thoughts on the new perspective

In my early days of research, before Sanders had published Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977 and long before Dunn coined the phrase 'The New Perspective on Paul', I was puzzled by one exegetical issue in particular, which I here oversimplify for the sake of summary. If I read Paul in the then standard Lutheran way, Galatians made plenty of sense, but I had to fudge (as I could see dozens of writers fudging) the positive statements about the Law in Romans. If I read Paul in the Reformed way of which, for me, Charles Cranfield remains the supreme exegetical exemplar, Romans made a lot of sense, but I had to fudge (as I could see Cranfield fudging) the negative statements about the Law in Galatians. For me then and now, if I had to choose between Luther and Calvin I would always take Calvin, whether on the Law or (for that matter) the Eucharist. But as I struggled this way and that with the Greek text of Romans and Galatians, it dawned on me, I think in 1976, that a different solution was possible.

In Romans 10:3 Paul, writing about his fellow Jews, declares that they are ignorant of the righteousness of God, and are seeking to establish 'their own righteousness'. The wider context, not least 9:30-33, deals with the respective positions of Jews and Gentiles within God's purposes - and with a lot more besides, of course, but not least that. Supposing, I thought, Paul meant 'seeking to establish their own righteousness', not in the sense of a moral status based on the performance of Torah and the consequent accumulation of a treasury of merit, but an ethnic status based on the possession of Torah as the sign of automatic covenant membership? I saw at once that this would make excellent sense of Romans 9 and 10, and would enable the positive statements about the Law throughout Romans to be given full weight while making it clear that this kind of use of Torah, as an ethnic talisman, was an abuse. I sat up in bed that night reading through Galatians and saw that at point after point this way of looking at Paul would make much better sense of Galatians, too, than either the standard post-Luther readings or the attempted Reformed ones.

- N.T. Wright, New Perspectives on Paul (10th Edinburgh Dogmatics Conference 2003)

righteousness

i think the new perspective is right to point out that righteousness, at least in some cases, does not primarily refer to moral perfection but to covenant faithfulness. of course, this does not undermine the fact that Jesus is morally perfect. it simply highlights that Jesus is the faithful Israelite, the Messiah, the promised seed through whom God would put the world to rights.

on a related note, Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us in the sense that we are counted righteous in Him. Jesus' righteousness is not imputed to us in the sense that Jesus transfers His righteousness to us. as N.T. Wright puts it, 'righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom'.

when a wife uses her husband's credit card, it is not that she now uses it in her name; it is that she uses it in his name. likewise, when a husband uses his wife's credit card, it is not that he now uses it in his name; it is that he uses it in her name. so it is with imputed righteousness - when we appropriate Jesus' righteousness by the instrument of faith, it is not that we are now counted righteous in ourselves; it is that we are counted righteous in Him.

works of the law

i think the new perspective is also right to point out that works of the law, at least in some cases, do not refer to moral deeds but to ethnic marks. of course, this does not undermine the fact that justification is not by works of the law. it simply highlights that Paul is not against justification by works per se, but against justification by works of the law.