The “Remnant” And What It Says About “Second Temple Judaism” (II) An example of the poor exegesis I mentioned at the close of the previous article is an NPP view of Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector found in Luke 18:9-14. It appears in Kent L. Yinger’s book, _The New Perspective on Paul: An Introduction_.[1] For those who don’t know, Yinger is a proponent of NPP. As we read through his “exegesis,” note that it is not just NPPish, but quite Reformed as well, all of which further illustrates the decidedly intramural aspect of the NPP debate, at least until it started being openly embraced by our own brethren: “In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14) Jesus seems to draw a contrast between the undeserving publican, a self-confessed sinner who can only cry out for mercy, and the self-righteous Pharisee, who boasts of his religious accomplishments (‘I fast twice a week’) and trusts in himself. Jesus’s message (or the Christian gospel) stands upon undeserved mercy in contrast to Judaism’s proud self-reliance. “However, if first-century Judaism was not characterized by this self-righteous boasting in merits, what becomes of our interpretation of this parable? Maybe Jesus picked an atypical Pharisee for this story, leaving most of the Pharisees looking more like Sanders’s portrayal. But that’s not how parables usually operate. The main elements and characters are drawn from common experience. Otherwise, the surprise in the parable doesn’t quite work. It arrests the hearers’ attention precisely because they assume that Pharisees were among the righteous ones (‘justified’) and not the despised tax collectors. No, this Pharisee must be typical of most. “Could it be that our view of this Pharisee needs adjustment? He does not boast in self-achieved goodness, but thanks God that he does not walk in sin (v. 11). If so inclined, one could interpret the references to his fasting and tithing as self-righteousness (v. 12). But if Jews kept the Law as a grateful response to God’s saving mercy, maybe the Pharisee only refers to his obedience as confirmation of his gratefulness. “Thank you God for making me one of your righteous ones; see, I am seeking to follow your ways, including your commands to fast and tithe.” Also, the opening line of the narrative (“He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt”) may actually reflect Jewish Covenantal Nomism rather than legalistic self-righteousness. They “were convinced of their own righteousness” (v. 9, NAB), not their own self-achieved righteousness, but their status as God’s righteous ones given them through election and obedience. Regardless of the correct interpretation of the parable, Sanders’s work demands quite a re-evaluation.” So there you have it, an NPPer’s attempt at “re-evaluation.” Notice all his seems, ifs, coulds, could bes, mays, and maybes. When I intoduced some of my brethren who espouse NPP to Yinger’s “exegesis” on Facebook back in April of this year, I was told that this parable was directed by Jesus at atypical Pharisees who were the exception rather than the rule, which is the very kind of Pharisee that Yinger first suggested, but then rejected. My interlocutor went on to say: “I fail to see the issue in interpreting this passage the way he does.” So there you have it, a brother’s acceptance of an NPP interpretation of something Jesus said that is indicative of the corrective they think should be applied to a passage they believe to have been misunderstood because of the 16th-century lens the rest of us are supposed to be using. __________ Note [1] Kindle edition, 2011, pp. 12-13.
Posted on: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:26:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015