Skip to main content

Book Reaction: Paul and the Faithfulness of God

I am calling this a book reaction, not a book review because this won't be a proper review. I don't have the time or energy to write a proper review of Wright's mammoth monograph on Paul. A proper review would talk many, many blog posts (see Witherington, Ben who, at the time I began writing this was on post #24). However, after investing much time and energy working my way through Paul and the Faithfulness of God, and given the importance of the book, I decided to share some very brief thoughts.

Why should you read Paul and the Faithfulness of God? First, if for no other reason, you should because it completes a lifetime of engagement with Paul by one of this generation's leading scholars. What Wright has to say matters and it is the most thorough treatment he (or perhaps anyone else) will ever write. Second, methodlogically Wright is approaching Paul in exactly the right way, by understanding him as a Jew living in the Roman empire. That may seem like an obvious starting point but for far too many it's just that, a starting point. Wright's analysis consistently keeps the framework in mind. The result is a very rich, contextual understanding of Paul.

Two themes in particular stand out in Wright's presentation of Paul that I believe are absolutely central. Messiahship and the people of God. That Jesus was the Messiah through whom God ws redeeming the world was the bedrock of all strands of early Christianity, and Paul is no different. Wright spends a good bit of time fleshing out what that meant for Paul. It was refreshing to see this made a central focus as I feel it has been too marginalized overall in Pauline studies. However, I am not completely convinced by some aspect of Wright's presentation, specifically the way he tied Messiahship to Jesus embodying the returning, faithful Yahweh. It does, though, tie together the themes of Jesus' divinity with Messiahship in an interesting way. As for the people of God, Wright understands that this was the whole point. This is why Paul wrote. It wasn't about a private spirituality, it was about creating one united people regaurdless of ethnicity, gender, or class. Wright understands all that Paul wrote as seeking to achieve this goal. It draws out the practical nature of the epistles and prevents one from seeing portions as dogmatic treatises. This is a welcome move on the part of Wright, and many other modern scholars.

Like many others, I do have to offer a bit of a complaint at the length of the book. I felt like better editing could have chopped it down by 100 pages or so. There were too many digressions on the state of scholarship and at times, some unhelpful repetition. Also, if you're going to exceed 1000 pages you need some very, very strong structure in place to keep your readers tracking. Douglas Campbell did this splendidly in The Deliverance of God. While there was strong macro structuring, Wright needed to put more micro structuring place. The ordering of the discussion on Romans 9-11 made his argument hard to follow, for me at least.

Even with that said, I still strongly encourage you to take the time and read Paul and the Faithfulness of God. It is a splendid book that I think gets a lot more right than it gets wrong, and even when you question his interpretive decisions, Wright will open up Paul so you can see him from a new angle.


Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Commentary Review: Daniel

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpfu…