A Barth-Like Bombing: A Review of Justification (Part 2 of 2)
July 17, 2009 by keasThis is the second part of my review of Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision. I stated in the first part the two historical events that kept coming to mind while reading through Wright’s book: (1) the sixteenth-century theological dispute that set the Reformation in motion and (2) Karl Barth’s monumental and explosive Romans commentary published nearly twenty years after the turn of the twentieth century. My earlier post covered how Wright’s new book came about, the fundamental differences between Wright and Piper on justification, what exactly is at stake in their dispute, and why this resembles the Reformation in various ways (if this last line sounds melodramatic then read the earlier post). We now turn to the second half of Justification where Bishop Wright really rolls up his sleeves and does nitty-gritty exegesis. I’ll focus particularly on his treatment of Romans and how its bomb-like effect on the theological world is akin to the one caused by Barth’s commentary ninety years ago.
The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating (and Exegesis)
Wright has already put his cards on the table by the time we arrive at the second half of the book; he’s defined righteousness and justification in terms of God’s faithfulness to the Abraham covenant, argued that justification is only one part of human salvation, and drawn a distinction between how justification works in the present and in the future. He now turns directly to the text to show he’s built his case on Paul’s writings rather than some later tradition of interpretation (he accuses Piper of doing of the latter).
In his treatment of Galatians he takes two major approaches. First he traces Paul’s line of thought through the course of the letter, then points out how Paul develops the meaning of justification in relation to lawcourt, covenant, eschatology, and Christology (all of which were sketched earlier in a chapter on first-century Judaism).
In the next chapter, titled “Interlude,” Wright hones in on key passages from Pauline letters normally left out of the discussion on justification: Philippians, Corinthians, and Ephesians. This chapter brings out some of the more illuminating insights of the “new perspective” (the camp represented by Wright, E.P. Sanders, and J.D.G. Dunn). For instance, an aspect of God’s redemptive work seen especially in the book of Ephesians, but often and sadly ignored in Reformed theology, is how justification includes the coming together of Jews and Gentiles as an avant-garde of God’s new creation. As Wright eloquently puts it, “The reunion of the scattered fragments of humanity in the Messiah is the sign to the world that here we have nothing short of new creation” (169). Central to Wright’s overall argument is that all of Paul’s letters, not just two, must be read, considered, weighed, and studied if we’re to grasp the scope and magnitude and splendor of the colossal vision that Paul had of God’s saving work through Jesus Christ.
Saving the Best for Last
Wright saves Romans for last, and for good reason; it’s not only where we find the crux of Paul’s thought on justification, but also where Wright feels most at home. Romans was the focus of his doctoral dissertation at Oxford (The Messiah and the People of God: A Study in Pauline Theology with Particular Reference to the Argument of the Epistle to the Romans) and is the only book of the Bible that he’s written an academic commentary on (New Interpreter’s Bible). The new seventy-one-page chapter on Romans in Justification begins with the admission that “all roads led to Rome in the ancient world, and all roads in biblical exegesis lead to Romans sooner or later—especially when it comes to justification” (177). Here we’ve arrived at the meat of Wright’s argument.
Let us first note that Wright doesn’t say anything all that new about Romans in Justification. For the most part he’s recapitulating what he’s written elsewhere, but framing and phrasing it differently for the present debate. His full-dress treatment of Romans can be found in the massive commentary he wrote for New Interpreter’s Bible in 2002. What we do find in his new book, however, are parts of his exegesis explained more clearly and certain points of his argument stated more precisely than ever before.
By closely following Paul’s argument through the first eleven chapters of Romans and providing detailed examination of the crucial passages, Wright moves the debate with Piper beyond arm-wrestling over isolated texts and playing tug-of-war with theological slogans. He treats the book of Romans as a whole, gives attention to its original historical, social, and linguistic contexts, holds together its various themes, and never loses sight of the larger story Paul is telling. Perhaps Wright’s greatest contribution to Pauline studies is how he labors to ensure the “big picture” is seen when reading Paul. He’s raised the bar for New Testament exegesis, and those who wish to contend against his view of justification or any other Pauline doctrine will only be able to do so with a reading of Romans that accounts for the entirety of the letter and not just individual passages.
Bombing the Theologians’ Playground
Here is where Karl Barth comes to mind. His Romans commentary, when first published in 1918, was like a bomb exploding on the theological landscape of Europe, and its shockwaves were soon felt all around the world. Barth’s reading of Romans punctured and eventually leveled the theological liberalism of the day, and all exegetes who’ve wished to work with this New Testament letter since have had to navigate through the debris left by its blast. One contemporary of Barth actually described it as such; he said the commentary was “a bombshell dropped on the playground of the theologians.”
Wright’s most substantial work on Romans – his NIB commentary and this new seventy-one-page chapter in Justification – when taken together, constitute nothing less than another bombing of the theologians’ playground. His fresh insights and radical re-interpretation of Paul’s letter is causing a theological shakedown as significant as the one wrought by Barth almost a century ago. And I’m not the first to suggest this; others have drawn a comparison between the impact of these two theologians. It’s little wonder why John Piper and company are up in arms. It’s their playgrounds that are being bombarded.
A Slightly Different Romans Road
Since this is only a review, I won’t attempt to fully outline Wright’s excursion through Romans, but will follow the road he takes and only stop at those points most crucial to his argument.
We begin with Romans 1:18-3:20. Most exegetes zoom past this large chunk of Paul’s letter, assuming it’s simply one long and rather verbose condemnation of humanity, in order to get to 3:21 where the “gospel” really starts. Their thinking is as follows: Paul’s message is that those who break God’s covenant and law will face judgment, and sure, he also says that God will reward those who keep his covenant and obey the law – but this is merely a mirage, a smokescreen if you will, since Paul will soon go on to say that nobody can actually do this.
Wright warns that if we follow this line of interpretation then we’ll be making a monumental mistake from the outset. Romans 2:1-16 is a picture of the last judgment, and just because Paul makes the open pronouncement that it is “the doers of the law who will be justified” (2:13), we shouldn’t think that he means anything other than what he is saying. “Unless we are absolutely forced to deny it, we should assume that when Paul appears to be laying down first principles about God’s future judgment, he is laying down first principles about God’s future judgment” (183). Wright contends that Paul is teaching that we will in the end be judged according to our works, and that he’s only continuing what he stated earlier in Romans 2:6, “God will render to each one according to his works.” Furthermore, those in Romans 2:26-29 who “keep the commandments of the law” even though they are uncircumcised are Christian Gentiles (something once suggested by Augustine). This is pivotal for Wright’s interpretation. God has written his law on their hearts by the Spirit, though we’ll have to wait until Paul unpacks a bit more before we can connect these dots.
For the time being, Wright wants us to note that Romans 3:21-31 states present justification is issued strictly on the basis of faith. How does this present verdict correspond with 2:6-7, 10, and 13, which say future verdict is in accordance to works? By the power of the Spirit. Wright’s repeated charge is that Reformed theology has sidelined the work of the Holy Spirit for far too long, and that a robust pneumatology will only be recovered once we properly understand how justification works. Again, we’re not ready to fully unpack this, but Wright is confident it will become clearer as we keep following Paul’s logic.
Unfaithful in What Sense?
Before arriving at the beloved Romans 3:21, we need to notice how Wright handles the unfaithfulness of Israel in 3:1-8. He’s adamant that “unfaithfulness” doesn’t mean “refusing to have faith” but “unfaithful to God’s commission.” These verses are not primarily about the “salvation of the Jew,” but rather how God’s plan was for “salvation to come through the Jew” (194), and it’s precisely a summary of what Paul has just said in 2:21-24; Israel was given the vocation of being a light to the nations but ended up providing a good deal of darkness. If we feel such a charge against the Jews is harsh, Wright reminds us that Paul is only echoing the words of Israel’s earlier prophets; it’s the Old Testament that says God’s people have failed to deliver on the divine vocation. “Would any first-century Jews have been prepared to claim the contrary, that Israel was a shining example to the world, obeying Torah in such a way that the nations, looking on, were saying to themselves, ‘What a people! What a god!’?” (198).
