# N.T. Wright



## The Baptist

Has there been any discussion threads about N.T. Wright? I've had some evangelical friends that have sort of morphed into his camp, but I haven't heard anything compelling enough that he has said to warrant anyone doing much of anything. 

Or... Can anyone summarize why he is causing a stir? I've read a bit about his view of the "covenant" and "covenant membership" and read a bit about why he seems confused. Can anyone crystalize this for me? Thanks


----------



## Jash Comstock

First, I disclaimer; I'm no expert.

Now, from what I've read of Wright, he is very scholarly and does bring some interesting points to the table but I'd never recommend him to someone not confessionally grounded. He reminds me of Barth in that respect (though not as unorthodox). Wright seems semi-orthodox, but is all muddled up when it comes to covenants and especially Pauline theology.

I think he's causing such a big stir because he is conservative enough to exist within our circles, but still has some heterodox ideas. Generally, I think he talks more radical than he is in most respects.

That's just my opinion of him.


----------



## arapahoepark

The roots of his methodology are to blame and also what he assumes. First, he assumes that there wasn't a shred of legalism in Judaism during Jesus' and Paul's time. If this is the case, Wright then wonders along with Sanders and Dunn, what was Paul yapping about? It was nationalism they say. If that is the case, why is he using words like righteousness and justification if it wasn't legalistic? They must mean how one can become a member of the covenant they say. As a result of the first faulty assumption they proceed to build faulty pillars and Wright's, in particular, methodology starts proving too much. He'll go to the OT find a large chunk of context where the Hebrew words righteousness or vindication look like at least to Wright) they are absolutely tied to the word 'covenant' and the Psalms where the parallelism of the word faithfulness and righteousness are taken to mean the exact same thing. He projects these alleged meanings onto Paul's phrases about a nationalistic covenant. So works of the law now mean only boundary markers, righteousness of God means his faithfulness rather than a status before Him. Ergo he denies imputation and the actual meanings of the Greek words. Paul no doubt being fluent (maybe greek was his first language if he came from Turkey) knew what the words meant, so why did he change the meanings?
The foundations and pillars are weak. Just because grace is mentioned in second temple Judaism doesn't make it Augustinian, and there is plenty of evidence it wasn't wholely gracious anyway. Crack that foundation the rest of it crumbles. The whole nationalistic and badges (Christian baptism and faith vs. Jewish sabbath, circumcision, etc) is tkoo neat anyway and proves too much in Wright's theology.


----------



## RamistThomist

He is outstanding on Jesus and the Resurrection. Problems arise on Pauline theology. Ironically, EP Sanders demonstrated Pelagian strains in 2TJ, pace Wright.


----------



## hammondjones

RTS on ITunesU used to have a D.A. Carson lecture on NPP, which helped me quite a bit. It may still be there (can't check at the moment).


----------



## The Baptist

arap said:


> righteousness of God means his faithfulness rather than a status before Him



Can you give me an example of this? One that Wright would mention from scripture? Thanks so much brothers!


----------



## arapahoepark

Wright would use Romans 3:21 and an example from the Psalms are 143:1.
Hebrew scholars don't believe 'synonymous' parallelism is meant to be saying the exact same thing rather they are saying A, what is more B.


----------



## The Baptist

arap said:


> Wright would use Romans 3:21 and an example from the Psalms are 143:1.
> Hebrew scholars don't believe 'synonymous' parallelism is meant to be saying the exact same thing rather they are saying A, what is more B.



This sounds so strange to my reformed ears. Ha. I can't understand in the context of Romans 3:21 how that could be a possible reading. God's own "faithfulness" is revealed? Does this mean he is faithful to those who have faith and are therefore justified by faith? Isn't that saying the same thing we say, only saying it in a longer and more confusing way? Or is that the game being played? If it is made confusing, does it become more universal?


