For the last few months I have been studying the so-called New Perspective on Paul. While there are, of course, disparate views held by proponents of the NPP, there are enough central tenets to categorize the NPP as a unique perspective within the history of Biblical exegesis. I have found my study to be somewhat frustrating as I have failed to come to concrete convictions on some of the different issues that comprise the debate. This post will be a shotgun expression of my thoughts on the subject with the goal of clarifying some of my own opinions.
1) I am generally dissatisfied with the way that modern Evangelicals and even many Reformed folks express the works/faith dynamic. I affirm the Reformed doctrine that Justification comes by grace through faith alone, but I think that the arguments between Protestants and Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Church of Christ, etc. are often framed in improper categories. Faith works. It is more than assent. Faith is by definition loyal or faithful. There are numerous passages that speak of us being judged based on our works and I don't think Protestant exegesis of these passages has been satisfactory to this point.
2) There is a sense in which any single failure to obey God's law renders a man guilty before God. Even more, we are guilty before we ever commit a sin because of our federal identity in Adam. However, Old Testament passages that use terms like blameless to describe imperfect men (Noah, Job, David, etc.) seem to indicate that absolute perfection is not in mind. The law was given to a flawed people and means of atonement (all of which pointed to Christ) were provided.
3) Certain passages strongly indicate that the sin of the Judaizers was trying to make Gentile Christians into Jewish proselytes instead of allowing them to find their identity in Christ alone. I am thinking here primarily of Galatians and Philippians. The works that Paul contrasts with faith in these passages seem to be those that reflect Jewish identity (dietary laws, circumcision, sabbaths, etc.). However, there are certainly passages where Paul describes faith and works as mutually exclusive ways of being justified. The works in these passages refer to good deeds, generally speaking. This is especially true in Romans and the Pastorals. Paul sets works/effort/law in contradistinction to grace/faith.
3) NPP exegesis is often strained. Their commentaries on several key passages are tortured and convoluted. It becomes obvious very quickly that their interpretation is slave to the premise they are trying to maintain, which, of course, is an accusation that can be leveled at most theologians from most schools of thought at one point or another.
4) The NPP generally relies upon a higher critical view of Biblical studies and largely denies the perspicuity and inspiration of Scripture. I think Guy Prentiss Waters is correct when he says that the NPP requires a priesthood of scholars. In other words, the NPP generally operates on the principle that untrained laymen, indeed, even trained scholars who are not specialists in the field of Second Temple Judaism, cannot adequately interpret the New Testament. The NPP rejects the hermeneutic principle of interpreting Scripture by Scripture because they do not view Scripture in a holistic manner. The NPP places too much weight behind what Second Temple Judaism taught, as if our interpretation of Paul is completely dependent on what his Jewish contemporaries believed. We certainly don't want to deny the organic influences on Paul's thinking, but the NPP, steeped as it is in liberal theology, does not consider the role that direct revelation played in the formation of Paul's theology and the development of the Canon.
5) The NPP generally fails to appreciate the substitutionary nature of Christ's death, which does a great disservice to a powerful and pervasive Biblical theme. Most NPP theologians deny or minimize the specifically forensic nature of the Atonement, describing it as secondary, metaphorical, or functionally equivalent to the experiential and transformative aspects of the Atonement.
7) NPP teaching does elucidate important Biblical ideas like covenant, Jewish/Gentile identity, obedience, the Kingdom, etc. Much of modern Protestantism has failed to appreciate these idioms adequately.
8) Based on my study thus far, I find the NPP to be neither damnable nor completely compelling. They ask and attempt to answer questions over which many Protestants gloss, but they often went too far. I certainly don't see how the NPP could be compatible with the Reformed Confessions, strictly speaking, but I think there are fewer and fewer people attempting such a synthesis. Those within Reformed communities who have sought to integrate NPP thinking into their theology have generally found their way to denominations where strict subscription is not required.
Comments
Post a Comment