The New Perspective on Paul 1

Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

I. The Historic, Protestant Reformed Interpretation of Paul

The historic Protestant interpretation of Paul's understanding of the Law and justification is being examined
anew with increasing frequency as scholars diligently work to reconstruct Paul's historical context. One of the
primary features of the traditional Protestant doctrine of justification is an emphasis on the plight of the
individual before God (that is plight to solution and not solution to plight as Sanders suggests), an individual
quest for piety apart from concrete social structures (Mark Mattison). As John Howard Yoder put it in his
classic, The Politics of Jesus: It has nothing to do with the structures of society.1

We should not be persuaded to think that the classical Protestant interpretation of Paul is fundamentally wrong.
Admittedly, Paul may not have passed through a crisis of conscience as Luther did; however, neither should we
exclude the possibility that, at least in some respect, psychologizing Paul on this matter, on the basis of his
letters and material in Acts, seems an unwarranted and risky undertaking. Only such righteousness as displayed
in Christ (as the faithfulness of God to himself and his covenant promises in Christ) is reckoned, by faith alone,
as the believer’s. In addition, what is inherently true of Christ is by imputation inherently true of all his members
(Richard Gaffin).

Paul, as seen in Romans 1:18, is clearly concerned about the sinful, fallen condition of humanity before a holy
and wrathful God: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of
men.”  Paul condemns the Jews not for relying on their possession of the law but for breaking it.  He argues not
against their Jewishness but rather against their sin: “While you preach against stealing, do you steal?  You who
say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law” (2:21-23).

“All, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one’” (Rom 3:9-10).  The
reason “the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law,” is because “all have sinned and fall
short of the glory of God” (3:21, 23).  Because both Jews and Gentiles are united in sin under God’s wrath, they
“are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus… to be received by faith”
(3:24-25). Paul strongly argued that we are "justified by faith in Christ (or "the faith of Christ") and not by doing
the works of the law" (Gal. 2:16b).

II. The Contemporary Reconstruction of Paul

The purveyors of the NPP suggest that a historical reappraisal of Paul's doctrine of justification would help not
only to provide a more solid basis for bringing faith to bear on social issues, but also to strengthen the continued
development of ecumenical dialogue. They have falsely alleged the classical interpretation as well as the
interpretation of the reformers by saying that we have misunderstood Judaism in light of the role of the medieval
church; therefore, Paul's protests become very Lutheran and traditional Protestant theology is reinforced in all its
particulars, along with its limitations. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul's debate lies at
the very heart of the doctrine of justification in the church. These reconstructionists would say that the
reformers were the revisionists, and that the NPP is not really “new” but “old” in the sense of correctly
understanding the social milieu of 1st Century Palestinian Judaism.

The common refrain in Wright, Dunn et. al is that the alleged distance between the reformers and Paul is seen in
large part with their preoccupation with Pelagianism; the inveterate tendency especially of the Reformation
tradition has been to read this preoccupation into Paul. This, thereby, attributes to him the Reformation’s own
misunderstanding of Judaism as a “proto-Pelagian,” “a Pelagian religion of self-help moralism” (Wright) [Ligon
Duncan].

1
John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.), 1972, pp. 135,136.
 The New Perspective on Paul 2
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

Sanders asserts that “[he] intend[s] to exclude one of the traditional ways of setting up the discussion of Paul's
theology; by describing first the plight of man to which Paul saw Christ as offering a solution." This can be
effectively accomplished by demonstrating that "Paul's thought did not run from plight to solution," as the
Protestant orthodox following Luther had argued, "but rather from solution to plight." [ not so much about
“getting in” (conversion) but about “staying in”]”

Dunn argues that the statement “works of the law” has to do with maintaining Jewish identity and not legalism. 
Paul’s mission in both epistles is to break down the cultural elitism and help the Jews understand that Gentiles
are equal partners in God’s covenant.2

III. 1st Century Palestinian Judaism

There is a growing consensus concerning the nature of 1st C Palestinian Judaism among NPP proponents who
have asserted that Judaism was never a religion of "legalism"; therefore, Paul was not protesting against self-
righteous3 efforts to merit favor before God.

NPP advocates assert that this caricature of Judaism was buttressed by such scholars as Ferdinand Weber, who
arranged a systematic presentation of rabbinic literature.4 Weber's book provided a wealth of Jewish source
material neatly arranged to show Judaism as a religion of legalism. [Weber – traditional view of Judaism].
Moore clearly demonstrated that Ferdinand Weber had little firsthand knowledge of rabbinic literature and in
fact took most of his quotations from earlier Christian works against Judaism. He demonstrated Schürer's and
Bousset's reliance on Weber and, like Montefiore, pointed out that rabbinic Judaism was not a religion of
legalism (Mark Mattison, The NPP). [READ an excerpt of RJBauckham’s article on rabbinic literature].

In 1977, E. P. Sanders published Paul and Palestinian Judaism, which was the first extensive treament of the
Second Temple Jewish literature (or Early Jewish Literature) [DSS, the Apocrypha and OT Pseudepigrapha].
Unlike Montefiore and Moore, Sanders has been immensely successful in convincing New Testament scholars
about describing Palestinian Judaism as "covenantal nomism." (human obedience is not construed as the means
of “getting” into God's covenant., but inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God- obedience is
the means [performance-driven] of maintaining one's status within the covenant.; therefore, Judaism was never a
religion of legalism).

The most important contribution by Sanders to Pauline studies, however, is not to be found so much in his re-
interpretation of Pauline theology, but in his efforts to overturn the long-standing assumption that the Palestinian
Judaism of the second temple period was a religion of legalistic "works righteousness," to use Reformation
language (Mattison).

Seyoon Kim sees that some Jews of Paul's day sought to obtain righteousness through their obedience to the
Law: this looks like legalism more than nomism, says Kim.5
Were all Jews legalists? The answer must be a resounding, No. [But the NPP advocates want to suggest that
there were no legalists at all and that certainly Paul was not refuting any in Galatia.]6

2
Carson , “Introduction,” p. 4.
3
They have argued that the phrases "a righteousness of my own" (Phil. 3:9) and "their own righteousness" (Rom. 10:3) refer not to self-
righteousness but the particular righteousness of Israel in contrast to the Gentile nations. Cf. James D.G. Dunn, Romans (Word Biblical
Commentary 38; Dallas, TX: Word Publishing), 1988, 2.587,595; N.T. Wright, What St. Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder
of Christianity?, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1997), p. 124.
4
Cf. Frank Thielman, Paul & The Law (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), 1994, p. 25; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison
of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press), 1977, p. 33.
5
Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001).
6
Cf. Chapter 16 in Justification and Variegated Nomism: 16 chapters on Salvation, Justification and Torah in Second Temple Judaism, eds: D.A. Carson,
P.T. O’Brien & M.A. Seifrid [WUNT 2.140; Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck & Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001].
 The New Perspective on Paul 3
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

