The “New Perspective on Paul” in a Nutshell
What, exactly, is the “New Perspective on Paul” (NPP)?
I received a notification via Twitter¹ that “Christianity Today” is hosting an article by Trevin Wax, titled “The Justification Debate: A Primer.”
Essentially, as Wax explains,
Some friends have encouraged me to explain “in a nutshell”² and in easy-to-understand laymen’s terms what the big debate between John Piper and N.T. Wright is all about. [...] “The Justification Debate: A Primer” (Christianity Today, June 2009) is my humble attempt at summarizing the two views as succintly and simply as possible.
Please note that both John Piper and N.T. Wright looked over my work and made some slight revisions regarding their respective summaries.
Here is my mandatory visual:
Look at ‘em. “Grrrr…”
The article is split into a handful of topical sections, with each view briefly summarized in about 1-3 sentences. The topics include:
—The Problem (Creation+Fall)
—The Law
—God’s Righteousness
—First-Century Judaism
—The Gospel
—How This Happens
—Future Justification
It looks like a lot, but with less than a paragraph for each of the two views per section, it makes for very snappy reading.
So, there we have it! A nice simple summary, even with Wright and Piper putting the stamp of approval on it themselves. Go check it out! [LINK]
(I see now that Justin Taylor at BetweenTwoWorlds has mentioned this. Keep an eye on the comment thread of his post, he always draws an interesting crowd to the conversation…)
______
¹Have you started using Twitter yet? Srsly, itz totally awsm. #ftw
²If you’re like me and enjoy things in nutshells, you will also like my recent post on Church History, and also pistachios.
My name is Aaron Rathburn. I am a senior in philosophy at Calvin College, and formerly studied at Trinity School of Theology (Wales, UK). I am a husband, and father of two. This site is a collection of musings on theology, culture, and more. 
I just read the article from Christianity Today. It seemed a good summary, at least as far as I can understand since I have not yet been able to study the debate between the two. Piper and Wright aren’t too far from one another in some areas, but it seems they have differing distinctives in these 4 areas:
- The Law (I have always seen it as Piper summarises it, as something that pushes us to Christ (based on Galatians), but Wright says it was established as a way to keep Israel from going totally off track until the Messiah came)
- God’s Righteousness (interesting that Wright specifically links this into God’s faithfulness to the covenant with Abraham)
- First century Judaism (this is one of the bigger differing points of how first century Jews, especially the religious leaders, viewed the Law)
- The Gospel (I do appreciate Wright’s summary of the gospel more than Piper’s, as he focused on the gospel being about the kingly rule of Jesus)
I was surprised that the summary of ‘future justification’ for both seemed pretty similar. I was expecting to hear more from Wright about redemption being about the reconciliation of the cosmos (the whole world/universe). But I’m not sure how that specifically relates into justification.
I was also surprised how Wright has such a heavy focus on the Abrahamic covenant. There was a reference to bringing things back to their original intention, as in Gen 1, and seeing God’s intention from the beginning fulfilled. But there seemed to be a real lack of considering things pre-Abraham.
I think I had pointed this out to you previously, but Scot McKnight has written 18 articles on his blog summarising the debate even more in depth. I stopped after the third article. But there are 2 or 3 books McKnight suggests that a person read even before Wright’s stuff to really get the background of these things. So, as we know, this really isn’t all that ‘new’. Here is the link – Justification and the New Perspective
You inspired me to go ahead and post a summary article about the new perspective on my own blog. I brought in stuff from Scot McKnight’s blog and the Christianity Today article.
I think I’m going to have to read McKnight’s series (ack, 18 posts!!)
I’ll check out your summary =D
Actually, there are now 20 articles.
And, interestingly enough, McKnight just posted an article today about Pope Benedict’s view on justification and whether or not it is similar in ways to the new perspective.
Interesting, cool dude. Thanks for the heads up, I’m gonna have to play catch-up! =D
I find myself pretty firmly in Pipers court.
I can find not scripture to justify NT’s positions on most of his positions..
TAR:
I am still studying the issues, but it’s funny that you mention scripture as justification for positions. I come from a solidly Reformed background, but as I read the two views, one thing that struck me was how much more “biblical” Wright’s view seemed than Piper’s. And I don’t mean “biblical” as in “supported by scripture,” but just “biblical” in terms of “bible-y.”
Wright’s view resonates so much more with the testimony of scripture to me—with discussions of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—rather than Piper’s understanding of a God more of time, space, and transcendence. All of these are true of God, but one view just seems so much more “bibley” =). And in that sense, more “biblical.”