N.T. Wright New Perspective of Paul - Research Paper Example

A Critical Analysis of N.T. Wright New Perspective of Paul on Covenantal Justification A Critical Analysisof N.T. Wright New Perspective of Paul on Covenantal Justification Introduction Each generation produces a number of gifted scholars, a number of which gain a significant amount of popularity and impact significantly on Biblical studies. Nicholas Wright is among these men having garnered a significant amount of acclaim and acceptance for the work that he has done in New Testament theology and most especially for the work that he has done with regard to Apostle Paul. His influence, not only in Pauline but also on Biblical studies as a whole and stretches across denominational divides impacting on Roman Catholics, Anglicans as well as Methodists and Presbyterians1. Being a self admitted proponent of a number of aspects that result from the New Perspectives put forward by Paul, Wright distinctly shares a number of similarities with fellow advocates E.P Sanders and James Dunn however, Wrights arguments carry their own weight and unique undertone. In recent times however, Wright has received a large amount of criticism especially with regard to the doctrine of justification2. This is the issue which will be examined in this discussion and will be addressed by examining the origin and development of the New Perspective of Paul,2) Justification in N.T. Wright and its Relation with the Adamic, Abrahamic and New Covenant and 3) Carry out a Critical Analysis on NT Wright Covenantal Justification from Reformed Scholars. By the end of this paper, it is hoped that the reader will have a clear understanding of the weakness of the covenantal view approach to justification by contrasting strengths within the disputed justification. The Origin and Development of the New Perspective of Paul In recent years, there has been a distinct change in the views touching on Pauline Theology with a growing number of evangelicals endorsing what is being referred to as the New Perspective on Paul which makes a significant departure from the Reformation focus on justification based on faith alone3. Some of the most popular spokesmen for this new view are E.P Sanders and James D.G Dunn. While having slight differences in the manner in which they defend the New Perspective, all of these scholars have seemingly adopted an argument referred to as covenantal nominism which essentially provides a role to salvation to the works of Moses’ law4. a. E.P Sanders Among the numerous contributions to Pauline theology E. P Sanders stands as one of the most distinct. Heavily influenced by historical-Critical ideologies, Sanders argued that Paul’s Christology is distinctly unclear and conflicting. For instance on Rom 1:3-4 Sanders argues that while the reader of the passage might be led to believe that Jesus had been designated to be the Son of God and that he was designated only at the moment of his resurrection. This later becomes an adoptionist Christology. Instead, he contends, Jesus was adopted by God as his son and was not born as His Son5. Sanders therefore concludes that from Paul’s writings, it is impossible for one to derive from these letters anything that resembles a single doctrine of Jesus Christ. Sanders often refused to acknowledge the apostolic framework of the canonical gospels arguing that there is no clear knowledge of who wrote them; indeed while Matthew, Mark and Luke did live, there is no one that can provide proof that they did write the gospels6. Sanders was heavily influenced by George Foot Moore whose core focus was Paul’s understanding of Judaism where he argued that it was wrong7. Paul’s focus was more on individual as opposed to national salvation and he neglected to have an understanding of aspects such as human repentance as well as forgiveness which reveals that Paul entirely missed the significance of the law of Judaism. This factor led to what was seen as an inaccurate reflection of Judaism within the New Testament that has continued throughout the centuries8. b. James D.G Dunn Dunn operated his assertions separately from any consideration for any inspiration from the canonical books of the New Testament. In much the same way as Sanders, Dunn was heavily impacted by historical-critical theories and also asserts that canonical gospels cannot be a good foundation for the formulation of theology on Jesus. This is because there is no evidence that firsthand information from Jesus which can provide this basis9. In terms of the New Perspective, Dunn presents a new assumption, praising Sanders for his view that Protestants allowing a Lutheran focus on justification of faith. He contends that a first century depiction of Judaism was a gross understatement which in turn helped to increase on the levels of anti-Semitism that many Christians held10. Indeed for Dunn and many who hold fast to the New perspective on Paul, the old perspective driven by Martin Luther and his Reformation supporters was directly responsible for the spread of anti-Semitism that led to the genocide of Jews that was carried out in the 1940s by the Nazi11. Justification in N.T. Wright and its Relation with the Adamic, Abrahamic and New Covenants a. Adamic Covenant NT Wright points to the manner in which Adam functions theologically within the Old Testament and considers the extent to which the historical Adam is core to the creation of the Adamic Covenant12. Wright considers how the aspect of creation and covenant become clearer when the two are brought together. The promises that were made to Adam were also told to Abraham and were fulfilled in the new covenant13. He also argues that God essentially called on Abraham to undo the sin that had been committed by Adam. This is close to the heart of the interpretation that Paul has of Genesis; here the God who was responsible for creation is also the one who created the covenant and His word through the prophet or servant will rescue and at the same time deliver his people from the enemy14. The covenant is also present to solve the problems that occurred within creation and therefore God called upon Abraham to solve the problem that Adam and evil had created. On the other hand, creation is brought forward to solve the problems that occurred within the covenant. When Israel finds itself facing any type of challenge and the promises of the covenant are not coming to pass, the people can cry to the covenant God as He is the creator15. b. Abrahamic Covenant Sabbath, Food, Nation, Land and Torah were the major components of the Abrahamic covenant. Similar to all world views, these symbols helped to provide Israel with a distinct sense of identity as well as boundaries that made it clear who was and was not among God’s people16. Wright argues that story, symbol and praxis all focus on Israel’s scriptures which in turn helped to reveal a world view that was at its heart very simple. Out of this covenant grew the basic beliefs that Israel had which were monotheism, election and eschatology17. Two themes were key in the Abrahamic covenant; sacrifice and suffering. Sacrifice here includes regular worship, pilgrimages and national feasts not only carried out among the participants among the people that God had chosen but also carried out to serve a symbolic restoration18. Suffering on the other hand served to act as a sort of prelude to what was seen as God’s climactic action. Wright concurs that quite a number of Jews in the first century placed too much focus on the concept of collective suffering for what was seen as national sin. For Wright, these are the core elements of the Jewish view of Jesus’ day19. Wright argues that Jesus had full understanding of himself as the one who God was using to fulfill each of His promises to Israel. The differences between Jesus’ beliefs and those of other Jews was simply that he believes that each of the things that were believed to be coming true in and through himself. He therefore concludes that Jesus essentially saw himself as a prophet, Israel’s messiah and the overall reflection of Yahweh20. b. New Covenant Here , Wright considers how through baptism individuals are able to enter into a new covenant with God. This is the fulfillment of th promise that God had made of doing a new thing. The New Testament is therefore an affirmation of the importance of the baptism that John the Baptist went through as this was the beginning of Jesus’ personal ministry21. However, Jesus picks up the language of baptism and in Mark 10:39 he speaks to the disciples with regard to being baptized with the baptism that he went through, essentially referring to something more than water. Wright also argues that in the baptism of Jesus, there was also elements of death and resurrection and all the many layers of meaning that were found to be present with the baptism emerged again on the event of the death and resurrection of Jesus22. 4. Critical Analysis on N.T. Wright Covenantal Justification from Reformed Scholars a. John Piper NT Wright’s approach to Paul has been met with significant challenge from John Piper who completely disagrees with the notion that the discussions on the history of the Church and especially understanding Paul have been wrong23. He argues that the framework provided by Wright with regard to interpreting the New Testament as well as understanding of justification would only work to distort understanding of future generations. In addition, this thought could also do away with the original intent that the writers of the New Testament. In this regard, Piper calls for caution with regard to new interpretations of the Bible and to only support view of justification that is derived from the Bible24. Piper contends that the overall subject matter of justification by book is a serious one and there is therefore a need to consider that there is a significant amount that is riding on this particular truth as on any truth contained in the Bible25. Piper’s assessment of Wright’s assertions is often unflinching and he constantly posits that he is unable to see how the biblical doctrine of justification will be successful as he argues that it is not a compelling and strong retelling of what exactly Saint Paul said. Instead, Wright’s arguments will most likely only cause a significant amount of confusion within the church to a point where there will be a need for clarity26. b. D. A. Carson Carson views NT Wright’s assertion on justification as a view through an ecclesial lense and not simply God’s justice. He contends that while Wright is not wrong in his arguments , he does leave out a significant portion of what the Bible talks about such as God’s wrath27. He contends that for Wright the work of the cross is external while there numerous instances in the Old Testament God’s anger is mentioned. Wright therefore does not see the core of the offense28. On God’s justice, Carson asserts that the constant reiteration of the line between good and evil goes down the middle of each human being is a fair assertion however while Wright’s point is well represented in the scriptures, he is wrong in the manner that he treats it as if it is the only point simply rule out a number of Biblical texts that can also add weight to the discussion29. c. Mark Serfried Serfried puts forward two distinct elements in critiquing Wright. First, he asserts that Wright often engages in a type of idealism that goes so far as to idealize the virtues of faithfulness, salvation as well as the distinct enhancement of the human condition, aspects of representation and the role that a covenant and Israel play in biblical history. This assertion creates far more dilemmas than it provides solutions to30. Serfried also sets forth a thematic reading of the Old testament which outlines God-Man-Christ and Response by Faith over a historical approach. Here Serfried argues that the reason why the latter approach failed was as a result of the assigned narrative to address human beings in the present31. As a result Wright has to resort to a type of moral idealism as a way in which to clearly address the gap. One of the biggest problems for this approach is the fact that it makes the attempt to reduce the Scripture to one single vision of God and the manner in which God carries out his activities in the World32. 