PAUL AND THE FAITHFULNESS OF GOD:

A RESEARCH, REVIEW ESSAY

__________________

A Paper

Presented to

Dr. John Taylor

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for NEWTS 5363

__________________

by

Michael Metts

August 8, 2014

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1

Methodology ................................................................................................................3

Chapter Nine: The One God of Israel Freshly Revealed ...............................................................................................4

1 Corinthians 8:6 and the Shema .........................................................................5

Philippians 2 and Isaiah 45 .................................................................................6

Wayne Meeks The First Urban Christians, Chapter Six, Patterns of Belief and Patterns of Life ...................................................................................7

Wright's Development of Meeks .........................................................................8

Chapter Ten: The People of God, Freshly Reworked............................................................................................10

Romans 24 .......................................................................................................10

Galatians 23 .....................................................................................................16

Justification by Fatih .........................................................................................18

Chapter Eleven: God's Future for the World, Freshly Imagined .................................................................................22

Galatians 46 .....................................................................................................22

Romans 911 .....................................................................................................23

Critical Evaluation .....................................................................................................24

CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................28

BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................30

1

PAUL AND THE FAITHFULNESS OF GOD:

A RESEARCH, REVIEW ESSAY

To begin with N. T. Wrights book Paul and the Faithfulness of God1 is less a

conventional Pauline theology and more a social-scientific worldview and theological analysis,2

with the latter seen in light of the former. This paper will focus specifically on Wrights ninth,

tenth, and eleventh chapters. They are certainly the most important in the book. A presentation of

a full layout of this paper will be omitted in the interest of space, so the reader is encouraged to

use the provided Table of Contents where needed. The review will begin with a brief treatment

of methodology before moving to the exegetical discussions in Part III, Pauls Theology.

Because of the vast amount of detail in Wrights book, this essay will understandably invest

more space in explaining the selected chapters discussed above, and will necessarily narrow

further to specific material within these chapters. Only the most critical components that form

the structures of Pauls worldview and his reformulated theology within this worldview will be

discussed.

The review will also include additional works of Wright, particularly essays belonging

to Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul 19782013; and references will also be made to Paul:

In Fresh Perspective which in many ways anticipates the outline and content of the subject

1N. T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, vol. 4 of Christian Origins and the Question of God

(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013). All page references to the subject book will be made parenthetically in the

body of the paper. (A few content-footnotes will also reference the book, but this is unavoidable practically.)

Further, emphasis in cited material will only be noted if it has been added, not otherwise.

2Readers will find frequent references to anthropologist Clifford Geertz, and social-scientific New

Testament scholars Wayne A. Meeks and David G. Horrell throughout.

2

book.3 A critical evaluation section will follow the review and will be brief by comparison.

However, careful readers will find the criticisms firmly grounded if read in light of the preceding

and thorough analysis.

Quotations from the Greek New Testament are from the NA28

; transliterations all

come from Wright, though diacritical marks are not maintained; and all translations will be from

Wrights The New Testament for Everyone series; Old Testament citations are either from the

NRSV or LXX. Apart from the chosen Greek New Testament, the above choices are what

Wright himself consistently uses throughout his book.

Concerning his three-fold interpretive structures for understanding Pauline theology

monotheism, election, and eschatology Wright has previously stated: My proposal in this

second main part of the book is that Pauls thought can best be understood, not as an

abandonment of this framework, but as his redefinition of it around the Messiah and the Spirit.4

This Pauline worldview framework of Wrights is extensively detailed in the subject book,

specifically in chapters nine, The One God of Israel, Freshly Revealed (monotheism), ten The

People of God, Freshly Reworked (election), and eleven Gods Future for the World, Freshly

Imagined (eschatology). These three chapters pages 6191265 cover nearly six-hundred

fifty pages of the fifteen-hundred pages of material, i.e., more than forty-two percent of the entire

book! Nothing is more critical for Wright than these three worldview structures and how they are

redefined by the Messiah and the Spirit.5 Monotheism and election, for Wright, necessarily lead

3Wright, Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978 2013 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013);

idem, Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005).

4Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 84.

5See the graphic illustration on p. 615 for a visually informative understanding. Note: Wright does not

capitalize Spirit in Paul and the Faithfulness of God.

3

to the third, eschatology. The first two are the twin, chief pillars of Judaism, while the third is

seen by Wright as a necessary result of the first two.

Methodology

Wright begins the first chapter of his book with an exegesis of Philemon, but the real

focus of the chapter is on his worldview model. Wright's new worldview model is still informed

by earlier versions presented in both The New Testament and the People of God and Jesus and

the Victory of God (29 n.83).6 The model is composed of four inter-related elements: (1) stories,

(2) symbols, (3) praxis and (4) questions (28). Of these four, the review will treat three, omitting

questions (which are discussed in chapter eight, which is also omitted). In his earlier

groundbreaking book within the series, Wright explains that worldviews provide the stories

through which human beings view reality, and that praxes are a persons actions, a way-of-

being-in-the-world.7

Wright acknowledges that the first three are informative of the fourth, questions, so

nothing will be missed foundationally by excluding this category. The second and third

components, respectively symbols and praxis, are later merged together by Wright into one,

symbolic-praxis (this is due to the fact that when it comes to symbols, the earliest Christians

have left us virtually nothing, 352). In essence, then, this review will only treat stories and

symbolic-praxis in the discussion of Wrights worldview treatment of Paul.

When this worldview model is applied to Philemon in the beginning of the book, we

6Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1 of Christian Origins and Question of God

(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992); idem, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the

Question of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996).

7Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 123.

4

learn that Paul's governing symbolic-praxis is the unity of the Messiahs people, (30). Wright

explains the historical importance of this symbolic-praxis: This is new. There is no sign he is

appealing to, or making use of, the symbols and praxis of his native Jewish world, (30). This

novum of unity specifically a unity within the Jewish Messiah later becomes the most

important of the three worldview structures in Wrights treatment election. There will be

significantly more pages devoted to the chapter on election than the other two structures in both

Wrights book and the review of it below.

