The New Perspective on Paul is a theological movement that achieved widespread popularity in the first decade of the twenty-first century. While the viewpoints among New Perspective proponents are not monolithic, all generally insist that the teaching of second temple Judaism should be the guiding standard for understanding the background of Pauline theology. New Perspective adherents also generally believe that historic Protestantism has fundamentally misread the Apostle Paul by reading Reformation-era debates back into his works. Consequently, theologians of the New Perspective have recast the Reformed understanding of justification and the gospel. Some New Perspective scholars have offered readings of Paul that are not substantially different from interpretations of Paul proposed by Roman Catholic theologians during the Reformation. Many New Perspective thinkers have asserted that “the gospel” is not the message about how an individual is saved; rather, it is has to do with how one identifies the members of the new covenant community. These theologians radically redefined the Protestant and Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. Many Reformed theologians offered strong and nuanced critiques of the New Perspective throughout the first two decades of the twenty-first century.

What did Paul really say? This question underlies the debates concerning the 'New Perspective on Paul'. This label embraces a loose collection of scholars who, over the course of the past century, have questioned anew Reformation-era conclusions regarding the message proclaimed by Paul. Because the debate regularly broaches foundational issues concerning the doctrine of justification, discussions often flare red-hot.Due to the diversity of the New Perspective proponents and the origins of the debate in academic circles, many pastors and teachers struggle to understand the main players or the points under contention. Helpfully, Waters' book combines a survey of the academic discussion with expositions of several major predecessors and proponents such as Krister Stendahl, E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright. As the title indicates, Waters both appreciates the diversity of the movement while also highlighting points of affinity. Beyond simple description, Waters also includes running interaction and critique of exegetical and theological conclusions. The final two chapters provide Waters' points of critique and address specific implications for Reformed Christianity.

of Paul. The NPP says, effectively, if you'll just understand what justification is and how it works, there no longer has to be a division between Protestant and Catholic on the issue of justification. Now that kind of a rapprochment would be a fairly significant thing to deliver through your new hermeneutic, if you really could, and so some people are very intrigued and attracted to the NPP for that very reason. Wright, in fact, argues that it is literally a sin that a doctrine that was meant to unite the church (justification, in connection with Jews and Gentiles) has been allowed to divide the church (justification, in connection with Protestants and Catholics).

Then, fourthly and relatedly, the NPP purports to help us articulate an understanding of justification that has an inherent social dimension and thus secures a better theological foundation for social justice and ecumenism amongst evangelical interpreters of Holy Scripture. For Wright, justification is about our "horizontal" relationships with one another and our inclusion in the covenant community more than it is about an individual's "vertical" relationship with God. Hence, justification, is inherently, for the NPP, about the collective. It's not about individuals, it's about the community. Consequently, they argue that this understanding of justification better helps us to work for unity in the body of Christ, and to show how justification is a doctrine that ought to be drawing us together instead of dividing us and separating us.

The NPP In Their Own Words

Let me give you a taste of the NPP in the words of N.T. Wright. I'll start with an article that he wrote in response to Australian Bishop Paul Barnett of the Sydney Diocese who wrote an article called, "Why Wright is Wrong."9 In Wright's response (often cited by pro-NPP neophytes in internet discussion as definitive proof of his orthodoxy), he tries to explain, elaborate and clarify his position on justification:

By "the gospel" Paul does not mean "justification by faith." He means the announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Lord. To believe this message-to give believing allegiance to Jesus as Messiah and Lord-is to be justified in the present by faith (whether or not one has ever heard of justification by faith). Justification by faith is a second-order doctrine. To believe it is both to have assurance (believing that one will be vindicated on the last day [Romans 5:1-5]) and to know that one belongs in the single family of God, called to share table fellowship with all other believers without distinction (Galatians 2:11-21). But one is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith, but by believing in Jesus.

Justification is thus the declaration of God, the just Judge, that someone has had their sins forgiven and that they are a member of the covenant family, the family of Abraham. That is what the word means in Paul's writings. It doesn't describe how people get into God's forgiven family; it declares that they are in. That may seem a small distinction, but

we are to claim 1 Corinthians 1:30 as a proof text about the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, “we must also be prepared to talk of the imputed wisdom of Christ; the imputed sanctification of Christ . . . ” and so on.

