homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Paul and the Faithfulness of God

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: Paul and the Faithfulness of God
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669

 - Posted      Profile for Sarah G     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Those with the endurance to read my posts will know that I'm a fan of N.T.Wright. In his latest book about Paul, he continues brilliantly to challenge things that should be challenged. I thought I would share three things among the many that struck me from this book, for comment.


1) The question of establishing Jesus' divinity has been wrongly detached from the coming of the Kingdom of God, despite the emphasis in the NT. It's not at all about 'one liners' from Jesus or anyone.
Early Christians looked at who God is, (not what God is). The OT said that God would return to Israel to save, judge and be king. The early Christians concluded that it had happened in Jesus. Jesus had done what God said He alone would do, hence must be God in some sense. Jesus is the bit of God that 'sorted it all out'.

2) Jesus does not have an independent story, coming from nowhere to save me. He plays the leading role within other stories. As Israel's Messiah, he rescued Israel from it's own plight. As Israel, he completed Israel's vocation to bring restoration to the human race. As the truly human one, he established God's rule over the cosmos, and brings about the new creation.
Israel had a vocation to rescue the world, but like a breakdown truck that itself breaks down, needed rescue before it could do its job.

3) Ekklesia (church+) is the new load-bearing structure, replacing Torah and Temple etc. Paul's gospel is not about snatching souls out of a sinking world to populate a non-material heaven, but a statement about our world having a new lord, the Jewish Messiah. It's not about individual salvation, but about the new community of God and the reconciliation of creation to its creator. An obsession with individual salvation misses the background, and hence distorts much of Paul's thought.


I hope this is helpful...

Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On the recommendation of a pastor, I just checked out Wright's Surprised by Hope from the library. Do you recommend it?

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470

 - Posted      Profile for Doone   Email Doone   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've quite recently read this and would definitely recommend it.
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015  |  IP: Logged
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470

 - Posted      Profile for Doone   Email Doone   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, I forgot to say I've just started to read his What St. Paul Really said, so looking forward to it.
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015  |  IP: Logged
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669

 - Posted      Profile for Sarah G     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Both of these are good books, and definitely worth the read.

For those who enjoy detail and depth, the Christian Origins and the Question of God series is mind blowing.

Once NTW has shown how to tune in to C1 Jewish thought, large parts of the NT (even Paul!) become clear, and the "This is why I believe in Xianity" part becomes a whole lot easier.

Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am considering writing a book about Dante, and plan to simply skip to the chapters where Wright discusses him. (It's a library book, so I have it for a relatively limited time.)

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
An obsession with individual salvation misses the background, and hence distorts much of Paul's thought.

An obsession with individual salvation distorts much of what Jesus says as well, and what the OT prophets say, and the early Church Fathers. In fact, it distorts all aspects of the faith.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I, too, have found Wright’s daunting and impressive project on Christian origins and the question of God very helpful. His work on Paul in that series is something of a tour de force. He has been working up to it for years, publishing articles and speaking on the subject, so in advance of the publication I was wondering what more he would say. Some of the issues were already well known; for example his views on justification that had embroiled him in numerous debates to the point where he felt obliged to publish a book on the topic in advance (Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision)

His two volumes on Paul have been out for long enough now to have some useful reviews written about them. I’m sure people can find plenty online, but my own take on Wright’s work is as follows:-

Worldview and controlling stories. I have learned much from studies into worldview and how it controls the output of authors, so found resonance with Wright’s focus on this – something many other biblical scholars have taken up in recent decades, too. Wright kicks off his project on the importance of this (his first book in the series: The New Testament and the People of God) by arguing for the need to look at the world and not always through it, by removing the filters that determine how we read. He spends some time on this subject with Paul, too. For Wright, the worldview impacting Paul results in what Wright calls his “controlling story” - the story of God’s plan for the world from Abraham, through Israel, to Jesus and out to the church. Here is where the first question occurs: Was Jesus really doing what Israel should have done but failed to do? This area requires more study and Wright is one of a group of scholars investigating this area. Not all agree with him, of course!

Focus on Jewish background. One of the real benefits for me of the work that Wright and others have been engaged in over recent years has been to complete the wrench away from a focus on assorted Greek philosophical thought patterns to one that is more firmly rooted in the ancient near east and the period leading up to Jesus and Paul. The study of artefacts (including literature) from that period has been rewarding in throwing light on what Jesus and Paul meant. I’ve become convinced that it is not possible to understand the New Testament without first understanding the Old (the Jewish scriptures), and that the Old is embedded in ancient near eastern worldview, not a Greek one and certainly not our modern western worldview. This is an area that requires much repetition, because controlling stories abound and – because they are often unconscious – are not easy to see and recognise.

To this end I have been surprised at the number of reviews of Wright that fail to recognise this point and counter him with nothing little more than “You must be wrong because we’ve always known otherwise.” Ironically we have had nearly 500 years of Protestantism – plenty of time to build up a massive edifice of tradition – and it this tradition that often dictates responses. One of the very things that sparked the Reformation (edifices of tradition) now encases the reformed (small ‘r’). Is it time for another Reformation?

Origins of Christian Theology. Wright clearly sees Paul as the founder of Christian theology. He repeatedly makes the point in his book that Paul made a “radical re-formulation” (and words to that effect) of the Israelite controlling story. Here is where many more careful reviewers baulk. Is it true to say that there was just the one controlling story? Many scholars with the same desire to get into the worldview of the time see a more variegated picture. Also, did Paul really invent Christian theology? Was his thinking really so radical, or did it too not have roots in what he received and read in the Jewish scriptures?

I can see the weight of the arguments that Paul was less of a radical new thinker and more of an advocate or apologist for already existing Christian thought. I see much the same theology in John and can’t but help think that Jesus’ teachings would have provided the grounding for what followed (and Jesus was interpreting the Jewish scriptures). So Paul was really passing on what he had received; there was a Christian movement of thought already up and running by his time.

Church. The church forms part of the single controlling story that Wright argues for: from Abraham to Israel to Jesus to the church (which subsumes Israel). Possibly. But there may have been other views out there, other ‘stories’. It is noticeable that Paul doesn’t focus on Israel in this way. Israel did not so much as fail to fulfil God’s mission; for Paul, Israel’s failure was more one to recognise Jesus as Lord.

Other things.... I like Wright’s opposition to apocalyptic theories. He prefers the term ‘eschatology’ and wants to bend attention away from a vague future end-of-the-universe-as-we- know-it-Jim and towards the here and now.

I think Wright was quite light on the Spirit in his work. He mentions the Spirit in passing – obviously accepting that the Spirit’s role is important – but does not provide arguments about Paul’s view of the Spirit or how the Spirit operates (e.g., what does the Spirit have to do with eschatology?). I think Wright’s focus on other matters precluded an opportunity to do justice to this theme and given that his work is c.1,600 pages in length I guess not a few reviewers are glad that he did not work up more chapters on the Spirit!


So a lot I found useful, much that challenges, and questions arising. Can’t really ask for more in a work.

This being Kerygmania, I suppose I should bring the bible into this (Wright does, too, by the way). The passage Wright focusses most on, it seems, is Romans 2:25-29. It crops up again and again. I don’t know if this means it is central to his thesis, but is must be important. In the NET version is runs as follows:

Romans 2:25-29
quote:
For circumcision has its value if you practice the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcised man obeys the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised man who keeps the law judge you who, despite the written code and circumcision, transgress the law? For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh, but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the written code. This person’s praise is not from people but from God.
This is Paul’s preview of the argument he wants to make more fully in Romans 9-11. Wright takes this to mean that for Paul the older ethnic connotations associated with the term “Jew” had passed away and a new creation had come into being. So the age old question here that Wright is tackling is that of the role of Israel after the resurrection. Is there room for Israel as Israel in the family of Abraham? Or does the resurrection sweep ‘Israel’ into ‘church’?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mamacita

Lakefront liberal
# 3659

 - Posted      Profile for Mamacita   Email Mamacita   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
This being Kerygmania, I suppose I should bring the bible into this (Wright does, too, by the way).
Much appreciated. [Smile]

Keryg's remit being discussion of the Bible and/or of specific Bible passages, it would be appreciated if specific texts could be brought to bear in this thread.

Mamacita, Keryg Host

--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.

Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669

 - Posted      Profile for Sarah G     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I, too, have found Wright’s daunting and impressive project on Christian origins and the question of God very helpful....

Thanks for this entire post. It puts things clearly and IMHO correctly.

There are some questions you raise, and rather than reduce complex arguments to two sentences and do one post, I'll reduce the hosts to tears of boredom by doing a number of posts.

quote:
Was Jesus really doing what Israel should have done but failed to do?
The role: there is the OT link between Adam and Abraham, by which Abraham gets humanity back on track and undoes Adam's sin. Gen 22:16-18 is key here. Repeatedly the OT comes back to God's covenant faithfulness (often translated unhelpfully as 'God's righteousness'!). This covenant is not just for Israel's benefit, but for all mankind as Isa 42:6f and Isa 49:5f both explain.

