In the 1980s, when the notion “New Perspective of Paul” (NPP) was first offered, it intended to reinterpret the soteriological meaning of Apostle Paul’s writings. To shape differently an understanding of justification by faith to include (by necessity) the personal maintenance of salvation by works righteousness. Among NPP interpreters of Scripture who advocate grace and forgiveness by repentance for salvation under the new covenant, NPP advocates insist there is a works righteousness that must accompany initial salvation as an ongoing way to perpetuate a person’s salvific status. Grace through faith to include works of the law as a fully effective performance-based means of sustained justification. Where without observance of the law, or works of righteousness, salvation is unattainable as a born-again believer inevitably lives through dry seasons of faith, devotion, and practice. Fruits of the Spirit are evidence of justification and sanctification, not a prerequisite to holding up salvific favor. Salvation belongs to the Lord.
The NPP was set against the “Old Perspective” of the Reformers’ doctrine Sola Fide (faith alone) by grace as a means of justification. Its objections against Protestant doctrines of salvation by faith alone stemmed from how the Reformers reacted against the RCC’s abuses. NPP wrongly concluded that protestants read their objections of RCC abuse into Scripture and asserts that the “Old Perspective” holds a false understanding of Paul’s Judaic opponents and their view that justification is by grace through faith to include righteousness that comes by further effort and obligations.
First introduced by E.P. Sanders in 1977, Covenantal Nomism are together terms that claim 2nd temple Judaism accepts salvation by grace as valid, but its maintenance was through Mosaic Law. The Mosaic covenant involved the free grace of God, as shown to Israel. Still, it was necessary to sustain law-keeping and keep oneself in the covenant to inherit salvation. The term nomism (from the Greek nomos, law) originates from the notion that ethical and moral observance of the law involves personal conduct. In his Systematic Theology, Grudem defines Covenantal Nomism as the belief of Jews during the time of Christ who obeyed Mosaic laws out of gratitude to remain God’s people. Still, an initial inheritance of salvation was by election and grace. To remain the people of God, it was necessary to “stay in” or continue in the faith by satisfying the Mosaic law to maintain the covenant. Covenantal Nomism is correlated to a marriage covenant where marriage is maintained by effort, continued intimacy, and consummation once vows are made.
In contrast to Covenantal Nomism, Variegated Nomism involves Jews within 2nd temple Judaism who held that salvation was through law-keeping by various ideas. To attain and maintain salvation, legalism extended through the lives of individuals by different means of covenantal adherence. The distinction between the two rests upon the various forms of Judaism that held a keeping of the law by covenant, gratitude, and faith, to set a person on a path of justification involving progressive sanctification for final eschatological salvation. Both reject the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and personal belief (union with Christ) as considered righteousness.
The timeline of Paul’s mission work in Asia-minor is historically recounted as a period of church development at Corinth by iterative attention. The church was founded between 50 and 52 A.D., with initial success and stability until Paul heard reports of discipline issues sinful behaviors. In about 55 A.D., Paul wrote initial correspondence to the Corinthian church concerning what he learned about the church’s spiritual condition. In reply, in the Spring of 56 A.D., the Corinthian church writes to pose questions of Paul. After that, Paul writes more comprehensively, 1 Corinthians to immediately return the church to order involving instruction and spiritual correction. The course of 56 A.D. escalated further with Paul’s emergency visit (“painful visit) to Corinth for more direct personal attention toward the fledgling church immersed in sinful Greek culture.
Further along the Spring of 56 A.D., Paul wrote a scathing follow-up letter of contention about the purpose of his visit. His motives were of a position and “abundant love” and “anguish of heart” as his desire would be their joy and obedience according to the Spirit and the teachings entrusted to them. Undue divisiveness, isolation, and alienation of members in the Corinthian Church were especially of deep concern. After a period of anxiety while in Troas (Troy) and Macedonia, Paul wrote again to the Corinthians (Fourth letter; 2 Corinthians) and sent his letter ahead before his third and final visit. Before leaving for Jerusalem to conclude his 3rd journey, he spent time in Corinth to deal with the core of individuals of the Church who were causing problems and divisions.
As 1 Corinthians was written as a letter of various concerns about the Church in Corinth (chapters 1 through 6), Paul wrote at considerable length to answer questions from the body of believers there (chapters 7 through 16). The second part of the Corinthian letter responded to questions that were brought to Paul while he was in Ephesus. Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor 7:1, 16:17), were those who delivered the questions answered by Paul as he undertook the completion of the first part of the letter. There is speculation that the questions answered in the latter half of 1 Corinthians were stimulated by the initial letter Paul wrote (letter A) not long after the church was planted.
The literary structure of the letter is further evidence of the clear partitioning between the first and second half of the correspondence between Paul and the Church. The first several chapters (1 Cor 1:10 – 6:20) involve Paul’s concerns about general divisiveness, disorder, and the necessity of church discipline. While the first three chapters involve divisiveness as significant divisions within the church were evident, he addresses the matter with principles as he doesn’t appear to attend to specific disputes or questions. The distinction with the latter half of the letter was a body of disparate matters to indicate responses to particular questions posed by the Corinthian congregation. The interpersonal hardships among Corinthian church members imposed upon one another exerted undue strain that needed resolution. To relieve the strain, the Church leadership, or its body, leaned upon Paul’s authority to resolve specific issues of contention.
Comments are closed.