What is the "New Perspective on Paul"? A Basic Explanation (Part 4)
Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
NPP righteousness versus Pauline righteousness: The “Works of the Law”
In an excellent piece for Christianity Today entitled “What Did Paul Really Mean?” (thanks, Filops!) Simon Gathercole called attention to the way New Perspective scholars interpret the phrase “the works of the law.” He writes:
According to the new perspective, Paul is only focusing on these aspects of Jewish life (Sabbath, circumcision, food laws) when he mentions “works of the law.” His problem isn’t legalistic self-righteousness in general. Rather, for Jews these works of the law highlighted God’s election of the Jewish nation, excluding Gentiles. Called by God to reach the Gentiles, Paul recognizes that Jews wrongly restricted God’s covenant to themselves.
Gathercole’s comment matches Dunn a little more than Wright, but neither scholar thinks “works of the law” means the achieving of merit through religious deeds. Certainly we can say it is doubtful if many Jews in the Second Temple period were “legalistic” in the sense that they truly believed their works were good enough. But they were still going about to establish themselves by the law:
For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:3-4)
The plain fact is, the righteousness the Jews were striving for was not what God would call righteousness because it wasn’t the righteousness of God in Christ. “Grace” was not viewed within Second Temple Judaism in the Pauline sense:
To say that salvation in Judaism was by grace and imply that “works” in the Lutheran sense were excluded is simply not true to Judaism. Nor should one expect that a Judaism that did not see humanity as fundamentally lost, nor requiring the death of God’s Son for its redemption, would construe the relation between divine grace and human works in the same way Paul did. (Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics, 443-444)
Because of this misunderstanding of grace, the Judaism’s interpretation of “the works of the law” was indeed that religious works were required for salvation. Hence, the offense of the Cross.
Furthermore, there is a big difference between the idea of imputed righteousness (Reformers) and inclusive communal righteousness which is not imputed (New Perspective).
If we take a passage like Romans 9:30-32 perhaps we can see this illustrated better:
What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone. (Rom. 9:30-32)
Again, Dunn and Wright would say, “Yes, but the ‘works of the law’ are these external badges of status within the covenant, not religious works or works of merit.” If true, this would entail the verses underlined above would mean that because Israel’s faith was directed toward the emblems of the covenant and not the Lord [Christ] of the covenant, Israel had stumbled over the issue of Jesus and the salvation of the world. They did not realize that faith in the covenant and Messiah was not restricted to Israel. All nations now had access to the covenant people of God in Christ through the exercise of an ongoing faith in Him.
Faith, though, is not accounted as righteousness in a one-time legal sense because imputation is deemed absurd. Even N. T. Wright, for all his language about the propitiatory nature of Christ’s death, cannot accept the doctrine of imputation. As Waters writes,
Wright frequently avers that God at the cross “dealt once and for all with the sin of the world.” A study of his comments on Christ’s death … in his recent commentary on Romans shows Wright’s consistent refusal to articulate Christ’s death in terms of an imputed righteousness … . While Christ’s death may be said to be atoning, punitive, even propitiatory, Wright consistently refuses to detail the mechanism by which Christ’s death comes to be applied to the individual believer in time and history. (Guy Prentiss Waters, Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul: A Review and Response, 141-142)
However, in Romans 4:4-5 grace is equated with faith in Jesus Christ and is opposed to works. This then means that the supposed ‘grace’ that, according to the New Perspective, the Jews were thinking of when they were speaking of their privileged position within the covenant (i.e. their boundary markers of Sabbath and circumcision and so on), is not the same grace that Paul is speaking about. The grace that he is referring to is something given to a person when they accept Jesus Christ as Savior! Because of this grace, the sinner passes from death to life. Something happens to them; they are taken out of Adam and they are put into Christ! Grace does this, not works.
