Well, let’s first think of the Apostle Paul. What was Paul’s beef with the Jewish leaders regarding salvation? Simply put, they had pursued righteousness as if it could be obtained on the basis of their works (Rom. 9:32). In other words, Cara says, Paul was arguing against a legalistic works righteousness view of salvation.
The New Perspective now feels old. Or to say it differently, it has gained stability in the academy and in the church. Tom Wright, its leading salesperson, is as intelligent as he is winsome. He also has the instincts of a pastor. Hence the Everyone’s Commentary, which has quickly become a staple in the church, is reaching, well, everyone! The New Perspective is leaching into the pews at an accessible rate. So, as we think about justification I think it’s a good idea that we address the New Perspective on Paul (NPP).
Let me begin by saying that Robert Cara, Provost, Chief Academic Officer and Hugh and Sallie Reaves Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary, has gifted the church with a book titled, Cracking the Foundations of the New Perspective. It is a text meant to equip pastors who are ill-equipped to answer arguments rooted in Second Temple Judaism made by advocates (e.g. James Dunn and Tom Wright) of the NPP. In fact, Cara is quick to remind us that the NPP is really just that, a new perspective on Judaism. How so?
Well, let’s first think of the Apostle Paul. What was Paul’s beef with the Jewish leaders regarding salvation? Simply put, they had pursued righteousness as if it could be obtained on the basis of their works (Rom. 9:32). In other words, Cara says, Paul was arguing against a legalistic works righteousness view of salvation. [1]
However, proponents of the New Perspective understand things differently. According to them, the Jews were doing no such thing! In fact, say NPP advocates, the Jews understood salvation to be a matter of grace and not works. Thus, to them, Protestants have misread Paul. Instead of reading the text on its own terms NPP advocates charge interpreters with having read medieval Catholicism back into Paul’s theology.[2] Well, what does all of this do to justification?
