Evaluate the “New Perspective” on Paul’s exposition of the doctrine of

justification by faith alone

Introduction

Since the groundbreaking work in E. P. Sanders’ monograph, “Paul and Palestinian

Judaism”, a paradigm shift had taken place within New Testament scholarship with

regards to the center of Pauline theology. Although by no means a monolithic movement,

the New Perspective represents a fundamental rethinking of what the gospel really

means. The present paper sought to analyze and evaluate New Perspective views on the

doctrine of justification sola fide primarily through interaction with major proponents.

Some common characteristics among New Perspective interpreters are the serious

attempt to place Paul within his socio-religious framework in first century Palestine,

offering a more positive evaluation of Judaism and response to Schweitzer’s agenda-

setting question about the center of his theology as understood from the epistles1. In this

discussion, we would proceed by interacting with Stendahl on hermeneutical

presuppositions, Sanders on Jewish socio-religious context and finally, N.T. Wright on

exegesis of key passages related to justification sola fide2.

1
For Schweitzer, only two views were credible contenders for the center of Pauline theology. He argued
that “Christ-mysticism” understood in the context of apocalyptic Judaism is the center of which
“justification by faith” is but a peripheral apologetic for the inclusion of Gentiles into the church.
2
In keeping with sound hermeneutical principles, presupposition and socio-historical contextual analysis
methodologically precedes exegesis of the text. I have chosen to interact with Stendahl and Sanders
because of their ground-breaking contribution in the respective areas. As for Wright, his exegesis on
justification seems most persuasive, refreshing and influential among New Perspective scholars I’ve read.

1
 Before tracing the historical development of New Perspective, we must say a

word about the classical perspective on Paul. Traditionally, Reformed interpreters like

Luther and Calvin have painted a portrait of Paul as self-righteous Pharisee who strived

to earn his salvation by observing the law and amass good works with his own effort.

This form of legalism was characteristic of the Judaism of his day. On that fateful road to

Damascus, Paul had a conversion encounter with the resurrected Christ. As expounded

most fully in Romans, Paul came to understand that one’s legal or forensic standing

before God was not based on works of the law, but justified freely through faith alone.

The Law-Gospel antithesis described the function of the Law as a means to terrify the

sinner with God’s justice so as to seek refuge in the imputed righteousness of Christ sola

gratia (Luther) or primarily a revelation of the perfect, divine will (Calvin)3. Previously

regarded as the orthodox article of faith on which the Church either stands or falls, the

doctrine of justification sola fide was the material cause of the Reformation movement.

The Quest for the Historical Paul

However, this consensus among Paul’s interpreters has been steadily eroded over the

past thirty years. Perhaps the herald of the new interpretive paradigm was Swedish

Lutheran theologian, Krister Stendahl. In his essay, "The Apostle Paul and the

Introspective Conscience of the West”, Stendahl argued that since Augustine’s

Confessions, Christians have misunderstood Paul through the lens of the inward-looking,

individualistic mindset of Western culture4. Thus, the apostle’s original concerns about

3
F. Thielman, A Contextual Approach: Paul and the Law, (Illinois: InterVarsity, 1994) pages 14-27.
4
The article was first published in English in Harvard Theological Review in 1963.

2
the communal relationships between Jews and Gentiles were obscured. The result is

nothing short of an expose of the conceptual baggage carried by the Reformers as they

approach the text. In relation to justification sola fide, Tom Wright also pointed out that

the church’s understanding of justification was forged in the battlefields of Pelagius

against Augustine in the fifth century and Erasmus against Luther in the sixteenth

century5. If we can’t approach the Pauline corpus with an introspective, guilt-ridden

conscience in search for a gracious God, how then shall we read?

