Stephen J Chester, Paul through the Eyes of the Reformers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2025)
This work is an adaption of Chester’s earlier volume, Reading Paul with the Reformers: Reconciling Old and New Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), that is “sharper and more succinct” (xiii) and is, at the same time, an expansion in places.
Chester’s main goal is to demonstrate that the New Perspective on Paul’s (abbreviated NPP, hereafter) outright dismissal of and refusal to interact with the Reformers’ interpretations of the apostle and his letters is “misguided” for two main reasons. The first is that most of what NPP scholars assume about the Reformers’ views of St. Paul is incorrect and the second is that NPP interpreters unknowingly rely on the Reformers for some of their fundamental conclusions about the apostle’s theology (xiii).
To accomplish this goal, Chester divides his work into four parts in which there are sixteen chapters.
Part 1 consists of two chapters focusing on “The New Perspective on Paul and the Reformation” and contains material that did not appear in Chester’s 2017 work. In chapter 1 (“The New Perspective on Paul: Context,” 3–8), Chester provides the modern context for the development of the NPP, Pauline exegetes coming to terms with the events of the Holocaust. The second chapter (“Parallel Disciplines: Pauline Theology and Luther Studies,” 9–25) examines the theological developments of Pauline and Luther studies in the mid-twentieth century that led to the NPP and fresh readings of Martin Luther’s theology, which track and resemble each other closely, e.g., interpreting St. Paul and Luther as apocalyptic theologians.
Part 2 is made up of seven chapters examining the shifts in the interpretation of St. Paul’s letters during the Reformation with an eye to how NPP scholars unknowingly interact with them: “Reformation Interpretation and the New Perspective on Paul as Paradigm Shifts.” In chapter 3 (“Perspectives on Paul before the Reformers: Augustine,” 29–37), Chester explores the groundwork for the exegetical grammar of St. Paul’s understanding of grace, human will, and righteousness—especially how the former transforms the believer initially and then throughout his or her lifetime in cooperation with goods works and the Eucharist—that St. Augustine laid.
Chapter 4 (“Perspectives on Paul before the Reformers: The Medieval Era,” 38–48) probes how medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas accepted and interpreted St. Augustine’s exegetical grammar of grace, human will, and righteousness because it was against these interpretations of that exegetical grammar that the Reformers reacted. In chapter 5 (“The Reformers’ New Pauline Exegetical Grammar: Context and Emergence,” 49–57), Chester provides the historical and interpretative context for Luther’s call for reform.
Chapter 6 (“The Reformers’ New Pauline Exegetical Grammar: The Human Plight,” 58–75) delves into the Reformers’ view of the plight of humanity apart from Christ, which can be summarized with two words, original sin. However, in adopting Augustinian terminology, the Reformers rejected his understanding of original sin in two ways. The first is that original sin is the loss of “the supernatural gift that before the fall enabled human nature to will what God wills,” which makes original sin “the absence of something good.” For the Reformers, this view could not capture what they stressed about sin and its all-corrupting nature. The second aspect of the Augustine understanding of original sin is his interpretation of “flesh” as “misdirected desires” that disorder “the whole person.” For the Reformers, “flesh” must be the whole human being, not one portion of him or her, because sin captures the whole person, making him or her act against God’s will (59). This leads the Reformers to conclude that God’s purpose in giving the Law was to reveal our sin and need for his grace (Romans 3:20; Galatians 3:19; 66). Most surprising in this chapter (and something that is taken up again in chapter 9) is Chester’s conclusions about St. Paul’s conscience, which contradict Krister Stendahl’s (1921–2008) 1963 article on the subject that many modern Pauline scholars have accepted without reservation. In the article, Stendahl (a Bishop in the Lutheran Church of Sweden) claims that Luther projected his own troubled conscience into his reading of St. Paul.[1] To the contrary, Chester demonstrates that Luther held similar interpretations of Pauline texts that Stendahl used to show that the apostle had a robust conscience before he became a Christian (71–75).
In chapter 7 (“The Context of the Reformers’ Pauline Exegetical Grammar: Salvation in Christ,” 76–93), Chester explores the Reformers’ understanding of salvation in Christ. With their belief in what they considered original sin, the Reformers’ concluded that salvation was the result only of God’s abundant mercy and grace apart from human works or works of the Law (the Reformers interpreted the Law as the whole Law), even after baptism. The Christian is justified “solely through Christ’s person and work” (76). To this end, the Reformers rejected St. Augustine’s understanding of grace as initially infused upon conversion and the later interpretation of medieval theologians of grace as creating habits that cooperated with the believer resulting in an increase of their righteousness through good works (77). Nevertheless, grace changes the Christian in the gift of faith, which is most fundamentally trusting in God’s promises. At that time, the believer receives Christ’s saving benefits. This type of faith/trust is active and justifies the Christian because with it he or she receives Christ’s righteousness apart from any work/merit (77).
Chapter 8 (“Setting the Record Straight: The Reformers’ Contributions to the New Perspective on Paul,” 94–105) demonstrates that NPP scholars depend on the Reformers’ understanding of Pauline anthropology, especially their interpretation of “flesh” as denoting the entire person and its relationship to “sin.” Moreover, NPP interpreters and those who hold to the Apocalyptic Paul intensify the Reformers’ view of salvation in Christ as only a divine initiative, while those who espouse a Covenantal Paul develop the Reformers’ notion of God’s saving activity in the world as having a single divine plan.
In chapter 9 (“Setting the Record Straight: The Reformers and the New Perspective on Paul in Tension,” 106–19), Chester delves deeper into the NPP’s and its precursor Stendahl’s error in claiming that the Reformers understood St. Paul to have an introspective conscience as well as the NPP’s inadequacy in its dealing with the Reformers’ understanding of works of the Law.
Part 3 (“Justification by Faith and Union with Christ in the Reformers’ Exegesis”) is the longest portion of the work and delves into the disagreements and nuances of Christ’s role in justification of three main Reformers, Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin. It begins with chapter 10 (“Martin Luther: Alien Righteousness and Life in Christ,” 123–41), which probes Luther’s understanding of the essentiality of believers’ union with Christ. Luther held that the Christian is united with Christ because of his or her faith/trust in God’s promises. This act makes faith present and imputes Christ’s righteousness to the believer. It is living life in the Victorious Christ, not anything natural in the Christian, that makes a faithful life and good works possible.
In chapter 11 (“Philip Melanchthon: Justification on Account of Christ,” 142–55), Chester examines Melanchthon’s understanding of justification as a forensic, relational term that results in everlasting life because of Christ’s propitiating sacrifice and role as mediator between God and humanity.
Chapter 12 (“Luther and Melanchthon on Justification: Continuity or Contrast?,” 156–70) compares Luther’s and Melanchthon’s views of justification and concludes that while there are differences in their understanding of it, there are no contradictions: “Luther emphasizes the presence of Christ in faith and employs the motif of joyous exchange between the sinner and the incarnate Christ to help explain what Paul means by justification. This leads him to include the works of believers within justification even as he insists that such works are not in any sense the basis of justification. In contrast, Melanchthon asserts that justification means acceptance on account of Christ’s sacrificial death. The renewal of the believer expressed in works is consequent upon justification rather than part of it” (169).
In chapter 13 (“John Calvin: The Double Grace of Union with Christ,” 171–89), Chester explores Calvin’s view of justification, which he summarizes as five points: (1) faith unites the believer with Christ, at which time “in him” he or she receives justification and sanctification; (2) justification is a forensic, yet participatory concept; (3) sanctification involves putting to death the pre-Christian self and sharing in Christ’s resurrection, which will eventually result in the believer’s resurrection, but in the meantime it manifests itself in good works; (4) Christ’s saving benefits are wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; and finally (5) the bond that unites the Christian with Christ is the Holy Spirit (188–89).
Chapter 14 (“John Calvin: Human Response in Union with Christ,” 190–205) continues to explore Calvin’s theology of justification, focusing on his view of the believer’s union with Christ, which is the locus for the expectant good works of a Christian.
Part 4 (“Reading Paul with the Reformers Today”) forms the last portion of the book and attempts to probe the modern exegetical implications of the differences among these Reformers’ views of justification. In chapter 15 (“Paul and the Reformers: Moving beyond the New Perspective on Paul,” 209–19), Chester discusses the NPP and the Paul within Judaism Perspective but focuses mainly on reading John Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), with the Reformers. For example, he notes that Barclay’s notion of the incongruity of God’s grace helps to resolve some of the Reformers’ issues like Calvin’s sharp distinction between justification and sanctification and Luther’s placement of good works as the spontaneous good fruit of good trees: “Barclay does not do either of these things but employes the structure of gift and response to produce a more unified vision. The saving gift is thoroughly incongruous: it goes to the unworthy, unfitting, and unsuitable, and nothing that results from it by way of holiness could provide a basis for the gift . . . Yet the recipients will be changed by the gift” (218).
Chapter 16 (“Paul and the Reformers: Resources for Contemporary Pauline Theology,” 220–34) provides a test case, Romans 4, demonstrating the benefit that the Reformers have for modern Pauline interpreters. Chester shows that Calvin and Luther had reached some of the same insights, centuries earlier, on Romans 4 that NPP scholars have. However, the latter do not acknowledge the former, mainly because of their failure to read them. In short, Chester concludes that “the Reformers offer exegetical insights of continuing relevance for our efforts to interpret Paul’s theology for today” (234).
Finally, Chester provides a bibliography (“Bibliography,” 235–48) and three indices: one for modern authors (“Index of Authors,” 249–50), one for ancient texts including the Bible (“Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Texts,” 251–52), and one for medieval and Reformation texts (“Index of Medieval and Reformation Texts,” 253–54).
Paul through the Eyes of the Reformers is an excellent volume and pairs well with Chester’s earlier work on the subject, Reading Paul with the Reformers. It was this earlier book that changed my perception of the Reformers. Up till that time and throughout my doctorate (which I finished in 2018), I had bought the caricature of them that I found in NPP scholars. Therefore, I concluded that the Reformers were not worth reading because they had nothing to offer modern Pauline studies. However, after reading Reading Paul with the Reformers, Chester changed my mind. Now, I find the Reformers (as well as the Church Fathers) to be a wellspring of insight into St. Paul’s theology. With this new work, however, Chester has demonstrated even more why modern Pauline scholars must pay attention to the Reformers, especially if they are going to make comments dismissing their work and insights. For these reasons, I highly recommend picking up a copy of Chester’s Paul through the Eyes of the Reformers from Eerdmans directly or from Amazon.
I appreciate the gratis copy of this work from Eerdmans, which in no way influenced my review of it.
[1] Krister Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963): 199–215.