God's Covenantal Love in Light of Paul's "New Perspective," Part 2 of 2

continued from -

NT Wright - Introduction to Paul's New Perspective, Part 1 of 2


* * * * * * * * * * *

 

God's Covenantal Love in Light of Paul's "New Perspective"

by R.E. Slater, September 28, 2011

When investigating E.P. Sander/ J.D.G. Dunn/ N.T. Wright's New Perspectives on Paul (NPP, 1970's and forward) I was recently reminded of the subtle shift within church doctrine that had occurred between the eras of Augustine (400 AD) and that of the later Reformation (1500's) some 1000 years later. A shift between the ancient understanding of God's love towards man that was replaced with the Reformed understanding of God's judgment upon man. During Augustine's day all theology was centered around God's divine love not His divine judgment. By the time of the Reformation, given the circumstances and events demanding it, God was now seen to lead out towards humanity in judgment upon man's sin.

Surprisngly, I had not expect to discover this understated subjectline, but when coming upon it considered it extremely relevant to the discussions that have been occurring between Rob Bell's Love Wins book, and his accusers, who are primarily motivated in maintaining Reformed dogma and traditions that support Reformed theologies. An ideology which pervasively underlies many of today's Evangelical traditions and worship beliefs having replaced Augustine's idea of God's covenantal grace with Luther and Calvin's Reformational ideas of man's depravity (sin) and election (thus creating a post-Augustinian Reformational theology).

Consequently, Paul's emphasis upon Jesus' covenantal love (as nuanced by Augustine) was displaced over time with a re-interpretive Pauline emphasis upon man's sin and election (sic, Reformational theology). Making it no surprise to find Paul's original emphasis upon God's love "rediscovered" when returning to the mileau of first century Palistinian Judaism and its concordant beliefs (what is now being named "Paul's New Perspective"). Because it was a perspective that was lost amid post-Augustinian, Reformational teachings that had re-interpreted first-century Christian theology with a Reformational-bias towards God's judgment upon man's sin, thus creating the resultant Reformational doctrines of election and justification.

What this means is that in light of God's covenanted love to mankind - that is, His divine charter for man's redemption - God leads out with divine love. That God sees man in terms of love first, and only then in sin, second, is monumental. It is because of His love for us that God seeks our restoration back into fellowship with Himself, no less than a man or a woman would seek one another. Not in terms of deficiency, or by traits of sinfulness, but in terms of wholeness, meaning, and well-being. To know God loves us is to see ourselves as He would see (and accept us) in all of our being. Not in terms of our sin, but in terms of who we are in His image. God's covenantal love juxtapositions itself against our depravity. This was the Apostle Paul's understanding that maintained itself through to Augustine's teachings 400 years later. But by the Reformation, a thousands years after that, time and circumstance had changed our pictures of ourselves to one of a sinful, depraved race of beings living under the judgment of God. A judgment that would require a holy divine election in order to receive God's love. An election locked into the capriciousness of God's holy being that without it condemned man to a hell fire of destruction in both this life and the next.

Once Einstein was asked to define what darkness was and he reportedly stated it was the absence of light (or, I may have confused this, and it may have been "that cold was the absence of heat"). So too we may conjecture that sin is the absence of love, that death is the absence of life, that hell is the absence of heaven. These are simplistic statements but one not fully appreciated in light of the current "controversies" over how God's love "wins," or how God's person, being, presence, power, might, design, rulership "wins." But when seen as the absence of each of these qualities  (or manifestations, or whatever), we then get the opposite (that is, strictly speaking on a dualistic level which our present day Western cultural mindset seems to thrive on). And so, it is time to re-right the covenantal understanding of the church by giving precedence in its beliefs and doctrines towards emphasizing God's covenantal love first, before rephrasing it in terms of man's relationship to God's covenant, as broken and sinful.

And so, read on. And as you do, rethink why you haven't recently heard of Christ's atonement juxtapositioned around the OT Covenantal-paradigm... it used to be, but largely has become forgotten in light of Evangelicalism's persistent and opposing systematic ideas of "justification" as a Roman "penal substitutional" act necessitated by modern day Reformers. Reformers who ironically need their own doctrine reformed, having deformed Paul's seminal message of God's love sent to man through His Son Jesus Christ. Who remain presently uninformed themselves by their Reformational doctrines, rather than informed by the Spirit of God's grace.

And when re-grasping the idea of Christ's atonement as a covenant made between God and man, then re-think how God's love is the foundation and motivation for this covenant, and not how man's sin destroys it. How God's love moved him to make covenant with all of mankind through his son Jesus, so that we may have his love restored and renewed into our sinful lives. It is not a denial of the Lutheran / Reformed teachings on sin and depravity, but it is a re-framing of sin and depravity in light of who God is, what He is doing, and not as defined by ourselves, nor by how we respond.

And finally, re-think how Calvinism's ideas of election and foreordination have robbed our understanding of God's pervasive covenant of love made with all of mankind. Only-and-when the latter truth is understood can the terms of "election" and "foreordination" be then discussed. For the one precedes from the other and not the other way around! To be elected into God's love, and foreordained before the foundation of the world into the fellowship of His Trinity and with His being... these are significant, mind-blowing concepts. That God's covenant with man is undergirded by his election of man into restored relationship with Him; that He foreordained these events to become a reality made through His Son Jesus as Israel's Messiah and as the Gentiles Savior should move us to praise and worship for God's greatness and love. These are not first and foremost soteriological terms, these are covenantal terms made as a charter with all of creation, with all of mankind, throughout time without end, eternally! Praise God!

Consequently, we must place God's Word first, our doctrines second. God's revelation first, our words second. We must understand Scriptures biblically first, and less so systematically and/or dogmatically. The entirety of this blogsite has shown the importance of this again, and again, and again. Remember what you are reading. Put it together in your hearts and souls. Don't let these ideas be so soon displaced by another teacher, prophet and soothsayer, no matter their popularity and the reception of their sheep-like followers. Remember God's words. Remember the Spirit's teachings. Be a shepherd and not a sheep. Learn to lead and no longer follow. Learn to discern God's word, to carry it in your hearts and being, and to desire strong meat and no longer milk. Stand up, and in love, declare God's love in every way possible, in every way imaginable, to the glory of the Almighty.

