“The ‘faith of Christ’ therefore refers to Christ’s faithful obedience as the true Israelite.”
So, we are saved by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, rather than by
faith in Jesus Christ? This translation/interpretation (see Galatians 2) strikes me as consistent with Reformed logic–to say that God is sovereign over all things, including salvation, is to say that God alone saves. Luther’s faith/works dichotomy seems to have made faith a glorified work, and all other works worthless; or, put another way, it seems to have made faith the only good work.
I wonder whether the preoccupation of many Protestants with “making a decision for Christ” and the like can be traced back to Luther’s “saved by faith in Jesus Christ” emphasis. If we are more accurately saved by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, then it becomes clearer that we do not save ourselves (by making a faith-decision or any other means), but are saved by God–that is, by grace. Jesus Christ is grace. Thus, “Jesus saves” and “by grace we are saved” are synonymous statements. Our call is to show our gratitude by means of faithful discipleship.

Yes. I don’t see how one can say that N.T. Wright is not in the Reformed tradition in his thinking through the Biblical teaching of justification.

Just a note on editions. Page references in the SPCK paperback (Great Britain) are different – pp. 94, 95, 101 above are 73, 74, 80 in GB. What’s in the 20 or so pages that GB seem to be missing?!

Josh, I think it’s about the faithfulness of Christ as the true Israelite but also a reponse of trust is also invited. He is faithful so he is trustworthy, so we can place our trust in him. There is a union–dare I say covenant in Christ?

How does the “new covenant” of Jeremiah 31:31 play into this, if at all?

Interesting discussion today and some good questions – I look forward to more! Thanks for starting this book, Scot.

Rick (#5),
I think Wright focuses on the covenant with Abraham through which God will bring blessing to the world. I can’t help but correlate NT Wright’s emphasis on the covenant with Abraham and Christopher Wright’s contribution in his *The Mission of God.* I would label NT Wright’s analysis as the fulfillment of God’s missional purposes through the person and work of Jesus Christ. It’s big picture thinking and yes, the “new covenant” is discussed.

Wright is so dang convincing! Even though I don’t necessarily agree with his understanding of the genitive construction as “the faithfulness of Christ” (I prefer to understand the polemic as faith in Christ over and against works/or covenantal badges, following Dunn), it does make sense in light of the Old Testament and covenantal faithfulness. Regardless both elements are clearly taught in Paul… As Joanne #4 says, “it’s about the faithfulness of Christ as the true Israelite but also a response of trust is also invited. He is faithful so he is trustworthy, so we can place our trust in him.”
Looking forward to reading this book to get a better understanding of Wright’s overall view. He’s so good as laying out God’s plan for humanity.

John-
Thanks. I have C. Wright’s book on my “to read” list, but have not gotten to it yet. May need speed up those plans.
“I would label NT Wright’s analysis as the fulfillment of God’s missional purposes through the person and work of Jesus Christ.”
If the missional purposes are fulfilled, how does N.T. Wright describe the work of the Holy Spirit (and church)? I assume still “missional”, yet in the sense that He (and the church) have the goal of pointing people back to the completed work in Christ, and living that out.

Especially in saying things such as the Israel-dimension of the covenant is “the only way fully and finally to understand Paul’s Christology and the meaning of the cross itself” (p.74, GB), I think Wright has rather overdone ‘covenant’ and Israel. But, the first and most important covenant (Wright admits there are several) would surely be the one in Genesis 3.15, and Abraham and Moses are minor additions on the way to Christ. That Paul spends so much time on Torah is because it was an issue of the time.

When we speak of “Covenant” (or rather, shall I say when Wright speaks of covenant) is he referring to Covenant theology as the alternative to dispensational theology? And from what I know of Piper, yes, he’s no friend of that either; I would also think he would be more sympathetic to covenant theology, being Reformed.

david @ 11, “Abraham and Moses are minor additions on the way to Christ”
I don’t think that’s a good way to read the OT. The relationship between Jews & Gentiles is surely heavy on Paul’s mind, but that’s because Israel is an integral part of God’s plan that he’s bringing to fulfillment in Christ. There may have been a way for God to incarnate and redeem humanity without doing it as the specifically Jewish Messiah of a covenant people, but that’s what he did.
God’s charge to humanity in Genesis is important, but surely God wouldn’t spend so much time introducing himself as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” and harping on Israel’s covenant in the prophets if that was a “minor addition”.

Joanne & Deyo–
No doubt we are called to show faith in Jesus Christ. But I would add this observation: If we believe that we are saved by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, then we are placing faith in Jesus–we are trusting him to save us; if we believe that we are saved by faith in Jesus, then we may end up trusting in our faith–rather than its object (Jesus)–to save us.

Josh(#14) — I am not certain what you are saying.
I follow your link that “If we believe that we are saved by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, then we are placing fatih in Jesus–we are trusting him to save us”;
But I am uncertain whether the second part about trusting our faith rather than trusting its object is a conclusion following from the first part, or an opposition to it.
Peace,
Randy

David #3
“What’s in the 20 or so pages that GB seem to be missing?!”
The key to the mystery of the Bible revealed only to his chosen on this side of the big pond.
Seriously, I suspect it has to do with font and layout. I suspect we both have the same content. The first page of Part I, Chapter 1, is page 20 in my book. There is a preface and front material that takes up the preceding pages.

John #7
“I can’t help but correlate NT Wright’s emphasis on the covenant with Abraham and Christopher Wright’s contribution in his *The Mission of God.*”
Exactly! I was having the same experience as I read the book.

David Yates #11:
Are we reading the same Bible?
Not that I think we should read Paul as the final word on Biblical theology, but even if we did, look at the centrality of Abraham. Moses enters less into Paul’s writing. Why? Because he is writing for the Gentile mission of the church and Torah is not the Gentile way of life.
There is no covenant in Gen 3:15.
It really helps to read the Bible as a story and not as a bunch of prooftexts, David. Also, any reading of the Bible which suggests that it does not build on itself, but rather comes to the end and undoes the beginning, is a faulty reading. Even if someone doubts inspiration, they must admit the apostles were purposefully trying to build on the earlier texts. I suggest that Scot’s Blue Parakeet book lays out a great understanding of this.
Derek Leman

Travis #13
Thanks for that, only your first paragraph is a repeat of the problem – is it really so that God did it “as the specifically Jewish Messiah of a covenant people”? Maybe, for instance, God did it principally as the new Adam, for all mankind directly, and only peripherally as Israel’s Messiah. Torah sins were not really different than everybody else’s.
Your second paragraph could be because of course Jesus had to come within some context or other. And what might be expected but that a nation’s archives would have stuff about their ancestors and their experiences!
Wright claims that what he takes to be the setting of Christ’s redemptive dying actually explains how it did what it did. It seems to me there is no explanation, since it is beyond us what sort of transaction between Father and Son could do what it did.

David (#19, 11),
Divorcing Jesus from his “Jewishness” requires elimination of most of the NT (including most of Paul). Certainly it requires dismissal of the Gospels except for the fact of the crucifixion and resurrection – and throw out Luke 24, which is post resurrection.
I don’t see how it can be considered incidental in any real sense.

Randy–
My point was that belief that we are saved by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ implies faith (trust) in Jesus. In contrast, belief that we are saved by faith in Jesus does not necessarily lead to trust in the faithfulness of Jesus–it may instead lead to trust in our own faith.

Father God: please guide the McKnights safely home in your loving hands. May they have a beautiful, peaceful, restful flight and arrive in Illinois refreshed and filled with your spirit. May they be blessed in all their travels, now and forever…
In Jesus’ name, Amen.