Who's heard what about the New Perspective on Paul?
I've found so few people familiar with what it's about. I'd be interested to know what you've heard it's about.
I thought I'd post a couple of things here so you have some idea what's happening within this theological movement. I have particular reservations about virtually every theologian, and the NPP theologians are no exception. However, I think the reaction of Reformed theologians is very much out of proportion to the clear value of the the New Perspective movement.
The main thesis of all New Perspective theologians is that within modern Pauline theology every line of theological system has made certain biased interpretations of Paul. Most of the theologians have their own biased explanations where this bias came from; but they're all agreed there's a certain "cherry-picking" of Paul's words going on to try to favor one or another systematic theology.
Probably the foremost conservative theologian in this group is N.T. Wright, from the Anglican church. He's both a pastor and considered among the foremost exegetes of Paul today. He's not the sole conservative representative, though. Plenty of NP theologians are the regular liberal imagineers of ancient history. But a number of them are also careful scholars.
Reformed theologians have reacted -- and reacted badly -- to the conclusions and thrust of arguments within the New Perspective. They've attacked Wright outright, alleging things about him and his views that have contradicted Wright's written, published, and expressed statements. Frankly, they have done so after the fact too, making allegations that Wright didn't simply deny -- he denied them before they were even aired against him. Wright's most provocative statements are normally misinterpreted, expanded rhetorically to "Well he must mean ..." when in context he's explicitly stated why he doesn't mean them.
Given all that, I think it's worth mentioning issues I have with Wright in particular as I'm trying to apply some of his own methodologies back to his conclusions.
Final Justification/Judgement by Works
The most prominent of these issues is over Wright's view of justification. But you'd have to recognize what's meant by justification in Scripture to focus this argument. Y'see, "justification" and "judgement" are often the same words in Greek Scripture. So Scripture actually talks about Future Justification (ie, Final Judgement) explicitly, as well as Present Justification (ie, Present Judgement/Conviction). The arguments here are very interesting, and Wright has a number of valid points to make. However, he concludes that Future Justification is by works, although Present Justification is by faith. In Wright's view the Final Judgement will judge God's people by their works. This Wright draws from texts like Romans 2, 1 Cor 3, 2 Cor 5 to establish this. Sympathizers tend to pull in Matthew 25 on this count, too (but I haven't found Wright pulling on this passage, as it's not Pauline).
To me, something about works is being judged, of course. But to consider this to be the basis for God declaring a man righteous seems to me to go too far, even for Wright. For instance, only one of these passages calls these thinks "judgments" -- the passage in Romans 2. What's more on its heels is a provocative statement about future justification by faith directly from Paul: "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." Rom 3:28-30
Given that I "run in the same system" of exegesis and find Wright very informative about what Paul is saying, I hope you'll hear me when I say, this view of Wright's is not required to see Paul from the New Perspective.
Imputation
Wright also has serious reservations about the theological precepts entered in under the name of "imputation". He points out the word is seldom used by Paul. And further only one very general verse can even be brought to bear directly on the idea of imputed righteousness: 1 Cor 1:30 -- "He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption."
It's significant to me that Wright doesn't deny the results of imputation, but more its method. He essentially says that whatever is thought to be imputed to us, is indeed considered or "reckoned" to be ours, but not by imputation. It's considered to be ours because of our union with Christ.
And so to me Wright doesn't so much have a problem with the concept of imputation, but with the concept of justification by imputation alone. With this most Calvinists can agree. Without lopping off the arm of imputation we can still say imputation doesn't work in isolation, but it works as an organic part of our union with Christ.
We have to realize there are people who subdivide these things. I'm not talking about any "good Reformed theologian." But there are people who consider that we "got imputation" when we walked the aisle. To them if we've "got imputation", our relationship with Christ -- our covenantal union with the Son of God -- doesn't matter. Free Grace theologians come to mind.
To object, Wright has made a minimally valid point about imputation and essentially blown it out of proportion against such thinking.
