What do you think?
Rate this book
Counterpoints
Four Views on the Apostle Paul
An introduction to ongoing debates on the apostle Paul's life and teaching and his letters' ramifications for the Church of today. The apostle Paul was a vital force in the development of Christianity. Paul's historical and religious context affects the theological interpretation of Paul's writings, no small issue in the whole of Christian theology. Recent years have seen much controversy about the apostle Paul, his religious and social context, and its effects on his theology. In the helpful Counterpoints format, four leading scholars present their views on the best framework for describing Paul's theological perspective, including his view of salvation, the significance of Christ, and his vision for the churches. Contributors and views Like other titles in the Bible and Theology collection, Four Views on the Apostle Paul gives theology students the tools they need to draw informed conclusions on debated issues. General editor and New Testament scholar Michael F. Bird covers foundational issues and provides helpful summaries in his introduction and conclusion. New Testament scholars, pastors, and students of Christian history and theology will find Four Views on the Apostle Paul an indispensable introduction to ongoing debates on the apostle Paul's life and teaching. The Counterpoints series presents a comparison and critique of scholarly views on topics important to Christians that are both fair-minded and respectful of the biblical text. Each volume is a one-stop reference that allows readers to evaluate the different positions on a specific issue and form their own, educated opinion.
236 pages, Paperback
First published July 23, 2012
56 people are currently reading
323 people want to read
About the author
Michael F. Bird
87 books160 followersDr. Michael Bird (Ph.D University of Queensland) is Lecturer in Theology at Ridley Melbourne College of Mission and Ministry. He is the author of several books including Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission (2006), The Saving Righteousness of God (2007), A Bird’s-Eye View of Paul (2008), Colossians and Philemon (2009), Crossing Over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (2009), and Are You the One Who is to Come? The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question (2009).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
October 1, 2020
In the 2nd epistle of Peter, the author writes of Paul, "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
Two thousand years later people are still saying, "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand." Paul wrote the most books, but he was not necessarily the most prolific writer in the Bible. Luke, Moses, David, and John at the least, most likely all wrote more of scripture than Paul did. But it would not be difficult to argue that Paul is the most influential, read, and studied author in the Bible.
Even so, there is still an incredibly wide variance of what people believe Paul meant or believed. This book is proof of that. Four different scholars from four different backgrounds all collaborate to write their perspectives on Paul. They address four different issues: Paul's theological framework, his views on Christ, salvation, and the church. Each scholar writes one essay covering these topics and then the other three offer a rebuttal. So we get a Reformed Baptist, a Catholic, a New Perspective scholar, and a Jew all addressing the core issues in Paul's writings.
For a short scholarly work, the book is quite readable. To my surprise, I ended up agreeing most with the Catholic position even though I am not by any stretch a catholic. This book is not entry-level on Paul, but I would recommend it to anyone who is or would like to be in active ministry.
Four a more comprehensive critique visit BJ Writes
Two thousand years later people are still saying, "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand." Paul wrote the most books, but he was not necessarily the most prolific writer in the Bible. Luke, Moses, David, and John at the least, most likely all wrote more of scripture than Paul did. But it would not be difficult to argue that Paul is the most influential, read, and studied author in the Bible.
Even so, there is still an incredibly wide variance of what people believe Paul meant or believed. This book is proof of that. Four different scholars from four different backgrounds all collaborate to write their perspectives on Paul. They address four different issues: Paul's theological framework, his views on Christ, salvation, and the church. Each scholar writes one essay covering these topics and then the other three offer a rebuttal. So we get a Reformed Baptist, a Catholic, a New Perspective scholar, and a Jew all addressing the core issues in Paul's writings.
For a short scholarly work, the book is quite readable. To my surprise, I ended up agreeing most with the Catholic position even though I am not by any stretch a catholic. This book is not entry-level on Paul, but I would recommend it to anyone who is or would like to be in active ministry.
Four a more comprehensive critique visit BJ Writes
April 2, 2023
The editor arranged the perspectives on Paul from most conservative to almost unacceptably divergent ones. I enjoyed the book, but I think it could have been shortened a by two-dozen pages.
Schreiner, he sounds very much sure of himself. He writes as a representative of the Reformed tradition. He seems committed to his denominational background dogmatically, so I think much of that colors his arguments on Paul.
Luke Timothy Johnson, I liked his caution, humility, effort to be comprehensively balanced and his tone of deep respect for the other scholars in this edition. I am not a Catholic, but I liked him better than the others. I would say he presented the most unbiased perspective on the historical Paul.
Douglas Campbell, I couldn’t place him. He sounds shifty and vague. I couldn’t pinpoint the crux of his arguments. Nonetheless, he sounds more progressive and libertarian than the others. In addition, he relies solely on Romans, chapters 5 to 8 to explain away Paul’s entire theology. That alone makes his arguments highly questionable. On top of that, I had to re-read many of his paragraphs to get his opinion. Why does he force us to read between the lines? Is he obfuscating his opinions deliberately? Even Schreiner, three times, wrote ‘If I understood Campbell righty…’ It is not a good approach for a book of this sort.
Mark D. Nanos: he is aggressive and his writing tends to be polemical—almost disrespectful. I don’t think he has valid points to argue thoroughly. He misrepresents (maybe intentionally?) and attacks the alleged errors of his interlocutors (typical strawmen fallacies). He writes in a way that forces his readers to not take him seriously. I don’t know why. He also doesn’t address the main themes outlined by the general editors.
Overall, it was an informative book with thought-provoking debates. My respects.
Schreiner, he sounds very much sure of himself. He writes as a representative of the Reformed tradition. He seems committed to his denominational background dogmatically, so I think much of that colors his arguments on Paul.
Luke Timothy Johnson, I liked his caution, humility, effort to be comprehensively balanced and his tone of deep respect for the other scholars in this edition. I am not a Catholic, but I liked him better than the others. I would say he presented the most unbiased perspective on the historical Paul.
Douglas Campbell, I couldn’t place him. He sounds shifty and vague. I couldn’t pinpoint the crux of his arguments. Nonetheless, he sounds more progressive and libertarian than the others. In addition, he relies solely on Romans, chapters 5 to 8 to explain away Paul’s entire theology. That alone makes his arguments highly questionable. On top of that, I had to re-read many of his paragraphs to get his opinion. Why does he force us to read between the lines? Is he obfuscating his opinions deliberately? Even Schreiner, three times, wrote ‘If I understood Campbell righty…’ It is not a good approach for a book of this sort.
Mark D. Nanos: he is aggressive and his writing tends to be polemical—almost disrespectful. I don’t think he has valid points to argue thoroughly. He misrepresents (maybe intentionally?) and attacks the alleged errors of his interlocutors (typical strawmen fallacies). He writes in a way that forces his readers to not take him seriously. I don’t know why. He also doesn’t address the main themes outlined by the general editors.
Overall, it was an informative book with thought-provoking debates. My respects.
January 23, 2015
Dr. Michael Bird serves as editor for the book, Four Views on the Apostle Paul, which brings to the table the diverse perspectives on Paul’s New Testament life and writings. Bird is presently a professor at Ridley Melbourne College of Mission and Ministry in Victoria, Australia. He has written an array of theological books, including A Bird’s-Eye View of Paul.
People reading the book may not initially know the backgrounds of the four main perspectives. Thomas Schreiner brings a Reformed Baptist view; Luke Timothy Johnson brings a Catholic view; Douglas Campbell brings a Post-New Perspective view; and Mark Nanos brings a Jewish view. Bird’s goal is to provide a very broad range of ideas from which a reader can evaluate for themselves their opinion based on the mix of views represented. He says in his introduction, “Readers are invited to listen and learn from the exchange as these scholars lock horns.” Clearly the views are divergent.
Summary
Bird asked each of the contributors to “touch on four key areas” in their written evaluations of the Apostle Paul. These were:
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?
Bird then takes a moment to provide an editorial summary for the four views, which is helpful given the divergences among the authors. Bird says that Schreiner’s Reformed Baptist position is, “distinguished by a Calvinistic interpretation of Paul’s letters.” He affirms that Jesus is at the center of all of Paul’s writings and ministry. This and the statement about eschatology being the framework for understanding Pauline theology briefly summarize the Reformed Baptist view. Jesus’ death and resurrection on man’s behalf is the only payment for the sins of humanity and is the only route to righteousness with God.
Johnson was a Benedictine monk and priest, and is currently a professor of New Testament at Emory University. He embraces historical criticisms and sees Paul from the context of his Greco-Roman culture. Johnson reads Paul’s writings about salvation being more about liberation from intimidating, worldly and heavenly authorities, and the transformation of man into rehabilitated beings.
Campbell is an associate New Testament professor at Duke University. Bird coins his view as a “Post-New Perspective on Paul.” This is an attempt to mesh together Campbell’s nostalgic views of ancient Hebrew religious traditions with the historic criticisms of the Old Testament (which are key to Paul’s writings), all the while pulled in another direction by Paul’s passionate theology and emphasis on the Holy Spirit. This is probably the most difficult of Bird’s selection of views to fully understand.
Nanos is a distinguished Jewish scholar at Rockhurst University. He likes to think of Paul as a “first-century advocate and representative of Torah-based Judaism.” He tries to lump Christianity and Judaism together in some ways, but keep them separate in others. For instance, Nanos feels that when Paul speaks to the Jews he is chastising them away from the sin of fulfilling their Jewish traditions without heartfelt sincerity, rather than the more Reformed Baptist view that sees Paul as preaching the Gospel to the Jews. He sees Paul as a practicing Jew centered on Christ.
Critical Evaluation
This collection of four views on Paul is helpful as an introductory reading for those who are well read but have never fully immersed themselves in the Bible. It seems that the polarities in the viewpoints—and how they deviated from the four main questions that Bird asked them to respond to—made it seem unorganized and dis-unified in their approach to convince a reader based on those four points. As a reader, one would hope for a better approach and perhaps more involvement by the editor throughout the writing process. Perhaps this is a positive sign that the writers were being authentic to their own views and the book was not over-edited or over-produced. However, this reviewer believes the book to be under-useful in it’s current approach to a systematized questioning about the personhood and theology of the Apostle Paul.
Specifically, it would have been helpful if the four writers defended Pauline authorship by using the same criticisms, even if they did not personally espouse them. With the writers all claiming to know the authorship based on different books in the New Testament, there is no obvious way to compare and contrast the viewpoints based on uncorrelated opinions. A common theme is not enough to join four such divergent views. Ultimately, this made the views of Campbell (Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians) and Nanos (Romans, 1st Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians) less convincing, as they weren’t considering the same traditional data set as the others.
To take a critical stance on one of the authors’ assessments, this reviewer would say that Johnson’s new age Catholic perspective on Paul really derails when he says, “Salvation is not, however, simply a matter of repair or of restoration in the human condition; it is a matter of elevation to a higher state of being.” This phrase under the chapter title “The Meaning of Salvation” is troubling because of its similarity to Buddhist thought about achieving Nirvana. The “higher state of being” in Paul’s words would be “Christ,” as when he was writing these words in prison: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21). It is better to live persecuted by the world and in Christ, or even to die and be in Heaven with Him, than it would be to live in any other state of being. Paul peppers the reality of living as a Christian throughout his New Testament writings. In 2 Timothy 3:12 he says, “all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” This does not sound like the benefits of being elevated to a higher state of being. Johnson should have switched that phrase out for, “it is a matter of finding one’s joy in putting Christ first in everything.” Johnson’s statement is too man-focused, which is a dangerous focus to have when discussion true salvation.
Conclusion
Bird’s Four Views on the Apostle Paul gives an honest overview of four of the many possible perspectives out there on the theology and epistemology of Paul. Having read this collection, this reviewer would appreciate reading several less diverse views within or closer to the Reformed Baptist perspective. Perhaps Bird should edit a second volume to this series, and even write a full angle himself.
People reading the book may not initially know the backgrounds of the four main perspectives. Thomas Schreiner brings a Reformed Baptist view; Luke Timothy Johnson brings a Catholic view; Douglas Campbell brings a Post-New Perspective view; and Mark Nanos brings a Jewish view. Bird’s goal is to provide a very broad range of ideas from which a reader can evaluate for themselves their opinion based on the mix of views represented. He says in his introduction, “Readers are invited to listen and learn from the exchange as these scholars lock horns.” Clearly the views are divergent.
Summary
Bird asked each of the contributors to “touch on four key areas” in their written evaluations of the Apostle Paul. These were:
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?
Bird then takes a moment to provide an editorial summary for the four views, which is helpful given the divergences among the authors. Bird says that Schreiner’s Reformed Baptist position is, “distinguished by a Calvinistic interpretation of Paul’s letters.” He affirms that Jesus is at the center of all of Paul’s writings and ministry. This and the statement about eschatology being the framework for understanding Pauline theology briefly summarize the Reformed Baptist view. Jesus’ death and resurrection on man’s behalf is the only payment for the sins of humanity and is the only route to righteousness with God.
Johnson was a Benedictine monk and priest, and is currently a professor of New Testament at Emory University. He embraces historical criticisms and sees Paul from the context of his Greco-Roman culture. Johnson reads Paul’s writings about salvation being more about liberation from intimidating, worldly and heavenly authorities, and the transformation of man into rehabilitated beings.
Campbell is an associate New Testament professor at Duke University. Bird coins his view as a “Post-New Perspective on Paul.” This is an attempt to mesh together Campbell’s nostalgic views of ancient Hebrew religious traditions with the historic criticisms of the Old Testament (which are key to Paul’s writings), all the while pulled in another direction by Paul’s passionate theology and emphasis on the Holy Spirit. This is probably the most difficult of Bird’s selection of views to fully understand.
Nanos is a distinguished Jewish scholar at Rockhurst University. He likes to think of Paul as a “first-century advocate and representative of Torah-based Judaism.” He tries to lump Christianity and Judaism together in some ways, but keep them separate in others. For instance, Nanos feels that when Paul speaks to the Jews he is chastising them away from the sin of fulfilling their Jewish traditions without heartfelt sincerity, rather than the more Reformed Baptist view that sees Paul as preaching the Gospel to the Jews. He sees Paul as a practicing Jew centered on Christ.
Critical Evaluation
This collection of four views on Paul is helpful as an introductory reading for those who are well read but have never fully immersed themselves in the Bible. It seems that the polarities in the viewpoints—and how they deviated from the four main questions that Bird asked them to respond to—made it seem unorganized and dis-unified in their approach to convince a reader based on those four points. As a reader, one would hope for a better approach and perhaps more involvement by the editor throughout the writing process. Perhaps this is a positive sign that the writers were being authentic to their own views and the book was not over-edited or over-produced. However, this reviewer believes the book to be under-useful in it’s current approach to a systematized questioning about the personhood and theology of the Apostle Paul.
Specifically, it would have been helpful if the four writers defended Pauline authorship by using the same criticisms, even if they did not personally espouse them. With the writers all claiming to know the authorship based on different books in the New Testament, there is no obvious way to compare and contrast the viewpoints based on uncorrelated opinions. A common theme is not enough to join four such divergent views. Ultimately, this made the views of Campbell (Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians) and Nanos (Romans, 1st Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians) less convincing, as they weren’t considering the same traditional data set as the others.
To take a critical stance on one of the authors’ assessments, this reviewer would say that Johnson’s new age Catholic perspective on Paul really derails when he says, “Salvation is not, however, simply a matter of repair or of restoration in the human condition; it is a matter of elevation to a higher state of being.” This phrase under the chapter title “The Meaning of Salvation” is troubling because of its similarity to Buddhist thought about achieving Nirvana. The “higher state of being” in Paul’s words would be “Christ,” as when he was writing these words in prison: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21). It is better to live persecuted by the world and in Christ, or even to die and be in Heaven with Him, than it would be to live in any other state of being. Paul peppers the reality of living as a Christian throughout his New Testament writings. In 2 Timothy 3:12 he says, “all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” This does not sound like the benefits of being elevated to a higher state of being. Johnson should have switched that phrase out for, “it is a matter of finding one’s joy in putting Christ first in everything.” Johnson’s statement is too man-focused, which is a dangerous focus to have when discussion true salvation.
Conclusion
Bird’s Four Views on the Apostle Paul gives an honest overview of four of the many possible perspectives out there on the theology and epistemology of Paul. Having read this collection, this reviewer would appreciate reading several less diverse views within or closer to the Reformed Baptist perspective. Perhaps Bird should edit a second volume to this series, and even write a full angle himself.
December 27, 2021
2021 reads: #56
Rating: 4 Stars
The 'Counterpoints' books are often uneven and this one is no different. Johnson and Schreiner make the best case for how we should approach Paul since they affirm Pauline authorship for all thirteen letters in the Pauline corpus.
Rating: 4 Stars
The 'Counterpoints' books are often uneven and this one is no different. Johnson and Schreiner make the best case for how we should approach Paul since they affirm Pauline authorship for all thirteen letters in the Pauline corpus.
September 7, 2012
Really enjoyed the Mark Nanos portion but didn't find much enjoyment in the other sections. Worth picking up for Nanos' section though if you're interested in a Jewish perspective of Paul's ministry.
April 9, 2020
Interpreting the writings of the apostle Paul in the New Testament can be accomplished in various ways. Michael Bird compiled and edited this presentation of four divergent views by expert advocates along with a bonus-each contributor is critiqued by the others in counterpoints.
Four questions are considered by each writer in his contribution: 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 church?
Thomas Schreiner teaches New Testament as a professor in Louisville, Kentucky, at Southern Seminary. He is the author of commentaries on Romans and Galatians and an expert on Pauline theology. In his contribution, he emphasizes the perspective of Reformed Baptists.
Luke Timothy Johnson offers the reader: The Paul of the Letters: a Catholic Perspective. He teaches New Testament as a professor in Atlanta, Georgia, at Emory University and “represents a generation of Post -Vatican to Catholic scholars who have embraced historical criticism while recognizing as well the importance of patristic and medieval interpretation." (13) He is a former Benedictine monk and priest.
The third contribution is more eclectic and "does not stand in any school" and his approach is "a kaleidoscope" of approaches. (13) While the New Perspective of Paul seeks to re-interpret the Apostle “in light of a reinterpretation of Judaism as a non-legalistic religion of works righteousness”, Paul’s focus on ethnic issues and Jewish vs. Christian identity has been debated for more than a quarter of a century. (13)
Douglas A. Campbell teachers New Testament as a professor in Durham, NC at Duke University. As the author of the third contribution, he proposes his account as "post New Perspective" because he disagrees with key points of the New Perspective and believes it to be inadequate in responding to the questions about interpreting Paul's references to "works of the law". The editor remarks that this contributor “represents a type of protestant Pauline scholarship that has drunk from the well of historical questions raised by New Perspective scholarship but is intoxicated by Paul's theological juices", Campbell draws from influences like Longenecker, Barth, Hays, Käseman, Becker, and Martin, particularly in the apocalyptic approach. (14)
The fourth contribution is the Soebbing Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence at Rockhurst University (now lecturer at the University of Kansas), Mark D. Nanos. He is a specialist in Jewish-Christian relationships and Pauline studies. He challenges the notion of Paul being a Jewish “apostate” and presents Paul as one who advocates for Tora based Judaism (in the first century).
1) What did Paul think about Salvation? The Reformed Baptist view is that salvation is the manifestation of love” through rescue and deliverance from “eternal destruction” which is a consequence of sin. Schreiner writes that Paul’s theology of the cross has a “substitutionary character” in that Christ took on the judgment of man. (34) The resurrection and death of Jesus is the only road by which one can have salvation. The Catholic perspective is that salvation is the rehabilitation of man and “liberation” from “cosmic” oppressors (not sociopolitical, but from freedom-constraining “forces” of an evil heart). Man is transformed and renewed by Christ the “ruler and restorer” to a “positive” condition from a “negative” condition. (82) According to the Post-New Perspective contribution, salvation is “liberation” from death. Salvation is a “massive transition” to life that has the ability and willingness to “do the good” by way of the Holy Spirit. (136) Salvation is direct communion and fellowship with God. “And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.” (Romans 5:5, NIV) Salvation is an act of the Trinity. Finally, the Jewish View offered here is that Paul’s Jesus is an extension of the Mosaic covenant and that salvation for Jews and Gentiles stems from their relationship with the covenant; that is to say that Jews did not require the same deliverance and rescue from lawlessness and idolatry that Gentiles did. He distinguishes “works of the law” from circumcision stating that the two are erroneously conflated by non-Jews.
2) What was Paul's view of the significance of Christ? The Reformed Baptist perspective is that Christ’s significance is in the penal substitution for man’s separation from God that results in a marvelous gift to humankind: the gift of salvation, abundant life and eternal life through the power of the resurrection and transformation by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 3:18). (40-41) The Catholic perspective offers that Paul is distinctively Christ-centered and that man is so depraved (even in his reason) that faith is only acquired by grace. Predestination and election are acts of love in a corporate sense. (57, 214) For the Post-New Perspective contributor, Christ manifests God. “Divine being and divine act are inseparable for Paul; Christ proves it.” (14) Christ is God “acting in our world…God incarnate.” (121) Christ = God = Christ. So the One is three: Father, Son, and Spirit; but for Paul to speak of Christ was also to speak of three: Father, Son, Spirit, as One. The significance of Christ in the Jewish view offered by the contributor is that Jesus is the messiah that commands a new identity for Christ-followers, particularly Gentiles. Christ is also ushering in the Day of the Lord that was long ago prophesied. (212)
3) What is the best framework for describing Paul's theological perspective? All the contributors focused on the eschatological age ushered in by the promise of messiah and some analyzed the cultural conflicts that might have occurred because of this. (212) For the Reformed Baptist view, there is a newness in Christ experienced now in the covenant and hope for the “not yet” to all the Messiah brings for Paul. (40) For the Catholic view, reconciliation is renewal. “God’s nature” is generous and giving. It’s “embrace” is for the enemy of God. God will “stoop down” to shoulder burdens and rescue man. (122) For the Post-New Perspective contributor, believers follow Christ by participating with Him in the covenant. “This framework of participation links together Paul’s view of apostleship, mission, Eucharist, worship, sexual and social ethics, and eschatological assurance.” Believers experience Christ-like suffering and a “foretaste” of eternal life to come. (15) “Paul specifically connects election with the practice of hope in the face of suffering…”(123) For the Jewish view, Paul’s theology is intricately connected to Shema, the Torah, and “the covenants with Abraham and Israel and through them, with all of creation” (16) For Paul, in this view, the covenant was extended by the Messiah as a demonstration of God’s mercy. Gentiles are now also obligated by faith to do good works and “observe fully the truth” about the righteousness of God. (190) Paul centers on Christ but remains, in practice, an obedient Jew and calls the nations to obedience.
4) What was Paul’s vision for the church? For the Reformed Baptist view, harmony and unity are the church’s destiny as a result of the nations (Jews and Gentiles) being reconciled to God (Ephesians 2:11-3:13). (45) The church is at the “center of God’s purposes”. (46) The church “stands in continuity with God’s purposes and plans made known to Israel”. (212) For the Catholic view, the contributor emphasizes that Paul’s vision was for the church to hold onto its religious heritage (Israel) and also “foster” a unique identity the multicultural world of the first century context. (212) Paul’s “mystical” conversion experience, his training as a Pharisee, his Hellenistic education, “apocalyptic understanding of history”, and the traditions and practices of the early church (baptism, Lord’s supper, creeds, hymns) merge to help Paul reinterpret his knowledge of the Torah that “demands resolution”. Paul’s vision for the church is “read through the religious experience of Paul and his readers” (73-74) For Nanos, he posits that as a subgroup of synagogues, Paul was focused on positive relations with believers who were non-Jews. (213)
Paul’s basic theological framework was, I am convinced, the Parousia. He wanted everyone to be ready, especially Jews, since he had direct knowledge of the divinity of Jesus and the fulfillment of prophecy through his religious experience. Having faith in that divinity, per Paul, is the crux of obedient faith. This pairs with gospel accounts of Jesus remarking on the faith of Peter, the Roman centurion, the Samaritan woman at the well, and the woman who touched him. In Christ, the law is not abolished but fulfilled and righteousness comes from being, not necessarily from behaving. The post-New Perspective and the Jewish views are very helpful to me in understanding this.
There is much discussion and critique of the New Perspective, but no specific contributor for this view, per se. Also, for all the scripture references, there are almost no references to the gospel accounts from which I think important parallels are to be made. This is a great reference book and a great resource to point me towards future study.
Four questions are considered by each writer in his contribution: 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 church?
Thomas Schreiner teaches New Testament as a professor in Louisville, Kentucky, at Southern Seminary. He is the author of commentaries on Romans and Galatians and an expert on Pauline theology. In his contribution, he emphasizes the perspective of Reformed Baptists.
Luke Timothy Johnson offers the reader: The Paul of the Letters: a Catholic Perspective. He teaches New Testament as a professor in Atlanta, Georgia, at Emory University and “represents a generation of Post -Vatican to Catholic scholars who have embraced historical criticism while recognizing as well the importance of patristic and medieval interpretation." (13) He is a former Benedictine monk and priest.
The third contribution is more eclectic and "does not stand in any school" and his approach is "a kaleidoscope" of approaches. (13) While the New Perspective of Paul seeks to re-interpret the Apostle “in light of a reinterpretation of Judaism as a non-legalistic religion of works righteousness”, Paul’s focus on ethnic issues and Jewish vs. Christian identity has been debated for more than a quarter of a century. (13)
Douglas A. Campbell teachers New Testament as a professor in Durham, NC at Duke University. As the author of the third contribution, he proposes his account as "post New Perspective" because he disagrees with key points of the New Perspective and believes it to be inadequate in responding to the questions about interpreting Paul's references to "works of the law". The editor remarks that this contributor “represents a type of protestant Pauline scholarship that has drunk from the well of historical questions raised by New Perspective scholarship but is intoxicated by Paul's theological juices", Campbell draws from influences like Longenecker, Barth, Hays, Käseman, Becker, and Martin, particularly in the apocalyptic approach. (14)
The fourth contribution is the Soebbing Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence at Rockhurst University (now lecturer at the University of Kansas), Mark D. Nanos. He is a specialist in Jewish-Christian relationships and Pauline studies. He challenges the notion of Paul being a Jewish “apostate” and presents Paul as one who advocates for Tora based Judaism (in the first century).
1) What did Paul think about Salvation? The Reformed Baptist view is that salvation is the manifestation of love” through rescue and deliverance from “eternal destruction” which is a consequence of sin. Schreiner writes that Paul’s theology of the cross has a “substitutionary character” in that Christ took on the judgment of man. (34) The resurrection and death of Jesus is the only road by which one can have salvation. The Catholic perspective is that salvation is the rehabilitation of man and “liberation” from “cosmic” oppressors (not sociopolitical, but from freedom-constraining “forces” of an evil heart). Man is transformed and renewed by Christ the “ruler and restorer” to a “positive” condition from a “negative” condition. (82) According to the Post-New Perspective contribution, salvation is “liberation” from death. Salvation is a “massive transition” to life that has the ability and willingness to “do the good” by way of the Holy Spirit. (136) Salvation is direct communion and fellowship with God. “And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.” (Romans 5:5, NIV) Salvation is an act of the Trinity. Finally, the Jewish View offered here is that Paul’s Jesus is an extension of the Mosaic covenant and that salvation for Jews and Gentiles stems from their relationship with the covenant; that is to say that Jews did not require the same deliverance and rescue from lawlessness and idolatry that Gentiles did. He distinguishes “works of the law” from circumcision stating that the two are erroneously conflated by non-Jews.
