The New Perspective on Paul
Joyful times! Ellie Anne Cope has arrived — all 9 pounds, 3 ounces of her — and I can’t wait to get my hands on her!
- – - -
I haven’t been able to blog much lately because of Heartbeat, ACU, and this . . . . Finally — FINALLY — I’m working on a book I’ve wanted to get out for a long time. It’s (tentatively) called Megan’s Secrets: What My Mentally Disabled Daughter Taught Me About Life. It will be published late in the spring of 2011.
- – - -
This is from 2005. I continue to hope that the “new perspective on Paul” will gain traction in our churches. I understand why people like John Piper are pushing back, why they’re so opposed to the teachings of N. T. Wright and others. But, IMHO, Piper and others are just flat wrong on this one. (Long-time readers of this blog know I’ve addressed this many times). So, from December 2005:
Rarely do I sign up for Amazon’s SEND-ME-THIS-BOOK-AS-SOON-AS-IT-COMES-OUT list. But with N. T. Wright’s new book on Paul — well, that’s different.
For those who don’t know, Wright is a leading New Testament scholar. To get a feel for the breadth of his writing, check here.
The book continues his ground-breaking work on Paul, offering fresh insight into the way in which his letters seek to form a people in the Way of the Messiah.
Have you ever come across the phrase “the new perspective on Paul”? Most haven’t, I’m sure. But here’s a bit of a summary.
The “old perspective” on Paul reflected the anxiety of Martin Luther over salvation. This view heavily impacted NT studies for centuries. It says that Paul was writing because of the problem of legalism: people trying to earn salvation by their works. So he writes about “the righteousness from God” that is given “by faith in Jesus.”
The “new perspective” goes a different direction, though–one that I think better reflects Paul’s concern in his letters. This says that those concerns about legalism were Martin Luther’s in the sixteenth century, but not Paul’s in the first century. They involve a stereotype of Jewish religion that just doesn’t fit. Of course every religion has some who seek to earn salvation, but that’s not the view of the Old Testament nor of the best part of the Jewish heritage.
What Paul was primarily dealing with wasn’t legalism but inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God. His questions (especially in Romans/Galatians) were more like these: Has God been faithful to his promises to Israel? Will Israel’s faithlessness nullify the promises? Can Gentiles be included? If they can, how can Jews and Gentiles be one? If the Jews have rejected the Messiah, is there any hope for them?
Part of the problem comes in translations that reflect the Lutheran perspective (like the old NIV, though there are significant improvements in the Today’s NIV). E.g., rather than translating a Greek phrase as “the righteousness from God” it should likely be “the righteousness of God”–referring not to the way people become Christians but to God’s covenant faithfulness. And rather than translating another Greek phrase as “by faith in Jesus” it probably should be (at least most of the time) “by the faithfulness of Jesus.” (A good place to see the difference this makes is in Romans 3:21-25.) I.e., the Messiah is the faithful one who has made it possible through his life and obedience to death for the promises of God to be kept.
In other words, the central issue isn’t, How does one become a Christian? (Answer: by faith rather than works.) Rather, the central theme is, How has God been faithful to his covenant in bringing together one people in the Messiah?
Sorry, this is shorthand. The book is brilliant. If you haven’t done much work in this area, it will be slow, slow sledding. But there are pay-offs on nearly every page.
By the way the full title is Paul: A Fresh Perspective. I doubt that the subtitle is an accident. In other words, it isn’t the “old perspective,” for sure. But not exactly the “new perspective” (as led by Sanders and Dunn). This is a “fresh perspective” in which he points to the missional impact of what God has done to bring together a people, the restored “Israel,” through the Messiah.
“People who do not like N. T. Wright…”
[dramatic pause]
“…have never _tried_ N. T. Wright.”
Does that ring a bell?
qb
Congrats on your beautiful second grand-daughter, Mike!
We definitely look forward to your upcoming book and can’t wait to read it.
All the best,
Kelly & Travis Speck
I hope the New Perspective continues to gain acceptance in the CoC.
Also…I like the idea of your book.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Ah, the book we have been waiting for!!
Congrats on getting double-grandpa’d!
I love N.T. Wright’s writings. His perspective on Paul is faithful to the covenant concern of so much of the Bible. I am convinced it makes much more sense in the overarching theme of his letters than a paranoid perspective trying to break down walls of legalism. Israel has struggled with that in the past, but he hits the nail on the head in pointing out that that’s not the *nature* of Judaism.
I’m rambling, but I do love this book.
Also, I’m excited for YOUR book. Megan has touched so many. May she touch many more. She’s quite the evangelist, even beyond her life. So many have been blessed and I’m convinced even more will be.
Yes, congratulations on the new arrival.
Will be interested to see the new book.
Like you, I think that Wright is right. But I also think that the old will endure, at least for a good long while. We think like Augustine and Luther because we’ve been thinking like them for a long time. Not to mention that when the old is preached, it resonates. Again, because the questions we ask the text are their questions which have now become ours. We’ve inherited this. But it feels more like intuition.
Mike, I am so excited about your book…I am so glad that you chose many years ago to share her with all of us. I feel like I know her and can feel her presence in your house. I will definitely read this one…I am sure with tears flowing. And you know it takes alot to get those going for me.
Julie: “And you know it takes alot to get those [tears] going for me.”
Oh, sure!
Love ya’ Julie, my at the ready fountain of tears friend!!
Mike
Congratulations on the newest baby. Grandchildren are God’s reward for raising teenagers. Especially if they happen to be 3 teenage girls programmed to make me roll my eyes. As you might remember we ended up in Abilene and Highland because of our desire to be able to be part of our first two grandchildren’s lives. What a blessing from God. Not only did we love being in their lives we were also blessed to be involved and part of Highland for 12 years. Thanks to God who figured out all of this early on and let us in on it. May you and Diane get to have lots of hours of joy with your two girls. Don and I are also looking forward to Megan’s book. She really was the story of God in human interaction in so many ways.
You may be interested in some of the qualities of N.T. Wright that John Piper mentioned in his book “The Future of Justification”:
“Nicholas Thomas Wright . . . is a remarkable blend of weighty academic scholarship, ecclesiastical leadership, ecumenical involvement, prophetic social engagement, popular Christian advocacy, musical talent, and family commitment. . . . I am thankful for his strong commitment to Scripture as his final authority, his defense and celebration of the resurrection of the Son of God, his vindication of the deity of Christ, his belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, his biblical disapproval of homosexual conduct, and the consistent way he presses us to see the big picture of God’s universal purpose for all peoples through the covenant with Abraham—and more.” (pp. 15-16)
I found it nice that he could disagree with Mr. Wright on some things, but still recognize the good in him.
Congratulations! Does this count as adding arrows to your quiver?
Matthew married last weekend to a wonderful girl he met at a church in Lawton, OK (Ft. Sill).
Excited about your new book! Happy Thanksgiving!!
Good points.
Quoted you here:
http://www.geneveith.com/2010/11/26/justification-as-inclusion/
Perhaps you could direct me? I did a search on this blog (words: ‘justification,’ ‘piper,’ etc.) and found almost nothing relating to how you “understand why people like John Piper are pushing back, why they’re so opposed to the teachings of N. T. Wright and others.”
Anyway, as I’m sure everyone here is fully aware, there was a good debate in Atlanta on the 18th of November at the Evangelical Theological Society’s (ETS) annual meeting. Frank Thielman, Tom Schreiner, and N. T. Wright all presented papers (positions being orthodox, mediating, and NPP, respectfully) and it was all quite well done. I would encourage everyone to read/listen to them.
It is a good thing that at ETS Wright finally clarified his position in regards to how was is finally justified. In his books, he has said that final justification is “based on” a whole life lived. But at ETS he addressed this issue and said that he denied that his position was that final justification is “based on” a life lived (as in your life is what gets you justified); but that a life lived would be evidence of a justified person. So while his books left his position ambiguous (by his use of “based on”), at ETS he clarified that he actually believes in the standard Reformed position (which is Piper’s position)
It is also good to see Wright affirm God’s particular call unto salvation; that is, it is the Spirit that grants faith to individuals following the hearing of the Gospel and that this faith is the sign of one who is justified (also the standard Reformed position).
