New Perspectives on Paul
I was first exposed to the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) a couple of years ago during a class on Romans from Moody. One of the commentaries that I was using (Doug Moo's NICNT volume) deals intensively with the NPP. Moo does not come from this perspective so his commentary for the most part views the NPP as negative. Since then I've read a couple of books supporting the NPP and so I stand confused seeing good points coming from both sides. (Tom Wright's What St. Paul Really Said? is a good introduction book on the NPP.) All of this goes to show that I need to start back to the text a fresh to examine Paul's letters once again.
The NPP is a view of Paul that basically says that Luther got it wrong. Luther misread Paul's argument on justification by faith because he misunderstood the teachings of the Judaizers, Paul's familiar opponents in early church. Instead Luther read his own experience with Catholic church into the text. In Luther's mind, the views of the Judaizers were identical to that of the Catholic church--salvation on the basis of merit. Thus, Paul is arguing against the idea that you can earn your salvation through the sacraments. So in the typical Lutheran understanding of the text, things like circumcision and works of the law are viewed as sacraments that the Judaizers were teaching one must do in order to be saved.
The NPP says that this understanding of Paul's letters is wrong. Paul is not arguing against this position because the Judaizers never believed in merit salvation to begin with. Instead, the Judaizers held that salvation involved being a part of God's people through the covenant that God graciously made with Abraham. And the badge of covenant membership was circumcision and works of the Torah. These things were markers that identified someone as a part of God's family or His elect. Thus, Paul's argument in Romans and Galatians is primarily against Jewish prejudice against Gentiles.
I see certain things that make sense in both views (you could say that each has its merits) and so I'm still making my way through this issue. Any thoughts?
Here's a couple of NPP websites to learn more.
The Paul Page
NT Wright
The NPP is a view of Paul that basically says that Luther got it wrong. Luther misread Paul's argument on justification by faith because he misunderstood the teachings of the Judaizers, Paul's familiar opponents in early church. Instead Luther read his own experience with Catholic church into the text. In Luther's mind, the views of the Judaizers were identical to that of the Catholic church--salvation on the basis of merit. Thus, Paul is arguing against the idea that you can earn your salvation through the sacraments. So in the typical Lutheran understanding of the text, things like circumcision and works of the law are viewed as sacraments that the Judaizers were teaching one must do in order to be saved.
The NPP says that this understanding of Paul's letters is wrong. Paul is not arguing against this position because the Judaizers never believed in merit salvation to begin with. Instead, the Judaizers held that salvation involved being a part of God's people through the covenant that God graciously made with Abraham. And the badge of covenant membership was circumcision and works of the Torah. These things were markers that identified someone as a part of God's family or His elect. Thus, Paul's argument in Romans and Galatians is primarily against Jewish prejudice against Gentiles.
I see certain things that make sense in both views (you could say that each has its merits) and so I'm still making my way through this issue. Any thoughts?
Here's a couple of NPP websites to learn more.
The Paul Page
NT Wright
posted by Daniel | 7:47 AM
14 Comments:
"Paul's argument on justification by faith because he misunderstood the teachings of the Judaizers,"
Surely daniel you are not going to go down this road. The bible is not a cultural book. Why do we need to understand more about the Judaizers then what is in scripture?
This is how people get arguments like "Women back in the early church were not educated" This is why we should let them preach teach and excercise authority over the men because they are just as educated as the men now.
I have heard these people change the complete meaning of scripture to mean the opposite. If this be the case then we need to go to the scholars and the scribes for interpretation of the scripture. No common man would be able to interpret.
Very slippery path. At the end of the day you take away straight scripture and replace it with historical cultural revelant ideas and facts. Not that your doing this yet...
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
Why not go to Jesus for understanding? After all you have this promise.
"In these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world"
Look at John Bunyan barely any education yet his understanding of scripture especially on Justification is amazing.
".. there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble..."
