Zetterholm part 2

Yesterday, I introduced the book I will be going through this week and next week, “Approaches to Paul” by Zetterholm. In the last post, the foundation of the “traditional” view was laid. Today, we move into the theological explorations that marked the difference between Judaism and Christianity. This next step is, as Zetterholm points out, a construction of Christian theologians.

After working through the ancient sources that led to Christianities separation/distancing from Judaism, Zetterholm turns to Augustine, who will pave the way from Luther’s doctrine of grace. It is in response to Pelagius that Augustine developed his theology of sin and grace. Augustine emphasized the divine aspect of redemption against a human action. Divine intervention was necessary for both the ability and will to perform good deeds. As Zetterholm summarizes, “No human effort to please God is possible, which in the long run means that God decides who is to be saved and who is predestined to perdition” (59).

Luther would then start with the divine intervention, leaving the human action of good deeds to be result of grace. Righteousness is accessed through faith alone, a complete reversal of the Occamistic theology of the time (Which maintained that good deeds where met with grace leading to salvation). This left the Law in a very specific place, mainly for certain people at a certain time. Zetterholm points out,

“With Luther, the Law thus represents something good, in fact, the will of God, but its fulfillment is at the same time something unattainable. Anyone who imagines that he or she by means of the law can attain a relation to God is guilty of the of the most fundamental sin of all- self-righteousness- based on the false assumption that God can be pleased through human effort. For such a person, the law does not lead to grace and forgiveness, but to punishment and damnation” (61).

This theological formation with the Hegelian evolutionary process puts Judaism in a terrible place. Luther’s theology meant a complete rejection of Judaism. Zetterholm stress that Luther was not reading Paul for historical reconstruction, but to address theological issues. Luther’s formulation was a Christian theological construction. It will be the later Biblical scholars that apply this reading to their reconstructions of Paul. In the next couple of days, we will look at Zetterholm’s third chapter, “The Formation of a Standard View.”