As will be shown later, Wright caricatures the old perspective, implying that it embraces a view of life after death that amounts to some kind of vague, nebulous existence where eternity will be spent in an immaterial realm.23 Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. We look forward to a time when our spirits will be reunited with our glorified bodies, bodies that will dwell upon a new earth in a new heavens.
Concerning any future judgment, the believer will never be judged in regard to his justification. Justification is past-tense. It is something that is once and for all true for all those who are in Christ. Any future judgment will concern not the believer’s position, but certain prizes for those already saved. There will never be, as Wright believes, a future justification based on the believer’s post-salvation works.
6. Bainton, Here I Stand, 49–50.
7. Calvin, Institutes. 3:11.1.
8. Wright, What St Paul Really Said, 113. (subsequently referred to as WSPRS).
9. Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 15.
10. Ibid., 22.
11. Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 448.
12. Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants 402.
13. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:539–540.
14. Calvin, Institutes, 2.17.5.
15. Luther, What Luther Says, 703.
16. Calvin, Institutes III. XI.2.
17. Buchanan, Justification, 299.
18. 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith 11:1.
19. Although Wright does not see those passages that speak of justification in terms of a righteousness secured by another and then imputed to the believer, he does, nevertheless, adopt more of a Reformation view of the believer’s union with Christ from passages like Romans 6.
20. Venema, The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ, 245
21. One must not confuse this with what the Gnostics believed. They considered matter to be intrinsically evil. Christianity, on the other hand, sees our present physical body as being polluted by sin, and we look forward to a time when it will be replaced by a glorified sinless physical body.
22. In the ESV Spirit begins with a capital.
23. Wright, I believe, does believe in the intermediate state, but this is surprisingly missing from his latest book, The Day the Revolution Began.”
The New Perspective(s)
In regard to the NPP, I want to briefly look at the works of Krister Stendahl, E.P. Sanders, and James D.G. Dunn before I examine Nicholas Tom Wright’s position in more depth. There are others who have directly or indirectly contributed to the NPP, for example, Claude Montefiore, George Foot etc. One of the difficulties with this subject is that there are many new perspectives, and they tend not to agree with each other. As J. Ligon Duncan put it: “There is no such thing as ‘the New Perspective on Paul’ if you mean a unified, uniform, comprehensive theory or mode of interpretation about which there has come to be a broad consensus of agreement.”24 It is because of this concern raised by Duncan that I will address only Wright’s position.
Krister Stendahl
In 1963 Stendahl delivered a very influential paper entitled The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West. According to Stendahl, the Western church started to go off the rails in its approach to Paul from the time of St Augustine, and this was very much compounded in the Protestant Reformation, as he puts it, “The Augustinian line leads into the Middle Ages and reaches its climax in the penitential struggle of an Augustinian monk, Martin Luther, and in his interpretation of Paul.”25 Error crept in because the wrong questions were being asked; questions that had to do with the individual’s conscience and what the individual needed to do in order to be saved. He believes that “the West for centuries has wrongly surmised that the biblical writers were grappling with problems which no doubt are ours, but which never entered their consciousness.”26 The old perspective had been guilty of misreading Paul. According to Stendahl the “Reformation interpreters have read Luther’s experience back into the writings of Paul, rather than comprehending Paul on his own terms,” believing that “our conception of Paul is the product of medieval thought in the Western world that would have been completely foreign to those in the period of Second Temple Judaism.”27 Sanders comments that “Stendahl argued that . . . the usual (Lutheran) interpretation of Paul’s view of righteousness by faith is historically erroneous since it understands the doctrine as freeing one from the guilt of an ‘introspective conscience’, while Paul had not suffered such a dilemma.”28
Stendahl maintains that Luther’s reading of what Paul said “has been reversed into saying the opposite to his original intention.”29 The Reformers misunderstood the Jewish problem, believing that they were attempting to achieve peace with God by their own works, essentially, justification by works, whereas Stendahl believes that Paul was concerned with something very different:
The Problem we are trying to isolate could be expressed in hermeneutical terms somewhat like this: The Reformers’ interpretation of Paul rests on an analogism when Pauline statements about Faith and Works, Law and Gospel, Jews and Gentiles are read in the framework of late medieval piety. The Law, the Torah, with its specific requirements of circumcision and food restrictions becomes a general