Three Lenses for Reading Paul: Conflict, Culture, and Covenant

Stepping Back to See the Bigger Picture

Every once in a while, it helps to zoom out. In our return to the book of Romans, I took a moment to step back from the verse-by-verse rhythm and instead reflect on some of the major frameworks theologians have used to understand Paul's writings. Especially as Romans is the place where Paul speaks most directly about justification by faith, it has become a focal point for different interpretive traditions.

Interestingly, while justification by faith is a key theme, it might not be Paul's most important one. Across his letters, Paul seems primarily concerned with reconciliation—our restored relationship with God and our participation in the faithfulness of Christ. That said, let's explore three significant interpretive schools that have shaped how readers have understood Paul's message.

1. The Tübingen School: Conflict as the Driving Force

The Tübingen School, emerging from 19th-century German scholarship, applied methods from Old Testament source criticism to the New Testament. Thinkers like F.C. Baur proposed that early Christianity was marked by a deep division between two camps: a Jewish Christianity aligned with Peter, emphasizing adherence to Torah, and a Gentile Christianity led by Paul, prioritizing belief over practice.

Baur saw the New Testament as a product of this early "civil war," edited later to appear more unified than it truly was. In his view, Pauline theology eventually triumphed, and the texts were shaped to reflect that victory.

This conflict-driven lens echoes Hegelian philosophy—thesis, antithesis, synthesis—but oversimplifies not only the texts but also human relationships. Paul and Peter, while different, were colleagues trying to make sense of Jesus together. And if we're honest, our churches today can fall into the same trap when we frame disagreements as oppositions. The better invitation is to see theological difference as an opportunity to learn from each other, not to divide.

2. The Archaeology of Religion: Paul the Cultural Adapter

Another critical perspective comes from scholars like Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman, who analyze Paul through the lens of anthropology and sociology. They argue that Paul, steeped in both Jewish tradition and Greco-Roman culture, was translating his faith into a language more accessible to his cosmopolitan world.

They see early Christianity as a kind of Hellenized Judaism, adapted for Gentile ears. And while there is merit to the observation that Paul could code-switch between cultures, this view can downplay the deeply Jewish heart of Paul's theology. His prayers, his use of Scripture, his interpretive methods—they're all profoundly rabbinical.

Paul didn't leave his Jewishness behind; he carried it into every conversation about Jesus. So while he spoke the language of his Greco-Roman world, he never stopped being a Jew. This matters, because it keeps us grounded in the story of a God who chose a people, not just a philosophy.

3. The New Perspective on Paul: Covenant and Inclusion

Then there's the "New Perspective," which, as I mentioned Sunday, isn't really all that new. Beginning with scholars like E.P. Sanders in the mid-20th century and carried forward by voices like N.T. Wright, this school began listening to Jewish voices.

What they heard was that Judaism never pitted faith against works. Instead, works—Torah observance, ritual, tradition—flowed naturally from a lived experience of being chosen and loved by God. Sanders coined the term "covenantal nomism" to describe this: the law (nomos) is kept in response to the covenant.

This reframes what Paul is arguing against. He's not critiquing works as legalism; he's challenging the idea that ethnic markers like circumcision or kosher practice are what make someone part of God's family. Paul insists that the resurrection of Jesus has widened the story. Where once God chose a people, now God chooses all peoples.

So, justification by faith isn't about intellectual assent versus behavior. It's about trust in the faithfulness of Jesus. And in Greek, that phrase—"faith in Jesus Christ" or "the faithfulness of Jesus Christ"—can be read both ways. Theologically, the latter might actually carry more weight. Because it's not our belief that saves us, it's Jesus' fidelity to God's redemptive plan that opens the story to everyone.

A Bigger Story, A Wider Welcome

When we read Paul through this Jewish lens—where faith and action are two sides of the same coin, and where God's love always precedes our response—his writings take on new life. This is not a story of insider-versus-outsider, nor of abstract doctrine. It's a story of God choosing again and again to include, to reconcile, to redeem.

And our invitation? It's to mark our participation in that story by trusting in Jesus' faithfulness, and by living lives that reflect the expansive grace we've received.

There you go.