God wanted to make known among the Gentiles the glorious wealth of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
– Colossians 1:27 (HCSB)
Introduction
“Paul’s teaching on justification by faith … [is] fundamental to the gospel, and … central within the Reformed and Evangelical traditions.”[1] As the New Perspective scholar James Dunn argues, the doctrine of justification is absolutely central to the gospel and the arguably the Christian faith. However, the New Perspective on Paul challenges the traditional understanding of justification and its relationship to atonement to the point that they no longer resemble the traditional views. Additionally, though the NPP scholars have great insight into many challenging verses in Scripture, there are substantial biblical and theological arguments against their views. Finally, if the church were to accept the New Perspective on Paul as mainstream doctrine, there would be severe ramifications at the corporate and individual level in the life of the church. The New Perspective on Paul changes the traditional understanding of justification and atonement to the detriment of believers and the church.
The New Perspective Understanding of Justification
NPP Representatives on Justification: Dunn and Wright
James D. G. Dunn
Dunn provides an excellent definition of the NPP understanding of justification: “God’s acknowledgement that someone is in the covenant – whether that is an initial acknowledgement, or a repeated action of God (God’s saving acts), or his final vindication of his people.”[2] According to Dunn, justification is no longer “distinctly individualistic;” rather, it is the divine declaration that those who profess faith in Christ are in the covenant and part of God’s people.[3] Additionally, Dunn’s version of justification is not “a single act,” but something which must be continually declared by God moment to moment until “the Day of Judgment.”[4] By stating that justification is a process, Dunn asserts that members of the covenant have “an obligation to do the law, to walk in the statutes and ordinances of God.”[5] Dunn then argues that justification can be lost prior to the final judgment if the law is not obeyed because “it would not be possible to be righteous before God while remaining involved in unjust relationships with fellow humans.”[6]
N. T. Wright
Wright’s definition of justification is harder to find and slightly different that Dunn’s: “Justification, in Paul, is not the process or event whereby someone becomes, or grows, as a Christian; it is the declaration that someone is, in the present, a member of the people of God.” Both Wright and Dunn hold to a multi-stage view of justification, however, Wright removes the continual aspect that Dunn includes.[7] Rather, Wright favors a punctuational initial and final justification. Though initial justification is based on Christ’s work on the cross, Wright holds that “justification, at the last, will be on the basis of performance, not possession [reading of the Torah].”[8] Like Dunn, Wright views Romans 2:13 as declarative statement concerning eschatological justification in which “those who obey the law … will be declared righteous.”[9] This understanding is reinforced by Wright’s denial of imputed righteousness. Under Wright’s view, the believer can lose justification at the final judgment if the believer has not obeyed the law, as the believer has no other righteousness or obedience to rely upon but his or her own.[10]
Argument Against a Multi-Stage Justification
Both Dunn and Wright argue for some form of multi-stage justification, in which justification is split into “initial justification” and “final justification.”[11] The foundational pillar to this division is that covenantal nomism was carried over from Judaism into Christianity. Covenantal nomism is the idea that one is brought into a covenant with God by grace but must maintain covenant membership through obedience to the law.[12]
First, in order for covenantal nomism to hold true in Paul’s theology, the phrase “works of the law” must refer only to the covenant markers of circumcision, food laws, and sabbath days.[13] In this way, Paul could advocate adherence to the moral laws of the Torah but deny the covenantal “works of the law.” However, this understanding of “works of the law” does not hold up under scrutiny. In Galatians 3:23-25, Paul argues that “the law … was our guardian until Christ” and that “we are no longer under a guardian.”[14] To interpret the law’s guardianship as merely covenant boundary markers does damage to the Jewish understanding of the law, as “the guardianship of the law involved restraint of the Jewish people in a wide range of religious, moral and ethical matters.”[15] Rather than just Jewish markers, Paul understood that works of the law referred to all that the law required. This understanding is explicitly stated in Galatians 3:10 where Paul states that “Everyone who does not continue doing everything written in the book of the law is cursed.”[16] Thus, Paul has in mind more than Jewish boundary markers in his understanding of “works of the law” and this term cannot be used to support a covenantal nomist view of Paul’s theology of justification.
Second, Paul implicitly juxtaposes justification by faith with justification by adherence to the law. In Galatians 3:2, Paul asks, “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by hearing with faith?”[17] Utilizing the definition of “works of the law” articulated above, the rhetorical question comes with the answer “By believing what was heard.”[18] Thus, in Paul’s theology, the Spirit is not received by obedience to the Mosaic covenant commands. This same relationship between faith and reception of the Spirit also holds true when considering faith and justification.[19] Paul makes this clear when he argues in Galatians 2:16 that “we might be justified by faith in Christ.”[20] Paul’s theology roughly lines up with the NPP view of initial justification, but in Galatians 3:3, Paul challenges the Jewish Christians saying, “Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now going to be made complete by the flesh?”[21] Just as the reception of the Spirit came by faith in Christ, so too would completion come by faith in Christ. Since Paul links justification to faith as well, it must be assumed that justification is something that is completed by faith in Christ as opposed to works of the law. Thus, Paul’s theology of justification stands in direct opposition to the idea of covenantal nomism and the necessity to be justified through works of the law in the final judgment.
Third, Dunn and Wright maintain that some form of multi-staged justification is necessary because Paul’s use of the word “faith” is often better translated as “faithfulness,” specifically faithfulness to the covenant. Under this exegetical lens, justification by faith is at minimum a two-step process. First, God is faithful to declare a believer to be in the people of God based in some way on Jesus’ sacrifice. Second, God is faithful to declare a believer to be in the people of God at the eschaton as a result of a believer’s faithfulness to the covenant. The strongest strike against this understanding of justification is the fact that “Paul never once says that we are justified because of faith – faith is always instrumental in nature.”[22] Justification does not rest on faith or faithfulness. The primary cause and basis of justification according to Paul’s letters is “Christ’s own righteousness.”[23]
For example, 2 Corinthians 5:21 states, “He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”[24] Jesus took the penalty for sin on our behalf thus being “sin for us.” In the same way, God bestows the reward of Christ’s righteousness upon humanity thereby allowing humanity to “become the righteousness of God.” In no way does mankind’s obedience to the law factor into the righteousness of Christ and the rewards which have been imputed to mankind. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 1:30, the text affirms that the list of “righteousness, sanctification, and redemption” is to be read as substitutions for the word wisdom. Thus, the verse affirms that Christ “became God-given [wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption] for us.”[25] Romans 4:6 also affirms the accretion of the blessings of Christ’s righteousness to a person “apart from works.”[26] Romans scholar Douglas Moo notes that “the variation in Paul’s language shows that he regards as materially equivalent the expressions ‘it was reckoned to him for righteousness,’ ‘God reckoned righteousness to him,’ and ‘God justified him.’”[27] Thus, Romans 4:6 directly argues for a righteousness apart from works as the basis and foundation for justification. All of the aforementioned verses explicitly deny the necessity of a two-stage justification based on the faithfulness first of God to His covenant and second of man to obedience to the law.
Finally, Romans 5:18-19 serves as Paul’s definitive definition of justification:
“So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for everyone, so also through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for everyone. For just as through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”[28]
Of initial note is Paul’s insistence that “one righteous act” leads to justification for everyone. Justification does not come through a form of covenant nomism, whereby the many righteous acts of the believer in accordance with obedience of law lead to final justification. Rather, it is one righteous act, the act of Christ’s death on the cross that justifies. Additionally, believers are not justified through their own obedience to the law, whether by the Spirit or not. Rather, they are justified “through the one man’s obedience.” If mankind’s obedience factors into their covenant relationship in any way, then Paul is proven wrong and righteousness must come through the obedience of many. Finally, in his commentary on Romans, Moo proposes that Paul “uses justification to describe the status of the believer in this age, while ‘life’ is confined to the eschatological future.”[29] If this is the case, then the NPP understanding of a split justification procedure is completely defeated. Moo’s exegesis demonstrates that “Paul insists that the justification now enjoyed by the believer will infallibly result in salvation from wrath in the last day – life.”[30] Thus, covenant nomism is not in play in Paul’s theology of justification. Paul sees justification as a single act and a single result: believers are justified by faith in Jesus Christ resulting in the reception of eternal life.
Implications of a Multi-Stage Justification
Reversion to Works-Based Salvation
Dunn and Wright’s assertion that final justification occurs on a different basis than initial justification institutionalizes the necessity of good works as a requirement for salvation. If a person’s life is truly assessed in the final judgment and then used to determine whether or not he or she is justified, then there will not be a single person who will pass muster and maintain their status within the community of God. At what point has a person completed enough good works in his or her life to merit maintenance of his or her status in the covenant community? Unless Dunn and Wright decide to posit a finite number of works, their only answer can be that total obedience to the covenant law is necessary. This is precisely the problem Paul was arguing against in Galatians 3:10; it is impossible to be justified by works of the law, because total obedience in a sinful world is impossible to attain. Furthermore, the acceptance of the NPP doctrine of multi-stage justification would open the church up to a resurgence of indulgences in some way or form. If people have to do good works to make sure that their life counts in the final judgment, the church would be obligated to provide avenues and means for believers to make sure that they are being totally obedient to the law. In order to keep from regressing into legalism, a works-based mentality, and church corruption, justification must be kept as a single act instituting a single proclamation.