In Paul, The Law and the Jewish People, Sanders’ offers this explanation:
“I have elsewhere written that his real attack on Judaism is against the idea of the covenant and that what he
finds wrong in Judaism is that it lacks Christ. … What is wrong with the law, and thus with Judaism, is that it
does not provide for God’s ultimate purpose, that of saving the entire world through faith in Christ, and without
the privilege accorded to Jews through the promises, the covenants, and the law.7 He believes that Christianity
and Judaism are not that dissimilar, they are both religions of grace in which works are instrumental for “staying
in” but not “getting in”. He argues that there is no hint of self-righteousness or legalism in Paul’s critique of
Judaism. Quite simply, As Gerhard H. Visscher observes, “The cleverness of this argument is that it, if it is true,
we do not need to presume that Saul was dissatisfied with the law in his pre-Christian state, nor does Paul as a
Christian need to maintain that Judaism is legalistic!”8

As Anderson suggests, ‘(a) blessed life is strictly a reward for right ethical conduct’. Bauckham considers 2
Enoch even more of an exception to the general pattern of covenantal nomism than Sanders suggested 4 Ezra
was.9

Sanders’ quest for the basic pattern of Jewish religion is equivalent to ‘lowest-common-denominator’ Judaism
(Sanders’ own term in his preface to the German translation of PPJ in 1985), or “common Judaism” as he later
came to call it. But this, and the focus on getting in and staying in is hardly an adequate description of a religion:

Moo goes on to note in the same connection:

...there is reason to conclude that Judaism was more "legalistic" than Sanders thinks. In passage after passage in
his scrutiny of the Jewish literature, he dismisses a "legalistic" interpretation by arguing that the covenantal
framework must be read into the text or that the passage is homiletical rather than theological in intent. But was
the covenant as pervasive as Sanders thinks? Might not lack of reference in many Jewish works imply that it had
been lost sight of in a more general reliance on Jewish identity? And does not theology come into expression in
homiletics? Indeed, is it not in more practically oriented texts that we discover what people really believe?
Sanders may be guilty of underplaying a drift toward a more legalistic posture in first-century Judaism. We must
also reckon with the possibility that many "lay" Jews were more legalistic than the surviving literary remains of
Judaism would suggest. Certainly the undeniable importance of the law in Judaism would naturally open the
way to viewing doing the law in itself as salvific. The gap between the average believer's theological views and
the informed views of religious leaders is often a wide one. If Christianity has been far from immune to
legalism, is it likely to think that Judaism, at any state of its development, was?10

7
E.P. Sanders, Paul, The Law and the Jewish People (Fortress Press Minneapolis, 1983) p. 47.
8
Gerhard H. Visscher “Views regarding Legalism and Exclusivism in Judaism: Is there a need to reinterpret Paul?”
http://spindleworks.com/library/visscher/NewLegalism.htm#_ftnref16
9
Martin Hengel & Roland Deines, ‘E.P. Sanders’ “Common Judaism”, Jesus, and the Pharisees’, Journal of Theological Studies 46(1995), pp. 1-70.
10
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 216-7. While I disagree with Jacob Neusner's final conclusion, see also his Rabbinic Judaism: Structure and
System (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 7-13, 20-3, who heaps scorn upon Sanders' literary efforts, not so much for his conclusions but because he
tends by his method to join all Judaic religious systems into a single, harmonious "Judaism." While Neusner appreciates the methodology of
Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism much more than the methodology and conclusions reflected in his Judaism: Practice and Belief 63
B.C.E.—66 C.E., he still faults Sanders' earlier handling of the Mishna and the other rabbinic sources because, says Neusner, the Pauline-
Lutheran questions he brings to it are simply not these sources' central concerns: "Sanders's earlier work is profoundly flawed by the category
formation that he imposes on his sources; that distorts and misrepresents the Judaic system of these sources" (22). He explains:
Sanders quotes all documents equally with no effort at differentiation among them. He seems to have culled sayings from the diverse
sources he has chosen and written them down on cards, which he proceeded to organize around his critical categories. Then he has constructed
his paragraphs and sections by flipping through these cards and commenting on this and that. So there is no context in which a given saying is
important in its own setting, in its own document. This is Billerbeck scholarship.
The diverse rabbinic documents require study in and on their own terms...[But Sanders'] claim to have presented an account of "the
Rabbis" and their opinions is not demonstrated and not even very well argued. We hardly need to dwell on the still more telling fact that Sanders
has not shown how systemic comparison is possible when, in point of fact, the issues of one document, or of one system of which a document is a
part, are simply not the same as the issues of some other document or system; he is oblivious to all documentary variations and differences of
opinion. That is, while he has succeeded in finding rabbinic sayings on topics of central importance to Paul (or Pauline theology), he has ignored
the context and authentic character of the setting in which he has found these sayings. He lacks all sense of proportion and coherence, because he
has not even asked whether these sayings form the center and core of the rabbinic system or even of a given rabbinic document. To state matters
 The New Perspective on Paul 4
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus) 3:3, 14-15, 30-31 clearly teaches that human good deeds atone for sins:

3Whoever honors his father atones for sins,...

14For kindness to a father will not be forgotten,
and against your sins it will be credited to you;
15In the day of your affliction it will be remembered in your favor,
as frost in fair weather, your sins will melt away....
30Water extinguishes a blazing fire:
so almsgiving atones for sin.
31Whoever requites favors gives thought to the future;
at the moment of his falling he will find support. (Cf. Sirach 29:11-13 and Tobit 4:7-11)

Sanders also ignores Josephus' conclusions that God's grace is granted in response to merit,11 as well as the
arguments of 4 Ezra .12 And the Community Rule (1QS 11:2, 3) states: "For I belong to the God of my
vindication and the perfection of my way is in his hand with the virtue of my heart. And with my righteous
deeds he will wipe away my transgressions."[16]13 1QS 3:6-8; 8:6-10; 9:4 also attribute an atoning efficacy to
the Qumran Community's deeds.

IV. Krister Stendahl – Paul’s robust conscience – not needing an alien righteousness because he had a
clear conscience about his performance