Wright aims for a coherent understanding of Paul. He writes of his concern for

coherence mostly towards the end of the first half of the work, Part II though much of his

critical concern to account for all of Pauline theology holistically is evidenced on nearly every

page. Again, chapter ten on election is the pivotal chapter:

The principal argument in favour of this entire hypothesis [i.e., the heart of Wrights Pauline theology, ch. 10] is the way in which the elements of Pauline soteriology come together in a fresh, and remarkably coherent, way when viewed from this angle. (830; see

also 835)

Chapter Nine: The One God of Israel, Freshly Revealed

Wright rapidly works through much of recent scholarly focus on the origins of (high)

christology, noting important contributions from each of the following scholars, though finding

their work in some ways incomplete for his purposes (64456): (1) Martin Hengel argued that

high-christology was both early and Jewish was to strike gold (647); (2) Larry Hurtados

emphasis on the pre-Christian Jewish world of quasi-divine figures such as patriarchs (Enoch,

Abraham, Moses), angels, possibly even a Messiah, and abstract entities such as wisdom

(650). This informs the first point of Hurtado, followed by his second: the early Christian

experience of the presence of the risen and exalted Jesus in worship and prayer formed the

5

context within which those pre-Christian Jewish ideas could come together and be formed into

a new pattern (650). (3) Chris Tilling, who seems to move more in the direction Wright is

headed, points out in considerable detail that Pauls descriptions of the relationship between the

early Christians and Jesus matches the scriptural descriptions of the relationship between Israel

and the One God (651) This God-relation pattern was then used by Paul to express the Christ-

relation (651).8 Finally, (4) Richard Bauckham offers a christology of divine identity in

which Jesus is included in the unique identity of this one God (651).9 Wright then develops

the identification models of both Tilling and Bauckham, although primarily Bauckham as the

footnotes throughout the chapter reveal, and this development is within Wrights own

Yahwehs return to Zion motif (653-706 passim).

1 Corinthians 8:6 and the Christian Shema

Concerning 1 Cor 8:6 There is one God, the father, from whom are all things, and

we to him; and one lord, Jesus the Messiah, through whom are all things, and we through him10

Wright states: the real shock of the passage is of course simply the expansion of the Shema

[, , ; LXX] to include Jesus within it (665).

Wright explains the identification as follows:

The force of the revision is obvious. What Paul has done is to separate out theos and kyrios, God and lord, in the original prayer, adding brief explanations: God is glossed with the father, with the further phrase about God as source and goal of everything, ourselves included, and lord is glossed with Jesus Messiah, with the further phrase about

8Citing Tilling, Pauls Divine Christology, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

323 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 256.

9Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New

Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) 3.

10Wright, 1 Corinthians, in Paul for Everyone [part of The New Testament for Everyone series]

(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004) 97.

6

Jesus as the means of everything, the one through whom all was made, ourselves included.

One God (the father), One lord (Jesus Messiah). (666)

Philippians 2 and Isaiah 45

In his exegesis of Phil 2:611 Wright joins together Bauckhams notion of divine

identity with his own motif of Yahwehs return to Zion (68090). Seeing in Phil 2:1011as

(That now at the name of Jesus every knee within

heaven shall bow on earth, too, and under the earth; and every tongue shall confess that Jesus,

Messiah, is lord)11 a now well recognized allusion to the LXX of Isa 45:23bs

(to me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall

swear), Wright demonstrates the portrait of the Messiah Jesus as explained in terms of the

Isaianic suffering servant who is subsequently exalted (683). Where Wright moves beyond

Bauckham and his monotheism of divine identity is in specifically drawing out the

christological focus of the ancient Isaianic hope for YHWHs return (683). The Messiah Jesus

is identified as Yahweh on account of the following: (1) In the Isaiah passage every tongue

confesses and every knee bows before Yahweh. (2) Jesus is observed within Philippians 2 to be

both the Isaianic servant, and he assumes the divine prerogatives of Yahwehs lordship,

specifically in the manner addressed in Isa 45:23b. (3) Just as in the original context of Isaiah

there is hope for Yahwehs regal return to Zion, presumably Wrights emphasis is on the

fulfillment found in Jesus own proclamation of the kingdom of God and his own entry into

Jerusalem. My argument so far is that the Jewish-style monotheism of divine identity which

Paul so emphatically reaffirmed had also emphatically been redrawn around Jesus (689; see

also 692).

11Wright, The Prison Letters: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon, Paul for Everyone

[part of The New Testament for Everyone series] (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004) 100.

7

Meeks The First Urban Christians, Chapter Six, Patterns of Belief and Patterns of Life

Wright shows his appreciation for Wayne Meeks book, The First Urban Christians,12

specifically chapter six detailing the way in which the little churches [of Paul] were an

expression of monotheism itself, in his previous Pauline work Paul: In Fresh Perspective.13

And as the footnotes suggests in the subject book, his work continues to be informed by Meeks.

At the outset of chapter nine, Wright states that We are here approaching the very centre of the

present book, the fulcrum around which the argument turns. Monotheism and its reframing is the

arrow that pierces the mid-point of the target (625; also citing the work of Meeks). So what

does Meeks say in chapter six of his work? And how does Wright develop Meeks in his

extensive project?

Meeks chapter emphasizes the social context of Pauline theology. Chief for Paul and

his churches is monotheism understood in the Jewish sense. With regard to Jewish monotheism

Meeks is able to say that Christians took over the Jewish position completely.14 In the Jewish

understanding monotheism sharply divided the ancient Mediterranean world between those who

serve the living, true God and the idol worshipers (1 Thess. 1:9).15 When gentiles entered the

12Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, 2nd ed. (New

Haven: Yale University Press, 2003).

13Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 106 (n.20 = p. 178).

14The affirmation that God is one is as basic to Pauline Christianity as it was to all Judaism (1 Thess. 1:9; Gal. 3:20; Rom. 3:30; Eph. 4:6; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; cf. 1 Cor. 11:12; 15:28; 2 Cor. 5:18). Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 165.

15Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 165.

8

churches of Paul, unity was emphasized because God was one.16

Under Meeks Correlations subheading he emphasizes the social dimensions that

correlate with the religious/theological symbolism of Christian practice. Three observations by

Meeks are identified here: (1) the symbol of the one true God finds its social correlate in the

Pauline assemblies themselves, which are frequently encouraged by Paul to remain in unity (as

Meeks substantiates). (2) The symbol of this one Gods personal and active nature revealed in his

Spirit correlates with the intimacy of the communities fellowship. Third and lastly, (3) the

symbol of eschatology finds its social correlate within the converted lives of Pauls churches

(i.e., converted from paganism or Jewish exclusivism) as well as the churches expectation of

Gods imminent return. Monotheism, election, eschatology.

Wrights Development of Meeks

Wright primarily shares and builds upon two basic principles of Meeks: (1) A

rethinking of traditional Judaism insofar as Paul and early Christians were concerned with her

now come but crucified Messiah; and (2) Meeks understanding of the Pauline churches as

meaningful expressions of the one, true God.

The churches of Paul were also novel in their christological confession of the one true

God. For example, Meeks writes: The addition of one Lord (Christ) and of Gods Son to the

confessional statements might be shocking to Jewish sensibilities, but the social implications of

Jewish monotheism remain intact.17 This speaks to Pauls reworking of the Jewish Shema seen

in Wrights exegesis above of 1 Cor 8:6, though not directly. Central to the revised monotheism

16Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 166.

17Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 167.

9

of Paul and his followers was the scandal of the crucified Messiah: For Paul and his circle,

however, the unexpected, almost unthinkable claim that the Messiah had died a death cursed by

the Law entailed a sharp break in terms of the way in which the people of God would henceforth

be constituted and bounded.18 It is for Meeks, as it is also for Wright, that the crucified Messiah

forms the basis of a structural shift of the whole pattern of beliefs, so that Pauline theology, in

the narrow sense, cannot be separated from christology.19 This is the sine qua non of Paul and

the Faithfulness of God and is observed in the work of a sociologist.

Wright also identifies the Pauline communities as expressions of monotheism in both

Paul and the Faithfulness of God, and his earlier book, Paul: In Fresh Perspective.20

In the

former he states:

They had to be the one-God people, but to be that people in a quite new way. A rethought

theology had to arise to do the worldview-work previously done by the social and cultural

boundary-markers. That is the challenge which drove Paul to some of his most breathtaking

theological reformulations, which until recently have passed with little exegetical comment

due to the fact that scholars were simply not asking the questions in the way that, I am

suggesting, it needs to be asked. (626)

As already discussed above, the cross especially (and together with the Spirit) forms the new

lenses through which Paul accomplishes his theological reformulations.

18Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 168. See further: For Paul himself, the central theological

problem is not just to spell out the implications of monotheism, but to explain how the unified purpose of God

through history could encompass the novum of the crucified Messiah. (An obvious point of elaboration for Wright.)

19Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 180.

20Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 106.

10

Chapter Ten: The People of God, Freshly Reworked21

This chapter is the heart of the book. Here Wright draws together his entire narrative

of Abraham, promise, Israel, covenant, the Messiah, justification by faith, the place of Torah,

Gods covenant faithfulness, etc. all within a lengthy but impressively coherent chapter; and it

is by far the lengthiest in the book. Attention here will be devoted specifically to Wrights

exegesis of selected chapters of Romans and Galatians; following this will be a section on

justification by faith which receives significant treatment in the chapter.

To begin with, Wright explains that the reason the creator God called Abraham in

the first place was to undo the sin of Adam and its effects (784; but see all of see 783815; esp.

references on 794 for substantiation). The purpose of Israel was one of vocation, to deal with the

problem perpetuated by Adam sin and evil set free within the created world. Covenant is the

vehicle through which Israel is to perform her vocation, according to Wright. As the covenanted

people of God, Israel does not exist for herself, or for her own self-boasting, but for her vocation

to the world to spread Gods sovereignty. She is a servant of God and through the work of the

servant, one may get things done (804). The central point of election for Wright, which is a sort

of single-word expression for the foregoing narrative of Israel, is that Paul now understands it as

being re-centered on Israels Messiah, Jesus (81525). The Messiah Jesus becomes, in effect,

Israel in person (828), and his Messiahship should be understood incorporatively (825).

Romans 24

Wright begins his exegetical case with Rom 2:19 (836f.) where Paul writes

21This is the central chapter of Wrights book where the entire portrait of Pauline theology is brought together. It is the chapter on election. It should be noted how Wright intends election to be understood, which is the divine choice of this people [Israel] for a particular purpose. (775).

11

, (supposing you believe yourself to be a

guide to the blind, a light to people in darkness).22 In the fresh perspective of Wright, he

seeks to illustrate the instrumentalizing of Israel, a fact discernible in the passages echoes of Isa

42:67 where Israel is observed to be an instrument in in the unfolding eschatological destiny of

the nations.23

There is no quarrel with Wrights fresh insights of certain verses of Romans 2 other

than that he seeks to establish his overall portrait of the passage, specifically 2:1724, as

fundamentally informative for the rest of Romans, as opposed to more traditional exegesis which

views the chapter as a stage in the development of Pauls argument concerning Gods wrath

against ungodliness, and how all the world is in sin, resulting in Rom 3:10s conclusive assertion

that . But the traditional evangelical reading Wright criticizes: Paul is

usually thought to be attempting to demonstrate that Israel, like the gentiles, is a nation of sinners

under judgment; this charge, and the arguments used, still seem puzzling.24

Regarding Rom 3:3 ; ,

this Wright exegetes as, What follows from that? If some were unfaithful [to

their commission], does their unfaithfulness nullify Gods faithfulness?25 As we shall see, the

22Wright, Romans Part One: Chapters 1 8, in Paul for Everyone [part of The New Testament for

Everyone series] (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004) 35.

23The echoes of Isaiah 42 are clear in what Paul writes. Wright, Romans 2.173.9: A Hidden Clue to the Meaning of Romans? in Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 1, no. 2 (2012): 125 (p. 13); reprinted in Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 19782013, 499. Isa 42:67, in the NRSV, states: I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the

people, a light to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the

prison those who sit in darkness (emphases added).

24Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 490. See further, The point of the passage is not, then, simply that all

Jews have sinned just as much as gentiles have done. I have come to regard the superimposition of this theme on top

of Romans 2.173.9 as among the most profound, if nearly universal, misreadings of the letter.

25Wright, Romans: Part One Chapters 1 8, 42. It should be noted that the brackets are added in Paul

and the Faithfulness of God (837), but are not included in the original The New Testament for Everyone version.

12

problem which Paul faces is not simply universal sin, but the failure of Israel to be faithful to

the divine vocation (3.23) (830).26 In his earlier book on Paul, Wright states, Israel has been

unfaithful to the commission God had given it.27 Wright elaborates: I propose, rather, that in

both passages [Rom. 2:1724 and 3:19] he is addressing a subtly but significantly different

point: that Israel, rightly aware of the vocation to be the light of the world, has failed in that

vocation.28

Also buttressing his case of Israel as Gods instrument purposed for a God designed

vocation is Wrights fresh analysis of an often neglected verse (Rom 3:2): []

the Jews were entrusted with Gods oracles.29 While the

larger exegetical discussion of this passage encompasses the pistis Christou debate, it is intended

here simply to point out that Wrights understanding of entrust involves vocation, one that

Israel was unfaithful in keeping. Israel, Paul is saying, has been entrusted with a commission,

namely, to convey ta logia theou to the rest of the world.30 The oracles God has given her are

not for her own sake, but part of her vocation in Gods greater plan to bring blessing to the

nations, a light to those in darkness. The word entrusted is always used by Paul in the same

sense that it bears in secular Greek: to entrust someone with something is to give them something

which they must take care of and pass on to the appropriate person (837). Wright continues

26The bearers of Gods solution are themselves, declare the prophets, part of the problem; and as the Old Testament writers address this problem they find ways of declaring that YHWH will nevertheless fulfill both the

original purpose through Israel and the contingent purpose for Israel. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 110.

27Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 119. God will keep to his plan, to save the world through Israel,

even though the chosen people are now bound up in the problem instead of being the bringers of the solution.

28Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 490 (emphasis added).

29Wright, Romans: Part One Chapters 1 8, 42.

30Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 491.

13

with another example, this time using Pauls own entrustment by God with the gospel, which

was not for Pauls own sake but that through Paul the gospel of God might come to the gentiles

(837). Where Israel was unfaithful with her vocation, the Messiah proves faithful (e.g., Rom

3:21). Wright continues:

I think Pauls point is that the pistis of Jesus is precisely his faithfulness to Gods Israel-shaped purpose; it is the faithfulness that, in 3.3, Israel had failed to offer the Israel-faithfulness, in other words, which was required for Gods original plan to go forward at last. Gods covenant justice has been displayed quite apart from the law; it comes into operation through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah, for the benefit of all who have

faith.31

This reading by Wright noticeably avoids the criticized notion that Paul was arguing

against Jewish works righteousness, since the boast of the Jew is not concerned with self-seeking

merit, but is seen rather as a boast concerning their place as Gods chosen instrument in the

worldwide plan of salvation. This will be considered below in the evaluation. Wrights fresh

reading also illumines Romans 911, which is also concerned to account for why Israel is cast

away so that salvation can come to the gentiles.32

In chapter ten of Wrights book we come close to the meaning of latter part of the

books title and the Faithfulness of God. If Israel has proved unfaithful in her vocation, what

does this mean for Gods own faithfulness? Has he been unfaithful to his covenant promises to

Abraham for the world? Wright invites a negative answer: The faithfulness of God at the end of

31Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 503. (Wrights does not identify a cause or source for his use of

inverted commas.) See also p. 504, My point then remains that what I have seen as the instrumentalizing of Israel now emerges as the instrumentalizing of Jesus himself: his death is the supreme faithfulness-to-God (which Israel

should have offered but did not), through which Gods saving plan for the world is now put into effect.

32Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 506. Wright collects four references from Romans 11: (1) By their

trespass, salvation has come to the nations (11.11); (2) Their trespass means riches for the world (11.12); (3) Their casting away, you see, means reconciliation for the world (11:15); (4) You have now received mercy through their disobedience (11:30). This is the ultimate secret of Gods plan, the mystery which has been unveiled in the gospel (11:25).

14

verse 3 is then, still, the determination of the covenant God to do what he has promised, even

if the people through whom the promised blessings were to be delivered seem to have let him

down through their own faithlessness (838). How does God prove faithful then? If God is

going to bless the world through Israel, he needs a faithful Israelite. In 3.2126, Paul argues that

this is exactly what has now been provided in the Jewish Messiah, Jesus (839).

Paul sees Jesus as the one who has been established as Messiah through his resurrection,

drawing Israels history to its strange but long awaited resolution, fulfilling the promises made to Abraham, inheriting the nations of the world, winning the battle against all the

powers of evil and constituting in himself the promise-receiving people, so that all in him might receive those promises, precisely not in themselves but insofar as, being in him, they are incorporated into the True Jew, the one in whom Israels vocation has been fulfilled. (830; emphases added)

This reading also explains with fresh light how Torah is established in 3:31:

; interpreted by Wright as Do

we then abolish the law through faith? Certainly not! Rather, we establish the law.33 Torah was

bound up with the covenant; the vocation; the divinely intended purpose of rescuing creation

(1034). Though in essence serving a negative purpose, it was still divine in its role of drawing

sin onto one place, in order that it might be condemned there (1034).34 Wright sees Torah, in a

manner, as bound up in the Messiahs death.

33Wright, Romans: Part One Chapters 1 8, 60.

34It is here, where, in his Romans and the Theology of Paul, that Wright begins to emphasize Rom

10:4 : There can be no covenant future for those Israelites who refuse to abandon their own, that is, their ethnic, status of covenant membership (10:3). Christ is the end of that road, the final goal of the covenant purpose which always intended to deal with sin and its effects (10:4); originally published in Romans, vol. 3 of Pauline Theology, eds. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson, Society of Biblical Literature 21

(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995) 578; reprinted in Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978 2013, 117. Wrights nine alphabetical-bulleted points are how he understands Pauls train of thought in regards to Romans chs. 911. See below.

15

Romans chapter four is explained as a commentary on the Abrahamic covenant, and

less as an explanation, for example, of justification by faith such as in traditional exegesis (see

esp. 998). In Rom 4:5, Paul, citing Gen 15:2, clearly understands reward in terms of the

inheritance, both human and geographical, which he has been expecting on the basis of Gods

earlier promises.35 Paul has widened the promise of the land to a promise about the whole

world in Rom 4:13: ,

, The promise, you see, didnt

come to Abraham or to his family through the law the promise, that is, that he would inherit the

world. It came through the covenant justice of faith.36 Wright also finds it meaningful that Paul

takes Gen 17:11s reference to the sign of the covenant, (LXX), in Rom 4:11,

as , a seal of the status of covenant membership, on the

basis of faith.37 That righteousness is in essence substituted by Paul for covenant in his citation

of Genesis certainly lends some credibility to Wrights case that righteousness language in Paul,

particularly Romans, is about Gods covenant faithfulness.

35Wright, Paul and the Patriarch: The Role(s) of Abraham in Galatians and Romans, in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35, no. 3 (2013): 210; reprinted and lengthened in Pauline Perspectives, 55492 (citing 558). See further, p. 562: My proposal, then, is that when Paul spoke of Abrahams misthos in Romans 4.4, he intended to refer to this promise and to his worldwide family, starting with the life-out-of-death Isaac and moving

on to the creation-out-of-nothing many nations. Cf. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ed. and trans. Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilber Gingrich [BDAG], 3rd ed.

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. .

36Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 55960; idem, Romans: Part One Chapter 1 8, 72. On the

universalizing of the land promise by Paul in Rom 4:13 see Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 84950.

37Wright, Romans: Part One Chapter 1 8, 68; idem, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 848, states it as

seal of the righteousness of faith.

16

Galatians 2338

Just as 1 Cor 8:6 forms a central passage for Pauls redefinition of Jewish

monotheism, Gal 2:1920 does the same for election, although there are others Wright discusses

(852f.).39

In Galatians chapter two, Peters actions in Antioch are understood by Paul to be an

abandonment of justification by faith. The movement by Peter back to works of Torah, or the

Jewish boundary markers, threatens the unity of the body; the men from James have

influenced Peter and other Jewish Christians to separate themselves from gentile Christians

during meals (854f.). Wright exegetes 2:18, if I build up once more the things which I tore

down, I demonstrate that I am a lawbreaker, as meaning that Peters actions threaten to

reconstruct the wall of separation between Jewish Christians and gentile Christians (859).40

In Galatians chapter three, Wright resumes his narrative exegesis, observing four

primary points: (1) Torah functions as a block to the promises God made to Abraham for the

world (Gal 3:1014; 8637). (2) The Abrahamic promise, as Paul understands it, takes

precedence over Torah (3:1518; 86870). (3) The purpose of Torah is essentially negative

(3:1922; 87073, 1034). Lastly, (4) Paul explains Torah as it now functions in light of the

Messiah (3:2329; 8736) the faithful Israelite who both succeeds in the vocation where Israel

failed, and bears the resulting and covenantal curse for this failure (1035). Judaism was bound to

treat Torah not as a puzzling vocation but as a badge of privilege. Torah set Israel apart from

the world (1034). The point is that Torah, while divine and just (see 1033), proved not to be the

problem Judaisms failure in her vocation did. Proving herself to be under the sin of Adam just

38Wright does include Gal 4:111 in this section but it is not clear how it contributes to his argument, so

it will not be treated.

39See also Wrights chapter on election in Paul: In Fresh Perspective, pp.10829; esp. 113.

40Wright, Galatians and Thessalonians, in Paul for Everyone [part of The New Testament for Everyone

series] (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004) 24.

17

as gentiles, boastful Judaism found herself as also part of the Creators problem. This results

in Torah as having an essentially negative effect. Torah also allowed the Creator to draw all sin

into a single place to be decisively dealt with:

Because he [the Messiah, Jesus] is Israels representative, he can be the appropriate substitute, can take on himself the curse of others, so they do not bear it any more. And the

point, once more, is not simply that those who were under the curse are now under it no longer. That is not what verse 14 says. The point is that the promise to Abraham, which had

got stuck in the traffic jam of Torah-curse, can now resume its journey down the road

towards its destination. The Messiah has dealt with the roadblock, and the promise can

reach out to the nations. (865)41

In Gal 3:16 Wright exegetes as family: It doesnt say his seeds, as though

referring to several families, but indicates a single family by saying and to your seed, meaning

the Messiah (hos estin Christos) (8689; emphases added).42 In the Messiah, God has provided

Abraham the single, promised family (868). Wright accounts for this understanding of Paul

through what Paul must have understood as incorporative Messiahship:

First, the vocation and destiny of ancient Israel, the people of Abraham, had been brought

to its fulfillment in the Messiah, particularly in his death and resurrection. Second, those

who believed the gospel, whether Jew or Greek, were likewise to be seen as incorporated

into him and thus defined by him, specifically again by his death and resurrection. The full

range of Pauls incorporative language can be thoroughly and satisfactorily explained on this hypothesis: that he regarded the people of God and the Messiah of God as so bound up

together that what was true of the one was true of the other. And this becomes in turn the

41See further, It was, rather, a way of saying that the necessary and appropriate curse of the covenant had fallen on the Messiah as Israels representative. He had born in himself the result of Israels failure, so that the blessing promised not just to Abraham but through Abraham could now flow to the Gentiles. (1035)

42Contra BDAG, s.v. , which notes Gal 3:16. But see further Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 868 n.267; idem, Messiahship in Galatians? in Galatians and Christian Theology, ed. by M. W. Elliott, S. J. Hafemann, and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, forthcoming); pre-printed in Pauline

Perspectives, 51046; note esp. 526.

18

vital key to understanding the close and intimate link between incorporation and justification, between participatory and forensic accounts of Pauls soteriology (826)

43

Wright freshly juxtaposes Gal 2:21s ,

, with 3:18s ,

(i.e., If righteousness comes through the law, then the Messiah

died for nothing, and If the inheritance came through the law, it would no longer be by

promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.).44 Such language is informative of the extent

to which Paul sees the Abrahamic promises and covenant fulfilled now in the Messiah and not

Torah. Although Torah offered life, it could not give it (871). Therefore, the ecclesial

consequences that follow, according to Wright, are that all those who believe are now

demarcated as the true Torah-keeping people (1036). Faith is the new badge of covenant

membership. Wrights exegesis of Galatians is largely successful.

Justification by Faith

One of Wrights controlling motifs throughout chapter tens treatment of justification

by faith is the claim that Paul understood final judgment no differently than the Judaism of his

period God judges each man according to his actions. Final judgment, Wright states, will be

on the basis of the totality of the life that has been led. God will repay to each according to their

works. Paul never for a moment undermines this biblical and traditional saying, widespread

across the thought of ancient Israel, (938; cf. 93642). But it is not entirely clear how Wright

can claim Romans 2 particularly v. 13s [] ,

43the events of Jesus death and resurrection compelled Paul in this direction; Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 827. See also Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 113, citing Gal. 2:20: The Messiah represents his people, so that what is true of him is true of them.

44Wright, Galatians and Thessalonians, 24 and 35.

19

(After all, it isnt those who hear the law who are in the right

before God. Its those who do the law who will be declared to be in the right!)45 as

paradigmatic for eschatological justification or judgment, when Paul writes, in the very next

chapter (3:21), that (But now, quite apart

from the law Gods covenant justice has been displayed.).46 When it is recognized that the

judgment in Romans 2s context is specifically a just judgment in accordance with Torah (v.12,

), making sense of the apart from Torah in 3:21 results in

considerable tension for Wrights reading; the pivot of judgment has been altered from a Torah-

based judgment, to one apart from Torah. When Pauls larger argument concerning justification

in Romans is further considered in light of 3:10 (discussed above), it seems clear that Pauls

purpose throughout the text has more to do with Gods grace in justification than on any

understood Israelite vocation. Pauls concern for demonstrating Gods grace in justification

would also account for the importance of Abraham a figure Wright is certainly correct in

highlighting, covenantal emphasis and all. Romans 4, citing Gen 15:6

, (LXX); And Abram believed the LORD; and he reckoned

it to him as righteousness reveals Abraham as both the father of the divinely promised

worldwide family composed of Jews and gentiles and the ideal Pauline example of justification

by faith.47

And this both/and view, with appropriate emphasis on Pauls understanding of

45Wright, Romans: Part One Chapters 1 8, 31.

