Overview of Ask N.T. Wright Anything
This episode of Ask N.T. Wright Anything (Premier / Unbelievable) features Tom Wright (N. T. Wright) and host Mike Bird answering listener questions about Christianity, church history, Scripture, and theology. The conversation addresses three main questions: (1) Is Christianity “objectively bad” given the church’s historical horrors? (2) In Matthew, does “the coming of the Son of Man” refer to Jesus’ ascension/exaltation or to a future second coming? (3) If Jesus is the Messiah, why has most Israel not believed — how should we read Paul (Romans 9–11) on Israel, remnant, and salvation?
Key topics discussed
- The moral record of the church across history (good, bad, and ugly).
- How to read Christian influence on global moral progress.
- The interpretation of “Son of Man” sayings in the Gospels (Daniel 7 background; coming vs. exaltation).
- Paul’s theology of Israel, remnant, grafting, and how to avoid simplistic “replacement” readings.
Question 1 — “Is Christianity bad?” (Kevin Ewart)
Summary of the question
- Listener points to church-linked atrocities (colonialism, slavery, Inquisition, Crusades, abuses) and asks how Christians should address these as a reason many disbelieve.
Tom Wright’s response — main points
- Honest acknowledgement: many people claiming to act for the church have done genuinely wicked things, and those acts deserve candid admission and critique.
- Nuanced historical reading: conflicts (Reformation, political power struggles) were complexly entangled with social, political, and theological change—this complexity matters for fair assessment.
- Christian influence on moral progress: Christianity has shaped moral norms (opposition to infanticide, changes in attitudes toward slavery/apartheid, increased sense of human dignity) even where societies are no longer overtly Christian.
- Critique of secularism: much modern secular critique still borrows Christian moral categories; often Western secular projects try to reproduce Christian results without the theological commitments (e.g., multiculturalism without the gospel’s vision).
- Continued responsibility: Christians must recover and live out the fuller gospel vision (not just private salvation but how to be human together).
Notable practical point
- Tell the church’s story realistically—own the failures and also account for the positive transformations that Christianity contributed.
Question 2 — “Is the Son of Man coming or going?” (Josh McKay)
Summary of the question
- In Matthew, “the coming of the Son of Man” can look like either a future return or an arrival/exaltation (ascension). Which is intended by Jesus’ sayings?
Tom Wright’s response — main points
- Daniel 7 background is decisive: Daniel depicts “one like a son of man” being vindicated/exalted and given authority beside the Ancient of Days. Jesus’ “coming on the clouds” echoes that vindication/exaltation motif.
- “Coming” language can denote vindication/exaltation (a kind of “coming” into authority) rather than only a far-future return from heaven. Greek verbs can be contextually flexible.
- Matthew 24 is best read in its first-century context as largely about the fall of Jerusalem/the temple (an “end of the world” for that Jewish world-order), not exclusively about the final parousia. Luke and Mark shape the material similarly.
- This reading does not deny a future second coming — N. T. Wright affirms the later, climactic return of Jesus — but urges readers to recover the first-century mindset: many Son-of-Man sayings point to near vindication and enthronement as well as to ultimate eschatological hope.
Practical takeaway
- Read the Gospels against their Jewish apocalyptic background (esp. Daniel 7). Doing so clarifies many apparent tensions between “coming” and “going.”
Question 3 — “If Jesus is the Messiah, why isn’t Israel saved?” (Andrew Brown)
Summary of the question
- How should we understand Romans 9–11? Is Paul saying there are two Israels (ethnic vs. spiritual)? Does this imply replacement theology?
Tom Wright’s response — main points
- Rejects crude replacement/supersessionism: Christianity is not merely a Gentile takeover that nullifies God’s promises to Israel.
- Paul’s distinction: “Not all who are of Israel are Israel” (Rom. 9:6b) — Paul recognizes different senses of “Israel” (ethnic vs. the people who truly are God’s covenant community).
- Remnant and grafting images: Paul argues there is always a faithful remnant of Jewish believers and that God can “graft” Jews back in if they do not persist in unbelief (Rom. 11:23).
- Context matters: Paul’s pastoral situation in Rome (large Jewish population recently re‑present in the city after Claudius’ edict) shapes his urgency; he doesn’t want Gentile Christians to assume God has rejected Israel.
- “All Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26): Wright interprets this in close connection with Paul’s overall argument and suggests Paul may be using “Israel” in an intensified, covenantal sense (and that the “Israel of God” language in Galatians and inward circumcision language in Romans 2 are relevant). He allows debate on exact scope but emphasizes Paul’s hope for a widespread turning of Jews to Messiah faith while also affirming the inclusion of Gentiles by God’s plan.
- Wright and Bird plan a longer/supplemental discussion to probe supersessionism, Sonderweg, and pastoral implications further.
Practical takeaway
- Paul’s solution is not to erase Israel but to reconceive covenant identity through faith (remnant, grafting, renewal) while avoiding simplistic “replacement” narratives.
Notable quotes & insights
- “The church has the good, the bad, and the ugly.” — on owning church history honestly.
- Christianity has “soaked into world society” so that many modern moral intuitions owe debt to the larger Christian construct.
- On Daniel and Matthew: Jesus’ “coming on the clouds” functions as vindication/exaltation as much as (or prior to) a later, climactic return.
- Romans summary: “Not all who are of Israel are, in fact, Israel.” (Paul’s distinction, and central to Wright’s exposition)
Main takeaways
- Honest reckoning matters: acknowledge historic Christian crimes while also recognizing Christianity’s formative role in shaping modern moral ideals.
- Contextual biblical interpretation: many Gospel sayings about the Son of Man make most sense when read against Jewish apocalyptic texts (especially Daniel 7).
- Paul’s theology of Israel is nuanced: he preserves God’s ongoing purposes for Israel while arguing that true covenant membership is defined by faith — Paul hopes for wider Jewish reception of Jesus and rejects simple “replacement” models.
- These topics require careful historic, literary, and theological nuance; Wright and Bird recommend deeper study (and offer bonus episodes for extended discussion).
Further resources mentioned
- N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (detailed treatment of Son-of-Man/Daniel material).
- John Dixon, Bullies and Saints: Church History — a recommended book for balanced views on church history.
- Suggested follow-up: the hosts announce a bonus episode on supersessionism, the church and the Jews.
If you want a distilled one-paragraph summary: the hosts acknowledge the church’s real historic evils while defending Christianity’s positive moral legacy; they argue that many Gospel sayings about the “coming” of the Son of Man point to first‑century vindication/exaltation rooted in Daniel 7 (without denying a future return); and they read Paul as holding a nuanced view of Israel — neither erasing Israel nor endorsing replacement theology, but expecting a faithful remnant and the possibility of broader Jewish turning to Messiah faith.