Tag Archives: paul

The NTW Project: A “Weightier” Justification

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: Gods Plan & Pauls Vision

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

Share Button

The NTW Project: Imputed or Declared?

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: Gods Plan & Pauls Vision

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?

Share Button

The NTW Project: Piper-Wright Cagematch

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: Gods Plan & Pauls Vision (2009)

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).

Share Button

The NTW Project: What makes “What Saint Paul Really Said” so praiseworthy?

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)

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

Share Button

The NTW Project: That’s NOT What St. Paul Really Said

Stage 1. Post 1 of the N.T. Wright Project

Tomorrow, I will post on what makes the book praiseworthy, but until then, here’s to what I think people would say, “That’s not what St. Paul really said!”

What makes What Saint Paul Really Said so controversial?

I don’t think it’s Paul’s background that NTW provides. I don’t think it’s Paul critique of paganism or his critique of Judaism. I doubt it’s Paul’s heralding of Christ’s kingship. I would hate to think anyone would disagree with NTW’s proposal that God intends to renew/redeem humanity. However, there are a few things I do think causes NTW’s book to be so controversial.

First, the gospel. I recall a conversation I had with an opponent of Paul…err…N.T. Wright, who struggled with NTW’s understanding of the gospel. The individual said something along these lines, “How can Wright say that the gospel is not about getting saved when Paul clearly says the gospel is ‘the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes’ (Rom. 1:16)?” I must say that I hate debating because, as Oscar from The Office puts it about a debate over the “hotness” of Hilary Swank says, “That’s the thing about debating, you’re just going to get people more entrenched in the view they had in the first place.” (Side-note: I would be on the side that says Hilary Swank is not hot, but that’s just me.) However, I said to this person, “NTW does not deny that, but he says it’s more than that.”

What Saint Paul Really Said (1997)

What Saint Paul Really Said (1997)

The problem, which NTW points out well, is that we have made the “gospel” mean less than what Paul intended. Many have reduced it down to mean Jesus becoming our personal Lord and Savior so I can go to heaven when I die. As Wright says correctly,

In many church circles, if you hear something like that, people will say that ‘the gospel’ has been preached…I am perfectly comfortable with what people normally mean when they say ‘the gospel’. I just don’t think it is what Paul means. In other words, I am not denying that the usual meanings are things that people ought to say, to preach about, to believe. I simply wouldn’t use the word ‘gospel’ to denote those things (p. 41).

NTW says later about Romans 1:1-5, “It is not, then, a system of how people get saved. The announcement of the gospel results in people getting saved…But ‘the gospel’ itself, strictly speaking, is the narrative proclamation of King Jesus” (p. 45; emphasis mine). NTW continues by saying the gospel “is the putting into effect of [Christ's] kingship, the decisive and authoritative summoning to allegiance…the gospel, Paul would have said, is not just about God’s power saving people. It is God’s power at work to save people” (p. 61; emphasis original). Sure, the gospel results in one’s salvation, but the term gospel means more than that–it is the proclamation that Jesus is King over all creation!

In the same way, NTW has a multifaceted view of Paul’s use of the term “Lord” for Jesus. Paul uses the term “Lord” (or Kyrios in Greek) in reference to the Jewish God, YHWH. As NTW puts it, “…Paul uses this word of Jesus…a way of aligning Jesus, personally, one-on-one, with the word Kyrios in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), where it regularly stands for YHWH, the not-to-be-pronounced Name of God” (p. 71). This is in no way controversial from an evangelical standpoint. However, NTW points out the multifaceted use of the word,

Kyrios Kaisar was the formula which said it all: Caesar is Lord. Most pagans within the Roman world were quite happy to acknowledge Caesar as Lord…Paul said: no, Kyrios Iesous Christos: Jesus Christ is Lord…there is a clear sense of confrontation with one of paganism’s treasured heartlands, the imperial ideology (p. 88).

