What is the NP: Trying Again…
This whole series on the New Perspective on Paul has come about as a result of my near feeble attempt to nail down what it is and what it teaches. But I got an epiphany the other day and realized that maybe I have been going about this particular subject all wrong.
I have been treating the “NP” as though it were a doctrine of some sort, asking questions like, “what does it teach?” and “why are so many reformers up in arms against it?” These are still valid questions but only if I treat the subject differently. The NP should not be handled the same as say Open Theism – the doctrinal, theological, scriptural and philosophical debate over how much of the future God knows – or eschatology – the debate over which theory of the ‘last’ best fits the biblical corpus. The New Perspective on Paul cannot be handled as such because it is not really a solid concrete doctrinal proposal like the two examples above. Rather the NP is an abstract philosophical approach to Paul in particular and maybe to the New Testament in general.
Context, Context, Context…
The best word to sum up this subject may be ‘context’. As we saw in our blogs on Sanders, he – in Paul and Palestinian Judaism – broke the mold of Pauline study and his general principles have stood the test of time. Paul is not to be understood as a Greek Jew combating Jewish legalism by rejecting both the Law and Israel. On the contrary, Paul is very much a Jew of his day who had a real encounter with the Jewish Messiah who is also the Messiah to the world. If God is One, then he must be the God to the gentiles as much as the Jews; Judaism was not a legalistic religion but rather a grace based religion, but salvation, according to Paul (says Sanders and Dunn) is not found in national ethnic election with boundaries markers such as circumcision, food laws and holy festivals (summed up by Paul as “nomos” or “torah”); salvation instead is found in faith in the Messiah, Jesus. If this is true, says Sanders, then the centre of Paul’s theology is not “how are people saved” (i.e. justification by faith), but rather, “what does it mean to be ‘in Christ’”.
To sum up: the New Perspective sees Paul within a Jewish context whereas the Old Perspective sees Paul within a Hellenistic context. Was Paul a Greek Jew rejecting the Law or a Messianic Jew redefining the place of the Law in light of the Messiah? The Old Perspective opts for the first; the New opts for the second.
Why does this matter?
The issues of contention arise when we approach Paul’s letters to the Galatians and the Romans in which Paul declares that Justification is by faith and not by works of the law. While the old perspective understood Paul here to be speaking in terms of “good works” and universal principles of salvation, the New Perspective seeks to understand the text in its’ context, something so basic a principle of hermeneutics but for whatever reason has been resisted by so many in the traditional camp.
An example of this is in Galatians where the context is clearly and indisputably the issue of ‘what is required of Gentiles to be Christian?’ Do they need to first become Jews by keeping the Torah, the Jewish laws that separated Gods people from everybody else, particularly circumcision, food laws and holy days? Paul is adamant, by no means! Justification is by faith in Jesus the Messiah, not by works of the law (i.e. nomos = torah). In other words, Paul is not addressing ‘good works’ in this text! And it is this undeniable truth of the text that has steamed up so many Reformers.
The irony in this is that those who are push for the New Perspective, particularly James Dunn and N.T. Wright, do not believe they are denying the reformed doctrine of Justification by faith alone, and they go so far as to state outright this fact:
“At the same time I see no reason to dispute – indeed, I wish strongly to affirm on my own account – what the more traditional emphasis highlights and underscores… that justification by faith is at the core of Paul’s gospel and theology [Sanders would dispute this], what is at stake is to secure a properly rounded and integrated grasp of Paul’s teaching” – Dunn, p.369
“Some still use [Paul] to legitimate an old-style ‘preaching of the gospel’ in which the basic problem is human sin and pride and the basic answer is the cross of Christ. Others, without wishing to deny this as part of the Pauline message, are struggling to do justice to the wider categories and the larger questions that seem to be a non-negotiable part of Paul’s whole teaching. This, indeed, is the category into which I would put myself.” – Wright, p.22, italics added.
So what’s clear is that those who adhere to the so called New Perspective, their agenda is to understand and grasp as much from the text of the scriptures as they can – and this is done by good an proper biblical hermeneutics! That while Justification by faith alone is true, Paul has something more – or something else perhaps – in mind. That Gentiles can come to Christ without having to go through the law (i.e. Torah), in particular circumcision, food laws and holy days.
Let me conclude then by suggesting that the ridiculous phrase “New Perspective on Paul” should be discarded altogether, for it is wholly inaccurate and useless. A better phrase, which is no new phrase at all, would be ‘good and proper hermeneutics’ since that is the aim and success of those who adhere to it. The irony then is that so many Reformers resist interpreting Paul in his context when claiming as a fundamental to their entire belief system solo scriptura! If they wish to dispute this or that part of Dunn and Wrights interpretation, that is agreeable and indeed for critical purposes, encouraged. But to disregard the system of Dunn and Wright is to disregard wholly accepted principles of exegesis and hermeneutics!
In light of this epiphany I have decided that it would be counter-productive (not to mention daunting to everybody) to examine Dunn’s book to the same extent I did Sanders. Through Dunn’s study I began to grasp more of Paul and his letters then before, yet still I find much to disagree with on this or that point. However, having now a greater understanding of the New Perspective – come on folks another term already! – I have once again and finally return to Wrights book, What Saint Paul Really Said?, and am joyfully gleaning!
