Leading Proponents; Major Tenets; Growing Influence

Introduction and Overview of the New Perspective on Paul

0:00 Well, the first thing I want to say is it is a very, for me it's a real honor to be able to be here and to participate in the module and to be asked by Dr. Waldron to do this. And he is someone I consider to be a mentor to me in my own life, someone I've learned much from in the study of theology. And it's just quite a blessing to be able to be here.

0:28 And also to seek to defend a doctrine that is precious to my own soul as a Christian, as I trust it is yours, against some of these prevailing errors in our day. I do want to point out that I'm not going to be lecturing from the same set of notes that you have in front of you, although it's the same words, it's just organized differently, the notes I have before me. And that means if something happens, and, you find a problem in the notes or we're missing a page, my page numbers will not be the same as yours. At any time you find something like that or there's a problem and what you see in front of you is not what I'm saying or something of that nature, don't hesitate to raise your hand and point it out and we'll figure out what happened. Okay? All right. At the beginning you see in the introduction, I'm going to skip over just the first few paragraphs there where I talk about Martin Luther and John Calvin and their, their views of the importance of the Doctrine of Justification by faith since we've already really covered some of that.

1:38 But if you look over, I comment that in the next century the great Reformed confessions and catechisms, we have the great Reformed catechisms and confessions in which the Reformed Doctrine of Justification is set forth most clearly, and there's possibly no better statement of it than that which is found in the Western Bible, which is found in the Western Bible, which is found in the Western Bible, which is found in the Westminster Larger Catechism, and it states the Reformed Doctrine very clearly and succinctly. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners in which he pardons all their sins, accepts and accounts their persons righteous in his sight, not for anything wrought in them or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ by God imputed to them and received by faith alone. Now, if you look down in footnote number four, some of you guys that have opportunities to preach or hope to have opportunities to preach will find that I've outlined that statement, and it's really a good statement to serve as a basis of a series of sermons on the Doctrine of Justification. I used it in that way in my own church, and if you get a chance to read down through there, you'll see how you can divide it up into basic points and actually use that as a basis for a series of sermons. And that's one way that comes into play.

3:02 Catechism is often very helpful if you're taking up a series on a particular doctrine. These succinct statements, if you find in the catechism, can be helpful as you as you outline the catechism statement that can form the outline for your sermon series. However, in recent years, there have arisen interpretations of the Apostle Paul and particularly of his doctrine of justification by faith that openly challenged what might be called the reformed view or the traditional Protestant doctrine. And one of these interpretations is what is commonly referred to as the New Perspective.

3:37 And this, as you know, is the particular contemporary challenge to the doctrine of justification that the lectures I will be giving will address for the last several years. I've been reading some of the major advocates of the New Perspective seeking to understand them in their own words, which is a challenge in and of itself. I will say, as often, it's difficult to understand what some of these men are saying, and I, I even believe that at times they're deliberately vague. So throughout this study, I will be referring often to original sources and how the advocates of the New Perspective describe themselves.

4:14 There are a number of quotes of NPP men in the footnotes while there are still a large number that are left in the body of the lectures. Let me just say something about the footnotes. There's a lot of stuff I put in footnotes because I just couldn't get it into the lectures. And some of it's important.

4:31 And, and so just to give you a heads up, there'll be at least one question on every, on my two quizzes and on the last and on the final, uh, what do you call it? The, um, hypothetical quiz that will come from the footnotes. And it'll be an easy question, but it'll just force you to have to read the footnotes. Okay, so plan to do that.

4:55 Now there are some significant difficulties in seeking to address this subject. One is the fact that there are, uh, different nuances in the teaching of various men who could be classified in this camp. The leading advocates of this reassessment of Paul and the doctrine of justification don't agree on every single point. And added to this is the fact that it almost seems that some of these men can write faster than most men can read.

5:24 Also opinions on certain details seem to be constantly changing. Sometimes it feels like trying to nail jello to the wall. As Jay, Ligon Duncan puts it, there is no such thing as the new perspective, the new perspective on Paul. If you mean a unified, uniform, comprehensive theory or mode of interpretation about which there has come to be broad consensus agreement, there's a sense instead in which we could refer to new perspectives on Paul rather than to the new perspective on Paul.

5:56 Yet at the same time, as I trust to show, there are common, uh, certain similarities of opinion, common assumptions, and common traits that are characteristic of what could be called a developing perspective. And in that sense, we might refer to it as the new perspective. So long as we realize that different men associated with this developing perspective, but different twists on various details of their approach to this new way of understanding Paul. A second difficulty in dealing with this subject in these lectures is limitation of space, which might surprise you with so many lectures being given, given to this, but it's still the case.

6:35 I intend to give a careful overview of what the new perspective is saying, particularly with reference to the doctrine of justification. There's a lot of other things that they're saying, but particularly with reference to this doctrine, and then I'll be seeking to critique it and respond to it and give some refutation of its major tenants. I wish I could do that as thoroughly and exhaustively as it could needs to be done, but that's a lot to try to do in these eight lectures. In fact, it's impossible to do so exhaustively with a detailed exposition of all the relevant passages of Scripture.

7:09 Therefore, what I hope to do, having given a general overview of the new perspective, is critique it in a kind of summary way, hopefully at least pointing to some of the main lines of biblical argument and evidence against its major common tenants. There are some aspects that I'll be zeroing in on in more detail. I also hope to point to some of the books that I found most helpful that you might acquire, for your own further reading. I've listed some especially helpful works in the footnote number nine below.

7:38 You'll also notice that I've included a lot of material again in the footnotes that you can read, and will give you more information that I'm able to give in these lectures. Note down at footnote number 10, I say, to illustrate the difficulty, I feel Guy Waters' 212-page book, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, is one of the best and most thorough overviews and responses to the New Perspectives, from a Reformed position that I've read. But his book is revised from 20 hours of lectures that he gave on the subject, and still one could argue that it's only an overview. My goal is to focus primarily again on those aspects of the New Perspective on Paul, that most directly touch on the doctrine of justification by faith, and then to seek to point the way to how the errors of the New Perspective in that regard can be exposed and refuted. So, we begin with the New Perspective identified.