He states in his ground-breaking essay "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West" that
Paul was certainly aware of his own shortcomings, but, Stendahl asks, "does he ever intimate that he is aware of
any sins of his own which would trouble his conscience? It is actually easier to find statements to the
contrary.”14 Stendahl writes, “The question about the Law became the incidental framework around the golden

simply, how do we know that "the Rabbis" and Paul are talking about the same thing, so that we can compare what they have to say? If it should
turn out that "the Rabbis" and Paul are not talking about the same thing, then what is it that we have to compare. I think, nothing at all. (22-3)
11
In his Against Apion, II, 217b-218, Josephus writes: "For those...who live in accordance with our laws [nomimos] the prize is not silver or gold,
no crown of wild olive or of parsley with any such public mark of distinction. No; each individual, relying on the witness of his own conscience
and the lawgiver's prophecy, confirmed by the sure testimony of God, is firmly persuaded that to those who observe the laws [tois tous nomous
diaphulaxasi] and, if they must needs die for them, willingly meet death, God has granted a renewed existence [genesthai palin] and in the
revolution of the ages the gift of a better life [bion ameino]."
In his Discourse to the Greeks on Hades Josephus states that "to those that have done well [God will give] an everlasting fruition," and
more specifically that "the just shall remember only their righteous actions, whereby they have attained the heavenly kingdom."
12
See, for example, the following statements in 4 Ezra:
7:77: "For you have a treasure of works laid up with the Most High."
7:78-94: "Now, concerning death, the teaching is: When the decisive decree has gone forth from the Most High that a man shall die...if [the
spirits are] those...who have despised his law...such spirits shall not enter into habitations, but shall immediately wander about in torments, ever
grieving and sad...because they scorned the law of the Most High...Now this is the order of those who have kept the ways of the Most High, when
they shall be separated from their mortal bodies. During the time that they lived in it, they...withstood danger every hour, that they might keep the
law of the Lawgiver perfectly. Therefore...they shall see with great joy the glory of him who receives them...because...while they were alive they
kept the law which was given them in trust."
7:105: "...no one shall ever pray for another on that day...for then every one shall bear his own righteousness or unrighteousness."
7:133: "[The Most High] is gracious to those who turn in repentance to his law."
8:33: "For the righteous, who have many works laid up with thee, shall receive their reward in consequence of their own deeds."
8:55-56: "Therefore do not ask anymore questions about the multitude of those who perish. For they also received freedom, but they despised the
Most High, and were contemptuous of his law."
9:7-12: "And it shall be that every one who will be saved and will be able to escape on account of his works...will see my salvation in my
land...and as many as scorned my law while they still had freedom...these must in torment acknowledge it after death."
See also B. W. Longenecker, 2 Esdras (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995).
13
For the defense of "with my righteous deeds" and not "and in his righteousness" as the more likely original reading see Mark A. Seifrid, "Blind
Alleys," 81-2, fn. 28.
14
Stendahl, "Paul," p. 429 (sec. R. D. Phillips paper to the SFP).
 The New Perspective on Paul 5
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

truth of Pauline anthropology. This is what happens when one approaches Paul with the Western question of an
introspective conscience.”15

In fact, according to the main proponents of the NPP, this new framework or interpretation has at last freed the
true message of the gospel (one of Lordship and inclusivism) from introspective and individualistic shackles of
western Protestantism. [Stendahl – Pauls’ robust conscience]

F. Thielman writes: “It was frequently assumed among O.T scholars.... that at least from the period of the
restoration of the Jews to Israel under Ezra, the history of Judaism was a story of spiraling degeneracy into
legalism, hypocrisy and lack of compassion. Similarly, when Protestant scholars discussed rabbinic Judaism
they tended to assume that Paul’s polemic against Judaism, interpreted through the lens of Luther’s reaction
against Roman Catholicism, provided a sound basis for systematizing the religion of the Mishnah, Talmud and
related Jewish writings of a later era. F. Weber’s [deals with Rabbinic literature only whereas EJL is necessary]
popular description of Talmudic theology (1880) [No. Qumran at the time.] is typical. Keeping the many and
peculiar commands of the law, said Weber, was the means by which the Rabbis believed salvation was earned.
The ordinary rabbi, therefore, believed that the goal of the rabbinic religion was the search for reward on the
basis of merit that God was a stern judge, and that approaching death brought with it the fear of loosing
salvation due to a lack of merit.”

Stendahl articulates his argument by saying, “What happens to the Law (the Torah, the actual Law of Moses, not
the principle of legalism) when the Messiah has come?” and “What are the ramifications of the Messiah’s
arrival for the relations between Jews and Gentiles?”16 

E.P. Sanders summarizes Stendahl’s conclusion by saying, “Luther’s problems were not Paul’s, and we
misunderstand him if we see him through Luther’s eyes.”17 I would imagine that Sanders would also add all
other western reformed thinkers who have sought God’s solution to the plight of their human condition into the
same category as Luther’s western introspective conscience or burdens of guilt (e.g. Augustine).

V. E.P. Sanders and Covenant nomism (human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into
God’s covenant). If Sanders is right (that is Early Palestinian Judaism was not legalistic) then what was
Paul protesting?

If Paul was not protesting against legalism in Galatians and Romans, then what was he up against? Heikki
Räisänen,18 believes that Paul's criticisms of the law are not only inaccurate but also contradictory and
inconsistent. Similarly, Sanders concluded that Paul worked backward from solution to plight rather than from
plight to solution. This approach certainly places more emphasis on the nature of the Judaizing conflict as a
Jew/Gentile issue rather than a human nature and divine sovereignty debate. He writes, “the dispute in
Galatians is not about ‘doing’ as such. Neither of the opposing factions saw the requirement of ‘doing’ to be a
denial of faith. When Paul makes requirements of his converts, he does not think that he has denied faith, [your
assumption] [1QS + Essenes viewed law redemptively  general traditional view of the law.] and there is no
reason to think that Jewish Christians who specified different requirements denied faith….What was at stake
was not a way of life summarized by the word "trust" versus a mode of life summarized by ‘requirements,’ but
whether or not the requirement for membership in the Israel of God would result in there being ‘neither Jew nor
Greek.’ ...There was no dispute over the necessity to trust God and have faith in Christ. The dispute was about
whether or not one had to be Jewish.”19

15
Stendahl, "Paul," p. 432.
16
Krister Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 84.
17
E.P. Sanders, Paul: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford. Univ. Press, 1991), 58.
18
Thielman, Paul, pp. 37-39.
19
Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press), 1983, p. 159.
 The New Perspective on Paul 6
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

For Sanders the language of justification is "transfer terminology” that is, to be justified is to be declared a
member of the covenant people of God. The distinction between "getting in" and "staying in" is important in
this regard.20 The debate between "faith" and "law," he writes, is a debate about entry requirements as a
covenant community member, not about life subsequent to conversion or being declared righteous with an
imputed alien righteousness. So according to Sanders, justification is a replacement badge of covenant
membership that is primarily ecclesiastical and not soteriological.

