The Thought and Writings of N. T. Wright: An Arminian Appraisal
Occasionally a theologian emerges and sends ripples through the waters of academia. Martin Luther shocked Christendom by challenging Roman Catholicism’s abuse of authority and her teachings on justification. In the mid-twientieth century, Karl Barth challenged the Protestant liberalism deeply rooted in Europe and America. At the same time, however, his neo-orthodoxy challenged the authority of Scripture, which resulted in evangelicals rearticulating the doctrine of inerrancy.
It is with such force that the writings of N. T. Wright have provoked many today. His contributions to New Testament studies and biblical theology have stirred evangelicals—some applauding him while others disdaining him. It is in recognition of his scholarship that the lectures from the 2010 Wheaton Theological Conference were published in Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N. T. Wright.
Wright’s Chief Contributions
Formerly a bishop in the Church of England, Wright’s work crosses a wide spectrum of issues. He writes for both the popular and scholarly readers. However, most of his writing has dealt with the historical study of Jesus, in which he studies Jesus in His first century Jewish and Greco-Roman context. He sees the Church operating with what he calls a “split-level Jesus,” thus producing the need for such historical work. Wright states:
When reading the stories in the Gospels, everyone knew they referred to an actual man who lived and taught and died in the first century; but then there was this “Jesus” to whom they prayed, to whom they sang hymns, who they encountered in the sacraments. But this figure, though known as Jesus, seemed to float free of historical attachment…[1]
Thus, much of Wright’s work has sought to correct this, especially in Jesus and the Victory of God (1996) and The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003). He has sought to reestablish Jesus as a Jew, interacting extensively with Second Temple Jewish literature in order to understand Jesus in His socio-political surroundings. This context then becomes the backdrop for interpreting Scripture’s teaching concerning the nation of Israel, Jesus, and His teachings. Despite scholarly dissent, much of his work has been hailed as a triumphant step toward reclaiming Jesus for who He really is.
However, in his historical reading of Jesus, Wright critiques the focus of the Church’s teaching on nature of Christology. According to Wright, both Catholics and Protestants used the Gospel’s accounts of Jesus to teach something that was not their primary focus. This has forced the Gospels “to give answers to questions they were not addressing, or not addressing head on, that has made the apologetic and historical tasks much harder” [2]. Accordingly, this has taught the Church to read the Gospels, as well as the entire Christian canon, in a way that diminishes what Scripture truly teaches about Jesus. Therefore, the remedy to such problems can only come from a fresh historical reading [3]. “The Gospels,” he says, “are not primarily written to convince their readers that Jesus of Nazareth is the second person of the Trinity….Rather, they are written to convince their readers that he really was inaugurating the kingdom of God—the kingdom of Israel’s God—on earth as in heaven” [4]. While the Chalcedonian Creed does not deny Scriptural teaching, says Wright, it focuses too much on Jesus’ abstract divinity and not enough on Jesus as the God of Israel and His inaugurated kingdom [5].
Wright’s views on the historical Jesus have inevitably paved the way for his teaching about the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), something which most discussions on this issue have not clearly connected. While Wright is not the only NPP advocate, his work has recently been controversial among evangelicals [6].
One area of concern is how the NPP defines “works of the law.” They are not acts of righteousness that one performs in order to gain favor with God, as the old perspective claims, but are elements of Jewish law that set apart Israel from pagan nations and exemplify Jewish privilege. First century Judaism, then, was not legalistic by nature, but concerned with issues that maintained Jewish identity, such as Sabbath observation, dietary restrictions, and circumcision [7]. Another area of concern is Wright’s definition of the Pauline phrase “the righteousness of God.” He argues that the phrase refers to God’s “covenant faithfulness”—that is, God’s faithfulness to fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant through Israel. He states:
But the righteousness they [believers] have will not be God’s own righteousness [Christ’s imputed righteousness]….God’s own righteousness is his covenant faithfulness, because of which he will (Israel hopes) vindicate her, and bestow upon her the status of “righteous” as the vindicated or acquitted defendant. But God’s righteousness remains, so to speak, God’s own property. It is the reason for his acting to vindicate his people. It is not the status he bestows upon them in so doing [8].
