Theology 1.0: What is the New Perspectives on Paul?

 

The "New Perspective on Paul" (often abbreviated as NPP) refers to a scholarly movement in biblical studies that reinterprets the theology of the Apostle Paul, particularly his views on justification, the law (Torah), and salvation. 

Popularised by theologian NT Wright in 1990s, NPP argues that Paul's critiques of "works of the law" (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16) were not primarily aimed at a legalistic, works-righteousness Judaism, but rather at ethnic boundary markers that excluded Gentiles from God's covenant people. This perspective emphasizes the historical and Jewish context of the first-century world, portraying Judaism as a grace-based covenant community rather than a religion of merit-earning.

In this post I will attempt to show the best arguments on of the sides supporting and opposing NPP.

Differences between traditional (old perspective) and NPP

I would like to highlight some of the key differences here:

A) View of Judaism
Traditionalists see Judaism as a legalistic system. In other words, you earn your salvation (in Judaism) via good works. 

NPP proponents see Judaism as a grace-based system where you obtain salvation via election.

B) Works of Law
Traditionalists see "works of law" as human efforts to obtain righteousness, while NPP proponents see it as describing Jewish practices such as observing Sabbath and circumcision.

C) Justification
Traditionalists see justification as forensic; God declares sinners righteous based on Christ's imputed merit, received by faith alone (sola fide). 

NPP proponents see justification as declarative; God's verdict on covenant membership; faith marks inclusion, works evidence it.

D) Paul's critique
Thus, traditionalists see Paul's writings as being against human inability to keep the law perfectly due to sin.

NPP proponents see Paul's writings as being against ethnic exclusivity; Torah's role is fulfilled in Christ for all.

My view
I think the NPP attempts to reading Paul in his Jewish context, avoiding anachronistic Protestant lenses. It highlights Gentile inclusion as central to Paul's gospel and reminds us that faith produces works.

NPP also recognises Paul’s positive view of the law (Romans 3:31) and his Jewish identity, while addressing the social realities of Jew-Gentile tensions in early Christianity.

However, NPP runs the risk of injection modern ideas (like social justice and inclusion) into the text, while downplaying Paul’s emphasis on human sinfulness and inability to keep the law, central to the traditional view. Paul’s critique of "works of the law" includes any effort to achieve righteousness apart from Christ, not just ethnic markers. Romans 7:14–25 portrays the law’s inability to overcome human weakness, pointing to universal need for grace.

Theology 1.0: Who else wrote about Jesus?

 

The Gospels of the New Testament are often regarded as a trustworthy account of Jesus's life. Yet there are many doubters who rejected that this reliability of the Gospels as they see it as Christians attempting to claim political power. The most sincere of them want non-Christian testimony that corroborates with Jesus's life.

Such testimonies do exists.

Such sources collectively confirm Jesus’ existence, his crucifixion under Pilate, and the early spread of his followers. They align with the broad outline of Christian accounts but offer little detail on his teachings or miracles (as Jesus was seen as a marginal figure in the hugeness of the Roman Empire).

Let us examine a few.

Josephus Flavius (Antiquities of the Jews, c. 93–94 CE)

Josephus, a contemporary of Jesus, describes Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. It mentions his followers and suggests he was believed to be the Messiah by some. 

Josephus was a well-regarded Jewish historian, so many scholars regard his descriptions as authentic and factual.

Tacitus (Annals, c. 116 CE) 

Roman historian Tacitus describes Emperor Nero blaming Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE. He mentions "Christus," executed under Pontius Pilate, as the origin of the Christian movement. 

Tacitus is a reliable Roman source, and this passage confirms Jesus’ execution and the spread of Christianity shortly after. He had no apparent agenda to promote Christianity.

Pliny the Younger (Letters, c. 112 CE)  

Pliny, a Roman governor, describes Christians worshiping Christ "as a god" and their practices, based on interrogations in Bithynia. 

This showed that the divinity of Jesus was held by Christians from the start.

Conclusion

Non-Christian sources are not the bedrock of Christian faith, which rests on scripture and tradition, but they provide historical grounding that strengthens the case for Jesus as a real figure who lived, taught, and died in 1st-century Judea. For believers, this external validation complements the spiritual and theological truths of Christianity, showing that Jesus’ impact was recognized beyond his immediate followers. For skeptics or scholars, these sources offer a bridge between faith-based accounts and secular history.

For more information:

Be Thinking

Theology 1.0: Who is Maximilian Kolbe?

Stained glass of St. Maximilian Kolbe. His feast day is assigned to be on 14th August

"Obviously a suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. One wants something to begin: the other wants everything to end." -- GK Chesterton

War does terrible things to people. Despite his best efforts to hide the Jews from the Nazis, Roman Catholic priest Maximilian Kolbe was caught by the Gestapo. Assigned to the concentration camp at Auschwitz as Prisoner #16670, Kolbe volunteered to take the place of a man (Franciszek Gajowniczek) who was assigned to be executed.

After two weeks of starving him, the prison guards discovered he was still alive. They gave him a lethal dosage of carbolic acid to finish him off on 14th August, 1941.

Conclusion
In my university days, one of my colleagues often dismissed that martyrs hated life and was merely glorified suicide. But in Kolbe's story I see a person who loves life so much that he was willing to give up his to save the life of another.

And that is something beautiful.

"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends."
-- John 15:13
For further reading
Wikipedia

With Due Respect: Martin Luther is Anti-Semite!

Holocaust memorial in Berlin, 2008

One of the greatest atrocities commited in the history of mankind was the attempted mass extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany. This event, known as the Holocaust, killed about 6 million Jews in Europe (about two-thirds of European Jews), and millions of others whom the Nazis deemed "weak" such as the Slaves, the Gypsies and the infirmed.

In order to sway public opinion against the Jews, the Nazis used On Jews and their Lies (one of Martin Luther's tracts) and advocated it as the epitome of German virtues. Undoubtly, the tract contains slanderous material against the Jews, such as descibring than as being full of "devil's feces" and that their synagouge (place of worship) as a "whore" and "slut". Hence, Lutherean churchs have distanced and denounced the tract.

Often it is easy to conclude that the Reformer Martin Luther was anti-Jew and thus dismiss his theology in one swoop. But not only is this view a lazy representation of his theology, it is also a caricature of it.

Getting a few things straight....
Luther's style
One must understand that Luther's writing style is deliberately provoking. For instance, in his work Table Talk, he argued against the philosophy of Aristole, stating Aristole's reasoning is the "enemy" of Christian faith. While I am not condoning Luther's choice of words, one must understand how he wrote before assessing him hastily (Reeves, 2009).

Supporting the Jews
In fact, in 1523 Luther wrote That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, arguing against the mistreatment of Jews by Christian. He dedicated his work to a converted Jew  (whom he later would support financially and whose son he would house).

So why did Luther have a change of heart?

Anti-Semite?
After years of attemtping to convert Jews to Christianity, he described them as having a certain "hardness of heart" that prevented them from seeing how their own Scriptures led to Jesus. He wrote on Jews and their Lies as a response against attacks by Jewish apologists on Christianity.

Although painful to read (due to Luther's choice of harsh language), he argued that being children of Abraham was a matter of adoption, rather than family line. He went on to show how Jesus is the promised Christ from the Old Testament.

After that he went on to make a list of recommendations of how then standard anti-blasphemy laws show be applied to Jews. To be fair to Luther, he also argued against acts of personal vengenace against the Jews.

Conclusion
So was Luther racist? Not really. He was more against their spirtual beliefs than their genetic makeup. He argued against them, not because of their race (as the Nazis were against), but rather against Judasim (their religion). The harshness of the punishments recommended against them were standard against heretics of that time.

Nevertheless, his harsh tone towards the Jews (or more accurately, Judaism) had made his legacy a tough pill to swallow.

For more, read:

Reeves, M. (2009) The Unquenchable Flame