It appears to me that N.T. Wright has a peculiar phobia about timeless truths. Here is Wright again: “God wanted to judge Ahab and so save Israel. And so God delegated his authority to the prophet Micaiah who, inspired by the Spirit, stood humbly in the council of God and then stood boldly in the councils of men. He put his life and liberty on the line, like Daniel and so many others. That is how God brought his authority to bear on Israel: not by revealing to them a set of timeless truths, but by delegating his authority to obedient men through whose words he brought judgement and salvation to Israel and the world” (“How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?” p. 8, emphasis mine)
This appears to be simply another category confusion. Wright says, “not by revealing to them a set of timeless truths,” when he ought to have said, “not by revealing to them a set of timeless truths in a certain arid way.” Because in the story of Micaiah, God did reveal a “timeless truth,” a truth that N.T. Wright grasps and restates very well. It is clearly a good thing at all times to “stand humbly in the council of God and boldly in the council of men.” It was good when Micaiah did it, and it will be good on the last day of the world when somebody else does it.
Timeless truth can have different meanings. It can refer to truth that never touches down, and which spends all its time in Euclidville, or it can refer to truth that never changes, however much the circumstances around change. Prophets of God ought always speak truth to power, as Micaiah did, as Jeremiah did, as Stephen did, as Ambrose of Milan did, as John Knox did, and as the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t. This is a timeless truth, obedience to which is always incarnate and anchored in time. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is a timeless command, embodying a timeless truth, which happens to be the dignity of marriage. But it can only be honored by particular husbands who are married to particular wives. There is no such thing as timeless faithfulness, but there is such a thing as timeless requirement for husbands to be faithful. If rejection of “timeless truths” is simply a rejection of hearing the Word without doing it, then great. But more appears to be governing this discussion than simply affirmation of this Sunday School chesnut. “Be doers of the Word, and not just hearers” may be too little practiced in Christendom because we are sinners. But it is hardly a novelty. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the obligation Christians have to live out what they affirm is an obligation that can be stated in the form of a timeless truth.
While I am on the subject of N.T. Wright, let me commend to you Brian Mattson’s post here.