To understand Paul on salvation we must understand him on sin

Richard Gaffin makes a convincing argument that ' if we are to understand Paul on salvation on salvation, including the order of salvation, we must understand him on sin' (p. 29, By Faith, Not by Sight). He argues this mainly on the recurrence of phrases like 'for our sins' in the most important of Paul's brief summaries of the Gospel.

He identifies several facets of Paul's treatment of sin:

1. It is 'anti-relational' (primarily the in relation to God)
2. It is 'illegal'
3. It is 'universal'
4. It is an 'enslaving and corrupting power'

Gaffin considers that sin has 'all sorts of disastrous and ruinous consequences' but the two basic consequences are:

1. 'guilt'; and
2. 'enslavement'

Classically, described as the penalty and power of sin (although Gaffin doesn't mention this). In my view the NPP (esp. Wright) focuses mainly on the latter, and the old perspective on the former.

I think the old perspective is right to emphasise the penalty, as the power of Satan and sin is primarily that of accusation (after all that is what Satan means). But we must celebrate the freedom from both.

Realised eschatology as the true 'new perspective' on Paul

Part of the recent consensus in Pauline scholarship emerging over the course of the twentieth century, just noted, is that Paul's eschatology has a dual or elliptical focus. For him eschatology is defined not only in terms of Christ's second coming but also by his first, by what has already taken place in Christ, especially his death and resurrection, as well as what is still future at his return. Paul teaches an eschatology that for the church is, i part, present, already realized.

In my view, looking at developments over the history of the interpretation of Paul as a whole, the relatively recent widespread recognition of his realized eschatology represents the truly "new perspective" on Paul, one that is far more important with wider-ranging implications than those developments of the past several decades given that designation. I would observe here that a commensurate impact of this rediscovery is still to be had in the doctrine and life of the church, in its preaching and teaching.

(p.26f, Richard B. Gaffin Jr, By Faith, Not by Sight)

1. Isn't 'elliptical' a great word to use for this?
2. How do I need to is my life and doctrine yet to be impacted with this rediscovery I know in my head? How will the penny drop for me?

Quotable: Das on attempts to understand second temple judaism

The essayists [in Justification and Variegated Nomism, vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism ed by DA Carson et al] offer a more nuanced view of the literature in question but do not return to the pre-Sanders caricature of Judaism as a religion of crass works righteousness and gross legalism. The essayists generally recognize the importance of election, covenant, sacrifice, and repentance in the Jewish systems of thought they discuss, even while reexamining the extent and role of God's grace. Greater and more sustained attention in the volume to the matter of strict and perfect obedience in Judaism would have been helpful since it is the denial of perfect obedience to the Law in Judaism that forms the basis for the new perspective reading of Paul. Further, the authors of the volume do not always recognize the significance of the tension they themselves highlight in Judaism (and Paul) between salvation by God's grace and a judgment according to works. Occasionally, when an essayist finds works and obedience extolled as necessary in Jewish literature, the essayist assumes a degree of works righteousness in spite of the presence of God's grace and mercy (e.g., Craig Evans's essay). The interplay between grace and demand is complex in both Judaism and Paul and need not equate to earning a place in the world to come entirely by one's own efforts. The apostle specifically qualifies the divine origin of human works in relation to salvation (Phil 2:12-13). Are not Jewish authors in his day capable of similar reasoning? Also, some of the essayists deem efforts to "stay in" the Jewish community, such as Law observance, instances of works righteousness. If so, should Christian acts of piety and avoidance of sin, all of which help maintain status within their community of faith, be analogously labelled as works righteousness? Greater sophistication in the analyses of these matters would have been helpful.

(p.11fn22, Paul and the Jews, A Andrew Das)

I also read recently (I can't remember where) that Sanders and his followers made the mistake of reading in grace whenever they read of election in the literature. However election need not be of grace as it has sometimes been seen as on the basis of God's foreknowledge of obedience (including in second temple Judaism).

You have to be so careful in reading.

Leithart on Watson on NPP (x2)

In his recently revised Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles, Francis Watson offers a pithy summary of the agenda of the New Perspective. Sanders, he says, extended the critique that G. F. Moore mounted in 1921 against German Lutheran scholarship on Judaism; Moore basically argued that German scholarship was systematizing and apologetic rather than genuinely historical, and Watson suggests that Sanders’s work extended the Moore critique to the Strack-Billerbeck rabbinic collection and the scholarship that came from it.

Watson summarizes Sanders: "The crucial concept of ‘covenant nomism’ was set in polemical opposition to the familiar pejorative terminology - 'legalism,' 'externalism,' 'formalism,' 'earning salvation,' 'works-righteousness,' 'acquiring merit,' and so forth - whose overwhelmingly negative connotations eliminate from the outset all possibility of sympathetic understanding. It is easy to forget hw freely and unquestioningly such terminology was used prior to Sanders, especially in the field of Pauline studies. After Sanders, the whole conceptual apparatus underlying the terminology would have to be dismantled. And that mean rethinking all the polemical Pauline antitheses: faith and works, grace and law, Spirit and letter, life and death, blessing and curse, promise and flesh." (source)

As Watson goes on, he notes Dunn’s early and fundamental attacks on Sanders’s reading of Paul. Dunn argues that Sanders treats Paul as an un-Jewish theologian, rejecting not only covenant nomism but the whole apparatus of covenantal, biblical theology that the Jews built from. Dunn insists that Paul opposes covenant nomism (in Watson’s words) "on the basis of an expanded, inclusive, but still recognizably Jewish covenantal theology." Wright has made similar criticisms of Sanders, adding that Sanders’s view is vitiated by his avoidance of eschatology.

Watson concludes laconically: "it is ironic, then, that Sanders and Dunn are both commonly seen as representatives of a single 'New Perspective on Paul.' The reality is that a repudiation of Sanders’s reading of Paul is integral to the New Perspective as Dunn conceived it." (source)

Apologies to Peter Leithart for lifting two of his posts wholesale from his own blog. The trouble is I just couldn't find a sentence that I could cut out and I thought the comments to well put to just link to.

The New Perspective on Paul

I have occasionally been asked (and many more times wished that people would ask) what people should read as an introduction to The New Perspective on Paul (NPP). I think the biggest problem with many more recent overviews you read is that they talk about the NPP when really they mean Tom Wright's version of it. I think dealing with the stripped down original is the best place to begin though, and for that Jimmy Dunn's essay from 1982 is great. People now seem to skip from Sanders to Wright in any discussion of NPP and yet it was Jimmy Dunn who not only gave it the name, but also shaped the form of all later debate. Unfortunately until a few days ago the essay was not on the internet, but now it is go and read it twice:

• The New Perspective on Paul by James DG Dunn

New Perspective v. Old Perspective

What's behind the current debates? Here are a few ideas:

• History v. Theology: If you look at the main proponents of the NPP they all come from a study of Paul that is focused on the history of the early church (this is especially the case with Dunn and Wright), more traditional perspectives often visit the NT looking for theology instead.
• Gospels v. Paul: Sanders, Dunn and Wright have all spent as much time in the gospels as with Paul, traditional Protestants from Luther onwards has always had Paul as their first love.
• Horizontal v. Vertical: NPP proponents are very concerned with reconciling different people (Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Gentiles - esp. clear in earlier writings), where as traditional protestantism has been concerned primarily "how can I find a Gracious God?".

That's not in anyway a complete list but it's what comes to mind at the moment.