Gospel Prism

This podcast is definitely worth a listen. In many ways, it’s NT Wright at his best. His testimony was very interesting. The interviewer’s questions on justification allowed Bishop Wright to explain his views on justification. I listened to the podcast while also reading along the transcripts. Here are some noteworthy quotes:

Regarding critics like John Piper:

Piper is in a different category. He graciously sent me an advance manuscript of his book which is critiquing me and invited my comments on it. I sent him a lengthy set of comments. I’ve only just got on email about two days ago the book in the revised form and I haven’t had a chance to look at it yet. So I cannot say whether he’s being fair or not at this stage.

But I do know that he has done his darndest to be fair and I honor that and I respect that. People have asked me if I’m going to write a response, and the answer is that I don’t know. I’m kind of busy right now. But I maybe should, sooner or later.

Regarding his views on justification:

So we say that the future moment when God will finally do what God will finally do, he will declare, by raising them from the dead: “These people are in the right!” That’s going to happen in the future.

And then justification by faith says, that verdict too is anticipated in the present. And when somebody believes in the gospel of Jesus Christ, even if their moral life has been a mess, even if they’re not from the right family, they didn’t go to the right school, they have no money in their pockets… God says, “You are my beloved child. With you I am well pleased.” The verdict of the future is brought forward into the present on the basis of faith and faith alone, and faith is the result of God’s grace through the gospel of Jesus crucified and risen.

People have often said, “Your idea…” (pointing to me) “…that future salvation will be based on the whole life led.” I say, Excuse me. I didn’t write Romans 2:1-16! Romans 2:1-16 is Romans 2:1-16. The evangelical tradition has screened out Romans 2 because it didn’t know what it was there for. Because the great evangelical tradition to which I’m hugely indebted tends to say, “We know a priori that Romans 1:18-3:20 basically says, ‘You’re all sinners and that’s it’ in order that then, 3:21 and following can say, ‘You’re all saved by grace through faith.’” And so they screen out the fine tuning of what 1:18-3:20 is actually about.

And chapter 2 particularly has been very controversial, not only for evangelicals but actually for liberal scholars as well. Ed Sanders really doesn’t know, didn’t know when he wrote his two books on Paul what Romans 2:1-16 was all about. But it’s quite clear. It’s a typically Jewish statement of a future judgment day on which God will reward or punish according to the entire life led. And in case you should think that Paul is saying “This is an odd Jewish idea which I’m rejecting,” he anchors it with the fact that it is Jesus who is going to be the Judge on that last day.

I don’t know how he can say that evangelical scholars have ’screened out’ Romans 2, considering both Doug Moo (in his NICNT commentary on Romans) and John Piper (The Future of Justification: A Response to NT Wright) refute NT Wright’s view reading of this text. And of course, many other scholars as well have argued against his reading of Romans 2. However, it does seem as though Bishop Wright has an a priori view that an exegesis of Romans 2 that holds to the orthodox exegesis of the text which counters his reading, is either a deficient exegesis or a ’screening out’ of the text. What I noticed throughout NT Wright’s interview is that he continually refers to what he says as if it is always equivalent to what Paul says. But should there be counter arguments against his view, they are not countering NT Wright, but rather, Paul: “People have often said, “Your idea…” (pointing to me) “…that future salvation will be based on the whole life led.” I say, Excuse me. I didn’t write Romans 2:1-16! Romans 2:1-16 is Romans 2:1-16.”

NT Wright is smart, witty, and easy to listen to (admittedly, the British accent helps). But at the same time, I wish his views on justification would change to what Paul says.