I’ve just listened to N. T. Wright’s lecture on “Israel in Pauline Theology” from the HBU conference held a little over a week ago (see below). I’ve read Wright plenty before on this and related issues, so there were no real surprises here in his exegesis and overall reading of Paul. For Wright, Jesus Christ and the multi-ethnic church are the true Israel. Thus, Paul does not anticipate any yet-fulfilled mass conversion of Israelites prior to the second coming (as the scholarly majority seems to understand Rom 11:25-26 to predict).
I’m quite happy with the way Wright interprets many individual texts, though I disagree with him on at least a couple of significant issues in the lecture (esp. Rom 11:25-26), and ultimately with his final position. I won’t quibble with the content of his exegesis, since many capable scholars have already done this elsewhere (in addition to many mainline commentators, see, e.g., the recent article by my colleague Michael G. Vanlaningham, “An Evaluation of N. T. Wright’s View of Israel in Romans 11,” BibSac 170 (2013): 179-93). But there are a few things Wright says or does (methodologically) here that I think are just plain odd, even for him.
First, given the topic of Wright’s lecture, I was surprised by how quickly he asserted his position on the meaning of “Israel of God” in Gal 6:16 and then just moved on. Near the end of the 57th minute, he says, “[In] Galatians 6:16, he [Paul] calls the church ‘the Israel of God’; I think there is no doubt about that.” That’s it. No exegesis and no argument. This is unfortunate considering how much discussion that verse has received and how many scholars plainly disagree with Wright on this text (see, e.g., Susan Grove Eastman, “Israel and the Mercy of God: A Re-reading of Galatians 6.16 and Romans 9-11,” NTS 56 [2010]: 367-95; Bruce Longenecker, “Salvation History in Galatians and the Making of a Pauline Discourse,” JSPL 2 [2012]: 65-87, at 79-80).
To be sure, Wright warns at the beginning of the lecture that he will principally focus on passages that don’t use the term “Israel” at all. I suppose that’s fine. But it is astonishing that he then so quickly bypasses those that do while also maintaining how crucial they are for a coherent reading of Paul. What I mean is that, in my opinion, Wright terribly exagerates the significance of Gal 6:16 and Rom 11:25-26 in Pauline thought when, at the 59th minute, he says, “if those passages don’t refer to the church, then Paul has just unmade the whole theological structure he has so obviously got throbbing through his head and his heart.” Again, this is just asserted, not argued: it is as if he simply forces his entire pre-conceived ecclesiology onto the two passages. Exegetical debates aside, it is just baffingly to me that Wright would place so much significance on two texts he hardly discusses in this hour-long lecture, or to put it the other way around, that he would hardly discuss two texts he considers to be so important.
Finally, as a progressive dispensationalist, I was confused at the 12th minute when he responded to the claim of some dispensationalists (not me) that in Romans 11 Paul predicts the return of the Jews to the land. Wright says in response, “This would be odd [for Paul to predict], not least, because of course when Paul wrote Romans, they [Israel] had not left it [i.e., the land] in the first place,” a comment that sounds like it incited a great deal of laughter. But what does Wright mean about the Jews having not left the land? Had the Jewish Diaspora come to an end before 57 AD? There were obviously thousands upon thousands of Israelites still scattered across the Mediterannean. So I don’t get it. This is a very odd criticism, and one that too quickly won the audience’s approval.
Nonetheless, I appreciate Wright’s attempt to read ALL of Paul and to make his entire theological vision work together, even if I disagree with how he goes about it. I may have my summer school Romans class listen to this lecture (and maybe another one of Wright’s on justification), since it provides a good representation of Wright’s system and is generally quite easy to follow.
Dunelm Road 
Monday, 31 March 2014 at 3:06 pm
Excellent summary and evaluation, JG.
Monday, 31 March 2014 at 4:51 pm
Thanks, Travis.
Monday, 31 March 2014 at 4:52 pm
I meant Tavis, sorry!
Monday, 31 March 2014 at 3:15 pm
The more I’ve read and reread the text, the stronger Wright’s position seems to me. For example, in Romans 11, where I used to disagree strongly with Wright, Paul’s argument seems to be extremely carefully structured. The discussion opens with a proclamation that “not all who are from Israel are Israel”, it ends with “all Israel will be saved” and its midpoint is “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” which is exposited to mean “There is no distinction between Jew and Greek, the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches upon everyone who calls on Him.” The argument in Romans 11 looks to me like an argument for God’s faithfulness because Gentiles are only grafted into the people of Israel by an organic link with the remnant “according to the election of grace” which alludes back to 4:16. 4:12 suggests that even for the circumcision, descent from Abraham depends on faith.
The key passage in Romans 11, for me, is here:
(Romans 11:16-19) If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
The two metaphors are firstfruits-lump,and root-branches. The “branches” are identified as Gentiles grafted into the Tree through faith, and the “firstfruits” are identified as the remnant of Israel. Reading those two metaphors together, the point seems to be that Gentiles are only set apart as part of God’s lump through their link to the remnant of Israel, even as unbelieving branches are separated from the tree/lump.
