The Righteousness of One: An Evaluation of Early Patristic Soteriology in Light of the New Perspective on Paul

by Jordan B. Cooper

Since the publication of E.P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977, Paul's soteriology has received extensive evaluation in light of second temple Judaism. These works have focused on exegesis of the Pauline text and evaluating Sanders' proposal of covenantal nomism within the second temple Jewish literature. There has been an unfortunate gap in this historical theology. This work addresses the historical claims made by proponents of the New Perspective on Paul regarding Luther's theology and the early church. In The Righteousness of One, Jordan Cooper demonstrates that the portrait of Luther given by many of the New Perspective writers is a caricature, read through the lens of both Protestant scholasticism and twentieth-century existentialist theology. Luther's views are more nuanced and balanced than many Pauline interpreters are willing to admit. In light of this reevaluation of Luther's own theology, early Patristic writings are evaluated in terms of similarity and disparity between Patristic Pauline interpretation and Lutheran Pauline interpretation, and thus it becomes apparent that there is continuity between the patristic tradition and Luther's reading of the Pauline text. Rather than being driven purely by medieval debates about merit, Luther's reading of Paul is both exegetically sensitive and consistent with the broader catholic tradition.

Genres: Theology

158 pages, Paperback

First published June 27, 2013

About the author

Dr. Jordan B Cooper is an ordained Lutheran pastor, an adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, and a Ministry Fellow with Christian Union at Cornell University. He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. He hosts the Just and Sinner Podcast, and is a frequent guest on many other podcasts. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his wife Lisa and their two boys: Jacen, and Ben.

Reviews

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

Persuasive argument, but poor editing. It seems to have been misprinted by Wipf and Stock. Missing words, strange line breaks. These cause major distractions for readers. The thesis itself is strong.

[Knut Kåre · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dette var en glimrende bok, en vurdering naturlig nok påvirket av at Cooper argumenterer for noe jeg lenge har hatt en magefølelse om, nemlig at NPP-fortolkningen (NPP = New Paul Perspective) av Luther og den lutherske tradisjonen ikke har vært god nok.

I tillegg til å påpeke svakhetene i NPPs Luther-fortolkning, viser også Cooper - relativt overbevisende - at det på mange punkter er større kontinuitet mellom Luther og kirkefedrene enn det er mellom kirkefedrene og NPP, noe han mener bør informere NPP.

[Радостин Марчев · Rating 3 out of 5]

Кратка интересна книжка представляваща критика на новата перспектива върху Павел от гледна точка на патристичната сотериология.
От една страна разглеждането на автора за оправданието (и в по-широк смисъл за спасението) при Лутер според мен е вярно – то е доста по-широко и по нюансирано отколкото може да се предположи от прочита на по-късната протестантска схоластика от 17 век и със сигурност по-близо патристичното виждане.
От друга аз оставам с впечатлението, че тезата на Krister Stendahl за липса на доказателства за обременена съвест при Павел както в описанията на неговото обръщение от Лука така и в посланията на самият апостол определено е егзегетично защитима. Това не означава, че Павел не се интересува от личното спасение на отделния човек, но означава, че не можем да пренесем върху него и върху писанията му личната опитност на Лутер отчаяно търсещ мир с Бога (която е достатъчно добре автобиографично документирана от самият реформатор) – факт много ясно изразен например от Д. Дън.
Трето, без да съм специалист и признавайки възможността да греша, на мен ми се струва, че докато авторът обвинява новата перспектива, че работи с карикатура на Лутер, самият той работи повече или по-малко с карикатура на новата перспектива. Аз никак не съм сигурен например, че последната вижда оправданието като свързано единствено с взаимното приемане на евреи и езичници и по никакъв начин с личното оправдание на отделната личност. Това, че аспекта на междуетническото единение заема голяма част от техните писания е очевидно – по причина (както те самите изтъкват), че този важен аспект е бил често и продължително пренебрегван. Но доколкото мога да преценя те съвсем не спират дотук. По подобен начин, макар да твърди, че разбирането на Лутер за вменената правда е доста по-нюансирано от критиката на новата перспектива (в което може и да е прав) последната като цяло оперира в доста по-широкия контекст на реформацията, вкл. съвременното представяне на учението, за което това, казаното ми се струва до голяма степен вярно. Лутер съвсем не е единственият, който работи с тази концепция и настояването, че той е единствената, или дори основната, мишена на новата перспектива по този въпрос ми изглежда пресилена.
Накрая, прочита на патристичния материал ми се струва доста слаб. Авторът избира няколко източника, които му се струва, че подкрепят неговата собствена теза и ги използва като доказателство за нея. Той обаче остава настрана поне половината останали източници от същия период. За някои от тях той признава, че съдържат противни твърдения. За други казва, че изобщо не разглеждат въпроса. Ако това е така каква тежест имат изложените от него твърдения в общия патристичен контекст? Нещо повече – моето впечатление е, че дори в избраните от автора източници информацията е толкова оскъдна, че трябва да сме предпазливи да твърдим с убеденост изводите, които той предлага – ние просто не разполагаме с достатъчно данни за окончателна преценка.
За мен също така остава непонятно защо авторът спира до посочените ранни източници и не продължава по-нататък. Избистрянето и ясното формулиране на доктрината е дълъг процес на развитие. Да се опитваме да формулираме ясно учение за Троицата от същите тези автори пренебрегвайки никейките и следникейските отци например би могло да бъде доста подвеждащо да зрялото християнско учение. С други думи, според мен, сегмента, който авторът избира е крайно недостатъчен, за да подкрепи изводите, които той смята, че следват. За тази цел е необходимо доста по-широко изследване. Разбира се, всяко изследване си поставя граница и това е напълно разбираемо и оправдано. Но тази граница може да оказва немалко влияние върху значимостта и валидността на изводите, до които то достига или поне върху тяхното приложение в по-широк контекст. В случая ми се струва, че е точно така.

[Colm Alton · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book seeks to provide an input on the debates between the new perspective on Paul vs the old perspective on Paul by looking at how the early church fathers interpreted Paul’s doctrine of justification. The author looked at 4 church fathers:Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justine Martyr and the anonymous author of the epistle to Diognetus. The author as a Lutheran/old perspective advocate successfully showed that these authors while not completely in line but at least have overlapping thoughts on justification with Martin Luther thus challenging New Perspective critiques of Luther suggesting medieval catholic context influenced his reading of Paul since the church fathers of the 2nd century have overlapping ideas of justification with Luther. The author shows none of these early church fathers associated justification with Jew vs gentile relations and who is a covenant member of the church. However, it should be noted that the author only selects 4 church fathers so this book could not be regarded as a comprehensive study. I also felt his interpretations of the church father Ignatius of Antioch were at times far fetched and not accurate based on the texts he cited. Overall a good introduction to seeing how some of the early church fathers interpreted justification but not a comprehensive work.

[Jared Abbott · Rating 5 out of 5]

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. - Proverbs 18:17 (ESV)

The New Perspective on Paul (NPP), as promoted by New Testament scholars such as N.T. Wright, claims that Luther (and traditional Protestants in general) have misinterpreted Paul's teachings on justification by faith and the distinction between Law and Gospel. They claim that Martin Luther was incorrect because he interpreted Paul's letters through the lens of debates going on in his own day, apart from the context of the New Testament and the early Church.

But if NPP scholars are correct, shouldn't their interpretation be echoed in the teachings of early Church fathers, who were much closer to the context of the New Testament? Jordan Cooper examines the teachings of the early Christian teachers Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and the author of The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus. I believe he makes a strong case that their teachings are much closer to Luther's interpretation than the NPP. He exposes the NPP scholars' caricature of Luther's teachings and reaffirms that Lutheran/Protestant teaching on justification by faith alone is consistent with the apostle Paul's teachings in Paul's context, not merely Luther's medieval European context.

[Nick Hay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cooper offers a critique of the new perspective, focusing on history of interpretation. The most valuable part of this book, for me, was his clarification of Luther’s views against those who followed after him and against modern caricatures.

Luther is often portrayed as having a strictly forensic view of justification, but a close reading of his passages shows a participatory view that centers union with Christ and creates the new man.

He then takes a selective look at some of the church fathers, examining how they relate to Luther’s own views, and interacting with the new perspective. Some of his critiques of the new perspective are valuable, however, at times he interacted with the new perspective as if it is a single view, which weakened his argument.

Overall, a good read with some important critiques, but not the most substantive engagement all the way through with the NPP authors.

Note - there are some weird issues with the editing/publishing in this edition. Seemed to be missing words in places, but I did not take this into account for my rating of the book.

[Saul Rooker · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short book on several early church fathers and their view of justification. Copper does a good job laying out facts on both sides.

[Jonathan Rodebaugh · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is exceptional as it covers the link between Luther's actual doctrine of justification alongside that of the patristic fathers (and Paul), while surgically dismembering the NPP assertions that Luther held to a strict "forensic" only view of justification. Cooper deals a hearty blow to the NPP crowd as he exposes these incorrect assertions through the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Diognetus and Justin Martyr. For such a short book it packs quite a wallop! I am excited to finish it.

[Chris Mcdonald · Rating 5 out of 5]

This critique of the NPP deals honestly with the Church fathers that it examines and does not try to manipulate what they are saying to fit the authors view point. What the author shows is that some of the key elements in Lutheran soteriology is found in the pre-Augustinian fathers and the key elements of the NPP are for the most part not. The author also critiques modern Lutheranism in it's emphasis on solely "legal justification" while forgetting much of the participatory language used by Luther. Overall I think this book provides an honest critique of the NPP.

[Alastair Graham · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found that this book offers a good definition of the New Perspective on Paul, and gives an excellent and balanced survey of early Church Fathers, with particular attention to the Doctrine of Sola Fida from a solid Lutheran perspective.

[Drew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cooper writes with clarity providing a historically faithful view at patristic soteriology. Clement, Ignatius, The Epistle to Diognetus, and Justin Martyr are examined to show justification relates mainly to soteriology rather than ecclesiology in the writing of these fathers.

[Ben Copeland · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book shows that Luther was much more in line with the first and second century church fathers than the NPP, or even reformation tradition, gives credit for. Good book for an unique take on the NPP debate, or if you just want to see a more honest picture of Lutheran tradition.