RE Slater

September 28, 2011

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Further Necessary Observations and Conclusions

RE Slater, September 28, 2011

In light of NPP I have overlooked a couple of important developments, but these will become evident when reading through this document. Those several issues are as follows:

One, a re-appreciation of late Judaism and how God worked within the Old Covenant using Israel's ideologies of culture and customs pertaining to worship and faith practice to percolate their faith and faithful observance. And as a subsequent idea, how the Americanized gospel of today's evangelical modernism must relax and allow for cultural accommodations of the gospel within global heritages and customs (rather than the older missiological idea of Westernizing the gospel through Inquisitions, crusades, martyrdom's, banishings, and pulpiteering).

Two, a further point of NPP is that of its emphasis on faith-works as a natural response and outflow of God's renewing love restored into an individual's life or a tribal customs. It yet maintains the Protestant standard of faith-alone without works, but also restores the practice of having gracious works in one's Christian life. Thus the emergent Christian Church's emphasis on "cup of cold water" ministries both individually and corporately alongside the older denominational dogmas of holiness and righteous living. Of orthopraxy over orthodoxy.

God's Covenant to all the Nations

Three, one might even take the added step of visualising NPP as it moves towards Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy beliefs and practices to make allowance for the variety of human apprehensions of the gospel of Christ which view faith through the actual performance of worship and good works. You see this in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faith, but yet, Reformational Protestantism's declaration by-faith-alone, though true, may not fit all men and women's expressions using this dogmatically declared abstraction. As example, the early church's practice of baptism was once synonymous with a declaration of faith but in modern times we have separated the faith act from the baptismal ceremony. So too have evangelicals separated the decision of faith from the actions of faith. Whereas in biblical times it was more common to see faith expressed alongside of, and in conjunction with, acts of faith. How much more likely then is it that an individual's believing faith-act be similarly declared as a sinner's faith decision once-and-for-all-time?

The Abrahamic Covenant
enacted by faith

Our Western understanding would divorce this behavioral practice for many so that abstract concepts like "faith alone" remain bare of meaning for many poeple unless translated first into "faith-acts" which at that self-same moment gives birth to one's decision of "faith." As example, Abraham declared his faith, but he also acted on his faith by hearing God's calling to leave Ur of the Chaladees and proceed into the wildness laced with Mesopotamian caravan routes. Without his faith he may not have left Ur; but without leaving Ur his faith was yet an "un-faith." He had to act. Which is what both the Old and New Covenants of God require of us to do. To submit to them and to act upon them through observation of their Convenantal requirements. The old covenant seemed full of requirements, and yet, as Jesus remarked, there was but two... "Love God and love one another." Supremely summed up in the New Covenant made in his blood. So then, we see that faith is barren without action, and action is meaningless without faith. So then, lets give our non-Reformational brethren some credit and behave our over-eager doctrines a little more contritely before those that differ from our own.

Four, moreover, this latter understanding, is actually the real understanding of those "faith-alone" Christians who, when practising their faith, who actually renew their faith, making it real for both themselves and those around them whom it affects. It is not a foreign concept at all. Just not one understood in this manner. And thus, the matter of linearity is eclipsed (the idea of which comes first, faith or act) within the greater substance of the very faith-act itself. For how would one know if he or she is of faith unless it is revealed and practiced (per James, Paul, etc)? If there is no change in our demeanors then the reality of our faith is on paper without subscription, without conviction, without transformation.True reformation is transformation in action.

Fifth and lastly, to Scot McKnight's concluding remarks at the end of this document, I wish to add the above observations and summarizations as further commentary to Sanders, Dunn, Wright's initiating works. Further, Tim Gombis has just released a book on this very subject of NPP, and so I would recommend it as a further iteration to today's modernistic, evangelistic mis-apprehension of God's covenant in his son Jesus in the links just below. However, as Andrew Perriman observes, Gombis did not go far enough in his evaluations and differentiations with modern day evangelicalism, being found in the heart of evangelicalism himself.

May God's grace and peace be yours,

RE Slater
September 28, 2011


Tim Gombis - The Paul We Think We Know

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/07/tim-gombis-paul-we-think-we-know.html

Why Tim Gombis Doesn't Go Far Enough

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-tim-gombis-doesnt-go-far-enough.html

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Understanding the New Perspective on Paul

http://www.vanguardchurch.com/mcknight_npp.pdf

by Scot McKnight

www.jesuscreed.org

August 6, 2007

This document is found at www.vanguardchurch.com/mcknight_npp.pdf

This series was originally published at www.jesuscreed.org

Beginnings: E.P. Sanders

In Christianity Today (CT), Simon Gathercole of Cambridge University has a lengthy and fine study of the good and bad of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) (see “What Did Paul Really Mean?”, Christianity Today, August 2007). What is the New Perspective on Paul? The most significant development, outside of historical Jesus studies, in biblical studies in the last 50 years. Today I want to begin at the beginning and see if I can explain it. I will continue this throughout the week as we take a readable look at the New Perspective and hope to stand next to Simon’s piece in CT.

The opposition to certain elements of the NPP has become so fierce for some that denominations have gathered to see if pastors who represent that denomination adhere to the NPP or not — if they do, they’re out.

The NPP begins, oddly enough, with a public lecture on 4 November of 1982 by my then-mentor in PhD studies, Jimmy Dunn. I didn’t hear it; but I heard plenty about it. It was published the next year and it changed NT studies by giving a handle to what was going on. But it took awhile for what was going on to take on the name “The New Perspective.”

What was it that Jimmy said? In 1977, five years earlier, E.P. Sanders published Paul and Palestinian Judaism and Jimmy basically captured the shift in perspective that Sanders unleashed in his expression “new perspective on Paul.” At the time, nearly everyone was captivated by Sanders but there were voices like this: “Let’s not get too excited” or “He’s basically right but that’s not the whole story” or “This is so innovative we have to think about this some more” or “There are some problems here but I’ll have to do some careful work in Judaism to show it.” Some said, with Dunn, “The tide has changed. We have entered a new world.”