Christo Stendhal: The Introspective Conscience of the West

8:38 Like most theological movements and novel teachings, the New Perspective did not develop in a vacuum. A lot of time can be given to considering the social trends and theological trends out of which the New Perspective has arisen, as well as some of the early forerunners of the New Perspective. I'm not going to take the time to do that. Guy Waters does that rather thoroughly in his book on the New Perspectives.

9:02 In the first two chapters, he traces out developments in the study of Paul after Luther and Calvin from F.C. Bauer, and I think you say this, the Tübingen, is that how you say that, or Tübingen School? The Liberal Theology, the History of Religion School, Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Bultmann, W.D.

9:22 Davies, and Ernst Kosselmann. I will be referring to him briefly. There is perhaps an even better overview of the various influences that flow into the New Perspective in Stephen Westerholm's extremely helpful book, The New Perspective, and Stephen Westerholm's extremely helpful book, that's referenced in the footnote above when I mentioned that there are several good books that I've footnoted. But passing over some of the precursors, I want to begin by considering the leading sources or proponents of the New Perspective, beginning with a man by the name of Christo Stendhal.

9:50 Stendhal is, or was, I'm not sure if he is still alive, a Lutheran scholar who wrote a very influential essay entitled, The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West. It was first delivered as an address in 1963 and then later published in a series of essays in 1976. In this article, Stendhal argues that the tendency of Western culture since the days of Augustine has been to misread Paul as though he developed his doctrine of justification as the answer to a troubled conscience. He says this has been a misreading of Paul. He writes, This problem becomes acute when one tries to picture the function and manifestation of introspection in the life and writings of the Apostle Paul. It is more acute since it is exactly at this point that Western interpreters have found the common denominator between Paul and the experience of man, since Paul's statements about justification by faith have been held as the answer to the problem which faces the ruthlessly honest man in his practice. It is more acute since it is exactly at this point that Western interpreters have found the common denominator between Paul and the experience of man, since Paul's statements about justification by faith have been held as the answer to the problem which faces the ruthlessly honest man in his practice.

11:10 It is more acute since it is exactly at this point that Western interpreters have found the common denominator between Paul and the experience of man, since Paul's statements about justification by faith have been held as the answer to the problem which faces the ruthlessly honest man in his practice. His epitome in literalist scriptural tactics is sincere enough to beека ambiguous. However, most authors basement, Right away violent media consumo y read ACTик understand the background Slovakia politics adura Christianity. And then he goes on to argue that the interpretation of Paul imposed on the scriptures by the so-called introspective conscience of the West has produced a misunderstanding of Paul's doctrine. Paul spoke of justification not as the answer to the problem of a bad conscience before God, but in order to, quote, explain why there is no reason to impose the law on Gentiles, who now in God's good messianic time have become partakers in the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham. And what he means by that will become clear as we go along. So he argues then that this basic Western misreading of Paul's writings is as follows.

12:24 Where Paul was concerned about the possibility for Gentiles to be included in the messianic community, his statements are now read as answers to the quest of assurance about man's salvation and the possibility of the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham. Out of a common human predicament, we should venture to suggest that the West for centuries has wrongly surmised that the biblical writers were grappling with problems which no doubt are ours, but which never entered their consciousness. As one man has commented, Stendhal's article, like a cloud no bigger than a man's hand, gave the promise of a coming storm. And this leads us now, secondly, to a man by the name of E.P.

E.P. Sanders: Covenantal Nomism and Second Temple Judaism

13:07 Sanders. James Dunn has written, if Stendhal cracked the mold of 20th century reconstructions of Paul's theological context by showing how much it had been determined by Luther's quest for a gracious God, Sanders has broken it all together by showing how different these reconstructions are from what we know of first century Judaism from other sources. Sanders was formerly professor of exegesis at Oxford and is now a professor at the University of New York. He has written a book as far as I know he still is on the faculty at Duke University. In 1977, he published a book entitled Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Though there were others before him who had made some of the same points he does, Sanders' work gained a wider hearing than that of any of those preceding him. It is the foundational book out of which the new perspective has arisen. And in this work, he surveys a wide variety of Jewish sources.

14:13 He first surveys some of the early rabbinic literature from the period between the fall of Jerusalem, A.D. 70, and the compiling of the Mishnah, 200 A.D. He then looks at certain portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Then he surveys a selection of material from the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings. From this very lengthy survey, he argues that the Judaism of Paul's time was not a religion in which one must seek to gain acceptance with God through acquiring personal merit or through good works. That instead, the Jews of Paul's day were taught to keep the law out of gratitude to God for his mercies. This keeping of the law was not in order to gain acceptance with God or in order to enter into a covenant relationship with him. That acceptance and covenant relationship was understood as being freely bestowed upon them by God's grace. Rather, the keeping of the law was in order to maintain the law. Getting in is purely by the grace of God. Staying in involves grateful obedience to the law,

15:22 not sinless obedience, but what he describes as, quote, the intention and effort to be obedient. This does not earn acceptance. It simply maintains that acceptance. And Sanders calls this pattern of religion covenantal gnomism. And you want to remember those words, covenantal gnomism.

15:44 They come up in the Bible as the covenantal gnomism. And they come up in the Bible as the new perspective. Now, early in the book, he describes this covenantal gnomism as he found it in the rabbinical writings in this way. God has chosen Israel, and Israel has accepted the election. In his role as king, God gave Israel commandments which they are to obey as best they can. Obedience is rewarded and disobedience is punished. In case of failure to obey, however, man has recourse to divinely ordained, means of atonement, in all of which repentance is required. As long as he maintains his desire to stay in the covenant, he has a share in God's covenantal promises, including life in the world to come. The intention and effort to be obedient constitute the condition for remaining in the

16:35 covenant, but they do not earn it. Near the conclusion of his study, he summarizes covenantal gnomism in the following manner. One, God has chosen Israel. And two, given the law. The law implies both, three, God's promise to maintain the election, and four, the requirement to obey. Five, God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. Six, the law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in seven, maintenance or reestablishment of the covenantal relationship. Eight, all of those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement, and God's mercy belong to the group which will be saved.

17:18 He adds, an important interpretation of the first and last points is that election, and ultimately salvation, are considered to be by God's mercy, rather than human achievement. Now, some of this will become clearer to you as we go along, but what I want you to see is that in all of this, what he is doing is he's trying to argue that contrary to the history of Protestant interpretation, Second Temple Judaism, I should have defined it as Second Temple Judaism, but I stuck that in there. But when I say Second Temple Judaism, the same thing I mean by First Century Judaism, Palestinian Judaism in the time of the Apostle Paul, the Second Temple, referring to that time period in Herod's Temple. Okay, so don't be confused by that. That's what that means.

18:09 He's trying to argue that contrary to the history of Protestant interpretation, the Judaism of Paul's day was not marked by the characteristic of works righteousness. It was not a religion in which men were seeking to acquire personal merit or to engage in good works in order to gain acceptance with God. No, that it was essentially a religion of grace, a pattern of religion in which acceptance into a covenant relationship with God is a gift of God's grace, not something earned by keeping the law, attempting to keep the law, and availing oneself of repentance and various other means of atonement for one's sins is necessary in order to maintain one's covenant status, but it is not the way in which we acquire covenant status. Palestinian Judaism, according to Sanders and his survey of all of this literature, saw that status as being given by grace. So the main point for right now is that Sanders draws the conclusion that traditional Protestantism has been given to us by grace, not by grace. I'm guilty of wrongly understanding Palestinian Judaism as a religion of works righteousness, wrongly understanding that as being the foil against which Paul sets forth his doctrine of

19:37 justification. Now, of course, if Sanders' understanding of first century Palestinian Judaism is correct, that does indeed seem to present a problem for the traditional interpretation of Paul. And particularly of his doctrine of justification. And how would it do that?

20:01 Well, if the Judaism of Paul's time was not a religion that sought to gain acceptance with God by good works or by keeping the law, why? Why does Paul so strongly affirm over and over in his writings that by the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified? As all agree and no one can deny, Paul argues in Romans and Galatians, that works of the law cannot justify.

20:29 But if the Jews of his time were in fact not trying to be justified by keeping the law, what was the point of Paul's argument? Or as Douglas Moo frames the dilemma, if no one in first century Judaism really believed that a person could be justified by doing the law, then why deny it?

20:47 Have you followed this so far? Okay. Well, to this question, various answers have been given by those who have accepted Sander's view of first century Judaism. Some have been willing to argue that Paul either misunderstood the Judaism of his day, which is pretty ridiculous, I think, or deliberately misrepresented Judaism for polemical purposes, that he really did mean to imply that the Jews were seeking justification and acceptance with God by means of law-keeping, and thus the traditional understanding of Paul's writing is right.

21:21 The problem is that Paul himself was wrong in his interpretation. He was wrong in his interpretation of the Judaism of his day.

21:28 It has been argued that Paul's teaching about the law is incoherent and inconsistent, and that he was not unwilling even to distort his opponent's position for polemical purposes. Well, others have been willing to give Paul a little more credit.

21:43 They have argued that the problem in reconciling Sander's picture of Palestinian Judaism with Paul's teaching is a failure to properly understand exactly what Paul means when he refers to it. What are the works of the law in Paul's writings, anyhow? They say that understanding what he really means by that language will give us a clue to the true meaning of Paul's doctrine of justification, and this will help us to understand what the real battle was that Paul was fighting. And this leads us now to a third major proponent of the new perspective, James D.G. Dunn.

James D.G. Dunn: Works of the Law as Boundary Markers

22:23 Dunn currently serves as the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity, and the University of Durham. And the term new perspective, with reference to the study of Paul, was actually coined by him in a lecture that he gave in 1982. And that lecture was later put into published form, and its form is now reprinted in his book entitled Jesus, Paul, and the Law Studies in Mark and Galatians. And that book contains a series of essays and was published in 1990.

22:55 He has written extensively in the area of Pauline studies. I list some of the books there. I list some of the books there that are particularly relevant to our study where he discusses his views, and I'll just let you look at those. Also, it is James Dunn who has written the two-volume Commentary on Romans that is part of the Word Biblical Commentary set that some of you may be familiar with.

23:21 Some of those commentaries in that set are excellent. It does advertise itself as a repository of evangelical biblical scholarship, but the two volumes on Romans are written by this man, James Dunn. First of all, Dunn generally accepts Sanders' interpretation of Palestinian Judaism. He believes that Sanders has conclusively proven that Judaism at the time of Paul did not teach a doctrine that salvation is earned by good works or by law keeping.

23:50 Thus, he agrees with Sanders that the Reformation understanding of Paul's doctrine of justification is wrong. The point of controversy between Paul and Judaism was not that Paul's Jewish opponents believed that obedience to the law is the means of acquiring favor with God. Judaism was essentially a religion of grace. But then, building upon Sanders' work, it could be argued that Dunn's major contribution to the New Perspective is his answer to the question, well, then, what was Paul's controversy with the Jews about?

24:25 If the Jews were not trying to gain acceptance with God on the basis of obedience to the law, why does Paul keep insisting, in his opinion, that the Jews should not be accepted by God? Why was Paul insisting in his epistles that we were justified by faith and not by the works of the Law? Dunn argues that the answer to this question is found in rightly understanding what Paul is referring to when he speaks of the works of the Law. I can do no better than first to quote one of the friends of the New Perspective in his summary of Dunn's teaching.

24:52 This is from a booklet by Michael Thomson, which Dunn himself reviewed before it was printed. He writes, Dunn's major contribution consists, in his view, that the works of the Law are of a choice to God. view that the works of the law Paul opposed in Galatians primarily referred to circumcision, keeping the religious calendar, and observing the dietary laws that distinguished Jews from Gentiles. Drawing on insights from sociology, Dunn calls these particular works of the law the badges or boundary markers of Judaism. Paul opposed these practices because they functioned to separate people whom Christ died to bring together. In short, Paul's target was not an insistence on basic moral behavior, but on particular religious practices that differentiated Jews from Gentiles, demonstrating the former group's status as members within God's covenant. Now, let me give some quotes from Dunn himself, which confirm the accuracy of this summary, and there will be several others later. In the context from which I give this, he has been arguing that when Paul denied the possibility of being justified by the works of the law, what he was battling is the idea that God's acknowledgement of covenant status,

26:09 being a part of his people, his covenant people, is bound up with the observance of particular Jewish boundary markers, that that's what Paul was going after. He then underscores the following two points. One, works of law, works of the law, are nowhere understood here either by his Jewish interlocutors, or tours, or by Paul himself as works which earn God's favor, as merit-amassing observances. They are rather seen as badges. They are simply what membership of the covenant people involves, what mark out Jews as God's people. Two, more important for Reformation exegesis is the corollary that works of the law do not mean good works in general. Good works in the sense disparaged by the heirs of Luther, works in the sense of self-achievement. The phrase works of the law in Galatians refers precisely to these same identity markers described above, covenant works. Those regulations prescribed by the law which any good Jew would simply take

27:11 for granted to describe what a good Jew did. To be a Jew was to be a member of the covenant, was to observe circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath. Now, Dunn has since seemed to modify his position a bit in the face of criticism, yet with no doubt, he's been a good Jew. He's been a good Jew. He's been a good Jew. He's been a good Jew. He's been a good Jew. He's been a good Jew. He's been a good Jew.

27:29 There's no real substantial change. For example, in his later work, The Theology of the Apostle Paul, he writes that the phrase works of the law does, of course, refer to all or whatever the law requires, covenantal nomism as a whole. And that's really a response to criticism. However, he then immediately follows in the next sentence with these words.

27:49 But in a context where the relationship of Israel with other nations is at issue, certain laws would naturally come more into focus than others. We have instance

27:59 of circumcision and food laws in particular. I believe Waters summarizes Dunn's position well after his lengthy, detailed review of Dunn's writings and positions. He says, Dunn regards works of the law to have been the whole pattern of Jewish obedience to the Mosaic law as that pattern came to expression in certain boundary-marking ordinances, circumcision, Sabbath, dietary laws. Paul's critique then is directed at individuals who would, in pride, cling to certain boundary markers to the exclusion of Gentile believers. He is not concerned to address persons who, by striving to obey the Mosaic law, are attempting to meet a divine moral standard in order to be justified before God. To summarize, Dunn agrees that the problem Paul is addressing with his doctrine of justification is not the problem of legalism or works righteousness. Here, the Reformation was wrong, he would argue. Paul's antagonists were not people who were trying to earn acceptance with God on the basis of their good works. The problem Paul was addressing

29:06 was Jewish exclusivism, which is to give an expression in the insistence that Gentile Christians adhere to certain boundary-marking regulations such as circumcision, Sabbath and food laws. Justification is not about answering the question how can I, a lost sinner, be accepted by a holy God? It is not an argument against the attempt to gain acceptance on the basis of your own good works and efforts to obey God's law. Justification is about erasing ethnic boundaries between Jews and Gentiles by declaring that all who have faith in Christ and are faithful to Christ are in the covenant.

29:49 Furthermore, and accordingly, Dunn has no place in his understanding of justification for a righteousness imputed to the believer as the basis of his acceptance with God. He also argues that the options of make righteous and declare righteous when it comes to justification are a false dichotomy. Quoting Dunn, the answer is not one or the other, but both. Quoting him again, to justify, does it mean to make righteous or to count righteous?

30:13 This is the classic dispute between Catholic and Protestant exegesis. Since the basic idea is of relationship, and this will come up again, is of relationship in which God acts even for the defective partner, an action whereby God sustains the weaker partner of his covenant relationship within the relationship. The answer is really both. Both make righteous and count righteous.

30:38 So what did he mean by that? Well, don't worry so much about what exactly he meant by that. It'll clear, I think it'll become clear as we go along, but what I wanted you to see is that to him, justify means both to make righteous and to count righteous. Okay?

N.T. Wright: Covenant Faithfulness and Membership

30:53 Now we move to a fourth leading source and advocate of the new perspective. N.T. Wright.

31:01 N.T. Wright, or Tom Wright, as you may hear him referred to as the Bishop of Durham, which is a very high-ranking position in the Church of England. I think it's the third from the top in the Church of England.

31:14 He is a prolific writer, and without question, he is the most, in my opinion, most influential advocate of the new perspective among evangelicals, and there are at least two reasons for that, it seems. One is that Wright styles himself as an evangelical and associates with evangelicals. He has also been highly acclaimed among some evangelicals for his defending, of the historicity of Christ against rank liberalism. And I quote down there in footnote 38 that I believe his first published work was a chapter in a book published by Banner of Truth.

31:48 I have since confirmed that, indeed, that is the case. Someone wrote to me who had read my material and told me the book, and I forget, I didn't write it down, but so, is that what it is?

32:08 Okay. Therefore, he has been the major conduit through which the new perspective has been smuggled into the evangelical arena. A second reason for his influence is his ability to write and speak at a popular level. He's the kind of man who seems to be at home interacting with the intellectuals and scholars and also with the average pastor or Christian layman.

32:29 He is a gifted communicator, and his very readable, lay-level presentation of the new perspective in a book entitled What St. Paul Really Said has Possibly Done More to Popularize the New Perspective. I mention here in footnote 39, I can only speak myself for his writing ability. My comment on his speaking ability is based on second-hand reference.

32:53 See, for example, Greg Strawbridge on the 2005 Auburn Avenue Pastors' Conference. This is a good example of the almost giddy, enamored reception Wright receives from some professedly Reformed evangelicals. Yes? I've heard Wright speak.

33:11 No. I mean, as opposed to a fascination with kind of the kind of...

33:33 And what he was saying was very good. But even there, I need somewhat caricature on caricature.

33:42 But nonetheless, yeah, he's a very, very attractive speaker. Yeah. In the most recent book he's written that I've just finished reading here, he actually takes that up, and it is very good what he says about that. But he does, he gives the impression that evangelicals have always, have never believed what he's talking about.

34:04 We all believe that heaven and the by and by is all that there is. You know, it's some...

34:10 Yeah. That is, let me just say, that is something that is typical with some of these guys. They do often caricature Reformed theology in their writings. And we'll talk about that a little bit more as we go along.

34:26 Well, what are some of the characteristics of the teaching of M.T. Wright? And let me emphasize the characteristics as it relates specifically to the doctrine of justification.

34:35 There are a lot, there are things that M.T. Wright says that are good. There are things that he says that are problematic, that are not so directly related to the doctrine of justification.

34:45 But I'm just going to focus on those things that are. First of all, Wright agrees with E.P. Sanders' basic interpretation of Second Temple Judaism.

34:57 Commenting on Sanders, he writes, serious modifications may be required, but I regard his basic point as established. Describing what he calls Sanders' major...

35:07 point, he writes, Judaism in Paul's day was not, as has regularly been supposed, a religion of legalistic works, righteousness. If we imagine that it was and that Paul was attacking it as if it was, we will do great violence to it and to him. This, Wright agrees, has been the problem with most Protestant exegetes. Secondly, Wright is in general agreement with Dunn regarding the works of the law.

35:31 He defies the works of the law, both in Romans and Galatians, as the badges of Jewish race. He summarizes those badges in terms of Sabbath, food laws, circumcision. Thirdly, Wright argues that the traditional Reformed definition of justification is wrong. He says, the discussions of justification in much of the history of the church, certainly since Augustine got off on the wrong foot, at least in terms of understanding Paul, and they have stayed there ever since.

36:00 In another place, he writes that what Paul means by justification is not how you become a Christian, so much as how you can tell who is a man. So much as how you can tell who is a man. So much as how you can tell who is a man. He insists that justification is a covenant term that means to be recognized as a covenant member.

36:16 One who is righteous, but in this sense, to be righteous means to be a covenant member, to be counted or viewed as faithful to the covenant. Thus, to be justified is to be declared by God as a member of his true covenant family. It has nothing to do with how you become a member. It's the recognition that you are a member.

36:36 A repeated aspect. A repeated aspect of what Wright stresses in his writings is that justification is a doctrine that is not really properly placed in the realm of soteriology. It's not about how to be saved, how to be right with God or attain acceptance with God. It's not about defining the gospel.

36:57 Its proper place is in the realm of ecclesiology. It's all about defining who the people of God are. Not about how you get in, but about defining who is in God's, who is in God's covenant community. Justification is God declaring to all who believe in Christ, all who confess Christ as Lord, are in the church, in the covenant, are covenant members.

37:21 They belong to the family of God. That's what justification is. Fourthly, Wright, perhaps as you can already see, advocates a very limited and specific understanding of the term righteousness or righteous in its various forms. For example, he, together with other advocates of the New Perspective, argues that the righteousness of God in Paul's writings is to be understood as referring to God's covenant faithfulness.

37:55 This somewhat broad brush equating of the righteousness of God with covenant faithfulness has become something of an accepted paradigm among many scholars. It is argued that righteousness in the Old Testament is a relational concept connected to God's covenant with Israel. God's righteousness is his saving activity and power within a covenantal framework. John Piper refers to this as what has become a controlling biblical theology paradigm that exerts a controlling effect on the exegesis of text that clearly do not support it, which is something I'll be seeking to demonstrate when we get into the exegetical part.

38:40 The concept is partly owed. Has Paul seen the Christ of Jesus Christ who, as a student of Paul, is in-item of his own dominion? And what it means to the work of this work? Paul's name is Ernst Castleman.

39:11 He was a student of Rudolf Bultmann. According to Waters, Castleman argued that Pauline justification was fundamentally corporate. He argued that the righteousness of God in Paul's writings is not to be understood as Reformation Exegesis has understood it as a gift given by God to man, but as a reference to his divine activity and carnal life. His Spirit is God.

39:12 He says in Psalm 1, he says, covenant faithfulness to his pledge to restore his creation by his saving power. According to Casaman, the tension between Paul's forensic and transformative righteousness language can be resolved by seeing the righteousness of God in this way. Waters summarizes, first Casaman cuts the Gordian knot involved in sorting out the judicial or juridical transformative language in Paul by resolving the language of righteousness into cosmic saving power. In so doing, Casaman has for all intents and purposes forfeited forensic language. Second, Casaman, while maintaining a personal dimension to justification, clearly conceives it to be fundamentally corporate or cosmic in nature. The idea is that God has made covenant promises to Israel, and having made those promises, God's righteousness is his faithfulness to God. The idea is that God has made covenant promises to Israel, and having made those promises, God's righteousness is his faithfulness to those promises and to his people. It is the demonstration of his faithfulness to the covenant. Now, let me

40:20 give you some examples of how that concept is brought into Wright's interpretation of many of the classic texts that speak of the righteousness of God, texts that have traditionally been understood to refer to a righteousness that God gives to believing sinners. Paul writes in Romans 3, 21 and 22,

40:42 According to Wright, the righteousness of God here refers to God's covenant faithfulness. The covenant faithfulness of God, apart from the law, is revealed. Even the covenant faithfulness of God through faith, or as he prefers, through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe.

41:15 Another example in his interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5, 21. When Paul speaks of Christ, I think we're all familiar with that text, Christ who knew no sin being made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him. According to Wright, Paul is speaking of himself and his apostolic colleagues as having become, in some way, the living embodiment of God's covenant faithfulness. That we, refers to Paul and his apostolic colleagues, that we might become the righteousness of God in him, refers to Paul and his colleagues in their ministries being the living embodiment of the covenant faithfulness of God. Now, more on this later, just to give a couple of examples of how this concept enters into his interpretation of some of these texts. So, the righteousness of God in Paul's writings, according to Wright, refers to God's covenant faithfulness. Then, from the human side, righteousness refers to covenant membership. To be righteous is to be a member of God's covenant

42:22 people. In other words, this is important, righteousness does not refer to conformity to some absolute divine standard of moral rectitude. That's not what righteousness is. A righteous man is a man who is considered faithful to the covenant or a legitimate covenant member. Thus, to be declared righteous is to be recognized as a covenant member.

42:46 Now, let me give an example of how this plays into his interpretation of Paul's well-known statement in Philippians 3.9. Paul writes there that it is his concern to be found in Christ, not having my own righteousness which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith. Now, here is Wright's take on the meaning of that verse in its context. Paul is saying, in effect, I, though possessing covenant membership, according to the flesh, did not regard that covenant membership as something to exploit. I emptied myself, sharing the death of the Messiah. Wherefore, God has given me the membership that really counts and which I, too, will share the glory of Christ. Righteousness, then, from the human side, simply means covenant membership, according to Wright, while the righteousness of God refers to God's covenant faithfulness. Fifthly, and accordingly,

43:45 Wright denies the Reformed doctrine of the impute. of the righteousness of Christ to the believer. He says, for example, If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys, or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance, or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge's righteousness is simply a category mistake. Notice footnote 54. You may notice that this is a caricature of the Reformed doctrine and also that he fails to bring into the equation that there's another person in the courtroom, not just the judge, the plaintiff, and the defendant, but Christ is in the courtroom, the advocate and representative and surety of the one accused. And it is by virtue of the believing sinner's union with him by faith as his surety and representative that his righteousness is credited to him and he is legally declared righteous. If Wright denies the imputation of Christ's righteousness in such

44:47 a cavalier and characterized manner, then he is not a judge. He is not a judge. He is not a judge. If Wright denies the imputation of Christ's righteousness in such a cavalier and characterized manner, one wonders how he would express the reality of the imputation of the believer's sins to Christ. Would he say that sin is, quote, not an object or a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom? To imagine the advocate somehow receiving the defendant's sin is simply a category mistake. Sixthly, in Wright's doctrine of justification, faith, instead of being the instrument by which Christ and justification are received, as we've learned this week, I trust we believe this, is a category mistake. If Wright denies the imputation of Christ's righteousness in such a cavalier and characterized manner, one wonders how he would express the reality of the imputation of Christ's righteousness in such a cavalier and characterized manner, one wonders how he would express the reality of the imputation of Christ's righteousness in such a cavalier and characterized manner, one wonders how he would express the reality of the imputation of Christ's righteousness in such a cavalier and characterized manner, one wonders how he would express the reality of the imputation of Christ's righteousness in such a cavalier and characterized manner, one wonders how he would express the reality of the imputation of Christ's righteousness in such a cavalier and characterized manner, one wonders how he would express the reality of the imputation of Christ's righteousness in such a cavalier and characterized manner, one wonders how he would express the reality of the imputation of Christ's righteousness in such a cavalier and characterized Our understanding of that this week in Wright's system, his theology, faith, is effectively put into the place of being the basis of our justification.

45:34 Let me explain. According to Wright, the basis of justification is both the death and resurrection of Christ and the work of the Spirit who produces faith.

45:46 He says justification presupposes an objective dealing with sin. He says, and the cross is in that sense part of the basis of justification. But also, justification presupposes the work of the Spirit and can therefore be said to take place on the basis of faith. Thus, his doctrine includes the idea that justification is based partly upon the work of the Son and partly on the work of the Spirit.

46:09 Now, listen to these statements. Now, remember that Wright rejects the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as the basis of the believer's justification. But here are some statements of his understanding of the basis of justification.

46:24 Justification takes place on the basis of faith. Justification takes place on the basis of faith because true Christian faith, belief that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, is the evidence of the work of the Spirit and hence the evidence that the believer is already within the covenant. He anticipates the question, but why should Christian faith be the reason for God's declaration that the believer is in the right? And he means by in the right that he is in the covenant.

46:51 The answer is that Paul understands faith to be the true fulfilling of God. Now, you see how that cuts against what we've been taught this week. He thinks that he avoids the charge of thereby making faith in his understanding a justifying work and thus teaching justification by works when he says, this faith is of course not a work done to earn God's favor, nor is it to be equated with righteousness understood as a moral quality. It is simply the evidence of the work of grace in the heart.

47:25 So according to Wright, faith is both the evidence and the basis of justification. Just below that last statement he adds, this is the answer to the question, why faith?

47:39 Now, you're going to notice his answer to that question is completely different than Calvin's answer to that question or to Spurgeon's answer to that question that was quoted yesterday.

47:48 Why faith? Faith is the evidence of grace. And when God sees it, he therefore rightly declares that the believer is in the right.

47:57 So Wright says that justification is the declaration that one, is in the covenant, has covenant status. That declaration is based on faith, which is not the instrument by which we get in, as it were, but the basis of the recognition that we are in. This faith is the evidence and effect of the work of the spirit in the heart. So on the basis of this faith produced in the heart by the spirit, we are recognized as covenant members or we are justified.

48:29 One might even say that we are justified by faith alone. But certainly not in the sense the reformers meant it. And I trust we mean it. My point is that his new perspective makes faith the basis of justification, at least partly and not merely the instrument of justification.

48:46 It is not the receptive instrument by which Christ and his righteousness are received and rested upon. It is the badge by which we are recognized to be members of God's covenant people. Seventhly, Wright sometimes speaks of justifying faith as amounting to the same, same thing as faithfulness.

49:07 Faithfulness is not just a fruit of justifying faith and an evidence of justifying faith. It is an element of what justifying faith is. For example, he writes, Faith and obedience are not antithetical. They belong exactly together.

49:21 Indeed, very often the word faith itself could properly be translated faithfulness. For Wright, faith is the badge of present justification, while faith conceived of as faithfulness or a life of faithful obedience is the basis of continuing and future justification. Now, that will have to be fleshed out a little bit later. Well, this is a summary of the major contributions and teachings of men who could be called the leading proponents of the new perspective.

Summary of Primary Tenets of the New Perspective

49:49 This is not all these men teach concerning the interpretation of Paul that is problematic. There's a whole host of things. I've tried to limit myself to those things that relate most directly to their understanding of justification by faith. Having surveyed the leading proponents of the new perspective, let me summarize.

50:05 Let me summarize now its primary tenets. Its primary tenets.

50:11 First, first century Judaism was a religion of grace.

50:18 There's the acceptance of the argument based on E.P. Sanders' book that second temple Judaism was essentially a religion of grace, that it was not a religion marked by legalistic works righteousness as typically interpreted in the Protestant and Reformed tradition. Secondly, therefore, since this is the case, the problem Paul's doctrine of justification addresses is Jewish exclusivism.

50:38 Not just the Christian. Not just the Christian. Not just the Christian. Not how can a sinner be right with God.

50:42 Done. Justification by faith was Paul's answer to the question, how is it that Gentiles can be equally acceptable to God as Jews? Done again. The leading edge of Paul's theological thinking was the conviction that God's purpose embraced Gentile as well as Jew, not the question of how a guilty man might find a gracious God.

51:02 Right asserts, the polling doctrine of justification by faith strikes against all attempts to demarcate membership in the people of God by any means possible. There is nothing other than faith in Jesus Christ, particularly it rules out any claim to status before God based on race, class, or gender. Now, there's a sense in which that's true, isn't it? There is a sense in which that's true, but there's more to it than that.

51:25 Works of the law in Paul's epistles refer primarily, thirdly, to Jewish boundary markers. This would be the third major primary tenet. Done. Works of law are what distinguish Jew from Gentile.

51:37 To affirm justification by works of law is to affirm that justification is for Jews only. It is to require that Gentile believers take on the persona and practices of the Jewish people. Right. Israel was determined to have her covenant membership demarcated by works of Torah, that is, by the things that kept that membership confined to Jews and to Jews only.

51:59 Later, he summarizes these in terms of Sabbath, food laws, and circumcision.

52:04 Fourthly, fourth tenet. Righteousness terminology refers either to covenant faithfulness or to covenant membership. Righteousness terminology refers either to covenant faithfulness or to covenant membership. Righteousness of God is God's covenant faithfulness and never a righteousness he gives to believers or merely a righteousness he approves for sinners.

52:19 The righteousness of believers refers to their covenant membership. To be a member of the covenant people recognized as such is to be righteous. To be righteous is to be considered a loyal covenant member. It doesn't mean that one conforms to any absolute standard of moral perfection or rectitude.

52:35 It simply means that one is a member in good standing in the community of God's people. To be justified means, then, to be declared a member of the covenant people. To be justified means, then, to be declared a member in good standing of the covenant people of God, a covenant member. Five.

52:48 Faith is the present badge of covenant membership or the thing by which and on the basis of which we are recognized or declared to be covenant members. And then, in accordance with these other ideas, the new perspective teaches, sixthly, that justification has nothing to do with the righteousness of Christ being imputed to believing sinners. It has nothing to do with the sinner's need for or the divine provision in Christ's, of a perfect obedience to the law of God or to his moral claims upon his creatures.

Growing Influence in Evangelical and Reformed Circles

53:22 Well, I hope this at least gives a general picture of what the new perspective is all about.

53:30 We've considered its leading proponents, its primary tenets as related to the doctrine of justification. Let me just say a few things about its growing influence. I won't get all the way through this, and then I'll pause for questions, okay?

53:45 Its growing influence. Not too many years ago, most of us, we didn't know what it was. Most people had never heard of the new perspective. But such is not the case now.

53:53 It's being talked about everywhere. It's all over the Internet. And it's having a tremendous impact and growing influence in the theological world in general. Also, it is impacting the Reformed world in particular.

54:06 In the theological and evangelical world in general. Let me give an example or two. I have a copy at home of the New Dictionary of Theology. It's published by InterVarsity Press and edited by Sinclair Ferguson, David F. Wright, and J.I. Packer. In some ways, it is a very, very helpful dictionary.

54:25 And certainly with names like Sinclair Ferguson and J.I. Packer, we might assume that it's a dictionary that we can trust. I would guess that that would be the assumption of most evangelical and even Reformed pastors or laymen when they see this book in a bookstore or in a catalog.

54:40 Well, let me quote to you from the article on justification. It says, The question of justification is a matter of covenant membership. Who are the true children of Abraham? In the article on righteousness, it says that Luther's view that the, quote, righteousness of God refers to a righteousness which God gives to, bestows upon human beings, is misleading.

55:02 For it directed attention away from the biblical notion of God's covenant faithfulness. Concerning righteousness, as it relates to men, it says, Righteousness thus comes to mean, more or less, covenant membership. With all of the overtones, whatever this means, of appropriate behavior. I'm not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean.

55:23 Now, you get, let me ask you, who do you think the author is of those articles on righteousness in the New Dictionary of Theology edited by Sinclair Ferguson and J.I. Packer? Well, you can't guess because it's right there in the notes, isn't it?

55:38 Yeah, okay. Well, it's N.T. Wright.

55:42 He's the author. Now, I do not intend to imply that either Ferguson or Packer are new perspective. In fact, I am absolutely certain that they are not. So, I would not even want anyone to come away from this, even with that implication.

55:58 But my point is simply to demonstrate how these concepts are creeping into evangelical literature. How that got into that dictionary with those editors, I really don't know how things like that happened, but it did. On such a crucial key doctrine in a theological dictionary as the doctrine of justification. I don't know how it happened, but it did.

56:23 One other example. I already mentioned. The Word Biblical Commentary Series, which promotes itself as evangelical. In fact, some of the commentaries in that are excellent.

56:35 But the two volumes on Romans are written by none other than James D.G. Dunn, and they contain a massive exposition and interpretation of that epistle from the viewpoint of the new perspective. And these are just examples of how the writings and views of these men are trickling down into mainstream evangelicalism.