For Judaism: “obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such. It
simply keeps an individual in the group which is the recipient of God’s grace.”21 In other words: “obedience is
universally held to be the behaviour appropriate to being in the covenant, not the means of earning God’s
grace.” 22

“On the assumption that a religion should be understood on the basis of its own self-presentations, as long as
these are not manifestly bowdlerized, and not on the basis of polemical attacks, we must say that Judaism of
before 70 kept grace and works in the right perspective, did not trivialize the commandments of God and was
not especially marked by hypocrisy. The frequent Christian charge against Judaism, it must be recalled, is not
that some individual Jews misunderstood, misapplied and abused their religion, but that Judaism necessarily
tends towards petty legalism, self-serving and self-deceiving casuistry, and a mixture of arrogance and lack of
confidence in God. But the surviving Jewish literature is as free of these characteristics as any I have ever read.
By consistently maintaining the basic framework of covenantal nomism, the gift and demand of God were kept
in a healthy relationship with each other, the minutiae of the law were observed on the basis of the large
principles of religion and because of commitment to God, and humility before God who chose and would
ultimately redeem Israel was encouraged.” 23

They could not earn something they already had, after all. Fair enough. But if Judaism, as Sanders portrays it,
believed “getting in” was by grace and “staying in” was by works, then perhaps Judaism had a legalistic strain
after all. Both getting in and staying in covenant are matters of grace (cf. Gal. 3:1-2). We must do good works to
abide in the covenant, but such obedience is never the product of autonomous human effort (Phil. 2:12-13); it
stems from divine monergism.24

Reymond summarizes Sanders’ thoughts by saying, “He contends rather (1) that the covenant, the law, and the
Jews' special status as the elect people of God were all gifts of God's grace to Israel; (2) that the Jews did not
have to earn—and knowing this were not trying to earn—what they already had received by grace; (3) that
Judaism did not teach that "works of law" were the condition for entry into the covenant but only for continuing
in and maintaining covenant status (that is to say, that salvation comes not from meritorious works but through
belonging to the covenant people of God),25 which "pattern of religion," Sanders contends (I think wrongly), is
also found in Paul; and (4) that the only real bone of contention between an (at times) incoherent and
inconsistent Paul (who was not unwilling to distort his opponents' positions at times in order to safeguard his
own) and his Jewish contemporaries was not soteriology (what one must do in order to be saved) but purely and
simply Christology (what one should think about Christ)….. For instance, the parable of the Pharisee and the tax
collector in Luke 18 explicitly begins, “He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they
were righteous.”   Whatever self-assessment Sanders may find in Rabbinic resources, the assessment of Jesus
Christ remains undaunted….An example is the study performed by A. Andrew Das (Ph.D., Union Theological
Seminary, Virginia), in his book Paul, the Law, and the Covenant.  Contrary to Sanders, Das found ample

20
In Sanders’ term, it was not so much about ‘getting in’, or indeed ‘staying in’, as about ‘how you could tell who was in’ (N.T Wright,What St Paul
Really Said, 119..
21
Sanders, 420.
22
Sanders, 421.
23
Sanders, 426.
24
Rich Lusk, “The New Perspective on Paul and Second Temple Judaism: a Dialectic of Appreciation and Critique and a Call for Further Study.”
25
Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 422.
 The New Perspective on Paul 7
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

evidence of works-righteousness in the Second Temple period literature.  It turns out that Sanders had explained
away evidence that was contrary to his thesis. Das writes, “Sanders wrongly minimized Judaism’s belief that
God intended the law to be obeyed strictly and in its entirety… Sanders did not adequately account for the
tendency among Jews to regard the law as requiring strict and perfect obedience.”26  Das draws the same
conclusion as evangelical scholar Douglas Moo, who writes in his Romans commentary: “In passage after
passage in his scrutiny of the Jewish literature, [Sanders] dismisses a ‘legalistic’ interpretation by arguing that
the covenantal framework must be read into the text or that the passage is homiletical rather than theological in
intent.”27 Das points out that Paul’s use of this expression in Galatians 3:10 is a deliberate reference to
Deuteronomy chapters 27-30, which strongly feature the moral obligations of the law: “For all who rely on
works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things
written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’”28  [cf. LXX of “works of the law” – moral obligation and not
merely ethnic tags] 29

VI. James D. G. Dunn – A Redefinition of the statement “works of the law”

It was Dunn who initially coined the term "the New Perspective on Paul" in his landmark 1982 Manson
Memorial Lecture.30 Dunn argues that the language of justification is more than merely "transfer terminology."
"'To be justified' in Paul cannot, therefore, be treated simply as an entry or initiation formula; nor is it possible to
draw a clear line of distinction between Paul's usage and the typically Jewish covenant usage. Already, as we
may observe, Paul appears a good deal less idiosyncratic and arbitrary than Sanders alleges."31

The 'Works of law’ are nowhere understood, either by his Jewish interlocutors or by Paul himself, as works
which earn God's favor, as merit-amassing observances. That is, they do not mean “good works” (in the sense
of achievement) in the reformation sense. They are rather seen as badges: they are simply what membership of
the covenant people involves, what mark out the Jews as God's people [they serve to demonstrate covenant
status];...in other words, Paul has in view precisely what Sanders calls 'covenantal nomism.' And what he 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.32 [ethnic tags]33

According to Dunn, “For the first time, probably, he [Paul] had come to see that the principle of `justification
through faith' applied not simply to the acceptance of the gospel in conversion, but also to the whole of the
believer's life. [an eschatological view of justification] The covenantal nomism of Judaism and of the Jewish
believers (life in accordance with the law within the covenant given by grace...) was in fact a contradiction of
that agreed understanding of justification through faith. To begin with the Spirit and through faith rules out not
just justification by works of the law, but life lived by law (covenantal nomism) also -- the very argument which
he develops in the rest of Galatians.”34 Dunn argues: “The major exegetical flaw of Sanders’ reconstruction of
Paul’s view of the law (and of course not only his) is his failure to perceive the significance of the little phrase
‘works of the law’.... But by taking ‘works of the law’ as equivalent to ‘doing the law’ in general (the normal
exegesis), he is led to the false conclusion that in disparaging ‘works of the law’ Paul is disparaging law as such,
has broken with Judaism as a whole.”35

26
A. Andrew Das, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 7.
27
Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 216.
28
Ibid., 157.
29
R. L. Reymond’s article, “The Sanders/ Dunn ‘Fork in the Road’ in the Current Controversy over the Pauline Doctrine of Justification by Faith.”
30
Reprinted as chapter 7 of Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press), 1990
31
Jesus, p. 190.
32
Ibid., p. 194.
33
His basic assertion is that faith in Christ abolishes national and racial distinctions or ethnic tags made on the basis of particular observances of the law
(or ceremonial ethnic markers) like circumcision, food laws (or table requirements), and Sabbath observations.
34
Ibid, 194-195.
35
James G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. (John Know Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1990) pg. 201.
 The New Perspective on Paul 8
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

The sin of Israel was not self-righteousness, nor legalism, but rather exclusivism. And Dunn’s revision of
Sanders’ thesis is that Paul didn’t totally break with Judaism or the law but with the nationalistic and racial
narrowness of those who maintained the necessity of adopting the covenant badge of Israel. Therefore, what
Paul warns against is the tendency to maintain a distinctive other than Christ. Consequently, Paul argued against
Jewish attempts to maintain their covenant distinctiveness from other nations and on Christian Jews attempts to
force the Gentiles to adopt the same distinctiveness (Ligon Duncan’s).36

Moises Silva is confused about "Dunn's ignoring of some crucial evidence. I refer to the fact that in the original
publication of his articles on Paul, Dunn completely neglected some of the apostle's most explicit statements on
the subject at hand, including Rom 4:5; 11:6; Eph 2:8-10; and Phil 3:9." How can he "put together a book like
this one [Jesus, Paul, and the Law] without so much as quoting Phil 3:9. No doubt, all of us have our blinders
and we unwittingly tend to disregard evidence which does not support our theories," but nevertheless, "no
explanation of Paul's theology can prove ultimately persuasive if it does not arise from the very heart of Paul's
explicit affirmations and denials."

