Wright Responds

Curious about what Wright thinks about Carson, Piper, and Moo? All that and more here.

(HT: Jim Hamilton)

Gospel and Kingdom Part 1

No, not a guest post by Graeme, just some reflections on the topic. As I began to put together the strands for this post, I was amazed by how far back they go. The gist of the question I wish to raise can be phrased a number of ways: What is the Gospel (sure, that one's novel)? What is the message and mission of Jesus? What is the theme of the scriptures? etc, etc. Much has been written and discussed within contemporary evangelicalism (particularly the strands touched most deeply by postmodernity) regarding the corporate dimension of the Gospel/redemption. While I'm not advancing precisely that sort of an agenda, I have often noted that the four books of the NT commonly referred to as Gospels bear little in common with what we call the Gospel nowadays. To be sure they incorporate the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (a la 1 Cor 15:1ff), however, that only comes up at the end. Much of the material, particularly the proclamations of Jesus seem more kingdom oriented than "evangelistic" as we often think of it. And don't misunderstand me, I'm not bashing EE here (though I've done that elsewhere); I have yet to see any evangelistic program/presentation/literature, etc. that sounds anything similar to the message proclaimed by Jesus in orientation. But I'm getting ahead of myself...

It probably started when I first noticed that in Romans 10:15 when Paul is talking about the beautiful feet of the ones who preach the Gospel, he's referencing Isaiah 52:7. Now the interesting thing about Isaiah is that the Gospel there, isn't "Jesus died for you" but rather "Your God Reigns." I remember thinking, could this be a summation of the Gospel? My first thought was of 1 Cor 12:3 - No man can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Spirit. Even more obvious, back in Romans 10:9 - If you confess, Jesus is Lord....Now, to take the phrase Jesus is Lord and the phrase Your God reigns....particularly in view of the fact that both phrases occur in "Gospel" context...well, now that's what I call continuity. At the time I brushed it off as being in danger of too much reductionism.

Then, over the course of the last several months, our ss class at BBC was going through the life of Jesus. Again, I became convinced (in large part from what I had gained in reading Wright's JVG, reading the Gospels for the first time in a LONG time and dialoging with my brothers and sisters, especially James Lane) that Jesus was going around spending a ton of time talking about the Kingdom and not so much time about why we should pray for him to come into our hearts. You just don't see that too much in the Gospels.

So all of this has been percolating in my head for a while now. Just a week or two back I was reading in the opening chapters of Acts and I was hit with it again. Peter's sermon in Acts 2 is filled with Kingdom ideology. In fact, repentance doesn't even come up until the very end when the hearers say, "what should we do?" Obviously the message itself didn't answer the question. Typically our "evangelistic" presentations spend virtually ALL of their time explaining what Jesus did and what we should do.

Okay, by now some of you are probably thinking I've gone from fundy, to evangelical right off the cliff to pagan. No, I am NOT denying the individual, redemptive implications of the death of Jesus. What I am saying, is perhaps we've emphasized that dimension of the atonement so much so that it has become the sine qua non of the Gospel, when perhaps that's not exactly what was at the core of the Gospel as it appears in the scriptures. However, this has already turned into much more than I anticipated; thus, I'll put off the defense of my orthodoxy and (more importantly) just what it is I'm trying to say for Part 2.

Wright on Penal Substitution

If you haven't seen it, Tom Wright has been getting grilled in the blogosphere again, this time over the issue of Penal Substitution. In the process of the discussions, some have been concerned that Tom denies the doctrine himself. However, the following resources have been pointed out in his defence both here and here.

(HT: Between Two Worlds)

Carson on Wright

If you haven't seen it yet, you can read D.A. Carson's review of Tom Wright's Evil and the Justice of God here. While I haven't read it all yet, I read the conclusion posted on Justin Taylor's blog here and think I may understand the gist. Just as a further teaser, here's the opening paragraph:

"Tom Wright has done it again. He has written a book characterized by his usual verve and 'big picture' thinking. He says some things so wonderfully well one cannot but be greatful for his contribution. And, as usual, he reserves a place for a few things that are doubtful, mistaken, or (at best) out of proportion, or just plain annoying."

Ouch. I'm starting to think Carson has a beef with Wright. But hey, It's nice to see I'm not the only one who can't resist cheesy puns with Wright's name :-)

(HT: Between Two Worlds)

Repentance from What?

I hesitated to post this because I'm embarassed to reveal just how slow my progress in JVG has been. Nevertheless, I thought it was significant enough to bare all. I came across something I strongly disagreed with Wright about...I know, brace yourself...it's a historical moment. Many thought it wouldn't happen, but here it is.

In dealing with "Stories of the Kingdom" Wright examines Jesus' call to repentance under the heading of Invitation. While I appreciated much of what he says, when he comes down to defining repentance, I had some issues. His approach is mostly inductive, but when he comes out and defines it, he suggests two emphases to Jesus' message of repentance: "returning to YHWH so that exile may come to an end; renunciation of nationalistic violence. It was an eschatological call, not the summons of a moralistic reformer. And it was a political call, summoning Israel as a nation to abandon one set of agendas and embrace another" (JVG, 251). Contextually, he is setting Jesus call to repentance off from the ahistorical, timeless, moralistic call to individualistic piety (all words he uses). The first move is to say it's eschatological (the call to Israel to return to YHWH and bring about the real return from exile) and the second is to say that it's political - the turning from revolutionary violence against Rome and/or Herod.

Here's my beef: On the first emphasis, I am in total agreement with his description of Jesus' call to repentance as being eschatological in nature. Yes, He is calling them to return to YHWH and it most certainly is a historically occaisioned call. The problem I have is that this does not inherently set it apart from a call to individualistic piety; that would be a false dilemma or an either/or fallacy. True, the call may have more nationalistic overtones, but what does it mean for the nation to return to YHWH? Either faith driven Torah observance, or more likely in the present context, adherence to Jesus. No matter how you slice it, this is a call to individual ethical holiness. After all, the New Covenant is designed to foster Spirit enabled obedience, yes for Israel, but Israel, no matter how you define it, is composed of individuals.

However, it is the second emphasis that really got my biscuits burning. Wright suggests that bound up within the meaning of the term metanoia itself, is the idea of "abandoning revolutionary zeal" (p. 249-250). His reasoning here rests heavily on an occurence in Josephus. Josephus says, of a brigand chief whom he discovered was plotting to kill him, "that I was not ignorant of the plot which he had contrived against me...; I would, nevertheless, condone his actions if he would show repentance and prove his loyalty to me. All this he promised..." (Ibid). The form here is actually the infinitive, rather than the noun I mentioned above, but that matters little. Wright points out that many commentators on the synoptics ignore this occurance when wrestling with the meaning of repentance, while he says "It is, I suggest, of considerable significance. This is what those words meant in Galiliee in the 60's [i.e. Josesphus day]; by what logic do we insist that they meant something rather different, something perhaps more personal, inward or religious, in Galilee in the 20s and 30s?" (still p. 250). By what logic you ask? Well for starters, that's NOT what it meant in Josephus day either. In my humble (though it may not sound that way, that's how I mean it) opinion, this is a raging exegetical fallacy.

For starters, metanoia and metanoeo simply mean "repentance" or "turning" and "to repent" or "to turn" respectively. What exactly is to be turned from depends on the context in which it is used. To import what it is that one is turning from in a given context into the lexical meaning or semantic range of the word is just plain wrong. It's sloppy lexicography. Further more, to take that imported meaning and apply it to all other contexts, especially those that clearly indicate something explicit that is to be turned from is even more dangerous exegetically, not to mention theologically. Let me offer a modern day example: Say you read the Mapquest directions that I recently used to get from VA to NH. You would see something to the effect of "turn right off of St. Luke's Blvd on to Great Bridge Blvd." Suppose you wanted to determine just what I meant by "turn." Well, a little historical/geographical research reveals that St. Luke's Blvd is a dead end side street and Great Bridge is a major thoroughfare. You conclude that "turning" is a technical term used for street navigation and is particularly useful in describing the move from a lightly traveled street to a major road. This is fine and good, until you hear someone ask to "turn the light off" or "turn in your assignments" or "tossing and turning" etc ad nauseum.

I don't think this is an unnecessary caricature of what Wright has done here. I grant that he is primarily gunning for existential theologians like Bultmann who demythologize the history right out of the Gospels and turn them into a collection of timeless aphorisms (you would be aware of this too if you read the essay linked to below about Wright :-). Doubtless, he is aware of and not apologetic for the fact that it also steps on the toes of many evangelical interpretations too. Yet, I am convinced that he has swung the pendulum too far. I grant his historically occaisioned appeal, as noted above; in fact, this sort of appeal is one of the things that I have learned most from any and all of his writings. However, I'm convinced his methodology is flawed here and the result is just plain wrong. If Jesus says He's come to call sinners to repentance, then there is substantial reason to assume that they must turn from there sin. Granted, perhaps some of the sin that some of the people (maybe even many of them) needed to turn from was their violent revolutionary zeal; however, for all the times we read Jesus saying "go and sin no more" I'm not convinced every time He was addressing a political zealot. The burden of proof would lie on Wright here, and the various contexts just don't sustain this.

Now, please don't misunderstand: I still love the guy, I still love Jesus and the Victory of God and I am learning a TON from it. In fact, I wish there were the forum for him to respond to what I've said; he's far more intelligent than I and he may blow me away with additional data I've not considered. However, maximalistic approaches to language (a la TDNT) just rub me the wrong way. I am and probably always will be a minimalist here to the core.

What's Right or Wrong with Wright?

There it is again...another terrible pun. At least I'm predictable. A number of people have asked me what I think about Tom Wright, both on and off of this blog. By now, I'm sure it's more than apparent that I'm a fan, but I've heard various questions about his views in various areas that a general pattern seems to be developing. While I'm inclined to say Wright is like a Glock - you either love him or hate him - the truth of the matter, as is often the case, is probably not so black and white. However, most people who haven't read much by him, often ask one of two questions (depending on what they've read/heard): 1) What's wrong with him? or 2) What's so great about him? How one person can generate such extreme conclusions within so many circles can be a bit confusing, I admit. One of the most helpful "essays" I've read that accounts for this spectrum appeared on another blog a while back. I don't frequent the blog (not because I don't want to but because I already read too many) so I can't preface much about the author, other than to say that what he wrote squared almost perfectly with my experience of reading Tom Wright and his friends and foes. He does an excellent job of introducing the reader to the context in which Wright is carrying on his ministry...after all grammatical historical exegesis is just important with 21st Century documents as it is with 1st Century documents. I've actually linked to it twice now in the comment sections of this blog, but since it keeps coming up, I've been meaning to link it on an actual post. So, check it out here.

***P.S. Do I really need to include somewhere that I don't agree with EVERTHING he says? :-)