Thanks, Scot, for this very fine opportunity to stop and consider where we are–and where we aren’t. Well done!
This comment resonates with me: “there seems to me to be a general consensus that Judaism â?? and this is not the same as the â??Judaizersâ? Paul went toe-to-toe with â?? was not a works-based religion but a covenant-based religion in which works played a prominent, sometimes more than other times, role.”
It is my consistent experience that people who don’t understand covenant get confused about the role of works. This is why I tend toward using covenant-keeping/hesed as the over-arching concept. The point of making a covenant is faithfully keeping its terms and conditions.
The challenge comes when folks forget that there are terms and conditions in the new covenant…a remnant of the “cheap grace” issue–which existed in the old covenant except it looked like “privilege, yes; purpose, no” as a way to understand the problem. They were the elect because God chose them…not because they “earned” it or were somehow “worthy” of it. God would bless them if they obeyed all that Moses taught them of God’s laws. But their election and God’s covenant with them was not just for them–it was for us, all these years later!
I look forward to tomorrow’s piece.

I’ve noticed that tensions over the NPP fall along similar lines as long-standing tensions between exegetes and systematic theologians. Those doing biblical theology, being tied closely to the text, are happy to have NP insights thrown into the mix, while those doing systematic reflection are typically resistant, since they feel that such newer insights will lead to seismic shifts in their systems.
This is where Wright comes in, asserting simply that all he’s doing is being honest with the text, not starting from some predetermined outcome, but letting the text drive his conclusions. As Scot said, he’s out-sola-scripura-ing some in Reformed camps!
This mixed response to the NPP, Wright in particular, is most evident among Presbyterian communions, and at Westminster Seminary in PA, especially. Some of the OT folks have been very warm to Wright, since they see him as doing justice to the OT shape of NT thought, while systematicians view him with suspicion, feeling that systematic construals of a covenant of works, along with imputation, are especially under threat.

Scot,
Great points concerning lumping the likes of Sanders, Dunn, and Wright into a convenient system to make it sound as if there is wholesale agreement among the three!
Gathercole, to his credit, mentions that the NPP is an “umbrella” phrase meant to be a generalization for those who share a different view of Judaism than those of the “traditionalist” camp. As he notes, there is just as much “arguing” within the NPP itself as there is with the NPP vs. traditionalist camp.
In of itself, we as scholars should learn not to press our categories too tightly!
BTW- Hi, Tim- how’s it going?

Scot,
Have you seen this piece by Sinclair Ferguson (WTS)? http://www.wtsbooks.com/pdf_files/justified_in_christ.pdf
Much more pessimistic, almost alarmist, in its analysis of the NPP, but I think it nicely illustrates the tensions between biblical studies and systematics. Beyond his critique of the particulars of NPP, he seems most concerned that NPP proponents are NOT using a systematic (i.e. Reformed) framework for exegesis.

Tim,
What shocked me about the PCA response, and I read those documents long ago and someone kindly linked to them the first day of this series, was this:
Instead of saying the NPP, eg Wright, was unbiblical, they kept saying this view is consistent with the Westminster Confession and the WC is our agreement on how to interpret the Bible.
I’m tempted to say this is the irony of all ironies — reformed folk saying their tradition trumps a new look at the Bible, but a more charitable reading is to say they think the NPP is unbiblical in certain areas — as we have shown in our Westminster Confession. I will admit, though, that doing things that way let me down.

Jason,
Just read through that piece, and the same thing strikes me. I haven’t seen the book — where is this book? — but Ferguson’s introduction sets up the need for a critique and he sets this up well. And then proceeds to tell us that nearly everyone of the essays will be about significant theologians in the history of the Church instead of studies on grace, covenant, works in Judaism at the time of Jesus and Paul and not enough (for my taste) on Paul — don’t we need chps on each of the central themes in Paul too? But maybe that’s coming.
Two pieces on Bible — one on justification and eschatology and the other on union with Christ — and six on historical theology. The way to deal with us NPP folks is to show us the Bible doesn’t teach what we think it teaches. And some careful digging around in Judaism always makes the case more persuasive.

Great clarifications, Scot.
I am thoroughly enjoying this series of posts.
shalom

Yes, Scot, this is the flavor of many of the early, and current, critiques: (1) Wright calls into question certain components of Reformed thought in light of NT exegesis; (2) Wright is out of line with Reformed thought; (3) therefore Wright is unbiblical and wrong. Such logic leaves many of us wondering, Where’s the semper reformanda!?
Bruce Longenecker points out this disconnect in his review of Moo’s Romans commentary in JTS about 7-8 years ago. He talks about Moo critiquing the NP in his introduction but then vindicating it in his exegesis!

