THE MASTER - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – THE MASTER PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 24fc72-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

THE MASTER

Description:

... espoused and observed a 'work-ethic', as long as the goal was the right one. ... work, Dunn has 'been given (I speak personally) what amounts to a new ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:115
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 180
Provided by: davidf103
Category:
Tags: master | the | arts

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: THE MASTER


1
(No Transcript)
2
GLADIATOR Productions Presents . . .
3
In association with MAXIMUS STUDIOS
4
A Michael Servetus Torchstone PictureMichael
Servetus (1511-1553)OUR MOTTO A MANS GOT TO
KNOW HIS LIMITATIONS . . .
5
TOTAL DEPRAVITYU.L.I.PRODUCTIONHowling
Monkey Endeavors
6
THE MASTERS SEMINARY2005 FACULTY LECTURE
SERIESFebruary 1-10, 2005
7
THENEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL
8
Featuring . . . F. DAVID FARNELL, PH.D.as
MaximusIntroduction, History and
Presuppositions of the New PerspectiveFebruary
1, 2005
9
Featuring . . .IRVING L. BUSENITZ, TH.D.as
Dean the DefenderThe Reformers View of
Paul's View of Paul and the LawFebruary 3, 2005
10
Featuring . . . JACK HUGHES, D.MIN.as Jack
the Giant KillerThe New Perspectives View
of Paul and the LawFebruary 8, 2005
11
WILLIAM D. BARRICK, TH.D.as The Hebrew
Hell-CatThe New Perspective Changes in the
Doctrine of Justification--crux interpretum of
"the works of the Law in Gal. 216 et.
al.February 10, 2005
12
ROBERT L. THOMAS, TH.D.as THE
TERMINATORThe Hermeneutics of the New
Perspective on PaulFebruary 15, 2005
13
INTRODUCTIONto theNPP(New Perspective on
Paul)Term coined by James D. G. Dunn
14
When thinking about the NPP,keep this old
preachers illustration picture in your mind .
. .
15
(No Transcript)
16
Why a picture of Grape Nuts Cereal? . . .
NPP is much like Grape NutsThe cereal is
neither made from grapes nor made of nuts . . .
17
In the same way . . . the NPP is NEITHER NEW
nor a PERSPECTIVE
18
As will be seen . . .It is really OLDi.e. the
dangerous, sometimes subtle, sometimes not so
subtle, infiltration of WORKS as efficacious for
salvation.
19
As will be seen . . . It is not a
Perspective, but an IDEOLOGYi.e. driven by a
presuppositional (a priori) grid hostile to the
ORTHODOX understanding of the inspiration of the
Scriptures and GRAMMTICO-HISTORICAL exegesis!
20
IMPORTANTThe SAME! PRESUPPOSITIONAL
IDEOLOGIES that gave rise to HISTORICAL CRITICISM
also gave rise to NPP!
21
The SAME ROAD that led to the destruction
of the INSPIRATION and historical TRUSTWORTHINESS
of the Gospels as catalogued in THE JESUS CRISIS
also gave rise to the NPP!!!!!The JESUS CRISIS
that wrote about the destruction Gospels . . .
Also is relevant to the NPP!
22
As will be seen . . . NPP Driven by(1)
PHILOSOPHY (Col. 28) (2) EISEGESIS, not
exegesis of the text!(3) POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
(Matt. 23 Rev. 29 39 1 Cor. 118-214)
23
While many historical critics were nominal
advocates of the Reformed viewpoint on Paul,
their work ideologies eventually led to the
destruction of the Reformed perspective and
caused the rise of the NPP!
24
A DIRECT LINK exists between the destruction of
the Gospels through HC the destruction of
the Reformed Perspective on Paul!
25
Once again, to repeat,the
ideologies-philosophies of HC led to both the
destruction of the orthodox views of the Gospels
as well as the Reformed Perspective on Paul.
26
This underpinning of HC to both the Gospels
and the NPP should NEVER be overlooked, ignored
or forgotten!
27
The REFORMERS PERSPECTIVE on Paul the
Law (a brief review)
28
HOWEVER,Long before the Reformation, Augustine
of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) also stood in the same
line of interpretation (as the Reformers (so
their view not unique but a revival)
29
The SINE QUA NONS of the REFORMATION(2)
SOLA GRATIAsalvation is by grace alone (1) SOLA
FIDEsalvation is by faith aloneby grace
through faith alone
30
REFORMERS VIEWED JUDAISM ROMANISM AS SIMILAR--
LEGALISTIC-WORKS RIGHTEOUSNESS SYSTEMS THAT
DESTROYED THE GRACE OF GOD IN SALVATION.
31
The Reformers maintained two key components
regarding justification(1) emphasis on
JUSTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL as center of Pauls
theology(2) identification of Pauls opponents
as legalistic Judaism (First century Jews similar
to 16th century Romanism)
32
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE IS SUMMARY OF
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE--LUTHERJUSTIFICATION BY
FAITH ALONE IS THE MAIN HINGE ON WHICH
CHRISTIANITY TURNS--CALVIN
33
BOTH LUTHER CALVIN AGREED THAT
JUSTIFICATION COULD NOT COME THROUGH OT LAWDUE
TO STRINGENT DEMANDS FOR OBEDIENCE, i.e. purpose
of law was condemnation to drive one to grace of
Messiah (Gal. 3)
34
KEEPING OF LAW FOR JUSTIFICATION PLACES ONE
UNDER CURSEMUST KEEP IT ALL BUT UNABLE TO KEEP
IT!Gal. 310 (cursed is the one who does not
abide by all) cp. Deut. 2726
35
FOR REFORMERS, WORKS OF LAW ENTIRE OT
LAWKEEP IT ALL OR CURSE COMES!
36
REFORMERS DID DISAGREE AS TO ROLE OF LAW
IN SANTFICATIONLUTHERMOSAIC Moral law no
longer bindingfollow only NT stipulations
natural law CALVINkeeping of OT law is loving
response subsequent to grace salvation provides
enablement of H.S. to be obedient
37
For the Reformers, and those who stood in their
tradition the doctrine of the justification of
the sinner by faith alone (sola fide) was always
of the utmost importance. In the Lutheran
Reformation it was called 'the article upon which
the church stands or falls' (ecclesia stantis et
cadentis ecclesiae). Luther warned in his
Smalcald Articles,Of this article nothing can be
yielded or surrendered nor can anything be
granted or permitted contrary to the same, even
though heaven and earth, and whatever will not
abide, should sink to ruin. For there is none
other name under heaven given among men whereby
we must be saved, says Peter, Acts 4, 12. And
with His stripes we are healed, Is. 53, 5. And
upon this article all things depend which we
teach and practice in oppostion to the Pope, the
devil, and the whole world. Therefore, we must
be sure concerning this doctrine, and not doubt
for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil
and all things gain victory and suit over
usNote Although Luther did not use this
precise term sole fide himself, he used similar
phrases.
38
In commenting on Romans
320 where the phrase "works of the law" occurs
(see also Gal.), Calvin's reveals what is "new"
today in the NPP was really "old even in his
day, being advocated early in church history as
well as by the Romanists of Calvins dayEven
among learned scholars there is some doubt about
what is meant by the works of the law. While
some extend them to include the observance of the
whole law, others restrict them to ceremonies
alone. The addition of the word law induced
Chrysostom, Origen, and Jerome to accept the
latter opinion, for they thought that this
addition had a peculiar connotation, to prevent
the passage from being understood of all works.
This difficulty, however, has a very easy
solution. Works are just before God to the extent
that we seek to render worship and obedience to
Him by them. In order, therefore, to remove more
explicitly the power of justification from all
works, Paul has used the term of those works
which have the greatest ability to justify, if
any such exist. For the law has the promises,
without which there would be no value in our
works before God. We see, therefore, the reasons
for Paul's express mention of the works of the
law, for it is by the law that our works are
evaluated. Even the schoolmen had a well-worn
cliché that works are meritorious not by any
intrinsic worthiness, but by the covenant of God.
They are mistaken, since they do not see that
our works are always corrupted by vices which
deprive them of any merit. The principle,
however, is still true that the reward for works
depends on the free promise of the law. Paul,
therefore, rightly and wisely does not argue
about mere works, but makes a distinction and
explicit reference to the keeping of the law,
which was properly the subject of his discussion.
39
Calvin (cont.)The arguments
adduced by other learned scholars in support of
this opinion are weaker than they should have
been. They hold that the mention of circumcision
is offered as an example which refers only to
ceremonies. We have, however, already explained
why Paul mentioned circumcision, for only
hypocrites are inflated with confidence in their
works, and we know that they boast only in
external appearances. Circumcision also, in
their view was sort of initiation into the
righteousness of the law, and therefore seemed to
them at the same time a work of the highest
honor, and indeed, the basis of the righteousness
of works. They oppose circumcision on the
grounds of what Paul says in the Epistle to the
Galatians, where, in dealing with the same
subject, he refers only to ceremonies. Their
argument, however, is not sufficiently strong to
achieve what they want. Paul was arguing with
those who inspired the people with false
confidence in ceremonies, and to remove this
confidence he does not confine himself to
ceremonies, nor does he specifically discuss
their value, but he includes the whole law . . .
.We contend, however, not without reason, that
Paul is here speaking of the whole law . . . . It
is a truth of the first importance that no one
can obtain righteousness by the keeping of the
law.
40
IMPORTANTREFORMERS POSITION GROUNDED IN
GRAMMATICO-HISTORICAL EXEGESIS ORTHODOX VIEW OF
INSPIRATION!
41
WHAT IS THE NPP?
42
PRELIMINARY THOUGHTIf one thinks that one
has a sufficient grasp on issues centering in
Pauline theology, then one may not kept up with
the qualitative, even substantively radical
changes that have occurred in reinterpretation
and understanding Pauline theology, especially in
terms of soteriology with its concept of sola
fide and the righteousness of God that results
from the forensic declaration of righteousness
apart from works that was hammered out in the
anvils of the Reformation of 1517.
43
  • BECAUSE OF THE NPP . . .
  • THE TRADITIONAL REFORMATION VIEW OF PAUL LAW,
    JUSTIFICATION, ETC.
  • ON LIFE SUPPORT

