For a quick read of my original post regarding this page, please click here.
New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction and Response
Without question, correct understanding of the Christian faith hinges on the proper interpretation of Scripture. In the two millennia since the death of Christ, this issue has surfaced repeatedly in the church, with each challenge answered in such a way as to uphold correct teaching of the word of God. Moreover, God has graciously used these challenges to refine his church, bringing issues to light that had previously been passed over and strengthening the church’s understanding of the “faith which was once for all delivered for the saints.” In recent decades the writings of scholars within the New Perspective on Paul movement have offered such a challenge to traditional interpretations of Paul’s epistles. While these challenges are not heretical, they do call for clarification and re-examination of essential Pauline doctrines and offer opportunities for helpfully refining the teaching of the church. In examining the New Perspective on Paul through the writings of its major contributors, E.P. Sanders, James Dunn and N.T. Wright, one is able to make such assessments. The purpose of this paper is to study the broad argument laid out by the New Perspective on Paul scholars, to briefly compare their teaching to the long-established readings of Paul and finally to determine the positive and negative contributions that the New Perspective offers to traditional evangelical Christianity.
Initially, it is important to note that while there are many commonalities between the various NPP scholars, significant differences also exist. Nonetheless, as Guy Waters helpfully clarifies, while there are “recognized diversity and divergences among the primary NPP proponents” there remains “enough held in common among them to group them as a school.”[1] Thus, while points may be discussed under the broad heading of the New Perspective, it does not necessarily follow that these are the held convictions of all NPP contributors. Where these authors agree, this paper will attempt to note general agreement among the authors; where these authors disagree, this paper will distinguish between their beliefs.
In examining the New Perspective one discovers that the primary area of consideration that drives NPP scholarship is the discussion of Judaism in Paul’s day. NPP authors often begin with the assumption that traditional understandings of Paul, since the time of Martin Luther and the Reformation, have misinterpreted Paul’s assessment of his own people. James Dunn declares that traditional readings of Paul have “been too much influenced by Luther’s own experience of grace…. The natural reflex was to read Paul’s experience of grace in the light of Luther’s, and to identify what Paul rejected with that which Luther rejected.”[2] While on the surface the issue of correctly understanding Judaism in Paul’s day may seem secondary, in reality the issue is one that demands to be answered as it serves as the background to Paul’s discussions on the law, works, righteousness and justification—key Pauline doctrines that the church cannot afford to overlook.
Concerning the correct interpretation of first century Judaism, New Perspective authors note several areas where it is argued that traditional scholarship stands guilty of misreading Paul’s assessment of his native religion. NPP scholars build off the notion that the “old” understanding of Paul’s critique of Israel is “simply that Paul saw Judaism as a religion of legalism and Christianity as a religion of grace,”[3] but that in reality, as E.P. Sanders notes, “Rabbinic and other Palestinian Jewish literature do not reveal the kind of religion best characterized as legalistic works-righteousness.”[4] Sanders, who Waters notes as being “a pivotal figure not only in the NPP but also in Pauline studies,”[5] believes that true Palestinian Judaism stood on the foundation of God’s grace and election of Israel. Works, Sanders notes, were “the condition of remaining in” in the covenant, but did not “earn salvation.”[6] Dunn agrees with Sanders assessment, writing “obedience to the law in Judaism was never thought of as a means of entering the covenant, of attaining that special relationship with God; it was more a matter of maintaining the covenant relationship with God.”[7] Thus, the New Perspective authors agree that first century Judaism taught that people entered into the family of God on the basis of God’s election of Israel; people remained in the family of God by adhering to certain works of the law.
