Tom Wright made a fascinating suggestion in chp two of his book, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision
, that I did not mention in our previous summary. He suggested that Ephesians may have begun the new perspective.Until you know what that kind of claim means you should be very careful about criticizing the new perspective. A brief on what he's saying: what happens to Romans or Galatians if we read them through the lens of the theology of Ephesians? Instantaneously, Romans and Galatians would become more ecclesial. Why, Wright is asking, do so many critics of the new perspective have a theology that does not really make way for the ideas of Ephesians -- like cosmic redemption and that God's plan was to include Jews and Gentiles in the people of God and the powerful role of the Holy Spirit? Well, you get the picture. Of course, the reverse point is being made too: Ephesians has been read through the lens of Romans so much that many have treated Ephesians the way those who deny Pauline authorship have treated it: ignore it. (Wright is not saying that Ephesians should be skipped or that Romans should be too - no, he's arguing we need both.)
In chp 3 of Wright's fine book, a book noted for clarity, candor and courtesy -- with no hyped-up accusations, Wright begins with a sketch of what Jews in the 1st Century were hoping for, and he makes his oft-made point: it was going to heaven when they died. The tide carrying everyone along was the "hope that Israel's God would act once more and this time do it properly. Individual hope fits within that. If you want proof, close your computer screen and read the first two chps of Luke. (Then come back to finish this post.)
1. They were living out a continuous narrative from Abraham to the consummation. They were part of it. They knew that because they knew what the Bible said. They were living in a world that knew God was true to his word and that had an ending that had not yet come.
2. Tom next says they were living in a world that thought like Daniel 9 -- that the exile had not completely ended. Israel has come back to the Land but things are far from satisfactory -- not only have some of the themes not been fulfilled (God returning to the Temple, for instance), but foreigners were in command in the Land. That's enough right there to establish that for Jews at the time of Jesus and Paul there is still a sense of expectation. This is the controlling narrative at the time of Jesus and Paul. Too many today, Wright observes, would rather "settle back into the comfort of a non-historical soteriology the long and short of which is 'my relationship with God' rather than 'what God is going to do to sort out his world and his people'" (61). This is the big issue at hand.
3. Wright then quotes at length from Daniel 9:4-19, which I've also included at the bottom below (read it). Righteousness here is connected to God's covenant faithfulness and to Israel's covenant unfaithfulness. Wright is suggesting this is the kind of text that reflects what was going on in Judaism and what was going on for Jesus and Paul. And it leads to his next section -- the meaning of "the righteousness of God."
Daniel 9:4"O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, 5 we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. 6 We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.
7 "Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame--the men of Judah and people of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. 8 O Lord, we and our kings, our princes and our fathers are covered with shame because we have sinned against you. 9 The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him; 10 we have not obeyed the Lord our God or kept the laws he gave us through his servants the prophets. 11 All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you.
"Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you. 12 You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing upon us great disaster. Under the whole heaven nothing has ever been done like what has been done to Jerusalem. 13 Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not sought the favor of the Lord our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth. 14 The Lord did not hesitate to bring the disaster upon us, for the Lord our God is righteous in everything he does; yet we have not obeyed him.
15 "Now, O Lord our God, who brought your people out of Egypt with a mighty hand and who made for yourself a name that endures to this day, we have sinned, we have done wrong. 16 O Lord, in keeping with all your righteous acts, turn away your anger and your wrath from Jerusalem, your city, your holy hill. Our sins and the iniquities of our fathers have made Jerusalem and your people an object of scorn to all those around us.
17 "Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, O Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary. 18 Give ear, O God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. 19 O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name."
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Joe B:
Right, the issue is not simply that Piper relies too heavily on one book (Romans). I'm almost finished reading and reviewing Piper's book on my blog, and it has become clear that he relies heavily on one particular interpretation of just one part of Romans (3:28-5:1). And even in this small section, he emphasizes verses selectively (Romans 3:28 and 4:6 come to mind), without attention to their immediate literary context.
Dr. McKnight,
IMO, Wright misses the point of these passages. In volume one of Christian Origins Wright makes this same case using Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 9 in addition to Daniel 9. The case of course he is making is that God's righteousness plays a significant role in God's covenant faithfulness (however significant a role it is, is not clear to me as a reader; I've searched volume one backwards and forwards but could not find Wright saying how central he sees it).
The problem with this reading is that (and perhaps Wright's scope is too broad for me at this point) righteousness is not central in these texts, but rather God's grace. If Wright is reading these texts in a way so as to support his thesis that God's righteousness is the frame for covenant faithfulness and using Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 9 for buttressing, he sorely misses (again, IMO) the point of these passages. God's covenant faithfulness should be viewed simply as God's grace -- these passages make this clear.
I know volume one of Christian Origins is dated now, and maybe his views have matured some.
Thoughts?
Michael Metts
The NT and the People of God pp 271-272 (for the reference). He uses Ezra 9:6-15, Neh 9:6-38, and Dan 9:3-19 as witnesses for this view.
Is righteousness central at all in any of these? The passage from Nehemiah especially witnesses God's grace.
Did you mean to say: "Wright begins with a sketch of what Jews in the 1st Century were hoping for, and he makes his oft-made point: it was *NOT* going to heaven when they died.
This is for Michael Metts.
If you think of the Torah in terms of a covenant (i.e. - a legally binding agreement) with terms and conditions, most of which are in the instructions of the Torah (and here I think it's important that we remember that Torah means "instruction" not "law".) We can see how righteousness (or justice, since in both Greek and Hebrew they are related ideas, not separate) is absolutely important in these contexts, exactly because Grace or even Mercy are also being shown. Mercy is only mercy when the subject is justice, and Chesed (Grace) is only Chesed (i.e. - covenant faithfulness, or justice) in terms of a covenant, an agreement between the two sides. Therefore, exactly when we are talking about Mercy and Grace, we are, in Wright's understanding, talking about God's justice and his faithfulness to his covenants, often in spite of the unfaithfulness of other party in the covenant. God's justice is to see his part of the covenant through, and so that will sometimes reflect itself in wrath and sometimes in mercy, but it will always reflect covenant faithfulness and justice on God's part.
Taking your Nehemiah 9 section, look at the end of verse 8 - "And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous." This is the concept of righteousness on God's part that Wright is using, and I believe that it is central to these passages. See also in the Dan. 9 reference, vs. 4, 14 & 16. (Dan. 9:16a "O Lord, according to all your righteous acts, let your anger and your wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem.") Righteousness, covenant faithfulness and mercy are almost always linked, not just in Paul, but before them, in the Prophets. In that sense, the "new perspective" even predates Paul, it goes back to the prophets. ;)
Hope this helps.
Grace and Peace,
Jaime
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.