N.T. Wright

[JonC]

On another thread the discussion drifted (my fault this time) to N.T. Wright.

I made the comment that at one time most scholars considered Wright the expert in Pauline theology. These scholars include John Piper (one of my favorites), J.I. Packer, and R.C. Sproul to name a few. The time he was considered an expert was prior to his opinion that the Reformers had misjudged Pauline justification by allowing their circumstances with the Roman Catholic Church to influence their view of first century Judaism. This was followed by his "New Perspective on Paul" (NPP) which was an invitation to revisit doctrine based on first century Jewish views rather than a declaration of doctrine (Wright believed work and re-work needed to be done but also that his own conclusions were incomplete and imperfect).

As we (Christians) benefit the most from observations of Christians who hold different views I think there are things we can learn from Wright.

What I have recognized is Wright is right on his observation that the Jews did not look to a works-based salvation but rather held that they were God's covenant people based on being born into a nation that was chosen by God. The question then, for the Jew, was not salvation but how they would be considered righteous based on God's covenant. The issue was normally an issue of purity laws and how they reflect the Jew's state within God's covenant.

This was not, of course, a discovery by N.T. Wright because many of us knew this to be true prior to Wright's "discovery". This was a major theme during the Maccabean period and can be viewed throughout the Old Testament text.

The problem was not what Wright observed but that in observing it he challenged the Reform idea that views the first century Jewish religion as if it were the Roman Catholic Church and the first century Christian as if he were a part of the Reformation against the Roman Catholic Church.

In other words, the Reformers simplified the Jewish idea of covenantal justification to a child-like notion of "works-based salvation" that was in reality a critique of the RCC.

Since I do not agree with N.T. Wright why mention it?

Because while his conclusions may be wrong his observations are not.

 

[Yeshua1]

On another thread the discussion drifted (my fault this time) to N.T. Wright.

I made the comment that at one time most scholars considered Wright the expert in Pauline theology. These scholars include John Piper (one of my favorites), J.I. Packer, and R.C. Sproul to name a few. The time he was considered an expert was prior to his opinion that the Reformers had misjudged Pauline justification by allowing their circumstances with the Roman Catholic Church to influence their view of first century Judaism. This was followed by his "New Perspective on Paul" (NPP) which was an invitation to revisit doctrine based on first century Jewish views rather than a declaration of doctrine (Wright believed work and re-work needed to be done but also that his own conclusions were incomplete and imperfect).

As we (Christians) benefit the most from observations of Christians who hold different views I think there are things we can learn from Wright.

What I have recognized is Wright is right on his observation that the Jews did not look to a works-based salvation but rather held that they were God's covenant people based on being born into a nation that was chosen by God. The question then, for the Jew, was not salvation but how they would be considered righteous based on God's covenant. The issue was normally an issue of purity laws and how they reflect the Jew's state within God's covenant.

This was not, of course, a discovery by N.T. Wright because many of us knew this to be true prior to Wright's "discovery". This was a major theme during the Maccabean period and can be viewed throughout the Old Testament text.

The problem was not what Wright observed but that in observing it he challenged the Reform idea that views the first century Jewish religion as if it were the Roman Catholic Church and the first century Christian as if he were a part of the Reformation against the Roman Catholic Church.

In other words, the Reformers simplified the Jewish idea of covenantal justification to a child-like notion of "works-based salvation" that was in reality a critique of the RCC.

Since I do not agree with N.T. Wright why mention it?

Because while his conclusions may be wrong his observations are not.

Judaism at the time of Jesus was either liberal/Political, the Sadducees, or else into salvation by law and good works, the Pharisees, not at all as Wright supposes!

 

[JonC]

Judaism at the time of Jesus was either liberal/Political, the Sadducees, or else into salvation by law and good works, the Pharisees, not at all as Wright supposes!

Except we know your claim here is not true (based on early rabbinic literature and Jewish history as early to the 1st century as the Hasmonean dynasty).

This does not mean the NPP is correct. But to view 1st century Judaism as liberal/political and a works based salvation is an oversimplification to the point it is incorrect.

The Sadducees, Pharisees, and what we know of the Essenes (assuming scholars are correct about their association with the Dead Sea Scrolls) indicate tgat Jews in the 1st century were not looking to earn salvation per se but believed they were born into the people of God via a covenantal relationship. The question was what would establish Israel as righteous within God's covenant to bring about the Promise. This centered most often around purity laws.

The Sadducees focused on the Temple and viewed the Law as belonging to Israel as a nation to be observed in Temple sacrifice and ritual on behalf of the people. The Pharisees viewed the Law as belonging to the people and purity/ righteousness was a matter of individual obedience to the letter. The Essences focused on ritual purity and withdrew from a society they believed had drifted from God.

