paul and the faithfulness of god (review).docx

8/13/2019 Paul and the Faithfulness of God (review).docx

1/5

Paul and the Faithfulness of God

N. T. Wright | Review by:Douglas J. Moo

http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/paul_and_the_faithfulness_of_god

N. T. Wright.Paul and the Faithfulness of God.2 vols. Christian Origins and the Question of God 4.Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. 1,696 pp. $89.00.

Reviewing N. T. WrightsPaul and the Faithfulness of Godis like trying to get a handle on the U.S.tax code. In 1,513 pages (like Luke-Acts, split into two volumes), Wright not only outlines hisdistinctive vision of Pauls theology (chs. 9-11); he also describes the worldview that generates thattheology (chs. 6-8) and, in keeping with his view of theology as historically rooted, sets it in first-century context. After an introductory chapter, therefore, Wright offers a rather lengthy descriptionof Pauls first-century context (four chapters on Judaism, Greek philosophy, Greco-Roman religionand culture, and Roman imperial ideology, respectively). In chiastic fashion, Wright then toward the

end of the book returns to assess the way in which Pauls theologizing addresses these first-centuryrealities. The result is a Pauline theology unlike any weve seen beforeand a long, complex, attimes repetitive book thats extraordinarily difficult to review. (What possessed me to agree to dothis? I asked myself more than once!)

In an attempt to tame the monster, Ill focus somewhat narrowly on Wrights overall method and on

key elements in his outline of Pauls theology. Moreover, Ill assume general familiarity with

Wrights viewpoints and will thusfocus more on assessment than description.

But before turning to specifics, I want to express my gratitude to Wright for what hes done in these

volumes. The astonishing scope of this work, as Wright locates Pauls theology within his first-century world, is a breath of fresh air in an environment in which academics learn more and more

about less and lessuntil they know everything about nothing. Wrights resolute concern to makesense of Paul in his historical contexta fundamental value that pervades all his work and which, hesuggests, is the essence of the new perspective on Paul (460)is a virtue in his work that hasnt

always been sufficiently appreciated by evangelicals.

Of course, Wright is engaged in risky business. One can imagine experts from all the academic fieldsWright touches on carping at his failure to quote this or that source, contesting his reading of keytexts, perhaps even disputing the accuracy of the overall picture that emerges. I dont know enough

about most of these areas to offer any criticism of my own. And what criticisms I do offer belowshould be set in a context of deep appreciation for someone who creates an impressive big picture

of Pauls theology in its contexta picture I myself would never be able to draw.

Runaway Rhetoric

Wrights writing style is one factor thats made him one of the most popular and prolific academicsin recent years, and that breezy, engaging, refreshingly frank style characterizes these volumes also.Of course, this can also be problematic: in the pursuit of rhetorical effect, Wright can say things Isuspect hed himself agree to be exaggerations at best. For instance, in his description of the

historical concern to locate Paul in his Jewish context, he claims: For the old perspective, Paulhad to ditch everything about his previous worldview, theology, and culturethe old symbols, theancient stories, the praxis, the view of God himself (460). One can only respond Really? and trust

that Wright would, on reflection, wish to retract this statement. Sometimes these rhetorical flourishesset up false dichotomies:

When ancient Jews spoke of salvation, however, they were usually referring to the salvation of theworld, or of Israel: of a world, or at least a people, over which evil no longer had any power. Neither
http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/paul_and_the_faithfulness_of_godhttp://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/paul_and_the_faithfulness_of_godhttp://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/paul_and_the_faithfulness_of_godhttp://www.amazon.com/Paul-Faithfulness-Christian-Origins-Question/dp/0800626834/?tag=thegospcoal-20http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Faithfulness-Christian-Origins-Question/dp/0800626834/?tag=thegospcoal-20http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Faithfulness-Christian-Origins-Question/dp/0800626834/?tag=thegospcoal-20http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Faithfulness-Christian-Origins-Question/dp/0800626834/?tag=thegospcoal-20http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/paul_and_the_faithfulness_of_god


2/5

the average ancient pagan, nor the average ancient Jew, was walking around worrying about howtheir soul might get to a disembodied heaven after they had died. (742)

I wont list other instances, butPaul and the Faithfulness of Godcontains too many of these kinds ofrhetorically effective but exaggerated or overly generalized claims. A related problem is Wrights

tendency to set himself against the worldand then wonder why the world is so blind as to fail to

see what he sees. A key thread, for instance, is Wrights insistence that the basic story Paulsworking with has to do with Gods fulfillment of his covenant promises to Abrahama vital focusthat almost all exegetes miss and that has been screened out from the official traditions of thechurch from at least the time of the great creeds (494). This problem is sometimes compounded by

a caricature of the tradition with which he disagrees (as in his critique of traditional westernsoteriology [a rather broad category!] as focused on soul saving [754-55]).

Coherent Shape

Within the ongoing debate about just how we should define or describe Pauls theology, Wright,as one might expect, seeks to identify the coherent shape of Pauls thinking, treating the text of the

occasional letters as a series of snapshots that together reveal this larger picture. While refreshingly

critical of the academic consensus about a seven-letter Pauline corpus, Wright nevertheless decidesto use Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, and (less clearly) 2 Timothy (as a concession to troubledconsciences) only to shed light on conclusions reached on the basis of other letters, and 1 Timothy

and Titus for illumination, not support (61). If one starts from the correct vantage point, one findsrevealed in these letters a deeply coherent thinker (568). That vantage point is Pauls Jewishheritage: Paul remained a deeply Jewish theologian who had rethought and reworked every aspectof his native Jewish theology in the light of the Messiah and the spirit, resulting in his ownvocational self-understanding as the apostle to the pagans(46). Once we set Paul firmly within theworldview of the story of Gods covenant with Abraham and its outworking in history, all the usualdichotomies academics find in Paulapocalyptic vs. salvation history; juridical vs. participationistcategories; affirmation of Judaism vs. the creation of a third race; indeed, new vs. oldperspectivesfall to the wayside. Most readers of Paul over the centuries have misread him, Wright

contends, because they begin with the wrong story.

Though scholars almost universally recognize the Old Testament/Jewish context for Pauls theology,

debate continues over the degree to which Pauls theologizing is rooted in story, or narrative. Wright

reads text after text within the framework of the story of Abrahams covenant, even when those textsmention nothing about Abraham or covenant. To be sure, if these categories are fundamental toPauls thinking, we shouldnt expect to find them explicitly enunciated everywhere. As Wrightnotes, worldview is something we dont look atbut through (462-63). Still, Im not convinced wecan make this storyor, indeed, any storyas basic as Wright wants, especially when the allegednarrative framework is privileged over the framework supplied by explicit textual evidence (e.g.,Rom. 5-8). Israels story undoubtedly lies behind Pauls theology at some level, but its just thatquestion of level thats so critical. Im sure Pauls theology is rooted ultimately in his reading of

Israels story, but the question is still how central that story is in shaping the specific framework ofPauls theology.

Getting the Story Right

But its not only a matter of getting the right story; its also necessary to get the story right.Fundamental to the validity of Wrights theological enterprise is that we read Israels story the way

he does. I applaud Wrights criticism of those ultra-apocalypticists (e.g., J. L. Martyn) who wantto discard much of the Old Testament as inconsequential for Paul. But Pauls conversion (Wrightargues the Damascus Road was both a call and a conversion, in the right senses of those words)

may have led Paul to re-read the story more than Wright allows. I make four points about Wrightsversion of the story.


3/5


4/5

material and because he may treat the same topic not just in these chapters but also in those aboutPauls worldview or interface with the first-century world.

Wright follows Richard Bauckham and Larry Hurtado in seeing Paul as including Jesus within thedivine identity but, typically, wants to go beyond them to suggest Old Testament/Jewish storiesabout the return of Yahweh to Zion may be the hidden clue to the origin of Christology (654). I

need to consider Wrights evidence for the importance of this theme a bit more; but my initial readdoesnt convince me. In another emphasis that goes back to his doctoral dissertation, Wright stressesthat Paul uses Christoswith full titular significance and, in a move particularly important for hisprogram, that Paul views Jesus as an incorporative Messiaha view of Messiah that, Wrightadmits, wasnt current in Pauls day but that explains so many things in Paul that it can hardly beavoided. With the possible exception of the significance of the return to Zion theme and Messiah

as an incorporative idea in Paul, I find Wrights chapter onPauls redefinition of God to becompelling. I conclude this section with a quotation about the Spirit that I think exactly captures akey point:

The early Christians might have said of the spirit what we have said often enough of a worldview: itisnt what you look at, its what you look through. The spirit was not, for Paul and his

contemporaries, a doctrine or dogma to be discussed, but the breath of life which put them in aposition to discuss everything elseand, more to the point, to worship, pray, love, and work. Weshould not, then, be surprised at the relative absence of discourse, including monotheistic discourse,aboutthe spirit. (710)

Gods people are reconfigured around Messiah, who, by virtue of his faithfulness, accomplishes thetask of rectifying the sin of Adama task first given to Abraham and one Abrahams descendantsfailed to carry out. Pauls reconfiguring of the Jewish concept of election is the way into his

soteriology (912). Among the various elements of soteriology, Wright gives particular attention tojustification: both because he views the juridical language of justification as basic and

nonnegotiable (1039; in contrast to subsidiary crater views) and because its been controversial(e.g., the debate with John Piper). I strongly endorse Wrights clear and convincing case for a strictly

forensic sense of justification against those who would expand the concept to include transformationor (the more recent buzz word) theosis (956-59). Wright forthrightly argues a Reformation-stylefaith alone view of initial justification, claiming its the basis for our assurance and arguing the

verdict announced now by faith will be confirmed on the last day (954-55; 1031-32). He alsocontinues to stress a future justification that will be according to the fullness of the life that hasbeen led (941; formally about judgment, but Wright clearly sees judgment and future justification

as interchangeable) or on the basis of the totality of the life led (1028). I sympathize with Wrightsdesire to accommodate the emphasis Paul puts on obedience, and I think hes right to find a future

aspect of justification in Paul. But little words are very important here; I agree future justification isaccording to the life lived but not on the basis of the life lived. I also continue to think Wrightputs too much emphasis on the covenant side of justification at the expense of the forensic (he

emphatically includes both in his view) and shifts the emphasis in Paul a bit by tying justification to

the question of How can we tell who are Gods people? rather than How can we become Godspeople?

Wrights treatment of Pauls eschatology is in keeping with his concern to read the apostle in terms

of the Old Testament/Jewish story. He therefore stresses again the return to Zion theme and

focuses special attention on Israels role in the eschaton, devoting more than a hundred pages to acareful, step-by-step interpretation of Romans 9-11 (1156-1258). In addition to a lot of goodexegesis, theres much to like here. Noting the climactic nature of 10:1-13 for the whole section,with its clear claim that salvation is tied to Christ, Wright convincingly rebuts the two-covenant,post-supercessionist reading thats gaining currency today: A moments reflection on the centralpassage 10:5-13, with its statement about Jesus and about faith and salvation, will reveal that it isstraightforwardly impossible to read Romans 9-11 as anything other than a statement firmly anddeeply grounded in christology (in the sense of Pauls belief about the Messiah) (1163). Much ofWrights energy is directed toward defending his controversial claim that Israel in 11:26 refers to


5/5

all Messiahs people; and, while I am not convinced, I can identify with Wrights admission toconsiderable wrestling over these chapters and acknowledge the strength of the case he makes.

Concluding Notes

Space prohibits comment on other specific issues: suffice to say I found Wrights treatment of theplight/solution issue utterly convincing (747-50) and his critique of the post-supercessionists(1428-35) equally compelling. Three concluding notes:

1. Wright claims theology itself was elevated to a new role in the early church, and especially byPaul: [P]recisely because of the major restructuring of Pauls symbolic world . . . theology comesto have a different, much larger and more important place in his worldview, and thereafter in theChristian church, than ever it had in either Judaism or paganism (403).

2. As he draws his work to a close, Wright suggests reconciliation, broadly conceived, may proveto be the best overarching category to cover Pauls theology, with2 Corinthians 5:13-6:2as good acandidate as any for expressing Pauls central concerns (1488-89).

3. All of Pauls theology is directed ultimately to the formation and maintenance of communities thatembody Gods purposes in the world. Wright remarks:

The point for which I have been arguing throughout this book is that Paul did indeed think through,articulate and teach a coherent theology, which was indeed a modification of Jewish belief in thelight of the crucified and risen Messiah and the gift of the spirit; and that Paul urged his communitiesto learn how to think these things through, not as a displacement activity when faced with ineffableexperiences, but as their grasping of the reality of Israels God and his purposes, the reality within

which they would be able to live. (1327)

Douglas Moo is Wessner Chair of Biblical Studies at Wheaton College and chair of the Committee

on Bible Translation. He has written numerous commentaries on New Testament books and is theco-author, along with D. A. Carson, ofAn Introduction to the New Testament.
http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Corinthians%205.13-6.2http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Corinthians%205.13-6.2http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Corinthians%205.13-6.2http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-New-Testament-D-Carson/dp/0310238595/?tag=thegospcoal-20http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-New-Testament-D-Carson/dp/0310238595/?tag=thegospcoal-20http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-New-Testament-D-Carson/dp/0310238595/?tag=thegospcoal-20http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-New-Testament-D-Carson/dp/0310238595/?tag=thegospcoal-20http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Corinthians%205.13-6.2

paul and the faithfulness of god (review).docx

Documents