The New Perspective on Paul-- A Pastoral Explanation, Pt. 4: "The Works of the Law"

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This is Part 4 of a 4-part series. It would be critical to read Part 1 , Part 2, and Part 3 of this series first.]

The final focus of my attempt at a pastoral explanation of the "New Perspective on Paul" also has to do with the meaning of a phrase. This time, we won't need to turn to Greek grammar or explore the use of the phrase in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The phrase is the "works of the law."

The NPP's new shade of meaning on this phrase has to do with the context of "Second Temple Judaism", or Judaism around the 1st century. Based on writings that were part of the Dead Seas Scolls and other inter-testamental writings, some scholars have argued that the phrase, "works of the law", referred to specific Torah-observances. These were Torah-observances that specifically marked out their Jewish identity, a matter of central importance for a people who have come out of exile and begun to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. What were these specific "works of the law"? Jewish dietary laws, Jewish holy days, and circumcision. Each of these "Torah-observances" specifically marked their ethnic identity as the people of God, as descendants of Abraham. It is no coincidence that the specific Torah observances that Jesus and Paul set aside were....Jewish holy days (Jesus healing on the Sabbath!), circumcision (Paul's arguent in Galatians), and Jewish dietary restrictions (Paul in 1 Corinthians).

Without this reading of the phrase "works of the law", Paul and James seem to be in conflict with each other. Paul wrote:

Romans 3:27-28 (NET)
"Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded! By what principle? Of works? No, but by the principle of faith! 3:28 For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law.

But James wrote:

James 2:22-24 (NET) 
"You see that his faith was working together with his works and his faith was perfected by works. 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Now Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,' and he was called God’s friend. 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Are Paul and James contradicting each other? It's easy to see why Luther called James an "epistle of straw!" But when you consider the NPP's reading of "the works of the law" as specific Torah observances that marked out their Jewish identity, Paul and James are not in conflict. The rest of Paul's above passage says:

Rom. 3:29 (NET)
"Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles too? Yes, of the Gentiles too! 3:30 Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 3:31 Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! Instead we uphold the law.”

Paul is not simply arguing against legalism; he's arguing against Jewish exclusivism! To be sure, Paul would have been against legalism too. And there's no reason to say that legalist weren't his problem, as some extreme NPP advocates may.

What does this mean for the Christian?
1. Faith in Christ trumps all other identifiers.
 When people come to faith in Christ, that faith is our new "ID badge." You may as well throw the old ones away. Faith in Christ is what marks us out as the chosen people of God, not our race, not our nationality, not our gender. We are brothers and sisters with Palestinian Christians and Russian Christians and Rwandan Christians, and so on. In other words, our identity as Americans is not as important as our fellowship in Christ. Our national pride or history or sense of belonging is not near as important as our identity as the people of God-- marked out by faith in Christ. When we understand our allegiance and loyalty to those who are our brothers and sisters in Christ over and sometimes against our allegiance or loyalty to a nation or a race, we begin to understand what it means to be "one in Christ."

2. Good works are not excluded from the Gospel.
The Reformers knew this and emphasized this. We are saved for good works not by good works, they often said. But yet, all this fear of legalism among contemporary Protestants often results in a Gospel that has no room for works. When you see that Paul's "works" (Eph. 2:8-9 can address both legalists and Jewish exclusivists)  was often a short-hand for "works of the law", which was another way of saying "Jewish exclusivism", you realize that Paul never saw the law as being in opposition to faith or grace or the Gospel. 

Israel's "problem" was not that they loved the law; Israel's "problem" was that they could not obey the law AND that they thought they were the only recipients of God's grace. The Jewish "problem" Jesus was addressing was their confidence in their ability to obey; the Jewish "problem" Paul was addressing was their conviction of their exclusiveness.

Through Jesus Christ, God's grace has come to all people, as was always God's plan. It is that grace that empowers us through the Holy Spirit to now obey what God has always asked of His people. His law-- as a whole-- is a reflection of His love and wisdom and order. One way of saying this is that our salvation begins by faith in God's grace in Christ Jesus; our salvation continues by cooperating with God's grace through the Holy Spirit.

Thanks be to God!

(And thanks for indulging me in doing this!)

Comments

[Eric Hyde]

Its a sad day in the Body of Christ when one has to defend the necessity to "follow" Christ in their life and not just follow Him in their imagination.

You scandalize yourself in this Christian generation with phrases like: "our salvation continues by cooperating with God's grace through the Holy Spirit." Cooperate!?!? Heresy! Jesus does everything, don't steal my grace!

But this is why these same Christians are bored with their faith and moving on to other things. There is nothing more boring than a one-sided relationship.

Brides get in on the relationship. I want to be a bride, not a blowup doll.

[Rob Ely]

Very well put, Eric.

[Rob Ely]

I really enjoyed this series, Glenn. Hope you do more like this.

[Joel Gonzaga]

I've heard a lot Reformed types and even Lutherans resist the insight that N.T. Wright is proposing. Good exegesis is good exegesis though, and it seems to be illuminating as well. Also, with this new perspective, we can finally ignore objections to many aspects of Christian practice because they appear to endorse "works based salvation."

[MichaelCaney]

I would consider myself reformed. I'm having trouble finding some of the dividing differencs. Piper would argue that Wright is altering the doctrine of justification at its core. However, in reading pieces from both sides, I tend to agree with this statement by Glenn... "I’m not sure that the difference between being declared righteous because of our incorporation with Christ rather than because of His righteousness being imputed to us makes that much of difference to the believer: either way we stand righteous before God because of Christ."

Either way it is about God fulfilling His covenant with man FOR God. HEB 11 right. Jesus is the great high priest. He's the point of the big story; we get to play.

As to the swiping comment about "stealing grace" by Eric. I don't think any well informed Reformed believer would make that statement. Sproul even says that post regeneration is synergism, just that we are kept and enabled by the spirit to sanctification. He who begins completes, etc. We would simply argue the monergist position with regard to regeneration before faith.

Maybe I miss many of the nuances, but as a 5 pointer, none of the NPP really just punch me in the gut yet. I quite enjoy the 1st century perspective. I'm just glad Glenn writes in a way I can get it :)