New Perspective on Paul (NPP)

The New Perspective on Paul (NPP) is a modern theological movement that reinterprets the writings of the Apostle Paul, particularly his teachings on justification, the law, and the relationship between faith and works. It has sparked considerable debate and controversy, especially within Reformed and evangelical circles, where it has been accused of undermining key aspects of justification by faith alone, a central doctrine of the Protestant Reformation.

History of the New Perspective on Paul

1. Origins:

   • The New Perspective on Paul began gaining prominence in the late 20th century, largely due to the work of E.P. Sanders, whose 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, challenged traditional views of Second Temple Judaism. Sanders argued that Judaism of Paul's day was not a religion of legalism (works-based righteousness), as had often been portrayed by traditional Christian scholars, but rather a religion of covenantal nomism—where Jews understood themselves to be part of God's covenant by grace and maintained their covenant relationship through the observance of the law.
   • Building on Sanders' work, other prominent theologians, including James D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright, developed the New Perspective further, reinterpreting Paul's letters, especially Romans and Galatians, in light of this new understanding of first-century Judaism.

2. Development and Spread:

   • By the 1980s and 1990s, the New Perspective had gained traction in various academic and theological circles, particularly through Dunn's work on Paul's theology and N.T. Wright's rethinking of the doctrine of justification. It was seen as a challenge to the Lutheran and Reformed interpretations of Paul, which had emphasized justification by faith alone in contrast to Jewish works-righteousness.
   • While primarily an academic movement, the New Perspective began influencing pastoral teaching and scholarship, sparking widespread debates among evangelicals, Reformed theologians, and other Protestants.

Key Theological Tenets of the New Perspective on Paul

The New Perspective on Paul challenges traditional Reformation interpretations of Paul's writings in several key areas:

1. Justification and Righteousness:

   • Traditional View: Reformed and evangelical theology has traditionally understood justification as a forensic declaration by God, when in union with Christ, where He imputes the righteousness of Christ to sinners through faith alone. Paul’s teaching on justification has been seen as addressing how an individual is saved and declared righteous before God.
   • New Perspective View: NPP proponents argue that Paul’s teaching on justification is not primarily about how an individual is saved, but about how Jews and Gentiles are included in the covenant community of God. According to the NPP, justification is about covenant membership—it is God's declaration that someone is a member of His people, based on their faith in Christ, not adherence to Jewish boundary markers (such as circumcision, food laws, etc.).
     • Righteousness is understood in covenantal terms, meaning God’s faithfulness to His covenant, rather than the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer.

2. Paul’s Critique of the Law:

   • Traditional View: The traditional view, following the Reformation, interprets Paul’s critique of the law (especially in Romans and Galatians) as a critique of legalism—the idea that people could earn their salvation through the works of the law.
   • New Perspective View: The NPP, influenced by Sanders, argues that first-century Jews did not believe they earned salvation through legalistic works, but rather understood themselves to be part of the covenant by grace. Paul’s critique, then, is not against the law as a system of works-righteousness, but against the exclusive use of Jewish boundary markers (like circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath-keeping) that distinguished Jews from Gentiles. Paul is arguing that Gentiles should be included in the covenant without needing to adopt these Jewish identity markers.

3. Works and Final Judgment:

   • Traditional View: In traditional Reformed theology, justification is by faith alone, apart from works, and good works are the result of sanctification, not the basis for final salvation. Justification is seen as a one-time declaration by God that a sinner is righteous because of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
   • New Perspective View: NPP proponents, particularly N.T. Wright, argue that while initial justification is by faith, the final judgment will take into account the believer's works, not as the basis for salvation but as the evidence of covenant faithfulness. This emphasis on works in final justification has raised concerns that NPP undermines the traditional Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone.

