Rating: 
Summary: A brief introduction to the New Perspective
Review: Although many within the traditional Protestant camp dish out some harsh criticism toward Wright, I think no one will contest that Wright is a first rate scholar and that his views must be taken seriously and engaged by other evangelical Protestants. That being said, I think Wright's new work on Paul's gospel message is a great work that sheds new light on a topic that most think they have fully grasped. The reason why I like Wright's work is because he attempts to understand Paul from a 1st century Jewish mindset, and not from a later perspective. I think most Protestants would do well to reconsider if the 16th century interpretation of Paul is really the best one, and understand that that interpretation is a product of 16th century scholastic Augustinianism, and does not try to understand Paul as a first century Jewish scholar. This is why the New Perspective is so helpful at giving us a new dimension within which we can understand Paul's teachings.Briefly, Wright begins the book by arguing that the heart of the gospel is not how one can get into a right relationship with God, but that it is an imperial proclomation that Jesus and not Caesar is Lord. I thought this idea was well argued for and has some merit, but I am not fully convinced. Then Wright argues that membership in the covenant community is much like that of traditional Judaism; One becomes a member of this corporate community via the covenant, and then one remains in that covenant community. In addition, Wright takes a different view of what exactly the righteousness of God means in a book like Romans. Wright believes the genitive construction is best understood as a subjective genitive and not an objective genitive; That means the righteousness of God is God's covenant faithfulness to his creation, and not some gift of righteousness that God bestows to mankind. For those in the Protestant camp who might disagree, even John Piper holds a similar view so this idea is hardly novel or not well accepted within traditional Reformed circles. Wright believes that God's covenant faithfulness was manifested when he sent His Son, Jesus Christ into the world to redeem creation. This act was a demonstration of God's faithfulness and ushered in the time of renewal and the new age that Paul had so eagerly awaited as a zealous Pharisee. Not much disagreement here, but where I do have qualms with Wright is over his denial of imputed righteousness. Wright believes that there are few Scriptures that speak of an imputed righteousness of Christ and the ones that do are misunderstood. Right believes that faith is not what makes one right with God, but what identifes one as a valid member of the covenant community. Thus, justification is not soteriological but ecclesiogical. If one is going to accept this view I believe Wright will have to develop this idea more fully and should devote a future book solely to this topic. Although there are a few areas of disagreement, I believe this book should be read by all Protestants so that they can approach the Pauline corpus from a more Jewish mindset.
Rating: 
Summary: Precise, knowledgable, and scholarly
Review: Excellent, no other author could write such a witty, intelligent, and apologetic piece on Paul. It thoroughly debunks the theories put forward by Hyram McCobby and others who put together sloppy scholarship, a grudge against Christianity, and the want for a 'sensational' work to their name so they can rake in money from incorrect and highly unstable views. A must read for any scholar; Jew, Christian, Muslim, or secularist.
Rating:
Summary: Great Intro to Paul's Life, Ministry and Legacy
Review: I have a great deal of respect for N.T. Wright--he is a first rate scholar and a good writer to boot. I was trained in a Lutheran model of Pauline scholarship (heavy on the German Lutheran writers) so Wright and other Brits (especially the other "new Perspective" folks such James Dunn) are a welcome challenge and change of peace to my "default" was of thinking.
The so-called, "new perspective" in Pauline scholarship has really stirred the anthill, so to speak. It used to be that for the past 450 years, Protestant scholarship has more or less conceded Paul to us Lutherans and our "imputed righteousness" focus. But for the past thirsty years or so, this "new perspective" has challenged us all to see that Paul may be about more than one thing and that maybe, just maybe, Luther didn't get it all right.
I may not agree with everything that these "new Perspective" folks have to offer, but I think most of what they say is compelling and even convincing.
I recently used this little volume to help teach laypeople about Paul-his life, ministry and his influence. The class loved this book and thought it was definitely worth recommending to others.
This book would be helpful for pastors, students, church libraries and interested laypeople
Rating:
Summary: Tentatively, I find this book superlative
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Seting the record straight
Review: 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"!
Rating:
Summary: Concise intro to the New Perspective on Paul
Review: N.T. Wright again bridges the gaps between scholarship and spirituality; liberal and orthodox. Many readers will find his work shocking because he is conservative, but never orthodox. The most controversial aspect of this book challenges the tradition interpetation of justification (righteousness) by faith. For Wright, righteousness before God is not imputed or imparted by God, for instance by "accepting the free gift of Christ." Righteousness and Justification are the verdicts rendered in the law court to those that keep the covenant.