This phrase, then, does not hold the traditional meaning that Protestants have given it. Rather, Wright’s definition, he claims, is more coherent with the Old Testament and with the Jewish thought of Paul’s (and Jesus’) day. Hence, for Wright, the covenant context is the framework for how we understand justification: “Justification…is not a matter of how someone enters the community of the true people of God, but of how you tell who belongs to that community” [9].
Some Suggestions on Wright
For the sake of brevity, I will offer only some minor suggestions as food for thought. His work forces students of the Bible to understand the historical framework in which Jesus and the apostles taught. The more we understand their context, the better we are able to apply their teachings to our present day. If anything, the quest to understand the historical Jesus and the controversy over justification has made this issue more clear.
Wright’s rubric for interpreting Jesus’ narrative would suggest a restructuring of sorts in regards to one’s prolegomena for systematizing theology. Much theological discussion operates within a Trinitarian framework, especially concerning the doctrines of Christology, atonement, and justification. If what Wright says is true, then this would affect the way we approach theology. For instance, how do we understand justification in light of inaugurated eschatology? Or, how does kingdom theology as understood in the Gospels shape our views on Christology? These are issues that Wright correctly challenges us to consider.
However, is it unfair, as Wright suggests, to ask questions of the Gospels (or any text for that matter) concerning issues that they did not intend to address? If this is the case, then there are several issues with which modern Christians are confronted that the Gospels or other Scriptures do not necessarily address. Since Scripture is the Word of Life, can we not expect it to speak to that life situation, even if Scripture does not clearly address it directly? Surely it provides some framework for addressing these issues. Questions concerning the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation continue to answer new questions about God that arise with every generation. While these doctrines are not all that the Gospels teach about Jesus, it is not seem entirely correct to argue that the Gospels were not written to address these issues either.
Concerning the issue of justification, Wright’s writings on justification necessarily relate both to ecclesiology and eschatology, two issues that are often absent in the minds of many Christians. By framing the discussion of justification under the rubric of covenant, it requires us to look at the issue from a larger perspective, and it does not allow us to read the New Testament in isolation from the Old. In Wright’s view, justification is not the primary paradigm by which we understand God’s plan to restore creation. Rather, it is God’s covenant with Abraham. Justification therefore is God’s act of declaring one to be in the covenant, thus providing forgiveness of sins. Faith is the badge of covenant membership and the mark of Yahweh’s forgiveness [10]. Justification incorporates the ecclesial focus of God’s covenant people as His means to bring about new creation as inaugurated by the resurrection of Christ. Eschatology, then, is at the forefront of God’s plan to bring about new creation as promised through Israel. Upon Israel’s restoration, new creation is inaugurated and will be consummated with Christ’s second coming.
However, the downside of Wright’s teaching on justification is clear: It calls into question the ground by which men are saved. Justification is the act by which God, the Judge, declares a person to be just (or right) before Him. He is no longer considered to be a covenant breaker, but a covenant keeper. Is not Christ’s obedience to the Law understood as His covenant faithfulness? Kevin Vanhoozer makes similar sentiments, “But why need we construe Christ’s obedience in terms of ‘morality’ rather than covenant faithfulness? Could we not say that in justification God reckons Christ’s ‘right covenantal related-status’ ours?” [11]. Are the two not mutually exclusive? While we must be careful not to read Christ’s imputed righteousness or His active obedience into the text, we must also be careful not to remove it completely from the picture as well [12]. Christ’s obedience to the Law was necessary for Christ’s covenant faithfulness and for our salvation.
Conclusion
Wright’s work, though controversial in places, demands the attention of any pastor or theologian. As a historian, he has made it abundantly clear that the Gospel accounts of Jesus must be understood in their proper historical context. This becomes imperative not only for explaining the purpose of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection as displayed in the Gospels, but also provides the framework for understanding Paul’s (and the other apostles’) teaching on Jesus in light of the Gospels. Regardless of controversy surrounding some of his work, Wright, then, challenges Christians to understand Paul in light of Jesus, not Jesus in light of Paul. Such a challenge requires us to have a canonical approach for interpreting Scripture. No text is interpreted apart from the other. This task, though as daunting as it may seem, is a task we must embrace nonetheless. It is not only a task for the pastor or theologian to bear, but task that all Christians bear together.
______________________________
[1] N. T. Wright, “Hence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?” in Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N. T. Wright, ed. Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays (Downer Groves: InterVarsity Press), 116. While this essay interacts with some of Wright’s other works, references cited are primarily derived from this volume.
