N. T. Wright has a New Testament Bible Commentary set that is intended for laypersons but it quite suitable for pastors. This set is titled the "Everyone" series.
As a preacher of the Gospel, I find coming up with sermon illustrations to be a challenge week in and week out. I spend more time thinking about illustrations than in understanding the text or even in coming up with applications of the text. Wright tackles my problem in these books.
At the start of each section of a passage Wright puts in an illustration drawn from common life (or in some cases obscure English history - remember I'm an American in the Midwest so some of this stuff can get obscure to us here).
In each case, his illustrations are worth their weight in gold if you have ever tried to find a teaching or preaching illustration. They are solid ideas and even if you don't steal the story, you can springboard off the idea that the story conveys. If for nothing else, Wright practices what he preaches when he says that stories subvert worldviews in a way that theology in other forms often don't or even can't.
Here's a list of these commentaries with amazon.com links to buy them. (Just so you know, I get 5% of the purchase price which helps defray my yearly and monthly internet bills and you pay nothing extra).
Matthew for Everyone (Volume 1)
Matthew for Everyone (Volume 2)
Mark for Everyone
Luke for Everyone
John for Everyone (Volume 1) - Special Order
John for Everyone (Volume 2)
Paul for Everyone Romans 1-8
Paul for Everyone Romans 9-16
Paul for Everyone 1 Corinthians
Paul for Everyone: 2 Corinthians
Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians
Paul for Everyone: The Prison Letters
Paul for Everyone: The Pastoral Letters
Hebrews for Everyone
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Friday, September 16, 2005
Spending my money on Wright books
I've just ordered three more Wright books,
"Paul for Everyone: The Prison Letters : Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon",
"The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary", and
"The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is".
Loaned out this past week Wright's "Commentary on Romans (New Interpreter's Bible)" and "What Saint Paul Really Said".
"Paul for Everyone: The Prison Letters : Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon",
"The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary", and
"The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering who Jesus was and is".
Loaned out this past week Wright's "Commentary on Romans (New Interpreter's Bible)" and "What Saint Paul Really Said".
Reading more Wright
I'm now up to page 300 in "The New Testament and the People of God" (NTPG). This is the first book in the series of 3 or 5 volumes by N. T. Wright. The second and third volumes are now out as well; "Jesus and the Victory of God" and "The Resurrection of the Son of God".
These are all great books but none of them are a quick read. I haven't been counting but I am guessing that I have more than 20 hours into NTPG. It's about 2/3 done now. I haven't read all the footnotes, but I have been reading the chapters pretty slowly wanting to digest the materials. They are hard to get through the first part since that is about methodology which is all preliminary and necessary before the materials.
The chapter on the "Hope of Israel" has been interesting. We tend to think of the "Messianic Hope of the first century" in a monolithic way. Wright shows some tendencies, but there is far from a uniformity in this area.
These are all great books but none of them are a quick read. I haven't been counting but I am guessing that I have more than 20 hours into NTPG. It's about 2/3 done now. I haven't read all the footnotes, but I have been reading the chapters pretty slowly wanting to digest the materials. They are hard to get through the first part since that is about methodology which is all preliminary and necessary before the materials.
The chapter on the "Hope of Israel" has been interesting. We tend to think of the "Messianic Hope of the first century" in a monolithic way. Wright shows some tendencies, but there is far from a uniformity in this area.
Wanna Learn Greek?
The best way that I have found to learn Greek is the book "Greek to Me", by Lyle and I. K. Story. This book is great because it uses memory visualization techniques. For those of us who are visual learners, these pictures are something that we can relate to and are much easier to remember than the Greek paradigms.
Give it a shot. You can be reading from the text of the New Testament in a very short time with this book.
Give it a shot. You can be reading from the text of the New Testament in a very short time with this book.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Christian Socialists and the Jubilee
Christian socialists are fond of citing the Old Testament passages about the Jubilee in support of their socio-economic theories. Easton has the following definition for the Jubilee
Jubilee is not re-distribution of wealth
This is not a system of redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Rather, it is a system of ensuring that the land stays in the hands of the families who originally had the land. If your family in the beginning of such a system was wealthy, then they would remain wealthy. If your family had little land, this insured that they would continue to have little land. The only hope for gaining wealth was to work as a sharecropper on someone elses land, or lease that land.
A Question for the Christian Socialist
It would be an interesting question to ask a Christian socialist how and if the jubilee was fulfilled in Jesus Christ? Was it part of the ceremonial laws which Christ fulfilled? Would return to Jubilee be a return back to the Law?
Use of the Law as a General Principle
Certainly, the Christian socialist is not making the case that the Old Testament Laws should be the laws of the United States? That is where the appeal to general principles comes into play. The Christian socialist seem to be able to mine the Old Testament Laws at will, picking and choosing general principles out of the Law, without taking the entire Law. What is the criteria for this mining? Lacking support for a Christian socialist agenda from the New Testament, they are forced to make a case from principles (greatly stretched principle in this case) in the Old Testament.
Economics and Theology Mixed
It is tempting to dismiss Christian Socialists as merely naive thinkers when it comes to issues around economics. After all, many of them have spent a large portion of their adult lives in the ivory towers of academia. The knee jerk reaction is that perhaps they should stick to theology rather than economics. But these questions are all theological ones which ultimately hinge on questions of exegesis of Scripture. The real problem here is how to move from Scripture to application and how far a stretch we can go in our application of Scripture.
What Does the Jubilee Call for?
The Jubilee calls for two things, freedom for slaves and return of real property to the original owners or their heirs. The timeframe of the return is so long (every fifty years) that it would have little relevance for most slaves, unless they were in slavery at or near the end of the fifty year period. A man could become a debt slave at age 40 and remain one until age 90 if he just happened to hit things right. Slaves were to be freed since it was to be made clear that everyone in Israel was God's property. Land was to be returned so that it could not be taken away forever.
What did the Jubilee do?
The Jubilee requires the return of personal property to the individual who owned it at the beginning of that fifty year period. This shows God's support for property rights of individuals. No one could permanently sell his/her birthright. In effect, they were leasing it out for a term up to the next Jubilee. This would clearly affect the lease price of property since leases closer to the term would be of much less value than leases at the start of the new fifty year cycle.
The Jubilee Effect
The Jubilee had the effect of making the value of slaves and property variable depending upon the time to the Jubilee year. Slaves were mostly debt slaves. People who wanted to borrow money would have found it easy to borrow money immediately after the Jubilee year since the money borrowed was secured by their person. As the time got closer to the Jubilee year it would become increasingly harder to borrow money in significant sums since the security of the person themselves becomes less valuable closer to the Jubilee year.
Even Wright is not Right on this one
As much as I respect N. T. Wright in every other area, in this area, he is quite dreadfully mistaken. His position on debt forgiveness of the Western States for the third world is off base and has the same Christian Socialist agenda. Dr. Wright should re-examine his position on these issues. If we are to pick up Jubilee, should we pick up Passover and the other festivals? It seems that Wright is clear enough on those issues, but unclear on these other issues.
Jubilee: A joyful shout or clangour of trumpets, the name of the great semi-centennial festival of the Hebrews. It lasted for a year. During this year the land was to be fallow, and the Israelites were only permitted to gather the spontaneous produce of the fields (Lev 25:11-12). All landed property during that year reverted to its original owner (Lev 25:13-34; Lev 27:16-24), and all who were slaves were set free (Lev. 25:39-54), and all debts were remitted.Christian socialists appeal to this passage for a variety of social agenda items including the idea of forgiving foreign debt. A careful reading of the passages on jubilee show that there is nothing in these passages about foreign debt, it is about individual debt, not foreign. It is at that point that the Christian Socialist's agenda becomes more clear as he/she then attempts to make a more general principle out of these specific passages.
Was the Jubilee Ever Actually Done?
There is no record in Scripture of the actual observance of this festival, but there are numerous allusions (Isa 5:7-10; Isa 61:1, Isa 61:2; Eze 7:12, Eze 7:13; Neh 5:1-19; 2Ch 36:21) which place it beyond a doubt that it was observed.
Jubilee is not re-distribution of wealth
This is not a system of redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Rather, it is a system of ensuring that the land stays in the hands of the families who originally had the land. If your family in the beginning of such a system was wealthy, then they would remain wealthy. If your family had little land, this insured that they would continue to have little land. The only hope for gaining wealth was to work as a sharecropper on someone elses land, or lease that land.
A Question for the Christian Socialist
It would be an interesting question to ask a Christian socialist how and if the jubilee was fulfilled in Jesus Christ? Was it part of the ceremonial laws which Christ fulfilled? Would return to Jubilee be a return back to the Law?
Use of the Law as a General Principle
Certainly, the Christian socialist is not making the case that the Old Testament Laws should be the laws of the United States? That is where the appeal to general principles comes into play. The Christian socialist seem to be able to mine the Old Testament Laws at will, picking and choosing general principles out of the Law, without taking the entire Law. What is the criteria for this mining? Lacking support for a Christian socialist agenda from the New Testament, they are forced to make a case from principles (greatly stretched principle in this case) in the Old Testament.
Economics and Theology Mixed
It is tempting to dismiss Christian Socialists as merely naive thinkers when it comes to issues around economics. After all, many of them have spent a large portion of their adult lives in the ivory towers of academia. The knee jerk reaction is that perhaps they should stick to theology rather than economics. But these questions are all theological ones which ultimately hinge on questions of exegesis of Scripture. The real problem here is how to move from Scripture to application and how far a stretch we can go in our application of Scripture.
What Does the Jubilee Call for?
The Jubilee calls for two things, freedom for slaves and return of real property to the original owners or their heirs. The timeframe of the return is so long (every fifty years) that it would have little relevance for most slaves, unless they were in slavery at or near the end of the fifty year period. A man could become a debt slave at age 40 and remain one until age 90 if he just happened to hit things right. Slaves were to be freed since it was to be made clear that everyone in Israel was God's property. Land was to be returned so that it could not be taken away forever.
What did the Jubilee do?
The Jubilee requires the return of personal property to the individual who owned it at the beginning of that fifty year period. This shows God's support for property rights of individuals. No one could permanently sell his/her birthright. In effect, they were leasing it out for a term up to the next Jubilee. This would clearly affect the lease price of property since leases closer to the term would be of much less value than leases at the start of the new fifty year cycle.
The Jubilee Effect
The Jubilee had the effect of making the value of slaves and property variable depending upon the time to the Jubilee year. Slaves were mostly debt slaves. People who wanted to borrow money would have found it easy to borrow money immediately after the Jubilee year since the money borrowed was secured by their person. As the time got closer to the Jubilee year it would become increasingly harder to borrow money in significant sums since the security of the person themselves becomes less valuable closer to the Jubilee year.
Even Wright is not Right on this one
As much as I respect N. T. Wright in every other area, in this area, he is quite dreadfully mistaken. His position on debt forgiveness of the Western States for the third world is off base and has the same Christian Socialist agenda. Dr. Wright should re-examine his position on these issues. If we are to pick up Jubilee, should we pick up Passover and the other festivals? It seems that Wright is clear enough on those issues, but unclear on these other issues.
Friday, September 09, 2005
Christian Socialism
There is a species of socialism which has survived the fall of the Soviet Union. This form of socialism is to be found primarily in the ivory towers of academia.
The mantra of the Christian socialist is that of Carl Marx, "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". In order words, wealth should be forcibly redistributed, at the point of a gun if necessary from the rich to the poor.
The mantra of the Christian socialist is that of Carl Marx, "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". In order words, wealth should be forcibly redistributed, at the point of a gun if necessary from the rich to the poor.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
The two issues in Romans 14
Exactly what is the nature of the two issues that Paul is referring to here in Romans 14?
Eating meat is almost certainly not an issue of vegetarianism or eating meat, but rather of eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Paul is saying that since an idol is nothing in and of itself, there is no problem with eating the meats sold in the meat market which may well have been sacrificed to idols.
The problem with this is that the decision of the early church in Acts 15 appears to be at odds with what Paul is saying. The early church at their first council decided that eating meat sacrificed to idols was not acceptable and gave it as a commandment to the new Gentile Christians. Maybe this tension is alright just as it is. It may be nothing more than evidence that Paul got what he wanted on the circumcision issue and was willing to be flexible on the issues that were not as pressing. If that's the right reading, then it weakens the authority of the first council for those who consider church councils to be infallible (typically Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians).
The second point revolves around the day that one celebrates. Here the issues seems to be Sabbath vs Sunday worship, although I'd like to hear from our Seventh Day Adventist readers if that is they way that they view this passage. There is much New Testament evidence, as well as the evidence offered from historical continuity that there was a change in day of worship in the early church away from Saturday (to be more precise Friday at sunset to Saturday at sunset). The church seems to have started worship on Sundays in celebration of "The Lord's Day", i. e., the day that Jesus rose from the dead.
Eating meat is almost certainly not an issue of vegetarianism or eating meat, but rather of eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Paul is saying that since an idol is nothing in and of itself, there is no problem with eating the meats sold in the meat market which may well have been sacrificed to idols.
The problem with this is that the decision of the early church in Acts 15 appears to be at odds with what Paul is saying. The early church at their first council decided that eating meat sacrificed to idols was not acceptable and gave it as a commandment to the new Gentile Christians. Maybe this tension is alright just as it is. It may be nothing more than evidence that Paul got what he wanted on the circumcision issue and was willing to be flexible on the issues that were not as pressing. If that's the right reading, then it weakens the authority of the first council for those who consider church councils to be infallible (typically Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians).
The second point revolves around the day that one celebrates. Here the issues seems to be Sabbath vs Sunday worship, although I'd like to hear from our Seventh Day Adventist readers if that is they way that they view this passage. There is much New Testament evidence, as well as the evidence offered from historical continuity that there was a change in day of worship in the early church away from Saturday (to be more precise Friday at sunset to Saturday at sunset). The church seems to have started worship on Sundays in celebration of "The Lord's Day", i. e., the day that Jesus rose from the dead.
Don't Judge
It seems to me that this text is saying that if Jesus is the Lord, then who are we to judge others?
This is true, according to the text, whether they are even a Christian or not.
We will all appear before the judgment seat of God [Christ].
This is true, according to the text, whether they are even a Christian or not.
We will all appear before the judgment seat of God [Christ].
The New Testament and the People of God
Presently I am doing a very hard task.
I am reading from the very first page with the intention of getting to the last page, Dr. Wright's book, The New Testament and the People of God. This book is a lot of work. The first 144 pages of the book are prelimary to the tast. They go over Wright's methodology. If you buy into his methodology - and it's hard not to buy into it - then most of the rest will follow.
The philosophical terms are hard to follow, namely that of critical realism as the proper foundational method of reading the New Testament. But, again, they seem quite sound. I'd be interested in hearing from any philosophy majors out there on this one.
I am reading from the very first page with the intention of getting to the last page, Dr. Wright's book, The New Testament and the People of God. This book is a lot of work. The first 144 pages of the book are prelimary to the tast. They go over Wright's methodology. If you buy into his methodology - and it's hard not to buy into it - then most of the rest will follow.
The philosophical terms are hard to follow, namely that of critical realism as the proper foundational method of reading the New Testament. But, again, they seem quite sound. I'd be interested in hearing from any philosophy majors out there on this one.
Lectionary Text for week ending 9-11-2005
Romans 14:1-12
Rom 14:1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
Rom 14:2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.
Rom 14:3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.
Rom 14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
Rom 14:7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself;
Rom 14:8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's.
Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Rom 14:10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
Rom 14:11 For it is written,
"AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD."
Rom 14:12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Book Review - "What Saint Paul Really Said"
Subtitled: "Was Saul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?"
N. T. Wright published this book in 1997. This book is a great book and is quite readable.
Wright takes the phrase "the righteousness of God" to mean God's own righteousness rather than a forensic, imputed righteousness that man gets from God. Wright demonstrates that this phrase is commonly misunderstood.
