Part One
Methodology
In part one, I will seek to provide a general introduction to the NPP. However, one cannot understand the significance of this without knowing something about what is now called the old perspective or Lutheran view. I shall, therefore, start by briefly examining this position. This will be followed by looking at some of the main thinkers within the NPP. Here I will limit myself to examining the works of Stendahl, Sanders, Dunn, and N. T. Wright. More weight will obviously be given to Wrightâs position, after all, this is a work about his understanding of the new perspective.
Although in part one I will confine myself to describing the views of NPP proponents, when examining Wrightâs position, I will interject criticism, explaining to the reader why I disagree with some of his conclusions. Further criticism will be provided in part two where I shall examine certain passages of Scripture.
Because I am approaching this from a Reformed Baptist covenantal position, it will be necessary to explain its understanding of the covenant of works that God made with the first Adam, along with subsequent covenants, namely, those made with Abraham, Moses, and the new covenant in Christ. In the second part of this work, while I concentrate on texts drawn from Paulâs letters to the Romans and Galatians, I will, however, also seek to address some other texts employed by Wright, for example, 1 Corinthians 1:30 and 2 Corinthians 5:21.
It will also be necessary to examine other motifs in Wrightâs new perspective, for example, the idea that being saved is not about going to heaven when we die, that Israel at the time of Christ was still in exile etc. Finally, I will, contrary to what Wright claims, seek to show that penal substitution lies at the very heart of Christâs victory over sin and that the Christus Victor model should be understood within the context of Christâs propitiatory offering.
Hermeneutic Principle.
It is essential to understand the nature of the various covenants because a misunderstanding here will affect other areas of theology. For example, the Reformed paedobaptist belief that the old and new covenants are of the same substance causes them to conclude that water baptism has replaced circumcision, and, of course, if the latter included children then so too must the former, and this significantly changes the way one views the makeup of the church.
God always deals with his people through covenant, and when interpreting a given text or passage one should consider which of Godâs covenants the person(s) alluded to are under, for example, are they under the covenant of works or the covenant of grace? The old or the new covenant?
Scripture reveals two primary covenantsâ the covenant of works made with Adam and the new covenant made with Christ. Both men are federal heads, all humanity was represented by Adam, and those whom God has chosen to save are represented by Christ. We are all either under the first Adam, and under the covenant of works, where we stand condemned because of sin or else under Christ, the second Adam, and under the new covenant. There is no alternative or third position.
There is only one covenant of grace and this is the new covenant. There is no other covenant, for example, the old covenant, for which Christ is the mediator, hence, to benefit from his mediatorial work one must belong to this covenant. All of Godâs people, whenever and wherever they may have lived, be it before or after Christâs redemptive work, have been the recipients of new covenant blessings. Therefore, central to my understanding of Scripture is the belief that there is no salvation outside of the new covenant, as John Frame succinctly states:
Or as Woolsey puts it:
One objection frequently raised when one speaks of new covenant blessings being available before the covenantâs ratification concerns the words uttered by Jeremiah when he alludes to the covenant that will be made in the future, being âafter those daysâ (Isa 31:31; Heb 8:10). Clearly, if it was futuristic and âafter those daysâ how could the fruits thereof be available to those who lived before âthose daysâ? Understanding the answer to this question is vital for understanding the unity that exists in Scripture concerning the way of salvation. John Owen, who was arguably the greatest theologian the English speaking world has ever produced, anticipated this, explaining it in the form of a question and answer:
Before Christ came in the flesh, the new covenant existed in the form of a promise, with its formal legal establishment occurring when Christ completed his work. Those Old Testament individuals who believed in the promise were made partakers of new covenant blessings because this covenant had a retrospective efficacy. From the first revelation of the promise in Genesis 15, salvation in the Old Testament was always through the promise and participation in the new covenant. All other covenants, e.g., those made with Abraham, Moses, and David, did not alter the essential fact that salvation comes through believing in the promise. They were, what we might call, subsidiary covenants.
My approach assumes that all other covenants are not as the paedobaptists would have us believe, simply different administrations of the one covenant of grace, but conditional covenants, separate from the covenant of grace or new covenant. These conditional covenants were dependent upon manâs obedience for their temporal blessings; an obedience he was incapable of providing. One can think of it as the âcarrot and stickâ principle. These conditional covenants held up the carrot of temporal blessings upon obedience, with these serving as a type of the antitype that is found in the new covenant. They served to show human inability, for if man was incapable of attaining temporal blessings, then how much less is he capable of attaining that which is spiritual and eternal. Inevitably, Israel failed to abide by the covenantal conditio...