But the goal of each group was basically the same. None of them believed in a "works based salvation". None were what we would consider "liberal" in terms of politics (certainly the Sadducees were more liberal in terms of adhering to Scripture during the Macabbean period, but to use "liberal/ political" says nothing of their actual views).

What the Jews believed (all of the above mentioned groups) is that they were by birth God's chosen people and a part of God's covenant. Where they would ultimately stand "on that day" would be determined by where they stood in their present. That is where people like to simplify their belief as a "works based salvation". But it was not. The idea was covenantal. That is what you are missing.

The Jews affirmed a view that many of us hold today regarding salvation. What we do is not what saves us. But what we do can be a reflection of whether or not we are saved (and will be saved "on that day"). When someone abandons their faith we say he was never really one of us. For the Jew, he would have to do works that would show he was in a right covenantal standing (not to earn the standing - that was given as a birthright).

It is complex, I know. Perhaps that is why Wright insisted that none of those advocating the NPP have the answers but that we needed to move from the childishness of viewing the Jew as a Catholic and the Christian as a Reformer. If we cannot move from the false narrative, even if it simplifies things, then how can we ever hope to gain an understanding?

 

[atpollard]

Interesting observations. In many ways, the Jewish view of “I was born into a chosen people and only need to focus on living a life that reflects it” more closely mirrors the view of the modern world than the “working to earn a place in heaven” narrative. Most unsaved that I know have placed their trust in the fact that are not that bad and God is loving. The assumed default is we have been born into a “covenant” and only really bad people break that relationship.

It also shines light on “Christian Heroes” that fall from Grace. Once again, the Church is acting like the Pharisees and assuming that anyone that calls himself a Christian must be part of the “covenant” and we judge based on how well they uphold the public displays of personal righteousness. We would do well to remember the warning about the branches that were cut off. Growing up among the covenant people means nothing. Living in the covenant land means nothing. Even dressing and acting the part means nothing (remember the line about whitewashed tombs). A branch is either drawing life from the True Vine, or it is not.

However, all of the false religions of the world bear testimony that fallen man really IS drawn to a plan that allows us to work for our own redemption. Hinduism has Karma and reincarnation to empower man to work towards perfection. The Jehovah's Witnesses pour out their lives working to earn one of those 144,000 bus tickets to heaven. Islam is about good deeds being weighed against bad deeds. Works based salvation isn’t just a Catholic (Sacrament, Confession, Penance) thing. It is a fallen man maintaining control thing.

 

[JonC]

Interesting observations. In many ways, the Jewish view of “I was born into a chosen people and only need to focus on living a life that reflects it” more closely mirrors the view of the modern world than the “working to earn a place in heaven” narrative. Most unsaved that I know have placed their trust in the fact that are not that bad and God is loving. The assumed default is we have been born into a “covenant” and only really bad people break that relationship.

It also shines light on “Christian Heroes” that fall from Grace. Once again, the Church is acting like the Pharisees and assuming that anyone that calls himself a Christian must be part of the “covenant” and we judge based on how well they uphold the public displays of personal righteousness. We would do well to remember the warning about the branches that were cut off. Growing up among the covenant people means nothing. Living in the covenant land means nothing. Even dressing and acting the part means nothing (remember the line about whitewashed tombs). A branch is either drawing life from the True Vine, or it is not.

However, all of the false religions of the world bear testimony that fallen man really IS drawn to a plan that allows us to work for our own redemption. Hinduism has Karma and reincarnation to empower man to work towards perfection. The Jehovah's Witnesses pour out their lives working to earn one of those 144,000 bus tickets to heaven. Islam is about good deeds being weighed against bad deeds. Works based salvation isn’t just a Catholic (Sacrament, Confession, Penance) thing. It is a fallen man maintaining control thing.

Until this thread I had not realized just how close the Jewish view is to the doctrine of eternal security (a view I hold).

 

[atpollard]

Until this thread I had not realized just how close the Jewish view is to the doctrine of eternal security (a view I hold).

Almost more like the OSAS "easy-believeism" where one can continue to sin (like a reprobate) and still enter heaven with few blessings. Instead of a saying a simple prayer, they were "circumcised" to guarantee admission to the "club".

Then just as most Christians work hard because they are "saved", most Jews worked hard to obey the Law because they are Israel ... God's chosen people. Where Jesus turned their world upside down is where the church could stand to be turned upside down. We look at someone and ask "Do they 'Tithe'?" and "Are they divorced?". Jesus would look at the same person and ask "Do you clean the restrooms at the meeting house?" and "Have you mowed that widow's lawn?"