After Stendahl heralded the impending paradigm by exposing the presuppositions

of Reformation paradigm, the floodgates were opened with the publication of Sanders’

influential “Paul and Palestinian Judaism.” In the preface, Sanders spoke of his attempt to

“compare Judaism, understood on its own terms, with Paul, understood on his own

terms.” Based on his research on ancient literature on Palestinian Judaism (as in non-

Diaspora), Sanders argued that the caricature of Judaism as a legalistic religion was a

historically false “straw man”. He proposed that within the pattern of religion found in

Second Temple Judaism dubbed covenantal nomism, “obedience maintains one’s

position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such6.” Obedience is

required to “stay in” God’s covenant but “getting in” was always based on God’s electing

grace. In His mercy, God has chosen Israel and given them the law. Transgression is

punished. However, the law has provided means of atonement for the restoration of

5
N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity?
(Oxford: Lion, 1997), page 113
6
J. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, (London: SCM Press,
1977), page 420

3
covenant relationship. Salvation is therefore not earned but solely by grace alone. While

qualifying the drawbacks of using the term “soteriology7,” Sanders wrote that:

"When a man is concerned to be ‘in’ rather than ‘out’, we may consider him to have a

‘soteriological’ concern, even though he may have no view concerning an afterlife at

all… covenantal nomism is the view that one's place in God's plan is established on the

basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man, his

obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression8."

Granted that Paul the Pharisee had reoriented himself to a new Christian community

whom he had previously persecuted, there was essentially no change in his “pattern of

religion”. There was no radical, salvific discontinuity between the post-Damascus,

Pauline doctrines of justification by faith and the tradition of his fathers. If Sander’s

historical analysis is correct, how then shall we understand the polemics of Paul that “a

man is justified by faith apart from observing the law”? If Paul was interacting with

covenantal nomism, a religion of grace, what do we make of his doctrine of justification

by faith?

Here, Sanders argued that Paul began with a prior conviction that Jesus is the

universal Savior of all, and any reference to human plight is the necessary, rhetorical

outworking from that dogmatic conviction9. He didn’t start with any plight of humanity
7
For example, Sanders noted that Rabbinic Judaism is not primarily other-worldly. “What must I do to be
saved?” is not a prominent query for them.
8
J. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, page 75.
9
Building on Sanders theory, Raisanen’s Paul and the Law went even further to argue that Paul had no
consistent theology of the Law at all. For an evaluation, see J. Barclay, Paul and the law: Observations on
some recent debates, Themelios, vol.12, September 1986, pages 9 -11

4
or a pre-conversion dissatisfaction with the Law 10. The only problem Paul had with

Judaism was: It is not Christianity. If Sanders’ solution does not appear simplistic, many

New Perspective scholars were nonetheless dissatisfied with his reinterpretation of

Pauline theology despite standing upon the revolutionary foundation which he laid.

Eschewing a Lutheran Law-Gospel antithesis yet discontented with Sanders’

proposal, N.T. Wright offered a more promising alternative for understanding the

doctrine of justification by faith. He argued that nationalistic “boundary markers” like

circumcision, Sabbath and food laws marked out the pious Jews as evidence of being

God’s covenant-keepers, in anticipation of the Yahweh’s eschatological vindication of

their status as true Israel11. Since Paul never abandoned Judaism, his fiery polemics

against the works of the law should be understood within his new vocation as the apostle

to the Gentiles. James D.G. Dunn, another New Perspective scholar argued rather

similarly that the Damascus Christophany was primarily Paul’s calling to the Gentile

mission while remaining within covenantal nomism12. The apostolic herald of the Christ

was on a crusade to remove such culture-specific badges that separated Jews and Gentile

Christians as a covenant community. We shall look more closely how Wright reformulate

the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith.

To begin with, Wright argued that God’s righteousness should be understood as His

covenant faithfulness to His promises to Israel, instead of the distributive justice of God13.

10
F. Thielman, A Contextual Approach: Paul and the Law, pages 35 – 37.
11
N.T. Wright, What Did Saint Paul really said: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity?, page
132
12
J. D. G. Dunn, ‘A Light to the Gentiles’ or ‘The End of the Law?’ The Significance of the Damascus
Road Christophany for Paul’ in the monograph Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians,
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), pages 98 – 99. Quoted in S. Kim, Paul and the New
Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), page 22
13
See Isaiah 40 – 55, Daniel 9 and Psalm 143 for the biblical warrant.

5
Thus Luther’s notion of iustitia Dei is ruled out as a Latin irrelevance. Wright framed

God’s righteousness as “that aspect of God’s character because of which He saves Israel

despite Israel’s perversity and lostness… thus cognate with His trustworthiness on the

one hand, and Israel’s salvation on the other”.14 Carried over to a forensic law court

setting, Israel comes before the divine Judge pleading her case against her pagan

oppressors. God is righteous when He is faithful to His covenant to vindicate Israel’s case

as promised. Israel is righteous or justified “as a result of the decision of the court” in an

eschatological fulfillment15.

