Of all the academic issues that have surfaced of recent history, few have taken root as firmly as this one, in my humble estimation. I can also think of the controversy surrounding the literature of Genesis 1 as equally significant (although dating back further), but this New Perspective on Paul was huge when I first started my undergraduate degree in 2004. The seminarians were into this topic, and I remember choosing to write a research paper on it and checking massive volumes out of the college library on this issue. I still have that paper, and it is funny how confused I was by it at the time. However, below is the most edifying answer that I have found that counters this view. I hope you will not be overwhelmed, and with this in mind, I do keep my explanations simple. First, I will briefly explain what this is, and then I will offer a critique referenced from a far more reputable scholar than myself that is based on the spirituality implicit in this “new perspective.”
What is the New Perspective on Paul?
Covenantal Nomism is an important term in the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). It is essentially the term that designates the modern scholars’ idea that an Old Testament saint, or even a Pharisee in Jesus’ time, understood that a person comes into the people of God by grace, and he remains a member of that people of God through works in keeping with the covenant.
This means that when Paul criticized “works of the law” in his epistles, he could not have been referring to works-righteousness. He was in fact criticizing works of the law which were actually the “Jewish boundary markers” which made obvious who was or was not within the people of God. So, for the New Perspective, this means that what Paul opposes in the NT is not the supposed legalism of the Pharisees and Jews. Paul is not arguing against works-righteousness, because his audience already understood that was wrong. He was arguing against Jewish boundary markers like circumcision, sabbaths, and so forth.1
But in arguing this, the NPP likewise affirms that justification is an fact by faith (or by grace) and it acknowledges the covenant status through the church (ecclesiology), but justification is somewhat accomplished in the end, or eschatologically, by works, although these be good works that are brought about by the indwelling Spirit.2
Robert J. Cara summarizes the five general characteristics that seem to unify NPP adherents:
- New Perspective authors agree that Paul was not arguing against a legalistic works-righteousness view because it did not exist (Covenantal Nomism).
- New Perspective authors agree on what justification is not—it is not the traditional-Protestant view.
- New Perspective authors agree that “works of the law” primarily refers to Jewish boundary markers: Sabbath, circumcision, and food laws.
- New Perspective authors agree that Paul’s mission to the Gentiles is the context for his teaching on justification.
- New Perspective authors are not united on justification. One standard view is that initial justification is by faith and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.”3
I think that Wyatt Graham’s summarization of the “three pillars” of the NPP is one that I have heard before, and I think it is more helpful. The following is a rehash of the above, but they are essentially as follows:
- Jewish religion was not legalistic. They understood, as we do, that they got in by grace, but that works was what they did to obey God after that fact.
- The social function of the law entailed circumcision, sabbath-keeping, and dietary restrictions. These are what Paul criticized in His designation of these as “works of the law.” Basically, he was making room in the people of God for Gentiles.
- ΔΙΚ is a greek root word for righteousness. NPP proponents want to revamp our understanding of the righteousness of God, for example, as the covenant faithfulness of God rather than His rightness per se. They interpret this Greek root in light of the Jewish background above and in covenantal categories.4
If you want to wade through perhaps the most prominent scholar’s writings, who affirms the above, i.e. NT Wright, then you certainly can. As a matter of fact, his book, “Paul: A Biography,” is really pretty good. It doesn’t push these topics very much at all. But NT Wright generally tends to obfuscate. He spends a lot of time waxing eloquent about what the New Testament message was not, and his positive contribution to the discussion is honestly too “sophisticated” for most people to grasp.
I do not recommend that most people tackle his writings as a general rule because it isn’t the most edifying. It is very scholarly, but simply not the most helpful. He tends to confuse his readers more than give them a positive message in keeping with that of the New Testament. But if you would like a sample of his teaching style and content, click here for a lecture in written form on his website.
But my intent is not to criticize NT Wright per se. For more of a response to Covenantal Nomism, there are also books arguing for Variegated Nomism, which is a contrary view that the beliefs of the Jews, especially Second Temple Judaism, were variegated or diverse. You can go really deep into all this. The best one-stop buy for all of this focus on justification is the book, The Doctrine on Which the Church Stands or Falls by Crossway Books. But I think that the most edifying critique of the NPP views, is handed to us in one of the best books on spirituality that I personally have read.
