Part One

John G. Reisinger

This is one of the most difficult messages I have ever given. It is very hard to criticize people whom you love and respect. What I have to say was not arrived at in either haste or a refusal to honestly evaluate what the people I am criticizing are saying. I have heard these men speak and defend their new perspective. I have sat in lengthy discussion groups, read many pages from articles, and followed hundreds of emails on three different chat rooms all dealing with the ongoing discussion about the new view of Paul and justification. This paper represents my understanding of some of the basic differences between the New View, called by some, "the New Perspective" and the traditional view. In this paper the "Old View" of justification is that expressed by Luther, the Confessions, and most Reformed people today. The New View" that I am critiquing is that expressed in the writings of James Dunn, N.T. Wright, Don Garlinton, Thom Smith, John Armstrong, and Scott Hafeman.

One of the basic criticisms of this new view is that the people who are sincerely trying to understand exactly what the New View is advocating are not sure what these men are saying. This is more true of Garlington, Smith and Armstrong than of Dunn and Wright. For instance, both Dunn and Wright openly deny the imputed righteousness of Christ, but Garlington, Smith, and Armstrong will affirm this without hesitation. Their affirmations, however, do not seem to mean the same thing as Luther and the Confessions.

This review is what I think the men who hold this view are saying. In no sense is the following intended as a complete list of differences. The New View impinges on many other doctrines. I have chosen some of those specific points which are clearly stated in the New View that appear to me to be quite different than the Old View. This paper will present some of the basic differences between the Old and New Views on those specific points and explain why I believe the Old View is biblical and the New View is not.

First of all, those who hold the New View insist that it is a misnomer to say "the new view on justification." In their minds, the New Perspective is really a "new perspective on the Judaism" at the time of Christ and the New Testament. All agree that the new view under discussion started with a new view of second-temple Judaism by a man named Sanders. Second-temple Judaism usually refers to the worship and theology of Israel from the time the temple was rebuilt in 515 B.C. until the destruction of the temple in A.D.70. Sander's view of Judaism's understanding of the view of justification held by Judaism at the time of Christ and Paul could not be reconciled with the Old View of justification. I believe it is more than fair to say that the New Perspective is indeed a new view of justification that was necessitated by a new understanding of the Jewish literature written at the time of the New Testament Scriptures. Without this new view of the secular Jewish writings we would never have been urged to rethink either Paul or Luther. Anyone who says the Jews at the time of the New Testament did not believe in salvation by works but rather they believed in salvation by grace is advocating a view that absolutely demands a total re-thinking of the Protestant view of justification.

If anyone holding the New View wishes to challenge my contention that the new view really is a new view of justification, all they need to do is (1) detail the specific points in which the Old View is wrong as it is expressed in confessions like the Westminster and Philadelphia, (2) show from Scripture why those particular statements are incorrect, and (3) present the biblical texts that support the New View's understanding of the same points. In other words, set forth exactly what needs to be either deleted, added to, or changed in the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. If the real differences between the New View and the Old View are clearly spelled out, it will go a long way in establishing exactly how new or old the views of these men are.

Today we have people insisting that they agree with the Confession, while actually teaching a thing either not in the Confession or clearly contradicting what is stated in the Confession. It seems they want to endorse Luther and repudiate him at the same time. Those of us who question the New Perspective have repeatedly asked for such a definition and clarification. The best way to clarify what the New View is saying is to carefully compare it with what has been taught in the Confessions. In no sense is this "worshipping the creeds." This in itself will not determine if the New View is right or wrong, but it will certainly prove whether it can be reconciled to the Old View, or whether the New View is indeed a radically new and different doctrine of justification. This is the only way to see if the New View is in fact a new view when compared to Luther and the Creeds. If the proponents of the New View adhere to the Confession and claim that they are in line with it, then let them exegete their position by using the Confession and its proof texts. If they cannot do this, then let them admit their view is different and then proceed to defend from Scripture why they think the Confession is wrong. At the moment they appear to want it both ways.

