Part 1 in a series.

So what is up with the NPP? A few years ago a man named EP Saunders wrote a book about Second Temple Judaism. That kind of kicked off the whole thing and got a bunch of other books rolling. James DG Dunn wrote on the same kind of thing as well as NT Wright. Wright is the one who seems to have more of a popular appeal.

Anyway, what this has to do with anything is that Dunn says that the Reformers got it wrong. Jews at the time of Paul did not believe in a form legalism, the Reformers read the Roman Catholicism of their time into Paul and formulated a doctrine of justification based on a misunderstanding. Second Temple Judaism actually believe in what he termed ‘covenantal nomism’, that is you are made a member of the covenant by grace and you remain in the covenant by obeying the covenant’s laws. Christ then justifies the community so if you are part of the community, you’re justified.

What this plays out like is that there is no forensic justification in the classical Reformed sense. We are saved by grace and made part of the covenant community and therefore justified but then your works count. If you don’t have good works, you’ve violated the covenant and you’re out.

In some sense then, our works justify us. You can see where this would clash with the Reformed world view so how is it that NPP wound up in the Reformed tradition? Well, Wright and the others don’t take the Reformed tradition on directly, they reinterpret the significant passages in light of a different historical setting. Paul then was not fighting legalism, he was arguing Christology and against strict national identity by the Jews. Gentiles could be part of the New Covenant community as well.

But if they’re right, then how can we argue with them? Hadn’t we just adjust our reading and Reform the Reformation? Well, it isn’t that simple. D. A. Carson edited a massive book titled Variegated Nomism in which various scholars take on the issue. What they uncover is that indeed Second Temple Judaism included Covenantal Nomism. But is also included many other conceptions of the covenant as well. That throws a wrench into Dunn’s conception because it proves again that Paul may well have been addressing legalism. That means that the Reformers may well have been right and that means that Dunn and others may well be wrong.

This isn’t to say that these men are evil or deceivers. They have done their research and they remain convinced that they are correct. From all accounts NT Wright is a really lovable guy.

So why is this sad? Because some folks on both sides of the debate get ugly about it. It is also sad because the glorious Protestant doctrine of sola fide is eroded. Finally, I find it sad because in the Federal Vision, it leads to some practices I disagree with. Since Jesus justified the community and, according to Covenantal Theology children of believers are full members of that community… Well, you can see where that goes.

This was a very general summary and I fully admit that I didn’t give it a full nor really a fair treatment. I’ve simplified and generalized so don’t take this as a full definition and understanding. If you’re interested, read the authors I’ve cited and see what they have to say.