I. Definition and Main Features
Apocalyptic theology has been significantly shaped by key German New Testament scholars from the first half of the twentieth century, such as William Wrede, Albert Schweitzer, and Ernst Käsemann.2 While in the English-speaking world, “Christiaan Beker seems to have been the first to grasp the significance of the revolution which Käsemann had effected in German scholarship, and to attempt a systematic presentation of this ‘apocalyptic’ perspective on Paul.”3
The so-called Apocalyptic Paul school maintains that Paul’s theology closely aligns with the key features of Jewish apocalypticism. With reference to Jewish apocalypticism, “It is a worldview that was widespread in early Judaism from c. 200 BC to AD 200, and which centered on the expectation of God’s imminent intervention into human history in a decisive manner to save his people and punish their enemies by destroying the existing fallen cosmic order and by restoring or recreating the cosmos to its original pristine perfection.”4 Constantine Campbell rightly observes that “apocalypticism sought to explain God’s apparent silence in the face of centuries of oppression and abhorrent treatment of Jews by various nations and empires. It held that God’s silence was in anticipation of dramatic action to achieve his purposes.”5 Among the distinctive features of this apocalyptic framework are the following:6
- The temporal dualism of the two ages.
- The radical discontinuity between this age and the next, coupled with pessimism regarding the existing order and otherworldly hope directed toward the future order.
- The expectation of the imminent arrival of the reign of God as an act of God, spelling the doom of existing earthly conditions.
- A cosmic perspective in which the primary location of an individual is no longer within a collective entity such as Israel or the people of God, and the impending crisis is not local but cosmic in scope.
- The cataclysmic intervention of God will result in salvation for the righteous, conceived as the regaining of Edenic conditions.”7
The Apocalyptic Paul school interprets Paul’s theology—including his anthropology—through this framework. In this view, Paul’s anthropology is not understood primarily in individualistic terms but in relation to the realm or kingdom to which one belongs. Käsemann expresses this view by saying,
The terms used in Pauline anthropology all undoubtedly refer to the whole man in the varying bearings and capacities of his existence; but they do not apply to what we call the individual at all. Here existence is always fundamentally conceived from the angle of the world to which one belongs…even the believer has neither being, existence nor power in himself. His continuity and identity also rest outside himself.”8
This raises the question: How does this school deal with Paul’s use of seemingly individualistic language in his epistles? As she interacts with Romans 7:7–25, Susan Eastman provides an explanation for Paul’s transition from the plural to the singular in Romans as she says,
Paul dramatizes the situation of the self (and not only of humanity in general) in the grip of sin’s lethal and deceptive power, in order to bring home to his Roman auditors, empirically and personally, both that power and the even-greater power of God’s deliverance through Christ.”9
Another important feature of the apocalyptic reading of Paul is the emphasis on the two ages or two spheres of existence—the old aeon and the new aeon. These two ages represent opposing spheres of existence. Through his death and resurrection, Christ inaugurates the new age, and the living Christians are those who now live now in the tension of these overlapping realities—what is often termed the “already but not yet.” Günther Bornkamm uses the language of the old aeon and new aeon as he describes “where Christ took upon himself all the encompassing might and power of the old aeon (the law, sin, flesh, powers of the world) and dying for sinners he opens access for them into the grace of God.”10
The decisive event that brought in the new age and the victory over the evil powers is the death and resurrection of Christ. In his resurrection, the eschaton that the Old Testament looked for was inaugurated. Christians are drawn into this new reality and the newness of life through participation in Christ. As the personal experience is analyzed according to the apocalyptic reading, the individualistic aspect is marginalized. Barclay describes the new mode of existence for the believer by saying, “It is not in the first place an anthropological phenomenon: it is experienced by human beings only inasmuch as they share in, and draw from, a life whose source lies outside of themselves.”11
Therefore, apocalyptic theology emphasizes the inbreaking of the coming age into this age through the Christ event and the triumph of God over the powers of evil, such as sin and death. This theology depends primarily on God’s revelation in Christ.12 Attached to this theology, sin and death are not primarily human failings but cosmic apocalyptic powers that reigned in the old aeon and have now been conquered in Christ’s death and resurrection.
In light of these features of the apocalyptic reading of Paul, pressing questions arise: How should one understand the doctrine of sin? How should the Christ event—particularly Christ’s atonement—be perceived?
II. Apocalyptic View of Sin
According to the apocalyptic view, Paul speaks of sin not primarily as guilt nor as internal corruption but as a cosmic power that enslaves human beings. In his commentary on the book of Galatians, Louis Martyn expresses this understanding as he writes, “The human dilemma consists at its base, not of guilt, but of enslavement to powers lying beyond the human being’s control.”13 Beverly Gaventa, a contemporary proponent of this apocalyptic reading of Paul, further develops this understanding. In an article on the cosmic power of sin in Romans,14 Gaventa depicts Paul’s soteriology in Romans as a cosmic conflict in which God conquered his enemies, including sin.15 She turns the focus from the individualistic view of salvation to a cosmological one. Instead of considering sin as primarily a feature of human activity, experience, or even a human disposition or flaw inherent in human nature, Gaventa sees sin as a cosmic power that enslaves humankind and stands against God.16
Her views reach their climax as she explains Romans 6 with a strong emphasis on the description of sin as a tyrant. For her, the central concern in Paul’s theology is not individual guilt but the broader apocalyptic conflict, in which God wages war against anti-God powers, including “Sin” and “Death.” As Gaventa describes Paul’s view of sin, she argues,
To take seriously the résumé of Sin will require an enlargement of our view of Romans. Recent decades of Pauline scholarship have rightly called into question those interpretations that treat Romans as having to do largely with the relationship between God and the individual. The scholarly pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, emphasizing the concern in Romans for God’s dealings with Israel and the Gentiles. Yet even that important correction does not suffice, since the “widescreen” version of Romans is not only about the relationship among ethnic groups, between God and humanity, or God and the individual. It concerns the much larger apocalyptic battle in which God wages war against anti-God powers, including the powers of Sin and Death.”17
Sin is personified as a cosmic power from which believers have been freed through the death of Christ and thus transferred under the lordship of Christ. Consequently, sin is hardly viewed as individual transgression; rather, it is viewed as a power, an evil force that Christ conquered in his death, thereby liberating human beings from its grip.18 Some theologians take the idea of the personification of sin in Romans even further, interpreting it as a representation of Satan himself. For instance, Tom Holland views sin in Romans 5 and 6 as a reference to Satan.19 Similarly, Robert Tannehill pictures sin “not merely as a series of separate acts nor an abstract principle, but as a demonic power, a world ruler who claims the obedience of men just as God does.” 20
III. Apocalyptic View of Atonement and Salvation
The perception of sin as primarily and sometimes exclusively a cosmic power impacts the way these theologians interpret the Christ event. J. Christiaan Beker, for example, considers Christ’s death an apocalyptic event that marked the defeat of apocalyptic powers such as death, sin, the law, and the flesh.21 According to Beker, Christ’s death is seen primarily in Paul’s theology as the judgment of the powers of this age, not as a sacrifice that is offered to God.22
Atonement: Not Retributive
Although an apocalyptic reading of Paul’s theology does not necessarily exclude the retributive dimension of Christ’s atonement, some scholars understand Paul’s teaching on Christ’s death as exclusively apocalyptic. For instance, J. Christiaan Beker contends that Paul does not speak of the death of Christ as the means for forgiveness of former transgressions as much as liberation from humanity’s condition of enslavement under sin. He ridicules the Reformed view of the Pauline explanation of the death of Christ. He describes it as an Anselmian view in which “Christ is viewed as ‘the Lamb of God’ who satisfies on behalf of humankind the wrath of God and in this way merits God’s mercy as priest, representative, and sacrifice.” He goes on to say, “This Anselmian view of the atonement threatens to undo the redemptive initiative of God’s act in Christ by splitting apart the wrath of God and the mercy of Christ.”23
Similarly, Douglas Campbell, a contemporary advocate of the apocalyptic reading of Paul, rejects the notion that God punishes retributively; consequently, he denies that the sacrifice of Christ was offered to satisfy God’s justice.24 He contends that the atonement is transformational not punitive.25 Campbell comments on a text such as Romans 8:3 by saying that it presents a Trinitarian dynamic in which God liberated humanity by executing the evils of sin and the flesh through the death of Christ.26
This raises a pressing question: What about all the notions of forgiveness of sins in the New Testament? From the apocalyptic perspective, the meaning of forgiveness is primarily cosmological rather than individualistic. Beker does not deny that the death of Christ was for the forgiveness of sin. However, he understands the forgiveness of sin as God’s restoration of the just order, an act achieved through the obedience of Christ unto death.27 According to this reading, the whole concept that the death of Christ is for salvation from the guilt of sin or for paying the debt owed due to sin is largely downplayed, if not entirely set aside.28
