New Perspective on Justification and Paul

While many Christians claim to be Dispensationalists, the entirety of the dispensational theology, as opposed to the covenant theology, rises or falls on one major issue: Israel and the Church. Dispensationalism has ramifications that reach outside of theology and reach into the foreign policy of the United States whereas relations between Israel and America are concerned. Most evangelicals, embracing a dispensational theology, hold that U.S.  foreign policy with Israel should be set on the basis of dispensational theology. To accept dispensational theology, it has to be shown that God deals with Israel and the Church, the Jew and the Christian, in ways that are different. Yet, by studying the history of Judaism and Christianity it becomes apparent that God has not—and it will be shown in this paper that He has no plans in the future— dealt differently with these two groups. Dispensationalism is not a key to Bible prophecy as God does not treat the Jew and the Christian differently.

This essay investigates Paul’s use of the word δικαιόω and its oddity among his Greco-Roman contemporaries.  In Paul, δικαιόω always occurs with a personal object (or, in the passive, with a personal subject), and “justifying” always means something done in favor of the person justified (“deem righteous,” “acquit,” “vindicate,” etc.).  This meaning occurs also in the Septuagint and a few texts from early Jewish sources.  Everywhere else, however, δικαιόω means something done to the detriment of the justified (“punish” or “condemn”).  This contrast of usage is frequently neglected when scholars inquire after the origins of Paul’s theology of justification.  Why should the Apostle to the Gentiles have spoken to them of God as “justifier”?  The present paper considers the origins of Paul’s justification-theology in light of this lexical-semantic oddity.
This essay investigates Paul’s use of the word δικαιόω and its oddity among his Greco-Roman contemporaries.  In Paul, δικαιόω always occurs with a personal object (or, in the passive, with a personal subject), and “justifying” always means something done in favor of the person justified (“deem righteous,” “acquit,” “vindicate,” etc.).  This meaning occurs also in the Septuagint and a few texts from early Jewish sources.  Everywhere else, however, δικαιόω means something done to the detriment of the justified (“punish” or “condemn”).  This contrast of usage is frequently neglected when scholars inquire after the origins of Paul’s theology of justification.  Why should the Apostle to the Gentiles have spoken to them of God as “justifier”?  The present paper considers the origins of Paul’s justification-theology in light of this lexical-semantic oddity.

Der Aufsatz fragt nach der paulinischen Verwendung des Wortes δικαιόω und ihrer Ähnlichkeit bzw. Unähnlichkeit zum Gebrauch bei den römischen Zeitgenossen des Paulus.  Bei Paulus tritt δικαιόω immer mit persönlichem Akkusativobjekt (oder passiv mit persönlichem Subjekt= auf, und «rechtfertigen» bedeutet immer etwas Gutes für den Gerechtfertigten («gerecht sprechen», «freisprechen», o.ä.).  Diese Bedeutung von δικαιόω begegnet auch in der Septuaginta und in einigen frühjüdischen Belegen.  In den profanen Schriften bedeutet δικαιόω jedoch etwas, das zu Ungunsten der gerechftertigten Menschen geschieht («strafen», «verurteilen»).  Diese Unstimmigkeit wird in der Paulusforschung bei der Frage nach dem Ursprung der Rechtfertigungslehre oft nicht hinreichend beachtet.  Warum sollte der Heidenapostel gegenüber ehemaligen «Heiden» von Gott als «Rechtfertiger» gesprochen haben?  Vor dem Hintergrund dieser sprachlichen Unstimmigkeit wird die Frage nach den Impulsen aus dem Griechisch sprechenden Judentum und Urchristentum erörtert, die Paulus in seinen Rechtfertigungsaussagen bestimmt haben.

And he wouldn't deny that. Nor does he hide it. Horton's main goal is to walk the line between Arminianism (in which he grew up) and hyper-Calvinism, which he defines as ranking "God's sovereignty and justice over his love" while, in his view, Arminianism tends to "reverse the order" (75). This goal places him squarely in the mainstream of Reformed theology.