“By now the conclusion should be obvious. If the new perspective on Paul is in fact supported by the evidence
at hand, then we can no longer believe that Paul was writing to answer the question as to how a guilty sinner
could be declared righteous before a Holy God. Instead, we must see the Apostle as addressing the question of
how Jew and Gentile relate to one another within the context of membership of the covenant. The critical
phrase, "works of the law" can no longer be interpreted as Protestants have historically argued, as an attempt to
earn reward-merit from God through human effort. Now the phrase must be limited to mean only those external
nationalistic badges, i.e., food laws and circumcision, that tragically divided Jew from Gentile.”37

VII. N.T. Wright–A Redefinition of Justification

N.T. Wright has made many significant contributions to NT scholarship because of his credentials as an
extremely able NT historian and exegete, and as the bishop of Durham. His winsome style, his rather outspoken
profession as an evangelical, and his defense of the real, historical, Biblcal Jesus against the purveyors of the
“Jesus Seminar” have led many conservative Christians to regard his abilities highly. In his little book, What
Saint Paul Really Said.38 Wright's focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification, and he demonstrates that
the core of Paul's gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation
as Lord.39 Justification for Wright represents law-court language, the final eschatological judgment, and God’s
covenantal faithfulness.

Wright brings us to this point by showing what "justification" would have meant in Paul's Jewish context. He
writes, “If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes,
imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant.40
Here is Wright’s very famous statement about justification: The debate about justification "wasn't so much
about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church".41

“Judaism in Paul’s day was not, as has regularly been supposed, a religion of legalistic works-righteousness.  If
we imagine that it was, and that Paul was attacking it as if it was, we will do great violence to it and to him. 
Most Protestant exegetes had read Paul and Judaism as if Judaism was a form of the old heresy Pelagianism,
according to which humans must pull themselves up by their moral bootstraps and thereby earn justification,
righteousness, and salvation.  No, said Sanders.  Keeping the law within Judaism always functioned within a

36
Ligon Duncan, “The Attractions of the NPP.” Cf. James G Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1998) pg. 366.
37
Duncan.
38
(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.), 1997.
39
Ibid., pp. 45,88,113,114,151.
40
Ibid., p. 98.
41
Ibid., p. 119.
 The New Perspective on Paul 9
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

covenantalscheme.  God took the initiative, when he made a covenant with Judaism; God’s grace thus precedes
everything that people (specifically, Jews) do in response.  The Jew keeps the law out of gratitude, as the proper
response to grace—not, in other words, in order to get into the covenant people, but to stay in.  Being ‘in’ in the
first place was God’s gift.”42

He writes that the “popular view of ‘justification by faith,’ though not entirely misleading, does not do justice to
the richness and precision of Paul’s doctrine, and indeed distorts  it at various points.”43  He argues that when we
see phrase the ‘righteousness of God’ (dikaiosune theou), it is not something that God imputes to the Christian
believer but rather a divine moral quality.

Wright states that “if we leave the notion of ‘righteousness as a law-court metaphor only, as so many have done
in the past, this gives the impression of a legal transaction, a cold piece of business, almost a trick of thought
performed by a God who is logical and correct but hardly one we would want to worship”44…. Galatians 2
offers the first great exposition of justification in Paul.  In that chapter, the nub of the issue was the question,
who are Christians allowed to sit down and eat with?  For Paul, that was the question of whether Jewish
Christians were allowed to eat with Gentile Christians.  Many Christians, both in the Reformation and the
counter-Reformation traditions, have done themselves and the church a great disservice by treating the doctrine
of ‘justification’ as central to their debates, and by supposing that it described the system by which people
attained salvation.  They have turned the doctrine into its opposite.  Justification declares that all who believe in
Jesus Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their cultural or racial differences (and, let’s face it, a good
many denominational distinctions, and indeed distinctions within a single denomination, boil down more to
culture than todoctrine.  Because what matters is believing in Jesus, detailed agreement on justification itself,
properly conceived, isn’t the thing which should determine eucharistic fellowship.”45

Carl Trueman states that “it seems to me that the current revision of the doctrine of justification as formulated
by the advocates of the so-called New Perspective on Paul is nothing less than a fundamental repudiation not
just of that Protestantism which seeks to stand within the creedal and doctrinal trajectories of the Reformation
but also of virtually the entire Western tradition on justification from at least as far back as Augustine.46

“Directly contrary to Paul, Wright sees a continuity in which law and gospel are all wrapped into one. He writes,
speaking not merely of the New Covenant or the Old, but of all covenants in general, "Justification, at the last,
will be on the basis of performance." 47 This aligns with the teaching of Norman Shepherd in The Call of Grace,
which sees our justification taking place in a manner parallel to Christ's own. Shepherd writes, "Just as Jesus
was faithful in order to guarantee the blessing, so his followers must be faithful in order to inherit the
blessing."48 It is difficult to avoid the inference that we are justified by being like Jesus, by our faithfulness
which is just as Jesus' faithfulness, instead of, as Paul puts it in Romans 5:19, being made righteous by the one
man's obedience, namely, Christ, who lived and died not merely as our example but first as our federal head and
our substitute. Both Wright's and Shepherd's view of justification require a mono-covenantal view of redemptive
history and permit no place for the covenant of works. It is often objected that the bi-covenantal structure of the
covenant of works/covenant of grace scheme should not be made an ultimate litmus test of evangelical
orthodoxy.49

42
N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 19; also
see idem, The Climax of the Covenant (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p. 173; and idem, Who Was Jesus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992),
p. 59.
43
Wright, Paul, p. 113.
44
Wright, Paul, p. 110.
45
Wright, Paul, pp. 158-59.
46
Carl Trueman, “The Portrait of Martin Luther in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship,” (Tyndale Fellowship, Cambridge, 2001), p. 1.
47
N.T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans in The New Interpreter's Bible, 12 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 10:440. Cf. his 2003 Rutherford
House lecture titled New Perspectives on Paul, (http://home.hiwaay.net/~kbush/Wright_New_Perspectives.pdf).
48
Norman Shepherd, The Call of Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2000), 19.
49
Richard D. Phillips [PCRT 2004]
 The New Perspective on Paul 10
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

Furthermore, Charles Hill suggests that Wright confuses the notion of reckoning with the notion of a badge.
This is another instance of “redefinition.” Faith, according to Wright, is the true badge of covenant membership.
PAUL: faith is reckoned as righteousness
WRIGHT: faith is a badge of covenant membership

These are two entirely different concepts. Now, Paul says that there is a “badge” of covenant membership, but
that badge is circumcision. Listen to what Paul says: “He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the
righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised” (Rom. 4:11). That is, before Abraham got
his “badge” of the covenant (i.e. circumcision), he had already been justified by God through his faith. In Paul’s
mind, faith is reckoned as righteousness, the badge of which is circumcision (baptism).50

VIII. An Exegetical argument for Imputation and its significance for our understanding of Pauline
justification

1. BAGD: logizomai.
1. reckon, calculate—a. count, take into account something. –But ‘place to one’s account’ can also mean credit.
Credit something. to someone as something. put on someone’s account.
•The New Testament understanding of justification does involve a positive imputation of divine righteousness to
believers.

2. Righteousness Imputed to Us Is External51

Romans 4:4-6
(4) Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited according to grace, but according to debt. (5) But to the
one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited for righteousness,52
(6) just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.

•In Romans 4:3 Paul quotes Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for
righteousness.” Thus the idea of “imputation” is introduced by the word “credited” (= “reckoned” or “counted”
or “imputed”— elogisthe from Genesis 15:6. This idea of imputation or crediting is introduced in connection
with Romans 4:2 to show that Abraham was not “justified by works.” (“If Abraham was justified by works, he
has something to boast about.”)
•So Paul is forging the ling here between “justification” (v. 2, edikaiothe) and “imputation” (v. 3, elogisthe). We
know, Paul says, that Abraham was not “justified” by works because Genesis 15:6 says “faith was credited to
him for righteousness.” Thus we learn that when Paul thinks of the justifying work of God he thinks of the
imputing or crediting work of God.

3. Confirmation from the Connection Between Romans 4:5 and 4:6

•What it means to be “apart from works” in Romans 4:6 is defined in verses 7-8: The man is guilty of “lawless
deeds” and “sin.” So God’s crediting righteousness to a person “apart from works” means that he credits
righteousness to “the ungodly.”
•This leads to the second crucial thing to notice about the connection between verses 5 and 6—namely, the
parallel between God’s act of justifying in verse 5 and God’s act of crediting or imputing righteousness in verse

50
Charles E. Hill, N. T. Wright on Justification.
51
The following is a summary of the relevant interpretative points made by John Piper (Counted Righteous in Christ [Crossway Books, Wheaton 2002]),
chapter 3.
52
Concerning the translation of he pistis eis dikaiosunen as “faith for righteousness” instead of “faith as righteousness,” see note 7: Note that it
would not make sense here to translate “unto” (eis) by the word “as” (“with the heart is believed as righteousness”). Rather, “for” or “unto” is the
natural and usual translation of this preposition, and the parallel with “with the heart is confessed unto salvation” would be broken without this
normal translation. I am inclined to think that this translation should apply to Romans 4:3, 5, 9, 22 as well, since all these passages have eis
dikaiosunen to state what faith is credited for. Hence, Romans 4:3, 5, 9, 22. should read: “faith is counted for unto righteousness,” not “faith is
counted as righteousness.”
 The New Perspective on Paul 11
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

6. … It is natural then to take the phrase, “justify the ungodly” to be parallel with “credit righteousness apart
from works.” Therefore Paul thinks of justification of the ungodly in terms of a positive imputation of
righteousness apart from works.

4. A Confirming Parallel Between Romans 4:6 and Romans 3:38

•The second point is confirmed by the parallel in wording between Romans 3:28 and Romans 4:6. In Romans
3:28 Paul says, “A man is justified (dikaiousthai) by faith apart from works o the law (choris ergon nomou).” In
Romans 4:6 he says, “god credits righteousness (logizetai dikaiousunen) apart from works (choris ergon).” The
parallel between “apart from works of the law” (3:28) and “apart from works” (4:6) is so close as to suggest that
the other parallel between “justify” and “credits righteousness” is similarly close, even synonymous. Therefore
we have another good reason for thinking that when Paul speaks of “being justified,” he thinks in terms or
righteousness being imputed to us rather than our faith being recognized or considered as our righteousness.

Romans 4:5 justifies the ungodly

Romans 4:6 credits righteousness apart from works
Romans 3:28 justified by faith apart from works of the law

•It is very important to say again here that righteousness is the direct object of crediting or imputing53 (just as we
saw in verse 4 that the “reward/wage” [misthos] was the object of God’s imputing). … “David also speaks of the
blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.” It does not say that God imputes
something we already have (like our faith) as righteousness.

5. The Evidence for the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness from 2 Corinthians 5:21
•True, this text does not say explicitly that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers. But it does say that
believers, because they are “in Christ,” become God’s righteousness the way Christ was made sin as a sinless
person. It does not seem to me like an artificial category of systematic theology imported from outside the Bible
to argue like this: 1) The combination of divine righteousness being ours the way sin was Christ’s, together 2)
the fact that this divine righteousness is ours only “in Christ,” together with 3) the close parallel in Romans 5:19
(“Through the obedience of the One the many will be appointed righteous”)—these three things together lead to
the conclusion that the imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness was credited to our account, as our sin was
credited to his account in the penal suffering he endured in our place.
•Federal headship (Eph 2.5-6): How can we be made alive, raised, seated in the heavenly places when God is
holy and we are unholy? Because of what Christ has done (Mt 4 [messianic duties and not a case study on
temptation]; Ps 1; Gen 3). Stott says “these verbs refer to the three successive historical events in the saving
career of Jesus, which are normally called the resurrection, the ascension, and the session.”54 We are connected
vitally and in union with him legally because he transferred his perfect, righteous life of obedience into our
account. We are not morally righteous, and Jesus did not become a sinner morally, but we are legally righteous
since Jesus became a sinner legally (or judicially) for us. Jesus is our federal, corporal representative (he
fulfilled that which the 1st Adam failed to do), and we are in a legal covenantal relationship (and in union) with
him (EX: Adeline-tardiness and detention—“whatever is true of me is true of you because I am the corporate
head of our family”).
•Double imputation: How can an unjust person be justified? Jesus became both the judge and the justifier. C.
Hodge “it is not mere pardon [forgiveness], but justification [imputation of his righteousness] that gives us
peace with God” (2 Cor 5.21), in other words, not just innocence but righteousness. Piper says, “How can a
person who really did break the law and did the bad thing be told by the judge that he is a law-keeper, a
righteous person, with full rights to the freedoms of the country, and doesn’t have to go to jail or be
punished?…What did God do so that it’s right for him to say to us sinners: you are not guilty, you are law-

53
It is not clear whether Gundry sees this. He says, “It is our faith, not Christ’s righteousness, that is credited to us as righteousness.
54
John Stott, The Message of Ephesians: The BST series (IVP, 1984).
 The New Perspective on Paul 12
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

keepers in my eyes, you are righteous, and you are free to enjoy all that this country has to offer?”…And will
they tell her that when he lived and died, he not only took her place as a punishment-bearer but also stood in her
place as a law-keeper? Will they say that he was punished for her and he obeyed the law for her?”55
•Not only…but also (our pardon/perfection; our redemption/righteousness; our punishment for our
disobedience/performer of our perfect obedience).56
•This is where we get the popular expression (Redeemer network): “Jesus not only died the death that we
should have died, but also lived the life that we should have lived.”57

55
John Piper, Counted Righteous in Christ (Good News Publishing, 2003).
56
Piper, Counted Righteous.
57
S. T. Um. Living by the Gospel: Viewing life through the lens of Scripture (a look at the book of Ephesians) (MNA paper presented in July 2004), 1.
 The New Perspective on Paul 13
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

APPENDIX

I. The Work of Christ

The righteousness that sinners need must be the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, the righteousness of both
his sacrificial suffering (passive obedience) and his perfect life (active obedience).

