« Advent Calendar for December 11 | Home | Advent Calendar for December 12 »
N.T. Wright and the “New Perspective on Paul”
By Mark D. Roberts | Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Part 12 of series: Sharing Laity Lodge
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
N.T. Wright is part of a movement among scholars that is sometimes called the “New Perspective on Paul.” In this movement you’ll find a wide range of opinion on many things as well as plenty of internal disagreement. But all the scholars connected with this New Perspective see Paul differently than he has been interpreted by Lutheran and Reformed theologians for the past few centuries. And this, as you might imagine, has stirred up the pot.
The New Perspective comes, on the one hand, from an effort to understand more accurately the Judaism of Paul’s own day, as well as the passages in Paul’s letters where he sounds quite positive about the Jewish Law (Philippians 3:5-6, for example, where Paul says he was “as to righteousness under the law, blameless.”) On the other hand, advocates of the New Perspective attempt to read Paul in light of his own issues and concerns, rather than in light of historic Protestant issues and concerns. They see Paul as much more interested in the problem of the Jewish and Gentile relationship in the covenant than Martin Luther’s struggle with his own guilt. In the New Perspective, certain key tenets of Protestantism, such as “justification” become revised. “Justification by faith” continues to be a key Pauline and theological concept, but it doesn’t bear the weight that it has within classic Protestant and Reformed theology.
Some of the Reformed and evangelical critics of N.T. Wright have blasted him with language usually reserved for the worst of heretics. They see him as undermining, not only Protestantism, but also the core of Christian orthodoxy. In an astounding move, one denomination has threatened its pastors with explusion if they adopt the New Perspective. Other of Wright’s critics are less inflammatory and dogmatic, but they nevertheless express great concern about his New Perspective reading of Paul.
I’ve been surprised by some of the arguments used against Wright’s exegesis of Paul. One of the common lines is that Wright has abandoned the Reformation’s view of Paul and justification by faith. Even if this were true, and I think it’s a bit of an exaggeration, I find it curious that Wright’s effort to go back to the Bible rather than endorse Reformation theology receives such scorn from the very people who base everything on going back to the Bible (or at least they used to). Isn’t sola scriptura at the base of the Reformation? Wouldn’t it be contrary to the very spirit of the Reformation to demand that theologians echo Reformation doctrine rather than going back to Scripture itself? It’s certainly true that Wright may have misinterpreted Paul. But we aren’t going to know this by quoting Luther and Calvin, or even by using extra-biblical theological language (like “imputed righteousness”). Rather, the Reformation itself sends us back to the Scripture itself. If N.T. Wright is wrong about Paul, then this needs to be demonstrated by the same kind of exegesis that he has practiced so assiduously.
Another common argument against Wright’s view of Paul is that it doesn’t support powerful evangelical preaching. Again, I think this argument substantially misreads Wright, but even if it’s true, does it miss the main point? Those who worry that Wright’s view of Paul might undermine preaching is perilously close to an “end-justifies-the-means” argument, rather than an argument that upholds the truth of Scripture no matter what the implications. Once more, the question that matters above all else is whether Wright’s reading of Scripture is true or not. If, in the end, we must change our preaching, so be it. Yet I’m quite confident that the truth will lead to powerful preaching, whether that truth is ultimately consistent with traditional interpretations of Paul or not.
If it sounds like I’m defending Wright’s view of Paul, let me say that my personal jury is still out on the matter. Honestly, I haven’t been able to take the time to work through all of the issues, and, most importantly, all of the texts. But I will say that I find the arguments used by many of Wright’s critics to be way too ad hominem, way too utilitarian, and, ironically, way too Catholic for my taste. I have not yet read one of the latest responses to N.T. Wright, John Piper’s The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. Knowing Piper’s other writings, I expect that this will be a measured criticism of Wright, one that will advance the conversation because it will deal carefully with Scripture. Moreover, Piper did Wright the service of sending an early draft of his book, and Wright did Piper the service of sending back an extensive response. This alone guarantees that Piper’s book will be much better than most critiques of Wright, which usually misinterpret him.
Here is my fear, however. John Piper is very influential, especially among the kinds of people who would be troubled by Wright’s take on Paul. I’m afraid that many will buy and read Piper’s book before and even without ever reading Wright himself. Then they’ll quote or paraphrase Piper, without even going back to read Paul once again to see if Piper is actually right. This, I suggest, is neither Reformed, nor evangelical, nor even especially Christian. One who reads Piper should also read Wright himself, and, more importantly, should dive into a fresh examination of Scripture. Even if Wright is wrong, it’s hard to believe that he doesn’t have many valuable insights into the text, including many correctives for those of us who have always read Paul in a certain way.
My sincere hope is the Wright will pen a response to Piper (well, keyboard a response, I suppose). Bishop Tom mentioned while at Laity Lodge that he might do this. My greater hope is that the two of them might team up, much in the way Wright and Marcus Borg did on Jesus in their book, The Meaning of Jesus. What could be better than having two articulate teachers and brothers in Christ engage in mutually-respectful dialogue on the meaning of Paul? It’s certainly better than some of the flame throwing that Wright has endured from pugilistic Christians.
When I read Piper’s critique and any other, and as I continue to wrestle with Wright’s own view, my main question will be: Who does the best job interpreting Paul? If it turns out that the Reformation misconstrued some of what Paul actually meant, that’s too bad, but so be it. If it turns out that we preachers have to revise what we’ve preached about justification and righteousness on the basis of what the Bible actually says, so be it. Of all people, we who stand in the line of the Reformation should seek, above all and at any cost, to grasp the true meaning of Scripture and to stake our lives and ministries on it.
Resources
If you’re looking for more information on N.T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul, let me recommend:
Scot McKnight, a series of blog posts on the New Perspective by a top evangelical New Testament scholar.
Collin Hansen, “From the Seminaries to the Pews”; a short history of the recent controversy over the New Perspective
Simon Gathercole, “What Did Paul Really Mean?”; an fine introduction and criticism that appeared in Christianity Today in August 2007
John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright
Transcript of an interview of N.T. Wright conducted by Trevin Wax. An extraordinarily interesting and helpful resource.
N.T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul”
N.T. Wright, “The Shape of Justification”
N.T. Wright, “Paul in Different Perspectives”
“A Conversation on Paul with James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright”
Topics: Sharing Laity Lodge |
17 Responses to “N.T. Wright and the “New Perspective on Paul””
Comments
Thanks for your willingness to make a comment. Note: I do not moderate comments before they are posted, though they are automatically screened for profanities, spam, etc., and sometimes the screening program holds comments for moderation even though they're not offensive. I encourage open dialogue and serious disagreement, and am always willing to learn from my mistakes. I will not delete comments unless they are extraordinarily rude or irrelevant to the topic at hand. You do need to login in order to make a comment, because this cuts down on spam. You are free to use a nickname if you wish. Finally, I will eventually read all comments, but I don't have the time to respond to them on a consistent basis because I've got a few other demands on my time, like my "day job," my family, sleep, etc.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:22 am
[…] an interesting post today on NT Wright and the âNew Perspective on PaulâHere’s a quick […]
December 12th, 2007 at 2:13 am
[…] Bob wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIf you’re looking for more information on NT Wright and the New Perspective on Paul, let me recommend:. Scot McKnight, a series of blog posts on the New Perspective by a top evangelical New Testament scholar. … […]
December 12th, 2007 at 2:18 am
[…] NT Wright and the “New Perspective on Paul”By Mark D. RobertsOne of the common lines is that Wright has abandoned the Reformation’s view of Paul and justification by faith. Even if this were true, and I think it’sa bit of an exaggeration, I find it curious that Wright’s effort to go back to the …www.markdroberts.com - http://markdroberts.com […]
December 12th, 2007 at 10:04 am
I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head. Sadly this type of posturing about what the “reformed position” is on a particular subject is nothing new to the US reformed scene. It’s been going on at least since Charles Hodge who alleged that Calvin himself had not escaped Romanist pollutions in aspects of his theology that didn’t measure up to Princeton standards.
That’s not an isolated case. A quick re-reading of the Second Helvetic Confession makes me wonder whether Heinrich Bullinger would be allowed to join the same “reformed” denominations that criticize Wright and their other “boogey man” du jour, the “Federal Vision”? Bullinger would do all right on justification because he specifically mentions imputation, but his discussion of the efficacy of the sacraments and the visibility of the “covenant” might well make this reformed a heretic these days. At least he’d have company… Augustine and Calvin for example, not to mention Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer.
Isn’t it sad when the reformers who began the reformed churches are found to be heretics by their modern descendants? Perhaps it says more about us than them.
December 12th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Charles: Thanks for this thoughtful comment. The church is plagued by real heretics today, by people who reject the basic tenets of the faith, like the deity of Christ. How sad that some people are so quick to label as heretical those who bravely uphold all of the basics of the faith. We don’t help ourselves at all as the body of Christ when we label and reject people rather than enter into conversation with them that might lead to mutual growth in truthfulness.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
[…] Mark D. Roberts does the honors, giving a concise summary of the “new perspective on Paul,” identifying the stakes involved, and pleading for Christians everywhere to go back to the Bible, even if it doesn’t say what we have thought it says. He is right about Wright, even if Wright is wrong, and he even goes the extra mile by linking to a bounty of other worthwhile reading. D. P. posted this entry on Wednesday, December 12th, 2007 at 4:41 pm. Posted in the category New Testament, Theology You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]
December 12th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
[…] Mark D. Roberts, our oft-referenced Advent expert, writes on N.T. Wright and the New Perspective, wi… MOD: How dead on is Roberts? He absolutely calls out what dozens of bloggers and many more preachers are already doing: Here is my fear, however. John Piper is very influential, especially among the kinds of people who would be troubled by Wright’s take on Paul. I’m afraid that many will buy and read Piper’s book before and even without ever reading Wright himself. Then they’ll quote or paraphrase Piper, without even going back to read Paul once again to see if Piper is actually right. This, I suggest, is neither Reformed, nor evangelical, nor even especially Christian. One who reads Piper should also read Wright himself, and, more importantly, should dive into a fresh examination of Scripture. Even if Wright is wrong, it’s hard to believe that he doesn’t have many valuable insights into the text, including many correctives for those of us who have always read Paul in a certain way. […]
December 12th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Thanks, Mark, for your insightful comments regarding N. T. Wright and the reformed tradition. One of the major challenges of biblical interpretation is first to understand Scripture in terms of the time and situation in which it was written and not impose our issues on it. My visit to the current exhibition of a few of the Dead Sea Scrolls in San Diego led me to read some of the scrolls and reflect on their content. The DDS show that these ancient writers composed commentaries on Scripture and penned sectarian writings from the viewpoint of their particular social/political perspective. Now we consider most of their views quaint and irrelevant.
As I reflected on the DSS, what struck me is that contempory Christian preachers, teachers and writers also often interpret the Bible in terms of our perspective often without first understanding what it meant to its first readers.
Paul faced a much different situation than Luther. And our situation and issues are not the same as Luther (or Calvin or even Bonhoeffer). I think we need to be very careful in how we use our Presbyterian Book of Confessions in interpreting Scripture.
My reading of the New Testament and history (and living in Israel for a year)lead me to believe that both normative Judaism and Christianity are direct descendents from the Pharisee’s brand of Judaism (not the Judaism of the Saducees or the keepers of the DDS). It is striking to me that Paul said, “I am a Pharisee” not “I was a Pharisee”. What do you think?
Keep up the great work. Merry Christmas to you and your family, Bill Goff
December 13th, 2007 at 8:18 am
[…] Wright on Paul (HT: Dr […]
December 13th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Thanks for your thoughts, Mark. I have expressed similar concerns about the influence of Piper’s book. I recently raised a few questions regarding his superficial interpretation of 2 Cor 5:21, a cornerstone text for double imputation. The response was mixed…some ad hominem, some theological apriori, and a tad exegetical.
It is refreshing to hear someone else raising the flag of Sola Scriptura on this issue in the blogosphere, pushing for more rigorous attention to the text. Perhaps we can meet some time, as I am in Austin. I would like to make it out to Laity…
December 14th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Mark,
Sorry for commenting so late on your piece.
Thanks for your helpful advice. What puzzles me is how everyone is acting like this “new perspective” is brand new. It’s been around for 30 years (E.P. Sanders!!!). Now, all of the sudden, I have students constantly asking me (with raised eyebrows and in hushed tones) if I’ve heard of the “new perspective.” “Yes. Been lecturing on it for several decades. Just gave your class the lecture two weeks ago. Don’t you remember? We recently finished reading Galatians through the lens of the new perspective. Didn’t you recognize it?”
Ah yes. And, here’s the revealing part: every student that asks for my opinion on the “new perspective” leans toward (or is from) the reformed tradition.
It’s as if we know we’re supposed to be against it. We just don’t know what it is.
RRR
December 15th, 2007 at 7:04 am
[…] had a good report about Hillary and her faith. And Huckabee too. 7. Good report about teachers. 8. Mark Roberts is a peacemaking scholar who is grounded both in the church and academy, and this new post on the […]
December 15th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
“One of the common lines is that Wright has abandoned the Reformation’s view of Paul and justification by faith. Even if this were true…”
*If* it is true that Luther came down on the wrong side of Sola Fide…where does that leave us with regard to confidence in Sola Scriptura?
-Your token papist reader
December 15th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Err…that smiley comes across a little more haughty and devilish than I intended. My bad.
Say, where’s the edit button?
December 16th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Tom: Not to worry. It was not the devilish smiley.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
[…] Steve McCoy’s Mission to Suburbia pageScot McKnight on John R.W. StottMike Todd on Respecting Your Elders (and the fact that we American wing of the Church do a pathetic job of caring for those doomed to be ignored in nursing homes)Brooke Fraser - very talented songwriter from New ZealandDan Kimball on Hell in the BibleMark D. Roberts on N.T. Wright and the NPP […]
December 31st, 2007 at 1:14 am
[…] definitely in favor of Piper’s viewpoint, Scott McNight (5 posts that were very fair), and Mark Roberts (just one quick post - not a full analysis, though there are other posts about N. T. Wright at his […]