Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul

Guy Prentiss Waters
Review by Jeremy Smith

Published by Phillipsburg: P&R, 2004

---

Reactions to the so-called New Perspective(s) on Paul (NPP) have been all over the map. Just considering the conversations I’ve had or overheard in the last few years within my own academic and ecclesiastical circles, it is difficult to pinpoint the evangelical perspective on this New Perspective. I have seen folks outraged, confused, dismayed, encouraged, perplexed, interested, bored, and respond in nearly every other conceivable fashion. And a simple survey of the evangelical landscape confirms that evangelicals as a whole don’t know what to do with the NPP. Some churchmen just cannot understand what all the fuss is about; others issue the charge of heresy, and even threaten to start new denominations. Just last month, the Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church came into existence, citing in their press release, “The new denomination is being established in response to conservative Presbyterians’ increasing concern over the acceptance of the teaching of justification by faith plus works. . . . in denominations such as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).” And just who is promoting such things? The press release states that, “these doctrines go by various names including Federal Vision Theology, the New Perspective on Paul, and Shepherdism” (see the denomination’s website, http://www.erpchurch.org). Well if this is true, if the NPP is truly advocating a different kind of gospel, why can’t evangelicals agree on their assessment of the NPP?

Several factors contribute to this phenomenon. First is the relative complexity of the NPP theology, and the complexity of the arguments that are published to answer these complex theological articulations. It can be difficult to understand what is being discussed. A second factor is that the proponents of the NPP are not all bad. In fact, there is much to admire about some of what the leading proponents are saying, as folks like N.T. Wright battle liberals and skeptics in the academic arena, promoting, at times, an orthodox position on things like inspiration and inerrancy. In addition to these two factors that contribute to the confusion over the NPP, evangelicals have been further troubled by the kinds of verbiage—more commonly found in the 16^th century polemical writings than civilized 21^st century books—being employed on both sides of the argument. It is hard to get on board criticizing the NPP when many of those doing the criticizing are producing more heat than light. But then, what are the issues at stake? Before we can even get there, we must ask, are there any key issues at stake? Into this uncertainty and discord enters Guy Waters.

In measured and seasoned strokes, Waters delves into the historical background and theological foundations that stand behind and beneath the distinctive tenants of NPP theology. In arguing his case, Waters makes this helpful assessment:

“When biblical critics in the 17^th century Germany began to depart from the formal concern of the Reformation (Scripture alone), they soon came to depart from the material concern of the Reformation (justification by faith alone)” (Waters p. 3).

Thus Waters traces the NPP pedigree back through the liberalism of the German religious schools, from the Hegelian philosophy of Baur, through the existentialism of Bultmann, to the beginning of the NPP movement in Krister Stendahl, on through the covenantal nomism of E.P. Sanders, the “boundary markers” of James Dunn, and the Lordship emphasis of N.T. Wright. In fact, Waters spends three-fourth of his time (approximately 150 of 200 pages) outlining the various histories and theologies of the proponents of the NPP. In so doing, Waters is able to establish his mastery of the subject, and in turn, accurately and fairly summarize the theologies of these men. His efforts result in a book that is both accessible to the intelligent layperson, and satisfying as an introduction on the subject to the more scholarly. As Waters writes, he uncovers several points of conflict, some of which appear at first fairly innocuous, but which lead to far more serious points of contention between the NPP and traditional orthodox theology. These points of contention can be aptly introduced through a serious of questions that NPP theologians raise, all of which are of the utmost seriousness:

• What is the center of Paul’s theology? Theologians of all stripes have disagreed over this issue, and if this were the sum total of the debate, then perhaps all of this would just be a “tempest in a teapot.” Was Paul more interested in the answer to the question, “How is a sinner made right with God?” or “What are the national boundary markers that distinguish Jew from Gentile?”

• What is the main theme of the book of Romans? This might seem a strange question indeed, the kind of question the Apostle himself may have had difficulty answering. For folks like Stendahl and Wright, the center of the epistle is chapters 9-11, whereas previous theologians saw those chapters as the appendix to the main arguments found in chapters 1-8. What is the issue here? Waters demonstrates how this distinction has implications for Paul’s relationship to Judaism, which in turn has implications on our understanding of justification.

• What kind of religion was the Judaism that Paul encountered? Through the efforts of E.P. Sanders and James Dunn, our understanding of 2^nd Temple Judaism has undergone some radical changes. But, as Waters points out, you can accept their observations without adopting their conclusions. And what are those conclusions? That 1^st century Judaism was a religion not of works (Pelagianism) but of grace. But as Waters contends, we more accurately understand Judaism as Semi-Pelagian (a religion of grace and works). And that has ramifications for our understanding of justification.

• Did Paul convert from Judaism? NPP proponents suggest that Paul did not have a conversion experience on the road to Damascus—it was “a call”.

• What are the “works of the law” according to Paul? Was Paul primarily criticizing a religion of works, as the Reformers and their heirs have understood Paul, or was he describing national boundary markers as James Dunn has suggested? That is, did Paul criticize Judaism because of its inclusive nature that took pride in things like circumcision and dietary laws that differentiated the Jews from the nations, or was he contrasting a righteousness that comes apart from the law (the imputed righteousness of Christ) to a righteousness that was sought through the doing of the law? Are “works of the law” improper sources of ethnic pride, or a way a man tries to be right in God’s eyes?

• What is the book of Galatians all about? N.T. Wright contends it is not “how precisely someone becomes a Christian or attains to a relationship with God,” but with “the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of the Jewish race, or in some other way” (Quoted in Waters, 130-131)

• Is justification primarily (and even) exclusively ecclesiastical, or does it have soteriological implications? Is justification a description of those who are in a covenantal relationship with God, or is it the way a guilty man stands acquitted before a righteous Judge? Is justification about getting into the covenant, or a forensic declaration about a sinner’s status?

• Did the Reformation misunderstand Paul? Did the Reformers read into Paul their own conflicts with Rome, and have those mistakes led to a cloudy reading of Paul for the last 450 years? Was the Roman Catholic Church of the 16^th century a Pelagian religion, or, as Waters contends, Semi-Pelatian?

• What is the gospel? Is it the declaration that Jesus is Lord, as Wright contends, or is it something else? The Reformed position is that the Lordship of Christ cannot be the gospel (the “good news”) because it doesn’t adequately deal with the bad news—that sinners are separated from a holy God by their sins. The good news cannot simply be that Jesus is Lord, as if the greatest need a sinner has is for his anarchy to be quelled. Yes, Jesus is Lord. But that can’t be the sum total of the gospel. The good news must be news that addresses the needs presented in the bad news.

These are just some of the issues that Waters highlights in his survey of the theology of the NPP, and it doesn’t take long for us to realize what’s really at stake. This isn’t simply an esoteric discussion amongst ivory tower theologians who have nothing better to do than squabble over minute details. This is not a return to medieval scholasticism, caricatured by the question, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” The heart of the gospel is under attack. The NPP is not a clarification or simplification or explanation of the gospel message—it is a different gospel message.

After his substantial summary of the history and peculiarities of the NPP, Waters devotes the remainder of his book to a critique of the NPP, and the implications that this theology has for the church. His analysis is organized around the hermeneutical problems, exegetical inconsistencies, and theological shortcomings inherent in the NPP. The result is a coherent, logical, and helpful outline of an orthodox response to the NPP. Demonstrating a readable combination of well-documented research, insightful commentary, and seasoned debate, Waters’ debut is poised to become the definitive Reformed introduction to and criticism of the NPP. In producing this volume, Waters has performed a commendable task for the evangelical world interested in contending for the historic faith.