The concept of the faithfulness of God (Gr. dikaiosyne theou) in Paul is a hot topic for the New Perspective vs. Old Perspective dialogue. The New Perspective argues (quite strongly) that Paul never talks about the faithfulness of of God in isolation of the covenant.
According to Paul, redemption comes to the cosmos because of God’s (and Jesus’) faithfulness to his covenant with Israel. Without God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel, there is no Jesus, there is no cross, there is no resurrection, there no redemption, and there certainly is no holiness; not for Israel nor the rest of the creation.
This means that God’s covenant with Israel is essential. Furthermore, it is absolutely essential central for Paul that the cross and resurrection are together the culmination of God’s faithfulness to Israel and simultaneously to the creation at large. Paul was especially focused on this particular dimension of Christ’s redemptive work because he was a Pharisee ministering to Messiah-believing Gentiles. This means that Paul’s mission to the world centered on this idea. Deviation on a single detail of this issue could make or break Paul’s ministerial raison d’être as an apostle to the Gentiles. This is why Paul was more passionate about this particular point of theology than most others (the strength of language in his epistle to the Galatians alone is proof of this). For Paul, removing the banner of “God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel” from above the cross would mean doing away with redemption altogether.
This is what the “faithfulness of God” is all about.
The New Perspective has championed the fact that if we don’t get this bit right, the rest will be askew and our thinking about the cross and resurrection will run amuck (which is precisely what it has done in so many cases). But why is the issue so important? How does wrong theology of the cross impact us? For one, it gives us latitude to grossly misinterpret the cross as granting license to sin as opposed to offering the world the means for a renewed nature. The cross is to be a means by which the sin nature and sinning can be done away with, (i.e., holiness), not to provide justification to continue on sinning.
If we remove the fact that the redemptive work of Jesus is first and foremost the manifestation of God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel then we lose sight of the fact that the goal of the cross is holiness, which is the embodiment of the image of God in the both the individual believer and the collective covenant people of God. In addition to this, holiness is at the core of the kingdom both within and without. This means that the renewed emphasis the New Perspective has put on the cross and resurrection as the manifestation of the covenant faithfulness of God to Israel, has strongly bolstered the case that proponents of holiness theology have been saying for decades and arguably centuries. We’re essentially making the point that the New Testament must be read in light of the Old Testament and vice-versa. This is precisely what the church fathers were telling us when they authorized the two-testament Christian canon.
