What Did Paul Really Mean?
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 ...
This article is currently available to CT subscribers only.
To continue reading:
or
A Fractured and Beautiful Faith
Streaming This Weekend, May 24, 2013
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
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.