Samuel Lago - 04 July 2008 07:52 AM

I don’t think its any more “assumed” than people who do exegesis and develop theology from word-counts. We all come to Scripture with pressupositions, but I geniunely believe that if you look at the Jewish worldview, even to this day, covenant underlines their understanding how the relationship between God and Israel “works”. That’s one thing that Sanders got right (yikes). Abraham Heschel, a jewish theologian goes quite a bit into this.

But does Paul’s worldview correspond exactly with a Jewish worldview? Wright does assume that Paul’s worldview and the Jewish worldview have a large degree of overlap, including covenantal theology.

Samuel Lago - 04 July 2008 07:52 AM

So I think your question by analogy, could be compared to someone asking: “What is the basis of a marriage, their mutual love and self-giving, or their commitment expressed through the marriage ceremony?” I could be wrong, but it seems like a false dichotomy!

I get your point. However, there are significant holes in the analogy - e.g., one can be married legally without the basis of mutual love and self-giving.

Dannii Willis - 04 July 2008 04:11 PM

Yep, but is this part of the covenant theology framework? New covenant theology? Something else?

I’m out of my depth to give a definitively yes to the first link but it’s definitely not the latter.

But does Paul’s worldview correspond exactly with a Jewish worldview? Wright does assume that Paul’s worldview and the Jewish worldview have a large degree of overlap, including covenantal theology.

Dear Jason, with all due respect, I am very confused. Of course there is a great deal of overlap (the exact extent, of course, is a more difficult question!). God’s redemptive purposes were always through Israel, as promised to Abraham, and each stage of progressive revelation, including God’s final revelation in Christ, was built upon the other (I asume we do agree on this point). I think, in fact that part of Paul’s point in writing Romans is to point out how, in the Gospel, God has been faithful to His covenant promises to Israel, despite her “present” apparent rejection of the Gospel, in contrast the Gentile (general) acceptance of it (who had been, historically, Israel’s enemies).

When Paul uses terms like “falling short of the glory of God”, is it not linked to the hebraic understanding of the “missing the mark”? Or his reference to Christ put forth as a hilastērion, which takes us back to the way God deal with sin within the Mosaic covenant (Lev 16; Exodus 25).

I think Michael Bird’s (a Baptist) response to Seifrid’s critique is right on:
http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2008/07/mark-seifrid-on-nt-wrights-moral.html

I especially like this paragraph:

First, one objection I have here is that when I read Ezekiel 16 and Acts 7, I get the feeling that we are dealing with a single story-line. Different tellings of one story do not negate the unity and continuity of an overarching narrative. The phrase “according to the Scriptures” implies a connection between the story of Jesus and the church with the story of Israel and Abraham. Second, there are indeed continuities and discontinuities between the old and new covenants, but I suggest that a mere reading of the Last Supper (esp. Luke’s version) highlights the continuity between the two epochs regardless of what one thinks of a “new” covenant or a “renewed” covenant. Third, Seifrid is quite right about the Law vs. Promise contrast in Galatians 3, but I would point out that as well that in Paul’s reference to the Abrahamic narrative God also gave the gospel in advance to Abraham and that in Romans 4 Abraham is the prototype of the Gentile Christian, that is continuity. Third, on the role of Israel and Torah in biblical history, I think Seifrid raises some good questions for the narrative approach. There is indeed an underlying tension: does Israel subjugate and destroy the nations or draw them to Zion to worship God? I need to think more on this, but this may represent the tension within the biblical story-line of Israel being separate from the nations but also a light to the nations (cf. Isa. 42.6; 49.6), but I doubt whether it necessarily equates to competing visions of Israel’s vocation. Moreover, if Jesus is the embodiment or representative of Adam and Israel (implied by the temptation stories) then, in a sense, Israel does die for the sins of the world!

Angus Johnson - 04 July 2008 06:21 PM

Dannii Willis - 04 July 2008 04:11 PM

Yep, but is this part of the covenant theology framework? New covenant theology? Something else?

I’m out of my depth to give a definitively yes to the first link but it’s definitely not the latter.

I’m reading through Michael Horton’s ‘Covenant and Salvation’ book at the moment - it is an excellent discussion about NPP and another movement (Radical Orthodoxy) from a covenantal theological perspective.  Here’s perhaps a helpful quote re: NT Wright and Covenant Theology from Horton’s second chapter:

“When N.T. Wright, for example, champions ‘covenant theology,’ he sharply distinguishes his account from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century versions.* Nevertheless, elsewhere Wright concedes, ‘Like many New Testament scholars, I am largely ignorant of the Pauline exegesis of all but a few of the fathers and reformers.  The Middle Ages, and the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, had plenty to say about Paul, but I have not read it.’** Classic covenant theology has therefore been, in my view been too lightly dismissed without serious firsthand evaluation.  My primary goal in part 1 is not to exonerate the tradition, but to interact with the NPP from within it.”

*Horton quotes NT Wright from What Saint Paul Really Said...
**Horton quotes NT Wright from Paul, In Fresh Perspective

So, hopefully that helps a little bit.  From other things that I have read, it does seem that Wright’s covenant theology isn’t the standard reformed version (eg, Horton, Robertson, Kline - though they each have nuanced differences!) Reformed covenant theology is a good thing so I’d suggest to let your reading of it be shaped by the forementioned guys.  If I come across other good comparisons of traditional Reformed Covenant Theology and Wright’s Covenant Theology then I’ll fire off a quote or two!

Cheers,
Mark