In Which Chris Tilling Writes a Two Part Review of Wright’s ‘Paul and the Faithfulness of God’

Zwinglius Redivivus


Part ONE is here and Part TWO is here.

Tilling writes:

Wright is prone to say this or that verse is “key”, a “bookend” (834-835), a “rhetorical climax”, and such like. But I suggest that this is done rather arbitrarily, and sometimes only when it suits him.


Wright’s regular anti-“apocalyptic reading” invective is one of the least pleasant aspects of PFG, especially given that his criticisms are often misguided.


There are misinterpretations of Barth as well (200, 1388, where he misses Barth’s point about the “subject-matter” and the nature of time, 24 1479, etc.), which leads to the claim that a Barthian position makes “human response … hardly necessary” (953), which is highly misleading.

And a lot more.  It’s a very good critique.  The only fault I find with it is that Tilling is a bit too ready to surrender bluntness to politeness.  But he is British, so I forgive him.

View original post

About Michael R. Jones

Pastor and PhD candidate writing on Paul's theology of suffering.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s