4. Covenantal Nomism:

   • Traditional View: The traditional interpretation of Second Temple Judaism often portrays it as a religion of legalism, where Jews sought to attain salvation by following the law.
   • New Perspective View: NPP argues, based on Sanders' work, that Second Temple Judaism was characterized by covenantal nomism—the belief that Jews were part of the covenant by God's grace, but maintained their place in the covenant by keeping the law. Therefore, Paul’s argument was not against legalism but against Jewish exclusivism and the belief that the covenant blessings were for Jews only.

Controversies and Criticisms

The New Perspective on Paul has been met with significant criticism, particularly from Reformed theologians and evangelicals, who argue that NPP misinterprets key elements of Paul’s teaching and undermines foundational doctrines of the Protestant Reformation.

1. Justification by Faith Alone:

   • Critics argue that NPP undermines the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone. By reinterpreting justification as primarily about covenant membership and by downplaying the traditional view of imputed righteousness, NPP challenges the very heart of the gospel as understood by the Reformers.
   • John Piper and others have argued that NPP replaces the forensic understanding of justification (God’s legal declaration of righteousness) with a relational or covenantal view that diminishes the doctrine of imputed righteousness and distorts Paul’s teaching.

2. Works and Final Judgment:

   • The emphasis of NPP theologians like N.T. Wright on works as part of final justification has led critics to accuse NPP of reintroducing a works-based righteousness, which directly contradicts the Reformed and Pauline understanding that salvation is by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9).

3. Misreading of Paul’s Theology:

   • Many Reformed theologians argue that NPP is a misreading of Paul’s theology and that its understanding of Second Temple Judaism is not as conclusive as NPP proponents claim. Critics believe that Paul’s critique of the law is indeed a critique of works-righteousness and that Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith alone stands at the heart of the Christian gospel.

4. Devaluation of Imputed Righteousness:

   • The traditional Reformed view holds that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer by faith. NPP downplays or denies the concept of imputation, which has caused significant concern among critics. The Westminster Confession of Faith and other Reformed confessions emphasize that justification is based solely on Christ's righteousness credited to believers, not on any works or covenant faithfulness.

The Historic Christian Orthodox View

The historic Christian and Reformed view, especially since the Protestant Reformation, emphasizes the following key doctrines in contrast to the New Perspective on Paul:

1. Justification by Faith Alone:

   • Justification is a forensic act of God, where He declares sinners righteous based solely on the imputed righteousness of Christ, received through faith alone (Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16). This doctrine was a cornerstone of the Reformation, particularly in the teachings of Martin Luther and John Calvin.

2. Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness:

   • The righteousness of Christ—His perfect obedience to the law—is credited (or imputed) to the believer's account, and the believer’s sins are imputed to Christ. This double imputation (2 Corinthians 5:21) forms the basis of justification, and any teaching that denies this is viewed as undermining the heart of the gospel.

3. Salvation by Grace Through Faith:

   • Salvation is entirely by grace through faith, apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). While good works are the fruit of faith and evidence of salvation, they are not the basis of justification. The traditional view of Paul’s theology emphasizes that justification is a once-for-all declaration made by God at the moment of faith, not a process tied to ongoing covenantal faithfulness.

4. Paul’s Critique of Legalism:

   • The traditional Reformed interpretation sees Paul’s critique of the law in Romans and Galatians as a rejection of works-righteousness—the belief that people can earn their salvation through adherence to the law. Paul’s gospel, in this view, contrasts faith in Christ with works of the law as the means of being declared righteous.

Conclusion

The New Perspective on Paul represents a significant departure from the traditional Reformed and Protestant understanding of justification by faith alone. While NPP emphasizes covenantal inclusion and challenges traditional readings of Paul’s critique of the law, it has been widely criticized for undermining key doctrines of the Reformation, especially the forensic nature of justification and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Historic Christian orthodoxy continues to uphold the belief that justification is by grace through faith alone, apart from works, and that Christ’s righteousness is the sole basis for our standing before God.

----

Related Resources which critique NPP @Monergism