Finally we’re beginning to see how the issue of faithfulness to the covenant is at the core of Paul’s thought. If Israel has been unfaithful and broken covenant with God, it’s a problem not just for Israel but for the whole world. Even more importantly, this is a problem for God, for it appears that his single plan to save the world through Israel has been thwarted. “How is [God] then going to be faithful not only to the promises made to Israel but to the promises made through Israel?” (195). This brings up the issue of “God’s righteousness,” since according to Wright, “God’s righteousness” in scripture is best understood as God’s faithfulness to the covenant he made with Israel, and more specifically the covenant God made with Abraham (this was covered in the earlier post).
Wright understands this sense of faithfulness/righteousness as exactly what Paul had in mind when he thundered the famous words in Romans 3:21, “But now, apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been manifested.” God is righteous because he has been faithful to his promise to overcome the problem of sin and put the world back to rights. And how exactly has God accomplished this?
Faithful in What Sense?
Paul states in the next verse (3:22) that God has achieved this through the faithfulness of the Messiah. Wright translates dia pistis Christou in the subjective genitive, “through the faith(fulness) of Jesus Christ,” whereas most bibles translate it in the objective genitive, which reads as “faith in Jesus Christ.” If we define “the faith(fulness) of Jesus Christ” by what follows in the passage then it must mean “his faithfulness unto death, the redeeming death, the dealing-with-sin death, the death that then makes it possible for sinners to be justified, to be declared ‘in the right,’ not because of any moral worth in themselves but only because Jesus has done what Israel was called to do but, because of its own sin, could not do” (203-204).
Wright repeats here what he’s written elsewhere. He’s not advocating we translate the Pauline phrase, pistis Christou, in the subjective genitive every time; sometimes the context calls for it to be translated in the objective genitive. Moreover, by no means does the subjective genitive render the idea of faith in Christ as unnecessary. Wright points out that in most texts where pistis Christou should be translated as the faith(fulness) of Christ, the need for believers to have faith in Christ follows closely by in the context. This is true of the present verse, Romans 3:22 – God’s righteousness is given through the faithfulness of Christ to all who believe. The phrase “to all who believe” simply means God’s righteousness is received by “all who have faith in Christ.” Translating pistis Christou in this verse as the subjective genitive places the emphasis of justification on the work of Jesus and, specifically, on his faithfulness to and fulfillment of Israel’s vocation. For Paul, “the faithfulness of the Messiah” is a shorthand way of saying “in Jesus, as Israel’s representative…God has accomplished what he always said he would” (207).
The Faithful Justice of God
Wright’s explanation of Romans 3:24-26, only a few paragraphs, is quite compact and dense. God put forward his Son as Israel’s representative to be the means of propitiation through the Messiah’s faithfulness and by his shed blood. The result is that God has shown himself to be “faithful” and “just” for previously “passing over” sins and not dealing with them as they deserved since “the cosmic moral deficit has now been put right” (204). The unveiling of God’s righteousness has come; he has been “just” and faithful to his covenant with Israel and through Israel to all the world. And “within this very same faithful justice,” God is just for “justifying” all those who have faith in Jesus (204). Wright has translated pistis Christou in Romans 3:36 in the objective genitive, “faith in Christ Jesus.” Once again we see that nothing is lost by his earlier translation of this in the subjective genitive (3:22); rather than cheapening our understanding of justification, it enhances it.
Wright is careful to note which tense Paul uses when speaking of justification. In Romans 3 it’s present justification and this is made clear in verses 21 (“now”) and 26 (“at the present time”). Paul’s words point forward to chapter 8 and backward to chapter 2, which are both about future justification. “This is the present verdict which anticipates the verdict that will be issued on the last day” (204). We are not told yet how God can pronounce someone to be “in the right” in the present only on the basis of faith, while promising that this will correspond with a future verdict that is in accordance with works. Paul simply tells us it is so in chapter 3, but waits until chapter 8 to tell us how it is so.
A Centerpiece or Simply an Illustration?
We now come to Romans 4 on our journey of Wright’s Romans road. This will need to be a brief stop since we still have a way to go, but a few comments must be made about why Paul brings Abraham into the discussion at this point. Reformed theology states rather matter of factly that Paul’s use of Abraham in both Romans 4 and Galatians 3 is nothing more than an “example” or “illustration” of how justification by faith works. This is a hill Wright will die on. He insists that Paul uses Abraham in both places because God’s justifying work only makes sense when understood as part of the larger narrative being told, namely God’s faithfulness to his covenant made with Abraham to put the world to rights through Abraham’s family. Paul isn’t randomly pulling a figure from the OT as “proof from Scripture” of how people are justified anytime and anywhere. He’s anchoring the doctrine of justification in a historical narrative. God’s justifying work flows directly from his faithfulness to his convent made with Israel. Thus, Abraham is not simply an illustration of how justification comes about, he’s a centerpiece of how it has come about.
Wright acknowledges that God makes other covenants with Israel in the Old Testament that are important, such as those with Noah, Moses, Phinehas, and David. But all of these covenants carry forward, or further add to the Abrahamic covenant. In some way, each of them point back to Abraham (or in the case of Genesis 3:15 and Noah, point forward). “Abraham is where it all starts. Abraham is where things get shaped” (217). And Wright will not budge from this place. If Paul’s use of Abraham is seen as only an illustration, then much will be lost, such as the meaning of “God’s righteousness” in the Old Testament, God’s keeping of his promises made to Israel, and the importance of a Jewish Messiah.
Following suit, Wright proposes translating Romans 4:1 in a fairly literal way that is more faithful, in his opinion, to the context. The alternative translation is, “What then shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh?” Wright thinks this is the very question Paul is attempting to answer in chapter 4 generally and in 4:16-17 specifically. Here’s how he explains it:
“Verse 16b of chapter 4 is the climatic answer to the question of Romans 4:1: Abraham is the father of us all, the law-people and the non-law people, Jews and Gentiles alike, the dead who need to be brought back to life and the non-existent who need to come to life for the first time (Romans 4:17). The whole chapter, then, is not about ‘how Abraham got justified by faith’ so much as ‘God’s faithfulness to his promises to Abraham, giving him a worldwide family whose badge is the same faith that Abraham himself had’” (222).
This exposition of Romans 4 connects it intimately with Romans 3, and especially 3:21. God’s covenant faithfulness has been manifested apart from Torah, though Torah and the prophets bear witness to this reality that the faithfulness of God to his covenant with Abraham is shown in the faithful death of Jesus which is now bringing blessing and benefit to Abraham’s family. And Abraham’s family is made of all those who share in not his bloodline but his faith.
Bringing the Two Poles Together
By necessity, I’ll skip over Wright’s treatment of Romans 5 and 6, and he himself skips over chapter 7 (about which he quips, “For a lifelong exegete to skip over Romans 7 is like a thirsty Irishman ignoring a pint of Guinness”). It’s time we move straight to how he handles Romans 8. He repeatedly states that faith in not mentioned in chapter 8 at any point, yet the entire chapter is about justification. If it’s about justification, then why doesn’t Paul mention faith? Because he is talking about final justification, not present justification, therefore it’s the work of the Spirit in the Christian’s life that dominates Paul’s discourse. Chapter 8 in some ways is a commentary on “that much neglected chapter Romans 2,” since Paul’s present point is that “those who are in Christ, who have died and been raised with him and have received his Spirit, are in fact those who ‘do the law’ in the extended sense he hinted at in 2:25-29, those who ‘show that what the law requires is written on their hearts’ as in 2:15, those who ‘by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality’ in 2:7-11” (234).
Here’s where those who cling to classic Reformed theology will start getting jittery about “works.” Yet Wright insists that this allergic reaction of the über-Reformed toward any notion of “works” in the Christian life is a serious travesty, for its casualty will be, every time, pneumatology. And when you lose the doctrine of the Spirit you lose the powerful Pauline doctrine of assurance, for people will always be worrying about whether they have the right kind of faith and enough of it. And, secondly, when you lose the doctrine of the Spirit you lose any solid ground for Christian ethics, for people will not pay much attention to the moral commands of Scripture (like the Sermon on the Mount) because they believe “in grace, not law.”