Here’s what Sanders in essence said:

1. Judaism was not a religion of works where if you built up enough credits you’d find final approval with God. Paul can’t be understood saying that about Judaism.

2. Turning Judaism into a “works” religion flies in the face of all of Jewish scholarship, emerges from Luther’s problem with the Catholic Church and gets imported onto Paul, and is out of touch with the vast bulk of ancient Jewish sources. (Sanders allowed some, but not much, works-type religion in Judaism.)

3. Judaism’s understanding of salvation (which is a Christian way of capturing the reality) is rooted in two themes: God’s election and the covenant. God chose Israel and this gave Israel salvation; Jews were not worried about final redemption and were not striving to gain eternal life by accumulating merit. The Covenant is the foundation of all of Jewish religion. To suggest that Jews were accumulating merit because this is human nature is not true according to Sanders.

 

Israel's reaffirmation of God's Covenant

4. The Law, or [the] observing and obeying [of] the Law, is how Jews “maintained” their relationship to the covenant and God and not the way of entering into that covenant. To say Jews followed the Law to get salvation misses why Jews loved the Torah.

5. Righteousness describes behavior that conforms to that Torah.

Thus, Sanders put all this together in what he called “covenantal nomism” — a covenant that creates a community called to obey the Law (nomos); any offense of the Torah requires appropriate sacrifice and atonement. Those who live this way — within the bounds of the Torah — are righteous.

This basic set of factors is at the heart of the New Perspective on Paul. Sanders himself proposed that Paul believed the Church had entered into the eschatological day — he called Paul’s theology participationist eschatology. But Sanders’ proposal on Paul wasn’t his major contribution.

It was Jimmy Dunn who took Sanders’ view of Judaism and gave us a new Paul and a new understanding of Paul’s relationship to Judaism and therefore a new perspective on Paul.

[Note to CT: I see resemblance in the caricatures of Beza, Luther, Calvin, Wright and Sanders, but that picture of Jimmy Dunn looks more like Bruce Chilton than Jimmy. Anyone else observe this?]

Second Phase: James D.G. Dunn

Today we will look at the second phase of the New Perspective on Paul. The first phase is the work of E.P. Sanders in 1977. The second phase was the work of Jimmy Dunn, and that began in 1982 and came to full fruition with his pumpkin book, The Theology of the Apostle Paul, in 2000.

Dunn basically agrees with Sanders on Judaism: election-based, covenant-shaped relationship for Israel with God to whom God gives the Torah to know how to live as God’s people.

Where Dunn shifted things was with Paul, and he argued at first that Paul’s problem with his Judaizing opponents (not the same as “Judaism” as a whole) was that they were constructing a nation-based righteousness, a nationalistic righteousness, that kept Gentiles out because it was simply a nation’s faith.

Over time Jimmy shifted his language to the “sociological markers” of a community so that “works of the Torah” were not “merit-seeking works” but “boundary-marking works.” That is, the Judaizers were trying to make the Gentile Christians become Jews [Judaizing, Proselytising]. The “works of the Law,” then, were not merit-shaped works but specific things like sabbath, food laws and circumcision. (Think concretely, Jimmy was asking us to do, when we get to this expression “works of the Law.” Avoid thinking of the expression the way Augustine and Luther and Calvin do.)

For Paul, one was a member of the Church, the people of God, by faith and not by works (by adhering to such things as circumcision, sabbath, and food laws — the works that separated Jews from Gentiles). So, Paul’s idea of faith was the way all people — [both] Jews and Gentiles — could gain access to and enjoy the saving work of God in Christ.
 

Teaching God's Covenant to
future generations

Fundamentally, Paul’s mission was to form a new people of God, the Church, on the basis of faith and because it was by faith and not works (boundary markers) it was a people of God that could include Jews and Gentiles. Justification was God’s work of declaring and making righteous those who had faith in Jesus Christ.

Much more could be said, but our focus this week is on the core issues that are causing a stir for so many.



Third Phase: N.T. Wright

The first phase of the New Perspective on Paul was E.P. Sanders; the second was the work of James Dunn; the third phase is the work of N.T. Wright, whose earliest book was a study of Paul and who then began to unleash his massive set of volumes on Christian Origins and the Question of God.

[Note added: As Tim Gombis reminds us in a comment, it is not like 1-2-3 in the relationship of Sanders-Dunn-Wright; it is not that Sanders said it, Dunn then added, and then along came Tom Wright to add some more. The relationship of these three scholars can be said to be post Dead Sea Scrolls and part of the awakening to Jewish sources of the 70s. The three are actually dialectically related to one another and they sharpened one another’s ideas in mutual interaction and debate. When it comes to formative writings, writings that shaped us, the relationship can be reasonably said to be Sanders-Dunn-Wright.]

Wright’s books begin with is Climax of the Covenant, move to What Saint Paul Really Said, and now in Paul: In Fresh Perspective. It’s a bit hard to sum up Wright in a paragraph or two but I’ll give it a whirl and let the experts on Paul chime in for corrections and modifications.

Wright’s early work was a macroscopic understanding of Paul in light of how he understood Jewish history unfolding. His big insight, which he applied with potency and probably too often, was the theme of exile. Israel was “in exile” still at the time of Jesus and Paul — even though Israel was back in the Land, the promises of Isaiah and others hadn’t been completely fulfilled. Paul’s theology was shaped by this conviction and by covenant and by new creation.

But Wright agreed basically — as did Dunn — with Sanders’ perspective on Judaism: election-based, covenant-shaped work of God, to form God’s people to whom God gave the Torah, to show to them how to live before God in righteousness.

In other words, Judaism was a religion of covenantal nomism. It’s pretty hard to read the OT and not see the potency of Sanders’ perception of the pattern of religion for Israel.