This raises the question about who is "in" and who isn't, as well as how can you tell who is "in." What are the markers of covenant membership? Wright tells us that Paul's great ephiphany is that the covenant markers of circumcism and keeping Torah have been replaced by the covenant marker of Faith. Justified by Faith, not works.
Recommended, but this book will leave you wanting to explore Wright's ideas to their fullest implications.
Rating:
Summary: Tremendous Exposition of Paul!
Review: 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!
Rating:
Summary: Tremendous Exposition of Paul!
Review: 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 no problem with an already/not yet aspect to justification, which would correlate with his emphsis on the eschatological nature of justification. This is a tremendous work that is highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: Wright on, brother!
Review: Ok, I admit my review title is silly but that is one thing this book is not. It is a compelling and brief introduction to the apostle Paul and his teaching from a modified new perspective.
One may not always agree with Wright but he always raises important questions, interacts with the most important literature, and engages in profound and deep biblical exegesis.
I eagerly look forward to Wright's tome on this topic in the "Christian origins" series.
The other reviews were pretty fair. As for the fellow who only gave him one star, come on cake-walker... I'm a conservative, reformed evangelical too but "you gots to give Wright his props".
Please don't dismiss Wright because he doesn't tow the party line! He's one of the handful of scholars that I believe people will still be paying apt attention to 50 years or more from now.
Rating:
Summary: The end of Protestantism
Review: There are multiple ironies at work here. First, it is ironic that such a slight book could signal the end of Protestantism. But that is what this thin volume does. How? By definitely demonstrating that the heart of Protestantism--the Reformation understanding of Justification as primarily the imputation of Christ's righteousness--is not really what St. Paul was getting at. Honest Protestants like Alister McGrath have admitted as much, while still maintaining the "usefulness" of the Reformed understanding of Justification for soteriological purposes (a position that is absurd on its face). By the way, it does no good trying to make Wright's critique go away by labeling it Covenantal Nomism, identifying it with Sanders and Dunn's New Perspective, or by simply reissuing warmed-over Protestant classics. For the Protestant project to continue, Wright must be answered. And so far, he hasn't been. Second, it is ironic, but perfectly understandable, that the deconstruction of the Protestant project comes from within Protestantism itself--and from the conservative not the liberal wing, at that. How does this work? Well, Protestantism arose as a critique of abuses in the Catholic Church. If it is to be true to itself and its highest aspirations, it must be honest and open enough to investigate anything of substance that presents itself to its purview. As N. T. Wright has unfolded the aims of Jesus in his magisterial projected six-volume undertaking, Christian Origins and the Question of God, the first three of which are out, certain questions have presented themselves for investigation, one of which is the relation of Jesus to the movement (and esp. to St. Paul, as the definitive spokesman for that movement) that arose after his death and resurrection. That he has done both in this book and in The Climax of the Covenant. Interestingly, Wright was a St. Paul scholar before he began Christian Origins, having written The Climax of the Covenant before writing The New Testament and the People of God (vol. I of Christian Origins). If the Wright project succeeds, that is, if Protestantism cannot adequately answer the issues he raises, it will mean, I believe, the end of Protestantism. Conservative evangelical Protestantism will find itself in a position of having to thematize its soteriological understandings in accordance with the new paradigm, which sees Justification not primarily as the imputation of Christ's righteousness, but as the believer's entrance into and faithfulness to the Covenant community that Jesus established. That raises a whole series of further relevant questions, such as, What is this Covenant community? Where can it be found? What constitutes entering it? What constitutes faithfulness to it? How does the gospel endure in time? Once these questions are carefully addressed, it will be seen that this Covenant community has existed continually and continuously from the first century A.D. through today, that it is, in fact, the Catholic Church. The reason for being a Protestant--that is, one who protests against the Catholic Church--will have ceased to exist. Perceptive Protestants, especially those of a strict Reformed orientation, have recognized the threat that Wright poses to their position, accurately understanding that acceptance of the Wright project entails the collapse of the cornerstone of Reformation thought, and thus the end of Protestantism itself. For example, you can see this hinted at in their reviews posted here and on other Amazon pages featuring books by Wright. And they are correct. For me personally, the writings of N. T. Wright have been a significant (though by no means the only) factor of a move from the conservative evangelical camp to the Catholic Church, where this summer I will be entering the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) class at our local Catholic parish, St. Peter Church of Monument, Colorado. Be that as it may, What St. Paul Really Said is among the most important works on the Christian faith ever written (along with Climax of the Covenant and the Christian Origins volumes). Essential reading for anyone seriously interested in what has divided the Church in the West for 500 years, as well as a possible basis for ending that divide.
|