2) What was Paul's view of the significance of Christ? The Reformed Baptist perspective is that Christ’s significance is in the penal substitution for man’s separation from God that results in a marvelous gift to humankind: the gift of salvation, abundant life and eternal life through the power of the resurrection and transformation by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 3:18). (40-41) The Catholic perspective offers that Paul is distinctively Christ-centered and that man is so depraved (even in his reason) that faith is only acquired by grace. Predestination and election are acts of love in a corporate sense. (57, 214) For the Post-New Perspective contributor, Christ manifests God. “Divine being and divine act are inseparable for Paul; Christ proves it.” (14) Christ is God “acting in our world…God incarnate.” (121) Christ = God = Christ. So the One is three: Father, Son, and Spirit; but for Paul to speak of Christ was also to speak of three: Father, Son, Spirit, as One. The significance of Christ in the Jewish view offered by the contributor is that Jesus is the messiah that commands a new identity for Christ-followers, particularly Gentiles. Christ is also ushering in the Day of the Lord that was long ago prophesied. (212)
3) What is the best framework for describing Paul's theological perspective? All the contributors focused on the eschatological age ushered in by the promise of messiah and some analyzed the cultural conflicts that might have occurred because of this. (212) For the Reformed Baptist view, there is a newness in Christ experienced now in the covenant and hope for the “not yet” to all the Messiah brings for Paul. (40) For the Catholic view, reconciliation is renewal. “God’s nature” is generous and giving. It’s “embrace” is for the enemy of God. God will “stoop down” to shoulder burdens and rescue man. (122) For the Post-New Perspective contributor, believers follow Christ by participating with Him in the covenant. “This framework of participation links together Paul’s view of apostleship, mission, Eucharist, worship, sexual and social ethics, and eschatological assurance.” Believers experience Christ-like suffering and a “foretaste” of eternal life to come. (15) “Paul specifically connects election with the practice of hope in the face of suffering…”(123) For the Jewish view, Paul’s theology is intricately connected to Shema, the Torah, and “the covenants with Abraham and Israel and through them, with all of creation” (16) For Paul, in this view, the covenant was extended by the Messiah as a demonstration of God’s mercy. Gentiles are now also obligated by faith to do good works and “observe fully the truth” about the righteousness of God. (190) Paul centers on Christ but remains, in practice, an obedient Jew and calls the nations to obedience.
4) What was Paul’s vision for the church? For the Reformed Baptist view, harmony and unity are the church’s destiny as a result of the nations (Jews and Gentiles) being reconciled to God (Ephesians 2:11-3:13). (45) The church is at the “center of God’s purposes”. (46) The church “stands in continuity with God’s purposes and plans made known to Israel”. (212) For the Catholic view, the contributor emphasizes that Paul’s vision was for the church to hold onto its religious heritage (Israel) and also “foster” a unique identity the multicultural world of the first century context. (212) Paul’s “mystical” conversion experience, his training as a Pharisee, his Hellenistic education, “apocalyptic understanding of history”, and the traditions and practices of the early church (baptism, Lord’s supper, creeds, hymns) merge to help Paul reinterpret his knowledge of the Torah that “demands resolution”. Paul’s vision for the church is “read through the religious experience of Paul and his readers” (73-74) For Nanos, he posits that as a subgroup of synagogues, Paul was focused on positive relations with believers who were non-Jews. (213)
Paul’s basic theological framework was, I am convinced, the Parousia. He wanted everyone to be ready, especially Jews, since he had direct knowledge of the divinity of Jesus and the fulfillment of prophecy through his religious experience. Having faith in that divinity, per Paul, is the crux of obedient faith. This pairs with gospel accounts of Jesus remarking on the faith of Peter, the Roman centurion, the Samaritan woman at the well, and the woman who touched him. In Christ, the law is not abolished but fulfilled and righteousness comes from being, not necessarily from behaving. The post-New Perspective and the Jewish views are very helpful to me in understanding this.
There is much discussion and critique of the New Perspective, but no specific contributor for this view, per se. Also, for all the scripture references, there are almost no references to the gospel accounts from which I think important parallels are to be made. This is a great reference book and a great resource to point me towards future study.
February 11, 2024
This was pretty okay. Two views were well articulated (The Reformation and the Jewish view). The Catholic view was decently communicated but avoided the discussion over works and faith. The Post-New Perspective was a mess, not in its conclusions but in its articulation, at times giving the impression of being purposefully obfuscated.
2.5/5 Stars
2.5/5 Stars
September 16, 2012
This is the first book of the recently popular "N Views on Topic X" form that I've read, and I think it's a great format. Each author writes a chapter from a particular perspective, then the other authors write short responses. It's about as close to attending a seminar as you can get in book form, and is especially well suited to encouraging students and other readers to form their own opinions based on what they've read.
Of course, the selection of the N views is key to the quality of the book, and here editor Michael F. Bird has done a fine job. Resisting the temptation to include a broad array of perspectives and thus produce either a shallow survey or an unmanageable tome, his choice of four views allowed a substantive presentation of each perspective, plus responses, in 300 pages. Thomas R. Schreiner and Luke Timothy Johnson represent the Reformed Protestant and Roman Catholic views that characterize the basic Reformation-shaped discussions of Paul in Western Christianity. Douglas Campbell presents a view that has been developed in light of the New Perspective on Paul, as well as other Protestant influences. The surprising inclusion of Mark D. Nanos for a Jewish perspective of the "apostle to the Gentiles" fruitfully deepens the discussion of the Jewishness of Paul that has been raised by the New Perspective.
This selection of views is excellent, and bringing a Jewish voice to the table is important from a diversity standpoint: honestly, it's embarrassing to hear only Christians talking about whether and how Paul was a Jew. It is only unfortunate that Bird did not identify a woman scholar to represent one or more of the views, so that we did not hear only men talking about Paul's views on women. Such a scholar would likely have critiqued Campbell's exclusive use of "brothers" as language that adequately depicts Christians.
Bird structures the conversation by asking the authors to identify the theological framework that should be used to understand Paul, and to describe Paul's view of salvation, of the significance of Christ, and his vision for the churches. As he states in his introduction, these questions were selected in order to focus the discussion on areas in which there is significant disgreement. He also introduces the background of each contributor; in the conclusion, he helpfully summarizes the points of agreement and disagreement.
Although Johnson begins his essay with demurrals about how specifically Roman Catholic his position may be, it is clear to me that he and I operate out of the same tradition. His methodology and premises were at once familiar and persuasive to me, especially in comparison to Schreiner. Johnson's basic approach of identifying a few themes or concepts with broad attestation across many letters strikes me as more reliable than Schreiner's approach of constructing a systematic narrative that cites a verse or two as support for each statement and relies heavily on Romans and Galatians. Campbell takes an even narrower approach, concentrating on Romans 5-8 in order to identify and develop a single coherent theme; however, his discussion of freedom in the context of the communal, networked, social anthropology he sees in Paul was helpful and persuasive.
I read Nanos' chapter together with a Jewish friend with whom I've studied informally for several years on topics of Judaism, Christianity, and Jewish-Christian dialogue. She was very pleased by Nanos' ability to articulate several attitudes and concepts that she has struggled to express in our studies, and I found it edifying to understand how Paul has traditionally been perceived by the Jewish community. We both appreciated the careful verbal distinctions in this chapter between Jesus-believing Jews, non-Jesus-believing Jews, and Jesus-believing Gentiles: the language is cumbersome, but helpful in avoiding the unconscious translation of 1st-century terms to 21st-century categories.
Overall, this is a very good book, particularly well suited to ecumenical study and to the preparation of those who will minister and preach against an ecumenical background. (That would include pretty much all ministers in the Western church today.) It does require some basic familiarity with theological terms and Paul's letters, but does not require previous expertise in Pauline studies.
Dr. Bird kindly arranged for me to receive an advance copy of this book for use in my independent study course on Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant perspectives on Paul in the summer of 2012. It was extremely helpful for this work.
Of course, the selection of the N views is key to the quality of the book, and here editor Michael F. Bird has done a fine job. Resisting the temptation to include a broad array of perspectives and thus produce either a shallow survey or an unmanageable tome, his choice of four views allowed a substantive presentation of each perspective, plus responses, in 300 pages. Thomas R. Schreiner and Luke Timothy Johnson represent the Reformed Protestant and Roman Catholic views that characterize the basic Reformation-shaped discussions of Paul in Western Christianity. Douglas Campbell presents a view that has been developed in light of the New Perspective on Paul, as well as other Protestant influences. The surprising inclusion of Mark D. Nanos for a Jewish perspective of the "apostle to the Gentiles" fruitfully deepens the discussion of the Jewishness of Paul that has been raised by the New Perspective.
This selection of views is excellent, and bringing a Jewish voice to the table is important from a diversity standpoint: honestly, it's embarrassing to hear only Christians talking about whether and how Paul was a Jew. It is only unfortunate that Bird did not identify a woman scholar to represent one or more of the views, so that we did not hear only men talking about Paul's views on women. Such a scholar would likely have critiqued Campbell's exclusive use of "brothers" as language that adequately depicts Christians.
Bird structures the conversation by asking the authors to identify the theological framework that should be used to understand Paul, and to describe Paul's view of salvation, of the significance of Christ, and his vision for the churches. As he states in his introduction, these questions were selected in order to focus the discussion on areas in which there is significant disgreement. He also introduces the background of each contributor; in the conclusion, he helpfully summarizes the points of agreement and disagreement.
Although Johnson begins his essay with demurrals about how specifically Roman Catholic his position may be, it is clear to me that he and I operate out of the same tradition. His methodology and premises were at once familiar and persuasive to me, especially in comparison to Schreiner. Johnson's basic approach of identifying a few themes or concepts with broad attestation across many letters strikes me as more reliable than Schreiner's approach of constructing a systematic narrative that cites a verse or two as support for each statement and relies heavily on Romans and Galatians. Campbell takes an even narrower approach, concentrating on Romans 5-8 in order to identify and develop a single coherent theme; however, his discussion of freedom in the context of the communal, networked, social anthropology he sees in Paul was helpful and persuasive.
I read Nanos' chapter together with a Jewish friend with whom I've studied informally for several years on topics of Judaism, Christianity, and Jewish-Christian dialogue. She was very pleased by Nanos' ability to articulate several attitudes and concepts that she has struggled to express in our studies, and I found it edifying to understand how Paul has traditionally been perceived by the Jewish community. We both appreciated the careful verbal distinctions in this chapter between Jesus-believing Jews, non-Jesus-believing Jews, and Jesus-believing Gentiles: the language is cumbersome, but helpful in avoiding the unconscious translation of 1st-century terms to 21st-century categories.
Overall, this is a very good book, particularly well suited to ecumenical study and to the preparation of those who will minister and preach against an ecumenical background. (That would include pretty much all ministers in the Western church today.) It does require some basic familiarity with theological terms and Paul's letters, but does not require previous expertise in Pauline studies.
Dr. Bird kindly arranged for me to receive an advance copy of this book for use in my independent study course on Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant perspectives on Paul in the summer of 2012. It was extremely helpful for this work.
February 15, 2018
I just read this book with a group of first-year college students. In my opinion, it would work better for graduate students with prior experience in Pauline scholarship; but my honors students were game and benefited from pushing themselves to understand the perspectives of the different authors. As is always the case with edited anthologies, the chapters were unevenly written; but I was pleased that each of the four authors presented different and important ideas for my students to consider, and their responses to one another generally highlighted the most significant points of divergence.
The editor provided continuity to the volume by asking each contributor (Thomas Schreiner, Luke Timothy Johnson, Douglas Campbell, and Mark Nanos) to respond to four questions: What did Paul think about salvation? What was Paul's view of the significance of Christ? What is the best framework for describing Paul's theological perspective? And What was Paul's vision for the churches? Despite the editor's best efforts, however, only two of the four author's used these questions as the framework for their chapters. Thankfully, the book did not suffer because of the contributors' recalcitrance. In fact, I thought Mark Nanos's chapter was the most interesting in the whole volume, and he largely ignored the categories provided by the editor (I assume because the categories do not fit well with his reading of Paul).
Even though I found myself having to regularly explain to my students the background for the debates that the authors were engaging, the book provided wonderful stimulus for our class discussions. I enjoyed the opportunity to read it, and I'm glad that I assigned it.
The editor provided continuity to the volume by asking each contributor (Thomas Schreiner, Luke Timothy Johnson, Douglas Campbell, and Mark Nanos) to respond to four questions: What did Paul think about salvation? What was Paul's view of the significance of Christ? What is the best framework for describing Paul's theological perspective? And What was Paul's vision for the churches? Despite the editor's best efforts, however, only two of the four author's used these questions as the framework for their chapters. Thankfully, the book did not suffer because of the contributors' recalcitrance. In fact, I thought Mark Nanos's chapter was the most interesting in the whole volume, and he largely ignored the categories provided by the editor (I assume because the categories do not fit well with his reading of Paul).
Even though I found myself having to regularly explain to my students the background for the debates that the authors were engaging, the book provided wonderful stimulus for our class discussions. I enjoyed the opportunity to read it, and I'm glad that I assigned it.
August 18, 2021
The Four Views on the Apostle Paul provides an engaging and thought-provoking conversation on Paul’s teachings to the early church. Each contributor’s essay and the subsequent responses provide a stark contrast to the varying interpretations of Paul within differing schools of thought.
You can read my full review here: https://findinglifeintheword.com/2021...
You can read my full review here: https://findinglifeintheword.com/2021...
October 26, 2022
An "executive summary" I submitted for my NT2 course assignment with LU:
“Four Views on the Apostle Paul” is a short book edited and compiled by Michel Byrd who provides an intro and conclusion to the engagements between four scholars/professors who have completed extensive research on Paul and would be considered by any to be experts on the author of the majority of the New Testament. These four contributors are identified by Byrd as an Evangelical, a Catholic, mainline Protestant, and a Jew, and the four topics discussed in the book were about Paul’s thoughts on salvation, the significance of Christ, his theological perspective and vision for the churches. (Byrd, 11)
Each section begins with a primary author/speaker presenting their point of view and is then followed by a short response by the three others. All find something they agree with in their response to each other, but they often found points of disagreement as well. Some of the disagreements seem more trivial than others, and it would be helpful to read a final response to those three responses, but that may make the work drag on and become more confusing.
