The new perspective critique of Luther : a response

Abstract

The New Perspective is a modern movement in New Testament scholarship which challenges Protestant interpretations of Paul’s writings. However, since the New Perspective refers to schools of thought present in other time periods and since it also repeats some ideas regarding Pauline interpretation found in the early church period or the Middle Ages it needs first to be viewed within the overall context of Christian interpretation of Paul throughout the ages. It used to be the case, state New Perspective scholars, that Protestants assumed that Paul was to Judaism as Luther was to Medieval Catholicism. Both men supposedly reacted against legalistic religions and championed grace-based faiths. However, now that E. P. Sanders in Paul and Palestinian Judaism, has demonstrated that Judaism is not a legalistic but a grace-based faith, New Perspectivists claim that Paul’s and Luther’s theologies and experiences were thus not parallel. Hence, supposedly Luther misunderstood Paul. Additionally, building on the work of Schweitzer, Wrede and others New Perspectivists challenge Protestant understandings of “justification.” In New Perspective thought, Paul uses the term “justification” primarily to describe how people, particularly Gentiles, join the church Christians without following Jewish ritual laws. “Justification,” then, does not describe how people “stay in” the covenant and receive salvation, as Protestants think. However, this study maintains that while New Perspectivists have some knowledge of Paul and Judaism, they are much less knowledgeable regarding Luther, Medieval Catholicism, and Luther’s reaction to it. Greater scrutiny of these latter areas reveals large difficulties with New Perspective arguments. In addition, a review of relevant passages from Paul’s letters demonstrates that Protestants have not misunderstood Paul’s use of the term “justification.” Many Pauline passages show that when Paul discusses justification he is also thinking about “staying in,” not just “getting in” the covenant. Furthermore, many scholars have now challenged Sanders’ interpretations of first-century Judaism. While Sanders has no doubt done a tremendous service to New Testament scholarship by demonstrating that there is more grace in Judaism than F. Weber, Bultmann, F. C. Baur and others had presumed, some scholars now state that Sanders has overstated the elements of grace in some facets of first-century Judaism. In addition, many scholars now agree that first-century Judaism was a diverse movement and cannot be accurately depicted by general descriptions. Sanders’ understanding of a “common Judaism,” present up until 70 AD have now been challenged. All of this, however, effects our interpretation of Paul. If first-century Judaism was diverse, then one would expect that Paul, in responding to Judaism would respond to both legalistic and grace-based interpretations of the Torah covenant. When examining Paul’s letters one sees that this is exactly what Paul does. His critique of Judaism is more multi-facetted than many people have understood. Although the New Perspective critique of Luther is not accurate and although most of its other key ideas can be challenged, the New Perspective has not been a wasted effort.