Lutheran interpretations of Paul tend to be ingrained in translations. It is one of the reasons it can be hard for New Perspective views to gain a hearing. Minds conditioned by centuries of Protestant translation hear NPP views as distorting the text, when all they are doing is offering a different reading.
I suggest a case in point is Philippians 3:9-11. It seems such a clear proof-text for Luther’s Paul with that absolute contrast between Law and Gospel, pitting my earned righteousness against God’s gifted righteousness. This is NRSV:
[that I may] be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
How can anyone maintain Luther isn’t right in the face of such a text? However, I suggest there is another way of reading it. As it stands the vast majority of translations make the contrast come in the possessive: “whose righteousness is it?” “A righteousness of my own [ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην]” is contrasted with “the righteousness from God [τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην]“. That “my own”, however, is an over-translation, adding an emphasis which is not really there.
What I propose is that the contrast is not possessive, between mine and God’s, but about the means by which “I” find “my righteousness:: the Law or Christ’s faithfulness. So something like this:
that I may be found in him, not having my righteousness from the Law, but through the faithfulness of Christ, righteousness from God based on faithfulness – [faithfulness which is] knowing him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, united with him in the pattern of his death, somehow arriving at the resurrection of the dead.
That is to say, Paul’s righteousness consists in conforming to the same pattern of faithful self-giving in God’s service even to death which he learns from Christ. This is righteousness for Paul, precisely because it is the pattern of Jesus who has received the reward of his faithfulness by being vindicated in the resurrection. Philippians 2:6-11 is a salvific template for those who are working out their own salvation as God works among and within them (Phil 2:12-13).
“My righteousness”, in other words, is the verdict God has in store for “me”. How do I find it? Paul says, by following the example of the only one who has had that eschatological verdict already declared. The path of Christ’s sufferings is a surer guide to righteousness than the Law, because God has already granted his reward to the one who has blazed the trail, and that reward is sharing the very name and life of God.
{ 7 comments }
You may be aware or some important work by Richard B. Hays argues this very thing. I am convinced that you (and Hays, and others) are correct. The Lutherian misreading of Paul seems indomitable at times, doesn’t it? I think N.T. Wright’s popularity has resulted in more people becoming aware of the NPP, but only slowly is it trickling down from the “liberal ivory towers” into mainstream theological institutions. As long as tight-knit systems like the Reformed tradition retain their stronghold, it’ll be an uphill battle, I’m afraid.
Good article!
Ok, I mangled the wording of my first sentence. I meant to say: “You may be aware that some important work by Richard B. Hays argues this very thing.”
See? I really can put two words together.
Blog comments are a typo’s best friend
Thanks. Unfortunately Hays has not yet convinced the majority.
N.T. Wright covers this very verse in What St. Paul Really Said. Just thought I would mention that in case you wanted to read it. Blessings.
I’m probably in semi-agreement with Wright. Have you seen my bluffer’s guide to Tom Wright?
Saw your blog and thought you might be able to direct me to a NPP-friendly translation. Any ideas?
Sorry, I don’t think there’s any such thing. Nor am I entirely sure that I want one. The answer, as always is to read more than one translation. I generally find that the New Jerusalem and Revised English Bibles often give a thoughtful re-expression which stands apart from the mainstream English line. More for its excellent notes than its text the NET Bible is also well worth consulting.
Comments on this entry are closed.