The Spirit is what brings together the two poles of Paul’s doctrine of justification. Present justification is by faith alone, while future justification is according to “works,” which are the evidence and outworking of faith. At the final judgment justification will be granted to the doers of the law precisely because the Spirit indwelt them, enabling them to fulfill Torah’s righteous requirements, not perfectly or anything close to it, but in a way that was not possible before the resurrection of Christ and the giving of the Spirit. Romans 2 and 8 are organically connected to the covenant promises of Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 11, that God will forgive the sins of his people and give them a new heart/spirit so that they will follow his laws and decrees, thereby showing themselves to be God’s people.
God’s Plan Prevails
At last we arrive at Romans 9-11, much feared and much avoided in New Testament studies. According to Wright, however, we needn’t be intimated; there’s no monster lurking in the darkness. If we follow the inner logic of these chapters, we’ll discover that Paul is still “telling the story precisely of Israel and the covenant” (241), for he’s talking about God’s righteousness, the righteousness of God’s people, and above all the covenant plan and God’s faithfulness to it. Miss this and you’ll miss the meaning of this entire passage. “Israel’s failure, ironically, was the same as that of many exegetes: to ignore the single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world, in other words, the covenant plan and God’s faithfulness to it” (244).
Wright focuses on Romans 9:30-10:13 and the centrality of the covenant in Deuteronomy 30 that’s behind Paul’s argument. He asserts that this text begins to take shape when dikaiosyne (righteousness) in 9:30 and 9:31 is understood in terms of membership within the covenant (242). Paul poses the question of Israel’s salvation in 10:1, and his answer will have to do with God renewing the covenant in Christ and by the Spirit, which in turn has to do with covenant membership, and that’s where salvation comes in. Israel has failed to keep the covenant, not because they attempted “works-righteousness” in the old Reformational sense, but because they took their God-given vocation to bless the whole world (Genesis 12, 15) and turned it back on themselves. Thus, when Paul says in Romans 9:32 that Israel has pursued covenant membership by works he means they’ve created and clung to an “ethnic-Jewish only” membership. In this sense, “Works of Torah” is a national identity marker to show who’s Jewish and who’s not – in other words, who’s blessed and who’s not.
Despite this failure on the part of God’s people, Paul arrives at the stunning conclusion that “even this failure was not outside the strange purposes of God” (243). Israel did not understand that “God’s-single-plan-for-the-world-through-Israel” (a verbose but effective phrase Wright uses throughout the book) was supposed to work not just for them but through them. But God’s plan has nevertheless won out “because the plan always was the single plan through Israel in the person of the Messiah, alone, for the world” (244). As Paul made clear in chapter 3, the faithful Israelite, Jesus, has fulfilled Israel’s vocation. And now the long-awaited covenant renewal predicted in Deuteronomy 30 has at last come true; Paul interprets the “doing of the law” spoken of by Moses as what takes place in the Christian faith through confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in your heart that God has raised him from the dead. The faith that Abraham had when he believed that God would bring life to his and Sarah’s old dead bodies, is “the same faith that Christians have” when they believe that Jesus has been raised from death. “When people believe the gospel of Jesus and his resurrection, and confess him as Lord, they are in fact doing what Torah wanted all along, and are therefore displaying the necessary marks of covenant renewal” (245).
Resurrection Must Be Center Stage
Considering that he previously wrote an 800 page book on the resurrection, it should come as no surprise that Wright ends his treatment of Romans on that very note. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to gloss over this detail simply because the resurrection is a favorite subject of his. Wright has a solid point. In Reformed theology, justification and the death of Jesus are two peas in the same pod. Whenever justification appears in a book of systematic theology, it’s always accompanied by a treatment of the cross and the atoning work of Christ. But more often than not you’ll have to flip to another section if you wish to read about the resurrection. Wright points out that in Romans 4:23-25 and 10:6-11, the two crucial passages where Paul speaks of justification and the faith of the Christian embodying the faith spoken of in the Old Testament, it is the resurrection rather than the crucifixion that takes center stage. Wright is quick to add, “This is not, of course, an either-or. The resurrection remains the resurrection of the crucified one, and its significance is not least that it signals that the cross was a victory, not a defeat” (247).
Church history shows that heresy usually consists not of a false doctrine, but in the under- or over-emphases of a true doctrine. How would our thoughts on justification today change if we were to follow Paul’s lead by framing it within the resurrection of Jesus? “Justification is more than simply the remitting and forgiving of sins, vital and wonderful though that is. It is the declaration that those who believe in Jesus are part of the resurrection-based single family of the one Creator God” (248).
Disorientation That Leads to Reorientation
Trying to summarize Wright’s treatment of Romans is a bit like trying to take a sip out of a fire hose. I’ve touched upon only a fragment of his chapter on Romans in Justification, which is only a fragment of his larger commentary published in 2002, yet I think it’s enough to understand why Wright’s work on Romans is nothing less than another bombing of the theologians’ playground.
As Wright follows Paul’s argument through the first 11 chapters of Romans, all the various themes of Justification begin to come together and form a coherent picture. Something I mentioned earlier in this post, but can now say with more force, is that perhaps the greatest contribution N.T. Wright has made to the field of Pauline studies is his unrelenting insistence that the magnificent story of God remaking the cosmos, beginning with Abraham in Genesis and extending all way to the new heavens and new earth in Revelation, has always been the backdrop of Paul’s thinking and writing.
The dispute between Wright and Piper over justification is an in-house debate. As much as some of his opponents insist to the contrary, Wright is a Reformed theologian. He described himself as such when giving his Rutherford lecture, and even went as far as to call himself “a good Calvinist.” And it should be noted that he affirms all five solas of the Reformation in his NIB commentary on Romans.
Nevertheless, a bombshell has exploded and is disrupting Reformed theology, and it’s the Bishop of Durham who detonated it. The purpose of this theological disorientation is not disarray, but reorientation. Wright puts it well: “Nothing that the Reformation traditions at their best were anxious to stress has been lost. But they are held in place, and I suggest even enhanced, by a cosmic vision, a high ecclesiology generated by Paul’s high Christology and resulting in a high missiology of the renewal of all things, and all framed by the highest doctrine of all, Paul’s vision of the God who made promises and has been faithful to them, the God whose purposes are unsearchable but yet revealed in Jesus Christ and operative through the Holy Spirit, the God of power and glory but above all of love” (247).
Wright’s chapter on Romans, along with the overall treatment of justification in his new book, is encouraging us to reread Paul with fresh eyes, and to grasp not only the individual and personal side of Paul’s doctrine of justification but also its social, political, ecological, and eschatological dimensions. It still remains to be seen, however, whether those who are being bombarded will realize this.
Mike Bird
Keas,
I am enjoying the “project” very much and it is great to see you guys thinking your way through Wright!
Comment — July 18, 2009 @ 6:16 am
Marty
Keas,
Thanks for your thoughts. However, I would very much beg to differ that NTW’s understanding of Romans (and justification) is akin to Barth’s Romans bombshell. I’m not saying this as an NTW hater, I like much of his work. But historically, it’s just too different. NTW thus far has failed to convince the majority of the guild.
Personally, whilst I wouldn’t affirm everything Piper says, I found NTW’s new work a great disappointment. Firstly, NTW wanders from his gracious tone and becomes downright nasty at times. Secondly, it shows all the marks of having been written in haste by particularly failing to address the really substantial arguments which have been thrown at NTW for literally 20 years (I started reading him in ‘92). One brief example, faith is always the instrument of justification in the NT (dia pisteos). NTW makes it the basis (dia pistin). If it’s the former so much of what NTW says about justification fails. Let’s hope he addresses these issues in the 4th volume of his magnum opus.
Blessings and keep up the good work,
Marty.
ps: Check out this review of NTW’s new book:
http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_123_2_Editorial.pdf
Comment — July 18, 2009 @ 11:54 am
david yates
If you take on board all the connections Wright is wont to make, in all the dust thrown up there can seem to be his overall picture of things in the text. However, if you get down to details, it falls apart. I am glad to see many on the ball criticisms now appearing on the web. One should look at some of these instead of just immersing oneself in Wright’s interpretations.