See the sufficiency in scripture to these low lives called the bretheren. We walk by the Spirit. Our wisdom is but foolishness but we are made wise by Christ.
Daniel, Hello!
D.A. Carson has a MP3 lecture series on NPP. I don't remember the link, sorry. He has some good info.
I can't say I buy into NPP but it makes for interesting reading. It is going to be a hot topic for years to come.
Charles
The Calvinist Flyswatter
Puritan Belief,
I tend to lean toward the traditional perspective on Paul, but I do see good points in the NPP.
However, I strongly disagree with you about the importance of cultural background materials. The Bible is a historical document written in the midst of several different cultures and settings. Interpreting the Bible requires us to study these backgrounds to gain a better understanding of the Bible.
That's why education and training are important to our study of Scripture.
Charles,
I enjoyed looking over your blog.
I actually hear some of those MP3 lectures. I thought that Carson made some excellent points. He heavily borrows from Moo's commentary, which is excellent by the way.
"Interpreting the Bible requires us to study these backgrounds."
So as more evidence about these cultures emerges from historians and archaeologists it needs to be considered, read, understood so that we can Interpret the bible along with all the other documents and research we already have?
Science, History, archaeology etc are good for the apologetics because they eventually prove what scripture already says. I don't think this should be done in reverse.
Puritan,
You write, "Science, History, archaeology etc are good for the apologetics because they eventually prove what scripture already says. I don't think this should be done in reverse."
Why not?
Don't you think that information about the history and culture during Bible times would be helpful in gaining a better understanding of the Bible?
First I am not saying not to read or consider these books. Yes they can give you a better understanding of history and culture during bible times. However the bible is not understood by understanding a culture.
This is how someone who knows nothing about all the other historical resources can have a far better understanding then someone who has all these books and is very learnerd in them. The scripture is spiritually discerened.
Hence the reason Martin Luther had such a great understanding of Justification by Faith. It was because he was Justified by Faith and it had happened to him.
I am saying that the bible stands alone in that it is sufficent of and in itself. It does not need historical evidence of the way the culture was to back up or even strengthen any of the truth or message within. The scripture is spiritually discerned we understand the meaning of the words phrases because they have happened to us. Try and explain born again to a dead person? or Hope to the hopeless or Faith to him who has none.
... or the tabernacle to someone with a fleshly mind
I think Matthew 23 is one of the best texts to oppose the notion of the NPP. It is quite true that proper Judaism is not a works-based religion of Jews before Christ were also saved by Faith alone.
However, it is also true that by the time that Jesus and the Apostles come onto the seen that MANY (especially the teachers and leaders) had turned it into such. I think both the biblical and the extra-biblical literature supports this.
In Christ alone,
mike
Mike,
Matthew 23 seems to indicate that self-righteousness and hypocrisy were problems, but it doesn't indicate that they held to a sacramental-view of do-it-yourself salvation.
Self-righteousness seems to be the basis of Do-It-Yourself Salvation. We either have self-righteousness or we have Christ-Righteousness. One is done by our (supposed) work and the other is done by Christ's work.
At least that is my view.
In Christ alone,
mike
Self-righteousness is also the basis of prejudice. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm not sure that the NPP-Lutheran argument is an either/or discussion. It might be a both/and.
Perhaps work-salvation and racial exclusivism were both problems in 2nd temple Judaism.
What do you think?
Perhaps work-salvation and racial exclusivism were both problems in 2nd temple Judaism.
I am in definite agreement with this statement. Jonah is the perfect OT example of racial exclusivism. As you might be aware, we Calvinists who are continuously having to make a defense whenever words like "all", "every", "world", show up in the Bible often note that this is actually referring to the fact that it is Jews and Gentiles (aka addressing the racial/cultural issues). All that to say, I definitely think that the Racial component was a major factor in 1st century Judaism (and earlier!).
That being said, I am not at all prepared to leave behind the notion that the Jews during this era were seeking Salvation via there own works and worth.
In Christ alone,
mike
Post a Comment
<< Home