The direct application of this is, in fact, controversial. I have written about this on numerous occasions on this blog, but American evangelicals could learn well from Paul’s confrontation with the political leader of his day, unlike where many American evangelicals have stood politically.

Last, I believe NTW’s view of “justification” makes this book controversial. Until his more recent book on the subject, NTW’s most drawn out explanation of the term was found in What Saint Paul Really Said. The phrase of controversy is dikaiosune theou, “the righteousness of God.” (I will talk about this more at length in my posts on Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision later. However, this will have to whet your appetite). NTW connects the term to its Jewish roots, which hovers around the idea of God’s faithfulness to his covenant. Thus, “‘the righteousness of God’ would have one obvious meaning: God’s own faithfulness to his promises, to the covenant” (p. 96; emphasis mine). As NTW continues, “God’s own righteousness is his covenant faithfulness…[it] remains, so to speak, God’s property” (p. 99). This is controversial, in that, it negates any idea of “imputation.” God’s property is his property.

Again, “justification” is multifaceted. It involves covenantal language, law-court language, and eschatology. Covenantal, in that, God’s remaining faithful to his covenant and in this way God vindicates his actions (p. 129). Law-court, in that, God the Judge finds the defendant (i.e., human beings) “in the right.” Eschatological, in that, “It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people…it was not about ‘getting in’, or indeed about ‘staying in’, as about ‘how you could tell who was in’” (p. 119). The last point is the most controversial since many have proposed since, at least, the Reformation (maybe even before) that “justification” was about how one got into the people of God. NTW suggests that it was about how to tell one is already in and who will be vindicated in the last days. (I will explain all of this more later when we get to the entire book on the subject).

The main concern for this post is to explain what appears to me to be controversial about What Saint Paul Really Said. As you can imagine, there is much more than can be covered, but this is a start. I will be proceeding in tomorrow with why I believe this book is praiseworthy.

What have you found to be controversial about this book?

Do you have a story of a “debate” about this book or Wright’s theology?

Share Button

The NTW Project: What Saint Paul Really Said

Stage 1 of The N.T. Wright Project

4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

What Saint Paul Really Said (1997)

What Saint Paul Really Said (1997)

If you’ve had any interaction with N.T. Wright (NTW) in the past, you will know that the book many of his proponents and opponents will quote is his book What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Now only $6.86 on Amazon.com!). I have had conversations with his critics that will claim that Wright is somehow “unorthodox,” and each person has referenced What Saint Paul Really Said to support his or her (OK, just “his”) argument. On the other hand, I’ve had conversations with fellow proponents who, at once discovering that I am a fan of Wright’s, will quickly and happily insert in the conversation, “Have you read What Saint Paul Really Said?” Up until this point, I have always responded, “No, but I need to.” Mainly, I wanted to read it so I could say that “I know what St. Paul really said (unlike you).” So, the question I have asked myself is, what causes NTW’s book to be received with both great enthusiasm but also great controversy? Tomorrow – the controversy.

Until then, if you have read the book, what did you enjoy about it?

Share Button

The N.T. Wright Project

N.T. Wright

N.T. Wright

4 books. 2 weeks. 1 bishop. 1 man.

If you don’t know already, I am a huge N.T. Wright fan. No other author has had a more lasting impact on my life than he. God has used his writings to help me be a better lover for theology, a better Christian, and (I would even suggest) a better human. Over the next two weeks, I will be reading multiple books by N.T. Wright and reflecting on them here on my blog. My goal: read 4 of his books, write two reflections/posts on each, give a score (e.g., 7 out of 10) for each one, and complete it all before my wife gives birth to our son (wish me luck!). I hope you will find my reflections stimulating and encouraging. If you are looking for someone to call NTW a “heretic,” you won’t find that here, but I hope I can offer you a glimpse into his theology and maybe you’ll pick up one of the books on your own, too. I would also like to challenge any other NTW fans to take on this “N.T. Wright Project” over the summer, read a book or two, and offer reflections on their perspective blogs. Anyone interested?

