Reflections on Others

Stage 4. Post 3. Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision

The N.T. Wright Project = 4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision (2006)

Wright spends the majority of the second half of the book on exegesis of Pauline epistles. Due to Wright’s experience in exegesis, it is much more appropriate for us to reflect on his conclusions from his observations rather than the exegesis itself. First, Justification is about the one single family of God. Wright states, “Justification…always has in mind God’s declaration of membership, and that this always referred specifically to the coming together of Jews and Gentiles in faithful membership of the Christian family” (p. 116). The biblical idea of justification is comforting to all humanity regardless of culture, race, or gender. In this sense, Galatians 3 is at the heart of justification. Christians across the whole world should declare that, through the work of Jesus, everyone is invited to be part of God’s people.

Second, justification is based on the life of the Christian. In the future, God will justify those who have shown by their actions that they are part of God’s people. This is slightly discomforting, but Wright states, “Yes, ‘good works’ will undoubtedly include ‘moral behavior.’ But Paul is more interested…about the face of the church in the world, about Christians shining in the world as lights in a dark place” (p. 171). In this sense, Romans 2 is at the heart of justification, as Wright explains, “Possession of the Torah…will not be enough; it will be doing it that counts” (p. 184). The Christian must examine his or her life to be sure it is filled with the fruit of the Spirit. One must continually evaluate if he or she is a light to the world. In this sense, justification is a call to holiness.

Third, justification is all about God. As Wright puts it, “God’s oracles, God’s faithfulness, God’s truth, God’s vindication, God’s victory, God’s righteousness, God’s justice, God’s judgment, God’s truth (again) and ultimately (Romans 3:7) God’s glory” (p. 199). This gives the Christian hope since it is based on the faithfulness of Christ (p. 203). Jesus Christ was the representative for God to the world, where Israel failed to do so. As Wright correctly states, “Through the representative Messiah…the result is that, though in his forbearance God had previously ‘passed over’ sins, not dealing with them as they deserved, the cosmic moral deficit has now been put right, displaying God’s faithfulness and justice to the world” (p. 204). Thus, justification is all about God’s faithfulness to his covenant to put the world the back to rights, as he so desires it.

Fourth, justification is by faith. One must not think that Wright is proposing works-righteousness. One is justified in the present by his or her faith. One might ask, “Who are God’s people?” To this, Wright responds, “They are those who keep the Torah—but whose Torah-keeping consists of faith” (p. 211; emphasis original). Faith is the basis on which the future verdict is shown in the present. In this way, faith carries a sense of faithfulness. N.T. Wright states, “The present verdict gives the assurance that the future verdict will match it; the Spirit gives the power through which that future verdict, when given, will be seen to be in accordance with the life that the believer has then lived” (p. 251). Justification is seen in the present by faith in the future action of God.

Ultimately, in my opinion, N.T. Wright’s view of justification carries much more weight than the one proposed by John Piper and others. Wright’s view of justification carries a sense of mission, holiness, and faith. As far as mission is concerned, it understands that God, through Jesus, is calling all people, regardless of lines of demarcation, to himself. A hurting, divided world needs to hear the message of reconciliation. Wright’s view of justification carries a sense of holiness, in that, it understands that God is concerned if his people are properly representing him. Unfortunately, the traditional Protestant view shrinks justification into individual salvation, which many believe is granted based on mental ascent to a set of doctrines. If this is the case, one simply “mentally ascends” and has no need for moral transformation. Lastly, the biblical view of justification relies heavily on faith—faith in the work of God through Jesus Christ. As stated before, it’s all about God. The Church must never forget its reliance on God’s faithfulness. When the Church is unfaithful (as it often is), God remains faithful to his covenant. Therefore, Wright concludes his book by reminding his readers of a crucial point, “The Risen Son is the fixed point in whose orbit we move, the one who holds his people by his power and sustains them by his love, the one to whom, with the Father and Spirit, be all love and all glory in his age and in the age to come” (p. 252). The Church must never forget its call to mission, holiness, and faith, and, if it holds on to the proper view of justification, it will be followed closely be these things. Score 9 out of 10

Do you agree with me that NTW’s view carries more weight? Or am I missing something here?

