Justification and the New Perspective on Paul (Summary)

Cornelis P. Venema, Spring, 2005 (other articles by Dr. Venema)

One of the most significant developments in recent studies of the writings of the apostle Paul is the emergence of what is known as the “new perspective on Paul.” Though advocates of this new perspective differ on a number of points, they generally agree that the “old” perspective of the Reformation is no longer acceptable. According to authors of the new perspective, the Reformed understanding of the gospel, which emphasizes especially the teaching of justification by faith alone, fails to understand properly the apostle Paul’s teaching. If this claim of the new perspective is true, something of a revolution is needed in our understanding of the gospel. 

In order to understand why the new perspective argues for a different view of justification, it is necessary to distinguish three prominent features of its understanding of the apostle Paul.

First, the new perspective is shaped by a new view of the Judaism with which Paul was acquainted at the time of the writing of the New Testament. E. P. Sanders, a student of “Second Temple Judaism” and an influential advocate of the new perspective, maintains that the Reformers misunderstood Paul’s doctrine of justification because they misunderstood his opposition to Judaism. When the Reformers, for example, opposed the medieval Roman Catholic teaching of justification by works, they read Paul’s epistles as though they were addressed to a similar legalistic error among the Judaizers of the first century. The new perspective rejects this view of Paul’s doctrine of justification by arguing that no such legalism existed within Second Temple Judaism in Paul’s day. Judaism always exhibited a “pattern of religion” (Sanders’ language) that regarded membership in the covenant to be “by grace,” though it was maintained in the way of works of obedience to the law.

Second, the new perspective contends that Paul’s view of the law was shaped, not by his opposition to legalism, but by his opposition to Jewish exclusivism or nationalism. James D. G. Dunn and N. T. Wright, two prominent authors of the new perspective, insist that, when Paul speaks of the “works of the law,” he is referring to obedience to what they call the “boundary marker” requirements of the law (e.g. circumcision, dietary laws, feast day observances). When Paul says that no one is justified by the works of the law (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16), he is not exposing the boast of those who thought that their obedience to the law would obtain God’s favor. Paul uses this language to reject the policy of Judaizers who were unwilling to admit Gentiles into the covenant people, unless they first submitted to those special obligations of the Mosaic law that distinguished Jews from Gentiles.

And third, the new perspective offers a different view of what Paul means by “justification.” Since Paul was not formulating his doctrine of justification in the face of legalism, and since he was addressing Judaizers who were excluding Gentiles from the community of the covenant, his doctrine of justification was formulated to identify who belongs to covenant family of God. Justification by faith refers to Paul’s teaching that the only “badge” of identity required from anyone who belongs to God’s people is faith in Christ. Justification is all about who belongs to the people of God, particularly, that God’s world-wide family includes Gentiles as much as Jews. It is not primarily about how guilty sinners can find favor with God. To say that a believer is not justified by “the works of the law,” is simply to say that Gentiles may be included in the covenant without having to become Jews.

Though there are some commendable aspects of this new perspective on Paul, discerning Reformed believers will quickly recognize its serious errors and continue to hold to the “old,” Reformation perspective. When Paul in the opening chapters of Romans speaks of justification, he clearly teaches what the old perspective on Paul taught. Against those who boasted of their covenant privileges and obedience to the law, Paul offers a withering indictment of all sinners, Jews and Gentiles alike (Romans 2-3). By the standard of the law of God, all sinners stand condemned and without defense before God (Rom. 3:19-20) Only those who by faith are joined to Christ, crucified and risen from the dead, have a share in his righteousness and are acceptable to God (Rom. 4:25; 5:16-17). For Paul, therefore, justification has everything to do with the salvation of guilty sinners whose only hope of acceptance with God is based upon the substitutionary obedience, sacrifice, and righteousness of Jesus Christ (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 23). Only the old or Reformation perspective on Paul captures the heart of the gospel’s message of God’s “amazing grace”—that “Christ died for the ungodly” (Rom. 5:6).