Nathanael was a man of God who lived in Cana during the time of Jesus’s early ministry. Upon being brought to Jesus by his friend Philip, who had just himself been called by Jesus into his discipleship, Nathanael begins a discourse with Jesus which convinced him that he was in the presence of the Messiah. Jesus takes time with Nathanael to identify His Christological nature as the Son of God, and the Son of Man. Only in the Book of John is his name read as Nathanael, in contrast to Bartholomew in the other three gospels. With the knowledge that Jesus characterized only Nathanael as a “true Israelite”, a rarity indeed, skeptics believe him to be an ideal rather than a person. However, sound hermeneutical reasoning renders that both Nathanael and Bartholomew were real, one and the same man. Nathanael’s journeys lead him to such regions as Asia, Northwest Africa, Armenia, Persia, Spain, and India. His name meaning ‘Gift of God’, Nathanael met a grievous death at the hands of evil adversaries confessing to be priests.

This paper examines a version of via media between the "old" traditional Lutheran-Protestant perspective and the new perspective (E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, N. T. Wright) of Paul's soteriology and view of the Law. Garwood Anderson's work is the focus of this study.

This paper is a critical essay clarifying the issues at stake in the contemporary discussion of the relationship between justification and sanctification from a Lutheran perspective. Through out it contrasts these doctrines with the understanding of other churches (Roman Catholic, Reformed etc.) In addition it closely engages with three articles from Bayer, Chester and Marshall as well as a range of other articles and books appropriate to the level of this unit. Some brief comments have been made about these doctrine’s implications for Pastoral Ministry. Through out my research I have learned that deification is orthodox and contrary to popular opinion—is compatible with Lutheran doctrine. Whilst theosis raises more questions than can answered on a practical level, I have grown much in appreciation of theology from the Eastern Orthodox tradition, New Perspective(s) on Paul and how this all contrasts with Lutheran theology.

This paper seeks to provide a basic sketch of the debates surrounding the New Perspective(s) on Paul within their historical and exegetical contexts for discussion.  The goal is to provide lay leaders and pastors with an orientation to the key issues in order to help them discern their own leanings while being fair to the major arguments at play.

This paper describes some of the most important theological distinctions of the so-called "New Perspective on Paul" drawn from the writings of three of its most well-known advocates: E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright.  After this summary, each of these distinctives is critiqued, with special attention paid to how the "New Perspective" threatens the centrality of the traditional Reformation doctrine of justification.

N.T. Wright's critical realist epistemology has become the foundation for many recent studies of Christian origins. This article argues that New Testament scholars have perhaps too quickly and uncritically adopted this method, when it is out of step with contemporary analytic epistemology. The method Wright employs—and which many have adopted—originates with an internalist epistemic account developed in the 1940s. Since then, key developments in the study of epistemology (beginning with Gettier in 1963) have made Wright's critical realist model irrelevant in many ways. In light of these inadequacies, we tentatively outline some potential components of a more promising historical epistemology for the study of Christian origins.

Bible scholars across the theological spectrum have noted the Apostle Paul's scarce use of the word metanoia and related repentance words in his Epistles. Given the prevalence of metanoia in Judaism and the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus, the lack of this concept in Paul is puzzling. Many scholars have taken this to be indicative of Paul's diversion from the teaching of Christ or his establishment of a new understanding of salvation that ignores repentance altogether. However, the historical context of Paul's day hints at an alternate explanation. It seems clear that many Jews in the 1 st century had essentially equated metanoia with justification and a work that merits the acceptance of God. Because of this, Paul prefers to use the pistis concept when discussing justification and uses metanoia only when pistis would not precisely refer to the aspect of conversion or the Christian life that Paul was addressing.

Since the 1980s a major source of contention within New Testament scholarship has been the Πίστις Χριστοῦ debate. Paul teaches that our justification occurs ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ (Ro 3:22,26; Ga 2:16,20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Php 3:9) and so this debate concerns the interpretation of this Greek phrase. Does it refer, as traditionally understood, to faith in Christ, or, as has been more recently argued, to Christ’s own faithfulness unto death? This thesis demonstrates on semantic, grammatical, and exegetical grounds that the phrase should be understood in the traditional manner, as containing an objective genitive and denoting our faith in Christ.