Although Wright stresses the forensic dimension of justification, it was not about

how someone might enter God’s covenant community but of “how you can tell who

belongs to that community” before end-time Judgment. Justification was “God’s

eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of His

people… It wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology, not so much about

salvation as about the church.16” The issue of salvation at the heart of Pauline theology

centers on Jesus and the proclamation of His kingship. Justification is not about getting in

or staying in a covenant relationship with God, but the boundary markers that indicate to

us in the present who would be part of the vindicated Israel in the future.

The Case for Paul, the Apostle of Faith

14
N.T. Wright, What Did Saint Paul really said: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity?, page
96
15
Ibid., page 98
16
Ibid., page 119

6
 If the New Perspective on Paul is right, then the article of faith upon which the

Church stands or falls is shaken to the core. While some evangelicals eagerly jump on the

bandwagon, other theologians offer knee-jerk response against it by pointing out its

radical departure from historic creeds. Ultimately we need to evaluate these views in the

following order – presupposition analysis, socio-historical context and exegesis.

To begin with, we could examine Stendahl’s thesis that Paul’s “robust conscience”

necessarily precludes an acute, introspective awareness of sin as a peculiarly Western

idea17. For example, Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18 seems

to suggest that a contrite spirit is the requirement for being “justified”. David, the Eastern

Psalmist, may have a robust conscience (Psalm 17: 1 – 5) but he is also known for

struggling with inward guilt in Psalm 51. These two themes seem to interplay in tension

throughout the Old Testament until they find a resolution and harmony at the event of

Jesus’ crucifixion. Philippians 3:6 should not be taken as proof-text that Paul considered

himself to have kept the law perfectly. Colin Kruse commented, “This verse is found in a

context in which Paul deals with externals, the evidences of his Jewish pedigree and

piety… It is better then to understand Philippians 3:6 in terms of misplaced pride in

which the apostle indulged in pre-Christian days. It does not reflect his views about the

possibility of perfect obedience.18”

In another significant contribution, Frank Thielman proposed that ancient Jewish

literature, canonical or otherwise, contained a common pattern in which Israel’s inability

to keep the law (the plight) will be cured in the eschatological future where God will free
17
S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), page 53. Kim cited the
Thanksgiving Hymns of Qumran as suggesting the possibility for rigorous Jews to sometimes doubt their
ability to keep the law perfectly.
18
C. Kruse, Paul, the Law and Justification, (Leicester: Apollos, 1996), page 83.

7
Israel to obey His commands (the solution)19. Instead of being plagued by personal sins,

Paul was burdened by Israel’s corporate failures, which resulted in Gentile oppression.

Thielman also argued that there were Jews who believed in a synergistic relation between

human effort and divine grace as the means of eschatological vindication. Against such

beliefs, the post-Damascus Paul wrestled valiantly in Philippians 3: 2-11 and Colossians

2:13-14. Paul’s movement “from plight to solution” could then make a lot of sense within

his own Jewish milieu, not as an imposition of Western categories.

We could also note that New Perspective is itself not based on ‘presuppositionless’

exegesis. The new Paul has emerged from the terrible aftermath of Auschwitz. The

Nazis’ propaganda in support of the Holocaust was shockingly dressed in Christian garb.

Isn’t it tempting to construct a Paul who could easily evade charges of anti-Semitism by

opposing mere boundary markers yet essentially in agreement with Judaism? Following

Schweitzer’s critique of the historical Jesus project, the quest for Paul is also in danger of

becoming a self-reflection of the spirit of the age20. Our prevailing postmodern mood in

general is intolerant of religious exclusivism. In the face of imposing challenge from

secularism and naturalism, N.T. Wright’s proposal to undercut the central Catholic-

Protestant debate on justification, as a peripheral issue of ecclesiology, is attractive to

sensitive believers who long for unity in Christ’s Body. However, if justification by faith

is essential to Paul’s apostolic gospel as asserted by the Reformers, compromise would be

19
Frank Thielman, From Plight to Solution: A Jewish Framework for Understanding Paul’s View of the
Law in Galatians and Romans (Leiden: Brill, 1989) page 45. Quote was from Kruse, op. cit., page 45.
20
Kirster Stendahl, for example, is actively involved in ecumenical dialogue with Jewish scholars via the
International Council of Christians and Jews. The perceived advantage of improving post-Holocaust
Jewish-Christian relation may be done at the expense of silencing Paul’s exclusivistic gospel. Is it possible
that in an ironic twist, the guilty conscience of post-Holocaust Europe has now been read into the text?

8
too high a price to pay for such perceived tactical advantage21. As responsible exegetes,

we need to identify the lens with which we ourselves interpret the data otherwise the

meaning of the text is skewed. While exegesis cannot be done without a perspective

provided by one’s presupposition and reading community, the text can address and even

change our lens if necessary22.

At this point, it would be well for us to consider the socio-religious background of

Paul in connection with first-century Palestinian Judaism. More recently, scholarly

research into the soteriological pattern found in diverse Jewish literature from apocrypha,

pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other rabbinical traditions had

cast doubt on whether “covenantal nomism” was an adequate description of Palestinian

Judaism. In volume 1 of “Justification and Variegated Nomism”, the contributors’

findings seemed to suggest that Second Temple Judaism was much more complex and

lack uniformity23. In a review, Craig Blomberg listed some texts especially 2 Enoch, 4

Ezra, Testament of Abraham and 2 Baruch that seem to favor a more legalistic theology.

The data gathered by Sanders’ study can also be interpreted in support for a legalistic

Judaism. For instance, the sheer number and minute detail of laws in Mishnah, that the

covenant is not even mentioned in Tannaitic writings and the rabbinic explanation of

God’s election on the basis of Israel’s choice to accept the covenant or on the merits of

21
Luther wrote, “Nothing in this article can be given up or compromised, even if heaven and earth…
should be destroyed.” Quoted in Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers, (Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Pub.,1998), page 62
22
Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation,
(Illinois: InterVarsity, 1991), page 412
23
In Summary and Conclusions, Don Carson wrote that “Sanders is not wrong everywhere… he is wrong
when he tries to establish his category is right everywhere”.

9
their forefathers24. Friedrich Avemarie’s investigation showed that rabbinic Judaism tends

to hold the emphasis of “electing grace” and “works” in tension without any neat, unified

system as what Sanders proposed 25. In light of this correction, we cannot readily dismiss

Paul’s admission that his pre-conversion status before God was not only based on

electing grace, but also his zealousness for the law, circumcision, ancestry and legalistic

righteousness (Galatians 1:14, Philippians 3:5-6).

In reality both Romanism and past/present Judaism could be more accurately categorized

as “semi-Pelagian”, instead of what Wright described as “proto-Pelagian”. Both patterns

of religion teach that man and God are “co-operators in salvation, that grace could

complement and supplement human nature26”. The issue ever hinges on the little word

“sola” in sola fide and sola gratia. Hence, a more variegated construction of first century

Judaism allows Paul’s polemics against the law to be understood in soteriological terms.

Sifting the Epistles of the Apostle

Before discussing key passages in Paul’s epistles which would have decisive bearing

in the debate, we are confronted with what Kasemann called the central concept of

Pauline theology - ‘the righteousness of God’ (dikaiosune theou). According to Old

Testament scholars like Gerhard von Rad, it meant God’s ‘covenantal faithfulness’ to

fulfill His saving promises to Israel. It seems like a necessary correction to the view of

24
T. Shreiner, The Law & Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993)
pages 114 – 117.
25
Mark A. Siefrid, The ‘New Perspective on Paul’ and Its Problems, essay drawn from Christ, Our
Righteousness, published by Appolos, UK.
26
P. F. M. Zahl, Mistakes of the New Perspective, Themelios Vol 27:1, page 7

10
righteousness understood as conformity to an ethical norm27. However, the grid of

‘covenantal faithfulness’, on which the weight of Wright’s thesis rests, is too narrow to

support the datum in Old Testament where God’s righteousness is also demonstrated

specifically in fulfilling His punitive, non-saving promises to Israel28. Therefore, Mark