Let us look at the basic differences between the Old and New views of justification. We will state them in the form of questions.

I. Exactly what is the New Perspective on Justification?

We must remember that most of the men in solid Evangelical circles who hold to any concept of the New Perspective claim that it is not a new perspective on justification but only on second-temple Judaism (the Judaism practiced at the time of the New Testament.). It appears that James Dunn was the first to use the term 'New Perspective on Justification.' Dr. Garlington insists the view should be called the 'New Perspective of Second-Temple Judaism.' If I correctly understand the position, I think it is quite appropriate and accurate to say it is indeed a 'New Perspective on Justification' that is radically different than the view taught by Luther, the Reformers, and most present day Reformed people. Let me explain why I say that.

I totally agree with Dr. Garlington's analysis that he gave in a message to the incoming students at Jarvis Street Baptist Seminary in March, 1999.

[This is] Not a New Problem.

What we are encountering here is really nothing new, because there is something of a problem, at least a superficial problem that readers of Paul have been aware of ever since Paul wrote his letters. For the last two millennia, people have seen, not only in Paul, but elsewhere in the New Testament, there are two things that really go side by side. The one is salvation by grace-not by works, not by anything we do-it is totally by God's mercy. It precludes all human striving and merit.

But on the other hand, every judgment passage in the New Testament and in the Old says that judgment is according to works. For example, 2 Corinthians 5:10 says, "For we must all appear before the judgment of seat to repaid for the things done in the body, whether it be a good thing or a worthless thing." In Matthew 25 nothing is said of grace, nothing said of repentance, nothing said of justification, but rather those are admitted into the eschatological kingdom are those who have done certain things. Those who are admitted are those who have not done certain things. Judgment is always according to works.

As I said, I agree that this is not at all a new problem. However, the way Dr. Garlinton and the New Perspective solve the problem is indeed new. The New View's solution is radically different than Luther, the Confessions, and most Reformed people today.

Reformed people have always been aware of the 'works at judgment' passages. We taught, and still teach, that these works are purely evidential in nature. In no sense do these works involve whether you go into heaven or not. There may indeed be a judgment of a Christian's works that has to do with rewards for faithfulness, but there is not, nor ever could there be, a 'court room' scene where the ultimate salvation of a child of God is ever affected. Our view of justification proposes that is was impossible for a true child of God to ever come before God, the judge.

The New View insists that the works mentioned in the judgment passages are more than evidential. They feel this is not being fair with the texts. These passages, and the works they mention, are to be taken at face value. When we ask, "Are these works evidence of a true faith?" they respond, "No, they are more than evidential." We then ask, "Are you saying these works are meritorious?" the reply is, "Absolutely not." When we then ask, "Well, then, exactly what is the nature of these works?" we do not get a definitive answer. As one man said, it is like nailing Jell-O to the wall.

The following is from a paper that Thom Smith wrote in which he said, "I will try to explain my views of the relationship of justification by faith to the last judgment." It is four pages long and ends with this comment: "I am more than ready to entertain criticisms of this paradigm, but, obviously, there are elements in it that I do not regard as negotiable." We take that to be an invitation to open dialogue. The emphasis in the following quote from that paper is mine.

Every reference to the Last Judgment in the NT makes works the basis of the final outcome, John 5:28, 29; Matthew 25:31-46; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:11-15; et al.

In several of these passages the outcome is clearly (eternal) life or death, John 5:29; Matthew 25:34, 41, 46; etc.

Thom insists that these works "grow out of true faith" and therefore, by implication, we can say this is salvation by pure grace. However, when we carefully analyze what is being said, we personally find the New View to be closer to the Roman Catholic view than to the view of Luther. It is more works than grace. Thom uses Psalm 24:3-6 to show that the blessings recorded are "the gift of grace" from God. He then says:

In this sense, these things are evidences of faith, and they are not. They are evidences of the faith of God's elect; because the elect always produce such works out of their (God-given) faith, see John 15:1ff, et al. But, they are more than evidences in that they are realities, and (as in the passages referred to above) they are the basis of this final justification.