+++++++

Wright, N.T. (2009). Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. IVP: Downers Grove.

Buy: Amazon.com

Stage 4. Post 2. Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision

The N.T. Wright Project = 4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

The theological proposal of “imputation” is held closely in much discussion over the definition of justification. According to Wright, “imputation…lies at the heart of [Piper’s] own reading” (p. 66). However, “justification” is to be understood in relation to the law-court. Thus, “imputation,” the idea that God gives his own righteousness to the sinner, is misleading. The judge’s declaration that one is “in the right” (i.e., justified), for N.T. Wright, “does not give that person [the judge’s] own particular ‘righteousness.’ He [the judge] creates the status the vindicated defendant now possesses, by an act of declaration, a ‘speech-act’ in our contemporary jargon.” Wright continues, “If [the vindicated defendant] does all this, he is ‘righteous’ in the way that a judge is supposed to be ‘righteous’…‘righteous’ and its cognates, in their biblical setting, are in this sense ‘relational’ terms, indicating how things stand with particular people in relation to the court” (p. 69; emphasis original). The theology of “imputation” cannot be held when justification is understood in this way.

Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision

Wright insists that much of the confusion around justification comes from misunderstanding of key concepts. For instance, Scripture often holds “righteousness” and “salvation” close to one another so much so that many have suggested the two words are synonymous. Wright explains, “But this is misleading. Words cannot simply be telescoped into one another like that…the word ‘righteousness’ connotes the notion of God’s covenant faithfulness because of which he does such things, and the word ‘salvation’ connotes the fact that his people were in trouble and needed rescuing” (p. 71; emphasis original).

Likewise, Piper and others have associated first-century Judaism with legalistic works-righteousness, suggesting that the Jews believed keeping Torah and circumcision could earn them membership into the people of God. Once again, such a conclusion comes from misunderstanding. Practices such as keeping the Torah or circumcising male children did not earn someone membership into God’s people but were marks that signified one was already part of God’s people. In this sense, Torah functioned as a “badge that Israel would wear, the sign that it really was God’s people.” Wright continues, “But the way to tell, in the present, who would thus be vindicated in the future was to see who was keeping Torah (in some sense at least) in the present. The debates within Judaism at the time…tended then to turn on the question: what exactly does it mean to keep Torah in the present” (p. 76)? Thus, Judaism at the time held that membership was by God’s grace and the works one did in the present were evidence of that membership.

Thus, justification is a “status.” As Wright states in reference to Romans chapter three, “Paul’s point is that the whole human race is in the dock, guilty before God, ‘justification’ will always then mean ‘acquittal,’ the granting of the status of ‘righteous’ to those who had been on trial—and which will then also mean, since they were in fact guilty, ‘forgiveness’” (p. 90; emphasis original). N.T. Wright expresses this as so,

But part of the point of Paul’s language, rightly stressed by those who have analyzed the verb dikaioo, “to justify,” is that it does not denote an action which transforms someone so much as a declaration which grants them a status. It is the status of the person which is transformed by the action of “justification,” not the character. It is in this sense that “justification” “makes” someone “righteous,” just as the officiant [sic] at a wedding service might be said to “make” the couple husband and wife—a change of status, accompanied (it is hoped) by a steady transformation of the heart, but a real change of status even if both parties are entering the union out of pure convenience (p. 91; emphasis original).

When God decides to justify an individual, he or she is given a new status, or, in other words, he or she is declared “righteous.” This does not mean one is morally upright or has earned the status based on good deeds, but it as if the court has decided in one’s favor.

More on this tomorrow, but are there any implications based on Wright’s perspective that are detrimental to the gospel?

Are there implications that are more helpful to the gospel?

