Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God– Part Sixty Six

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 10:52 pm by Ben Witherington

Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God– Part Sixty Six 2015-03-13T22:52:11-04:00 Ben Witherington

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

By way of reminder, the three gi-normous chapters in Tom’s magnum opus, that carry most of the freight of his argument focus on: 1) monotheism redefined; 2) election/ecclesiology redone; and 3) eschatology freshly re-envisioned. We are in the midst of working through the last of these three major subsections of the study, and we will be covering the discussion in pp. 1128-51 in this post. A good deal of this material has been already covered in earlier chapters (particularly in the discussion of 2 mentioned above), and so now Tom is viewing some of these same things through an eschatological lens, or viewpoint. In other words, we are not dealing with mere repetition, but different angles of incidence into the central issues.

Beginning on p. 1129, Tom stakes out the views that he rejects when it comes to the issue of the relationship of Israel and the Church, and of course he does so on the basis of his view of election. He does not think that the two track, two peoples of God model works– against Gager, Gaston, Eisenbaum, W. Campbell etc. as a way of reading Paul. And he rejects the notion, sometimes noised about by that view point, that he is instead offering a form of super-sessionism, i.e. the church replaces Israel. As Tom stresses on this page, the discussion has been skewed in modernity by seeing this as a matter of dueling religions. The point is not about Judaism vs. Christianity, but rather we are dealing with two or more forms of the multi-faceted reality that was early Judaism. Tom stresses, that the very use of ‘fulfillment’ rather than replacement language should have helped make this clear. Why would a new ‘religio’ be interested in fulfilling the promises and prophecies of an old one, if it simply saw itself as the replacement of this other religion? So Tom on p. 1130 stresses we are dealing with an inner Jewish dispute, and in Galatians, which will be the focus of this post, we are dealing with a dispute between two different Jewish messianic approaches to the praxis of the faith focused on Jesus. As we would say— its an in-house debate between two groups of Jewish Christians, not a debate between even between Gentile and Jewish Christians. Tom believes that Paul sees Jesus as the Jewish messiah and those who embrace him as true Jews, the true Israel of God (see below on Gal. 6). Hence the rejection of the two track approach to Paul, largely based on a certain reading of Rom. 9-11.

Equally, Tom rejects the Dispensational, two-track model as well, rejecting the idea that there are still promises about land and the like being now fulfilled in non-Christian Israel, in the Holy Land. Rather Tom would insist that all the prophecies and promises of God are fulfilled in and through the Christ, and not elsewhere or as Paul would put it, they are ‘yea and Amen’ in Jesus.

Further, Tom rejects the universal salvation view, based in part on modern relativism. He stresses that the ‘all’ that sometimes shows up in Paul (‘God has shut up all in the prison of disobedience so he might have mercy on all’), must be understood in its proper context, and in some cases we are dealing with deliberate rhetorical hyperbole, as is clear from the other passages where Paul talks about only some being saved in the long run.

On p. 1132 there is an interesting personal reflection by Tom on his own journey and he admits that at one point earlier in his life, he took a view of a text like Rom. 11.25 to indicate that God still had plans for non-Christian Israel in the future, namely that they would one day be saved by Christ, perhaps at his return. He no longer embraces such a view. On p. 1133 he admits that it maybe he has misread Paul, and “if it turns out that Paul says things I do not want to hear, I shall live with it.” And I would say, Paul already said some things Tom doesn’t want to hear, and in various regards his earlier views of Rom. 11 are more nearly on the mark.

