Old and New Perspectives:The New Perspective on Paul, the Development of Reformed Doctrine, and a New Perspective Reading of Ephesians

To subscribers: just adding an abstract to the article. No new material in the article itself.

Abstract: an introduction to the "New Perspective on Paul," a development in Pauline Studies since the late 1970s that challenges longstanding Protestant assumptions about the nature of Paul's theological principles; a discussion of how the New Perspective can impact our understanding of the development of Reformed theology; and an application of New Perspective insights on interpretation of Ephesians 1 and 2.

The New Perspective on Paul is a response to studies in Judaism, notably E.P. Sanders's Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that indicate that first century Judaism was not legalistic in the technical sense meant by Luther and the other Reformers--a system of law by which an individual would attempt to earn salvation. If this is true, then it follows that the classical Protestant understanding of Romans and Galatians is faulty, since the Reformers viewed Paul as struggling against precisely this sort of legalism, which the Reformers considered to be analogous to their own struggle with the medieval Roman Catholic Church. According to the New Perspective, first century Judaism understood that God's choice of Israel was completely by grace; keeping the Law only kept one in the covenant; it didn't earn one's way into it.

I first learned about the NP from my days at Gordon-Conwell. I should stress that it was one of my favorite professors, Dr. T. David Gordon, who introduced me to the New Perspective in his classes on Galatians and Romans. This is important to note because Dr. Gordon was (probably still is) an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church of America, extremely Reformed in his thinking, and consciously in the tradition of the Reformers and English Puritans. He has one of the most logical minds and sharp wits it has been my pleasure to encounter. The New Perspective has been attacked popularly because it is seen to undercut the Reformed understanding of justification, and thus to undercut the core beliefs of the Reformers. Dr. Gordon is evidence that one can be fully Reformed in one's thought, subscribe to the New Perspective, and remain logically consistent. There is nothing in the New Perspective that contradicts the ideas of Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistable grace, or Perseverence.

I feel that it is important to lay out the foundation that the New Perspective is not inherently anti-Reformed, in order to set up a counterpoint: although the New Perspective does not, by itself, contradict traditional Reformed theology, it does offer an insight into the development of that theology, and perhaps an insight into how misunderstandings of key scriptures led to Reformed theology taking the particular shape it did. It is my conviction that the key passages that are used to support Calvinist distinctives were misunderstood by Luther and the Reformers, leading to an over-individualized view of election as well as to an overly passive view of how an individual enters into salvation.

The Development of Reformed Doctrine

Reevaluating our perspective on Paul necessitates a reevaluation of the development of Protestant doctrine in the wake of the Reformation, since the development of that doctrine was dependent on a reading of Paul that understood the Judaizers as advocates of salvation by works, analogous to the medieval Roman Catholic church system of penance, sacramental grace, and indulgences. Moreover, one must go back beyond the Reformation to Augustine, since the Reformers felt that their own struggle was analogous to that of Augustine against the Pelagians, and in fact Augustine had used a similar reading of Paul to come to his own conclusions regarding predestination and the operation of divine grace.

What happened, in a nutshell, was this: both Augustine in his day and the Reformers in theirs were responding to challenges (Pelagius and the medieval Catholic church, respectively) that undercut the necessity of God's grace in human salvation. Pelagius maintained that it was possible, at least in principle, for any human being to live entirely without sin and thus never need God's forgiveness and the atoning work of Christ. A millenium later, the medieval Catholic church had built up a system of meritorious works by which a person could attain salvation; penance and indulgences were merely a part of that system. What Luther thought he had found in the writings of the Apostle Paul, especially in Romans and Galatians, was an inspired and forceful argument against precisely these challenges. Paul argues stridently that justification is by faith and not by the "works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5). Luther and the Reformers after him applied the term "works of the Law" to any legal system by which a person might be supposed to earn salvation. They read into Paul's writings their own struggle with a legalistic system, and thereby missed what the New Perspective sees as the actual struggle Paul was dealing with: the resistance of Jews to the full inclusion of the Gentiles as the covenant people of God. Since the church had long since been predominantly Gentile, this aspect of Paul's argument was easy to overlook. Where Paul was concerned to evangelize the Gentiles without requiring from them Torah observance (i.e., the "works of the Law"), the Reformers were concerned to establish a relationship between the believer and God based entirely on God's grace without any contributing "work" from the human end at all.

Having begun in this direction, both Augustine and the Reformers were concerned to eliminate the possibility of any sort of syncretism--that is, of any human action that could contribute to that person's salvation, Eventually, they concluded that even the exercise of faith could not bring a person into the covenant community, lest that exercise be considered a "work" on which the individual could "boast." (This despite the fact that Jesus has no problem whatever in construing faith as a "work": John 6:27-29.) To be sure, faith was hailed as the means by which an individual appropriated the salvation made available by God's grace; but faith could only be exercised by someone who had been chosen by God's unconditional election, and would inevitably be exercised once God regenerated the unbeliever and applied irresistable grace; in other words, faith was something of a byproduct of the election process.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the Reformers were wrong in recognizing and emphasizing Paul's assertion that justification is by grace and through faith. However, Paul doesn't treat this assertion as anything new--it's at least as old as Abraham. What the New Perspective does is reopen our eyes to the actual issues within first century Judaism to which Paul was responding, which in turn allows us to reexamine the passages that have been historically regarded as crucial to of Reformed doctrine.

A New Perspective Reading of Ephesians 1 and 2

The New Perspective on Paul is generally associated with a reinterpretation of Romans and Galatians, inasmuch as these two books have been most closely associated with the Old Perspective and the traditional Protestant interpretation of justification being derived from these two epistles. However, the traditional (especially Reformed) interpretation of Ephesians 1 and 2 should also be reexamined in light of the New Perspective.

The message of the Gospel, available to anyone who believes, was a direct threat to the special status that Israel had held as the chosen people. According to the New Perspective, this opposition to the full inclusion of the Gentiles was the major issue against which Paul was arguing in Romans and Galatians. Ephesians is quite clearly about much the same issue, although not directed against Jewish opposition or Judaizers, but written to Gentile believers to assure them of their full inclusion with Jewish believers in the New Covenant. Ephesians 2:11-3:21, which forms the heart of the book, are quite explicitly about this issue: the "mystery of Christ," which is that "the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (3:4-6). However, in traditional Reformed interpretation, chapters 1 and 2 are read as though they had nothing to do with the Jew-Gentile problem, and instead read as though they are a treatise on individual election.

The key to understanding Ephesians 1-2 is to identify whom Paul means by “you” and by “us” and “we.” For example, when he states “he chose us . . . he predestined us” (1:4, 5), what exactly constitutes “us”? How does the context define “us”? What are the defining characteristics of the group of people to whom Paul is referring?

In the first verse of the epistle, Paul designates his readers as πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, "faithful [or believing] in Christ Jesus." In the rest of his epistles, Paul only addresses his readers as πιστοῖς one other time, in Colossians. This designation, then, has special significance to the readers of Ephesians. The prominent role of faith in subsequent verses highlights the fact that Paul's designation is intended to frame the self-perception of his readers.

In connection with “having been predestined” in v. 11, Paul identifies “we” in vv. 11 and 12 as “the first to hope in Christ.” In v. 13, he identifies “you” as having been “included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of salvation” and as “having believed.” He refers in v. 15 to “your faith,” in v. 19 to “us who believe,” and states in 2:10 that “you” have been saved “through faith.” Based on the above verses, one defining characteristic of both “you” and “us” throughout the passage would clearly seem to be that they are believers and have faith.

In 2:11, "you" is more explicitly identified as "you who are Gentiles by birth and called 'uncircumcised' by those who call themselves 'the circumcision' (that done in the body by the hands of men)...." It is probable that virtually all of Paul's readers were Gentiles, so this verse further defines the "you." Paul's identification of "we" as "the first to hope in Christ" in verse 13 now makes more sense: the first generation of Christians, including Paul himself, were Jewish believers; therefore where "we" is contrasted with "you," Paul is referring to Jewish believers. (When not contrasted with "you," Paul may mean either Jewish believers or Jewish and Gentile believers considered together.) This connects the early part of the epistle thematically with the central section, the main point of which is the union of Jewish and Gentile believers into one body (2:16, 3:6).

Taking this understanding back to the passages dealing with election helps to understand Paul's intent better. In 1:4-5, Paul discusses how God chose "us" and predestined "us"; here, he is writing of Jewish and Gentile believers considered together. He is including the Gentiles in the election that Israel was already understood as having. His point is that the Gentiles are not an afterthought in God's plan; they were chosen "before the creation of the world." 1:9-10 foreshadow 3:6: the "all things" that are to be brought "together under one head" are the Jewish and Gentile believers.

Verses 11-14 begin to make a distinction between "we" and "you." The "we" in verse 11 who were "predestined" are defined in verse 12 as "the first to hope in Christ"; i.e., Paul now means by "we" the first generation of believers, who were largely Jewish. Then "you also [Gentile believers] were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth.... Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal...." Paul is saying that just as we Jews who believed were chosen and predestined according to God's plan, even so you Gentile believers are also included in that same plan. The Gentiles are fully included in the plan that God had from the beginning.

At the beginning of chapter 2, Paul continues the comparison: just as "you were dead in your transgressions and sins" (2:1-2), even so "all of us also lived among them [the 'sons of disobedience'] at one time.... we were by nature objects of wrath" (2:3). The Jews, just like the Gentiles, had once been alienated from God--the same point he makes in Galatians 2:15-16, and reiterates explicitly with regard to the Gentiles in 2:12-13.

Because of the individualistic emphasis of the Old Perspective, Ephesians 1:1-2:10 has been interpreted as an exposition of individual unconditional election, total depravity, and regeneration prior to justification. Understanding the role of the Jew-Gentile issue in Ephesians leads to a different conception of Paul's message here--one that reaches out to Gentile believers and assures them that they are just as fundamentally a part of God's election and plan as Israel had been in the Old Testament. Although this understanding can still be fit into the Reformed framework, it does not require the Reformed understanding of unconditional, individual election. Gentile believers are being reassured that they are just as much "chosen" as Jewish believers had been--because God's choice is not based on whether they are Jews or Gentiles, but rather upon faith in Christ as the only necessary criterion.