The New Perspective on Paul - Refute

The modern view of Paul is largely based on the study and teaching of the
reformed teaching since the Protestant Reformation. Many of the views are from Luther
and his writings. In his book, Justification, N. T. Wright explains his view of how the
New Perspective on Paul (NPP) makes more sense theologically and in context with the
historical/Biblical theology of Paul. As this class does focus on Biblical theology, it is an
interesting study to look at this view.
In a quick overview, the main debate is over how the law is viewed by the apostle
Paul. The old view reads the scriptures so that Paul is talking about the law being made
worthless in this new age with Christ. In the new perspective, however, the law, while
not meriting salvation, can be a positive aspect to a Christians life. A portion of the
problem for Wright with the old view is how strongly faith alone is relied on, or at the
very least, to the degree at which God used faith as a secondary or back up plan to men
not keeping the law. Write sees the old view as the law was Gods initial plan to save
people, but since no one person could keep it, He devised a more simple method, namely
faith (129). Wright claims that this is bad theology (which it is) and must therefore be
referred back to the covenant promise to Abraham. So as not to run deep into the
discussion before presenting the foundation, it is necessary to back up to Wrights basis
of this view, Second Temple Judaism.
Second Temple Judaism, which we know most about through writings in
apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, and historical documents not the Bible, is the period of
Judaism from 515 BC to 70 AD. The latest 70 years of this era, first century Judaism, is
the main focus of discussion between Wright along with other NPPers and the opponents

of this view. Wright outlines the basic view that he supposes the Jews of the day had
based on writings and the cultural context of how history was happening at the time.
One, many first-century Jews thought of themselves as living in a continuing narrative
stretching from earliest times, through ancient prophecies and on toward a climactic
moment of deliverance which might come at any moment (59). Two, this continuing
narrative was currently seen, on the basis of Daniel 9, as a long passage through a state of
continuing exile (60). Three, many first-century Jews thought of the period they
were living in as the continuation of a great scriptural narrative, and of the moment they
themselves were in as late on within the continuing exile of Daniel 9 (61). To
summarize these statements, the Jews felt they were part of the continuing history of
Daniel 9s prophecy.
Knowing very little about second temple Judaism, I did some research to make a
more well informed opinion in the discussion. Lester Grabbe in his book, Introduction to
Second Temple Judaism, points out that Judaism was very divided and pluralistic in its
views. Gnosticism held many Jewish traditions. Esoteric arts performed miracles in
their Jewish practices. These and other permutations of Judaism, notes Grabbe, makes
discussion of [Jewish views] speculative to some extent (136). Larry Helyer, a partial
proponent of the NPP admits that some newer evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls show
the works of the law as held closer toward salvation, rather than anything else (265).
Helyer warns Biblical theologians to be careful in taking the view to far. While it is
important to understand the historical context a portion of scripture is written around, the
extent of the history driving the theology should be handled with utmost care.

When Paul is read in the context of Wrights understanding of Second Temple

Judaism, covenant theology of justification must prevail. The main idea of this covenant
justification is that present justification declares, on the basis of faith, what future
justification will affirm publicly (Wright, What Saint 129). Although declaring that
his view is not the same as the traditional Roman Catholic view, it does run close to God
moving us into the covenant relationship and us, through the Holy Spirits power, staying
there.
Wright sees the covenant with Abraham and realizes that it was fulfilled with
Jesus death on the cross. He then takes this concept of past accomplishment and future
anticipation of verdict and applies it to justification. At this point in time, Christians are
declared to be in the right, that is, righteous. He then sees Romans 3:27-4:17 and
Galatians 2:14-3:29 as corresponding to the promised covenant with Abraham. Believers
are today all brought together as one people through the work of Jesus Christ. The
believer is actually brought into the covenant. Since the law was given to the people of
the covenant, it now has application to the gentile-believer-made-covenant-participant.
Wright sees Paul teaching that the believer is not made part of Gods family, but rather
Abrahams covenant family.
This notions main problem is at large a discrepancy with Gods dispensations.
Involved in this is how the church and Israel as Gods chosen people remain separate.
Wright does claim to dislike the dispensational system claiming it goes against scripture
and does not view eschatology impartially. Wrights view of the Abraham covenant now
including the church denounces all other covenants, (e.g. Mosaic, Davidic, etc.). It is
certainly a bold stretch to eliminate all other covenants and establish them as simply a

reduction of the original covenant to Abraham. In Galatians 6:16, Paul talks about the
believers and Israel as distinctly separate. Also, Jesus proclaims that He would build His
church on Peter (Mt 16:18). Paul talks about the church as part of Gods mystery in
prophetic plan (Eph 3:9; Col 1:26). It is a safer interpretation to see Israel as temporarily
in disobedience and not adhering to the covenant, the church currently the focus in Gods
plan acknowledging that we have been grafted in, and that Israel will be redeemed to God
in His end of the plan.
In tandem with Wrights view that Christians are made part of the Abrahamic
Covenant is that the law is profitable for us (Gentile Christians). He sees the law not as a
ridiculous standard to prove that none are worthy of Heaven. His problem with this view
is that it seems that God had set up a way for man to achieve salvation, but after no one
was able to succeed, He decided to come up with an easier way, i.e. faith alone. Instead
of a slave master law, Wright sees the law as our babysitter, the slave hired to look after
us while we were young and at risk, so that we might make it through to the coming of
the Messiah (129). With such a light view of the law, Wright sees the law as something
not to be discarded, but carried along in the flow of Gods plan.
Wright sees Jesus not as one who removes or fulfills the law (although He did
keep the law perfectly) but the one who declares righteousness. For Wright, this
declaration of righteousness is simply a way to denote the beginning of an action that
through works, guided and helped by the Spirit, man sustains himself to the end when
righteousness is fully granted and declared. This view wholly destroys Adam as a type
for Christ. The sin of Adam is imputed, that is to say ascribed to, every person as part of

our humanity. The traditional view sees this as the problem and Christ as the completely
solution as His righteousness is actually imputed to the believer.
Wright analogizes the justification to a court scene. The word justify, as used by
Paul, does have a law court connotation. For Wright the judge, in this case God, is able
to declare the defendant is innocent or in the right, but the judge does not transfer His
own righteousness or innocence to the defendant. This results in justification speaking
about the persons status and not their moral Character (Schreiner). Thomas Schreiner
points out that while Wright has the correct idea about Justification being a legal term, he
misses an important aspect, that is, Christs part in imputing righteousness to us. Wright
is correct in saying that this righteousness does not deal with our moral character. In
Romans 4:5 Paul writes that God justifies the ungodly. A judge, according to
Deuteronomy, must declare innocence and guilt justly. If Christs righteousness is not
imputed to us, yet God is still declaring us righteous, He is guilty of not following His
own commands. God is able, however, to declare men justified because of the price
Christ paid by His death on the cross.
All in all, while having an interesting view that lines up with traditional
Christianity, there are several large problems with Wrights view. The weight of Second
Temple Judaism over scripture, the separation (or lack thereof) of the Church and Israel,
and Christ not imputing His righteousness to repentant sinners all play a part in driving
the New Perspective on Paul slightly off track of a solid Biblical base.

Grabbe, Lester. An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism : History and Religion of the
Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel and Jesus. London; New
York: T & T Clark, 2010. 136. Print.

Helyer, Larry. The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John. InterVarsity Press. 2008. 256. Print.

Schreiner, Thomas. "Wright is Wrong on Imputation." Ligoneir Ministries. Tabletalk

Magazine, 01, Feb. 2010. Web. 7 Mar 2012.

Wright, N.T. What Saint Paul Really Said. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1997. 126. Print.