44
A PARADIGM SHIFT IS RAPIDLY OCCURRING in the
2Oth Century
45
CURRENTLY,THE NPP IS OVERWHELMING
REPLACING THE REFORMATION PERSPECTIVE IN MOST
SCHOLARLY CIRCLES
46
THE NPP AT HEART IS AN ANTI-REFORMATIONAL
PERPSPECITVEIt seeks to overthrow the
Reformation Perspective on Paul
47
  • NPP IS TO THE REFORMED APPROACH
  • AS KRYPTONITE IS TO SUPERMAN!
  • NPP WANTS TO OVERTHROW REFORMATION

48
In essence, the NPP says that 500 years of
Pauline interpretation have been wrong
(1517-2005)! Actually, 1500 years of Pauline
interpretation have been wrong since Augustine
and the Reformers were in close agreement.
49
THE NPP HAS NO UNIFIED, UNIFORM OR COMPREHENSIVE
MODE OF INTERPRETATION PER SEIT CENTERS IN
BEING ANTI-REFORMATIONAL
50
BUT IT DOES HAVE GENERAL CONSESUS ON SOME KEY
POINTS
51
The Reformers based their Pauline
interpretation in in a grid of anti-Semitic
interpretation
52
Indeed, to many proponents of the NPP, the
NT, especially the Gospels, has shades of
anti-Semitism(Matt. 23 Rev. 28 38)
53
They NPP charges that Luther was
virulently anti-Roman Catholic anti-Semitic.
His hatred of (1) Roman Catholicism combined
(2) Jews to cause him to be anti-Law and misread
Paul Judaism of Pauls Day
54
HIS (and other Reformers) ANTI-ROMAN BIAS
CAUSED HIS ANTI-SEMITISM CAUSED HIM TO
MISINTERPRET JUDAISM AS A LEGALISTIC,
SELF-RIGHTEOUS, HYPOCRITICAL SYSTEM
55
The Reformers wrongly interpreted Paul and
Judaism through rose-colored glasses of their
historical situation of dislike of Roman
Catholicism and Jews.
56
Paul Jewett, who favors the NPP,
describes some of Christian scholarship's dealing
with an interpretive tradition based in
anti-semitism One of the most important
challenges to current scholarship on Paul's
letter to the Romans is to terms with an
interpretive tradition marked by largely
unacknowledged anti-Semitism while remaining true
to Paul's purpose in writing the letter. If a
'paradigm shift' is occurring in the study of
Romans, stimulating scholars to revise the
traditional anti-Judaic approach, the task is to
provide a more adequate alternative. I believe
that we are now in a position to suggest that
this involves a respectful coexistence between
Jews and Gentiles in the context of a mission of
world conversion and unification.
57
Paul was not opposed to worksPhilippians
3First century Judaism is better seen as
Covenantal Nomism get in by grace keep in by
works!
58
Gospels and NT were anti-Semitic as they
competed for adherents so deprecated Jews as
polemic for competition . . . Many feel that this
led to Holocauststarted with NT
59
  • MANY IN NPP (not all but man)GOSPELS/NT
    ANTI-SEMITISM (MATT. 23 REV. 28 38) AND
    REFORMERS LIKE LUTHER CAUSED RISE OF HITLER
  • AND JEWISH HOLOCAUST!

60
Works of law crux interpretumPaul not
opposing law/works for salvation. He opposes
ceremonial badges Jewish badges of nationalism
or national distinctioncircumcision, Sabbath,
dietary laws that separated gentiles from Jews.
61
Paul is angry at Jews who told gentiles that
they must become good Jews through performing
these national badges in order to participate in
salvation through Messiah.
62
Note If works of law merely refer to
Jewish national badges (social) distinctionswhat
separates Jews from gentiles socially, then moral
law back into play as efficacious for salvation
63
Irony is that while gentiles accused of
anti-semitism, these badges are anti-gentile.
64
Due to historical criticism, NNP reject some
NT Epistles ascribed unanimously in church
tradition to Paule.g. 1-2 Timothy Titus
Ephesians, Colossians.
65
Convenient selectiveWhy? Rejected
Epistles dont affirm NPPEphesians 28-10 For
by grace you have been saved through faith and
that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God 9
not as a result of works, that no one should
boast.10 For we are His workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared
beforehand, that we should walk in them.Titus
35-6He saved us, not on the basis of deeds
which we have done in righteousness, but
according to His mercy, by the washing of
regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6
whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus
Christ our Savior,
66
NPP asserts that Judaism was a religion of
grace, not legalistic and harsh as portrayed by
Reformers parts of NT polemic
67
Second Temple Jewish literature (A.D. 200-500
approx.) demonstrates Judaism as religion of
graceso Reformers (and NT) have misread or
misrepresented Judaism
68
The THREE MAIN PROPONENTS of the NPP
69
ED PARISH SANDERS(1937-)
70
  • Sanders
  • Arts Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke
    University
  • in Durham, North Carolina (since 1990)
  • Teaching Specialty is New Testament Christian
    Origins
  • Th.D. (1966) from Union Seminary in New York
  • D. Litt. (1990) from University of Oxford
  • D. Theology (1990) University of Helsinki,
    Finland
  • Fellow of the British Academy.
  • He came to Duke from Oxford University where he
    taught from 1984-1990 as the Dean Irelands
    Professor of Exegesis and also fellow of the
    Queens College

71
  • Sanders has been characterized as The most
    influential scholar on Paul in the last quarter
    century Twentieth Century --Westerholm
  • Brought the NPP thinking to the forefront

72
  • His books . . .
  • Paul and Palestinian Judaism, a Comparison of
    Patterns of Religion (Fortress Press, 1977)
  • Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Fortress,
    1983)
  • and their impact on Pauline studies
  • led to the collapse of
  • the Reformational Consensus
  • regarding Pauls view of the Law

73
  • Important Note
  • Sanders does not base his position in
    inductive or careful exegesis of the text but
    upon dogmatically held a priori thinking.
  • His views came at the right moment in history to
    have an impact.

74
  • Please note N. T. Wrights, a strong supporter of
    Sanders basic positions, telling comment
  • Wright criticizes Sanders for "a somewhat
    unsystematic treatment of different Pauline
    themes. Nor has he Sanders offered very much
    verse-by-verse exegesis"i and admits that
    "Sanders' proposal had its own agenda at the
    level of the study of religions . . . and indeed
    was in some ways a plea to see Christianity from
    a modernist comparative-religion perspective
    rather than a classical theological one."ii
  • These admissions from Wright are telling because
    it reveals that the NPP is as guilty of a priori
    thinking, if not more so, than the
    Protestant-Lutheran traditions that are so
    heartily condemned by those in the NPP.
  • i Wright, What St. Paul Really Said, 19.
  • ii Wright, "A Fresh Perspective on Paul," 22.

75
  • A SAMPLING OF SANDERS POSITIONS
  • ON GOSPELS JESUSShows deep influence of
    historical criticism
  • Pauls Christology conflicting and not
    harmoniousno single doctrine of Christology,
    offering both a low and high view of who Jesus
    is.
  • Paul has adoptionist Christology in Philippians
    3Jesus was designated the Son of God but not
    deity in the orthodox senseJesus was adopted by
    God as Son, not born that way. (Rom. 13)
  • 2 Corinthians 519in Christ God somehow or
    other acted to save the world . . . God acting
    through him, to save the world

76
  • Sanders basic positions on Gospels and Jesus
    (cont.)
  • Non-apostolic origin of the Gospels (not written
    by men whose names they bear) dont know who
    wrote them.
  • No reliable information about the historical
    Jesus existsGospels tainted by the fact that
    they were written by people who glorified their
    hero.
  • Gospel writers revised their accounts to support
    their theology (heavily into form, redaction and
    tradition criticism)
  • Son of God in Gospels does not mean more than
    human
  • Gospels exaggerate Jesus miracles denies virgin
    birth

77
  • Sanders position on NPP
  • Deeply influenced by George Foot Moores 1921
    article Christian Writers on Judaism that both
    Pauls and Protestant Reformations understanding
    of JudaismJudaism not legalistic but a religion
    of Grace.
  • Deeply influenced by other Jewish writers
    (Montefiore, Schoeps) that maintained NT wrong
    about legalistic nature of Judaism.
  • NT polemics by Gospels and Paul caused wrong
    portrayal of Judaism and we have misinterpreted
    Paul at points
  • Influenced by Baur that only some Pauline
    epistles are genuine (2 Thess. Col. Eph., and
    Pastorals rejected) Acts not historically
    reliable.

78
  • (Sanders cont)
  • Among his chief aims that he is trying to
    accomplish is to destroy the view of Rabbinic
    Judaism which is still prevalent in much, perhaps
    most, New Testament scholarship since the
    Reformation
  • Pauls critique of Judaism rests entirely on his
    Christian experience and has nothing to do with
    contours of Jewish practice in Pauls time.
  • Pauls statements (e.g. Rom. 1-2) have internal
    inconsistencies and Pauls treatment of the law
    in chapter 2 Romans cannot be harmonized with
    Pauls statements elsewhere.

79
  • Sanders writings reveals an a strategic a
    priori that motivates him . . .
  • Combating alleged
  • anti-Semitism
  • that is demonstrated in interpretation by
    gentile exegetes, especially the Reformers.
  • Jewett notes, Sanders work has provided a
    bulwark against anti-Semitic interpretation.

80
  • TO MANY IN THE NPP, THEANTI-SEMITIC BIAS OF THE
    GOSPELS AND THE NT AGAINST JEWS, PLUS THE
    ANTI-SEMITISM OF THE REFORMERS LED TO THE
    HOLOCAUST

81
  • In sum, Pauls position on Judaism rests entirely
    on his Christian experience and has nothing to do
    with the actual state of Jewish practice in his
    time.
  • Paul misrepresents Judaism to convince others of
    Christianity.

82
  • Accuses Paul of
  • knee-jerk, reflexive thinking
  • about the Law in relationship to Jesus . . . .
  • Paul's thought did not run from plight to
    solution, but rather from solution to plight . .
    . . It appears that the conclusion that all the
    worldboth Jew and Greekequally stands in need
    of a savior springs from the prior that God had
    provided such a savior. If he did so, it follows
    that such a savior must have been needed, and
    then only consequently that all other possible
    ways of salvation are wrong. The point is made
    explicit in Gal. 21 if righteousness could come
    through the law, Christ died in vain. The
    reasoning apparently is that Christ did not die
    in vian he died and lived again 'that he might
    be Lord of the dead and living' (Rom. 149) . . .
    .If his death was necessary for salvation, it
    follows that salvation cannot come in any other
    way . . . . There is no reason to think that Paul
    felt the need of a universal saviour prior to his
    conviction that Jesus was such.i
  • i Sanders, PPJ, 443.

83
  • Sanders coined concept of Covenantal Nomism to
    describe Judaism of first century
  • says demonstrated by Second Temple Judaism
    literature
  • "Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that
    one's place in God's plan is established on the
    basis of the covenant and that covenant requires
    as the proper response of man his obedience to
    its commandments, while providing means of
    atonement for transgression."i
  •  
  • For Sanders, Judaism of Paul's day affirmed
    entrance into the covenant through God's grace.
    However, "The intention and effort to be obedient
    constitute the condition for remaining in the
    covenant, but they do not earn it."ii Sanders
    further remarks that in rabbinic literature,
    "obedience maintains one's position in the
    covenant, but it does not earn God's grace as
    such"iii and a "major shift" occurs between
    Judaism and Paul regarding righteousness
  • i Sanders, PPJ, 75 (see also 236).
  • ii Sanders, PPJ, 180.
  • iii Sanders, PPJ, 420

84
  • Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, Sanders
    further delineates that Paul did not reject the
    law because it no one could obey it perfectly, or
    because devotion to the law resulted in legalism.
    Instead, Paul rejected the law because he
    believed that salvation was only through Christ,
    not that the law had any inherent defects.
    Sanders argues, "There is a righteousness which
    comes by law, but it is now worth nothing because
    of a different dispensation. Real righteousness
    (the righteousness of or from God) is through
    Christ. It is this concrete fact of
    Heilsgeschichte which makes the other
    righteousness wrong, not the abstract superiority
    of grace to merit.i
  • i Sanders, 420

85
  • Taking and applying his thesis to the
    Reformation,
  • Sanders argues,
  •  
  • Martin Luther, whose influence on subsequent
    interpreters has been enormous, made Paul's
    statements central to his own quite different
    theology" . . . .
  • "Luther, plagued by guilt, read Paul's passages
    on 'righteousness by faith' as meaning that God
    reckoned a Christian to be righteous even though
    he or she was a sinner . . . .
  • Luther's emphasis on fictional, imputed
    righteousness, though it has often been shown to
    be an incorrect interpretation of Paul, has been
    influential because it corresponds to the sense
    of sinfulness which many people feel, and which
    is part and parcel of Western concepts of
    personhood, with their emphasis on individualism
    and introspection. Luther sought and found
    relief from guilt. But Luther's problems were
    not Paul's, and we misunderstand him if we see
    him through Luther's eyes.i
  •  
  • i E. P. Sanders, Paul, A Very Short
    Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2001),
    53, 58.

86
  • To Sanders,
  • The problem in Romans 9-11 for Paul was not
    Luther's concept of the pursuit of individual
    righteousness by each Jew in term of meritorious
    achievement but "The problem in these chapters if
    the concrete one of Israel's refusal to accept
    the grace of God as recently revealed, not the
    individual's effort or lack of it. The Jews have
    one fault, but only one rejecting Jesus as the
    Christ."i
  • Thus, for Sanders, Luther's view was too
    "INDIVIDUALIZED AND GENERALIZED ABSTRACTIONS"
    PAUL THOUGHT OF SALVATION MORE IN CORPORATE TERMS
    RATHER THAN SUBJECTIVE AND INDIVIDUALISTIC.ii
  • i Sanders, Paul, 143.
  • ii Sanders, Paul, 143.

87
  • IN REFORMED THEOLOGY JUSTIFICATION
  • HOW THE INDIVIDUAL MAY KNOW SALVATION
  • WHILE IN NPP
  • JUSTIFICATION IS CORPORATE
  • HOW THE CHURCH GETS IN AS A WHOLE.

88
  • He argues that Paul reveals in Philippians 36-9
    reveals that "there is such a thing as
    righteousness by the law. Further, it is not
    wicked contra Luther and the Reformational
    heritage. In and of itself it is gain (Phil.
    39). It becomes wrong only because God has
    revealed another one."ii Sanders relates that
    "Paul fully espoused and observed a 'work-ethic',
    as long as the goal was the right one. His
    opposition to 'works of the law' was not
    motivates by dislike of effort," and again, "He
    Paul did not, however, regard effort in doing
    good as being in any way opposed to membership in
    the body of Christ."iii Sanders argues that
    while Paul did not require Christians to keep the
    cultic aspects of the law (circumcision, Sabbath,
    food law) that created social distinctions
    between Jews and gentiles,iv Paul did, however,
    want gentiles to keep, what Sanders terms, "his
    reduction"v of the law and summarizes Paul's
    view of law for Christians in the following
    manner

89
  • Paul held the normal expectation that membership
    in the "in group" involved correct behavior. One
    of the ways in which he sated that expectation
    was that Christians should fulfill "the law" or
    keep "the commandments." (2) In passages in
    which he requires the fulfillment of the law, he
    offers no theoretical distinction between the law
    which governs Christians and the law of Moses
    put another way, he does not distinguish between
    the law to which those in Christ die and the law
    which they fulfill. (3) In concrete application,
    however, the behavior required of Christians
    differs from the law of Moses in two ways (a)
    Not all of Paul's admonitions have a counterpart
    in Scripture (b) Paul deliberately and excluded
    from "the law," or held to be optional, three of
    its requirements circumcision, days and seasons,
    an dietary restrictions.vi
  • ii Sanders, Paul, 142.
  • iii Sanders, Paul, 119, 120.
  • iv Sanders, PLJ, 100-101, 102.
  • v Sanders, PLJ, 103.
  • vi Sanders, PLJ, 104.

90
  • To wrap up, the implications of Sanders
    positions are stunning for orthodox soteriology
    of the NT (let alone the Reformation
    interpretation!)
  • Pauls ideas are based on a presumptive, negative
    bias towards Judaism.
  • (2) Jesus as the means of salvation reflects
    Christian prejudice for Judaism was equally a
    religion of Gods grace.
  • (3) Either in Judaism or Christianity, one gets
    in by grace but stays in by works.

91
  • SANDERS POSITION OPENS DOOR TO WORKS . . .
  • WORKS BACK INTO PLAY UNDER NPP!

Dungeon door
92
  • JAMES D. G. DUNN
  • Jimmy to his friends
  • (1939-)

93
  • DUNN
  • Emeritus Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the
    University of Durham, England
  • M.A. B.D. University of Glasgow
  • Ph.D. B.D. from University of Cambridge

94
  • COINED THE PHRASE
  • NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL
  • in 1982 T. W. Manson Memorial Lectures (NT
    Studies) at the University of Manchester.
  • Later published in 1983 Bulletin of the John
    Rylands Library

95
  • While Sanders work was the catalyst for the NPP,
    Dunn's efforts have popularized, promulgated,
    defended and labeled this new approach to Paul as
    the "New Perspective on Paul.
  • (note Sanders and Dunn do at times disagree on
    minor points of NPP friendly lecture-debates
    occur at Universitiesbut minor)

96
  • Dunn argues that Sanders Paul and Palestinian
    Judaism deserves the accolade of "breaking the
    mold" in Pauline studies, and through Sander's
    work, Dunn has "been given (I speak personally)
    what amounts to a new perspective on Paul."i
  • i Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul," 97 See
    also James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the
    Apostle (Grand Rapids and Cambridge Eerdmans,
    1998), 338-339.

97
  • As with Sanders,
  • Historical Criticism
  • has deeply influenced Dunn
  • Denies orthodox views of inspirationtheologies
    of the Evangelists . . . Allusive
  • Denies deity of Jesus and his pre-existence

98
  • (3) Reflects Baurs Hauptbriefe concept, only
    accepts 7 of Pauls letters (Romans, 1-2
    Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon,
    and 2 Thessalonians.
  • Says, Colossians written by Timothy, Ephesians
    and 1-2 Timothy and Titus as definitely
    post-Pauline (I side with the majority.

99
  • (4) Heavily into Bultmannian demythologization of
    NT angels, demons, principalities are Pauls way
    of indicating supra-social forces of evil that
    he saw at work.
  • Paul accommodated himself to thinking of times.

100
  • For Dunn (and Sanders), the Reformation
    promulgation of personal justification and
    gross-mischaracterization of 2nd Temple Judaism
    led to
  • Nazi racialism/genocide of Jews
  • South African apartitism
  • Some forms of contemporary Zionism

101
  • Martin Luther had pre-understandingread his own
    situation of RCC into 2nd Temple Judaism,
    deprecating Jews and his anti-Semitism led to
    host of evils culminating in Holocaust.

102
  • Reflects Krister Stendhals The Apostle and the
    Introspective Conscience of the West (Harvard
    Theological Review 1963)
  • Luther misread Paul due to RCC situation.
  • Paul had no difficulty in concept of fulfilling
    LawLuther misread Paul

103
  • Dunn laments that Stendahls point has been too
    little heard within community of NT scholarship.
  • Protestant exegesis has too long allowed a
    typically Lutheran emphasis on justification by
    faith to impose a hermeneutical grid on Romans
    (see Dunns other magnum opusRomansWord
    Commentary

104
  • Says, however, that Sanders assertion that Paul
    rejected Christianity simply because it was
    not-Christianity is ill-advised
  • Lutheran view has replaced Pauls true view of
    Judaism and LawPaul not arbritrary but much more
    favorable toward LAW.

105
  • Dunn build on Sanders work of covenantal
    nomism (without Pauline arbitrariness) and says
    Paul not objecting to Law per se, but the law as
    a proof or badge of Israels election i.e.
    circumcision, sabbath, food regulations not
    disparaging good works.
  • Works of Law not good works in general or
    Jewish legalism held by Luther, but Jewish
    markers of national identity-what made Jews as
    Jews nationally and excluded gentiles from
    participating in salvation.

106
  • Dunn relates comments,
  • "It was this understanding of the law from which
    Paul broke away when he objected to the works of
    the law . . . . he objected to the works of the
    law as limiting to the grace of God, not because
    they constituted impossible merit-earning
    demands, but because they were so firmly
    identified as distinctive marks of the Jewish
    nation and so in effect confined the grace of God
    to members of that nation."i For Dunn,
    "Sanders did not follow through this insight
    i.e. covenantal nomismgetting in by grace
    living within by works far enough or with
    sufficient consistency."ii Thus, for Dunn,
    Paul's objection was not to Jewish legalism or
    works-righteousness but to these identity markers
    or social distinctions that mark out Jewish
    nationalism. For Jews, these became the "test
    cases of covenant loyalty" marking them out as
    the people of God.iii
  • i Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law,11- 12.
  • ii Dunn, Romans, lxv-lxvi.
  • iii Dunn, Romans, lxxi.

107
  • Dunns CRUX INTERPRETUM is Galatians 216 and
    310-16
  • Works of law NOT legalism as per Reformers but
    national/social badges that made Jews culturally
    Jews.
  • Paul not objecting to good works

108
  • IN SUM,
  • BOTH SANDERS AND DUNNS POSITIONS OPEN DOOR WIDE
    FOR WORKS AS EFFECACIOUS FOR SALVATION
  • Despite their criticism and enervative attempts
    at denial of this.

109
  • In sum (cont.)
  • Both Dunn and Sanders, opens door wide for
    destruction of sole fide
  • Frankly stated, Dunn's assertions that "what I
    say is not and should not be conceived as an
    attack on the Protestant doctrine of
    justification" stands in dialectical opposition
    in Dunn's writings to his assertion that
    "Luther's conversion experience and the insight
    which it gave him also began a tradition in
    biblical interpretation, which resulted for many
    in the loss or neglect of other crucial biblical
    insights related to the same theme of divine
    justice. And particularly in the case of Paul,
    Luther's discovery of "justification by faith"
    and the theological impetus which it gave
    especially to Lutheran theology has involved a
    significant misunderstand of Paul, not least to
    'justification by faith' itself."
  • Dunn is guilty of double-speak, while he
    fiatly denies sole fide his words and their
    logical consequences exegetically and
    theologically deny it!

110

NICHOLAS THOMAS WRIGHT (1948)
111
N. T. Wright a wee bit of ale
112
  • Currently, Bishop of Durham, one of the highest
    ranking bishop in the church of England
  • Canon Theologian of Westminster Abbey.
  • Formerly Dean of Lichfield Cathedral in England.
  • B. A. M.A. Ph.D. Oxford
  • He taught for twenty years at Cambridge, McGill
    and Oxford Universities.

113
  • HIS PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH
  • IS SEEN IN THE FOLLOWING
  • He takes a moderating, middle-of-road, approach
    to biblical research, asserting about his studies
    at University,
  • "There was all this liberal stuff one the one
    hand, and then the noble evangelicals saving the
    day. Of course, I realized before my first year
    at Wycliffe Hall was over that you couldn't
    divide scholars like that. A lot of liberal,
    including a gentleman named Rudolf Bultmann, were
    actually saying very sensible things. A lot of
    evangelicals seemed actually to be digging deep
    holes and jumping into them . . . .
  • I remember . . . my first year reading Joachim
    Jeremias, realizing that this man was by no
    strength of the imagination an evangelical, and
    that I didn't want to agree with everything he
    said by any manner or means, but nevertheless the
    heart of the matter was in him, that this man was
    a deeply devout Christian wrestling wit
    Scripture. He might be wrong about lots of
    things, but I had to do business with him. I
    think that sort of opened me up, and opened up
    possibilities."i i Stafford, "The New
    Theologians," 44.

114
  • Wright admits that because of his positions in
    the NPP, "the more distressing difficulties lie
    in his relationships with conservative
    Christians" for he relates that "I am wryly
    amused, and sometimes a little frustrated, when I
    see would-be orthodox people saying, 'Oh dear,
    have you seen what Tom Wright is doing? Are you
    quite sure he's an evangelical?"i i
    Stafford, "The New Theologians," 46.

115
  • Of the three main proponents of the NPP, Wright
    is the only one who considers himself an
    evangelical, as write has commented, "I see
    myself as a deeply orthodox theologian."i
  • Because Wright classified himself as an
    evangelical, his writings have had a powerful
    impact on the spreading of NPP among
    evangelicals. i Tim Stafford, "The New
    Theologians," Christianity Today, February 8,
    1999, 46.

116
  • Because Wright plays BOTH sides, business with
    the historical critics of the theological left as
    well as describes himself a British
    evangelical, think . . .

117
  • As with Sanders and with Dunn,
  • Historical Criticism
  • has deeply influenced Dunn but he moderates its
    influence
  • He accepts Baurs concept of Hauptbriefe, but
    moderates it
  • Wright also confines his evidence for his work,
    What Saint Paul Really Said, to selective
    epistles of Paul "Most of what I say in this
    book What Saint Paul Really Said focuses on
    material in the undisputed letters, particular
    Romans, the two Corinthians letters, Galatians
    and Philippians . . . (cont. next slide)

118
  • . . . . In addition, I regard Colossians as
    certainly by Paul, and Ephesians as far more
    likely to be by him than by an imitator. But
    nothing in my present argument hinges on this way
    or the other."i i N. T. Wright, What Did
    Saint Paul Really Say (Grand Rapids Eerdmans,
    1997), 8.

119
  • Wright takes an apparent agnostic position on
    Pauline authorship of the Pastoral epistles "It
    would be just as arbitrary to exclude them from a
    'Pauline' section as to include them, since even
    if, as most scholars have supposed, they are not
    by Paul himself, they are clearly by someone, or
    more than one person, who thought they should
    belong closely with his work and thought"i and
    "The comparative lack of mention of resurrection
    in the Pastorals does at least raise a query
    over their supposed link with Paul but what is
    said , though sometimes put in a different way to
    what we find elsewhere in Paul, is not obviously
    theologically distinction.ii
  • i Wright, The Resurrection, 267.
  • ii Wright, The Resurrection, 271.

120
  • Wright is a strong supporter of the Third Quest
    for the Historical Jesus (please note the other
    two Quests couldnt find Him, so Wright
    supports the a third Look for Him (Third time
    is a charm, I guessFarnell)
  • He is responsible for the labeling of the Third
    Questsome dont recognize it as different from
    the Second Quest!
  • In his Jesus and the Victory of God, he asserts,
    "I still believe that the future of serious Jesus
    research lies with what I have called the 'Third
    Quest, within a broadly post-Schweitzerian
    frame."i i N. T. Wright, Jesus and the
    Victory of God (Minneapolis Fortress, 1996), 78

121
  • He accepts the Third Quest (examination of
    Jewish studies and 2nd Temple literature) but
    moderates it
  • Does this flurry of activity belong with the
    older 'New Quest' a.k.a. what Wright now labels
    the "Second Quest", or with what I have called
    the 'Third Quest" . . . . From one point of view
    this is a mere matter of labels. It does not
    much matter whether we think of the "Jesus
    Seminar," and its key players such as Mack and
    Crossan, as being on the radical wing of the
    "Third Quest," or whether we recognize the major
    differences between them."i i Wright, Jesus
    and the Victory of God, 34.
  • Wright takes a middle position, placing
    himself in the middle, part skeptical, part
    accepting of the biblical text!

122
  • Wright believes that only through Jewish
    literature and studies can Jesus be truly
    knownIt would not . . . be much of a caricature
    to say that orthodoxy . . . Has no clear idea of
    the purpose of Jesus ministry. Wright, Jesus
    and The Victory of God, 14.
  • Why? The Reformers paid too close attention to
    the Epistles and not the Jewish background
    literature behind the Gospels.

123
  • RESPONSE
  • Surely "evangelicals should hold that the
    primary source for accurate portrayal of who
    Jesus was must be centrally focused in the
    Gospels, whose writers were supernaturally guided
    to portray Jesus as He truly is in history.
  • All other secondary sources, especially Jewish
    literature, must take a back seat and be governed
    by NT revelation. The interpretation of these
    sources, their dating, textual criticism,
    accuracy, anachronism, etc. ARE DECISIVE FACTORS
    IN RELEVANCY MAKE THEIR CONTRIBUTION
    QUESTIONABLE.

124
  • MORE OF WRIGHTS MODERATING APPROACH
  • He affirms use of tradition criticism (i.e.
    criterion of dissimilarity but with great
    caution)
  • Form criticism has been a useful tool with no
    viable alternative from critics
  • Refers to the gospel stories as myth but
    modifies meaning "The gospels, then, are myth
    in the sense that they are foundational for the
    early Christian worldview. They contain
    'mythological' language which we can learn, as
    historians, to decode in the light of 'other
    apocalyptic' writings of the time."i For
    Wright, "Jesus and his contemporaries" did not
    take apocalyptic language "literally, as
    referring to the actual end of the time-space
    universe."ii Instead, "the language of myth,
    and eschatological myths in particular . . . are
    used in the biblical literature as complex
    metaphor systems to denote historical events and
    to invest them with their theological
    significance."iii i Wright, The New
    Testament and the People of God, 426.
  • ii Wright, The New Testament and the People of
    God, 425.
  • iii Wright, The New Testament and the People
    of God, 425.

125
  • (4) He asserts that '"Jesus-stories' were
    invented or possibly adapted for the needs of the
    community."i
  • (5) Wright is very unclear as to his viewpoint
    regarding the authorship of the Gospels, for he
    asserts, "I make no assumptions about the actual
    identity of the evangelists, and use the
    traditional names for simplicity only."ii
  • i Wright, The New Testament and the People of
    God, 426 (see pp. 424-426 also).
  • ii Wright, The New Testament and the People of
    God, 372 n. 4.

126
  • He even takes a moderating approach to NPP
  • He writes of Sanders, his former colleague at
    Oxford "until a major refutation of his central
    thesis is produced, honesty compels one to do
    business with him. I do not myself believe such
    a refutation can or will be offered serious
    modifications are required, but I regard his
    basic point as established."i
  • He contends that "Sander's main thesis, which I
    regard as securely established in outline if not
    in all its details, is that the picture of
    Judaism assumed in most Protestant readings of
    Paul is historically inaccurate and theologically
    misleading."ii
  • i Wright, What St. Paul Really Said, 20.
  • ii Wright, "A Fresh Perspective on Paul," BJRL
    83 (Spring 2001) 21.

127
  • He "strongly disagrees with Sanders on some
    points, and wants to go a good deal further than
    him on some others."i Wright also criticizes
    Sanders for "a somewhat unsystematic treatment of
    different Pauline themes. Nor has he Sanders
    offered very much verse-by-verse exegesis"ii
    and admits that "Sanders' proposal had its own
    agenda at the level of the study of religions . .
    . and indeed was in some ways a plea to see
    Christianity from a modernist comparative-religion
    perspective rather than a classical theological
    one."iii
  • i Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 18.
  • ii Wright, What St. Paul Really Said, 19.
  • iii Wright, "A Fresh Perspective on Paul," 22.

128
  • NOTICE HE ADMITS THE A PRIOR THINKING REPLETE IN
    NPP!!!!

129
  • He remarks, Wright admits, however, that no
    fundamental agreement exists in Pauline studies,
    "The current situation in Pauline studies is
    pleasantly confused."i
  • i Wright, What St. Paul Really Said, 20.

130
  • NOTE THIS CONFUSION IN PAULINE STUDIES IS
    WELCOMED BY WRIGHT
  • IT IS A VEHICLE IN AIDING WRIGHTS MODERATING
    APPROACH!!!!! FOG OBSCURES HIDES!!!!

131
  • Agrees with Sanders and Dunn in these areas
    (sampling)
  • Judaism of Paul's day was not a religion of
    self-righteousness where salvation depended on
    human works and merit "Christians should regard
    Jews with a good deal more respect than in the
    past, and in particular should not saddle them
    with a form of religion of which they are
    innocent."i Wright also agrees with them that
    "the real Judaism was not a religion of
    legalistic works-righteousness" "it is "based on
    a clear understanding of grace" and "good works
    are simply gratitude, and demonstrate that one is
    faithful to the covenanta sort of primitive
    version of the tertius usus legis "third use of
    the law."ii For Wright, "the traditional"
    picture of Judaism as self-righteous, legalism
    promoted by the Luther and the Reformation
    ("though by no means exclusively") is "false"
    "My case here is simply stated the tradition of
    Pauline interpretation has manufactured a false
    Judaism for him to oppose. Nor, it appears, is
    this a chance mistake. It seems to be a subtle
    variation on the theme of seeing one's own
    reflection at the bottom of a deep well."iii
    i N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said,
    19.
  • ii N. T. Wright, "The Paul of History and the
    Apostle of Faith," Tyndale Bulletin 29 (1978)
    79-80.
  • iii Wright, The Paul of History and the Apostle
    of Faith," 78.

132
  • Contrary to Luther, Wright contends that Paul
    was not criticizing the Jews for using the law as
    a "legalist's ladder" or for reliance on
    "Menschenwerke."iv For Wright, as with Sanders
    and Dunn, Luther and others have wrongly imposed
    their own historical situation of opposition to
    Roman Catholic legalism into Paul's writings
    (pre-understanding)i.e. "the thin, tired and
    anachronistic ones of Lutheran polemic."v The
    idea that Paul was "proto-Pelagian . . . who
    thought he could pull himself up by his moral
    bootstraps" is "radically anachronistic . . . we
    have misjudged early Judaism, especially
    Pharisaism, if we thought of it as an early
    version of Pelagianism."vi
  • iv Wright, The Paul of History and the Apostle
    of Faith," 65, 71.
  • v Wright, The Paul of History and the Apostle
    of Faith," 87
  • vi Wright, What Did Paul Really Say?, 32.

133
  • Works of Law
  • national badges (circumcision, Sabbath, dietary
    regulations)

134
  • For Wright, "the tradition of Pauline
    interpretation has manufactured a false Paul by
    manufacturing a false Judaism for him to
    oppose."i
  • i Wright, The Paul of History and the Apostle
    of Faith, 78.
  • MEANING LUTHER WRONG, 500 years of
    interpretation wrong (1500 years back to
    Augustine!)follow Wright, Sanders and Dunn
    instead!

135
  • WRIGHT
  • IS
  • WRONG!

136
  • WRIGHTS OWN EMPHASES
  • ROMANS 217-29 NEGLECTED!
  • For Wright, in Romans 217-19 Paul was not
    criticizing Jews for legalism but "mounts a
    detailed and sensitive critique of Judaism as its
    advocates present it" (cp. Also Rom. 327-29
    930-1013 Gal. 2-4 and Phil. 32-11).i
    Paul's critique in Romans 217-19 centers (1)
    Jewish boasting about being the exclusive chosen
    people of God, (2) Jewish breaking of the law (or
    sin) not legalism, (3) Paul is not negative but
    positive about God's law itself, for he centers
    his attack in the "abuse" of the law in terms of
    national righteousness (not legalism) and (4)
    Paul's attack against Jewish trust in the law and
    circumcision as badges of national privilege does
    not abolish the idea of "'true circumcision'
    which keeps the law from the heart" . . . Paul
    outlines here Rom. 2 his theology of the church
    as the Israel, the people of God.ii i
    Wright, The Paul of History and the Apostle of
    Faith," 82.
  • ii Wright, The Paul of History and the Apostle
    of Faith," 82.

137
  • Wrights unique emphases to NPP (cont.)
  • (2) Gospel is a message of Lordship of Jesus
    not how to get saved!
  • "It is not . . . a system of how people get
    saved. The announcement of the Gospel results in
    people being saved . . . . But the 'gospel
    itself, strictly speaking, is the narrative
    proclamation of King Jesus . . . His Paul's
    announcement was that the crucified Jesus of
    Nazareth had been raised from the dead that he
    was thereby probed to be Israel's Messiah that
    he was thereby installed as Lord of the world.
    Or, to put it yet more compactly Jesus, the
    crucified and risen Messiah, is Lord."i
  • i Wright, What Did Paul Really Say?, 45-46.

138
  • Wrights unique emphases to NPP (cont.)
  • Justification who is in not how to get in
  • "What Paul means by justification . . . is not
    'how you become a Christian,' so much as 'how you
    can tell who is a member of the covenant
    family."i He argues, "Justification is thus
    the declaration of God, the just judge, that
    someone has had their sins forgiven and that they
    are a member of the covenant family, the family
    of Abraham. That is what the word means in
    Paul's writings. It doesn't describe how people
    get into God's forgiven family it declares that
    they are in that may seem a small distinction,
    but it is vital.ii Wright argues again,
    "Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the
    problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the
    question of how precisely someone becomes a
    Christian or attains to a relationship with God.
    (I'm not even sure how Paul would express, in
    Greek, our notion of 'relationship with God,' but
    we'll leave that aside.) The problem he
    addresses is should his ex-pagan conversts be
    circumcised or not? Now this question is by no
    means obviously to do with the questions faced by
    Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and
    Erasmus."iii Thus, to Wright, justification is
    corporate rather than individual it is primarily
    eschatological rather than immediate. Yet,
    strides both sides of the fence on the issue for
    while justification, from his perspective is
    primarily eschatological, he relates that
    "Justification in the present is based on God's
    past accomplishment in the Messiah, and
    anticipates the future verdict. The present
    justification has exactly the same pattern."iv

139
  • Wright refers to this eschatological judgment in
    Romans 213, "This is the beginning of a great
    theme that recurs frequently in Romans
    Possession of Torah had become, in Jewish
    thought, a badge of privilege, a talisman, a sign
    that Israel was inalienably God's people. No
    says Paul. What counts is doing Torah . . .
    Israel's ethnic privilege, backed up by
    possession of Torah, will be of no avail at the
    final judgment."v Wright leaves ambiguous
    whether the believer's standing before God
    centers in works or Christ's work on behalf of
    the sinner as the grounds of justification.
    Wright goes on,
  • Certain aspects of the post-Augustine debate of
    what has come to be called 'justification' have
    nothing much to do with the context in which Paul
    was writing. 'Justification' in the first
    century was not about how someone might establish
    a relationship with God. It was about God's
    eschatological definition, both future and
    present, of who was, in fact, a member of his
    people. In Sanders' term, it was not so much
    about 'getting in', or indeed about 'staying in',
    as about 'how you could tell who was in'. In
    standard Christian theological language, it
    wasn't so much about soteriology as about
    ecclesiology not so much about salvation as
    about the church.vi

140
  • MEANING
  • ONLY WRIGHT UNDERSTANDS JUSTIFICATION (THE TRUE
    MEANING HAS BEEN LOST)
  • FOLLOW WRIGHT!

141
  • i Wright, What Did Paul Really Say?, 122.
  • ii N. T. Wright, "The Shape of Justification,"
    Bible Review XVII (April 2001) 50.
  • iii Wright, What Did Paul Really Say, 120.
  • iv Wright, "The Shape of Justification," 8.
  • v N. T. Wright, "The Letter to the Romans,"
    NIB, 440.
  • vi Wright, What Did Paul Really Say? , 119.
  • WRONG!

142
  • Justification by faith is not itself Pauls
    gospel only implied by it. It does not
    represent Pauls answer of how individuals can
    be saved.
  • If we come to Paul with these questions in
    mindthe questions of how human beings come into
    a living and saving relationship with the living
    and saving Godit is not justification that
    springs to his Paul's lips or pen. When he
    describes how persons, finding themselves
    confronted with the act of God in Christ, come to
    appropriate that act for themselves, he has a
    clear train of thought, repeated at various
    points. The message about Jesus and his cross
    and resurrection"the gospel" . . . is announced
    to them through this means, God works by his
    Spirit upon their hearts as a result, they come
    to believe the message they join the Christian
    community through baptism, and begin to share in
    its common life and its common way of life. That
    is how people come into relationship with
    God.i
  • i Wright, What Did Paul Really Say, 116.

143
  • Justification merely declares that they are in
    not how someone is actually brought into family
    of God.

144
  • WORKS OF LAW badges of Jewish law observance
    (law, circumcision, sabbath) or
    table-fellowship
  • For Wright, Paul is not so much arguing against
    meritorious works, he is arguing against racial
    exclusivism "Justification in Galatians, is the
    doctrine which insists that all those who share
    faith in Christ belong at the same table, no
    matter what their racial differences, as together
    they wait for the final new creation."i
  • i Wright, What Did Paul Really Say?, 122.
  • Agrees substantially with Dunn and Sanders

145
  • Wright comments on Romans 932"we must conclude
    that God always envisaged a kind of
    Torah-keeping, a kind of law-fulfillment, of a
    different order from that pursued so vigorously
    by the zealous of Paul's day, including himself
    in his earlier days (Gal. 114 Phil. 34-6)."i
    For Wright, Paul is not so much arguing against
    meritorious works, he is arguing against racial
    exclusivisity "Justification in Galatians, is
    the doctrine which insists that all those who
    share faith in Christ belong at the same table,
    no matter what their racial differences, as
    together they wait for the final new
    creation."ii
  • i Wright, "Romans," IBC, X 649.
  • ii Wright, What Did Paul Really Say?, 122.

146
  • THE LOGICAL RESULT OF WRIGHTS POSITION
  • WORKS BACK INTO PLAY!
  • BUT WRIGHT LEAVES DIRECT STATEMENTS OUT TO THIS
    EFFECT LEADS HIS FOLLOWERS TO THIS POINT, BUT HE
    AVOIDS EXPLICIT COMMENTS

147
  • WORKS BACK
  • INTO PLAY!

148
  • RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
  • NOT IMPUTATION OF GODS RIGHTEOUSNESS
  • PROTESTANT VIEW OF IMPUTATION IS A LEGAL
    FICTIONNOT SOMETHING that COUNTS BEFORE GOD
    or AVAILS WITH GOD!

149
  • RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD INSTEAD,
  • GODS COVENANT FAITHFULNESS
  • First. It is membership language. When Paul
    says he does not have a righteousness "of my
    own", based on Torah, the context of the previous
    verses must mean that he is speaking of a
    righteousness, a covenant status, which was his
    as a Jew by birth, marked with the covenant badge
    of circumcision, and claiming to be part of the
    inner circle of that people by being a zealous
    Pharisee. That which he is refusing in the first
    half of the verse 9 is not a moralistic or
    self-help righteousness, but the status of
    orthodox Jewish covenant membership.
  • Second, the covenant status Paul now enjoys is
    the gift of God it is' a . . . righteousness
    from God.'i
  • i Wright, What Did St. Paul Really Say, 124.

150
  • He also rejects the traditional Protestant
    concept of imputation of the righteousness of
    God. Overturning the Augustinian as well as
    Reformation understanding of imputation,i
    Wright argues, "If we use the language of the law
    court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the
    judge imputs, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or
    otherwise transfers his righteousness to either
    the plantiff or the defendant. Righteousness is
    not an object, a substance or a gas which can be
    passed across the courtroom." ii
  • i Wright, What Did St. Paul Really Say, 116.
  • ii Wright, What Did St. Paul Really Say, 124.

151
  • A logical result of Wright's position (as well
    as Sander's and Dunn's who share commonalities
    with his view) is to open up wide the
    soteriological impact of the contribution of
    meritorious works in salvation.
  • Admittedly, Wright does not explicitly declare
    the position that a person's works provide
    grounds for righteous standing before God, but he
    is arguing that standard proof-texts used by the
    Reformers and their Protestant heirs do not
    support their cause.
About PowerShow.com