Until next time, be wholly His
Derek
This whole series on the New Perspective on Paul has come about as a result of my near feeble attempt to nail down what it is and what it teaches. But I got an epiphany the other day and realized that maybe I have been going about this particular subject all wrong.
I have been treating the “NP” as though it were a doctrine of some sort, asking questions like, “what does it teach?” and “why are so many reformers up in arms against it?” These are still valid questions but only if I treat the subject differently. The NP should not be handled the same as say Open Theism – the doctrinal, theological, scriptural and philosophical debate over how much of the future God knows – or eschatology – the debate over which theory of the ‘last’ best fits the biblical corpus. The New Perspective on Paul cannot be handled as such because it is not really a solid concrete doctrinal proposal like the two examples above. Rather the NP is an abstract philosophical approach to Paul in particular and maybe to the New Testament in general.
Context, Context, Context…
The best word to sum up this subject may be ‘context’. As we saw in our blogs on Sanders, he – in Paul and Palestinian Judaism – broke the mold of Pauline study and his general principles have stood the test of time. Paul is not to be understood as a Greek Jew combating Jewish legalism by rejecting both the Law and Israel. On the contrary, Paul is very much a Jew of his day who had a real encounter with the Jewish Messiah who is also the Messiah to the world. If God is One, then he must be the God to the gentiles as much as the Jews; Judaism was not a legalistic religion but rather a grace based religion, but salvation, according to Paul (says Sanders and Dunn) is not found in national ethnic election with boundaries markers such as circumcision, food laws and holy festivals (summed up by Paul as “nomos” or “torah”); salvation instead is found in faith in the Messiah, Jesus. If this is true, says Sanders, then the centre of Paul’s theology is not “how are people saved” (i.e. justification by faith), but rather, “what does it mean to be ‘in Christ’”.
To sum up: the New Perspective sees Paul within a Jewish context whereas the Old Perspective sees Paul within a Hellenistic context. Was Paul a Greek Jew rejecting the Law or a Messianic Jew redefining the place of the Law in light of the Messiah? The Old Perspective opts for the first; the New opts for the second.
Why does this matter?
The issues of contention arise when we approach Paul’s letters to the Galatians and the Romans in which Paul declares that Justification is by faith and not by works of the law. While the old perspective understood Paul here to be speaking in terms of “good works” and universal principles of salvation, the New Perspective seeks to understand the text in its’ context, something so basic a principle of hermeneutics but for whatever reason has been resisted by so many in the traditional camp.
An example of this is in Galatians where the context is clearly and indisputably the issue of ‘what is required of Gentiles to be Christian?’ Do they need to first become Jews by keeping the Torah, the Jewish laws that separated Gods people from everybody else, particularly circumcision, food laws and holy days? Paul is adamant, by no means! Justification is by faith in Jesus the Messiah, not by works of the law (i.e. nomos = torah). In other words, Paul is not addressing ‘good works’ in this text! And it is this undeniable truth of the text that has steamed up so many Reformers.
The irony in this is that those who are push for the New Perspective, particularly James Dunn and N.T. Wright, do not believe they are denying the reformed doctrine of Justification by faith alone, and they go so far as to state outright this fact:
“At the same time I see no reason to dispute – indeed, I wish strongly to affirm on my own account – what the more traditional emphasis highlights and underscores… that justification by faith is at the core of Paul’s gospel and theology [Sanders would dispute this], what is at stake is to secure a properly rounded and integrated grasp of Paul’s teaching” – Dunn, p.369
“Some still use [Paul] to legitimate an old-style ‘preaching of the gospel’ in which the basic problem is human sin and pride and the basic answer is the cross of Christ. Others, without wishing to deny this as part of the Pauline message, are struggling to do justice to the wider categories and the larger questions that seem to be a non-negotiable part of Paul’s whole teaching. This, indeed, is the category into which I would put myself.” – Wright, p.22, italics added.
So what’s clear is that those who adhere to the so called New Perspective, their agenda is to understand and grasp as much from the text of the scriptures as they can – and this is done by good an proper biblical hermeneutics! That while Justification by faith alone is true, Paul has something more – or something else perhaps – in mind. That Gentiles can come to Christ without having to go through the law (i.e. Torah), in particular circumcision, food laws and holy days.
Let me conclude then by suggesting that the ridiculous phrase “New Perspective on Paul” should be discarded altogether, for it is wholly inaccurate and useless. A better phrase, which is no new phrase at all, would be ‘good and proper hermeneutics’ since that is the aim and success of those who adhere to it. The irony then is that so many Reformers resist interpreting Paul in his context when claiming as a fundamental to their entire belief system solo scriptura! If they wish to dispute this or that part of Dunn and Wrights interpretation, that is agreeable and indeed for critical purposes, encouraged. But to disregard the system of Dunn and Wright is to disregard wholly accepted principles of exegesis and hermeneutics!
In light of this epiphany I have decided that it would be counter-productive (not to mention daunting to everybody) to examine Dunn’s book to the same extent I did Sanders. Through Dunn’s study I began to grasp more of Paul and his letters then before, yet still I find much to disagree with on this or that point. However, having now a greater understanding of the New Perspective – come on folks another term already! – I have once again and finally return to Wrights book, What Saint Paul Really Said?, and am joyfully gleaning!
Until next time, be wholly His
Derek
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment