The Sunday lectionary reading for the Third Sunday in Lent in Year C is Luke 13.1–9, where Jesus is questioned by his disciples about disaster bought on people by the wickedness of another, and Jesus extends the discussion into the question of disaster brought on by natural calamity. Though pertinent at the present moment because of the stories dominating the news just now, this touches on a perennial issue in relation to suffering.
(The NT epistle for this week is 1 Cor 10.1–13, and you can watch the video discussion of that passage here.)
There is a very deep-seated human tendency to see disasters that befall others as somehow indicating a moral judgement of the victims. At a personal and petty level, we find it in the language of ‘Serves them right!’ and ‘They got what is coming to them!’ The converse of that is the way that we somehow grant those who have prospered a moral status which allows them a platform from which to tell us how we should be living our lives. After all, if they have got on in life, then surely they have something important, useful—perhaps even moral?—to tell us. We find it immensely difficult to get our heads round the reality that, very often, these things appear to happen by chance—that either someone was just in the wrong place at the wrong time for no particular fault of their own, or conversely that someone else happened to be in the right place at the right time. I have been struck by how often those who are very well off came by their good fortune because they just happened to come across an opportunity at the right moment.
(I enjoyed the video by Derek on Veritasium entitled ‘The Success Paradox about the ‘egocentric fallacy’: when life goes well, we tend to believe that we deserve it, even when it is demonstrably by random chance!)
There are, of course, good reasons why we want life not to be so random. We think that doing the right thing, working hard, making difficult and courageous decisions should be rewarded with good fortune, and lazy fecklessness should meet disaster. This kind of longing is found, for example, all over the Psalms. This might have a theological basis to it—but in fact we all have the longing that life is meaningful, and that such meaning has a clear moral dimension to it. (If you don’t believe me, just go and watch one of the popular blockbuster movies, where, by and large, the goodies win out.) The problem arises when we encounter actual disasters, especially on a large scale, and our moralising is not only clearly wrong, but it is damaging to those who experience it and reduces our capacity for empathetic response.
This Sunday’s lectionary reading asks precisely this question of the connection between the judgement of God and the disasters that befall people.
First: a confession. I have no idea why the lectionary has reversed the order of this reading and last week’s, so that this one comes before what we looked at previously. Answers on a postcard…or in the comments please!
The wider context of this reading is Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem begun at Luke 9.51, as for all the teaching in this section. Luke organises his record of Jesus’ teaching in quite a different way from Matthew, who tends to group it together more. Looking back over the previous chapter, we can see general teaching to the crowds (e.g. in Luke 12.13 and 54) with teaching directed more at the disciples (e.g. in Luke 12.1, 22). There seems to be, for Luke, a permeability and interchange between these two kinds of teaching, and in our passage Jesus’ teaching is introduced with a general question from an unnamed person (Luke 13.1). The question Jesus engages with here is one that is relevant to all, and his teaching here addresses questions that all need to consider.
The more immediate context is the preceding teaching on eschatological judgement, repentance and division. Stephen Langton (the Archbishop of Canterbury who introduced chapter divisions into the Bible) has probably done us a disservice here, since at the end of this section there is a new temporal marker (‘On a Sabbath…’ Luke 13.10) and a change in focus from the teaching of Jesus to his healing, and Luke 13.1–9 is clearly connected with what comes before with the Lukan phrase ‘at that time’ (ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ, a variation on ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ which we saw last week Luke uses seven times in his gospel and twice in Acts). This episode in fact appear to function as a closing climax to the teaching that began in 12.1.
The incident that the people mention, of Pilate slaughtering worshippers and ‘mixing their blood with the sacrifices’ is otherwise unattested in other sources. But this is not surprising; it is a single incident in a time for which we do not have detailed historical chronicles—but it fits well with the brutal behaviour of Pilate that we know from other writers.
After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called Corban upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it. Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them]. Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace. (Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.9.4)
The fact that those who suffer are Galileans implies they are ordinary people, and the only time when they might be ‘offering sacrifices’ is the Passover, the most significant festival in the Jewish calendar, which only serves to heighten the distress of the event. The mention of Pilate might suggest that there is a political motive behind the question, with the speakers looking for Jesus to take sides in a political argument about Roman authority. There is not much hint of this in the way the question is put, and the shape of the narrative suggests that the question is functioning more as a distraction from the issues of judgement and repentance that Jesus has been addressing—and to which, in response, he quickly returns.
Jesus himself puts alongside this first tragedy another one, the collapse of the tower of Siloam, the pool in Jerusalem mentioned in John 9.7 at the end of Hezekiah’s tunnel. Once more, we have no parallel historical record of this, but the collapse of buildings is hardly an unusual occurrence, and we do appear to have archaeological evidence of a tower there that was rebuilt on earlier foundations. It is striking that, by adding this example, Jesus is offering two contrasts: first, between those from Galilee and those native to Jerusalem; and, second, those who have suffered at the hands of another, and those who have suffered as a result of some natural calamity.
This pair of examples is responding to a widely held conventional view that when disaster comes, there is some sense in which it is deserved by those who suffer. Apart from our instinctive response in this direction which I described above, there are some important texts in Scripture which make some sort of connection between disobedience and disaster. In Israel’s narrative, the foundation of this is found in Deut 28–30 with its promise of blessings and woes:
If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth. All these blessings will come on you and accompany you if you obey the LORD your God:… (Debt 28.1)
However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:… (Deut 28.15)
Read in proper theological context, this contrast was never intended to set God up as a divine moral slot machine, into which you could put the right or wrong moral response and, pulling the handle, receive either blessings or curses as appropriate. Rather, as the following ‘Deuteronomic’ narrative sets out, running through 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings, to the final clinical description of the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of exile, it sets up God’s people as moral agents who are able to make meaningful moral decisions which will shape their destiny. The same kind of connection, moving from decision to its consequences, is found in Proverbs, and in part of the Psalms; it is important that we understand that what we do has consequences, and that we are not simply being blown through life by the unpredictable winds of fortune (as Forrest Gump appears to be learning in the final scenes of the 1994 film, focussing on a helpless, floating feather).
But alongside that, there are counter voices, both in the Psalms and in Job and Ecclesiastes. As one witty OT scholar once said: ‘Proverbs says “Do this and life will go well with you”. Ecclesiastes says “I did, and it didn’t”‘. Life in all its complexity does not yet reflect the will of God, and we live in patience while we wait for that to be revealed.
And here is where we need to listen to Jesus’ response. In reply to the assumption that the Galileans ‘deserved’ their fate at the hands of wicked Pilate, or that the Jerusalemites ‘deserved’ their deaths at the hands of whimsical fate, his answer is the same: an emphatic ‘No, I tell you!’ twice over. We see the same dynamic in the other episode mentioning Siloam, John 9, the episode of the man born blind:
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9.1)
Jesus’ answer there is emphatic: ‘Neither!’ Joel Green puts it like this:
It is true that Deut 28–30 (to name only one example) insists that judgement will overtake those whose lives are characterised by disobedience, but this is not the same thing as arguing that disasters come only to those who are disobedient. In fact, Jesus’ reply does not deny sins its consequences, nor that sin leads to judgement; instead, he rejects the theory that those who encounter calamity have necessarily been marked out by God as more deserving of judgement that those who do not. (NICNT p 514)
In doing this, Jesus is both acknowledging the unpredictability of disaster—but at the same time refusing to let go of the notion that we are morally responsible agents.
That then leads into the second half of this reading, which functions as a conclusion to this block of teaching before the next narrative section. Again, the scenario depicted in Jesus’ parable, of a fig tree growing in a vineyard, is entirely plausible (I have both growing in my garden). And the image of either vine or fig tree as pictures of God’s people is rooted (pardon the pun!) in the Old Testament, often with an eschatological dimension to them, as in Micah 4.4. But what is striking here is the contrast with other parables or stories featuring these two—whether the narrative of the vineyard in Mark 12.1–11 or the unproductive fig tree in Mark 11.13 = Matt 21.19. In those stories, the main lesson is judgement—but in this one it is the staying of judgement by the one tending the tree. Jesus makes it clear that the desire of the gardener is that the tree will become fruitful, if at all possible:
‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! (Luke 13.8–9).
