Four Views on the Apostle Paul

Book Review • Bird, Michael F., Thomas R. Schreiner, Luke Timothy Johnson, Douglas A. Campbell, and Mark D. Nanos. Four Views on the Apostle Paul. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Google Play. $13.99.

Read time: 13 min

Michael Bird’s edited work, Four Views on the Apostle Paul, showcases four divergent perspectives in modern Pauline scholarship. It is a worthy read for those interested in better understanding Paul and the diversity of thought regarding his theology. The four views are as follows: Thomas R. Schreiner represents a Reformed reading of Paul, Luke Timothy Johnson a Catholic perspective, Douglas A. Campbell a Post-New Perspective, and Mark D. Nanos a Jewish view. It is evident from their religious and denominational tags that these scholars march to different drums, and their respective tunes resound the shrill dissonance of thought we might, therefore, expect. The book's format is simple and accessible, beginning with Bird aptly and engagingly introducing the issues and the writers. The meat of the book comes as each theologian presents his case, and immediately following each case, the three other scholars critique the case. Bird closes the book by distilling the major take-home points. Each writer's case is (more for some and less for others) structured around four questions that strike at the heart of one’s understanding of Paul: (1) What did Paul think about salvation? (2) What was Paul’s view of the significance of Christ? (3) What is the best framework for describing Paul’s theological perspective? (4) What was Paul’s vision for the churches?

There is not space in this short review to adequately reflect on each author’s position or each question, so my aim is to reflect on parts of Schreiner’s essay and then on some of the responses of the other scholars to him.

What Did Paul Think about Salvation?

Schreiner represents (and certainly clarifies) my current understanding of Paul, writing “from a Reformed Baptist position that is distinguished by a Calvinistic interpretation of Paul’s letters with a due emphasis on God’s sovereignty and God’s passion for his own glory” (9). According to Schreiner, Paul saw salvation primarily in legal, forensic terms as deliverance from the just consequences of sin—“namely, divine vengeance and eternal destruction” (11). This deliverance is accomplished by the substitutionary death of Christ, in which Jesus bears God’s wrath against sinners, satisfying divine justice. This atoning work was wholly of grace and not based whatsoever on a sinner's fallen attempts to keep God’s law or live in accord with the moral light of nature and conscience—and instead, despite such failed efforts. Schreiner, however, notes that this “salvation” has only come to pass in part. Still inhabiting mortal bodies, we await the final coming of Christ, when we shall be changed into his likeness ever to inhabit a renewed creation. On that day, redemption will be complete. In the meantime, though, we live in an “already-not-yet” tension between what Christ has done and what he shall do. Schreiner puts it this way, “To summarize the Pauline framework, the apostle teaches that the new exodus, the new covenant, and the new creation have arrived in Christ. But a crucial proviso must immediately be introduced. Even though the new age has been inaugurated in Jesus Christ, it has not been consummated” (23).

One interesting criticism was that Schreiner supposedly has a narrow view of sin and, thus, salvation. Johnson, a Catholic theologian, observes:

“Schreiner’s treatment of sin depends entirely on Galatians and Romans rather than reading Paul’s letters as a whole. And against the grain of those letters, he captures little of the personified, cosmic dimension of sin or its social realizations in the world. [In Schreiner’s essay] Sin appears as an individual offense, a matter of not keeping the law or disobeying the commandments.” (69)

I am curious if Schreiner would disagree with this broader scope of sin. It seems that Paul wrote of sin both in individual and social terms (cf., Rom. 3:19-23; Eph. 2:2-3; Tit. 3:3). Sin is not merely a sickness, a cosmic offense. It is, before anything else, a legal offense against a holy God or perfect righteousness. A transgression. An act of injustice. And God’s nature is such that “he will in no wise acquit the wicked,” warns the prophet Nahum. In like manner, for a global, social, redemptive shalom to sweep the planet one day, God has necessarily to deal with the personal sin of the individual’s heart and the depravity, breaking the power of the indwelling fallen nature. This would need to be preceded by the fundamental reconciliation of sinning individuals to God. Such reconciliation of a fractured, divine-human relationship requires, according to Paul, the satisfaction of divine justice. Paul confessed that Jesus “became sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21) and that he was the “propitiation [the wrath-bearer] for our sins” (Rom. 3:24). Such forensic language seems to show that Paul had grave concern over the legal relationship of the individual to God. The social ills of sin are but the out-workings of being lawbreaking in relation to God.

What was Paul’s Vision for the Churches?

Flowing from one’s view of the nature of man’s plight and God’s salvation is the church's role in the world. Schreiner notes that Paul appropriates Old Testament terminologies in connection with the New Testament church. This “suggests that it is fitting to say that the church of Jesus Christ is the ‘true’ Israel for Paul” (54). He further touches a nerve in asserting that “Paul makes it clear in Romans 9:6-9 that being mere physical descendants from Abraham does not make one a true child of Abraham. Indeed, ethnic Jews who fail to believe in Jesus are not saved (9:30-10:21, esp. 10:1) and hence do not belong to God’s people” (56). Mark D. Nanos takes special exception to this claim. Nanos retorts,

“Schreiner baldly states that for Paul, ‘Jews who do not put their faith in Christ are destined for eternal judgment’ (which he qualifies as ‘are not saved’ and ‘do not belong to God’s people’ and ‘are cursed’), as he drives toward the conclusion that ‘it seems legitimate to conclude that Paul sees the church as the true Israel, and all ethnic Jews and Gentiles who believe in God.’” (85)

Nanos, a Jewish theologian, seems to have taken Schreiner’s position personally, asking rhetorically, “It is thus worth raising the question why one would choose to take the path of replacement theology and declare that anyone who does not share Schreiner’s beliefs is destined for eternal judgment” (86), as if Schreiner arbitrarily (or worse, intentionally) chose this interpretive model because it makes hard, exclusivist claims.

A slightly critical observation I have on Schreiner's general argument is this: As a Reformed, Baptist, Evangelical, he has certain pre-commitments when he sets out to interpret a book that he is already pre-committed to believing to be “the inspired word of God.” This pre-commitment bugged Schreiner’s rebutters. I have also seen this in other Evangelical writings. Conservative Evangelicals often write so as to be more dogmatic, less pragmatic, less open to alternate views, less fanciful, and more authoritative—drawing (consistently) from their ideological pre-commitment that God has spoken and his word is perspicuous. It’s difficult for me to articulate exactly what this looks like, but it is decidedly of a different hue than more pragmatic, non-Evangelical writers. Nanos criticizes this Evangelical aura (he calls it Schreiner’s methodology) precisely: “In his recent Galatians commentary, Schreiner briefly mentions my work on that letter only to dismiss it as impossible for one who knows the answers as he does, which is based on an appeal to the point of view he presumes that his target reader shares” (82). And further, “Schreiner’s criticism involves a claim to speak authoritatively for Paul and God, and thus for historical truth. Following such a remarkable methodological claim [the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture], one might expect his dismissal to be closely based on what Paul wrote—but it is not. To put this bluntly, Paul may well have been inspired to speak for God (which is not historically verifiable), but unless Schreiner claims the same inspiration for himself, he should accept that he is, like everyone else, limited to engaging in the interpretation of Paul’s texts” (83). This is a jab at modern Evangelical scholarship, in general, as much as at Schreiner, in particular. Pre-commitments are not held in high esteem in the world of religious academia. While I appreciate Schreiner’s generous spirit and Evangelically consistent interpretations, this criticism does raise questions about how invincible one needs to come off as he (or she) engages (fallibly) in the interpretation of what he is committed to believing to be the infallible word of God. One must, with much fear and trembling, set forth the ‘what,’ the ‘how,’ and the ‘why’ of the sacred script. And in the same breath, we give thanks that we are no longer in the darkness of unbelief, we need to pray for spiritual illumination, acknowledging that we do not possess the full light on any subject.

Conclusion

In Four Views on the Apostle Paul, Michael Bird provides a valuable and accessible platform for understanding the diverse interpretations within Pauline scholarship. Each contributor brings a unique theological perspective, with Thomas R. Schreiner offering a Reformed reading grounded in a Calvinistic framework. While Schreiner’s work is sometimes critiqued for its theological pre-commitments, his rigorous defense of salvation's forensic, substitutionary nature and the "already-not-yet" eschatological framework stands out. His portrayal of the church as the true Israel and the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation invites thoughtful engagement despite challenges from scholars like Mark D. Nanos, who interpret Paul's views on ethnic Israel differently. Overall, Schreiner’s contribution to this volume enriches the discussion, even as it raises questions about the role of doctrinal commitments in biblical interpretation. Bird’s volume ultimately highlights the richness of Pauline studies and the value of dialogue across theological boundaries. ❖