Stage 4. Post 1. Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision

The N.T. Wright Project = 4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision (2009)

I remember having a conversation with a Reformed pastor about what actually was the Reformed view on “justification.” He told me. I listened. Then, I responded, “What the big deal with N.T. Wright’s view on justification? I remember reading him the definition, and he couldn’t really pick it out. I think I am beginning to understand it more and perhaps could articulate the position better and reveal more of the glaring contradictions. But then I thought, maybe it’s not such a big deal as people are making it? I don’t know…

Traditionally in Protestant thought, the term “justification” has been understood to be synonymous with individual’s salvation. In other words, as one speaks about being “justified by faith,” he or she is simply referring to the past event in which he or she was “saved.” The apostle Paul’s understanding of justification has been in discussion as of late; particularly, American, pastor-theologian John Piper’s challenge to British, pastor-theologian N. T. Wright’s understanding of the term. Piper began the dialogue with his book The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright, which received a reaction from N. T. Wright in his book Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. The debate focuses on the Piper’s support for the traditional Reformed view over-against Wright’s more recently espoused perspective on the term “justification.”

Wright is often characterized as one who follows the “new perspective” on the apostle Paul. Wright states his dread for the term “new perspective” but humorously reminds, “There are times when I wish that the phrase had never been invented; indeed, perhaps for Freudian reasons, I had quite forgotten that I had invented it myself…until J. D. G. Dunn…graciously pointed out that I had used it in my 1978 Tyndale Lecture” (p. 28). The new perspective receives great criticism from many due to its association with Ed Sanders, but Wright explains to his readers that critics “should not assume that Dunn and I are flying under the same flag” (p. 29).

However, regardless of theological associations, Wright explains that there are two items about Paul that must be addressed. First, “Paul’s rich and subtle use of the Old Testament” (p. 33), and, second, in Wright’s characteristically run-on fashion, “the apostle’s understanding of the story of Israel, and of the whole world, as a single continuous narrative, which having reached its climax in Jesus the Messiah, was now developing in the fresh ways which God the Creator, the Lord of history, had always intended” (p. 34). Wright reminds his critics that it is not enough to echo the Reformers. As he explains, “For too long we have read Scripture with nineteenth-century eyes and sixteenth-century questions. It’s time to get back to reading with first-century eyes and twenty-first century questions” (p. 37).

Wright proposes that Paul’s understanding of justification is inherently a Jewish one. The Hebrew prophets continually remind the people of Israel of God’s faithfulness to his covenant with them. God is righteous, and Israel is unrighteous. The book of Daniel, influential in the first-century, makes this point directly in chapter nine verse seven. Wright reflects on the passage, “You are in the right, and we are in the wrong. That is the basic meaning of Daniel 9:7: in the implicit lawsuit between God and Israel, God is in the right. All this is the language of the covenant…God is righteous, not just (in other words) as though in a lawsuit, but in terms of the covenant” (p. 63; emphasis original). The first step in understanding justification is to acknowledge God’s faithfulness to his covenant with Israel, or, as N. T. Wright explains, “The point is that God has promised to bless the world through Israel, and Israel has been faithless to that commission” (p. 67; emphasis original).

Stage 3. Post 1. The Last Word.

The N.T. Wright Project = 4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

I don’t think I know what someone means when they say they believe the Scripture is authoritative. I suppose I imagine Scripture on a pedestal, looking down on us from above, and we just look up at it and bow before its verses. I know that’s strange, but I think a lot of Christians don’t know what it means to say that Scripture is authoritative. I usually hear some type of rhetoric about how, “We read Scripture, and we believe it so if you disagree with us, you disagree with Scripture.” Somehow I find that to be unhealthy, and it sounds more like you are authoritative rather than Scripture, and I don’t think you want that type of pressure. So, when N.T. Wright explains, “The phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can make Christian sense only if it is shorthand for ‘the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow through scripture’” (p. 23; emphasis original), we see the proper understanding of Scripture’s (I capitalize “Scripture” unlike our friends across the Atlantic) authority. Scripture simply is used by God as a vehicle through which he expresses his authority.

