New Perspective on Paul
(1982-83)
Five years after Sanders published his book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, James D. G. Dunn lectured and then published an essay which he titled “The New Perspective on Paul” (now published with a series of other essays in a single volume under the same title). He begins by introducing the reader to Sanders work (which we have already covered); “There is, in my judgment, only one work written during the past decade or two which deserves that accolade [of “breaking the mould” of Pauline studies]. I refer to the volume titled Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E.P. Sanders of McMaster University in Canada” [p.100 italics original]. It is encouraging to observe that Dunn has drawn many of the same conclusions of Sanders work as I have (or rather, the other way around): “Sanders basic claim is not so much that Paul has been misunderstood as that the picture of Judaism drawn from Paul’s writing is historically false” [p.102]. This is why I referred to Sanders work as the New Perspective on Judaism as opposed to the New Perspective on Paul.
I also concluded that, given Sanders conclusions, I could not see how Paul’s doctrine of Justification by faith apart from works of the law was affected – Sanders certainly gave no reason to suggest that it was and almost seems to show that Paul arbitrarily broke from Judaism on many points and remained on others (he explicitly rejects the thesis of Davis and Stendahl that Paul’s theology was revolutionized by his encounter with the Jewish Messiah – a factor I think is crucial [Sanders, p,514; cf. Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, p.7ff.]. Here again I find my observation supported by Dunn’s: “the most surprising feature of Sanders writing, however, is that he himself has failed to take the opportunity his own ‘mouldbreaking’ work offered”. He continues, “instead of trying to explore how far Paul’s theology could be explicated in relation to Judaism’s ‘covenantal nomism’, he remained more impressed by the difference between Paul’s pattern of religious thought and that of first-century Judaism” [p.103]. And so it is in this context that Dunn sees a tremendous opportunity: “I am not convinced that we have yet been given the proper reading of Paul from the new perspective of first-century Palestinian Judaism opened up so helpfully by Sanders himself” [p.105]; and thus, with the study of a single verse – Galatians 2:16 – is the spark on dry wood which will ignite what has come to be known as the controversy of Justification over the New Perspective on Paul.
Galatians 2:16
Galatians 2:15-16 reads: “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified”.
Law as Boundary and the end of Covenantal Nomism
Dunn points out (and builds his argument around) the fact that Paul’s reference to “the law” here is not to be understood as 'good works' per se, but specifically to those laws which distinguished Jews from Gentiles, namely, meals, rituals and festivals (i.e. Torah). Also, as a preliminary observation, Dunn points out that the reference to ‘Gentile sinners’, is a reference to a Jewish prejudice and an awareness among the Jews that they are the special elect covenant people of God. Placing these two elements together (clear in their context Dunn would probably suggest) and what we have is Sander’s covenantal nomism. A people who are elected as covenant people of God, but who also have the law which, in obedience to it, they considered themselves righteous. This is probably why Paul stereotypically referred to Gentiles here as ‘sinners’, in the Jewish mind, since Gentiles did not have the law, they could not possibly be righteous.
I am going to make an observation – after carefully reading this section of Dunn – of something he takes for granted which the reader may not – I certainly did not at first – pick up on. That is, for Dunn (maybe) and perhaps Sanders as well, when the phrase covenantal nomism is employed – especially as the particular element of righteousness is considered – it is within the context of ‘faith’. I allow this conclusion to help me understand Dunn; after studying the use of righteousness (tsedaqah) in the Old Testament, Stendahl says: “Therefore when one spoke of the manifestation of God’s righteousness, God’s tsedaqah, it was a word of salvation. As in the Song of Deborah in earliest times, it meant, salvation, rescue, victory, triumph. Here we have the chief reasons for Paul’s emphasis on the terms, justification and righteousness. This emphasis presupposes a faith in which the church knows itself as belonging to God, knows it’s enemies to be God’s enemies” [Stendahl, p.34].