An Edifying Rebuttal
In Sinclair Ferguson’s book, The Whole Christ, he explains, in a brief segment of the book, that the NPP is a resurfacing of the issue of grace versus law. It actually does offer a solution for it, the one that we just explored in the aforementioned. We actually likewise hear plenty of talk about grace all the time in legalistic false religions as well, like Catholicism and Mormonism, etc.
Yet with respect to Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, Jesus “also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt (Luke 18:9).” He was actually illustrating works-righteousness with a Pharisee (think of how this conflicts with the NPP’s new perspective on the Pharisees’ religiosity as told above).
Likewise, this legalistic attitude is found in the character of Jesus’ parable of the talents who said of the master: “for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ (Luke 19:21) The idea is that the wicked servant who did not invest what the master had given him, took a harsh view of the master. This is the very root of legalism. This is “serpentine theology” says, Ferguson. “It blatantly exchanges the truth of God for a lie.”
For this reason, Jesus called the Pharisees a group of whitewashed tombs (Matt. 23:27) and a brood of vipers (Matt. 12:34). That in itself is enough to refute the idea that the religious nature of the Jewish populace, or especially the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, somehow understood grace and just practiced works as a product of the Spirit. The very idea that they understood grace is not at all what we see in Jesus’ or Paul’s refutations of them. Paul speaks of himself:
though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith
— Philippians 3:4-9
Paul the Apostle identified his own “confidence in the flesh” with his past identity as a Pharisee. He found grace in “the righteousness that depends on faith.” It is so obvious that this is the case that I believe Ferguson is right that the fact alone that we question, albeit in the most sophisticated and academic of terms (using volumes of research), this very natural and pastoral reality, is itself poor theology. It is of Satan. He further explains:
“Some exponents of the New Perspective on Paul have complained that the apostle has been read through Reformation-tinted spectacle lenses, as if the issue between the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church were identical to that between Jesus and the Pharisees or Paul and the Judaizers—a conflict between grace and works, one side holding to “salvation by grace” and the other side to “salvation by works.” But this is scholarship detached from both historical and pastoral reality and misses the real parallel. For the situation on the ground was and is more complex and more subtle than this. The Reformers were conceived in the womb of the theology of the medieval church. It was obsessed with the notion of grace. No period in church history has given more attention to the question, How do we receive grace? But what the Reformers grasped was that where the language of grace abounds, it is possible for the reality of legalism to abound all the more. The problem was that when “grace” was spelled out in existential terms, it turned out not to be grace at all. It had become a sacramental phenomenon. As the individual cooperated with infused grace, it was hoped that one day his or her faith would be suffused by perfect love. At that point grace would have made the person righteously justifiable. But grace is not an infused substance. And, in the New Testament, justification is not the hoped-for end-product of the subjective working of grace with which the believer cooperates. It is the declaration of God that takes place at the very beginning of the Christian life. The medieval view led to the virtual impossibility of assurance; the biblical view led to the Reformation explosion of it.” 5
In Conclusion, this is a topic that subtly, through technical nuance and critical arguments, seems to undercut the most fundamental issues we face as believers. It would seem that even academics can question and fall to false beliefs. The fact that we struggle with legalism and antinomianism on a daily basis is testament to the deeply in-bedded nature of this problem. In essence, we tend to question the goodness of God towards us. His righteousness looms large on us all, and this causes a sense of fear and doubt (Mark 9:24) even though God is infinitely good and loving. But grace is not an infused process that can be acquired. We also have to recognize that even false religions talk a lot about grace, but do not understand it. That is why the NPP is so toxic to our spiritual life.
For more on these and related topics, I suggest, Sinclair Ferguson’s book, “The Whole Christ,” as well as “The Doctrine on which the Church Stands or Falls,” edited by Matthew Barrett.
.
4. Wyatt Graham. “Three Pillars of the New Perspective on Paul.” WyattGraham.Com. Accessed on March 18th, 2024. https://wyattgraham.com/thee-pillars-of-the-new-perspective-on-paul/
5. Sinclair Ferguson. “The Whole Christ.” (CrossWay Books: Wheaton, Illinois, 2016) p. 93
Leave a Reply