Scot#5-
If one wanted to put an historical theological spin on this phenomenon,from a NPP perspective,one could say that the PCA ideologues have become like the Tridentine Catholics and the NPP are the Reformers or, horror of all horrors,they’ve become like the caricatured Pharisees of the Gospels who were the foil of Protestant biblical theologians.

Scot, I agree we can’t necessarily pidgeon hole Dunn or Wright per se, I am not agree with the NPP but I hear Wright is good on the resurrection.

comment #5
To Scot in reply to Tim,
Not only were you disappointed by it, but many (not the majority) of us in the PCA were disappointed by how the committee dealt with the issue as well Scot. There was even a minority movement pre-General Assembly of pastors and ruling elders trying to persuade the denomination not to go forward, follow the link;
http://www.joelgarver.com/docs/Questions_and_Concerns.pdf
Its been something of a trend that our churches inside major metro areas are much more sympathetic and nuanced both on the Emerging Churches issue and the New Perspective issue.
Joe Novison and Craig Higgins spoke out very thoughtfully to the identical point you made on the floor of General Assembly but unfortunately their voice didn’t carry the day. Other’s like R.C. Sproul’s did. The whole discussion is webcasted for free here but you’ll need to register;
http://pcaga.com/live.asp
One thing I hope onlookers will realize as they look at this committee’s report is that it is merely ‘recomendations’ for Presbytery’s weighing pastoral candidates and not the final word on the matter from our denomination. Its power is very minimal in our community, but its function as a barometer of our communities views on the NPP is no doubt real.
Scot there are still those of us listening, exploring, and engaging thoughtfully because of our comitment to the Scriptures and our catholicity (few of us to be sure); which I know you realize.
Pray for us brother in these regards.
Blessings Tony

Scot,
Shifting gears here.
I was wondering what your thoughts are on the ‘post-new perspective’ community? I’ve had a hard time understanding who’s in it, what sets them apart and how they relate to the previous new perspective voices.
Here’s my conjecture’s on that:
1. Who’s in the post-new perspective community? (Don Garland, Michael Bird, John Barclay, Simon Gathercole, ???)
2. What sets them apart? Many of these guys are conservative or reformational, wanting to affirm systematic constructions rather than discarding historical theology too quickly because of advancements in the world of 2nd temple studies. They feel the social and political strain of their forebearers and want to be bridge builders between Sanders, Dunn, Wright and their conservative communities (perhaps not Barclay?).
3. How do they relate to the previous new perspectives? They follow many of Sanders main theses, borrow parts of Dunn and Wrights reading’s of Paul, particularly the ecclesiological emphasis, and pay attention to the intertextuality of the NT in relation to the OT (and on the whole are more nuanced in their reflections on philosophical hermeneutics).
How far off or close would you say these conjectures are Scot?
Blessings, Tony

New Perspective « Anchor for the Soul

[...] New Perspective Scot McKnight has posted again on the NPP.  The first time that I heard about the New Perspective on Paul was when I bought Doug Moo’s NICNT volume on Romans. For the most part, I accepted Moo’s Lutheran perspective. [...]

“It is never wise to make up a theology and then criticize it.”
This simple statement says tons! Thanks, Scot.

Scot,
Rereading my 1990 CT article on “The Misunderstood Apostle” (largely dealing with the then emerging New Perspective)I was struck by what I was thinking back then. I concluded:
“Time–and debate–will tell whether which or what aspects of these attempts to reset the focus on Paul and the Law will hold. Like the optical illusion that appears at one moment as the outline of a long-eared rabbit and the next as a long-beaked bird, the new perspective yields alternative configurations of Paul’s theology from the same data. Those who take Pauline studies seriously cannot avoid interacting with the new perspective, and responsible communicators of the Pauline gospel will certainly want to refine their understanding of the Jewish context of Paul’s mission. No matter what the conclusion, it will lead to a fresh understanding of Paul.
The exegetical eye has blinked, the new perspective has appeared, and if it is an illusion it must be dispelled by compelling arguments drawn from an analysis of the text of Paul’s letters–as well as his historical context.”
Notice: “compelling arguments drawn from an analysis of the text of Paul’s letters”! Some NT scholars have been working on that, but the PCA verdict seems not to be invested in that approach.
One more thing. Why is it that in theology (or biblical interpretation) if one does not mention something in this or that context, it is quickly assumed that one does not believe it? Particularly with regard to evangelical criticisms of Wright, this seems all too common (and is reflected in one or two comments in yesterday’s discussion). Is it really necessary to “get everything in” every time one opens one’s mouth or takes up the pen?
Dan

tony, Joel, and Dan,
I’m aware of the PCA undercurrent, but all I really had to go on was the final statement. We’re hoping for some broader perspective.
I’ve not seen anyone refer to the post-New Perspectivists, but I can see your point. I need to think about it; is it a restoration to balance that they are offering?
Dan … last question is a great one. I’ve heard people say Tom Wright denies imputation. I’m sure he knows, as do all of us who study the NT carefully, that imputation is not used in the NT the way it is often described. Which doesn’t make it wrong, of course, at the theological level. Tom denies, so far as I have seen, that the NT teaches imputation the way Reformers talk about it. But, if you read his Romans I think it can be said he sees all of Christ given to us and all of who we are given to Christ. Everything for Tom occurs “in Christ.” He’s big on a Second Adam christology.
So, yes, Dan you’re right. One need not bring up everything in order to frame the gospel with truth.

Scot,
Could you clear one thing up for me? In your second post in this series, you said, “Where Dunn shifted things was with Paul, and he argued at first that Paulâ??s problem with his Judaizing opponents (not the same as ‘Judaism’ as a whole) was that they were constructing a nation-based righteousness, a nationalistic righteousness, that kept Gentiles out because it was simply a nationâ??s faith.
Over time Jimmy shifted his language to the ‘sociological markers’ of a community so that ‘works of the Torah’ were not ‘merit-seeking works’ but ‘boundary-marking works.’ That is, the Judaizers were trying to make the Gentile Christians become Jews. The ‘works of the Law,’ then, were not merit-shaped works but specific things like sabbath, food laws and circumcision.” Then, in this post you write, “There seems to me to be a general consensus that Judaism â?? and this is not the same as the ‘Judaizers’ Paul went toe-to-toe with â?? was not a works-based religion but a covenant-based religion in which works played a prominent, sometimes more than other times, role.”
Spell this out again for me: Judaism believed what and the Judaizers believed what? How are they different? How are they the same?

Scot,
Thanks for this work. It is a helpful source for those who may just be starting to think about the debate.
I will make sure to point my students to these posts, pointing out how difficult it is to find a fair and even handed introduction to this topic.
Write On,
SamLam

Bob,
Maybe this will clarify: one of the major issues is learning not to equate the Judaizers (who were, after all, Christians of some sort) with Judaism. In other words, Paul is not criticizing Judaism in general and is not carrying on a debate with Judaism as a whole — instead, he’s into it with some Judaizers who are distorting gospel. That’s a big difference.
Like arguing with Messianic Jews who want to demand circumcision and Sat evening services instead of the orthodox Jews at the synagogue.

Scot and Bob,
First, Scot, wonderful posts! Thanks for your very careful and well-balanced analysis of this topic.
Second, both Bob and Scot, one thing we need to keep in mind, something that will add a bit more precision to the discussion, is that there were many variations of Judaism and various sects that were in fact at odds with each other. For instance, Sanders’ CovNom fits well with, say, Pseudo-Philo’s community (using “community” loosely) but not very well, to my mind, with Qumran. That is, the Qumranites did NOT believe that one was simply born into the Abrahamic promises; works–not the autonomous behaviour depicted by Luther, but works nonetheless–WERE a precondition for entering the NEW covenant communtiy, Qumran. Anyway, I don’t find it very helpful to talk about ‘Judaism’ as such, as if there there was one unified group. The ‘true Israel of God’ was a titled being grasped at by many different groups, including Paul’s Gentile community.

Out here in campus ministry world, I’ve heard of this controversy for less than a year (after receiving crit from my PCA friends for reading NT Wright!).
But you don’t know how great it is to read your posts on this… thanks tons for starting with the basics! I’ve been needing an “intro course” to frame this.
I arrive at North Park in 9 days… I’m curious to know if my NT professor, Prof. Snodgrass would agree or disagree with your viewpoints? (is he going to send me away if he sees me carrying NT Wright books?)

Preston,
Good reminder. Sanders, at any rate, thought Qumran was a “covenantal nomist” sect.
Chris,
Klyne will not have a problem with you or with Wright or the NPP. Klyne is eminently a balanced mind. He doesn’t fall for trends but he hears what is good in them and adjusts.

Scot,
Thanks for this series of post, which have been most instructive to me as someone who is aware of the controversy surrounding the NP but not really clear on what the central issues are. I always appreciate your attempts to be gracious, fair and nuanced in your representation of different views.
I have heard that John Piper has a new book coming out on justification which is sharply critical of the work of Wright. Are you aware of this book and do you plan to interact with it at all?

Gordon,
I’ve seen the book in .pdf format; I did not see the final draft. After I see it I may blog about it.

Scot,
I got the term from Michael Birds’ article in CTR, “When the Dust Finally Settles: Coming to a Post-New Perspective Perspective”, here;
http://criswell.files.wordpress.com/2006/05/2,2%20PostNewPerspective(Bird).PDF
But others have used similar titles like Simon Gathercole’s Tyndale Bulletin brief, “After the New Perspective: Works, Justification, and Boasting in Early Judaism and Romans 1-5″, here;
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/staff/documents/GathercoleTynB52.pdf
Or Don Garlington’s mention of this community in his article in CTR, “The New Perspective On Paul: An Appraisal Two Decades On”, here;
http://www.thepaulpage.com/New_Perspective.pdf
Garlington sites B. Bryne’s article “Interpreting Romans theologically in a Post New Perspective Age” in the HTR as another example, abstract here;
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=2DDFD499B42FDBBA05C7B2ACE31BE44F.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=102043
One additional example would be John M.G. Barclay’s article in JSNT, “Paul Among Diaspora Jews: Anomaly or Apostate?”, click here for an abstact;
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/60/89
Scot I don’t think these authors are intending to be a pendulum as much as just picking up critically where their forebearers left off, yet I do think that for Gathercole, Bird, and Garlington reconciling Reformed Systematic Theology with New Perspective advancements is something they are trying to work toward. Trying to neither play down differences or overplay advancements in their fields…?…I’m not sure how successful they are or aren’t.
Blessings, Tony

Thanks Scot. I would very much like to hear your thoughts on it.

Very true, Preston (#20). Further, not only is Judaism fractured and variegated, but one of the issues early-on in the NPP debates was to what extent Paul (and early Christians on the whole) was even breaking with Judaism. That is, were these debates intra-Jewish discussions or was Paul already thinking of something quite distinct? Also, the whole question of Paul’s “conversion” vs. “calling.”
Hard to imagine the Paul of Galatians doing what he did in Acts 21 if we’re thinking in hard and fast “Paul vs. Judaism” categories!

Scot,
Thanks for this series. You do a great job of clairfying the, what can often be complicated, work of these three different scholars and this ‘perspective.’
If I’m not too outside the conversation here… To me one of the issues, which you sort of allude to, is that some, especially in the more ‘Reformed’ camp, struggle with NPP because it messes with their ‘system.’ A system some have set up as gospel. In other words, biblical scholars are pointing out that, in the theology of Paul, the Gospel is not a system or method of salvation, but rather the good news of Jesus himself. And this changes how we interpret words like ‘justification,’ and ‘in Christ,’ etc….this seems to be especially true of NT Wright.

Scot,
This has been a great series of posts and comments. It almost, but not quite, makes me wish I wasn’t on vacation so I could engage more fully (maybe it wouldn’t be so much of an old boys club).
The antipathy to Dunn and Wright and others, and the reasoning behind it is interesting. Initial exposure to NT Wright through his big three books on Christian origins, and to some of the other thinkers here, was a distinct lifeline for me – demonstrating that intellectual integrity and faith are not of necessity mutually exclusive. This is not to say that I agree with every conclusion – but even the authors themselves evolve in understanding and position over the decades.
In contrast, one of the things I have long found a real turn off is devotion to a specified systematic theology – because none are flawless (or even fully true to the biblical evidence), and I find it hard to maintain intellectual integrity in this framework.

Hey Scot,
I’m glad that you have pointed out that there is no NPP consensus. It’s just independent scholars working with the text and historical documents to better understand Paul and his world. It’s called exegesis and it’s what we pastors and scholars are trained to do in both undergrad and grad programs. The rub comes when we discover something that messes with cherished systematic theology or popular belief. And that is where you see if people are truly “Reform-minded.” Will we let the text take us where it leads or will we erect another “tradition” to protect things we hold dear.
On reconsidering Judaism, the NPP simply says that Judaism was not a “do good works to get to heaven” religion. In fact, heaven and even the afterlife are not primary foci in the OT. For the Jews, the heavens is where God dwells. As Paul stated in Acts, we move about and live in Him. In my very study room, he fills the area between me and the computer and the walls. He is the King of the Heavens. But his presence is manifested in a unique way in the Jerusalem temple. But only a holy priest that carries in sacrifice even for himself can enter into that presence and only once a year. When Christ atoned for our sins, he allowed for that unique manifestation of God to be poured out on all who believed and obeyed the Messianic Lamb of God.
On doing good works, God made a covenant with Israel after delivering them from Egypt. He elected/chose them to be his people to bring about the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise to bless the nations. The covenant was simple: if you obey the laws and commandments and worship only God you will be blessed and be a blessing to the nations, if you run after paganism and all the perversion and brutality that comes with it you will be cursed and not be a blessing to the nations.
If one sees the Law as a means to conform and shape Israel into a holy priesthood that can usher the nations into the presence of the true and living God and out of paganism and other terrible practices that demean and destroy life then you’ve got it. The problem with the Judaizers is that they wrongly interpreted the Law’s purpose. They were following behind Paul on his missionary journeys criticizing him for not making them observe aspects of the Law that were no longer needed nor relevant. The Spirit of the Living God had been poured out all people for Christ’s sake!
I think the NPP brings a lot of Jesus’ parables into to the light, especially the one about the vine and the vinedresser. If disciples are too stay in Christ (because he is the true Messiah), they must obey his commandments(i.e. Jesus Creed). If they forsake Christ and his community, they are cut off. Are you getting freaked out about your individual salvation? Remember that God does not pour out his Spirit on insincere people. He sees the heart and seeks those who will be real with Him, not those with a perfect track record. Our assurance is not some forensic promise that is really no assurance at all; it is God’s real and present Spirit empowering us to be sincere disciples of Christ.

Scot,
Just a thought. You said:
“[W]hat is being said about Wright would not always be applicable to Dunn and Sanders.”
I might even go further and say that what is being said about Wright is not always applicable to Wright.

Dan & Scot (#15 & #16),
I’ve heard Tom Wright express exactly that sentiment in lectures, that if a theologian doesn’t somehow manage to say everything every time they say anything (an impossibility), people assume they don’t believe whatever it was they didn’t say that particular time.
And the imputation comment reminded me of something I heard Wright say once. I forget the lecture and the exact context, but it was connected to the “in Christ” train of thought. It was that he didn’t believe in double imputation (and I’m not even going to pretend I know what that is). He believed in infinite imputation. That word picture stuck with me. It flows from the image of everything being in Christ and Christ being all in all.

Scott M,
Thanks for this. I said in my Atonement book that I believe in multiple imputation. All of what we are is on Christ and all of who he is shifted to us.

Scot,
I read this article (http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/travis_tamerius/n_t_wright_evangelical_theology.htm) awhile back and found the content and tone very helpful. It is the best “one stop” summary of Wright I have found. This (http://alastair.adversaria.co.uk/?p=681) was also helpful as well. Let me know what you think if you have a chance to read them. Thanks for these posts!

Two recent links on the New Perspective on Paul: McKnight and Gathercole « Sets ‘n’ Service

[...] For those interested in playing the game of catchup with the New Perspective Issue there are two recent articles that I’ve found helpful. First is Simon Gathercole’s Christianity Today article (What did Paul really mean?); and Second is Scot McKnight’s five part series over at JesusCreed (Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; and Part 5). [...]

Recent Discussion on the New Perspective on Paul at PastorBlog

[...] New Perspective 4 [...]

Paulus in neuer Perspektive » Der Sämann » Blog Archiv » Paulus in neuer Perspektive

[...] Teil 4 – Klarstellungen [...]

Emergentes Gedankengut » Lektüre | KW 32

[...] Scot McKnight hat eine sehr gute Serie zur so genannten �New Perspective� geschrieben. Kurz und bündig spricht er über einige bekannte Vertreter und Kernpunkte der Perspektive, die sich hauptsächlich auf ein neues Verständnis von Paulus bezieht. Hier nun die Links zu den einzelnen Artikeln: New Perspective 1 » E.P. Sanders. New Perspective 2 » James Dunn. New Perspective 3 » N.T. Wright. New Perspective 4 » 5 Hinweise zum Umgang. New Perspective 5 » Menschenbild, Sünde und Rettung. Alle in Englisch, aber sehr lesenswert. Tags [...]