 A. Passive Obedience

1. Heidelberg Catechism
Q and A 56: "That, for the sake of Christ’s satisfaction, will no more remember my sins, neither the  sinful
nature with which I have to struggle all my life long…."
 2. Belgic Confession
Art. 22: "We believe that Jesus Christ…hath presented himself in our behalf before his Father, to appease his
wrath by his full satisfaction, by offering himself on the tree of the cross, and pouring out his precious blood to
purge away our sins…."
B. Active Obedience
1. Heidelberg Catechism
Q and A 60: "…the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ, as if I had never had nor
committed any sin, and myself had accomplished all the obedience which Christ has rendered for me…."
2. Belgic Confession
Art. 22: "Therefore, for any to assert that Christ is not sufficient, but that something more is required besides
Him, would be too gross a blasphemy; for hence it would follow that Christ was but half a Savior."
"…Jesus Christ, imputing to us all His merits, and so many holy works which He has done for us and in our
stead, is our righteousness."
3. Westminster Confession of Faith
8,5: "The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself…hath fully satisfied the justice of His
Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven…."
11,1: "…imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them…."
11,3: "Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified…and
His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead…."
4. Westminster Larger Catechism
Q and A 55: "Christ maketh intercession…in the merit of his obedience and satisfaction on earth, declaring his
will to have it applied to all believers…."
Q and A 70: "…he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight…only
for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ…."
 
II. The Merit of Christ

Our confessions repeatedly speak of the work of Christ as meritorious in the sight of God.

(The idea that sinners can merit anything from God is rejected explicitly: Heidelberg Catechism Q and A 60, 63
and 86; Belgic Confession arts. 23; Canons of Dort II, 7, V, 8; Westminster Confession of Faith 16, 5;
Westminster Larger Catechism Q and A 193.)

 1. Heidelberg Catechism

Q and A 21: "…everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the
sake of Christ’s merit."
Q and A 84: "…all their sins are really forgiven them of God for the sake of Christ’s merits…."
2. Belgic Confession
Art. 22: "…faith, which embraces Jesus Christ with all his merits…."
 The New Perspective on Paul 14
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

Art. 24: "…we do good works, but not to merit by them (for what can we merit?)….our poor consciences would
be continually vexed if they relied not on the merits of the suffering and death or our Savior."
Art. 35: "…Christ communicates himself with all his benefits to us, and gives us there [at the Lord’s Supper] to
enjoy both himself and the merits of his sufferings and death…."
3. Canons of Dort
Rejection of Errors I, 3: "…the pleasure of God and the merits of Christ…."
Rejection of Errors II, 1: "…of the wisdom of the Father and of the merits of Jesus Christ…."
Rejection of Errors II, 3: Dort rejected the error of those "Who teach: That Christ by his satisfaction merited
neither salvation itself for anyone, nor faith…."
Rejection of Errors II, 4: "…we by faith, in as much as it accepts the merits of Christ, are justified before God
and saved…."
4. Westminster Confession of Faith
17,2: "…the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ….:
5. Westminster Larger Catechism
Q and A 55: "Christ maketh intercession…in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth…."
Q and A 174: "…feeding on him by faith..., trusting in his merits…."
 
III. Imputation

The righteousness of Christ is reckoned or imputed to sinners, not infused or worked in them, for their
justification.

1. Heidelberg Catechism
Q and A 60: "…though my conscience accuse me that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments
of God and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil, yet God, without any merit of mine, of mere
grace, grants and imputes to me to perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never
had nor committed any sin, and myself had accomplished all the obedience which Christ has rendered for me; if
only I accept such benefit with a believing heart."
2. Belgic Confession
Art. 22: "…Jesus Christ, imputing to us all His merits, and so many holy works which He has done for us and in
our stead, is our righteousness."
Westminster Confession of Faith
11,1: "Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them,
but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing
wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone…by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of
Christ unto them…."
3. Westminster Larger Catechism
Q and A 71: "…in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of
them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing
of them for their justification but faith…."
Westminster Shorter Catechism
Q and A 33: "Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as
righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone."
 
IV. The Role of Faith

Faith and faith alone is the instrument that looks away from self to Jesus and receives the imputation of his
perfect righteousness.

1. Heidelberg Catechism
 The New Perspective on Paul 15
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

Q and A 61: "Why do you say that you are righteous only by faith? Not that I am acceptable to God on account
of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ is my
righteousness before God, and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other way than by faith only.

2. Belgic Confession
Art. 22: "…if all things are in Him, …then those who possess Jesus Christ through faith have complete salvation
in Him.…we do not mean that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ
our righteousness….And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with Him in all His benefits, which,
when they become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins."
3. Westminster Confession of Faith
7,3: "…He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that
they may be saved…."
11,2: "Faith, thus receiving and resting in Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of
justification…."
14,2: "…the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for
justification, sanctification, and eternal life…."
4. Westminster Shorter Catechism
Q and A 30: "The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby
uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling."
 
V. Justification and Sanctification

Our confessions show how justification and sanctification are present together in the redeemed, but are clearly
distinct from one another.

1. Heidelberg Catechism
Q and A 86: "Since, then, we are delivered from our misery by grace alone, through Christ, without any merit of
ours, why must we yet do good works? Because Christ, having redeemed us by His blood, also renews us by His
Holy Spirit after His own image, that with our whole life we may show ourselves thankful to God for His
benefits…."
2. Belgic Confession
Art. 24: "These works, as they proceed from the good root of faith are good and acceptable in the sight of God,
forasmuch as they are all sanctified by His grace. Nevertheless they are of no account towards our justification,
for it is by faith in Christ that we are justified, even before we do good works…."
3. Westminster Confession of Faith
11,2: "Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:
yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead
faith, but worketh by love."
4. Westminster Larger Catechism
Q and A 77: "Wherein do justification and sanctification differ? Although sanctification be inseparably joined
with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in
sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace…."
In justification "sin is pardoned;" in sanctification "it is subdued…"
Justification "doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that
they never fall into condemnation;" sanctification "is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but
growing up to perfection."
 
 The New Perspective on Paul 16
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

VI. The Christian’s Sanctification

Sanctification is a work of God's renewing grace by which Christians become more holy over the course of their
lives while still confronting real sin in their lives -- making it impossible for even our best works to stand in the
face of perfect judgment.