For those eager to regard others as more deserving of God’s judgement than themselves, Jesus continues by insisting that the unrepentant have escaped judgement not because of their relative sanctity, but because of God’s mercy. (Joel Green, NICNT p 515)
John Bradford was an English Reformer in the 16th century; it is said of him proverbially that he is the originator of the phrase, ‘There but for the grace of God go I’. He was supposed to have watched men go to the stake, and said ‘There but of the grace of God goes John Bradford’. That period of grace came to an end for Bradford himself was burned at the stake in 1555. Whether the saying originated with him or not, the force of it remains, and this reading gives it weight. When we see disaster befalling others, the appropriate response is compassion and solidarity, as we share with our fellow humans the frailty of mortality, and we can say with full seriousness: ‘There, but for the grace of God, go we’. And in the light of our shared mortality, we need to hear afresh Jesus’ call to repentance in the light of final judgement.
Come and join Ian and James as they discuss this passage, and the other NT reading of 1 Cor 10.1–13:
Here is the discussion of 1 Cor 10:
Why do bad things happen to good people? There are no good people. Ever since the events of Genesis 3, life has been merely a stay of execution, which all of us deserve for our sin. Second, the whole of creation – not just the human race – is fallen. Third, Satan particularly hates those who behave better, and he is the lord of this world until Jesus Christ comes back to it in open power and glory.
Do you believe in the total depravity of man, Anton? That there are no living saints walking amongst us as I write this?
‘Total depravity’ is a buzzphrase, Jack, but I’m not sure what it means and I’m not sure what you think it means, so I’m not going to answer Yes or No. I’ll simply cite Jeremiah 17:9.
Saints are those made holy by faith in Christ.
I’m not trying to pick a fight here. I’m trying to avoid one!
Thanks for this – very helpful on a huge and ever present reality of human experience which has no definitive ‘solution’ in either Scripture or our own experience. The internal debate in the OT is fascinating with, as you say, voices such as Job, some of the Psalms, Deuteronomy, Ecclesiastes all joining in. I think it’s significant that the OT authors stayed with the debate and were willing to live with the sharp questions raised. I used to ask students in OT groups if they thought Psalm 1 was true, and if so in what sense and with what significance for pastoral ministry. They quickly came to see the dilemma.
Psalm 1.
Christ in all the Scriptures.
Did you teach this, Tim? It is not new teaching.
https://www.crossway.org/articles/christ-in-all-of-scripture-psalm-1/
Unless God reveals his purposes — which I do not believe he does since the canon of Scripture was closed — we surely must leave first causes to him.
We live in the world of second causes, and although this is rejected by much Reformed theology, it is clear from repeated Scripture teaching that there exists a ‘dualism’ — that Satan (‘the ruler of this world’, John 12:31) has both volition and agency.
This means we avoid laying evil at God’s door— and gives a ‘reasonable’ theodicy for seemingly pointless and random suffering — throughout the ANE and the OT ‘chaos’ is the hallmark of a cosmic evil.
Colin, do human beings have no volition and agency?
Don’t you believe was can conceptualise a God of First Cause and integrate this with some degree of human will?
I can do no better than suggesting a look at
http://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-13-commentary
Several commentators provide a whealth of info on Pilates’ life and times. Shalom.
A Great passage for anyone interested in preaching Repentance!
Eric Ortlund in his commentary on Job argues that suffering has a supernatural origin but believes that such is ‘against the understanding of evangelical orthodoxy’.
He points out that God heavily criticised Job and his comforters for accusing him of evil acts (Ortlund, 166). And suggests that Job was only truly repentant ( Job 42:1-6) when he had understood the scope of cosmic evil that God had explained to him (Ortlund, 101).