Denial of Salvation to Unborn Children and Those Near Death
A multi-stage justification also presents very real problems for the salvation of unborn children and people who accept Christ at the end of their life. Under Dunn’s and Wright’s view, the totality of life is taken into account in order to determine one’s place within the people of God. However, both the unborn child and the person who accepts Jesus at his or her death will literally have no “spiritual life” to show God in the final judgment. All those people have to show are Christ’s righteousness and Christ’s life. There is no doubt that Dunn and Wright do not want to deny these two groups of people eternal life with God; however, their theology does not provide an easy way for either group pass the test of final justification. Thankfully, the traditional view has a satisfactory answer for both groups. In terms of the unborn child, he or she is saved by the mercy of God whereby the righteousness of Christ is applied to him or her on the basis that he or she was never able to make a decision. Thus, the unborn are saved by Christ’s righteousness. The end of life conversion is even easier. Such a person is justified based on the reception of the finished work of Christ on the cross and his or her life never comes into the picture when determining salvation and eternal life. By holding to a split justification, NPP scholars bring the mercy of God into question and salvation seems to be impossible for certain people.
Loss of Assurance of Salvation/Eternal Life
By separating justification into initial and final stages or by making justification out to be a series of declarations, believers lose any assurance of their salvation or eternal life. To be sure, one can be thankful that it was by grace that he or she was brought into the covenant people of God. However, a whole new set of anxieties is introduced by the concept of final justification. First, one can never truly know, even at the end of one’s life, whether or not one has been fully obedient to the law. This lack of certainty will have the effect of maintaining an existential crisis in the mind of every believer and keep them enslaved to a works-based mentality. Second, every believer would need to become an expert in the law or have access to a church that is an expert in the law in order to make sure that he or she is doing everything required in order to maintain perfect obedience to the law. The only assurance that a believer would have under the NPP view of justification is that they will assuredly be justified if they are found to be obedient to the law at the final judgment. NPP scholars seem to be in contradiction with Jesus’ statement that that “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.”[31] Jesus directly opposes the idea that someone could truly go to Him but be found wanting due to their disobedience at the final judgment. Thus, the NPP splitting of justification is contrary to the assurance that comes through Christ’s sacrifice.
Argument Against the Denial of Imputed Righteousness
Biblical Argument
N.T. Wright denies the doctrine of imputed righteousness and its essentiality to justification claiming it is not a biblical doctrine; however, imputed righteousness is taught in a number of places throughout Paul’s letters. First, Romans 5:19 states, “through the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”[32] Whether or not this verse teaches imputed righteousness depends on the proper understanding and exegesis of the word translated “made” which is “kathistanai.” This verb could possibly be translated as either “appoint” or “make;” however, the word “never designates a judgment or consideration which does not conform to the actual state of the individuals involved.”[33] Thus, the usage of “kathistanai” ensures that “the many” are actually “righteous” no matter if the verse has the declaration of righteousness in scope or the literal process by which a person is made righteous.[34] Unless one wants to entreat the idea that people can somehow literally become righteous on their own accord, the only viable assessment is that Christ’s righteousness is somehow positively accredited to the believer making that person actually righteous as opposed to simply counted righteous. Being ontologically righteous also coheres with the prior verse as it would seem to be impossible to receive “life-giving justification” if one was still fundamentally a fallen sinner.[35] Systematic theologian Francis Turretin affirms this understanding saying, “the righteousness … upon which the justification of life … rests, demands a perfect and absolute righteousness (which cannot be said of inherent righteousness).”[36] According to this verse Romans 5:18, justification demands that a person actually be ontologically righteous. Thankfully, this verse also elucidates how a person can become righteous.
Romans 4:3,6 also affirms imputed righteousness: “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness … God credits righteousness … apart from works.”[37] The initial question raised by these verses is whether it is faith/belief that was credited to Abraham for righteousness or whether righteousness was credited to Abraham through belief/faith. Moo argues that a comparison of the grammatical construction used in Romans 4:3-6, similar to grammatical constructions used elsewhere in Scripture, demonstrates that the righteousness mentioned is not a result of mankind’s merit and thus even faith is ruled out as the basis of righteousness.[38] The righteousness imputed by God in both Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:3-6 is “a righteousness that does not inherently belong” to the person who is receiving it.[39] Rather than seeing righteousness as something that Abraham or believers merit through placing their faith in God, Paul argues, “squarely against” the traditional Jewish understanding that righteousness is imputed as “an act of God’s grace in response to … faith.”[40] Paul then goes on to link this reception of righteousness to a forensic view of justification – “the Lord will never charge with sin.”[41] Thus, the view of imputation of Christ’s righteousness as a necessity to satisfy both the justice of God and the salvation of mankind is built into Paul’s theology.
Theological Argument
First, imputed righteousness is necessary in order to maintain God’s justice. Turretin rightfully asserts “that God cannot show favor to, nor justify anyone without a perfect righteousness.”[42] Unfortunately, simply affirming that Christ died for our sins does nothing to explain how Christ’s sacrifice satisfies the justice of God. Humans in their own actions and by their own sin can neither have nor earn an inherent righteousness. This is the essential issue with the NPP understanding of final justification — it requires an inherent righteousness earned by good works done through the power of the Spirit in order to maintain covenant membership. However, righteousness is an all or nothing quality. Either one is not righteous, or one is righteous. Once Adam crossed the line into unrighteousness, he was forever marked by God as a sinful being. Thus, mankind needs to receive righteousness apart from himself and apart from works in order to be truly justified by God. By granting the obedience of Christ forensically to each believer, God is able to judge each believer according to the work of Christ and not the works of the flesh, which Scripture describes as having been put to death.[43]
Second, pardoning a person from his sins but not actually making him righteous leaves him in a precarious state. Yes, God has declared the believer to be forgiven of his sins and justified, but He has not ontologically changed anything about the believer. For all intents and purposes, the believer is still a sinner and in need of salvation. Though the sins are forgiven, it is hard to see how the power of sin is defeated. The person is still technically unrighteous because of their deeds. There is no surety of a perfect life in Christ because if we have not received His righteousness, there is some sense in which we are not truly in Him. To be in union with Christ means that by the power of the Spirit, believers have been baptized into His death and resurrection.[44] In this way, believers’ sinful lives are crucified with Christ; they are raised with Christ; they live in Christ; and they share in Christ’s righteousness and obedience.[45] It is through Christ that believers receive the blessings of justification, not through themselves. Thus, the reality of being in union with Christ is not experienced unless the believer can say that he or she has “become the righteousness of God in Him.”[46]
Implications of the Denial of Imputed Righteousness
The Believer Must Rely on Inherent Righteousness for Justification
Denial of imputed righteousness leaves the believer having to either accept some form of nomism, justification by works, or hyper-sanctification (the belief that once a person is saved they can sin no longer). Each of these beliefs leave the believer theologically and spiritually unsatisfied. First, completing one’s justification on the basis of one’s own spirit-led righteousness may seem noble, but it quickly runs afoul of needing to continually perform good works with no end in sight but death. Second, under this view, the idea that sin permanently renders a person unrighteous is denied and the door is open to some form of semi-Pelagianism or full-Pelagianism. The view of hyper-sanctification does not fare much better as it leads to a fractured reality. The believer is required to hold to the position of immediate moral perfection in order to remain justified at any given instant, but also recognizes that this is a practically impossible position to hold in light of one’s sinful flesh. Such a belief system could easily lead to burn-out or leaving the faith entirely. In contrast, imputed righteousness is a forensic declaration only. It does not provide for instantaneous moral perfection nor for the ability to do good works that merit further justification. Imputed righteousness deals with whether people’s sins are held to their account or whether the full work of Christ is held to their account in terms of justification. By dying with Christ, His sacrifice is applied to a believer and his or her sins are dead and buried; they are paid for and atoned for perfectly. In the same instant, the perfect obedience of Christ is applied to a person so that he or she is not simply a blank slate, but truly righteous in every sense of the word. Thus, any future sins that a person commits are counted as buried and dead in Christ, while Christ’s righteousness never leaves a person because it is freely given and not earned. Thus, justification is permanent.
The Believer Cannot Fully Experience Union with Christ
The denial of the imputation of righteousness implicitly denies the union with Christ. The NPP understanding of justification necessarily maintains distance between Christ and the Body of Christ. Initial justification enacted by Christ can only bring one into the Body, it cannot keep one there. Thus, one must secure final justification apart from the work of Christ. This final justification is seen instead to be a work of the Spirit whereby the believer is obedient to the law through the Spirit’s power. However, this also instantiates an artificial break between the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit. In order to maintain union with Christ and the unity of Christ and the Body of Christ, imputed righteousness must occur upon reception of Jesus as one’s Lord and Savior. As Calvin states in the Institutes, “righteousness is not in us but in Christ, that we possess it only because we are partakers in Christ.”[47] By denying oneself Christ’s righteousness, the believer puts him or herself at risk of trying to live life out of his or her own strength and righteousness rather than allowing Christ to live out His live through him or her. This also amounts to an incomplete identity of the believer whereby the believer is still tied to their past sinful identity instead of being released to identify relationally with Christ in all things including His righteousness. (Note: It is important to remember that in no way does union with Christ amount to mankind becoming divine.)[48] Thus, the separation of justification into two stages resulting in the denial of the imputation of righteousness leads to a simultaneous denial of a believer’s union with Christ.
Implicit Denial of the Imputation of the Penalty of Sins to Jesus
Finally, if imputed righteousness is denied, 2 Corinthians 5:21 breaks down, and the effect this has on the believer is that it becomes difficult to determine if Jesus really did pay the full penalty for one’s sins. The promise that “we might become the righteousness of God in Him” can be read in two ways.[49] First, it could mean that Christ’s righteousness is infused into the believer resulting in either instantaneous moral perfection or the ability to merit righteousness through one’s own works in the Spirit.[50] This interpretation would lead to the idea that “the one who did not know sin to be sin for us” refers to Christ being infused with sin and literally becoming sinful.[51] As this concept fractures the sinlessness of Christ it must be rejected. A second interpretation implies that Christ’s righteousness remains His own but is imputed to believers so that they receive the blessings without actually having to have lived out the righteousness themselves. In the same way, believer’s sins are imputed to Christ in that the penalty is now being paid by Christ even though the sins remain the believer’s. Thus, by denying imputation of righteousness a believer is left without knowledge that Christ’s sacrifice actually paid for his or her sins. Instead the believer is left with a vague or amorphous application of Christ’s sacrifice that may or may not be in line with justice.
The Relationship of Christ’s Death and Atonement to Justification
NPP Representatives: Dunn and Wright
Dunn
Dunn’s understanding of justification has direct implications on how he understands Christ’s death. By unhinging Christ’s atonement from justification, Christ’s death becomes more concerned with “the removal of a corrosive stain or the neutralizing of a life-threatening virus than of anger appeased by punishment.”[52] Thus, for Dunn, Christ’s atonement does not bring about a state where justification could be pronounced as a result of a propitiation of sins; rather, justification can be declared because Christ’s sacrifice removed the power that sin had over people. Dunn goes further by describing Paul’s language about Christ’s atonement as “imagery and metaphor” and stating that “it would be un-wise, then, to translate these metaphors into literal facts, as though, for example, Christ’s death were literally a sacrifice provided by God (as priest?) in the cosmos, conceived as a temple.”[53] For Dunn, Jesus’ atonement is not “a judicial transaction [nor] a genuine sacrifice,” instead it amorphously removes the power that sin has over the covenantal people of God.[54]
Wright
Wright’s view on the relationship of atonement to justification differs significantly from both Dunn’s view and the traditional view. Unlike Dunn, Wright believes that Paul’s language represents the real world and that Christ’s death was a real sacrifice. However, Wright reveals tension in his writing concerning the exact method by which the sacrifice is applied to the believer due to his denial of imputed righteousness and refusal to treat righteousness forensically.[55] For example, in order to maintain his view on justification, Wright affirms Colossians 1:30’s declaration of the imputation of “wisdom,” “holiness,” and “redemption” while simultaneously denying that imputation of righteousness is literal in the forensic sense.[56] Wright is quick to affirm that Jesus’ death dealt “properly, i.e. punitively, with sins,” and that “dealing with wrath or punishment is propitiation;” however, confusion about how exactly that sin and wrath is dealt with comes through in his understanding of Jesus’ sacrifice as a sin offering.[57] He sees Jesus’ sacrifice as not answering “to any and every sin,” but “the means whereby judicial punishment on sin itself was meted out.”[58] Thus, like Dunn, Wright views the relationship of atonement and justification as the means by which people are brought out from the power of sin and into the covenant of the people of God, not as the means by which people are forgiven and permanently sealed into the body of Christ.
The foremost contributors to the NPP either deny or substantially downplay propitiation as a fundamental component of atonement directly leading to a forensic understanding of justification. However, there are both biblical and theological reasons to assert the traditional understanding of atonement, propitiation, and justification.
Argument Against the Removal of Propitiation from the Atonement and Justification
Biblical Argument
The Passover
The strongest argument for linking propitiation to the death of Christ lies in Christ’s identification as the Passover lamb. The original Passover sacrifices took place during the tenth plague which was the only plague that affected both Egypt and Israel. The key to understanding God’s universal judgment is found in Exodus 12:12 which states, “I am Yahweh; I will execute judgments against all the gods of Egypt.”[59] Both the Egyptians and the Israelites were guilty of worshipping false idols and thus would fall under the judgment of the tenth plague unless the penalty could be born by someone or something else.[60] The penalty for worshipping false idols was that the firstborn child from each family would die. Thus, God accepted a one-to-one sacrifice whereby a sheep or goat would be slaughtered in place of the firstborn of each house.[61] This sacrifice would be a substitute for the firstborn and the penalty that was due the firstborn because of the idolatry of the family would be meted out against the animal, propitiating God.
The link between the death of Jesus and the Passover sacrifice is made clear in a number of places in the New Testament. First, in the Gospels, Jesus rewrites the Passover meal liturgy replacing the sacrificed animals with Himself, “As they were eating, He took bread, blessed and broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” Then He took a cup, … He said to them, “This is My blood that establishes the covenant; it is shed for many.”[62] Additionally, John 19:35-36 makes mention that Jesus’ bones were not broken in his sacrifice which is a requirement to be an acceptable Passover sacrifice.[63] Finally, 1 Corinthians 5:7 explicitly states that “Christ our Passover has been sacrificed.”[64] In these verses, Jesus is clearly identifying Himself with the Passover animal indicating that His body and His blood would be the new sacrificial components. The direct implication is that His sacrifice would now literally take the penalty for the sins committed by those who receive the sacrifice.
The Firstborn
Propitiation and substitutionary atonement are also present in the fact that Jesus served as “the firstborn over all creation.”[65] In Exodus, the firstborn “was bound up with the family’s deliverance from the angel of death.”[66] The firstborn did not mean that a person was hierarchically born prior to all others; rather, it was a role whereby a person could serve as the representative for a family unit in terms of the judgment of God.[67] Thus, when it came time to judge both the Israelites and the Egyptians for their idolatry, God’s sentence was that the firstborn child would die. God placed the penalty for the sins of the family unit directly at the feet of the representative of the family – the firstborn. Zechariah further links the firstborn to atonement saying, “Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the house of David and the residents of Jerusalem, and they will look at Me whom they pierced. They will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child and weep bitterly for Him as one weeps for a firstborn.”[68] The oracle of Zechariah depicts God as a person who will be killed and counted as a firstborn child. In other words, God will somehow act as the firstborn child of His people and pay the penalty of His own wrath in the place of His people.
Additionally, the link of the firstborn to the Passover and the Day of Atonement is made clear in Ezekiel’s temple prophecy. In Ezekiel 45:18-23, the author “merges the Passover with the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement.”[69] Ezekiel commentator Cooke similarly argues that, in Ezekiel, Passover “becomes a propitiatory rite” and is linked with “Lev. 16:8 which is concerned with the Day of Expiation.”[70] Even more fascinating is the person who now makes this sacrifice. Rather than a high priest – who is not present in the temple prophecy – “the prince in Israel … will provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and fellowship offerings to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel.”[71] Further on in the passage, the Prince is also said to “provide a bull as a sin offering on behalf of himself and all the people of the land” during the Passover. In Ezekiel, the prince becomes the representative of the nation of Israel and takes on the role of the firstborn. In this way the sacrifices that he provides on the newly inaugurated “Passover/Day of Atonement” are done both to redeem and to atone for the sins of the people. Though the language is not explicitly Christological, the connections to Christ’s sacrifice are that Christ, “as the firstborn over all creation,” served as the sacrifice for both the Passover and the Day of Atonement to both set His people free from bondage to sin and the powers of darkness as well as to atone for their sins.[72]
New Testament Citations of Isaiah 53
Isaiah 53 lays out a clear doctrine of atonement and propitiatory sacrifice with the culminating verse – “He was pierced because of our transgressions” – emphasizing penal substitutionary atonement better than almost any other verse. That this verse is then utilized throughout the New Testament writings is a clear indication that Jesus’ sacrifice justifies those who believe in Him by virtue of His payment of the penalty of their sins.[73] One example of an N.T. quotation of Isaiah 53 is Luke 22:37, which reads, “He was counted among the outlaws.” Not only does this quote link Jesus’ sacrifice to atonement, but it is also an affirmation that Jesus was sinless, blameless, and pure, which is a requirement for a sacrifice to be acceptable.[74] 1 Peter 2:22 operates in the same way, declaring that “He did not commit sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth.”[75] The link between Jesus’ sacrifice and propitiatory atonement becomes stronger in 1 Peter 2:24, which states, “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness.” That Christ took the “sins in His body on the tree” is a clear statement arguing that the penalty for the sins of others was exacted on His physical body in the form of crucifixion. Additionally, Peter asserts that it is by His death that people “might live for righteousness,” thereby linking Christ’s death and atonement to how people would be justified. It is through Christ’s death that justification is grounded and life is received, not through one’s works no matter the origin.
Implications of the Removal of Propitiation from the Atonement and Justification
God’s Sacrifice Becomes Diminished
One implication of the NPP’s denial or suppression of propitiation is that the sacrifice of God becomes vague, amorphous, and neutered. During Dunn’s discussion of the curse of the law, as found in Galatians 3:10, he expounds upon his understanding of atonement. He writes, “the purpose of Christ’s redemption from the curse of the law… [is] the extension of the covenant blessing to the Gentiles.”[76] Dunn later admits that his view of the atonement is “surprisingly narrow” and does not “stress deliverance from the power of sin (and the condemnation of transgression).”[77] His view of Paul, guided by his thoughts on the New Perspective, have brought him to a place of suppressing one of the most important doctrines of Christianity. Though Dunn has many excellent things to say, he misses the mark on atonement. The implications of this radical redefinition of atonement are substantial. First, Christ’s death becomes about bringing the Gentiles into the covenant as opposed to dealing with the very real and life-threateningly serious problem of sin. By reducing Christ’s sacrifice to the equivalent of a membership card, its real salvific power is denied.
Second, if this view were to be accepted in the mainstream, there would be an outburst of nominal Christianity. The removal of the need to assess one’s sin and personal evil would eliminate the true barrier to faith and allow people free access into the body of Christ. Though Christ’s sacrifice came to humanity by grace, it was not cheap, nor is it free. It requires every believer to pick up his or her cross daily and follow Him. Under Dunn’s view, it seems as though one can simply be counted in the people of God because Jesus died and never truly understand that he or she needs real forgiveness. Finally, if all Christ’s sacrifice did was provide for the opportunity to be in the covenant community, then the love of God has been sorely diminished. God did not die for a people who were simply excluded by the law; He died for people who were “objects of wrath, rightly facing the unmitigated, everlasting fury of an incensed God.”[78] God did not die solely that Gentiles could be in covenant community; He died so that believers could be “pardoned and forgiven, standing blameless before Him as a pure bride, clothed in the clean, white robes of Christ’s righteousness.”[79]
Justice is Subverted
A second serious implication of the removal of propitiation from justification is that justice is subverted. If believers can simply be forgiven of their sin without actual payment of any penalty, the justice of God has been circumvented. If, as Dunn asserts, the sacrifice of Christ is only about covenant community and ending the power of sin, then believers are able to get into God’s presence through mercy alone negating justice. The ramification of this belief is severe. American Christianity, with its emphasis on God’s love, has already undergone a denigration of the vileness of sin. With the atonement detached from personal sin, a major boundary to repetitive sin would be removed from believers’ lives. Under Dunn’s view, it is possible to believe that one’s individual sins do not really matter to God in the grand scheme of things. As long as one lives one’s life well enough, final justification will be earned and the sins done along the way don’t really matter. It is difficult to see how an outbreak of licentious behavior would not result from fully adopting Dunn’s view. Second, the detachment of personal sins from atonement would bring God’s justice in judging the sins of others into question. If the sins of believers did not need to be paid for, then why should anyone expect God to justly and rightly punish unbelievers either in this life or at the final judgment. Finally, this view challenges the faithfulness of God. One of the most reiterated promises in the Old Testament is that justice for “every deed” will be meted out.[80] If God can simply overlook sin and judge each and every action then His faithfulness to His own word is in question.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the New Perspective on Paul leaves both justification and atonement radically changed and suppressed. NPP scholars have readjusted justification to mean the declaration that one is in the people of God instead of the declaration that the sacrifice of Christ has been applied to the believer. Additionally, NPP scholars have taken a view of the atonement that heavily de-emphasizes personal forgiveness of sins and full payment of the penalty for those sins to the point that it is unclear whether one’s sins are truly forgiven at all. Though NPP scholars have a lot to offer in terms of understanding the ancient Jewish community, their handling of doctrine leaves room for concern. To lose the reformation doctrine of justification and atonement would be a great loss to the church, for it is the declaration that “the God who freely forgives the sinner also brings the pardoned sinner into an eternal relationship with Himself in a covenant that He is totally responsible for … assur[ing] the believer of his/her everlasting blessing.”[81]
Bibliography
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge, 1845.
Cooke, G. A. A Critical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1936.
Dunn, James, D. G. Jesus, Paul, and the Law. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990.
———. The New Perspective on Paul. Revised. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.
———. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.
Fung, Ronald Y.K. The Epistle to the Galatians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.
Garlington, D. B. Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance: Aspects of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Vol. 79. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Tubingen, Germany: JCB Mohr, 1994.
Holland, Tom. Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s Biblical Writings. Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2004.
Jeffery, Steve, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007.
Kruse, Colin, G. Paul, the Law, and Justification. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1996.
Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.
Robertson, O. P. “Genesis 15:6: New Covenant Exposition of an Old Covenant Text.” Westminster Theological Journal 42 (1980).
Schreiner, Thomas R. Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification: What the Reformers Taught … and Why It Still Matters. Edited by Matthew M. Barrett. The 5 Solas Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015.
———. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Edited by James Dennison T., Jr. Translated by George Giger Musgrave. Vol. 2. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994.
Waters, Guy, Prentiss. Justification and the New Perspective on Paul: A Review and Response. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004.
Wright, N. T. “Romans.” In Acts, Introduction to Epistolary Literature, Romans, 1 Corinthians, edited by Leander Keck E. Vol. X. The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2002.
———. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.
[1] James Dunn D. G., The New Perspective on Paul, Revised. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 1.
[2] James Dunn D. G., Jesus, Paul, and the Law (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990), 190.
[3] Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul.
[4] Guy Waters Prentiss, Justification and the New Perspective on Paul: A Review and Response (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004), 107.
[5] Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul, 208.
[6] Ibid, 210.
[7] Waters, Justification and the New Perspective on Paul: A Review and Response, 133.
[8] N. T. Wright, “Romans,” in Acts, Introduction to Epistolary Literature, Romans, 1 Corinthians, ed. Leander Keck E., vol. X, The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2002).
[9] Romans 2:13 (NIV).
[10] Waters, Justification and the New Perspective on Paul: A Review and Response, 133.
[11] Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul, 71-75.
[12] Ibid, 60-63.
[13] Colin Kruse G., Paul, the Law, and Justification (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1996), 67.
[14] Galatians 3:23-25 (HCSB).
[15] Kruse, Paul, the Law, and Justification, 68.
[16] Galatians 3:10 (HCSB).
[17] Galatians 3:2 (HCSB).
[18] Kruse, Paul, the Law, and Justification, 75.
[19] Ronald Y.K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 133.
[20] Galatians 2:16 (HCSB).
[21] Galatians 3:3 (HCSB).
[22] Waters, Justification and the New Perspective on Paul: A Review and Response, 172.
[23] Ibid.
[24] 2 Corinthians 5:21 (HCSB).
[25] Waters, Justification and the New Perspective on Paul: A Review and Response, 172.
[26] Romans 4:6 (HCSB).
[27] Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 265.
[28] Romans 5:18-19 (HCSB).
[29] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 341.
[30] Ibid.
[31] John 6:37 (ESV).
[32] Romans 5:19 (HSCB).
[33] D. B. Garlington, Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance: Aspects of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, vol. 79, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament (Tubingen, Germany: JCB Mohr, 1994), 104.
[34] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998), 288.
[35] Romans 5:18 (HCSB).
[36] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James Dennison T., Jr., trans. George Giger Musgrave, vol. 2 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994), 651.
[37] Romans 4:3,6 (HCSB).
[38] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 262.
[39] O. P. Robertson, “Genesis 15:6: New Covenant Exposition of an Old Covenant Text,” Westminster Theological Journal 42 (1980), 265-266.
[40] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 262.
[41] Romans 4:7-8 (HCSB).
[42] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, 647.
[43] Romans 8:12-13; Colossians 3:5-10 (HCSB).
[44] Romans 6:4 (HCSB).
[45] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, 647.
[46] 2 Corinthians 5:21 (HCSB).
[47] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, 1845, 3.11.23.
[48] Thomas R. Schreiner, Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification: What the Reformers Taught … and Why It Still Matters, ed. Matthew M. Barrett, The 5 Solas Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 49.
[49] 2 Corinthians 5:21 (HCSB).
[50] Waters, Justification and the New Perspective on Paul: A Review and Response, 172.
[51] 2 Corinthians 5:21 (HCSB).
[52] James Dunn D. G., The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 214-215.
[53] Ibid, 231.
[54] Waters, Justification and the New Perspective on Paul: A Review and Response, 116.
[55] Ibid, 142.
[56] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 123.
[57] Wright, “Romans,” 476.
[58] Ibid, 579.
[59] Exodus 12:12 (HCSB).
[60] Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007).
[61] Exodus 12:3-5 (HCSB).
[62] Mark 14:22-24 (HCSB).
[63] John 19:35-36; Numbers 9:12 (HCSB).
[64] 1 Corinthians 5:7 (HCSB).
[65] Colossians 1:15 (HCSB).
[66] Tom Holland, Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s Biblical Writings (Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2004), 238.
[67] Ibid, 247.
[68] Zechariah 12:10 (HCSB).
[69] Holland, Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s Biblical Writings, 251.
[70] G. A. Cooke, A Critical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1936), 504.
[71] Ezekiel 45:16-17 (HCSB).
[72] Colossians 1:15 (HCSB).
[73] Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution, 61.
[74] Luke 22:37 (HCSB).
[75] 1 Peter 2:22 (HCSB).
[76] Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul, 137.
[77] Ibid.
[78] Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution, 152.
[79] Ibid.
[80] Ecclesiastes 3:17 (NIV).
[81] Holland, Contours of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s Biblical Writings, 337.
댓글