New Perspective on Paul

Can I make a request? Could you outline the talk or go a bit more in-depth?

As to NT Wright, I like his historical Jesus arguments, but I think he is kinda sketchy on this theology.

His escatology I think is similar to yours and/or Pastor Dave’s at the crossing.

I haven’t really read up on this as well as I might, but keep in mind that Wright is primarily trying to use his historical methodology to understand Paul. He is not primarily interested in arguing for any particular theological framework. He says that he’s trying to understand Paul from a first-century perspective, and trying to avoid imposing the concerns of the sixteenth century on the text. In principle I very much approve of this methodology.

And what he concludes is that Paul is not using the word “law” (or torah) to refer to individualistic legalism or works righteousness, but rather on the covenant definition of who is Israel. The giant framework behind this debate isn’t works righteousness vs. grace, but how gentiles can be adopted into the people of God without becoming Jews. That was the big controversy in the New Testament church.

I think Wright very much agrees that works righteousness is bunk, and that we are set right before God by the grace of God through faith alone. He just says that this debate isn’t the primary context for the writings of Paul. As far as I’m concerned, he needs to be judged on the merits of his exegesis and not on whether it is seen to be lining up exactly with what the reformers had to say.

Henry,
I was just putting this up here to see if anyone else had heard of it. I haven’t read up on this as much as I should. Not many people have talked about it here at MBTS. I was just as curious as anyone. But I think I will try to read up on it and find out more. I think that I will email Travis’ favorite prof. here, Dr. Tomlinson, about this and see if he has anything to say. He is the expert here on first century life. If he responds, I’ll post the response; he is a very busy man.

Wonders,
You have actually done more to explain the debate for me than anyone else had. I agree that we need to examine his exegesis and not his theories in relation to Martin Luther and sola fide.

John Piper has big one of the biggest opponents to the New Perspective on Paul and defenders of the historic Protestant doctrine of imputation of Righteousness. Robert Gundry, scholar-in-residence at Westmont College, is one of the biggest proponents of the New Perspective on Paul. In 2002, Piper wrote a short book defending the historic doctrine of imputation of Christ’s righteousness. To do so, Piper emailed with Gundry and also had Gundry read over his arguments to ensure the most possible fairness. The book is called Counted Righteous In Christ and is available online here in pdf format.

Hey Hank,

I think I am reading a sort of New Perspective book for one of my classes. I am rushing through it right now, but it def argues that δικαιοσύν δὲ Θεοῦ διὰ πἴστἐως Ἱησοῦ Ξριστοῦ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας refers to “the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ for all who believe” like the NET translation has it, which is on the path towards shifting the whole meaning of Romans. I don’t know what to make of it so far, perhaps I’ll work something up later. I just wanted to mention it. (The book is “A Rereading of Romans by Stowers)

Well, changing the text from “righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” to “the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe” may not be that big of a shift. What does “faith” refer to? If this is Christ’s faithfulness then that could very well be the faithful life that Christ lived and his death on the cross. If this is what is in view in Romans (and Philippians and Galatians as well) then the meaning of justification according to the Lutheran/Reformation view doesn’t change a whole lot. I haven’t heard of that book or Stowers.

I’ll be sure to grab his book when I head back the School (I left it there after section today). I hope to respond more clearly sometime soon.

Stower’s book on Romans changed the way nondevotional scholarship interpreted Romans. I am not surprised that you have not heard of it within the devotional institutions that you have been a part of. I had not heard of it either until a couple of months ago.

I am still processing the whole of Stower’s argument. It is completely different than the Augustine/Luther interpretation that has dominated Roman/Pauline scholarship. As a greek enthusiast, I highly suggest you pick it up over break. He makes a lot of subtle arguments from the Greek that add up quickly.

He is arguing for a 1st century, pre-70, Roman reading of Romans. He has the reader imaging 1:18-2:16 addressed to the gentiles, describing their decent away from self-mastery (instead of overlaying the Adamic fall onto the text); 2:17-29 addressed to a imaginary Jewish teacher of gentiles in Rome (not addressing the whole of Judaism or the temple cult at all); and 3:1-9 as the following dialouge between Paul and the Jewish teacher:

Jewish Teacher: 1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?

Paul: 2 Much, in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?

Jewish Teacher: 4 By no means! Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written, “So that you may be justified in your words, and prevail in your judging.”

Paul: 5 But if our injustice serves to confirm the justice of God, what should we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.)

Jewish Teacher: 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world?

Paul: 7 But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”? Their condemnation is deserved!

Jewish Teacher: 9 What then? Are we [as Jews] any better off?

Paul: No, not at all; for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin…

Well, I wanted to go on, but I am due in class pretty soon… I hope to bring this up later.

When you get the chance can you flesh out what he means by “self-mastery”?

Yeah, I will do that this weekend. It is a huge part of understanding Romans as a whole and esp chapters 1 and 2.

Hank,

back to what I first (recent) comment - under the “faith of Jesus” reading, we are to emulate Jesus’ faith in God, rather than make Jesus the object of our faith. How does that play with calvinistic theology?

I cannot argue for Stower but my exposure to the NPP and its reading of “faith of Christ” is that it refers to the “faithfulness/trustworthiness of Christ.” As I’m sure you know, pistis can be rendered “faith” or “faithfulness.” The NPP that I’m familiar with says that we are declared not guilty and in the covenant because of Jesus’ being the faithful one or the trustworthy one. It is not having a “Jesus-like faith.” Consider Romans 3:22 in a literal rendering, “but the righteousness of God through trust in Jesus Christ to all who trust…” That is very redundant and one argument put forth is to smooth out the redundancy with “trustworthiness of Christ to all who trust.”

In terms of how this effects Calvinism, I don’t think it does much because this “Jesus-like faith” still is not found in us but rather is the gift of God.