Critiquing: #088 — Martin Bashir interviews NT Wright on Paul

October 21, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Paul’s suffering — Sexual immorality — Justification by faith — Road to Damascus — New creation

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	C+	The content is generally accurate within the framework of Christian theology and scriptural interpretation. However, some of NT Wright’s interpretations and conclusions are subjective and may not align with all theological scholars’ views. For instance, his emphasis on suffering as an integral part of the Christian experience is well-supported by biblical texts but is debated in its application and extent.
Degree of Coherence	B	The interview maintains a logical flow, with Wright’s arguments building on each other in a coherent manner. His explanation of Paul’s theology and its implications for contemporary Christian practice are well-structured. However, some transitions between topics could have been smoother, and a few points may seem tangential.
Absence of Fallacies	B-	The discussion is largely free of logical fallacies, but there are occasional instances of oversimplification and potential appeals to authority. For example, Wright’s assertions about the attractiveness of early Christian sexual ethics rely heavily on the works of Rodney Stark and Galen, without critically examining counter-evidence.
Degree of Evidence	C	The claims are primarily supported by theological and scriptural references, which are compelling within the context of Christian faith but lack empirical substantiation. Historical evidence about early Christian practices and their societal impacts is used selectively, often without addressing conflicting data or interpretations.
Degree of Testability	D+	The theological nature of the claims makes them difficult to test empirically. Assertions about divine action, spiritual experiences, and theological doctrines inherently lack the empirical testability found in scientific claims. Thus, while internally consistent, they remain largely untestable by external standards.
Rational Confidence	C	Confidence in the assertions is moderate, as they are grounded in faith-based reasoning rather than empirical evidence. The arguments are internally consistent within their theological framework, but the lack of empirical validation and the reliance on subjective interpretation reduce the overall rational confidence.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Evidence

The discussion in the transcript largely centers on theological interpretations and personal anecdotes, which lack empirical backing. For instance, NT Wright’s reflection on the Apostle Paul’s suffering is primarily based on scriptural narratives and personal reflections rather than empirical data.

“Paul is telling people that God’s new world is breaking in, it has broken in Jesus, it is breaking in through the power of the Spirit, but if you are on the leading edge of that and if you’re committed to following Jesus and living in one of these extraordinary, multivalent, fictive kinship groups, i.e., churches, then stuff is gonna happen.”

The reliance on scripture and theological interpretation, while compelling within the Christian tradition, does not provide the kind of empirical evidence that can be independently verified or falsified. This limits the robustness of the evidence presented.

2. Degree of Testability

The theological nature of the claims made in the interview poses a significant challenge for empirical testing. Assertions about divine intervention or spiritual experiences are inherently subjective and cannot be tested using standard scientific methods.

“Paul would say to us in our late modern world, you need to understand that in God’s world, heaven and earth are not far apart. They are made to overlap and interlock.”

This perspective, while meaningful within its religious context, does not lend itself to empirical scrutiny or validation. As such, these theological claims remain outside the realm of testability, which weakens their acceptance in broader rational discourse.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: Suffering and New Creation

1. Premise 1: The new creation has broken in through Jesus.
2. Premise 2: The old creation resents the new creation and strikes back.
3. Premise 3: Followers of Jesus are on the leading edge of the new creation.
4. Premise 4: Being on the leading edge of the new creation involves suffering.
5. Conclusion: Therefore, followers of Jesus will experience suffering as part of the new creation breaking in.

Counter-Argument:
The argument assumes a direct correlation between following Jesus and experiencing suffering due to the new creation. While historical accounts of early Christians experiencing persecution exist, attributing this solely to divine reasons neglects socio-political factors. Early Christians often faced persecution not just because of their faith, but due to broader social, political, and economic disruptions they caused. Additionally, the idea that suffering is a necessary component of faith can be seen as a form of spiritual masochism that detracts from the numerous instances where faith is associated with joy, peace, and community support. Thus, a more balanced view would acknowledge both the hardships and the positive aspects of following Jesus without overemphasizing suffering as an inevitable outcome.

Argument 2: Justification by Faith and Loyalty

1. Premise 1: “Pistis” can mean both faith and loyalty.
2. Premise 2: Paul emphasizes justification by “pistis.”
3. Premise 3: Justification includes loyalty to Jesus.
4. Premise 4: Loyalty involves active demonstration.
5. Conclusion: Therefore, justification by faith includes a demonstration of loyalty.

Counter-Argument:
The interpretation of “pistis” as loyalty introduces ambiguity into the doctrine of justification by faith. Traditional Christian theology emphasizes faith as belief and trust, not necessarily an active demonstration of loyalty. This reinterpretation risks conflating faith with works, which contradicts the principle of justification by faith alone. Moreover, the historical context of Paul’s writings suggests a focus on faith as belief in Jesus’ resurrection and divinity, rather than a requirement for active loyalty. By equating faith with loyalty, there is a potential to inadvertently introduce a works-based component into salvation, which is contrary to the core Reformation doctrine that salvation is through faith alone. Thus, while loyalty and faithfulness are important, they should be seen as fruits of faith rather than prerequisites.

Argument 3: Sexual Morality and Christian Distinctiveness

1. Premise 1: Paul condemns sexual immorality.
2. Premise 2: Early Christians were to practice sexual discipline.
3. Premise 3: Sexual discipline distinguished Christians from the surrounding culture.
4. Premise 4: Christian sexual ethics attracted converts.
5. Conclusion: Therefore, condemning sexual immorality was essential for Christian distinctiveness and growth.

Counter-Argument:
This argument assumes that the primary appeal of early Christianity lay in its sexual ethics, which may be an oversimplification. While sexual discipline could have been attractive, it was likely one of many factors, including social support and community belonging, that contributed to the growth of Christianity. The focus on sexual morality might not fully capture the comprehensive appeal of Christianity, which also included promises of eternal life, social equality, and a strong sense of community. Additionally, the historical context suggests that early Christianity’s growth was multifaceted, influenced by various socio-economic and cultural factors beyond just sexual ethics. Therefore, while sexual morality played a role, it should not be viewed as the sole or even primary reason for the religion’s expansion.

◉ The Denotation of ‘Pistis’:

Disentangling Faith from Loyalty

The term “pistis”, commonly found in the New Testament, has long been a cornerstone of Christian theology, often translated as “faith” or “belief.” However, some modern theologians, such as NT Wright, have controversially suggested that “pistis” should be understood as “loyalty.” This proposition is not only hermeneutically flawed but also fundamentally misrepresents the essence of the term. To attribute “loyalty” directly to “pistis” is to ignore its true denotation and the nuanced contexts in which it appears.

Misinterpretation of “Pistis”

The Greek term “pistis” has been extensively analyzed by scholars, and its primary meanings consistently revolve around “faith” and “belief.” In examining the New Testament, we find that “pistis” refers to either the degree of belief in something or someone or the believability of a statement or doctrine. Nowhere does the term intrinsically convey “loyalty.”

This misinterpretation is evident in NT Wright’s attempt to redefine “pistis” as “loyalty.” Wright’s claim seems to stem from a desire to imbue the concept of faith with a more active, relational dimension, which might seem appealing but is not supported by the linguistic evidence. The contexts in which “pistis” appears in the New Testament do sometimes imply a form of loyal adherence, but this is an inference based on the surrounding narrative and not a direct translation of the term itself.

Contextual Implications versus Direct Translation

In certain passages, the faith described by “pistis” involves a degree of commitment or steadfastness that can be interpreted as “loyalty.” For instance, when Paul speaks of “pistis” leading to obedience (Romans 1:5) or enduring through persecution (2 Thessalonians 1:4), the context suggests a faithful adherence. However, these are contextual implications rather than direct definitions. The term “pistis” itself does not change its meaning to “loyalty”; rather, it retains its core meaning of “faith” or “belief.”

To illustrate this, let’s examine the following New Testament verses in Koine Greek:

1. Romans 1:5

Δἰ’ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολήν, εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ

“Through whom we received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake.”

2. Galatians 2:16

Εἰδότες δὲ ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, διότι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐξ ἔργων νόμου πᾶσα σάρξ.

“Nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”

3. Philippians 1:27

Μόνον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε, ἵνα, εἴτε ἐλθὼν καὶ ἰδὼν ὑμᾶς εἴτε ἀπὼν ἀκούω τὰ περὶ ὑμῶν, ὅτι στήκετε ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι, μιᾷ ψυχῇ συναθλοῦντες τῇ πίστει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου

“Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.”

4. 2 Thessalonians 1:4

ὥστε αὐτοὺς ἡμᾶς ἐν ὑμῖν καυχᾶσθαι ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑπομονῆς ὑμῶν καὶ πίστεως ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς διωγμοῖς ὑμῶν καὶ ταῖς θλίψεσιν αἷς ἀνέχεσθε

“Therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure.”

5. Hebrews 10:23

κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς ἐλπίδος ἀκλινῆ, πιστὸς γὰρ ὁ ἐπαγγειλάμενος

“Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.”

Hermeneutical Accuracy and Integrity

For a theological interpretation to be valid, it must rest on accurate hermeneutics and respect the linguistic integrity of the original terms. NT Wright’s interpretation of “pistis” fails on this front. By presenting “pistis” as “loyalty,” Wright disregards the consistent scholarly consensus on its meaning and imposes an anachronistic view that is not supported by the text.

This misrepresentation not only undermines the linguistic accuracy but also misguides believers and students of theology. It fosters a misunderstanding of what “faith” entailed for early Christians and how it was understood in the context of their beliefs and practices. “Pistis” as found in the New Testament is a profound term that captures the essence of belief and trust in God, not a mere loyal adherence akin to allegiance.

Conclusion

In conclusion, “pistis” never means “loyalty”; rather, the notion of loyalty can only be inferred from the broader context in which “pistis” is found. “Pistis” always refers to either a degree of belief or the believability of something. NT Wright’s attempt to redefine “pistis” as “loyalty” is hermeneutically unsound and should be critically examined and rejected for its lack of textual and linguistic basis. The integrity of theological interpretation demands that we respect the true meanings of terms as used in their original context, ensuring that our understandings and teachings remain accurate and faithful to the texts.

---

We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section below. Let’s delve deeper into the fascinating and intricate world of biblical hermeneutics and theological interpretation.