Paul and the Faithfulness of God

One of Wright’s controlling motifs throughout chapter ten’s 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. 936–42). But it is not entirely clear how Wright can claim Romans 2 – particularly v. 13’s οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ [τῷ] θεῷ, ἀλλʼ οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται (“After all, it isn’t those who hear the law who are in the right before God. It’s those who do the law who will be declared to be in the right!”) – as paradigmatic for eschatological justification or judgment, when Paul writes, in the very next chapter (3:21), that Νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται (“But now, quite apart from the law… God’s covenant justice has been displayed.”). When it is recognized that the judgment in Romans 2’s context is specifically a just judgment in accordance with Torah (v.12, διὰ νόμου κριθήσονται), making sense of the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ apart from Torah in 3:21 results in considerable tension for Wright’s reading; the pivot of judgment has been altered from a Torah-based judgment, to one apart from Torah. When Paul’s larger argument concerning justification in Romans is further considered in light of 3:10 (discussed above), it seems clear that Paul’s purpose throughout the text has more to do with God’s grace in justification than on any understood Israelite vocation. Paul’s concern for demonstrating God’s 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 – καὶ ἐπίστευσεν Αβραμ τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην (LXX); “And he believed the LORD; and the LORD 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 supreme biblical example of justification by faith. And this both/and view, with appropriate emphasis on Paul’s understanding of justification as an act of divine grace, would function as a helpful corrective for Wright’s understanding of Romans, which is elsewhere excellent.While it is clear that Wright’s 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 accounts for divine grace, when the context of Romans 4 explicitly discusses χάριν (“gift”) with direct relationship to Paul’s use of δικ- vocabulary, and in antithesis to ἔργων (Rom 4:4–5). 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.” And: “The doctrine of justification by faith was born into the world as the key doctrine underlying the unity of God’s renewed people.” Wright’s covenantal emphasis is a welcome fresh reading, but a both/and would make better sense, especially in Romans 4.Wright’s 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 God’s “single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world” in his previous book Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. This understanding is also revealed at the outset of his lengthy treatment of justification when he explains that the δικ- vocabulary in Paul has its “home within the redefinition of election” (925; though it must be recalled what Wright means by “election,” which includes Israel’s 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.” 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.” Clearly for Paul, justification exists now.

Wright's vision of Paul is comprehensive and firmly rooted in the history of the 1st century. His effort to remind the academy of Paul's essential Jewishness is admirable. I am a cradle Catholic that has for many years been involved in Evangelical Protestant fellowships and Wright mostly interacts with the views of the Protestant branch of Christianity. I enjoyed reading him most when he competently points to the many ways contemporary interpretations of Paul have projected Reformation, Enlightenment and modern and post-modern values and categories into Paul's Jewish world context. This is a complex, exhaustive and challenging book that may be the best currently offered. For the chronology of Paul's life and Paul's basic motivations that are grounded in his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, I look to F.F. Bruce's ' Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free'. For a systematic reading of Paul's theology, I look to J.D.G. Dunn's 'Theology of Paul the Apostle'. But for a scholarly and intelligent synthesis of these two strains, I look to N.T. Wright.Maybe I just do not understand what all the fuss is over the doctrine of justification but Wright navigates through these troubled hermeneutical waters with great skill and detail. His critique that Reformation and later theologies miss the significance of Paul's foundation in the story of Israel and their covenants by focusing too much on misleading categories like the differences between participationist and judicial or apocalyptic and salvation historical methodologies, is spot on. While I has some struggles getting through the morass of complicated scholarship surrounding some of these issues, I found Wright's necessary repetitions of the problems involved and their solutions ultimately helpful.It was difficult and sometimes tedious plowing through the necessary and careful exegesis of key passages in Paul. May main criticisms of this volume in the series are: 1) That in trying to avoid the stigma associated with Catholicism in academic circles Wright uses the language of community and the unity of the people of God but never come right out and uses very sparingly the word "church"; especially spelled with an upper case 'C'. Perhaps this is due to the contemporary western proclivity for individualism and the baggage of current trends in Church attendance. Nevertheless, Wright's thesis reflects a full flowered EKKLESIA without actually using the word "church". 2) In his chapter on election, Wrights sidesteps the discussion of Calvin's seminal doctrine of predestination. And, 3) similarly, the standard faith versus works argument on soteriology is obfuscated or almost completely absent. Wright is too subtle and sophisticated to come out and state for the record that he is a synergist as opposed to the monergism of the reformed Christians he seems to be attempting to placate because of the controversies about the new perspective on Paul. Or maybe I have misread Wright and just do not entirely grasp all the nuances of modern scholarship.The strengths of this book are its organization and clear movement through the historical context of Paul's narrative and Jewish/Greco-Roman world and robust treatment of faith in Jesus' death and resurrection as the main marker of membership in the Abrahamic family. Wright fits a great deal into the broad headings of God/monotheism, God's people/election and God's future/eschatology; the central and longest chapters. Wright writes well and often uses a controlling metaphor that is helpful in following his argument. He also has a good sense of humor and respectful attitude toward those with whom he disagrees. This book however does assume a working knowledge of Greek, Christian theology and a classical higher education. It is not a lot of contemporary Christian fluff and pop psychology that passes for non-fiction literature these days; and that is what I like most about it.The idea that to understand Paul, his worldview, his teaching and how that is worked out into his praxis can only be done with a deep appreciation for Paul's love of his very Jewish Messiah, Christ's covenant faithfulness and the story of Israel in the Old Testament and Second Temple Judaism; all make Wrights long volume compelling, worth reading and a major contribution. I will leave it up to more erudite critics who are debating the permutations of justification by faith to decide if Wright's overall thesis is an accurate rendering of the historical Paul. And I think I can safely say that while not definitive, Wright's Paul is a force to be reckoned with.

Well structured, makes clear arguments, surprisingly accessible language. As is typical for Wright, he often makes claims to have comprehensively argued a point, but the reader is left to read it in 5 of his other books. As can be expected from bk 4 in a series, it really shouldn't be read as a standalone; however, he makes an effort to review his arguments elsewhere to make the overall argument coherent. The real meat is in the footnotes. Injects an occasional joke and the odd diatribe against the many who have 'misunderstood' him. I just read it with his accent in mind and found it funny. What makes him so good is his acknowledgement of biases, logical and historical blind spots. When he makes a claim, you know his sources, the reason he makes the claim, and whether he considers it fact, likelihood, or possibility. Perhaps he could assign a different colour to his levels of certainty.... !

With his comprehensive sweep of the first century context this book gives a coherent historical approach to understanding the New Testament which brings the evidence together with consistency. It brings the story of the New Testament to life.Ken Foster, Parry Sound

N.T.Wright does a masterful job of setting forth the Christian position of god's work of Saving work in the world. He explains how Israel and christianity are linked together in god 's saving plan. A great read.

One of the greatest treatise on the pauline theology! Wright is number one no doubt!

Excellent for academic work !