The Last Word (2005)

In many circles, the “literal” sense of Scripture is seen as “authoritative.” Not many today would suggest that a way of determining how Scripture is authoritative would lean on the “four sense” interpretive scheme or a highly allegorical interpretation. NTW points out, though, that “when the Reformers insisted on the ‘literal’ sense of scripture, they were referring to the first of the four medieval senses.” As NTW continues, “For them, the ‘literal’ sense was the sense that the first writers intended” (p. 73; emphasis original). With this being said, if a passage is meant to be figurative, the literal sense would be figurative. For instance, the Reformers challenged the Catholic view of the elements of the Eucharist. Yes, Christ did say, “This is my body,” but this is in fact meant to be figurative. A literal reading turns out to be the Catholic view of transubstantiation. Thus,

We need to note carefully that to invoke “the literal meaning of scripture,” hoping thereby to settle a point by echoing the phraseology of the Reformers, could be valid only if we meant, not “literal” as opposed to metaphorical, but “literal” (which might include metaphorical, if that, arguably, was the original sense) as opposed to the three other medieval senses (allegorical, anagogical, and/or moral) (pp.73-74; emphasis original).

Unlike many Christians who have an aversion to metaphor, metaphor is often used in Scripture and the intent of the authors could be so. For instance, if Revelation is supposed to be metaphorical, then there is no need to think we are abandoning the literal sense when we interpret it metaphorically.

I do have to challenge Wright on a couple of things. Although if he were face-to-face with me, he would probably wipe the floor with me. However, the benefit of a blog is I can say whatever I want. First, I felt Wright was a little harsh on the four medieval senses. Concerning the four senses, he states, “The trouble with all of this is of course the lack of control. Once you can make scripture stand on its hind legs and dance a jig, it becomes a tame pet rather than a roaring lion” (p. 70). Now, I do lean towards the literal sense, but I think the four senses can take Scripture from a “static” book to a “dynamic” one. Control we cannot, but there is great beauty in this style of interpretation. But we can’t even control the literal readings that some people come up with. And who’s to say that the Holy Spirit cannot open such senses to the reader?

This leads to my second “hang up” (so to speak). NTW disagrees with the more supposedly “Catholic” position of tradition over Scripture. He states, “Those who transmit, collect and distribute the message are not in the same league as those who write it in the first place” (p. 63). In a sense, I agree. However, I have explained something similar elsewhere, but, even if Paul or Moses were here with us today, they are merely one voice among many. Now, Paul and Moses are taken more seriously since they were the authors of their supposed texts, but the Spirit can lead the Church to a new, fresh meaning for today. I know this is controversial, and I don’t have time to unpack it all here. I would mostly agree with Wright, and I wouldn’t dismiss him (as all these posts on his works will show I admire him). I simply would like to ask him questions concerning these things.

Tomorrow, I will talk about how Scripture can and should be used today. Specifically, NTW’s “five act play” model will be talked about. I, in fact, have used it often, and I have heard it used in other books. However, thus far, I have to admit that I find NTW’s proposals very helpful. We have to think about the authority of Scripture differently, and part of that task is to unpack what we mean by that and how we intend to use its authority. Wright helps us do that.

How have you heard people use defend their positions with the “authority of Scripture”?

How do you feel one should come about the proper interpretation of Scripture? Is there any value to the four senses view?

The Last Word (1st ed. 2005; 2nd ed. 2009)

I have a great place in my heart for N.T. Wright’s The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (my edition is different from the picture. I have the earlier one). I was finishing up college, and I was looking for a fresh “word” about Scripture. I was tired of hearing how the Bible was the “infallible, inerrant word of God.” Not that I didn’t (or don’t) believe those things, but I was used to hearing those words as an attack on someone else. “We believe Scripture!” is what I would hear with nuance or substance. I also had learned my theology from a strong dispensational standpoint, and it was beginning to unravel for me. It just didn’t make sense. Things were just too neat and organized.

I picked up The Last Word at a local bookstore because the topic intrigued me, and I was looking at Biblical Theological Seminary to attend for graduate work and John Franke (a professor there) endorsed the book. I never heard of this N.T. Wright guy, except once or twice before. I knew he wrote a few things, and some people liked him. So, I picked it up. What I found is what I fell in love with!