5. Conclusion At the beginning of this study, questions were raised regarding the origin and development of the New Perspective of Paul, Justification in N.T. Wright and its Relation with the Adamic, Abrahamic and New Covenant and 3also how NT Wright Covenantal Justification is perceived by some scholars. First, there has been a significant change in the manner that Pauline theology is examined with many evangelicals turning to the New Perspective. E.P Sanders is one of these scholars and was heavily influenced by historical-critical ideologies. Sanders contends that Jesus has been adopted by God and was not born as His own son as has been argued. Sanders also refuses the apostolic framework of the canonical gospels. James Dunn is another scholar who holds fast to this New Perspective arguing that first century depiction of Judaism was a big exaggeration that might have led to the genocide that was carried out by the Nazi in the 1940s. Second in considering the justification of NT Wright and the Adamic Covenant, Wright contends that creation and the covenant become clearer in the instance that they are brought together with the promises that were told to Adam essentially being fulfilled in the new covenant. With regard to the Abrahamic covenant, Wright argues that aspects such as story and symbol continue to focus on Israel’s scriptures which the large number of Jews still continue to hold on to. In the new covenant, Wright essentially contends that Jesus had a full understanding of himself as the fulfillment of the promise that God had made with regard to doing a new thing. Third, John Piper. D.A Carson and Mark Serfried offer arguments against this New Perspective arguing that the framework that has been set forward by Wright with regard to offering an interpretation of the New Testament will only work to create confusion. Caron also contends that Wright’s arguments leave out a significant portion of the Bible with regard to God’s justice. Serfried on the other hand criticizes the idealism that Wright uses in his arguments. Third, John Piper. D.A Carson and Mark Serfried offer arguments against this New Perspective arguing that the framework that has been set forward by Wright with regard to offering an interpretation of the New Testament will only work to create confusion. Carson also contends that Wright’s arguments leave out a significant portion of the Bible with regard to God’s justice. Serfried on the other hand criticizes the idealism that Wright uses in his arguments. None of the statements put forward by Carson, Serfried and Piper suggest that the arguments stated by Wright are wrong simply that they are selective in nature. Indeed they contend that this New Perspective does have some strength in the Bible and that it does present a novel way of considering Paul and the way in which he argued about the covenant. In conclusion, what one can perceive from this discussion on the New Perspective is a suggestive model with some aspects(such as examining how the new covenant is a fulfillment of the promises made to Adam and Abraham) but not a set down view of how the works of Paul should be considered. Both Interpretations of the Bible should be embraced if the world hopes to be able to face the challenges of today. Bibliography Beale, Gregory, K. “Review Essay: The Overstated ‘New’ Perspective?” BBR 19 (2009): 85-94 Bird, Michael F. The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification, and the New Perspective. Milton Keynes, UK: Wipf & Stock, 2007 Campbell, Douglas. The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy. London; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2005 Cross, F. L, and Elizabeth A Livingstone. Dictionary of the Christian Church. Peabody, MA; Edinburgh: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007. Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008. Dunn, James. “The Justice of God,” in The New Perspective on Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Francis Watson. Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Garlington, Don. “The New Perspective on Paul: An Appraisal Two Decades Later,” Criswell Theological Review 2 (2005): 17-19 Kim, Yung Suk. A Theological Introduction to Pauls Letters: Exploring a Threefold Theology of Paul. (New York: Cascade Books,  2011) Kok, Jacobus. “The New Perspectives on Paul and its implication for ethics and mission.” Acta Patristica, 21(2010):3 Rainbow, Paul A. The Way of Salvation: The Role of Christian Obedience in Justification. Bletchley, UK; Wipf & Stock, 2005. Smith, Jay, E. “The New Perspective on Paul: A Select and Annotated Bibliography,” Criswell Theological Review 2 (2005): 91-93111 VanLandingham, Chris. Judgment & Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006. Venema, Cornelis P. Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul. Edinburgh; Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2006. Venema, Cornelis P.“What Did Saint Paul Really Say? N.T. Wright and the New Perspective(s) on Paul.” In By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification, edited by Gary L. W. Johnson and Guy Prentiss Waters. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006. Waters, Guy Prentiss. Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2004. Watson, Francis. Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Wright, Nicholas. T. Paul: In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005. Wright, Nicholas. T., and Bruce L. McCormack. “New Perspectives on Paul.” In Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges. Grand Rapids, MI; Edinburgh: Baker Academic; Rutherford House, 2006. Yinger, Kent L. The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction. New York: Cascade Books, 2010. Read More