N. T. Wright published this book in 1997. This book is a great book and is quite readable.
Wright takes the phrase "the righteousness of God" to mean God's own righteousness rather than a forensic, imputed righteousness that man gets from God. Wright demonstrates that this phrase is commonly misunderstood.
The Lectionary and the death penalty
The Lectionary text for last week and the Lectionary text for this week have a large gap of the first verses of Romans 13.
That section of Scripture skips the text which speaks of the government's use of the sword as a messenger of God. These verses are a clearly support for the Death Penalty. I wonder why they are skipped in the Lectionary?
Is there a bias in the Lectionary against these kinds of passages?
That section of Scripture skips the text which speaks of the government's use of the sword as a messenger of God. These verses are a clearly support for the Death Penalty. I wonder why they are skipped in the Lectionary?
Is there a bias in the Lectionary against these kinds of passages?
Lectionary text for Sept 4, 2005
Lectionary text Romans 13:8-14
Rom 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
Rom 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Rom 13:11 Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed.
Rom 13:12 The night is almost gone, and the day is near Therefore let us lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.
Rom 13:13 Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy.
Rom 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
The problem with Romans 12:9-21
Usually the problem with a text is getting to where we can understand the text.
That's not the case with Romans 12:9-21. I think that we understand it just fine.
Our problem is not understanding the text, it is doing the text.
Treating each other as Christ would have us treat each other is a monumental task. And most of us do not feel up to the task.
Often it's not so important what we do, so much as how we do it. Are we working at love?
That's not the case with Romans 12:9-21. I think that we understand it just fine.
Our problem is not understanding the text, it is doing the text.
Treating each other as Christ would have us treat each other is a monumental task. And most of us do not feel up to the task.
Often it's not so important what we do, so much as how we do it. Are we working at love?
Burning coals
I just don't buy it.
One common argument is given that the burning coals poured on someone's head were actually a good thing. Allegedly the people at that time carried coal baskets on their heads. Putting burning coals into their basket was to keep them warm.
I don't buy it.
How can this be anything other than what it says? Doing this shames your enemy and vindicates you when you do this. Repentance is always in mind with God. Suppose though that your enemy remains your enemy after you have responded with good. When your enemy is judged, you were not part of the problem. You have not participate in the evil, but have stepped above it. The judgment of God is then clearly demonstrated.
One common argument is given that the burning coals poured on someone's head were actually a good thing. Allegedly the people at that time carried coal baskets on their heads. Putting burning coals into their basket was to keep them warm.
I don't buy it.
How can this be anything other than what it says? Doing this shames your enemy and vindicates you when you do this. Repentance is always in mind with God. Suppose though that your enemy remains your enemy after you have responded with good. When your enemy is judged, you were not part of the problem. You have not participate in the evil, but have stepped above it. The judgment of God is then clearly demonstrated.
The Sanders Revolution
Our Debt to E. P. Sanders
Wright's book, What Saint Paul Really Said points out the debt that we owe to E. P. Sanders. The central point of Sanders was that "Judaism in Paul's day was not, as has regularly been supposed, a religion of legalistic works-righteousness." (pp 18-19).
This is the key point in properly reading the writings of the Apostle Paul. As Wright points out, Paul has been read incorrectly at least since the time of Luther. Wright correctly expands on the themes started by Sanders and in doing so it is important to acknowledge the debt to Sanders. Wright correctly does this in his book.
Why this change? Now, we have a lot more information about first century Judaism than was available at the time of the Reformation. Discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have shed additional light on the beliefs of the first century. In this book, Wright puts Paul into his historical context as best as can be done from this distance.
What this means is that nearly all of the commentators on the book of Romans are completely wrong in their central core points about the book. If Paul is not reacting to a works-righteousness religion of his day, then what is he reacting to?
Wright's book, What Saint Paul Really Said points out the debt that we owe to E. P. Sanders. The central point of Sanders was that "Judaism in Paul's day was not, as has regularly been supposed, a religion of legalistic works-righteousness." (pp 18-19).
This is the key point in properly reading the writings of the Apostle Paul. As Wright points out, Paul has been read incorrectly at least since the time of Luther. Wright correctly expands on the themes started by Sanders and in doing so it is important to acknowledge the debt to Sanders. Wright correctly does this in his book.
Why this change? Now, we have a lot more information about first century Judaism than was available at the time of the Reformation. Discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have shed additional light on the beliefs of the first century. In this book, Wright puts Paul into his historical context as best as can be done from this distance.
What this means is that nearly all of the commentators on the book of Romans are completely wrong in their central core points about the book. If Paul is not reacting to a works-righteousness religion of his day, then what is he reacting to?
Lectionary Text Romans 12:9-21
Let love be without hypocrisy.
Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good.
Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.
Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly Do not be wise in your own estimation.
Never pay back evil for evil to anyone Respect what is right in the sight of all men.
If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written,
Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good.
Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.
Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly Do not be wise in your own estimation.
Never pay back evil for evil to anyone Respect what is right in the sight of all men.
If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written,
"VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,"says the Lord.
"BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
N. T. Wright's writings
The unofficial N. T. Wright page has quite a few of Dr. Wright's writings and some audio files as well.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Summary of the NPP Five Points
These are directly from N. T. Wright's paper New Perspectives in Paul.
Stating the five points in the positive.
Stating the five points in the positive.
- When Paul refers to ‘the gospel’, he is to the proclamation that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth has been raised from the dead and thereby demonstrated to be both Israel’s Messiah and the world’s true Lord.
- Paul always uses the phrase ‘the righteousness of God’, (dikaiosune theou), to denote the righteousness of God himself.
- Paul affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led - in accordance, in other words, with works.
- For Paul, ‘justification’ is something that follows on from the ‘call’ through which a sinner is summoned to turn from idols and serve the living God, to turn from sin and follow Christ, to turn from death and believe in the God who raised Jesus from the dead.
- Paul uses ‘vindication’ language, i.e. the dikaioo word-group, when he is describing the verdict which God pronounces consequent upon that event.
- When Paul refers to ‘the gospel’, he is not referring to a system of salvation, though of course the gospel implies and contains this, nor even to the good news that there now is a way of salvation open to all.
- Paul is not using the phrase ‘the righteousness of God’, (dikaiosune theou) to denote the status which God’s people have from him or in his presence.
- The righteousness of the law has been mistreated as a hypothetical position which Paul then undermines by showing that nobody can actually achieve it.
- To ‘justify’ does not mean to ‘become a Christian’.
- Justification is not conversion itself nor is it the establishment of a ‘relationship’ between a person and God.
The NPP and Rom 10:6-7
Romans 10:6-7 are admittedly tough verses. Testing them against the standard Reformed views of these passage is quite informative. Something is seriously wrong with the standard Reformed views of this passage.
The problem posed by these passage is not the passage in and of itself, but in the passage that they are quotes from. They are taken from Deut 30:13-14. The problem comes in when Deut 30 is read for what it says on it's own. When Deut 30 is read it clearly poses a challenge to the Lutheran and Reformed readings in Romans. These traditional readings of Romans tease out a wider divide between Law and Gospel than this verse will allow.
Why? Because the Deut 30:11-14 passage has a view of the Law that is widely at variance with the traditional Protestant (and Catholic) reading of the text. Deut says that the Law is not impossible to follow, and can, in fact, be followed.
The NASB with reference notes (sitting on the desk next to me) solves this problem in an odd way. It indents the quotes which show they are quotes and then fails to provide a cross-reference for their source.
Most, if not all of the commentators end up saying that Paul is making this up. Moses only supported Law and Paul is supporting Gospel. So then, Paul is quoting Moses as a support but without any basis at all. This makes mincemeat of Paul's argument.
This passage, run through the traditional Reformed paradigm breaks the paradigm. What can be put in it's place? N. T. Wright and the NPP have an answer which makes sense of this (and many other passages on the Law). But, that's to be seen in another post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)