The November 2009 issue of Themelios features yet another review of N.T. Wright’s Justification: Paul’s Vision and God’s Plan, this time by one David Mathis.
David Mathis calls N.T. Wright’s exegesis into question:
Exegesis has two different flavors for Wright and Piper. Piper wrestles word by word, proposition by proposition, and then paragraph by paragraph. Wright moves much quicker through large chunks of Paul’s thought, refers frequently to whole chapters and paragraphs, and quotes phrases (often as technical terms) seemingly removed from their immediate context. It is surprising that Wright would remind us that “the text is the text” (p. 249) when he has dealt so little with the actual biblical text in its context. For this reason, Wright’s exegetical chapters are a serious disappointment as his exegesis proves to be a kind of hovering above the text—rarely, if ever, landing, while supplying his own meaning for a phrase here and there that contributes to a coherent whole but neglects to explain the connections between Paul’s propositions and paragraphs. Does Wright not see that the discussion cannot go forward if he will not convincingly engage Paul on Paul’s own terms but instead keeps the text at arm’s length? Read entire review…
What good is there to “a word for word, proposition for proposition” treatment of a text but the larger story is lost?
The proper approach seems to be: if necessary, “a word for word, proposition for proposition” but only as understood in the larger story.
Mr. Mathis even charges Wright with “misunderstanding his critics.” It seems more to me that when one takes this “word for word, proposition for propositon, paragraph for paragraph” approach to exegesis it is at the expense of the larger story.
In so doing, not only is N.T. Wright woefully misunderstood but Paul the apostle as well.
I’m sure Mr. David Mathis wouldn’t like his words to be picked apart without first understanding his story, the proper context of his words.
For those who do not know David Mathis is the Executive Pastoral Assistant to John Piper.
http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/Author/5_david_mathis/
Thank you very much for this post. It succinctly responds to a ridiculous claim that clearly seeks to badmouth Wright’s reputation. This book did not intend to be an intense exegesis, however it’s amazing that in spite of his “hovering over” the text he ends up with a larger book than Piper’s!
I think it may be beneficial for Mathis to read Wright’s forthcoming book on Paul as part of his Christian Origins series. If this is what he truly seeks after from N.T., then it will be beneficial for understanding his stance.
It’s very sad that many people can not just disagree with the content rather than attack “holes” or other areas that are unfounded. We are all seeking after truth after all, it seems, and we are bound to be at different places in that journey.
Jonathan,
After the post, I dug around some more and realized Mr. Mathis is associated with Piper.
J.D,
My pleasure. Also, Wright has already written “What St. Paul Really Said” and “Paul: In New Perspective.”
But I do agree with suspending any further judgment until his larger work.
At any rate, I believe we already have Wright’s seminal ideas on the matter.
blah.
What profundity!
double blah! as i’ve always said, when you’ve read one of wright’s books, you’ve read them all. he, like vivaldi, only ever knows one tune. so yes, blah. im surprised anyone devotes such time to him.
Thank you, Jim, for that thoughtful contribution to this discussion.
Some weeks ago I commented that I was working through NTW on these issues. Richard then advised me to look out for the pending tome on Paul – which I await keenly.
So far he is making a lot of sense and frankly I do not, yet, see that he is undermining the basic economy of salvation. I see a lot of debate about emphasis and definition, but no destructive new doctrines. I read on, hopefully with an open mind!
I also see is a danger in getting into detail too quickly and too much. Just as some remind us that the “proof text out of context is a pretext”. We surely need to look at the big picture, the granrd vision, the blue sky, the straegic overview etc before we pick over the detail.
Colin,
Works in particular?
As I see it, his larger work is only going to expand on what we already have and probably take on a few critics.
TC its pretty well known that Wright’s exegesis is questionable to say the least. Mathis’ argument is not of the ad hominem nature that your post supposes. Bible students are just hoping for answers from Wright, but the answers will likely have to wait until volume 4 of his origins series.
Metts,
By the way, Mathis is part of Piper’s church.
Never meant such portrayal.
At any rate, Mathis is another critic who has missed the big picture worldview.
Good grief, I know where Mathis works.
Why can’t Wright fans see the simple problem of his poor exegesis? Its not to say that his historical work is wrong. On the contrary, most are in agreement with Wright’s historical work. Can you demonstrate where a critic of Wright has ever criticized Wright’s history? Its his theology that is questionable. Regardless of how you want to try and frame the discussion it remains that Wright has put forward a new definition of dikaiosune that is not represented in any lexicon. That’s a problem.
If John Piper were saying that words in certain contexts were technical and had different meanings, meanings never before observed in all of NT scholarship, you better believe he’d be “taken to task for his exegesis” as well. Its not about camps here or presuppositions or whatever. Its purely academic.
Further, when I think of scholars opposed to Wright, Piper doesn’t even make my list. His book was not that good in my opinion. Scholars I would consider are Schreiner, Carson, Westerholm, Kim, etc.
I’m really confused by the confusion around NT Wright. I’m convinced that people who really struggle with NTW either are holding on to doctrinal position at the expense of Scripture (as NT says over and over again, againt the true sola scriputra tradition of the Reformation)or they haven’t done their homework. NTW’s The New Testament and the People of God frames everything in a rigorous historical context. That’s all it took for me to get what he’s saying. If folks take issue with him, they need to engage him and a far deeper level that I have yet seen.
Can any recommend a critic who is a thorough as NTW in refuting him? I would really like to see a reasonable response. A few pages into Piper convinced me that Piper had not done his homework.
Yes, we need a well-prepared critic, someone who has actually studied the matter thoroughly.
But I’m such a person would not be a critic for too long.
Check out Seyoon Kim’s work Christ and Caesar (Eerdmans).
Thanks, Brian. Title looks good.
I wrote specifically about this here: http://www.anwoth.org/2009/06/08/why-n-t-wright-and-john-piper-simply-may-not-be-speaking-the-same-language/
I can’t yet say whether I agree with Wright’s conclusions entirely, but I definitely agree that Mathis, Piper, et.al. do not understand that they have their own set of presuppositions that they’re bringing to the exegetical task, not the least of which is the very nature of exegesis.
Piper starts with micro-exegesis and moves outward to form a story.
Wright, on the other hand, starts with macro-exegesis (at the story level) and then understands the micro-elements in that context.
The question for me is this: Which approach to the exegetical task is the best approach?
This clearly is not merely a matter of “My exegesis is right and yours is wrong.” If it were, then it would be a pretty simple matter. It is, instead, an entire worldview and Bible-view issue. Which approach to Scripture is the best approach? That’s why it seems to me that Piper and Wright are both talking past each other without ever engaging each other.
The question for me is this: Which approach to the exegetical task is the best approach?
Will, that’s the question we should be asking ourselves before siding. Great question, btw.
It is, instead, an entire worldview and Bible-view issue.
That’s why I tend to side with Wright, because of the story motif.
After all, Jesus leveled his greatest criticism at the religious leaders’ feet because they missed the big story, what God is really doing in the world through Messiah.
This issue touches on the heart of a very real hermeneutical struggle. Do we start with micro-exegesis and then move on toward macro? Or do we start with macro and then move on to micro?
I would suggest either approach, if carried out as a consistent, systematic hermeneutic, is flawed. It may seem paradoxical, but there is truth in the maxim that one understands the whole by understanding the parts, and one understands the parts by understanding the whole.
Relying on one of these approaches exclusively is overly simplistic and hinders the best reading of the text. There is a hermeneutical spiral of sorts needed in our exegesis of these texts. The macro helps us understand the micro, but the micro also helps us to understand the macro.
Certainly we must start somewhere (we can’t really do both simultaneously!). Yet the spiral of the macro feeding into the micro and the micro feeding into the macro is a better approach than our exegesis only going in one direction.
The spiral hermeneutic should also help us to sort through our own presuppositions, perspectives, and emphases we bring to the text that may be there in full, or may be implied, or may be connected in some way but is really not part of what is being said in the text itself. There is such a thing as “finding” a right doctrine from the wrong text. I suggest this goes on more than we would like to admit.
I actually think Wright is more balanced in his approach than the current discussion allows. He may be more macro than Piper in some ways (I wouldn’t say that Piper fails completely in the area of macro exegesis), but he is also a careful reader of what one may call the “micro.” One need not agree with everything he says to see this.
Meto,
I wouldn’t say taking the macro approach is either too simplistic or flaw at times. I see it as the only approach. Let the micro finds its significance within the grid of the macro.
Again, we must ask, What is the story being told? Only when we can answer this question properly will we really know what is taking place. This I believe is the advantage of a Wright over a Piper.
TC,
Just to be clear, I wouldn’t say “taking the macro approach is either too simplistic or flawed at times.” At times the macro approach can seem like the right approach overall. But then again, “at times” the micro approach can seem to be right.
Again, I contend that “either approach, if carried out as a consistent, systematic hermeneutic, is flawed.”
Yes, the micro must find “its significance within the grid of the macro.” But the macro must be supported by an understanding of the micro.
I’m not against asking “what is the story being told?”. I agree that is a proper and necessary question to ask. But if I say the story being told is the three little pigs, and then I proceed to say the wolf is actually a dandelion, I have missed something.
Meto, I agree with you that if we let the story take so much precedence over the details that we misinterpret the details then we’ve failed at the exegetical task. The issue, though, is that we have to prove that’s the case.
There is most definitely an interplay between macro- and micro-exegesis. But a valid story or system will be able to consistently understand the details in light of the story, and will be able to understand the story in light of the details. However, I do think that the story is the controlling factor here, not the other way around.
In a recent post, I drew attention to an article by J. Richard Middleton where he challenges our understanding of “heaven.” He begins with the story of God’s big redemptive purposes, yet he also includes the actual uses of individual words. His article would be a good example of how the narrative is the controlling factor in exegesis, without neglecting the details.
Michael Metts, you wrote:
“Regardless of how you want to try and frame the discussion it remains that Wright has put forward a new definition of dikaiosune that is not represented in any lexicon. That’s a problem.”
Actually, lexicons do not define words. Wright may be (I emphasize the “may” be) helping us see where our lexicons have misunderstood Paul’s use of the word.
You say that Wright is giving words “meanings never before observed in all of NT scholarship.” Michael, are you serious? You really think Wright’s definition of dikaiosune is unique? Even Doug Moo give Wright’s definition as a possible definition, describing it like this: “God’s faithfulness, especially to his covenant with Israel” (Commentary on Romans, p. 70).
I think you’re being overly simplistic to say that it’s not about presuppositions. It’s very much about presuppositions.
I’m not making a comment about whether I agree or disagree with Wright’s understanding of righteousness. I’m simply saying that I think you’re out of line to accuse Wright of making up a definition out of thin air.
“I’m not making a comment about whether I agree or disagree with Wright’s understanding of righteousness. I’m simply saying that I think you’re out of line to accuse Wright of making up a definition out of thin air.”
??
Will,
It seems you have taken Moo out of context. Context reveals Moo does not agree with the interpretation given on page 70 of his commentary. He defines it on page 74 (where he is not seen summarizes opposing views).
“We can define it as the act by which God bring people into right relationship with himself.”
Will,
Thanks for that Moo quote. Indeed.
I think you’re being overly simplistic to say that it’s not about presuppositions. It’s very much about presuppositions.
Indeed. It’s that worldview approach. The story being told.
Let’s not forget Wright’s approach to dikaiosune theou:
1. It’s covenant language.
2. It’s law-court language.
3. It’s eschatological language.
And all three have biblical support.
Since the Reformation the emphasis has been placed on the law-court language.
Wright and others want us to embrace all three, because all three fit the storyline.
Michael, I apologize if I was unclear. Let me clarify: You commented, by implication, that Wright’s definition of the righteousness of God is “never before observed in all of NT scholarship.” I was trying to point out that that is an inaccurate statement, since Doug Moo gives “covenant faithfulness” as a legitimate definition of God’s righteousness.
Does that clear up what I was trying to say?
I’m still a little unclear but lets move on and address Doug Moo.
Michael, the point is not whether Moo agrees with that definition. (In fact, Moo actually DOES agree that sometimes that is an appropriate definition.) The point is that Wright is not making this stuff up.
Will,
Can you supply a reference to anything by Moo endorsing covenant faithfulness as the appropriate definition in any particular context of Romans?
Michael, you’re missing my point completely. I’m not trying to defend this as the CORRECT understanding of the righteousness of God. I’m saying that Wright is not being novel and unique in offering this as a POSSIBLE definition.
I’m not concerned with whether Moo agrees with Wright. I’m pointing out that Moo himself offers this definition as a possibility (even if he later says it’s not the correct one), and he cites two other theologians who not only offer this definition but agree with it.
Does that make sense what I’m saying? I’m not addressing your claim that Wright is WRONG in his definition. I’m addressing your claim that Wright’s definition has never been observed in all of NT scholarship.
To use Moo’s footnote on p . 70, Williams and O’Brien think that this is exactly what 1:17 means. Again, I’m not trying to settle the issue of whether that is actually what 1:17 means; I’m simply trying to say that Wright is not being novel here.
Will,
I’m not sure I would bring Moo into this discussion. He does not, as far as his NICNT Romans volume, agree with Wright or covenant faithfulness.
I understand that Moo is progressing some in his views to allow for a covenant nuance in some fashion. He expressed something like this in a recent sermon at Denver Seminary on the topic of justification. The mp3 is hosted on their website if you’re not already aware.
While I enjoy Wright heartily, I’m always frustrated with his fans who put forward silly defenses when it comes to justification. 95% of the time Wright is number one. But when it comes to this, I believe he is simply wrong. Not for ad hominem or I love John Piper reasons. But because I do not see it supported in Scripture. And I’ve read more of Wright than any other author presently, and that should say a lot.
AARGH!
Michael, I’m frustrated that you and I seem to be talking past each other just as skillfully as Wright and Piper do. 
I have to say I appreciate the discussion, but I’m afraid you’re trying to make me say something I’m not saying. I’m not trying to say that Moo AGREES with Wright. I’m trying to say that Wright’s definition is not one that is unique to NT scholarship.
Will,
I just read your thoughts on the Wright/Piper exegesis issues you wrote up in your blog referenced above. They are good thoughts.
For me the core question comes down to which is working with the text in a way that best honors the nature of biblical narrative as evidenced in the text itself. I can’t help but think that Piper et. al. are stuck in the Renaissance project that gave birth to both the Reformation and the Enlightenment. With apologiies to Piper, I feel he is to man-centered in his exegesis, as he follows the line of Reformation thought. I see a violation of the Great Story in starting in the parts with the a priori presuppositions of the 15th century. There is just too much baggage from the earlier scholasticism with its Aristotelean orientation.
The OT is story, first and foremost. Doctrine is a secondary inference from reflection upon the Great Story. One of the challenges/inviations Wright offers us is to “reboot” our presuppostional orietation from 15th century Europe to 1st century Palestine.
“One of the challenges/inviations Wright offers us is to “reboot” our presuppostional orietation from 15th century Europe to 1st century Palestine.”
Absolutely right. Even if Wright is wrong in his conclusions, his major contribution to the Church will be this historical rebooting of our presuppositional orientation.
The OT is story, first and foremost. Doctrine is a secondary inference from reflection upon the Great Story. One of the challenges/inviations Wright offers us is to “reboot” our presuppostional orietation from 15th century Europe to 1st century Palestine.
Indeed.
Kyle and TC,
I agree to a certain extent, but you’re making too sharp a dichotomy between doctrine and the Great Story. If we take a simple definition of doctrine as “a summary statement of the truths of Scripture” you can see how even the great story is “doctrine.” So in that sense, story is not “first and foremost” over and against doctrine.
Meto,
Well, at one level “The Great Story” is doctrine, but its “great” part is to inform our doctrines.
At times the macro approach can seem like the right approach overall. But then again, “at times” the micro approach can seem to be right.
Stuart,
If you agree that the micro must find its significance within the grid of the macro, How can the micro at times set aside the macor? It doesn’t add up.
But if I say the story being told is the three little pigs, and then I proceed to say the wolf is actually a dandelion, I have missed something.
Part of telling a story properly is to know who the principal players and so on. Definition is in order.
I never said the micro sets aside the macro. I have tried to say that both are needed to understand the other.
Stuart,
Perhaps I drew the wrong inference: when you said “right” regarding “micro,” to me it implied “macro” must take a second.
TC,
What I meant by the statement was that at times the macro and the micro approaches can seem “right.”
Meto,
Meaning demands context. The story frames the context. The issue to watch out for is how easilty ideas can distort. That’s my point. If we are committed to our ideas before we are committed to the story, we will shape the story to fit our ideas. If the story is prior, we can allow it to shape our ideas.
Kenneth Bailey, for example, does a great job showing how Jesus’ stories subverted the ideas of his listeners. Jesus did not debate ideas, he told stories. NTW seems to follow this pattern in his exegesis. Start with the story: “God’s-single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world,” so summarizes NTW. Starting from ideas and going to the story will twist the story, every time. Don’t you think? OUr pea brains will get the ideas wrong and change the story. It’s hard to get the story wrong. It is what it is.
Meaning demands context.
Yes. And what I’m advocating is the context is BOTH story and details (or macro and micro). Without knowing the story there is no context for the details, but without knowing the details there is no story.
The story frames the context.
Yes. But we can also say the details make up the story AND the context. If the story is Goldilocks and the Three Bears, but I don’t understand what porridge, chairs, and beds are, my understanding of the story is skewed.
The issue to watch out for is how easily ideas can distort.
Yes, but most any idea when made the exclusive rule and not taken along side of other true ideas can distort. Is it possible that the idea of interpreting in lines of a story could distort ones understanding if one does not take into consideration the other true aspects of interpretation?
If we are committed to our ideas before we are committed to the story, we will shape the story to fit our ideas.
I’m sure you’re aware of this already, but I’ll state the obvious for the sake of argument . . . all of us are committed to our ideas to a greater or lesser degree, otherwise they would not be our ideas. And the idea of being committed to “the story” is still commitment to an idea. The question is: what if our idea of “the story” is not correct because we have missed some important details along the way? If I think the story of Little Red Riding Hood is about how wolves should be careful of little girls, my idea of the story is wrong and I need the details of the story to set me straight.
If the story is prior, we can allow it to shape our ideas.
Again, I think the story should shape our ideas. I haven’t argued otherwise. What I am advocating is that this is not the end of the story (another story, not the one we’ve been talking about
). Understanding the details of the story help us to understand the story itself. We must go back and forth between the forest and the trees to understand both correctly.
Jesus did not debate ideas, he told stories.
I’m sorry, Kyle, but that’s simply poppycock. Jesus told stories AND he debated ideas. Even when he told stories, he was using that method to debate ideas.
Start with the story: “God’s-single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world,” so summarizes NTW.
Yes, I would agree that’s part of the story . . . but is it all of it? Is that even the best way to summarize the story? The only way to test this summary is look at the details (the micro).
Starting from ideas and going to the story will twist the story, every time.
So isn’t it possible that starting with the idea that the story is “God’s-single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world” (if that summary is not the best way of framing the story) would twist the story as well?
It’s hard to get the story wrong. It is what it is.
Actually, people have been getting the story wrong for ages. What makes us think we have the story right now?
Meto,
“Jesus did not debate ideas, he told stories.
I’m sorry, Kyle, but that’s simply poppycock. Jesus told stories AND he debated ideas. Even when he told stories, he was using that method to debate ideas.”
Nailed me there. I apologize for the sloppy talk. My issue is with abstractions, boiling reality down to propostional statements that guts life of mystery and vitality.
God is the Doer of Great Deeds, is he not? The story itself is able to reveal far more than our systematizing of it.
Conducting exegesis should move from word, to sentence, to paragraph, to chapter, to entire book, to then the Old and/or New Testament and finally a historical redemptive analysis. One does not trump the other.
Besides, it has been pointed out that the historical perspective that Wright has attempted to force into Paul’s language was from a select pocket of Jews, which does not necessitate that they represent the entirety of Judaism at the time by D.A. Carson.
Jessie,
Don’t you presume a narrative context in the exegetical progression you outline? Having spent time in India, the declation, “Jesus is Lord” means something entirely different. Everybody gives their life to Jesus their because he is just one more manifestation of Brahman.
Conducting exegesis should move from word, to sentence, to paragraph, to chapter, to entire book, to then the Old and/or New Testament and finally a historical redemptive analysis. One does not trump the other.
Jesse,
I would agree wholeheartedly with your last statement, but I have to say the first statement seems to favor the micro level too heavily.
While it is true that when we read we see words that are connected in sentences that are connected in paragraphs which are in turn connected to chapters, books, OT, NT, etc., it also true that we read conceptually.
When you read this sentence, for example, you don’t begin by asking, “What does the word ‘when’ mean?” moving on to ask “what does the word ‘you’ mean?” until you reach the end of the sentence and then ask “what do all these words together mean?” At least, we don’t do that consciously. No, instead we read conceptually. In translation terms, we read more in terms of “dynamic equivalence” than “literal, word for word.”
Now of course, we may need to examine a word in a sentence closely . . . especially if we don’t know the meaning, or if the meaning is unclear, or if think the meaning is different than what we thought on a first run reading. But our exegesis shouldn’t rely too heavily on “word for word” understanding without seeing the big picture.
Again, the “macro” and the “micro” need each other in such a way that we shouldn’t speak of one being more important than the other, which is what your second sentence states well.
Jesse,
I like to know the source material of D.A. Carson. My oblige.
Very well. But where does the redemptive story of Scripture point?
However, I do think that the story is the controlling factor here, not the other way around.
Will,
Then we should strike to understand where an N.T. Wright is coming from, rather than such slightly that I’ve seen.
I’ll provide his sources for you.
The redemptive story points to Christ and it is faith in His life of actively fulfilling the Law and passively taking the lumps of it’s punishment that we are justified before God, therefore, we have peace with Him through faith, not works (Romans 5.1)
Jesse, your comments carry a whole truck load of assumptions that need to be wrestled with. For example, you’ve assumed a certain meaning to “faith in/of Christ”; you’ve concluded that imputation of active obedience is a correct understanding of what happens; you’ve assumed a particular understanding of justification; and you’ve assumed a certain relationship to works. And you’ve done ALL of this under the auspices of Romans 5:1.
