Book Notice: Romans 4 and the NPP

Gerhard H. Visscher

Romans 4 and the New Perspective on Paul: Faith Embraces the Promise

SBL 122; New York: Peter Lang, 2009

Available from Amazon.com.

This volume was written as a Ph.D dissertation under Stephen Westerholm at McMasters University in Canada and it focuses on the significance of Romans 4 in NPP interpretation. It gives a survey on the usual suspects (E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, N.T. Wright, T. Donaldson, H. Raisanen) and various critics of the NPP as well (Thomas Schreiner, Frank Thielman, Mark Seifrid, Simon Gathercole, Stephen Westerholm). There is a chapter discussing the context of Romans 4 and an in depth analysis of Rom. 4.1-25. In his final reflections Visscher writes:

"To be sure, one does not need to be entrenched in an old perspective view wherein Judaism as such is seen as preoccupied with righteousness by works to adhere to such a view of Romans today. Sanders' work has presented a laudable corrected to such a view. Nonetheless there were those in Paul's day who wanted to impose upon Gentiles [sic] believers a necessity for circumcision and other forms of obedience to the law as a basis for righteousness and entrance into the Christian community. To those who were inclined to steer the early church in that direction, Paul wanted to clarify that it is not his view but theirs that is to be rejected. Observance of the law cannot lead sinners to righteousness" (p. 226).

Old and New Perspectives in Diognetus

I'm currently working on the reception of Paul in the Epistle to Diognetus. Along the way I've noticed that the Old and New Perspectives on Paul can both find roots in ED which confirms my view that the Reformed and NPP views simply aren't new and are not mutually exclusive. Consider the following:

First, note this soteriological picture in ED concerning a forensic alien righteousness that clothes believers.

"So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his Child, he permitted us during the former time to be carried away by undisciplined impulses as we desired, led astray by pleasures and lusts, not at all because he took delight in our sins, but because he was patient; not because he approved of that former season of unrighteousness, but because he was creating the present season of righteousness, in order that we who in the former time were convicted by our own deeds as unworthy of life might now by the goodness of God be made worthy, and, having clearly demonstrated our inability to enter the kingdom of God on our own, might be enabled to do so by God’s power. (2) But when our unrighteousness was fulfilled, and it had been made perfectly clear that its wages—punishment and death—were to be expected, then the season arrived during which God had decided to reveal at last his goodness and power (oh, the surpassing kindness and love of God!). He did not hate us, or reject us, or bear a grudge against us; instead he was patient and forbearing; in his mercy he took upon himself our sins; he himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the guiltless for the guilty, “the just for the unjust,” the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. (3) For what else but his righteousness could have covered our sins? (4) In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? (5) O the sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous man, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners! (6) Having demonstrated, therefore, in the former time the powerlessness of our nature to obtain life, and having now revealed the Savior’s power to save even the powerless, he willed that for both these reasons we should believe in his goodness and regard him as nurse, father, teacher, counselor, healer, mind, light, honor, glory, strength, life, and not be anxious about food and clothing." (ED 9.1-6).

Second, note the condemnation of Jewish boundary markers in ED, especially about boasting in circumcision by Jews.

"But with regard to their qualms about meats, and superstition concerning the Sabbath, and pride in circumcision, and hypocrisy about fasting and new moons, I doubt that you need to learn from me that they are ridiculous and not worth discussing. (2) For is it not unlawful to accept some of the things created by God for human use as created good but to refuse others as useless and superfluous? (3) And is it not impious to slander God, as though he forbids us to do any good thing on the Sabbath day? (4) And is it not also ridiculous to take pride in the mutilation of the flesh as a sign of election, as though they were especially beloved by God because of this? (5) And as for the way they watch the stars and the moon, so as to observe months and days, and to make distinctions between the changing seasons ordained by God, making some into feasts and others into times of mourning according to their own inclinations, who would regard this as an example of godliness and not much more of a lack of understanding? (6) So then, I think you have been sufficiently instructed to realize that the Christians are right to keep their distance from the thoughtlessness and deception common to both groups and from the fussiness and pride of the Jews. But as for the mystery of the Christian’s own religion, do not expect to be able to learn this from man." (ED 4.1-6).

So we have a very Pauline soteriology with a clear forensic justification plus a recognition of the boasting of Jews in their elect status, arguing for the freedom of Gentiles from Jewish observances - Jimmy Dunn plus Martin Luther are now reconciled - how wonderful it is when brothers dwell in unity, it's like oil flowing down the beard of Aaron.

