More Absurdity From NT Wright


There are several problems with this absurd claim.  First, Jesus explained what he was demonstrating at the Supper.  It’s not as though the disciples all sat around staring at each other and just automatically knowing what it all meant.  Second, this ridiculous statement ignores the numerous remarks by Jesus about his coming death.  And third, the notion that the Supper is self-explanatory is insane.  And finally, even the meal didn’t ‘fully explain what his forthcoming death was all about’.  The early Church reflected on the meaning of his death from the moment it occurred forward.  We’re still reflecting on it.  Accordingly, the suggestion that it was ‘fully explained’ is, on its face, wrong.

The Bishop is wrong.  And his bumper sticker theology is equally wrong.

One thought on “More Absurdity From NT Wright

  1. Scott 18 Sep 2016 at 7:19 pm

    I did not realize how much disdain you hold for Wright. 🙂

    I don’t think Wright is dismissing a theological understanding of his death, nor scripture itself. Rather he’s emphasizing the storied (and scriptural) nature of the Passover meal centered in his own work forthcoming in his death. I’d even argue that the words of Paul in regards to the cross are centered in the Jewish story being retold in Jesus. Justification or atonement are not an abstract doctrines on their own. They are situated in a pictorial telling of what God has done and is now doing in Jesus, best summarized in this meal. The table allows for a much more robust understanding of the work of Jesus beyond the super-detailed abstractions of things like PST.

    I imagine Wright is pushing somewhat against the argumentative nature of the PST-only or PST-primary defenders. We can do so and fail to mention what is being emphasized about the theologically-rich setting of the Last Supper.


Comments are closed.