I have chosen the following as part of this undertaking, and I have provided pieces of the Amazon.com reviews to help you get a brief synopsis of what each book is about:

Evil and the Justice of God (2006)

Evil and the Justice of God (2006)

“Why does evil persist in a world created by a good God? And why does the church seem so feeble in counteracting evil? Wright, a New Testament scholar who is Anglican bishop of Durham, U.K., and author of several well-received volumes, including Jesus and the Victory of God, addresses these questions in a readable and compelling plea to renew the church’s compassionate mission in these challenging times.”

“Wright offers sensible insights on the transforming power of God, very necessary in these times of skepticism and confusion.” (Publishers Weekly )

“The best book of its kind available.” (The Christian Century )

“[P]robing, provocative, insightful…This is a book of uncommon wisdom for all who read and love the Bible.” (Timothy George, Dean of Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and Executive Editor of Christianity Today)

N. T. Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said leads readers through the current scholarly discussion of Paul and gives a concise account of the actual contribution Paul made to the birth of Christianity. Wright offers a critique of the argument that claims that it was Paul who founded Christianity and shows clearly that Paul this allegation is simply not true. But rather that Paul was the faithful witness and herald of Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish Messiah and the risen Lord of the Christian faith. And that neither he, nor any of those who immediately followed him in the leadership counsels of the Christian church, every claimed or thought otherwise. — Midwest Book Review

“For some time now, I have watched in puzzlement as some critics, imagining themselves as defenders of Paul’s gospel, have derided Tom Wright as a dangerous betrayer of the Christian faith. In fact, Paul’s gospel of God’s reconciling, world-transforming grace has no more ardent and eloquent exponent in our time than Tom Wright. If his detractors read this book carefully, they will find themselves engaged in close exegesis of Paul’s letters, and they will be challenged to join Wright in grappling with the deepest logic of Paul’s message. Beyond slogans and caricatures of ‘Lutheran readings’ and ‘the New Perspective,’ the task we all face is to interpret these difficult, theologically generative letters afresh for our time. Wright’s sweeping, incisive sketch of Paul’s thought, set forward in this book, will help us all in that task.” —-Richard B. Hays, Duke University

Share Button

What if Plato Watched ‘Lost’?

ABCs Lost

ABC's Lost

I must first admit that I never watched Lost, other than, a few episodes. I never got into it, and, frankly, I was one of the naysayers who suggested that Lost is simply an amped-up version of  Gilligan’s Island. However, as the series Lost has concluded, and I have conducted a very, non-scientific poll to gauge the reaction to the last episode (i.e., series finale). It appears to be a 50-50 split–one side absolutely loved the finale and one side loathed it (which, frankly, the reaction makes me question Lost‘s marketing team, but that’s for another day).

As stated, I never got into the series; partially because I had class on Tuesday nights for the past three years. But I spent countless Wednesdays hearing people talk about the episode from the night before. Another equally talked about show was 24, which I spent countless Tuesdays hearing people talk about how Jack died, then, didn’t, then found out that his lover who he once thought was dead is not, and then CTU blows up, and then Jack gets angry and stops terrorism in all forms and from all people groups–Arabic, Russian, East German, Gorbachev’s cronies, unpatriotic Americans, and even the patriotic ones.

Regardless, I thought about this today, What if Plato watched Lost? What if he spent all his mental energy trying to figure out what was going on in Lost? Would “The Cave” have ever been written? Or would it end with a strange conclusion like the images on the wall are simply shadows of another reality (oh wait…)?

OK. Better example…What if the apostle Paul watched Lost? Would “Romans” have been written? At least, we can agree that it would have been shorter and more ambiguous than it already appears to be. What if he watched 24? There would be less “Therefore’s” (i.e., what is it there for?) at the beginning of his thoughts and instead the chapters would begin with, Previously on the matter of justification… And “Philemon” would have been written differently because Paul would have told Philemon to accept Onesimus and to live by the rules of freedom in Christ by saying, “The rules are what make us better.” To which Philemon would have responded, “Not today.” And then, Onesimus would not have been accepted back. Ugly.

It appears to me that we spend a lot of our mental energy on TV. That scares me a little (or a lot). I am all for hobbies, entertainment, etc. But what would it be like if we took the same time we used watching TV and talking about it for better, more constructive things?

What do you think?

Share Button

The Radical Message of Romans 13

1 Let everyone be subject to Hitler, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against Hitler is rebelling against who God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of Hitler? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For Hitler is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. Hitler is God’s servant, agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to him, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

It seems strange to read Romans 13:1-7 like this, but this is exactly how the majority of churches in Nazi Germany

Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler

applied it. Hitler is God’s servant. Therefore, we should not resist but submit ourselves to what he is doing. When Hitler came into power, Romans 13. When his Gestapo began to take your Jewish neighbors away, Romans 13. When his army invaded Poland, Romans 13. Hitler wisely embraced Romans 13 to give him unquestioned power by the majority of German Christians. Not many Christians spoke up because, let’s be frank, as long as you were on Hitler’s side you were on the winning side. Romans 13 gives Hitler a lot of lead-way to do as he pleases. I mean, Paul would tell the German Christians to be subject to the governing authorities, wouldn’t he? The pro-Nazi churches were just following Scripture, right?

Continue reading →

Share Button

Reflection on N.T. Wright, Jesus, Paul and the New Testament Conference (with notes and mp3) #wtc10

N.T. Wright

N.T. Wright

N.T. Wright’s a scholar, but he’s also a pastor. I knew he was a pastor, but it took this past weekend’s “Jesus, Paul and the New Testament: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright” for this to become a reality for me. On Friday night, N.T. Wright (NTW) spoke about one of his areas of expertise–Jesus, who you may have heard about on this blog. NTW spoke about the Greek words that Jesus and Peter use for the word “love.” In John 21:15-17, after Jesus’ resurrection, he speaks to Peter, and the Gospel states,

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love (Greek = agape/??????) me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love (Gk. philes/????) you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love (Gk. agape love) me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love (Gk. philes love) you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love (Gk. philes love) me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (Gk. philes love) you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.

If you notice, Jesus twice asks Peter if Peter loves him with agape-love. Peter twice responds, “Lord, you know I do love you with philes love.”  Peter offers Jesus philes love, which is friend-love, but Jesus first wants agape love from Peter. Peter just cannot go that far. He can only give Jesus friend-love. What is interesting, Jesus doesn’t keep pestering Peter waiting for Peter to finally respond, “Yes! Lord! Fine! I love you with agape-love!” Peter couldn’t go that far. So what does Jesus do? He comes down to Peter’s level and meets Peter where he is. In a sense Jesus says, “Ok, Peter. You can only offer me friend-love right now. Ok, then, do you friend-love me?”

Is that awesome?! Jesus comes down to Peter’s level and accepts what Peter can give at that moment.

NTW ends this thought on a note like this, “Maybe there is someone here like Peter today. You can’t give Jesus everything, but only something. Jesus will meet you there.” If you ask me, that reveals the pastoral heart of N.T. Wright, which is what I needed to hear. I have a lot of “head knowledge” from him. I’ve read The New Testament and the People of God. I’ve listened to him talk about Paul’s view of the afterlife. But I really needed something to cut me to the core. And NTW provided that for me this past Friday night.

So, from now on, when people ask me, “Why do you like N.T. Wright so much?” I may just respond with this story.

+++++++

You can read my notes from the majority of the sessions here.

You can listen to and/or watch most of the sessions here.

+++++++

Share Button
Related Posts with Thumbnails