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (547–549). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

A. Andrew Das on Rom 4.4-5

Note this recent article A. Andrew Das, "Paul and Works of Obedience in Second Temple Judaism: Romans 4:4-5 as 'New Perspective' Case Study," CBQ 71.4 (2009): 795-812. In this piece Das seeks a middle ground on the NPP debate (and the angels cried Hallelujah!) noting that some erroneously miss perspectives about God's empowering grace in Judaism, while others oddly miss the many demands for strict and perfect obedience as well. He concludes:

"New Perspective interpreters such as Dunn and Wright have correctly highlighted the abandoment of Jewish ethnocentrism in Paul's letters, but their central claim that his critique of the Law is limited to ethnocentrism does not withstand scrutiny. The Jews considered observance of the Law's works to be a necessary accompaniment of God's gracious election of the people. Second Temple literature praised those who were exemplary in their obedience, especially Abraham. Paul's convictions prevent him from recognizing the validity of works that proceed apart from the gracious framework of God's activity in Jesus Christ. The Apostle has sundered strict obedience from God's election and mercy toward ethnic Israel. Romans 7:7-25 can therefore describe teh futile struggle to obey what the Law requires. One searches in vain in 7:7-25 for an atoning mechanism that availa for sin apart form Christ (vv. 24-25). Paul may therefore speak of empty "works" or human exertion in contrast to grace as a warrant for why the works of the Law needlessly divide humanity. An adequate 'new perspective' must account for the Apostle's critique of works considered apart form God's grace in Christ."

Justification has vertical and horizontal aspects

I've noticed recently how a growing number of commentators maintain that justification has both vertical and horizontal aspects. By that, I think they mean that justification includes, firstly, a verdict of acquittal and vindication by faith in Christ/being in-Christ. Secondly, it establishes the legitimacy of their membership in the people of God. In other words, God justifies the ungodly by faith not works and you don't have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. Paul is interested in the inclusion of the Gentiles into God's saving purposes and the basis of their inclusion! Consider the following quotes:

"This point advocates of the new perspective are quick to emphasize, and rightly so. But since the justification of which we have been speaking has dealt with both the radical, vertical problem of a relationship with God and the horizontal problem of Jew-Gentile relationships, rather than simply the latter (which is the particular focus on the new perspective), then the solution is more properly based and the assurance is made 'more doubly sure'" (Peter T. O'Brien, "Was Paul a Covenantal Nomist?", 291.

"If, as one strand of Luther’s legacy understood it, the phrase 'the righteousness of God' matters most and is defined as the forensic status of 'righteous' that gives people irrespective on their behaviour, then this locus and the letter into which it leads is all about the vertical relationship between an individual and God. Romans becomes a road to salvation for individuals and no more. But if 'to the Jew first and to the Greek' is still emphasized within the locus, a window is left open to consider God’s righteousness as concerned with humanity as a whole and therefore to be both vertically and horizontally understood. For centuries, based on one understanding of how Luther read Augustine, we have been led to believe that the righteousness of God as described in Romans is in the first place about an individual believer’s legal status before God and does not primarily concern how God’s people live out God’s righteousness – or justice – on the earth" (Mark Reasoner, Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005], 5).

"A holistic reading of Romans and Galatians should tie together the covenantal and forensic dimensions of God’s righteousness. The vertical and horizontal aspects of justification need to be appropriately described and weighted in order to provide a comprehensive picture of justification in Paul’s letters. According to Paul, faith alone in Jesus is the basis of vindication; and faith alone marks out the people of God" (Michael Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God, 153).

"Essentially, it is a matter of giving Romans 3:29-30 equal status with 3:27-28: the God who justifies is as such the God of Jews and Gentiles alike. At this point in Paul’s argument, the presence of a 'horizontal' or social dimension alongside the 'vertical' or theological one is unambiguously clear – although it is still routinely missed by the New Perspective’s critics" (Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective, 6).

Note now Dunn and Wright's appropriation of this:

Dunn:"Evidently [from Gal 2.16] the two dimensions are inextricably interlocked - the vertical and the horizontal, acceptance by God with acceptance of others to de-prioritize the horizontal emphasis, as 'sociological' and distinct from 'theological', is to miss and to mistake the high priority which Paul placed upon it, as his later writings confirm" (James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 489).

Wright: "Here the normal caricatures of the new perspective (which are sometimes of course richly deserved) simply break down. It is not either 'rescue from sin' or 'easy entry, without circumcision, into God's people.' Nor are these, as is sometimes suggested, merely to be thought of as 'vertical' and 'horizontal' dimensions, soteriology on the one hand and sociology on the other [footnote to Michael Bird saying he's wrong on this!!!]. Part of the point is that soteriology itself, for Paul, is in that sense 'horizontal,' having to do with the ongoing purposes of God within history, while sociology, for Paul, is 'vertical,' because the single multiethnic family, constituted in the Messiah and indwelt by the Spirit, is designed as God's powerfl sign to the pagan world that Israel's God, Abraham's God, is its Creator, Lord, and Judge. In fact, what appear to Western eyes as two separate issues - salvation from sin on the one hand, a united people of God on the other - seem to have appeared to Paul as part and parcel of the same thing. That single same thing included God's dealing with humanity's idolatry, failure to reflect God's image, rebellion andsin, and not least fracturing into different nations and ethnic groups. As we shall see in the next chapter, they are all different ways of saying, ultimatley, the same thing" (N.T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, 126-27).

