RBL 09/2004

Westerholm, Stephen
Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The
Lutheran Paul and His Critics
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Pp. xix + 488.
Paper. $35.00. ISBN 0802848095.

Michael Kaler
Laval University
Quebec City, Canada M6K1H2
Who or what is the Lutheran Paul? You might assume that it is the image of Paul
created by Lutheran exegetesbut then you would be considerably surprised to find that
the first such exegete, according to Westerholm, is none other than the venerable
Augustine. Westerholms idiosyncratic definition of Lutheran Paulinism has to do not
with Reformation-era theology but with a certain view, or range of views, of Pauls
stance on the interrelated topics of works, grace, justification, faith, and the law, a view
that has been associated most strongly with Martin Luther.
The Lutheran tradition of Pauline interpretation has come under heavy attack in the
past century by critics claiming that it is based on misunderstandings of Pauls
psychology, his theology, the contemporary context of his letters, or the Judaism(s) of his
day. In the present volume Westerholm addresses himself to this debate. The seeds for
this present work were planted in Westerholms earlier Israels Law and the Churchs
Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1988), in his
discussion of some aspects of Luthers theology, and in the responses to it by modern
critics. This new work, through its inclusive use of the term Lutheran, makes it clear
that Brother Martin does not stand alone in his views and thus makes the stakes of the
modern challenges to those views that much higher.

This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

The book is laid out in three parts. The first (Portraits of the Lutheran Paul) examines
the understandings of Pauls views on justification and the whole faith/works issue (and
hence anthropology more generally) found in such noted Lutherans as Augustine,
Martin Luther himself, Calvin, and Wesley. This is obviously a difficult task to do in
chapters averaging twenty pages apiece, but Westerholm does it well. He ends with a
summary chapter in which he presents five general theses shared by all the Lutheran
authors,1 as well as two further shared areas of concern.2 The four authors are separated
temporally by over thirteen hundred years, and obviously their theologies are remarkably
different as well. However, Westerholm does make a convincing case for the existence of
a common Lutheran reading of Pauls thought in the sphere with which this book is
concerned. Indeed, the chronological gap and the theological differences make such a
common reading all the more striking.
The second part of the book examines Twentieth-Century responses to the Lutheran
Paul and covers, in sections of approximately five pages each, the analyses and critiques
(and occasional defenses) of the Lutheran Paul by twenty-six recent theologians.
Westerholms presentation of these theologians positions bespeaks an enviable
familiarity with their thought, the process of a great deal of wide and perceptive study.
The modern critiques can be broadly divided into four linked categories, which I
mentioned above. For example, it has been argued convincingly that the Judaism of
Pauls day was a more complicated and differentiated entity than most Lutheran
analyses of the law/faith dichotomy have given it credit for being, and this has been a
focal point for criticism. So too has the amount of importance granted to elements of
Pauls immediate context. One of the thorniest issues in Pauls ministry was the question
of how to reconcilefrequently on a very quotidian, down-to-earth levelChristians of
Jewish and Gentile descent. Is Pauls language in these regards always to be understood
as referring to abstract theological entities, or is it the case that sometimes he is talking
only about very specific, concrete entities before him?

1. Human nature, created good, is now corrupt, incapable of pleasing God, and subject to condemnation;
humans must be justified by grace, to which we respond in faith and not by works of our own; justification
by grace gives us no cause to boast, whereas justification by works opens us up to presumption before God;
justification by faith nonetheless includes the doing of good works; part of the Mosaic laws purpose was to
make us aware of our need of divine grace, and believers are freed from its ceremonial demands and aided
(to some degree) in adhering to its moral demands.
2. The degree to which sin remains a reality in lives of justified believers (95), and whether faith, that is,
the decision to accept Gods free gift of grace, is under human control, or whether it too is a divine
prerogative.

This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

Dealing with as many thinkers as he does, it is impossible for Westerholm to come up

with as unified an anti-Lutheran Paul position, as he did with the Lutheran
Paulinists of the first section. He does, however, clearly delineate the broad themes that
are in play in this debate, as well as suggest determinative moments in the evolution of
the modern viewthe most significant of which being the publication of Sanderss Paul
and Palestinian Judaism in 1977. Westerholm argues that cut to the quickest of the
quick, the fundamental issue dividing Lutherans from anti-Lutherans is whether
justification by faith, not by works of the law, means sinners find Gods approval by
grace, through faith, not by anything they do, or whether its thrust is that Gentiles are
included in the people of God by faith without the bother of becoming Jews (257). In
other words, the Lutheran approach to Pauline theology unjustly universalizes concepts
that were meant to have a strictly local application.
In the third section Westerholm turns from exposing and interpreting the views of others
to presenting his own understanding of the situation, and of its problems. His first
concern is to clarify the terms of the debate by taking an in-depth look at Pauls own use
of the key words di/kaioj (and related words) and no/moj.3 Westerholm finds in both
cases that, while Pauls definition of the words conforms to contemporary definitions
(particularly Jewish definitions in the case of no/moj), his use of themhis view of the
role of the law and righteousness in the grand scheme of thingsis quite idiosyncratic.
We are not permitted, therefore, to fall back on the hypothesis of there being a special,
technical Pauline language to explain Pauls thought: we are forced to confront him as an
original thinker, building something very new out of older elements.
Having clarified the terms used in the debate, Westerholm turns to Pauls letters, asking
to what degree each of them presents a Lutheran Paul. He finds that 1 Thessalonians
does not explicitly do so, although it is by no means anti-Lutheran; 1 and 2 Corinthians
are more Lutheran; Galatians is very much so, as is Romans; Philippians is as well,
although less stridently than the latter two. What is also quite interesting, and unexpected,
in this section is his discussion of Ephesians and James. The former being deuteroPauline, and the latter not Pauline at all, they have been underused in research on this
topic. However, Westerholm argues that they clearly show that already in the first
century both adherents to Pauls views (Ephesians) and opponents of them (James)
considered that Paul dismissed any role for (good) works in answering the perennial
religious question of how a human being can be found acceptable by God (407). These
works reveal the novelty of Pauls views, even to his near contemporaries, and also point
3. In both these cases, as frequently elsewhere, he uses key ideas from Sanderss work as a way to organize
his own presentation: whether Westerholm agrees or disagrees, he makes it clear that Sanders is the
forerunner to whom he must respond, a tribute to the lasting significance of Sanderss work.