Looking back, it isn’t Wright’s best book, but it was my first exposure, and, like your first kiss, it’s memorable. I remember reading the book as I handed out fliers for the company I worked for at the time. I would walk around the neighborhood to put fliers on mailboxes (putting them in is illegal), and I brought this book with me. I re-read it (very quickly) for these blog posts, and I realized how much of my theology was truly influenced by this book. I hope you enjoy my posts on it.

Stage 2. Post 2. Evil and the Justice of God

The N.T. Wright Project = 4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

Sorry, Hillsong fans, but this is about your beloved Aussies, but I think it still applies.

Evil and the Justice of God (2006)

Page one of NTW’s Evil and the Justice of God references that in Revelation 21 there is “no more sea.” I’ve always been intrigued by that because I figured if the new heavens and new earth were supposed to be so awesome, will there be any surfers since there’s no sea? That doesn’t seem very “gnarly.” I am being facetious. If you are a literalist, then, yes, no surfers. However, NTW correctly points out that the “sea” (biblically) is a reference to evil and chaos. Thus, the future new creation will be a place without evil.

Our Solution

“This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind…That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it” (George W. Bush in speech commemorating the anniversary of 9/11).

“I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth” (Barack Obama in his 2007 remarks to the Chicago Council of Global Affairs).

The Western world has continually fallen into the trap that democracy is the solution for the world. The thought goes like this, “If we could spread our ideal of democracy to the rest of the world, iron-fisted dictators, terrorism, and evil will cease to exist.” This thought fallacy is in line with what NTW calls the “doctrine of progress,” where many can conclude, “everything was moving toward a better, fuller, more perfect end” (p. 21). As Wright continues,

The heady combination of technological achievement, medical advances, Romantic pantheism, Hegelian progressive Idealism and social Darwinism created a climate of thought in which, to this day, a great many people–not least in public life–have lived and moved….when people say that certain things are unacceptable “now that we’re living in the twenty-first century,” they are appealing to an assumed doctrine of progress…We are taught, often by the tone of voice of the media and the politicians rather than by explicit argument, to bow down before this progress. It’s unstoppable (pp. 21-22).

In this way, progress is the solution the we offer.

A simple look at history would show that such a belief is certainly not true. Progress is not our solution, but we still bow down to it anyway. NTW in a rather long statement explains,

It seems remarkable that the belief in progress still survives and triumphs. The nineteenth century thought it had gotten rid of original sin; of course, it had to find replacements, and Marx and Freud offered some…And somehow, despite the horrific battles of Mons and the Somme during World War I, despite Auschwitz and Buchenwald, despite Dostoyevsky and Barth, people still continue to this day to suppose that the world is basically a good place and that its problems are more or less soluble by technology, education, “development” in the sense of “Westernization” (p. 22).

If none of these things are the solution, where can one be found?

God’s Solution
It’s an easy, Sunday school answer to the question…but…Jesus. Wright explains,

The Gospels are trying to tell us the story of how the death of Jesus is the point at which evil in all its forms has come rushing together…the Gospels tell the story of Jesus’ death as the story of how the downward spiral of evil finally hit bottom with the the violent and bloody execution of this man (pp. 82-83).

NTW lays out five forms of evil that Jesus’ death confronts as follows:

1. “The Gospels tell the story of the political powers of the world reaching their full, arrogant height” (p. 79)
2. Israel was supposed to be the solution but is just part of the problem (p. 80)
3. Dark, demonic forces are confronted (p. 81)
4. Evil runs down the middle of Jesus’ own followers. Jesus rebukes Peter as “Satan.” James and John want prestigious positions in the kingdom. And Judas is, well, Judas.
5. “The story of the Gospels tell is a story about the downward spiral of evil. One thing leads to another; the remedy offered against evil has itself the germ of evil within it, so that its attempt to put things right merely produces second-order evil, and so on” (p. 82).

How then does Jesus confront evil? Jesus enters his ministry with healing, table fellowship, and, lastly, he “articulates and models the call to Israel to be Israel” (p. 85). All of these things are Jesus’ ways of confronting evil. In this way, early Christianity understood that Jesus had defeated evil, and they chose three events that focused on this–the temple action, last supper, and his crucifixion. Particularly, Christ’s crucifixion is told “as the story of how cosmic and global evil, in its supra-personal as well as personal forms, are met by the sovereign, saving love of Israel’s God, YHWH, the Creator of the world” (p. 93). In this way, God deals with evil.

