What do you think?
Rate this book
The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus's Crucifixion
The renowned scholar, Anglican bishop, and bestselling author widely considered to be the heir to C. S. Lewis contemplates the central event at the heart of the Christian faith—Jesus’ crucifixion—arguing that the Protestant Reformation did not go far enough in transforming our understanding of its meaning.
In The Day the Revolution Began, N. T. Wright once again challenges commonly held Christian beliefs as he did in his acclaimed Surprised by Hope. Demonstrating the rigorous intellect and breathtaking knowledge that have long defined his work, Wright argues that Jesus’ death on the cross was not only to absolve us of our sins; it was actually the beginning of a revolution commissioning the Christian faithful to a new vocation—a royal priesthood responsible for restoring and reconciling all of God’s creation.
Wright argues that Jesus’ crucifixion must be understood within the much larger story of God’s purposes to bring heaven and earth together. The Day the Revolution Began offers a grand picture of Jesus’ sacrifice and its full significance for the Christian faith, inspiring believers with a renewed sense of mission, purpose, and hope, and reminding them of the crucial role the Christian faith must play in protecting and shaping the future of the world.
In The Day the Revolution Began, N. T. Wright once again challenges commonly held Christian beliefs as he did in his acclaimed Surprised by Hope. Demonstrating the rigorous intellect and breathtaking knowledge that have long defined his work, Wright argues that Jesus’ death on the cross was not only to absolve us of our sins; it was actually the beginning of a revolution commissioning the Christian faithful to a new vocation—a royal priesthood responsible for restoring and reconciling all of God’s creation.
Wright argues that Jesus’ crucifixion must be understood within the much larger story of God’s purposes to bring heaven and earth together. The Day the Revolution Began offers a grand picture of Jesus’ sacrifice and its full significance for the Christian faith, inspiring believers with a renewed sense of mission, purpose, and hope, and reminding them of the crucial role the Christian faith must play in protecting and shaping the future of the world.
448 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 11, 2016
1238 people are currently reading
3226 people want to read
About the author
N.T. Wright
459 books2,910 followersN. T. Wright is the former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England (2003-2010) and one of the world's leading Bible scholars. He is now serving as the chair of New Testament and Early Christianity at the School of Divinity at the University of St. Andrews. He has been featured on ABC News, Dateline NBC, The Colbert Report, and Fresh Air, and he has taught New Testament studies at Cambridge, McGill, and Oxford universities. Wright is the award-winning author of Surprised by Hope, Simply Christian, The Last Word, The Challenge of Jesus, The Meaning of Jesus (coauthored with Marcus Borg), as well as the much heralded series Christian Origins and the Question of God.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 358 reviews
October 3, 2017
I needed this book so much. It told me that many things which didn't make sense about the way I'd understood Christianity didn't make sense because they weren't Biblical. Phew! And it showed me what *does* make sense as we read the Scriptures as a whole. It didn't just knock down the crumbling walls and leave me with nothing. It showed me what's really there and how much better it is. It's really difficult to summarize what Christ did in a neat little package because he did not give us a neat little package. He gave us a story. A true story that's so much better than the little "we get to go to Heaven even though we're bad because Jesus was punished instead" mistelling of that story. The closest we get to a neat little package is that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures." But "according to the scriptures" is quite a lot to unpack. It means that whole, big, true story that God told and lived. Wright takes his time getting to the center of this story so that we can see it from every angle. And the center is just so good. It is a big book and I'm pretty sure I essentially read it twice since I probably reread almost every sentence at least twice making sure I was following him. And I want to go back to the beginning and hear it all again.
September 8, 2016
Wright has a unique talent for making complex theological perspectives easily accessible for people who don’t have a Ph.D. in Theology. One of the things I appreciated about this book, from an aesthetic standpoint, is that it was well-paced and engaging. Wright works through the theme of revolution from start to finish, and it gives the book a very compelling, driven feel. I read this in the middle of a six week intensive class, and even though I was busy with assigned reading, I had a hard time putting it down.
There are a number of things to complement in the book, and while I don’t intend to write an in-depth, point-by-point review, I will make a few brief observations. First, in Chapter 4, which is entitled “The Covenant of Vocation,” Wright wrestle with Romans 5:17: “For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace, and the gift of covenant membership, of ‘being in the right,’ reign in life through the one man Jesus the Messiah.”
Wright notes that the “gift” described in the passage is not salvation, in the sense that we might go to heaven when we die, but more specifically, it calls us back to our human vocation of being image-bearers (and image-bearing is worship). Wright notes that “What Paul is saying is that the gospel, through which people received the divine gift, reconstitutes them as genuine humans, as those who share in the ‘reign’ of the Messiah.”
Sin, then, is “the human failure of vocation.”
What follows this is a discussion of sin in Romans 1-2, in which Wright notes (and which is very plainly stated in Romans 1) that the traditional list of sins found at the end of Romans 1 is not so much a comprehensive list of the way people sin, but the consequences of what follows the sin of idolatry. “The primary human failure,” says Wright,” is a failure to worship.” This works its way out in the verses that follow Romans 1:21; and God’s “giving humanity over” to brokenness is, in a sense, God stepping out of the way of human decision, and allowing us to experience the consequences of our idolatry.
Later, Wright frames the need for salvation (which is described in terms of the Kingdom of God rather than merely an after-death reality of heaven) in terms of the need for a return from exile, invoking the language of Israel’s history to describe the work of Jesus. Jesus’ death, then, marks the end of exile, as sin is forgiven and humanity is restored to God.
Framing his argument in the context of God’s covenant through Abraham with Israel, and Israel’s sin and exile, Wright insists that the death of Jesus is substitutionary (he will describe his substitutionary atonement theory as “representative atonement”), but carefully delineates the substitutionary atonement theory that he advocates from penal substitution.
Wright’s concluding chapters describe what all of this means in practical terms. Wright reminds us of the call to “take up our cross,” recognizing that victory today still comes in the way it came for Jesus – through self-denial and self-sacrificial love.
I received an advanced review copy of this book in exchange for this review.
There are a number of things to complement in the book, and while I don’t intend to write an in-depth, point-by-point review, I will make a few brief observations. First, in Chapter 4, which is entitled “The Covenant of Vocation,” Wright wrestle with Romans 5:17: “For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace, and the gift of covenant membership, of ‘being in the right,’ reign in life through the one man Jesus the Messiah.”
Wright notes that the “gift” described in the passage is not salvation, in the sense that we might go to heaven when we die, but more specifically, it calls us back to our human vocation of being image-bearers (and image-bearing is worship). Wright notes that “What Paul is saying is that the gospel, through which people received the divine gift, reconstitutes them as genuine humans, as those who share in the ‘reign’ of the Messiah.”
Sin, then, is “the human failure of vocation.”
What follows this is a discussion of sin in Romans 1-2, in which Wright notes (and which is very plainly stated in Romans 1) that the traditional list of sins found at the end of Romans 1 is not so much a comprehensive list of the way people sin, but the consequences of what follows the sin of idolatry. “The primary human failure,” says Wright,” is a failure to worship.” This works its way out in the verses that follow Romans 1:21; and God’s “giving humanity over” to brokenness is, in a sense, God stepping out of the way of human decision, and allowing us to experience the consequences of our idolatry.
Later, Wright frames the need for salvation (which is described in terms of the Kingdom of God rather than merely an after-death reality of heaven) in terms of the need for a return from exile, invoking the language of Israel’s history to describe the work of Jesus. Jesus’ death, then, marks the end of exile, as sin is forgiven and humanity is restored to God.
Framing his argument in the context of God’s covenant through Abraham with Israel, and Israel’s sin and exile, Wright insists that the death of Jesus is substitutionary (he will describe his substitutionary atonement theory as “representative atonement”), but carefully delineates the substitutionary atonement theory that he advocates from penal substitution.
Wright’s concluding chapters describe what all of this means in practical terms. Wright reminds us of the call to “take up our cross,” recognizing that victory today still comes in the way it came for Jesus – through self-denial and self-sacrificial love.
I received an advanced review copy of this book in exchange for this review.
March 14, 2017
NT Wright has done more than any other writer to shape how I understand the New Testament and the mission of Jesus. Prior to reading Wright I had a very basic understanding that Jesus had lived and died and if we believed in him then we'd die and be with God in heaven. My mind was blown by his work Jesus and the Victory of God and since then I've read every book of his I could find. One primary lesson from Wright is the importance of understanding Jesus in his own context - when he spoke of a king returning, for example, this was not of any sort of "second coming" but rather was God returning to become king right then and there in the person of Jesus.
Wright spoke of the crucifixion in Jesus and the Victory of God before writing an entire book (Resurrection of the Son of God) on the resurrection. He's also written thousands of pages on Paul. This book centers in on Jesus' death on the cross, looking at both the Gospel writers and Paul. One of my favorite things about Wright is how he fits the Gospels and Paul's work together. It is too easy to see the gospels as just biographies of Jesus' life with Paul (and others) left to fill in the meaning. Wright has helped see how the two complement.
Here Wright's primary attack is on the idea that Jesus died so we can go to heaven when we die. Of course, he tackled that in Surprised by Hope. So really his primary attack is on penal substitutionary atonement, which he sees as leading into going to heaven when we die. Wright goes back to the beginning to tell the story of the Jewish scriptures, emphasizing as he always does that God created the world and humans (nature) and declared it good. To see the end goal then as floating off into space in some ethereal heaven ignores the creation as good. For Wright, penal substitution too quickly skips from Genesis 3 to Romans 3, ignoring the story of Israel. Wright seeks to fit Jesus - his mission and death - within that story. For Wright, it is not that substitution is wrong, Jesus still acts as a substitute in his death for Israel (and us). It is that penal substitution as a theology asked, and asks, the wrong questions.
Jesus fights the battle on the cross, defeating the powers and freeing us from them, so we can get back on track with joining alongside of God in the mission to restore the world. As best as I can recall (I finished the book two weeks ago) that is what the cross is for Wright. In theological terms, you could say he favors Christus Victor over substitutionary atonement (though I'd love to hear Wright's thoughts on someone like Rene Girard).
Overall, this is a great book. It suffers from Wright's wordiness, he could be more concise. At times it seems that he does not just come out and say what he needs to say. There is so much here that some may walk away being inspired by what he said, but still asking "why the cross?" The answer would be historical context, I suppose, and that the cross was how Jesus showed the true way of God in the world; the true way God would accomplish the work of new creation.
Wright spoke of the crucifixion in Jesus and the Victory of God before writing an entire book (Resurrection of the Son of God) on the resurrection. He's also written thousands of pages on Paul. This book centers in on Jesus' death on the cross, looking at both the Gospel writers and Paul. One of my favorite things about Wright is how he fits the Gospels and Paul's work together. It is too easy to see the gospels as just biographies of Jesus' life with Paul (and others) left to fill in the meaning. Wright has helped see how the two complement.
Here Wright's primary attack is on the idea that Jesus died so we can go to heaven when we die. Of course, he tackled that in Surprised by Hope. So really his primary attack is on penal substitutionary atonement, which he sees as leading into going to heaven when we die. Wright goes back to the beginning to tell the story of the Jewish scriptures, emphasizing as he always does that God created the world and humans (nature) and declared it good. To see the end goal then as floating off into space in some ethereal heaven ignores the creation as good. For Wright, penal substitution too quickly skips from Genesis 3 to Romans 3, ignoring the story of Israel. Wright seeks to fit Jesus - his mission and death - within that story. For Wright, it is not that substitution is wrong, Jesus still acts as a substitute in his death for Israel (and us). It is that penal substitution as a theology asked, and asks, the wrong questions.
Jesus fights the battle on the cross, defeating the powers and freeing us from them, so we can get back on track with joining alongside of God in the mission to restore the world. As best as I can recall (I finished the book two weeks ago) that is what the cross is for Wright. In theological terms, you could say he favors Christus Victor over substitutionary atonement (though I'd love to hear Wright's thoughts on someone like Rene Girard).
Overall, this is a great book. It suffers from Wright's wordiness, he could be more concise. At times it seems that he does not just come out and say what he needs to say. There is so much here that some may walk away being inspired by what he said, but still asking "why the cross?" The answer would be historical context, I suppose, and that the cross was how Jesus showed the true way of God in the world; the true way God would accomplish the work of new creation.
July 21, 2022
The Revolution began on the cross, a Friday some two thousand years back. It was on that day that "the Kingdoms of this world have become the Kingdoms of our God." (Revelation 11:5, also Handel's Messiah)
This is the major premise for Wright's work. What How God Became King did for the gospels and the life of Christ, Revolution does for atonement theology and the death of Christ. As usual, Wright does an excellent job with this connecting the whole of scripture into one narrative to show what the cross means for us today.
Wright points out early on how early Reformed theologians (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et al) were in a sense "finding the right answers to the wrong questions". In their attempt to correct many of the errors within the RCC of the time, they ended up creating a "works contract" atonement theology that "Platonized eschatology, moralized anthropology, and paganized soteriology" (he uses this phrase at least a half dozen times over the course of the book and I don't blame him. It is brilliant.
By "platonized eschatology" he means that the atonement came to mean Jesus died on the cross so we can one day go to heaven. While not incorrect, it is definitely incomplete. By "moralized anthropology" he means, because of the cross, we are now supposed to live a good life out of gratitude (rather than recognizing that we are now a royal priesthood and representatives of God's kingdom on earth). Again, not incorrect but incomplete. By "paganized soteriology" Wright means:
As with any book outside the Bible, I don't agree with everything said. The biggest bone I have to pick here is that Wright is that he often presents his views as "fresh" or "new" and that everyone else for the past x years (or centuries) has been getting it all wrong. That's just not true. His ideas might be expressed in a unique way but they are not in themselves unique. The biggest danger I see in this is that many simpler minds might cling to this and accuse him of being too liberal, radical, or even a heretic when NT Wright is certainly none of these things. Wright is simply a brilliant theologian who writes profound works in a simple way. I am blessed by everything I have read by him and this is certainly one of his best books.
This is the major premise for Wright's work. What How God Became King did for the gospels and the life of Christ, Revolution does for atonement theology and the death of Christ. As usual, Wright does an excellent job with this connecting the whole of scripture into one narrative to show what the cross means for us today.
Wright points out early on how early Reformed theologians (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et al) were in a sense "finding the right answers to the wrong questions". In their attempt to correct many of the errors within the RCC of the time, they ended up creating a "works contract" atonement theology that "Platonized eschatology, moralized anthropology, and paganized soteriology" (he uses this phrase at least a half dozen times over the course of the book and I don't blame him. It is brilliant.
By "platonized eschatology" he means that the atonement came to mean Jesus died on the cross so we can one day go to heaven. While not incorrect, it is definitely incomplete. By "moralized anthropology" he means, because of the cross, we are now supposed to live a good life out of gratitude (rather than recognizing that we are now a royal priesthood and representatives of God's kingdom on earth). Again, not incorrect but incomplete. By "paganized soteriology" Wright means:
We often tell the story of the cross as “how to keep the gods from being angry”. Not enough has been taught about the full covenant justice and love surrounding the events of the crucifixion. With the beauty of a proper view of Jesus’s crucifixion we find God Himself doing what only He can do: be the atoning sacrifice for the world.
As with any book outside the Bible, I don't agree with everything said. The biggest bone I have to pick here is that Wright is that he often presents his views as "fresh" or "new" and that everyone else for the past x years (or centuries) has been getting it all wrong. That's just not true. His ideas might be expressed in a unique way but they are not in themselves unique. The biggest danger I see in this is that many simpler minds might cling to this and accuse him of being too liberal, radical, or even a heretic when NT Wright is certainly none of these things. Wright is simply a brilliant theologian who writes profound works in a simple way. I am blessed by everything I have read by him and this is certainly one of his best books.
