"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (12)

Chapter 11

Wright continues his mission in life of trying to annoy me! We now get a look at what Paul says (apart from Romans). At Loc 3293 Wright says “That defeat was accomplished through the dying “for sins” of Jesus, Israel’s Messiah: Jesus, representing Israel and the world, took upon himself the full force of the divine condemnation of sin itself, so that those “in him” would not suffer it themselves”. Now this is pretty close to penal substitutionary atonement, but then, of course, this is all surrounded by remarks that seem to be critical of penal substitution. So what does Wright believe? It is clear that he believes God has a big vision for humanity, and is absolutely right in saying this, and right in saying church teaching often presents too small or narrow a vision (namely “going to heaven”. And of course he is right in saying this vision is opened up, made possible, by the cross and resurrection. But how does he believe it is achieved? Atonement theology seems the most satisfying explanation to me. Jesus “reinterpreting” Scripture just doesn’t cut-it.

He spends some time on Galatians, saying that the letter is not about salvation. I would agree and disagree with him on this, though this is largely on terminology. I agree that it is not about how to get saved, but is about on living in our salvation.

Wright then spends some time on saying that Paul is concerned with the global plan of God, not merely the salvation of the individual. Too often, and not just here in Wright’s book, we set the individual against the corporate. At one time we will stress the effect of salvation on the individual, neglecting the corporate effect. Realising our mistake we will then go to the other extreme and stress the corporate at the expense of the individual. If we look at the Bible we will see that God never does this! What do we see? We see a grand plan for Israel and for all of mankind, as Wright has been pointing out, but we also see God working through individuals. The Bible spends a lot of time on the “heroes” of the faith, Abraham, Moses, David etc. It also spends time on far less significant (in human terms) individuals, like Ruth, Ishmael and others. The gospels are full of individual encounters. So we need to consider the individual and the global effect, and we must never set one off against the other.

Wright then goes on to look at Corinthians, Philippians and Colossians, and there are no really new points (nor new annoyances).

1 Corinthians 11:4-6 - Head shaving?

11:4,5

This comment about men praying with or without their head covered seems utterly irrelevant to us today, and it illustrates one of the problems in interpreting and applying these verses. Paul uses fundamental theological understanding about God, man and creation in relation to something that means nothing at all to us today. To pray without having one’s head covered would have been a new departure for Paul. Jews then, as they do today, prayed while wearing a head covering. Conversely, Greek women (and men) prayed (in the pagan sense) without a head covering. So the church had adopted a novel practice. The men prayed without a head covering, women did wear one. The man was signifying his freedom in Christ.

A woman, however, who prayed without a head covering was dishonouring her head. Paul then says this is like having a shaven head. It would be shameful for a woman to have a shaven head.

11:6

Yet another verse that means absolutely nothing to us today. What Paul is doing is reinforcing the point made in the previous verse. The women were not about to have their hair shaved off, they would consider that shameful, but some of them were quite happy to pray without a head covering. Paul is saying that if they were happy to pray without a head covering, then they should shave off their whole hair. Ie he is saying that their action is ridiculous.

This is just laying the groundwork, we will start to get the explanation tomorrow!

"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (11)

Chapter 10

I am sorely tempted to go into rant mode. Once again we get the “going to heaven stuff”. I absolutely believe that salvation is about much more than going to heaven. I also believe in penal substitutionary atonement as the primary thing that the cross was about, and that this is essential so that all the wonderful stuff about the kingdom can become a reality. He says that in the gospels “almost nobody talks about going to heaven” (loc 2815). Fair enough, but then says “Almost nobody in the gospels warns about going to hell”. Almost nobody except Jesus that is! Which given the earlier arguments from Wright that we ought to pay more attention to the words of Jesus one would have thought this would have had some bearing on the matter.

At loc 3034 we get quite an amazing statement. Wright is at last answering the question of how this “forgiveness of sins”, this “return from exile” come about. And the answer is “ It comes about because Jesus dies, innocently, bearing the punishment (my italics) that he himself had marked out for his fellow Jews as a whole”.  Then why on earth have you been speaking against the punishment bearing view of the cross for the previous nine chapters, explicitly or implicity?! You have some good ideas, and there is much poverty of preaching and teaching that needs to be addressed, but could you not have found a better way to do it? A less self-contradictory way to do it? Why? Because after this Wright seems to be at pains to say “but this is atonement”. Many years ago I read Leon Morris’s book “The Atonement”, the one positive out of Wright’s book is that I am going to go back and reread Morris’s book.

1 Corinthians 11:1-3 - Under cover?

11:1

This verse seems to clearly belong with the previous section, and you will find the text broken up this way in most versions, though those who originally assigned the chapter divisions thought differently for some reason. Paul calls on his readers to follow his example, as he follows Christ. We are meant to be leaders and teachers by example. This does not mean we are perfect, for none of us are, but there should be some aspects of life where we are making progress in being imitators of Christ. If there aren’t then we are not worth listening to!

11:2

It seems that among the many things that the Corinthians had asked Paul about was the conduct of public worship, and there are going to be a whole series of questions related to this matter. Paul commends them because they look to Paul for guidance in these matters. He is commending them not out of any vanity, but because the Corinthians are looking to learn, not just to do their own thing. Evidently Paul had passed on various traditions to them regarding the conduct of worship.

11:3

We now come to a rather awkward section, and one that has bearing on the whole role of women in the church issue. We need to understand something of the cultural background. One aspect is that it was common for women to be veiled. It seems that some women were taking the veil off as a sign of their liberation in Christ, but such a woman would be considered to be a “woman of loose morals”. Moreover, it was normal for men to be “in charge”, and again it may be that some women were flouting this cultural norm. There are a number of interesting points that come out of this. One is that the gospel was a liberating message, especially for women. Those who say the gospel is patriarchal or even misogynist have no idea what they are talking about. A second point is that Paul does not just ride roughshod over all cultural norms. Thirdly the cultural norms had some foundation in God’s creative order. So we have a mixture of culture and theology in all this, and the two are not separate. This makes it difficult to interpret this passage, and the passage in 1 Timothy 2 about women not having authority over men. Why is it difficult? Well, one of the key questions is which instructions are cultural, and so do not necessarily have a direct application today, though the underlying principles would still be relevant. And which instructions are for all time, and so need to be applied today. In 1 Timothy 2 Paul refers back to Genesis and creation when giving his instruction that a woman should not have authority over a man. Here, Paul again refers back to Genesis when talking about head coverings. Now, one could say that since Paul refers to Genesis in 1 Tim 2 women should not be allowed to have authority over men, and some churches do follow this line. However, Paul also uses Genesis to support his head covering instructions, but very few churches consider this to be applicable today. So it is very difficult to come to a definitive position on the matter.

Anyway, let’s look at the text as we have it here and work through the argument. Head here is usually taken to mean authority, though some take it to refer to honour. Ie Christ derives His honour from God. Authority seems the more likely. Jesus lived His life under the authority of the Father. So a man should live his life under the authority of Christ, and a wife should respect her husband and is under his authority. Now there are a few things we need to note immediately, especially in our society. The first is that we tend to regard being under authority as being inferior to. This is not the Biblical concept of authority. In fact we see this most clearly with Christ. He lived under the authority of the Father, yet He is God. So a woman is no less than a man. Next, living under proper authority is not restricting, but is enabling and empowering. Look at the life of Jesus! He is the most effective man who ever walked the earth. Why? Because He lived under authority. So a man having authority over a woman does not belittle her in anyway, and will enable her to fulfil her potential, not restrict her. Finally, while here Paul talks about man being first, later on he will talk about man coming from woman (v12).

"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (10)

Chapter 9

In this chapter Wright gets in to “how did the first Christians interpret the death of Jesus?”. Again there is a lot of talk about it being so much more than going to heaven. He seems to pay undue attention to gnostic “gospels”. The gnostic gospels were mostly written in the second and third centuries, so they are not gospels at all. They are also complete nonsense. Go and read the Gospel of Thomas (it is easily found on the internet), and in parts you may well wonder what drugs the writer was on. He does make the point that most works on the atonement pay limited attention to the gospels themselves. He draws attention to the point that the gospels themselves do not seek to explain the atonement. Here, and frequently in the book, there then seems to be the subtext “and so substitutionary atonement is not valid”. An alternative hypothesis would be that they assumed atonement. Leviticus makes it very clear that paying for sin was a key element of the sacrifices, and Jesus was the supreme sacrifice, the One to whom all the Levitical law was pointing. At least that is what the writer of Hebrews thought.

On Hebrews (at Loc 2547), Wright says “For Hebrews, that (the purification) happened not at Jesus’s death, but after His resurrection and ascension”. I am not sure that this correct, isn’t it more the case that the resurrection proved that Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient?

Wright is back to failings (in my opinion) already referred to. At loc 2652 he says “At the centre of the whole picture we do not find a wrathful God bent on killing someone, demanding blood”. Nor do we evangelical/reformed theology! So why does he keep on repeating this gross caricature?

At loc 2702 he says “In what sense and by what means would Jesus's Death effect “forgiveness of sin”?” Are we now going to get the answer? Well, yes and no. Wright next says “The answer must lie - can only lie - in Jesus’s own creative reinterpretation of Israel’s scriptures.” What sort of an answer is that?

All in all I find Wright’s answers deeply unsatisfying. He seems to end up saying because all these other things flow from the cross, then atonement isn’t one of them.  Or, if you say atonement is at the heart of the cross, then you are ignoring all the other things that flow from the cross.

Wright’s view offers no solution at all to the problem of my sin and my sinfulness. There is the guilt of our sin (of which we do not appreciate the full enormity, and will not do so until the last day), and there is the fundamental twistedness of our nature (total depravity, to put it in Calvinist terms).

As you will have gathered, I am fairly critical of this book. Now N T Wright is a most eminent scholar, and one far more widely read than I, so in writing this stuff I frequently wondered if I was missing something, or barking up the wrong tree. Well, yesterday I found a review by Dane Ortlund (Senior VP for Bible publishing at Crossway), and this review raised pretty much the same issues that I have been raising. In fact, I could have saved the bother of writing this, and you could have saved the time of reading it, by simply going to his review! However, I’ve started so I’ll finish!

1 Corinthians 10:29-33 - Do all to the glory of God

10:29,30

All this is done for the sake of conscience, and the prime concern is the conscience of the host. So how could all this apply in our day, in which food in supermarkets has not been offered to idols, so the immediate issue does not apply in the West. Well suppose someone gives you a mug with a zodiac symbol on it. If nothing else is said then it is just a mug. Get on and drink your coffee! However, if the person then starts talking about horoscopes then this could be a great opportunity to start talking about the gospel, and about the One who really determines our futures. (You could probably still drink the coffee 😏). Paul then goes back to saying things in favour of the freedom side.

So what are we to make of the whole issue, and Paul’s approach to it? We should look at the matter as a whole, we should have concern for other people, we should not try to be “over righteous”. We have an inbuilt tendency to get legalistic about things, this is part of human nature. We need to be aware of this tendency, and to be on our guard against it...

10:31

“Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God”. This stresses the fundamental change that takes place when a person truly comes to Christ and what is involved in repentance. Before coming to Christ a person lives their life primarily for themselves, the focus of their thoughts is themself. This was showing itself in the attitudes of some in Corinth in relation to eating food that might have been offered to idols, and was indeed was at the root of most of the problems raised in the letter. “How does this affect me?” was the basic question they were asking. Instead, our focus should be “how can I glorify God?”, and this will often involve putting the wellbeing of others above ourselves, but will sometimes be just a matter of putting God first. In the LGBT debates consider the arguments put forward by those on the sin-affirming side, they are all man centered, not God centered. We need to make sure that our lives are focused on God.

10:32,33

“Give no offense”. Now this needs to be read in its context, or else it becomes, like “judge not”, an excuse for ignoring or condoning sin. Paul is stressing the whole focus of our lives, which should be to see the church built up and others brought into the kingdom. We do not seek our “own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved”. So we avoid giving needless offense.

"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (9)

Chapter 8

At last we get a deeper look at how and what the cross achieved in terms of “forgiveness of sins”. This is another far from satisfying chapter. Wright majors on the “forgiveness of sins” and its global effect, ie much more than just enabling us to “go to heaven”, and this is the problem. Penal substitution approach is in no way opposed to this. Maybe some presentations of it are misguided with far too narrow a focus, but that is not the fault of penal substitution. Wright also seems to belittle “moral sins”. Now it is not just a matter of our sins, but also our sinfulness (of which idolatry is a key symptom), but the sins themselves are important. So how does the cross achieve “forgiveness of sins”. Wright says the cross has achieved “forgiveness of sins” (and he does show from many Scriptures that is is an essential part of the plan), and that this opens the way for humanity to achieve it true vocation, but he does not say how the cross achieved this, and the penal substitution approach, at least in my opinion, does say how.

There is also something of a false dichotomy between sins and sinfulness. A large part of the prophecies in the Old Testament, both those directed at Israel and those aimed at the surrounding nations, condemn them for specific sins. Sins and sinfulness go together.

What Wright seems to be doing is saying that the purpose of “forgiveness of sins” is not just so we can “go to heaven”, but so that we can become fully functioning human beings, image bearers. And I absolutely agree with this, but Wright then seems to say: therefore the substitutionary atonement view is mistaken. This conclusion does not follow, indeed substitutionary atonement is why we can become fully functioning people.

Wright says that no Jews had thought of the Messiah opening up the way for the reconciling of all peoples with God. Maybe they had not done, but they should have! The promise to Abraham in Genesis 12 clearly had a universal goal, and various prophecies in Isaiah have a universal application.

