"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
The other day I
finished reading N.T. Wright’s latest book, The Day the Revolution Began. It‘s
about the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross and how God used it to
transform the world. I was glad that
Wright came out with this book; I’ve been struggling in the past few years to
work out my understanding of the atonement. While at seminary I had abandoned
the older theories, finding that they did not fully conform to Scripture. Since
then I have been building up a more Scripture-conforming model, though,
admittedly, there are different pieces that have yet to be connected. My hope
was that Wright might help in the process. Being a long time reader of his, I
always felt that his work on the atonement was the least formed and least
articulated of his subjects. Having read
The
Day the Revolution Began, I must admit that I found parts of the book
confusing. I attempted to read several reviews of the book to see if these
parts could be explained. Instead, I found that the reviewers were just as
confused as I was about these parts. This made me feel better. But then I noticed
that these same reviewers were confused by parts that I found perfectly clear. I’ll
be honest: when I read his massive two-volume work on Paul and the Faithfulness
of God, I made extensive notes and read the chapters on Romans numerous times.
In fact, I actually had to read Wright’s two-volume Romans for Beginners
(twice!) and several of his online lectures on the subject to begin to grasp
what he was trying to say. Even then, it significantly helped that I already
understood much of Wright’s theology. But when I did finally grasp the
coherency of his argument, I found it quite compelling. Okay, I thought, I
better reread this current book. So I did.
Just a few bits
of Wright’s argument:
·
When Jesus was
crucified something occurred that fundamentally changed the world.
·
The Fall of Man
was more about the loss of humanity’s vocation in creation than a moral failure
to a set of divine rules.
·
Sin is a specific
result of idolatry.
·
When humans sin
they give up the power of their God-given vocation and give it to the evils of
the world.
·
The crucifixion
of Jesus was what God had in mind to deal with sin and evil from the beginning
when he called Abraham and made a covenant with him.
·
The sacrifice
found in the Old Testament law was neither about the transfer of sin or guilt
to the sacrifice nor the transfer of punishment to the sacrifice.
·
God used the Law
(Torah) to draw sin and evil to Israel and ultimately to Christ.
Sin/evil/darkness then did its worse upon Jesus, exhausting itself upon him.
·
When Jesus was
crucified, God was punishing Sin, not Jesus.
·
Jesus’ death was
an expression of loving self-sacrifice and obedience and an extension of the
ethic he taught and practiced.
·
The result of the
crucifixion was the forgiveness of sins.
·
The followers of
Jesus got their atonement theology predominately from Jesus’ own interpretation
of his death at the Last Supper where he combined it with the Passover/Exodus,
the coming of the Kingdom of God, and the prophecies Jeremiah 31 and Exodus 24.
When God raised Jesus from the dead it was proof that God had verified Jesus’
claims. The followers also added to this their understanding of what the
prophecies predicted would happen when God returned to his people and began to
consummate the age to come.
A few criticisms:
Wright still
wants to use the traditional language of penal substitutionary atonement though
he radically redefines it. While the radical redefinition of old concepts is an
approach Wright has frequently noted in Jesus and in Paul I’m not sure if such
an approach is valid today. It seems almost too misleading.
The application
chapters at the end were a bit of a disappointment. But they always are. Wright
is a brilliant theologian, scholar, and theologian but 1) he doesn’t understand
economics, 2) he doesn’t understand American society very well, and 3) he plays
it too safe in areas in which he could be more critical. I blame BBC News.
Though considered
a writing for a wide, popular audience I think this book is far more advanced
that some of his other similar, popular works, and only those with a more
advanced Scriptural understanding are going to appreciate the theology here.
For those intrepid enough to try, I would recommend watching a number of N.T.
Wright lectures on the subject of the Cross and the Atonement on Youtube.
Here are three
short pieces to get you started:
No comments:
Post a Comment