Walton comments classical theologians from Augustine to Aquinas “began their theology with God and when they were finished found little room for the demons … [but] unfortunately, many conflict theologians … [believe] that there are such things as Satan and demons.”
R C Sproul is an example of a ‘classical theologian’:
“Pain, suffering, disease, and tragedy are blamed on the Evil One. God is absolved of any responsibility … Such views may bring temporary relief to the afflicted. But they are not true. They have nothing to do with biblical Christianity.”
Ortlund, Eric. Piercing Leviathan: God’s Defeat of Evil in the Book of Job. Edited by D. A. Carson. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2021.
John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton, Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in Its Cultural and Literary Context (Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade, 2019), 95, 226
Sproul, R. C. “Satan Does Not Hold the Keys of Death”:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/satan-keys-death
And of course, we have N. T. Wright who commented in the book he was asked to write about the COVID pandemic:
“Alongside this Israel-and-God story there runs the deeper story of the good creation and the dark power that from the start has tried to destroy God’s handiwork. I do not claim to understand that dark power.”
— and simply moved on. (N. T. Wright, God and the Pandemic. London: SPCK, 2020, 14.)
And from what I recall “E 199 COVID-19: Where is God in All This?” published by Grove Books in 2020 took a similar line. I have this quote:
“A … malicious virus is part of what can be called the dark side of nature. … [God is like] a jazz band leader providing the melody yet releasing members of the band to … improvise … there is always the possibility [that] things become discordant.” (15)
As if God is some sort of delinquent tyrant allowing his underlings to wreak havoc?
Mainstream theology is almost entirely detached from the lived experience of most Christians. In the present case, perhaps theologians haven’t suffered much in their comfortable university chairs (or, before that, monasteries) compared to most believers. One should always ask oneself: if Satan is not persecuting me, am I not worth persecuting?
Anton,
Douglas Moo doesn’t talk about the ‘dark side of nature’ — rather a ‘personal power of some kind’ … ‘a force that controls humans’ — but not once in his 1,000 page commentary on Romans can he bring himself to mention Satan:
“We should not conclude from this language that Paul views ‘sin’ as a personal power of some kind. He does not personalise sin, but he personifies it viewing the persistence of human sinning as a force that controls humans.” (322)
“Some of the concepts introduced in Rom 5:12–21 include ‘sin’ as a reigning power”’ — but sees such to be the “sin-producing effects of the law.” (344).
“Reference to ‘sin’ in the singular is a characteristic of Romans 5:12–8:3. Throughout these verses Paul personifies sin giving it an active role.” (347)
What is going on here? These are not isolated examples I have cited — this worldview is intrinsic to Protestant orthodoxy.
God doesnt micro-manage the creation.
…but he is immanent throughout it
Colin H,
Why not go the whole hog, a la Steve Chalke’s cosmic child abuse, seemingly endorsed by Wright in his commendation of Chalke’s Lost Message, from which the phrase comes.
And how much of NT Wright have you looked at on this Geoff? Anything beyond what you think he may have said?
Colin, actually, both St Augustine and St Aquinas believed in Satan and demons and I’m surprised anyone should argue otherwise!
For Thomas Aquinas, demons (fallen angels), can and do influence human behaviour through temptations, though people too sin of their own volition. By contrast, he says all our good deeds are accomplished with Divine grace and assistance, and sometimes this is mediated by angels.
HJ,
I am fairly sure that Douglas Moo also ‘believes in Satan’ as did R C Sproul – he has a YouTube video on it – but he denies Satan any independent agency outside of tempting a human being.
In other words, neither of them have a theology of Satan that impacts their understanding of soteriology – which is that the problem for humanity is disobedience to the law caused by a sinful nature inherited from Adam.
Colin, you’ll find in Aquinas’ writings that it’s not either Satan’s fall or Adam’s fall, but that it’s both Satan’s fall and Adam’s fall. Later a form of “hyper-Augustinism” (labelled “Jansenist”) developed in the 17th century in reaction to Jesuit teachings, (labelled “Molinist”) blurred this and exaggerated both schools.
HJ,
That is not in accord with Gustaf Aulen’s analysis in what is considered by many the classic work on this.