Say what you will about Wright; he himself makes it abundantly clear that he does not like the notion of imputation, because he does not believe divine righteousness is something that can be reckoned, or put to the account, of the believer. And he is equally silent—ominously silent—about the biblical teaching that the believer’s guilt was imputed to Christ and paid for on the cross.

Now, that’s a longer summary than I wanted to give, but I think it’s all important ground to cover. To review, these are five key distinctives of Tom Wright’s perspective on Paul: He says we have misunderstood first-century Judaism. He says we have misinterpreted Paul’s argument with the Judaizers. He says we have mistaken what Paul meant by the expression “works of the law.” He says we have misconstrued Paul’s doctrine of justification by Faith. and He says we have misread what Paul meant when he spoke of “the righteousness of God.”

Therefore, he says, we have got the gospel all wrong. And he says this repeatedly. Page 60: “ ‘The gospel’ is not, for Paul, a message about ‘how one gets saved,’ ” in an individual and ahistorical sense.” Page 41; here is how Wright describes what he is convinced is a misunderstanding of the gospel: “In certain circles within the church . . . ‘the gospel’ is supposed to be a description of how people get saved; of the theological mechanism whereby, in some people’s language, Christ takes our sin and we his righteousness.”

“Some people’s language”? Wright himself disdains to use such language. He is careful to insist that he is not intolerant of people who do use that language. He goes on (p. 41): “I am perfectly comfortable with what people normally mean when they say ‘the gospel’. I just don’t think it’s what Paul means.”

But if that’s not what Paul means, it’s not what Scripture means. Is Wright suggesting that Protestants have historically proclaimed a “different gospel”? It would certainly be uncharacteristic of Tom Wright to anathematize anyone, but he does rather clearly imply that he thinks Protestants have been getting the gospel wrong since the 16th century.

He says he has no problem with what people mean when they say “the gospel,” and he also seems to try to stop short of explicitly denying the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, the idea of propitiation, and the principle of penal substitution. But he does say that he can’t find those truths in Scripture. And if you’ll permit me to think in Greek categories for a moment, it seems to me that this is tantamount to suggesting that those doctrines are untrue.

Perhaps that’s too harsh a conclusion to draw, but frankly, if Wright had no agenda to undermine the heart of

documents of first-century Judaism illuminating the nature of the theological milieu, new perspective advocates argue that this literature reveals a totally different picture than is traditionally held. The Jews of Paul’s day were not crass legalists but were advocates of grace; they were simply out to protect their cultural identity. Sanders, for example, surveys the Tannaitic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, and Pseudepigrapha to reach his conclusions—conclusions with which Wright generally agrees. 

Yes, it is true that the reformers, Calvin included, did not survey this vast body of literature; indeed, they could not have explored some of the literature seeing that the Dead Sea Scrolls would not be discovered for hundreds of years. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the reformers were nescient of the rhythms of first-century Judaism. The advocates of the new perspective do not take into consideration that the reformers were familiar with the writings of the apocrypha—the writings of inter-testamental Judaism. For example, Calvin interacted with the apocrypha in response to its use in support of various Roman Catholic doctrines. For example, Calvin writes: The piety of Judas is praised for no other distinction than that the had a firm hope of the final resurrection. When he sent an offering for the dead to Jerusalem. Nor did the writer of that history set down Judas’ act to the price of redemption, but regarded it as done in order that they might share in eternal life with the remaining believers who had died for country and religion. This deed was not without superstition and wrongheaded zeal, but utterly foolish are those who extend the sacrifice of the law even down to us, when we know that by the advent of Christ what was then in use ceased.