Those statements sure sound to me like a refutation of Luther. These words indicate that, (1) the believer faces a future judgment, and (2) his works are going to be the basis of his rejection or final justification/vindication in that Day of Judgment. (3) These works which are the "basis of this final justification" are not meritorious but they are more than evidential. We have not had this third category defined for us.

Dr. Garlinton, in a paper, "Justification by Faith" wrote,

Nevertheless, the future tense, appearing in this setting of last judgment, serves to underscore that there is a phase of justification yet to be. [emphasis mine JGR]

Thom Smith's statements that propose that the works at the judgment are "more than evidential" and are the "basis of final justification," and Dr. Garlington's declaration that there is a 'future phase of justification' seem to us to be inconsistent with a once-for-all forensic justification. These things need to be explained far more clearly than they have been to this date. For instance, how can something that is finished once-for-all at the same time have a 'future phase'?

Before I continue, let me present my understanding of justification. First of all, justification is a totally forensic term. This means that it is a legal term understood purely in the legal terminology of the court room. Justification is a declarative act of God grounded entirely in the atoning work of Christ, through which God declares that he will henceforth treat me just-as-if-I-had never sinned and also just-as-if-I-had always obeyed. In justification, God does not make a sinner righteous, but declares him to be righteous in Christ. This gives the sinner a perfect standing before a holy God. God also regenerates the sinner and gives him the Holy Spirit. The gift of the Spirit guarantees both holy living and the final perseverance of the saints. Although justification and regeneration are totally separate, they are also two parts of one whole. It is impossible to have one without the other. They can neither be merged nor separated. The same is true with justification and sanctification. He whose justification does not lead to sanctification has never been either justified or sanctified. However, justification is totally different than sanctification.

A jury and a judge cannot make a person either guilty or innocent. All they can do is say, "Based on the evidence, we declare the accused innocent (or guilty)". It is quite possible that a court may find a man guilty when in reality he is innocent, or vice versa. However, if a court declares an innocent man guilty, that man will be treated as if he were guilty in spite of the fact he is innocent. A legal declaration does not change the individual's nature. It only declares what his present status in relationship to the law. This is true whether a human judge or God himself is making the declaration.

The declaration of this fact is based on the evidence presented in the case before the court. In the case of God, the only evidence that he looks at is the sufficiency of Jesus Christ in his atoning work to satisfy the just claims of the law by making a sufficient payment to cover our sin. The once-for-all sacrifice of Christ allows God to make a once-for-all declaration that the sinner will not, yea, cannot, ever come into judgment. That declaration, in and of itself, does not change the sinner's nature and make him actually righteous. All it does is wipe clean his slate in heaven. God also gives the justified sinner the Spirit of adoption, and the sinner now begins to walk in holiness. We must see the necessity of both of these happening to a sinner, but at the same time we must see them as separate experiences.

We are not in the least denying that every justified sinner is given a sincere desire to please God. We are only insisting that fact has nothing to do with justification but with sanctification. Our concern is this: the New View cannot help but lose the basis spiritual power of true justification by making sanctification to be a part of justification.

Justification, as opposed to sanctification, neither grows nor diminishes. You are just as justified the moment that you trust Christ as you will ever be. The poorest sinner is just as fully justified the moment he believes the gospel as the Apostle Paul was at the height of his Christian life. This is one of the vital points of difference we have with Roman Catholicism. It seems to us, at least on the surface, that we have the same difference with the New View on Justification. In both cases there is a confusing and merging of justification and sanctification.