IV. Justification as Liberation
The Apocalyptic Paul school not only undermines the retributive aspect of Christ’s atonement but also denies the traditional forensic understanding of justification. Douglas A. Campbell discusses the meaning of justification extensively in his writings, and he explicitly rejects what he calls the Justification Theory of salvation, which matches the view of most Protestants. 29 Campbell contends that Paul uses the term “justification” as a performative act of God’s liberating intervention and not as forensic-retributive. As Campbell explains the verb δικαιόω (cf. Rom. 3:24) or the expression δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, he interprets these terms to refer to God’s liberation of his people rather than a legal declaration.30 Hence, he entitled his magnus opus The Deliverance of God, in which he redefines justification as a forensic-nonretributive liberative act.31 As he comments on texts such as Romans 1:17 and 3:21–26, Campbell argues that Paul is alluding to Psalm 98:2 in which the Lord is portrayed as the king who reveals his righteousness to the nations, and that righteousness is a liberative action that is rooted in God’s kindness and love.32 Thus, for Campbell, God’s righteousness is an act that is considered as “an event, singular, saving, liberating, life giving, eschatological (hence apocalyptic).”33
In a similar fashion, Beverly Gaventa argues that sin is the universal refusal of humanity to acknowledge God as God. She contends that the antidote for sin must go beyond the language of forgiveness to the language of new life and of liberation. This liberation, according to Gaventa, was inaugurated through Christ’s death and resurrection.34
V. Assessment and Response
First, the Apocalyptic Paul school has offered valuable insights into the influence of apocalyptic Judaism on Paul’s thought and theology, which in turn enriches our interpretation of his writings. It also—rightly—broadens our understanding of Christ’s work of salvation beyond individualistic terms, drawing attention to its cosmological dimensions. Sin is not merely a transgression, but it is also personified as a power that dominates this present evil age. Christ did not only save sinners from guilt and bondage; he also broke into this present age of sin and death, achieving victory over evil powers, inaugurating a new age of righteousness that will be consummated at his second coming. In Christ, the new creation has already begun, and all who believe have become participants in this new reality. That said, holding only to the apocalyptic view can distort key theological doctrines, such as the nature of sin, the character of God, the meaning of the atonement, and the essence of salvation.
The apocalyptic view considers sin a power to be liberated from, not a guilt that deserves punishment. Consequently, the death of Christ is interpreted mainly as a solution to the problem of sin as a cosmic power. It can hardly by denied that Paul himself spoke of sin as a person, especially in the book of Romans, speaking of it as a dominating power. However, such personification should not overshadow the fact that sin is also an act against God and his laws. Overemphasizing sin as an external power—one that is beyond human control and enslaves individuals against their will—can be deeply problematic, especially when it obscures the more fundamental reality that sin is a manifestation of human rebellion against God. According to this view, human beings are seen primarily as victims rather than transgressors or moral agents. They are portrayed as deceived captives in need of rescue from an alien enemy. While it is not entirely incorrect to acknowledge humanity’s victimhood—given the effects of the Fall and the deceptive power of Satan—this perspective is incomplete. Scripture also portrays human beings as willing participants in sin—criminals who are enslaved because they love sin in their innermost being. Such a narrow view of sin tends to downplay personal responsibility and, in doing so, undermines the urgency and necessity of repentance.
Downplaying sin as a transgression also underestimates the biblical portrayal of God as the judge and the king against whom all sin is ultimately committed. Consequently, the forensic dimension of salvation becomes less central. While scholars, such as Beker, tried to find a place for forgiveness of sins in his system, his explanation of forgiveness remains vague. Beker, for example, speaks of the restoration of God’s “just order” through the death of Christ but avoids interpreting this act in terms of satisfying God’s wrath. He describes the cross as the expression of God’s love that costs the death of Christ,35 a love that bears the burden of its moral character. However, he does not elaborate on what it means to bear the burden of the moral character of God.36 Without a deep understanding of God’s righteous wrath against sin, the cross of Christ can be considered only a sentimental act rather than a profound expression of justice and mercy. Only as we grasp the seriousness of God’s wrath can we truly appreciate the depth and cost of his love.