Where Wright differed from Sanders (participationist eschatology) and Dunn (sociological markers of the Torah and community of Israel) was on how Paul reworked that covenantal nomism (Wright’s view of Paul is hard for me to bring to a single expression)... [It went something like this... At the] "end of exile," Jesus is recapitulating [(recapturing? resummarizing?)] (i) Israel’s covenantal history and their need to be “in Christ,” (ii) their yearning for new creation, and, (iii) - in his most recent augmentation - their anti-empire ideology.

The Church in Covenant Community
with the God of Israel

Justification, of course, gets revisioned in the New Perspective. Sanders isn’t known for this so much and Dunn’s view has shifted a little over time, but Wright came out swinging on this one and has recently done a little shifting as well. But, Tom said that justification described not how to get into the people of God but identified who was in the people of God. It was not a “salvation” term but a “covenant” or “ecclesial” term. It said something about who was already in and not something about how to get into the people of God.

Tom has suffered from serious misrepresentations; he has made some adjustments; and his view of justification has some breadth and depth and some width. What perhaps annoys most is that he’s intent on out sola-scripturing the Reformed camp; what annoys someone like me is that I hear too much on the part of the Reformed camp that Wright’s views are not consistent with the Reformation. How ironical is that? Isn’t the question: What does the Bible say? [and not, what does Reformed Theology say!?]

No one has captured the young scholar more than Tom Wright. One reason is because there is no one out there who writes as well; combine that with a fertile, creative, courageous mind and a life dedicated to the church and you come up with Tom Wright. Do I agree with him all the time? Nope. But, like Jimmy Dunn and Ed Sanders, I read their every word.



Correcting Some Misperceptions about New Perspective

With these three summaries now on the table, and with some fine clarifications by others, I wish now to state what we have to do when we start talking about the “New Perspective” because I’m hearing lots of things that I think are gross distortions. Simon Gathercole’s piece in CT is a nice summary; I have only little quibbles with it but I have more than quibbles with what I sometimes hear.

First, there is no official “New Perspective Institution” or “NP Denomination” that filters everything through a grid to make sure it is sound. What Jimmy Dunn called “the new perspective” was a trend emerging out of the rediscovery of Jewish sources and how Paul fit into how people were re-construing Judaism. But, there is a wild diversity out there of people who have plowed their own furrow. Please avoid saying the “New Perspective” says “X.” Try to connect with a name as much as possible.

Second, the only “new perspective” I know that can be said to be represented across the board is a new perspective on “Judaism.” There is a common thread: Israel was elected by God, brought into the covenant and given the law to regulate how covenant people live. Thus, Sanders’ covenantal nomism is a common thread — even if Dunn and Wright have modifications and differences with Sanders. Dunn’s and Wright’s modifications are really more than that: they have both investigated the Jewish sources themselves. And on top of them are all kinds of offshoots and variations, but there seems to me to be a general consensus that Judaism — and this is not the same as the “Judaizers” Paul went toe-to-toe with — was not a works-based religion but a covenant-based religion in which works played a prominent, sometimes more than other times, role.

Third, when it comes to Paul, there is wide variation in Sanders, Dunn and Wright. It is unfair to say these three are the same when it comes to what they think about Paul. I’m not sure there is such a thing as “The” New Perspective on Paul. Those who say this aren’t reading the books of these authors. Sometimes they are drawing unities that don’t exist. To speak of a unified theory of Paul in a New Perspective is inaccurate. What I’m hearing today is mostly criticism of NT Wright; what is being said about Wright would not always be applicable to Dunn and Sanders. Which means, perhaps most importantly for theological debates, that…

Fourth, there is no real “systematic theology” at work in this New Perspective on Paul. Much of the criticism I’m hearing attributes what “New Perspective” folks believe at the level of systematic theology. Sanders doesn’t care about this; Jimmy Dunn is not a systematician; and Wright isn’t really one either — they are biblical theologians and historians. NT Wright, of course, is the Bishop of Durham and that means he’s Anglican — and if anyone knows what systematic theology that is you’ll have to tell us, but the 39 Articles really isn’t a “systematic theology.” Let’s not forget this. To suggest there is a systematic theology at work here, and to suggest there is one systematic theology at work, is poppycock. Most of what I hear at this level is an invention by those who infer what the systematic theology would look like if Sanders and Dunn and Wright composed one. It is never wise to make up a theology and then criticize it.

Fifth, the NPP does give rise to [an] exegesis of Paul that, however, can lead to some major shifting in theology and, in particular, how to understand salvation. Next I will give a final consideration and I hope it will give us something to understand.



Augustinian Anthropology and Criticism of New Perspective

The crux of the fierce criticism of the New Perspective on Paul is what I will call an Augustinian anthropology. Hear me out because I think this is behind nearly every criticism I’m hearing of the NPP, and many times I’m not hearing that it is this that is actually prompting the criticism.

The New Covenant established
(cut) in Christ

Behind the Reformation is Augustine; behind much of modern evangelicalism, especially in the Reformed circles today, is the Reformation. Therefore, at the bottom of the evangelical movement in the Reformed circles is Augustine and his anthropology. The New Perspective, by and large, probably does not adopt a fully Augustinian anthropology but it is rare that such an issue arises in the discussion. At times I hear the NPP doesn’t have an adequate theory of sin — well, I think NPP would say “Neither does the Reformation. So there!” So, let’s dig into this just a bit today and see if we can shed some light on the NPP and help us all.

What is Augustine’s anthropology? (I’m no specialist on this, but this is how I understand it. Experts chime in.)

1. Humans are born in original sin.

2. Humans are bound to their sinful natures.

3. Humans have an incurable itch to justify themselves and seek merit [e.g. we are legalists at heart].

4. But humans cannot please God because they are bound to those sinful natures that cannot please God.

5. Humans are therefore “naturally” condemned before God.

6. They are in need of God’s awakening grace and new life — through the Holy Spirit.

7. The only way out of this condition of self-justification and merit-seeking is to surrender that selfish, proud self-image and cast oneself on God in the mercy of Christ through the regenerating power of the Spirit.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[A friend and colleague, an Augustinian scholar, reworks my points into this:

I think Augustine would agree to some form of each of the statements you have listed. However, I don’t think it quite gets at the core of Augustine’s thoughts or concerns. Or to put it differently, it identifies Augustine’s positions as they emerged in his debate with Pelagians and not so much with the rest of his thought.

