1. God's team wins.
2. Choose your team.
3. Don't be stupid.
Yep, the whole message of Revelation in three lines. Now the New Perspective in three lines, though mine are not as funny or clever:
1. Judaism was not a works-earns-salvation religion.
2. Paul was therefore not opposing a works-earns-salvation religion.
3. Therefore, the Reformation's way of framing the entire message of the New Testament as humans seeking to earn their own redemption rests on shaky historical grounds.
What do you know about the New Perspective? How do you summarize it? Do you think my three lines gets to the heart of it? What light has the NPP shed for you? What do you think are its major weaknesses?
Another way of summing up the NPP is this: the Augustinian anthropology that
undergirds much of Reformed theology (humans as depraved and totally
dead and in need of grace and humans, in true Pelagian fashion, want to
prove themselves before God) may well be true but it is not what Paul
was talking about.
There are so many good books about the NPP today, and one simply has to mention the writings of EP Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Recently, many in the Reformed tradition, including John Piper, have criticized the NPP, especially Tom Wright, so there is quite a dust-up about this at work today. A recent book that shows how resurrection theology is connected to the NPP is by Daniel Kirk.
Daniel Kirk's dissertation has been published and the thing is readable and important. His concern is resurrection theology at work in the book of Romans. His contention is that Easter really matters. Many of us have observed from time to time that the gospel is reduced too often to Good Friday. But the gospel Peter and Paul preached included the cross and the resurrection. I think the problem for many, tragically, is what to make of the resurrection. Indeed, everyone knows resurrection was part of the earliest Christian preaching, but the question we ask today seems to be: What are the implications of the resurrection? It's got to be more than a major element of our apologetics. This is why I'm happy to commend your study of Daniel Kirk's new book: Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God .
Here are some highlights: Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God
.
Here are some highlights:
First, Judaism had at least four themes of the significance of resurrection: (1) it would vindicate God's people and prove God faithful; (2) it buttressed the appeal to do what is right -- yes, if there is a resurrection, there is a judgment; if there is a judgment, we better be ready; (3) it promised a future restoration of earth and body and cosmos; and (4) Israel would be restored.
In Romans we see the people of God redefined by a resurrected Messiah and participation in that resurrection. Jesus' own resurrection sets the restoration process into motion. And here's a big point for Kirk: the people of God must be defined in light of the Christ event -- life, death and resurrection. This means, Kirk argues, the litmus test for association with brothers and sisters in Christ is Calvary and the Empty Grave. This leads to proper church unity, and Kirk pushes back against some of the attempts to find doctrinal unity as the proper basis for church unity.
Yes, Kirk gets into the justification debate and he leans toward Tom Wright's stuff. Here's one of his points: "grace" vs. "works" is not two principles humans use-- we either use the grace principle or the works principle -- but instead two particulars: "grace comes in Christ" and "works" is connected to Mosaic Torah.
There are so many good books about the NPP today, and one simply has to mention the writings of EP Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Recently, many in the Reformed tradition, including John Piper, have criticized the NPP, especially Tom Wright, so there is quite a dust-up about this at work today. A recent book that shows how resurrection theology is connected to the NPP is by Daniel Kirk.
Daniel Kirk's dissertation has been published and the thing is readable and important. His concern is resurrection theology at work in the book of Romans. His contention is that Easter really matters. Many of us have observed from time to time that the gospel is reduced too often to Good Friday. But the gospel Peter and Paul preached included the cross and the resurrection. I think the problem for many, tragically, is what to make of the resurrection. Indeed, everyone knows resurrection was part of the earliest Christian preaching, but the question we ask today seems to be: What are the implications of the resurrection? It's got to be more than a major element of our apologetics. This is why I'm happy to commend your study of Daniel Kirk's new book: Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God .
Here are some highlights: Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God
.Here are some highlights:
First, Judaism had at least four themes of the significance of resurrection: (1) it would vindicate God's people and prove God faithful; (2) it buttressed the appeal to do what is right -- yes, if there is a resurrection, there is a judgment; if there is a judgment, we better be ready; (3) it promised a future restoration of earth and body and cosmos; and (4) Israel would be restored.
In Romans we see the people of God redefined by a resurrected Messiah and participation in that resurrection. Jesus' own resurrection sets the restoration process into motion. And here's a big point for Kirk: the people of God must be defined in light of the Christ event -- life, death and resurrection. This means, Kirk argues, the litmus test for association with brothers and sisters in Christ is Calvary and the Empty Grave. This leads to proper church unity, and Kirk pushes back against some of the attempts to find doctrinal unity as the proper basis for church unity.
Yes, Kirk gets into the justification debate and he leans toward Tom Wright's stuff. Here's one of his points: "grace" vs. "works" is not two principles humans use-- we either use the grace principle or the works principle -- but instead two particulars: "grace comes in Christ" and "works" is connected to Mosaic Torah.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Hi Dave,
The other side is present as well. One could also cite the need for solid food rather than milk, and putting away childish things. I've known far more teenagers and college students who have lost their faith because they had nothing but a childish understanding that couldn't stand up to the grown-up assault of the university.
I think, as is true with most things in the faith, there is both sides at play. Yes the core of the faith is simple enough and intuitive enough that even a child can encounter God in it. That child may even encounter God more profoundly and fully than an adult. But it's also not shallow and simplistic - the truth of God runs as deep as God himself - and the wisest of scholars may spend a lifetime and never exhaust its insights and subtleties.
I don't think we ever approach the Bible just by itself. "Where two or three are gathered in my name" - we come to God in the context of the Church. When Christians are isolated from the Church, we can and do fall into error. We need the body. And this is true in time as well. If Christians are not reading scripture with other Christians in other times, we can and will fall prey to the spirit of the age. We need the witness of the great theologians, pastors, and church fathers from ages past to guide us. If Christians are only reading scripture with other Christians of the same educational background or vocation, we can and will fall into subtle errors. We need the witness of people coming at it from different angles (including the help of the historians - or the help of, say, farmers).
None of this is to slight what the Holy Spirit will do with the single earnest man who seeks God in the scriptures with faith. God will meet any one of us as we are, but to guide us into the fullness of truth, he unites us with his body, his bride. That's his way.
Scott M and Dave,
Interesting debate, but I'd respectfully suggest it is somewhat of a red herring in this context, at least to me. I suspect that Dave would agree that context, translation, etc., are important in understanding scripture -- he is just concerned that if we need to rely on 15 extra-Biblical sources and the mere wave of the hand by an expert to even get the basic point, maybe there is something wrong.
My interpretative method is like Scott M's, RJS's, and Michael Kruse's, and I think anything that historical study can bring to bear on the issue is very useful. But, if you agree with Wright, we don't need all of that here: Dave's standard is met. If you take as context only what we know from the OT and the total of Paul's writings, plus the usual translations (save a couple of disputed points), exegesis suggests that Wright's interpretative framework makes much more sense than the traditional Reformed one (at least to me, a non-expert). You don't need to read 15 extra-Biblical sources to reach his conclusions. (Of course, it helps that those sources also support him, but again, you don't even need to get to them if you don't want to).
Dave -- I'd suggest that you read Wright's book on justification (the one that is new this year), and see for yourself what you think.
Michael (68),
I agree with you, and Scot, that the biblical narrative is not chiefly about political, human empires, though their humbling is much more inherent to Jesus' story than I realized before the NPP. I think the issue in our conversation is one of emphasis and degree, as your characterizations make clear. I am grateful for the NPP because they've made me realize that Paul and the entire NT aren't nearly as dualistic as I was taught in evangelicalism growing up. I like your characterization 2, but today I see in the statement "Jesus is Lord" much more of an intended challenge to all other powers--including the earthly ones--than I ever did before; I see a victory in the cross & resurrection, not merely over the spiritual powers, but the oppressive human authorities as well. I hear in the transformation of the Roman cross into the symbol of Christ's power a resounding echo of God's action against similar human powers in Israel's past--turning another would be god-king of the gentiles into a footstool to announce God's superior power to the known world.
Having said that, I think the chief weakness of the NPP is overreaching, or trying for too much of a good thing. I see more of a challenge to human powers in the biblical narrative thanks to the NPP, but not so much that the entire book of Colossians or Philippians becomes a coded narrative about empire. And I don't see much emphasis in the NPP on the spiritual powers of the kind that Paul and Jesus dealt with via old-fashioned exorcisms and the like. But that seems more like a Western flaw more than specific to the NPP. Hope that makes sense.
I agree with Dan Kirk heartily, insofar as Scot summarized his work well:
"And here's a big point for Kirk: the people of God must be defined in light of the Christ event -- life, death and resurrection. This means, Kirk argues, the litmus test for association with brothers and sisters in Christ is Calvary and the Empty Grave. This leads to proper church unity, and Kirk pushes back against some of the attempts to find doctrinal unity as the proper basis for church unity."
Working in reconciliation ministry one sees that allowing our flesh to die must precede our unity in Christ. A sure fire way to deep-six reconciliation in our culture's churches and denominations is human(s) refusal to admit that our intellect is part of our flesh. That refusal, IMHO, evidences incipient gnosticism as well as human pride. We're taught this methodology of criticism at every level in our schools, and moreso at every level of graduate and postgrad work. The better we are at researching, dissecting and criticizing one another's work, the greater the success academically. It's painful, spiritual work to remain humble in our understanding after all that effort to build it up in the world's eyes! "Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love for one another, a tender heart and a humble mind." (1 Pet. 3:8)
I am way late to this discussion, but the post asked about the weaknesses of the New Perspective.
I have recently "converted" to the New Perspective, and in writing a lengthy defense of it, I was surprised how difficult it is to defend Scot's first premise. I could not find an example from the writings of Second Temple Judaism that clearly advocates covenental nomism over "works righteousness." There is no Ephesians 2:8–9 passage outside of the NT. Further, the only first century document written by a Pharisee describing the beliefs of the Pharisees (that we have) is Paul's letter to the Philippians. Philippians 3 seems more concerned about "boasting" than it does "ethnic exclusion." So, while I remain an advocate of the New Perspective, it all hinges on the belief that "Second Temple Jews were not trying to earn their salvation." I don't think the NPP has sufficiently proven that this is the case.
Further, I think Dunn goes too far in his making the Gospel primarily about exclusion/inclusion. Certainly, there is an element of that, but I think Christology is the real issue to Paul. Francis Watson's Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective brings some needed correctives to Dunn's views. Watson argues that Paul's problem with Judaism is not that it is exclusive (after all, Christianity is just as exclusive), but that the Jews rejected his preaching about Christ. Why was Paul against "works of the law"? Because the same people who advocated "works of the law" also rejected Christ.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.