Well, I can assure you Colin, Aquinas recognised Christ’s death as a victory over Satan by His resistance to temptation and His sinless life. He did see the obstacle to human salvation after Christ’s death and resurrection as mankind’s human nature, wounded by Adam’s sin, as manifested in a resistance to God’s offered graces and the gifts of the Holy Spirit,
It seems that folks in the passage still held to the
reasonings of Job’s friends.
Thing about Job was that although he lost everything, he also lost the fear he feared the most. Job 3:25
1. It is amusing how this corroborates humanity’s desires to determine and decide good from evil, at the centre of the fall.
2. Only God is good. Mark 10:18
3. In God’s providence and sovereignty, evil defeats evil. This culminates in the cross of Christ.
4. “… God allowed them to walk in their own ways, which is shown to be the most dreadful judgement …
To be given up to our own hearts lusts and to be left to walk according to our own ideas is as dreadful a condition as a creature is capable of falling into in their own world.”
John Owen: Communion with God. Banner of Truth, 2013; p84.
Ephesians 6:10-13
And from the MLJ Trust, here is a sermon from MLJ to chew over:
https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons/book-of-ephesians/the-christian-and-the-devil/
HJ
However, I am not especially interested in reception history – I have just come from a conference where every speaker spoke on Augustine and Aquinas and occasionally Calvin as if nobody had made a contribution to theology since then.
And there is no doubt about what Sproul, Moo, and Wright are saying – all men from my generation – and in my view they all miss the mark.
Tom Wright – to his credit – realises he is missing something!
Not sure what conference that was, Colin. Theologically, doctrine have developed since the time of Augustine and Aquinas. The Catholic Church has no settled tightly defined doctrine on the atonement, and permits shades of views within certain parameters; for example, it rejects “penal substitutionary atonement” and its associated forensic, imputation of grace.
HJ,
‘… for example, it rejects “penal substitutionary atonement” and its associated forensic, imputation of grace.’
Interesting …
Colin,
Not sure where and when you suddenly emerged into this blue sky, blank slate-state of scriptural theological thinking, without received teaching and historical influenced and influencers that have informed and formed your immovable position?
Elaboration and explanation would be helpful, though unlikely.
Let’s see, Colin.
Baptism: credo or pedo? Which reception history do you subscribe to?
Baptism in the Spirit? Which reception history do you subscribe to?
Cessation or continuation? Which reception history do you subscribe to?
A couple of thoughts:
If there are bad things that happen to good people, are there good things that happen to bad people? And if so, what are they? Elon Musk is the richest man in the world, but does he strike anyone as a happy and contented soul? Whilst we think of bad things that happen in material ways – ruin, poverty, ill health – our view of truly good things in life tend to have a different quality. We want happiness, contentment, good relationships etc.. We may not avoid the bad, but does God bestow good blessings on his children?
Material scorekeeping is a hallmark of that most modern heresy – the prosperity gospel. And there are some pretty dark implications if you start to think that bad things are a punishment in the here and now for sins. Those who think the blind man in John 9 is blind because of his sin or his parents sin, aren’t just suggesting that blindness would be a punishment for sin, but that there must be a gradation of sins and punishment. We all sin, but this man’s sin caused him to be punished by being denied his sight, whilst the rest of us weren’t. The sinful tax collector not only has kep his sight, but lives with plenty of material comfort, so how awful must the blind man’s sin have been? This is a trap that springs from seeing sin as a criminal thing: there are a set of rules, and we break them. In such thinking why should punishment for criminal behaviour be limited to the next life, and why should the punishments be the same for all breaches of criminal code of sin? And what are we to say about those who appear to avoid much punishment? Do those with comfortable lives simply have less grievous sins?