On another passage in Romans, Seifrid comments:
This Christological understanding of justification is especially apparent in Romans 5:12-21, where Paul summarizes his initial exposition of justification and hope, and restates his preceding argument in a new form. Up to this point in the letter he has presented justification as a matter of the standing of the individual before God; in this passage he sets it in the context of human history, which he defined in terms of divine judgment in Adam and grace in Christ. (Mark A. Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification, 70)
When this idea of “grace in Christ” is coupled with Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:8-9, one gains a true understanding of what “grace” is, and also what Paul means by “works.” Although Paul is dealing with Gentiles in Ephesians (though there was a Jewish community there), he is working within the same frame of reference as in Romans 4 and 5:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph. 2:8-10)
So “works” in Paul are either things we do because we are saved and have trusted in Christ, or they are deeds that we do because we’re trying to gain favor with God by them (i.e. “the works of the law” cf. Eph. 2:15). The former are only acceptable to God after we have been “created (ktizo) in Christ Jesus.” Indeed, they cannot be performed until after we are saved. The latter do not justify because they are performed outside of Christ. But in neither case does the term “works” mean emblems of status.
Conclusion
Though limited and simplified, I hope this has been something of a useful orientation to the New Perspective on Paul. The main issue as I see it is, as always, hermeneutical. In short, proponents of this position allow their relative comprehension of facets of Second Temple Judaism (roughly 500 BC to AD 70) to cloud their reading of the New Testament, and especially of the Apostle Paul. Read as sufficient in itself, the New Testament sets out a clear picture of Jewish antagonism to the Gospel; not because of narrow covenantal boundary-markers, but because “seeking to establish their own righteousness, [they] have not submitted to the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3).
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (suggesting its new name, Journal of Dispensational Theology, prior to leaving that post). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
- 111 views
knew that only God could forgive sin, that justification only comes from God alone (Luke 5:21). What they assumed was that by virtue of practicing the clean laws and being physically related to Abraham, they did not need to faithfully obey the moral law. (John 8:38) Christ told them that both were necessary.
“Works of the law” are usually a reference to justification. Under the OC, one needed to practice the clean laws in order to be justified. Faithful obedience to the moral law maintained one’s state of justification. In the NC, we justified (placed into a right relationship with God) via faith alone, but just as under the OC, faithful obedience to the moral law is what maintains that state of justification.
Paul demonstrates this principle and shows the two distinctions in the law (clean v moral) in 1 Corinthians 7:19:
For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.
Also, Paul recognizes that the Corinthians had lost or were in danger of losing their justification. Look at 1 Cor. 6:11 where the Corinthian believer were “washed” “sanctified” and “justified.” However, when we get to 2 Cor. 6:1-2, Paul is warning the Corinthians that “today is the day of salvation” and that they might have received the “grace of God in vain.”
One who claims to be justified by faith, but who does not faithfully obey the moral law risks being severed from Christ and possibly even put into a position where forgiveness is an impossibility.
formerly known as Coach C
Time to come down off that soapbox!
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
If I am reading your conclusion properly, you consider the immediate historical/religious context of the writers of the NT (500BC through AD70) to have LESS bearing on the interpretation of the NT than Luther’s historical context and struggles with the RCC?
In your words: an in-depth understanding of Second Temple Judaism will cloud our reading of the NT? That statement alone greatly harms your credibility from the perspective of a historical/grammatical/geographical hermeneutic. You are essentially saying that we need to take the Lutheran-Reformed understanding and read it back into the NT in order to really understand what Paul was talking about.
I’m not a “new perspectives” defender, but on this point, they appear to have the upper hand when proposing a sound biblical hermeneutic.
formerly known as Coach C
You are not reading my conclusion right
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Joshua, I think it really has more to do with relying more heavily on “internal evidence”… using Scripture to interpret Scripture.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron, is it logically and hermeneutically proper to discount an accurate understanding of the cultural-historical backdrop to the writing of the NT as germane to interpreting the NT?
Isn’t it valid for the NP’s to say: Hey, gang we are understanding Paul incorrectly because we are reading the issues of the Reformation back into the NT? Because of his struggles with the RCC, Luther said that the Pharisees/Jews were attempting to earn salvation by keeping the law and that the message of Christ was “just have faith, obedience to the law is not necessary” and we accept this assumption. Yet both internal and external evidence contradicts this assumption.
Secondly, I am more than willing to discuss this from an “internal evidence” point of view. Scripture seems to support Wright-Dunn (and I would add Sanders) on the issue of justification more than Luther. Faithful obedience to the moral law of God does not merit or earn salvation, yet it is required for salvation. It is our obligation to be faithful slaves. Those who do not faithfully obey will not be saved (Heb. 5:9).
Justification is entered into sola fide (not through circumcision or physical birth), however, faithful obedience to the moral law is still required, just as it was required “from the beginning” as 1 John states. Timothy understood the Gospel and the way of salvation as a child when his only source was the Old Testament. The Gospel that was preached to Abraham is the same Gospel of the NT, with the difference being that the means of justification is no longer physical “deeds of the flesh” -circumcision, dietary laws, animal sacrifices, etc. - justification is now through faith in the once-for-all sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Yet, just as when in the OT, God told the people - if you do not obey, your sacrifices have no effect, the same is true in the NT. If we do not faithfully obey, we no longer have access to the Sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:6).
In a way, Aaron, Paul here is contradicting your article from yesterday.
formerly known as Coach C
Joshua,
If anybody’s hermeneutics is off it is yours. I did not discount the Second Temple setting, but the article is about the NPP and their peculiar understanding and use of the setting. Try to pay attention before accusing another brother of something of which he is not guilty. I have doubts whether you have even read the previous posts. Your remarks hardly encourage that conclusion.
Further, you appear to be preaching that although a person is justified by faith, they stay saved by being under the “moral law.” You state:
Faithful obedience to the moral law of God does not merit or earn salvation, yet it is required for salvation. It is our obligation to be faithful slaves. Those who do not faithfully obey will not be saved (Heb. 5:9).
That sounds like Galatianism. What is your understanding of justification and hence assurance? And Hebrews 5:9 says nothing about the “moral law.”
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
They say that Doug Wilson is harsh replying to his commenters. I guess “they” have never read much on Sharper Iron. Sharper Iron ought to consider incorporating a Comment Policy. …..oh, it does?….hmmm.
Thanks, Joshua, for a realistic consideration of NP concerns. One of the problems in this debate (as is ever so magnified in John Piper’s misunderstanding of the issue) is that the terms are not defined the same. At the beginning of any debate, term definitions need to be established. The NP people define righteousness as status of covenant faithfulness whereas those of reformation heritage define it as state of holiness. You just can’t attack NP ideas on the basis of verses lining up with your definition of what righteousness is. You have to deal with the definitions first. Yes, I can totally agree that a short 4-part series can be only a brief introduction. But even in this brief introduction, presumed definitions of terms have to be acknowledged or the conclusions become meaningless.
Per the harshness issue. I have already had interaction with Joshua and he is fond of merely mounting a soapbox and setting people straight. His first response to this post was to tell us about the Pharisees. It had nothing to do with the article.
His second and third comments included misrepresentations of what I said. Along with this we get teaching that a Christian MUST keep the “moral law” to be saved (which has nothing to do with the post); and this from a person who criticizes me for not considering Second Temple hermeneutics. Did Second Temple Judaism divide the Law into ceremonial and moral?
As per your observation about the definition of righteousness: well I think I covered that. Are you saying that all I did was to line up verses to prove the Reformation position? I think I did a little more than that brother.
I have a high regard for Wright even when I may disagree with him. If you think I have not represented his basic ideas accurately I would be happy to discuss it.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Well, perhaps, I did jump the gun on your coverage of the definitions. I need to go back to reread your other parts of the series. If I did blow past that, I apologize. I suppose I could have muddled in my mind the countless others who have done that kind of bypass. As I’m sure you’re well aware, staying in touch with blogs and comments is not the focus of our days. However, that is not an excuse for me to post faulty info.
Again, thanks for your study. I’ve crossed the street back and forth several times with Tom Wright. I admire him immensely, but I also have certain substantial misgivings.
(I’d also offer, as an aside, the harshness issue is not one that depends on whatever the other person is doing. Obviously, from your resume, you are a seasoned, studious, respected ambassador. I’d just encourage you to rest in that.)