Texts like Romans 4:4, 5; 5:1, and 8:1 seem to us to be emphatic. However, when we quote these verses, the advocates of the New View say, "But don't forget that James says we are also justified by works." I will say more about James later. My primary point here is to show that justification, by its very nature, is forensic. It changes a sinner's status before God, but not his nature. A clear proof that this is the meaning of the word 'justify' is found in Luke 7:29: And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, JUSTIFIED God, being baptized with the baptism of John. Did the people and the publicans in any way change the nature of God or where they merely declaring a fact? The same is true of sinners when God declares them to be justified in his sight. It is purely a legal declarative act by God.

It seems to me that the New View merges justification and sanctification the same way that Roman Catholicism does. We have always insisted that sanctification has three distinct aspects, namely, past, present and future. We were (past) set apart in Christ at conversion. We grow (present) in grace and holiness in this life, and we will be (future) finally and fully sanctified at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. These three points are all based on specific texts of Scriptures. The New View wants to do the same thing with justification. They want a 'forensic' justification at conversion, an ongoing justification in this present life, and a final justification at judgment. What else can "final phase of justification" mean? The problem is that the New View has presented no texts of Scripture to prove a three-phase justification.

Regardless of whether the reader agrees with my evaluation, two things are certain. (1) The New View of Justification with its future justification/vindication based on a believer's works, even if those works were produced by grace and faith, is a radically different view of justification than Luther, the Confessions and Reformed people in general today. (2) The New View seems to be a kissing cousin to Roman Catholicism. I believe it is more than reasonable to insisting the New View is indeed a new and different view of justification.

Where and When Did the New View of Justification Begin?

As already mentioned the New View on Justification began with a man named E. P. Sanders. Basically, Sanders claimed that the Jews at the time of Christ and Paul did not believe in a works-salvation. They believed in salvation by grace through faith. This is clear from all the Jewish literature from that particular period. The liberals immediately said this proves the New Testament is not inspired since Paul obviously misrepresented the Jews of his day. Some Evangelicals were convinced that Sanders was right, but could not deny the inspiration of Scripture. They said, "Oh, the problem is not with Paul, the problem is with Luther, and those who followed his teaching on the subject of justification." They claimed Luther misunderstood Paul because he, Luther, did not understand the Jewish literature of that period. Luther read his personal fight with Roman Catholicism and their "works/merit salvation" into the New Testament Scriptures, especially into Galatians and Romans, and as a result he misunderstood what Paul was really teaching. The New View insists on a totally different approach to Paul's theology of justification because of this new understanding of the Jewish literature of Paul's day. As already noted, some men holding the New View would prefer to use the term "New Perspective on Judaism" instead of "New Perspective on Justification." I think it should be obvious to any objective mind that the New View advocated by Sanders absolutely necessitates a new view of Paul and his theology of justification.

If I understand the New View's position, it does not represent the Jewish literature as actually teaching the same thing as Ephesians 2:8, 9. They are not saying that if you had asked a Jew at the time of Christ, "What must I do to be saved" he would have replied, "Believe in a coming Messiah and you will be saved." However, he would have said something like, "Sincerely maintain the life you were graciously given by being born into the covenant and in the final judgment you will be vindicated (justified) as the faithful one of God by your persevering faith and works."

The New View makes a great distinction between getting into the covenant and staying in, but it is not too clear about what you are actually getting into. Staying in, not getting in, by keeping the covenant is what the works are all about and faithfully maintaining your covenant status seems to furnish the ground for the final aspect of justification. According to the New View, the Jew believed that "grace and faith were the fountainhead of all striving to be found faithful" and therefore his final salvation was still 'by grace through faith'. The New View, like Roman Catholicism, seems to feel that as long as they insist that if the works were done by faith, then those works can be treated as actually contributing to one's final justification/vindication. "Saved by grace" becomes "saved by works done by faith that was given by grace." This definition permits the New View, like Rome, to allow these works done by grace/faith to be non-meritorious at the same time that those works are the basis of the sinner's final vindication/justification.

