N. T. Wright

I see we’ve dropped the whole “Tom Wright” thing and have just kept his name consistent across the introductory and more scholarly works, which is well and good. Wright’s contributions to the New Testament For Everyone series are consistently fantastic. He opens up each section of the Gospel with some little vignette which might illustrate something within the Gospel, its application, or common life today; he then provides a high quality contextual interpretation of the passage in a show more very understandable way; and he provides appropriate questions and/or applications for modern readers to consider. I always recommend at least considering what Wright has to say and how he frames it; he really connects the text to people today quite well. show less

Summary: A close reading of Romans 8, focusing on the purpose, presence, and profound love in Christ for all who believe meant to assure them of not only their ultimate destiny but of God’s favor even as they share in the sufferings of Christ amid a groaning creation.

N.T. Wright has been studying the book of Romans for fifty years, publishing both scholarly and popular commentaries on Paul’s masterpiece, as well as drawing extensively on Romans in his Pauline scholarship. This book show more reflects both the culmination of this scholarship as well as changes in his thought through discussions with his students.

The focus of the book is on the majestic culmination in Romans 8 to Paul’s arguments in Romans 1-7. Romans 8 is indeed the heart of Romans as central in the text of the letter and key as a transition from the argument of the first seven chapters to the discussions on the calling of Israel in 9-11 and the applicatory material of chapters 12-16. But what is Paul’s conclusion and how did Wright’s thinking about it change.

We have traditionally read this chapter is one of assurance of our salvation in Christ, as those not under condemnation, as those for whom God works good in all things, and for whom nothing can separate us from God’s love in Christ. Wright would not disagree with these things, but has come to see something equally rich–the presence, power, and profound approval of God in Christ for us in the present moment. For many of Paul’s readers, even as is the case for many in the present day, the present is a time of suffering. Paul’s message is that this, in fact is their vocation, and it is one of sharing in the sufferings of Christ, that the spirit (Wright uses the lower case throughout) groans, intercedes, and empowers, and that Christians can be assured of God’s approval (and not condemnation) and God’s protection in life and death.

After introductory material setting Romans 8 in its context, Wright breaks the book into eight sections. For each section, Wright asks what the opening and closing reveals about the theme. He then looks at Paul’s connecting words to unpack the logic of his argument. He then looks at the contexts in Paul’s wider world, both Jewish and Greco-Roman, that provides resonances for what Paul is saying. A few insights I appreciated out of the wealth of material here:

Romans 8:1-4. There is no condemnation because God condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus, fulfilling what Torah could only anticipate.
Romans 8:5-11. The spirit of the risen Christ enables God’s people in the present time to please God in our bodies.
Romans 8:12-17. Wright challenges the moralizing anthropology of our Platonic notions of heaven with the idea of our vocation in the new creation, already begun in which we are God’s spirit-empowered agents. That vocation is as fellow heirs with Christ, crying “Abba” even as we share in suffering, with the hope of resurrection.
Romans 8:17-21. “The primary meanings of ‘glory’ in this passage are, simultaneously, the glorious presence of God himself dwelling within us by the spirit, and the wise, healing, reconciling rule of God’s people over the whole creation. These two — God’s presence and human rule — are made for each other. They fit together” (p. 110).
Romans 8:22-27. We enter, perhaps most deeply into our vocation, as we enter into the world’s suffering, the groaning creation, enabled by God’s spirit to pray with lament and longing.
Romans 8:28-30. Wright challenges the traditional “all things work for good” translating it rather “God works all things together for good with those who love him,” particularly in calling, justifying, and glorifying us.
Romans 8:31-34. An interesting side note in this chapter is Wright’s questioning of the Feast of Christ the King, contending that it takes away from the idea of the Ascension as Christ’s installation as King.
Romans 8:34-39. The theme of our vocation makes sense of all the “bad” things of vv. 35-36 with the assurance that none of these will separate us from the love of God in Christ.

Wright’s situating of the assurance of God’s love, approval, and protection within the vocation of Christians as sharing in Christ’s sufferings in a groaning creation profoundly deepens our reading of this powerful chapter. This is not “happy-clappy” Christianity insensitive to the world’s struggles. It is not prosperous and privileged Christianity by the standards of the world. This is a profound word for Christians who have entered into the groanings of our world and for those whose faithfulness has led to suffering, that this is not their fault, that God is with them, and even praying with them in their laments. This is a profound word that there is nothing that the world or the powers can throw in their face or their lives to part them from God. Even as God said to Israel, “I will be your God” so God says to the larger human family in Christ.

Wright is not an easy read. It was a gift to read this with a local book group, particularly one with a member deeply familiar with Wright’s work (not me) who supplemented our discussions with background material from Wright. Thanks, Dan, and all my friends, who labored to dig out the wealth of insight in this book! show less

Many years ago I was sitting high up on a mountain with a Roman Catholic nun, and she began to quote from the Psalms. She said then that something was missing if I didn't know the Psalms well enough to quote from them when an occasion like that came.

Later I was on a tour of the Jewish temple in Geneva, and stopped to admire an attractive book. It turns out that it was a book of the Psalms. Our guide talked about the book for a moment and the Psalms, and told me I was missing something if I show more didn't pray them in Hebrew.

Now N. T. Wright calls me back to the Psalms, reminding me that I need them in English, in German and in Hebrew. (It's not going to be Hebrew this year. I'm working on Greek.) But the amazing thing is that whatever language or translation I read the Psalms in, they feel like old friends and so familiar, but always fresh.

This book is very worth reading, but even more important is reading the Psalms. Wright would agree with that. On the other hand if you are strongly against praying the Psalms regularly, you probably should avoid this book. You might find yourself going against your principles. show less

Two of my favorite scholars, Marcus Borg and N. T. Wright, debate the meaning of Jesus. One is decidedly more conservative, but both are thoughtful and well-studied. And, raising hope for the future of Christianity, I would venture a guess that they are best friends despite their differences.

Wright believes the gospels are what they are “because their authors thought the events they were recording—all of them, not just some—actually happened.” This may sound self-evident to show more conservative Christians, but it is not the way Borg sees it. Two terms he uses to describe gospel writing are “metaphor historicized,” and its complement, “history metaphorized.” Borg just can’t jump on board with a literal reading of the gospels; he describes this outdated way of reading the Bible with five adjectives: literalistic, doctrinal, moralistic, exclusivistic, and afterlife oriented. This view, he says, has ceased to work for a large number of people, who find that if they must take the Bible literally, they cannot take it at all.

According to Borg, the “single most important difference” between these two scholars is their opinion about whether or not Jesus saw himself as the messiah. Wright says yes, Jesus understood his role as central to the salvation of the Jewish nation and, by extension, the world. Borg says no, Jesus’ role as messiah grew after his death and resurrection, as the understanding of his followers evolved.

In my opinion, the single most important difference in the thinking of these two scholars is not Jesus’ self-understanding, but the manner of his resurrection. Wright says Jesus rose in body, and showed himself physically to his disciples. Never mind that this new body could somehow walk through walls and disappear at will. “Resurrection,” to a Jew, meant a physical rising in body. Wright argues that only an event of this magnitude could have triggered the devotion and dedication of the Jesus movement that continued on after his death. In contrast, Borg seems unconcerned with the empty tomb, and interprets the resurrection in a more spiritual manner. I’m oversimplifying his position, but Borg sees Jesus being “raised to God’s right hand” as simply meaning Jesus has captured the position of Lord in the lives in his disciples. He is “raised up” by his followers after his death.

As I said, these are two of my favorite Jesus scholars. I believe Borg and Wright encapsulate liberal and conservative Christianity at their basic levels, and studying the two in tandem helps us appreciate the arguments of both sides. Great book! show less