46Wright, Romans: Part One Chapters 1 8, 51.

47Cf. Wright, Pauline Perspectives, 5645 for further work concerning Abraham, covenant, and

justification by faith. Wright seems to miss the pointedness of Pauls conditional statement

(After all, if Abraham was reckoned in the right on the basis of works Romans: Part One Chapters 1 8, 64), which sets up much of the contrast between grace and works that follows. It is either lost or buried, by his covenantal and ecclesial emphases. See 5845: I hold to a version of the view made popular by James Dunn: that the works which Paul says do not justify are the works which, through their obedience to the distinctive marks of Israels Torah, mark out the Jews from their pagan neighbours, (584). Wrights fresh reading (following Dunn) significantly alters the textual logic in Romans to an extent that such unmistakable emphasis on the horizontal

20

justification as an act of divine grace, would function as a helpful corrective for Wrights

understanding of Romans which is elsewhere excellent.

While it is clear that Wrights exegesis of Romans accounts for the redrawing of the

symbolic world to include believing Jews and Gentiles on equal terms (932), it is not clear how

it adequately accounts for divine grace, when the context of Romans 4 explicitly discusses

(gift) with direct relationship to Pauls use of - vocabulary, and in antithesis to (Rom

4:45). Wright has elsewhere countered that: The point is that the word justification does not

itself denote the process whereby, or the event in which, a person is brought by grace from

unbelief, idolatry and sin into faith, true worship and renewal of life.48 And in another context:

The doctrine of justification by faith was born into the world as the key doctrine underlying the

unity of Gods renewed people.49 Wrights covenantal emphasis is a welcome fresh reading, but

a both/and would make better sense, especially in Romans 4.

Wrights reading of justification is heavily influenced by covenantal eschatology,

such that it involves the renewal of all things, the establishment of the new heavens and the new

earth (936). Wright frequently states that justification is Gods single-plan-through-Israel-for-

the-world in his previous book Justification: Gods Plan and Pauls Vision.50 This

dimension (i.e., Jew and gentile, together, justified by faith) necessarily results in confusion of the vertical (i.e., God forgives sinners). It is difficult to understand how Wright can claim so boldly: People still try to make out that the New Perspective on Paul is a matter of sociology rather than soteriology, of the removal of minor inconveniences for Gentile converts rather than Gods victory over sin and death through Jesus the Messiah. There may be some who have taken it that way, though neither Ed Sanders himself nor Jimmy Dunn has been guilty of any

such reductionism. Romans 4 shows how the whole picture hangs together, (591). His exegesis clearly has the effect of doing just that.

48Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 121.

49Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 113,

50Wright, Justification; understood within his narrative formulation: 668; 949; 1034, 105; within his

exegesis of Galatians: 1224; 12232 passim; within the righteousness of God, 1645, 179; within his exegesis of Roman 194-6, 200209, 2434.

21

understanding is also revealed at the outset of his lengthy treatment of justification when he

explains that the - vocabulary in Paul has its home within the redefinition of election (925;

though it must be recalled what Wright means by election, which includes Israels calling, the

rectifying of all creation, and putting humanity to rights). Justification, for Paul, is a subset of

election, that is, it belongs as part of his doctrine of the people of God.51 The incorporative

messiahship discussed previously would account for this reading.

The judicial verdict of this eschatological, final judgment of God can be known in

advance. Justification has a proleptic, or in the present time forensic aspect (944). In the

context of table fellowship between Jewish and gentile Christians in Galatians, Wright explains

the main theme is the fact that God has one family, not two, and that this family consists of

all those who believe in the gospel Faith, not the possession and/or practice of Torah, is the

badge which marks out this family, the family which is now defined as the people of the

Messiah.52 Clearly for Paul, justification exists now.

The complexity of justification in Paul is not lost on Wright: Part of the reason why

Romans 1.184.25, and especially 3.2131, are as dense and complex as they are is because both

of these things, covenant and law court, are being discussed together (935). And bringing it all

together in the finely-tuned passage 3:2131, Wright explains that the Messiah Jesus, who

successfully took upon himself the vocation of Israel, has become the true Israel who brings the

covenant to fulfillment:

The critical move here is to affirm, with Paul in Romans 3.22 that the Messiah has been

faithful to that covenant plan, the plan through which Abrahams seed would bless the world These events concerning Jesus [his death by crucifixion and subsequent

51Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 121.

52Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, 121. See also the material under the Galatians 24 subheading

above for further development.

22

resurrection], and the announcement of them as good news, therefore provide a sudden, bright glimpse of the fact that this God is in the right in relation both to the covenant with Israel and to the problem of human sin and cosmic corruption. This vision is what Paul

refers to in Romans 1.17 and 3.21 as the unveiling of the divine righteousness. (9423)

Chapter 11: Gods Future of the World, Freshly Imagined

Galatians 46

Eschatology defines election, Wright states. Since new creation (6:15) determines the

identity of the single family, the seed promised to Abraham , then the Israel of God spoken

of by Paul at the end of Galatians (6:16) can be seen as referring to this single family if the

argument of Galatians, from 1:1 throughout, has been properly appreciated (1143). As Wright

has shown already in his exegetical treatment of Galatians and in justification by faith, election

has now re-centered on the Messiah; the long-awaited age to come has arrived with the

Messiah (1138). The Messiahs people, in Galatians chapter four are the children of the barren

woman, Sarah; they are children of promise, because they have believed Gods promises as

Abraham did, as in 3.69 (1138). What Paul means here in chapter four through associating the

Judaizers (1135) the present Jerusalem (4:25) with the slave children of Hagar, is also

picked up in chapter fives antithesis between free (5:1) and slave (5:24). Wright explains that

those, who, relying on the divine promise, are thus embracing freedom, rather than those who,

relying on the flesh, are thus embracing slavery (1134). This single body of those trusting in

Christ is central to Pauls symbolic world and to his eschatology (1138). Wright considers it

fundamentally illogical, and rightly so, that Paul would, after the lengths of his labor throughout

Galatians, to lay aside his argument concerning the true people of God, and speak of the Israel

of God in the exclusionary sense that he has been attempting to correct all along (see

commentators noted in 1144 n.408).

23

Romans 911

At the outset of his argument Wright states, briefly explaining the context of Romans

9, that it ought to be completely uncontroversial to point out that this is Israels story (1159).

Wright sees the passage as belonging in a tradition of Israelite history retellings occurring in the

second-temple period, including, outside the New Testament, Josephus, Jubilees and Pseudo-

Philo, and within it, Acts 7 and Hebrews 11 (1158). Regarding the structure he identifies a

chiastic pattern ranging from 9:111:36, with 10:513 in the center, and 10:9 to be exact (1163).

The Christology of the center is not missed on Wright either, who sees it as instructive for the

whole passage (1163).

In the subsequent critical exegetical discussion of 11:2532, the

in v. 25 is not the content of a new mystery, but, following the lead of , a

further explanation or restatement of what Paul has already said (cf. 11:7: ;

, , ; What then? Did

Israel not obtain what it was looking for? Well, the chosen ones obtained it but the rest were

hardened).53 In customary fashion, Paul provides a summary explanation for what he has just

argued. This summary (vv. 2532) also brings 9:1423 to closure. This hardening is not

permanent but serves Gods soteriological purposes; the gentiles function to make jealous the

hardened and create in them a desire for the Messiah and to the salvation held out in 10.113

(1236). The hardening is also seen by Wright as partitive (i.e., a hardening has come upon a

part of Israel, a reading which, although not the only way of understanding the Greek, would

agree with v. 7), as opposed to temporal, for a time (1239).

53Wright, Romans: Part Two Chapters 9 16, in Paul for Everyone [part of The New Testament for

Everyone series] (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004) 46. Wright also correctly cautions against taking

mystery in its English meaning, which retains the quality of hiddenness. This is not so in the Greek (cf. BDAG,

s.v. .) The mystery Paul speaks of, as in Ephesians 3, is always a revealed mystery, something previously hidden but now disclosed (see 12346). Concerning 11:25 Wrights translation in Paul for Everyone takes the grammar temporally, so Wright seems to have progressed in his thoughts here.

24

This forms the foundation for understanding v. 26s all Israel shall be saved.54

The connective grammar from v. 25 to 26 is , although commonly taken temporally in

this verse, i.e., then, after that, subsequently, is better understood, as Wright has it, as

concluding v. 25, e.g., that is how (1240).55 The Greek favors Wrights manner view against

the temporal reading. Still deep in the wood, Wright then covers all Israel. He does

not see this Israel as the same as ethnic Israel identified in v. 25, but another Pauline redefinition

such as witnessed in Gal 6:16 (1243f.). Paul has already pointed to this redefinition in 9:6:

(Not all who are from Israel, you see, are in fact Israel).56

And, as in Wrights exegesis of Galatians, this reading has the added value of making Paul a

consistent thinker and would seem to be the logical ends of justification by faith.

This is the hope of Paul, his eschatology. That in this critical transition within the heart

of Wrights chiasm of Rom 911, the center of the passage, is Pauls central theological theme

of a deeply christological grounding of soteriology (1163) now held out to Jew and gentile alike.

Israel according to the flesh has thus found its history and eschatology shaped according to the

messianic pattern, the christological pattern (1253). Wright neglects unrealized aspects of the

already/not-yet paradigm.

Critical Evaluation

Justification by Grace through Faith

Justification by faith is important since it informs the means by which the family of

54Wright, Romans: Part Two Chapters 916, 57.

55Wright neatly summarizes the difference: (1) In the temporal reading, it opens up a forward perspective in the text: and then, something ne will happen (2) But if we read it as an indication of manner, it looks back: and that, the entire sequence of 11.1124 summed up in 11.25 (1241).

56Wright, Romans: Part Two Chapters 916, 5.

25

Abraham is established. For Paul, according to Wright, justification comes not by Torah, but

by faith, but specifically the faithfulness of the Messiah (840f.). While is the badge of

covenant membership, and rightly so, it is specifically the membership badge which replaces

Judaisms boundary-markers such as circumcision, dietary laws and Sabbath keeping. And this

new means of identifying Abrahams family should be seen as only a step along the way towards

the full realization of Abrahams promised blessings.

Justification by faith is, again, concerned with Wrights grand-narrative of Scripture; it

begins with the Abrahamic promises and covenant, but the problem keeping it from fulfillment,

as Wright acknowledges, is Israels vocational failure caused by sin. Israel proves to be in Adam

just as all humanity is. Torah could not, in the end, bring life by Israel since the conditions of

Torah could not be met by her. Instead of being a light to those in darkness, Israel suffers in the

same darkness as all humanity, and finds herself equally in judgment. This fresh reading of Paul

is both welcome and contentious. Welcome because it challenges thoughtful Christians to look

back upon the first century and to become students of history; but contentious because in putting

forward this understanding of justification by faith evangelical atonement theology is necessarily

impaired. Jesus life and mission, death and resurrection, in Pauline theology, are rethought

primarily in terms of Israels/the Messiahs vocation instead of Gods grace to sinful man. To be

sure, it is not either/or in Wright. Sin is part of his narrative. But sin is not why the Messiah goes

to the cross. Wright is clear that the Messiahs faithfulness in contrast to the unfaithfulness of

Israel is the meaning of Rom 3:21f.

Along this same line of reasoning, it is not clear how Wrights narrative could account

for the why of the cross. Why is the Messiah crucified in order for Gods covenantal purposes

to move forward on this reading of justification by faith? The cross is frequently declared to be

26

the means by which the creator God brings the promises made to Abraham of righting the

world towards completion but out of what necessity? What part of Wrights narrative requires

a crucified Messiah?57

If Christ is the faithful Messiah who keeps Torah and successfully

performs the vocational duties belonging to Israel, it would seem that the central concern of

Wrights concerning the dilemma of covenantal unfaithfulness is resolved, and resolving the

matter by means of crucifixion would further seem needless within this narrative. A fulfilled

covenant should yield only the life promised by the covenant for Jesus instead of his shed blood.

No, there seems to be more going on with Pauls logic in Romans than Wrights exegesis can

account for.

Wrights association of Jew and gentile together as one people of God correctly

understands the result of justification i.e., Jew and gentile on equal footing in the one people of

God and this is undoubtedly why much of his fresh perspective exegesis of Galatians is more

compelling, since Galatians is predominantly concerned with answering the Judaizers

ecclesiologically (Gal 4). However, Wrights work, specifically with respect to works of Torah,

is significantly weaker in its reading of Romans, precisely because Romans explanation of

justification is much more concerned with the vertical, soteriological dimension. The Messiah

Jesus, his shed blood, and Gods grace all come to a climax within an antithetical treatment with

works, sin, and judgment. Where Wright views Jesus as predominantly the instrument for the

realization of the Abrahamic and patriarchal promises, it would be better to see him as also the

57As one example among many in chapter ten, see esp. p. 859, with added emphasis: The basis of that

new reality to repeat is the Messiahs death and resurrection as the strange fulfillment of Israels vocation and destiny, and the believers participation in that death and resurrection. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 859.

27

Savior from heaven Paul awaits as in Phil 3:20. Soteriology and sociology, as Wright claims

(see n.47 above), but with the former providing the basis of the latter.

Concerning works of Torah, it must be observed as logically necessary that by

restricting works to Jewish boundary markers, the antithetical component justification is

fundamentally altered as well. If justification does not come through boundary markers but

through the Messiahs faithfulness, then the Messiahs death is in no logical way a meaningful

offering of Gods grace since the antithesis is no longer one of works vs. grace, but boundary

markers vs. the Messiahs faithfulness. In reading Romans in this manner, Wright significantly

curtails a meaningful Christian atonement theology. And if the Messiahs faithfulness is

understood as his obedience to the vocation originally given to Israel, acting in her stead, this

would seem to make the Messiahs death more a matter of practicality. At the risk of revealing

either great ignorance or great hostility, I cannot identify a meaningful Christian atonement

theology in Wrights understanding of Rom 3:21f. As long as exegesis of Gods righteousness

and faith in Christ are wrongly understood as Gods covenant faithfulness and Jesus

faithfulness to the Israelite covenantal vocation, justification will be resultantly and incorrectly

defined in ways other than justifications most cherished Christian truth, i.e., God forgives

sinners.

A sacrificial offering for an unjust people, both Jews and gentiles, would however

make better sense of why Christ dies the cursed death of Torah and why the new people of God

are justified by grace through faith. Jews and gentiles are both guilty of Torah disobedience;

Jews for failing to keep Torah (not necessarily a vocation), and gentiles for violating the Torah

demonstrated in their own hearts (Rom 2:1415).

28

Covenant Theology?

Wrights narrative clearly has affinity with covenant theology in several respects, and

he readily admits that Paul is doing covenant theology though Wright surely means this in a

different sense. But the Reformed influence is most evident at the holistic level of Wrights

narrative. Wright moves from Adams failure to the calling of Abraham, and emphasizes the

covenant with Abraham as Gods means of putting the world to rights. Israels place in this

narrative is as the chosen people of God, the descendants of Abraham, whose vocation it is to get

things back in order and ultimately to bring Gods blessings upon the nations; but she proves also

to be in Adam. In this last respect, i.e. Israels failure to fulfill Torah, Wrights narrative has a

clear theological connection with the covenant of works. The covenant of works in Reformed

theology works antithetically to the salvation and grace of God since the latter is given through

faith. The Reformed covenant of grace begins in the biblical narrative with the Abrahamic

covenant. Since justification/salvation does not come by Torah, but rather through faith as

Abrahams own justification is demonstrative the proximation of this narrative to the covenant

of grace within covenant theology, which is said to also begin with Abraham, neatly aligns with

covenant theology.

Additionally, just as Christ is observed as the Israel-in-person in Wrights narrative, so

Reformed scholar Michael S. Horton writes: Jesus is the faithful Israelite who fulfilled the

covenant of works so that we could through his victory inherit the promises according to a

covenant of grace. 58 The affinities of Reformed theology with Wrights narrative are, again,

often evident.

58Michael S. Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009) 105.

29

Lastly, for Wright, the people of God are at last redefined in the Messiah Jesus, and

in such a way that Paul can predicate Israel of them. This has the obvious effect of

supersessionism, as Wright is comfortable enough acknowledging, and would also align with the

doctrine of election in Reformed covenant theology.

Perhaps in summary it is fitting to present the seventh chapter of the Westminster

Confession of Faith:

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures

do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him,

as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on Gods part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant. The first covenant made with man was

a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon

condition of perfect and personal obedience. Man, by his Fall, having made himself

incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called

the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinner life and salvation by Jesus

Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto

all those that are ordained until life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to

believe. (Emphasis added.)

Conclusion

If gauging Wrights Pauline study in accordance with his coherentist aims, and with

specific reference to the three worldview structures of monotheism, election, and eschatology, it

must be agreed that Wrights work is largely successful. His exegesis of both Galatians and

Romans (the two epistles emphasized in this review) revealingly speaks to the symbolic,

narrative worldview of the apostles mindset, and with coherent success. Wrights coherentism

has the added value of further making Paul a more consistent theologian, specifically in

Galatians and Romans 911, and sees him less as an uncertain or even compartmentalized

thinker with regard to the many topics he addresses. And where Wrights model is largely

successful is not at all surprising since, in Wrights New Perspective indebted fresh readings of

30

Paul emphasis is usually on the sociological dimension, or an emphasis on Jew and gentile

together as Gods people in the Messiah.

The three structures are, again, seen through the light of the crucified Messiah, Jesus.

Wrights incorporative Christology, a characteristic of his work that has been retained since his

doctoral thesis, continues to prove a necessary ingredient upon which the wheel of the entire

worldview turns. God is freshly revealed in the crucified Messiah (1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2); the people

of God are freshly revealed as incorporated in the crucified Messiah (Gal 24; Rom 24); and the

hope and future for Gods people and the creation is freshly revealed by the crucified Messiah

(Gal 46; Rom 911). So, yes, Wright has succeeded, and masterfully, brilliantly so. But his

success is not absolute, and despite his emphasis on the Messiah as crucified, in the critical area

of justification by grace through faith examined above, his Pauline theology seems to suffer

where it matters most.

31

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the

New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.\

Horton, Michael S. Introducing Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009.

Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. 2nd

edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.

Tilling, Chris. Pauls Divine Christology. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 323. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.

Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Volume 2 of Christian Origins and the

Question of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996.

________. Messiahship in Galatians? Galatians and Christian Theology. Edited by M. W. Elliott, S. J. Hafemann, and N. T. Wright. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

forthcoming. Pre-printed in Wright, Pauline Perspectives: Essay on -Paul, 19782013, 51046.

________. Paul: In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005.

________. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Volume 4 of Christian Origins and the

Question of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013.

________. Paul and the Patriarch: The Role(s) of Abraham in Galatians and Romans. Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35, no. 3 (2013): 20741; reprinted and lengthened in Wright, Pauline Perspectives: Essay on -Paul, 19782013, 55492

________. Paul for Everyone [Part of The New Testament for Everyone series]

Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004.

________. Romans 2.173.9: A Hidden Clue to the Meaning of Romans? Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 1, no. 2 (2012): 125; reprinted in Wright, Pauline Perspectives: Essay on -Paul, 1978-2013, 489509.

________. Romans and the Theology of Paul. In Romans. Volume 3 of Pauline Theology. Edited by David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson. Society of Biblical

Literature 21. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995; reprinted in Wright, Pauline

Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 19782013, 93125.

32

________. The New Testament and the People of God. Volume 1 of Christian Origins

and Question of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992.