Both Bride and Bridegroom
say "Come"

I think he always remained a rhetorician rather than a systematic thinker, so the images he employs are often more fundamental than an abstract statement of his doctrine. In his Confessions, the guiding image is that of the prodigal son (kind of overlaid on some semi-Plotinian metaphysics). I don’t think Augustine’s first word in his anthropology is “sin”. I think it is “love.” Sin is just love gone bad — as evil is good gone bad.

So maybe to rephrase it, using the vocabulary of the earlier Augustine:

1. Humans, like God, are lovers.

2 and 3. Humans though are bad lovers, redirecting their love from God to the good things God made. This creates in them disordered desires.

4. Humans have become incapable of loving God for himself (instead of themselves) and loving other things in” God.

5. Humans are incapable of being happy, like the prodigal son who exchanged his father’s table for eating husks with the pigs. etc.]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[Per the aforementioned encapsulation of Augustine by Reformational theology re "sin" and "depravity"... ] each of these elements shapes the Reformers’ perception of the gospel, [that of] salvation, and how to understand Paul. But there is more…

Standing next to Augustine’s anthropology is the way to attack the human (is this too strong?) in preaching the gospel: show [how] humans are selfish, merit-seeking people who are in need of seeing their sinfulness and need of grace. Show them they need to trust and give up on their own works. The starting point for Reformed gospel preaching is an anthropology; that anthropology for many is Augustinian [(or is it, the Reform's view of Augustine?) - skinhead... ]; [and] that anthropology is pure selfishness.

The Law factors into this as far as I can tell in this way: the Law is how corrupted humans seek to earn favor with God; they climb the Law to find their way to God. But, Paul is interpreted to say that’s not the way; that way is legalism and death. The gospel, which this view tends to pit over against the Law in the severest of ways, is the way to redemption — through grace, by faith, and faith alone.

Man's covenants with God

If the New Perspective teaches — rightly or not — that neither the opponents of Paul nor Jews in general were merit-seeking humans, then the central foil of the gospel — how to understand the human condition and how to attack human nature — is undercut and the entire framework of the gospel is changed. Thus, the critics of the New Perspective are aiming at the soteriological framework of the NPP that they (the critics) have assumed to be right, that they have inherited from Calvin-Luther-Augustine, and which they believe was at the heart of Paul’s theology. I am not saying that all of the Reformed contention here is what I sometime ago called “grace grinding” (talking about grace but doing so only to grind a human into selfish dust), but what I am saying [is] that the Reformed tradition operates with a self-conscious anthropology that derives from Augustine (who provided an interpretive grid for the NT texts).

Stendahl and Sanders laid blame on Luther for seeing in the Judaizers the Roman Catholic Church. That may or may not be the case. What to me is the case is that the real opponent of Paul for the old perspective is not the Catholic Church but Pelagius. NPP folks need to harp less on Luther and his Catholic polemic and start focusing on Augustine and Pelagius. Did Augustine get it right? Did Augustine get it right when he saw in Pelagius the human condition writ large?

The question is this: Was this the anthropology of Paul? Of Judaism? of the Old Testament? Was Paul’s gospel shaped by this anthropology?

There are, of course, other elements, and one of them is central and I’d beg you to listen to this one: if one finds an element or two in the NPP inaccurate that does not mean that the whole thing has to be tossed overboard. I’m seeing far too many “all or nothing” approaches to this issue — from both sides.

The New Covenant of Peace and Hope
in Christ Jesus our Lord Messiah God

 

NT Wright - Introduction to Paul's New Perspective, Part 1 of 2

continued in part 2 -

1 - God's Covenantal Love in Light of The New Perspective of Paul (Slater),

2 - Further Necessary Observations & Conclustions (Slater),

3 - Understanding the New Perspective of Paul (McKnight)
 

 

 * * * * * * * * * *

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cqZYbcvANhM

Uploaded by StJohnsNottingham on Sep 23, 2009

 * * * * * * * * * *

Question. Did the Reformation's theologians mis-appropriate Augustine's grace teachings that would lead to the Lutheran/Reformed faith-emphasis on sin and works-righteousness? (see link here).

Observation. Within Protestantism's New Perspective view is the realisation that good works is the natural outgrowth of faith and a life built on grace, and thus both the Reformed arguments of faith-alone stands affirmed alongside the further statements of Paul's New Perspective of faith-works.

- skinhead

 * * * * * * * * * *
 

New Perspective on Paul

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul

The "New Perspective on Paul" is a significant shift in the way some scholars, especially Protestant scholars, interpret the writings of the Apostle Paul.

Description

Artist's depiction of Saint Paul Writing His Epistles,

in the 16th Century

(from the Blaffer Fndn Collection, Houston, TX)

Since the Protestant Reformation (c. 1517), studies of Paul's writings have been heavily influenced by Lutheran and Reformed views that are said to ascribe the negative attributes associated with sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism to first-century Judaism. The said Lutheran and Reformed views on Paul's Writings are called the "old perspective" by adherents of the "New Perspective on Paul". Thus, the "new perspective" is an attempt to lift Paul's letters out of the Lutheran/Reformed framework and interpret them based on what is said to be an understanding of first-century Judaism, taken on its own terms. (Within this article, "the old perspective" refers specifically to Reformed and Lutheran traditions, especially the views descended from John Calvin and Martin Luther, see also Law and Gospel.)

Paul, especially in his Epistle to the Romans, advocates justification through faith in Jesus Christ over justification through works of the Law. In the old perspective, Paul was understood to be arguing that Christians' good works would not factor into their salvation, only their faith. According to the new perspective, Paul was questioning only observances such as circumcision and dietary laws, not good works in general.

