A Farewell to the New Perspective on Paul – The Start of the New Quest For Paul

The New Perspective on Paul is challenged for underestimating differences between Jewish and Pauline understandings of human agency. Paul’s contrast between “letter” and “Spirit” is interpreted as locating salvation and fulfillment of the law entirely in Christ and the Spirit rather than human ability.

See also Paul and Judaism: An Anthropological Approach (2nd edition; CPH, 2026).

By Timo Laato
Senior Lecturer
Lutheran School of Theology in Gothenburg
October 2026

Introduction

Pauline scholarship entered a novel, unprecedented phase in 1977 with the publication of E. P. Sanders’ ex­tensive work Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. His thoughts and theses immediately excited worldwide attention. In 2017, his book was (once again) reprinted as a “40th Anniversary Edition.”

The New Perspective on Paul

Later, there has been talk of a whole new perspective: The New Perspective on Paul. This concept comprises a large number of scholars who do not always agree on interpretations. Yet they do have something in common; otherwise it would not make any sense to speak of a new wave of research. The Christological argument can at least be mentioned as one common denominator: Paul did not discard the Jewish religion based on its assumed legalistic soteriology – that it was built on merit and led to vainglory. His main reason was simply (and slightly simplified) that it was not Christianity; in other words, it denied Christ as Savior, Messiah.[1] This argument is also accompanied by a strong emphasis on salvation that is meant for everyone, heathen as well as Jew. As an apostle to the Gentiles, Paul had to regard God’s plan of salvation as broader than before. He could no longer stay inside the narrow boundaries of Mosaic law. Particularism had to give way to universalism. The old covenant had been replaced by the new.[2]

The New Perspective on Judaism

Interestingly, the new perspective on Paul basically arises from the new perspective on Ju­da­ism. If the old perspective on Judaism as a religion of gaining merits and earning salvation is no longer valid, it is no more possible to stand up for the old perspective on Paul as preaching against the legalistic un­derstanding of God’s grace. As a result, we have to reconsider the reasons for his break with his for­mer beliefs. San­ders dubbed the common Jewish “pattern of religion” covenantal nomism. His position can be summarized as follows: God has (1) chosen Israel and (2) given the law, which implies both (3) God’s promise to maintain the covenant and (4) the requirement of obedience. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes dis­obe­dience. (6) The law ordains means of expiation and (7) the expiation restores the broken covenant. (8) All who through obedience, expiation and God’s grace remain in the covenant will be saved.[3]

            In other words, one gets in the covenant through acceptance of the law and remains in it through ful­fil­ment of the law. Both the election (see point 1) and the salvation of Israel (see point 8) depend on God’s grace, not on human merit. Succinctly, obedience as such earns neither election nor sal­va­tion; it af­fects remain­ing within the covenant.[4]

            Over the years, the sketch of covenantal nomism as the common denominator of the Jewish re­li­gion has caused much debate. It has been defended. It has been rejected. It has been modified. It has been amplified. To retell here the whole story goes beyond the limits of one short survey.[5]

            Still, Sanders has shown absolutely that Judaism should not be identified with a religion of com­plete self-salvation (“eine Religion völ­li­ger Selbsterlösung”).[6] He rightly affirms God’s grace as the basis of fulfilling the law, in other words, covenant as the origin of nomism. Therefore, the concept of covenantal nomism as an inter-relationship between given election and required obedience clari­fies the main lines well enough.[7]

Anthropological Presuppositions in Judaism

To say this is not to say that the concept of covenantal nomism does not lack preci­sion and clari­ty. It lea­ves, in­deed, a great deal to be desired.

            The concept of covenantal nomism implies the question of human action and capacity in salvation. Sanders, however, mostly ignores anthropological emphases or premises. He does not pay sufficient attention to them. Only in passing does he acknowledge that the Jews should obey the law in their own strength.[8] In this respect his line of reasoning needs to be completed. As Sanders speci­fically investigates how a religion functions, the definition of his task begs the question of what an ad­herent of that re­ligion can or, alternatively, cannot do on behalf of his/her salvation. Where to get the pow­er to move step by step to the final goal?[9] Even though the notion of God’s grace beyond doubt permeates covenantal nomism, it does not necessarily result in thinking that the whole process of re­demption from beginning to end is by God’s grace alone.[10]

            I have pointed out elsewhere that the idea of human free will amounts to opinio communis in Ju­da­ism. (One exception confirms the rule: the Qumran community seems to represent an absolute fa­talism.[11]) Consequently, in covenantal nomism the Jews are supposed to contribute to their attaining of eternal life by doing their very best. They can and should do it in their own strength, but not to the exclusion of any role by divine grace. The issue at stake is co-operation. Hence, covenantal nomism ends up as a synergistic soteriology.[12]

