I was happy to see an article by Douglas Kelly on the "New Perspective" appear on our denominational news magazine. I was unhappy that it was so poorly argued.

First, I must emphatically agree with Michael Woolsey. Lumping Sanders, Dunn and Wright together, as is so often done, is practically worthless. These scholars reach radically different conclusions, despite the fact that they begin with the same "perspective" – that we have misunderstood and misread first century Judaism for too long. It hardly seems justifiable (pun intended) to treat them together.

Second, I would like to add to the evidence that both Mike Woolsey and Mark Horne have pointed to regarding Wright's particular position on justification. Professor Kelly argues that "It seems to me, for all their insights, neither Sanders, Dunn nor Wright gives anything approaching due weight to this eternally massive issue of how sinners escape the wrath of God..." As Mike Woolsey has pointed out, Wright has made it clear the he believes that forgiveness of sins is most certainly part and parcel of justification. Rather than link to an online piece, we don't need to look any farther than the book that Professor Kelly has based his arguments on. From What Saint Paul Really Said:

To approach the passage as I have done, however, sets up a context in which these false distinctions can be avoided. The passage [Romans 3.21-31] is all about the covenant, membership in which is now thrown open to Jew and Gentile alike; therefore it is all about God's dealing with sin in the cross and resurrection of Jesus, because that was what the covenant was intended to do in the first place. The law court takes its proper place as the metaphorical means through which the covenant purposes of God are fulfilled. Once we fully grasp the nature of Pauline covenant theology, the fears that some have expressed, that a 'covenantal' reading of Paul will do away with a proper theology of sin and the cross, are shown to be groundless. The purpose of the covenant, which was to deal with the sin of the world, has been accomplished in the cross of Jesus Christ the Lord (page 128).

So, we should put away this false distinction and move on to the real issues to be faced in Wright's work. It's not every day that a Church of England guy (named Bishop of Durham in February 2003, by the way) argues that we need to "fully grasp the nature of Pauline covenant theology."

Is it possible that the church needs to be challenged to read the New Testament more accurately, especially about justification? If we answer that question negatively, we are hardly heirs to the Reformers any longer.

Aaron Baker , Assistant Pastor
Covenant Presbyterian Church
Chicago, Ill
============
For more articles like this go to PCANews.