However, what is continuing to be clear is that it was not Luther who misread Paul, but it is Wright who has misread Luther. He has also, as has been pointed out countless times, continuously misrepresented the reformers. A brief read on that can be found from Michael Horton here.
Wright also still carries a heavy burden in his redefinition of what righteousness means. For it to mean what he says it means is to give it such a unique definition because the term is nowhere else used in such a way in all of ancient literature.
Which brings us to what it means to be declared right with God. In the end, will you rely on your own works in final justification or on Christ’s perfect righteousness? Does anyone dare say that they put God in their debt; that by living a good life God owes it to you to justify you? Do we place people in the shackles of works based righteousness/justification? Or do we completely rest in Christ; in both His life and His death accredited to our account that we can live in Christ today as justified sinners? We must proclaim that true saving faith will live the regenerated life (though sanctification will never be complete until He comes). A justified life lived will be proof of any justification that we claim, not the cause of the justification we receive.
In regards to our fellowship; will we turn back to conservative legalism and preach and teach moralistic deism; a tradition that tells others to put God in their debt by living a good life? Or will we take the fruit of the labor of those like K. C. Moser, R. H. Boll, G. C. Brewer, Ed Fudge, and R. L. Kilpatrick and proclaim justification by faith and imputed righteousness? For the Restoration to survive as a legitimate force for the Good News, it must be the latter.
Anyone who thinks the writings and positions of N. T. Wright have ANYTHING to do with the old legalism of Churches of Christ (and many, many other churches, some Reformed, some not!) has almost no concept of what Wright is saying.
When sacred cows are slaughtered, the mooing gets frantic.
In fact, Cole, Wright repeatedly disavows any such association, instead affirming Second-Temple Judaism’s eschatology as the primary context for understanding the New Testament and relegating any considerations of “legalism” to the second or third tier (if even that high) among the New Testament’s considerations. He might even be construed to deny that “legalism” is even a useful category in the conversation.
Our little corner of popular Christendom is hardly significant enough to presume to call out as broadly recognized an intellect as Wright. That’s not to say that he shouldn’t be critiqued or challenged; it is simply to say that our petty, intramural squabbles about such small-bore concerns as legalism among Campbellite churches don’t even register on the Richter scale of the larger Christendom to whom Wright writes.
qb
Mike, you can delete the comment from November 23 as it didn’t show up as of last night and I had written another one last night (the one on the 29th). Not sure what happened there. Sorry, and thanks.
I find it curious that the word “legalism” was plucked out of my comment and made to sound like that’s all I think Wright is saying. That’s not it at all. Not even close.
My point was this – that when one says a life lived is the “basis of” justification, then yes, that is legalism and can be related to our own history (and the history of other denominations). I wrote of it because I mentioned earlier how Wright clarified his position on this matter at ETS, saying that a life lived “proves” justification and is not the “basis of” or “foundation” of our justification. Wright is the one who brought it up at ETS for the purposes of clarifying his position, and so I commented on it. Forgive me for trying to relate it at all to the heroes of grace in our own tradition.
Anyway, before the word “legalism” even entered my comment, there were multiple paragraphs discussing the latest happenings at ETS as well as the critiques against Wright in regards to how he chooses to box in the reformers with sweeping comments. That was the main point of the comment.
Cole: You misread my intent. But I dig the bumper sticker slogan about farm animals.
qb: Who doesn’t know that Wright is talking eschatology? Perhaps he lives with the guy who thinks that’s all he’s talking about? It actually goes beyond that, of course, to ecclesiology (in covenant group terms) and soteriology. And this is where how Wright defines the word “righteousness” comes in; which is really where the debate happens.
Jr, relax. qb has no interest in, and was not, engaging you in any way. he was reacting solely to Cole and his most recent post. qb