November 18, 2016
This book deserves 6 stars. It is by far his best popular level book, with only one other that might wrestle away the greatness, his also thick "Surprised by Hope." The only difference between the two is that this one is more readable, a little bit longer and is so addictive that it took me merely 5 days what took me two weeks with SBH.
His take on "propitiation" and the exegesis he does on Paul's letters are worth the entire book, as well as the considerable attention to Israel's scriptures - as well as the attention to Jesus' own idea of what his sacrifice meant (something you do NOT find in other New Testament authors who have written on the subject of atonement) - causes you to run with him and at a brisk but rewarding pace.
I believe that this book not only has the power to transform our understanding of the cross but also to heal the divide between those who advocate penal substitution as the primary emphasis and those of us who have been strong the Christus Victor view. Wright cuts through the debate and say that substitution is there, breathing the air of God's victory over sin, death and decay in the bloody body of His Son, who reveals how God becomes King.
His take on "propitiation" and the exegesis he does on Paul's letters are worth the entire book, as well as the considerable attention to Israel's scriptures - as well as the attention to Jesus' own idea of what his sacrifice meant (something you do NOT find in other New Testament authors who have written on the subject of atonement) - causes you to run with him and at a brisk but rewarding pace.
I believe that this book not only has the power to transform our understanding of the cross but also to heal the divide between those who advocate penal substitution as the primary emphasis and those of us who have been strong the Christus Victor view. Wright cuts through the debate and say that substitution is there, breathing the air of God's victory over sin, death and decay in the bloody body of His Son, who reveals how God becomes King.
February 7, 2017
I listened to the audiobook and despite re-listening to sections, parts just refused to adhere to my brain and I failed to get the precise significance of some his interpretations of key passages. With Wright it is like one has to weigh through a multitude of puzzle pieces, and only gradually does one begin to get a glimpse of Wright's vast puzzle box. I've read and listened to a number of his works and much in this book was similar, but that which was new left me feeling a bit like I felt when I initially read Wright years ago--an arm full of puzzle pieces, but not a clear sense how to piece it together.
I do like how Wright takes Christ dying and rising "according to scripture" seriously, and offers a compelling case of how the gospel is in fulfillment of Jewish scriptures, themes, and hopes, and reveals the faithfulness of God to the covenant. Better than anyone else I know, he sets Jesus' death in its historical context. I appreciate Wright challenging the Platonist elements that have influenced the gospel, the Roman road presentation and the penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement. He shows how the gospel isn't just about our going to heaven when we die, but about people turning from idols, worshiping the true God and fulfilling their vocation as image bearers. Somehow Jesus' death was God's way to get folks to turn from idols to Him, so they could be forgiven and experience the new exodus.
There were a number of interesting tidbits. Wright pointed out how an animal wasn't slain upon the altar, but his life blood was spilled and used for purification, and how the only animal that had the "sins transferred" upon his head wasn't slain, but sent away. He thus briefly shows the complexity of the Old Testamental sacrificial system and some problems with the Penal Substitutionary perspective, and suggest that it wasn't punishment for the animal in place of the sinner, but instead about the life blood for purification. Briefly, he applies this to Jesus' work on the cross. I wish he went more into it. For me, since I am a product of the modern age, it is not easy associating blood with cleansing, the Levi' practicing of coating just about everything is animal blood seems disgusting to be quite honest. The symbolism doesn't resonate or make sense to me. It's not like Jesus' magical blood was smeared all over us, or we were washed in the blood of the lamb. Eh... I dunno.
If Wright, is right (it often seems to me he is) there is that troublesome fact that most Christians have been dead wrong for the last 2000 years about the centerpiece of Christianity. After one gets beyond the initial thrill of the vista that his historical perspective offers, one sees a problem with just how rooted the gospel is, in a very complex Jewish History. To understand the gospel aright, one either needed to be deeply immersed in the Jewish world of Jesus and Paul, or to be a scholar who immerses himself in a world long past. The gospel no longer seems universal, but instead very esoteric; destined to be misunderstood by Gentiles who wouldn't have the faintest clue of the historical context which gave its extremely ambiguous message its meaning.
Sadly, for me, even after going through the book, I still can't get a sense of why the cross. It is still just so muddled in my mind, the whole thing is like a giant non-sequitur. It is just so easy to talk about Jesus' death on the cross doing this and that, and his blood cleansing away our sin. But it's just like we are piecing nonsense words together and shaking our head in agreement. I am too much the Greek I suppose, like Paul said, the cross is foolishness. I am glad that somehow a man dying a brutal and humiliating death upon a Roman torture device has come to represent and inspire sacrificial love. There are lots of analogies of sacrificial love that make perfect sense, like the man who runs into a burning building to save enemies life, or (for a recent Hollywood example) Batman flying the nuclear bomb out of the city right before detonation. But how is someone being crucified the emblem of laying one's life down for another? Historically speaking, in no way does his dying look anything like one laying down one's life for another or some kind of substitution or a religious sacrifice. Since the event itself doesn't seem to suggest any of this, the theological meaning tacked on seems ill-fitted.
We are just so detached from the ancient Jewish world, the point and purpose of the archaic Levitical sacrificial laws is impossible to be confident of. Even if we know what the ancients meant, how is Jesus being executed even remotely similar to Jewish sacrifices? There was no ceremonial slicing of the throat, no altar, etc...
Sigh... there are plenty of other examples of the mental quagmire I am in when I consider the atonement, but this will suffice to state that certain questions I went to the book with unfortunately remained after I finished the work.
I do like how Wright takes Christ dying and rising "according to scripture" seriously, and offers a compelling case of how the gospel is in fulfillment of Jewish scriptures, themes, and hopes, and reveals the faithfulness of God to the covenant. Better than anyone else I know, he sets Jesus' death in its historical context. I appreciate Wright challenging the Platonist elements that have influenced the gospel, the Roman road presentation and the penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement. He shows how the gospel isn't just about our going to heaven when we die, but about people turning from idols, worshiping the true God and fulfilling their vocation as image bearers. Somehow Jesus' death was God's way to get folks to turn from idols to Him, so they could be forgiven and experience the new exodus.
There were a number of interesting tidbits. Wright pointed out how an animal wasn't slain upon the altar, but his life blood was spilled and used for purification, and how the only animal that had the "sins transferred" upon his head wasn't slain, but sent away. He thus briefly shows the complexity of the Old Testamental sacrificial system and some problems with the Penal Substitutionary perspective, and suggest that it wasn't punishment for the animal in place of the sinner, but instead about the life blood for purification. Briefly, he applies this to Jesus' work on the cross. I wish he went more into it. For me, since I am a product of the modern age, it is not easy associating blood with cleansing, the Levi' practicing of coating just about everything is animal blood seems disgusting to be quite honest. The symbolism doesn't resonate or make sense to me. It's not like Jesus' magical blood was smeared all over us, or we were washed in the blood of the lamb. Eh... I dunno.
If Wright, is right (it often seems to me he is) there is that troublesome fact that most Christians have been dead wrong for the last 2000 years about the centerpiece of Christianity. After one gets beyond the initial thrill of the vista that his historical perspective offers, one sees a problem with just how rooted the gospel is, in a very complex Jewish History. To understand the gospel aright, one either needed to be deeply immersed in the Jewish world of Jesus and Paul, or to be a scholar who immerses himself in a world long past. The gospel no longer seems universal, but instead very esoteric; destined to be misunderstood by Gentiles who wouldn't have the faintest clue of the historical context which gave its extremely ambiguous message its meaning.
Sadly, for me, even after going through the book, I still can't get a sense of why the cross. It is still just so muddled in my mind, the whole thing is like a giant non-sequitur. It is just so easy to talk about Jesus' death on the cross doing this and that, and his blood cleansing away our sin. But it's just like we are piecing nonsense words together and shaking our head in agreement. I am too much the Greek I suppose, like Paul said, the cross is foolishness. I am glad that somehow a man dying a brutal and humiliating death upon a Roman torture device has come to represent and inspire sacrificial love. There are lots of analogies of sacrificial love that make perfect sense, like the man who runs into a burning building to save enemies life, or (for a recent Hollywood example) Batman flying the nuclear bomb out of the city right before detonation. But how is someone being crucified the emblem of laying one's life down for another? Historically speaking, in no way does his dying look anything like one laying down one's life for another or some kind of substitution or a religious sacrifice. Since the event itself doesn't seem to suggest any of this, the theological meaning tacked on seems ill-fitted.
We are just so detached from the ancient Jewish world, the point and purpose of the archaic Levitical sacrificial laws is impossible to be confident of. Even if we know what the ancients meant, how is Jesus being executed even remotely similar to Jewish sacrifices? There was no ceremonial slicing of the throat, no altar, etc...
Sigh... there are plenty of other examples of the mental quagmire I am in when I consider the atonement, but this will suffice to state that certain questions I went to the book with unfortunately remained after I finished the work.
September 4, 2022
2nd reading: my husband and I read the hard copy of this book together, discussing a chapter a week. Honestly, it felt really long. The content is amazing, but the reading of it feels like studying for college at times. I’m so glad we read this book, but it’s a lot. Get your mindset right.
Essentially, N. T. Wright is saying that Jesus’ death on the cross wasn’t an act of an angry God. It wasn’t just so I personally could escape hell. It was the moment when heaven met earth, and humanity was restored to being eligible to fulfill our position as the image-bearers of God to the rest of the world. Only he sounds a lot smarter when he says it. 🧐
1st reading: I finished this book on audio. It was utterly intriguing, so I’m reading it in hard copy with my husband now. I need his thoughts and input on this highly intellectual material about the meaning and impact of the crucifixion of Christ.
Essentially, N. T. Wright is saying that Jesus’ death on the cross wasn’t an act of an angry God. It wasn’t just so I personally could escape hell. It was the moment when heaven met earth, and humanity was restored to being eligible to fulfill our position as the image-bearers of God to the rest of the world. Only he sounds a lot smarter when he says it. 🧐
1st reading: I finished this book on audio. It was utterly intriguing, so I’m reading it in hard copy with my husband now. I need his thoughts and input on this highly intellectual material about the meaning and impact of the crucifixion of Christ.
January 21, 2025
My pastors recommended this book to me and now that I've finished it, I can see why. As evangelicals, we have mostly misunderstood the meaning of the cross. We think the cross happened so that we can go to heaven, despite our bad behavior, because God punished Jesus instead of us. According to Wright this kind of thinking is actually wrong. This common misunderstanding misses the point by neglecting the Old Testament types and shadows, especially the Exodus and Passover symbolism, which undergird and illuminate what exactly Jesus was doing in his death: liberating us from our idolatry, the root and source of our sin, so that we can reclaim our ancient vocation as royal priests who image the true God for the renewal of all creation.
November 5, 2017
When N. T. Wright is writing about 1st century history and biblical context, he's world class. When he writes about current events and social sciences, he's merely an educated observer. Yet he writes about both as if he has the same authority in each field. That was both the delight and dismay of reading this book. Also, he repeats himself ad nauseam, with a very cyclical argument pattern. This book is 200 pages too long. I've often felt this about Wright but feel confirmed in this opinion now, his target is often hard to define for his popular work but it seems to be undiscipled Christians and their uninformed leaders. When he writes he will dismiss what he finds stupid about what he has observed in modern Christianity, and then apply that resentment globally. He's not nuanced enough in his critique. He also feels the need to destroy normative views on Christ's substitution, God's wrath, and imputation, though he always uses a caveat "not entirely," allowing himself wiggle room. Some may admire that, but often it felt like a cop out. A lot of reviewers make a big deal about his last two chapters which are the best ones. He's more direct, clear, and less repetitive. But he's still speculating a lot about the grand swath of western Christianity, and seems to think that traditional views of atonement are pagan, and that this has caused most of the church's problems. He doesn't really help any sense of urgency about this because he's not clear about what view of the atonement would be heretical. Even after calling a myopic view of penal substitution pagan, he goes on to say it's not the worst thing to believe that way since it's better than unbelief. I often wondered to myself, has he done much pastoral care? How does he communicate with regular church folks? I would never recommend this book to a new or immature Christian simply because it would confuse the crap out of them. I don't find this book essential. It's aim is to make sure we have a well rounded, historical Christian worldview that is active in the world we live in now, not just preparation for Heaven, but his approach is not built for his target audience, and his conclusions are often wanting.
January 31, 2018
I read this book as part of a group (we had all seen N.T. Wright lecture on this topic at a local college), and I'm not sure I would have made it through this book on my own. It's a little denser than what I usually read, it's outside my field of knowledge, and it gets technical in some places that, for me, made the argument difficult to parse. But this is a very good book, one worth pushing through.
What was difficult for me in reading this is that Wright has several strands of his argument that really need to be read together, but it seemed I could only hold one strand in my mind at a time. When I picked up one strand to examine it more closely, I lost the other strands. It was also difficult to see where the book was going. "This is just Wright's way of fitting the crucifixion into his eschatological scheme laid out in Surprised by Hope," I would think. "This doesn't make that much of a difference."
The final section drew together all the strands of the book for me in a way that made sense. It made me see where, exactly, the differences in Wright's view result in practical, real-world applications. And once I saw that, the rest of the argument began to click. This isn't just a theological nit to pick; it matters to how we view the world and our role in the story of Scripture. If I wasn't fully convinced by the individual aspects of Wright's argument, I'm certainly compelled by the vision he presents of the church's vocation.
I think the latter half of the book is stronger than the first. While Wright has a way of reframing a conversation with big ideas, I usually find him most convincing in his closely examined exegesis, and the later chapters on Paul are where this really comes into play. (Part of the problem is I fear unfounded generalizations, and Wright offers in the early part of the book thin evidence for the generalizations he draws--not that he doesn't have the evidence, but he doesn't always present this evidence in a way I find convincing.)
This wasn't as mind-blowing to me as Surprised by Hope was, but this was a very good book, and I'm glad I read it with others who are more knowledgeable than I am.
What was difficult for me in reading this is that Wright has several strands of his argument that really need to be read together, but it seemed I could only hold one strand in my mind at a time. When I picked up one strand to examine it more closely, I lost the other strands. It was also difficult to see where the book was going. "This is just Wright's way of fitting the crucifixion into his eschatological scheme laid out in Surprised by Hope," I would think. "This doesn't make that much of a difference."
The final section drew together all the strands of the book for me in a way that made sense. It made me see where, exactly, the differences in Wright's view result in practical, real-world applications. And once I saw that, the rest of the argument began to click. This isn't just a theological nit to pick; it matters to how we view the world and our role in the story of Scripture. If I wasn't fully convinced by the individual aspects of Wright's argument, I'm certainly compelled by the vision he presents of the church's vocation.
I think the latter half of the book is stronger than the first. While Wright has a way of reframing a conversation with big ideas, I usually find him most convincing in his closely examined exegesis, and the later chapters on Paul are where this really comes into play. (Part of the problem is I fear unfounded generalizations, and Wright offers in the early part of the book thin evidence for the generalizations he draws--not that he doesn't have the evidence, but he doesn't always present this evidence in a way I find convincing.)
This wasn't as mind-blowing to me as Surprised by Hope was, but this was a very good book, and I'm glad I read it with others who are more knowledgeable than I am.
December 21, 2020
I did not expect to like this book and, to be frank, I think there are considerable flaws. Nevertheless, there was much I enjoyed. Wright's desire to place the cross in the context of the whole of Scripture and specifically in the story of Israel is refreshing and helpful. Wright, in my view, correctly challenges the kind of simplification of the Christian story where it's just about how we can get to heaven. There is so much more than that in Christian theology! The vocation of the Christian to be God's mechanism for kingdom advance through their role as a royal priesthood is something I have much to think about.
However, I just cannot accept Wright's rejection of the traditional Reformed understanding of the cross. This book seems to excise any notion of God's holiness, justice and righteous character alongside his covenant love. Ultimately, it seems to me that Wright has failed to answer the question of how the cross has allowed unrighteous sinners to be considered righteous before a holy and just God. A much better place to go to consider what the cross is really about would be J.I. Packer's "What did the cross achieve?" or John Stott's The Cross of Christ!
However, I just cannot accept Wright's rejection of the traditional Reformed understanding of the cross. This book seems to excise any notion of God's holiness, justice and righteous character alongside his covenant love. Ultimately, it seems to me that Wright has failed to answer the question of how the cross has allowed unrighteous sinners to be considered righteous before a holy and just God. A much better place to go to consider what the cross is really about would be J.I. Packer's "What did the cross achieve?" or John Stott's The Cross of Christ!
April 25, 2022
For several years, I’ve pondered why Christ needed to atone for sin. That may seem pretty straightforward. But why couldn’t the most powerful being in the universe simply forgive sin without all the complexity of the atonement?
Many have tried to answer this question by backward engineering and proof-texting various atonement theories (e.g. ransom, penal substitution, satisfaction, moral, creditor-debtor, etc). While each theory has its merits, I find myself wanting more.
After further studying and counseling with others far wiser, I’ve stopped looking for a single unified theory of the atonement. Instead, I find the atonement is better understood through its uniquely tailored impact on each life it touches (which is all of creation). Each book of scripture, each prophet, and each person experiences the atonement in a unique way. Theory can get in the way of seeing the beautiful and individual ways God interacts with his children.
Is it possible we could adopt false views of the atonement by accepting these unique lived experiences rather than adopting a more unified scholarly approach? Perhaps. But as we seek discernment through the spirit, we can gain a more holistic and expansive understanding. I do not believe I will ever fully understand the atonement. But I’ve become increasingly grateful for it. Sometimes, the atonement is meaningful to me because of its promise of forgiveness of sin. Sometimes, it is meaningful to me because it helps me feel that God understands me and can bare a burden that is too heavy for me to carry. And sometimes it is meaningful to me because of its promise of resurrection. And over time, I’m sure it will mean more things to me.
Something happened 2000 years ago that changed the world. More importantly, something happened 2000 years ago that can change me. And I have made more progress understanding the atonement when I’ve changed my question from “why do we need a savior?” to “why do I need a savior?”
So how does this book add to that perspective? It’s just another perspective. It calls into question various theories and instead focuses on how the atonement allows mankind to again bare the image of God and help bring the kingdom of God into the world. I loved it (though Wright could use a good editor and make this book half as long). I’m not sure it’s for everyone. But it adds an additional perspective as I continue my lifetime pursuit of understanding what the atonement means for me.
Many have tried to answer this question by backward engineering and proof-texting various atonement theories (e.g. ransom, penal substitution, satisfaction, moral, creditor-debtor, etc). While each theory has its merits, I find myself wanting more.
After further studying and counseling with others far wiser, I’ve stopped looking for a single unified theory of the atonement. Instead, I find the atonement is better understood through its uniquely tailored impact on each life it touches (which is all of creation). Each book of scripture, each prophet, and each person experiences the atonement in a unique way. Theory can get in the way of seeing the beautiful and individual ways God interacts with his children.
Is it possible we could adopt false views of the atonement by accepting these unique lived experiences rather than adopting a more unified scholarly approach? Perhaps. But as we seek discernment through the spirit, we can gain a more holistic and expansive understanding. I do not believe I will ever fully understand the atonement. But I’ve become increasingly grateful for it. Sometimes, the atonement is meaningful to me because of its promise of forgiveness of sin. Sometimes, it is meaningful to me because it helps me feel that God understands me and can bare a burden that is too heavy for me to carry. And sometimes it is meaningful to me because of its promise of resurrection. And over time, I’m sure it will mean more things to me.
Something happened 2000 years ago that changed the world. More importantly, something happened 2000 years ago that can change me. And I have made more progress understanding the atonement when I’ve changed my question from “why do we need a savior?” to “why do I need a savior?”
So how does this book add to that perspective? It’s just another perspective. It calls into question various theories and instead focuses on how the atonement allows mankind to again bare the image of God and help bring the kingdom of God into the world. I loved it (though Wright could use a good editor and make this book half as long). I’m not sure it’s for everyone. But it adds an additional perspective as I continue my lifetime pursuit of understanding what the atonement means for me.
December 22, 2019
What a challenging book. This is the first NT Wright book I’ve ever read and boy did I enjoy him. I now want to read every book he’s written. I found him incredibly thorough and methodical (Piper-esque) in building a clear, compelling case from Scripture. Such an original and clear-minded thinker, I have no problem taking his over-the-top dichotomies with a grain of salt (e.g.- you must either believe in penal substitutionary atonement OR Jesus Victor).
Wright helped me understand some key Biblical themes, expecially: exile as THE primary punishment for sin in the OT. Reading through the OT as I read Wright, I had this thought: I feel like I’m beginning to understand the Bible (a funny thing to think, having read the Bible for 25 years!).
One of his chief goals is answering this not-at-all-as-simple-as-it-sounds question: When the early Christians summarized their “good news” by saying that “the Messiah died for our sins in accordance with the Bible,” what precisely did they mean?
What was God hoping to achieve by Jesus’s death, and why was that the appropriate method of achieving it?
One of his answers: "I am suggesting that in the Bible humans are created in order to live as worshipping stewards within God’s heaven-and-earth reality, rather than as beings who, by moral perfection, qualify to leave “earth” and go to “heaven” instead.”
I think Wright MIGHT just be correct in saying that sharing the gospel as “punch your ticket to heaven” is responsible for much of what is wrong with the American Church.
Wright helped me understand some key Biblical themes, expecially: exile as THE primary punishment for sin in the OT. Reading through the OT as I read Wright, I had this thought: I feel like I’m beginning to understand the Bible (a funny thing to think, having read the Bible for 25 years!).
One of his chief goals is answering this not-at-all-as-simple-as-it-sounds question: When the early Christians summarized their “good news” by saying that “the Messiah died for our sins in accordance with the Bible,” what precisely did they mean?
What was God hoping to achieve by Jesus’s death, and why was that the appropriate method of achieving it?
One of his answers: "I am suggesting that in the Bible humans are created in order to live as worshipping stewards within God’s heaven-and-earth reality, rather than as beings who, by moral perfection, qualify to leave “earth” and go to “heaven” instead.”
I think Wright MIGHT just be correct in saying that sharing the gospel as “punch your ticket to heaven” is responsible for much of what is wrong with the American Church.
September 11, 2018
I love Wright, but sometimes I want him to just come out and state his argument simply and concisely. I enjoyed this book, and, in general, I think I understand his take on the crucifixion and what it accomplished; however, there are still some areas where I am fuzzy on how all this works. That could be my inabilities as a reader, I will definitely try to outline his argument when I get more time and see if that helps. This book is well worth reading and contemplating.
I really liked David's review and agree with his points. You should check it out: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I really liked David's review and agree with his points. You should check it out: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
January 3, 2017
Simply N.T. Wright.
Michael Horton offers a good review here:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/ar...
Michael Horton offers a good review here:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/ar...
July 18, 2025
I continue to find Nt Wright’s writing refreshing in this stage of my life. His articulation that creation and this world matter in light of eternity continues to run through this work as with all his works.
This work on the cross on the atonement sought to provide a historical and accurate view of what the cross did 2000+ years ago. Many of my critiques likely have to do with my obtuseness and the fact that I listened to it and so had trouble finding the confusing parts to review. That being said, Wright argued against the works contract and the penal contract as singular means of defining the work of the cross. His answer attempted to be wholistic and focused on humanity’s mandate from Genesis 1. That the cross was the culmination of Israel’s story.
I agree with Wright and think the cross is more than a theological microcosm, but I couldn’t nail down his answer as to what actually happened on the cross. The reality is that it is a mystery, even still, I would’ve liked to have more clarity than confusion after finishing the book.