The outlook perhaps changes when we recognise that sin is best described as a “failure in genuine love for God and neighbour”. Rather than criminal law-breaking, it’s a brokenness or sickness. We are broken and so is our world. So of course, bad things happen around us and to us. In our relationships, we are broken people trying to relate to other broken people, all failing in genuine love. And our world is broken. Our failure to love cuts us off from God, and the illness is killing us. God is the source of life, so to be cut off from him is to die, hence the wages of sin are death. That isn’t a criminal sentence, it’s the result of being ill. The blessing of God is to heal us from the sickness, not to shower us with material prosperity, but to enable us to more genuinely love through His saving grace adopting us to be with Him.
Colin H,
And rejects union with Christ? That is not merely forensic.
That is what Wright is missing, is it not?
Where is Wright ‘missing’ whatever you are thinking he is ‘missing’, Geoff?
Jack,
What do you think, total depravity means?
Your suggestion that there would be no living saints, seems to reveal a misunderstanding and misapplication.
There is enough reliable teaching on it’s meaning, what it the phrase is a short-form heading for and what it is not.
Here is one article from Dr Sam Storms.
https://www.samstorms.org/all-articles/post/article-10-things-you-should-know-about-total-depravity
A believer’s Union with Christ. It is something Anglican, Dr Michael Reeves has identified as missing from Wright, Bruce.
It goes far beyond the the Court room scene that Wright parodies.
It is of a qualitative and category and spiritual, metaphysical, indicative substance that is far removed from the parody.
It is in that union believers have been judged, died and raised in his sinless rightousness, in active and passive actions. Our sin his: his righteousness ours, a diving exchange in union with him.
Geoff, regarding your last sentence, how do you understand this in the context of all standing before the judgement seat of Christ, including believers?
‘A believer’s Union with Christ’ is ‘missing from Wright’. Really???!! I did try to sign up to get a free copy of Michael Reeves _Right with God_ but the website didn’t work. Geoff, your claim is so weird that I suspect you may not have understood what Reeves was saying.
And what is it that Wright parodies *about* a court room scene, Geoff??
BS,
Weird? How?
Is it because no account has been taken of the reformed doctrine of ‘union with Christ’?
Reeves: what an odd claim that I have misunderstood, if you don’t know what Reeves said and when?
It was around the the times Reeves was ‘ theologian at large’ for UCCF and spoke at Word Alive, and at EMA.
What Wright has said, pictures, about God’s Courtroom scene that is supposedly employed to support a Christian’s ‘justification’ is well known.
It’s weird, Geoff, because you keep on showing that you really have no idea what NT Wright is saying.
An equivalent claim to the one you make about Wright would be to say that our host, Ian Paul, has never said anything about the CoE. Also you haven’t said what it is *about* a courtroom scene that Wright parodies.
BS,
Just look it up. Bruce. Though if you are not aware of it you you knowledge of Writes writings snd on this matter of forensic court – room justification is not complete. And it is an argument that ignores a believer’s Union with Christ
Additionally, Reeves theology of Union with Christ and justification is also readily available with a simple search, Bruce. I’ m done here if you can’t be bothered to look it up.
Goodnight.
What Wright says about a ‘courtroom scene’ is that, in the biblical context, the concept RIGHTEOUS (not shouting, simply indicating a concept) applied to the judge is different from the concept RIGHTEOUS applied to either the plaintiff or the defendant. So talking about the judge imparting, imputing, transferring his RIGHTEOUS(NESS) to either plaintiff or defendant does not make biblical sense. (Chapter 6, What Saint Paul Really Said). What’s wrong with that, Geoff? Why?
And are you (or Reeves) ACTUALLY saying (and I could be shouting this time! 🙂 ) that Wright says nothing about ‘in Christ’ or ‘covenant’ or ‘incorporative messiahship’ or … ? The only way to claim this is to completely ignore everything Wright has said!
Yes, Geoff, we had better stop this exchange. Until at least one of us has read Wright himself rather than only his critics.
BS,
You misunderstand, Bruce, I have read what Wright has written and ‘pictured’ about God’s Court Room scene and justification!
But it seems that you have not engaged with the question of a believer’s union with Christ, in the context of justification nor with Reeves, teaching, readily available.