This is incredibly simplistic. The story of redemption deserves a much more thorough treatment than to simply cite Romans 5:1 and then import a particular tradition of interpretation into it.
In addition, you say, “Conducting exegesis should move from word, to sentence, to paragraph, to chapter, to entire book, to then the Old and/or New Testament and finally a historical redemptive analysis.”
Yet you simply state this as if it were fact without ever proving the point. This is exactly what this discussion is about: the nature of the exegetical task.
We bring a lot of assumptions to the text, including an overriding narrative. Your overriding narrative was crafted by Martin Luther. What I think Wright is trying to ask us to do is to examine that narrative. Is Luther’s narrative the correct context for understanding Paul? Until you can demonstrate that it is, then we have to have these discussions.
Will,
I see that you are not far from the kingdom.
Meto, you crack me up!
We bring a lot of assumptions to the text, including an overriding narrative. Your overriding narrative was crafted by Martin Luther. What I think Wright is trying to ask us to do is to examine that narrative. Is Luther’s narrative the correct context for understanding Paul? Until you can demonstrate that it is, then we have to have these discussions.
Will,
Is this a type of concession and a movement toward Wright’s view?
Oops. Did I tip my hand that much?
Let’s call it a desire for doing the task Wright is doing, whether or not we come to the same conclusion.
Just to name the dynamic here. What Jesse is doing is using Romans 5:1 as the shorthand for the Old Perspective narrative. HIs summary fits seamlessly in that tradition. Meaning, he has mastered the tradition well.
What Wright is doing, following the lead of Richard Hays, I believe, is unpacking the narrative that stands behind the loaded language that Paul uses throughout his letters. Wright is spot on that when Paul quotes Gen. 15 in Romans 4, he’s not simply using an illustration, but rather tapping into the heart of the biblical narrative. Wright is arguing that Paul is saying a whole lot with a few words. We need to do the work to get behind the words to get Paul’s take on “what God is doing now in Christ” in the context of the OT narrative.
Jesse,
Very well. How about Romans 15:7-16 as a glimpse of what really is taking place in redemptive history as applied to humanity? How about Romans 1:1-6 as a subtheme and so on?
Oops. Did I tip my hand that much? Let’s call it a desire for doing the task Wright is doing, whether or not we come to the same conclusion.
Will,
At first I objected to Wright’s reading of Paul until I reread Wright.
So a second read is indeed in order.
TC,
Yea, and you called me a heretic!
Kyle,
Forgive me, for I was ill-informed.
@ TCR and Kyle:
In light of mankind’s sin before God (Romans 1.1-3.20), God’s righteousness has been revealed apart from the Law through faith in Jesus Christ, which was attested to by the Old Testament (3.21-22). So, through faith in Christ – not works – we are declared just before Him by His grace, right here, right now (3.24; also see 3.28; 5.1).
The truckload of assumptions that I bring on these texts are the texts clear meaning. When attempting to construe a historical narrative to then thrust that into the text, it must be impeccable. For instance, for someone to contend that “such and such” was the particular historical miliue of the time and that Paul had to be working from this perspective, then no other possibility can exist for this is an argument from silence (since we’re not there and Paul didn’t tell us, “Hey, this is where I’m coming from”).
As I alluded to earlier, Carson clearly shows Wright and company’s historical recreation was not solely the case, then we cannot force this foreign meaning to a clear text (For his lecutres, go here http://www.theopedia.com/New_Perspective_on_Paul)
Jesse,
“These texts are the texts clear meaning….”
That’s a tricky statement….It wasn’t so clear to Martin Luther. He agonized for years before he came to an understanding that pulled him out of the “works righteousness” frame of Medievel Rome.
Post-enlightenment modernists presume a “self-evident” reading that often can’t carry the freight of a closer reading, as in the common genre errors in much popular interpretation.
“Clear meaning” often means “those who share my position.”
Thanks for the theopedia link. It looks like a valuable resource. I couldn’t find anything on the link you provided though.
Jesse,
Do you accept Wright’s three-tier approach to dikaiosune theou?
Paul is forever immersed in OT themes. There’s an overarching motif that best explains what he’s saying.
The legal aspect that you tend to favor is just one tier. Let’s not mistake it for the whole.
I got to a good discussion of the New Perspective at theopedia by starting at the home page and search New Perspective. Good stuff there.
Come on evangelicals. Put aside this conversation. Pick up Barth and read him from beginning to end. Then when we understand that context is first and foremost a theological and worship reality, and that history for the Christian is so different than history as the modern world has told us, maybe our conversations will move beyond halls of mirrors trying to one-up echo chambers.
Alan,
Be careful about assuming how many of us commenting on this blog would wear the descriptor “evangelical.”
@ Kyle
You make a good point. It’s unfortunate that a comment section to a post on a blog doesn’t allow the space to provide a thorough analysis of my position, presuppositions, worldview, etc…
In regards to clear meaning, if a text found within a didactic portion of the Scripture says “the righteousness of God through faith” or “justified by faith” then that’s fairly clear. Of course, it’s important to understand how Paul used similar language, and on and on, but that’s a straight forward statement that can even be validated through a plethora of cross references.
On another note, could we not presume that Luther may not have grasped the significance of the meaning of Romans 1.16-18 since God did not give him the ability to do so? (1 Cor. 1.18; example of Jesus and disciples Luke 10.43-45).
In his own experience, it appears that his encounter with God through this text may have marked the beginning of his salvation. Here are his own words:
At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’” There I began to understand [that] the righteousness of God is . . . righteousness with which [the] merciful God justifies us by faith. . . . Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates (Martin Luther: Selections, pp. 11-12)
So, could you not agree that some people may “understand” what a text says, but not grasp the “significance” of it in their life and how it applies to them?
Jesse,
“So, could you not agree that some people may “understand” what a text says, but not grasp the “significance” of it in their life and how it applies to them?”
Absolutely. The converse is also true. The broader message of scripture may be grasped even through a misunderstanding of a particular text. I think that is one of NT Wright’s important ideas. The grace fo God has not been hindered by an inadequate reading. The better reading that is now possible due to greater clarity of the historical context serves to open up the message of the scripture even more.
double blah! as i’ve always said, when you’ve read one of wright’s books, you’ve read them all. he, like vivaldi, only ever knows one tune. so yes, blah. im surprised anyone devotes such time to him.
Jim,
Perhaps we’re slow of learning and need to hear these truths over and over to get them.
@ Kyle:
Yes, the converse can be true. The only reason I brought in the historical surroundings of Luther’s difficulties with the passage of Romans 1.16-17 was to clarify a misapplication on your part of his difficulties with the passage.
Has Wright and company shed light on the history surrounding Paul? Yes. Has this in turn led to greater clarify of the metanarrative of Scripture? Yes. Does this appropriate new understanding to the Gospel, perhaps in some ways yes, but in general no.
If you will, I would like to know how you would answer this question, “How is a person made right before God?”
Jesse,
A person is made right before God because of Jesus’ work on the cross (Romans 8:3)which delivers us from the guilt of sin (Rom.8:1)and his resurrection that delivers us from the power of sin (Rom. 6:4) which works ultimately to deliver us from the presence of sin (Rom. 5:1,2). Freed thereby from the isolating bondage of sin, the Holy Spirit brings us into the community of the people of God through the gift of faith where we now found ourselves living in his power in submission to the Lord Jesus and one another. We are in ChristWe becoming restored humanity, the “one new man” (Eph, 2:15) [TC, I like "man" here far better than "humanity".]) living coram deo, before the face of God, in the fulness of Jesus’ high priestly prayer (John 17). The world witnesses this transformation and, and through the Spirit’s work, longs to be a part of the family. As they come to Christ from every tongue, tribe and nation, we welcome them with the joy that is the kingdom of God. As a result, anticipating Alan’s question, we exercise the stewardship that is ours over creation, and all is restored to the glory of God, praise his incomparable name.
There you have it, my best reading. Miss any part, and we are not where the Lord would have us be. We are not yet “right before God.” But he is gracious, and faithful to his promises.
Jesse,
Question for you: is God’s intent to save people or to save the world?
Will,
I agree with you that if we let the story take so much precedence over the details that we misinterpret the details then we’ve failed at the exegetical task. The issue, though, is that we have to prove that’s the case.
Right! And you’ll notice I haven’t commented on whether one person’s story or detail work is correct or not. I’ve been trying to balance the equation between the “story” folks and the “detail” folks.
There is most definitely an interplay between macro- and micro-exegesis. But a valid story or system will be able to consistently understand the details in light of the story, and will be able to understand the story in light of the details. However, I do think that the story is the controlling factor here, not the other way around.
Obviously, I agree with you about the interplay. Yet I’ll have to draw a line at saying the story is “the” controlling factor. The story is “a” controlling factor (as I commented on your blog), but it is not “the” controlling factor. As I’ve argued before, one cannot know the story fully without knowing the details, and one cannot know the details well without knowing the story. It’s a “mysterious” spiral affecting us all, even if we don’t want to recognize it.
Kyle,
Nailed me there. I apologize for the sloppy talk.
We all have “sloppy talk” so no biggie.
My issue is with abstractions, boiling reality down to propostional statements that guts life of mystery and vitality.
I hear you on abstractions and the lack of mystery. In fact, it’s the mystery of the hermeneutical spiral of how we understand truth that I’ve been arguing here. Yet we need to be careful that in our embrace of mystery and anti-abstractionism we don’t go so far as to ignore details that have been revealed and propositional statements that add to the story and not take away from it.
God is the Doer of Great Deeds, is he not? The story itself is able to reveal far more than our systematizing of it.
Depends on what we mean by “reveal”, I guess. Our systematizing of God’s revelation helps us understand things we may not have understood by simply looking at the story itself. Yet the story helps us to understand these systematizing positions in the correct light.
Meto,
“Depends on what we mean by “reveal….”
Revelation works beyond our rationality, doesn’t it? Reason is a critical component of our being. Through reason we certainly access qualities of truth. Ultimate revelation, however, comes in qualities of personhood that are not constrained by reason. It includes the witness of glory from creation in the heavens and landscapes of God’s handiwork. It includes the wonder of birth and the burden of responsibility in new parents. Its the contemplative apprehension of the cross of Christ that stills every tongue. Its what Moses experienced in the cleft of the rock and Elijah in the cave. Words and rationality fail. Only the Holy Spirit who enlightens the eyes of our hearts can do the work.
I’m a little nervous about this statement:
“Our systematizing of God’s revelation helps us understand things we may not have understood by simply looking at the story itself.”
I want to slow down our “systematizing,” or at least take it with more than a few grains of salt. What is revealed beyond reason comes best through story. I think that’s why the Bible is first narrative, second prophetic declarations from the story, and third reflective applications of the story.
I really think the energy in the whole New Perspective dialogue is this longing to back to a more biblical way of receiving the sacred text. More about story, and less about the “knowledge that puffs up.”
Revelation works beyond our rationality, doesn’t it?
Ultimate revelation, however, comes in qualities of personhood that are not constrained by reason.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by these statements. Is revelation and reason incompatible? Is our rationality unable to comprehend revelation? Is God’s revelation to us non-rational or irrational? Maybe I’m dense, but I’m not clear on what you’re trying to say.
I want to slow down our “systematizing,” or at least take it with more than a few grains of salt.
I can honestly say that I don’t want to slow down any systematization. I do want our systematizations to be done in such a way that we take into account the redemptive-historical “story” and the literary structures and genres of Scripture so that they are not divorced from these things. But systematization is necessary. Without systematization you have no statement of the Triune nature of God, Without systematization you have no understanding of the covenant community we call the church. And in my understanding, without systematization we can’t even understand the story, because the story itself must be “systematized” to a certain extent for us to be clear on what the story is. As I said in a previous comment, people have been getting the story wrong for ages. Why? Because they have “systematized” the story incorrectly.
What is revealed beyond reason comes best through story.
I’m still unclear about what you mean by “beyond reason” (is the story itself beyond reason so that it is not understandable by reason?). But that phrase aside, does your statement mean God’s laws in Exodus, or the poetry of the Psalms, or the wisdom literature of the OT, or the epistles of the NT are not the best revelation?
I think that’s why the Bible is first narrative, second prophetic declarations from the story, and third reflective applications of the story.
That’s an oversimplification, Kyle. Much in Scripture is narrative for sure, but even narrative contains instructions, laws, poetry, proverbs, etc., as well as prophetic declarations, and yes, even applications of the story.
And this is the very reason I’ve been so adamant about saying the story is not “the” controlling factor. There is a tendency to oversimplify when the story is elevated higher in our exegetical endeavors then it should be.
I really think the energy in the whole New Perspective dialogue is this longing to back to a more biblical way of receiving the sacred text.
The New Perspective does bring some of this kind of thinking further to the forefront, which can be a good thing. But I disagree that this focus is necessarily “a more biblical way of receiving the sacred text” than other methods. Of course, part of our disagreement on this point would be the “hermeneutic” of how to understand the descriptor “biblical.”
More about story, and less about the “knowledge that puffs up.”
Oh . . . and I guess it’s impossible for those who have knowledge about “the story” to be “puffed up” over such knowledge, right?
Meto,
“Ultimate revelation, however, comes in qualities of personhood that are not constrained by reason.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by these statements. Is revelation and reason incompatible? Is our rationality unable to comprehend revelation? Is God’s revelation to us non-rational or irrational? Maybe I’m dense, but I’m not clear on what you’re trying to say.”
I’m sure you would agree that our reason is inadequate to comprehend God. I’ve discovered my reason is inadequate to comprehend my wife, for crying out loud. I still try to understand and respond to her in the give and take of love, but she truly becomes frustrated with me., from time to time.
I like Anselm’s “faith seeking understandng.” Revelation is a personal, transformative encounter with God. I can and must reflect upon that encounter with my reason to integrate the encounter or event into my life. I articulate the experience in bearing witness to others which crystalizes the reality of the revelation into words. I listen to how others articulate their experience and seek to understand. I view the Bible as the divinely inspired, unique articulation of revelation and seek to understand it. Revelation, however, is deeper than my reflection upon it.
When Jesus said, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free,” (John 8:31,32) he was talking about more than the philosophical pursuit, wasn’t he? He was saying more than, “Think about my ideas and you’ll get it.”
I don’t think of myself as an existentialist (way too solipsistic). Knowing Christ, however, is more personal encounter than reflective exercise, and the thought that necessarily follows encounter is secondary, though not unimportant.
I keep pressing the story issue because story touches more than ideas. I’ve spent the last week, for example, reflecting upon Elijah’s experience in the cave from 1 Kings 19. Profound encounter. He comes out of that cave different than when he went in, but the story doesn’t tell us why or how. We just get the story because, I believe, the story (and the Holy Spirit) is enough to get us where the Lord wants us. Now I can talk a lot, and have, about what I think is going on in the cave, but when it comes down to it, the best, truly, the best I can do is leave it to the story to do what God wants to do with it.
That’s what I mean by “beyond reason.” Our lives transcend our thoughts about our lives. Richer, deeper, more real. I can tell you the lessons I’ve learned in the past fourty years, and you’d begin to understand me. Better, though, is for me to tell the stories of my life, share the joys and sorrows, victories and failures. We would connect more deeply thereby, especially as you share your stories in return.
That’s what the Lord is doing in the revelation of scripture. We can think about it, feel it, sense it, but then comes the deeper movement of the Spirit that draws us into his presence.
And you are right. Knowledge about the stories puffs up as much as any other kind of seconary reflection. In the revelation of God, however, we meet together on our knees in profound humility before his glory. At least, that’s how the story goes.
@ Kyle:
Thanks for your thorough response.
Could you please clarify this last point, “We are not yet “right before God.” But he is gracious, and faithful to his promises?”
If we are not right before God, then what must we do to be right before Him? When does this occur?
In a very pratical sense, what would you tell a person on their death bed that desired to be made right with God?
Thanks again Kyle. I’m enjoying dialouging with you.
Jesse,
I’m going to decode “right before God.” I know we both know what you mean. You mean: accepted by God, not matter what. I’ll answer that directly. “Right before God” can also mean something like “functioning according to design” as in fully responsive to his will.
We are right before God, in the first sense, when by the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives we experience the gift of faith that comes with the revelation of his grace to us because of Jesus work on the cross.
The fruit of that revelation is the second sense of “right before God.”
To be honest with you, my fear is that there is a truncated gospel floating around out there that offers the first sense in a way that hinders the development of the second sense. Kind of like a pregnancy that leads to a still birth.
What would I tell someone on their death bed?
“God loves you so much. Jesus died so you can know thatwhatever you did in your life before this moment really doesn’t matter all that much in light of an endless eternity. Any burden of guilt you may have Jesus has taken for you. Don’t let that nagging voice of condmnation keep you from God’s eternal love. Just open your heart to Jesus and he’ll take care of you now and for ever.”
Or something to that effect.
What would I tell someone on their death bed?
“God loves you so much. Jesus died so you can know thatwhatever you did in your life before this moment really doesn’t matter all that much in light of an endless eternity. Any burden of guilt you may have Jesus has taken for you. Don’t let that nagging voice of condmnation keep you from God’s eternal love. Just open your heart to Jesus and he’ll take care of you now and for ever.”
So Kyle . . . is there no hope in the gospel for the person on their death bed?
Meto,
“So Kyle . . . is there no hope in the gospel for the person on their death bed?”
What am I missing? Sincere question.
@ Kyle:
Excellent point about “right before God.” You’re right in saying that many have a truncated notion of the Gospel in that it makes us right before God, so, I don’t have to do anything else since I raised my hand and walked forward to the alter to pray the “sinners prayer.”
The Gospel not only makes us right before God (in the legal standing sense), but also enables us to work out this righteousness. I think this is no clearer said than in Titus 2.11-14.
Thanks for sharing.
Kyle,
“What am I missing? Sincere question.”
Looking back, I think I misread your statement and made an assumption about what you were saying. Forgive me.
Kyle,
I’m sure you would agree that our reason is inadequate to comprehend God.
To comprehend God fully, yes. And I’m sure you would agree that we can comprehend God to a certain extent.
I’ve discovered my reason is inadequate to comprehend my wife, for crying out loud. I still try to understand and respond to her in the give and take of love, but she truly becomes frustrated with me., from time to time.
I’m with ya!
I like Anselm’s “faith seeking understandng.”
Me too, but I would guess we might formulate the application of Anselm’s principle a little differently.
Revelation is a personal, transformative encounter with God.
Revelation is personal because God is personal and he reveals his truth to personal beings. But if we believe the Scriptures themsevles to be breathed out by God, then the Scriptures are revelation even if I am not transformed by them or “encounter” God through them (although I would argue that everyone encounters God in a sense whenever they are exposed to the Scriptures, even if they don’t sense that it is an encounter). That is the difference between “revelation” and “illumination.”
I can and must reflect upon that encounter with my reason to integrate the encounter or event into my life. I articulate the experience in bearing witness to others which crystalizes the reality of the revelation into words. I listen to how others articulate their experience and seek to understand. I view the Bible as the divinely inspired, unique articulation of revelation and seek to understand it. Revelation, however, is deeper than my reflection upon it.
While I might word this paragraph differently (I would talk about revelation more in terms of Scripture, and my “encounter” as my existential apprehension of it), I generally agree with it.
When Jesus said, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free,” (John 8:31,32) he was talking about more than the philosophical pursuit, wasn’t he? He was saying more than, “Think about my ideas and you’ll get it.”
Sure, but I think it’s a jump to say Jesus wasn’t talking about truth as ideas but truth as story if that’s where you’re going with this.
I don’t think of myself as an existentialist (way too solipsistic). Knowing Christ, however, is more personal encounter than reflective exercise, and the thought that necessarily follows encounter is secondary, though not unimportant.
Again, I might word these thoughts a little differently, but in general I agree. I cannot reason my way to Christ. He must, by his Spirit, give me new birth in order to see the kingdom.
I keep pressing the story issue because story touches more than ideas.
I have a hard time affirming this statement without some further explanation . . . the problem is that in order to explain what story “touches on” has to do so by using ideas which seems to negate the premise itself.
I’ve spent the last week, for example, reflecting upon Elijah’s experience in the cave from 1 Kings 19. Profound encounter. He comes out of that cave different than when he went in, but the story doesn’t tell us why or how. We just get the story because, I believe, the story (and the Holy Spirit) is enough to get us where the Lord wants us. Now I can talk a lot, and have, about what I think is going on in the cave, but when it comes down to it, the best, truly, the best I can do is leave it to the story to do what God wants to do with it.
And what does God want to do with it? Does he want us to contemplate what happened in the cave, or does he want us to see that lack of detail in line with some larger purpose? And how do we make such judgment calls? This is why I keep pushing something other than merely story . . . because in the end story leaves a lot to be desired in trying to understand what God is actually saying to us.
And you are right. Knowledge about the stories puffs up as much as any other kind of seconary reflection. In the revelation of God, however, we meet together on our knees in profound humility before his glory. At least, that’s how the story goes.
Yes, I’m certain that in comparison with our current debates and discussions, when Christ is revealed in all his glory and we are included in that glory, we will be silenced of our vain thoughts and find only the words to give praise and adoration to our Savior and King.
Truth ultimately is about friendship, love. John 17 must be the highest expression of the experience of truth in scritpure. I’ve always loved John 17:17, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word us truth.” May we all meet together there, in the heart of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
TC I cannot believe I wrote my second comment here. I’m deeply sorry for how disappointing and un-Christian it was and I am encouraged that you had the heart to allow it to remain on your page and offer no criticism in return.
I’m not sure what was going on but I was previously a full-time student and employee, combining to a one-hundred-plus-hour work-week. The tiredness must have been an influence here.
I was wrong though.
God bless,
Michael
Michael,
Thanks. We’re cool.