Importantly, this issue of how one maintains the covenant relationship with God is what Paul confronted when he argued for faith as opposed to works, according to the New Perspective authors. Since both Christianity and first century Judaism believed that one enters into God’s family on the basis of election, the distinction made by Paul was that, due to Christ, the works of circumcision, the Sabbath and dietary laws were no longer needed for one to remain in the people of God.[8] This “covenantal nomism”—Sanders view that God’s covenant election of Israel was to be maintained by Israel’s obedience to specific commands[9]—was now argued by Paul as no longer being the “badge” identifying God’s people. In the New Covenant, the badge identifying the people of God was to be the badge of “faith”.[10] Thus while “old” readings of Paul focus on his discussion of faith as opposed to works in regards to one entering into the people of God, the New Perspective contends that Paul’s discussion of faith versus works of the law describes that which truly defines those currently in the covenant people of Christ.
The ramifications of this distinction are not minor. In redefining a central Pauline argument of faith versus works of the law, the New Perspective on Paul asks the Christian community to redefine its traditional understanding of ‘justification’, the ‘righteousness of God’ and ‘faith.’ Simply put, since the time of the Reformation, Protestants have understood that the word ‘justify’ is forensic in nature and means “to declare to be righteous.”[11] However, mixed interpretations of the term exist within the NPP. N.T. Wright notes that “the word ‘justification’ does not itself denote the process whereby, or the event in which, a person is brought by grace from unbelief.”[12] Wright agrees that the term is forensic in nature, but he also “distinguishes present from future justification.”[13] According to Wright, future justification will occur at the final judgment, but in the present “justification is not about how someone becomes a Christian. It is the declaration that they have become a Christian.”[14] Sanders, however, views justification differently. For Sanders the term is a ‘transfer term’ “indicating getting in, not staying in, the body of the saved.”[15] Dunn likewise differs on his definition of justification, viewing justification as “a series of acts … throughout [the believer’s] existence,” while further noting that God’s declaration of the believer to be righteous “encompasses (but is not exhausted by) the believer’s covenantal obedience.”[16]
What agreement exists among these three NPP authors? Significantly, Sanders, Dunn and Wright agree that the traditional understanding of Paul misinterprets the true meaning of justification. For the NPP, “justification does not involve the believer’s appropriation of the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith alone.”[17] Waters notes that Dunn and Wright find the basis of justification to be the believer’s faithfulness to the covenant, with the latter author claiming that “justification, at the last, will be on the basis of performance, not possession.”[18]
Additionally, the framework that guides the New Perspective’s interpretation of key Pauline texts requires a redefinition of the significant phrase, ‘righteousness of God.’ While Protestants traditionally maintain that ‘righteousness’ is “the right standing that comes from God” that is “given quite apart from law,”[19] the NPP writers define the term in a dramatically distinct manner. According to NPP scholars, the ‘righteousness of God’ denotes “God’s faithfulness to his promises, to his covenant.”[20] In interpreting 2 Corinthians 5:21, Wright argues that the verse is not about “a human status in virtue of which the one who has ‘become’ it stands ‘righteous’ before God, as in Lutheran soteriology”[21] but instead it involves the covenant faithfulness of God and the notion that the ambassador “represents the one for whom he speaks in such a full and thorough way that he actually becomes the living embodiment of his sovereign.”[22] Sanders himself seems to be content with removing the word ‘righteousness’ from at least one Pauline text, saying the word is non-essential in Philippians 3:9 and that instead the key to this text is that “one attains the resurrection by dying and rising with Christ.”[23] Dunn, however, opposes Sanders in this instance and maintains that ‘righteousness’ “is through faith in Christ, ‘from God,’ and not ‘from law,’” citing Philippians 3:9.[24]
Finally, the NPP framework redefines the meaning of the term ‘faith.’ Historically, faith has been viewed as “the means through which the gift [of salvation] is given.”[25] The New Perspective authors, however, reinterpret faith as something entirely different. NPP writers stand in agreement that faith functions as “the only badge of membership in God’s people”[26] (as opposed to ‘works of the law’ in Judaism). Paul’s contribution to the importance of defining faith, according to the NPP, is found in the recording of his disagreement with Peter in the second chapter of Galatians. Prior to this debate, according to Dunn, “faith in Christ” was seen by the Jewish Christians as “one identity marker … alongside the other identity markers,” but that now “faith in Jesus as Christ becomes the primary identity marker which renders the others superfluous.”[27] The key point for the proponents of the New Perspective is demonstrated here. The debate for Paul was about the unity of God’s people.[28] If ‘works of the law’ remained as the badge of membership in God’s covenant people, then the Gentiles remained outside this group unless they consented to keep these laws. Paul argued, however, that now faith in Christ was the badge of membership and the covenant community was thus opened to both Jew and Gentile alike.[29]
As demonstrated, the NPP at its core contends that the ‘works of the law’ were not means by which the Jews in Paul’s day sought to utilize in order to enter the people of God, but instead were the markers of circumcision, dietary laws and Sabbath regulations that identified the people of God as distinct from the world around them. In the New Covenant, faith in Christ has replaced these works as the ‘badge’ which identifies God’s people. Sanders, Dunn and Wright all maintain that Paul fought not against legalistic efforts of people to earn righteousness and thus to enter into the people of God, but instead for the proper understanding of what it meant for Jews and Gentiles alike to be in the people of God by faith. Justification, then, is simply God’s declaration of who is currently within his covenant people and will be confirmed finally on the Day of Judgment.
What remains in discussing the NPP is examining how these scholars define ‘the gospel.’ Due to the redefinitions described above, exactly what is the nature of gospel message likewise has been redefined by Sanders, Dunn and Wright. The essence of the gospel message according to the NPP is stated simply: “Jesus Christ [is] Lord.”[30] Wright notes that “the gospel is the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ”[31] and that it is the “personal announcement of the person of Jesus.”[32] Sanders rightly states that the gospel message preached by Paul centered on God, not the need of man, and is comprised of the message of Christ’s death, resurrection, present lordship and eventual return.[33] However, in arguing this way Sanders famously notes Paul’s gospel in Romans as proceeding from solution to plight, as opposed to the traditional understanding of arguing from plight to solution.[34] Sanders notes:
The real plight of man, as Paul learned it … was that men were under a different lordship. Repentance, no matter how fervent, will not result in a change of lordships. Men’s transgressions do have to be accounted for; God must overlook them or Christ must die to expiate them; but the do not constitute the problem. Man’s problem is not being under Christ’s lordship.[35]
Thus, according to Sanders, the gospel is not the message that that answers the question “How can sinful man be just with God?”,[36] due to the fact that this question presumes man’s plight. On the contrary, the gospel according to Sanders (and Wright) begins with God and only encompasses the declaration that Christ is Lord of all. This understanding of gospel stands in stark contrast to what the NPP authors put forth as the traditional understanding of ‘the gospel’: “righteousness by faith alone”[37] or “justification by faith,”[38] separate from any message about Christ.
In comparison to the above arguments proposed by the NPP, the traditional “perspective on Paul” stands in stark contrast. The central focus for the historical understanding of Paul (and the New Testament in general) rests on determining the means by which God, for his glory, places man, who is alienated from him and awaiting his judgment due to sin, in a right standing with himself.[39] With this core question in mind, traditional interpretations of Paul note that his interactions with the Jews (both Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews) consisted in proclaiming the message of faith alone in Christ alone as opposed to earning merit before God due to works-based righteousness. Rapa notes that the Judaizers opposed by Paul “undoubtedly … believed the law to be salvific.”[40] This understanding that at least a significant portion of the Jewish people in Paul’s day believed the law to be salvific has been a key to interpreting Pauline epistles for centuries. Gathercole writes that in Paul’s discussion of ‘works of the law’ he “focuses on observance of the law as a whole…. The issue at stake with works of the law is not so much Jewish identity as the ability of Israelites as human beings to obey the entire law.”[41]
Thus, in the context of man attempting to right himself with God by earning merit, Paul pens his doctrine of justification by faith in Christ as the solution to the problem posed by sin. In Romans 3:21-26, a passage that Morris cites as “possibly the most single important paragraph ever written,”[42] the traditional interpretation maintains that Paul demonstrates “that man has no merit at all” and has been “disqualified” because of his sin.[43] However, “because of what Christ has done, he can now face that court with assurance. The verdict that will be rendered on the believer is ‘Not guilty.’”[44] This is the essence of justification. Traditionalists understand Paul as teaching that in the delivering of the “not guilty” verdict to the believer by God, the believer is also declared to be righteous in Christ.[45] This declaration is made “on the basis of Christ’s saving work”[46] and is received by the believer solely through faith.[47]
Faith, therefore, according to the traditional interpretation of Paul, exists not simply as a badge declaring one to be in God’s covenant family, but instead is “the means through which” [48] one receives God’s gift of grace to enter into[49] and remain in[50] the covenant family. As Morris notes, “faith is the indispensable attitude.”[51] The badge that distinguishes between the people of God and the world is identified by Christ himself as “their fruits.”[52]
The gospel, finally, is not traditionally defined quite as simplistically as the NPP proponents suggest. Wright declares “One is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. One is justified by faith by believing in Jesus.”[53] In his presentation, Wright seems to assume that traditional interpretations of Paul believe in justification by faith which has as its object justification by faith. This, however, is an unfair caricature of the traditional position. As Murray demonstrates, “It is in Christ we are justified…. It is through Christ’s sacrificial and redemptive work [that we are justified]…. It is by the righteousness of God that we are justified…. The righteousness of justification is the righteousness and obedience of Christ.”[54] The traditional doctrine of justification by faith rests solely on the object of its faith, Jesus Christ. Thus, according to Mathis:
The gospel … can be summarized as the message about the kingdom of God established in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, who is enthroned as Lord of all. This good news describes events to which all Scripture points and declares that all principalities and powers are defeated once and for all by Jesus the Messiah. Finally, all of humanity will be judged according to their reception or rejection of this good news.[55]
It is important to note that while this holistic definition includes the NPP’s defining proclamation of “Jesus the Messiah” as “Lord of all,”[56] it is not limited to this proclamation alone.
Having now completed an examination of the New Perspective on Paul and having given a brief sketch of the traditional Pauline interpretation of these doctrines, attention will now be given to determining the positive and negative contributions that NPP authors have made to New Testament scholarship. Helpfully, the New Perspective on Paul offers challenges to and critiques of traditional scholarship in several areas. First, the NPP’s emphasis on gaining a complete understanding of first century Judaism is a call to which traditional scholarship must heed. Correctly does James Dunn state: “We have all in greater or less degree been guilty of modernizing Paul.”[57] The New Perspective gives a helpful critique in calling scholars to look back into history with careful precision to ensure that the context in which Paul wrote his epistles is interpreted properly. However, it seems that the New Perspective movement pushes this issue beyond prudence. The issue of attempting to earn legalistic works-based righteousness remains far too embedded in the New Testament texts—from the gospels throughout the epistles—to be pushed to the side completely. Moreover, this problem is documented in extra-biblical sources as well that date from before Christ and through the years of the early church.[58] Therefore, Christian scholars ought to listen well to the criticism raised by Sanders in Paul and Palestinian Judaism, as well as to the other NPP resources, and examine the first century culture; but this must be done with precision and care, not allowing the pendulum to swing away from traditional readings further than the data allows it.
Secondly, the New Perspective positively calls for a refocusing on the community aspect of the Christian faith. The NPP scholars rightly react against the individualization of faith, arguing for a strong emphasis to be placed participation in the family of God into which Christians are adopted. As Wright notes, “The gospel creates, not a bunch of individual Christians, but a community.”[59] While some critique the New Perspective for moving too far in this direction by correctly noting that “Faith according to Paul is exercised by individuals”[60], N.T. Wright, at least, seems to anticipate this assessment in writing “Of course every single human being is summoned, in his or her uniqueness, to respond personally to the gospel.… But there is no such thing as an ‘individual’ Christian. Paul’s gospel created a community.”[61] While Wright’s statement here may be debatable regarding the existence of “individual” Christians, the Christian community must not overlook his admonition to biblical community and the abandoning of the “cavalier Christian” lifestyle that so easily infiltrates Christianity.
Next, the NPP helpfully reminds the more traditional interpreters of Paul not to remove the doctrines of salvation, election and justification from the biblical meta-narrative of Scripture. New Perspective writers strongly argue for the continuity of the people of God and the plan of God, noting that Christ was the plan from the beginning[62] and that in Christ God was bringing about the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham to bless all the nations through him.[63] This stands as an important reminder for the Christian community. Chapell rightly notes:
The New Perspective’s emphasis on the drama of redemption in Scripture can help theologians and pastors better describe what the Bible teaches on its own terms, especially in ministry to a postmodern generation that is powerfully moved by narrative.[64]
Finally, in addition to the concerns listed above alongside the positive contributions of the NPP, the New Perspective on Paul contains one further area of concern for traditional scholarship. As discussed previously, it is deeply troubling that the NPP authors unnecessarily and unhelpfully redefine major doctrinal terms within Christianity. In the name of bringing clarity to Pauline studies, the New Perspective writers have served to instead offer the exact opposite in their discussions on justification, righteousness and faith. The definitions offered by NPP scholars leave little room for dealing with sin and sinful man’s attaining a right status with God[65]—major issues in Paul’s epistles[66]—while making much of the discussion of how man maintains his status in the people of God.[67] Gathercole helpfully notes that following these trends laid out by the NPP “can lead to a downplaying of sin. This approach to justification can lose sight of Paul’s vital concern for how sinners can be made righteous.”[68] The doctrine of justification by faith and the answer to the question “How can sinful man be in right relationship with God?” are not areas of which the church can afford to lose sight. These areas comprise the very heart of the message of proclaiming Christ’s Lordship, for the news that Christ is Lord, removed from the truth that he has made a way to forgive transgressions, leaves people still separated from God by sin.[69]
In conclusion, the New Perspective on Paul, though offering a few areas of helpful admonition, offers several troublesome redefinitions of essential Pauline doctrines. In this paper, it has been shown that the NPP’s teachings on works of the law, justification, righteousness, faith and the gospel message are comprised of serious flaws. Moreover, the NPP authors have failed to present compelling reasons to abandon the established interpretations of Paul’s epistles for New Perspective explanations. While the “old” perspective would be well-advised to strongly consider the claims made by NPP authors, the truths given by the traditional readings of Paul speak clearly about the nature of sin, the justification of sinners, and the righteousness of God, among other important doctrines. In moving forward, continued helpful dialogue in the spirit of love and edification is needed on both sides of the table in order to maintain clarity and understanding of each position’s arguments. Moreover, the biblical doctrines of justification by faith and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness must continue to be upheld by men willing to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”
Bibliography
Brand, Chad, Charles Draper and Archie England, eds. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville: Holman, 2003.
Chapell, Bryan. “An Explanation of the New Perspective on Paul for Friends of Covenant Theological Seminary.” Covenant Theological Seminary Online Resources. Available from http://worldwidefreeresources.com/upload/Chapell_NewPerspective.pdf, accessed 21 April 2009.
Cosgrove, Charles H. “Justification in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Reflection.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (December 1987): 653-70.
Dunn, James D. G. Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990.
Gathercole, Simon. “What Did Paul Really Mean?” Christianity Today 51 (August 2007): 22-28.
Harrison, Everett F. and Donald A. Hagner. Romans. The Expositors Bible Commentary, eds. Temper Longman III and David E. Garland, no. 11. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
Maxwell, David R. “Justified by Works and Not by Faith Alone: Reconciling Paul and James.” Concordia Journal 33 (October 2007): 375-78.
Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. The Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.
Rapa, Robert Keith. “The Meaning of ‘Works of the Law’ in Galatians and Romans.” Studies in Biblical Literature, Hemchand Gossai, ed. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2001.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977.
Waters, Guy P. Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: Review and Response. Phillipsburg: P&R, 2004.