The failure: In Romans 2:17-29, (as Nigel mentioned) Paul sets the scene. The Jewish nation was not up to the task. In Romans 3 , Paul continues in the same line, then declares-

The solution: If Torah obedience is in one sense an impossible means of success, it wasn't for Jesus. God's Jewish project didn't fail. Actually it completely succeeded in the person of Jesus, showing God's covenant faithfulness (3:21-31). Note the use of faith here refers back to the (covenant) unfaithfulness in 3:3, and not to 'belief' as much accumulated theology has come to declare.

This, then continues in Romans 4 which talks about the Abrahamic covenant and where, in Paul's mind, it, Israel and Jesus fit together.


quote:
Was his thinking really so radical, or did it too not have roots in what he received and read in the Jewish scriptures?...So Paul was really passing on what he had received; there was a Christian movement of thought already up and running by his time.
Both..and, I would suggest. You make an excellent point- perhaps Paul was articulating what was already out there to an extent.

Much as it distastes me to suggest it, he may well have been the Boris Johnson who sold the existing narrative to the people.

However much of Acts, and a number of passages in his letters, suggest that it was Paul who was pushing the agenda against strong opposition from many angles.

Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870

 - Posted      Profile for Sipech   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Rather than recapitulate my review from 2 years ago when I finally finished it, here's a link to it.

--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile

Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669

 - Posted      Profile for Sarah G     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
Rather than recapitulate my review from 2 years ago when I finally finished it, here's a link to it.

A fantastically good summary that I've bookmarked.

I think the answer to your question on "Why not Acts if Luke?" is that some academics regard Acts with suspicion historically, and as such he would have weak foundations for an argument about Paul where he used it. There are historical tools available with Luke that are not generally available with Acts.

Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470

 - Posted      Profile for Doone   Email Doone   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you Sipech, very useful.
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, a brilliant summary.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669

 - Posted      Profile for Sarah G     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I, too, have found Wright’s daunting and impressive project on Christian origins and the question of God very helpful...

To pick up on a couple of the other points you raise:

quote:
Israel did not so much as fail to fulfil God’s mission; for Paul, Israel’s failure was more one to recognise Jesus as Lord.
Both...and.

In addition to what was said above, Romans 9:6-10:13 tells the narrative of Israel, from Abraham to Isaac/Jacob and on to Moses, the Exodus, the prophets and the exile. He's referencing Deuteronomy 27-30 which would have been read as a narrative prophecy; Israel will fail, be cursed and exiled (the Covenant is about the Land of Israel, after all). Then later will come the renewal and heart circumcision to be able to obey Torah.

But it was the Gentiles, newly entitled, who seemed to be keener on taking up the offer of heart circumcision. And Paul does a whole feast of OT referencing to show this wasn't a problem. He did, however, fret over his nation's lack of response- a different kind of failure.


quote:
Is there room for Israel as Israel in the family of Abraham? Or does the resurrection sweep ‘Israel’ into ‘church’?
Again, NTW's line seems to be a bit of both, and neither. (He hates dichotomies. Perhaps he had a bad experience with one as a child.)

He gives the example of Akiba claiming bar-Kochba as Messiah and the inauguration of God's Kingdom; NTW makes the point that this wasn't a move to replace Judaism with something else. Instead, it becomes an inter-Jewish dispute between those who agreed and those who didn't.

Similarly the Christians proclaimed Jesus as Messiah and Abraham's descendants as those who agreed with that. For Jewish Christians, this was a renewal of the Covenant, and for Gentiles a joining of the Covenant. Paul vividly illustrates this in his olive tree image Romans 11:11-24. Note 11:12 where the role of Israel is mentioned.

He has already discussed how Jews within the Ekklesia have a different viewpoint in Romans 3.

Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
...Romans 9:6-10:13 tells the narrative of Israel, from Abraham to Isaac/Jacob and on to Moses, the Exodus, the prophets and the exile. He's referencing Deuteronomy 27-30 which would have been read as a narrative prophecy; Israel will fail, be cursed and exiled (the Covenant is about the Land of Israel, after all). Then later will come the renewal and heart circumcision to be able to obey Torah.

The covenant passages in those latter chapters of Deuteronomy are indeed powerful and full of significance for understanding the biblical message (in both testaments). One day we may even get to them in the Bible Non-Stop thread!

My question around Wright’s overarching narrative would be whether Israel itself really saw its mission as being to take God’s message (and even his kingdom) out to the nations. Wright reads Paul as relying on this particular mission as the justification for taking the gospel about the arrival of God’s kingdom out beyond the Jewish confines. The Deuteronomy passage though focusses more on the need for a singular loyalty to God within those confines, or so it seems to me when I read it. Some critics of Wright make this one of their bones of contention.

Still, on the other hand, there are points of light in the OT that suggest there is a responsibility to the nations outside Israel. The Genesis narratives are universal in scope (if perhaps intended mainly as Jewish in application), Noah’s narrative is similarly universal. Abraham’s mission (Gen. 17-18) was universal: he was the father of a multitude of nations and blessings among those nations would be associated with him (worth noting that covenant with God still plays a major role in these narratives). Isaiah adds a reflection on this universality in a few places:

Isa. 42:6f
quote:
“I, the Lord, officially commission you;
I take hold of your hand.
I protect you and make you a covenant mediator for people,
and a light to the nations,
to open blind eyes,
to release prisoners from dungeons,
those who live in darkness from prisons.”

Isa. 49:6
quote:
“Is it too insignificant a task for you to be my servant,
to reestablish the tribes of Jacob,
and restore the remnant of Israel?
I will make you a light to the nations,
so you can bring my deliverance to the remote regions of the earth.”

Isa. 60:3
quote:
“Nations come to your light,
kings to your bright light.”

What seems to be the case is that the singular covenant loyalty to God comes first and foremost, with one of the by-products being a mission to those not within that loyalty bond. The question is to what extent that by-product played a role in Jewish thinking by the time of Paul. I think Wright makes a good point, though perhaps he could have focussed on more telling support from OT passages (and the fact that Paul as a Pharisee was doing what other Pharisees did at the time – proselytising the Gentiles). I guess Wright’s speciality is the NT and it is asking too much of mortal man to be a specialist in both testaments at the same time!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669

 - Posted      Profile for Sarah G     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for the reply- perceptive as always. Two points for discussion:

1) We need to factor in the process of the Abrahamic Covenant here, which was “through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me” (Gen 22:18).

You're not wrong when you say “the singular covenant loyalty to God comes first”, but this process continues- when Israel has done her side of the Covenant, humanity will be restored, and thus creation put right. That's not a by-product, it's an intended outcome of Covenant loyalty.

Now all this is different to your question whether “Israel itself really saw its mission as being to take God’s message (and even his kingdom) out to the nations”. Paul (and NTW interpreting) doesn't see the role of Israel-pre-Christ as having that role; their role was to save the world.

Christ having done that, it seems sensible to let the nations know what's happened, so that they can join in the Blessing:

“He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.” (Gal 3:14).

2) NTW is no mortal man. (The passages you use at the end are quoted in that context p804f and elsewhere.)

Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Sarah; an interesting concept: Wright as the fourth person of the Trinity.

There is plank in Wright’s approach across his works that seeks to achieve the “both / and”. He criticises more traditional readings that want to limit Paul’s intention to specific categories. Categories that can be labelled. This helps, of course, in the process of labelling Christians according to categories: you are either in or out, but certainly not both / and. It then becomes easier to warn the flock off from writers in other categories: “Don’t trust him, he’s an Arianistic-Sabellian-Juristic-Armenian-with-minty-overtones” and thus to be consigned to the flames.

Wright’s central argument, on the other hand, seems to be that Paul is better understood (obviously from his temporal context) in terms of the whole and the parts, with the result that he draws together themes that traditionally have been seen as mutually incompatible. I sense from some of his articles and lectures that he is frustrated with the reviews and critiques of his project that – at least in earlier years – couldn’t handle him unless they could categories him in traditional terms. The big bone of contention from his earlier works has been the theme of Justification and its link to the phrase “the righteousness of God”. I have to admit that I was expecting fire From Wright on this in his current work on Paul and this would be followed by whizz-bangs from his critics, so was a bit surprised to see that Wright simply spells out his theory on justification (detailed in chapter 10), but saves his live ammo for other targets.

On reflection I can see why this is so. Wright’s views on Justification were already out there, had already drawn responses (e.g., J. Piper’s The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright), and had in turn motivated replies from Wright (e.g., Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision). So perhaps that battle has been fought. Whether the war is won, though…

Regardless, Wright’s placing of Justification (along with so many other –ations and –isms) as a subset of God’s righteousness, in turn via ‘election’ understood within a covenant worldview, seems to me at any rate to make sense. It’s the attraction of understanding authors’ intentions from within their own contexts that appeals to me, but I can see the enormity of the task facing those have been brought up in a particular tradition to stand away from it (or take off those tinted spectacles) so as to see the author from his or her own standpoint.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools