Bob (Gundry) on Tom (Wright)

Last updated on: April 29, 2014 at 9:02 am by Joel Willitts

Bob (Gundry) on Tom (Wright) 2014-04-29T09:02:39-04:00 Joel Willitts

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.

In the recent issue of BBR (24.1, pp. 57-73), Bob Gundry published a critique of Tom Wright’s very popular book How God Became King called “An Exegetical and Biblical Theological Evaluation of N.T. Wright’s How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels. Many of course will know this book. It is typical of the excellent prose and accessible stuff that we’ve come to expect from Tom’s popular writing. The book’s central thesis is that God’s kingdom came by means of Jesus death on the cross, by means of a non-violent martyrdom. Wright believes that Israel’s theocracy in the OT has been transferred to the church in the New Testament. The story of Israel is now continued in revised form in the story or the church. So this is no private, separatist vision of church life. The church as the new Israel has a revolutionary political agenda, a theocratic politician vision. This political vision is a nonviolent one – power through suffering. Gundry characterizes Wright’s understanding of the mission of the church like this:

The Christian church-especially in the West and most especially in the United States – should oppose the use of military force and accompany the preaching of eternal salvation with philanthropic works in society at large, these works being inherent to God’s continuing to become king on earth as in heaven right now, not merely utilitarian for the purpose of recommending the gospel of salvation in the age to come” (58).

Gundry’s concerns are hermeneutical and exegetical. With the former, the question of the relationship between the OT and the NT, the relationship between biblical Israel and the church, is at the heart. In disagreeing with his thesis, Gundry puts his finger on the most important hermeneutical issue of the book – actually, I think this is the hermeneutical problem of Wright’s whole theological project. Wright argues that the story of Israel comes to its climax in the Gospels, in the story of Jesus. This is not the problem for Gundry. The tension emerges however with what Wright means by this. For his thesis to work, the story of Israel is climaxed in the story of Jesus only after significant revisionism. Gundry sees this clearly:

At this point a tension is to be noted in Wright’s proposal. To support its theocratically political aspect, he stresses that “the four Gospels present themselves as the climax of the story of Israel,” so that “Israel had not been abandoned,” the theory of abandonment being “a gross caricature of the actual biblical story.” On the other hand, through Israel “had not been ‘replaced’ . . .[i]t had been transformed” through the inclusion of “pagan converts.” To the extent that this transformation is emphasized, the theocratically political cast of God’s Israelitish kingdom recedes as, for example, in Jesus’ statement that “God’s kingdom will be taken away from you [the leaders of Israel] and given to a nation [called Jesus’ ‘church’ in Matt 16:18] producing its fruits” (Matt 21:43) and in Paul’s distinguishing “God’s church” from “Jews” as well as “Greeks” (1 Cor 10:32) . . . to the extent he allows difference between the old, monoethnic Israel and a new, multiethnic “Israel” leverage is lost for a transference of the Israelitish political theocracy to the church (59-60).

This is a dense passage. And frankly – I hate to say this – but I would have wished for better prose and a more user-friendly structure to the piece. Gundry’s prose and readability do not compare with Wright’s, at least not here. But muddling through the article is worth one’s time. And I found it illuminating once penetrated. If I read Gundry right (no pun intended) he is saying that Tom can’t have his cake and eat it too. If Tom wants Israel’s theocracy in the church he needs ethnic distinctions and violence. The key line in the passage I think is “To the extent that this transformation is emphasized, the theocratically political cast of God’s Israelitish kingdom recedes.” Wright’s hermeneutic, in other words, can’t deliver his conclusion.

As for the exegesis, Gundry tours some of the most important texts dealt with by Wright in the Gospels to show their lack of support his thesis. Gundry’s point is that the Gospel writers don’t seem to underscore suffering in either Jesus’ ministry or his cross-death. And, more importantly, the cross is not presented by the evangelists as the place of the coming of God’s kingdom. Gundry contents instead that the kingdom of God comes “in spite of” his death on the cross, but by means of it. What’s more, the kingdom story is far from over. Gundry concludes his argument observing the violent climax of the coming of God’s kingdom in Jesus’ second coming. He states, “the violence of divine judgment needs to be incorporated into a comprehensive NT theology of God’s kingdom . . . whether we like it or not, whether we take it literally or figuratively, NT language of final judgment bespeaks violence—violence of an extreme sort, in fact” (71-72). Gundry concludes:

God’s kingdom continued despite the cross, God’s kingdom underwent revision because of the cross, and this revision consisted in the internationalizing of God’s people and the delay of his political rule over the world till the second coming of Christ in resurrected, judgmental power (73).

Perhaps I’m not reading Gundry right (again no pun here), but I wonder if he’s denying too much. I can agree to a point, but I think the atoning death of Jesus on the cross is a necessary element of the kingdom come. It has a preparatory function, much like John the Baptist’s function. For example in Matthew it solves the dilemma of Israel’s national sin, particularly the sin of innocent blood (1:21; 23:30, 35; 27:4, 24, 25). Also, I don’t know if I can go with him on his own form of revisionism. I’d like to hear him elaborate particularly on what he means by the revision of the kingdom because of the cross. I don’t see the cross revising either the nature of God’s people or the timing of the kingdom.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

April 28, 2014

Great Student Video on the Bible and Inerrancy

Next Post

April 28, 2014 This made me laugh out loud

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Bible Lands Blogosphere Book Review Calvinism Colleges & Universities Ecclesiology Emerging Adulthood Evangelicalism Foreign Affairs Gospel of John Greco-Roman World Humor Just War N. T. Wright Old Testament Resurrection Terrorism Theological Education Travel Uncategorized Writing

Select a Month September 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 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What Christian group worships on Saturday instead of Sunday?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Baptists Presbyterians Pentecostals Seventh-day Adventists

Books by This Author Books by Mike Bird

See All Titles »