The New Perspective on Paul

The New Perspective on Paul is a way of reinterpreting the Apostle's New Testament letters, which lifts them out of the "Old Perspective" paradigm, as characterized by Protestant theology, and relocates them into a different theological framework.

Leaders of the New Perspective include New Testament scholars N.T. Wright (1948-present; former bishop of Durham) and James D.G. Dunn (1939-present; former professor of theology at the University of Durham). The work of Wright and Dunn build upon the research of E.P. Sanders (1935-present; professor of religion at Duke University). Although Wright, Dunn, and Sanders, are the most well-known scholars associated with the New Perspective, there are many others.

While the subject is often called "The New Perspective on Paul" (singular), it's more precise to speak of "perspectives" (plural), because there is not uniform agreement among those who challenge the Old Perspective. New Perspective scholars disagree with each other just as often as they do with Old Perspective scholars.

Also noteworthy is that New Perspectivism doesn't question other tenets of orthodox Christianity such as the person of Christ or the Holy Spirit. Its proposed corrections are limited to the meaning of certain Pauline teachings, which have implications for other categories of biblical theology.

Many critics of the New Perspective come from the Reformed wing of Protestant Christianity including D.A. Carson (1946-present, scholar and research professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), John Piper (1946-present, theologian and pastor), and Ligon Duncan (1960-present, Presbyterian scholar and pastor).

Most critics don't challenge all aspects of the New Perspective and even express gratitude for certain contributions New Perspective scholars have made to biblical studies. Examples include the Old Perspective scholar Simon Gathercole (lecturer in New Testament studies at Cambridge University) - who studied under Dunn - who is appreciative of how the New Perspective underscores God's worldwide purpose in Christ given that Jews and Gentiles are justified in the same way. Another example of gratitude is Thomas Schreiner (1954-present, professor of New Testament interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) who is thankful for, among other things, Wright's conservative work on the historical Jesus.

The Background
While there have been New Testament scholars prior to the twentieth century who questioned Protestant interpretations of Pauline literature, two twentieth-century books served as a catalyst for New Perspective scholars.

Krister Stendahl's 1960 essay, "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West" (first published in Swedish), was translated into English and appeared in the 1963 book, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles. In the essay, Stendahl challenged the Reformation's understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, positing that the Pauline doctrine of salvation included a works component. As a result, New Perspective theologians don't believe that Paul argues against works in general as a necessary part of salvation, but only certain works.

Then Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, led some New Testament scholars to amend their understanding of Pauline thought in ways previously unconsidered. In the book, Sanders argues that first-century Judaism was not a works-based salvation like Protestantism teaches. On the contrary, first-century Judaism had a Pauline understanding of grace, a fact misunderstood by Reformation theologians, that conjoined with works.

Dunn coined the phrase "The New Perspective on Paul" in a 1982 lecture he delivered on the subject.

Many Old Perspective scholars use a summary description articulated by Douglas Moo (1950-present, professor of New Testament at Wheaton College) in his criticism of Wright's New Perspective arguments, as a way to summarize the methodological differences between the camps:

"Wright backgrounds what the New Testament foregrounds,
and foregrounds what the New Testament backgrounds."

In other words, the Old Perspective accuses the New Perspective of promoting what Paul makes secondary and demoting what he makes primary. For example, the New Perspective defines justification as being united as Jews and Gentiles under the new covenant in Christ. The Old Perspective contends that ethnic inclusion is a result of justification, not its means. Justification, according to Protestant theology, is the process by which God enables a sinner to come into a right relationship with Him through Christ.

The Issues
There are multiple points raised by New Perspective scholars including, but not limited to, the following:

Imputation or Inclusion
Summary: Certain New Perspective scholars contend that the Pauline term "justification" is the result of a sinner being made right with God and refers to their inclusion into God's covenant community. The Old Perspective contends it refers to the process by which a sinner is made right with God, which includes the transfer, or"imputation," of Christ's righteousness to the individual.

The New Perspective: Wright posits that the Pauline term "justification" isn't the means by which a person is made right with God, but a sign that they already are. "Justification," he writes, "is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." Wright elaborates,

'Justification’ in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people. In Sanders’ terms, it was not so much about ‘getting in,’ or indeed about ‘staying in,’ as about ‘how you could tell who was in.’ In standard Christian theological language, it wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.

Justification, Wright argues, is the declaration of being in right relationship with God.

The Old Perspective: Old Perspective theologians believe the Pauline word "justification" refers to the means by which sinners are made right with God, as opposed to being merely being an announcement of a person's inclusion into the people of God. Wright rejects the idea that God justifies the sinner through transferring, or "imputing," Christ's righteousness to them, but that the sinner is just declared righteous as a covenant member.

One critic of the New Perspective contrasts Paul and Wright with the following table:

Romans 4:5
Paul "faith is reckoned as righteousness" (KJV)
N.T. Wright faith is a badge of covenant membership

Gathercole elaborates,

At its core, the doctrine of justification says that sinners can be miraculously reckoned righteous before God. This happens for all who believe and has nothing to do with observance of the law, which for sinners is impossible. With this foundation in place, we can move on to see how Paul uses the doctrine of justification by faith. The new perspective rightly observes that Paul uses justification to argue that Gentile Christians need not take on the yoke of the law (Galatians) and that Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians should live together in harmony (Romans 14-15). While we must not neglect these demands, we should not allow the tail to wag the dog.

Grace Alone or Grace and Works
Summary: The controversy over this matter centers upon the Pauline phrases "works" and "works of the law." Some New Perspective scholars, like Sanders and Dunn, reject the notion that Paul's railing against "works" was in relation to earning God's favor, as Protestant theology contends. Rather, "works" refers to what Dunn calls "badges" or "boundary markers," like circumcision, of the covenant community, which included Jews and Gentiles.

The New Perspective: The New Testament teaching on grace is a component to New Perspective scholarship that steps from, what could be called, New Perspectives on Judaism, which are subsequently applied to Pauline teachings. Leading New Perspective scholars, such as Sanders and Wright, contend that first-century Judaism was actually a religion of grace in Paul's day, not a religion of works like is traditionally understood in Protestant circles.

In particular, Sanders argues that Paul's emphasis on grace was in alignment with Judaism's teaching on the subject not in contrast to it. Wright agrees with Sanders in that he says readers misjudge first-century Judaism if they believe it was a works-based religion void of the component of grace.

New Perspective scholars further postulate that after his conversion, Paul wasn't fighting legalism as Luther taught, but that he was attempting to gather both Jew and Gentile inside the Abrahamic Covenant (see Genesis 12:1-3). When Paul criticized the Jews for following the "works" of the law, New Perspective scholars contend that he was arguing against national "boundary markers," like circumcision, which separated them from Gentiles, thereby working against the inclusive nature of the new covenant in Christ.

Paul, then, was not arguing against works in general as a component to salvation. He was emphasizing doing away with the specific works that disunited Jews and Gentiles.

Sanders coined the phrase "covenant nomism" (nomism is Greek for "law") to describe how first-century Jews approached the Law. Covenant nomism is that which Paul sought to correct, according to the New Perspective because "there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all" (Colossians 3:11). If first-century Judaism's emphasis on obedience wasn't in relation to works-based righteousness, then works-based righteousness wasn't what Paul was arguing against in his epistles.

Therefore, New Perspectivism calls into question hallmark doctrines of the Protestant Reformation such as grace alone and faith alone, which are doctrinal responses to works-based religious systems.

The Old Perspective: Old Perspective scholars contend that Paul teaches that salvation requires divine intervention, a fact which first-century Judaism largely neglected. An example that Old Perspective scholars cite of Judaism's collective approach to salvation through works is from 2 Baruch (circa late first-century to early second-century):

"Miracles, however, will appear at their own time to those who are saved by their works."

While the New Perspective holds to the forgiveness of sin through the blood of Christ, complimented by certain works, the Old Perspective rejects the idea that human effort is in any way necessary for forgiveness.

It should also be noted that Reformation theology doesn't deny the importance of good works, but it argues that obedience is an effect of salvation, not the means of it.

The Results of the Discussion
While discussions on the Old and New Perspective are primarily taking place in academic circles, they have reached the church. One Protestant denomination even instructed their pastors that if they supported the New Perspective on Paul, to report to the leadership, since it's not in harmony with their doctrinal beliefs.

Catholic and Orthodox Christianity has largely been supportive of the New Perspective since it aligns closely with their understanding of Paul. Taylor Marshall, a former Protestant, turned Catholic, writes,

N.T. Wright is a good enough biblical theologian to realize that Paul didn’t teach personal salvation by way of an imputation of an alien righteousness. That’s why the Anglican bishop has received so much attention – he’s a Protestant writing like a Catholic.

Some earnest Protestants are now scratching their heads and saying to themselves: “You know, everything we’ve always assumed that Paul taught isn’t actually articulated by Paul. Maybe it’s time to rethink the entire systematic theology that we (Protestants) erected in the 16th-17th century.”

If you buy into Wright’s covenantal realism, then you’ve already taken three steps toward the Catholic Church. Keep following the trail an[d] you’ll be Catholic. Salvation is sacramental, transformational, communal, and eschatological. Sound good? You’ve just assented to the Catholic Council of Trent.

It’s almost as if Wright dug deeply into Paul’s writings until finally he came to a door. When he opened the door, to everyone’s surprise, he found that he was on the other side of Wittenburg’s door.

Some advocates of the Old Perspective have stated that the New Perspective is causing some believers to leave their Protestant churches to become Catholic. At the 2010 annual meeting of Evangelical Theological Society, the topic of which was justification and the New Perspective, Wright disputed those reports.