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
Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness
Starting a Dialogue with Hip-Hop
The Latest in Movie News, June 17, 2013
It's the Thoughts That Count
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Comments
Displaying 7–9 of 20 comments
See all comments
Forrest Long
This article and the problems relating to Paul and justification are interesting. Unfortunately our touchstone here seems to be the Reformation, with Rome being the culprit. A whole new perspective would be to bypass the reformers and Rome and go back to the Early Church Fathers to deal with these issues. It seems the evangelical church has written off anything prior to the Reformation as a source for sound theological argument. Much could be learned from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its rich theological heritage on this issue, which is firmly rooted in the Councils and the Fathers.
Wan Chee Keong
The article is an informative and concise survey of the NPP. Gathercole's assessment and criticisms are generally valid, in particular point 1. Whilst Sanders' portrayal of first century Judaism as 'covenantal nomism' is in the main valid, Gathercole's contention that some Jews believed obedience to the Law will be rewarded on the final day of salvation (as demonstrated in his Ph.D thesis written [surprise!] under Dunn's supervision) does provide a needed corrective to Sanders'. My criticism of the article: 1. 'Inclusion' or 'covenant membership for Gentiles thru faith' whilst not a primary component of Justification, is nonetheless an integral and important facet. This is particularly so in Galatians ('covenant' appears in 3.15,17 and 4.24). It is not merely the 'scope' or 'application' of Justification, but part of the 'content'.It is not merely the 'tail'. 2. 'Flesh' does imply also ethnic lineage,religious and national exclusivity besides carnality. 3. NPP not in Rom.16.17-20.
Rev. Dr. Wally Landes
Several somebodies need to re-read Dr. Krister Stendahl's "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West." Therein he cautions against reading Pauline texts through any modernist lens; in particular the psychologizing and moral relativizing perspectives of modernity. Faith/Pistis? Law? Works? Sarx/Flesh? What audaciity for any of us to claim that we positively know what Paul meant by such terms in his context...given that his realm was cosmopolitan, polylingual and inter-faith! Egads!