Justification and New Perspective 17

It is ironic that Wright shows that the OPP for all its claims to be about the "glory of God" has reduced justification to an intensely anthropocentric concept (me and my faith) and the NPP spotlights justification as intensely theocentric (God and God's faithfulness).

Scot, this is a stimulating series. Thanks!

I'm totally off subject. John Frye's OPP/NPP has me back
in organic chemistry. Long story short, the recently
discovered mevalonate-independent pathway via deoxyxylulose
phosphate yield monoterpenes with these isoprenoid units.
(the regular monoterpene to achieve OPP/NPP notoriety is
from Artemisia absinthium producing the drink absinthe, banned
in many countries.)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but pistis cristou is NOT an OPP vs. NPP debate. It is an exegetical debate that has proponents from both perspectives. Case in point: James Dunn. While Dunn has said repeatedly that this subjective/objective genitive is ambiguous, listen to his words in his conversation with NT Wright (on the NT Wright page):

"The other is that it’s pretty clear to me in some key passages, particularly Galatians 3, that pistis language is being used of Christian faith, to use that shorthand. The problem with Richard Hays’ presentation, as I recall, is that once you refer one of the pistis phrases, one of the “faith” phrases, to Christ’s faith (“the faithfulness of Christ),” it’s difficult to avoid reading all of the pistis references in the same way – the agreed presumption being that he’s using pistis consistently. But what strikes me again and again is that Paul starts his talk of pistis in Galatians 3 with Abraham: “Even so Abraham ‘believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith (ek pisteos) who are sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:6, 7, NASB). It’s pretty obvious to me that this means “you believed as Abraham believed”; and it is that pistis reference which sets the pattern for the pistis references throughout the chapter. That would be one of the lines of argument I would want to develop."

To claim that this is a failure of the OPP or yet another example of OPP being anthropocentric and NPP christocentric is to miss the reality of the debate (in addition to the fact that Paul has both an anthropology and a christology, so to pit those against one another is wrong).

So this is a case in which Wright's exegesis is framed by his larger understanding of the metanarrative (in a similar way that Piper's is). I'm still with Dunn (and Piper) on this one...