This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

out that even at this early point Paul was identified by some at least as the Lutheran
Paul.
Part 3 concludes with a summation of Pauls views on the law as a soteriological agent
and its relationship to grace and a final discussion in which Westerholm acknowledges
the many contributions brought by the modern, anti-Lutheran critics to the analysis of
Pauls views. His final argument, however, is that, while they are invaluable for nuancing
our view of Paul and our understanding of his thought processes, nonetheless the
Lutheran view of Paul is fundamentally the correct one, overstated, undernuanced,
sociologically unsophisticated, and politically incorrect as it was in its original form. In
other words, while the grace/works formulations found in Pauls letters may have been
relevant in dealing with contemporary issues, among them issues of Jewish/Gentile
harmony, this specific application did not exhaust their potential.
Westerholm is not a revolutionary. However, in his last chapter (Grace Abounding to
Sinners or Erasing Ethnic Boundaries?) he does bring to the surface some concerns that,
in my opinion, ought to be noted. I view them as welcome signs of change, as signs that
Pauline scholarship might be moving into an exciting new phase in its existence. Others,
to be sure, will disagree with me, and probably with Westerholm as well.
In summing up the differences between the Lutheran Paulinists and contemporary nonLutheran critics, Westerholm writes, As I see it, the critics have rightly defined the
occasion that elicited the formulation of Pauls doctrine and have reminded us of its firstcentury social and strategic significance; the Lutherans, for their part, rightly capture
Pauls rationale and basic point. He then adds, For those . . . bent on applying Pauls
words to contemporary situations, it is the point rather than the historical occasion of the
formulation that is crucial. Students of early Christianity must attempt to do justice to
both (445).
The point here may be summed up by saying that the general proceeds from the specific
and that neither is to be privileged. In the past, there has been a persistent tendency in
Pauline studies to overlook, oversimplify, or underemphasize certain specific aspects of
Pauls background (such as his relationship to contemporary Judaism). Such behavior
runs the risk of falsifying our general understanding of Paul. Thus the modern tendency
toward taking Pauls specific social, historical, and religious context into much greater
consideration can only be welcomed, both as a field of research in itself and as a way of
enabling us to forge a more accurate understanding of Pauls general message.
However, along with the modern tendency to take Pauls context into greater
consideration comes another tendency, which is much less laudable, namely, the desire to

This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

overcompensate, to privilege the specific at the cost of the general. Like any creator, Paul
was the product of a certain unique time and place, and his creations were produced by
and in certain unique circumstances. This is a given. Paullike Plato, like Shakespeare,
like Miles Davisis unique. But the wonderful thing about human creative activity is the
way that it outgrows its circumstances. It never leaves them behind, but it expands from
them out into a larger world. Let us understand where Pauls thought came from, let us
try to understand the tools it used and the meanings it worked with, but let us not, on that
basis, denigrate the works it produced by limiting them to their context of origin.
By this point I appear to have written a manifesto myself and perhaps gone further than
Westerholm would have liked. At any rate, while a great deal of work still needs to be
done concerning Pauls context and conditioning, it is perhaps time to open the way for
some, being fully aware of the complexity and significance of the contexts that called
forth Pauls legacy, to cautiously start thinking in general terms again, this time with a
more solid and less nave appreciation for the specific. And in this regard, Westerholms
work is pointing the way.
Finally, a note on style. Books on Pauline theology are not always known for their
readabilityto put the case mildly! Westerholm, who has obviously read a lot of books
on Pauline theology, seems to have taken this to heart. He has made real, and successful,
efforts to keep his book accessible. Esoteric terms are defined when they arise, and he
occasionally uses charming little stories to illustrate his points.4 He also makes a point of
using colloquial expressions, albeit with a more mixed effect.5 The book is still not a light
read, but it is no more difficult going than the subject matter requires and a good deal less
difficult than it would have been in other hands. The issues are complex, and the Pauline
terminology often imprecise: Westerholms pedagogical clarity is to be commended.
Overall, this book is important and extremely worthwhile. Westerholm gives an
admirably clear and elegant overview of Pauline scholarship and in so doing firmly
stakes out his own territory. His respect even for scholars with whom he disagrees, and
his familiarity with their views, is evident, as is his willingness to accept the complexities
of the subject at hand. Whether one is a Lutheran or an anti-Lutheran, this book is

4. His presentation of key aspects of Lutheran theology by means of telling a story about two men buying
chocolates for their wives (23) is especially appealing and displays a real C. S. Lewisian talent for making
theology accessible.
5. Perhaps only a stickler for idiom would quibble with Westerholms (grammatically understandable)
desire to correct the venerable phrase, You pays your money and you takes your chances, to You pay
your money and you take your chances, but there are other instances where the colloquialisms are
undeniably jarring.

This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

essential reading for all who are interested in the subject of the apostle to the Gentiles
view of the law, works, and grace.

This review was published by RBL 2004 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.