You get into the covenant by being born into the Jewish nation. The New Perspective's statements about getting into the covenant seem to some of us to overthrow the very foundation of the old view of sin, depravity, regeneration, and conversion, and how you "stay in" by perseverance seems to be warmed-over Romanism. We will come back to this in a moment.

In summary of this point I would say that I personally do not in the least question that "A New View of Justification" is the correct label for the view being espoused by the men mentioned.

What are the grounds upon which each view rests its position concerning the basic view of salvation held by the Jews at the time of the writing of the NTS?

There is a sense in which everything stands or falls on the answer to one question. "Did the Jews at the time of the New Testament really believe in salvation by grace?" If E.P. Sanders is right, then we may (?) indeed have to re-study Paul's theology of justification. Let's first be sure that we see the differences between the Old and New Views on this point.

First, the Old View took a straightforward view of the Gospels and the Epistles, and concluded that both Jesus and Paul condemned the Jews because of their "works-salvation." The burden of the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles is a constant attempt to convince the Jews that they were guilty sinners despite all their special blessings. The Jews had distorted the message of God and had become self-righteous. They really thought they had kept the Law and deserved to be blessed by God, both because of their birth as well as their works. They were, in Luther's words, "work-mongers."

Jesus called the Jews hypocrites who broke the law while pretending to keep it. The parable of the publican and the Pharisee in Luke 18 gives conclusive evidence that Jesus thought the Jews of his day did not believe in salvation by grace, but definitely believed in salvation by works. Here is one very clear text:

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

"Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:9-14 KJV)

Verse 9 sets the stage for the whole dialogue. Jesus was specifically talking to the Jews who "trusted in themselves that were righteous." In no sense is being self-righteous and looking down your nose at other people a mark of believing in salvation by grace. If the Pharisee of whom Jesus spoke is typical and representative of all the Pharisees of Christ's day, then there is no way it can be said the Jews of that day believed in salvation by grace in any sense whatsoever. The Pharisee was wholeheartedly committed to salvation by works. This parable is discussing justification, and Jesus is insisting that there are two ways by which men seek to be justified: One way, illustrated by the Pharisee, seeks salvation by works, and the other way, illustrated by the publican, seeks salvation by grace through faith. I do not believe it is possible to demonstrate that this Pharisee believed in salvation by grace in any sense what ever. This passage clearly does not square with the New Perspective's view of justification.

Verses 11, 12 are emphatic that the Pharisee was dedicated with all his heart to "salvation by works." Hear again his testimony:

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

The New View claims that the Jew's real boast was in his heritage and not in a personal works-salvation. This passage has nothing to do with boasting in your ethnic heritage. The publican could have made that boast as well as the Pharisee. This is salvation by personal works, pure and simple. Verse 13 shows that the poor publican recognized his sin and could not even raise his eyes to God. He beat his breast and said, "God be merciful to me a sinner," or "God be propitiated to me a sinner."

Again, we must remind ourselves that Jesus used this story to teach the doctrine of justification. He said, "I tell you, this man [referring to the publican] went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." The Pharisee was not exalting himself on the grounds of his covenantal relationship with God because he was Jew. He was boasting in his works as the basis of his acceptance with God. The publican was also a Jew in the same covenantal relationship with God as the Pharisee. Jesus is not contrasting a Jew born into the covenant with a pagan born outside the covenant, he is comparing two Jews supposedly already in the covenant. It seems clear to me that this passage of Scripture contradicts the whole concept of the New View. This is a clear-cut declaration by Christ that he was convinced that the Jews believed in salvation by works and not by grace. Jesus, in this parable, taught exactly what Luther taught.

Likewise Paul, in my mind, obviously felt that the Jews believed in salvation by works. No one has stated this more clearly than John Murray:

He (Paul) himself testifies that "after the straightest sect of our religion I lived like a Pharisee" (Acts 26:5). It was his Pharisaism that constrained him to think within himself that he "ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth" (Acts 26:9) and he became the arch-persecutor of the church of Christ (cf. Acts 26:10, 11; 1 Tim. 1:13). Behind this opposition was religious zeal for a way of acceptance with God that was the antithesis of grace and justification by faith. (John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans [Eerdmans, May 1977, xiii.]).