A. Real Progress in Sanctification

1. Heidelberg Catechism
Q and A 86: "…Christ, having redeemed us by his blood, renews us also by his Holy Spirit after his own image,
that with our whole life we may show ourselves thankful to God…."
Q and A 114: "…with earnest purpose they [the converted] begin to live, not only according to some, but
according to all the commandments of God."
2. Westminster Confession of Faith
13, 1: "They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in
them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his
Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts
thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all
saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord."
3. Westminster Shorter Catechism
Q and A 35: "Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the
image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness."

B. Continuing Problem with Sin

1. Heidelberg Catechism
Q and A 62: "…the righteousness which can stand before the tribunal of God must be absolutely perfect and
wholly conformable to the divine law, while even our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with
sin."
Q and A 114: "…even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience…."
2. Belgic Confession
Art. 24: "…we can do no work but what is polluted by our flesh, and also punishable; and although we could
perform such works, still the remembrance of one sin is sufficient to make God reject them."
3. Westminster Confession of Faith
13,2 "This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some
remnants of corruption in every part…."
16,2 "These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and
lively faith…."
16,5 "…and as they [good works] are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and
imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment."
4. Westminster Larger Catechism
Q and A 78: "…their [believers’] best works are imperfect and defiled in the sight of God."
 
 The New Perspective on Paul 17
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bainton, Roland. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon, 1950).

Barnett, Paul. Tom Wright and the New Perspective. http://www.anglicanmediasydney.asn.au/pwb/ntwright_persepctive.htm

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Ford Lewis Battles, trans. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960)

Carson, D.A., P.T. O’Brien & M.A. Seifrid. Justification and Variegated Nomism: 16 chapters on salvation, justification and
Torah in Second Temple Judaism (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck & Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001).

Cranford, Michael. “Abraham in Romans 4: The Father of All Who Believe” (New Testament Studies)

Das, A. Andrew. Paul, the Law, and the Covenant (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001)

Dennison, James T., Jr “The Eschatological Aspect of Justification” (Kerux)

Duncan, J. Ligon, III. The Attractions of the New Perspective(s) on Paul, accessed on-line at
http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086%7CCHID559376%7CCIID1660662,00.html.

Dunn, James D.G. "The Works of the Law"

Dunn, James D. G. Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990)

Dunn, James D. G. Romans, WBC 38 (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1988).

Dunn, James D. G. and Alan M. Suggate, The Justice of God: A Fresh Look at the Old Doctrine of Justification by Faith (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994)

Dunn, James G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1998)

Fesko, J. V. “The New Perspective on Paul: Calvin and N. T. Wright.”

Forsyth Robert. The Doctrine of Justification by Faith

Gaffin, Richard. ACE article

Gathercole, Simon J. Where Is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1-5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2002), 91-111

Gatiss, Lee. Justified Hesitation? J.D.G. Dunn vs. the Protestant Doctrine of Justification

Hagner, Donald A.,“The Law in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” Modern Reformation, Sept/Oct. 2003, 34.

Head, Peter M. The History of the Interpretation of the Apostle Paul

Hengel, Martin & Roland Deines, ‘E.P. Sanders’ “Common Judaism”, Jesus, and the Pharisees’, Journal of Theological Studies
46(1995), pp. 1-70.

Hill, Charles E. “N.T. Wright On Justification”

Kim, Seyoon, Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origin of Paul’s Gospel (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001).

Kruse, Colin G., Paul, the Law, and Justification (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1996)

Longenecker, B. W. 2 Esdras (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995)

Lusk, Rich. “The New Perspective on Paul and Second Temple Judaism: a Dialectic of Appreciation and Critique and a Call for
Further Study.”
 The New Perspective on Paul 18
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism (1923; Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1999)

Mattison, Mark M. Confronting Legalism or Exclusivism? Reconsidering Key Pauline Passages

Mattison, Mark M. A Summary of the New Perspective on Paul

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1996)

Neusner, Jacob. Rabbinic Judaism: Structure and System (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).

O’Donovan, Oliver. Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics (Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1986)

Phillips, Richard D. “The New Perspective on Justification” (Presented to the Southern Florida Presbytery of the Presbyterian
Church in America. First Presbyterian Church of Coral Springs/Margate, FL)

Phillips, Richard D. “Seminar Address for the Philadelphia Conference on Reformation Theology”
(Phoenix/Indianapolis/Philadelphia, March-April 2004)

Piper, John. Counted Righteous in Christ (Crossway Books, Wheaton 2002)

Poirier, Jack. The Western Captivity of the Apostle Paul

Reymond, Robert L. “The Sanders/Dunn "Fork in the Road" in the Current Controversy Over the Pauline Doctrine of Justification
by Faith”

Riddlebarger, Kim. Reformed Confessionalism and the "New Perspective" on Paul” (Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
website)

Sanders, E.P. Paul: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford. Univ. Press, 1991)

Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1977)

Sanders, E.P. Paul, The Law and the Jewish People (Fortress Press Minneapolis, 1983)

Sanders, E.P. "Transfer Terminology"

Schreiner, Tom. The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993)

Seifrid, Mark A. "Blind Alleys"

Seifrid, Mark A. Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul's Theology of Justification (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000).

Seifrid, Mark. Justification by Faith

Shepherd, Norman, The Call of Grace (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2000)

Silva, Moisés. “The Law and Christianity: Dunn’s New Synthesis,” Westminster Theological Journal 53/2 (1991)

Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976)

Stuhlmacher, Peter and Donald Hagner. Revisiting Paul's Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective (IVP),
2001

Thielman, Frank. From Plight to Solution

Thielman, Frank. Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach (IVP), 1994

Trueman, Carl R. “The Portrait of Martin Luther in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship: Some Casual Observations,”
Lecture delivered at Tyndale Fellowship in Christian Doctrine, 2001
 The New Perspective on Paul 19
Stephen T. Um SNEP Jan 2005

Visscher, Gerhard H. “New Views regarding Legalism and Exclusivism in Judaism: Is there a need to reinterpret Paul?”
(http://spindleworks.com/library/visscher/NewLegalism.htm#_ftnref16)

Westerholm, Stephen. Israel's Law and the Church's Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (Wipf & Stock, 1998)

Wilson, Douglas, “A Pauline Take on the New Perspective,” Credenda/Agenda Vol. 15 No. 5.

Wright, N.T. Challenge of Jesus

Wright, N.T. The Climax of the Covenant (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1991)

Wright, N.T. “Coming Home to St. Paul? Reading Romans a Hundred Years after Charles Gore”

Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God [Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 1996]

Wright, N.T. The Letter to the Romans in The New Interpreter's Bible, 12 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002)

Wright, N.T. "The Righteousness of God"

Wright, N.T. "The Shape of Justification" (April 2001 Bible Review of the Biblical Archaeological Review website)

Wright, N.T. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1997)

Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.), 1972

The New Approach to St. Paul and to the Letter to the Romans. (A summary from the web page of the Lowestoft and East Suffolk
Circuit of the Methodist Church in Great Britain.)