Now, back to Revelation 21, where there is no more sea (but still surfers). The Christian must follow in the footsteps of Jesus in the past, but, since he or she has a picture of the new creation in the future, it helps one understand his or her purpose in the present. A large portion of Wright’s application focuses on forgiveness. NTW does well to remind his readers that forgiveness is not synonymous with tolerance, which is often the wrong assumption. Tolerance is a way of not dealing seriously with sin–we have to call evil, evil (p. 151). Also, we forgive others because Christ forgave others even when he was on the cross. And not only do we forgive others, we forgive ourselves. Sometimes, forgiving ourselves is the biggest stumbling block to living a life of forgiveness.

Forgiveness is an aspect of love or, as Christ showed, suffering love. Thus, NTW is correct to state,

The call of the gospel is for the church to implement the victory of God in the world through suffering love. The cross is not just an example to be followed; it is an achievement to be worked out, to put into practice. But it is an example nonetheless, because it is the exemplar–the template, the model–for what God now wants to do by his Spirit in the world, through his people. It is the start of the process of redemption, in which suffering and martyrdom are the paradoxical means by which victory is won (pp. 98-99; emphasis mine).

The world will one day be finally put to rights at the arrival of God’s new creation, but, until then, what does it mean for the church to implement the victory of God in today’s world? This is a question we must continually ask of ourselves.

The last quote is exactly why I believe every Christian should read this book. This is, in my opinion, the best book N.T. Wright has written on a popular level. I will be handing this book to people who need to know that God is there with them in the suffering. I will offer it to those who can’t forgive themselves. But I recommend it to all of us because we need to embrace this “paradoxical means” by which God brings about victory over evil. Evil is amongst us. We offer our own solutions, but, in fact, God through the work of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit guiding his people will judge evil and bring about true justice to this unjust world. This is the true solution (or as Hillsong fans like to sing, “Let God be the solution…We will run, we will run, we will run with the solution!”). Score 10 out of 10

+++++++
Wright, N.T. (2006). Evil and the justice of God. IVP: Downers Grove.

Buy: Amazon.com
You can also the special edition with DVD included here.

Stage 2. Post 1. Evil and the Justice of God

The N.T. Wright Project = 4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

I must first say that any post will do this book a great injustice. I truly believe this is the best book Wright has written on a popular level. After reading the book in 2 days, I had this appreciation confirmed by a fellow-Wrightian. N.T. Wright (NTW) originally sought out to write a book about the cross, but he quickly realized “that in order to speak meaningfully about the cross one must say at least something about evil, the problem which, in classic theology, the cross has decisively addressed” (p. 16). There is a problem, but there is a solution. Let’s look at the problem first and tomorrow we’ll look at the solution.

Our Problem
“We have to call sin, sin.” I’ve heard this statement before, and Christians usually apply this statement as license to get angry at homosexuals or abortionists. However, NTW correctly shows that we have to call evil, evil. In this way, we do not fall into the usual mistakes that people make in reaction to evil. NTW mentions three reactions by modernity and they are as follows:

• We ignore evil until it hits us in the face. We think the world is
  

  Evil and the Justice of God (2006)

  basically OK so there is no reason to fuss about it. For instance, “Western politicians knew perfectly well that Al-Qaeda was a force to be reckoned with; but nobody really wanted to take it too seriously until it was too late” (p. 24).

• We are surprised at evil when it finally does hit us in the face
• As a result, we react in immature and dangerous ways, knee-jerk reactions such as those found in response to the events of 9/11

On the other hand, postmodernity offers a culture of nihilism while at the same time realizes that humanity is deeply flawed. The issue is that “you can’t escape evil within postmodernity, but you can’t find anybody to take the blame either” (p. 32). In this way, postmodernity’s analysis of evil is dehumanizing and offers no redemption (p. 33).

