The New Perspective on Paul

This video is part of a project titled "Theology Video Encyclopedia," which is intended to be a resource giving brief definitions and explanations of important theological concepts. If you would like to contribute, please visit / justandsinner

[@tonyortega750]

Just started reading your book "The Righteousness of One: An Evaluation of Early Patristic Soteriology in Light of the New Perspective on Paul". Great read so far.

[@crafterman2345]

I know I always have a tendency to want to harmonize everything, but while I would never wanna depart too much from traditional reformed thinking, I think NT Wright is absolutely correct in saying we mustn't over-individualize the gospel, and recognize it's about the Kingdom of God as a whole, not just individual souls going to heaven.

[@timkins9155]

That's right. That's NT's best point. Note how it says, "Our Father who art in heaven..." not "my Father..." Amen?

[@lc-mschristian5717]

Thank you for all you do! You, Brian Wolfmueler and Johnathan Fisk are the Pastors I listen to in order to get my theological fix. Thank you and also for the books you publish! They have expanded my library and my mind. God's peace be with you

[@RomGabe]

Thank you for Law & Gospel!

[@scripturethroughancienteye1509]

Great overview. I'm going to share this with a friend who is curious about NPP. I hope at some point you will consider a thirty-minute or so discussion on NPP

[@bestpossibleworld2091]

Again, this is an excellent summary of a broad movement. Thank you. I personally am in general agreement with the New Perspective that, for instance, the book of Romans reads differently from a 1st century Jewish-Gentile perspective than from a 16th century Reformation paradigm. As such, the New Perspective has been very helpful.

[@hushai5154]

Strangely enough, a few years back these issues swept through the conservative Reformed church under the banner of the Federal Vision. The whole period and divisions that followed were very sad generally and for me personally. I spent a good amount of time studying the issue. In the final analysis I came to the conclusion that although some of the differences were real, most were simply linguistic. People in opposition were often fearful and reactive. It was a real lesson for me to see how language and terminology set boundaries that are so often unrecognized.

[@jameswoodard4304]

"The Law didn't require perfect obedience..." Well that's just silly. "10 Whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. " James 2. And speaking at the Jerusalem Counsel, Peter made an argument against the Judaizers which argument was in support of Paul's position, was agreed to by the council, and published not merely as doctinally authoritative, but is included in Holy Scripture with approbation. In his argument, Peter asked the rhetorical question to the Judaizers, "10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts 15) If neither the Jewish Apostles trained and taught by the Word Made Flesh, nor any of their ancestors among the righteous of Israel were "able to bear" the "yoke" of the Law, then it must be at least *practically speaking* impossible to keep fully. But this is all beside the point, as the Scriptures make clear that the Law never saved anyone. Both Paul and James the Just in their scriptures written by direction on the Holy Spirit state that everyone from Abraham to the Gentile Christians of the First Century were saved by faith that then produced works as evidence. The OT saints were saved by faith, lived by faith, and evidenced their faith in the imperfect but faithful acting out of the Law. As far as the requirements of the Law have been fulfilled by Christ, or that one was never of the House of Israel to begin with and so they would not apply anyway, the strictures of the Law no longer hold weight, but we continue to be saved and to live by Faith. So, the problem of whether or not the Law was possible to be kept is moot to the Christian.

[@carlosreira413]

Yes, good point. Here the weakness of the new Pauline perspectives comes out. They don't get the Bible! Now it IS paradoxical--Paul is always saying "You're free from the law, now act like it." James seems to be saying that works absolutely justify. But N.B. Berean--James isn't talking about "works of the law." The clue is his two examples of faith plus works righteousness: 1. Abraham's willingness to offer us Isaac 2. Rahab the prostitute hiding the spies These are efforts or more simply actions (works) which show a "getting it" toward God, that ability to recognize his will and do it. There is no moral goodness inherent in either of these actions. They are simply good because of that essential commodity for pleasing God--faith. Now, if we're coming from a more historical perspective and trying to look at things in eyes of a first century Jew, a lot of what these brothers are saying is good and helpful. Paul even says he was "as touching the righteousness of the law, blameless." Blameless, maybe, but not really "righteous," not "justified." So, yes, their attitude might have been very obedient to God in their hearts, and not as wickedly self-promoting and self-justifying as those Pharisees in the Gospels, but their zeal was "not according to knowledge." Good job pointing out Peter's phrasing, "the yoke of slavery our forefathers couldn't bear." The problem here is the post-Reformation notion of dividing the law into "ceremonial" which is said to be fulfilled and "moral" which, as the Westminster Confession states: "Doth ever bind us all, justified persons as well as others..." www.blueletterbible.org/study/ccc/westminster/Of_The_Law_Of_God.cfm This is a major blunder. The Jews gathered at Pentecost in Acts 2 were there to do obedience to the law, ceremonial perhaps, but it was a huge burden to have to make a pilgrimage to the temple three times a year for sacrifices. And the Jews did not have such a distinction. The whole law was viewed as a unified thing, despite all the various partisan theories of how best to obey it. Anyhow, good wise words and I hope I have added to them as we are called to do, amen?

[@johnvincent7744]

Very good! Thanks

[@Nickyaksich]

I grew up Lutheran and never heard this haha interested in going further to hear these ideas!

[@rev.stephena.cakouros948]

The long term effect of his new perspective on Paul is a cross-less Christianity. or what is present in Isaiah 53:5-12, which allowed Paul to say "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures." [1 Cor. 15:3] Satan wants the cross. For it is Christianity itself.

[@joelsexton6046]

I looked into the NPP, almost fell for it untill I seen they fell short on my many points such was "works of law" and the phrase "Righteousness of Christ etc. Their gospel is hard to get excited about Great overview!

[@JoshWashington]

FYI. Gospel understood within a NPP framework. thescripturesays.org/gospel/

[@Andrew-dc7nl]

Funny how the orthodox understanding of Paul’s writings are also reflected in the words of Christ. John 12:25 English Standard Version (ESV) 25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. John 3:5 English Standard Version (ESV) 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 7:21-23 (ESV) 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

[@adamcraig1468]

NT Wright, sometimes goes by the name NT Wrong

[@michael.1517]

You still should not mock him that way

[@adamcraig1468]

@@michael.1517 why?

[@Liminalplace1]

I'd love to see some work critiquing FREE GRACE dispensationism (grace thru faith alone apart from WORKS..as in deeds for merit) fron a new perspective view on WORKS vs Grace. Havent seen it anywhere. If anyone knows anyone who has dealt with those issue.. pls inform

[@tommarshall3365]

Acts 15 proves that at least some Jewish Christians were equating law observance and circumcision in particular, with our salvation. (Acts 15 verse 1). Notice how Peter and the other apostles counteract their opponents with talk of God’s grace. This is the Old Perspective loud and clear.

[@drewmann856]

Is Paul ever referring to the natural law in any of his letters? I've heard the Orthodox say that he's referring to natural law many times when we in the West think he's always referring to the Mosaic law.

[@RogerMiller-td5yc]

paul is clearly speaking about Torah, and the ten commandments. Yahushua (Jesus) clearly rebukes the pharrises about the oral Torah and the talmud, but upholds the Torah 100%. paul wants you to eat meat sacrificed to pagan idols, said the law was given to Moses by weak and beggarly angels, never quotes Yahushua once, never said "Yahweh said" in any of his letters, caused all the division of the church's (witch was prophesied) Ect, ect, ect.

[@emilesturt3377]

The new perspective is really the old perspective, and so the "old" perspective is really the "new" perspective (kind of, from an Orthodox perspective)

[@samuelcallai4209]

Hi. Why doesn't this video have Closed Captions?

[@sophianikolai8381]

where do you fall down on this doctor cooper? Agree with it or disagree?

[@mike2191958]

Main problem most scholars don’t understand is they do not know the law it’s limits what it could or could not do !!! Once this is known the New Testament is in full agreement with the law. Coupled with little knowledge of Greek and Hebrew further clouds clear understanding. I could give you example one after the other reply the answer

[@davidpinheiro9650]

I would like to know what those limits are...

[@denominationsdontsaveonlyj8896]

My friend there is no need for long conversations about the law,,, do we do the law or not? Paul said ..... Romans 3:31 KJV [31] Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. The Law is still active, the end.

[@denominationsdontsaveonlyj8896]

@Infinite Adriannn it’s not active through the works of the law... Circumcision and ceremonial laws but it is active through faith, we abide in the law of faith not the law of works. Having said that you obtain salvation unto good works.

[@carlosreira413]

No, that's entirely the wrong conclusion. You're not getting Romans 10:4: "Christ is the end of the law..." The law is not active any more,* but through faith, we actually achieve its "righteous requirements." By virtue of our being placed in Christ and he in us, we in the lawgiver and the lawgiver in us, by the Spirit which is given to the church at Pentecost. The INTERNAL guidance of the Spirit fulfill the law as it will never misguide, never displease God. So, we actual "establish" that which cannot be made to stand on its own. That's the literally meaning of the Greek here. In a somewhat crass way, but helpful, we might say, we prop-up the law. By our faith, we maintain what cannot be maintained any other way. It's infuriatingly Pauline. Paradox. I hope this helps. *Quite literally, once the temple is destroyed there is absolutely no way for the Jews to keep the law. Only if one divides the law into "ceremonial" (fulfilled) and "moral" (still active) does one have the option of keeping the law. And this is what Reformed tradition maintained, at times. Here's the Westminster Confession: "The moral law doth ever bind us all, justified persons as others..." www.blueletterbible.org/study/ccc/westminster/Of_The_Law_Of_God.cfm But the Jews had no such division. The law was not seen a something that could be divorced from the ceremonial nature of the feasts and so forth. If anything, the moral part IS fulfilled: "abolishing in his flesh the commandments in ordinances" while the ceremonial typologies maintain prophetic resonance of things always, or at least until the eschaton: "Not one jot or tittle shall fall out of the law until all be fulfilled." Even before the utter destruction of the temple, the curtain of the Holy of Holies is torn, laying the innermost sanctum bare. This is the first event, or very nearly, that occurs upon the death of Christ. While nothing that Christ does can be said to defile the temple, this opening of the most holy place upends the priestly roles, and marks a radical departure from the old.

[@justintillett]

My take on this is that the ELC will or already has adopted the new perspective. My concern is that the LCMS will try to avoid the question and end up adopting the NP in practice without officially adopting it.

[@Daniel-id6le]

Nt wright is way off on this. He has many critics of his view here.

[@polemeros]

So instead of reading Paul out of a modern interpretation of the Medieval context, we are supposed to read it out of a 20/21st century interpretion of what a 1st century Jewish context was. Why am I not inspired? ;) Sola Scriptura always leads to the Tower of Bible.

[@akimoetam1282]

You’re begging the question

[@carlosreira413]

Yes, it does, and that's why we need to understand the history. First come the Church and then comes the Bible. Paradoxically, however, we know this because of the Bible. And we need the presence of the third Person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, which again we know is in fact present in the Church (and also the individual believer) because the Bible say so. But nothing is "alone" or apart from any other thing in the New Covenant. And so the "solas" are all pretty much false doctrines. They were corrective points toward Catholic errors, but it's not as though God abides bullet points. We might affirm only a few "solas:" 1. Only in the name of Jesus: "There is no other name under heaven given to men whereby they might be saved." 2. Only by the power of the Spirit: "Not by power, not by might, but by my Spirit says the Lord."

[@adamandsethdylantoo]

I know this is an old comment but I mean, yeah we basically are. To use an archeology example, the Reformers were attempting to understand a spire in the sand known as the Bible from what the Catholic Church had taught them and the context of their own times, whereas now, with excavation and far more credence paid to actual Jews and Greeks were saying, we’ve unearthed far more of the spire and can see the Reformer’s reconstructions were pretty off the mark. The Reformer’s perspective also put Paul at such a sharp contrast to the rest of the Bible that Luther infamously proposed treating James like New Testament apocrypha. Like Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 3, anything we build on the foundation of Jesus (and we must build on Jesus and because of a faith in him) will be tested by God in the Last Day. To say works mean nothing to God is basically saying Jesus twiddled his thumbs for 3 years while he was teaching and that the apostles labored for their own amusement.

[@TheDroc1990]

Howwwww can one claim that Lutheran theologians don't have their own frameworks for coming to conclusions such as Christs human body being more than one place at one time? I ask because the logic of Calvinism (biblical teaching) is condemned.

[@Mygoalwogel]

What has this comment to do with the video?

[@TheDroc1990]

@@Mygoalwogel I don't know id have to re-watch the video lol. I was probably on a tangent from another video.