Sanders and A New Perspective

(Part 2 - See Part: 1)

James Dunn was the first to employ the phrase ‘a new perspective on Paul’ which was picked up on by the system’s critics who began to refer to ‘the so-called New Perspective on Paul’. Thus the fruit of superb research received its very own catch phrase; sadly though the phrase "New Perspective on Paul" fails to do justice to what is actually at stake here. The New Perspective on Paul is not so much about Paul at all, at least not directly, rather it’s more about first century Judaism and only consequentially is it about Paul (though the implications may be staggering!); thus a better catch phrase, slogan or whatever may be ‘The New Perspective on First Century Judaism’.

The trouble maker who so tenaciously flipped the apple cart of New Testament scholarship upside down was E.P. Sanders in his work Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977). Prior to Sanders New Testament scholarship taught that Judaism from the Second Temple period to the Rabbinic period was a religion of works based salvation which Paul was confronting everywhere he went, thus central to Paul’s theology was a doctrine of Justification by faith apart from works of the law.

Sanders thesis, that which he seeks to prove, is that Judaism was not a works based religion contrary to popular scholarship, but rather, it was a grace based one! That Judaism (in its various forms) taught that they were saved by grace based on their election "in" Abraham and/or "in" Israel - i.e. God called Israel to be his (unmerited grace) apart from any works - and thus the real issue was not a type of legalism per se, but rather "the position of national superiority which Judaism had thought to claim on the basis of God’s choice of her" (N.T. Wright, Commentary on Colossians p.33).

Rabbinic Literature

Sanders book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism works backwards examining the period of time between 200 BC to AD 200 (p.1), first looking at the Rabbinic literature from AD 70 - AD 200, then looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls and finally at the Apocryphal literature beginning in 200 BC. After laying the historical context of Judaism (p.33-426) he then takes a look at how this revealed knowledge of the Judaism Paul knew affects what Paul said and consequently how we should interpret him (p.431-552).

What Everyone Presupposed:

Sanders begins by revealing what current (at least then) thoughts of first century Judaism taught in contrast to Paul and spends much time naming scholars and their generally accepted (if somewhat tweaked) views on the matter - an exercise I will gladly spare you the tears of boredom of. (When I refer to "popular scholarship" hereafter I mean scholarship which Sanders is combating, i.e. prior to 1977 - it appears Sanders work has literally swayed an entire generation of scholars, the more I read the more I discover that even those who reject the 'New Perspective on Paul' none-the-less have been persuaded by Sanders research into Second Temple Period Judaism: that it was a religion of grace - See Heyler, The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John, p.264)

According to popular scholarship, "the Jewish view… was that righteousness is earned by works, while Paul’s was that righteousness was a gift from God received by faith" (p.2). Furthermore, "Judaism was the antithesis [opposite] of Christianity. Judaism was a legalistic religion… [while] Christianity is based on faith rather than works" (p.33). In the Jewish religion (according to the popular thought) righteousness was earned (works) by two ways, 1. keeping the Law - which no one could do perfectly - and 2. doing ‘good works’ such as giving money to the poor (p.37). One could also atone for your sins in various ways such as sacrifices, the rituals associated with the Day of Atonement, doing ‘good deeds’ and the such, and doing these things rendered previous sins as if they never happened. But each act of atonement removed only each sin atoned for, thus there could be sins not atoned for which will 'weigh' over one’s head on the day of judgment (p. 37-38).

This last point is significant because the popular belief regarding the first century Jewish doctrine of salvation was one of weighing "sins" over against "good deeds" (or merits verses demerits): "Every fulfillment of a commandment earns for the Israelite a merit, while every transgression earns a debt or guilt. God keeps a record of both merits and demerits. When a mans merits are more numerous he is considered righteous, but when transgressions outnumber merits he is considered wicked… Man does not know how his reckoning with God stands" [until judgement day] (p.43) which results in insecurity or pride - the man who is unsure has great fear, while the other man who believes he lived a superbly righteous life exhibits great pride (consider here Paul’s statement, "not by works lest any man boast").