[2] Wright, 135.
[3] Ibid, 133.
[4] Ibid.
[5] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 1997), 99.
[6] While there are several scholars who are advocates of the NPP, E. P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N. T. Wright are the most prominent. While all three scholars have been placed under this category, there is as much disagreement as there is agreement about what Paul teaches. All this goes to say is that this movement is not monolithic. It should not be assumed that Wright would necessarily agree with Dunn or vice versa. However, Wright would be considered (by some, not all) as the most noted ally of the three to evangelicals because of his concern for the Church through his writings as well as his duties as a parishioner. This is probably the reason why most of the controversy centered on justification has fallen on him as opposed to Sanders and Dunn.
[7] For good introduction into the NPP, see Simon Gathercole, “What Did Paul Really Mean?” Christianity Today, August 2007; http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/august/13.22.html [Accessed October 1, 2011].
[8] Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, 119.
[9] N. T. Wright, Justification (Downer Groves: InterVarsity Press 2009), 134.
[10] Kevin Vanhoozer, “Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and Protestant Soteriology,” in Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N. T. Wright, ed. Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays (Downer Groves: InterVarsity Press), 250-251.
[11] Vanhoozer, 243.
[12] There are texts that appear to indicate that God provides righteousness. Isaiah 61:10 says, “For he has clothed me with the garments of salvation; he has covered me with the robe of righteousness…” Zechariah 3:3-5 describes the angel of the Lord purging Joshua, the high priest, of his iniquity, removing his filthy garments, and clothing him with “pure vestments” and a “clean turban.” Here, in the case of these two texts, God provided righteousness, which covered transgressions. The point of referencing these texts is not to prove Christ’s righteousness necessarily, but to show that the righteousness mentioned is a righteousness that is provided by God.
Further Reading:
On Historical Jesus Studies:
Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.
_____The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
On the New Perspective on Paul:
Dunn, James D. G. The New Perspective on Paul. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Gathercole, Simon. “What Did Paul Really Mean?” Christianity Today. August 2007. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/august/13.22.html [Accessed October 1, 2011].
_____Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul’s Response in Romans 1-5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Westerholm, Stephen. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.
Wright, N. T. Paul: In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
_____What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 1997.
December 23, 2015
Hi,
I cant find where Wright states that while the Chalcedonian Creed does not deny Scriptural teaching it focuses too much on Jesus’ abstract divinity and not enough on Jesus as the God of Israel and His inaugurated kingdom
January 8, 2016
I apologize that I have taken so long to respond, but thank you for your comment. If you look in Jesus, Paul, and the Victory of God, I cite a quotation from the book (footnote 4) which begins with the section “Divinity or Humantiy?” In this section, which is authored by Wright, he spends several pages discussing how much the church has placed more emphasis on Jesus’ divinity as the second person of the Trinity than in his role as Israel’s appointed Messiah inaugurating the long-awaited kingdom of God. On p. 135 in the same book, he says:
The flattening out of Christians debates about Jesus into the language of divinty and humanity represents . . . a serious de-Judaizing of the Gospels, ignoring the fact that the Gospels know nothing about divinity in the abstract (emphasis mine) and plenty about the God of Israel coming to establish his kingdom on earth as in heaven . . . . The Council of Chalcedon might be seen as the de-Israelization of the canonical picture of YHWH and Israel into the abstract categories of “divinity” and “humanity.”
It is clear in this section that Wright is critical of the Chalcedonian definition.
My point in referencing What Saint Paul Really Said? (WSPS) was to show how Wright has discussed this eschatological understanding of Jesus–as the king of Israel–elsewhere. It illustrates itself in Wright’s understanding of Paul’s use of “the righteousness of God” as God’s covenant faithfulness is to be understood in it’s eschatological framework. Thus he says in WSPS, “Eschatology–the long hope of Israel for her God to act at last, once and for all–must be brought in a every point. But what is hope? God’s righteousness is what Israel invokes when she is in trouble, in the hope that God will vindicate her in the future” (p. 99). Paul understands justification that comes through faith in Christ, not works of the law, as the fulfillment of God’s future vindication to his people (believers) in the present–covenant faithfulness. After reviewing things further, I should have clarified this in my footnote instead of merely referencing WSPS. I hope this clears things up.