1 Corinthians 10:26-28 - The earth is the Lord's

10:26

Paul then gives Scriptural backing for eating any food, “for the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof”. There are a couple of points to make. First, is that in this whole matter of food and idols Paul has given arguments saying that eating food offered to idols is fine, while at the same time earlier talking about those who worship idols as worshipping demons. So if one had just quoted one small section an argument, a “Biblical argument”, could have been made for either position. This demonstrates that we need to take the whole of Scripture, and certainly the whole of the immediate context, into account when making a case. The second point is that everything belongs to the Lord. Demons had taken food and were seeking to make it their own. Things were being argued about as if the food belonged to demons. It has oft been said that sex, money and power are involved when leaders (church or secular) fall, and are at the root of all evil. We need to remember that sex, money and power all belong to God, and used in righteous ways are a force for good, not evil. We need to take back territory from the devil, and we do so by following God’s commands.

10:27,28

Paul then turns immediately to the practicalities of the matter. What if an unbeliever invites you to dinner? What do you do about the food, which may well have been offered to idols. First, notice that Paul is perfectly happy with them mixing with unbeliever. Indeed, if we do not how will any of them come to know the Lord? There are situations and circumstances in which it is unwise to mix with unbelievers, but there is no blanket ban. Then, unless anything is said (see next verse), just get on and eat the meal. So we should not go around looking for an excuse to object to something.

However, if the host announces that the food is part of a sacrifice then they should not eat it. Why the difference? Because now the food is directly associated with idol worship.

"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (8)

Chapter 6

Another positive chapter. Things are getting better! The focus is on two main themes, the presence of God, and the forgiveness of sins, with the former receiving the greater attention. God’s plan has always been that He dwells with Him, we live in fellowship with Him, and He achieves His purposes through us. This applied to Abraham, to Israel, to Jesus (of course) and to the church. Again, I wholeheartedly agree with the “much more than going to heaven” thesis. We have a wonderful and glorious purpose in Christ, as individuals and as the church. Wright also intertwines this with the essential need for forgiveness in order for this plan to be realised, though he does not say how the forgiveness is achieved. He does point out that forgiveness and the presence of God go together.

So, I am now enjoying the book a lot more, and Wright is drawing attention to, and painting a picture of the greatness of God’s purpose, and showing how this purpose is a consistent theme throughout the Bible. I am at the moment wondering if the outcome of the book will be that it is excellent in portraying the consequences of the cross, but weak on how the cross achieves or enables those purposes. We shall see.

Chapter 7

A strangely unsatisfying chapter. Wright looks as Isaiah 53, emphasising its place in the whole of Isaiah 40-55, and indeed 40-66 (and as someone who believes in the unity of Isaiah, I would say 1-66). He points out the surprise that suffering should be the means to salvation, and that it is God Himself who suffers. There is also quite a bit of stuff on Maccabees. Now Maccabees is non-canonical, and was not recognised as canonical by Israel, Also, I am not familiar with Maccabees, so may be that is why I did not find those parts particularly enlightening.

The end point seems to be that the essential forgiveness of sins is achieved through the suffering of the cross. This is true, and does not contradict the penal substitution approach to the cross, nor does it necessarily affirm it.

For me the main effect of this chapter is to make me think chapters 1-4 are a mistake. In them Wright has attacked (albeit gently!) the ideas of punishment, and said some things about wrath, and that sin is more than just doing bad things. Fair enough, but these were presented in such a way that he seemed to be arguing against the traditional evangelical/reformed view of the cross. Now I, and I am sure many other, thinking evangelicals will react against this, as I did somewhat at length. Now I am looking for justification of Wright’s views, does he think the cross entials punishment or not? So as this chapter was focused on Isaiah 53 I was keenly looking for his answers to the questions he had raised, and I found very little. Maybe I should have been looking for something else, but if so the tone of chapters 1-4 have helped to sidetrack me from the real issue. So maybe in chapters 1-4 Wright was dealing with popular misconceptions. In which case, fair enough, but let’s be honest. The people who may have these misconceptions on sin, wrath etc are unlikely to read this book. Hence my thoughts that chapters 1-4 are a mistake.

1 Corinthians 10:23-25 -Not all things build up

10:23,24

There is an unfortunate section break here in most Bibles, for this is all part of Paul dealing with the same issue, namely the food and idols one, though he weaves in all sorts of other theological matters along the way. “All things are lawful”. Paul has just been saying that people who worship idols are actually worshipping demons, so idol worship itself is not something that an be simply dismissed as irrelevant. The “I can do anything” merchant may not chip in with some indignation “all things are lawful”. Such a person is missing the point. A key question about anything we do is “does it build up?” Does it build ourselves up? And, most importantly, does it build others up? So the prime motivation in our lives is not how do we benefit, but how do others benefit or suffer as a result of our actions.

