Nielsen’s Nook

Nielsen’s Nook
Nielsen’s Nook
Contemplative, reflective, and irenic we pray.
Print Print

Mark 7 and the New Perspective on Paul

Will Nielsen
January 26th, 2006
Tags: • • • • •

By way of introduction here, I am hoping you might help me learn. I know very little about the New Perspective on Paul in any of its variations really. However, I have found that there are tenets that are propounded in the NPP that seem to be reverberations with the Dutch Reformed writers of whom I am very fond, writers like Ridderbos and Vos. That is to say, I have great esteem for Biblical Theology and its colleague Systematic Theology. What I promise you in this article is questions with which I hope you can help me. This will not be a rant of any kind; rather a step towards dialogue, Lord willing.

That being said, one of the tenets that the NPP submits to us is that Judaism of the Second Temple Period was essentially a religion of Grace. It is maintained that the 16th century Church reformers were guilty of isogeting corruptions in the Roman church into their interpretation of Judaism of the first century A.D. For a helpful summary from the NPP point of view, you might find Mattison’s article helpful.

If we would critique the 16th century Reformers, then it would seem to be fair to consider other facets of their teachings. For instance, in dealing with Justification what I hear being said by the NPP is that Justification is not identical with the Gospel of Christ. I believe Wright would say that the Gospel is the pronouncement of Jesus’ Lordship, His Kingdom. While I do think this may be a helpful contrast to make in lieu of the modern so-called Evangelical Church, I wonder if it is really a contrast with the 16th century Reformers. Remember one of their mantras: Sola fides justificat sed non fides sola! That is, “Faith alone justifies, but not faith that is alone!” Wright does well, as I understand him, to focus on Union with Christ. While he may make some fine contributions, let us not forget that John Calvin’s unifying central thought in the Institutes of Christian Religion continues to be Union with Christ.

These are broad stroke points, and given the nature of blogging you are probably ready for some kind of conclusion. So forgive me for the brevity, and know that I would encourage us all to read broadly and think deeply about these matters.

The Reformers also taught Scriptura ex scriptura explicanda est. That is, Scripture is the explanation of Scripture. That being said, it would seem to me that on the Reformers own terms we would want to consider what the Gospels teach us about Judaism of the day and believe that the content in the Gospels would have been part of the content of Paul’s own mind.

Mark 7:1-7 (ESV)
Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“ ‘ This people honors me with their lips,

but their heart is far from me;

7 in vain do they worship me,

teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

Isn’t the problem not that Judaism was not somehow gracious but that when we receive even grace we pervert it to our own ends without regard for the Giver’s intent. Surely Torah marks a condescension of God to Israel that can only be characterized as gracious. The notion of covenant that is the controlling hermeneutical element in Scripture (Old and New Testaments) is essentially and only gracious in any administration of the covenant. Jesus had come not to abolish the Law but to demonstrate Himself as its fulfillment. This is the argument of Matthew 5:13-20 and I would suggest, the argument of the book of Hebrews in its entirety. We do no justice to Justification if we make it synonymous with Salvation. While Salvation surely entails justification, it speaks on a much broader level.

So please direct me as you read;
Give critique — but without sharp teeth.
For one Church did our Savior bleed,
Great Charity did He bequeath.

Something to say?

View blog authority