God’s Problem
Throughout the Old Testament, there appears to some conclusions about the problem of evil that God is confronted with:

1. The Old Testament provides a picture of “the personified force of evil, the satan, is important but not that important. The origin of evil itself remains a mystery; and the satan, when he (or it) appears, is kept strictly within bounds.”
2. There is overwhelming evidence of human responsibility for evil. The OT is full of sinners — Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and of course the entire nation of Israel. Interestingly, “God chooses to bring the world back to rights through a family which is itself composed of deeply flawed human beings and thereby generates second- and third-order problems of evil.”
3. Human evil is connected to the enslavement of creation. What about natural disasters? NTW explains from the OT, “No theory is offered about earthquakes or other so-called natural disasters, though no doubt the prophets would have been happy to identify them with heaven-sent warnings” (p. 72).
4. Perhaps the most difficult thing to swallow is that “the Old Testament never tries to give us the sort of picture the philosophers want, that of a static world order with everything explained tidily” (emphasis mine). As NTW shows God is not “the omnicompetent managing director of a very large machine…What we are offered instead is stranger and more mysterious: a narrative of God’s project of justice within a world of injustice” (p. 73).

I appreciate that NTW is honest with Old Testament material. We all usually miss one or two of these points. Some partially emphasize point 3 and totally miss point 1. Others over-emphasize point 2 and miss point 3 and 4. For me, point 4 is something none of us like to hear. We come to the Bible and expect it to give us a clear expression as to why evil exists and why we suffer. Instead, it offers us mystery.

I once recall a conversation with a young man who expressed that his religion teacher at his college continually referenced God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question–Why We Suffer by Bart Ehrman as a way of deconstructing Scripture. I am not a Bart Ehrman fan, and, in fact, I think he draws simplistic, misleading theological conclusions. If I had to guess, I believe Ehrman’s “problem” is that the Bible doesn’t offer one reason for evil. We really just want to know. We don’t know perfectly well why evil exist or why we suffer. But, from Scripture, NTW shows that we do know that God hates evil, wants to judge it, and has set out to rid the world of it. But that’s for tomorrow…

Evil and the Justice of God (2006)

I’ve read a lot of books by N.T. Wright, and I had Evil and the Justice of God sitting on my shelf for some time now. It’s not that I had no interest in the subject. In fact, I believe I bought it because someone told me about Bart Ehrman’s (who I, frankly, cannot stand) book God’s Problem about a similar subject. It’s just that I had more important books to read, and I had more important N.T. Wright books to read. Boy, was I wrong. I read this book, and I loved it! Over the next couple of days, I will be reflecting on the book here. I hope to show you why the book is so good, and why I believe every Christian should read it (no joke).

Stage 1. Post 2: What Saint Paul Really Said

The N.T. Wright Project = 4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

So, here we are — the 2nd post of Stage 1. One book down. Three to go. See you at the end! If you’d like to follow along through all the stages, please feel free to follow me on Twitter or subscribe to this RSS. Enjoy!

What makes What Saint Paul Really Said so praiseworthy?

Does Paul ever annoy you? Yes? Me too. I have to say that I prefer the Gospels over the Pauline epistles, and I have a love-hate relationship with Paul. However, I am getting beyond that thanks to N.T. Wright. Above all the criticism and even amidst it, What Saint Paul Really Said is praiseworthy. N.T. Wright (NTW) deserves a great more amount of praise from fellow evangelicals than he has received. From my estimation, he has taken the scholarly discussion of Paul from being a solely “mainline” exercise and has put evangelicals on the map with this book.

