What's it all about? The New Perspective on Paul

N. T Wright

Initially

The so-called new perspective on Paul (NPP) is based on the assumption that Protestants have misunderstood Paul's teaching on justification. Scholars associated with this revisionist stance include E. P. Saunders, J. G. D. Dunn and N.T. Wright. All NPP proponents are usually named using their initials.

Reformers and Revisionists

The Reformers, in their simplicity used to think that 1st century Jews believed in salvation by works just like 16th century Roman Catholics. Saunders challenged that view by saying that "Second Temple" Jews believed that they were saved by God's gracious election. They may have taught that they had to "stay in" the covenant relationship by works, but they "got in" by grace.

When Paul wrote that we are saved by faith in Christ not by the works of thew law, he was not condemning legalism. He was saying that faith in Christ is that badge that now identifies us as the people of God, not the works of the law like circumcision under the old covenant. Justification by faith, then is about the question, "Who are the people of God?" The answer is, "Jews and Gentiles whom confess Jesus Christ as Lord." Jews who insisted that Gentiles get circumcised and obey the law to be "proper" Christians were being nationalistic rather than legalistic.

Can the NPP be justified?

The Reformers understood that justification is God's declaration that we a right with him on the basis of the obedience and sacrifice of Christ. For them, faith is not a "badge", but the empty hand that lays hold of the righteousness of Christ. In that case, justification is a legal category. It is the opposite of condemnation. It concerns our status before God rather than our identity within the people of God. Strangely, this is exactly what Paul says in Romans 8:33 & 34, "It is God who justifies who is he who condemns?" [Emphasis added]

Second Temple Jews may have believed that they "got in" by grace, but if they had to "stay in" by works, then this is still salvation by works. It seems that in terms of getting through the judgement of God into eternal bliss, many believed that they had to "get there" by their works. NPP scholars like N. T. Wright teach that final justification is on the basis of the whole life of faith, including works.

Paul's pespective on Paul

Paul's great argument in Romans 1-3 is that "by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified in his sight, for the works of the law were the badge of membership under the old covenant." Not really, the text says that we cannot be justified by the works of the law because "by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20). We have broken God's law. We are guilty before him (Romans 3:19). We cannot bring ourselves into a right relationship with God because we stand condemned as sinners. God justifies us on the basis on the atoning work of Christ (Romans 3:24 & 25). We are declared to be in the right with God because Christ has redeemed us. Justification is primarily about our standing before God, not our membership of his people. It is true that justified sinners are God's people, but justification by faith is not a "Jesus is Lord" badge. How could such a badge help us before the bar of God's judgement?

What's it all about? Karl Barth

It seems that 20th century Swiss theologian, Karl Barth is all the rage at the moment. Ben Myres at Faith & Theology devotes every other post to something Barthian. So, you might be wondering, what's the fuss all about? Don't worry, you won't have to plough through the massive 4 volume Church Dogmatics to find out - David Sky will give you the low down.

Biog

This is important. You have not pronounced his name correctly if you make it rhyme with "laugh". Barth rhymes with "art" or "cart".

Barth (1886-1968) taught theology at a number of German universities, Gottingen, Munster, and Bonn. In the 1930's he opposed Hitler and was dismissed from his post. He returned to Switzerland and taught for the remainder of his career in Basel. In 1919 Barth published his seminal commentary on Romans, where he emphasised the "Godness of God". His major literary work was his massive, four volume Church Dogmatics.

Barth scandalised his admirers by conducting a long term affair with his assistant, Charlotte ("Lollo") von Kirschbaum. He would take "Lollo" on holiday with him, leaving his poor, long suffering wife at home.

Theology

Barth reacted against the liberal theology of the likes of Bultmann and found inspiration in the teaching of John Calvin. But Barth's dislike of the historico-critical method of exegesis left him seeming to be ambiguous about the historical basis of Scriptural events. Barth emphasised the revelatory character of events like the resurrection of Christ. At least in his earlier writings, he wasn't so sure about the historicity of the empty tomb.

Barth saw Scripture as a witness to the revelation of God rather than the inscripturated revelation of God in itself. He held that the Bible may become the Word of God to us in a revelatory event, but that Scripture was not the Word of God written. Barth so emphasised Jesus Christ as the revelation of God that he seems to have forgotten that we cannot know Christ apart from the witness of Scripture.

He was ambiguous about using the term "Person" to describe the three in the Trinity. Barth preferred to speak of "modes" within the godhead. He may not be charged with fully blown modalism, but the spectre of unipersonality cannot be entirely avoided. His model of the trinity is God as "revealer, revelation and revealdness". Again, this leaves us doubtful regarding the distinct Personhood of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Barth reformulated Calvin's doctrine of election to teach that God elects himself to save humanity in Christ. This leaves him open to the charge of universalism. If God has chosen to be the Saviour of all humanity in Christ, it is difficult to explain how all will not be saved. Barth's followers battle amongst themselves as to whether or not he was a universalist.

Christ assumed a fallen humanity when he became Man according to Barth. If "fallen" means anything, it means sinful. At the fall, humanity entered a state of sinful rebellion against God. What does this say about the union of the divine and human natures of Christ within the Person of the Son? Did the Son of God express himself through sinful humanity? If Jesus assumed a sinful humanity, he is part of the problem rather than the solution. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. But we was without sin. He offered himself up without spot to God.

Conclusion

We may be able to learn certain valuable lessons from Karl Barth. But remember, Barth does not rhyme with laugh because his theology contains some seriously bad errors.

What's it all about? The Emerging Conversation

I realise that not everybody has the time and intelligence to keep up-to-date with what's going on in the Christian world. This is the first in a series called "What's it all about?" I will give a brief but accurate assessment of a trend that might be bothering people who are too dull or indolent to look these things up for themselves. I'm starting with that hot topic the Emerging Conversation.

Lots of different people are involved in this conversation. But neither they nor I know quite what it's all about. Emerging types believe that the best way to win the postmodern world (trendy eh?) is to copy the postmodern world. Bad stuff like absolutes have to go now that we have outgrown old Enlightenment epistemology (that's bad).

Emerging voices don't believe in gospel truths like penal substitution. They tend to say that Christ was offered as a ransom to Satan. This makes the cross much more acceptable to postmoderns who don't like the idea of sin and judgement.

Because Emergents view the Bible through postmodern lenses, they can't really tell you what it means. What matters is what the Bible means to you. Any attempt at responsible exegesis is viewed as manipulative power play.

So, now you know.