The Exact Meaning of Salvation

As Sanders delineates the main lines in covenantal nomism, he frequently causes confu­sion by using the word “salvation” in a narrow sense. It denotes either (1) the salvation-historical ac­tion of God (the establishing of the covenant on Sinai) or (2) the present state of salvation (belong­ing to the covenant), but does not embrace (3) the final salvation (eternal life). Thus, it remains unclear who in the end will be saved. The Jews must, after the salvation already gained, carry on and exert them­selves on be­half of the future salvation, or else they still can forfeit it. In other words, all’s well that ends well (but not before).[13]

            From that point of view, fulfilling the Mosaic law is a conditio sine qua non for final sal­va­tion in covenantal no­mism. The Jews have to be obedient and carry out their good deeds in order to ensure their entrance into the world to come. Their contribution through human free will makes the differ­ence. Covenantal nomism is not a “pure” religion of grace without synergistic tendencies.[14]

Anthropological Presuppositions in Pauline Soteriology

On the other hand, Paul’s view on man’s ability to obey the law became much more pessimistic after he experienced conversion on the road to Damascus. He no longer believed in the ability of free will to break the power of sin. No man can help himself.[15] The synergism of Judaism (cooperation of God and man within the prerequisites of the Sinaitic covenant) must be rejected as worthless. It leads man to trust in the “flesh” and to boast of self-righteousness (Galatians; Romans 3:27; 4:2–5; 9:30–10.3; Philippians 3:3–9). Man is totally corrupt and therefore fully unable to save himself or even contribute to his salvation. His only hope lies in the boundless mercy of God, which is received on account of Christ through faith alone.[16] In this we hear a reformation heartbeat, although at some point it was thought or claimed to be silenced and the most enthusiastic hastened to toll the death knell in order to precipitate the burial.

            Also, the new life of Christians in Pauline understanding never goes back to their own innate power or moral superiority. No, they act only because God, in fact, acts in them. Galatians 2:20 eloquently clothes the radical and innovative way of thinking (or believing) in accurate words: “I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me.” The fulfilling of the law arises from the eschatological participation in Christ. He has already fulfilled the law as he once lived his life on earth, and he continues to fulfill it now as he lives in those who believe in him. This very exceptional understanding shows where the exact emphasis lies in Pauline disapproval of Jewish self-righteousness and fleshly boasting.[17]

Participatory Categories

Besides, Sanders himself rightly lays great weight on the participatory categories. If only he had drawn the proper conclusion from them![18] In view of them, it appears indisputable that Paul after his conversion from his Pharisaic past to his Christian present no longer put his trust in his own strength and his own ability to obey the law. Now he understood that his new life is Christ and is found in Christ. Indeed, it is Christ who does the good works of Christians.

            The necessity of becoming a new creature and obtaining a true life outside of one­self in the risen Christ alone has an impact on Paul’s understanding of his own Pharisaic past or any other form of Jewish religiosity. In other words, his emphasis lies on “writing the law on the heart” of believers (Jeremiah 31:33) and “putting God’s Spirit” (Ezekiel 36:27) in them. He draws attention to the many Old Testament visions of re-creation, regeneration, resuscitation, resurrection, and revitalization.[19] They are the characteristics of the Messianic era. Hence, they are a reality in the presence of the Messiah. Since it is all about a new mode of existence, there is no room for the old manner of living as Jews truthfully trying to do what is written in the Torah. All the same, they still do it “in flesh” and in reliance on their innate moral power.

The Dominion of Sin is Broken Eschatologically

Accordingly, the dominion of sin is not broken by the Mosaic law but eschato­logically through Christ’s salvific death and resurrection in the majestic power of the Spirit. Strictly, the op­po­site of wrong-doing is not right-doing. We all know too well that vices cannot simply be re­placed by vir­tues. It never functions like that in practice. Astonishingly, to be “under sin” and to be “un­der the law” are ultimately synonymous (Romans 6:14). More to the point, the opposite of trans­gres­sion is the union with Christ and the defeat of all evil’s supremacy in him due to the sub­se­quent em­powering of the Spirit in the new life of Christians. They have died to the law in order to fulfill it in love and charity. Paradoxically, their one step back is their one step forward. Quite clear­ly, the baptismal parenesis of Romans 6 lies behind the exhortatory composition in 12:1–2. As Chris­tians are advised to offer themselves, that is, their members to God as weapons of righteousness (6:13, 19), so they are admonished to offer their bodies to God as living sacrifices (12:1). In both texts, the verb is the same (παριστάνω and/or παρίστημι). The object of the verb is similar: in the former case, the per­sons them­selves or their members; in the latter case, their bodies. In other words, the reign of sin in one’s life has not been annulled ever since the promulgation of the Mosaic law but on account of the change of rule, commenced in baptism. From then on, Christ exerts total control of Christians and bestows his Spirit on them. Therefore, they are truly transformed.[20]

            As a result, Paul concludes that unbelieving Jews absolutely do not comply with the law. He maintains that they transgress it. He denounces them as great sinners like everyone else. In consequence, they are with­out exception bound to fail. It is indeed about a total failure. To say this is not to say that old-fashioned and outdated distortions (or conscious falsifications) of the Jewish religion in exegetical research in the end prove right. Absolutely not, they should nev­er come back to the agenda of modern scholarship.[21] Still, Paul puts himself at odds with any kind of Judaism. On purpose, he drifts into a frontal collision with it in his reading of the Old Testament. He speaks for a new mode of existence. That’s why his break with Judaism remains an invincible obstacle.

The Contrast between the “Letter” and the “Spirit” – the Negative Side

In addition, the contrast between the “letter” and the “Spirit” (see especially 2 Corinthians 3:6) sheds light on Paul’s break with Judaism as a whole. It substantiates his totally different way of thinking “outside the box.” Elsewhere, I have analyzed the difference more in-depth.[22] Here, some major main lines will suffice.

            The “letter” simply denotes the Mosaic law, especially as a compilation of var­i­­ous legal records that should be read and observed very strictly in punctilious accordance with their lit­er­al meaning. It does not call for the pouring out of the Spirit or the divine writing of the Torah on hu­man hearts that will take (or has already taken) place in the new covenant, as written in Jeremiah 31:31–34 and Ezekiel 36:26–27. Jews fol­low the letter of the Torah. They try to do whatever is prescribed in the Pentateuch. Their re­ligious zeal focuses on the literal meaning of the written texts that even push for their uncon­di­tional de­vo­tion. Therefore, they do not (necessarily) leave out of account inner motives for their good works. They really try to do their very best to do what they should. Nevertheless, their moral efforts largely remain dependent on their own ability and activity. The characteristics of the new covenant, namely “writing the law on their hearts” (Jeremiah 31:33) and “putting God’s Spirit in them” (Ezekiel 36:27), are missing. Hence, the Jewish religiosity re­fers back to human ca­paci­ty and leads to boasting. As a Pharisee, Saul did not “boast in Christ Jesus” but rather about himself. He put his “confidence in the flesh” and did not trust in his Lord (Philippians 3:3–9). In the churches of Ga­latia, Ju­da­izers likewise boasted about themselves and tried to convince Christians to rely upon their own flesh in terms of circumcision (Galatians 3:1–5; 5:1–6; 6:12–15). Further, Jews boast about their supe­ri­or­ity in comparison with Gentiles and yearn for praise from God. In their vanity, they heavily lean on their obe­di­ence to the law even though they transgress his will (Romans 2:17–29). For sure, Saul be­fore his conversion, Judaizers, and Jews in general provide here the warning examples of those who do not fulfill the law.[23]

The Contrast between the “Letter” and the “Spirit” – the Positive Side

In contrast, Christian existence does not depend on attempts to work for one’s own devout re­li­giosity in severe adherence to the Mosaic law. Instead, it harks back to God’s stunning and sover­eign recreation out of nothing (ex nihilo). He makes his light shine on repentant sinners “in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6). He shows his mercy upon them without any merits from their side. Jeremiah 31:31–34 and Ezekiel 36:26–27 are fulfilled in them as they believe the gospel. Just at that moment, they become alive. Imme­diately, they also start to live their life and follow the law, not according to the “letter” but explicitly in Spirit.[24]

            Accordingly, Paul does mean that Christians fulfill the whole law. But he does not expect that they ful­fill the whole law rigorously or categorically according to the Jewish norms or standards. Rather, they have circumcised their mind and self, not only a small part of their flesh (Romans 2:26–29; Philippians 3:3). They are circumcised in their hearts or in their entire being. Similarly, they offer their bodies, instead of sheep or goats, as living sacrifices to God (Romans 12:1–2). Further, Paul speaks of his own violent death as a drink offering (Philippians 2:17). His blood will finally be poured out at the end of his sacrificial service. To top it off, Christians fulfill the whole law in love as they live their life in the Spirit (Romans 13:8–10; Galatians 5:14).[25]

            Remarkably, Paul nowhere affirms that the several Mosaic commandments are reduced to one single commandment of love. He does not simply ignore or disregard them as redundant. Rather, he transposes them all into practice with immediate effect: He maintains that the whole law is truly ful­filled in genuine love of neighbor (Romans 13:8–10; Galatians 5:14). Neither does Paul affirm anywhere that the cultic aspects have turned out passé whereas the moral precepts still remain valid. Instead, he in­sists that Christians are circumcised, and they offer themselves as living sacrifices and undertake the temple service, though they do not carry out any of it exactly to the letter but in Spirit.[26]

The Contrast between the “Letter” and the “Spirit” – Evaluation

As a consequence, a fresh insight into the contrast between the “letter” and the “Spirit” opens up. The modern distinction between the literal (or verbatim) and non-literal (or metaphorical) meaning does not have a lot to offer here. The differentiation between the con­servative and liberal interpretation has even less to bring to the table. No doubt, Paul thinks in an innovative way. He does believe in the Scriptures. Nowhere does he suggest that they could be annulled (cf. Romans 3:4; 9:6). Quite the opposite, he maintains that “every­thing that was written in the past was writ­ten to teach us” (Romans 15:4). That concerns truly everything, for instance the decree on cir­cumcision, the rules for temple service, and the petite principle of “not muzzling the ox while it is threshing the grain” (1 Corinthians 9:9). However, nothing of that should be fulfilled “in flesh” or according to the “letter,” but “in Spirit” or through faith that shows itself in love. The two alternatives, the Jew­ish and the Pauline, exclude each other. Paradoxically, they both represent a word-for-word reading. We might speak of the “literal-letteral” and “literal-spiritual” study of the Old Testament Scripture. Even if they function on totally different levels, they both are equally pragmatic and realistic. The former exemplifies knowledge that is based on human understanding while the latter epitomizes knowledge that is based on divine understanding. In other words, the former Jewish alternative relates to life “in flesh,” while the latter Pauline alternative pertains to life “in Spirit.” Ultimately, the pivotal issue turns on the question whether to read the Old Testament ac­cording to the “literal-letteral” or “literal-spiritual” sense. In both options, firm trust and strong con­fi­dence in Scrip­ture prevail.[27]

            In keeping with his conviction, Paul seems to work on the as­sump­tion that since the law is written on the hearts in the course of the new covenant it is indeed no longer ob­served in the “flesh,” and since the Spirit is poured out in the hearts of Christians their obe­dience is no more bound to the “letter” of the law. As a consequence, it turns out that he succeeds in “Christianizing” his preceding Phari­saic ideal to extend the purity rules of the clergy to pertain to an ordinary person’s daily life. His theological persuasion already introduced a sort of universal priest­hood in the church.[28]

            Without doubt, the current discussion could be extended still more, though it would scarcely add much to the ensuing outcomes. Suffice it to say that some parts of the Mosaic law exclusively relate to Christ and the Christological creed of the early church. He alone is the offering for the sins of the world (for instance, see Romans 8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21). He alone is the bloody sacrifice on the Day of Atone­ment that is sprinkled on the atonement cover (or “mercy seat”) in the Most Holy Place (Romans 3:25). He alone is the Passover Lamb who has been slaughtered on the cross (1 Corinthians 5:7) even if Christians are exhorted to “get rid of the old yeast” and become “a new batch without yeast” and keep the Jew­ish ritual and feast, “not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread with­out yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:7–8). Adding this and that, it would not alter or change the undeniable fact that the new covenant does not abolish “the law or the prophets” but ful­fills them. Truly, nothing will “disappear from the law” until “everything is accomp­lished” (cf. Matthew 5:17–18). In Pauline theology, the goal is not reached in the sphere of the flesh according to the “lit­eral-letteral” meaning of the law. Instead, it will come to reality only through Christ in the sphere of the Spirit according to the “literal-spiritual” meaning of the law. Christians really fulfill the law because they no longer stand under it. Since they once died to it, they always live in har­mony with it. Para­doxically, continuity takes full effect as a result of discontinuity. The con­trast be­tween the “letter” and the “Spirit” gains importance just here.[29]

Conclusions

Hence, Paul’s rejection of the works of the law does not aim at a limitation of the works as Jew­ish identity markers or signs of national priority. He does not say anything about that kind of definition. It has been disastrously (mis)read into his writings.[30] In his theology, the works of the law are simply the works of the law, namely whatever is done out of obedience to the Torah. In a Christian context, they are excluded. For sure, Christians do fulfill the whole Mosaic law. Yet, they fulfill it “in Spirit” and not “in flesh,” in other words, according to the “literal-spiritual” and not “literal-letteral” mean­ing of Scripture. For that reason, they do not boost or bolster their self-righteousness and self-praise. Their good works show that they live a new life that has begun in their inner being through the apostolic proclamation of the gospel. They live in a new covenant where the Torah has been written in their hearts (Jeremiah 31:31–34) and the Spirit poured out in their souls (Ezekiel 36:26–27). It makes a big difference. Christians have undergone a transformation in terms of re-creation, regeneration, resusci­tation, resur­rec­tion, or revitalization. The Spirit gives them life. He remains and reigns in them.

            All in all, Paul shows a radical and innovative shift in his thinking. It carries weight and makes his break with Judaism un­reconcilable. He really thinks “out­side the box.” Over the past many years, the New Perspec­tive has failed to explain the actual differ­ence in his line of reasoning. Hence, the utter necessity for the New Quest becomes apparent.