What Did Paul Really Mean?
'New perspective' scholars argue that we need, well, a new perspective on justification by faith.
Simon Gathercole | posted 8/10/2007 08:48AM
Pick up any recent Bible commentary or theology textbook, and you will read about something called the "new perspective on Paul." Seminaries have buzzed for decades about how they might apply to Paul the new light shed on Judaism. Some advocates of the new perspective conclude that the Reformers have led Protestants to misunderstand the all-important doctrine of justification.
As a result, the new perspective has stirred more than a little controversy. Ligon Duncan, former moderator of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), said new perspective theology "undercuts the certainty of believers regarding the substance of the gospel message." In June, the PCA General Assembly said advocates of the new perspective should report themselves to presbytery courts, because their teaching does not accord with the Westminster Standards.
Leading new perspective theologian N. T. Wright has repeatedly responded to his critics. Talking in 2004 with James D. G. Dunn, who named the new perspective, Wright faulted his critics for producing websites that "are extremely rude about the two people sitting on this platform tonight for having sold Paul down the river and given up the genuine Reformed doctrine of justification by faith."
So is this merely a squabble among Reformed theologians? Certainly not—some new perspective scholars also teach that Martin Luther's preoccupation with the Roman Catholic Church has led all Protestants astray. Do we now need to reframe our preaching and teaching to be truly biblical? British scholar Simon Gathercole takes on that question in this article.—CT Editors
For nearly 30 years, a number of theologians have argued for a "new perspective" on the apostle Paul and his doctrine of justification. Advocates of this approach believe that many cherished concerns of the Protestant Reformation were either wrong or ill-directed. Those concerns include justification, which Martin Luther described as nothing less than the "key article of Christian doctrine." Yet some evangelicals have found in the writing of new perspective theologians—particularly James D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright—a key to unlocking Paul's original intent. So what's all the fuss about?
What's So New About Paul?One point that needs to be clear at the outset is that the new perspective on Paul is not really what it might sound like. For one thing, no secret society meets to promote this new school of thought. Advocates do not even offer a united front: Scholars generally associated with the new perspective argue with each other just as much as traditionalists do. The new perspective is, rather, a convenient umbrella for a current trend in Pauline scholarship with quite a limited agenda.
This leads to a second point. The new perspective does not propose to reevaluate all of Paul's thought. It says nothing new, for example, about the person of Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Christian life. It is focused narrowly on what Paul says about justification, and even more specifically on what Paul opposes when he talks about justification by faith. In particular, the new perspective investigates the problem Paul has with "works" or "works of the law."
The difference between old and new perspectives can be summed up briefly. In the old perspective, works of the law are human acts of righteousness performed in order to gain credit before God. In the new perspective, works of the law are elements of Jewish law that accentuate Jewish privilege and mark out Israel from other nations.
August 2007, Vol. 51, No. 8
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
1 of 8
share this page
E-mail
Print
Post
Average User Rating:
Displaying 1–3 of 20 comments
See all comments
tony
One of the more interesting theories about the (self-proclaimed) "Apostle" Paul is that he suffered from temporal-lobe epilepsy and was hence prone to delusion. This hypothesis is actually supported by the NT descriptions of Paul's "conversion" experience. So, perhaps Paul should be taken with the same seriousness as we take present day TLE's - ie with a nod and a wink. The self-righteous, semi-coherent rantings of most of the commentaries here is clear evidence that "interpretation" of Paul's writings (and pseudo-writings) could just as easily be determined with the roll of (several) dice.
Walt Mead
What's all the hoopla? As one who has been saved, I can say with certainty --- Jesus saves! Seems like I read someplace that the most simple things of God would confound the grandest thinking of man.
Darren E.
Generally, Gathercole presents a fairly well-balanced treatment of the 'new perspective'. Those of the Dispensational view will have a tough time with it. The central point regards the issue of the Cross and that there is no separate plan of salvation or justification for the Jewish people outside of the Cross. Paul is very clear about this that for both Jew and Gentile, justification is through the Cross alone. What can be pointed out is that the sacrificial system in the Old Testament is a grace-based system, in particular the Atonement sacrifice that foreshadows Christ. Upon the lamb the sins of Israel were laid. There is no Law, but only Gospel hidden in that institution because it is God-initiated free justification for the sinner. But that was only until Christ. For Dispensationalists to say that when Jewish people reject the fullness of that sacrifice in Christ there is another means of justification for them that God accepts, that is completely incorrect.