A few issues:

1. I think some theologians just don't have a grammar or framework for attributing any social, covenantal, or horizonal sense to justification. Here the NPP is a genuine corrective, esp. Dunn's later works, in showing you don't have to abandon Luther if you give Sanders a fair hearing.

2. Does the vertical/horizontal divide go far enough? No doubt these elements are identifiable in Paul's thought (e.g. Rom. 3.21-26 and 27-30). But many will want to insist that vertical is the basis/content of justification while the horizontal is merely the scope/context of justification. Does that downplay the social/horizontal elements? I've struggled with this myself insofar as I've referred to the social side of justification as something that is both an implicate of and yet intrinsic to the justifying verdict.

3. Is Wright's objection to this vertical/horiztonal divide legitimate?

Wright and Dunn Video on the NPP

N.T. Wright and Jimmy Dunn appear in a short video about the New Perspective on Paul. A number of interesting things emerge: (1) Wright doesn't seem aware that Dunn has "moved" a bit on works of law since in Dunn's most recent Beginning from Jerusalem he says that it means "works which the law requires" and goes beyond boundary markers, though he is quite right to insist that works of law still has an ethnic signifier. I'm also wondering if it should also be linked to the specific (pharisaic?) halakhah of Paul's opponents in Galatia. (2) Dunn notes that the NPP is not anti-Lutheran per se, but intends to bring the corporate, social, and ethnic issues to the surface which were not properly handled by the Reformers and their heirs; (3) Dunn's comparison of the exclusiveness of second temple Judaism and "American imperialism" was most amusing, and no doubt much annoyance it will cause.

HT: Text, Community, and Mission

The Skunk Doth Speakth

I have done my best to try to demonstrate that there are aspects of the "New Perspective of Paul" that those of the Reformed faith can appropriate without losing their way. I've also been critical of the New Perspective (if you don't believe me then ask Tom Wright or Jimmy Dunn who see me as a sympathetic critic). But I've recently learnt that much of this conversation is immensely futile.

Scott Clark has a blog entry on Can Reformed Theology and the NPP Be Synthesized? which links to Guy Waters' review of Dan Kirk's new book Unlocking Romans. I chimed in the comments to the effect that: "There are different ways of appropriating the NPP. The most promising is to recognize the horizontal aspects of justification which NPP interpreters have pointed out (though without reducing justification to a social epiphenomena as some NPP proponents can do). It is this aspect that has been neglected in post-Reformation dogmatics since Paul is just as much concerned with 'Who are the people of God?' as he is with 'What must I do to be saved?'. Whether ya like it or not, this is one aspect that we can learn from the NPP. I would add that Sanders’ participationist eschatology is far more likely to be the centre of Paul’s thought than the imputed righteousness of the active obedience of Jesus Christ in order to fulfil the covenant of works!" I thought that, that was a fairly straight foward comment stated in a cordial and generous way.

There was a response from the Rev. Gary Johnson (co-editor with Guy Waters of By Faith Alone: Answering the challenges to the Doctrine of Justification) which labels me, and this is classic, as a "sneaky, low-down skunk who embraced the NPP ... while stilling claiming to be Reformed". How does one respond to that?

I have genuinely tried to have a serious and gracious conversation with certain folks in the conservative Reformed wing about Pauline theology, but I am now led to believe that this is an exercise in futility. I trust, then, that my interaction in a forthcoming book by IVP with a bonafide Reformed scholar in Michael Horton will show how to have a fruitful and cordial discussion on these issues. I doubt whether I'll be able to convince Mike Horton (and vice-versa), but hopefully we can present a model of civilized and Christian conversation within the Reformed tradition to which we both belong.

N.T. Wright at the White Horse Inn

The Theology of N.T. Wright is discussed at the White Horse Inn led by Michael Horton (with some interesting sound bites from J.I. Packer). While it is very critical of Wright, it is appreciative of Wright too esp. on the resurrection, his emphasis on redemptive-history, and showing the value of NT background. I would agree with some of the criticisms in the sense that Luther and Calvin were a bit more nuanced than is often recognized in the New Perspective on Paul, I think Wright did (esp. in earlier works like WSPRS) over emphasize the ecclesiological content of justification, and I do find some of Wright's statements on future justification to be potentially alarming if they are not seriously nuanced. I also concur with the panelists that the NPP is stalling because of works like (in my listing) John Barclay, Francis Watson, Andrew Das, Robert Jewett, and Simon Gathercole - but the aftermath should not be a return to traditional Reformation doctrine; in my opinion, we need a more socially framed and ecclesially aware depiction of Paul's soteriology. I see no reason to abandon the essential architecture bequeathed to us by the Reformation, but it needs a serious make over at points!

The major criticisms I have with the discussion are that the allegations of Wright as a pelagian, an anabaptist, and that he does not know what to do with the cross are not just slightly off target but are totally inaccurate (for the love of Martha, Wright believes in propitiation). But at the start of the discussion Michael Horton raises a number of more appropriate criticisms which are worth discussing in relation to the NPP:

1. Wright sets being right with God over and against the membership of Gentiles in the people of God as the content of justification. I think Wright has over emphasized the ecclesial side at times, but he has never repudiated the notion that justification refers to the 'sinner being right with God' . He has tried to maintain a bit of both and as proof of this I recommend his BAR response to Paul Barnett and his book Paul: Fresh Perspectives. But if Wright has over emphasized the ecclesial aspect of justification, then the Reformed tradition has also been guilty of basically ignoring the ecclesial or social (i.e. horizontal) implications of justification.

2. Wright often equates 'faith' with 'faithfulness'. Perhaps so, but this is perhaps not such a bad thing in specific passages (I've recently studied a number of texts in Colossians that seem to fit better with 'faithfulness' rather than with 'faith' as the proper translation of pistis). Even John Macarthur and Rudolf Bultmann agree that pistis implies obedience!

3. Wright fails to distinguish the covenant of grace and the Sinai covenant leading to a confusion of law and gospel. I did a quick browse of my concordance and could not find "covenant of grace". Obviously my TNIV concordance has been corrupted by the translation committee which consists of a bunch of Arminian, Pelagian, Wright-loving, democrat voting, universal health care believing, feminist liberals. Most concerning! I'll have to check the ESV concordance which I'm sure has it in there somewhere. Doh! I just checked and it's not in the ESV either. Well dang, stuffed if I know where they got it from then. But in all seriousness, I think one area where Wright and Piper would agree is that an Adam/Christ framework supersedes the traditional categories of Reformed Covenant Theology! If you drop the Covenant of Grace you do not necessarily subsume gospel benneath law (if you don't believe me then ask John Piper as I've heard him say as much in person with Michael Horton in the same room!). [Disclaimer: imagine me saying this paragraph with a smile on my face, it's meant to be humourous not flippant!].

4. Justification based on our "total life lived" and no "imputation". Genuinely valid points! I often grimace when I read some of Wright's one-liners on the future element of justification and I don't like what he does with the Holy Spirit here as the energizer of works. But I've found that if you read him widely and closely enough, he seems to come down on the view that works are finally instrumental rather than evidential and you certainly don't lose assurance on his take (see his commentary on Rom. 8.1). For Wright everything that the imputation of Jesus' active obedience gives you, he would say you get from Jesus's faithfulness and union with Christ. Like others in the Reformed tradition I think union with Christ is the key matrix for justification and imputation is a necessary corollary from that relationship.

5. On Wright's definition of Gospel as "Jesus is Lord" (and he is thus against American military actions and American multi-national corporations) Horton contests this. Yet it works well in Rom. 1.3-4 and 2 Tim. 2.8, but I stress in critique of Wright that it doesn't work in 1 Cor. 15.3-8. I think the gospel is the person of Christ (Messiah and Lord) and work of Christ (death and resurrection). It is both/and! Yet, notice this Wrightesque definition of gospel from Martin Luther: “The gospel is a story about Christ, God’s and David’s Son, who died and was raised and is established as Lord. This is the gospel in a nutshell.” (Martin Luther, “A brief instruction on what to look for and expect in the Gospels,” in Luther’s Works [ed. E. Theodore Bachmann; 55 vols.; Fortress: Philadelphia, 1960] 35.118.). I don't think that Jesus is Lord is bad news at all, since he expresses his lordship by submitting himself to death on a cross (Phil. 2.6-8) and he is the judge of the enemies of the people of God (Rom. 2.16)! I think the language of gospel has definite theopolitical implications even if it is not the primary content. Those implications would be clear to any Greco-Roman audience who heard the words "Lord, Gospel, Saviour, Parousia" in the same sentence.

I found the discussion to be a bit hit and miss. All the same, Michael Horton is a sharp guy and a good speaker who successfully raises many of the contested issues.

On-Line Lecture by Robert Jewett on Romans and the New Perspective

An online version of a lecture by Bob Jewett on Romans and the New Perspective can be found at the Australian College of Theology website. I won't bother summarizing it, suffice to say, Jewett's view is that a sharper sociological perspective renders many of these debates obsolete. It's a good lecture, controversial in its interpretation at points, but well worth listening to. 

Reformed and New Perspectives on Galatians 2:16

The latest issue of Expository Times is out (119.7 [2008]) and it has a cracking good article by Stephen Chester (North Park Seminary) on, "When the Old Was New: Reformation Perspectives on Galatians 2:16". Chester locates Luther's and Calvin's comments on Galatians 2:16 in light of the reformation context, in juxtaposition to Erasmus, and focuses on "works of the law", "justification by faith", and "the beliver's faith or Christ's faith". Interesting points of the article are:

1. On "works of the law" Chester notes the similarities between current discussions of "boundary markers" and reformational discussions over Jewish "ceremonies". The reformers rejected the notion of works of the law as merely the ceremonial aspects of the law and argued that Paul's point was orientated towards the entire law (cf. Gal. 3.10 too). On this point they were undoubtedly correct and Chester shows how the reformation reading is able to maintain the unity of 2.15-21. Nonetheless, Luther and Calvin pay very little attention to the Jew/Gentile relationships that were an issue here. Chester is worth citing at length:

How plausible is the proposition that by "works of the law" Paul intends to refer to primarily to some aspects of its observance rather than to the whole? True, recent advocates for understanding the phrase as focused on the boundary-marker function ofthe law accept that the phrase does refer to all that the law requires, but contend that some parts are more prominent than others. Their position is more subtle than was that of the Reformers' opponents, but is it any less vulnerable to the rejoinder that much of Paul's sebsequent argument in Galatians concerns the whole law? Where is the particular focus on boundary defining practices? The ability to offer plausible interpretations, opposed to those of the Reformers, of texts such as Galatians 3:10 and 3:18 therefore becomes a key test for the revised understanding of "works of the law". On justification, Luther and Calvin especially are able to read Galatians 2:15-21 in a unified manner. Paul speaks in his remarkable way in 2:19-20 about the relationship between the believer and the divine precisely as a further unpacking of what he said about it at 2:16. Galatian 2:19-20 concern justification. This statment makes excellent sense given that the climactic statement of 2:21 so clearly concerns justification. Can alternative readings of justification, more concerned with identifying the people of God, provide a similarly integrated and plausible exegesis of 2:15-21?

As regards "works of the law", it is certainly true that to understand them as boundary makers [sic?], separating Jew and Gentile, which Paul believes to have been overcome in Christ, offers a valuable theological resource for today's diverse global Christianity. A theological reading of Galatians would be inadequate that failed to draw attention to the contemporary implications of the disputes concerning different ethnic groups and their customs in the early churches at Antioch and Galatia. Yet, as we have seen, Reformation readings do not entirely neglect this dimension of Paul's argument. Calvin especially is deeply conscious of the shift in Paul's argument between the particular instance of Jew/Gentile relationships in the church and the wider principle that justification depends entirely upon grace, irrespective of human attempts to please God by our actions. In exploring the relationship between particular instance and wider principle it is possible to read Galatians in a way that holds the Reformers correct about "works of the law" and yet also devotes proper attention to Jew/Gentile relationships in the church and their contemporary implications.

2. Chester also points out that Calvin and Luther did not disconnect justification and christology as much as their later interpreters did (as by e.g. Melanchthon and Perkins). Both Calvin and Luther connect justification to union with Christ in Gal. 2.19-20.

3. Chester notes that both the Reformers and their Catholic interlocutors understood ek pisteos christou as "by faith in Christ". This pistis christou debate was a non-entity during the Reformation.

This is a fine article, let me add a few comments stimulated by Chester's article:

• I think it is certainly correct that "works of the law" means simply the works which the law requries. However, this is not an atemporal statement of human effort to please to God, and it includes commandments that set-apart the Jewish people from Gentiles. A cursory reading of Menahem Stern's Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism shows that it was the peculiar behaviour of Jews that stood out to pagan authors (esp. circumcision, sabbath keeping, and the food laws). Thus, "works of the law" designates the epoch of the Sinaitic legislation but also the distinctive social practices of the Jewish people. In other words, it denotes the entire Mosaic code and the Jewish way of life as codified in the Torah.
• In SROG I explored more fully the link between 2.11-14 (Antioch episode) and 2.15-21 (justification by faith). The question is, how do you get from a debate about food and fellowship to some dramatic and powerful statements by Paul about righteousness by faith? What starts off with a basic discussion of maintaining Jewish distinctiveness in a mixed Jew/Gentile setting soon gives way to a more fundamental question of the individual's relation to God and what mediates that relationship: law or Christ. For Paul, "righteousness" is not a cipher for "covenant status" or "identity legimitation" but it refers to one's status before God at the eschaton in light of the final judgment. Of course that of itself has huge sociological consequences for one how initiates and integrates non-Jews into Jesus-believing fellowships with other Jesus-believing Jews.
• Before lampooning "boundary markers" as Jewish "ceremonies" redivvus, see Dunn, "The New Perspective: Whence, What, and Whither?" p. 25, n. 106.
• Chester has confirmed for me what is my basic suspicion. We have no need to abandon the basic theological architecture bequeathed to us by the Reformation, but we have to recognize and grasp more closely the sociological dimensions of Torah concerning group identity and group boundaries etc, and also the ecclesiological implications of justification.
• As I've said before: justification is the act whereby God creates a new people, with a new status, in a new covenant, as a foretaste of the new age!