See eg http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2009/07/wright-in-general.html
http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2009/06/guy-waters-reviews-nt-wrights.html
http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/justification-gods-plan-and-pauls-vision.php
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/staff/watsonart.shtml
On Christians being justified by works, see eg
http://www.reformation21.org/articles/five-arguments-against-future-justification-according-to-works.php
I will add, look at:
http://young-anglican-thoughts.blogspot.com/2009/04/question-3-to-ntwright-by-ben.html
Wright thinks we shall be judged on what state of character we have achieved. So, if Christians have carried on sinning a lot, they will be less able to appreciate the coming Kingdom, so will get less out of it than others who have worked harder at being virtuous. That probably leaves almost all Christians getting very little out of the Kingdom!
Comment — July 18, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
brgulker
Keas, great read!
I’m glad to have located this blog (albeit accidentally). It’s great to see that you’re doing great things at PTS!
Comment — July 19, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
keas
Michael,
Glad you’re enjoying the site and thanks for dropping by.
Comment — July 19, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
keas
Marty,
Thanks for your feedback and for engaging in the discussion. I agree that there are many differences between Barth and Wright in respect to their work on Romans. One reason Barth’s commentary was such a surprise bombing was because he was fairly unknown prior to its publication. This was the work that shot him into stardom. Yet Wright had become a public theologian and church leader long before writing the NIB commentary and Justification. For those who had been trekking with Wright writings, his Romans commentary (2002) wasn’t much of a surprise; he had already indicated in earlier writings the direction he’d be going. You’re correct that Wright’s interpretation is yet to convince the majority of the guild – though I might argue that the guild is more diversified today and that some aspects of his Pauline perspective have been more readily received than others (the present dispute is mainly over these “others”).
However, some of the differences between Barth and Wright favor Wright. To start with, Wright’s work on Romans, and specifically his scholarly commentary, is much more reader-friendly and accessible. In addition, Wright’s concern is the with the Romans text itself. Simply thumb through Barth’s commentary and you’ll see how little he actually interacts with the text.
I share your disappointment that Wright is not always gracious in his tone. I was surprised to find some of his comments rather snarky, though we shouldn’t forget how much heat he’s taken from both conservatives and liberals over the years. Nevertheless, returning the polite gesture of sending Piper a draft would have gone a long way.
As for the link you’ve attached – I’ve only given it a quick read, but I think its author has misrepresented some of Wright’s views such as “Jesus being Plan B.” And I ought to add that I’m quite turned off by his counsel to Wright to choose either the church or the academy. What an odd way to end an essay. First, Piper is in the same boat, as was the apostle/theologian Paul. Second, this is the very thing many of us respect and admire about Wright; he hasn’t abandoned the church to bury himself in books and philosophical puzzles, nor has he punted academia and intellectualism to retreat behind a pulpit.
Comment — July 19, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
keas
David,
Thanks for your comments. I’ve stuck to “Wright’s interpretation” considering this was a review of Justification, not a review of people’s critiques of Wright. I doubt I’ll have time to read all the links you’ve posted, but I did look at the first.
Helm is a sharp thinker and he makes a number of insights on this post. I’m with him that Wright and Piper are theologically closer on this doctrine than they formally or might even presently think. It’s possible that Wright is splitting hairs over their understanding of imputation.
But there does seem to be a pretty substantial gap between Wright and Piper when it comes to the role of works in the Christian life, the correlation between present and future justification, and pneumatology. Helm picks up on all of these except for the last.
In my opinion, Wright has recognized and pointed out many of the fallacies in classic Reformational theology, but I’m unsure whether he has adequately provided a remedy. In other words, he has diagnosed many of the problems that handicap Reformed theology, both in the past and present, such as mishandling the place of Torah in the Christian life, collapsing all aspects of human salvation into the one act of “justification,” and misunderstanding how the giving of the Holy Spirit now enables God’s people to live the way God always desired them to live. But I still have questions about some of the prescriptions Wright gives for how these problems will be overcome. He has by no means settled the dispute, but (in my mind) he’s definitely on the right track. This debate will continue and we should expect a lot more to be said by Wright in his forthcoming volume on Paul (which I predict will turn into two volumes similar to his work on Jesus). I’m hopeful that more robust remedies will come with time, and most likely in collaboration with others.
Having said that, let me point out a few places I feel Helm falls short in his argument against Wright. He’s perturbed that Wright interprets Romans 2:1-16 as a description of Jew and Gentile believers, yet he chooses to forgive this “minor” mistake. He simply makes a swipe at Wright’s reading and then moves on without giving it a second glance. Must not be all that important for his argument – but it is for Wright. As I tried to make clear in my review, the way you read Romans 1:18-3:20 will to a large extent dictate how you read the next seven and a half chapters. And this factors into my next point.
Helm says Wright wobbles in stating his position on the relation of faith to actions, and so he re-poses the questions, “how do the future and present verdicts correspond?” and “are works a sign or the completion of faith?” (“re-poses” since many before Helm have put these to Wright.) Does Wright sidestep these questions? Apparently he does in Helm’s mind, but I would contend there are apt portions of Justification, and specifically in the Romans chapter, that address these questions. I quote Wright at length:
“The opening sentence of the chapter, ‘There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Romans 8:1), forms a circle with the closing one, ‘[Nothing] will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (Romans 8:39). This is the great Pauline truth which preachers in the Reformation tradition have always rightly celebrated, though not always understanding the framework of Pauline thought within which it all fitted together. What has been lacking in much of the tradition has been the interlocking Pauline features of (a) the renewal of creation and (b) the indwelling of the Spirit. The point is stated decisively in 8:4: ‘The righteous intention/decree/verdict/judgment of the law (to dikaioma tou nomou) is fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.’ The ‘righteous judgment’ of the Torah is, as Paul indicates in 7:10 and 8:9-11, to give life – the life which overcomes death, the new life of resurrection itself. By itself the Torah could not accomplish this, because of the ‘flesh’ – i.e., the sinful, rebellious human nature – of those to whom it was given. That is the paradox of the Mosaic law, which Paul has explored (though we have not in the present book) in chapter 7. But now the paradox is explained, because the reality to which the law pointed forward has arrived in the person and the saving death of Jesus the Messiah, and the consequent gift of the Spirit. As Paul had hinted in 2:28-29, echoing the new covenant promises of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the Spirit is the one through whose agency God’s people are renewed and reconstituted as God’s people. And it is by the energy of the Spirit, working in those who belong to the Messiah, that the new paradox comes about in which the Christian really does exercise free moral will and effort but at the same time ascribes this free activity to the Spirit. And the point is this: what is going on when this happens is the anticipation, in present Christian living, of the final rescue from sin and death. Thus, ‘though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness’ (Romans 8:10). Paul has not stopped talking about ‘righteousness,’ even if most of his interpreters have by this point. As in chapter 6, the appearance of this word indicates that he is still thinking within the map sketched out in 5:12-21. ‘Righteousness’ here serves as a catchall term for the entire sequence of covenant and lawcourt thinking developed in the earlier parts of the letter. With this paradox (the Spirit works within us, we freely work) comes a careful balance. Paul never says that the present moral life of the Christian ‘earns’ final salvation. It looks toward it, it ‘seeks for’ it (Romans 2:7). It partakes of it in advance. Nor does he say that one must attain moral perfection before any of this can be meaningful; one can never collude with half-hearted moral effort, but one can never imagine that repentance and forgiveness are not possible for the Christian who still sins. At the same time he insists that the signs of the Spirit’s life must be present: if anyone doesn’t have the Spirit of Christ, that person doesn’t belong to him (Romans 8:9), and ‘if you live according to the flesh, you will die’ (Romans 813). There can be no passengers in God’s family. All are called to make, through the Spirit, the hard moral choices which cut against what the world wants to do, what the physical body wants to do, what the proud and arrogant human spirit wants to do. Where there is no sign of these choices being made and acted upon, Paul would warn that there is no sign of life, and would challenge that person to the faith he describes in Romans 6: if you are in Christ, reckon yourself to be dead to sin and alive to God.” (236-237)
On the next page, still in discussion of Romans 8:
“Another paradox: the more the Spirit is at work in people’s lives, the less they will be even thinking about their hard moral effort, their work for God’s kingdom, as ‘earning’ anything or ‘qualifying them for’ anything, because the more they will be looking away from themselves and celebrating the unique triumph of the Creator’s love in the death and resurrection of the Messiah. If you try to understand justification by faith within a smaller framework than this, don’t be surprised if the jigsaw pieces don’t quite fit.” (238)
And still more on the following page:
“Loose talk about ‘salvation by faith’ (a phrase Paul never uses; the closest he gets, as we have seen, is Ephesians 2:8, ‘By grace you have been saved through faith’) can seriously mislead people into supposing that you can construct an entire Pauline soteriology out of the sole elements of ‘faith’ and ‘works,’ with ‘works’ of any sort always being ruled out as damaging or compromising the purity of faith. For Paul, a stress on ‘justification by faith’ is always a stress on the present status of all God’s people in anticipation of the final judgment. But when he puts this into its larger, covenantal context, alongside and integrated with ‘being in Christ’ and all the other elements of his complex thought, it is always filled out with talk of the Spirit. The implicit charge that the Pauline theology I have articulated might lead people to put their trust in ‘anyone or anything other than the crucified and resurrected Savior’ (by Carson in the blurb on Piper’s book) is seriously misleading. Paul invites his hearers to trust both in Jesus Christ and in the Father whose love triumphed in the death of his Son – and in the Holy spirit who makes that victory operative in our moral lives and who enables us to love God in return (Romans 5:5, 8:28). The trouble with some would-be Reformation theology is that it is not only insufficiently biblical. It is also insufficiently trinitarian.” (239)
These triple passages show how Wright has attempted to answer Helm’s question (“how does the future verdict correspond to the present?”). He points emphatically to the work of the Holy Spirit, as understood within the framework of Old Testament prophecy and New Testament fulfillment. Furthermore, the fact that this answer is found to be unsatisfactory (why else would Helm be asking right after reading Justification) only reiterates one of the chief critiques Wright makes against those in Piper’s corner: they’ve left out the pneumatology piece while attempting to put together the jigsaw puzzle, and now that they have the piece right in front of them, they don’t know what to do with it.
Comment — July 20, 2009 @ 1:39 pm
keas
Brgulker,
Thanks for the warm words and I’m glad you found the site!
Comment — July 20, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
Andrew Cowan
Keas, David, and others,
I have said this at other locations on the internet, but perhaps a reiteration here will be helpful. The most fundamental thing that Helm has failed to see in his question about how the two verdicts of present and future justification correspond is Wright’s understanding of what the trial to which justification is the verdict is actually about. In Wright’s view, the trial to which justification (present and future) is the verdict is asking the question, “Who are the true members of God’s covenant people?” Thus, because the definitive initial symptom of becoming a Christian is faith, faith serves as the definitive evidence that one has joined the family of God’s covenant people in the present time, and is thus the “basis” for the verdict of present justification. As Keas has emphasized, Wright then goes on to claim that the Spirit necessarily transforms believers over the course of their lives, and at the final judgment, that transformation is what will be called on as evidence in the divine courtroom. However, those works are not the “righteousness” that the verdict of final justification will declare. Rather, they are the evidence that one truly was a member of God’s covenant people, and thus serve as the “basis” for the positive verdict in that sense. The verdicts of present and final justification are thus the same verdict for Wright: they are the declaration that one is “righteous,” which Wright understands to mean “true members of God’s covenant people.” The only difference is what evidence is called on in order to demonstrate which people truly are members of his covenant people and which are not. In the present, the difference is shown by faith; in the final judgment, the evidence will be whose lives were transformed by the Holy Spirit.
Of course, whether or not Wright is correct is a separable issue from whether or not his understanding of how the verdicts correspond is consistent, and on that score I think he has gotten some things right and some things wrong. For the discussion to proceed, however, we need to listen very closely to what he has actually said, as he passionately and rightly insists.
Comment — July 20, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
Ryan Reed
Keas,
Fine post! Your interpretation, highlight, and general summary of Wright’s Justification was very well done. I appreciate how your summary remains faithful to the text without leaving out any major points of contention. I would like to remark on three points of interest.
First, in Justification, Wright does right in locating the entire drama of justification solely within the work and act of God, specifically through the life death, and resurrection of the person, Jesus Christ. This does not undermine personal Christian responsibility, which he notes. Yet, the weight of this doctrine is entirely in God’s hands. He does this more explicitly throughout his entire work than he ever has before. I certainly appreciate this, for in so doing, he balances evangelical piety with reformed theology. In this sense, he offers an implicit witness to the universal Christian claim that Jesus Christ is the Son of God for all people, in all times, and in all places. This principle unites, not divides. If only for this reason, all should read this book, and glean insights from his important arguments, such as the pistis Christou debate - one for which I am absolutely grateful that he included in this work.
Second, Wright’s haste to produce his response to Piper can be noticed in the nuances of this text. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the syntactical structure and flow of his argument does not reach the high standards set in his previous scholarly works. He completely leaves the old and new perspectives of Paul undefined, which makes this text too much of an in-house debate. Though the language of this text is fairly accessible throughout, his foregoing of a proper introduction to the old and new perspectives simply for the sake of brevity leaves the content too inaccessible for even intelligent pastors and laity. This was, perhaps, the greatest disappointment for me. Wright is too influential, too popular, and too perceptive of a scholar to make a such a grievous mistake. Prior to my examination of the text, I looked forward to reading his definition of the old and new perspective from his point of view, but unfortunately, I was let down. Pastors and even outside scholars deserve to be introduced to the Piper-Wright debate. And even though he comments in the introduction against this very critique, the audience deserves a true introduction into the debate.
Third, I will agree with Marty that Wright’s Justification does not even compare with Barth’s Romans. Historically, the two texts cannot be regarded with the same significance. Barth’s Romans will always be scrutinized and studied for its significance on theology (and notice that I say theology, not western or modern or liberal… theology!). The significance of Barth on all theological fronts will remain timeless. Wright’s contributions will always remain, as well, but they will not impact the Western Church in the way Barth did. Theologically, Barth’s Romans came at a time of incredible political and theological unrest within both the Christian community of Germany and society in general. Western theology of the early twentieth century could not comprehend the disasters of the Great War, for theology existed in the metaphysical, while people were suffering in the here and now. Barth’s Romans, and subsequent writings, especially the Church Dogmatics, relocated theology from commencing in the metaphysical to existing first and foremost in the concrete. Barth made this distinction by emphasizing the actual, historical life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus, it is because of Barth that theologians, such as Wright, think in the way that they do. In this sense, Wright and Barth are closer theologically than they appear. Wright’s text, however, does drop a bombshell on Piper, others like him, and all thinkers who explicitly or implicitly place the theological weight of justification in the hands of humanity over the act and work of God. Thank you, Wright, for clearly making this distinction.
Keas, thank you for your post, and more importantly, your blog. I will pray that this space will continue to be used to incite lively conversation for the sake of witnessing to the Kingdom of God.
In Christ,
Ryan Reed
Comment — July 20, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
david yates
Andrew Cowan: Wright claims more than you say about the final judgement for Christians. Wright thinks there will be losses for Christians. In the web address I give, he thinks we will miss out on whatever we are unable to respond to on account of not having developed the necessary character. I wonder, among other things, what he thinks those who die as babies will experience of the Kingdom. Will they be babies in the Kingdom, etc. Such things need at least some comment by him, since he believes the Kingdom will be this world transformed, so will there be transformed babies though still babies in the Kingdom, etc? Some exponents of the renewed earth think we will be active in all sorts of ways, including indulging in space travel. Will we need space suits over our transformed bodies? How did the resurrected Jesus get around? I find Wright inadequate in what he says about the Kingdom, and people are imagining their favourite scenarios as if he has specified them. So, Wright is no place to look for what judgement will be of what has happened in this world, and what will carry over, and how things will be in the coming Kingdom.
Comment — July 20, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Andrew Cowan
David Yates,
Three points:
One, I don’t see where Wright actually says what you claim that he says. I don’t see him saying anything about “missing out” on parts of the kingdom, he simply says that our good works now will contribute to the ultimate kingdom that God is constructing,and that those works are a real anticipation of that kingdom in the present time. Regarding sinful humans, he says, “they are anticipating in the present some aspects at least of the full humanity which will be theirs at the last.” He doesn’t say that your degree of virtue will determine how much humanity you get; all saved sinners get full humanity.
Two, to speak of degrees of rewards is quite common in much of the Christian tradition. John Piper is an ardent proponent of this view. What Wright seems to be saying is that what “rewards” consist of will have an appropriate correspondence to the good works that we have done such that it is the hope of resurrection and the kingdom that means that our present labor is not in vain.
Three, none of this reflection on rewards has anything to do with Wright’s theology of justification. Although he affirms a modified degrees of rewards theology, he does not think that awards are assigned through the act of justification. Justification, to use Wright’s analogy, is the steering wheel, not the whole car; it is the declaration of one’s covenant membership, nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else. To demonstrate otherwise, you need to provide a statement by Wright where he links justification with that other thing. The question and answer that you have quoted are a separate topic, and Wright does not mention the word justification in the answer because he doesn’t think that he’s talking about justification there. A thorough reading of his book will make this clear.
Comment — July 20, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
Marc
[...you lose any solid ground for Christian ethics, for people will not pay much attention to the moral commands of Scripture (like the Sermon on the Mount) because they believe “in grace, not law.”]
AMEN. Anything less is to make Jesus a forerunner, preparing the way for the true theology of Paul and to render all of the promises and exhortations in the OT out of date.
Yet I still cannot see how the New Perspective deals with Rom 10:9-10 which basically amounts to “if you believe this, you are saved”.
Comment — July 20, 2009 @ 5:25 pm
Andrew Cowan
Sorry for two in a row, but I wanted to mention that on Wright, the resurrection, and the kingdom, he gave a talk in Atlanta last year that clarifies a lot of what he thinks in what I found to be a very helpful address. It can be found at http://www.veritas.org/media/presenters/187 under the title “Why Does Jesus’ Resurrection Matter? Considering Its Relevance for Today Part 1 of 2″ (Part 2 is Q&A). I highly recommend it.
Comment — July 20, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
david yates
Keas: A review would normally give some evaluation in the context of the debate, a context Wright failed to address in his book. Those who have time to read Wright, I think need to set aside time to read those who point out his errors, who are much less voluminous and repetitive than Wright. I don’t think Wright will be anything other than repetitive in his forthcoming volume, as he has been for over thirty years, and criticism of Wright cannot wait, as though he will then say things that will enlighten everybody to the correctness of his views. Those listening least to the debate are Wright and his followers.
Christians don’t generally seem to live the way God desires them, so what really is God’s ‘enabling’? Anyway, Wright thinks there are penalties for Christians not living rightly, but doesn’t say as much as he ought, seeing as he makes so much of these things, on what they might be. And his vision of the Kingdom is so impoverished. (See also my reply 11. to 9. Andrew Cowan.)
Wright is wrong on the status of Israel, and on the tasks of Israel before Jesus and of Christians after Jesus. These are maybe the major factors sending him wrong on everything else. Wright thinks Israel was redeemed and doing Torah with God’s help. But Israel was unredeemed and sinning. Before and after Jesus, Jews and Christians are not saving the world or working for its transformation or working for the Kingdom, but are witnesses of God’s purposes. There was to be no salvation through the Abraham ‘plan’, only through Jesus. Abraham and the Jews were no different than Noah and his children. God graciously told Abraham of Jesus (in effect), but it wasn’t for Abraham or the Jews to implement what Jesus did. Interestingly, I get the impression Wright is gradually backing away from his first overblown claims about what Christians can do in transforming the world, see eg his recent ‘Full of the Knowledge of the Lord’ on http://www.ntwrightpage.com. I think a major attractive feature of Wright for people is that he leads them to think they can be involved in a massive socio-cultural transformative process of this world, to set the world to rights. This has never been promised.
Comment — July 20, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
david yates
Andrew Cowan 12: Wright says on Reward: “(b) being given … a month in Paris now that she is able to enjoy and profit from it. …
(b) will be ontologically connected with the preceding activity.”
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I read that as implying that we need to work at becoming able to enjoy the Kingdom. If we don’t work at it, we will not be able to enjoy as much as we might. Perhaps you might be able to guide my reading of it into the implications you understand it to have?!
I wasn’t connecting this with justification. What do you make of the other things I say: on babies and space travel and such?
Comment — July 20, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
Andrew Cowan
David Yates,
Sorry for misunderstanding you as connecting all of this to justification. Since that was the topic of the post, and you explicitly juxtaposed your comments with my claims about Wright’s view of final justification, I thought that you had intended to connect these things. I apologize for my misreading.
On the questions about babies and space travel, I will again recommend the video to which I linked in #14. There, Wright talks about the mysteriousness of the relationship between present bodies and future bodies, and how Paul’s metaphor in 1 Corinthians 15 of comparing present bodies to seeds and future bodies to the plants that grow out of seeds points to both the continuity and discontinuity that the future bodies will have, while at the same time being tantalizingly vague about the specifics of future bodies. That doesn’t address your specific questions, but I think that it points in the direction in which his thoughts would run.
In the same talk, he reflects at length on the significance of our present good works in the age to come. He points particularly to how at the end of 1 Corinthians 15 Paul points to our labor in the Lord not being in vain as the practical significance of his teaching on the resurrection throughout the chapter. He confesses ignorance as to exactly how our work will be taken up by God for his project of new creation, but he firmly insists that our work is working for the kingdom (he sharply distinguishes building for the kingdom [our work] from building the kingdom itself [God's work], and will somehow be taken up by God in his construction of the kingdom. We are like masons working on little stones that we know will be a part of the cathedral that the builder is constructing; we just have no idea how our stones will be placed within the bigger structure.
Anyway, you can listen to the talk for yourself; he addresses a lot of what you have brought up there.
Upon re-reading the post to which you linked, I can see better how you are reading it. I was probably too harsh in my initial response on that point. But, I do think that you are over-reading him here. He takes the image from Lewis that you point out, about the level of enjoyment, and says that this is a picture that has problems. The point, he claims, is the ontological connection between our work now and our reward then. I think that the spelling out of this would be in the terms I have described above, as that is how he talks about it in the extended lecture that I heard him give on these matters.
For more of his reflections on “virtue,” which he mentions in a throw-away line at the end of his answer, you may want to consult his essay, “Faith, Virtue, Justification, and the Journey to Freedom,” in The Word Leaps the Gap, the Festschrift for Richard Hays, edited by Ross Wagner, Kavin Rowe, and Katherine Grieb.
I hope that helps; I am happy to be corrected if you are still seeing something that I’m not in his comments. Again, however, I recommend listening to the lecture and then reading his brief comments in light of his more extended reflections there.
Ironically, John Piper basically affirms what you seem to find problematic in Wright on this point (and you may be right; I just can’t see it, yet). Piper explicitly talks about rewards in terms of the size of the cup of one’s eternal joy proportionate to one’s faithfulness during this life (see his book The Purifying Power of Faith in Future Grace). So, even if this is something that Wright affirms, it is not really related to the debate with Piper; it would be a point of agreement.
Comment — July 20, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
david yates
Andrew 17: Thanks for your gracious reply. I evidently have some work to do before I can respond!
Comment — July 21, 2009 @ 4:48 am
david yates
Andrew 17: I’ve listened to Wright’s Why Does Jesus’ Resurrection Matter? (and looked at one or two other things).
Wright persists in talking in terms of Jews and Christians not only being witnesses to the world but being those through whom God saves the world. I think this is mistaken.
Wright talks of knowledge of the future Kingdom being based on ’signposts into the fog’. But, I find the picture of the Kingdom he, in my view not so tentatively, paints to be impoverished, and yet, incomprehensibly to me, this impoverished picture seems to be one of the main attractions for people to Wright. My preferred picture is that nothing shall be witheld from any of us except equality with God, and I think this is unimaginable - just so you know where I’m coming from! (I am not a defender of Piper.)
Wright’s future earth seems to be practically the same as it is now except for a bit of cleaning up, and our presence in it practically the same as in the earth now. If we chip a bit of stone for the cathedral, that will be in the cathedral in the future world. If we plant a tree, it will be in the cathedral’s grounds. And, the implication is, if we don’t chip the stone or plant the tree, these things will be missing from the future world. Wright denies we shall ‘build’ the Kingdom, but says we are building ‘for’ the Kingdom so that what we do now will be in the Kingdom. But this is equivalent to saying that what we do is building the Kingdom. Wright says that the world has been culturally developed by human beings since the Garden of Eden, and, presumably, depending on when Jesus brings in the final Kingdom, what carries over to the Kingdom in the transformation of this world will reflect its then level of development. But what if before the coming of the Kingdom world culture goes into decline through war, global warming, whatever? I think when the Kingdom comes in it really won’t matter what the state of the world just prior is.
Wright extols virtue ethics and says our transformation (albeit through the Holy Spirit) is also experienced by us as a struggle. He doesn’t say enough about those Christians who don’t put as much effort into that as others. But, inasmuch as he thinks how the world is when the Kingdom comes is what will carry over, presumably the same applies to human beings when they die. So, perhaps this supports my contention that Wright thinks our achieved character at death dictates what our experience of the Kingdom will be.
What is “not in vain in the Lord’ I read as being in the context of Paul saying there will be a future life and not annihilation. I don’t see it as saying what we do will ‘build for’, or as I’ve said in fact equivalently ‘build’, the Kingdom.
Comment — July 21, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
Andrew Cowan
David Yates,
Thanks so much for listening to the lecture. I’m not entirely sure that you got everything he was saying, though. The part where I have doubts about your response is how you have taken him to mean that the new earth will simply be a slightly cleaned up version of the old earth at its level of development at the time when Jesus returns. If I have understood him rightly, he is saying that all the works of Christians will be taken up by God in some mysterious way, even those works that made or accomplished something beautiful that subsequently fell into disrepair, was destroyed, or undone. I think that he would agree that the state of the world just prior to the Lord’s return will not determine what things will be like afterwords. The accomplishments of each believer will be included, regardless of what happened to those accomplishments after their achievement.
You may be right that the virtue point carries over for Wright, but he does believe that all of non-virtues will be erased (he doesn’t believe we will sin any longer) and we will all be granted full humanity, so I don’t know what the lack that you are proposing would be. My best guess is that he would say that one who has many works that have been taken up by God in the kingdom has the pleasure of seeing what God has done with their work, and that pleasure is indeed theirs in a unique way. However, I don’t think that he proposes that some parts of the new creation will be “members only” for a special club or that some Christians will be unable to appreciate all that God has done for them.
I really think that he talks about these things more in terms of mystery than you suggest. In the build for/build the kingdom distinction, I think that he made clear that he doesn’t know how these things will be taken up by God in the actual construction (maybe this was in the Q&A? I am close to certain that I heard him say it that night). He suggests that what we do, or, better, what God does through us, God will also take up somehow into his broader building project, just as he will somehow reconstruct our physical bodies (even though many bodies will have fully decomposed, some people will have been eaten by cannibals, and all sorts of other difficulties may be brought up).
Comment — July 21, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
david yates
Andrew Cowan 20:
I’ve listened again! And here is a ragbag of things regarding that and your comments and whatever.
Andrew:
a) “a slightly cleaned up version of the old earth at its level of development at the time when Jesus returns”
b) “we will all be granted full humanity, so I don’t know what the lack that you are proposing would be”
c) “My best guess is that he would say that one who has many works that have been taken up by God in the kingdom has the pleasure of seeing what God has done with their work, and that pleasure is indeed theirs in a unique way. However, I don’t think that he proposes that some parts of the new creation will be “members only” for a special club or that some Christians will be unable to appreciate all that God has done for them”
d) “he made clear that he doesn’t know how these things will be taken up by God in the actual construction”
DY replies:
a) Wright (Q&A session) only says in Eden people had not got far with the project of stewardship and development of the earth, but in the Kingdom there will be the developed culture envisaged by God as where everything was supposed to be developed to from Eden (with all the difference of the world’s catastrophic history somehow affecting things). So, you were right to object to my saying that Wright was saying when the Kingdom comes it will continue from where things have currently got with the world. But, I just get the impression in everything Wright says on the matter, despite him throwing in from time to time that it is a mystery, that he has a general idea of things in the future Kingdom being much like life now, and I find that that is an idea that is attractive to very many people, and what they understand him to be saying.
b) and c) seem contradictory in respect of if some people get things others don’t then there must be some lack somewhere! I’ll stick my neck out and say I think nothing will be denied anyone (I base this on for one thing that we are in Christ and all he is and has, short of divinity, is given to us), so that even those things one might think entirely personal to one will be available to everyone, without that meaning personal identity or uniqueness is compromised. The full humanity we are granted will be a full humanity as in Jesus, taken up into Jesus as Christ and second person of the Trinity. (What is the real ‘you’ of eg someone dying as a baby, or brain damaged since birth?)
I think Wright is proposing that there will be levels of appreciation of the Kingdom, depending on one’s achieved character. Wright does concentrate on our good works being done both by us and by the Spirit in an indistinguishable way, so those works not ‘earning’ anything, but he knows we fail at some things, and doesn’t say enough about what he thinks the consequences are. Nevertheless, in ‘Justification’ Ch 7 Romans Section 7 he refers to 2 Cor 5.10, 1 Cor 3.12-15 etc, and in the Q&A session with Witherington to capabilities of appreciating things, so Wright seems to me to be thinking in terms of what can be called penalties for Christians.
d) However the things are taken up into the construction, they are available to be used because done by us, so in at least that sense we are building the Kingdom, which looks a substantial enough sense to make ‘building’ and ‘building for’ not a distinction Wright is entitled to make the way he does. Plus, the implication is that if we don’t do things, then these things won’t be available in the Kingdom, so the Kingdom will be deficient. I don’t think things are done ‘for’ the Kingdom, they are already being done within the Kingdom, which is already (minisculely) present (and has been present not just since Jesus or Abraham but since creation).
I find Wright to be wasting everybody’s time making a distinction between going to Heaven and Renewed Earth coming. What does it matter whether we talk of Heaven or a Renewed Earth coming, since what is coming is unknowable? Well, to get this first thing out of the way: the Bible does speak of a Renewed Earth, but such things need interpretation, as for example the Jews only looked forward to renewal in the land of Israel. But, I think Wright wants to make so much out of Renewed Earth because he thinks it makes a difference to what we might think we should be doing now (I don’t!). Plus, Wright thinks creation was created good and so is not going to be ditched (I don’t think talk of Heaven is talk of ditching anything).
Comment — July 22, 2009 @ 8:33 am
Justin Best
DY 21:
I don’t have much to interject between you and Andrew’s conversation.
I do however want to comment on your final paragraph. I believe that one of the main points Wright is attempting to make (as you’ve noted) is that is that if affects what we should be doing right now. Wright believes, as do I, that our eschatology should affect the here and now. While it might not seem all that important, it is. We have cultivated the same attitude that gold miners used to have–that is, strip the earth of it’s resources–when it comes to stewardship. If “Heaven” doesn’t come to earth (which Wright says happens but he doesn’t go into much detail as he believes that we simply cannot know) then the end of Revelation (21 & 22) don’t make sense and neither does the Biblical talk about “redemption” and “renewal.”
If we believe that when we die we “go elsewhere” then what we do now and the Genesis mandate of creation stewardship is simply brushed aside as something that must’ve been important before civilization became “educated” and the platonic dualism of a spiritual disembodiment escape from this wretched earth became popularized (as in modern times).
We are a people desperate for excuses, cop-outs, and short cuts. I think that if at the very least, Wright’s argument causes us to think about moral living and a new ethical viewpoint, then he has succeeded. However, I believe that Wright has much more to offer us than a new viewpoint on (ecological) ethics, but I’ll leave that up to you and Andrew’s current conversation.
Comment — July 22, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
Andrew Cowan
David Yates,
You listened again! Impressive. Thanks for taking our conversation so seriously. I have just a few points, but I’m afraid that we are close to reaching an impasse.
“Wright has a general idea of things in the future Kingdom being much like life now, and I find that that is an idea that is attractive to very many people, and what they understand him to be saying.” Yes, Wright does think it will be like life now, and people do find that attractive. Honestly, I find that to be a very helpful thought when conceived of as follows: Eternal life in the new creation will be everything that God planned for humanity on earth in the beginning. We will still be human, we will still live on planet earth, and our activities then will include all that is best out of life now (or something in continuity with that, but better [i.e., not marriage]) only without the problems brought about by sin and corruption. This sort of concrete but still vague conception (perhaps we ought to apply the seed/plant analogy to activities as well as bodies) helps me to be concretely excited about what God has planned for us, as it relates to categories that are meaningful to me.
As you point out, b. and c. from your post 21 (quotation of my post 20) are slightly contradictory, and c. was intended in my original post (20) as a concession drawing out a possible way in which b. may be true, but also some level of difference possible (it is a personal reward, but does not affect anyone’s full humanity or ability to enjoy the fullness of the kingdom). Nevertheless, as I have conceded before, you might be totally right about how Wright conceives of virtue and one’s ability to enjoy the kingdom; I just haven’t found a place where he clearly talks that way.
On your comments on point d., I think we may just disagree. I think that Wright’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:58 (”your labor is not in vain”) to be a plausible proposal, and you do not.
Finally, I also agree with the comment by Justin Best. The fullness of the goal of God’s work ought to inform how the praxis of the church in the present time. Emphasizing the reality of the new earth is a helpful way of pointing to our responsibility in caring for and developing the earth now as a way of pointing toward the coming full redemption of the earth from its groanings.
If you have more to say, I’m happy to keep talking. As I said, however, I’m afraid that we’re close to running into points of difference that we won’t get around, so, in case we’re done, thanks for an engaging conversation. I have enjoyed it. May God grant us wisdom as we continue to consider these things.
Comment — July 22, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
david yates
Justin 22 (and Andrew 23):
Revelations (21 & 22), “redemption” and “renewal” make sense, on judicious interpretation, in many possible ways. (I would like to see Wright’s spelling out of his mere suggestiveness to date on Rev 22.2, because what he says seems weird to me.)
Present responsible stewardship (and there are various things we might think ‘the Genesis mandate of creation stewardship’ comes to) of how things are now is not inimical to things being different in the future. And since things are said to be different in the future (thank goodness), talk of whether things have been renewed or replaced seems a semantic point. We ourselves being raised doesn’t need to be in anything very like the present cosmos nor as anything very like our present selves, again involving the semantics of what counts as being like or different. Even if we fail in our stewardship, as we do, and even if we totally destroy this present earth, this will not detract from how the future Kingdom will be. Just as people can be totally destroyed yet raised, so can the earth. Just getting on with moral Christian living, as in Romans 12 etc is what we should be about and this will include judicious stewardship of the earth. So consider, that if there were a conflict between doing the moral thing and stopping the earth (or Universe!) being blown up, then we should let the earth be blown up, confident that that will not compromise God’s future for us.
Andrew 23:
We seem to disagree on whether what is attractive to many people in Wright is a good thing! You say it is concretely meaningful for you to think such as: ‘we will still live on planet earth, and our activities then will include all that is best out of life now’. I think that if you start to use your imagination on how that might play out, you will find it doesn’t work, or at least that’s what happens with various scenarios when I try it!. To begin with something very simple: will anyone ever stub their toe!
It’s not clear to me what you disagree with in d). Especially as the ‘labour not in vain’ point doesn’t seem connected.
Comment — July 23, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
Andrew Cowan
David Yates,
The “labor not in vain” point is related to how this verse specifically plays into Wright’s construal of the relationship of our work now and the future kingdom. He takes it to mean that our labor now is not in vain because God will take up the products of that labor (which is really his labor through us) and use them in his construction of the new creation.
You are right that we just disagree about whether Wright’s portrayal is a good thing or not. I just don’t see the problems that you do, and perhaps that is because I see more mystery in Wright’s claims than you do. To all the questions like “Will we stub our toes?” I feel like the implicit answer is “No, that’s a part of what is bad and will be gone,” and then if one asks how, I think the answer is, “I don’t know; new bodies are like plants compared to the seeds in which we currently reside.” My imagination thus only gets excited when I think of the future in these terms because I think of all that is best in life being experienced without the taint of sin.
Comment — July 23, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
david yates
Andrew Cowan 25
I understood the point you were making on ‘not in vain’, but don’t see the specific connection with d)!
On the nature of the coming Kingdom, the point is that, given the problems, it looks like the Kingdom will have to be so different from earth now that it is futile suggesting there is any significant project in trying to get people to see that they should not think they will ‘go to Heaven’ but be in a renewed earth.
Comment — July 24, 2009 @ 5:45 am
Andrew Cowan
I think that the “not in vain” passage relates because if Wright is correct on that, then his idea of “building for” the kingdom is an appropriate way to talk about our good works in the present. I tink that another way to put the point of his building for/building the kingdom distinction is to say that he is trying to avoid the error of anyone thinking that at the end of their work (political, ecological, or whatever), they will have accomplished the kingdom. He wants to reserve the resolve of these things for the return of Christ (i.e., he is trying to avoid a post-millennium like conception of Christians bringing about the kingdom through the establishment of a universal Christian empire). I think that he is averse to the language of “building the kingdom” because if that were what we were doing, then setbacks or reversions to previous bad states would be the absolute loss of the good we have done, and he wants to say that God takes all of that good up in his construction of the kingdom, for which we are working all along.
On your other point, I think that emphasizing that we will live in a renewed earth helps people to avoid the incipient gnosticism of much of contemporary Christian thought. Many Christians do seem to think that caring for the earth is pointless because we are going to escape this place anyway. I think that being reminded that we will live eternally on a renewed earth is one of many good biblical ways that we should use to encourage people to be good stewards of the earth now. Above all, I feel like it is worthy to point out because it is biblical, and it can help Christians to understand better the whole story as it stretches from Genesis 1 to the end of Revelation.
Comment — July 25, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
david yates
Andrew Cowan 27
Your first paragraph is definitely helpful to me in understanding these things, thanks. I think, though, I would still rather think we are living the kingdom now rather than the things we are doing now being for the future.
Second paragraph, I don’t think it is particularly biblical to say there will be a Wrightian renewed earth. All these things need judicious interpretation. There are better ways of avoiding gnosticism. And even within Wright it doesn’t matter whether we care for the earth, since whatever state it finishes up in now there will be a renewed earth. So we should stress ordinary moral living, which would include care for all sorts of things. Finally, it is a particular taste to be thrilled at the prospect of living forever on an earth much like now, not one I share!
Comment — July 26, 2009 @ 10:16 am
Andrew Cowan
David Yates,
1) If not a renewed earth, what does Paul mean by telling us that the creation will be set free from its bondage to decay (Rom 8:20-21)?
2) Wright’s emphasis on the reality of the new earth is a way of asserting that we ought to care for the earth now in a slightly different manner from what I think your comment presupposes. The way he talks, if we are to live on a new earth then, then just as we should try to live without sins of pride now because that is God’s ultimate goal for humanity, so we should live in ways that display wise stewardship over the earth, as that is also a part of God’s ultimate goal for humanity. Our lives are to be a foretaste of and signpost towards the fullness of the new creation in as many ways as is possible. Saying, “We shouldn’t care for the earth; it will all be fixed in the end,” is just like saying, “We shouldn’t bother to be humble now; God will make us humble in the end.” It is the connection between the end and what our lives ought to be now that Wright employs to argue that proper stewardship of the earth ought to be included in Christian discipleship. That angle is lost if God’s ultimate intention for us is not to exercise his wise rule on a new earth, in fulfillment of his original intentions expressed in Genesis 1.
Comment — July 28, 2009 @ 12:47 am
Tim Marsh
To NT Wright Project authors:
This is a great blog for understanding Wright and the New Perspective. I hope to read more from you.
Thank you!
Comment — August 28, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
hydrolyze free trial
With thanks… Yet another fantastic blog post, that is the key reason why My spouse and I come back to your wordpress bog quite often.
BRITTENY
Comment — February 26, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
Advozydog
http://www.comicspace.com/kamagra3/ buy kamagra jelly
Comment — March 10, 2010 @ 7:13 am