----------



## arapahoepark

http://www.tomholland.org.uk/contours-of-pauline-theology/


The Baptist said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wright would use Romans 3:21 and an example from the Psalms are 143:1.
> Hebrew scholars don't believe 'synonymous' parallelism is meant to be saying the exact same thing rather they are saying A, what is more B.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds so strange to my reformed ears. Ha. I can't understand in the context of Romans 3:21 how that could be a possible reading. God's own "faithfulness" is revealed? Does this mean he is faithful to those who have faith and are therefore justified by faith? Isn't that saying the same thing we say, only saying it in a longer and more confusing way? Or is that the game being played? If it is made confusing, does it become more universal?
Click to expand...


For a further refutation and drawing out the 'good' of the NPP chapter 9 of Contours of Pauline Theology which Dr. Tom Holland so gracious put online for free (the whole book actually).


----------



## Philip

Several things to note: first of all is the language of a New Perspective. Wright himself admits that his perspective is only new in relation to modern scholarship. His project, really, is to help modern scholarship catch up with what the church has been saying all along. I watched him lecture and answer questions at Harvard and in that context it was fairly plain that this is what he's up to.

A second point is that the impression I'm getting is that his earlier statements about Paul may have softened a bit. He's willing to talk about union with Christ as a context for salvation, but it still gets muddled from there.

I should also point out that the major problem is that Wright isn't enough of an OT scholar to really understand the context for righteousness in the OT. Righteousness is a status of Divine favour. Further, the ending of Genesis 22 sets the precedent for the principle of imputed righteousness (Gordon Hugenberger has done some excellent work on this).


----------



## The Baptist

Philip said:


> Genesis 22 sets the precedent for the principle of imputed righteousness



In the "God will provide" sense, yes?


----------



## Philip

The Baptist said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 22 sets the precedent for the principle of imputed righteousness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the "God will provide" sense, yes?
Click to expand...


Not quite: Abraham's obedience is the basis on which Israel inherits the promised land. His obedience earns blessing for his descendants.


----------



## RamistThomist

Philip said:


> I should also point out that the major problem is that Wright isn't enough of an OT scholar to really understand the context for righteousness in the OT. Righteousness is a status of Divine favour. Further, the ending of Genesis 22 sets the precedent for the principle of imputed righteousness (Gordon Hugenberger has done some excellent work on this).



That's the best analysis of Wright I have seen. I've read everything he has written, except for his latest two volumes on Paul, and this is the most succinct way of stating where he goes wrong. And I say this as someone who appreciates much of what he has written.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Philip said:


> The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 22 sets the precedent for the principle of imputed righteousness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the "God will provide" sense, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite: Abraham's obedience is the basis on which Israel inherits the promised land. His obedience earns blessing for his descendants.
Click to expand...


This is a problematic read, to me, on Christocentric principles, and gracious principles. I can "force" it through, but otherwise it seems to artificially cut off the Gen22 "highlight" of Abraham's life from the rest of it. But this Abraham that obeys in the great matter of sacrificing his son, is the same believer-and-failure of the previous ten chs.

And if this one act of obedience is viewed in abstraction, and taken as the *earned basis* for inheriting the land by the descendants, that idea gives legs to "one supreme act" of obedience that God will accept _in lieu of_ full obedience, whether some "meaningful" act, or "faith." Or it supports the idea of "congruent merit," where we do what lies within us, and God handles the rest.

How can this view fail to produce in Abraham's heirs the idea that "if I too obey, the Lord will reward me and my descendants _for my obedience_." I think finding an early "imputation" here of Abraham's righteousness is much too high a price to pay. And I think it is needlessly eliminative of grace.

It is because (in an sense) of an obedient Abraham here that the Promise is carried on, and the future Israelites are able to be delivered out of Egypt. But Abraham's obedience does not flow from himself. It is God's own gift, and certainly not earned. How then could it be the basis for his descendants to inherit the land?

Simply because he does obey _by the grace of God,_ _by the grace of God_ the covenant is renewed in Isaac.


----------



## Philip

Contra_Mundum said:


> It is because (in an sense) of an obedient Abraham here that the Promise is carried on, and the future Israelites are able to be delivered out of Egypt. But Abraham's obedience does not flow from himself. It is God's own gift, and certainly not earned. How then could it be the basis for his descendants to inherit the land?



