RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I read this fourteen years ago. I am far more critical of N. T. Wright now than I was then. On the other hand, I do not view Wright as an existential threat for the Reformed today. His larger works on justification are expensive and not always easy to read. Furthermore, while he might be popular among the missional types, even then the influence can only go so far: he was a member of the House of Lords, supports monarchy, and opposes homosexuality. If I may wax autobiographical for a moment: I was there in the heady days of N. T. Wright, circa 2005. I was in Monroe, or close enough, when he spoke at Auburn Avenue. Many people jumped on board. When they saw the need for rigorous scholarship, they jumped right off. Ligon Duncan once said to me (though I doubt he remembers the conversation) in the RTS book store that those who are infatuated with NT Wright have only read NT Wright. They have not read the more difficult scholars with whom he is interacting. Quite so.
There is another problem: this volume was written over twenty years ago. Much about the New Perspective, both pro and con, has been written since then. This book will give you little help in trying to navigate the debate. Even more, the book is not actually trying to defend the New Perspective, though it does at times. The reader is encouraged to read more specific works about the New Perspective (e.g., Waters, Westerholm, Horton, etc) for a better angle on it. In other words, you probably do not need to drop $60 on this book.
I will offer my own critique of Wright in this book, but it will be an emotionless critique. I am not here to "mightily cast down strongholds." I read NT Wright the same way I read other New Testament scholars: I evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. My goal is to tell you what Wright said and offer my own criticisms. It is my hope that such a dispassionate approach will allow you to calmly explain his views to those in your church who might have questions. It is important not to jump on the NT Wright bandwagon. It is equally important to not overreact with hysteria.
In many ways, this is not so much a commentary but an exercise in biblical theology. And for that reason it will be reviewed, not as a commentary, but as a biblical theology textbook. Many presuppositions are required in reading this commentary. One has to believe that Paul was familiar with the Biblical story (indeed, that the Old Testament even has an overarching narrative, and even if it does, that Paul was concerned about it). One has to believe that Paul saw the church as occupying a key space in God’s continuing narrative that began with Abraham (586).
From a Reformed perspective, so far, so good.
Accordingly, I will not give a commentary on what Wright thought of each chapter. That is certainly possible and worthwhile, but it misses the narratival thrust of what St Paul is trying to say. Instead, I will highlight major themes and hermeneutical movements that Wright says Paul uses and see if they actually work.
The strength of NTW’s commentary is that his thesis tries to match up with what he deems St Paul’s thesis: God’s righteousness is unveiled in the death and resurrection of his Son. I agree with that, but like many of Wright's claims, it is when he keeps talking that he gets in trouble. The next part of the clause:
—and this is the “gospel.”
There are many angles from which to attack this. I will choose just one. That statement--the resurrection of Jesus as Lord--does not tell me how my sin is dealt with. To be sure, Wright does develop this in his talk of being incorporated into the Messiah, but the statement as it stands is incomplete.
New Exodus, New Creation
Wright suggests that chs. 3-8 of Romans form a narratival substructure. St Paul is paralleling the Christian experience with that of YHWH redeeming the Hebrews from Egypt. Wright notes,
“Allowing for Paul’s new perspective, whereby the promise of the land has been redefined into the promise of inheriting the whole cosmos [4:13; 8:18-25], the pattern is exact” (511). The Israelites were in slavery; God’s people have been redeemed from slave masters (Romans 3:24; 6:16). Other verses could support the claim, and while Wright doesn’t spell out the argument here like in his earlier essay, it runs something like this:
What do we make of this argument? Admittedly, it does have a remarkable unity to it. It places the drama of redemption on a cosmic field. It retells the Old Testament story but this time around the redemption won in Christ. It implicitly draws upon the strong philosophical and hermeneutical resources of “narrative.” But can we know for certain this is what Paul really meant? Maybe, maybe not. Can we know that Paul really meant us to read his letter like a scientific database to proof-text doctrines? Accepting or not accepting Wright’s argument depends on one’s own hermeneutical allowances.
I think there is a lot to be said for this argument. Israel was called to be the means through which God’s saving work was brought to the world. Yet, Israel became the problem and in a sense, it became the microcosm of the problem. Therefore, reading Romans as a narrative on Israel’s narrative makes sense.
Paul and Torah
Torah was God’s gift to Israel to be given to the world. Yet Torah soon was intertwined with the problem. Instead of dealing with sin, it highlighted the sin. There was no way for Israel to escape the dialectic. God’s son—God’s servant ala Isaiah 40-55—allowed Torah to reach a “critical point” on himself, focusing the world’s sins in one place, and dealing decisively with the sin problem once and for all through the death of the Messiah.
This helps us understand the “works of the law” debate. If works of the law is rightly identified with the rites of ethnic Israel—the boundary markers—then what Paul is saying makes sense. If salvation were through Torah, then the death and resurrection of the Messiah is meaningless. If salvation were through Torah and “identity markers,” then we cannot relate to God through faith.
I agree with him that we do not relate to God by Torah and circumcision, but does that exhaust "works of the law?" We find a similar phrase in Galatians 3. "For all those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse." Paul immediately cites Deuteronomy 27:26 as a proof-text. Reading Deuteronomy 27, we find a range of actions that are not reducible to mere identity markers:
Conclusion
This is one of those books that really deserves an extended commentary. It is full of rich insights that cannot be exhausted in one review. There are a few drawbacks, but that happens with any commentary. While the format of the NIB is generally good, the editors’ decision to use the NIV and NRSV as the translations in the text mar a lot of the work. Notwithstanding, this is an interesting commentary.
There is another problem with the commentary. It does not "preach." I do not mean that as an insult. See my earlier comment about its being a biblical theology text. The aim is not word-for-word analysis. Wright gives a good survey of the field, but he often misses many particulars. Some of these particulars, such as how I am right with God, are very importan
There is another problem: this volume was written over twenty years ago. Much about the New Perspective, both pro and con, has been written since then. This book will give you little help in trying to navigate the debate. Even more, the book is not actually trying to defend the New Perspective, though it does at times. The reader is encouraged to read more specific works about the New Perspective (e.g., Waters, Westerholm, Horton, etc) for a better angle on it. In other words, you probably do not need to drop $60 on this book.
I will offer my own critique of Wright in this book, but it will be an emotionless critique. I am not here to "mightily cast down strongholds." I read NT Wright the same way I read other New Testament scholars: I evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. My goal is to tell you what Wright said and offer my own criticisms. It is my hope that such a dispassionate approach will allow you to calmly explain his views to those in your church who might have questions. It is important not to jump on the NT Wright bandwagon. It is equally important to not overreact with hysteria.
In many ways, this is not so much a commentary but an exercise in biblical theology. And for that reason it will be reviewed, not as a commentary, but as a biblical theology textbook. Many presuppositions are required in reading this commentary. One has to believe that Paul was familiar with the Biblical story (indeed, that the Old Testament even has an overarching narrative, and even if it does, that Paul was concerned about it). One has to believe that Paul saw the church as occupying a key space in God’s continuing narrative that began with Abraham (586).
From a Reformed perspective, so far, so good.
Accordingly, I will not give a commentary on what Wright thought of each chapter. That is certainly possible and worthwhile, but it misses the narratival thrust of what St Paul is trying to say. Instead, I will highlight major themes and hermeneutical movements that Wright says Paul uses and see if they actually work.
The strength of NTW’s commentary is that his thesis tries to match up with what he deems St Paul’s thesis: God’s righteousness is unveiled in the death and resurrection of his Son. I agree with that, but like many of Wright's claims, it is when he keeps talking that he gets in trouble. The next part of the clause:
—and this is the “gospel.”
There are many angles from which to attack this. I will choose just one. That statement--the resurrection of Jesus as Lord--does not tell me how my sin is dealt with. To be sure, Wright does develop this in his talk of being incorporated into the Messiah, but the statement as it stands is incomplete.
New Exodus, New Creation
Wright suggests that chs. 3-8 of Romans form a narratival substructure. St Paul is paralleling the Christian experience with that of YHWH redeeming the Hebrews from Egypt. Wright notes,
“Allowing for Paul’s new perspective, whereby the promise of the land has been redefined into the promise of inheriting the whole cosmos [4:13; 8:18-25], the pattern is exact” (511). The Israelites were in slavery; God’s people have been redeemed from slave masters (Romans 3:24; 6:16). Other verses could support the claim, and while Wright doesn’t spell out the argument here like in his earlier essay, it runs something like this:
- Chapter 6: sin as a slave master = Egypt;
- chapter 7: Giving of Torah (ala Exodus 20) = new discussion of Torah and the problem of Torah;
- end of chapter 7 to 8:11: Israelites in wilderness = Christians being led by the Spirit to their inheritance (same language is used of Spirit as was used of glory cloud in the wanderings).
What do we make of this argument? Admittedly, it does have a remarkable unity to it. It places the drama of redemption on a cosmic field. It retells the Old Testament story but this time around the redemption won in Christ. It implicitly draws upon the strong philosophical and hermeneutical resources of “narrative.” But can we know for certain this is what Paul really meant? Maybe, maybe not. Can we know that Paul really meant us to read his letter like a scientific database to proof-text doctrines? Accepting or not accepting Wright’s argument depends on one’s own hermeneutical allowances.
I think there is a lot to be said for this argument. Israel was called to be the means through which God’s saving work was brought to the world. Yet, Israel became the problem and in a sense, it became the microcosm of the problem. Therefore, reading Romans as a narrative on Israel’s narrative makes sense.
Paul and Torah
Torah was God’s gift to Israel to be given to the world. Yet Torah soon was intertwined with the problem. Instead of dealing with sin, it highlighted the sin. There was no way for Israel to escape the dialectic. God’s son—God’s servant ala Isaiah 40-55—allowed Torah to reach a “critical point” on himself, focusing the world’s sins in one place, and dealing decisively with the sin problem once and for all through the death of the Messiah.
This helps us understand the “works of the law” debate. If works of the law is rightly identified with the rites of ethnic Israel—the boundary markers—then what Paul is saying makes sense. If salvation were through Torah, then the death and resurrection of the Messiah is meaningless. If salvation were through Torah and “identity markers,” then we cannot relate to God through faith.
I agree with him that we do not relate to God by Torah and circumcision, but does that exhaust "works of the law?" We find a similar phrase in Galatians 3. "For all those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse." Paul immediately cites Deuteronomy 27:26 as a proof-text. Reading Deuteronomy 27, we find a range of actions that are not reducible to mere identity markers:
- idolatry (v.15)
- dishonoring parents (v. 16)
- incest (vv. 20, 22, 23)
- murder (24).
Conclusion
This is one of those books that really deserves an extended commentary. It is full of rich insights that cannot be exhausted in one review. There are a few drawbacks, but that happens with any commentary. While the format of the NIB is generally good, the editors’ decision to use the NIV and NRSV as the translations in the text mar a lot of the work. Notwithstanding, this is an interesting commentary.
There is another problem with the commentary. It does not "preach." I do not mean that as an insult. See my earlier comment about its being a biblical theology text. The aim is not word-for-word analysis. Wright gives a good survey of the field, but he often misses many particulars. Some of these particulars, such as how I am right with God, are very importan
