The New Perspective on Paul & Subsequent Musings

One of the most recent trends in Pauline studies has been dubbed “The New Perspective on Paul,” and it flows from a book written by E.P. Sanders in the 1970s entitled Paul & Palestinian Judaism. The New Perspective on Paul—or npp for short—clings to what Sanders proposes in his work, regarding the Law of the Old Covenant, though he himself didn’t come up with the term npp. Sanders taught that 1^st Century Palestinian Jews did not believe in works-righteousness, as Reformed scholars on Paul say. Sanders proposed that the Jews are brought into the Abrahamic Covenant at birth and stay in the covenant through works. Thus relationship with God comes first, and obedience to God comes second. A simple examination of covenant nomism runs like this:

God has chosen Israel to be His chosen people. God has given the Israelites the Law. The law implies God’s promise to maintain the election and the Israelites’ requirement to obey. God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. The Law provides for means of atonement and atonement results in maintenance or re:establishment of the covenantal relationship. All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement, and God’s mercy belong to the group that will be saved. Election and salvation are, ultimately, granted by God’s grace and not by human achievement.

The problem I have with this view is that it seems somewhat contradictory. The Jews are born into the covenant. Okay. And in the covenant, they have the choice either to obey or transgress. If they obey, they are granted atonement. If they transgress, they are punished. Thus works keep them in the covenant and lead to atonement… yet salvation and atonement come not by works, but by God’s mercy. This seems a little flimsy to me. How is this not still works-righteousness? Maybe I’m just not understanding Sanders’ position fully; however, as I understand it now, it seems like atonement and remaining in the covenant are based upon following the rules and regulations of the covenant (i.e. obedience).

All of this makes me think about the relationship of works in the New Covenant. Let’s say that baptism is entry into the New Covenant. I’m not sure if this is a genuine statement or not, though it fits historically with the role of baptism in the Middle East in the days of the early church. Where do works come in? Once we enter into the new covenant established by Jesus—whether that is through baptism or not—then what role do works play? Some would say that works keep us in the covenant. I don’t agree with this. To me, it smacks of legalism with a different cover page. We’re still operating on a works-based salvation: God’s mercy in Christ brings us into the covenant, but our own works keep us in the covenant. How is this that different from what Sanders proposed? It’s my belief that we enter the covenant when we put our faith in Christ and dedicate ourselves to Him. This is an issue of the heart, not an issue of activity or works. Our behaviors are to reflect the new status we receive upon coming into the new covenant—“in Christ”, “in the Spirit”, “the children of God”, etc.—but our behaviors do not determine our status. Thus the issue is how well we reflect our status in Christ, not how our works gain or lose our salvation. Since salvation is an issue of the heart, what we do—or don’t do—will have no bearing on our salvation. It will affect how enriched we become in God, but it won’t strip away our salvation. Does this mean that I believe salvation cannot be lost? No. I believe it can be. But losing our salvation is not something that happens based on what we do; it’s based upon our hearts. When we come to Christ, our hearts turn towards God; if we turn our hearts away from God, then we forfeit our statuses as God’s children. As Christians, we must constantly examine our lives and see if we are reflecting our status in Christ. If not, we should make changes in our lifestyle.

I am sickened by the level of works-righteousness that many Christians buy into; whenever I see it, I want to scream. It is as if the concept of God’s grace means nothing anymore. The fault, I believe, lies in poor examination of the scriptures, and I believe a lot of blame falls upon preachers and teachers who, even though they may not intend to do so, teach a works-based salvation. Whenever I hear someone say, “Real Christians don’t drink,” or “Real Christians don’t smoke,” or “Real Christians don’t masturbate,” I wonder if the people saying it realize what they’re saying. They’re saying, essentially, that our refusal to drink, smoke, and masturbate are necessities for salvation. They’re promoting a works-based salvation! I’ll easily say, “Christians should be careful with alcohol and tobacco,” and “Christians should abstain from lust,” but I will acknowledge that many Christians do drink, do smoke, and do masturbate. I’m not saying it’s a good thing, I’m just saying that a Christian is not defined by his or her actions, but by the Holy Spirit’s presence in their life. And on the same token, a Christian is not defined by his or her reactions to the prodding or conviction of the Holy Spirit, but, simply, by the Spirit’s indwelling, which is received when our hearts turn to God.