N.T. Wright’s New Perspective on Christmas

Jesus’ birth usually gets far more attention than its role in the New Testament warrants. Christmas looms large in our culture, outshining even Easter in the popular mind. Yet without Matthew 1—2 and Luke 1—2 we would know nothing about it. Paul’s gospel includes Jesus’ Davidic descent, but apart from that could exist without mention of his birth. One can be justified by faith with no knowledge of it. Likewise, John’s wonderful theological edifice has no need of it: God’s glory is revealed, not in the manger, but on the cross. …

If the first two chapters of Matthew and the first two of Luke had never existed, I do not suppose that my own Christian faith, or that of the church to which I belong, would have been very different.

N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus, pgs. 171, 178

4 thoughts on “N.T. Wright’s New Perspective on Christmas

  1. Already Reedemed in Texas says:

    I don’t have words. OK, I do but you would have to edit my post. How is God’s Glory not revealed in the telling of the fulfillment of the OT Prophecies or the Virgin Birth or the humiliation of Yahweh on our behalf resplendent with Angel Chorus. Angels y’all – Glory of the Lord?! I’m guessing Mr. Wright has a bit of an incarnational issue and would just as soon see that part of the “narrative” disappear….

    Merry Over-Rated Celebration of That Part of Canonized Scripture Which Makes You Uncomfortable, Mr. Wright.

  2. Rev. Bennett B. Wethered (OPC) says:

    Wright’s statements, as posted in the first two sentences above, “Jesus’ birth usually gets far more attention than its role in the New Testament warrants..[and]….Christmas looms large in our culture, outshining even Easter in the popular mind” are, actually true, but irrelevant.

    The last quote, “If the first two chapters of Matthew and the first two of Luke had never existed, I do not suppose that my own Christian faith, or that of the church to which I belong, would have been very different,” seems to point to Wright’s possibly desiring to diminish the reality, authority, and canonicity of these passages. He has no basis for this. That the historical, as with the rest of Scripture inerrant, birth narratives of Matthew and Luke are not elsewhere replicated is, as I have said, irrelevant. God, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, chose to inspire (2 Tim. 3.16) the apostle Matthew and Luke the physician to write these accounts. What they relate and assert is true, no less true than anything else in Scripture.

  3. Keith Blankenship says:

    Why does this Wright fellow get so much press? One can be justified by faith without knowledge of the historicity of the incarnation?

  4. Trent says:

    The more I read Wright. The more I detest him and what he stands for. He had the greatest presentation of the Gospel on Gospel Definitions at the Gospel coalition but, it seems many times he will reject it once he is around a liberal crowd. Then again affirm it when with a conservative. All his speeches he is wishy washy.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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