I’m not convinced that a consistent point of view emerges from ‘the genuine letters’ or that they are certainly unreconstructed monographs. Still, I have long been sceptical of the New Perspective, basically because Covenantal Nomism seems to me still to be Nomism and still to turn on the idea of obedience and expiation being enough to fulfil the Covenant from ‘our’ side, whereas one way or another Paul believes that nothing that we can do - emphasis on ‘do’ - is enough. The commitment of faith is enough but it’s not an action by us but involves some sort of a mixture (here you wouldn’t agree) of our agency with God’s.
I think we need to think of the political aspect of the Covenant in Judaic and in Pauline thought. How do we fit the restoration of the Kingdom with the triumph of the Church in all the nations?
There is nothing in Paul, I think, that calls on Jewish people to abandon their sacred practises but no indication that any non-Jew should take them up. Collection for Jerusalem, yes, calling for support for the Temple sacrifices, no. There is the Advantage of the Jew but many recent theological developments are rubbish - perhaps the translation should be more robust. It’s very hard to see how all this settles down, though I struggle to think that its crucial component is the Covenant.
I think you are rightly sensitive to the way the New Perspective was a release from Supersessionism and all the trouble we had with that. But maybe, as you say, it isn’t really the answer
I’m not convinced that a consistent point of view emerges from ‘the genuine letters’ or that they are certainly unreconstructed monographs. Still, I have long been sceptical of the New Perspective, basically because Covenantal Nomism seems to me still to be Nomism and still to turn on the idea of obedience and expiation being enough to fulfil the Covenant from ‘our’ side, whereas one way or another Paul believes that nothing that we can do - emphasis on ‘do’ - is enough. The commitment of faith is enough but it’s not an action by us but involves some sort of a mixture (here you wouldn’t agree) of our agency with God’s.
I think we need to think of the political aspect of the Covenant in Judaic and in Pauline thought. How do we fit the restoration of the Kingdom with the triumph of the Church in all the nations?
There is nothing in Paul, I think, that calls on Jewish people to abandon their sacred practises but no indication that any non-Jew should take them up. Collection for Jerusalem, yes, calling for support for the Temple sacrifices, no. There is the Advantage of the Jew but many recent theological developments are rubbish - perhaps the translation should be more robust. It’s very hard to see how all this settles down, though I struggle to think that its crucial component is the Covenant.
I think you are rightly sensitive to the way the New Perspective was a release from Supersessionism and all the trouble we had with that. But maybe, as you say, it isn’t really the answer