56:54 That's the evangelical world in general. Next, it's Influentialism. Influentialism is an influence in reformed circles in particular. I'm not finished with this part, but I want to go a little ways.

57:04 Some of the men who advocate the new perspective claim to be reformed evangelicals. If you go to the Paul page, which I referenced in the footnote earlier, a website devoted to the promoting of the new perspective, you'll find that many of the articles supporting the new perspective or defending certain aspects of the new perspective are written by men who profess to be reformed. Many of them are Presbyterians or Paedo-Baptists, though there are Baptists who hold to some, of the views of the new perspective. There is no doubt that this teaching has infected and influenced to varying degrees men that in the past we ourselves would have referred to as generally solid men.

57:40 I mentioned, for example, John Armstrong. Many of you will be familiar with his name. He is the editor of the Reformation and Revival Journal. Ironically, he is also one of the authors of the book Justification by Faith Alone, Affirming the Doctrine by Which the Church and the Individual Stands or Falls.

57:58 It's an excellent book. It's co-authored with Joel Beakey, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, John Gershner, and it's partly in response to the push to bring evangelicals and Roman Catholics together when that document came out in 1994 that caused such a stir.

58:17 Armstrong wrote the chapter on the sufficiency of faith for justification in that book. Whatever his views on justification might have been then, it is clear that he is now very sympathetic to the new perspective understanding of this document. If you question that, you can find this, and you would be convinced if you get a copy of Reformation and Revival Journal, Volume 11, Number 2, Spring 2002. The subject of that edition is Justification, Modern Reflections.

58:43 You can purchase it off the Internet. Let me give you some quotes from Armstrong in the introduction which show the direction he has taken. He says, for example,

58:53 Confessional Protestants following Luther's understandable... Good old Luther.

58:57 You know, it's understandable that... The action against the idea that human effort contributes anything to one's acceptance before God argue for an exclusively forensic idea.

59:12 Luther held that justification was granted to believing people solely on the basis of their response. Sola Fidei. That's not a completely accurate way of saying that. Luther's position, but...

59:25 This response brought the imputation of Christ's merits. He says, note how prominent the idea of merit is in this debate. In Luther's emphasis, stress is placed upon justification being only a legal declaration of the divine court. It has nothing to do with relational concepts.

59:42 This is a declaration that says I am not guilty because of Christ's imputed righteousness for me. The result of this position has generally been to treat justification in strictly personal ways that forbid it to have anything to do with the works of the Spirit, union with Christ, or the new covenant community. Later on, he says, in Paul, justification by faith...

60:02 Justification by faith is clearly a relational concept. The objections made over the centuries regarding legal fiction carry some weight. If, however, the concept is properly rooted in relationships, it carries for Paul a dynamic nuance of a new attitude of God to human beings as of humans to God, which in both instances leads to a chain of events.

60:25 You read that, or at least I read that, and I wonder, what in the world does that mean? What will it be saying? Well, you continue on and you soon discover. The journal volume is full of articles, articles that express sympathy with the New Perspective and of articles by men who are New Perspective men.

60:39 It contains two articles sympathetically discussing N.T. Wright and his teachings with respect to justification. It contains two, part two of an interview with N.T. Wright.

60:49 There's also an article by Norman Shepard, whom I'll refer to in a moment, just briefly, and one by Don Garlington. Garlington is the second man I want to mention. Here is where the New Perspective comes very close to home for Reformed Baptists. Garlington was at one time a student of James, and he used to teach at Trinity Ministerial Academy in Montville.

61:08 Many may not know that he has become one of the leading advocates of the New Perspective reading of Paul. This strange, weird man I know, Sam Waldron, Dr. Sam Waldron, has referred to him as one of the major conduits of the New Perspective on Paul into Reformed and Evangelical circles. Garlington unashamedly identifies himself with the New Perspective.

61:32 He agrees with Dunn regarding the nature of Paul's polemic against his Jewish opponents and the meaning of the New Perspective. He agrees with Dunn regarding the meaning of the works of the law.

61:39 Also, his understanding of the righteousness terminology of the Bible is in line with the New Perspective understanding. Dr. Waldron gave me a copy of his, at that point, undefended, unpublished doctoral dissertation, which you have now defended and published and printed sometime before finishing preparing lectures on this subject for the Midwestern Reformed Baptist Pastors Fraternal at the end of March 2005.

62:03 You haven't actually heard this material. I thought that you would be this week. I think you didn't actually cover it. But in the book, you will note that he carefully outlines the departures of Don Garlington and then, as we have seen, Daniel Fuller and Norman Shepard, another man I'll refer to in a moment, from the Reformed doctrine of Sola Fidei, their own protests and claims to be Reformed notwithstanding.

62:24 Garlington is the one of those three who has most clearly been influenced by the views of the New Perspective on Paul in coming to his positions. With this is involved, as we have seen, a marked departure in his theology from the historic Reformed understanding of particularly three of the three, three interrelated issues that you ought to all be able to tell me what they are without even looking at the notes.

62:44 Relationship of the law and the gospel, the nature of justifying faith, and relationship of faith and obedience. Likewise, Garlington, or evangelical obedience, to be more precise. Likewise, Garlington also rejects the doctrine of imputation. Very revealing is his response to John Piper's book defending that doctrine entitled Counted Righteous in Christ.

63:04 He writes a very lengthy response to Piper's book in which he argues against the doctrine of the imputation, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer as classically understood. The response is full of quotes from New Perspective men like E.P. Sanders and N.T. Wright by which he clearly expresses his agreement with them on key points. Toward the end, he makes this comment. All the above brings me to say that my main disagreement with Piper has to do with his insistence that justification has nothing to do with liberation from sin. To reiterate, from above, justification and righteousness pertain to our conformity to God's covenant, not simply a forerunner.

63:39 It pertains to our forensic status. And I'll finish with this part of the lecture next time and I'll stop now for questions. Okay?