James Dunn's "New Perspective on Paul" has been a breath of fresh air in Pauline studies, but did not provide a sufficient understanding of what Paul meant by "the curse of the law." Paul specifically quoted Deut. 27-30 in Galatians, and that Deut. 28 specifies that there would be two exiles of two distinct characters: The first to one land (Babylon) and the second to the whole world. Paul's point was not to say that following a specific set of commandments (e.g., circumcision, the Sabbaths and feasts, or kosher) would cause one to become cursed, but rather that to be "under law"--which Paul defines as being under the Sinaic covenant in Gal. 4:21-32--meant joining Israel in its time of punishment as defined in the law itself. When we join the fact that the curse was initiated some 700 years before the Messiah was born with Michael Heiser's "Divine Council" theology, it becomes plain why Paul considered being "under the law" to equal being under the stoicheia, the elemental spirits that rule over the nations; i.e., Israel serves the nations who serve their gods, therefore, Israel serves (indirectly) the "gods of wood and stone." In conclusion, we show that Deu. 30:7 provides a mediating position between preterism, historicism, and futurism, in that it states that the same curse/punishments that fell on Israel would likewise fall on her enemies.

From a comparison of Jas 2 : 14-26 with Rom 4-5, Gal 2-3 and Phil 3, it can be concluded that James had knowledge of the Pauline epistles. Nevertheless, we can note some significant differences, which lead us to believe that Jas 2 : 14-26 is a dialogue with Pauline Christians of the second generation. A comparison with Eph 2 : 8-10, 2 Tim 1 : 9 and Titus 3 : 5b-8 confirms this hypothesis. The epistle of James is probably the work of the leader of a Judeo-Christian community who, at a time when Judeo-Christianism was trying to join the main Church, was negotiating membership. He was doing this without compromising his beliefs, particularly when he noted certain deviations within the communities which were influenced by Pauline theology. As a conclusion to this analysis, some thoughts are put forward concerning the christology of James, which is more sophisticated than is usually thought.

Paul writes that we are justified by faith apart from 'works of the law', a disputed term that represents a fault line between 'old' and 'new' perspectives on Paul. Was the Apostle reacting against the Jews' good works done to earn salvation, or the Mosaic Law's practices that identified the Jewish people? Matthew J. Thomas examines how Paul's second century readers understood these points in conflict, how they relate to 'old' and 'new' perspectives, and what their collective witness suggests about the Apostle's own meaning. Surprisingly, these early witnesses align closely with the 'new' perspective, though their reasoning often differs from both viewpoints. They suggest that Paul opposes these works neither due to moralism, nor primarily for experiential or social reasons, but because the promised new law and covenant, which are transformative and universal in scope, have come in Christ.

The priority of interpretation is to hear what God actually says so we can clearly communicate the gospel. The problem is that we unknowingly inherit entire traditions from previous interpreters, often overlooking their mistaken presuppositions. Since all understanding flows from our presuppositions, our controlling question is: Do our modern English translations of Romans 3:28 reflect an exegetical bias rather than the Greek syntax of the sentence? The historical-grammatical method is used to answer this question along with a plausible reading of Romans 3:27-31.

Many researchers consider Paul's doctrine of justification a unique teaching, which he developed comparatively late, in his debate with judaising opponents of his Gentile mission. This article seeks to show that justification by faith without works can already be found in Paul's early writings and that Paul is by no means the first to teach it. Jesus, in his parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector found in Luke 18:9-14, taught it long before Paul, albeit in the shape of a story. The sentences Paul quotes in Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:28 are not random remarks, but carefully phrased slogans which were handed down to Paul by those who were Christians before him. These sentences show an amazing verbal and conceptual congruity with the parable in Luke 18 and may well have been formulated on the basis of that parable. This seems all the more likely if we take into account that the parable was originally formulated in Aramaic and has a strong claim to authenticity.