Siefrid’s caution that the words ‘righteousness’ and ‘covenant’ are rarely used in the

same context in Old Testament should be considered more seriously.29

John Piper offered a more plausible alternative after surveying Old Testament texts

like Psalm 143 and Daniel 9: “While God’s allegiance to the covenant is a real

manifestation of God’s righteousness, nevertheless the most fundamental characteristic of

God’s righteousness is His allegiance to His own name… His commitment to Israel is

penultimate. His commitment to maintaining the glory and honor of His name is

ultimate.30” It is because God’s glory should be revealed before a watching world that

both His punitive justice and saving faithfulness are manifested. In Isaiah’s prediction of

God’s eschatological saving acts closely related to His righteousness, the ground for

Israel’s salvation is God’s passion for His own glory:

“For the sake of my name I delay my wrath and for my praise I restrain it for you, in

order not to cut you off… For my own sake, for my own sake I will act, for how can (my

name) be profaned? And my glory I will not give to another”. (Isaiah 48:9-11)
27
C. Hodge, Romans, (Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth, 1989), page 95. Commenting on this term in
Romans 3:25-26, Hodge wrote: ‘Justice is the attribute with which the remission, or passing by, of sins
without punishment, seemed to be in conflict.’ But God’s righteousness can be displayed in showing mercy
as shown in Psalm 143.
28
David Hill cited Lamentations 1:18 and Isaiah 10:22 in support for his thesis that “within the action of
divine righteousness, there is a place for deliverance and condemnation, a place for salvation and for
punishment”. D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological
Terms, (Cambridge 1997), page 90
29
M. Siefrid, The ‘New Perspective on Paul’ and Its Problems, Themelios 25.2 (2000)
30
J. Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1993), page 112. See also God’s Passion for His Glory (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1998).

11
If the righteousness of God refers to neither distributive justice nor covenantal

faithfulness but to God’s commitment to the glory of His name, how shall we exegete31?

Commenting on the epistle to Galatia, Wright pointed out that the issue in Antioch

was not how one may be saved, but who one is allowed to eat with? Can Gentile

Christians share full table-fellowship or do they need to be marked out by circumcision as

part of the covenant community? However, this proposal failed to account for Paul’s own

assessment of the situation in Galatians 1:6-9. His indictment of his opponents (to the

point of throwing eternal anathema) lies in their perversion of the gospel of Christ itself.

The inconsistency of Jewish Christians separating themselves from Gentile believers is

symptomatic of a more serious lapse in the nature of Paul’s gospel (Galatians 2:14). If the

gospel is a royal announcement of Jesus as Lord, not justification by faith, why would

Paul charge them of preaching another gospel that nullifies Christ’s death32? (Gal 2:21)

A compelling case for viewing justification by faith as a ‘covenant-entry’ issue can be

made by taking seriously the link between Abraham’s blessing and the promise of the

Spirit (Galatians 3:14). Christ redeemed us that the blessing given to Abraham would be

realized in that the nations would receive the promise of the Spirit by faith in Christ.

Being declared as righteous through faith, apart from the law, (Gal 3:6) is the basis for

receiving the Spirit and not least, covenant-entry into Abraham’s family (Gal 3:2, 6-7)33.

31
The implications of Piper’s thesis are more fully developed in Tom Shreiner’s “Paul, Apostle of God’s
Glory in Christ.”
32
N.T. Wright, What did Saint Paul really say?, page 126
33
T. Shreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology. (Illinois: InterVarsity Press,
2001), page 208

12
Contra Wright, Paul’s discourse in Galatians does not merely indulge in peripheral

bickering on how one is defined as a member of Abraham’s covenant community.

Justification of the Gentiles by faith is nothing less than the ‘gospel’ announced in

advance to Abraham so that the nations would now enter into his covenant blessings.

In response to scholars who envision justification sola fide as later ecclesiological

issue, Seyoon Kim pointed out that Paul himself interpreted the Christophany as the

pleasure of God “to reveal his Son in me” (the gospel) “so that I might preach Him among

the Gentiles” (the commission)34. If Paul developed justification by faith much later

during the Antioch controversies about the place of Gentiles, as Dunn suggests35, then the

polemical context in Galatians 1 and 2 would make little sense. Here, Paul defended his

law-free gospel, apostleship and the Gentile mission as having an inseparable and divine

origin in the Christophany. If he came to realize justification sola fide apart from the law

only much later, the argument would inevitably fall apart36. Luke’s account would concur

that the commission Paul received from Christ to both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 1:16)

is primarily salvific - “to open their eyes from darkness to light, from the power of Satan

to God so that they may receive forgiveness of sins37” (Acts 22:16-18).

Regarding the crucial passage of Romans 3:21-31, Wright argued that God had

demonstrated His covenant faithfulness when He dealt with sin in the cross and

34
S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, page 57. The text was taken from Galatians 2:16.
35
J. D. G. Dunn, “Paul and Justification by Faith” in The Road from Damascus edited by R. Longenecker,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), page 99 Quoted in Kim, Paul and the New Perspective, page 27
36
S. Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, pages 58 – 60.
37
S. Kim, Paul and the New Perspective, page 49. Kim also pointed out the “problematic implication of
Dunn’s minimalistic view… it makes the gospel practically irrelevant to the Jews”. A Messiah who does
not save Israel is a contradiction of terms! The notion that Jews have an equally valid system of salvation in
Judaism, apart from Christ, is untenable. Genuine tolerance in Jewish-Christian relation should be upheld
by the doctrine that man was created in the image of God, not by downplaying the central doctrine of
justification sola fide.

13
resurrection so that covenant membership is now available to both Jews and Gentiles.

The boasting of Romans 3:27 is the racial boast of the Jew to Gentiles, not that of the

successful moralist to God. Otherwise, it does not logically follow that Paul should retort,

“Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is He not of Gentiles also?38” In the covenantal

context, justification means that believers are declared or defined, in the present, to be

true covenant members on the basis of faith, not by circumcision or natural descent.

However, the force of Wright’s argument is blunted significantly if we take note of

Paul’s ad absurdum strategy in Romans 3:29. His opponents did not historically hold the

view that Yahweh is a provincial deity of the Jews only. Rather, Paul is carrying his

opponents’ position to its undesirable logical conclusions. Simon Gathercole pointed out

that if obedience to the Torah were God’s appointed means to justification, then He

would have no concern for Gentiles who did not have access to Torah39. Therefore it is

more likely that the boasting refers to the confidence that God would vindicate Israel

before the Gentiles by virtue of Israel’s election and obedience to Torah40. It does not

necessarily imply self-righteousness, only that Paul’s contemporaries wrongly assumed

that they had fulfilled the requirements of Torah. Theirs was a failure not merely to

include Gentiles in the covenant, but also a failure to know God in a salvific sense, which

Paul agonized over in Romans 9. There is no distinction between those who have Torah

and those who don’t because all have sinned and failed to reflect the glory of God

(Romans 3:23). In Romans 1, Paul indicted mankind as having knowledge of God but

38
Ibid, page 129
39
S. Gathercole, Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1 – 5.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), page 232
40
Ibid, page 226. In support of his thesis, Gathercole cited Sirach 31:5, 10 as an example from the various
Jewish sources surveyed.

14
failed to glorify Him as God and exchanged His glory for images of the created. The

centrality of God’s glory in Christ is carried over in Romans 3:21 – 31 where God’s

righteousness required vindication or demonstration because of the proposal that God had

left sins committed beforehand unpunished and justified sinners freely (verse 26)41. In

contrast, to avoid playing off justice with mercy, Wright’s interpretation exhibited no

such tension evident in the text. Rather, justification of God’s community is only

expected of His covenantal faithfulness. The passing over of sins committed by those

who dishonored God’s glory threw a long shadow over God’s “righteousness” precisely

because God’s commitment to the honor of His name is at stake. Therefore the cross as a

sacrifice of atonement or propitiation for sins (verse 25) was utterly crucial in order to

demonstrate that God’s honor was upheld even as He justified those who believe.