Wright, N. T. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Wright, N. T. Paul In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
Wright, N. T. “On Becoming the Righteousness of God: 2 Corinthians 5:21.” Pauline Theology. Vol 2. D. M. Hay, ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993. Available from http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Becoming_Righteousness.pdf, accessed 19 March, 2009.
[1] Guy Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul, (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2004), 151.
[2] James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990), 11.
[3] N.T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 147.
[4] E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977), 550.
[5] Waters, Justification, 35.
[6] Sanders, Paul, 543.
[7] Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 186.
[8] Ibid., 11.
[9] Sanders, Paul, 75.
[10] Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 194.
[11] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 121.
[12] Wright, Fresh Perspective, 121.
[13] Waters, Justification, 171.
[14] N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 125. Emphasis mine.
[15] Sanders, Paul, 544.
[16] Waters, Justification, 170.
[17] Ibid., 171.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed. D.A. Carson, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 173-74.
[20] Wright, Fresh Perspective, 102.
[21] N.T. Wright, “On Becoming the Righteousness of God: 2 Corinthians 5:21,” Pauline Theology, D.M. Hay, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993), 204. Accessed at http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Becoming_ Righteousness.pdf, accessed 19 March, 2009.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Sanders, Paul, 505.
[24] Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 186.
[25] Morris, Romans, 176.
[26] Wright, Fresh Perspective, 120-21.
[27] Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 196.
[28] Wright, Fresh Perspective, 113.
[29] Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 202.
[30] Wright, What Paul Said, 126. Cf. Sanders, Paul, 446.
[31] Wright, What Paul Said, 133.
[32] Ibid., 151
[33] Sanders, Paul, 445-46.
[34] Ibid., 442-43.
[35] Ibid., 500.
[36] Murray, Redemption, 117.
[37] Ibid., 434.
[38] Wright, What Paul Said, 132.
[39] Murray, Redemption, 117.
[40] Robert Keith Rapa, “The Meaning of ‘Works of the Law’ in Galatians and Romans,” in Studies in Biblical Literature, vol. 31, ed. Hemchand Gossai (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2001), 166.
[41] Simon Gathercole, “What Did Paul Really Mean?”, Christianity Today 51, (August 2007): 26.
[42] Morris, Romans, 173.
[43] Ibid., 172.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Murray, Redemption, 121.
[46] Morris, Romans, 177.
[47] Ibid., 176.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Eph. 2:8-9
[50] Col. 2:6-7; cf. Gal. 3:2-3
[51] Morris, Romans, 176.
[52] Matt. 7:15-20; cf. Matt. 12:33; John 15:8
[53] Wright, What Paul Said, 159.
[54] Murray, Redemption, 126-27.
[55] Donny Mathis, “Gospel” in Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. Chad Brand, Charles Draper and Archie England (Nashville: Holman, 2003), 673.
[56] Cf. Wright, What Paul Said, 126. Cf. Sanders, Paul, 446.
[57] Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law, 186.
[58] Gathercole, “What Did Paul Really Mean?”, 26.
[59] Wright, What Paul Said, 157.
[60] Gathercole, “What Did Paul Really Mean?”, 26.
[61] Wright, What Paul Said, 158.
[62] Wright, Fresh Perspective, 118-19.
[63] Ibid., 30.
[64] Bryan Chapell, “An Explanation of the New Perspective on Paul for Friends of Covenant Seminary,” available from http://worldwidefreeresources.com/upload/Chapell_NewPerspective.pdf, internet; accessed 21 April 2009.
[65] Sanders, Paul, 500. “Men’s transgressions do have to be accounted for … but they do not constitute the problem.”
[66] Romans 1:18-3:26; 4:5-8; 7:22-25; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 2:15-21; Eph. 2:1-10; Col. 2:13-14; etc.
[67] Wright, Fresh Perspective, 112. Wright argues that Gal. 2:11-21 is understood better if the word ‘justified’ is read “not as a statement about how someone becomes a Christian, but as a statement about who belongs to the people of God.” (Italics original)
[68] Gathercole, “What Did Paul Really Mean?”, 26.
[69] Isaiah 59:2