Right. My point is that Abraham here is a type of Christ in that the angel of the Lord tells him that because he obeyed, Isaac and his descendants get to inherit the land. God here is setting up an imputation principle that will ultimately be realized in Christ. Of course Abraham can only obey by grace, and he only has grace because of the (to him future) work of Christ. All that I am trying to highlight is that imputed righteousness is an OT concept, not something invented by Paul or the reformers. The righteousness of Abraham, like the righteousness of Noah is an alien righteousness, yet they provide types of the perfect Noah, the perfect Abraham, the second Adam.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Philip,
Since I haven't read the author to whom you refer, I don't want to be hyper-critical. I realize that you are mediating certain insights of another person that may have resonated with you, and perhaps with the history of theology in the long view.

I worry about the level of abstraction this imputational-insight requires. For it truly to work as described, this story must (for all intents and purposes) be abstracted from the rest of Abraham's life; but, paradoxically, this one act _not be abstracted_ from a seamless connection to the later generation of Israelites of the Exodus, and after them the generation of inheritors of the land, and then their sons and daughters.

Indeed, the Exodus generation is the first to read Moses, the first to apply those specific redemptive-history lessons (in this form) for the formation of their religious self-consciousness. But the episodes of Abraham's life are not pearls-on-a-string. I'm having a difficult time with the idea that God favors the later generation(s) based on Abraham's earned reward. That, to me, simply validates the Pharisaic interpretation of Abraham and Genesis, and subverts Jesus' and Paul's. I'm not finding that accurately read from Gen22. Abraham was not the first "Torah-keeper," not according to Paul.

In the typology of Gen.22, Abraham is (so to speak) playing the part of God (the Father); Isaac, the role of the Son/Seed/Messiah. Focusing on Abraham's obedience here, as a lesson dealing with imputation (of righteousness)--it seems unconstrained by a more careful biblical theology.


----------



## Philip

_“By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”_

This is the section I am referring to, for clarity's sake.

I want to muddy the waters a bit here simply because I think Genesis itself does so. Abraham is indeed justified by faith and not by works, and God promises (Gen 15) to uphold both sides of the covenant. Yet there seems to be a conditionality on Israel's faithfulness. What we see in Exodus 32, moreover is that though there will always be a faithful remnant, it can be a remnant of one. In the final analysis, there is only one faithful Israelite: Jesus, and in him, Israel is fulfilled and redeemed.

What we have in Genesis 22 is Abraham and Isaac both acting as types of Christ: Isaac as sacrifice and Abraham as priest (not the only time that Abraham acts in this capacity). You're right that the larger story of Abraham shows that his righteousness is not perfect, nor is his obedience blameless. Yet God chose to use his flawed obedience to grant the land to Israel and to point to the greater Abraham who was to come.

We can also justly ask how David is a type of Christ in 2 Samuel 22 when he offers himself in place of Israel (after all, he is the one who sinned) or how Moses is a type of Christ when he was not the perfect mediator. There is no uncomplicated typology in the OT--the mirror is always dim.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

It's not the flawed types that concern me, Philip. Nor opacity that must wait ages to be cleared away. But mixed messages. Gen.22:18 appears to be _the_ specific text that Paul refers to in Gal.3:16, the one Seed, who is also the one faithful Israelite.

The focus of the story of Gen.22 is Isaac, and the inheritance which is his to possess. The text involves Abraham (who _is_ a flawed man, and everyone reading the story is now clear on this) who has been the central man of promise to start with, from Gen.12. He's now hoping in the God of Promise, and his promised seed. It's a text culminating in the transference of hope from type to antitype.

Furthermore, we have to ask, if the binding of Isaac is an _act of mediation_ (i.e. priestly sacrifice), for whom is mediation being made in this case? If there is one thing that is utterly obscure in this story, it is that point precisely. Since Abraham doesn't know what he's up to, other than being tested, there's no mediation for him to perform by sacrifice. He certainly wouldn't be self-atoning. On the other hand, as he stands in the divine role (as the God who gives up his one and only Son to be sacrificed), what he *offers* is eventually revealed as Redemption, self-sacrifice for others' sake. But Abraham doesn't nearly plunge his knife into his own chest. And, God doesn't actually let Abraham follow through with his incomprehensible offering, while still giving him his son back as if from the dead, Heb.11:19.

I don't agree that what's intended is typological double-vision here. It isn't the case that Abraham _merely by virtue of his sacrificial function_ reprises his prime priestly mediatorial type, so plain to see in a text like 20:17; the altar is not mentioned there, nor in Gen.18, Abraham's major priestly mediation. In other texts where he builds an altar (e.g. 12:7; 13:4, 18) that function is only implied. Compare to Isaac in Gen.26:30, where the altar is only 5vv away (v25); and Jacob, Gen.31:53-54. Yes, the priestly role is routinely typological of the Great High Priest; but its wrong to inflate a supporting detail to the level of the primary significance of the text. Isaac's question, 22:7, presupposes the role of the priest; but the reader already knows (as Abraham himself knows) that Abraham isn't performing the standard role.

Extracting conditionality from this text really does strike me as misleading. Israel inherits what Abraham merited for them, through one crucial effort, that covers his whole (checkered) career with unfading glory? Even by saying that it is "typological" merit typologically imputed, and that the foreshadowed hero is coming later on in the story--we have to reckon with the fact that the priestly act of the Messiah isn't his meritorious obedience and righteousness given to those united to him.

It is Christ's unblemished life, and not his self-immolation that is our righteousness (the missing black ink). Which is our entrance into the Promised Land. And his self-immolation is the substitution for our penalty (our red ink). And where in Abraham's consummate act of merit is the never-ending intercession, the eternal pleading of the act that forever blots our stains white?


Believe me when I say I understand the effort to see the typological imputation of the righteousness of one (in Gen.22:16), for the many. If it be here, nascent, it is all but invisible. It isn't prepared to be seen. I think one has to wait until the king of Israel arrives, David and his successors, to find the head of the people in whose (typological and imperfect) obedience all the people are found obedient and righteous.


----------



## RamistThomist

Kevin Vanhoozer gives a fine (and hysterical) analysis of Wright's theology. He points out problems but also is honest about the good things.


----------



## Philip

Contra_Mundum said:


> Extracting conditionality from this text really does strike me as misleading. Israel inherits what Abraham merited for them, through one crucial effort, that covers his whole (checkered) career with unfading glory? Even by saying that it is "typological" merit typologically imputed, and that the foreshadowed hero is coming later on in the story--we have to reckon with the fact that the priestly act of the Messiah isn't his meritorious obedience and righteousness given to those united to him.



The major theme of Genesis, though, is the second Adam. Abraham, Noah, Isaac, and Jacob are all contrasted with Adam in that they obey where Adam disobeyed (though it's also clear that their righteousness is not their own). In Abraham's case, Genesis 22 is the culmination of his test, and his obedience brings blessing for his descendants, just as Adam's disobedience brought a curse. The language of Paul in Romans 5 and elsewhere is picking up on the Genesis narrative.

Now naturally, we have new terms set forth in the Mosaic covenant, but still, Abraham's obedience is seen here as gaining blessing for his descendants. They inherit the land because they are his descendants, not because of any merit on their own part, just as we inherit the promise because we are in Christ.

I hope I'm making sense here. As I've been reading the Bible from a literary and historical standpoint, I've begun to notice "NT" theology in the OT, and that even without trying. The question then arises as to where this concept of imputation is to be found in the OT: where is obedience credited to others, and I think the principle begins in Genesis 22.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I appreciate the interaction, Philip. I'll continue to think and reflect on the factors you've highlighted. I agree, starting in Gen. the OT keeps presenting hopes for a second Adam, a new beginning. The message within OT hope seems to be that attempts at obedience--such as it is--doesn't amount to significant contrast at all.

For the present, to my sight there is significant _disanalogy_ between inheritance and imputation, _analogy _of which seems to be key to finding imputation of Abraham's righteousness to future generations. The descendants get blessed from Abraham's obedience, but they remain under probation. They are not forever viewed through the lens of Abraham's obedience, the virtue of their union. A permanent connection to the obedient one and his ongoing reward is true imputation.

When Israel sins, and the Lord is angry with them, and Moses pleads the Lord's promise to the patriarchs, he doesn't mention the obedience of Abraham! Just the promise. God promises to renew the covenant because of Abraham's faithfulness, Gen.22; penalty is not meted out because of God's faithfulness, Ex.32, because he is unaccountably gracious to covenant breakers.

Hence, my problem with what still sounds like a mixed message--in by grace, and stay in by works--imputation only goes so far? Still seems to me when you work this particular point out, the Pharisees must be correct to a degree in reasoning to (partial, at least) works-righteousness.

Is the NC better, by getting rid of that last vestige of works, formerly necessary in the OT era? I know that's pretty much the argument of some, but Paul undercuts that whole view. At the very least, he declares that _Abraham_ had nothing to boast of, but rested in faith alone; and is thereby the father of all believers. I take him to teach the Jews were *wrong* to read Abraham's experience through the lens of Torah-keeping.


----------



## MW

Philip said:


> I hope I'm making sense here. As I've been reading the Bible from a literary and historical standpoint, I've begun to notice "NT" theology in the OT, and that even without trying. The question then arises as to where this concept of imputation is to be found in the OT: where is obedience credited to others, and I think the principle begins in Genesis 22.



Genesis 12 indicates that the promise was given to Abraham before he started his pilgrimage and Hebrews 11 teaches that it was by faith he and his children sojourned in the land as heirs of promise. In Romans 4:13 the Apostle argues that the promise relative to himself and his seed was made with Abraham prior to circumcision or any work on his part and was altogether a covenant of grace. The oath of Genesis 22 only added confirmation and assurance of what had already been established.


----------



## Philip

Contra_Mundum said:


> For the present, to my sight there is significant disanalogy between inheritance and imputation, analogy of which seems to be key to finding imputation of Abraham's righteousness to future generations. The descendants get blessed from Abraham's obedience, but they remain under probation. They are not forever viewed through the lens of Abraham's obedience, the virtue of their union. A permanent connection to the obedient one and his ongoing reward is true imputation.



Again, it's a very limited kind of imputation. Abraham's seed get to _enter_ the promised land, but the generation that left Egypt is left out of that for disobedience (and eventually, so is Moses!). It's fairly clear that a better Abraham (a better Moses!) is needed.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Is the NC better, by getting rid of that last vestige of works, formerly necessary in the OT era? I know that's pretty much the argument of some, but Paul undercuts that whole view. At the very least, he declares that Abraham had nothing to boast of, but rested in faith alone; and is thereby the father of all believers. I take him to teach the Jews were wrong to read Abraham's experience through the lens of Torah-keeping.



Right, and I think that's right. My only point in Genesis 22 is that Abraham is acting for the whole of the covenant people and his action is declared by God to be a righteous one meriting a very specific (and limited) blessing for Israel. Ultimately, of course, it is Jesus who is the perfectly faithful Israelite who upholds the terms of the covenant so perfectly that no further obedience is necessary and through him we inherit the fulness of the promises made to Abraham.


----------



## Mathetes

It's also worth noting that Wright has a good article critiquing the Jesus Seminar.


----------



## MW

Mathetes said:


> It's also worth noting that Wright has a good article critiquing the Jesus Seminar.



If a Roman Catholic scholar has also written against it to good effect, does this entitle him to some special consideration?


----------



## Loopie

Would it be fair to say that the concept of imputation is already seen clearly in the OT in the case of Adam? In that situation it is an imputation of guilt and a sinful nature. All who come from Adam, and are represented by him, receive what he "merited" (guilt, condemnation, and a spiritually dead nature). Of course, Christ is a new and better Adam, who imputes righteousness to his people. 

If we do see some type of imputation from Abraham, it is certainly limited, although perhaps we are confusing imputation with covenant blessings/promises. Simply because a covenant exists (with promises and blessings) does not necessarily mean that imputation is taking place. It seems that only the Covenant of Works with Adam and the New Covenant with Christ have characteristics of imputation. For instance, in the Davidic Covenant God is making certain promises to David and his line. But I do not think that David is imputing anything to those who come after him. In fact, Christ himself is from the line of David, but I think it would be silly to say that David imputed anything to Christ. Thoughts?


----------



## MW

Loopie said:


> In fact, Christ himself is from the line of David, but I think it would be silly to say that David imputed anything to Christ. Thoughts?



What is Christ's is imputed to David, Ps. 32; Rom. 4. Without Christ to come there would be no covenant promise and no blessing in the line of generations.

According to the teaching of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, there are only two representative men, Adam and Christ, and all men are in one or the other of these representative men.


----------



## Mathetes

armourbearer said:


> Mathetes said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also worth noting that Wright has a good article critiquing the Jesus Seminar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a Roman Catholic scholar has also written against it to good effect, does this entitle him to some special consideration?
Click to expand...


That would depend largely on what is meant by "special consideration."


----------



## Philip

Loopie said:


> Would it be fair to say that the concept of imputation is already seen clearly in the OT in the case of Adam? In that situation it is an imputation of guilt and a sinful nature. All who come from Adam, and are represented by him, receive what he "merited" (guilt, condemnation, and a spiritually dead nature). Of course, Christ is a new and better Adam, who imputes righteousness to his people.



We're not disputing any of this. Wright has no problem with imputation of guilt or with Christ as second Adam. What he disputes is the imputation of Christ's active obedience, which is why I'm looking to find it in the OT. If Wright is correct in his reading of the OT, then the concept of imputed righteousness (active obedience) is foreign to Paul and a reformation-era interpolation. If, though, the concept is found in the OT, then Wright's interpretation needs to be re-examined.

Another illustration, by the way, would be the ark: Noah's obedience is the salvation of his family (though it's clear from the text that Noah is righteous because he finds favour with God, not the other way around).


----------



## The Baptist

Philip said:


> Not quite: Abraham's obedience is the basis on which Israel inherits the promised land. His obedience earns blessing for his descendants.



I would have to disagree that Abraham truly earned anything for anyone. God gave something to someone, that is the only transaction in my opinion. Abraham is regenerate and his obedience is a sign of that, but God is honoring his own gift that he has already given by blessing Abraham as he does all believers he has remade. So I would respectfully disagree and say that imputation is indeed a principle I see in this chapter and it's Christ's righteousness imputed to Abraham before he acts. He's "made" righteous, when indeed he is a sinner.

I listened to this this week and found it to be instructive, at least for me. It seems to me that Wright simply likes to stir the water and that in fact he's not done anything too groundbreaking or heretical. But only found a POSSIBLE nuance in the context of words that doesn't alter anything in orthodox understanding enough to change the way anything in our lives would be worked out in terms of salvation or sanctification. It is my take that people simply like to take sides and line up behind their favorite heroes of the faith and so there is a controversy that is not too awfully controversial. 

NT Wright vs. James White - St. Paul & Justification - Unbelievable? - YouTube


----------



## RamistThomist

armourbearer said:


> Mathetes said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also worth noting that Wright has a good article critiquing the Jesus Seminar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a Roman Catholic scholar has also written against it to good effect, does this entitle him to some special consideration?
Click to expand...


No, but that shouldn't mean the argument is off-limits. I like reading a lot of Thomas Aquinas, but he is a Roman Catholic.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Philip said:


> We're not disputing any of this. Wright has no problem with imputation of guilt or with Christ as second Adam. What he disputes is the imputation of Christ's active obedience, which is why I'm looking to find it in the OT. If Wright is correct in his reading of the OT, then the concept of imputed righteousness (active obedience) is foreign to Paul and a reformation-era interpolation. If, though, the concept is found in the OT, then Wright's interpretation needs to be re-examined.


This is completely backwards.

It's like the heretics who claim that one has to find a fully worked out Trinitarian formulation in the OT in order for the Trinity to be a valid doctrine. Peter makes clear that the OT prophets searched what they wrote for our benefit because certain truths that are now self-evident with the revelation of Christ were hidden in types and shadows in the OT. Paul is the theologian who truly unpacks these things. He's the one who, in Romans 4 and Galatians 3, what might not have been on the surface of things in Genesus but, by Revelation, we see what is true. Wright ignores what Paul plainly says in favor of trying to go into the OT, without the light of the NT, in order to prove that what the NT says about the OT is not true.


----------



## Philip

Semper Fidelis said:


> It's like the heretics who claim that one has to find a fully worked out Trinitarian formulation in the OT in order for the Trinity to be a valid doctrine.



Right, but the ground is prepared, so to speak. Where is the OT typology of imputed righteousness? Every other aspect of soteriology has its OT typological precedent, including penal substitution and imputed sin (none of which Wright denies).



The Baptist said:


> So I would respectfully disagree and say that imputation is indeed a principle I see in this chapter and it's Christ's righteousness imputed to Abraham before he acts. He's "made" righteous, when indeed he is a sinner.



Where is that in the text, though?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Philip said:


> Right, but the ground is prepared, so to speak. Where is the OT typology of imputed righteousness? Every other aspect of soteriology has its OT typological precedent, including penal substitution and imputed sin (none of which Wright denies).


But you're asking the wrong question. There is no OT "typology" for the Trinity. It is revealed in the NT. Imputed righteousness is clearly revealed in Romans 4. It's not necessarily on the surface in Genesis 12-22 but we can see it in light of what Paul says in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. To demand that something cannot be revealed by Christ unless "the ground is prepared" is not a demand that the Scriptures make for themselves. They are "shadows" for a reason. Some things that happen in the NT are surprising. Why do you suppose Christ was rejected by so many in His day?


----------



## Philip

Semper Fidelis said:


> Why do you suppose Christ was rejected by so many in His day?



Because they were blind to what they ought to have known. Because they knew exactly what he was saying--and hated it.

Wright's case against imputed righteousness is based on an exegesis of the Old Testament which he then uses to interpret Paul. If Wright's exegesis of the OT is correct, then it's the way that Paul reads the OT as well.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Some things that happen in the NT are surprising.



Sure, but they are still revealed in the OT. Things like the humiliation of Christ are typified in the servant songs of Isaiah. The Divinity of Christ in the Son of Man in Daniel. Types and shadows, yes, but crucial to understanding the NT. The principles of salvation are already present in the OT---and imputed righteousness is one of them. Righteousness at Mount Moriah leads to a blessing for Israel. David's righteousness leads to a blessing for Solomon. Again, types and shadows, and of course imperfect. All these, of course, are objects opf grace and their righteousness is marred by sin, lapses, etc. But the typology is still there that _David_ is the reason why the kingdom will be blessed, just as _Abraham_ is the reason that Israel gets to inherit the land. Both, in limited ways, serve as examples of active obedience leading to blessing for others.


----------



## The Baptist

Philip said:


> Where is that in the text, though?



Romans chapter 4.


----------



## ZackF

Philip said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's like the heretics who claim that one has to find a fully worked out Trinitarian formulation in the OT in order for the Trinity to be a valid doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but the ground is prepared, so to speak. Where is the OT typology of imputed righteousness? Every other aspect of soteriology has its OT typological precedent, including penal substitution and imputed sin (none of which Wright denies).
> 
> 
> 
> The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I would respectfully disagree and say that imputation is indeed a principle I see in this chapter and it's Christ's righteousness imputed to Abraham before he acts. He's "made" righteous, when indeed he is a sinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that in the text, though?
Click to expand...



What about Genesis 15:6? Is that not imputed righteousness?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Philip,
It takes 66 books, and the unfolding of progressive revelation, to arrive at full-blown theology.

What is revealed in Christ's Person is more than simply a list of types fully filled in. Christ is the answer/reversal to the sin spread to all men for Adam's sake; but that's not necessarily a point that can be unpacked until his arrival, and the explanation of the success of his mission.

Paul simply points to Adam and the results of his headship, and declares that one may now have another Head in whose obedience (by contrast) men may have union. It is not necessary to have had one or many previous (OT) trials, resulting in less-than-perfect/impermanent credits for others.

We see solidarity in covenant in the OT. We see covenant renewal, and blessings that the next generation inherits. And in the Davidic kingship, we start to see the more fleshing-out of hope in someone whose personal righteousness will benefit everyone who identifies with him, indeed with a lasting institution. Imputation is a benefit for _*the living*_. That is a critical point. Inheritance and imputation are concepts that connect, but they are not the same idea.


Finally, an earlier point of mine was pointing out that without care, taking this route one may end up affirming--instead of denying--the NTW's doctrine. It is not as though the imputation that is proposed on this read of Abraham's obedience definitely accomplishes the work of gaining the land. It only makes it "possible" for the late-comers to give it their best shot. And _that_ is very nearly what the NewPerspectivePaul school claims is continuity between Paul and his NT contemporary 2nd Temple Judaism counterparts.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm dis-satisfied with the answer I gave before about a lack of a typology for the imputation of active righteousness.

I don't buy into the argument that we have to base our typology of imputed righteousness on the 2nd Temple literature or N.T. Wright's own flawed Biblical theology. I do believe, however, the typology of Mounts Ebal and Gerizim provide a grand typology of the need for the active obedience of another to achieve the blessings promised. I was mowing my lawn when this came to mind. I will simply share the sermon I delivered to present the larger case for those who care to read:

http://1drv.ms/1rS070S

Like Christ's response to the Saducees, where He appealed to Genesis 3 as a defense of the Resurrection, this typology requires some good and necessary consequence reasoning. That is to say, it's not on the surface of things but I believe Paul has the blessings and the cursings in mind when he teaches that those who live by the Law are under a curse. The Law and the Sacrifices were on Ebal and there is a typological sense, fulfilled in the history of Israel, that the obedience of another will be required to inherit the blessings promised on Mount Gerizim.

You may also listen to the sermon here: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=551469463


----------



## MW

Baroque Norseman said:


> No, but that shouldn't mean the argument is off-limits. I like reading a lot of Thomas Aquinas, but he is a Roman Catholic.



The thread is assessing Wright's interpretation of Pauline justification. The fact he may have contributed to Christian scholarship with respect to the quest for the historical Jesus does not entitle him to any indulgence to spread error and confusion on another area. A person who has won medals defending his country is not entitled to recklessly wave his weapon around a peaceful society.

Breadth of reading is no reason to open the door to latitudinarianism.


----------



## Peairtach

I've heard of Joseph, Moses and David being types of Christ, but not Abraham, who is the father of those who have faith.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Loopie

In looking at the following passages would it be fair to say that there is a shadow of imputed righteousness here:

Jeremiah 23:5-6 (NASB) 
5 "Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land. 
6 "In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, 'The LORD our righteousness.' 

Jeremiah 33:14-16 (NASB) 
14 'Behold, days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 
15 ~'In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. 
16 ~'In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she will be called: the LORD is our righteousness.' 

The fact that the people of God can say that "The Lord is OUR righteousness" implies, perhaps in a subtle way, that their righteousness derives from the Lord. It is the Lord's righteousness that is considered also to be the people of the Lord's. Thoughts?


----------



## Philip

The Baptist said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that in the text, though?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans chapter 4.
Click to expand...


I mean the text of Genesis 22, the chapter under discussion.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Paul simply points to Adam and the results of his headship, and declares that one may now have another Head in whose obedience (by contrast) men may have union. It is not necessary to have had one or many previous (OT) trials, resulting in less-than-perfect/impermanent credits for others.



Except that he's picking up on the second Adam motif that is central to Genesis and the OT.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Finally, an earlier point of mine was pointing out that without care, taking this route one may end up affirming--instead of denying--the NTW's doctrine.



Fair enough.


----------



## Peairtach

Abraham isn't a type of Christ. He's a model of true faith being exercised by a sinful man to all his believing desendants in the OT Church and the NT Church.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------