The Jews wanted someone to look like a Pharisee (externally Ritually perfect), and the Church tends to look for the same thing. Jesus went looking for Jews with the heart of a shepherd ... one who serves others and endures hardship to care for them. We could do a LOT worse than to adopt a similar attitude.

One observation that a Pastor once made to me was that he though that the reserved parking at the church he was helping out until they found a permanent pastor was all wrong. He thought that the parking spaces up front with the names painted on them should be for the people that volunteered in the nursery to take care of other peoples infants and toddlers during service. They were the heroes that deserved recognition, not the people that were being paid to be there. It is a good thing that God had called him into International Missionary work, because I don't think Chad has a heart for local church politics. But his thoughts had some merit.

I have stepped down from all Church leadership positions and responsibilities to deal with family issues. (God told me to take care of MY house first). However when I return to service, I think I want to be a "nobody". A man named Bill first demonstrated the position of a "nobody" by declining any offer to become a deacon or elder or head of anything that involved any title. However, every Saturday, Bill cuts the grass so the church looks good for Sunday Service. When there is a Thursday Potluck, Bill sets up the tables and takes them down. When a Tropical Storm caused a tree to fall in my backyard, Bill was one of the people that showed up with his pickup and chainsaw. Any time anyone asks bill what his "title" is, Bill just answers "I have no title, I'm a nobody." I want to be a "nobody" just like Bill.

 

[Revmitchell]

Almost more like the OSAS "easy-believeism" where one can continue to sin (like a reprobate) and still enter heaven with few blessings. Instead of a saying a simple prayer, they were "circumcised" to guarantee admission to the "club".

Then just as most Christians work hard because they are "saved", most Jews worked hard to obey the Law because they are Israel ... God's chosen people. Where Jesus turned their world upside down is where the church could stand to be turned upside down. We look at someone and ask "Do they 'Tithe'?" and "Are they divorced?". Jesus would look at the same person and ask "Do you clean the restrooms at the meeting house?" and "Have you mowed that widow's lawn?"

The Jews wanted someone to look like a Pharisee (externally Ritually perfect), and the Church tends to look for the same thing. Jesus went looking for Jews with the heart of a shepherd ... one who serves others and endures hardship to care for them. We could do a LOT worse than to adopt a similar attitude.

One observation that a Pastor once made to me was that he though that the reserved parking at the church he was helping out until they found a permanent pastor was all wrong. He thought that the parking spaces up front with the names painted on them should be for the people that volunteered in the nursery to take care of other peoples infants and toddlers during service. They were the heroes that deserved recognition, not the people that were being paid to be there. It is a good thing that God had called him into International Missionary work, because I don't think Chad has a heart for local church politics. But his thoughts had some merit.

I have stepped down from all Church leadership positions and responsibilities to deal with family issues. (God told me to take care of MY house first). However when I return to service, I think I want to be a "nobody". A man named Bill first demonstrated the position of a "nobody" by declining any offer to become a deacon or elder or head of anything that involved any title. However, every Saturday, Bill cuts the grass so the church looks good for Sunday Service. When there is a Thursday Potluck, Bill sets up the tables and takes them down. When a Tropical Storm caused a tree to fall in my backyard, Bill was one of the people that showed up with his pickup and chainsaw. Any time anyone asks bill what his "title" is, Bill just answers "I have no title, I'm a nobody." I want to be a "nobody" just like Bill.

I bet "Bill" didnt then brag about doing it on baptistboard.

 

[Calminian]

Would these verses bring enlightenment on this topic?

Rom. 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

Rom. 10:1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.​

 

[atpollard]

I bet "Bill" didnt then brag about doing it on baptistboard.

Of course not!
Bill is a Pentecostal.

Baptists have great conversations about what scripture teaches and form tight knit social clicks.

 

[Yeshua1]

Except we know your claim here is not true (based on early rabbinic literature and Jewish history as early to the 1st century as the Hasmonean dynasty).

This does not mean the NPP is correct. But to view 1st century Judaism as liberal/political and a works based salvation is an oversimplification to the point it is incorrect.

The Sadducees, Pharisees, and what we know of the Essenes (assuming scholars are correct about their association with the Dead Sea Scrolls) indicate tgat Jews in the 1st century were not looking to earn salvation per se but believed they were born into the people of God via a covenantal relationship. The question was what would establish Israel as righteous within God's covenant to bring about the Promise. This centered most often around purity laws.

The Sadducees focused on the Temple and viewed the Law as belonging to Israel as a nation to be observed in Temple sacrifice and ritual on behalf of the people. The Pharisees viewed the Law as belonging to the people and purity/ righteousness was a matter of individual obedience to the letter. The Essences focused on ritual purity and withdrew from a society they believed had drifted from God.

But the goal of each group was basically the same. None of them believed in a "works based salvation". None were what we would consider "liberal" in terms of politics (certainly the Sadducees were more liberal in terms of adhering to Scripture during the Macabbean period, but to use "liberal/ political" says nothing of their actual views).

What the Jews believed (all of the above mentioned groups) is that they were by birth God's chosen people and a part of God's covenant. Where they would ultimately stand "on that day" would be determined by where they stood in their present. That is where people like to simplify their belief as a "works based salvation". But it was not. The idea was covenantal. That is what you are missing.

The Jews affirmed a view that many of us hold today regarding salvation. What we do is not what saves us. But what we do can be a reflection of whether or not we are saved (and will be saved "on that day"). When someone abandons their faith we say he was never really one of us. For the Jew, he would have to do works that would show he was in a right covenantal standing (not to earn the standing - that was given as a birthright).

It is complex, I know. Perhaps that is why Wright insisted that none of those advocating the NPP have the answers but that we needed to move from the childishness of viewing the Jew as a Catholic and the Christian as a Reformer. If we cannot move from the false narrative, even if it simplifies things, then how can we ever hope to gain an understanding?

The Jews sought to obey a right standing with God due to keeping the Mosaic law, did not Paul say that was his very own story as a Pharisee?

 

[Yeshua1]

Would these verses bring enlightenment on this topic?

Rom. 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

Rom. 10:1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.​

pail and Wright disagree on the state of Judaism at time of Christ!

 

[Calminian]

Wright is an intellectual scripture twister, along with John Walton. I suffered through a book of theirs on the Adam and Eve. Torture.

To the OP's point, that doesn't mean he's wrong on everything, but I'm skeptical on just about everything he says.

 

[Yeshua1]

Except we know your claim here is not true (based on early rabbinic literature and Jewish history as early to the 1st century as the Hasmonean dynasty).

This does not mean the NPP is correct. But to view 1st century Judaism as liberal/political and a works based salvation is an oversimplification to the point it is incorrect.

The Sadducees, Pharisees, and what we know of the Essenes (assuming scholars are correct about their association with the Dead Sea Scrolls) indicate tgat Jews in the 1st century were not looking to earn salvation per se but believed they were born into the people of God via a covenantal relationship. The question was what would establish Israel as righteous within God's covenant to bring about the Promise. This centered most often around purity laws.

The Sadducees focused on the Temple and viewed the Law as belonging to Israel as a nation to be observed in Temple sacrifice and ritual on behalf of the people. The Pharisees viewed the Law as belonging to the people and purity/ righteousness was a matter of individual obedience to the letter. The Essences focused on ritual purity and withdrew from a society they believed had drifted from God.

But the goal of each group was basically the same. None of them believed in a "works based salvation". None were what we would consider "liberal" in terms of politics (certainly the Sadducees were more liberal in terms of adhering to Scripture during the Macabbean period, but to use "liberal/ political" says nothing of their actual views).

What the Jews believed (all of the above mentioned groups) is that they were by birth God's chosen people and a part of God's covenant. Where they would ultimately stand "on that day" would be determined by where they stood in their present. That is where people like to simplify their belief as a "works based salvation". But it was not. The idea was covenantal. That is what you are missing.

The Jews affirmed a view that many of us hold today regarding salvation. What we do is not what saves us. But what we do can be a reflection of whether or not we are saved (and will be saved "on that day"). When someone abandons their faith we say he was never really one of us. For the Jew, he would have to do works that would show he was in a right covenantal standing (not to earn the standing - that was given as a birthright).

It is complex, I know. Perhaps that is why Wright insisted that none of those advocating the NPP have the answers but that we needed to move from the childishness of viewing the Jew as a Catholic and the Christian as a Reformer. If we cannot move from the false narrative, even if it simplifies things, then how can we ever hope to gain an understanding?

Paul saw that they were seeking to get a right standing with God based upon observing the law though!

 

[Yeshua1]

Wright is an intellectual scripture twister, along with John Walton. I suffered through a book of theirs on the Adam and Eve. Torture.

To the OP's point, that doesn't mean he's wrong on everything, but I'm skeptical on just about everything he says.

Both of them will use the jargon of the Bible, but will vest different meanings into their terms...

 

[JonC]

The Jews sought to obey a right standing with God due to keeping the Mosaic law, did not Paul say that was his very own story as a Pharisee?

If you are asking if Paul said that he sought to obey a right standing with God by keeping the law....I think that that is something all believers believe. We are to obey God.