The article examines some aspects of the so-called "new perspective on Paul” and its meaning for a current understanding of Paul’s theology, especially its relationship to a "Lutheran" approach to Paul. In particular, it analyses Gal 2:15–17, a basic text for some representatives of the “new perspective”.

This is the accepted version. The final version has been published in Theology, Vol 122, Issue 5 (2019).

Abstract: Despite the Catholic–Lutheran Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, justification by faith is a troublesome doctrine to Catholics. Scott Hahn’s Romans is used to illustrate four inadequate ways of explaining (away) Paul’s doctrine of justification.

By analysing Tom Wright and John Piper, the dissertation studies the old dilemma of justification by faith and judgment according to works from an ontological perspective. The paper investigates why in the writings of Wright and Piper good deeds or faith-works may or may not carry qualitatively sufficient ontological weight in justification and/or judgment in which God takes into consideration inheritance of his people in Christ's representativeness and human sinfulness inherited from Adam. This analysis defines the ultimate criteria for one to be able to stand in front of God in judgment or what is the climax of the judgment. By evaluating the cores of the authors' soteriological-ontological systems, and by showing qualitative and processive problems of the systems, the study ends up arguing that through a qualitative process of judgment, three goals are reached. (1) We argue that in the judgment process we have actual responsibility for our sins, and, hence, pro Wright, faith-works/life led have actual weight in judgment; yet, through comparing the ontological qualities of Christ and the righteous people of God in judgment, which we call the comparison theme, God nullifies the quality of the saints' ontological state, nullifying the quality of works and boast simultaneously, and, thus, pro Piper, Christ's imputed quality for God's people stands as the climax in the end; (2) the imputation of Christ's righteousness, including forgiveness, via the comparison theme and the Adam-Christ representative headship motif, is introduced as an integral part and the climax of the pre-advent judgment; and (3) a possible soteriological-ontological framework for a solution for the dilemma of justification by faith and judgment according to works is proposed.

This essay seeks to advance the position of Steven Porter, and John Coe on the minimizing and marginalization of the role of the Holy Spirit in churches, in terms of the theology of the Holy Spirit, with emphasis on regeneration, and indwelling of the Spirit.

El hecho de que la doctrina de la justifi cación llegara a convertirse en el núcleo teológico fundamental de la Reforma y la tradición protestante ha estado estrechamente vinculado al descubrimiento de la justicia de Dios como acontecimiento de salvación. El presente artículo explora los límites de las concepciones clásicas de justicia con las que Martín Lutero (1483-1546) se encontró en su tiempo, y el modo en que la lectura de la Epístola a los romanos propició una nueva comprensión de la iustitia Dei y, consecuentemente, de la justifi cación por la fe. Al situar al Evangelio como clave interpretativa, se produce un desbordamiento de las nociones de justicia heredadas de la tradición fi losófi ca en la medida que se retorna a las fuentes bíblicas. Este giro hermenéutico fue mucho más que un hecho anecdótico; representó un punto de infl exión no solamente para la labor de Lutero como reformador, sino también para el posterior desarrollo de la teología protestante.

A theory of the atonement is outlined which is grounded in an appropriation of the Platonic doctrine of participation, and an Irenaean theodicy. The purpose of Christ's life and death was to enable humans to destroy the sinful aspects of their character, and to manifest Christ's righteousness, by means of participation in the same Form. The theory is similar to versions of the Christus Victor model which emphasise recapitulation and theosis. Forgiveness of past sin is connected with Christ's sacrifice because such forgiveness must be conditional upon the possibility of rehabilitation of the offender, and this rehabilitation is only possible because of Christ's sacrifice. The sacrifice of Christ was metaphysically necessary if human salvation was to be achieved. A number of assumptions are involved: the Platonic theory of Forms, the temporality of Form, strong metaphysical constraints on divine omnipotence, and suffering as essential to the finite expression of goodness. Scripturally, the theory is motivated by the insights of the "new perspective on Paul." Since both forgiveness of past sin, and also sanctification/theosis are dependent upon Christ's life and death, the theory readily accommodates a wide range of scriptural motifs concerning the atonement, including substitution and appeasement of divine wrath.