With this presupposition in mind, Dunn goes on to say that “Paul therefore prefaces his first mention of ‘being justified’ with a deliberate appeal to the standard Jewish belief, shared by his fellow Jewish Christians, that the Jews as a race are God’s covenant people” [p107]. Dunn observes this by noting that Paul says in essence ‘we Jews (who are not Gentile sinners, because we have the law) know…’ – so Paul seems to be appealing to something Jews (as opposed to Gentiles) know. What do they know? According to Dunn, they know that 1. justification can refer to an initial act, a repeated act and a final vindication and 2. that justification is obtained by faith (see what is presupposed by Dunn above – previous paragraph); to confirm my understanding of Dunn’s presupposition, he adds, “This is to say, integral to the idea of the covenant itself, and of God’s continued action to maintain it, is the profound recognition of God’s initiative and grace in first establishing and then maintaining the covenant” [p.109]. So according to Dunn, Paul is beginning his polemic on common ground with typical Jewish believe, what Sanders calls covenantal nomism.
What Paul is attacking in this passage is specifically covenantal works (centered out three times in this single passage is the phrase “by works of the law”). Not works in general, but works as they are specifically related to the covenant (here we can see where a Reformer like Piper may begin to get steamed). Reading from the context Dunn points out that the specific covenant related works which Paul has in mind are circumcision, food laws and also the celebration of holy days. He (Dunn) spends a great deal of time showing how by the first century these laws came to be of crucial importance to Jewish identity. So much so that to fail to circumcise your child or to eat with Gentiles or to not celebrate a Jewish holy day was akin to walking away from the covenant, and to declare yourself no longer a person belonging to the elect of God [p.108 ff.]. In other words, circumcision, food laws, and holy festivals functioned as boundary markers by which Jews maintained their distinctiveness from pagan Gentile sinners. So when Paul – while appealing to the Jewish concept of justification by faith – sets faith as being antithetical to works, he is essentially – I am interpreting Dunn here and may be wrong – ripping apart their precious covenantal nomism straight down the middle.
This is a crucial point to keep in mind – I think – if we are to understand Dunn’s idea of the new perspective, so I will repeat it succinctly: the laws which Paul is arguing against is a law which specifically relates to the covenant as markers or boundaries; circumcision, food laws and holy days. In other words – according to Dunn – Paul’s original polemic against works of the law is not against good works per se, but rather, against those laws which maintained a dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles. “The phrase ‘works of the law’ in Gal. 2:16 is, in fact, a fairly restricted one: it refers precisely to these same identity markers described above, covenant works” [p.111]. (I should have noted when introducing this subject, that the new perspective views Paul’s primary concern when discussing justification by faith not as a polemic of salvation, but rather one which addresses the question of how Jews and Gentiles relate to one another in Christ.)
Dunn adds to this that by “works of the law” both Paul and his Jewish interlocutors understand to mean badges or membership to the covenant, not works which earn God’s favor. Remember that in Palestinian Judaism that favor was given as a free gift of electing grace. “In other words” Dunn says, “Paul has in view precisely what Sanders calls ‘covenantal nomism’. And what Paul denies is that God’s justification depends on ‘covenantal nomism’, that God’s grace extends only to those who wear the badge of the covenant” [p.111]. It is at this point (but not only this point) that I find contention with Dunn thus far. Covenantal nomism is not given to those who are members (“those who wear the badge”), it is given to those who are not members so that they may become members, and the badge (the works of the law) is only worn to reflect that fact, not the other way around. Unless Dunn can change my mind and convince me otherwise, it is unlikely that I will subscribe to his flavor of the new perspective, since it seems that everything else he has to say depends on this concept.
Jesus Messiah
So – according to Dunn – Paul has thus far appealed to the common Jewish concept of righteousness by faith, but then he sets it in opposition to works of the law – thus tearing covenantal nomism asunder – he now establishes that faith in something else, namely the Messiah. This is a distinguishing factor that separates Paul and Peter with the rest of their Jewish kindred.
This is a key issue to be considered – a compelling question I’ve never heard asked – “Is it in fact this faith in Jesus (as) Messiah which marks them off from their fellow Jews, or is it their belief in justification by faith, as has so often been assumed?” He continues, “What is the point at issue here? If not ‘justification by faith’ as God’s initiative in declaring in favor of men, if not ‘works of the law’ as merit-earning good works, then what? What precisely is involved in Paul’s contrast between being justified by works of the law and being justified by faith in Jesus Messiah?” [p.112] The answer is that these two (justification by works or by faith in Jesus Messiah) are antithetical.
He breaks verse 16 down as such: a) “man is not justified from works of the law except through faith in Jesus Christ”; the word “except” makes faith in Jesus Messiah a qualification to justification by works, not it’s opposite. But then Paul turns the argument on its head by continuing on to say that “we might be justified from faith in Christ, and not from works of the law”… following this line of exposition, Dunn draws his conclusion that “faith in Jesus as Christ becomes the primary identity marker which renders the others superfluous”.
In other words, Paul takes the generally accepted understanding of covenantal works as a marker by which one is in the covenant, to saying that faith in Jesus as the Messiah is now the primary identity (or covenant) marker, thus the other marker – works – is rendered useless. In all of this I see and hear what Dunn is trying to say, I just don’t follow his logic very well. I don’t see why Paul would go through all of this – from pretending to agree with covenantal nomism, to altering it slightly by saying one may be justified by works as long as one has faith in the Messiah, to rejecting works all together by claim that Messianic faith is the new supreme badge. This logic escapes me, perhaps at this stage I am just failing to grasp what Dunn is trying to say so I press on in hopes that this will be made more clear.
Conclusions:
1. Dunn’s new perspective emphasizes that Paul’s polemic against “works of the law’ is not against good works per se, or against the law in general, but rather, it is against works of the covenant specifically as they function as boundary markers which keep Gentiles out.
2. Faith in the messiah is a key to understanding the new movement.
3. Paul – according to Dunn (and Sanders also we observed) – is protesting covenantal nomism as such. Again, I disagree. I think Paul may be redefining covenantal nomism in light of the Messiah by altering the function of ‘righteousness’ and ‘faith’. But I do not think that he is dismantling it all together.
Dunn has much more to say and we'll try to hash through it over the next several weeks; however, the next blog (to compensate for this one) will be a much shorter and interesting reading (I think anyways). I got a sneak peak at Wrights future book on Justification (responding to Piper!) which will be published next month and learned some interesting pieces of information.
Until then, be blessed
Derek
(1982-83)
Five years after Sanders published his book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, James D. G. Dunn lectured and then published an essay which he titled “The New Perspective on Paul” (now published with a series of other essays in a single volume under the same title). He begins by introducing the reader to Sanders work (which we have already covered); “There is, in my judgment, only one work written during the past decade or two which deserves that accolade [of “breaking the mould” of Pauline studies]. I refer to the volume titled Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E.P. Sanders of McMaster University in Canada” [p.100 italics original]. It is encouraging to observe that Dunn has drawn many of the same conclusions of Sanders work as I have (or rather, the other way around): “Sanders basic claim is not so much that Paul has been misunderstood as that the picture of Judaism drawn from Paul’s writing is historically false” [p.102]. This is why I referred to Sanders work as the New Perspective on Judaism as opposed to the New Perspective on Paul.
I also concluded that, given Sanders conclusions, I could not see how Paul’s doctrine of Justification by faith apart from works of the law was affected – Sanders certainly gave no reason to suggest that it was and almost seems to show that Paul arbitrarily broke from Judaism on many points and remained on others (he explicitly rejects the thesis of Davis and Stendahl that Paul’s theology was revolutionized by his encounter with the Jewish Messiah – a factor I think is crucial [Sanders, p,514; cf. Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, p.7ff.]. Here again I find my observation supported by Dunn’s: “the most surprising feature of Sanders writing, however, is that he himself has failed to take the opportunity his own ‘mouldbreaking’ work offered”. He continues, “instead of trying to explore how far Paul’s theology could be explicated in relation to Judaism’s ‘covenantal nomism’, he remained more impressed by the difference between Paul’s pattern of religious thought and that of first-century Judaism” [p.103]. And so it is in this context that Dunn sees a tremendous opportunity: “I am not convinced that we have yet been given the proper reading of Paul from the new perspective of first-century Palestinian Judaism opened up so helpfully by Sanders himself” [p.105]; and thus, with the study of a single verse – Galatians 2:16 – is the spark on dry wood which will ignite what has come to be known as the controversy of Justification over the New Perspective on Paul.
Galatians 2:16
Galatians 2:15-16 reads: “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified”.
Law as Boundary and the end of Covenantal Nomism
Dunn points out (and builds his argument around) the fact that Paul’s reference to “the law” here is not to be understood as 'good works' per se, but specifically to those laws which distinguished Jews from Gentiles, namely, meals, rituals and festivals (i.e. Torah). Also, as a preliminary observation, Dunn points out that the reference to ‘Gentile sinners’, is a reference to a Jewish prejudice and an awareness among the Jews that they are the special elect covenant people of God. Placing these two elements together (clear in their context Dunn would probably suggest) and what we have is Sander’s covenantal nomism. A people who are elected as covenant people of God, but who also have the law which, in obedience to it, they considered themselves righteous. This is probably why Paul stereotypically referred to Gentiles here as ‘sinners’, in the Jewish mind, since Gentiles did not have the law, they could not possibly be righteous.
I am going to make an observation – after carefully reading this section of Dunn – of something he takes for granted which the reader may not – I certainly did not at first – pick up on. That is, for Dunn (maybe) and perhaps Sanders as well, when the phrase covenantal nomism is employed – especially as the particular element of righteousness is considered – it is within the context of ‘faith’. I allow this conclusion to help me understand Dunn; after studying the use of righteousness (tsedaqah) in the Old Testament, Stendahl says: “Therefore when one spoke of the manifestation of God’s righteousness, God’s tsedaqah, it was a word of salvation. As in the Song of Deborah in earliest times, it meant, salvation, rescue, victory, triumph. Here we have the chief reasons for Paul’s emphasis on the terms, justification and righteousness. This emphasis presupposes a faith in which the church knows itself as belonging to God, knows it’s enemies to be God’s enemies” [Stendahl, p.34].
With this presupposition in mind, Dunn goes on to say that “Paul therefore prefaces his first mention of ‘being justified’ with a deliberate appeal to the standard Jewish belief, shared by his fellow Jewish Christians, that the Jews as a race are God’s covenant people” [p107]. Dunn observes this by noting that Paul says in essence ‘we Jews (who are not Gentile sinners, because we have the law) know…’ – so Paul seems to be appealing to something Jews (as opposed to Gentiles) know. What do they know? According to Dunn, they know that 1. justification can refer to an initial act, a repeated act and a final vindication and 2. that justification is obtained by faith (see what is presupposed by Dunn above – previous paragraph); to confirm my understanding of Dunn’s presupposition, he adds, “This is to say, integral to the idea of the covenant itself, and of God’s continued action to maintain it, is the profound recognition of God’s initiative and grace in first establishing and then maintaining the covenant” [p.109]. So according to Dunn, Paul is beginning his polemic on common ground with typical Jewish believe, what Sanders calls covenantal nomism.
What Paul is attacking in this passage is specifically covenantal works (centered out three times in this single passage is the phrase “by works of the law”). Not works in general, but works as they are specifically related to the covenant (here we can see where a Reformer like Piper may begin to get steamed). Reading from the context Dunn points out that the specific covenant related works which Paul has in mind are circumcision, food laws and also the celebration of holy days. He (Dunn) spends a great deal of time showing how by the first century these laws came to be of crucial importance to Jewish identity. So much so that to fail to circumcise your child or to eat with Gentiles or to not celebrate a Jewish holy day was akin to walking away from the covenant, and to declare yourself no longer a person belonging to the elect of God [p.108 ff.]. In other words, circumcision, food laws, and holy festivals functioned as boundary markers by which Jews maintained their distinctiveness from pagan Gentile sinners. So when Paul – while appealing to the Jewish concept of justification by faith – sets faith as being antithetical to works, he is essentially – I am interpreting Dunn here and may be wrong – ripping apart their precious covenantal nomism straight down the middle.
This is a crucial point to keep in mind – I think – if we are to understand Dunn’s idea of the new perspective, so I will repeat it succinctly: the laws which Paul is arguing against is a law which specifically relates to the covenant as markers or boundaries; circumcision, food laws and holy days. In other words – according to Dunn – Paul’s original polemic against works of the law is not against good works per se, but rather, against those laws which maintained a dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles. “The phrase ‘works of the law’ in Gal. 2:16 is, in fact, a fairly restricted one: it refers precisely to these same identity markers described above, covenant works” [p.111]. (I should have noted when introducing this subject, that the new perspective views Paul’s primary concern when discussing justification by faith not as a polemic of salvation, but rather one which addresses the question of how Jews and Gentiles relate to one another in Christ.)
Dunn adds to this that by “works of the law” both Paul and his Jewish interlocutors understand to mean badges or membership to the covenant, not works which earn God’s favor. Remember that in Palestinian Judaism that favor was given as a free gift of electing grace. “In other words” Dunn says, “Paul has in view precisely what Sanders calls ‘covenantal nomism’. And what Paul denies is that God’s justification depends on ‘covenantal nomism’, that God’s grace extends only to those who wear the badge of the covenant” [p.111]. It is at this point (but not only this point) that I find contention with Dunn thus far. Covenantal nomism is not given to those who are members (“those who wear the badge”), it is given to those who are not members so that they may become members, and the badge (the works of the law) is only worn to reflect that fact, not the other way around. Unless Dunn can change my mind and convince me otherwise, it is unlikely that I will subscribe to his flavor of the new perspective, since it seems that everything else he has to say depends on this concept.
Jesus Messiah
So – according to Dunn – Paul has thus far appealed to the common Jewish concept of righteousness by faith, but then he sets it in opposition to works of the law – thus tearing covenantal nomism asunder – he now establishes that faith in something else, namely the Messiah. This is a distinguishing factor that separates Paul and Peter with the rest of their Jewish kindred.
This is a key issue to be considered – a compelling question I’ve never heard asked – “Is it in fact this faith in Jesus (as) Messiah which marks them off from their fellow Jews, or is it their belief in justification by faith, as has so often been assumed?” He continues, “What is the point at issue here? If not ‘justification by faith’ as God’s initiative in declaring in favor of men, if not ‘works of the law’ as merit-earning good works, then what? What precisely is involved in Paul’s contrast between being justified by works of the law and being justified by faith in Jesus Messiah?” [p.112] The answer is that these two (justification by works or by faith in Jesus Messiah) are antithetical.
He breaks verse 16 down as such: a) “man is not justified from works of the law except through faith in Jesus Christ”; the word “except” makes faith in Jesus Messiah a qualification to justification by works, not it’s opposite. But then Paul turns the argument on its head by continuing on to say that “we might be justified from faith in Christ, and not from works of the law”… following this line of exposition, Dunn draws his conclusion that “faith in Jesus as Christ becomes the primary identity marker which renders the others superfluous”.
In other words, Paul takes the generally accepted understanding of covenantal works as a marker by which one is in the covenant, to saying that faith in Jesus as the Messiah is now the primary identity (or covenant) marker, thus the other marker – works – is rendered useless. In all of this I see and hear what Dunn is trying to say, I just don’t follow his logic very well. I don’t see why Paul would go through all of this – from pretending to agree with covenantal nomism, to altering it slightly by saying one may be justified by works as long as one has faith in the Messiah, to rejecting works all together by claim that Messianic faith is the new supreme badge. This logic escapes me, perhaps at this stage I am just failing to grasp what Dunn is trying to say so I press on in hopes that this will be made more clear.
Conclusions:
1. Dunn’s new perspective emphasizes that Paul’s polemic against “works of the law’ is not against good works per se, or against the law in general, but rather, it is against works of the covenant specifically as they function as boundary markers which keep Gentiles out.
2. Faith in the messiah is a key to understanding the new movement.
3. Paul – according to Dunn (and Sanders also we observed) – is protesting covenantal nomism as such. Again, I disagree. I think Paul may be redefining covenantal nomism in light of the Messiah by altering the function of ‘righteousness’ and ‘faith’. But I do not think that he is dismantling it all together.
Dunn has much more to say and we'll try to hash through it over the next several weeks; however, the next blog (to compensate for this one) will be a much shorter and interesting reading (I think anyways). I got a sneak peak at Wrights future book on Justification (responding to Piper!) which will be published next month and learned some interesting pieces of information.
Until then, be blessed
Derek
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment