새 관점의 칭의 해석, 어떻게 볼 것인가? －그 비판적 평가와 새로운 대안 모색

Abstract

The present writer has attempted so far to explore the fact that both the traditional and the New Perspective view have failed to bring to light the real character of Paul's critiques on Judaism. It is precisely because of their failure to recognize the difference of perspectives inherent in Paul's statements about Judaism that their interpretations of it have gone wrong. From the Jewish perspective the religious pattern of the 1st century Judaism seems to be much closer to the New Perspective view of it as a religion of covenantal nomism than to the traditional view of it as that of works-righteousness. It seems to be obvious that the 1st century Judaism is not a religion of `hard legalism' which regarded works of the law as the condition for entering into the covenant. It could be possible, however, for some Jews who tried to remain faithfully in the covenant by keeping the law to show an attitude of `soft legalism' toward the tax collectors and sinners by regarding themselves as more righteous than them (Lk 18:9). But Paul's criticisms about Judaism are not focused upon some particular groups of Jews who showed such an attitude. Most of Paul's critical statements about Judaism are rather closely related to his revelatory perspective obtained on the Damascus road. Since he argued that “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12), Paul's justification vocabulary must be regarded as a revelatory-critical term. Above all, according to Paul's own revelatory perspective, the universal reign of sin and the universal scope of divine judgment serve as the presupposition for his gospel of justification by faith. If our judgement above is correct, then this makes it inevitable for us to approach it not from the Jews' own viewpoint but from Paul's own revelatory perspective, and therefore to understand his vocabulary of `being justified'as a soteriological term focused mainly upon the matter of getting in on a certain condition. Both the traditional and the New Perspective view have gone on a wrong track precisely in this respect because they all approached Paul's statements of justification from the Jewish perspective in the first place by making it a starting point of interpretation. The traditional view has rightly viewed `being justified' as a soteriological term for getting in, but unfortunately it is based upon the wrong view of Judaism because it was not a religion which attempted to enter into the covenant by doing the law perfectly. The New Perspective view is not different from the traditional in that the Jewish perspective serves as their starting point of interpretation. Thus it interprets `being justified' as God's act of acknowledgment that someone is in the covenant. However, it has failed to recognize Paul's revelatory insight that even the Jews, who were once a covenant people, are now “under sin”(Rom 3:9), a sinful humanity who is still outside the covenant. Moreover, `faith' as related to justification in Paul's letters is not `a badge of covenant membership', as N.T. Wright describes,but an initial act of trust in the Gospel. Consequently, we have no other right option than Paul's own revelatory-critical perspective: it enables us to understand why he combined both `faith' and `works of law' as an antithetical means of being justified even if they represent the two different kinds of means to Paul and Jews respectively. From Paul's own standpoint they all represent the antithetical means of getting in as far as both Jews and Gentiles, who are under sin, needs the same remedy of God.