http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/nt/NT.h.Hill.Wright.htmlThe question was "What do I think about this paper?"
Well, since you asked, here's my 2c worth...
The good part is that the author of this paper has the core point of Wright correct. That's not always the case with Wright's critics. The central point is what I have referred to elsewhere in this BLOG as the Sander's Revolution.
The bad part is that he is wrong in his critique of Wright. It's not that he misses the point, but he does not accept the point.
First, I question his methodology of determining the meaning of the word from a Lectionary. Nearly every Protestant Lectionary would tend to have a juridical definition, given our heritage, which is precisely what the Wright/Sander's Revolution rejects. Therefore, stating that all of the author's authorites are on the same side as the author, says nothing that the author is not already telling. Wright admits the "novelty" of his idea against a Protestant backdrop. It would be easier to quote Wright's own admissions that his idea is not historically mainstream and move to the next point.
If you want a good read of the historical baggage that comes with the word, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on justification adds some color and perspective to this issue. Certainly a Catholic Lectionary would probably have a different focus than a Protestant one (I don't have one handy, but I assume it would).
In my experience, there is a better way to determine the meaning of a word and that is through word substitution, which is the methodology Wright follows. Replace the word in question with the test phrase and see if it makes sense and continues to make sense. Wright stands up quite well in that regard.
From Wright, justification, for the Christian, is not about how to become a Christian, but the Justified One, Jesus, and our standing in Him. First century false systems of justification are not about failures of law-keeping, rather they are other systems that a person puts their trust in.
It is clear that for the first century Jew, their trust was in their physical descendency from Abraham and that they possessed the Law of God. There are numerous text which demonstrate this. Here is one example which makes the point:
When Scripture is looked at from this point of view, a lot of passages suddenly make sense that did not make sense before. Here's another such test passage:
The bad part is that he is wrong in his critique of Wright. It's not that he misses the point, but he does not accept the point.
First, I question his methodology of determining the meaning of the word from a Lectionary. Nearly every Protestant Lectionary would tend to have a juridical definition, given our heritage, which is precisely what the Wright/Sander's Revolution rejects. Therefore, stating that all of the author's authorites are on the same side as the author, says nothing that the author is not already telling. Wright admits the "novelty" of his idea against a Protestant backdrop. It would be easier to quote Wright's own admissions that his idea is not historically mainstream and move to the next point.
If you want a good read of the historical baggage that comes with the word, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on justification adds some color and perspective to this issue. Certainly a Catholic Lectionary would probably have a different focus than a Protestant one (I don't have one handy, but I assume it would).
In my experience, there is a better way to determine the meaning of a word and that is through word substitution, which is the methodology Wright follows. Replace the word in question with the test phrase and see if it makes sense and continues to make sense. Wright stands up quite well in that regard.
From Wright, justification, for the Christian, is not about how to become a Christian, but the Justified One, Jesus, and our standing in Him. First century false systems of justification are not about failures of law-keeping, rather they are other systems that a person puts their trust in.
It is clear that for the first century Jew, their trust was in their physical descendency from Abraham and that they possessed the Law of God. There are numerous text which demonstrate this. Here is one example which makes the point:
Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?Most people skip the point that is being made here by John the Baptist. The "repentance" that John is calling for here is best understood from the text. In context, they trusted their descendency from Abraham and John acts to cut off that possibility. They were not (at least in this passage) trusting in their works. John is not calling on them to repent from their trust in their dead law-works. He is calling for them to change their minds (repent) about their trusting in descending from Abraham. John is clearing the road for Jesus and they need to be on the right path when He comes. The right path is not trusting in Abraham, but in Jesus.
Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
When Scripture is looked at from this point of view, a lot of passages suddenly make sense that did not make sense before. Here's another such test passage:
Luk 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luk 13:4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
Luk 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
At first glance this passage appears to be talking about personal eschatology. Like the previous passage, it uses language such as "sinners", "repent" and "perish". But I don't think that is what Christ is saying at all. If I rephrase Christ using Wrightian language it would be something like this:
Do you think that the Galileans were worse than you because they died in that way? Unless you change your mind about revolt against Rome, you will die the same way. How about those that had the two fall on them as they tried to revolt against Rome. Do you think that you can avoid their fate when you revolt against Rome? Nope, unless you change your plans and follow my way, you will die like they died.
Which paradigm fits best Christ's meaning? The individual eschatology or the one that actually reflects the historical situation?
The historical fact is clear from reading outside the NT. The Pharisees did not believe in righteousness due to their following the Law. They thought they were holy because they possessed the Law and were descended from Abraham.
No comments:
Post a Comment