Pharisaism was a religion of law. Its religious horizons was defined and circumscribed by the resources of law and therefore by works of law . . . . No one knew better and perhaps none comparably the self-complacency of law-righteousness, on the one hand, and the glory of God's righteousness, on the other . . . . Paul was a Jew. And not only so; he was a Jew who had been converted from that same perversity which at the time of Paul's writing characterized Jewry as a whole. He knew the mind of the Jew as did no other. He knew the gravity of the issues at stake in the unbelief of his kinsman according to the flesh. He assessed the dishonor this unbelief offered to God and to his Christ. "They, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." (Rom.10:3). (Ibid, xiv).

This statement is diametrically opposed to the heart of the New View concerning the Judaism of Paul's day. Paul could have been the very Pharisee of whom Jesus spoke in Luke 18. Did Murray understand Paul's view of Judaism? It is certainly different than the view of Ed Sanders and the men who hold the New View. At the end of the day, that which informs us of what the Jews believed is that which Jesus and Paul teach us. Our view of that whole period of history, as it pertains to the belief of the Jews, is given to us by the New Testament. The New Testament view, in my mind, clearly teaches that the Jews at the time of the Christ and Paul did not believe or teach "salvation by grace."

Secondly, the New View's insistence that the Jews at the time of Christ and Paul believed in salvation by grace comes entirely from non-biblical sources. That fact in itself does not prove it is wrong. We thank God for all the help we can get, from any source, in understanding the Scriptures. However, the Scriptures alone still dictate what we must believe.

I should mention that not all Evangelical scholars did accept Sander's thesis. Some well-known Evangelical scholars said, "Sanders loaded the dice. He was very selective in choosing and editing his material." These men see no need to re-interpret Paul and his doctrine of justification as articulated by Luther. They would say that John Murray's assessment of Judaism in Paul's day is correct.

What are non-scholars like me, and most of the people who read this paper, to do in this case? I do not have access to the many documents written at that period, and even if I did, I am not proficient enough in Greek to read them. So what should we "non-professionals" believe? We could agree with the scholars we know and trust. I would choose Don Carson and you might choose James Dunn. I question if that is the best way to go. We would still be pinning our ultimate hope on men's understanding alone.

The answer for me is simple. I cannot say, because of my inability to assess the Greek documents, if Sanders is correct or incorrect in his understanding of that particular non-biblical literature. However, I can, and must, carefully study the New Testament Scriptures and see what those Scriptures teach on the subject. I must if those Scriptures teach that the Jews believed in salvation by grace or if they teach that the Jews believed in salvation by birth and works. So far I have not read a single thing in those Scriptures that makes me feel I must "totally re-interpret Luther's understanding of Paul's view of justification" because he supposedly misunderstood second-temple Judaism. I am totally satisfied that both Jesus and Paul clearly believed that the Jews in their day were "work-mongers." The evidence for that in the New Testament Scriptures is, in my mind, overwhelming. One strong advocate of the New View was asked, "If all you had were the Scriptures alone, would you ever come to believe the New Perspective on Justification?" He was honest enough to answer, "No."

I admit I am skeptical of any new view of anything, especially on such a vital doctrine as justification. I am especially skeptical if that view has its roots in a new understanding of non-biblical literature. I am even more skeptical if the interpreters of that literature are not committed to the inspiration of the New Testament. Granted, there are men today who are openly committed to the inspiration of the Scripture, but the men who first propounded the idea were not. We must remember that the New View did not come into being by means of godly men studying Scripture. It came into being when a non-Evangelical insisted that his new understanding of non-biblical revelation forced him to re-interpret Paul differently from all of our Reformed forefathers. I also admit I am a bit squeamish when I read any "new view" that can only be grasped by the scholars. I still remember a friend saying, after a very tedious lecture that had little biblical exegesis, "You guys must be careful that you do not take the Bible out the hands of the people."