As for Galatians 6:16, I find arguments that the “Israel of God” means something other than the Jew+Gentile family massively unpersuasive. The reason isn’t just the grammar, though that counts for something. It’s the context. The entire letter has been devoted to arguing that Abraham has but one family, so that Jews and Gentiles must eat together as members of that one family. But then in Galatians 6:2, Paul commands the Church of Galatia to “bear one another’s burdens” and thereby “fulfill the Torah!” In 6:13, those who are circumcised “in the flesh” don’t keep the Torah, but apparently, given 6:2, those who are uncircumcised keep the Torah by embodying the Messiah’s life. That’s a parallel to the argument of Romans 2:25-29 where the “physically uncircumcised” is “circumcised in heart”, which, given Deuteronomy 30, means that Gentiles are constituted as returning exiles.
In 6:14, Paul “boasts” in the cross of Christ. In 6:15, neither uncircumcision or circumcision counts for anything, but only a new creation. In 6:16, we’ve got the “Israel of God”, and in 6:17 (though many folks miss this), Paul draws this all together- he bears on his body the “marks of Jesus”, as opposed to, of course, the marks of circumcision. The point is that when you embody the crucified life of the Messiah, you receive his risen life, the firstfruits of the new creation. And as the Messiah is the one in whom Israel’s election is focused, sharing his life constitutes you as a member of the people of Israel.
One final note, I don’t find any indication in Second Temple literature that the idea of a “family of Abraham” broader than the “people of Israel” would even have been coherent.
P.S. The above is the reason that I agree with Michael Gorman over N.T. Wright on justification. What is the badge of covenant membership? Wright correctly says that it is pistis, and that it is the Messiah-badge because the faithfulness of the Messiah is what accomplished the covenant purposes of God. But passages like 6:17 make it look like the badge of covenant membership is actually suffering with Jesus, since the “marks of Jesus” are opposed to the “marks of circumcision.” Wright’s interpretation of justification holds these two badges in tension, while Gorman’s unites them. Pistis is the Messiah badge, but since exhibition of pistis means embodying the faithfulness of the Messiah by “suffering with Him” (marking you out as the people of the age to come, being “glorified with him” 8:17) , Galatians 6:17 and Romans 3:22 don’t stand in tension, they stand in perfect harmony.
Monday, 31 March 2014 at 4:32 pm
Seraphim,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You provide a lot of data that I think rightly shows that there is an essential unity to the eschatological/NT people of God, and that believing Gentiles participate in Israel’s covenant promises and blessing. And there are certainly places where Paul “polemically redefines” various ethnic labels (e.g., “Jews,” “Abraham’s seed”). This does not convince me, however, that when Paul refers to “Israel” in Gal 6:16 and esp. Rom 9:6 and 11:26 that he means the church. And I don’t think listing all the ways the Gentiles participate in Israel’s promises can finally demonstrate that “Israel” means the church, esp. in Romans 9-11 where “Israel” and “Israelite” clearly have ethnically exclusive senses in all of their non-ambiguous uses. Thus, I think the scholarly majority has it right on that passage.
Tuesday, 1 April 2014 at 3:53 am
Thanks for the discussion, John and Seraphim. Pauline theology is not my speciality, so I am not qualified to comment on what Wright gets right or wrong. I was, however, a little alarmed at the speed with which he dismissed his opponents’ positions. He seemed to use rhetorical tricks rather than solid arguments. I too was baffled by his comment that Israel had not left the land.
Seraphim, I found your comments on Gal 6:16 very helpful and well argued. You have persuade me. I have a question for you on 6:17, however. Why should we suppose that Paul wants his readers to compare/contrast his “marks of Jesus” with marks of circumcision? It seems to me that we should interpret 6:17 in the light of 5:11 where Paul points to his persecution to prove his sincerity. His wounds demonstrate his commitment to the Gospel of Gentile liberty (this is John Chrysostrom’s reading of 6:17). The “marks of Jesus” were his physical wounds that he got as a result of his commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The agitators were telling the Galatians (perhaps in good faith) that Paul actually believed in circumcision: “Paul believes in circumcision so it is OK for you to be circumcised”. They supposed that if Paul continued to preach Gentile liberty to the Galatians it was not out of conviction but only out of a desire to please men (the Jerusalem apostles in my view). Paul’s wounds proved the agitators wrong. Paul’s sequence of thoughts in 5:2-12 is very similar to 6:11-17 (and indeed 1:1-10), so we should surely interpret 5:11 and 6:17 together. So why interpret 6:17 theologically? Isn’t Paul just saying, “no-one should question whether I believe the gospel that I preach to you: I have the wounds to prove it”.
Richard.
Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 2:17 pm
you’re still a progressive dispensationalist ?