As readers of this blog will know, I’ve been struggling for some time now with what, if any, impact the so-called “New Perspective on Paul” should have on Reformed theology. In that struggle, my instincts have kept me away from the extremes–on the one hand those who seem to welcome the NPP wholly and uncritically, casting off their Reformed garments as they run to embrace it; on the other hand those who have bruised chins from their knees jerking upward at the very mention of those three initials together, those casting the “H” (heresy) word.

Therefore the quotation below by Pastor Rich Lusk nearly lept off the page at me. It seems to me to elegantly sum up the “middle road” position that was muddling around in my head. (The quotation is taken from Lusk’s response to Bryan Chappel’s attempt to summarize NPP/FV/AAT, but originally appeared in an article of his in the 2002 Reformation and Revival Journal. The bolded portions correspond to those highlighted by Pastor Lusk in his article.)

Again, the New Perspective teaches the basic problem with Judaism in Paul’s day, after the coming of Christ, was not that it was “self-righteous” or “legalistic,” but that it had an unrealized eschatology (that is, it clung to the old Torah-based ways of expressing fidelity to God which are now obsolete since the promised Messiah has come, opening covenant membership to the Gentiles). In other words, Paul’s critique of Israel is not, on the surface, what the Reformers took it to be – prideful, legalistic attempts at achieving self-salvation through meritorious “works of the law.” Paul, therefore, was not battling a form of proto-Pelagianism. Rather his opponents’ problem was that they wanted to turn back the clock of redemptive history; they were attempting to live “B.C.” in an “A.D.” world. However, what many New Perspective theologians fail to realize is that to continue to insist on circumcision, dietary laws, etc. as a means of relating to God after he has said these things are no longer pleasing to him and after they have filled their temporary redemptive-historical purpose is prideful and legalistic, considered from another angle. It is a form of self-salvation, since it demands the covenant blessing on one’s own terms, rather than submitting to God’s. So the old criticisms of Judaism are still there, but in nuanced form. Many New Perspective theologians have been too quick to draw an antithesis between their view of Paul’s argument and the Reformers’. Perhaps this is because they have failed to understand the basic nature of sin. Stott quips, “As I have read and pondered [Sanders’] books I have kept asking myself whether perhaps he knows more about Palestinian Judaism than he does about the human heart” (Romans, 29). See also Dan G. MacCartney, “No Grace Without Weakness,” Westminster Theological Journal Vol. 61, No. 1 (1-13). Nationalistic pride and exclusivism, as seen in first century Judaism, are just variant forms of the same basic self-righteous, legalistic stance that fallen human nature always assumes.

This seems to me a most helpful insight. While the NPP may be correct that 1st century Judaism did not set out to be a proto-Pelagian legalistic religion, it became one the moment it rejected God’s Messiah. Thus, it is not incorrect to say that Paul was arguing both for an all-inclusive (Jew and Gentile) New Covenant and against a Jewish legalistic scheme of salvation. It is not an either/or situation as it has too often been framed by extremists on both sides of the debate.

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 29th, 2005 at 9:38 am and is filed under Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.