First, NTW shows that Paul properly put Jesus within Jewish monotheism. At the time of Paul, the Jews had developed a more flexible definition of YHWH. They used “five language-sets…Wisdom, Torah, Spirit, Word and Shekinah…Sometimes some of these are closely identified with each other, as in Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus) 24″ (p. 64). Wright does well to point out that Paul remains this type of “monotheist.” The apostle did not see himself as creating a new religion, but he believed he was firmly rooted within that tradition. NTW points out a number of ways that this was so. However, I would like to point out two ways. First, Paul reshapes the Shema (”Here, O Israel, the LORD our God, he is one…) around the person of Jesus. NTW shows it as follows:

The Lord our God            One God — the Father…
The Lord is One              One Lord — Jesus Christ…
(Dt. 6:4)                            (1 Cor. 8:6)

Wright reflects on this,

The whole argument of the chapter [1 Cor. 8] hinges precisely

What Saint Paul Really Said (1997)

on [Paul] being a Jewish-style monotheist, over against pagan polytheism; and, as a the lynchpin of the argument, he has quoted the most central and holy confession of that monotheism and has placed Jesus firmly in the middle of it (pp. 66-67; emphasis original).

Second, Paul’s Christology in Philippians 2. NTW rephrases what Paul is saying,

(1) Jesus was truly in the form of God, that is, he was equal with God. But (2) he did not regard this divine equality as something to exploit (watch out for different translations that get this vital point wrong). Instead, Paul says, (3) he [Jesus] offered the true interpretation of what it meant to be equal with God: he became human, and died under the weight of the sin of the world, obedient to the divine saving plan (p. 68).

Paul also includes the Spirit within Jewish monotheism. Thus, God is three and one at the same time. This may seem odd, but Wright explains,

“Paul does not solve the puzzle of how God can be three and one at the same time. But, for him, this is what the word God actually means…he uses exactly those language systems which some parts of Judaism had developed for speaking, within monotheism, of the ways in which this one God acted within the world. Paul remains completely a Jewish-style monotheist” (p. 74).

Many have tried to argue that Paul had invented Christianity (e.g., A.N. Wilson who NTW argues against in the last chapter). However, NTW shows that this is not the case–that Paul was clearly following in the line of Jesus. He explains,

It should be clear from all this that if Paul had simply trotted out, parrot-fashion, every line of Jesus’ teaching…he would not be endorsing Jesus…He would be denying him. Someone who copies what a would-be Messiah does is himself trying to be a Messiah; which means denying the earlier claim (p. 180-81).

This is an excellent point! It was eye-opening to me. I wasn’t sure how to ever address the question of dis/continuity between Jesus and Paul, but, after reading the book, I believe NTW says it best.

However excellent NTW’s points may be and however academic he may be, NTW supplies a pastoral emphasis near the end of his book. Paul emphasizes that because of the work of Jesus there is a renewed humanity, that is, there is a true way of being human. Due to this, we see that Wright desires his readers to apply what they have heard him say. NTW spends time to point out that a renewed humanity centers around the “true worship of the one true God” (p. 136). A renewed humanity lives in light of resurrection (p. 140). A renewed humanity is a transformed humanity, which calls us to holiness (p. 142). This renewed humanity genuinely overflows with love (p. 145). And the renewed humanity sees Jesus as King and all other “kings” as parodies and then goes out in mission to the rest of the world; as Wright says of Paul, “He knows that what he is doing is simply part of a cosmic movement, beginning with the resurrection of Jesus and ending with the renewal of all things…The Jewish hope, that Israel’s king would be the king of the world, had come true in Jesus the Messiah” (p. 149).

I commend this book, and I recommend that any serious reader of Paul read it. From personal experience, out of college I was a lover of Paul until to say it bluntly…I read about Jesus. Paul, at times, drove me crazy. To me, he just didn’t do things like Jesus. But, after reading What Saint Paul Really Said, I believe I am coming back around to Paul. I am beginning to understand him. And I am happy to receive this insight from N.T. Wright and know what St. Paul really said (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

I’ve read Ridderbos’ Paul: An Outline of His Theology and the book was brutal to read. Wright’s book is much more accessible and current. It’s interesting that I just read What Saint Paul Really Said because someone gave me an article yesterday about why the New Perspective on Paul is dangerous. I actually disagree. The book is a “must read.”  Score: 9 out of 10

Q’s:

What would be some other reasons why this book is so praiseworthy?

Maybe you’re like me…What about Paul drives you crazy?

+++++++

Wright, N.T. (1997). What Saint Paul really said: was Paul of Tarsus the real founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

Buy: Amazon.com