Nicholas Perrin and Richard B. Hays (eds) (2011). Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
This is the sixth part of a series Brian LePort and I are tackling out of this book, which is based off the most recent Wheaton Conference. Scroll to the bottom of this entry and you will be provided with links to previous posts that cover previous chapters and moreover a schedule for future entries. Lastly, thanks to InterVarsity Press for a review copy of this book.
Edith Humphrey, “Glimpsing the Glory: Paul’s Gospel, Righteousness, and the Beautiful Feet of N.T. Wright.”
For every chapter I’ve written a review on, I make sure to watch the paper presentation prior to writing the actual review. After watching Edith Humphrey present her paper, I said to myself “Man, if there ever is somebody who is as good an orator as Tom Wright, while at the same time a Bible scholar, it’s Edith.” So, I highly recommend that you listen to her presentation.
Edith starts with a comedic story about her huge feet. She jokingly remarks that “I am much comforted that in Isaiah and Romans beautiful feet have less to do with size or shape [her's being size 11 and width E] than with direction or alacrity.” This leads into a compliment about where Tom Wright’s feet have walked. So, she says:
“First, they enter the ancient world, and especially the Scriptures, which this herald invokes as a lamp for his feet and a light to mark the path. Second, they have gone into the camp of the faithful, into debate among other New Testament scholars (including those who also bear the label “New Perspective”) and into the tangled field of the public arena.”
From here she attempts to show at a few points “where these beautiful feet may have misstepped or halted.”
At this point, I want to give a precursor point. Perhaps I am missing something, but in this presentation, it is seemingly the case that just as much time, if not more, is given to Wright’s work on Jesus in the Gospels (and some to 2 Peter) as is given to his work on Paul. I say this because she was placed within the Pauline section of the book.
Now on to the presentation. Humphrey makes three points of critique (though I’m not sure of the actual critique on the third):
- Righteousness (dikaiosyne)
- Apocalyptic
- Ascension
Righteousness: Edith is convinced of Wright’s interpretation of diakaiosyne, with the exception of one occasion. This occasion is 2 Corinthians 5:21. She argues that Wright misconstrues Paul here in order to maintain a clear demarcation throughout the corpus that what is being discussed is not imputed righteousness, but the righteousness of God. So, “Bishop Tom mitigates the shock by reference to apostolic activity: St. Paul and the others “incarnate or embody God’s diakaiosyne as they proclaim God the Reconciler.”
To the contrary, she argues that Paul is not referring to the ministry of the Apostles, but rather the “we” in 5:21 is a reference to all believers. And it is only in this case does Bishop Wright’s view seem to be wrong concerning dikaiosyne.
Apocalyptic: Before going into her critique of Wright’s work on apocalyptic language and imagery, she does a brief overview of it in NTPG. She hails Wright as one who has saved historical Jesus studies from the Schweitzerian literalism that painted Jesus as a failed doomsday prophet.
Though she acclaims Wright for this, she has scruples with him as well. She believes that Wright’s interpretation of apocalyptic language and imagery is too narrow-minded and either-or in nature. She says “My own work with apocalypses makes me uneasy about his suggestion that we are to defang apocalyptic symbols as merely political, and not also to receive them as pointers to heavenly or future realities interconnected with our own lives. It is a matter of the direction of the reference and the taming of the symbol.” So, where Mark 13 is about the destruction of the Temple for Wright, for Edith it’s about the destruction of the Temple and the later return of Christ.
A second point of disagreement that she has with Wright is his view on the renewal of the heavens and the earth. She thoroughly disagrees that 2 Peter 3:10 has envisioned a renewed heavens and earth. Supporting her argument, she shows that in 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra the cosmic destruction envisioned was thought to be very literal, thus in Wrightian fashion shows this belief was, to some Jews, about of their belief system.
Ascension: After listening to, and reading her presentation, I can’t for the life of me figure out where she’s critiquing Wright on the ascension. Even Wright in his response can’t seem to figure out her point.
What I can draw from it is that us, as the church, need to maintain an emphasis on currently being seated with Christ (spiritual redemption) in heavenly places, but also, just as the ascended Christ is human, we as the church ought to expect resurrection (physical redemption) as well.
Wright’s Response:
Righteousness: Wright’s position on righteousness in 2 Corinthians 5:21 doesn’t change. He argues that we need to resist larger frameworks, Reformational or Orthodox (as it is in this case) and let Paul be Paul. It seems evident to Wright that the context is clearly about apostolic leadership and not the general body of Christ.
Apocalyptic: Wright in response to Edith shows that he is wary of “opening the door too far to an unfettered world of supposedly apocalyptic theology.” and remarks that Edith moves far beyond Paul by making a point about the views presented in 2 Peter. He also mentions that he isn’t “averse to contemplating ways in which Jesus’ prediction of the fall of Jerusalem might provide a template for the larger questions raised by Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 15, and so on.”
Ascension: Wright seems to not know her critique of him on the ascension. The only point he makes in response is that “I am in principle happy with theosis as part of an account of Paul’s soteriology or anthrpology. But here we meet once more with the problem of Scripture and tradition.” His final point, full of Wrightian swagger is “Tradition is important, but I will drink to Paul first and to tradition afterward.”
My Thoughts:
I think Eden’s presentation was fantastic. And though she strayed from Paul, I still think many points of importance were mentioned. Though actually I’m not persuaded by her interpretation of 2 Cor. 5:21 (the actual part on Paul), I am very open to her thoughts on apocalyptic language and imagery. I once had a class entitled “Jewish and Early Christian Apocalypticism.” with a specialist on apocalyptic language and imagery. It was him who convinced me that laden within apocalyptic is a sense of ambiguity and not always a one-way interpretation.
Where I do diverge with her, and seemingly almost the rest of the presenters is the stock placed in church tradition. It is important, but as Wright says, Paul first, then tradition.
All in all, a great chapter. I recommend you buy the book, read this chapter, and also listen to the presentation!
Schedule for this series:
06/01: Marianne Meye Thompson, “Jesus and the Victory of God Meets the Gospel of John” (Brian LePort)
06/08: Richard B. Hays, “Knowing Jesus: Story, History, and the Question of Truth” (Daniel James Levy)
06/29: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Brian LePort)
07/06: Edith M. Humphrey, “Glimpsing the Glory: Paul’s Gospel, Righteousness, and the Beautiful Feet of N.T. Wright” (Daniel James Levy)
07/13: Jeremy S. Begbie, “The Shape of Things to Come? Wright Amidst Emerging Ecclesiologies” (Brian LePort)
07/20: Markus Bockmuehl, “Did St. Paul Go to Heaven When He Died? (Daniel James Levy)
07/27: Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and Protestant Soteriology” (Brian LePort)
08/03: N.T. Wright, “Whence and Whither Pauline Studies in the Life of the Church?” (Daniel James Levy)
July 6, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Considering it was supposed to be on “Paul” it felt more like a canonical issue with the topics of righteousness, apocalypse, and ascension being discussed. Not that this is bad, but maybe a bit out of place?
July 6, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Yeah, I thought it was a marvelous presentation. It just seems that she missed the mark on the topic of discussion.
July 6, 2011 at 7:56 pm
I still find it interesting that many of the critiques are from the halls of tradition.
July 6, 2011 at 8:53 pm
The objection only stands if a canonical approach to righteousness and eschatology is extraneous to the thought of Saint Paul. Some would argue it is not.
July 7, 2011 at 7:15 am
Hi, Friends: Thanks, Daniel, for a very nice review of my chapter. Yes, I did stray a little from Paul, but that was with the permission of the convenors, who originally had put me down for the gospels, and then changed their request. From my perspective, though it is helpful to re Paul qua Paul, it is also good to think about how Paul’s thought fits with the rest of the NT, indeed, the whole of the Scriptures.
A word on ascension: My disagreement with +Tom on this has to do with his limitation of the ascension to Jesus, as though it has nothing to say about our pilgrimmage as Christians. There are two traditions, based upon Scriptures, that associate the ascension of Jesus with US, who are following in his footsteps. The first is the mental/spiritual, “let your minds be on high”, the notion that we are presently, in Christ, “seated in heavenly places” and “citizens of heaven.” This is important in that it reminds us of the relative quality of our present lives, how all good things come from the one who is the Father of Lights, and that the apex of Jesus’ own earthly life was to ascend, victoriously. The second strand is to expect that where he has gone, we will go also–”soar we now where Christ has led, following our exalted head” (say the Easter hymn.) +Wright, along with my good friend Douglas Farrow, have difficulty with putting much weight on the first strand (ascension in the spirit NOW) and are VERY nervous about the second–expecting that we will ascend, as Jesus has. They believe that the idea of believers ascending will detract from the hope of a true resurrection, which both of them stress as the final hope. What I want to say is that BOTH are true–we both look for an ascension to heavenly places, where we will be seated victoriously with Jesus AND a true resurrection of all that is good and lovely here, including our bodies, to be animated by the Spirit. How both are true may be difficult for us to see (what will be the relationship of Heaven to Earh in the new creation), but both strands are there in the Bible. So, I want to affirm the importance of resurrection without dumping the importance of human ascension as part of our hope. See Rev. 11, where the two witnesses are martyred, resurrected, and then ascend, just as Jesus did.
So, I want to affirm what +Tom has said, but want him to recapture what he denies–it is in the Bible, and is a continuing part of the Christian Tradition. We should be very nervous of dumping whole streams of Christian thought found both in the East and the West, at the very least.
Hope this helps!
Edith
July 7, 2011 at 8:19 am
Esteban: You’re correct. Since I am a bit unfamiliar with how traditions like Orthodoxy address historical studies would you agree that there are two ways of looking at it: (1) What Paul himself might have thought and (2) what those thoughts mean when recontextualized in the canon of the church?
July 7, 2011 at 8:46 am
Edith: Thanks for stopping by our blog. As to ascension, I have had one person ask on this blog why we must restrict our language to “Heaven coming down to earth”, since heaven is greater there must be a sense in which “Earth goes up to heaven”. Is this part of what you are saying? Not merely that earth host heaven but for earth to change it must also be heaven hosting earth?
July 7, 2011 at 9:09 am
@Dr. Humphrey: Thanks for stopping by Dr. Humphrey. I appreciate the clarification; that makes a lot of sense! Something I didn’t mention in the review is that you invigorated me to read work from the Eastern tradition. Would you be able to recommend any works from that stream which would be good for a newcomer to it?
July 9, 2011 at 7:39 am
I would like, as a fairly new Orthodox, to respond to Brian’s question to Esteban (not to nudge out Esteban, of course!) The idea of “Paul’s thought” over against “recontextualization” is a little too Western a construal of things for the Orthodox. I am currently working on a book on Tradition (based on lectures given at Acadia), and it is clear that the best of the Church fathers considered the historical context of the text to have continuing significance, though they urged that we understand its “fuller sense” by reading, for example, the OT in the light of the apostolic teaching about Jesus (analogia and regula fidei).
The current Pope, in an interesting essay on tradition, distinguishes: “an Old Testament theology of the Old Testament,” “a New Testament theologyof the OT,” “a New Testament theology of the NT” and “an ecclesial theology of the NT” that all need to be considered. His distinctions may be helpful in that it is important to know WHY we are asking the questions we are asking, and from what perspective we are reading. For example, a person may naively think that the human author of Genesis knew about the Holy Trinity, or may in a more careful mode hear intimations of the Trinity in the first chapter of Genesis, because we are reading it in the light of fuller knowledge of God. However, I think that to distinguish in this way also may lead us to artificially distinguish history from theology, as though the two are separate, fundamentally. So, to get back to Brian’s formulation of things, I would want to argue that the actual writing of St. Paul pointed to the fuller understanding of the Church, and that the truths were inherent in what he said, though not fully explored. E.g. no full exposition of the Trinity, but indications of this in 1 Cor 8:4-6 and 2 Cor 3:17-18. It is not a matter of recontextualisation, for the most part (though this can happen, too), but of allowing the Holy Spirit to inform the Church of what lay hidden in the treasure. But the “original” sense is not abrogated or belittled in this process, or it should not be.
Those who are interested in how Orthodox might engage in Biblical studies (taking into consideration the critical methods) might like to read Theodore + Stylianopoulos’s Introduction to the NT (only volume 1, alas, is out, but it is the methodological volume, so it is very helpful.). In that, Fr. Stylianopoulos makes good use of N. T. Wright’s “literary, historical and theological” aspects, and adds to these the “transformational.” These are not 1, 2,3,4 steps, but mutually informative aspects of the Scriptures.
July 9, 2011 at 7:43 am
Brian, you asked: should we also consider that “Earth goes up to heaven”. Is this part of what you are saying? Not merely that earth host heaven but for earth to change it must also be heaven hosting earth? YES, indeed! That was my point. And Orthodox say this happens in the Divine Liturgy, not simply that it will happen at our personal end, or at the end of the age. We are, in worship, already gathered up into heavenly places, for the King of all draws near. He comes to us, and we ENTER, together. (Shameless advertising: See my latest _Grand Entrance: Worship on Earth as in Heaven_, Brazos, which tries to illumine the theme/invitation of “entrance” into worship as something common to both East and West in the Church. A biblical, liturgical, “sociological” (well, I do 8 snapshots of representative churches) and theological exposition of the theme is given for those with a general college level education. I had a ball writing this book, with the collaboration of many Christian friends.
July 9, 2011 at 7:47 am
Daneil asked if I could recommend any good books from Eastern Orthodoxy. Of course, the best thing to do is to “come and see”–visit your local Orthodox church (find one that does English–usually Antiochian or OCA) for Great Vespers on Saturday p.m., or for a Divine Liturgy. (Vespers is shorter).
As for books: _For the Life of the World_ Alexander Schmemann
_The Orthodox Way_ Kallistos Ware
_Becoming Orthodox_ Peter Gilquist (helps you understand the movement of evangelicals to this ancient Church)
Of course, there are many more, but these three stand out for me. I actually carry extra copies of C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity for those who are seekers, and Schmemann’s For the Life of the World for those who are considering the possibility of ordination.
July 10, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Brian> As Professor Humphrey suggests, this way of framing the question is a bit problematic for Orthodox. There is doubtless a distinction to be made between, say, the thought of St Paul and its reception, but to drive too great a conceptual wedge between St Paul himself and a canonical “recontextualization” (in other words, Tradition) from the outset simply ends up assuming what must yet be proven. I have nothing to add to her comments regarding the related question of the relationship between “historical meaning” and the “fuller sense,” except to note that her brief explanation is perfectly borne out by St Cyril of Alexandria’s exegesis of Amos 9:11-12 (my “hobby-horse” text). I briefly discussed St Cyril’s approach to the “literal” and “spiritual” meanings in his interpretation of this passage here.
Also, I would like to echo her recommendation of Fr Theodore Stylianopoulos’ book, from which I learned much, and which would have saved me from many headaches had it been published some five years earlier!
Daniel> Now I don’t want to nudge Prof. Humphrey, of course, but in my opinion the single best introduction to the Orthodox tradition currently available in English is James Payton’s Light from the Christian East (Carol Stream: IVP, 2007). Metropolitan Kallistos’ book The Orthodox Church has served English speakers well for nearly five decades, and The Orthodox Way has a daring edge that many Western Christian find compelling, but I believe Payton’ introduction surpasses both of those books on many counts — and I say this as one who was introduced to Orthodoxy by Metropolitan Kallistos’ books and therefore stands greatly in their debt.
Prof. Humphrey> I am simply delighted to hear about your current writing project, and already look forward to picking up a copy. I have read And I Turned To See the Voice with a great deal of profit, and I’m very grateful to you for it. (As for Grand Entrance, it has arrived, but I haven’t yet had the chance to read it! Where does time go?)
July 11, 2011 at 8:00 am
Edith: Thank you for the clarification on the Orthodox reading of Scripture. Would it be a fair analogy to say that the words of Paul are like a seed wherein lie a greater plant of truth that grows forth though at first glance even Paul himself may not have realized what the seed was to become that the Spirit planted in Scripture through his words? This analogy would allow for Paul’s thought to have contained within it what the church saw without falling into the dichotomy that my earlier language created?
I like language that allows for both the idea of heaven coming to earth and earth coming to heaven. I think Wright and many others in the west have begun emphasizing heaven coming to earth because we are reacting to the escapist, rapture theology that has become popular here in the West. As far as I know that is of no concern to the East, so they may find it easier to be balanced in this matter.
July 11, 2011 at 8:02 am
Esteban: I can see where it would be problematic. Would you find the “seed becomes a tree” analogy that I gave Edith in the comment above a helpful analogy for how Orthodox see greater truth emerging from Scripture than what even the author may have understood or is it missing the point?
July 12, 2011 at 7:02 am
Good to meet you, Esteban! (please forgive some of the personal nature of this, everybody else, but I can’t seem to contact Esteban any other way)
The stuff for everybody comes after the first two paragraphs.
I tried to lurk a bit on your blog, and did some reading, (intriguing discussions, really well expressed!) but it looks as though one has to be “invited” in order to see everything, or comment. I very much enjoyed what you had to say about Amos and Cyril, and you have also encouraged me to get down to some serious reading of (really? infallible?!) Silva. I have meant to do this for some time.
I am very glad you enjoyed my Voice book. More people have read Ecstasy and Intimacy, so I am delighted to hear that you enjoyed my exegetical work, which is really what I am being paid to do (-: If you’d like to contact me, my email is ehumphrey@pts.ed.
I haven’t read Payton yet, but should do, and encourage others to listen to Esteban’s sound advice! If he likes Payton, Payton is worth reading.. +Kallistos is helpful for those who are coming out of a Western liturgical, (at all) academic environment, but I agree that he is sometimes on the edge, especially in his latest revision of the Orthodox Way–and, in many ways, that book is organized in Western-type categories. But it is very helpful as a link book, I think. And, yes, The Orthodox Church is a must to help folks through the complications of Eastern Church history.
July 12, 2011 at 7:13 am
Brian:
Yes, I agree entirely with you concerning the motivation for stressing physical resurrection in our context. However, over-reaction can cause problems as well, and our age seems almost entirely to have forgotten what it means to have a “heart” in the Biblical, Traditional sense, or what it means to raise our heart, or nous, on high. Even worship itself is, in the minds of even many of the faithful, a practical means to a more important end–holy everyday living, or evangelism, or mission, or whatever. The idea of “laying aside earthly care” is dismissed by well-meaning Christians as a cop-out, and the activist strand of Christianity has almost over-run the contemplative, despite Jesus’ words to Mary. (This comes from me, raised in the context of the Salvation Army, to which I owe a debt of gratitude for many things). We need an understanding of what it means to be seated in the heavenlies, as much as we do a recovery of robust resurrection teleology.
As for the seed and the tree, that may be one helpful way of looking at it. But, of course, Paul is not the seed–there is only ONE who is that!. The relationship between Tradition and Scripture is tricky, isn’t it? Tradition precedes, encompasses and follows the writing of the NT, even by empirical analysis. So, something fully Trinitarian comes to l flower, as, say, the Church fathers look back to passages like Phil 2:5-11 (which attributes to Jesus the name isaiah attributed to YHWH) and 1 Cor 8:4-6 (which reformulated the Shema, incorporating Jesus). But, in fact, a faithful Christian will want to say that the seed was planted much earlier, in the intimations of the OT, as God the Word (incognito) spoke, and it germinated with the Incarnation of the Son, by whom we come to know about Father and Holy Spirit: (Luke 10:23-24). I think it a mistake to identify the “seed” with the NT itself, or any one part of it. For we see interpretation already there, and also a mode of interpreting the OT, as Jesus did for the 2 on the road to Emmaus.
Best,
E.
July 12, 2011 at 7:58 am
Edith: I affirm your explanation of how the church receives doctrine from Scripture. While this may be side tracking what would you say an evangelical should do with this? Can an evangelical remain an evangelical while reading Scripture this way or do you find that it must be done within the banks of the fathers and the historical church? Was it your understanding of Scripture that lead you toward Orthodoxy?
Pingback: Wednesdays with Wright: Reading Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: Jeremy S. Begbie | Near Emmaus