Since 1963 there has been a growing debate in Protestant circles regarding the way in which St. Paul's teachings–particularly regarding justification–are to be understood. A significant number of authors, including Kirster Stendahl, E. P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N. T. Wright, have concluded that the standard accounts of Paul's teaching developed since the Reformation are simply wrong, that they read Paul's conflict with first century Judaizers anachronistically against the Reformers' struggle with the Catholic Church and what they perceived Catholic beliefs to be.
Although these authors have their own opinions about the details of what Paul meant, and while each gives different nuances to their understanding of Paul, there are certain commonalities among their thoughts, and this has given rise to the term "the new perspective on Paul" as a way of naming their school. (Though some of them have said, "the new perspectives on Paul" would be more accurate.)
MORE ON THE "NEW PERSPECTIVE."
One of the common themes in new perspective writings is that when Paul says we are not justified by works of the Law he does not have in mind the common Protestant claims that we do not earn our position before God or that we do not have to "do anything" for our salvation or similar conceptions that rely on the concept of "law" as something abstract, philosophical, or universal.
Instead, new perspective authors hold, the Law that Paul has in mind is something concrete and specific: the Mosaic Law or Torah.
Adherence to the Mosaic Law was constituitive of Jewish identity, and by saying that we are not justified by works of the Law what Paul was saying is that we are not justified by obeying the Mosaic Law, by being a faithful Jew.
Instead, we are justified through faith in Christ, through conforming to him rather than to the Mosaic Law.
What would a Catholic make of all this?
He might take it different ways. Through the history of Catholic thought there have been a variety of perspective on Paul (no pun intended), and the Church has not mandated one over the others.
However, it is worth noting that in the Year of St. Paul that Pope Benedict proclaimed, he devoted his weekly catecheses to St. Paul, and just of late he has been talking about Paul's teaching on justification, works, and the Law.
I've been having to sit on this story for a while as I waited for complete English translations of the audiences to start becoming available, but the first relevant one is now out and the second is due this Wednesday.
So let's look at two things that Pope Benedict had to say. First, there's this:
So what does the Law from which we are liberated and which does not save mean? For St Paul, as for all his contemporaries, the word "Law" meant the Torah in its totality, that is, the five books of Moses. The Torah, in the Pharisaic interpretation, that which Paul had studied and made his own, was a complex set of conduct codes that ranged from the ethical nucleus to observances of rites and worship and that essentially determined the identity of the just person. In particular, these included circumcision, observances concerning pure food and ritual purity in general, the rules regarding the observance of the Sabbath, etc. codes of conduct that also appear frequently in the debates between Jesus and his contemporaries. All of these observances that express a social, cultural and religious identity had become uniquely important in the time of Hellenistic culture, starting from the third century B.C. This culture which had become the universal culture of that time and was a seemingly rational culture; a polytheistic culture, seemingly tolerant constituted a strong pressure for cultural uniformity and thus threatened the identity of Israel, which was politically constrained to enter into this common identity of the Hellenistic culture. This resulted in the loss of its own identity, hence also the loss of the precious heritage of the faith of the Fathers, of the faith in the one God and in the promises of God.
Against this cultural pressure, which not only threatened the Israelite identity but also the faith in the one God and in his promises, it was necessary to create a wall of distinction, a shield of defence to protect the precious heritage of the faith; this wall consisted precisely in the Judaic observances and prescriptions. Paul, who had learned these observances in their role of defending God's gift, of the inheritance of faith in one God alone, saw this identity threatened by the freedom of the Christians this is why he persecuted them. At the moment of his encounter with the Risen One he understood that with Christ's Resurrection the situation had changed radically. With Christ, the God of Israel, the one true God, became the God of all peoples. The wall as he says in his Letter to the Ephesians between Israel and the Gentiles, was no longer necessary: it is Christ who protects us from polytheism and all of its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity within the diversity of cultures. The wall is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary.
So Pope Benedict's thought on this point appears congruent with that of the new perspective on Paul, at least in its broad outlines.
But the Pope went on to day something else, which may be even more surprising for some.
A few years ago, when I was writing a lot about jutification, I pointed out (and the thought was not original with me but had been developed by other Catholic authors) that, although the common Protestant assertaion that we are jutified "by faith alone" is intrinsically misleading, contrary to the language of Scripture (the only place that the phrase "faith alone" appears in in James 2, where it is rejected), and I don't like it, nevertheless the phrase can be given an orthodox reading if it is understood to be referring to faith formed by charity or fides formata caritate.
That didn't please some on both siders of the confessional aisle, who wanted to see an irreconcilable conflict between Catholics and Protestants on this point such that the phrase "faith alone" could
not be given any meaning acceptable from a Catholic perspective.
Pope Benedict seems to see it differently. Immediately after the above quotation, he states:
Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbour the whole of the Law is present and carried out. Thus in communion with Christ, in a faith that creates charity, the entire Law is fulfilled. We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love. We shall see the same thing in the Gospel next Sunday, the Solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What he asks is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you give me food to eat when I was hungry, did you clothe me when I was naked? And thus justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel we can almost say: love alone, charity alone. But there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St Paul. It is the same vision, according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the fulfilment of communion with Christ. Thus, we are just by being united with him and in no other way.