Calvin recognizes that first century Judaism, at least as it comes through the apocrypha, contained superstitious practices. Yet, regarding the following words from the apocrypha, “For it is not because of any righteous deeds of our ancestors or our kings that we bring before you our prayer for mercy, O Lord our God” (Bar. 2.18; NRSV), Calvin can write that they are “very true and holy words.” Calvin, therefore, recognized, at least implicitly, that there were strands of orthodox theology in first century Judaism, what the new perspective advocates would perhaps call “proponents of grace.” Yet, these strands were not the only ones with which Calvin was familiar. He was also familiar with those strands that were, dare one say, …“Pelagian,” in nature.

We read the following in from the apocrypha: “If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. He has placed before you fire and water; stretch out your hand for whichever you choose. Before each person are life and death, and whichever one chooses will be given” (Sir. 15.14-17, NRSV; Vg. 14-18). To this passage Calvin responds: Granted that man received at his creation the capacity to obtain life or death.  What if we reply on the other side that he has lost this capacity?  Surely it is not my

Beyond the ‘New Perspective on Paul” delivered at Asbury Theological SeminaryMarch 6, 2008, based on his recent book from Eerdmans.

: “Once Again: Beyond the New Perspective”.

: F. Thielman, Paul and the Law, (Downers Grive; IV Press, 1994).

the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” But, as Calvin points out, the previous verse removes all doubt of Paul’s meaning, for Paul says that just as those who “sinned without the law will also perish without the law,” so also those who “sinned under the law will be judged by the law” (Rom. 2:12). Paul’s point is to show their judgment under the law, not their justification. Calvin explains, “Here the apostle is casting down the foolish confidence of the Jews, who claimed for themselves the sole knowledge of the law, even while they were its greatest despisers.”[22]

Wright complains that the Reformed tradition has dismissed Romans 2:13 by describing it as hypothetical. To this we agree that Paul’s statement is not hypothetical. As a principle it is true; one is made righteous by doing the law. But the problem is that, as Paul goes on to insist, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (3:10-12). Douglas Moo points out that when you bring in Romans 3:20 you have a conflict with Romans 2:13 that must be accounted for. In Romans 2:13, Paul says, “The doers of the law will be justified.” In Romans 3:20, however, he says, “By works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight.” How do we understand the relationship of those two statements? Or as Moo asks, “Why doesn’t the covenant justify?”[23] Romans 3:10-12 provides the answer. The problem is our sin. This is why Paul presents his gospel in Romans 3:23-25 as an alternative to works-righteousness: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.” This statement is not to be seen in continuity with Romans 2:13 but in contrast. Not being able to “do the law,” we can yet be justified through faith in Jesus Christ.

Our difference with N.T. Wright is not that he takes Romans 2:13 seriously and that we do not. Our difference is that we take seriously Romans 3:9-11, and he does not, at least in terms of its implications for Paul’s argument in Romans 2 and 3. Moreover, when it comes to the nature of our righteousness before God, it is Wright who does not take Romans 2:13 seriously when he denies the doctrine of imputed righteousness. Romans 2:13 argues that justification does demand righteousness and that righteousness comes from perfect obedience to the law. This is why N.T. Wright’s substitution of covenant righteousness in the place of the imputed righteousness of Christ simply will not do.[24] Paul lays out the formula in Romans 5:18-19, one of the Westminster Confession’s proof-texts for the imputed righteousness of Christ. In

to the excessive individualism among many Protestants. It has reflected with some sense of guilt, and rightly, on Christian complicity in the Holocaust, and it recognizes the importance of Christian unity, bewailing, again rightly, the Protestant/Roman Catholic divide in a spiritually needy world. Its interpretations seems more influenced by such factors at crucial points than by what Scripture actually says.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in The Presbyterian Banner, May 2002.

This article is part of the New Perspective on Paul collection.

and His Critics](https://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Old-New-Paul-Lutheran/dp/0802848095/ref=sr_1_1?crid=184BPKEDJ804W&keywords=perspectives+old+and+new+on+paul+the+lutheran+paul+and+his+critics&qid=1681911915&s=books&sprefix=Perspectives+Old+and+New+on+Paul%3A+The+%22Lutheran%22+Paul+and+His%2Cstripbooks%2C124&sr=1-1)* by Stephen Westerholm

Westerholm’s work is an invaluable survey of classical and recent scholarship with additional chapters discussing Paul’s view of law, righteousness, and justification.

Related Ligonier Resources

Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification by R.C. Sproul (Book) Foundations: An Overview of Systematic Theology by R.C. Sproul, Vol. 6: Soteriology (Audio, Video) Getting the Gospel Right: The Tie That Binds Evangelicals Together by R.C. Sproul (Book) Justification by Faith Alone by R.C. Sproul (Audio) Justified by Faith Alone: A Booklet Examining the Doctrine of Justification by R.C. Sproul (Book)

This article is part of the New Perspective on Paul collection.

Paul for that matter) concerns individuals and their eternal destiny.” Though “a full-blown predestinarianism seems to be the unavoidable logic, and Paul presses a little way down that road . . . to push further down that road is quickly to lose Paul and the thread of his argument.” That thread concerns election, understood exclusively as corporate, with a view to God’s role for Israel among the nations. Negative statements encountered serve to highlight “the positive side of God’s purpose”; together they form “God’s eschatological chiaroscuro” [chiaro-scuro: light and dark parts in a work of art]. All told, “we may say that Paul’s theology of predestination is itself caught within the eschatological tension-the brighter side of predestination as a function of the already, the dark side of predestination as a function of the not yet of God’s ultimate purpose of mercy” (italics added).

Wright does not address the issue of predestination directly, and undoubtedly it was not within his purview to do so. Where he does touch on election, it is viewed as corporate (Israel as a nation). It does seem pertinent, however, to observe that, given his orientation at a number of points already noted, particularly that God’s wrath and justice are penultimate (and no more than metaphorical) expressions of his love, it is not clear that he would differ substantially with Dunn.

To be sure, both Wright and Dunn, in espousing the New Perspective, have much to teach serious students of Paul. But those convinced by their own study that the Reformation tradition is preponderantly faithful to the apostle, particularly to his teaching on sin and salvation, will have to conclude that the interests of that tradition are not well served by either.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published as “Paul the Theologian,” Westminster Theological Journal 62 (2000) 121-41.

Since God is so gracious, merciful, kind, good, and loving, why on earth would anyone run from Him? What is it about Jesus that causes people not to want to be in His presence? Dr. Sproul looks at the answers to these questions in his message entitled "A New Perspective."

Paul's letter to the churches of Galatia seems to burst on the reader like a sudden storm. The issues it raises still generate controversy, even after two thousand years of church history. In large measure this is because what was at stake when Paul wrote was the gospel itself. The question of whether human works were to play any part in the justification of sinners had to be answered clearly if the fledgling Christian movement was to prosper. And Paul was determined to answer it with total clarity. This explains the vigour and energy of his language, and the impact the letter has had down the centuries.Dr. Derek Thomas explains the issues dealt with in the letter and refutes the contentions of the so-called 'new perspective' on Paul. His book is an important addition to this expanding series of study guides.

Galatians: a letter that had great importance for the magisterial Reformers (Luther on Galatians is always in print) and in recent years has been at the heart of the debate on New Covenant theology and the New Perspective on Paul. Mark Johnston brings Paul’s letter back where it belongs—with a pastor’s heart and unerring clarity he makes this vital Scripture accessible to the ordinary Christian.

Historians and theologians have long recognized that at the heart of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation were five declarations, often referred to as the ‘solas’: sola scriptura, solus Christus, sola gratia, sola fide, and soli Deo gloria. These five statements summarize much of what the Reformation was about, and they distinguish Protestantism from other expressions of the Christian faith. Protestants place ultimate and final authority in the Scriptures, acknowledge the work of Christ alone as sufficient for redemption, recognize that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, and seek to do all things for God’s glory.In Faith Alone—The Doctrine of Justification renowned biblical scholar Thomas Schreiner looks at the historical and biblical roots of the doctrine of justification. He summarizes the history of the doctrine, looking at the early church and the writings of several of the Reformers. Then, he turns his attention to the Scriptures and walks readers through an examination of the key texts in the Old and New Testament. He discusses whether justification is transformative or forensic and introduces readers to some of the contemporary challenges to the Reformation teaching of sola fide, with particular attention to the new perspective on Paul.Five hundred years after the Reformation, the doctrine of justification by faith alone still needs to be understood and proclaimed. In Faith Alone you will learn how the rallying cry of “sola fide” is rooted in the Scriptures and how to apply this sola in a fresh way in light of many contemporary challenges.

A comprehensive restatement of the classic Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. Fesko explains the doctrine in terms of the ordo and historia salutis, as well as in the light of recent challenges. A comprehensive defense of justification by faith alone Treats several theological traditions and current exegetical, theological, and ecumenical debates Includes discussion of the covenant of works, union with Christ, the New Perspective on Paul, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism Reflects a pastor-scholar’s sensitivity to the important issues "John Fesko has given the church a thorough and welcome treatment of the doctrine of justification. It is reliable, Reformed, and relevant. Now I know where to direct students, ministers, and interested congregants for a ‘one stop shop’ overview of justification by faith alone."—Guy Prentiss Waters, Associate Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi"Well informed, careful, and full of insight, this book is destined to become a standard work for all those who want a deeper understanding of this crucial doctrine. In addition to providing sound exegesis of relevant passages, Fesko is sensitive to important nuances in historical theology and contemporary discussions."—Michael S. Horton

When we come to know Jesus Christ as Savior, we’re also coming to know the Creator of all that exists. Today, Sinclair Ferguson shows that becoming a Christian opens our eyes to view the world from a wholly new perspective.

Gregory Beale, Michael Morales, Stephen Nichols, R.C. Sproul, R.C. Sproul Jr., and Derek Thomas answer questions ranging from Jesus' baptism, the atonement, and church history, to their favorite books of the Bible, and the theology of N.T. Wright.

Note: This Questions and Answers session is made available for historical archival purposes only. Further, answers given reflect the views of the individual speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dr. R.C. Sproul and Ligonier Ministries. Here is our Statement of Faith.

which is totally antithetical to the idea. The phrase “justification by faith alone” is theological shorthand for saying justification is by Christ alone. Anyone who understands and advocates the doctrine of justification by faith alone knows that the focal point is that which justifies — trust in Christ and not trust in a doctrine.

One of the key terms in the phrase “justification by faith” is the word by, which signals that faith is the means or tool that links us to Christ and His benefits. The concept indicates that faith is the “instrumental” cause of our justification. What is in view in the Protestant formulation is a distinction from the Roman Catholic view of the instrumental cause. Rome declares the sacrament of baptism in the first instance and penance in the second instance to be the instrumental causes of justification. So the dispute of what instrument is the basis by which we are justified was and remains critical to the classical dispute between Rome and Protestantism. The Protestant view, following Paul’s teaching in the New Testament, is that faith is the sole instrument by which we are linked to Christ.

Closely related to this is the hotly disputed issue of the grounds of our justification before God. Here is where the biblical concept of imputation is so important. Those who deny imputation as the grounds of our justification declare it to be a legal fiction, a miscarriage of justice, or even a manifestation of cosmic child abuse. Yet at the same time, it is the biblical explanation for the ground of our redemption. No biblical text more clearly teaches this concept of transfer or imputation than that of Isaiah 53, which the New Testament church singled out as a crucial prophetic explanation of the drama of redemption. The New Testament declares Christ to be our righteousness, and it is precisely our confidence in the righteousness of Christ as the grounds for our justification that is the focus of the doctrine of justification by faith. We understand that believing the doctrine of sola fide will save no one. Faith in a doctrine is not enough to save. However, though we cannot be saved by believing in the doctrine of justification, the denial of that same doctrine can indeed be fatal because to deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone as the apostle Paul indicated in Galatians is to reject the gospel and substitute something else for it, which would result in what Paul declares to be anathema. The gospel is too important to be dismissed by tilting at scarecrows.

This article is part of the New Perspective on Paul collection.

order to enter into my rest, I cannot imagine anything other than an eternity of restlessness.

This article is part of the New Perspective on Paul collection.