One critique of this book is that two of the four different points of view are Protestant, and unless the reader is familiar with these four scholars as well as the differences between evangelical and reformed points of view, it can be difficult to follow the arguments of each. Having said that, the views are diverse and the point is to provide the reader with various views so that they can make up their own minds about what is argued regarding the Apostle Paul. (Byrd, 211)
The order in which the authors present is interesting, first opening with Thomas Schreiner, a Reformed Baptist, then the chapter by Catholic Luke Timothy Johnson, third the New Zelander Evangelical Douglas Campbell, and concludes with a Jewish point of view from Mark Nanos. One way this work could be read is to skip from one author’s detailed description of the 4 topics to their responses to the other three in order to gain a grasp of their theological background. Many parallels exist between Schreiner, Johnson, and Campbell, though Campbell takes a unique approach to address a “new perspective” which is over 40 years old, by adding the word “post” to it, and he receives criticism primarily because he focuses only 4 chapters from one of Paul’s letters; Romans 5-8, and is called “idiosyncratic" and “wrong-headed” by Johnson. (149)
The other outlier is Nanos’ Jewish point of view because he does not seem to follow the script in areas of the Gospel and Centrality of Christ, but instead focuses on Paul’s Judaism, his views on circumcision and how he opposed works of the law and converting Gentiles to Judaism. Nanos’ approach did seem to be more unbiased and objective regarding the historical Paul, and the three Christian responses are respectful Judaism and apologetic to Jews. However, one of the more firm critiques is when Schreiner states the claim of Paul adhering to Judaism after his road to Damascus conversion is “unsustainable” backing it up with Galatians 1:13. (196)
Ultimately, the way this book is constructed provides the reader with a point of departure for their own opinion on things, even though at times it can be confusing due to four points of view being shared seemingly simultaneously. Many in the Church do not have such a grip on the historical person of Paul, and when teaching others using Paul’s letters, it helps to understand how he might be read by them; therefore, this work is absolutely of critical importance and usefulness. However, it is also worth mentioning in conclusion that Christian tradition teaches the letters authored by Paul are to be considered God’s Word, and just as Paul dictated them to Tertius (Romans 16:22), Christians today benefit greatly from reading Paul’s letters as being dictated (or breathed) by God. (2 Timothy 3:16)
“Four Views on the Apostle Paul” is a short book edited and compiled by Michel Byrd who provides an intro and conclusion to the engagements between four scholars/professors who have completed extensive research on Paul and would be considered by any to be experts on the author of the majority of the New Testament. These four contributors are identified by Byrd as an Evangelical, a Catholic, mainline Protestant, and a Jew, and the four topics discussed in the book were about Paul’s thoughts on salvation, the significance of Christ, his theological perspective and vision for the churches. (Byrd, 11)
Each section begins with a primary author/speaker presenting their point of view and is then followed by a short response by the three others. All find something they agree with in their response to each other, but they often found points of disagreement as well. Some of the disagreements seem more trivial than others, and it would be helpful to read a final response to those three responses, but that may make the work drag on and become more confusing.
One critique of this book is that two of the four different points of view are Protestant, and unless the reader is familiar with these four scholars as well as the differences between evangelical and reformed points of view, it can be difficult to follow the arguments of each. Having said that, the views are diverse and the point is to provide the reader with various views so that they can make up their own minds about what is argued regarding the Apostle Paul. (Byrd, 211)
The order in which the authors present is interesting, first opening with Thomas Schreiner, a Reformed Baptist, then the chapter by Catholic Luke Timothy Johnson, third the New Zelander Evangelical Douglas Campbell, and concludes with a Jewish point of view from Mark Nanos. One way this work could be read is to skip from one author’s detailed description of the 4 topics to their responses to the other three in order to gain a grasp of their theological background. Many parallels exist between Schreiner, Johnson, and Campbell, though Campbell takes a unique approach to address a “new perspective” which is over 40 years old, by adding the word “post” to it, and he receives criticism primarily because he focuses only 4 chapters from one of Paul’s letters; Romans 5-8, and is called “idiosyncratic" and “wrong-headed” by Johnson. (149)
The other outlier is Nanos’ Jewish point of view because he does not seem to follow the script in areas of the Gospel and Centrality of Christ, but instead focuses on Paul’s Judaism, his views on circumcision and how he opposed works of the law and converting Gentiles to Judaism. Nanos’ approach did seem to be more unbiased and objective regarding the historical Paul, and the three Christian responses are respectful Judaism and apologetic to Jews. However, one of the more firm critiques is when Schreiner states the claim of Paul adhering to Judaism after his road to Damascus conversion is “unsustainable” backing it up with Galatians 1:13. (196)
Ultimately, the way this book is constructed provides the reader with a point of departure for their own opinion on things, even though at times it can be confusing due to four points of view being shared seemingly simultaneously. Many in the Church do not have such a grip on the historical person of Paul, and when teaching others using Paul’s letters, it helps to understand how he might be read by them; therefore, this work is absolutely of critical importance and usefulness. However, it is also worth mentioning in conclusion that Christian tradition teaches the letters authored by Paul are to be considered God’s Word, and just as Paul dictated them to Tertius (Romans 16:22), Christians today benefit greatly from reading Paul’s letters as being dictated (or breathed) by God. (2 Timothy 3:16)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 20, 2025
Books of this nature, counterpoints, the perspectives, other ones are always good when you’re trying to figure out where you are in a subject. Because they take people from different areas and lay all things on the table. However, with this one, it seemed like there’s one good, one medium, and a couple of bad . On the whole, it was just a reminder of some of the different arguments out there and that we cannot take for granted that everyone has the same interpretation. I find Schreiner’s arguments centering on God‘s grace and man’s responsibility to be the most in line with scripture. Johnson is a close second however, some of the things he puts in earthly terms made me suspect. Campbell and Barthian ways I really feel like downplays the impact that Paul has in redemptive history. And Nanos just wants to treat Paul like his status pre-conversion is what he held to his entire life. I do wish that there was another covenant the illusion instead of either of the ladder too, but on the hole, it’s a reminder to fight the good fight because there are some very wrong hypothesis out there.
December 12, 2025
Four Views on the Apostle Paul offers a stimulating and academic dialogue on how Paul’s theology can be interpreted from multiple scholarly perspectives. I appreciated the structure that allows each theologian both to present his view and respond to others, which highlights real points of agreement and contention in Pauline studies. Some views, particularly the Reformed perspective, aligned more closely with my own convictions, while others required careful filtering through Scripture. This book is valuable for understanding why scholars differ on Paul’s theology, but it is dense and suited more for academic reflection than devotional reading. Overall, it broadened my understanding of Paul’s interpretation across traditions, though discernment is necessary when applying these ideas to ministry or doctrine.
April 10, 2022
Very wordy and nuanced. I guess that’s the point, but I felt like the authors were so nuanced their main point was lost so I had trouble following them. Reading the responses from the other three actually said more about each person’s point than their own essay did.
I was surprised how I agreed with the catholic point of view more than I expected I would. I also was thankful the Jewish scholar made the point in his reply to the southern Baptist that the church as not replaced Israel, although in his (Jewish) essay I very much disagreed with HOW he made the point that the church didn’t replace Israel.
But, this did expose me to other points of view, which was the whole point of reading this book.
I was surprised how I agreed with the catholic point of view more than I expected I would. I also was thankful the Jewish scholar made the point in his reply to the southern Baptist that the church as not replaced Israel, although in his (Jewish) essay I very much disagreed with HOW he made the point that the church didn’t replace Israel.
But, this did expose me to other points of view, which was the whole point of reading this book.
May 14, 2025
3.8
Helpful research.
I learned a lot but was somewhat disappointed. Four big names in this field, but it didn't really meet my expectations. I think Luke Timothy Johnson's (the Roman Catholic perspective) overall synthesis was the best, which was weird for me, a Protestant. His perspective seemed the most well-rounded via his consideration of the full breadth of Paul's corpus (not just Romans) and the Jewish second temple world with attendant apacalyptic expectations. Schriener and Campbell, the Protestants, both frustrated me but for very different reasons. Nanos said a lot that is begging to be taken on board in a Christian paradigm (not being a Christian himself) but seems incapable of allowing the NT to critique anything about any Jewish factions of the first century. I will say it was nice to see Schreiner say some things that seemed nearly New Perspective-ish before making sure to immediately hit you with a slurry of run-of-the-mill reformed categories as if to not sound too NPP. Campbell might be right about his main concern--the Love of God, and its being poured into our hearts--but seems unable to go where the text goes in many places because it "seems" at odds with his controlling idea.