Development

In 1963 the Lutheran theologian Krister Stendahl published a paper arguing that the typical Lutheran view of the Apostle Paul’s theology did not fit with statements in Paul’s writings, and in fact was based more on mistaken assumptions about Paul’s beliefs than careful interpretation of his writings.^[1]

In 1977 E. P. Sanders published Paul and Palestinian Judaism.^[2] In this work he performed an extensive study of Jewish literature and an analysis of Paul's writings in which he argued that the traditional Lutheran understanding of the theology of Judaism and Paul were fundamentally incorrect. Sanders continued to publish books and articles in this field, and was soon joined by the scholar James D. G. Dunn. In 1982 Dunn labelled the movement "The New Perspective on Paul".^[3]

The work of these writers inspired a large number of scholars to study, discuss, and debate the relevant issues. Many books and articles dealing with the issues raised have since been published. The Anglican Bishop and theologian N. T. Wright has written a large number of works aimed at popularising the new perspective outside of academia.^[4]

The new perspective movement is closely connected with a surge of recent scholarly interest in studying the Bible in the context of other ancient texts, and the use of social-scientific methods to understand ancient culture. Scholars affiliated with The Context Group as well as many others in the field, have called for various reinterpretations of biblical texts based on their studies of the ancient world.

Main ideas

It is often noted that the singular title "the new perspective" gives an unjustified impression of unity. It is a field of study in which many scholars are actively pursuing research and continuously revising their own theories in light of new evidence, and who do not necessarily agree with each other on any given issue. It has been suggested by many that the plural title "the new perspectives" may therefore be more accurate. In 2003, N. T. Wright, distancing himself from both Sanders and Dunn, commented that "there are probably almost as many ‘new perspective’ positions as there are writers espousing it – and I disagree with most of them."^[5] There are certain trends and commonalities within the movement, but what is held in common is the belief that the "old perspective" (the Lutheran and Reformed interpretations of Paul of Tarsus and Judaism) is fundamentally incorrect. The following are some of the issues being widely discussed.

Works of the Law

Paul's letters contain a substantial amount of criticism of "works of the law". The radical difference in these two interpretations of what Paul meant by "works of the law" is the most consistent distinguishing feature between the two perspectives. The old perspective interprets this phrase as referring to human effort to do good works in order to meet God's standards (Works Righteousness). In this view, Paul is arguing against the idea that humans can merit salvation from God by their good works (note the New Perspective agrees that we cannot merit salvation - the issue is what exactly Paul is addressing).

By contrast, new perspective scholars see Paul as talking about "badges of covenant membership" or criticizing Gentile believers who had begun to rely on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship.^[6] It is argued that in Paul's time, Israelites were being faced with a choice of whether to continue to follow their ancestral customs, the Torah ('the ancestral customs'), or to follow the Roman Empire's trend to adopt Greek customs (Hellenization, see also Antinomianism, Hellenistic Judaism, and Circumcision in the Bible). (This would be comparable with Westernization and the decision faced by modern individuals such as American Indians to follow their native culture or to adopt Western customs and lifestyle, see also Cultural imperialism.)

The new perspective view is that Paul's writings discuss the comparative merits of following ancient Israelite or ancient Greek customs. Paul is interpreted as being critical of a common Jewish view that following traditional Israelite customs make a person better off before God. Paul identifies customs he is concerned about as circumcision, dietary laws, and observance of special days.^[7]

Human effort and good works

Due to their interpretation of the phrase "works of the law", old perspective theologians see Paul's rhetoric as being against human effort to earn righteousness. This is often cited by Lutheran and Reformed theologians as a central feature of the Christian religion, and the concepts of grace alone and faith alone are of great importance within the creeds of these denominations.

New perspective interpretations of Paul tend to result in Paul having nothing negative to say about the idea of human effort or good works, and saying many positive things about both. New perspective scholars point to the many statements in Paul's writings that specify the criteria of final judgment as being the works of the individual.

"Final Judgment According to Works... was quite clear for Paul (as indeed for Jesus). Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works." (N. T. Wright)^[8]

Wright however does not hold the view that good works contribute to ones salvation but rather that the final judgement is something we can look forward to as a future vindication of God's present declaration of our righteousness. In other words, [according to Wright,] our works are a result of our salvation and the future judgement will show that^[9]. Other [theologians] tend to place a higher value on the importance of good works than the old perspective does, taking the view that they causally contribute to the salvation of the individual.

Old perspective advocates often see this as being "salvation by works" and as a bad thing, contradicting what they see as being fundamental tenets of Christianity. Yet new perspective scholars often respond that their views are not so different. For in the old perspective, God graciously empowers the individual to the faith which leads to salvation and also to good works. While in the new perspective, God graciously empowers individuals to the faith and good works which lead to salvation.

See also synergy in theosis in the Eastern Orthodox Church and Orthopraxy in Christianity.

Faith, or faithfulness

An ongoing debate related to the new perspective has been over Paul's use of the Greek word pistis (πίστις, meaning "trust," "belief," "faith," or "faithfulness"). Old perspective writers have typically interpreted this word as meaning a belief in God and Christ, and trust in Christ for salvation with faith that he will save you. This interpretation is based on several passages from the Christian Bible, notably Ephesians 2:8-9, which reads "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." Interestingly, E. P. Sanders, a major figure in the development of the "new perspective of Paul", himself notes that Ephesians 2:9 teaches the traditional (or "old") perspective.^[10]

By contrast, many recent studies of the Greek word pistis have concluded that its primary and most common meaning was faithfulness, meaning firm commitment in an interpersonal relationship.^{[11][12][13][14]}

As such, the word could be almost synomymous with "obedience" when the people in the relationship held different status levels (e.g. a slave being faithful to his master). Far from being equivalent to 'lack of human effort', the word seems to imply and require human effort. The interpretation of Paul's writings that we need to "faithfully" obey God's commands is quite different to one which sees him saying that we need to have "faith" that he will do everything for us. This is also argued to explain why James was adamant that "faith without works is dead" and that "a man is saved by works, and not by faith alone," while also saying that to merely believe places one on the same level as the demons (see James 2). The New Perspective argues that James was concerned with those who were trying to reduce faith to an intellectual subscription without any intent to follow God or Jesus, and that Paul always intended "faith" to mean a full submission to God.

Another related issue is the pistis Christou ('faith of Christ') debate. Paul several times uses this phrase at key points in his writings and it is linguistically ambiguous as to whether it refers to our faith in Christ ("objective genitive"), or Christ's own faithfulness to God ("subjective genitive"), or even our faith/faithfulness to God like that which Christ had ("adjectival genitive"). There is wide disagreement within the academic community over which of these is the best rendering.^[15] The NET Bible translation became the first mainstream English Bible translation to use a subjective genitive translation of this phrase.^[16]

Grace, or favor

Old perspective writers have generally translated the Greek word charis as "grace" and understood it to refer to the idea that there is a lack of human effort in salvation because God is the controlling factor. However those who study ancient Greek culture have pointed out that "favor" is a better translation, as the word refers normally to 'doing a favor'. In ancient societies there was the expectation that such favors be repaid, and this semi-formal system of favors acted like loans.^[17] Therefore, it is argued that when Paul speaks of how God did us a 'favor' by sending Jesus, he is saying that God took the initiative, but is not implying a lack of human effort in salvation, and is in fact implying that Christians have an obligation to repay the favor God has done for them. Some argue that this view then undermines the initial 'favor' - of sending Jesus - by saying that, despite his incarnation, life and death, Christians still have, as before, to earn their way to heaven. However, others note this is the horns of a false dilemma (all grace versus all works). Many new perspective proponents that see "charis" as "favor" do not teach that Christians earn their way to heaven outside of the death of Christ. Forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ is still necessary to salvation. But, that forgiveness demands effort on the part of the individual (cf. Paul in Phil. 3:12-16). [1]

The Atonement

See also: Atonement in Christianity

For old perspective writers the atonement theory of Penal Substitution and the belief in the "finished work" of Christ have been central. New perspective writers have regularly questioned whether this view is really of such central importance in Paul's writings. Generally new perspective writers have argued that other theories of the atonement are more central to Paul's thinking, but there has been minimal agreement among them as to what Paul's real view of the atonement might be.

The following is a broad sample of different views advocated by various scholars. E. P. Sanders argued that Paul's central idea was that we mystically spiritually participate in the risen Christ and that all Paul's judicial language was subordinate to the participationary language.^[2] N. T. Wright has argued that Paul sees Israel as representative of humanity and taking onto itself the sinfulness of humanity through history. Jesus, in turn, as Messiah, is representative of Israel and so focuses the sins of Israel on himself on the cross. Wright's view is thus a "historicized" form of Penal Substitution.^[18]

Chris VanLandingham has argued that Paul sees Christ as having defeated the Devil and as teaching humans how God wants them to live and setting them an example.^[19] David Brondos has argued that Paul sees Jesus as just a part in a wider narrative in which the Church is working to transform lives of individuals and the world, and that Paul's participationary language should be understood in an ethical sense (humans living Christ-like lives) rather than mystically as Sanders thought.^[20]

Pilch and Malina take the view that Paul holds to the Satisfaction theory of atonement.^[21] Stephen Finlan holds that Paul uses numerous different metaphors to describe the atonement but that he fundamentally sees Christ as a martyr and holds that humans are to be divinely transformed into the image of God through Christ (Theosis).^[22]

Criticism and rhetoric

The new perspective has been an extremely controversial subject and has drawn strong arguments and recriminations from both sides of the debate.

In 2003 Steve Chalke, after being influenced by new perspective writers, published a book targeted at a popular audience which made comments highly critical of the penal substitution theory of the atonement.^[23] This caused an extensive and ongoing controversy among Evangelicals in Britain, with a strong backlash from lay-people and advocates of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions.

Both sides of the debate attempt to claim the higher, and more accurate, view of scripture. New perspective advocates claim that old perspective supporters are too committed to historic Protestant tradition, and therefore fail to take a 'natural' reading of the Bible; while old perspectivists claim that new perspective advocates are too intrigued by certain interpretations of context and history, which then lead to a biased hermeneutical approach to the text.

The new perspective has been heavily criticized by conservative scholars in the Reformed tradition, arguing that it undermines the classical, individualistic, Augustinian interpretation of election and does not faithfully reflect the teachings of their founding theologian, John Calvin (as N. T. Wright had asserted). It has been the subject of fierce debate among Evangelicals in recent years, mainly due to N. T. Wright's increasing popularity in evangelical circles. Its most outspoken critics include Calvinists John Piper,^[24] Sinclair Ferguson,^[25][26] C. W. Powell,^[27] Mark Seifrid, D. A. Carson^[28], Ligon Duncan.^[29]  Barry D. Smith has claimed that the New Perspective's challenge to the traditional view of Jewish faith practice as legalistic is misplaced.^[30]

Catholic and Orthodox reactions

The new perspective has, by and large, been an internal debate among Protestant scholars. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox writers have generally responded favorably to new perspective ideas,^{[citation needed]} seeing both a greater commonality with their own beliefs and seeing strong similarities with the views of many of the early Church Fathers.

Former Protestant and one-time adherent to the New Perspective, Taylor Marshall, published the first Catholic response to the New Perspective on Paul entitled The Catholic Perspective on Paul (2010). Marshall draws out the continuity and discontinuities between the Protestant New Perspective and the traditional Catholic doctrines of the Council of Trent by emphasizing the doctrine of participation and the believer's union with Christ.^[31] From this Catholic point of view, the New Perspective is seen as a step toward the progressive reality of human salvation in Christ. Moreover, passages in the works of many early Church Fathers show that new perspective-style interpretations were widely held among them.^[32]

One of the many exceptions is the influential Augustine of Hippo. While most in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox schools would see him as espousing a view of grace and justification in keeping with this new perspective, Augustine is blamed by some for introducing incorrect ideas^{[citation needed]} (some Orthodox would agree that Augustine erred on these ideas, and introduced novelties into the teachings of the Church Fathers^[33]).

