Understanding the New Perspective on Paul: Questions, Answers and Stories

The chief difference between the "new perspective" on Paul (NPP) and the more traditional Reformed and Lutheran views is a difference of stories. I am no scholar, but I suspect that much of the conflict between the conservative and revisionist sides of the debate (if I may use those labels) results from trying to integrate differing storylines into the wrong stories.

One of longest-running Western storylines is the narrative of personal morality: how do we achieve moral perfection? If we cannot do this, what is our status before whatever god there might be? This question was far more than theoretical; many of the greatest writers on the subject, from Augustine to Luther, wrote from consciences struggling with knowledge of their own imperfection.

One of the greatest answers to this question in Western thought was the answer of the Protestant Reformation. How do I achieve the sort of personal righteousness required to be accepted before God? In short, said the Reformers, you don't and Christ does. "Our righteousness and wisdom are in vain," says Martin Luther. (Commentary on Romans, p. 28). The Reformation sought to abandon the project of building up oneself before God, accepting the alien righteousness of Christ, for "there neither is nor ever was any mere natural man absolutely righteous in himself: that is to say, void of all unrighteousness, of all sin." (Richard Hooker, A Learned Discourse of Justification, p. 2)

The Reformers did not, however, give up the existing storyline of acceptance before God; instead they redefined its answer. What we need is not personal righteousness, but rather "a righteousness which does not originate on earth, but comes down from heaven." (Luther, Romans, p. 29) The personal morality required for acceptance before God was given up for an extrapersonal morality, but the key element in the story -- the need for righteousness in order to be accepted by God -- was accepted, even built up. The Reformation thereby affirmed the existing narrative of man's relationship to God, though they radically redrew the answers to its central questions.

Herein, I suggest, lies the chief factor in the confusion and controversy surrounding the "new perspective" on Paul. The question asked and answered by Lutheran and Reformed thought is, as we have seen, How do we achieve personal righteousness in order to be accepted by God? Their answer is, of course, the righteousness of Christ alone, through faith alone, etc. The answer that Lutheran and Reformed thinkers find in the NPP is something along the lines of, the entirety of a life lived, including faith, works, and the rest of it.

But here is the confusion: the NPP is not asking and answering the same question as the Protestant Reformation. Lutheran and Reformed thinkers generally perceive correctly the answer given by the NPP, but assume that the answer goes with their own question. But instead of telling a story of sinful humans trying to be righteous before God, proponents of the NPP find in Paul a story of sinful humans chosen by God to be His chief agents in restoring His creation. The chief question to be asked, then, is not about achieving righteousness before God, but about how we can tell which people have been chosen as these agents. The (somewhat oversimplified) answer is faith and works.

This answer, if paired with the Reformers' question, does lead us down the path to Rome at best, and to Pelagianism at worst. It would be far more productive, not only from an exegetical standpoint, but also from an ecumenical view, if discussion could proceed on the level of storyline and questions. Only in this context can the answers of the Reformation and of recent scholarship be helpfully compared and discussed.