The bulk of the discussion in this section of the book focuses on the major proof texts that have been endlessly debated when it comes to the issue of election and how Paul views the church and Israel. First up to bat is Gal. 4-6 which we will concentrate on here, but it is worth saying that even his passing remarks, for example on 1 Cor. 10, do not inspire confidence that he is entirely on the right track (see p. 1150). He says about that latter text that Paul is reading the Corinthians into the story of Israel. No, actually he is not. He is doing a typology, and comparing two distinct groups, wilderness wandering Hebrews on the one hand, and sacramentally confused Corinthians on the other. The very nature of typology is based on the assumption that two unlike things are in some particular ways alike, and therefore can be compared. If the two were only two phases on the one thing, the typology wouldn’t even work, because clearly, there are many ways the Corinthians are very distinct from and different than the Hebrews. Paul in that text is simply saying that a reliance on OT or NT sacraments (to use the term loosely) while still practicing idolatry and immorality, will not save anyone either in the former or later case. No reading of the Corinthian story back into the Israel story. None.

It must be admitted, and Tom does admit, that the discussion of the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. 4 is fraught with peril. It is easy to go wrong. And Tom admits, rightly that this is a tale of two covenants, the only time he uses that specific phrase. I would stress that Paul does indeed have a two covenant way of thinking about the issue of those under the Mosaic Law as opposed to those who are characterized as having heard with faith the Gospel (Gal. 3). Paul connects the Abrahamic covenant with the new covenant, and sees the Mosaic covenant as an interim ‘paidagogos’ given to God’s people until they grew, until the time had been fulfilled and the Jewish messiah, Jesus was born (Gal. 4). The contrast between Sarah and Hagar, the children of the free woman and the children of the slave, the new Jerusalem and the present one, parallels the contrast between the Mosaic covenant and the new one. Paul’s point throughout Galatians is to insist to his largely Gentile converts that they do not need to get themselves circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law, they already have all the benefits through faith in Christ and the faithfulness of Christ. It should have been clear then that Paul is NOT talking about the renewal of the Mosaic covenant, and there are points where Tom seems to agree. He even says on p. 1140– “the law of Sinai is quite simply out of date”. Right. But this conclusion should have led to a different reading of Paul’s hermeneutic when it comes to the issue of covenant renewal or the start up of a new and separate covenant. Election and eschatology, as with monotheism, is definitely redefined around Messiah and Spirit, as Tom stresses, but he draws back from some of the proper implications of this fact.

This chapter of the book is on eschatology, and it is precisely because eschatology is an already and not yet matter, that the discussion of God’s people is also an already and not yet matter, as is the discussion of salvation, justification, etc. By this I mean that Paul certainly does believe what he says in Gal. 3.28 that the people of God are Jew and Gentile united in the Jewish Messiah Jesus, and therefore there is a sense in which there is no Jew or Gentile etc. in Christ. Were this all Paul said, then Tom’s analysis that by Israel (e.g. in Gal. 6) Paul means the church, Jew and Gentile united in Christ, would be cogent. But it is not. Paul believes that God is not finished with non-Christian Israel yet, and he deliberately avoids calling the ekklesia of God, the Israel of God, unless of course Gal. 6 is an exception. Perhaps Paul does think that one day, when Jesus returns, all the saved, both Jew and Gentile, can be called Israel, but for now, since it is an already and not yet situation, Paul is stressing, especially in Rom. 9-11 that God has not forgotten, nor forsaken his promises made to non-Christian Jews. It’s just that they will not be finally and fully brought to pass until ‘the Redeemer comes forth from heavenly Zion and turns away the impiety of Jacob’ (Rom. 11). This in turn means, that the story of God’s people is incomplete, and will be incomplete until the Lord returns. In the meantime, God has blessed the foreshadowing and preliminary edition of the final eschatological form of God’s people (Jew and Gentile united in Christ), without forsaking his first chosen people. What matters in the long run is new creation, and all must experience it to be saved, whether Jew or Gentile. What is obsolescent is the Mosaic covenant. Paul is not a supercessionist when he argues like that (and BTW, Tom is also wrong about 2 Cor. 3–it is indeed about a contrast between two ministries, based in two covenants, and resulting in two different sorts of glory– one fleeting the other enduring), rather Paul is a Jewish completionist— the people of God are being brought to completion in their Messiah Jesus. The promises and prophecies about Messiah are being fulfilled in Jesus the Jew, and those who are in him. But until Jesus finishes the job at the eschaton, the Good News is still for the Jew first, and also the Gentile, precisely because God is not finished with either as Paul says. And this brings us to Gal. 6.15-16.

If one reads my commentary Grace in Galatia, on these verses, one will see that I have varied over the years on how I have read the phrase ‘the Israel of God’. Tom conveniently sets out the options on p. 1148—

1) “peace and mercy a) upon them (i.e. those who walk by the rule that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters) and b) upon the Israel of God” (a different group from ‘them’).

2) “peace a) upon ‘those who walk by this rule’, and b) mercy even for the Israel of God (a different group from ‘them’).

OR 3) peace and mercy upon those who walk by this rule, yes even upon ‘the Israel of God’ (the same group). Tom favors the third option, and I used to do so. I now think it does not work grammatically, or otherwise. Tom carefully lays out the parallels with Jewish prayers like the bit from the 18 benedictions “show mercy and peace upon us, and on thy people Israel” where the ‘us’ is a subset of Israel. Now it should be stressed that Paul of course still sees himself as a Jew, indeed a faithful one, and so he would include himself within both the Israel of God, and the ekklesia if asked… indeed he does so for example in 2 Cor. and Phil. in the autobiographical passages.

In context however in Gal. 6, it would seem likely that ‘the Israel of God’ refers to 1) non-Christian Jews who have caused Paul’s stigmata (mentioned closed by this verse); and 2) the Jewish Christian agitators who have been bewitching the Galatians and Paul. In neither case, or even if we take the two groups together is it possible to simply equate Israel of God=ekklesia of God, precisely because the term Israel is limited to Jews, whether just non-Christian Jews, or Jewish Christians like the agitators, or both.

And this brings up a further point— the reason for peace and THEN mercy being mentioned is because Paul has been troubled and bothered by, and even persecuted by these folks, and here he is tell them ‘may God have mercy on you’. Paul’s Galatian converts may be exasperating, but Galatians does not lead us to expect he would suggest they need God’s mercy in the way that the agitators and persecutors do. On the contrary, the Galatians thus far have been following the rule he mentions, and they are the ‘them’ on whom peace is wished (view 2). Furthermore, there is an extra ‘kai’ in this whole sentence, as Tom rightly points out. And that ‘kai’ can certainly be translated ‘even’ so the sentence would read ‘peace on those who keep the rule, and mercy EVEN on the Israel of God’. This reading favors the argument above, not Tom’s argument. Even if the sentence reads ‘peace and mercy on those who keep the rule, even on the Israel of God’ the final ‘kai’ surely distinguishes the former group from the latter.

Pp. 1150-51 in this part of the argument remind me of the old joke where the preacher writes in the margin of his sermon notes— ‘not sure of this point, pound the pulpit harder’. Tom trots out the heavy rhetoric on these two pages saying that if Paul means by ‘Israel of God’ something other than the church of God, this makes a nonsense of the whole letter. Well…. no. It doesn’t. It simply means that Paul knows there is still work to be done to bring even the agitators, and even Pharisaic Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (see Acts 15.1ff.) around to being truly full participants in the eschatological people of God– Jew and Gentile united in Christ. It means Paul knows the Gospel still needs to reach non-Christian Jews. It means he is a man who stands in two worlds— being the Jew to the Jew, and otherwise to Gentiles. He is a man who knows only a minority of Jews have accepted Jesus as the Messiah. This means he knows there is still an Israel of God out there that God is not finished with yet. And the apostle to the Gentiles is prepared to even say, I could wish myself to be anathema, cut off from God, if my fellow Israelites could be brought to the Lord.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

August 17, 2014

Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God--- Part Sixty Five

Next Post

August 19, 2014 Wright's Paul and the Faithfulness of God--- Part Sixty Seven

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz