I've been trying (and failing miserably) over these last few months to get up to speed on the controversy surrounding the New Perspective on Paul and the teachings of N.T. Wright. Since I am not up to speed I'll try to be very reserved in my comments here, but I wanted to touch on one thing I have heard and interact with it a bit.
One aspect of the New Perspective, as I understand it, is that its advocates claim that the reformers and other interpreters of Paul have misunderstood Paul because they haven't given great enough weight to the historical setting in which he wrote. In other words, the reformers and others brought presuppositions into their study which hindered them from understanding Paul. From this perspective, a more accurate reading of Paul can be gained by understanding his historical/cultural setting involving second-temple Judaism, his reaction to the Roman Empire and his interaction with Greek philosophy
I don't deny that contention - the more historical background we can get the better, it can do nothing but help us gain understanding. If, until now, biblical scholars haven't fully comprehended Paul's context then let's do all we can to understand it better.
However, I would argue that advocates of the New Perspective bring their own presuppositions to the study of Paul. Presuppositions are funny things - we're often blind to our own but can see others presuppositions very easily. It's especially easy to look back through history and see the faulty presuppositions of others. I just hope we all, NPP advocates and detractors alike, will have the humility to realize that a generation or more from now, there will probably be some folks looking back on us and picking holes in our own presuppositions.
But there's another more important thought I want to offer. When we speak of the inspiration of Scripture, we understand that there are really two authors - the human author and the divine author. Historical study helps us get at what was going on in the minds of the human authors. But the divine author communicates things through inspiration that transcend the mind and historical setting of the human author.
In saying that, I don't mean to create a dichotomy where there is none. To understand Scripture we must understand that there is a reciprocal relationship between the mind of the divine author and the human author. Understanding the more human elements of a particular text, i.e. historical and cultural settings, helps us understand the divine intention of the text. And if we can understand the divine intention in a text, this sheds light on the human elements.
I can't help but think that last paragraph was terribly clumsy, because I don't mean to say that there are two different meanings of a Scriptural text - a divine and a human one. What I am trying to say is that, in uncovering the meaning of a text we simply need to take into consideration the divine and human perspectives of that text.
For example, I doubt that an understanding of the historical setting is adequate to help us understand the full meaning of many Old Testament prophecies and other Scriptures. For instance, would a closer examination of the historical setting of Hosea 11:1 yield what Matthew gleaned from it?
Hosea 11:1
“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids
Then in Matthew 2:14-15:
14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids
For example's sake I'll cite one more text. In I Corinthians 9:7-12, Paul says:
7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? 8 Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids
"Do not muzzle an ox" in verse 8 is taken from Deuteronomy 25:4, yet would greater insight into the historical setting of Deuteronomy 25:4 yield what Paul said here?
My point is that, at least using many OT passages as examples, greater insight into the historical setting doesn't yield deeper understanding of the text itself. God apparently had things in mind with the words of the texts themselves that the writers were unaware of.
Granted, there is a sense in which my little theory here fails because Matthew and Paul are divinely inspired recipients of revelation. They got their understandings of these OT passages straight from the source, so to speak, and we don't have that luxury.
But having said that, theologians and interpreters for centuries have believed that the bible had a unifying theme, whether it be the theme of redemption, the kingdom of God, or simply a Christological theme. Systematic theologians studied this theme and other associated themes from a topical standpoint, and in more recent years, those in the biblical theology movement like Vos and Ridderbos have studied the theme of redemption from a historical perspective.
And throughout the centuries these scholars have used the tools at their disposal. I think it is safe to grant that though the reformers used a variety of tools, they probably gave greater weight to some of the more philosophical tools of study. Today, folks like Sanders and Wright make greater use of historical-critical tools. We may argue over which tools are better, but I think it is safe to say that all of these tools come from schools of thought which have built in presuppositions.
Getting back to the point though, I would encourage advocates of the New Perspective to be careful about discarding the insights of the past. And by the way, not all advocates of the New Perspective do so. I'm not at all convinced that they shirked the study of the historical context, but even if their study of the historical context was lacking, this does not disqualify their insights. The reformers who tended more towards a systmatic approach to Scripture and the more recent biblical theologians with their redemptive historical approach may have missed some of the glorious details to be found in a more thorough study of the trees, but they have given us a marvelous view of the forest.
So for purposes of illustration I am equating the divine aspect of revelation with the view of the forest and the human aspect of revelation with the view of the individual trees. I know the analogy leaves something to be desired, but I think I can make it fit, at least in some sense. The reformers and biblical theologians looked at the individual trees, but felt the greatest benefit was to be found in taking a helicopter view and looking at the forest as a whole. This view revealed more of the divine plan, while acknowledging the human element.
The New Perspective folks see value in the helicopter view of the forest but think the greatest payoff is to be found on the ground looking at the individual trees. They think you can't really know the forest as a whole if you haven't looked at it from ground level. By understanding these more human elements, you can get a better feel for the divine.
I'm suggesting that advocates of the older perspectives on Paul haven't misread him as badly as the some new perspectivalists think they have. While not perfect, their hidden presuppositions haven't done any more violence to understanding Paul and the rest of Scripture than have the hidden presuppositions of new perspective advocates. The reformers and others in their line have operated under the assumption that there is a divine plan of redemption that permeates all of Scripture and that transcends the bare historical and cultural settings of the authors themselves. This is not a reason to neglect the spade work of historical, cultural and linguistic study, it is simply to say that the reformers and their exegetical heirs have operated from valid biblical presuppositions.
Well, that's a theory I want to throw out there for your consideration. Take it up and slice it and dice it as you will, I'm still trying to learn what's going on in this debate, and this post has been more of an attempt to understand things and process some thoughts than a position statement. I could be totally off base at worst and at best I'm probably somewhat confused on the issues. I am a peacemaker at heart and hate to get involved in conflict, so when I hear of an argument I immediately look for a way to build common ground. And along those lines I think both sides in this debate would profit from paying closer attention to the suggestions offered by John Frame and Vern Poythress with their multi-perspectivalism and symphonic theology. This is just my little attempt at suggesting a means to attaining common ground in the debate between new and old perspectives.
Recent Comments