has testified to Jews, has seen the gospel strategically planted amongst Gentiles, and has preached the gospel to the kings of the earth. Nevertheless, Acts is open-ended (Rosner 1998, 231). Paul has not yet stood before Caesar, and dangers lie ahead for the church (Acts 20:29–30). As readers of Acts, therefore, we are forced to ask ourselves: What more is to be done to fulfil Paul’s (that is, Jesus’) apostolic ministry?

Footnotes

1 (Everts 1993, 159) shows that Acts 22:1–21 emphasises Paul’s devotion to Judaism, while Acts 26:2–23 emphasises his obedience and suffering (see below).

2 (Tannehill 1986, 133–35) mentions four: Pisidian Antioch, Corinth and Ephesus, then Rome. However, it is not clear that Paul turns away from the Jews completely in Ephesus. He moves next door to a Gentile lecture hall, but the result is that many Jews hear the word (19:8–10)

3 The issue is discussed in (Everts 1993, 156–163) with particular reference to the New Perspective on Paul.

4 Does this explain Colossians 1:24, written from Rome?

5 Other parallels may include both symbolically breaking bread (Luke 22:19, Acts 27:35), and the ‘resurrection’ story of Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12) strategically placed to parallel Jesus’ resurrection prediction (Luke 9:22).

Bibliography

1. Barnett, Paul W. 1993. ‘Apostle’. Pages 45–51 in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity.
2. Blair, Edward P. 1965. ‘Paul’s Call to the Gentile Mission’. Biblical Research 10: 19–33.
3. Bornkamm, Günther. 1968. ‘The Missionary Stance of Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 and in Acts’. Pages 194–207 in Studies in Luke-Acts. Edited by Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn. London: S.P.C.K.
4. Bowers, Paul. 1987. ‘Fulfilling the Gospel: the Scope of the Pauline Mission’. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30/2: 185–198.
5. Bowers, W. Paul. 1993. ‘Mission’. Pages 608–619 in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity.
6. Bruce, Frederick F. 1988. The Book of the Acts. Revised edition. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.
7. Bruce, Frederick F. 1993. ‘Paul in Acts and Letters’. Pages 679–692 in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity.
8. Clark, Andrew C. 1998. ‘The Role of the Apostles’. Pages 169–190 in Witness to the Gospel: the Theology of Acts. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.
9. Everts, Janet M. 1993. ‘Conversion and Call of Paul’. Pages 156–163 in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity.
10. Hafemann, Scott J. 1993. ‘Suffering’. Pages 919–921 in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity.
11. Hansen, G. Walter. 1998. ‘The Preaching and Defence of Paul’. Pages 295–324 in Witness to the Gospel: the Theology of Acts. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.
12. Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Peter T. O’Brien. 2001. Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission. Edited by Donald A. Carson. New Studies in Biblical Theology 11. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity.
13. Ramsay, Sir William M. 1902. St Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. 6th Edition. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
14. Rosner, Brian S. 1998. ‘The Progress of the Word’. Pages 215–233 in Witness to the Gospel: the Theology of Acts. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.
15. Tannehill, Robert C. 1986. ‘Rejection by Jews and Turning to Gentiles: The Pattern of Paul’s Mission in Acts’. Pages 130–141 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1986. Edited by Kent Harold Richards. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press.
16. Towner, Philip H. 1998. ‘Mission Practice and Theology Under Construction (Acts 18–20)’. Pages 417–436 in Witness to the Gospel: the Theology of Acts. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.