Recent decades have witnessed a change in views of Pauline theology. A growing number of evangelicals have endorsed a view called the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) which significantly departs from the Reformation emphasis on justification by faith alone. The NPP has followed in the path of historical criticism's rejection of an orthodox view of biblical inspiration, and has adopted an existential view of biblical interpretation. The best-known spokesmen for the NPP are E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright. With only slight differences in their defenses of the NPP, all three have adopted " covenantal nomism, " which essentially gives a role in salvation to works of the law of Moses. A survey of historical elements leading up to the NPP isolates several influences: Jewish opposition to the Jesus of the Gospels and Pauline literature, Luther's alleged antisemitism, and historical-criticism. The NPP is not actually new; it is simply a simultaneous convergence of a number of old aberrations in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. When discussing the rise of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), few theologians carefully scrutinize its historical and presuppositional antecedents. Many treat it merely as a 20th-century phenomenon; something that is relatively " new " arising within the last thirty or forty years. They erroneously isolate it from its long history of development. The NPP, however, is not new but is the revival of an old ideology that has been around for the many centuries of church history: the revival of works as efficacious for salvation. One should emphasize that the NPP is the direct offspring of historical-critical ideologies. The same ideologies that destroyed orthodox views of inspiration and the trustworthiness of the Scriptures gave rise to the NPP. Historical critics first questioned the inspiration and integrity of the Gospels and then moved with the same intent in the letters of Paul. The
See Full PDF See Full PDF
Download Free PDF View PDF
One of the most contentious and contemporary debates within Pauline theology revolves around the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). Central to the NPP is the question of whether Judaism should be characterized as legalistic, as asserted during the Reformation era, notably by reformers like Luther and others in the sixteenth century. Scholars associated with the NPP, including E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright, criticize traditional interpreters (OPP) from the sixteenth century onwards for allegedly distorting Paul’s conception of Judaism as a legalistic religion. NPP scholars collectively assert that Judaism does not operate on a legalistic framework, emphasizing salvation rooted in grace-based rather than merit-based. Their rationale is as follows: Firstly, Sanders elucidates the concept of “covenantal nomism,” wherein Jews viewed keeping of the Law not as a means to earn salvation but rather as an expression of being within the covenant already. Secondly, Dunn argues that the observance of the Law does not inherently denote legalism within Judaism; rather, it serves as the badge for the community. Thirdly, Wright posits that “justification by faith” is not primarily concerned with the mechanism of salvation itself but rather serves as a criterion for identifying the genuine community of God. Fourthly, the phrase “the righteousness of God” is interpreted not as God’s declaration of believers’ righteousness but rather as an indication of His faithfulness to the covenant. These interpretations challenge the traditional, or so-called Old Perspective of Paul (OPP) regarding salvation by grace through faith (Eph 2:8) and call into question Paul’s critique of legalism within Judaism in passages such as Galatians 2:16 and Romans 3:20.
Download Free PDF View PDF
Download Free PDF View PDF
The Southern Baptist journal of theology
Download Free PDF View PDF
Biblica et Patristica Thoruniensia 16/4
The release of E.P. Sanders' groundbreaking Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977 inaugurated a new perspective on Paul. This current interpretation of Paul's thought has had a great impact on modern understanding of the Bible, even in the presence of zealous polemicists and opponents of this interpretation. This new perspective differs from the old one as it tries to look at Paul not through the prism of later theological disputes, especially those related to the beginning of the Reformation, but in the real-life context and ideological background of the apostle. Therefore, researchers emphasize, above all, the Jewish nature of his thought, showing that Paul did not oppose Judaism as such, but rather reinterpreted it in the key of the events of Jesus as the Messiah. At the same time, Paul is considered to be the father of Christian theology. Then what are the implications for systematic theology from the new perspective on Paul? This article attempts to answer this question based on the theses of key representatives of the current thought.
Download Free PDF View PDF
This paper introduces the reader to the revolutions in interpreting Paul's teaching on justification that have followed in the wake of E.P. Sanders's 1977 work on the nature of first century Judaism: "Paul and Palestinian Judaism". After briefly introducing the "New Perspective on Paul" this paper critiques it, and the scholarship that it is built upon, from an evangelical and Reformed perspective. A paper of this size and scope can do little more than document the broad outline of the issues involved.
Download Free PDF View PDF
Download Free PDF View PDF
Theological Reflections: Euro-Asian Theological Journal
When a highly-qualified Pauline scholar such as Stephen Chester immerses himself in a historical exegetical research in order to foster a dialog between the different eras of New Testament (hereafter NT) studies, the outcome cannot be but interesting. Reading Paul is an interdisciplinary study that examines the hermeneutics and exegetical theology of the great Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century and their relation to crucial contemporary discussions in the field of Pauline studies. Thus, it is both a research into the reception history—the reception of Paul in the Reformation and of the Reformation Pauline interpretation in the contemporary scholarship—and an exercise in NT exegesis informed by historical theological data. The book has been written by a NT scholar and primarily for NT scholars. It will be extremely beneficial for this intended audience, yet readers whose interest belongs to others theological disciplines might find here a great source of information and insights, as well. The basic argument of the author is stated clearly: " [T]he Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century have insights into the interpretation of the Pauline letters that can assist us as we attempt to interpret the same texts in and for contemporary contexts " (1). But the rationale of the book is more specific and driven by two hermeneutical reasons. The first one is historical and methodological and has to do with the influence of the Reformers' exegesis upon the subsequent generations of NT readers. Although their significant impact has always been recognized, it is, Chester claims, " still too little understood " (56). The Reformation tradition of reading Paul used to be uncritically accepted by Protestant exegetes in the 17 th-19 th centuries but is frequently criticized and altogether rejected in contemporary scholarship, especially after the advent of the New Perspective on Paul (hereafter NPP) whose proponents have convincingly shown that the earlier pictures of the Second Temple Judaism and religious context of the first century were extremely distorted and, they concluded, hence the Reformation exegesis of Paul's writings must have been invalid. However, Chester finds this NPP's stance problematic and rightly argues that whereas the rejection of the Reformers' interpretations of the first-century Judaism as a work-righteousness religion is justified, the outright dismissal of their Pauline exegesis is not, because this pretentious claim usually lacks substantial engagement with relevant primary sources. The article received on 07.02.2018; approved for publication on 13.03.2018.
Download Free PDF View PDF
Today, Pauline scholars use the plural term "perspectives" to show how Paul has been understood and interpreted differently. The following constitutes the "then" and the "now" perspectives on Paul: the traditional (the reformational/Lutheran/old) perspective; 1 the New Perspective (NPP); 2 the narrative; 3 the apocalyptic; 4 the participationist (the transformational); 5 the political (including anti-imperialist, liberationist, and postcolonial); 6 the radical (the Paulwithin-Judaism) perspective; 7 the "Wrightian" perspectives (e.g., N.T. Wright and his students); 8 and the social science perspective. 9 This paper explores the origin of the radical perspective on Paul (RPP), outlines its fundamental principles, and assesses its advantages and disadvantages. A terminological explanation is necessary before discussing the key figures of RPP. The phrases "radical perspective on Paul" and "radical new perspective on Paul" (RNPP) are identical and describe how Paul is viewed within Judaism, and they are interchangeably used among Pauline academics. 10 The term "the radical perspective on Paul," used in this paper,
Download Free PDF View PDF
This paper describes some of the most important theological distinctions of the so-called "New Perspective on Paul" drawn from the writings of three of its most well-known advocates: E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright. After this summary, each of these distinctives is critiqued, with special attention paid to how the "New Perspective" threatens the centrality of the traditional Reformation doctrine of justification.
Download Free PDF View PDF