Paul and Justification

A couple of good posts on Paul and justification this week include Ben Witherington on "The New Perspective on Paul and the Law-- Reviewed" and Dane Ortlund had [?] a useful taxonomy of views on "Justified by Faith, Judged according to Works" but seems to have deleted the post, although it can still be viewed on Google reader if you've got it.

The New Perspective on Paul (ca. 1976-2006)

I am going to make the announcement that we are now formally living in the post-New Perspective era of Pauline studies. For me the boundary markers in this era are:

1. The publication of Krister Stendahl's Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (1976).
2. Robert Jewett's Romans in the Hermeneia series (2006).

Stendahl's collection of essays got people thinking beyond the compendium of Christian doctrine view of Romans and posited salvation-history (= Jew and Gentile relations) as the ovearching purpose of the letter. This of course paved the way for Sanders' contribution that Judaism was not legalistic who in turn paved the way for Dunn and Wright to argue that the problem was principally nationalism, and they in turn gave over to works by Gager and Stowers and others who in some senses radicalized the issues even further.

Jewett's commentary is a fine piece of work and is the standard for Romans commentaries that follow (I have been told that he received the contract for the volume in 1972!). Jewett's commentary is brilliant for its attention to historical detail, background, socio-cultural factors of honour/shame, and even paying attention to demographics and architecture in ancient Rome. Nonetheless, Jewett still thinks of Romans as concerned with the "transforming gospel about God's righteousness" (p. 2) geared towards garnering support for Paul's mission to the Barbarians of Spain and in hope of healing fractured relations among the Roman Christians themselves. He rightly thinks of 15.7-13 as providing a "coda" for the entire letter (p. 887). Jewett thus makes Jew-Gentile issues central to the content of the letter, but at several points he deliberately departs from "New Perspective" readings. For example, on Romans 4.1-5 Jewett writes: "Yet the antithesis between Paul's view of Abraham and that of Jewish religionists in his period cited above is sharply delineated by the wording of 4:2, and it fails to do justice to the explicit references to boasting and justification by works by substituting a politically correct emphasis on God's mercy ... the preceding sections of Paul's argument show that all human beings have fallen short in the glory required for boasting and that a new basis for righteousness has been created through Christ, so that boasting in any human accomplishment has been excluded by divine action" (p. 310).

I think Jewett's commentary is a sign that we are now living in a post-New Perspective era where the best insights from the NPP have been taken on board by the majority of scholars and some of its less compelling features have been rejected. Several scholars like Brendan Byrne, A. Andrew Das, and myself have been saying similar things for the last few years, I think we are now formally "Beyond" (not necessarily "against" or "more deeper" into") the New Perspective.

James Dunn on the New Perspective

James Dunn's 1983 essay "The New Perspective on Paul" originally published in BJRL, is now available on-line thanks to Mark Mattison of the Paul Page.

Systematic Theology vs. Biblical Theology

I remember reading Mark Seifrid's 1992 monograph Justified by Faith where Seifrid commented that alot of the debate about the New Perspective on Paul comes down to a difference between those who want to read their Bible's historically and those who want to read the Bible theologically. This is particularly true in the Reformed world and is confirmed to me by two things:

(1) I read one book about the NPP which attacked the 18th century German scholar J.P. Gabler for allegedly trying to prevent systematic theology from being a tool for the church. That is just patternly false (if you don't believe me go read D.A. Carson's article on NT Theology in DLNTD or better yet go read Gabler yourself!) as Gabler wanted a biblical theology that would engage with what the biblical writers were actually saying on their terms and in their language and without having to conform to the categories, language, or findings of systematic theology. Importantly, Gabler also believed that good biblical theology should feed into systematic theology; he was not against systematic theology, on the contrary, he wanted to see it refined and become more biblically informed!

(2) Those who engage daily in the practice of biblical studies and having to actually study the Greek text of the NT in its historical context have a tendency to be more sympathetic to what the NPP is saying even if they do not fully agree with their findings. In contrast, those whose loyalty is primarily towards a theological system rather than to Scripture, have been particularly aggressive and scathing in their criticism (one or two particular books come to mind).

The difference is between those who say (1) "my authority is Scripture and I am willing to affirm a Confession in so far as it coheres and comports with Scripture"; and (2) those who say "my authority is Scripture as understood by the Confession". These are not the same thing. The second position is not "truly reformed" and it treats the Confession rather like the Mishnah of the Rabbis or the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. Note: for more on the positive role and limitations of Reformed Confessions see Andrew McGowan's forthcoming book, The Divine Spiration of Scripture and his book Always Reforming.