[One could also argue that it was the Reformation's mis-appropriation of Augustine's grace teachings that led to their emphasis on sin and works-righteousness. - skinhead]
See for further regard: http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/09/understanding-new-perspective-on-paul.html 

The increased importance new perspective writers have given to good works in salvation has created strong common ground with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Historic Protestantism has never denied that there is a place for good and faithful works, but has always excluded them from justification and salvation, which Protestants argue is through faith alone, and in which good deeds are of no account, either within or without God's grace. This has, since the Reformation, been a line of distinction between Protestantism (both Reformed and Lutheran) and other Christian communions.

[Within Protestantism's New Perspective view is the realisation that good works is the natural outgrowth of faith and a life built on grace, and thus both the Reformed arguments of faith-alone stands affirmed alongside the further statements of Paul's New Perspective of faith-works. - skinhead]

See also

• Pauline Christianity

 

References

1. ^ Krister Stendahl, 'The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West' in The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Jul., 1963), pp. 199-215. Republished in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, (Augsburg Fortress Publishers) 1976.
2. ^ ^{a b} E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1977)
3. ^ The Brand New Perspective on Paul by James D. G. Dunn
4. ^ For example, N. T. Wright, "What Saint Paul Really Said" Eerdmans 1997
5. ^ N. T. Wright, New Perspectives.
6. ^ For "badges of covenant membership", see N. T. Wright, Paul for Everyone: Romans part one (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 35-41. 5. For reliance on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship, see Eisenbaum, Pamela (Winter 2004). "A Remedy for Having Been Born of Woman: Jesus, Gentiles, and Genealogy in Romans". Journal of Biblical Literature (The Society of Biblical Literature) 123 (4): 671–702. doi:10.2307/3268465. JSTOR 3268465. http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/JBL1234.pdf. Retrieved 2008-10-26.
7. ^ Dunn, James D. 'The New Perspective on Paul', 104, 2005.
8. ^ New Perspectives on Paul, 10th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference: 25–28, August 2003, by N. T. Wright
9. ^ http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf
10. ^ Guy Prentiss Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, p. 167, notes "Sanders has conceded to me that Ephesians 2:9 teaches the traditional view."
11. ^ Douglas A. Campbell, "The Quest For Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy", 2005, pp 178-207
12. ^ David M. Hay, ‘Pistis as “Ground for Faith” in Hellenized Judaism and Paul’ JBL 18, 1989, pp 461-76
13. ^ Howard, The 'Faith of Christ', ExpTim 85, 1974, 214
14. ^ Pilch and Malina, "Handbook of Biblical Social Values", 1998, pg 72-75
15. ^ See, e.g.: for subjective genitive: G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42. For objective genitive: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730-44.
16. ^ E.g., Romans 3:21-22: 'But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. ...' (emphasis added. Also see Gal. 2:20).
17. ^ David A.deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture, 2000, pg 117
18. ^ N. T. Wright, "Jesus and the Victory of God"
19. ^ Chris VanLandingham, "Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul", Hendrickson 2006
20. ^ David Brondos, "Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle's Story of Redemption", Fortress Press, 2006
21. ^ Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch, "Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul" Ausgburg Fortress 2006
22. ^ Stephen Finlan, "Problems with Atonement: The Origins of, and Controversy about, the Atonement Doctrine" Liturgical Press 2005
23. ^ Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus (Zondervan, 2003)
24. ^ John Piper, Interview with Piper on Wright, October 11, 2007.
25. ^ Sinclair Ferguson, What Does Justification Have to do with the Gospel?
26. ^ Ligon Duncan and Sinclair Ferguson (video resource) Is Wright Teaching Another Gospel?
27. ^ C. W. Powell, Was There Legalism in First Century Judaism
28. ^ D. A. Carson Don Carson on the New Perspective, mp3 file of lecture
29. ^ J. Ligon Duncan, The Attractions of the New Perspective(s) on Paul.
30. ^ Barry D. Smith, The Tension Between God as Righteous Judge and as Merciful in Early Judaism; id., What Must I Do to Be Saved? Paul Parts Company with His Jewish Heritage.
31. ^ Taylor Marshall, The Catholic Perspective on Paul, Saint John Press, Dallas, Texas, 2010, ISBN-13: 978-0578050164
32. ^ Irenaeus, "Against Heresy" 4:13-16. Ambrosiaster, "Commentary on Romans". Pelagius, "Commentary on Romans". Origen "Commentary on Romans". Justin Martyr, "Dialogue" Ch 10-11. Clement of Alexandria, "Stromata" 6:6. Ignatius, "Magnesians" 8. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical Lectures" 4:33.
33. ^ Fr. John Romanides, The Ancestral Sin, Zephyr Publishing, Ridgewood, NJ, 1998

 

Further Reading

• Badenas, Robert, Christ the End of the Law, Romans 10.4 in Pauline Perspective, 1985. ISBN 0-905774-93-0
• Dunn, James D. G., "The New Perspective on Paul", in: Jesus, Paul and the Law, 1990. ISBN 0-664-25095-5
• Gathercole, Simon J., Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1–5, 2002. ISBN 0-8028-3991-6
• Irons, Lee, Seyoon Kim’s Critique of the New Perspective on Paul, 2007.
• Kim, Yung Suk. Christ's Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor 2008 ISBN 0-80-066285-7
• Kim, Yung Suk. A Theological Introduction to Paul's Letters: Exploring a Threefold Theology of Paul 2011 ISBN 978-1608997930
• Marshall, Taylor R. The Catholic Perspective on Paul, 2010.
• Smith, Barry D., What Must I Do to Be Saved? Paul Parts Company with His Jewish Heritage, 2007.
• Thompson, Michael B., The New Perspective on Paul (Grove Biblical Series), 2002. ISBN 1-85174-518-1.
• Wright, N. T., What St Paul Really Said, 1997.
• Wright, N. T., New Perspectives on Paul, 2003.
• Wright, N. T., Paul: Fresh Perspectives, 2005.
• Young, Brad, Paul the Jewish Theologian, 1998