If you are asking if Paul indicated a belief as a Jew that salvation was works-based, then no...or at least that is not something indicated of Paul in Scripture. There is an issue with keeping the "letter" and not the "spirit" of the Law (legalism) but Scripture is pretty clear that God wants obedience.

I think you may be missing the larger point here.

The Reformers rightly addressed through theology the circumstances they were experiencing with the Roman Catholic Church. This is what theology does. Good theology is ALWAYS contemporary in that it addresses contemporary issues (it is applicable, not just academic). But at the same time they missed what history and Scripture shows us of Jewish belief.

 

[JonC]

Almost more like the OSAS "easy-believeism" where one can continue to sin (like a reprobate) and still enter heaven with few blessings. Instead of a saying a simple prayer, they were "circumcised" to guarantee admission to the "club".

Then just as most Christians work hard because they are "saved", most Jews worked hard to obey the Law because they are Israel ... God's chosen people. Where Jesus turned their world upside down is where the church could stand to be turned upside down. We look at someone and ask "Do they 'Tithe'?" and "Are they divorced?". Jesus would look at the same person and ask "Do you clean the restrooms at the meeting house?" and "Have you mowed that widow's lawn?"

The Jews wanted someone to look like a Pharisee (externally Ritually perfect), and the Church tends to look for the same thing. Jesus went looking for Jews with the heart of a shepherd ... one who serves others and endures hardship to care for them. We could do a LOT worse than to adopt a similar attitude.

One observation that a Pastor once made to me was that he though that the reserved parking at the church he was helping out until they found a permanent pastor was all wrong. He thought that the parking spaces up front with the names painted on them should be for the people that volunteered in the nursery to take care of other peoples infants and toddlers during service. They were the heroes that deserved recognition, not the people that were being paid to be there. It is a good thing that God had called him into International Missionary work, because I don't think Chad has a heart for local church politics. But his thoughts had some merit.

I have stepped down from all Church leadership positions and responsibilities to deal with family issues. (God told me to take care of MY house first). However when I return to service, I think I want to be a "nobody". A man named Bill first demonstrated the position of a "nobody" by declining any offer to become a deacon or elder or head of anything that involved any title. However, every Saturday, Bill cuts the grass so the church looks good for Sunday Service. When there is a Thursday Potluck, Bill sets up the tables and takes them down. When a Tropical Storm caused a tree to fall in my backyard, Bill was one of the people that showed up with his pickup and chainsaw. Any time anyone asks bill what his "title" is, Bill just answers "I have no title, I'm a nobody." I want to be a "nobody" just like Bill.

I do not draw a distinction between "eternal security" and OSAS (both affirm that once a person is saved they are always saved, eternally secure in Christ).

But it is similar, IMHO, to Jewish belief because ones actions indicate a spiritual state (either right with the old covenant, or right with the new covenant). Neither views the actions of the person as placing the individual in that position.

That's what I was thinking, anyway.

 

[Yeshua1]

If you are asking if Paul said that he sought to obey a right standing with God by keeping the law....I think that that is something all believers believe. We are to obey God.

If you are asking if Paul indicated a belief as a Jew that salvation was works-based, then no...or at least that is not something indicated of Paul in Scripture. There is an issue with keeping the "letter" and not the "spirit" of the Law (legalism) but Scripture is pretty clear that God wants obedience.

I think you may be missing the larger point here.

The Reformers rightly addressed through theology the circumstances they were experiencing with the Roman Catholic Church. This is what theology does. Good theology is ALWAYS contemporary in that it addresses contemporary issues (it is applicable, not just academic). But at the same time they missed what history and Scripture shows us of Jewish belief.

The Pharisees believed that they were in right standing with God by virtue of their birthright, as being under the Mosaic Covenant, and also by them keeping the law in a fashion that merited favor of God!

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not draw a distinction between "eternal security" and OSAS (both affirm that once a person is saved they are always saved, eternally secure in Christ).

But it is similar, IMHO, to Jewish belief because ones actions indicate a spiritual state (either right with the old covenant, or right with the new covenant). Neither views the actions of the person as placing the individual in that position.

That's what I was thinking, anyway.

The Jews at the time of Jesus did really believe and hold that they merited favor of God by works of the Law!

 

[Calminian]

....If you are asking if Paul indicated a belief as a Jew that salvation was works-based, then no...or at least that is not something indicated of Paul in Scripture. ....

Did you not see these passages written by Paul?

Rom. 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

Rom. 10:1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.​

 

[37818]

The Jews at the time of Jesus did really believe and hold that they merited favor of God by works of the Law!

Where?