When discussing the atonement of Christ, the way the apostles described the death of Christ makes its judicial and retributive nature unmistakable. For example, in the book of Acts, Christ is repeatedly said to have been “hanged on a tree” (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29)—an expression that highlights the shameful and cursed character of his death in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 21:22–23 (cf. Gal. 3:13–14; 1 Pet. 2:24). This language clearly carries penal significance. Similarly, when Philip encountered the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26–40, he proclaimed the gospel through the lens of Isaiah 53, which offers a robust account of penal substitution. Paul also affirmed this sacrificial and penal understanding of Christ’s death, describing Christ as our Passover lamb (1 Cor. 5:7), asserting that Christ died “for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3), and explicitly teaching that God put Christ forward as a propitiation by his blood (Rom. 3:25). Such apostolic witnesses shows that the penal dimension of the atonement is unmistakable in the New Testament message in general and in the Pauline corpus in particular.
Interestingly, while Campbell defines justification only in terms of liberation, emphasizing God’s benevolence and denying God’s retribution, he nonetheless argues that God will eventually be the final judge. He argues that “the God of justice will be perceived at the eschaton, when all peoples of the earth will be judged for their wrongdoing.”37 This raises an important question: If God will judge at the end, why is it not also appropriate to think of the cross within a forensic framework? In fact, in Romans 3:26, Paul comments on the offering of Christ as a propitiation (3:25) and gives the twofold goal behind that atonement, that is, for God to be the just and the justifier of those who believe in Jesus. In the same chapter, Paul speaks in Romans 3:5–6 of God’s righteousness, which is directly connected to his actions as a just judge who makes things right. These verses show that God’s justice is not suspended in salvation but rather upheld through the death of Christ. In conclusion, the apocalyptic view denies the forensic meaning in the death of Christ without giving a satisfactory explanation for the cursed punitive death of Christ, as articulated in both Paul’s writings and the broader New Testament witness.
Finally, the school of Apocalyptic Paul will leave us with a distorted gospel and incomplete salvation. Because sin is primarily a power, so salvation is primarily about saving from that power. The gospel becomes about liberation, dying to an old life, and beginning a new life without solving the problem of guilt and enmity with God. It must be affirmed that an essential part of Christ’s salvation has to do with liberating from the power of sin and the beginning of a new life. However, the gospel that Paul preached was also concerned with sins and not only Sin. As Paul explains the gospel in a nutshell in 1 Corinthians 15:3, he says, “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.” Death in this statement is not about freedom from the power of sin as much as it is about of the sins that humans commit. Christ died on account of these sins. It is a judicial fact. This is the same gospel that Paul is explaining in the book of Romans as the power of God unto salvation (cf. Rom. 1:16). Also, Paul’s gospel underscored the reconciliation motif and the restoration of peace with God after the natural state of enmity against him (cf. Rom. 5:10, Eph. 2:12–16).
Holding to salvation from the power of sin should never be at the expense of salvation from the guilt of sin. Both are evident in the gospel that Paul preached. In fact, Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 15:3, Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν is close to his language in Galatians 1:4, τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. The result of Christ giving himself for the sins of his people in Galatians 1:4 is to deliver them from the present evil age. This inseparable relationship between “new creation” and “reconciliation with God” is evident in 2 Corinthians 5:17–21. For Paul, salvation from sin as a power and as a guilt should not be separated.
VI. Conclusion
While the apocalyptic reading of Paul rightly emphasizes God’s cosmic victory over sin and evil powers, Scripture grounds salvation first and foremost in the forensic reality of Christ’s substitutionary atonement. Christ’s death on the cross is primarily God’s just judgment against sin (Rom. 3:25–26; Gal. 3:13); without this foundation, liberation from evil powers would be unwarranted. We are only be saved from the tyranny of sin, Satan, and death because the guilt of our sin has been dealt with (Col. 2:13–15). Only because Christ bore the penalty of sin as “the Lamb of God” (John 1:29) can the powers be dethroned and sinners freed from their tyranny. Paul’s gospel never separates cosmic liberation from its forensic foundation: the forgiveness of sins (Col. 1:14) precedes and enables participation in the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17–21).
Therefore, while the apocalyptic vision rightly broadens our hope to include all of creation as Paul argues in Romans 8:19–23, it is the forensic act of justification, in which God declares sinners righteous in Christ, that secures both personal reconciliation, cosmic renewal, and participation in the new creation. To prioritize liberation over justification is to invert Paul’s theological logic: The righteousness of God (Romans 1:17) is revealed not merely in victory over enemies but in the vindication of divine justice at Calvary. The gospel, therefore, is cosmic in scope—but anchored in the courtroom of divine wrath satisfied, where mercy and justice meet.