I believe Stanley Hauerwas once said that "New Testament scholars ought to be lined up and run off of a cliff!" I would retort by saying that sometimes I think that all Systematic Theologians should be beaten to death with a soggy fish! Let me say that Systematics is a good thing, we need Systematics to have a comprehensive world view, to bring Scritpure together, and to answer questions not raised in Scripture. BUT, Systematics cannot demand that exegesis and historical study conform to its system. Theology may be the "Queen of the Sciences" but she is a puppet Queen sustained by the strings of exegesis and by the hands of biblical scholars.

As such I was pleased to read Reggie Kidd's recent contribution to the debate. This quote shows that while some theologians want to cleanse their denomination of certain types, even naming evangelicals as the bad guys, there are those of us who remain committed to the Bible, the evangelical tradition, and historic Orthodoxy. Reggie said this:

Battle as relentlessly and courageously as the Church of England’s N.T. Wright does to champion the view that Paul’s theology is animated by a comprehensive and integrated story of promise and fulfillment — scoring points against both the postmodern deconstruction of the biblical meta-narrative and the dispensational fracturing of the singular story of “the Israel of God” into dichotomous stories of “Israel” versus the “church” — and what do you get from your potential allies in the conservative reformed world? How about getting dismissed as importing an alien biblical theology into the established categories of systematic theology, as being vague about the atonement, and as compromising biblical authority? While we build careers at our potential friends’ expense, the hostile armies and navies amass. Nice work.

Read the comments section with some big names weighing into the debate: Doug Green, Steve Taylor, John Armstrong, John Frame, Scot McKnight etc. Do read the whole post! And for the otherside of the argument read the response by R. Scott Clark.

Simon Gathercole on Paul and Justification

Simon Gathercole (formerly of Aberdeen University and now at Cambridge University [sigh]) is one of the rising luminaries of biblical studies in the UK. His work on Pauline soteriology, Synoptic Christology, and now also the Gospels of Thomas and Judas demonstrate a breadth and depth of learning that few scholars of his age are able to master. Simon is probably best known for his contribution to debates about Paul's view of justification and the New Perspective on Paul. In his book, Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5 he sets forth a case that boasting in Judaism was not limited to boasting in election against Gentiles, but also pertained to boasting in deeds of obedience towards God (see p. 263). His recent CT article "What Did Paul Really Mean?" sets up the limitations and oversights of the New Perspective (while I like the article for the most part there are a few points I'd tinker with or qualify). However, I think it is worth pointing out that Simon (who is a jolly good fellow by the way) remains in some proximity to Tom Wright on several points, far more than what many onlookers in the debate realize. Let me give two examples:

1. Works and the Final Judgment.

One area of contention in recent debates is the role of works in relation to justification, particularly eschatological justification. Gathercole and Wright both (correctly I think) opt for the Gentile reading of Romans 2.6-29. Gathercole writes:

"Finally, if the law-abiding Gentiles in 2.14-15 are Christians, then the statement in 2.13 can by no means be dismissed as merely hypothetical or ad hominem. Rather, in the company of statements about the reward of eternal life for obedience in 2.7, 10, 26-27 and 29, Rom. 2.13-16 must point to a stronger theology of final vindication on the basis of an obedient life than is evident in most analyses of Pauline theology." (Simon J. Gathercole, “Law unto Themselves: The Gentiles in Romans 2.14-15 Revisited,” JSNT 85 [2002]: 48).

See also an excerpt from Gathercole's book Where is the Boasting? on James 2 where he states:

"The issue, then, that has caused most problems is not what James denies but what he affirms: that is, that a person is justified by works (2:22a). There is only space here for a very simple taxonomy of treatments of this issue. Solutions to this problem divide roughly into three approaches. In this first, works are described as evidential rather than as the instrumental cause of justification as traditionally understood. This falls down however, since in 2:24 (”you see that a man is justified by works”), James does describe works as the means to eschatological justification. The second approach attempts to reconfigure justification as something different from Pauline justification. This is in part correct: James does not (at least here in James 2) have a “realized” conception of a justification “already,” as Paul does. Nevertheless, it is difficult, as D. J. Moo (to cite the most recent exponent) reckons, to say that James’s “is justified” does not belong in the category of justification but is more “final judgment.” This seems to be a somewhat casuistical approach to solving the Paul-James problem. A third approach sees James as in some continuity with his Jewish background on the issue. Thus, works have a genuine instrumental role in eschatological justification for the believers James is addressing" (Where is the Boasting? 117-18).

Thus, Gathercole sees in NT sotierology (and even in Paul) strong grounds for regarding works as part and parcel of final justification. In his conclusion he states:

"The NT also shows evidence of belief in final vindication on the basis of obedience among Christians. However, Paul has an understanding of obedience that is radically different from that of his Jewish contemporaries. We saw above that, for Paul, divine action is both the source and continuous cause of obedience for the Christian" (Where is the Boasting? 264).

While the reason why the law cannot justify is the "weakness of the flesh", nonetheless: "This does not permit a return tout simple to Lutheran theology (while God does initially 'justify the ungodly,' the indwelling of Christ and the Spirit enables obedience that culminates in final justification), but neither is the New Perspective's interpretation adequate." (Where is the Boasting? 264-65).

"In the context of the discussion of Romans 4:1-5, in particular, we noted a tension in Paul's discussion between the initial justification of the ungodly (in this case, Abraham) and the final vindication on the basis of works discussed earlier. This tension no doubt merits further reflection and exploration, but it seems here that, on initial examination, Paul is operating with two somewhat distinct perspectives on justification: the first occupying initial justification and the justification of the ungodly ('to the one who does not work') and the second referring to God's final vindication of the one has done good and ... fulfilled Torah" (Where is the Boasting? 265).

2. The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness.

Many criticisms have been made against N.T. Wright on the grounds that he denies or rejects the imputation of the active obedience of Jesus Christ to believers. Though Wright himself believes that everything you get from imputation you can also get from being-in-the-Messiah, his critics have found this insufficient. This is what Gathercole says about recent debates over imputation:

"The Reformed tradition's most common way of explicating the christological character of justification (not least by way of Phil. 3), however, has recently aroused considerable controversy. This is the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness ... A statement by Robert Gundry on the (non)imputation of Christ's righteousness in particular has sparked a response by John Piper, and Gundry and Don Carson have also entered the same debate from different stances. It is not my purpose here to enter this debate. But it should be said that there is clearly a great deal of diversity of opinion on the matter. This is, of course, not sufficient in itself to let discretion take the better part of valor. But in this case, the diversity seems to arise out of the complexity of the New Testament evidence, not because one side is particularly hidebound to tradition and the other wallowing in the desire for novelty or for a doctrine that is more amenable to culture. I would not myself deny this traditional understanding of imputation. Still, because of the complexity of the issue, I would propose that the requirement that it is specifically Christ's righteousness that is imputed to believers should not feature on evangelical statements of faith. To make such a finely balanced point an article of faith seems a dangerous strategy. " (Simon Gathercole, "The Doctrine of Justification in Paul and Beyond: Some Proposals," in Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, ed. Bruce L. McCormack [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006], 222-23).

-----------

Thus, while Gathercole correctly takes Sanders, Wright, and Dunn to task on many issues, he is not squarely in a pro- or anti-NPP camp, and he is still "his own man" as it were - which is probably a good place to be. I also wonder if many of the criticisms made against Wright concerning works and imputation could also apply to Gathercole (on the qualification that one notes how Gathercole differs from Wright in these areas). That is something for critics of the NPP to consider.

CT Article: From the Seminaries to the Pews

Over at Christianity Today there is a sequal to Simon Gathercole's article (What Did Paul Really Mean?) called: From the Seminaries to the Pews: The 'new perspective on Paul' gets the popular treatment by Collin Hansen.

NPP on the Web

Scot McKnight blogs on the New Perspective over at Jesus Creed and is quite sympathetict to the NPP, though not uncritically so. This can be juxtaposed with Sinclair Ferguson and his thoughts on the New Perspective on Paul and Sinclair approaches the issues from the vantage point of Historical Theology.

I'll also point out the latest issue of Novum Testamentum which includes an article by Debbie Hunn on 'Eαv μη in Galatians 2:16: A Look at Greek Literature. Debbie is a librarian at Dallas Theological Seminary and in my opinion she is probably second only to Darrell Bock as DTS's best author on NT stuff. We have recruited her to write an essay on the pistis christou debate for a forthcoming book. You go girl!

More Reviews of SROG

Another positive review/comment on my book The Saving Righteousness of God has been made by Matthew Paul Buccheri on his blog Kata Matthaion. Evidently many ministers in the Presbyterian Church in America are finding my approach to the New Perspective on Paul very helpful and appreciate the way in which I handle what has been a controversial and divisive topic. That is exactly what I set out to do so it is most encouraging indeed.

Saving Righteousness of God on Amazon.com

For those who want a copy of my book on the New Perspective on Paul called The Saving Righteousness of God (subtitled: "Ten Reasons why Tom Wright is not the Anti-Christ, just a very naughty boy") see the side bar as it is now available on Amazon.com and also from Wipf & Stock publishers.

Saving Righteousness of God NOW available in US

I am glad to say that my book The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies in Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective is now available on the US mainland through Wipf & Stock. Also Kevin Bywaters intends on interacting with the volume on his blog By Living Waters.

Blogging through Bird

I am glad to say that Brian Brown (no, not the Aussie actor) is doing a rolling blog review of my book: The Saving Righteousness of God. I am grateful for the kind words that Brian has said so far and am most pleased that people are finding the volume helpful.