I really appreciated his final chapter on mission. Wright distinguished between mission and evangelism. While we are all called to both, the two do not share the same meaning. Therefore, living “on mission” in light of the cross - seeing the world through the eyes of the cross and resurrection - looks different than “evangelizing.”
It could just be weakness in me, but the wholistic vision of mission (beyond merely evangelism) inspires me so much more to participate in and advance forward the kingdom of God in my community and across the world.
This work on the cross on the atonement sought to provide a historical and accurate view of what the cross did 2000+ years ago. Many of my critiques likely have to do with my obtuseness and the fact that I listened to it and so had trouble finding the confusing parts to review. That being said, Wright argued against the works contract and the penal contract as singular means of defining the work of the cross. His answer attempted to be wholistic and focused on humanity’s mandate from Genesis 1. That the cross was the culmination of Israel’s story.
I agree with Wright and think the cross is more than a theological microcosm, but I couldn’t nail down his answer as to what actually happened on the cross. The reality is that it is a mystery, even still, I would’ve liked to have more clarity than confusion after finishing the book.
I really appreciated his final chapter on mission. Wright distinguished between mission and evangelism. While we are all called to both, the two do not share the same meaning. Therefore, living “on mission” in light of the cross - seeing the world through the eyes of the cross and resurrection - looks different than “evangelizing.”
It could just be weakness in me, but the wholistic vision of mission (beyond merely evangelism) inspires me so much more to participate in and advance forward the kingdom of God in my community and across the world.
September 24, 2020
N.T. Wright has quickly become one of my most trusted theologians. His work on soteriology and eschatology has answered questions which I held deep inside and only in doubting moments confronted (due to some type of western charismatic indoctrination i suppose).
Here's what he does so well: he makes the beautiful story beautiful again. In the post-enlightenment, Christianity has become either intellectually convoluted (I'm looking at many Calvinist theologians and the subsequent responding Arminian's) or overly simplistic (much of my tradition has offered little theology to explain how the whole thing works, "but trust us - it does or you go to hell"). I've fallen into both these traps for much of my life, swinging from one to the other depending on my season of life. But then comes N.T. Wright, whose work has, for me, framed the whole Christian narrative, and my part in it, in a historical and ever evolving story. The "invitation" into this story strikes me as so profoundly beautiful and meaningful and fulfilling, and is the antidote to the simplistic "invitation" offered at alter-calls I've spent my life around.
So, while I still think this books leaves some of the "how" to be desired and can get repetitive, I'm very, very grateful for it.
Here's what he does so well: he makes the beautiful story beautiful again. In the post-enlightenment, Christianity has become either intellectually convoluted (I'm looking at many Calvinist theologians and the subsequent responding Arminian's) or overly simplistic (much of my tradition has offered little theology to explain how the whole thing works, "but trust us - it does or you go to hell"). I've fallen into both these traps for much of my life, swinging from one to the other depending on my season of life. But then comes N.T. Wright, whose work has, for me, framed the whole Christian narrative, and my part in it, in a historical and ever evolving story. The "invitation" into this story strikes me as so profoundly beautiful and meaningful and fulfilling, and is the antidote to the simplistic "invitation" offered at alter-calls I've spent my life around.
So, while I still think this books leaves some of the "how" to be desired and can get repetitive, I'm very, very grateful for it.
February 4, 2020
This was my first N.T. Wright book. I appreciated all his major points. And I will be reading more of his works. My criticism is minor: his writing could certainly be improved with less repetition, and a taming of the rhetoric of “I’m just about the only one in Christianity saying this.” But, that aside, I’m glad I finally began reading his contributions.
July 25, 2025
I’ll let the man himself summarize it:
“…when the New Testament tells us the meaning of the cross, it gives us not a system, but a story; not a theory, but a meal and an act of humble service; not a celestial mechanism for punishing sin and taking people to heaven, but an earthly story of a human Messiah who embodies and incarnates Israel’s God and who unveils his glory in bringing his kingdom to earth as in heaven.”
“…when the New Testament tells us the meaning of the cross, it gives us not a system, but a story; not a theory, but a meal and an act of humble service; not a celestial mechanism for punishing sin and taking people to heaven, but an earthly story of a human Messiah who embodies and incarnates Israel’s God and who unveils his glory in bringing his kingdom to earth as in heaven.”
February 21, 2020
Wright has added to so much to the church's thinking concerning the resurrection and is keen for Christians to treat the Bible carefully. This is certainly a book that should get you thinking from someone keen to serve the church. To that end, some of the application in the final two chapters of this book is wonderful!
However, overall, this is a very confusing book!
There are several big problems with it:
-Wright only ever interacts with a straw-man that nobody would recognise in themselves
-Wright fails to show how his model is different from what he is decrying in ways other than semantics
-by constantly using "it's not just that... but rather...," Wright effectively distances himself from what he says is important and obvious but not worth saying, so that he never actually articulates the basics of the gospel.
-Wright does not use any footnotes or meaningfully engage with any previous work on the subject, so it feels like he is the only one who has ever written on the cross
-it is very poorly edited, so there is an awful lot of repetition! Not sure there is 400 pages worth here!
But, worst of all, after rejecting the parody of penal substitution, Wright fails to answer the question of HOW God gained the victory when Jesus died for our sins according to the Bible. He just asserts that he did.
This is not a very persuasive book at all. One feels like Wright may have simply locked himself in a room and written it in one 2 week session.
I would heartily recommend Stott's "Cross of Christ" as an alternative, as it is clear, humble and thorough.
-Decent summary of the material: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
-This is about his "Justification" book but seems to hit the nail on the head concerning Wright's work elsewhere:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/re...
However, overall, this is a very confusing book!
There are several big problems with it:
-Wright only ever interacts with a straw-man that nobody would recognise in themselves
-Wright fails to show how his model is different from what he is decrying in ways other than semantics
-by constantly using "it's not just that... but rather...," Wright effectively distances himself from what he says is important and obvious but not worth saying, so that he never actually articulates the basics of the gospel.
-Wright does not use any footnotes or meaningfully engage with any previous work on the subject, so it feels like he is the only one who has ever written on the cross
-it is very poorly edited, so there is an awful lot of repetition! Not sure there is 400 pages worth here!
But, worst of all, after rejecting the parody of penal substitution, Wright fails to answer the question of HOW God gained the victory when Jesus died for our sins according to the Bible. He just asserts that he did.
This is not a very persuasive book at all. One feels like Wright may have simply locked himself in a room and written it in one 2 week session.
I would heartily recommend Stott's "Cross of Christ" as an alternative, as it is clear, humble and thorough.
-Decent summary of the material: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
-This is about his "Justification" book but seems to hit the nail on the head concerning Wright's work elsewhere:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/re...
April 17, 2019
“The Day The Revolution Began” presents some very big ideas concerning the death of Jesus, which naturally have incredibly deep and wide-spread implications for theology. And as others have mentioned, whilst it may not be Wright’s clearest and best articulated work, it is likely among his most important. An example of this seeming lack of clarity can be found in his assessment of the sacrificial language within some atonement theories as being pagan in nature. The issue being that when he does mention scriptures which do use sacrificial language, he does not always explicitly map out the alternative way to understand them.
Furthermore, Wright spends much time writing in his charismatic and conversational form, crafting lofty theological ideas into a flowing and accessible style. Which although it is inviting, can also create a circular and repetitive feel, which can confuse and exhaust the reader.
.
Comments on style aside, Wright does well to include overviews of theological terms, as well as brief accounts of the relevant histories of their reception.
The following are some of the key terms that he shapes and employs across his arguments:
.
“Works Contract” = the atonement theologies which inaccurately interpret Jesus’ work on the cross as having removed humanity’s moral failures and then imputing Jesus’ own morality back to humanity. I.E. a transaction of good deeds/works.
Along with this Wright also has to clarify how “sin” should be understood within the ancient world - not as moral deficiency, or demerits that result in being punished with death. Rather he claims that sin is missing the target, specifically of the vocation to be fully human, and this off-course trajectory leads to the consequence of death.
.
“Covenant Vocation” = that humanity was made to be image bearers within creation and to steward it on behalf of God, participating in his rescue mission to bring creation back to himself. Thus being fully human and successfully performing the vocation that we were created for.
.
“Representative substitution” = Jesus taking the consequence of Sin (death) upon himself only to defeat it, and break its hold over humanity. (perhaps it could be considered of as “Consequential atonement”?) This continues with the thought that death is not the punishment for moral failure (works contract), but rather the consequence of the failure to be properly human (covenant vocation).
This is further shaped by Wright’s argument that there is no biblical, historical, or anthropological support to say that ancient Jews or Christians thought of atonement along the pagan lines of killing an animal to bear the penalty or punishment of the moral failure of the sacrificer.
.
Whilst the differences above may seem slight, the implications are quite large, particularly affecting whether we see God as (1) an angry father wanting to punish moral deficiency, and thus pleased to brutalise his own son as part of a transactional payment, or (2) as a benevolent king who is trying to save his people from the consequences of their failure to be properly human, which is leading them off a cliff to their deaths.
.
Moving forward, one of the more helpful aspects of Wright’s unpacking of atonement is that he strives to create a wholistic approach which recognises the importance of including eschatology as an integral part of this study.
(I have often been confused as to why some theological movements have had such strong views on atonement theories and yet comparatively deficient views concerning eschatology.)
Wright’s model does makes sense that atonement would be shaped for the ancient communities by both, their understanding of covenant, as well as their eschatological expectations.
.
Lastly, as is the norm with Wright’s popular books, the final section is directed toward application - or as he is often fond of putting it, the big “so what?!” of it all.
Here he is at his most inspirational, and through the recalling of modern history and vivid analogies, he is able to bring the previous chapters into practical forms for the reader. He is able to bring his theory to life, even to the point of naming the “new gods” - who are simply just old gods (Sex, Money, and Power) with a makeover - that we have given over our authority and vocation to.
This notion of worshiping Aphrodite through our smart phones, and Mammon through our use of capital, etc... is an inspired application - à la Gaiman’s ‘American Gods’ - that reveals our modern problems to be shiny remixes of ancient ones; ones which require an ancient crucifix-shaped solution.
.
I highly recommend this book, even though it can be quite tedious in places.
In closing here are some final thoughts from Wright:
“if we see the human vocation simply as the “works contract,” then we are likely to regard moral failures as merely the breaking of particular rules. They are much more than that. They are a refusal to follow the script for the great new drama in which we have been given our parts to learn. A sinning Christian is like someone walking on stage and reciting the lines that belonged in yesterday’s play... And part of that vocation is precisely to celebrate Jesus as Lord on the territory where other gods have been worshipped. When it comes to Mammon, we need to know how to use money, particularly how to give it away. When it comes to Aphrodite, we need to know how to celebrate and sustain marriage, how to celebrate and sustain celibacy, and how to counsel and comfort those who, in either state, find themselves overwhelmed with conflicting and contrary desires.” (397)
.
“when the New Testament tells us the meaning of the cross, it gives us not a system, but a story; not a theory, but a meal and an act of humble service; not a celestial mechanism for punishing sin and taking people to heaven, but an earthly story of a human Messiah who embodies and incarnates Israel’s God and who unveils his glory in bringing his kingdom to earth as in heaven.”
(415)
Furthermore, Wright spends much time writing in his charismatic and conversational form, crafting lofty theological ideas into a flowing and accessible style. Which although it is inviting, can also create a circular and repetitive feel, which can confuse and exhaust the reader.
.
Comments on style aside, Wright does well to include overviews of theological terms, as well as brief accounts of the relevant histories of their reception.
The following are some of the key terms that he shapes and employs across his arguments:
.
“Works Contract” = the atonement theologies which inaccurately interpret Jesus’ work on the cross as having removed humanity’s moral failures and then imputing Jesus’ own morality back to humanity. I.E. a transaction of good deeds/works.
Along with this Wright also has to clarify how “sin” should be understood within the ancient world - not as moral deficiency, or demerits that result in being punished with death. Rather he claims that sin is missing the target, specifically of the vocation to be fully human, and this off-course trajectory leads to the consequence of death.
.
“Covenant Vocation” = that humanity was made to be image bearers within creation and to steward it on behalf of God, participating in his rescue mission to bring creation back to himself. Thus being fully human and successfully performing the vocation that we were created for.
.
“Representative substitution” = Jesus taking the consequence of Sin (death) upon himself only to defeat it, and break its hold over humanity. (perhaps it could be considered of as “Consequential atonement”?) This continues with the thought that death is not the punishment for moral failure (works contract), but rather the consequence of the failure to be properly human (covenant vocation).
This is further shaped by Wright’s argument that there is no biblical, historical, or anthropological support to say that ancient Jews or Christians thought of atonement along the pagan lines of killing an animal to bear the penalty or punishment of the moral failure of the sacrificer.
.
Whilst the differences above may seem slight, the implications are quite large, particularly affecting whether we see God as (1) an angry father wanting to punish moral deficiency, and thus pleased to brutalise his own son as part of a transactional payment, or (2) as a benevolent king who is trying to save his people from the consequences of their failure to be properly human, which is leading them off a cliff to their deaths.
.
Moving forward, one of the more helpful aspects of Wright’s unpacking of atonement is that he strives to create a wholistic approach which recognises the importance of including eschatology as an integral part of this study.
(I have often been confused as to why some theological movements have had such strong views on atonement theories and yet comparatively deficient views concerning eschatology.)
Wright’s model does makes sense that atonement would be shaped for the ancient communities by both, their understanding of covenant, as well as their eschatological expectations.
.
Lastly, as is the norm with Wright’s popular books, the final section is directed toward application - or as he is often fond of putting it, the big “so what?!” of it all.
Here he is at his most inspirational, and through the recalling of modern history and vivid analogies, he is able to bring the previous chapters into practical forms for the reader. He is able to bring his theory to life, even to the point of naming the “new gods” - who are simply just old gods (Sex, Money, and Power) with a makeover - that we have given over our authority and vocation to.
This notion of worshiping Aphrodite through our smart phones, and Mammon through our use of capital, etc... is an inspired application - à la Gaiman’s ‘American Gods’ - that reveals our modern problems to be shiny remixes of ancient ones; ones which require an ancient crucifix-shaped solution.
.
I highly recommend this book, even though it can be quite tedious in places.
In closing here are some final thoughts from Wright:
“if we see the human vocation simply as the “works contract,” then we are likely to regard moral failures as merely the breaking of particular rules. They are much more than that. They are a refusal to follow the script for the great new drama in which we have been given our parts to learn. A sinning Christian is like someone walking on stage and reciting the lines that belonged in yesterday’s play... And part of that vocation is precisely to celebrate Jesus as Lord on the territory where other gods have been worshipped. When it comes to Mammon, we need to know how to use money, particularly how to give it away. When it comes to Aphrodite, we need to know how to celebrate and sustain marriage, how to celebrate and sustain celibacy, and how to counsel and comfort those who, in either state, find themselves overwhelmed with conflicting and contrary desires.” (397)
.
“when the New Testament tells us the meaning of the cross, it gives us not a system, but a story; not a theory, but a meal and an act of humble service; not a celestial mechanism for punishing sin and taking people to heaven, but an earthly story of a human Messiah who embodies and incarnates Israel’s God and who unveils his glory in bringing his kingdom to earth as in heaven.”
(415)
July 20, 2018
It may only be mid-July, but this book is an early contender for the best book I'll read all year. N.T. Wright has important words to say how we consider what Jesus' death means for us, how the early church interpreted it, and how that changes how we are to live our lives today. He writes clearly and beautifully, and deconstructs the Platonized ideologies that the church has blindly embraced. I have nothing more to say than- read this book.
May 17, 2024
As this is my first book that I have read written by N.T. Wright and the first concerning the meaning of Jesus's death, I can neither criticize nor fully support all the arguments that he has expounded in this book, so my review will for the most part be a summary of N. T. Wright's main ideas.
In order to understand the meaning of the death of Jesus Christ, N. T. Wright proposses that we must first look to its setting, how and why it took place.
Jesus was killed on the cross. This was a common torture device used by the Romans to punish rebels and slaves that would put in jeopardy the peace and security of the Empire. N. T. Wright describes in great detail the cruelty with which the Romans applied this punishment and the excruciating pain of this chastisement, quoting ancient sources such as Josephus, Cicero, Seneca, etc.
N. T. Wright then presents shortly the early Jewish setting of Jesus's death. One of the many reasons N. T. Wright calls it a revolution is because it was unexpected and contrary to the Jewish beliefs of that time. In the Jewish mindset, it was difficult to perceive the Messiah as a suffering Messiah that would die such a gruesome death. However, further down the road, N T Wright demonstrates that there were, in fact Jews who were familiar to some extent with the idea of a suffering savior. The author advances this idea by looking at the books of the Maccabes, where martyrs would pledge their lifes as sacrifice for the ransom of the nation, thinking that their sacrifice will stave off the wrath of God.
The author then tackles the early Christians' understanding of the death of Jesus and their interpretation of Scripture, which states that "the Messiah died for our sins in accordance with the Bible." N. T. Wright portrays modern theology as being too Platonized and paganized. The common perception of Christians is that the goal is heaven, and sin is the problem. This leads people to believe that the destiny of humans is to escape this earthly realm and ascend to the heavens. Further, if Jesus was offered as the sacrificial Lamb, just to appease the anger of Israel's God, it would undermine the entire salvific work of God and N. T. Wright calls this a "works contract." The author does not deny the problem of sin but rather emphasises the problem of idolatry. From the beginning, God initiated something that N. T. Wright calls the "covenant of vocation," meaning that humans were meant to be "image-bearers" of God's universal rule and embody the wisdom of His stewardship. Through the original sin, mankind had traded its vocation and authority granted by God to the powers and authorities, perverting the human being. Jesus, through the cross, would resolve this problem by granting mankind a new vocation to be a "royal priesthood " and worshipping stewards in the "new heavens and new earth."
Then N. T. Wright looks to the four gospels and several of Paul's letters in order to shed light on the meaning of Jesus's death. Most of his attention is focused on the Epistle to the Romans, where he furthers his arguments. Wright states that Romans has been read in a distorted way concerning the death of Jesus and his atoning work, missing the true meaning of the cross. His exposition of the relevant passages for the meaning of Jesus's death is extensive here. This is why I will not attempt to reproduce them here. Otherwise, the review would be too long.
The final section of Wright's book is reserved for the Church's misson in light of the Christians' "covenant vocation."
One critique that I will bring is that some of N. T. Wright's arguments were repetitive, and it was tiresome to see them all over the place.
All in all, N. T. Wright's book is a great exposition of a fresh perspective (for me at least) concerning the meaning of Jesus's death and work at the cross.
In order to understand the meaning of the death of Jesus Christ, N. T. Wright proposses that we must first look to its setting, how and why it took place.
Jesus was killed on the cross. This was a common torture device used by the Romans to punish rebels and slaves that would put in jeopardy the peace and security of the Empire. N. T. Wright describes in great detail the cruelty with which the Romans applied this punishment and the excruciating pain of this chastisement, quoting ancient sources such as Josephus, Cicero, Seneca, etc.
N. T. Wright then presents shortly the early Jewish setting of Jesus's death. One of the many reasons N. T. Wright calls it a revolution is because it was unexpected and contrary to the Jewish beliefs of that time. In the Jewish mindset, it was difficult to perceive the Messiah as a suffering Messiah that would die such a gruesome death. However, further down the road, N T Wright demonstrates that there were, in fact Jews who were familiar to some extent with the idea of a suffering savior. The author advances this idea by looking at the books of the Maccabes, where martyrs would pledge their lifes as sacrifice for the ransom of the nation, thinking that their sacrifice will stave off the wrath of God.
The author then tackles the early Christians' understanding of the death of Jesus and their interpretation of Scripture, which states that "the Messiah died for our sins in accordance with the Bible." N. T. Wright portrays modern theology as being too Platonized and paganized. The common perception of Christians is that the goal is heaven, and sin is the problem. This leads people to believe that the destiny of humans is to escape this earthly realm and ascend to the heavens. Further, if Jesus was offered as the sacrificial Lamb, just to appease the anger of Israel's God, it would undermine the entire salvific work of God and N. T. Wright calls this a "works contract." The author does not deny the problem of sin but rather emphasises the problem of idolatry. From the beginning, God initiated something that N. T. Wright calls the "covenant of vocation," meaning that humans were meant to be "image-bearers" of God's universal rule and embody the wisdom of His stewardship. Through the original sin, mankind had traded its vocation and authority granted by God to the powers and authorities, perverting the human being. Jesus, through the cross, would resolve this problem by granting mankind a new vocation to be a "royal priesthood " and worshipping stewards in the "new heavens and new earth."
Then N. T. Wright looks to the four gospels and several of Paul's letters in order to shed light on the meaning of Jesus's death. Most of his attention is focused on the Epistle to the Romans, where he furthers his arguments. Wright states that Romans has been read in a distorted way concerning the death of Jesus and his atoning work, missing the true meaning of the cross. His exposition of the relevant passages for the meaning of Jesus's death is extensive here. This is why I will not attempt to reproduce them here. Otherwise, the review would be too long.
The final section of Wright's book is reserved for the Church's misson in light of the Christians' "covenant vocation."
One critique that I will bring is that some of N. T. Wright's arguments were repetitive, and it was tiresome to see them all over the place.
All in all, N. T. Wright's book is a great exposition of a fresh perspective (for me at least) concerning the meaning of Jesus's death and work at the cross.
July 5, 2025
This book was great. I would definitely say to read this after surprised by hope as it’s written in the same popular level style. This book was a great explanation of what the cross is and what happened the day Jesus died. Wright really does not like how the cross has been spoken of in Christian thought as of recently and aims to correct this notion that God is mad-God mad at me because I made him mad (somehow??? Sin I guess.)- Jesus so good so God kill him instead of me- now I get to go to heaven when I die and God not mad anymore. Even if there some almost true things in this over-simplification of this certain model of the cross, wright takes all of these categories and puts them in their actual ANE context. Anyway this book was really good. Definitely read if you are curious about the cross and what actually happened/ implications of that happening.
August 1, 2020
Incredible, refreshing, revolutionary take indeed on the crucifixion. I was so delighted to discover a truly novel understanding of the gospel that got me excited! What an amazing story we have! And yet, as much as I appreciated Wright's insight, I found this book a little tortuous to work though; it's long and wordy and follows many side trails. So content, five stars. I just wish it could be written in a more easily-readable format.
February 22, 2022
N.T Wright’s historical and biblical analysis of what the crucifixion of Jesus meant is the best I’ve ever read/heard. This book and his book on the resurrection “surprised by hope” are two books I wish everyone could/would read, especially those in a ministry role.
January 5, 2026
Wright brings his masterful analysis to the discussion of the atonement. One unique epistemological feature he brings is starting with the Gospels’ understanding of Jesus’s death. A must read for anyone struggling to understand why the death of Jesus matters.
November 10, 2019
Another great book from Wright. Many of his thoughts are repetitive from past books but plenty of new material for the Wright follower.
February 29, 2024
Pretty complex but so worth the read. Wright says some really good stuff about the meaning of Christs death. He also has some hot takes about how the modern west has ignored the concept of “on earth as it is in heaven” and the consequences of it and I happen to agree with him. anyway, always love Tom xoxo
April 1, 2022
1A) Read this book
1B) Read this book in tandem with “Paul Among Jews and Gentiles” by Krister Stendahl.
1B) Read this book in tandem with “Paul Among Jews and Gentiles” by Krister Stendahl.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 358 reviews