10:25

This brings things directly back to the question raised sometime ago about eating food offered to idols. So one can indeed eat any food offered in the market without raising matters of conscience. So the “idols are nothings so it is fine to eat the food” people are indeed right, up to a point, but they are not looking at the whole issue. Before we go on to the wider issues, let’s look a little at this verse. In our desire to please God we can get obsessive in looking each and every thing to see if it is in anyway “demonic” or “unclean”, ie is there any speck of impurity. We should not do this. There is a verse in Ecclesiastes that says “do not try and be over righteous”. You can find something impure about anything, and you can certainly find something impure about our motives in almost anything we do. We should avoid doing this, it will not do us any good, and may lead to some form of legalism. Now where there is a clear command against something we obviously should not do it, and if the Holy Spirit is putting His finger on something in our lives we should respond to it, but we should not become spiritual neurotics.

"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (7)

Chapter 5

Now this is much better! I was wondering if I was going to be writing critical stuff all the way along, something I had no interest in doing. Thankfully that is not going to be the case.

In this chapter Wright does several things, most importantly is to look at the cross in the light of all of the Old Testament, and looking at the Old Testament (and beyond) as part of a single story. He points out that the Old Testament is in one sense frustratingly incomplete. It contains many great promises, but they are never really fulfilled. Looking at the whole we are left hanging at the end of Malachi, or 2 Chronicles if the Hebrew Bible order is used. In the Pentateuch Deuteronomy end not with Israel in the Promised Land, but on the verge of going in. He also points out that man was created with a great purpose, that Israel was formed with a great purpose, and that the cross is about enabling us to be the royal priesthood that God always intended us to be. With all this I wholeheartedly agree, and we all (meaning me, you and every other Christian) need to have a much greater appreciation of the greatness of the purpose for which God created us, and for which He has saved us. And that purpose starts now.

Wright also talks about sin and idolatry again, but does so from what, in my opinion, is a much more useful stand point. He rightly says that sin is much more than just doing, or not doing, certain things, and links idolatry and sin much more closely. This is excellent and true. He also makes a very valuable point when he says that if we talk to the world about “sin” they really don’t know what we are talking about. Saying Jesus died for our sins (as indeed He did) is true, but means so little, or may even mean the wrong thing altogether, to much of the world. This is indeed a problem, and one that we as the church need to grapple with.

So a much more enjoyable chapter, both to read and to write about.

Let me make a couple of observations on the topics. I come from the charismatic tradition. Yes there are loonies in the charismatic stream of the church, but most are actually normal people! One of the theological strengths of the charismatic stream is that it definitely sees God’s kingdom as having an impact now. This is perhaps part of the reason why the first four chapters of this book frustrated me so much, with me thinking “I may have many problems, but the one you keep going on about isn’t one of them!”. Secondly, the problem of how we communicate the (biblical) meaning of sin to the world. Perhaps we need to focus so much more on the wonderful purpose for which God has created us.

1 Corinthians 10:18-22 - Do not be participants with demons

10:18,19

Then Paul looks back to Israel. They offered sacrifices at an altar, therefore they were united as one people. Their eating the sacrifices (for that is what happened after the animals etc were offered on the altar) signified a connection with the Lord. So those who are food offered to idols are partaking in something that is connected to demons. Now, Paul here may seem to be contradicting what he said earlier, but we will have to go to the end of the chapter before we get the whole argument. But here Paul says explicitly that he is not implying that idols are anything at all.

10:20-22

Paul is not saying that idols are anything, but that those who eat the sacrifices as an act of worship are worshipping demons, and Paul does not want the Corinthians to have anything to do with anything that is connected to worshipping demons. We should notice the stark distinction that Paul draws here. One is worshipping the Lord, the other is worshipping demons. All too often we are too ready to mix things in the church or in our individual lives. So we must do absolutely nothing that is going to mix demons and God. The Israelites did this often enough, and never with a good outcome. Notice also the last verse (22), “shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy”. The jealousy of the Lord is a concept we do not here much of these days, but is one that we need to get a firm grasp of. To do so would profit us greatly.

"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (6)

Chapter 4

This chapter begins with Wright again referring to the “going to heaven” and “everything in heaven and on earth”. I am not quite sure why he does this. As mentioned earlier, I completely agree that salvation is not just about “going to heaven”, however, Wright seems to use this as grounds for diminishing the penal substitution aspect of the cross. Sin, man’s separation from God, is very reason why we do not have heaven on earth.

He then again insists on pitting sin and idolatry against each other. Let me state my position quite clearly. The heart of the problem, of all problems, is the sin in the heart of man, the rebellion against God. That means the problem lies with me (and, of course, also with you). Human nature will do all it can to avoid this conclusions, looking for any alternative solution. We will blame social conditions, upbringing, culture, our being mistreated, bad luck, or in Wright’s case, idolatry. Now all these things do matter, and do have serious effects, but the heart of problem lies in you and in me.

I really don’t understand what Wright is doing, or why he is doing it. He seems intent on setting up a straw man, of false dichotomies. So some do teach and preach a substandard gospel, some do get it wrong, missing out on the greatness of God’s plan, but Wright seems to be using this as a cloak for attacking penal substitution, when, properly understood, the reformed or evangelical view of the cross is not in any way opposed to the theme that God’s salvation is many times greater than “going to heaven”.

I think I realise why I am currently reacting against this book so much (and a book by someone I normally enjoy reading or listening to). He seems to be, at least implicitly, arguing against penal substitution (later parts of the book may show this to not be the case), and using this as part of the grounds for his more than “going to heaven” thesis. So he is arguing against, and misrepresenting, something I believe in, to argue for something I also believe in. The penal substitution view of the cross is no way antagonistic to the new heaven and earth thesis, indeed it is foundational for it. At loc 1130 he says (talking about the perversion of human rule) that “we ought not to let the perversion rob us of the good news...”. But that is precisely what Wright seems to be doing with the traditional evangelical view of the cross!

Wright continues to set idolatry and sin against each other, to some degree, but then (round about loc 1224) he goes on to say that sin is more than breaking of moral codes. I am appalled at the level of argument in this book. Up until this point he has been using “sin” in a very simplistic manner (doing bad things) and using this as a basis for some of his arguments. Now he rightly admits that sin means much more than that. So all the prior arguments based on a simplistic definition of sin were completely useless.

1 Corinthians 10:15-17 - Speaking to sensible people

10:15

Paul is returning to the matter of food offered to idols. In the previous section on this he dealt with the matter of our attitude towards others, putting the spiritual well-being other above our being pleased with our own depth of understanding! Now he deals with the matter on a different level. The principle that he is expounding on here is one of separation. There can be no unity between Christ an demons. This principle of separation was a key part of the Law, and it is now to be a key part of our Christian lives. This does not mean we live as hermits or monks, but that we must not partake in the world’s ways.

10:16,17

So Paul begins to explain this by looking at one the sacraments, namely the Lord’s Supper. It is interesting how early Communion had become established as a central part of Christian worship, and how closely these words reflect what Jesus said at the Last Supper. There Jesus talked about drinking His blood and eating His body, and here Paul speaks of participating in the blood and body of Christ. The first principle that Paul draws from this is the unity of the church. Since we all partake of the same bread, we are one body. This is fundamental to understanding the church.

"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (5)

Chapter 3

Towards the end of Chapter 3 (Loc 1006) Wright gives a summary of where the book is going. He emphasises that the Christian hope is much more than “going to heaven”, something I agree with. However, he then says:

Second, in the usual model, what stops us from “going to heaven” is sin, and sin is dealt with (somehow) on the cross. In the biblical model, what stops us from being genuine humans (bearing the divine image, acting as a royal priesthood) is not only sin, but the idolatry that underlies it.

He then talks about idolatrous humans as having handed over the power to the idols. Now, there is some truth in this, but what worries me is that Wright seems to be casting us as victim, rather than as guilty sinners. Or rather, putting victimhood above guilt. This is a very worldly perspective to take. Now when we sin we become slaves of sin, we do become victims, but the root of it all is our sin in the first place, not the slavery we now find ourselves in. If someone takes drugs and gets hooked they will indeed be a victim, but ultimately it is their own fault for having taken drugs in the first place. This does not mean we ignore the suffering and everything else that goes with being an addict, it does not mean that we do not try to help, but it is essential to keep in clear focus where the root of the problem lies. The Bible is absolutely clear, from beginning to end, that root of man’s problem, both on an individual and a corporate level, is our sin. Wright says (loc 1013) sin is the consequence of idolatry. This is completely the wrong way round. True we get into a vicious circle, but sin is the root, and idolatry is sin.

He then goes on to say that through Jesus God breaks the power of idols and brings in a new creation. This is true, but the fundamental problem is our sin, and the primary purpose of the cross is to deal with that problem. From this many things flow, but dealing with sin is the root of it all. Wright seems to be making the mistake that many make of not making sin our biggest problem.

This brings us to the end of Part I of the book. As you can see, I think Wright is fundamentally in error in some aspects, though he is correct in seeing that the cross has enormous consequences, and that indeed is something that all of us need to get a better appreciation of.

1 Corinthians 10:11-14 - Temptation

10:11

Paul now explicitly states that these things were written as an example and for our instruction. This is very important for our reading, understanding and application of the Old Testament. In no way does the New Testament do away with the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament is the same God who is God of the New Testament, His character, purposes and ways have not changed. So we should pay special heed to all that is written in the Old Testament. “On whom the end of the ages has come”, the fulfilment of God’s plans is now upon us, and Paul argues that because that has happened the Old Testament is all the more relevant and important.

10:12

There are two dangers with temptation. One is complacency, not taking things seriously. We find this in the “God will forgive me anyway” mentality, and there seems to have been something of this attitude in the Corinthian church. The Old Testament is full of warnings and instances where God judges the people for not trusting and obeying Him. Disobedience had severe consequences. Things have not changed! It matters how we live, it matters in whom we put our trust.

10:13,14

The second danger with temptation is defeatism, we can think that there is no chance of us overcoming the temptation. Paul first of all points out that all the temptation we face is common to man. This does not mean we all face exactly the same temptation in exactly the same way, but whatever temptation we may be facing it is no different than others have faced, and probably others are facing. Then we are assured that God will not let us be tempted beyond our ability to resist. This does not mean it will be easy or painless, but it is possible to overcome. Temptation seeks to make us think the battle is pointless because there is no way that we can win, this is not true. God will also provide a way out. Note the last part of the verse “able to endure it”. This “way out” does not mean an easy way out, or a simple escape from temptation. Rather it is the wherewithal to endure it, the ability to overcome.

"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (4)

Chapters 1 & 2

Wright says several time things like “Something happened as a result of which the world is a different place” (loc 598). I am wondering if this is just pious nonsense, or does it actually mean anything?

“We will find that the entire setting undermines any suggestion of the angry, bullying God” (loc 678). Why is he saying this? There are no doubt some who present the cross in this fashion, but I have never heard it done. More to the point, I have not heard serious evangelical theologians present it this way. All Wright seems to be doing is reinforcing the wrong caricatures that atheists may paint of the cross.

So far I find the book disappointing. Maybe I have lived a very sheltered life, or maybe Wright has had too many bad experiences, but while the caricature of penal substitutionary atonement is presented by some, the caricature is not what is presented by sensible evangelicals, and not one I have heard. So why is he setting up this straw man? This is the sort of thing that bad atheists do. He seems to have a problem with punishment for sin . Given that in Isaiah 53:5 where it says “the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him”, Wright at least has to present a proper case for dismissing the punishment aspect, if indeed that is what his end result will be. He has said on several occasions that the cross does deal with sin, and no doubt will explain that in later chapters. I wonder what he will say.

As I say, so far, so disappointing, but normally Wright is very good, so I still look forward to the rest of the book, and wonder where it will end up.

1 Corinthians 10:7-10 - Grumbling your way through life

10:7,8

The lessons to be learnt from the Israelites in the desert are not just general lessons, two specific areas of sin are highlighted by Paul. The first is idolatry. Idolatry was common in Corinth, as evinced by the question about food offered to idols.The phrase about the people sitting down to eat, drink and play is a quote from Ex 32:6, when the people made a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain. The sexual immorality in v8 is referring to what happened in Numbers 28. Both these sins, idolatry and sexual immorality, were very prevalent dangers, as certainly the latter is in our society. The gospel is not just about God loving and forgiving us, but it is about the way we live our lives as well. Nowadays we seem to be more concerned about avoiding legalism and being judgmental. We should note that the warning against legalism in the New Testament are mostly related to ritualistic matters (usually in the form of circumcision). The New Testament is very clear on the need to live a good life, indeed part of the gift of salvation is the Holy Spirit teaching us to live in a Christlike way, and that involves moral behaviour.

10:9,10

“But God will forgive. “ Indeed He will, but we must not put Him to the test by repeatedly willfully sinning. The Israelites put God to the test at Meribah, and paid the price. Notice that Paul draws an equivalence between our putting Christ to the test, and the Israelites putting Christ to the test. Things that were wrong then are wrong now (this does not apply to food laws and similar things, but does to moral behaviour). There is also the tacit implication that Christ is God, for he says that they tested Christ in the desert. Then grumbling is mentioned as well, and is seen as a most serious sin. Thankfulness is repeatedly commended in the Bible, especially in the Psalms, grumbling is condemned. We perhaps do not see grumbling as that serious a matter. Indeed, it is very much a part of life. But we should beware, for grumbling can reflect a very bad heart attitude, and can lead to our destruction. Let us root out grumbling in our life today.

"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (3)

Chapters 1 and 2

Anyway, back to Tom Wright’s book. He speaks of the reformers giving Biblical answers to Medieval questions, and so missing some of the most important questions. This is a little like damning with faint praise. As I noted in the previous post, how to deal with man’s sin is the most important question, and the one that runs right through the Bible.

In Loc 548 Wright talks about the supposed dichotomy between personal salvation and salvation of the whole of creation. Now we need to look at this carefully. I agree with Wright that “going to heaven” view is at best only part of the story, and is an impoverished view of salvation. However, this is not necessarily at odds with the focus of the cross being dealing with the problem of our sin. In Genesis 1 God gave man the task of having dominion over the earth, and subduing it (Gen 1:28). Man has failed to do this, and that is because of our sin. Man’s salvation is intimately linked to creation’s salvation, and there is no dichotomy between the penal substitution view of the cross, and the setting free of creation.

Dealing with the problem of evil. How does the cross deal with the “problem of evil”? The reformed view does address societal evil. It says that the root of all problems is man’s rebellion against God (ie sin). This affects both the individual, and has a collective effect in society. Individual’s repent and believe, all will then have some influence on society, some will have a direct influence (eg Wilberforce and slavery). Moreover, Western culture owes an enormous amount to the influence of Christianity.

On Loc 583 Wright joins in with others in criticising Stuart Townend’s great song/hymn In Christ Alone, in particular the lines:

And on the cross, when Jesus died,

The wrath of God was satisfied

Wright then portrays this as meaning a loving Jesus somehow placated or satisfied an angry God. Yes, there are some who may think like that, but it is not traditional reformed or evangelical theology. One would have expected better from someone of Wright’s intellect and calibre. The cross is the greatest of act of love in history, not just of God towards man, but also between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Again, it shows an inadequate view of what wrath means. The cross is the only answer to the otherwise unanswerable question of what to do about our sin.

As you will have guessed, I am getting increasingly concerned about the presuppositions that underlie this book.

1 Corinthians 10:1-6 - They all died in the desert

10:1-5

Paul has just been stressing the seriousness with which he took his calling, now he further emphasises how seriously the Corinthians should take theirs. It is literally a matter of life and death, eternal life no death. To do so Paul points back at the Old Testament, and Moses taking the Israelites out of Egypt. We should take note of how seriously all the New Testament writers and Jesus Himself took the Old Testament.”That’s just Old Testament” is one the most stupid statements you can make. All the Israelites came out of Egypt, yet most of them died in the desert. This was despite them experiencing many things. They all experienced the cloud of God and the fire of God, they all passed through the Red Sea, they all ate the manna from heaven. Yet this did them no good. Today people will often say that they need more evidence, that if they saw a genuine miracle, then they would know there is a God. This is simply not true. The Israelites saw all sorts of things, but did not believe. The people saw Jesus do many amazing things, but most did not believe. We need to repent, we need the Spirit to open our eyes, we need to be born again.

“and the Rock was Christ”, note the tacit implication of the deity of Christ. We cannot be Christians by accident or by association, we need to be disciples of Christ.

10:6

These things were given as a warning. People often think that the judgement aspects of the Old Testament have gone out of the window with Jesus. Nothing could be further from the truth. The “violent” passages of the Old Testament demonstrate the reality of God’s judgement. Moreover, Jesus Himself often spoke of judgement. These things happened to warn us to turn away from evil.

"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (2)

Chapters 1 and Chapter 2

Can I first of all give a warning, and then a little hope! The first few posts are going to be rather negative, rather critical of the book. I even wondered if I should stop writing this stuff, as I don't want to write critical post after critical post. However, I have just read chapter 5 and thinks get a lot more positive. So be prepared, but, if you can, stick with me on the journey. It might be better than you think! I am afraid it is the seventh post before we reach the sunlit uplands.

An important part of the thesis of the book is that the atonement should be looked at in the light of salvation being much more than getting a ticket to heaven. Tom Wright expands on this in his excellent book Surprised by Hope, a book which has much that I agree with, in particular the fact that heaven will not be a matter of sitting on a cloud strumming a harp. Isaiah and Revelation speak of a new heaven and a new earth. Jesus in much of His teaching speaks of us having responsibilities, as does Paul.

A warning bell went off when he says “They wrestled with the question of how the angry God of the late medieval might be pacified” (loc 485, I am reading the Kindle version which has no page numbers, so I can only give Kindle locations). He is talking about how the reformers (Luther etc) were reacting against the Roman Catholic teaching on the Mass, and the reformed view of the atonement as dealing with the wrath of God. He seems to betray a similar view of the wrath of God that is all too common. I have explained my view of the wrath of God on several occasions and will do so again. The common view of the wrath of God is often as an uncontrolled anger, ie similar to human rage. However, this is not the Biblical view. There are two key aspects to God’s wrath. On the one hand it is a passionate hatred of sin, on the other hand it is completely just and rational, and we need both of these aspects if we are to truly appreciate God’s wrath. God’s wrath is not just a cold mechanistic response to human sin, but one that involves the heart of God. But it is not an uncontrollable rage, but one based on the truth of what sin is, one that is perfectly rational and righteous. It is based on the truth of what sin does to us as individuals and as a society, on the harm that my sin does to me, and the harm that my sin does to others. Only God fully appreciates the true awfulness of sin, and dealing with sin is the problem that runs right through the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. Through the cross and resurrection and problem of sin was dealt with, completely. Now this has consequences both for us as individuals, and corporately, and we must not set one off against the other. Wright seems to be following the "rage" view of wrath.