Paul: In Fresh Perspective

by N.T. Wright (Editor)

The letters of the Apostle Paul changed the world like no others before or since, and they continue to strike us afresh with their panoramic vision of human history and destiny. Preeminent New Testament scholar and churchman N. T. Wright here offers a fresh perspective on the Apostle Paul's content and convictions. Wright ranks Paul as "one of the most powerful and seminal minds of the first or any century," endlessly engaging and perennially elusive. Yet, with recent research, Wright argues, we can now sketch with confidence a new and more nuanced picture of the Apostle and the radical way in which his encounter with Jesus redefined his life, his whole thought-world, his mission, and his expectations for a world made new in Christ. The a masterful, engaging, and enlightening portrait that situates Paul in his time and for our own.

Genres: Theology, Biblical Studies, Christian, Nonfiction, Religion, New Testament, Christianity

195 pages, Paperback

First published November 14, 2005

About the author

N. 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.

Reviews

[Brett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Historically, the Apostle Paul found himself at the crossroads of Greek, Roman, and Jewish perspectives. While his writings clearly interact with each of these traditions, Paul must be seen primarily as reworking historical Jewish theology (esp. creation, covenant, messiah, apocalyptic). Wright argues that Paul’s theology, ecclesiology, and eschatology are drawn directly from the Old Testament, but are redefined along Trinitarian lines (i.e. how the Messiah and the Spirit reshaped our understanding of each). What is more, Wright argues, all the while Paul must be seen as contrasting Jesus to the rampant paganism of Greco-Roman culture (e.g. emperor worship). While his conclusions have upset many, who claim that he has devalued Paul’s emphasis on salvation by faith, Wright’s scholarship remains solid throughout the book (although Wright will find little support from church history). In all, Wright offers an engaging read with much fodder for further thought and conversation. A

[Bill Forgeard · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a wannabe historian, I love N.T. Wright's attention to the first century context of the New Testament. His "overarching Biblical meta-narrative" seems to me a lot like the Biblical Theology of Graham Goldsworthy, Christopher Wright etc. which has been fundamental to my own understanding of the Bible. He writes with clarity and freshness, and throws around hearty criticisms at anyone who catches his attention, which keeps things interesting! (If you can figure out who exactly he is disagreeing with). Regarding the big issue of justification, my cautious and uninformed conclusion (since this is first I've read from N.T Wright on the topic) is that it seems to have more to do terminology than theology. Because Wright builds his own categories from scratch, drawing them from the Jewish backgrounds to the New Testament (which is one of his greatest strengths), it's easy to misunderstand him. If you're interested in wading through the 1000 word book review I wrote for my M.Div, see below.

------------------------

Paul in Fresh Perspective is a concise summary of N. T. Wright’s controversial and provocative perspective on Pauline theology. It was originally presented in lectures form and occasional colloquialisms remain. It is academic enough to not be described as popular, yet much more accessible than his major academic works. Wright has avoided footnotes for the most part, yet the text is quite dense, particularly in exegetical sections. The book is well organized, with an introduction, three chapters discussing unifying themes that undergird Pauline thought, three chapters outlining major topical divisions of Pauline theology, and a conclusion. Wright manages to present a reasonably comprehensive coverage of Paul in only 195 pages, containing a good deal of exegesis yet rarely getting bogged down. He is a gifted wordsmith who writes with clarity and freshness and as a result he produces theology and exegesis that is accessible and often inspiring. The book presumes at least an introductory knowledge of Pauline theology, and Wright is equally at home criticising mainstream liberal scholarship as well as conservative evangelical scholarship.

Chapter One, ‘Paul’s World and Paul’s Legacy’, displays Wright’s greatest strength and the most distinctive feature of his writing. That is, the painstakingly close attention he gives to the first century context of the New Testament. Wright explains that Paul lived in three worlds: Second Temple Judaism, Hellenistic culture and Roman Imperialism while in fact belonging to a fourth world, “the family of the Messiah” (6). The rest of the book examines the interplay between these various worlds. “For Paul, to be ‘in the Messiah’ … meant embracing an identity rooted in Judaism, lived out in the Hellenistic world, and placing a counter claim against Caesar’s aspiration to world domination” (6).

Wright then discusses the importance of narrative in his understanding of Paul, a natural consequence of his focus on Paul’s Old Testament heritage. He argues that Paul’s message exists in the context of the overall biblical metanarrative, continuing with the Old Testament but decisively reshaped by the coming of Jesus. This is “how stories worked in the ancient world … a small allusion could and did summon up an entire implicit narrative” (8). This is another foundational element of Wright’s approach, and echoes throughout the entire book. “Understanding what that story is and how this chapter is indeed a radically new moment within it provides one of the central clues to everything else [Paul] says” (9).

In the chapters two, three and four, Wright draws significant themes from this overarching metanarrative that inform and illuminate our understanding of Paul. First he examines the Creation and Covenant. On one hand the covenant addressed the problem of sin in the created world, yet on the other the Creator God is called on to solve the failings of the covenant. Wright proposes that in Pauline thought, the Creator has acted to fulfil the covenant in Christ and to renew both creation and covenant. These twin themes “offer a context, an implicit narrative, within which we can grasp” Paul’s thought.

Chapter three pairs the related themes of Messiah and Apocalyptic. Wright demonstrates that Paul believed Jesus to be the long awaited Jewish Messiah. Wright argues that as a result, Paul’s outlook is much more apocalyptic than usually realised. “Paul believes that the ultimate, dramatic apocalypse, the great unveiling of all God’s mysteries … has already come about in and through the events concerning the Messiah, Jesus” (52). Wright draws out the tension between the continuity evident in the Messiah’s long awaited coming and the discontinuity of the unexpected and shocking events of the cross. This introduces Wright’s third thematic pair, Gospel and Empire. Since Jesus was the Messianic Lord of all, Paul framed his message in a way that deliberately subverted Imperial Roman Ideology. In brief, “Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not” (69). Ideas like freedom, justice, peace, salvation, gospel, the climax of history and the divine Son of God, all which were evident in Imperial propaganda, were thus contrasted sharply with the claims of Christ.

Having laid these thematic foundations, in chapters five, six and seven Wright outlines systematic categories for organising Pauline theology. He adopts the same structure in each chapter. The Jewish origins of the doctrine are outlined before the bulk of each chapter searches various New Testament texts for Paul’s redefinition of each topic in light of the coming of Jesus and of the Spirit. Finally, in each chapter Wright outlines the implications for reading the Old Testament, interacting with paganism and the everyday life of the church.

Chapter five, Rethinking God, examines Paul’s reframing of Jewish Monotheism to incorporate both Jesus and the Spirit. Chapter six, Reworking God’s People, concerns the topic of election and Paul’s emphasis on the extension of membership in God’s on justification, arguing that justification refers not to the moment of conversion but to God’s declaration following conversion that someone belongs to his people. Chapter seven, Reimagining God’s Future, examines Pauline eschatology, which Wright says remained “deeply Jewish in it’s shape and emphasis” but had now been fulfilled in Jesus. He traces the elements of Jewish eschatology that Paul believed had already been fulfilled in Christ, plus those now promised in Christ but yet to occur. Finally he notes the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit which enabled believers to live out their justification.

Chapter 8, Jesus, Paul and the task of the Church, is a collection of leftovers in which Wright defends the different emphases of Jesus and Paul, discusses Paul’s apostolic calling and makes some brief contemporary applications.

Paul: In Fresh Perspective is an insightful and original treatment of Pauline theology. N T. Wright can be difficult to evaluate, particularly because he characteristically constructs his own categories rather than utilising conventional points of reference. Because he genuinely engages with mainstream scholarship rather than dismissing it out of hand, he treads territory that may be uncomfortable for some conservative readers. His cheerful willingness to launch criticisms at all comers also adds to the air of controversy that surrounds him. Yet despite this, he is far from unorthodox, and is rightly described as a “traditionalist Bible scholar”. Wright has significant contributions to make to Pauline scholarship. His focus on the New Testament’s first century context illuminates many difficult passages. Likewise, the Biblical metanarrative which is always on view informs and draws together the various themes within Pauline theology. Paul: In Fresh Perspective is engaging, challenging, remarkably thorough and at times inspiring.

[Jordan Carl · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don’t have the desire, time, or knowledge to mount a full scale attack against Dr. Wright as it relates to his interpretation of justification by faith as God’s Covenantal faithfulness in Christ to fulfill all his promises, especially those to the Abrahamic covenant. I will leave that work in the capable hands of many gifted biblical scholars such as Thomas Schreiner, DA Carson, Michael Horton, Peter T O’Brian, Guy Waters and countless others. Let it suffice to say, I find some of Wrights arguments persuasive and helpful, especially as they relate to biblical theological development of covenant, messiah, and apocolyptic, as well as the provincial application and our working of his Pauline reimagined inaugurated eschatology. While I can see some value in these elements of his work, I wholesale reject his view of faith in God’s Covenantal faithfulness as the means by which one is “identified” as part of the people of God and followed naturally and necessarily by the good works produced by the spirit of God as the final means of justification. This two stage, initial and final justification is outside the pale of Protestant orthodoxy (Yes I understand even in the Reformed tradition there is some nuanced position on initial and final justification. I am not talking about the Francis Turretin and John Piper version of final justification. I agree there is room here for the intramural reformed debate as to how works relate to final judgement and justification) and fails on multiple levels. I don’t want to caricature his position, but at the end of the day his theological development inevitably leads one to stand before the final judgement throne of God on the basis of one’s own works. Anyone who has parented a toddler, with all the sinful attitudes and actions that are cognate with said work, knows a final justification of works could only lead to complete and utter despair. We must stand on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. Wright thinks we will ultimately stand in our works. It is puzzling to me that he wants to hold fast to the single aspect of imputation of our sin to Christ while abandoning the true hope of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. Again, some good stuff here but don’t be drawn into the NPP, it will lead you right back to Rome.

I did appreciate his historical analysis and the topographical road map he built of Paul’s intersecting Jewish, Roman, Greek, and Christian contexts. This historical help does add texture and layers to some of Paul’s more difficult works (Galatians and Romans) which I think are helpful.

Finally, Wright presents his work as exclusively and uniquely novel on almost every level. This reveals at worst a disingenuous heart (which I choose not to believe about my Christian brother) and at best a wildly ignorant understanding of Reformed theology in all its breadth and depth. For example, much of what Wright presents as unique to himself can be found, at least in incipient form, in the great Reformd theologian Geerhardus Vos. Thankfully, Vos was able to unpack much of what Wright attempted to do in this book while maintaining the orthodox position on justification. I believe this is because Vos, unlike Wright, was not only a Biblical theologian but also a phenomenal systematician. Vos succeeds where Wright fails because he was able to look through the two lenses of biblical theology and systematic theology over and against Wright who attempts to develop his theology in the vacuum of biblical theological while eschewing the guardrails of systematics.

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've rated this book four-stars, not because I found myself in four-fifths agreement with Wright, although on some issues it would come close to it, but because this is a mostly clear and articulated version of the "new perspective" on Paul. (However, even Wright sometimes shunned to use that term, wanting to distance himself both from the "old perspective" and the "old new perspective". I recommend this book with reservations: those who are equipped to study this topic in depth and are grounded in systematic theology and historic theology ought to pick this up and broaden their understanding of contemporary theology; those who are not should think very carefully before picking this up, as it is at times hard to read and at other times difficult to swallow, if one does not carefully examine Wright's reasoning.

[Jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great overview of Paul and Wright's interesting perspective on Pauline theology. For anyone looking to see what all of the fuss about Tom Wright is about, I would suggest this book long before I suggested his infinitely longer Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Everything he says therein is contained in this book, which offers a fresh analysis of the New Testament world and the context of the early church's mission.

[Lu Tsun · Rating 2 out of 5]

REVIEW AND CRITIQUE Wright, N. T. Paul: In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006.

In Paul: In Fresh Perspective, Wright situates Paul in the context of Hellenistic culture, Roman Empire, and Second Temple Judaism. Paul is viewed as a Second-temple Jew addressing the pagan world, as other Jews of his time, but having a special faith redefining Judaism by Jesus the Messiah.

Wright insists that narrative is the infrastructure of ancient life where people understood themselves as participants in an ongoing story—“a small allusion could and did summon up an entire implicit narrative (8).” He accepts Richard Hay’s analysis of Paul’s ecclesiastic-centered hermeneutic, and compares Paul to the second-temple Jew who has typically reshaped Israel's stories to their own situations (70). In Paul's case he reshaped those stories around Jesus the Messiah, and “echoed” the Old Testament narrative as well the Hellenistic rhetorical resources to engage in a radical critique of pagan power.

In Wright’s analysis he spotted the thematic duplex of creation and covenant, Messiah and Apocalyptic, and Gospel and Empire. Wright suggests “the themes of creation and covenant, rooted in the Old Testament and developed within second-temple Judaism., remained basic within the very Jewish thought of Paul (34).” Wright argues that the creational and covenant readings of the OT construct the context of what Paul has to say about the Law (31).


Opposing to Ernst Kaesemann, J Christian Beker and J Louis Martyn, Wright contends for a convergence between apocalyptic Judaism and the covenant. Wright suggests that "one of the things which is 'unveiled' [in apocalyptic] is precisely how the covenant has been worked out, how God has done what he said he would do, even though it doesn't look like what anyone had thought it would (53).”

Over against the imperial rhetoric that exalting the Roman Emperors as divine, in Wright’s explication, Paul was in line with an essentially Jewish political theology but exalting his Messianic theology which hailed Jesus the King, Lord, and Savior. Paul radically critiqued the imperial paganism, instead of view the Emperors as divine, viewing them of merely human being and restating their roles as the servants of God.

Critiques:

In this book Wright is fresh out a newer “new perspective” of Paul as continuation of his quest of historical Paul. In slight modification Wright expands the historical context of Paul from “second-temple Judaism in the Greco-Roman world” to “a second-temple Jew addressing the pagan culture,” incorporating more elements of the Hellenistic culture and the Roman Empire into the thought world of Paul in his analysis.

Wright is not concerned about providing detailed exegesis or backing up his arguments with more historical data, but he merely offers a “fresh perspective” as complementary to his earlier thesis, assuming the readers familiar with his three-volume work Christian Origins and the Question of God.

This expansion of historical context, however, can be risky to his hermeneutic model, for the more complicated picture can dilute Wright’s central thesis of Paul’s identity as exclusively a Jew and his utter dependence on the second-temple Judaism. Wright’s explications of the convergent themes of “creation and covenant,” “Messiah and Apocalyptic,” and “Gospel and Empire” are sometimes vague and arbitrary in his exegesis of Paul’s letters. These themes are surely interrelated in the OT, but whether there are convergent in the ways that Wright expects require historical and literary investigations in the OT and second-temple literatures. Wright skips this important procedure but quickly fills his own creative connections into the historical analysis of Paul.

The most noticeable flaw is his failure to differentiate Paul’s allusion to OT and Paul’s dependence on the second-temple development. Wright seems to view the two things as one all the time. OT is the common sources of Jewish thoughts, but Judaisms are pluralistic. They are convergent but not the same thing. Can Paul allude to OT without depending on the Jewish thoughts of his time? Likewise it is unclear whether Paul’s Messianic theology in interacting with the pagan culture is echoing the Davidic kingdom of the OT or the Jewish political theology. Wright’s argument always assumes the temporal and sequential historical development in Paul’s thoughts.

[Ben Cook · Rating 3 out of 5]

I so wanted to love this book. So many of Wrights insights are refreshing and thrilling. Particularly around Jesus fitting into and culminating the narrative of the OT.

However his conclusions go too far and threaten core reformed theological convictions particularly around justification. ‘Justification is not about how a Christian gets saved but about markers or covenant community’ is a slippery phrase to say the least. He is also often ambiguous/ Doesnt even address his thoughts on unity with Christ in terms of the imputation of how just Christ’s status but also His obedience.

Wright says so many things that are true, but he foregrounds them in a way that is very unhelpful. This has made me want to read Paul far more thoroughly and given me a fresh set of questions to ask of his texts- for that I’m grateful.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

After years away from any exploration of Christian theology or New Testament scholarship, I've recently become interested in the topic again. Quite by accident, I stumbled upon the fact that roughly half the New Testament books generally ascribed to Paul are not generally accepted as being written by Paul himself. Interested in the question, I asked a friend who is well versed in modern textual and theological matters for a good overview book. This is the book he suggested.

For someone like myself coming to this world with a largely blank slate, there are definitely positives about starting with this book. Wright gives a good overview of the consensus opinions on Paul and his writings. His explanation of the Jewish and Greek ideas driving Paul, along with his exploration of impact of the Roman Empire on Paul's thoughts and expressions, are thought-provoking. I suspect there's little new there for people with previous knowledge of the topic, but I also suspect the average Christian in the pew would learn a great deal about the context of Paul's writing by reading this book.

His discussion of the topic of justification is exceptionally intriguing to me. The question turns largely on the meaning of the phrase pistis Christou. Does it mean "faith in Christ," as modern translations suggest with near unanimity? Or does it mean "the faithfulness of Christ" as Wright and apparently many other believe? I don't know the answer to that question, nor do I think understanding the phrase as "the faithfulness of Christ" would necessarily negate the traditional Protestant understanding of justification. I do think it would give the idea more nuance and depth than is generally seen among evangelicals. It is frankly astounding to me that this sort of debate on first principles is happening within New Testament scholarship while causing hardly a ripple in the Christian community at large.

Wright's explanation of Paul's thought and ministry as a redefinition of Judaic principles into a more universal approach is an interesting one. It seems to place Paul more holistically into the world in which he lived than some other interpretations of Paul as merely a political radical or, alternatively, some sort of anti-Semitic religious reformer.

Wright spends a good bit of time arguing against views of Paul I've personally never heard expounded. This can be frustrating at times, as it seems to me unlikely that he's actually presenting the strongest of his opponents' arguments. I assume this because he occasionally lapses into straw man arguments when dealing with questions I do understand. For example, regarding the apparent dispute between the teachings of Jesus and Paul regarding the Law, he writes, "I would respectfully suggest that only someone completely divorced from the real life of actual church communities could suppose that once something definitive had been said by a recognized authority there would from that moment on be no further disputes or puzzles on the subject." I would respectfully respond that he's missing the point of those concerned over the conflict. This isn't Satya Nadella steering Microsoft in a new direction after the retirement of the founding generation. This is a religious man (Paul) significantly refining the teachings of a man Wright assures us Paul believed to be God.

And now we begin to get into the parts of the book I found not so particularly helpful. The final chapter, in which Wright unveils his own theological argument, was easily the weakest portion of the book. There wasn't much tying up of loose ends or exegesis, just broad statements, including a hermeneutic principle that for someone familiar with dispensationalism felt uncomfortably close to Scofield or Darby. To be fair, Wright may not recognize the parallel, as he emphatically dismisses modern rapture eschatology and, one supposes, dispensationalism in general in more than one place throughout the book.

For some reason, Wright felt compelled to keep the book short. Coming in under 200 pages, the book is worse off for that choice. His repeated statements of "as I have written elsewhere," followed by footnotes, felt like ads for his other books. In many cases, he could have fleshed out an argument in a few extra pages but chose not to. In an overview book like this, that felt like a huge mistake to me. A meatier 300-350 page book would have been far superior, in my opinion.

My other major complaint with the book is how stilted the language can be at times. This is the first book written in this century that I've read to use the word "anon" repeatedly and without irony. It also suffers from not being sure whether to write for the scholar (repeated references to various "isms" without definition, for instance) or to write for the layman (some of his broad generalizations and theological arguments).

All said, though, I agree with my friend that this is a good introductory book for those interested in placing Paul in his own time and understanding the points he was trying to make as his first century audience would have understood them.

[Anthony Ingram · Rating 5 out of 5]

Baller

[Jeremiah Lorrig · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoughtful and through. I appreciate that Wright does not take the reader’s knowledge or agreement for granted and carefully addresses major themes of Paul’s writings and examines and discards various approaches and theories only with thoughtful analysis and with the aim to truly understand the intent and truth of this intensely studied part of scripture.

[Kristin Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

Audiobook - listening with husband. Again, a bit over my head which fostered some great conversations. I want to read/listen to it again and look up the scriptures he references.

[Samuel Bunyard · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are several things I disagree with in this book, but I liked that it made me think about them. There are also several aspects that I agreed with and am glad to see being talked about by a more mainstream religious author.

Positives:

1. I appreciate the push to interpret the Old Testament quotes in Paul’s writings within their Old Testament contexts, rather than reading them as unrelated proof texts.

2. I appreciate the effort to understand the New Testament (especially Romans) as the continuing narrative of the Old Testament, rather than something totally different and new. So many people see the OT as all law and the NT as all grace. This approach rightly acknowledges the relationship between the two and communicates that this has been Gods plan all along.

3. I appreciate the effort to read the New Testament epistles in the context of their authors and audience. Paul being a “Pharisee of Pharisees” and a Roman citizen certainly affects the perspective from which he wrote. Writing to those living under Roman rule also makes for an interesting contrast between the Roman Empire and the Kingdom of God.

4. Wrights thoughts on Paul’s use of the word “justification” in reference to the inclusivity of Gentiles into the gospel family is an interesting rebuttal against the false claim of salvation by faith alone. I’m not sure I totally agree with him on this but the cotexts of Galatians 2-4 and Romans 4 make it interesting.

Negatives:

1. Wright subscribes to an eschatology of literal New Heavens and New Earth that will be restored by the Holy Spirit. I believe this misses the point made my Isaiah using this terminology to describe a new spiritual reality in Gods relationship to the Gentiles. NHNE refers to relationship.

2. Wright seems to think justification happens initially with faith and is vindicated by works. The scriptures teach that faith and works are married together.

3. Wrights language, like that of most scholars, betrays a low view of Paul’s inspiration. “Paul thinks…” “Paul believed…” etc., ignores the fact that every word Paul was writing was inspired of the Holy Spirit.

[Jeremy Y · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although just shy of 200 pages, this is the most dense book(let) I've read in a long time. Tom Wright, by his admission, had a series of his lectures turned into "Paul: In Fresh Perspective", where he laid out a broad but deceptively deep overview of the so-called "New Perspective on Paul." This means that if you've always been skeptical about the NPP (I really should say Wright's NPP because his is just one of the many views lumped under NPP), this book is a great place to start with.

One can expect to learn about the historical, cultural, and theological backgrounds that led to Tom Wright's career-defining contributions to Pauline scholarship. He uses simple words to trace his arguments and spends a few chapters setting the scene properly. Dr Wright traced the biblical metanarrative closely and never lost sight of the Gospel; he even managed to address what made Jesus' euangelion and Paul's euangelion seem different at a superficial level. Unlike some of his longer tomes, Paul: In Fresh Perspective is tight, but Tom didn't skimp on the footnotes. There are plenty for those who wish to examine his citations.

I couldn't stop myself from highlighting and taking notes on almost every page (which is probably why it took me so long to finish this book). This is one I'll return to often and can wholeheartedly recommend it to NT Wright fans like myself, and skeptics alike because it will be able to hold its own against criticism.

[Logan Judy · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the first book I read by N.T. Wright left me less than enthused, I found Paul: In Fresh Perspective to be full of insights and fresh context, making several aspects of Paul's letters pop for me in new and exciting ways. I came away with a view of Paul that is somehow more Jewish and more Gentile at the same time, showing ways in which both his Jewish background and the culture of his day formed important parts of his ministry, and added layers of meaning to his writing. Highly recommended.

[Reagan Vernon · Rating 3 out of 5]

For Wright, covenant is the key for unlocking Paul- a key which he claims has been forgotten for 1500 years. Wright's push for Paul to be evaluated with an apocalyptic lens is compelling. His redefinition of justification is less so.

[Vicki Tillman · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's refreshing to read a book about Paul and his theology that isn't cringeworthy. I really appreciated the historical framework for Paul's writings. I listened to the audiobook read by one of my favorite narrators: Simon Vance.

[Tim Littleford · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting, but I haven't read enough on Paul to not be super lost in large chunks.

[Brandon Hawk · Rating 3 out of 5]

Many of the propositions of Wright's book come out of his previous scholarship on the New Testament in his series on "Christian Origins and the Question of God" (see my rev. of the first book here). As such, the main goal of Wright's approach (like all of his scholarship and exegesis) is to place Paul within his first-century contexts. This framework accords, in many ways, with the "New Perspective on Paul" that arose in biblical studies in the latter half of the twentieth century--but it also pushes further, into what Wright has called a "Fresh Perspective" for interpreting the letters of Paul. What emerges is an excellent overview of both the main contexts of Paul's thought and the fundamental theology of the first-century writer.

In the first part of his book, Wright examines the three (with a fourth emerging) basic contextual worlds to which Paul belonged: 1) Second Temple Judaism; 2) Greco-Roman Hellenism; 3) Roman Imperialism; and 4) the emerging "Christianity." All of these, Wright demonstrates, worked on the basis of a specific worldview, including a central narrative, symbols, praxis, and questions (compare his lengthier discussion in The New Testament and the People of God). Yet, for Paul, these three worldviews acted as both competitive and formative upon his thinking. The main narrative with which Paul worked was that of the Old Testament story extended into his own time: "the great stories of Abraham, of Exodus, of David... and of exile and restoration... a single narrative line, containing typological recapitulations but not reducible to them, in which Paul believed that he and his contemporaries were living" (9). This is the main thread that weaves all three of the contextual worlds together in Paul's letters. Wright also establishes and analyzes the ways in which six major themes emerge from these contexts in Paul's thought: 1) Creation and Covenant ; 2) Messiah and Apocalyptic ; and 3) Gospel and Empire--and all three of "these usually differentiated strands were in fact woven tightly together into the single fabric of [Paul's] theology and life" (79).

From the latter claim, Wright moves on to part two of his book, outlining Pauline theology. He does so, however, not based on old models of systematic theologians and biblical scholars, but based on the themes already treated and demonstrated. Thus, his "fresh perspective" allows for a new way of organizing Paul's theology according to a three-fold model: 1) One God; 2) One people of God; and 3) One future for God's world. Again, all three are directly related to the worldviews and themes already established in part one.

What may be seen through this description of Wright's study is that he establishes a well-developed introductory framework by which readers of Paul's letters may benefit. The ways in which his observations align (evident in the ease with which my description of subjects may be numbered and matched up) point to the coherence and accessibility of Wright's arguments. Furthermore, for those wishing to move deeper into these claims and exegesis, Wright provides helpful notes to parallel and more in-depth examinations in his other scholarship. Through all of this, Wright especially emphasizes a need for scholars to recognize post-Reformation and post-Enlightenment assumptions and step back from these in order to better understand the first-century Paul and his letters--not a Lutheran construction of him and his beliefs. In the final chapter, Wright synthesizes his findings to put Jesus and Paul together, not to dissociate them from each other (as so many previous scholars have done), but to understand what their goals were for the early church. Thus, working against an impulse to "de-Judaize" Jesus and Paul, Wright instead works to resituate both figures within their own contexts and in relation to each other. The results are worth reading for all students of the New Testament.

[Bryon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Book title: Paul: In Fresh Perspective
Author: N.T. Wright
Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2005
Number of pages: 174

Wright sheds light on Paul and his theology that has stood off in dark shadows cast by church tradition.

Wright takes the reader on a journey through major Pauline themes, the way Paul thought, and his theology. It's not a quick trip. At least, for me it wasn't. The book is quite technical requiring a re-reading of several sections.

Wright is a controversial guy. I don't think he intends to do anything but educate, but in the process he knocks over a few theological sacred cows. The biggest debate is taking place within American Presbyterianism where one camp views Wright as incredibly edifying to the Body of Christ while another camp views Wright as dangerous to all holy thinking.

The controversy revolves around Wright's view of Justification. He argues that scripture declares that Justification is the way into God's family; it's proof that you are in. Justification is God's declaration that you are, in fact, part of His covenant family. This view undermines the traditional Reformed doctrine of imputation; at least the Calvinist tradition that is most popular in the U.S.

The book is divided into two parts: Themes and Structures. In the first part, Wright handles Creation and Covenant, Messiah and Apocalyptic, and Gospel and Empire. The second part examines Monotheism, Election, Eschatology, and concludes with the task of the church.

As always, Wright engages the reader with a compelling argument. But as I stated above, it is technical requiring slow, thoughtful reading. The book does not provide bullet points, flow charts, or cartoons. The text is adapted from the Hulsean Lectures in Cambridge University. I'm glad I had this in print form to work through rather than having to try to keep up with a lecture given at Cambridge.

An historical and theological quest is emphasized by Wright rather than merely examining Paul and his teachings in the light of one traditional view or another.

Many would say that Wright's perspective is out of balance; that examining Paul in a historical Jewish context is a mistake. His answer to that: "...we end up reading him as though [Paul] was really a 17th-century theologian born out of due time..." Wright posits that most of what we accept about Paul is based on scholarship that has been delivered to the world since the Reformation. But Paul pre-dates the Reformation.

If you're not familiar with Wright's work, this can be tough to swallow. If you want to become familiar with Wright's work, Paul: In Fresh Perspective is probably not the place to start. Although it's a tremendously good book, it's written way above what is normally consumed by Christian readers.

I am speaking for myself.

http://mondokblog.blogspot.com/2009/0...

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

He does a good job giving us a summary of what he thinks St Paul believed. It is a different book from *What St Paul Really Said.* WSPRS is a popular level introduction. This book is more scholarly, but still written in a popular vein (it was a collection of lectures). Wright's most valuable work is in bringing out themes in St Paul which our own paradigms have kept hidden. Wright is not saying that our applications of Paul (faith alone, etc) are wrong, simply they are not the questions Paul asked.

The book gives a reworking of the traditional Jewish themes of election, monotheism, creation, covenant, and eschatology. He shows how Paul reworked them around Christ. I think Wright is fairly successful in this regard.

Even the section on Justification is non-controversial. He doesn't say we are justified by works. He simply says, as even a cursory reading of Galatians makes clear, that talk of justification apart from the church is wrong-headed. The first time Justification is spoken of is in the context of Table Fellowship.

It was a good book; relatively short and easy to read.

[Stinger · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is really a 5 star book as far as scholarship and logical writing goes. There was plenty in it that was new to me, but also, because I've read and listened to N.T. Wright for several years, I was already aware of some of his thinking on Paul and the message of the gospel. Therefore, it wasn't as exciting to me as if I'd been hearing the author's arguments for the first time, but it was still solid and helpful. I recommend this book to anyone interested in knowing God and understanding Scripture more comprehensively.

[James Stewart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Readers should not be confused. Despite its slim appearance, this is not another accessible _Tom_ Wright work. Published under his academic moniker, this is in many ways an updating of _The Climax Of The Covenant_ and _What St. Paul Really Said_ with an up to date survey of contemporary Paul scholarship, and the introduction of some compelling thematic approaches to reading Paul's work.

The book was adapted from two series of lectures, and reading it I often suspected it would have more impact for those attending those lectures who were more easily able to raise questions and debate among themselves the answers. In places the book can be overly dense for the amateur reader as it skims through technical arguments. But it is by no means out of reach to those of us who don't read theology full time. While it doesn't have the immediate application that Wright's more populist works do, with its sparse length and careful use of themic metaphors, _Paul: In Fresh Perspective_ is a quick and satisfying way to get up to speed with Wright's latest thinking in this area.

[Steven Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m find in many of N.T. Wright’s you have to balance some hyperbole and straw men about the “old perspective.” Nevertheless I find the greater narrative and setting of the work of Christ and the theology of Paul to be compelling and helpful. So at times I feel like my head is swimming trying to reset some perspective and be discerning in my listening, but on the whole I believe I’ve greatly benefitted from reading if nothing else than to find topics I need more study on.

One thing I’ve definitely learned: there are whole areas of biblical scholarship that I am wholly ignorant of and which prominent scholars of their positions mean no more than names randomly drawn from a phone book. Wright’s casual summaries of these schools of thought are humbling because I’ll just have to take his word on it. I’ll likely never get around to reading them.

[Bryan Ullrich · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book serves as Tom Wright's insightful follow-up to "That Saint Paul Really Said."While it does touch upon some familiar themes, it truly stands out due to its rich incorporation of references from various writings (excluding his New Testament For Everyone series). If you're new to Wright's work, I would recommend diving into some of his other books before tackling this one.

In the first half, Wright thoughtfully examines the historical and cultural context in which Paul's theology flourished. He delves into key topics like " Reaction and Covenant,"" Messiah and Apocalyptic,"" and " Gospel and Empire, "laying them out clearly and engagingly. The first section aligns closely with his previous work, making it feel familiar yet fresh. Wright advocates for the New Perspective movement, suggesting that when Paul speaks of Israel's history, he does so with a comprehensive understanding of its significance. Thus, referencing the Exodus involves a deep appreciation of its layered meanings and symbolism.

This perspective is indeed captivating and presents a compelling argument, though some may find it not entirely definitive. For instance, the idea of painting the Forth Road Bridge is sometimes likened to a Sisyphean task, primarily focusing on the act of pushing the stone uphill without delving into the myth's deeper origins. This analogy may similarly reflect how Paul draws upon Jewish theologies of monotheism, creation, and covenant, showing a layered approach to his theological narrative. Overall, Wright's exploration invites readers to think more profoundly about these connections!

In `Messiah and Apocalyptic ', Wright redefines these terms of how he thinks Paul understood them, which may be quite different from modern usage. So one is referred strongly back to The New Testament and the People of God: 1 (Christian Origins & Ques God 1) for detail on `Apocalyptic ' and to Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God: v. 2 (Christian Origins & the Question of God) for detail on `Messiah''

In Gospel and Empire, Wright looks at the royal proclamation element of the gospel for which he has been noted, not least in Jesus and the Victory of God and, more recently, in How God Became King - Getting to the heart of the Gospels. So, if you have read either of those, there's little new here, but it's needed for completeness.

The second half of the book delves into the core of the argument. However, it is clear (and Wright acknowledges this) that this is a condensed line of reasoning, with much that either has been expanded upon elsewhere or will be expanded upon later. As such, I would warn potential readers of the book that even though it is less than 200 pages long, the content is very dense. If you gloss over a sentence, you will lose the thread. Also, Wright refers to some quite extensive passages of scripture without providing the reader with much in the way of context or explanation. So have a bible to hand.

Much of the point of view that Wright expresses is dependent upon his translation. I'm no expert in Greek, so I couldn't help but wonder if his translation was influenced by his theology and not the other way around. While I intend to read some of the detractors to the `new perspective ' movement, I would be surprised if a similar point is not raised.

The most contentious chapter, by some way, is `Reworking GGod'sPeople''where Wright looks at the doctrines of election and `justification by faith'' He brings to the rreaders'attention some of the passages of New Testament which many churches will tend to view only out of the corner of their eyes. While Romans 8 may be a favourite passage for many, chapters 9-11 of the same book may not be. He similarly notes that proponents of the New Perspective love the 2nd half of Ephesians 2, while its detractors like to focus more on the first half of the chapter.

Wright tries to steer around this debate by saying that the approach needed is all-encompassing. There ought not to be an either/or discussion, but rather a both/and way of viewing these doctrines. After all, if Paul put these next to one another in his own writings, it's unlikely he intended to be self-contradictory.

The image that formed in my mind was that of a die. You cannot see all of its faces at once. Traditional theology has been entranced by looking at the six and catching an askew glance at some of the other faces, while others remain out of sight, either on the opposite side or face down on the table. Wright wants us to pick up the die and turn it over in our hands, looking at every side. For some, this may mean losing sight temporarily of the view they have grown up with and loved for many years. But Wright is not advocating throwing away any aspects of traditional theology. Instead, he wishes to cast a new light on it. But, to mix my metaphors, adding light can also cast a shadow elsewhere. So, while the idea of justification by faith has been core to much Reformed theology, the point put forward is that it has been partially misunderstood and is also part of a bigger picture.

In writing this, Wright did not set out to answer all questions about Paul and give a holistic account of his theology. Instead, this book should be taken as a thought-provoker, inviting the reader to re-examine Paul for themselves and to go further down the pathways which Wright has sketched o. It's not an easysy read, buit's not impenetrable eitherer. So, with due caution, proceed, learn ,a nd think.

[teatunesandtales · Rating 5 out of 5]

A solid interpretation offering concrete scriptural references and historical context of the Roman and Jewish world explaining Paul's narratives in the New Testament. I've read few religious books that delved in so deeply as this one did. Wright did a splendid job providing examples and expository reasoning behind Paul's letters to the churches. Despite this being a required text for school, I enjoyed it and highly recommend it.

[Brenda · Rating 1 out of 5]

The only reason you should read N.T. Wright on this subject is to become aware, NOT to learn. And be sure you know the truth first because he is sneaky. He uses many of the right words but means something completely different because he has changed their definition. Beware...

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent starting point for diving into N.T Wright’s understanding on Paul! This book is more about breadth than depth, but that’s okay considering Wright has plenty of other works that go in depth, and more clearly contrast with other scholarly views on Paul.

[Caley · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot to think about. It would probably get 5 stars but he often cuts ideas short for the sake of length (which is probably the right choice).

[Andy De Lima · Rating 3 out of 5]

Spotless theology but I was looking for more historic context and learn about Paul in a Roman world. If your thing is Paul’s theology then this is your book.

[David Perde · Rating 3 out of 5]

Where to begin with this book? N. T. Wright proposses a new way of looking at the apostle Paul and his theology, thus he portrays Paul as being rooted in covenant and creation theology. Wright suggests that Paul's thinking is centred around this concept by pointing to the story of Abraham, perhaps the most pervasive topic found in this book. God's intetion was to bless the nations through Israel, who were supposed to function as a light for the nations but have fallen short of their commission, due to Adam's sin and thus the solution (Israel) was part of the problem. Subsequently the promises made to Abraham are fulfilled through the Messiah, Jesus Christ, to gather a people that are Abraham's family and ultimately God's familiy. This is the story that Wright says is a central idea for Paul. One thing that I would criticize is the fact the Wright undermines many pauline themes by elevating this concept. One of these undermined ideas is justification which Wright suggests does not refer to how a person becomes a Christian or how someone is made righteous in the eyes of God but rather attributes it the meaning of how a person is demonstrated to be a part of God's people. From this line of thinking Wright strips the soteriological significance of justification and conveys it a mainly ecclesiological meaning.

When discussing the relation between Paul and the Roman empire Wright asserts that Paul did not wish to overthrow the sociological system of that time (slavery, patriarchy), but instead Paul gives new focus to these issues. Wright captures the essential of Paul's mindset, that believers in Christ are a new creation and must live in accordance with the one who is working in them, that is Christ. However in this section Wright asserts that Philippians 3 (mainly drawing from verses 20-21) speaks about how believers should 'hail Christ, not Caesar, as lord'. The chapter in question mainly explores Paul's description of his experiences and his call to the Philippians to imitate him. That being said it is rather odd how Wright believes that Paul is making a point regarding the empire and Caesar, due to the fact that there is no concrete evidence to support his idea. Paul's mention that believers have a citizenship in heaven does not validate Wright's assertion and the 'enemies of the cross of Christ' cannot be directly associated with the people of the Roman Empire, as this would be too subtle of an idea.

Speaking of subtle, Wright interpreted Romans 7 to be centered not around Paul but around Israel. There have been numerous discussion regarding this subject and I believe there are good arguments on either side. That being said Wright proposses that Gal 2:18-21 also uses the same rhetorical device. Discussions about this passage are unbeknownst to me and the fact that Wright simpy implies that these two passages are cognate without providing an argument is slightly suspicious.

There may be more to say regarding this book's exegetical inconsistencies but this should not overshadow that fact that Wright expands on important subjects of Paul's theology such as covenant and creation, Messiahship, Eschatology, Election which I believe Wiright has well expounded in his book.