|
Review Summary: Seting the record straight |
Date: 2003-01-13 |
|
| |
|
Details: I think a couple of words are in order in response to the criticism of some of the reviewers of this book. First off, Wright is most assuredly not teaching any sort of a works based salvation. He simply points out that when Paul speaks against the Judaizers of his day, we can not, as Luther did, project onto them a meaning consistent with that of the Medieval Catholic Church. That is, Luther read Paul struggling with the Judaizer's speaking of the "works of the law" then saw his own struggle with the Church that seemed to place an endless string of hoops to jump through to achieve salvation. He assumed Paul was speaking to him in his situation directly. "The Just shall live by faith" became for Luther a liberating statement. Faith, not works, is how one is justified before God. However, Wright explores more precisely what it was Paul was up against. What it was, was those who insisted that the things which made the Jews separate from the nations, such as circumcision, food laws, etc. desired to impose these on new Christians as a badge of their membership in the New Covenant. No, Paul says. It is faith, not these works of the law, which mark you out as a true covenant member. If you live in faith, which is of course outwardly exhibited in obedience, then you will be known as a true covenant member. This is most definitely not telling us that through our works we are or even can be justified before God. Instead, God's justification is really closely tied to his righteousness. Not just righteousness in terms "God is better than us" (though he certainly is) but righteousness in terms of His faithfulness to His covenant. God will justify His people. In fact, in time and history, He has done so in the cross. The cross is very central to Paul's writings. But, who are God's people? Those who believe the Gospel. What is the Gospel? According to Wright, the gospel Paul preached was not a set of instructions on how one goes about "getting saved," but the gospel was the proclamation of the good news that God had redeemed his people in the cross, that Jesus had rose from the dead, and (this is very central) that Jesus is now the reigning King of kings and Lord of lords. He is the King over all of the universe, so this is a universal message, not confined only or even primarily to the Jewish nation. Those who profess a belief in this are part of the visible covenant people, but the true members will be known by their fruits. All this is not to say Luther was totally wrong or without merit, and certainly it was not to say the Roman Catholic Church was right. Yes, Wright is a Protestant, the reader from Canada's criticism notwithstanding. The first century Jews just simply did not hold to a works based salvation as many since Luther have supposed. With this in mind, we can not take Luther's interpretation as completely accurate. Another somewhat soft criticism is that the book is mis-titled, since only the last chapter actually concerns the issue of whether St. Paul was the true founder of Christianity. Admittedly, I had the same initial reaction because this is not something overtly talked about for the majority of the book. However, the entirety of the book outlines the fact that Paul was simply taking the teachings of Jesus as they were to be interpreted for those in Paul's time - and all subsequent ages. He is building the case throughout that Paul is not creating something new, but is a Jew of Jews who is interpreting Jesus the only way one can - through the scriptures of the Jews. Therefore, though he only speaks directly to the point in the final chapter, the point is actually built upon throughout the whole book. Wright does, I believe, a masterful job of taking what is obviously deep, scholarly work and putting it into terms an average Christian can understand. I think this is a much-needed gift, as deep theological works are above the ability of all but a few, yet most popular books are nothing but fluff and baptized pop-psychology. I highly recommend this readable, and enlightened interpretation of Paul. I have a whole new outlook on Paul and look forward to reading through his letters again 'with new eyes"! |
| |
|
Review Summary: Tremendous Exposition of Paul! |
Date: 2004-07-16 |
|
| |
Details: N.T. Wright is a tremendous author, whether you agree with him or not. He does a wonderful job of showing that Paul was the faithful interpretor of Jesus, and not the founder of Christianity. Wright argues that if Paul would have said the same things Jesus did, then he would have been claiming Messiahship as well.
A previous revewier has stated that this book is the end of Protestantism. His reason is that "the central theme of the gospel to Protestantism is justification by faith". That may be the case within some strands of Protestantism, but is not so all throughout the board (i.e. the Redemptive-Historical school of Reformed Theology with Vos, Ridderbos and Gaffin).
Now to the controversial "Fresh Perspective on Paul" as Wright calls it. I am a confessional Protestant who adheres to the Westminster standards, and do not have a problem highly endorsing the eschatological focus of this book. He says that the crucifixion is the chief eschatological act. This ligns right up with what Richard Gaffin says in 'Resurrection and Redemption' from a Reformed perspective.
I really liek his interpretation of 'dikaiosune theou', or righteousness of God. That has been a perplexing topic in the history of interpretation and is usually identified as a genitive of origin to uphold the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. However, Wright classifies it as a subjective genitive, where the righteousness is God's own righteousness in His covenental faithfulness by redeeming Israel. This clears up a lot of muddled water where that the genitive of origen will not work in all contexts.
His notion of justification is the other controversial aspect of his theology. He puts it in the first century Jewish context, rather than a polemical context of church history. The three themes of 1st century Jewish theology that he explains are law court, covenant and eschatology. This has some interesting twists that many will not like, but I find to be quite helpful. I have little problems with an already/not yet aspect to justification (to be more biblical theological), which would correlate with his emphasis on the eschatological nature of justification (see Romans 2:13).
This is a tremendous work that is highly recommended! |
| |
|
Review Summary: Tentatively, I find this book superlative |
Date: 2004-03-12 |
|
| |
|
Details: I have skimmed or read in detail most of Wright's book, but since I will be working with it for the rest of this semester I may find need to reappraise it. So far, so good, as I am concerned. This book is only "dangerous" and "unorthodox" if you interpret the entire Pauline corpus based on Romans 5 and Galatians 3. Wright's claim is that a larger horizon needs to be accorded to Paul's thought than justification by faith (which is NEVER "alone")--however, what some other reviewers here neglect to mention is that Wright says that this is *central*, but not THE center, of Paul's theology. I approached the book very guardedly, because I thought his prologue was rather pompous. But I actually found the writing to be very good and the scholarship to be judicious, even if he doesn't on the surface appear to immerse himself in "hardcore" exegesis. He takes what is good from Sanders and other modern biblical scholars and tries to separate it from liberal crap. His exposition on the Pauline Trinity--God, Lord, and Spirit--was breathtakingly good. His defense of Jesus' primacy in the founding of Christianity is admirable. Finally, his treatment of Paul's Jewishness was very helpful and gives further motivation to my desire to immerse myself in the OT/Jewish world, to help my understanding of the roots of Christianity. As an aspiring scholar, with conservative-leaning tendencies, I found this book to be quite inspiring. I think Wright provides a good example of scholarship that is largely CORRECT, illuminating, and at the same time beneficial spiritually. May the grace of Jesus Christ our Lord be with you. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Outstanding scholarship |
Date: 2007-02-27 |
|
| |
Details: Wow...
This is one of the best books on Pauline thought I have ever read.
It is difficult for many Western Christians to hear, but much of what we believe about what Paul really said is born out of the polemics of the reformation and counter-reformation. Eastern Orthodoxy never went through the fires of a reformation (save a comparatively minor bout with iconoclasm that did not end up splitting the eastern wing of the church). Thus, it is arguable that the three great branches of Christianity ended up developing Pauline theology in different ways due to historical forces largely beyond any one individual's control.
This book, it seems to this reviewer, tries to cut through the muddle by placing Paul firmly in his first century context. The image of what St. Paul really said emerges as layer after layer of what has been added to Paul by centuries of history and scholarship (liberal and conservative) is removed. Those fiercely loyal to the 16th century reformationist view of Paul will find some things to agree with in this book, but for the most part will be challenged. Those loyal to the Catholic tradition will perhaps be less challenged by overall thesis of the book, but they will be challenged to examine just where Protestants get Paul "right."
I have one observation about the supposed "New Perspective." It is, to me, a problematic moniker. Rather, Wright seems to be arguing for the "orthodox perspective" (small "o") of Paul. This book is way more Catholic and Orthodox than many other evangelical Protestants might like. This book is more protestant than some Catholics (especially traditionalists) might like. However, it is clearly not an exercise in syncretic ecumenism. Rather, Wright is pointing to truth, by giving an authentically biblical and historical reading of the Pauline texts, and letting the evidence, as opposed to any pre-existing loyalty to a dogma, lead him where it may. This is what the best biblical scholars do. And Wright is one of the best living. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Paul in His Context !! |
Date: 2007-02-04 |
|
| |
|
Details: Wrights treatment on Paul aims to grasp Paul the apostle in his context of his own day and age and all that implies. Protestant christians will be uncomfortable with Wright's take on justification, and maybe a few other things, but relax, Wright is not out to short circuit a gospel of grace, contrary to the accusations by some. Wright makes many very bona fide points in this work, and it is very much worth learning from. For instance: The apostle Paul's main message was not how to go to heaven when you die ( as if that's what was being asked by first century Jews of Paul's day and age ), but rather Paul's message was simply that Jesus is Lord. Jesus is the true King not Caesar, or anyone else. Jesus is God's son, and as such is the Lord of the universe. Jesus is The God ordained location of God's redeeming and ruling activity. Wright's worth is that he aims to help biblical readers situate the new testament in it's first century Jewish context, and then see what that means for the good news of Jesus that the new testament proclaims. For the most part, not withstanding a few possible gliches, he does a much needed job at that. |
| |
|