Helpful research.
I learned a lot but was somewhat disappointed. Four big names in this field, but it didn't really meet my expectations. I think Luke Timothy Johnson's (the Roman Catholic perspective) overall synthesis was the best, which was weird for me, a Protestant. His perspective seemed the most well-rounded via his consideration of the full breadth of Paul's corpus (not just Romans) and the Jewish second temple world with attendant apacalyptic expectations. Schriener and Campbell, the Protestants, both frustrated me but for very different reasons. Nanos said a lot that is begging to be taken on board in a Christian paradigm (not being a Christian himself) but seems incapable of allowing the NT to critique anything about any Jewish factions of the first century. I will say it was nice to see Schreiner say some things that seemed nearly New Perspective-ish before making sure to immediately hit you with a slurry of run-of-the-mill reformed categories as if to not sound too NPP. Campbell might be right about his main concern--the Love of God, and its being poured into our hearts--but seems unable to go where the text goes in many places because it "seems" at odds with his controlling idea.
August 10, 2020
I have given this book five stars because it is one of those books that comes along which is essential for anyone interested in the topic. The book is essential because it takes a current, necessary dialogue, which exists in the theological world, and succinctly expresses the various major perspectives on the matter. The matter of course is discovering which hermeneutical lens ought to be used while reading Paul. The format of the book (four essays and three subsequent critiques for each essay) leaves the topic accessible, well represented on all sides, and thorough in exploration. This short book packs a punch of information without being burdensome.
June 2, 2025
Although perhaps just a tad dated (written before Barclay's Paul and the Gift for example), I found this volume to be very helpful and even entertaining. Schreiner's view is the most familiar, Campbell was provocative and lively, and Nanos was the most educational for me, as I haven't engaged with the "Paul within Judaism" view before. Overall, I lean towards Johnson's understanding the most. Perspectives on Paul: Five Views looks like a good updated version of this book that I hope to read as well.
August 3, 2021
If you want to understand the wide variety of perspectives of Paul in a relatively slim volume this is it. Very useful in understanding the traditional/Lutheran/Reformed, a Catholic, Trinitarian/apocalyptic & Jewish understanding. In the essays, and particularly in their responses, you seen the thought lines and tensions of the various approaches. Despite not really agreeing with anyone perspective, I found it very engaging and helpful.
February 10, 2020
Anyone familiar with the Zondervan Counterpoints series will know what to expect. Each contributor wrote an essay outlining their view of Paul, and each contributor wrote a short response to the other contributors' views. I'll avoid critiquing the substance of the essays - that's kind of the point of the book. The Jewish perspective was fascinating, though.
March 2, 2022
Good Overview on Positions
This book was a good general overview on the modern perspectives on Paul, though I do not plan to end my study of the issues involved here. I have found this and the other volumes in this series to be helpful and challenging to my perspectives in a healthy way.
This book was a good general overview on the modern perspectives on Paul, though I do not plan to end my study of the issues involved here. I have found this and the other volumes in this series to be helpful and challenging to my perspectives in a healthy way.
May 30, 2022
This book is on a level far above my head. Doctorate level for sure. Since I'm in a Master's program, I started to reconsider my scholastic venture, because this book speaks a language I just don't understand. I hope you REALLY enjoy theology and exegesis if you attempt this book. I have 3 stars because there are some good parts; AND because I'm still in Seminary.
March 24, 2025
This book meets expectations by providing four views on the Apostle Paul by scholars from different backgrounds. Each scholar writes an essay describing their position on Paul's view of salvation, Jesus, and the church. Each essay is responded to by the other writers. It's a stimulating conversation with much more breadth than depth. I wasn't a huge fan of the lack of standardization among the essays, since each scholar had a different strategy of interpreting Paul which ended up answering different questions. It made comparison a bit difficult. What I found striking was the amount of agreement between many of the authors. This is encouraging. There were a few major conflicts, but most disagreements boiled down to minor nits that don't make a huge difference in the grand scheme of Christianity. I read this for a course but wouldn't recommend it for someone looking to deeply learn more about Paul. I'd rather focus on certain views to gain more depth from a variety of authors.
June 1, 2020
This book was interesting to get four different views on Paul from four very different people. It helps with understanding Paul even though the views vary. Each contributor makes a decent argument for their view and leaves the reader with serious contemplation as to what view they align with more.
May 23, 2023
Starting to work through various Pauline resources and figured this was a good place to start.
I found myself resonating with Johnson the most, with a bit of Campbell's doctrine of revelation thrown in.
I found myself resonating with Johnson the most, with a bit of Campbell's doctrine of revelation thrown in.
February 8, 2025
A helpful discussion of the Apostle Paul's writings. I feel as if the final writer, Mark Nanos, could have been replaced with a non-reformed evangelical view. Nanos' chapter did not resonate with me, and I imagine the target audience for this book would gloss over his chapter.
November 27, 2025
I really enjoyed learning about the different views of these four scholars from different traditions, and the discussion of each other’s writings. The endeavor of Dr. Michael Bird is quite Paulean in itself, trying to bring Jews and Christians together to live peacefully in honor of God.
May 18, 2021
I really enjoyed the way this book broke down and explained the different views on Paul. It really helps to see the spectrum and develop a more robust understanding of our prominent NT author.
November 25, 2023
Don’t do this to yourself.
Mental. Overload. My head hurt while reading this book.
Mental. Overload. My head hurt while reading this book.
August 24, 2025
My personal views are most in-line with Luke Timothy Johnson on this one, though I very much appreciated Mark Nanos and will be looking into more of his work after reading this.
October 14, 2013
These kinds of books are useful to a point, that point being as a broad introduction to the issues at hand. Due to space considerations, these pieces don't have the ability to do anything but offer a surface reading of the key issues, along with some general responses from the other authors. This book also has this limitation, and the authors are more and less successful in handling their pieces.
For me, the real value of this book comes in the primary pieces written by Luke Timothy Johnson (Catholic) and Mark D. Nanos (Jewish). Johnson's Catholic view takes an admirably wide view of Pauline issues, bringing important correctives to my own Protestant tradition's over-emphasis on individual salvation and forensic justification. Nanos writes from his Jewish perspective, and offers a fascinating response to Paul that highlights Paul's faithfulness to his Jewish heritage. While Nanos seems to be reading Paul selectively, I appreciate the move away from Judaism as the primary foil for the Christian imagination.
I found Schreiner's essay to be a solid, if unremarkable presentation of the Reformed view, while Copeland's essay is fatally flawed with its exclusion of everything in Paul outside of Romans 5-8.
For me, the real value of this book comes in the primary pieces written by Luke Timothy Johnson (Catholic) and Mark D. Nanos (Jewish). Johnson's Catholic view takes an admirably wide view of Pauline issues, bringing important correctives to my own Protestant tradition's over-emphasis on individual salvation and forensic justification. Nanos writes from his Jewish perspective, and offers a fascinating response to Paul that highlights Paul's faithfulness to his Jewish heritage. While Nanos seems to be reading Paul selectively, I appreciate the move away from Judaism as the primary foil for the Christian imagination.
I found Schreiner's essay to be a solid, if unremarkable presentation of the Reformed view, while Copeland's essay is fatally flawed with its exclusion of everything in Paul outside of Romans 5-8.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews