Nearly Everything Wrong with N. T. Wright Summed Up in One Chapter Heading
Articles take a time to reach Aberystwyth, but if they are online, they are floating about somewhere or other and they may finally touch down in out-of-the-way places. So it was that I came across Rachel Miller’s fascinating blog entitles A Daughter of the Reformation and the following article that she wrote… three years ago. Yes, it does take a long time for something interesting to reach the west coast of Wales. This is what she wrote:
* * *
John Walton, Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton and author of the Lost World of Genesis 1, has a new book coming out this Spring. The new book, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate, is summarized this way by the publishers:
For centuries the story of Adam and Eve has resonated richly through the corridors of art, literature and theology. But for most moderns, taking it at face value is incongruous. And even for many thinking Christians today who want to take seriously the authority of Scripture, insisting on a ‘literal’ understanding of Genesis 2–3 looks painfully like a ‘tear here’ strip between faith and science.
How can Christians of good faith move forward? Who were the historical Adam and Eve? What if we’ve been reading Genesis—and its claims regarding material origins—wrong? In what cultural context was this couple, this garden, this tree, this serpent portrayed?
Following his groundbreaking Lost World of Genesis One, John Walton explores the ancient Near Eastern context of Genesis 2–3, creating space for a faithful reading of Scripture along with full engagement with science for a new way forward in the human origins debate. As a bonus, an illuminating excursus by N. T. Wright places Adam in the implied narrative of Paul’s theology.
The Lost World of Adam and Eve will be required reading for anyone seeking to understand this foundational text historically and theologically, and wondering how to view it alongside contemporary understandings of human origins.
While there is much to be said about this book and the theological positions taken by the author (you can read the chapter headings here), what caught my attention was the ‘illuminating excursus by N.T. Wright.’ Here is the full heading for Wright’s chapter, ‘Paul’s Use of Adam Is More Interested in the Effect of Sin on the Cosmos Than in the Effect of Sin on Humanity and Has Nothing to Say About Human Origins.’
This single chapter heading is truly amazing. It has successfully encapsulated almost everything that’s wrong with Wright’s theology. Let me explain what I mean. This chapter heading contains Wright’s low view of Scripture, his re-interpretation of Paul’s writings, his minimizing the importance of the salvation of individuals, his emphasis on the redemption of the cosmos, and his belief in the evolutionary origins of humanity.
First, the chapter heading illustrates Wright’s low view of the inspiration of Scripture. He speaks, here and in his other works, of ‘Paul’s use’ as if Scripture is mainly the work of the human authors. It may seem like a stretch, but over and over again the repeated use of ‘what Paul means’ or ‘Paul’s use of the Old Testament’ or ‘Paul’s purposes,’ etc. emphasizes the human author and de-emphasizes the work of the Holy Spirit in the writing and preserving of Scripture.
As far as inerrancy is concerned, Wright would not call himself an inerrantist and views the debate on inerrancy and inspiration to be an American preoccupation:
…the insistence on an ‘infallible’ or ‘inerrant’ Bible has grown up within a complex cultural matrix (that, in particular, of modern North American Protestantism) where the Bible has been seen as the bastion of orthodoxy against Roman Catholicism on the one hand and liberal modernism on the other. Unfortunately, the assumptions of both those worlds have conditioned the debate. It is no accident that this Protestant insistence on biblical infallibility arose at the same time that Rome was insisting on papal infallibility, or that the rationalism of the Enlightenment infected even those who were battling against it. , Simply Christian (183)
Of course, Wright also believes the debate over the historicity of Adam is mainly an American preoccupation, so I’m not sure why he felt called to address it now.
Second, re-imagining and re-interpreting what Paul really meant is what Wright does. Wright has made his mark as part of the New Perspective on Paul. It should come as no surprise that Wright’s contribution to Walton’s book would be to explain to us how we’ve misunderstood and misused what Paul wrote.
What have we misunderstood this time? Two main things are mentioned in the chapter heading:
- The effect of sin on the cosmos is more important than the effect of sin on humanity.
- Paul had nothing to say about human origins.
I read an article this week that critiqued Wright’s ‘overstatement’ on the importance of the cosmos as compared to humanity. The author is convinced that Wright simply overstated his case and that everyone knows that Scripture teaches that humans are more important than things. Unfortunately, the overemphasis on the importance of the cosmos is part and parcel of Wright’s theology.
Wright truly does believe that the cosmos are more important in the grand scheme of things. He believes that we have become way too focused on saving people and lost sight of our role in redeeming the cosmos:
to insist, in other words, that what happens eventually to individual humans is the most important thing in the world – may be to make a mistake similar to the one made by the Jewish people in the first century.
To focus not on the question of which human beings God is going to take to heaven and how he is going to do it but on the question of how God is going to redeem and renew his creation through human beings and how he is going to rescue those humans themselves as part of the process but not as the point of it all. , Surprised by Hope (164 ebook)
Not only have we misunderstood the purpose and overarching theme of redemption, we’ve misunderstood the Gospel. When Scripture says that Jesus came to save His people from their sins, Wright believes that it’s not so much about individuals being saved from their moral failures, but rather, that Jesus had to come to put God’s rescue plan for creation back on track.
God has made a plan to save the world. Israel is the linchpin of this plan; but Israel has been unfaithful. What is now required, if the world’s sin is to be dealt with and a worldwide family created for Abraham, is a faithful Israelite. This (Jesus) is what God has now provided. , Justification (68)
And,
Embedded within the earliest strands of Christian tradition we find an already formulaic statement: the messiah died for our sins according to the scriptures. … It was not, first and foremost, a way of saying that the moral failures of individuals had been atoned for in some abstract theological transaction. That would come, and quickly; we find it already in Paul’s mature thought.
But in the beginning it was a claim about what Israel’s God had done, in fulfilment of the scriptural prophecies, to bring Israel’s long night of exile to its conclusion, to deal with the ‘sins’ that had kept Israel enslaved to the pagan powers of the world, and to bring about the real ‘return from exile,’ the dawn of the new day, for which Israel had longed. , The Meaning of Jesus, 98
And that is how we get to the final point from the chapter heading, Paul’s use of Adam has nothing to say about human origins. In a review of Wright’s book, Surprise by Scripture, the author explains how Wright’s understanding of salvation and his re-interpretation of Paul’s use of Adam are connected:
There is a commonly held approach to salvation which posits that a perfect creation was marred through Adam’s sin, and Jesus came to pay the penalty for sin, thereby allowing us to go to heaven when we die. Adam’s role in that story is crucial: ‘no Adam’ means ‘no reason for Christ to come.’ But according to Wright, that is not the story that Paul tells, and it is a distortion of the Gospel. Instead, Paul connects our salvation to the story of Israel—their being placed in the Promised Land, given a commission to bless all nations, then breaking the Law and being exiled. Paul uses Adam to retell Israel’s story: ‘placed in the garden, given a commission to look after it; the garden being the place where God wanted to be at rest, to exercise his sovereign rule; the people warned about keeping the commandment, warned in particular that breaking it would mean death, breaking it, and being exiled. It all sounds very, very familiar’ (p. 37). Not much hinges on the historicity of Adam on this account. Lots of other Jewish authors around the time of Paul appropriated Adam to get their points across too. The genre of this literature was not historical journalism.
So there you have it. According to Wright, there’s no need for a historical Adam. Of course, it shouldn’t be too surprising that the review appeared on the BioLogos website. Wright and Walton both are featured on BioLogos and share their belief in an evolutionary explanation for human origins. For all three, Wright, Walton, and BioLogos, I truly believe their interpretation of Scripture is driven by their commitments to science, politics, and their own worldviews rather than the reverse.
And that brings us back full circle to the first point. Everything hinges on your view of Scripture. Either Scripture will be the lens through which you view the world or the world (science, politics, worldview, etc) will be the lens through which you view Scripture. Ultimately one or the other will be your authority.
This article was originally published on A Daughter of the Reformation, a blog by Rachel Miller, and has been reproduced with the permission of the author.
Of Further Interest
Description
Articles take a time to reach Aberystwyth, but if they are online, they are floating about somewhere or other and they may finally touch down in out-of-the-way places. So it was that I came across Rachel Miller’s fascinating blog entitles A Daughter of the Reformation and the following article that she wrote… three years ago. Yes, […]
From the Mouth of God
Trusting, Reading and Applying the Bible
Description
Articles take a time to reach Aberystwyth, but if they are online, they are floating about somewhere or other and they may finally touch down in out-of-the-way places. So it was that I came across Rachel Miller’s fascinating blog entitles A Daughter of the Reformation and the following article that she wrote… three years ago. Yes, […]
Thy Word Is Truth
Some Thoughts on the Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration
Description
Articles take a time to reach Aberystwyth, but if they are online, they are floating about somewhere or other and they may finally touch down in out-of-the-way places. So it was that I came across Rachel Miller’s fascinating blog entitles A Daughter of the Reformation and the following article that she wrote… three years ago. Yes, […]
Latest Articles
William Cunningham: Humble Controversialist October 21, 2024
The following short article appeared in Issue 690 of the Banner of Truth Magazine (March 2021). The first volume of William Cunningham’s works to be prepared for the press by his literary executors, James Buchanan and James Bannerman, was The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation. It was published in 1862, a few months […]
Corporate Worship: 10 Benefits for Our Children August 9, 2024
Having your children with you in worship can be hard. It can be hard for the parents, for the children, and for the rest of the congregation. The squirming, the shuffling of papers, the loud whispers, and the louder cries, all can make it challenging to have our children with us in corporate worship. But […]