(I’d also offer, as an aside, the harshness issue is not one that depends on whatever the other person is doing. Obviously, from your resume, you are a seasoned, studious, respected ambassador. I’d just encourage you to rest in that.)
You are right and I appreciate being called on it. My apologies to Joshua and any others who thought I was a bit sharp!
Thank you!
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Paul Henebury]That sounds like Galatianism. What is your understanding of justification and hence assurance? And Hebrews 5:9 says nothing about the “moral law.”
I’m not sure what you mean by Galatianism, I believe that my position lines up well with Galatians.
As for assurance, I would direct a person to read John 14 and 15, Hebrews and more - assurance is based on faithfulness to the covenant and the covenant community.
Your last statement is the most intriguing. I can see and defend two parts of the law: the clean laws (now replaced by Christ) and the moral law. What other law is there? What are we bound to obey in Hebrews 5:9?
formerly known as Coach C
When I saw this article, I thought that I might ask about Joshua’s position here, because this is a more appropriate thread for that discussion than the sanctification thread. But I see Joshua got here first, so that’s taken care of.
Paul, as I understand Joshua’s doctrine, yes, he is saying that salvation is initially obtained by faith but is only maintained by works. Apparently, assuming you obtained initial salvation, you don’t know for sure that you are ultimately saved until the final judgment. On the other hand, God’s verdict about you at the final judgment is only going to be negative, regardless of your works, if you were not among the elect who at some point in their lives experience that initial salvation by faith. It’s all new to me, but apparently the approach has been around since about 2005 when Dr. Rainbow of Sioux Falls Seminary published a book advancing it. It seems to me to be both a third perspective on Paul (in addition to the Reformed perspective and the New Perspective) and an attempted middle ground between Arminianism and Calvinism on eternal security and sanctification. As a practical matter, it seems to me that adherents would be living very much like Nazarenes — ever conscious of the possibility of “losing” their justification and therefore needing to perform up to a certain standard post-conversion.
Thanks, Paul! Your spirit in response came through in bright light! Makes me want to read your other articles even more.
Dmyers— a little off topic there, but I certainly can understand your concern. The problem is that neither Paul, the apostle Paul, nor Wright and his NP view would embrace an idea of salvation that requires God to intervene for “initial” salvation and then requires human effort to maintain it. Galatians, in fact, counters that idea dramatically in the first few verses of chapter 3!
Here, in fact, is where I find most difficulty with the trajectory of Wright. I can understand Wright arguing that God’s righteousness (his faithfulness to the covenant) is not transferred or imputed to humankind. However, Jesus (the man) is the representation of Adam’s descendants—fallen man, and it is his righteousness (faithfulness to the covenant) that IS indeed imputed to us. And with that imputation, we stand in hope, not of our own covenant-gaining works offering security, but of dependence on his perfect life and perfect sacrifice that seals our final declaration of JUSTIFIED! Therefore, covenant faithfulness for us is ALL about faith and nothing about works. Faith is our obligation to the covenant. Works are God’s obligation to the covenant. He has performed and performed well, fully, and righteously. In faith, then, we may inherit.
[Joshua Caucutt][Paul Henebury]That sounds like Galatianism. What is your understanding of justification and hence assurance? And Hebrews 5:9 says nothing about the “moral law.”
I’m not sure what you mean by Galatianism, I believe that my position lines up well with Galatians.
As for assurance, I would direct a person to read John 14 and 15, Hebrews and more - assurance is based on faithfulness to the covenant and the covenant community.
Your last statement is the most intriguing. I can see and defend two parts of the law: the clean laws (now replaced by Christ) and the moral law. What other law is there? What are we bound to obey in Hebrews 5:9?
Galatianism is the term given to those who add works to justifying faith:
See Galatians 3:1-3
and
Galatians 3:10-13
Ancient Judaism knew nothing of the separation of the Law, and neither did Paul. I would love to see you prove that in order to stay justified (implying a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s imputed righteousness) we have to keep the law. If that is true then you can have no assurance because you are not resting on the imputed righteousness of Christ. I am astonished to be reading comments like yours (and dmyers) at SI!
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Discussion