I want to observe with Sanders one more curious fact; "one must note in particular the projection on to Judaism of the view which Protestants find most objectionable in Roman Catholicism: the existence of a treasury of merits established by supererogation. We have here the retrojection of the Protestant-Catholic debate into ancient history, with Judaism taking the roll of Catholicism and Christianity the roll of Lutheranism" (p.57). To this Heyler acknowledges that "there is much truth in [this] critique" (Heyler, Witness, p.265)

So to summarize what NT scholars have believed regarding the Judaism Paul knew (i.e. Judaism between 200 BC and AD 200):

· It was basically the opposite of Christianity in its legalistic teaching.
· It was a religion which taught salvation by works of the law.
· Since no one could keep the law perfectly it was based on a ‘weighing’ system.
· God kept record.
· If your obedient acts 'out-weighted' your sins you were righteous.
· If your sins 'out-weighted' your obedience you were wicked.
· You could add ‘merits’ to your life by doing good deeds (feeding the poor), or making atonement by one of the means prescribed in the scriptures.
· Thus Judaism was a legalistic religion.

Sanders bluntly concludes: "one of the intentions of the present chapter, to put the matter clearly, is to destroy that view" (p.59, italics added). His goal is to "destroy" the pervading misconception outlined above regarding Rabbinic Judaism: that it was not a legalistic religion, that it did not depend on works of the law to be saved, that ‘good works’ and ‘acts of atonement’ did not store up merits in ones favor and that one was not eternally judged based on a weighing system!


On the flip coin - and many may find this interesting - Sanders argues for an understanding of Judaism that (as stated) is not legalistic but rather holds to a sense of national pride and segregation as a result of their electing in the grace of God! The Law in Judaism, therefore, was a barrier that separated the elect (Israel) from the Gentiles - these include laws of cleanliness, circumcision and meal fellowship; the consequences of this view on the book of Galations may be much and worth considering!

So then, what did Rabbinic Judaism teach on these matters? I’ll attempt to answer that question and summarize Sanders arguments in the next blog.

Tell then
Derek

New Perspective on Paul

For about a month I was out of touch with my studies, pretty much from the time my dad entered the hospital (mid January) to his passing and funeral (Jan 29-Feb 2) until mid February as a period set aside for grief. I reserve the right to interrupt our regular blogs occasionally to honor my dad, but for the mean time I desire - almost need - to enter the swing of things once again. So without further ado, the academic topic of interest (drum roll please)…:

I have entered a potentially revolutionizing debate currently bantering back and forth in the halls of academia. Recently that debate has been trickling down into the public view as writers like John Piper are beginning to blow their horns. The debate has been called - and is often referred to as the ‘so-called’ - New Perspective on Paul.

It would seem inevitable as someone who reads N.T. Wright regularly that I would eventually pick up on the ‘New Perspective’. I read Wright’s book, Paul in Fresh Perspective, last year and to be honest I didn’t really know what he was trying to defend (never having heard of the ‘New Perspective’). Shortly thereafter I noticed John Piper (those who love this guy, usually have a disdain for Wright - I’ve observed) had written a book titled the Future of Justification, subtitled; A Response to N.T. Wright. Reading Piper’s book three things became evident to me: 1. Piper was responding to an earlier book by Wright titled What Saint Paul Really Said; 2.There were many places where what Piper said was misleading in a way that only those who adore him would not pick up on, and 3. After reading it, I still had little idea what the New Perspective actually was.

Working backwards, I got a hold of Wrights book, What Saint Paul Really Said, and quickly read it. I gathered many good and useful things out of it, but a certain amount of ambiguity coupled with what seemed to be Wright’s assumption that the reader had some knowledge of what the New Perspective was, and not to mention the haste in which I read it, led to the same problem I had with Pipers book: no clear answer as to what the New Perspective was.

About this time I came across another name, Peter Stuhlmacher, who wrote a book titled Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification, subtitled; A Challenge to the New Perspective. Also in this little book is an essay by Donald A. Hagner. Together and with great respect many of the issues were clarified and I was introduced to others who have contributed to the discussion.

Working backwards still, I picked up Krister Stendahl’s highly referenced little book titled Paul Among Jews and Gentiles. Stendahl, being a Lutheran bishop, carries a significant amount of influence in this discussion due to the fact that the New Perspective on Paul may be seen as a direct challenge (some might say, and only in some regards) to the Reformed (particularly Lutheran) doctrine of Justification by Faith (which explains why Piper is all up in a frenzy).

Of every contributor of the New Perspective out there, there is one who’s work shattered aggressively the - my term - ‘Old’ perspective, dare I say decisively! The work I speak of is E.P. Sanders critically acclaimed six hundred page mammoth of a book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, in which he states, for example, "one of the intentions of the present chapter, to put the matter clearly, is to destroy that view" p.59 ("that" being the popular view that Judaism was a work’s based religion - a sneak-peek for into the discussion that awaits.)

(I am compelled to interject at this point, not wanting to get a head of myself, it is none-the-less necessary to 'backup' my statement that "Sanders shattered the old perspective decisively" by quoting someone who stands opposed to the New Perspective and yet cannot deny Sanders research into first century Judaism: Larry Helyer says "In my opinion, Sanders and Dunn do a disservice to Paul's thought." And yet regarding Sanders research into Judaism, was it a religion of grace or law, Helyer says, "This [to read Paul against the backdrop of a Judaism of works], says Sanders, and I think correctly, is simply wrong. Judaism was very much aware that salvation was first and foremost by grace" - Larry R. Helyer, The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John; p.264; he also references his own work, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period)

So now I have found myself at the root that started it all (I think), Sander’s book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. If three names continue to surface as the banner carriers of this debate they are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn - it is important to note that Dunn is the one who coined the phrase ‘New Perspective on Paul’, and N.T. Wright. So in turn I am currently reading Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which will be followed by Dunn’s The New Perspective on Paul (revised edition), and then I will be in the proper place to return to Wrights’ What Saint Paul Really Said and Paul in Fresh Perspective followed by Pipers attempt at rebuttal (The Future of Justification) and in between of all this I will review Stendahl’s and Stuhlmacher’s books as time permits (I found them both helpful the first time around, how much more the second?).

I invite you then to join me on this journey as we explore the New Perspective on Paul, what it is, what merit does it hold, and how can it deepen our understanding of the scriptures.

One thing must be said before we begin: Piper warns his readers that it is easy to jump on to bandwagons of things ‘new’ or ‘revolutionizing’ and the such, and encourages his fans to stay the course (by which he means the course set for them by Luther and the Reformers - a revolutionary term to be sure!). Do not too hastily embrace such exhortation, the term "New Perspective on Paul" (not the best coin phrase I admit) is so because it seems since Luther everyone accepted the Protestant/Catholic retrojection onto the first century with Judaism taking the roll of Catholicism and Christianity taking the roll of Protestantism (to quote Helyer again, "[According to Sanders, Dunn and Wright] Luther and his successors misread what the conflict was really all about. In the process the Reformers branded Judaism in its entirety as a religion of works and saw its' contemporary reincarnation in the medieval Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, this stereotype persists, even in our own time. There is much truth in their critique." (p.265, italics added - again, I quote Helyer because he is not in favor of the New Perspective)

The New Perspective on Paul has thoroughly examined Judaism between 200 BC and 200 AD and has found Luther’s assumptions about Paul’s polemics wanting. Namely, Judaism was a ‘grace’ religion, not a ‘works’ religion as Luther assumed, thus they cannot be compared to the works religion of sixteenth century Catholicism (in which Luther’s doctrine of Justification by Faith arose). Judaism - says the New Perspective - must be examined on its' own terms, not on our Christianized terms or through the lens of Paul. Therefore we need to return to the drawing board of Paul’s statements; "by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:28) and "from faith in Christ and not from works of the law" (Galatians 2:16). If he was not challenging a Jewish religion of salvation by works (because there was no such a religion - says the New Perspective), then what do these statements mean? This - I think - is where Wrights book, What Saint Paul Really Said, enters the discussion. But I’ll get to that book in due course.

For now, it’s on to E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism.

Stay Tuned

Derek

Love Letter From Beyond

As I noted in the previous blog, my parents had separated over a year before dad passed away - with the intention of getting back together! - yet the separation was necessary in order for healing and reconciliation and - dare I say - that God might become the center of the family once again (at the least, the center of each of our lives again). During this period of separation my dad wrote a letter to my mom which he apparently folded up and placed in the bottom of a box somewhere, never to be discovered until after he passed away.

What follows is a peeling back of a man; the exposure of a soul in all its shame, ugly guilt and scars and at the same time its hope and expectation for a powerful God-centered life of reconciliation.

And now, the letter:
____________________________________

Dear Wendy, Feb 26/08

Self loathing, I hate myself
Passive
Irresponsible
Coward
Deceitful
Thoughts of suicide
Boastful
Proud
Self centered/serving
Angry
Bitter
Rejected
Withdrawn
Avoids conflicts
Fearful
____________________

I [am] writing this letter to ask ["ask" is scratched out] beg for your forgiveness. What I have done deserved what I recieved - our separation. No Excuses. My prayer is that Jesus restore our marriage.

Please know that God is at work [in] my life. He has revealed and shown me things about myself that explain[s] why I did what I did. I was not a good friend, husband, lover, father and grandfather.

In explanation I can only state that God showed me Proverbs 23:7 states "As a man thinks in his heart, so does he become". I became the very things I never wanted to be. But, thanks be to Jesus, for the love He has shown me. Jesus has taken the roots of my problems, and is replacing them with Himself. He is taking the old man replacing him with the new man. I know this will take time. I believe that this time of separation will turn out for good. Jesus will make me new. He will take this time to mould and make me the person He designed me to be. A good friend, husband, lover, father and grandfather, as I put into practice those lessons He's shown me. Will I be perfect[?] no, but I will grow "in the grace of the Lord". If you allow it, I will make you fall in love with me again. I will do whatever it takes. You are my treasure from God, and I will treat you as precious every day that you and God let me. This [is] a time for us to draw near to God, the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit our guide. And I am using this time to do just that. I will never change if I don't. My journey this far has been awesome. I'm learning things I never understood before. Like God so desires a relationship with us He will do whatever it takes to achieve this. He started by giving us Jesus, and His sacrificial atonement for us. Awesome!

I know you don't trust me, that's okay trust our Lord and Saviour Jesus instead. All the things that you prayed and hoped, believed and faithfully waited for Jesus to make me ARE coming to fruitation. I'm just sorry that is took so long.

You ARE precious to me. Let me show you how precious you really are to me.

My love Always,
Yours in Christ

Ken

_____________________________________________________

My dads letter above is laced thick with good theology; consider the reference to the Trinity, the Atonement and the 'new man', but of particular interest is the connection he made between a husbands reconcilation with his wife and God's reconcilation with us!

Consider the phrase he wrote describing his strong desire to reconcile his relationship with my mom: "If you will allow it I will make you fall in love with me again I will do whatever it takes. You are my treasure from God" and the theological connection dad made with God's strong desire to reconcile us to Himself by doing "whatever it takes": "I'm learning things I never understood before. Like God so desires a relationship with us He will do whatever it takes to acheive this. He started by giving us Jesus, and His sacrificial atonement for us. Awesome!"

My dad finally grasped the concept that love and reconcilation required a sacrifice of the greatest depth; for most of his life he could not accept the fact that God loved (someone like) him so much that He would die if it meant reconcilation (which God did), until his final year on earth when the fact became an illustrated reality, that my dad himself loved my mom so much that he would die for her if it meant reconcilation.

And one glad morning, the morning when all things reach their consumation, the morning when creation is restored, on the shores of a new earth - a paradise for all who are "in Christ"... on that day mom and dad will recieve their full and long awaited perfect reconcilation as the walk the sand along the crystal sea hand in hand.

We love you dad / we painfully miss you / and we look forword to seeing you again.

Derek

and Family

In Rememberance of Dad: Part 2 (A Letter From Beyond)

Setting the Stage:




For some, family life may be picture perfect in a 'Leave it to Beaver' style. For others, family life falls into the tragic category of 'disaster'. If my family fell somewhere in between, it tended to lean toward the latter. As time progressed it become obvious that something had to change:

• Dad spent his days watching TV.


• While mom worked to pay the bills and feed the family.


• My little sister - Katlynn - was in the height of her rebellion!


• Dad's spirituality was nominal at best, as filthy language and excuses to skip church increased.


• Mom tried desperately hard to maintain her faith and her family.


• Katlynn wasn't sure that God existed and simply didn't care - church was out of the question.


• Dad tried to be Katlynn's 'best friend' and actually sided with her against mom.


• Mom tried desperately hard to 'parent' Katlynn, but because she worked so much, she could not do it without dad's help - he was no help!


• Katlynn was skipping school, sneaking out of the house at night to do drugs and building unhealthy relationships with boys - she was only 13!

SOMETHING HAD TO CHANGE!

My mother was compelled to make one of the most difficult choices of her life - dad had to go. This did not mean divorce, what it was was tough love. It was not just for mom's sake, or for Katlynn's sake either, no, it was for dad's sake also. Dad had to change.

And change he did.

Dad began going to church three times a week, and because he had no means of transportation he would take the city bus, even at night, even in the cold (I doubt I would have the same level of committment!) - as a matter of fact, often getting off of work I would see my dad waiting for the bus at night and would give him a lift to his little run down apartment, I miss not seeing him standing at that bus stop as I drive by.

Dad began reading his bible regularly and did devotions every day. In short, he fully realized his desperate need for God in his life and His transforming power. As a result he turned his affections and attention over to winning his wife - my mom - back! He began to wooo her like teenagers or young love birds - and what's more... she gladly (though slightly cautiously) let him. Furthermore, he began to take his responsibility toward Katlynn seriously; and in it all, all three of their lives changed drastically, for the better, for the glory of God.

It would have probably been only a matter of months before they were all living under one roof again - before dad would be living with mom again - when the great tragedy of his heart attack abruptly ended it all.

It was during this period of separation and - simultaneously - of reconciliation, that dad wrote mom an incredibly transparent - the most transparent a letter can be - love note. Then dad stuffed this note in the bottom of a box, never - for whatever reason - having actually given it to the recipient, to his love, to my mom.

It was not until after the funeral, while going through what little items dad actually possessed, that this love note came to light. It's relevance is astounding, it could very well have been written some three weeks before he passed - if it weren't dated.

I use this note - this beautiful love letter of sin and pain, yet of love and reconciliation - by permission. What's to come is dad's final message, his final act of parenthood, his final gift to those he left behind.

Yes it is addressed to mom, but in a way - perhaps a mystical way - it is telling of the rest of us: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" and then also; "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation."

Thanks dad... - the letter to follow...

Derek.

In Memory of Dad: Part 1

This is how my morning began on January 29th at 6:30 am:

Jarred out of my sleep, I tossed on whatever clothing was in reach, hopped in the car and drove like a reckless maniac from Windsor Ontario to Detroit Michigan - Henry Ford Hospital to be precise.

The trip - normally constituting a travelling time of about twenty minutes - took me over an hour. My stomach twisted and turned until I could not contain my nerve shot bowels any longer, I was forced to make a moments decision of ramming the car up a curb like a lunatic into the parking lot of Peter's Place - a small tavern I have never been to or even noticed before - stalling out the car in the process.

After relieving the tension in my stomach I continued on my way - thanking God the car started up again. After two detours due to traffic accidents and a short delay at the boarder I finally had the hospital within my sights, it was only a block away as I sat idol waiting for a green light. When it finally came I pressed my foot on the accelerator, and in a sort of ironic pose the car stalled yet again. By the time I managed to start it up the green light had turned red and I was forced to sit patiently - ever so tempted to risk my life at the busy intersection.

Finally I pulled into the parking lot and squeezed my car into the first illegal open spot I could find. I ran through the front doors of the hospital, down the hall ways, up the elevator, around the bend and into the ICU.

I burst into the private room where the curtain was drawn closed, the room where my mother, grandmother and aunt all stood, gazing at me in silence. I peered up at the monitor above then down to the body below.

"Nothing" - I said, half asking and have stating.

My mother grabbed me and we wailed like we had never wailed before, like the world was going to end, like the greatest catastraphy of mankind had suddenly come down upon us... we wailed!

I reached down and grabbed my fathers hand... it was still warm.

... I love you dad, and I always will...

- Derek