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.