I have been exhorted to read, among other writers, N.T. Wright. I was on the verge of ordering one of his books when I discovered that he rejects the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Dr. Garlington highly recommends Wright, but has publicly declared Wright is wrong on the subject of imputed righteousness. Some may say, "John, you cannot reject a scholar's whole work just because of one point of disagreement." Normally, I would agree, but when you ask me to read a particular man so that I might understand your view of justification and then tell me that man does not believe that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to a believer as the only grounds of his justification before God, then I reply, "I can reject that particular scholar's whole work on the subject of justification." He missed the foundation stone!

The bottom line on this point is this: We must find our basic presuppositions for Bible doctrines in Bible texts instead of getting them from non-biblical sources. Suppose biblical scholarship ultimately rejects Sanders' view. What then? The whole view will collapse. Dr. Donald Carson has edited a two-volume set of books, each book with over six-hundred pages on this very subject. The set is entitled Justification and Variegated Nomism. The first volume deals with "The Complexities of Second-Temple Judaism." The advertisement says, "This new study of the intertestamental literature will require a rethinking of Sanders' concept of covenantal nomism and its application to Paul's theology of justification." If Sanders is demonstrated to be faulty in his basic premise, then the whole New Perspective on Justification is without a foundation.

However, even if Sanders is correct, and that is becoming more and more doubtful among the scholars, how do we reconcile that with the fact that both Christ and Paul view the Jews as work-mongers? I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the New View is trying to reconcile clear New Testament Scriptures with the writings of men instead of the other way around. Again, I repeat, we thank God for all the help we can get from non-biblical sources, including those from liberals, however, we simply must allow the Scriptures themselves to be the final authority on any and every subject, especially on the basic definition and presuppositions upon which the doctrine rests. We may use secular literature, but we neither start with secular literature nor do we allow secular sources to contradict the Scriptures.

One more point to consider is this: Suppose scholarship establishes that the Jewish literature proves that second-temple Judaism taught that they believed in salvation by grace and not works. That in no way proves the point. All that would prove for sure was that the Jews were laying claim to teaching grace. The question whether they really believed in salvation by grace would not be answered. The position of the New versus the Old Perspective on justification does not at all rest on what the Jews themselves may or may not have claimed about whether they did or did not believe in grace. The essential question is what does the New Testament Scriptures say about the Jews and their views. The telling point is not the self perception of the Jews but what the New Testament thought about the Jews. The real issue is whether Jesus and Paul thought the Jews were teaching grace or works. A truck driver or housewife cannot read the Jewish documents, but they can read the New Testament in their English Bibles. And when they do, they will not come away with the thesis of Sanders and the New Perspective. Roman Catholicism has been trying to convince us for years that they believe in salvation by grace. I don't care what they say about themselves; I, for one, still don't believe them.

The Reformation view of justification came out of the pages of Holy Scripture. The question the Reformers asked was the question already asked in the Old Testament Scriptures, "How can a sinful worm be justified in the sight of a holy sovereign God?" (Job 25:4). The full and final answer to that question awaited the revelation that declared, "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

In our next issue we hope to look at some specific points of differences between the Old and New View. In each case we will see that the two views are radically different. We will examine: (1) The true nature of the Old Covenant. The New View insists the Old Covenant could be kept because it did not require sinless perfection. The Old View says the exact opposite. (2) The basic purpose of the Old Covenant. The two views see two different basic purposes. (3) A Christian's works and future judgment. We will have two radically different explanations for those works. (4) The faith that justifies a sinner. Does it look backward to a once-for-all act or is it forward-looking? Are there two kinds of faith involved in justification? (5) The apparent contradiction between Paul and James. (6) The nature and place of biblical perseverance in the scheme of grace.

Copyright 2004 John G. Reisinger