I recently wrote a paper (a beginner’s effort) on NT Wright and justification. In the process, I came across Michael Bird’s The Saving Righteousness of God: Studies on Paul, Justification and the New Perspective. I received the book too late to really read it for my paper; now, I want to read the book and interact with it. So, here begins a series of posts on Bird’s important contribution to the current discussion of justification. To say that I am liveblogging is a bit of whimsy: it will be as live as blogging while I read and think about Michael Bird’s book. (FYI, here, again, is Michael Bird’s blog, and here is a link to his publications, bio, etc.

Introduction.
In this first post, I’ll interact with Bird’s introductory chapter 1, which is short.

From the very beginning, Bird makes it clear that this book has the ambitious goal of drawing together two approaches to justification which have been in contention and even hot dispute.

The burden of this project is to demonstrate that reformed and “new” readings of Paul are indispensable to attaining a full understanding of Paul’s soteriology. An analysis of Galatians and Romans demonstrates that the covenantal and forensic dimensions of justification go hand in glove. . . . This is a book I felt I had to write . . . also to offer a conciliatory and mediating position in the current war being waged in evangelicalism about justification, the New Perspective on Paul, and NT Wright.

–Bird, The Saving Righteousness of God, p. 1, [from now on, when I give only a page number, I am referring to this book of Bird’s].

What then, are the strengths and weakness of both views as Bird sees them?

(more…)

I’ve touched up my posts on the effect that NT Wrights’ views of law and righteousness have on his understanding of the significance of justification.  The first post is here.

Overview of this series

1. First post, background issues
2. Example passages
3. Reductionism in Wright
4. Conclusion (This post)

Conclusion

I’ve read a quote relevant to the NPP, but I don’t know what the source is at the moment. The substance of the quote is: “the NPP is right in what it affirms and wrong in what it denies.” Perhaps another way of saying this with respect to Wright is “what lies within his approach to law is useful, what he has fenced out of his approach is critical.” (more…)

Overview of this series

1. First post, background issues
2. Example passages
3. Reductionism in Wright (This post)
4. Conclusion

Reductionism in Wright

But, (did you sense the “but” coming?)—Wright has been extraordinarily reductionist even as he has recovered this emphasis. Wright does a fascinating job of helping us understand the significance of, say, circumcision as a work of the law. But his approach to the totality of law is baffling. Yes, one can see how a part of the law consists of covenant markers, but law necessarily must also contain God’s moral standard for Israel. Further, one can see how God’s righteousness might be revealed in his covenant faithfulness, but God’s righteousness is surely “wider” than his faithfulness to the covenant. Consider the following passage from Deuteronomy: (more…)

Overview of this series

1. First post, background issues
2. Example passages (This post)
3. Reductionism in Wright
4. Conclusion

 
Example passages

At this point, it might be helpful to see some of Wright’s interpretation at work.

Passage 1:

Romans 3:20-22a: For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it–the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

This becomes, roughly:

By covenant markers such as circumcision, no one will be justified in his sight. Through faith in God’s covenant faithfulness demonstrated in Christ, the faithful can become members of the covenant and reckoned righteous by God as a result of being covenant members, but independent of covenant markers such as circumcision. The true covenant marker is faith in the covenant faithfulness of God

(more…)

I finished my paper on NT Wright and justification. Here is a stripped down and simplified summary of my main take on what leads Wright’s view of justification to be different from a classical Reformational view, in four posts.

Overview

1. First post, background issues (This post)
2. Example passages
3. Reductionism in Wright
4. Conclusion

First post, background issues

In order to “get” Wright on justification, one has to understand his hermeneutical approach to the New Testament, which is foundational to how he reads Paul. Wright is pursuing a rigorously Jewish reading of Paul–specifically, a Second Temple Judaism (”STJ”) reading. Wright thinks that one must grasp the STJ worldview through its own narrative self-understanding. Looking at Paul as the writer of abstract theological truths won’t do. One must understand how Paul, a Jew who came to view Jesus as the Messiah, would have understood Jesus within the narrative expectations of STJ. One of the aspects of STJ’s self-understanding was the narrative of God’s covenant. STJ was looking for God to fulfill his promises in the covenant—what Paul has to say about Jesus must be understood as an answer to the covenantal narrative questions and expectations of STJ, even if it was a startling, unexpected answer. (more…)

I am currently working on a paper for a Systematic Theology class. I’ve been wanting to sort through NT Wright (no relation), so I chose to write on Wright and justification. I have a way of not making things easy for myself.

It’s been one of my most challenging and humbling learning experiences ever, as I’ve struggled to “get” his way of reading things. I hope to write a bit about it when the paper is done. But here are a few preliminary thoughts on this first encounter with Wright.

• The man is a brilliant reader of and thinker about scripture.
• Trying to substantively disagree with a small part of his work without first immersing oneself in his larger approach is hopeless.
• Reading Wright will sharpen your (I include myself) understanding of scripture, whether you agree, disagree, or partly agree. In most any area you read of Wright’s large body of work, you will come away thinking about scripture (and its message) in new and fruitful ways.
• I am annoyed at the sub-Christian and unconstructive way this Christian is treated by some in some sectors (e.g., some in some Reformed sectors: here is an extreme example–search for the word “heresiarch”). I am also more understanding of why he causes alarm in those sectors, although that understandable alarm does not justify uncharitable discourse. (Wright himself can incur blame for reducing the level discourse, too).
• An adequate response to his work cannot rely merely on classical Protestant systematic theologies/confessions, because complex underlying presuppositional differences. Exegesis (that’s more obvious), Hermeneutics, and Biblical Theology all must be involved in evaluating Wright.
• At the same time, I am sympathetic with those who would rather just fence out his approach by appealing to Systematic Theology, because an adequate response is complex, requires much study and is at times highly frustrating to work towards. Further, he is not approaching things from a Systematics stand-point at all. Someone with a well-established Systematics/confession can be understood if they initially want to say: “Why should I have to re-cover so much ground that my Systematics/confession has already covered?”. I now better understand the impulses of some in the Reformed world who would rather appeal to Reformed confessions and move on. (Although, again, this won’t ultimately yield adequate responses).
• He is both a great resource for and a great challenge to Protestant approaches on Scripture, the Gospel, and theology.
• I disagree with him on a lot, but also agree with him on a lot (particularly the way he sheds light on how Jesus is the Messiah in accordance with and fulfillment of the scriptures). I am grateful for his scholarship.
• This blunt iron has been sharpened a bit by NT Wright.

Assuming Kendall Harmon is right, it looks as if Brevard Childs has passed on. Harmon provides some links to info on Childs and a useful short interview with Childs.

Update: Here’s Yale’s page on Childs.

HT: Jim West.