With a covenantal grid, Wright also interpreted Philippians 3:2-11 as Paul’s refusal

to grasp racial covenant membership, though possessing it according to the flesh, by

virtue of his birth, marked out by circumcision and being a zealous Pharisee. “Faith is the

badge of covenant membership, not something someone performs as a kind of initiation

test42.” However, it is improper to suppose that ‘gaining Christ’ is not an initiatory phase

in covenant membership. To “gain Christ” and be “found in Him” (verse 9) is to assume

the same positional status as “having righteousness that comes from God” through faith

in Christ. The latter is not a mere marker of which the former is reality. That which Paul

rejected as “loss” and “refuse” was hardly membership indicators, but the confidence in

41
S. Westerholm, Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1988), page 160. Westerholm’s critique here may also be applied to Wright: “Although Sanders
and Raisanen both concede universal sinfulness in Romans 1-3, the tenet is dismissed to the periphery of
Paul’s thought.”
42
N.T. Wright, What did Saint Paul really say?, page 125

15
“the works of the law as the basis for man’s righteousness before God”43. His apparent

“profit” in the past (verse 7) was antithetical “gaining Christ”. To be sure, the attempt to

gain righteousness of our own works and merits was not antithetical to inclusive

community boundary, but the salvific, all-surpassing greatness of knowing Christ. Paul

gave a similar assessment in Romans 9:31, “But Israel, although following after the law

of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why not? Because it did not start from faith,

but from supposed works.” While Wright is correct to point out that the text is not explicit

about a “righteousness of God,” we should not see a false dichotomy here as the

“righteousness from God” (alien righteousness which Paul received, not his own) does

not preclude that possibility44.

After a sampling of crucial Pauline texts on justification by faith, I find that while

the Reformation view may require refinement and clarification in light of the New

Perspective challenge, its key features emerge from exegesis, not eisegesis. Instead of

being a mere boundary marker, Paul viewed justification by faith as the only means of

salvation from the wrath of God: “Since we have now been justified by His blood, how

much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through Him” (Romans 5:9).

Conclusion

43
H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1975), page 138
44
J. Piper, Counted As Righteous, (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2002), page 84

16
 In summary, there are crucial insights to be gleaned from the New Perspective.

Sanders put us all in his debt by refuting a simplistic portrait of Judaism and Dunn

brought to our attention much-neglected sociological aspects of Pauline theology. N.T.

Wright’s ongoing project on the centrality of the Kingship of Christ in the gospel poses a

much needed correction to the popular concept of Christianity as an individualistic,

otherworldly religious experience. I have come away breathless and challenged by the

clarity and incisive insights with which Wright unpacked Paul’s proclamation as a

rhetoric against pagan worldviews and political oppression.

However, if we are to understand the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, we

would do well to heed Westerholm’s call to return and read exegetical masters like

Luther once again. The great ecumenical article of faith that once held together orthodox,

pre-schism traditions in the East and West needs to be rediscovered, not abandoned, if

genuine unity in the gospel is to be achieved45. I expect to see the Church’s historic

understanding of justification by faith would be significantly refined, but vindicated, in

the process of the ongoing debate for the glory of God and the good of His people. The

practical pay-off should therefore be nothing less than a renewed zeal and urgency to a

missionary enterprise that truly transcends racial and cultural boundaries.

Bibliography

45
T. Oden, The Justification Reader, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), pages 26 - 27

17
1. Dunn, J. D. G. “Paul and Justification by Faith” in The Road from Damascus

edited by R. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Quoted in Kim, Paul

and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

2. Dunn, J. D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

3. Gathercole, Simon. Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s

Response in Romans 1 – 5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

4. George, Timothy. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville: Broadman & Holman,

1988.

5. Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

6. Kim, Seyoon. Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of

Paul’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

7. Kruse, Colin. Paul, the Law and Justification. Leicester: Apollos, 1996.

8. Oden, Thomas. The Justification Reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

9. Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of

Romans 9:1-23. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993.

10. Piper, John. Counted Righteous In Christ. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2002.

11. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1975.

12. Sanders, E.P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of

Religion. London: SCM Press, 1977.

13. Shreiner, T. Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology. Illinois:

InterVarsity Press, 2001.

18
14. Shreiner, T. The Law & Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand

Rapids: Baker Books, 1993.

15. Siefrid, M. A. The ‘New Perspective on Paul’ and Its Problems. Themelios 25.2,

2000.

16. Thielman, F. A Contextual Approach: Paul and the Law. Illinois: InterVarsity

Press, 1994.

17. Westerholm, S. Israel’s Law and the Church’s Faith: Paul and His Recent

Interpreters. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

18. Wright, T. What Saint Paul really said: Was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of

Christianity? Oxford: Lion Publishing, 1997.

19