The debate between a “Lutheran” or traditional view of Paul and the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) is likely the most important of the last century regarding Pauline studies. Although overly simplistic, according to the traditional view, the distinction between Paul’s Christianity and Judaism is that the former purported salvation through faith and the latter purported salvation through works. The language of tradition may be somewhat misleading, as the Lutheran view seems to have arisen primarily from Luther’s protest against Roman Catholicism during the Reformation rather than any sort of ancient tradition. Regardless, in a sense, E. P. Sanders birthed the NPP with his landmark book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism.^[1] Sanders does not perceive a dichotomy between works and grace, but instead, he synthesizes the concepts in an attempt to explain the strict legalistic sayings that exist alongside the profound affirmations of grace within Judaism. Sanders concludes that Palestinian Judaism viewed soteriology through the following lens: “Obedience to the commandments was not thought of as earning salvation, which came rather by God’s grace, but was nevertheless required as a condition of remaining in the covenant; and not obeying the commandments would damn.”^[2] In general, the NPP has provided an important corrective to the simplistic idea that Christianity is only about grace and Judaism is only about works.

Several tenets of the NPP are convincing. First, Sanders’s view that Judaism is a religion of grace is convincing. First and foremost, Jews believed they were God’s chosen people because they were descendants of Abraham. The relationship between Yahweh and the Jews occurred because God graciously chose the Jews to be His people, not because the Jews met a certain behavioral standard. In fact, the entire Old Testament testifies to the Jews not living up to certain standards; however, to suggest that Judaism is a religion of grace and not of works goes too far. Second, James D. G. Dunn also provides an important contribution to understanding the phrase “works of the law.” Stanley Porter recognizes Dunn’s assertion that Jewish “works of the law” are boundary markers rather than an effort to win God’s favor as the Reformers suggested.^[3] Although it is true that Dunn contends that works of the law provided certain ethnic boundary markers, Dunn also makes an important cautionary clarification when stating that he does not “narrow ‘the works of the law’ to boundary issues.”^[4] Regardless of the nuance, Dunn’s insight highlights that part of the purpose of Paul’s gospel message was to break down barriers between Jews and Gentiles.^[5]

Paul and the Faithfulness of God

Third, N. T. Wright also productively contributes to the conversation. He asserts that when a first-century writer refers to God’s righteousness “he is speaking of (a) an attribute of God himself and (b) more specifically of the attribute of covenant faithfulness.”^[6] Wright’s emphasis on the covenantal relationship between God and His people must not be overlooked. Without question, God keeps his covenantal promises. Furthermore, Christ is faithful and righteous, and, at times, the phrase, πίστεως Χριστοῦ, likely needs translated with the subjective genitive – the faithfulness of Christ.

The contributions of the NPP are significant. Accordingly, the Pauline interpreter must consider the aspect of Judaism that embraces the grace of God, the concept of boundary markers within the Jewish religious system, and the importance of God’s covenantal faithfulness to Paul’s soteriology. However, to suggest that Judaism had nothing to do with works, had a legal system that only pertained to boundary markers, and had a view of righteousness completely limited to covenant faithfulness also moves beyond the evidence.^[7] In sum, I do believe that the NPP has provided some important correctives to Reformation theology, but without nuancing the perspective, the interpreter will likely wind up in extreme positions that do not align with the biblical evidence.

_______________________________________

[1] See E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).

[2] Ibid., 320.

[3] Stanley E. Porter, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2016), 114.

[4] James D. G. Dunn, New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 25.

[5] Ibid., 29.

[6] N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013), 804.

[7] See D. A. Carson, Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds., Justification And Variegated Nomism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001).

Bibliography

• Carson, D. A., Peter T. O’Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid, eds. Justification And Variegated Nomism. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
• Dunn, James D. G. New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
• Porter, Stanley E. The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2016.
• Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
• Wright, N. T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013.