Here is a link to one of Reeves recent talks, for edification and enjoyment.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=clMoNT0qvJQ
Geoff, I have listened to the talk by Michael Reeves that you linked. So, yet again, where has NT Wright missed ‘union with Christ’ which is what you claimed and you said MR claimed?
I think that what NTW has said including about ‘being in Christ’ actually ‘makes for an infinitely more nourishing gospel’ (MR 15:11) than this talk. NTW accounts more for the *whole* narrative of scripture, and, because of that, he deals more and better with the vocation we have as Christians now. I wonder if Reeves, although he rightly criticises individualism allows the end result of God’s salvation to be more individualistic (applying to us and our joy, more than God’s intention for God’s creation) than it is/will be?
Just to maybe clarify, for most of the talk I was saying to myself, yes how is this different from what NTW means by ‘in Christ’.
PC1, Peter. Believers are already judged, died and raised in Jesus. And in Jesus we are indeed the first to be judged!
How do you think we’ll be welcomed home?
Doxology is due.
Yours in Christ, Geoff
Do bad things happen to good people
Some people welcom bad things for a greater Good.
Hence St. Paul –
“The fellowship of his sufferings.”
“We do not share the atoning sufferings of Christ. There is a whole realm of suffering which was His alone.
The work of man’s redemption was His alone, for us. When He who was without sin was made sin for us He was alone, even God-forsaken in that eternal moment.
Upon that fact the whole truth of His unique Person hangs, and the whole system of perfect sacrifice rests; the spotless Lamb.
But when all that is accepted and established, there are sufferings of Christ in which we have fellowship with Him. We also, for His sake, may be despised and rejected of men. We can be discredited, ostracized, persecuted, mocked, tortured, and even “killed”, both in an act and that “all the daylong”.
Paul speaks of a residue of Christ’s sufferings which he was helping to fill up for “His body’s sake which is the church”.
This is another, and different, area and system of suffering. Paul looked upon this as an honour and something in which to rejoice, because it was for the One whom he so deeply loved. But he also saw that this suffering with and for Christ provided the basis for knowing Christ and the power of His resurrection This Apostle would agree that only those who know this fellowship truly know the Lord. We know that! It is perfectly evident that real usefulness in a spiritual way comes out of the winepress, and
“they that have suffered most have most to give” There is nothing artificial about the fruit of Christ.”
https://www.austin-sparks.net/english/003699.html anointed for battle
Shalom.
Correction
My last post Quote should be attributed to-
https://www.austin-sparks.net/english/000688.html
An Apostle’s Supreme Ambition
Thanks for this, Ian. Regarding the order of the lectionary (13:31-35 before 13:1-9), I wonder if it is to set the wider context? As you point out, ‘The wider context of this reading is Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem’. But then, why not 9:51ff? Perhaps 13:31-35 was chosen to emphasise Jesus’ compassion towards Jerusalem, and what will happen to him when he reaches Jerusalem? Also, 9:51ff is picked up in its ‘proper’ place later in the year.
Hello Bruce,
NTWright dismisses Union with Christ as category as he presses covenants and court room to maintain his position on justification and righteousness.
But we better leave off as it is not new and somewhat tangential to the article, drawn into it through Colin H’s comments.
There is much good teaching available on union with Christ from Reeves and Sinclair Ferguson. A much neglected reformed doctrine, it seems to me.
Geoff, your first sentence ‘NTWright dismisses…’ is simply untrue. It (that one sentence!) shows again that you have not read much of NTW and that maybe you don’t understand what he is saying or doing. I suggest that this is not ‘somewhat tangential to the article’ because it comes down to how we read scripture itself, not to whether ‘reformed doctrine’ is neglected or not (maybe you misunderstand what Ian is doing as well??)
Thanks for the correction,Bruce.
NTW, does not consider union with Christ as part of his two part ‘justification’ framework: covenant faithfulness and cóurt room. For a book length critique see ‘The Future of Justification- a response to N T Wright’s by John Piper. I have the IVP 2008 book, read years ago, skimmed today. Quotes could be abstracted but that would impinge on the forebearance of our host. What is clear from Piper’s substantial engagement with NTW and his many writings is that NTW does not subscribe to the reformed doctrine of Union with Christ.
Please read the title and the article itself to see how far this has diverged from it.
However, the question of union with Christ may be raised in today scripture post, above, 2 Corinthians 5: 16-21.
Geoff, what makes you think I haven’t read _The Future of Justification_?
What is very clear from your response is that *you* haven’t read Tom Wright _Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision_ SPCK 2009. Otherwise, even with Ian’s indulgence, quotes from John Piper’s book might not add anything to this particular discussion.
I noticed Peter Leithart’s comment in his commendation of the 2009 book: ‘we are all indebted to him [NTW] for reminding us once again of the breadth of the gospel of God and the majesty of the God of the gospel.’ He also said ‘N.T. Wright occasionally rises to Pauline heights of exasperation at his opponents.’ (I suspect that some of the other commendations might not be as acceptable to you, Geoff, as Peter Leithart’s — I wonder why 🙂 )
This is the publisher’s summary of the book: ‘Tom Wright argues that to understand “Justification” from Paul’s point of view, it is necessary to see it in terms of four elements: the cosmic law court; the forward-moving purpose of God (“eschatology”); the fact of God’s achievement in Jesus Christ and our participation in him; and ultimately the single divine plan, through Israel, for the whole world (“covenant”).’ So NTW’s framework is a bit more than the few *words* you have latched on to, Geoff. It also revolves around God, not us. So ‘reformed’ doctrines might need reforming.
God’s glory is central Piper’s critique.
As you have read Piper, you could, but don’t address any if his critique, even NTW’s attempt to constrain justification to covenant faithfulness ( indeed Jesus was the true Son, who was covenantly faithful, who fulfilled them as the saviour and God incarnate) and the court-room scene.
Additionally you fail to address Piper’s critique of Wright’s position, understanding of God’s righteousness.
Again you seek to quarrel rather than add anythingvof substance.
I have benefited from some of Leithart’s work, but not all of it, such ad Revelation, which our host critiques in opposition. It seems that L’s understanding of OT covenants as played out in Revelation may not align with Wrights.
What is Wright’s understanding of union with Christ? In this matter?
Can you help?
Enough. As is your won:t you continue on your diversion. We disagree on Union with Christ which in which all, not just part, of the Glory is God’s
I’m sorry Geoff. I wasn’t aware that you would not recognise Wright’s 2009 _Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision_. Why should *I* ‘address’ John Piper’s critique, when Wright had specifically done that himself — in the 200+ pages of that 2009 book. That was the book that I quoted Peter Leithart’s commendation from and the publisher’s summary of Wright’s framework — the four elements I quoted. These are readily recognisable to anyone who has read Wright. And one of those elements *highlights* ‘our participation in [Christ]’.
Geoff, I’m not sure how referring you to Wright’s own response is seeking ‘to quarrel’, not adding ‘anythingvof substance’ and ‘a diversion’? (my wont??) Do we really disagree on ‘union with Christ’? I suggest the point of contention is your reluctance for some reason (1) to read what Wright actually says and (2) to discuss his views fairly.
Geoff, if you really want to know what NTWright thinks about salvation, listen to this:
https://www.premierunbelievable.com/ask-nt-wright-anything/ask-nt-wright-anything-168-questions-on-the-life-of-st-paul-justification-and-predestination-classic/15471.article?adredir=1
I’ll close where you jumped in Bruce with a specific Union with Christ. Please abstract if you are able his view both on union and closely connected, integral, God’s righteousness.
As you clearly know about NTW court room scene which you implied, didn’t.
I’ll not hold my breath.
‘Tom Wright argues that to understand “Justification” from Paul’s point of view, it is necessary to see it in terms of four elements: the cosmic law court; the forward-moving purpose of God (“eschatology”); the fact of God’s achievement in Jesus Christ and our participation in him; and ultimately the single divine plan, through Israel, for the whole world (“covenant”).’ Publishers blurb, back cover, Wright _Justification_ 2009. See also chapter 1 of that book.