If we were to look at the "redemption exchange" that Paul talks about as our ministry in the world -- "redeeming the times", "redeeming people out of the world", "pleading with you -- be reconciled to Christ", I think we must buckle under the fact that Paul is using exchange analogies to explain such things. He uses a marketplace analogy. What happens in the marketplace? We exchange money for goods. So I think Wright's pooh-pooh-ing of imputation doesn't hold up to intense scrutiny.
Still, Wright has made some points against the way we use "imputation". The idea that we are exchanging sin for righteousness is not highly visible in Paul's explanation. What's being exchanged? People. God's exchanging His sacrifice to gain people. God's doing the imputation.
And at 2 Cor 5:20-21 (whose meaning Wright has a different view, and one that is more convincing than at first appears) if we take the classic view we are exchanging sin for righteousness, but only because Christ is become sin (or sacrifice for sin) "for us" -- again, for our sakes, out of His union with us.
Again, good ideas, but I think a misstep.
Righteousness of God
I have to preface this, because it's been alleged Wright doesn't believe we receive righteousness from Christ: Wright believes we do. He's said so.
There's a phrase Paul uses, though: "God's righteousness"or "the righteousness of God", that Wright thinks invariably refers to God's innate righteousness -- His justice when He judges.
This again is an important meaning we can't ignore. Early Reformed theologians admitted, no one can really consider God's justice (ie, His righteousness) is communicated completely to His creatures. It simply can't happen this way. So Wright has a valid point: when God's justice is meant, it can't mean His justice is really transferred to us. Yet ... Paul would often be saying this exact thing, were Paul speaking plainly.
Wright pulls back from that view. But I think he swings too far the other way. There're places where Paul just doesn't seem to fit this model when he's saying, "God's righteousness." So while I think Wright has a point here, I don't think it's comprehensive.
Ultimately, Wright believes we are declared righteous in Christ, having received righteousness from Him. Wright's quoted Philippians 3:9 to that effect. It's not an issue for him.
I've found so few people familiar with what it's about. I'd be interested to know what you've heard it's about.
I thought I'd post a couple of things here so you have some idea what's happening within this theological movement. I have particular reservations about virtually every theologian, and the NPP theologians are no exception. However, I think the reaction of Reformed theologians is very much out of proportion to the clear value of the the New Perspective movement.
The main thesis of all New Perspective theologians is that within modern Pauline theology every line of theological system has made certain biased interpretations of Paul. Most of the theologians have their own biased explanations where this bias came from; but they're all agreed there's a certain "cherry-picking" of Paul's words going on to try to favor one or another systematic theology.
Probably the foremost conservative theologian in this group is N.T. Wright, from the Anglican church. He's both a pastor and considered among the foremost exegetes of Paul today. He's not the sole conservative representative, though. Plenty of NP theologians are the regular liberal imagineers of ancient history. But a number of them are also careful scholars.
Reformed theologians have reacted -- and reacted badly -- to the conclusions and thrust of arguments within the New Perspective. They've attacked Wright outright, alleging things about him and his views that have contradicted Wright's written, published, and expressed statements. Frankly, they have done so after the fact too, making allegations that Wright didn't simply deny -- he denied them before they were even aired against him. Wright's most provocative statements are normally misinterpreted, expanded rhetorically to "Well he must mean ..." when in context he's explicitly stated why he doesn't mean them.
Given all that, I think it's worth mentioning issues I have with Wright in particular as I'm trying to apply some of his own methodologies back to his conclusions.
Final Justification/Judgement by Works
The most prominent of these issues is over Wright's view of justification. But you'd have to recognize what's meant by justification in Scripture to focus this argument. Y'see, "justification" and "judgement" are often the same words in Greek Scripture. So Scripture actually talks about Future Justification (ie, Final Judgement) explicitly, as well as Present Justification (ie, Present Judgement/Conviction). The arguments here are very interesting, and Wright has a number of valid points to make. However, he concludes that Future Justification is by works, although Present Justification is by faith. In Wright's view the Final Judgement will judge God's people by their works. This Wright draws from texts like Romans 2, 1 Cor 3, 2 Cor 5 to establish this. Sympathizers tend to pull in Matthew 25 on this count, too (but I haven't found Wright pulling on this passage, as it's not Pauline).
To me, something about works is being judged, of course. But to consider this to be the basis for God declaring a man righteous seems to me to go too far, even for Wright. For instance, only one of these passages calls these thinks "judgments" -- the passage in Romans 2. What's more on its heels is a provocative statement about future justification by faith directly from Paul: "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." Rom 3:28-30
Given that I "run in the same system" of exegesis and find Wright very informative about what Paul is saying, I hope you'll hear me when I say, this view of Wright's is not required to see Paul from the New Perspective.
Imputation
Wright also has serious reservations about the theological precepts entered in under the name of "imputation". He points out the word is seldom used by Paul. And further only one very general verse can even be brought to bear directly on the idea of imputed righteousness: 1 Cor 1:30 -- "He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption."
It's significant to me that Wright doesn't deny the results of imputation, but more its method. He essentially says that whatever is thought to be imputed to us, is indeed considered or "reckoned" to be ours, but not by imputation. It's considered to be ours because of our union with Christ.
And so to me Wright doesn't so much have a problem with the concept of imputation, but with the concept of justification by imputation alone. With this most Calvinists can agree. Without lopping off the arm of imputation we can still say imputation doesn't work in isolation, but it works as an organic part of our union with Christ.
We have to realize there are people who subdivide these things. I'm not talking about any "good Reformed theologian." But there are people who consider that we "got imputation" when we walked the aisle. To them if we've "got imputation", our relationship with Christ -- our covenantal union with the Son of God -- doesn't matter. Free Grace theologians come to mind.
To object, Wright has made a minimally valid point about imputation and essentially blown it out of proportion against such thinking.
If we were to look at the "redemption exchange" that Paul talks about as our ministry in the world -- "redeeming the times", "redeeming people out of the world", "pleading with you -- be reconciled to Christ", I think we must buckle under the fact that Paul is using exchange analogies to explain such things. He uses a marketplace analogy. What happens in the marketplace? We exchange money for goods. So I think Wright's pooh-pooh-ing of imputation doesn't hold up to intense scrutiny.
Still, Wright has made some points against the way we use "imputation". The idea that we are exchanging sin for righteousness is not highly visible in Paul's explanation. What's being exchanged? People. God's exchanging His sacrifice to gain people. God's doing the imputation.
And at 2 Cor 5:20-21 (whose meaning Wright has a different view, and one that is more convincing than at first appears) if we take the classic view we are exchanging sin for righteousness, but only because Christ is become sin (or sacrifice for sin) "for us" -- again, for our sakes, out of His union with us.
Again, good ideas, but I think a misstep.
Righteousness of God
I have to preface this, because it's been alleged Wright doesn't believe we receive righteousness from Christ: Wright believes we do. He's said so.
There's a phrase Paul uses, though: "God's righteousness"or "the righteousness of God", that Wright thinks invariably refers to God's innate righteousness -- His justice when He judges.
This again is an important meaning we can't ignore. Early Reformed theologians admitted, no one can really consider God's justice (ie, His righteousness) is communicated completely to His creatures. It simply can't happen this way. So Wright has a valid point: when God's justice is meant, it can't mean His justice is really transferred to us. Yet ... Paul would often be saying this exact thing, were Paul speaking plainly.
Wright pulls back from that view. But I think he swings too far the other way. There're places where Paul just doesn't seem to fit this model when he's saying, "God's righteousness." So while I think Wright has a point here, I don't think it's comprehensive.
Ultimately, Wright believes we are declared righteous in Christ, having received righteousness from Him. Wright's quoted Philippians 3:9 to that effect. It's not an issue for him.
