The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Second Temple Judaism

We hear a lot about that term lately, especially with the talk about Wright, but I'm a little hazy on the term I know it is a bad thing, but what does it entail in its meaning or description?

For instance, what would be the difference between it and the first temple. I kinda want to say it is about how the 1st century jewish Christians would view the teachings on grace?

How does NT Wright use Second Temple Judaism in arriving at his theology? What is he saying that we are getting it wrong?

In its most simplified form, Wright elevates Second Temple Judaism above Scripture and thus subjugates Scriptural interpretation to it. Secondly, it is Wright's interpretation of the writings concerning Second Temple Judaism that he uses to interpret Scripture. What he believes is that the Pharisees did not teach justification by works and thus Paul's arguments against justification by works were something entirely different than what has been historically understood.

I highly recommend Cornelis Venema's Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul (Banner of Truth) which is his popular book on the subject or, his major work which I found to be most valuable, The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ: An Assessment of the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul (Banner of Truth).

Also, I would be remiss not to direct you to Philip Evenson's book, The Great Exchange, found here on The Highway.

Bishop Wright suggests that the lens through which we should see Paul's writings is not in the legal / forensic sense that we have historically associated with 1st century Judaism, in which the Pharissees "tithed mint, dill, and cummin while neglecting the weightier matters, and strained out gnats while swallowing camels; and cleaned the outside of the cup and dish while all the while eating and drinking filth (Matt 23:23-25)," but rather in a strictly covenantal sense. So the question is not "am I right with God," but "am I in the covenant?" It is this twist, more than anything else I think, that allows Wright to stray so far from historical and Reformed hermeneutics.

-R

So emphasizing the covenantal aspects is the connection to the Federal Visionists.

I wonder overall, how the FVers would view NT Wright as he subjugates Scripture to Second Temple writings.

1. It isn't "the covenantal aspects" that is the connection but more specifically, "covenantal nomism" that is a major foundation for the connection. Do NOT confuse Covenant Theology as it is historically held by Reformed Theology with their twisted and heretical view of the covenant.

2. N.T. Wright is the FV's "poster boy". Without Sanders, Dunn and Wright, there would be no Federal Vision.

3. Just a strong reminder which I have repeated on this board countless times... Heretics of all flavors are infamous for redefining oft used theological terms but fail to make known the definition they have devised. For example, they will speak of "faith" but one would be very foolish to automatically assume that they are referring to the biblical and historic understanding of faith. They have redefined many terms which deceive people who are unaware that their defintion of those terms are totally different.

That is one of the major reasons I recommended Venema's books and Eveson's book. They expose the deceit and refute their redefinitions.

Are you saying that Wright disagrees with Paul, or that the tradition understanding of Paul is wrong?

Tom

Is that a serious question? hahaha

Wright believes that the historic confessional doctrine of Sola Fide is wrong.

Yes it was a serious question. Though your answer to my question is what I thought you meant, I wasn't sure.
I don't even mind that you thought my question was silly, at least now I know for sure what you meant.
In this day and age people disagreeing with Paul on certain issues, doesn't surprise me at all.
After all there are those who believe that Paul was a chauvinist and had a very low opinion of women and that is why he said certain things. Of course, these people are liberals and have a very low view of Scripture.
Different topic, same biblical author.

Tom

Tom,

Answers to such questions are thoroughly answered by the two books I recommended above by Cornelis Venema and by the online book, The Great Exchange by Philip Eveson. The latter is a very easy read which 99% of those who take the time to actually read it will reap great benefits and gain a reasonably good understanding of the errors NPP and FV are promoting, the subtlety used to teach it and the seriousness of it's denial of Sola Fide and thus one's final destiny is at risk.