Customer Reviews

Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle's Story of Redemption

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I am absolutely enamored with this book. I picked it up because I have a fascination with theories of the atonement, but on reading it I discovered that it is so much more than another book on the atonement. In fact, Brondos really rejects the whole idea of atonement theories. He doesn't want to explain how the cross "works" to achieve salvation. He wants to understand what Paul means when he talks about the cross.

This book properly fits in the recent tradition of the New Perspective on Paul. Brondos' main goal is to see if it is possible to understand Paul in a way that makes Paul's story of Jesus compatible with the story of Jesus we find in the gospels and Acts. Traditional interpretations of Paul have him presenting a gospel which is very disjointed from the story we find in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Brondos suggests a new way of reading Paul that brings these two visions of Jesus together.

It's a remarkable work. I highly recommend it.

This is an excellent book on a number of levels. First, it demonstrates effectively how vacuous Reformed views of theology tend to be. They are build on multiple generations of error and result in a truly strange view of how we are supposed to engage the Gospels and live our lives as Christians. Second, it recognizes that atonement theology based on Augustine is heavily influenced by Platonic philosophy and Gnosticism and should be discarded. As a point of contrast, he does a good job of pointing out that there are really no grounds to claim that Gnosticism had anything to do with Paul's writing. Finally, the author does a detailed job of reintegrating the message of scripture so that it makes quite simple sense.

Don't be dissuaded by Calvinists and Dispensationalists. Read it for yourself.

As a seminary student required to read this book for class, I was enthralled by this book far more so than the run of the mill required seminary reading. Brondos makes a thorough and compelling argument. I will wait for more time to digest this book, and let others do the same, before completely abandoning whatever hodgepodge of traditional atonement theory I currently hold. I pray more learned minds than mine read this book and discuss its contents with their peers. I am extremely curious what respected theologians who hold traditional atonement theories will say...

I cannot recommend this book for any serious student of the Scriptures. I have great sympathy for the author. Anyone who has put this much time and effort into a project and all he has to show for it is the theological mess that makes up the contents of this book, deserves it. There are so many errors, misunderstandings and faulty conclusions coming from a dizzying array of textual acrobatics that even a P.T. Barnum of theologians would flinch--verses taken out of context, eisegesis instead of exegesis, etc.
Since this is just a short review, I will focus on the author's premise, his foundational thesis, which goes something like this: The prophets in the Old Testament, Jesus in the Gospels, Peter and the Twelve in Acts and Paul in his Epistles all taught the exact same "story" of God. Therefore everything one of these prophets taught must align perfectly with what the others taught. His goal, then, is to shove all the pieces of Scripture together to form one unified sameness, at least according to his own lights. Of course, this is difficult to do and near impossible when it comes to Paul. To fit the square peg of Paul's teaching into the circular hole of the other writers requires a lot of effort, and you soon discover that the author is not only an acrobat but a contortionist as well.
He plunges ahead searching under any stone, nay, any pebble, nay under any speck of dust, grabbing hold of even the smallest artifact that can be manipulated into tying Paul's message to that of the Old Testament and Gospels. The reader witnessing all of this cringes at his straining, a straining that stretches every sinew to the popping-out point. This is particularly painful to observe when it comes to his forced tying together of Paul to Jesus in the Gospels because (as all recognize) Paul has remarkably little to say about Jesus' earthly ministry.

One example will suffice to see the futility of what the author is trying to accomplish. He reads Romans 11 and sees there that God has a plan for Israel and the Gentiles. Then, based on his thesis, he asserts that Paul was speaking about the same thing as the Old Testament prophets and Jesus in the Gospels even though Paul repeatedly, over-and-over again, states in places like Romans 11, Rom. 16, Eph 3, Col. 1-2 and many, many other places that he is not speaking about the same things.

The speakers in the Gospels and Peter and the 12 in early Acts, all repeatedly, over-and-over again, insist that they are preaching Jesus Christ according to Prophecy in the Old Testament, something that had been spoken about since the world began. This prophetic message provided for Gentile blessing through Israel's RISE (Lk. 1:70; Acts 2-3). Paul, however, insists that this is not what he was preaching. He was preaching Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the Mystery, something that had not been spoken about since the world began, something that had been kept secret since the world began,(hid in God not the Scriptures as the author suggests). This Secret (but now revealed) message provided for Gentile blessing not because of Israel's rise but in spite of her FALL!

Where Peter preached his expectation that Christ would return and establish His righteous kingdom on earth, ruling from Jerusalem through Israel, Paul preached (Rom. 1) that Christ had indeed returned, not to establish His earthly kingdom in fulfillment of Israel's prophetic program (as described in the Old Testament, Gospels and early Acts), but to raise up that new and unique Apostle, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, to whom He gave the dispensation of Gentile Grace-- apart from Israel and her Law--and through whom He began a new Mystery program for the whole world, especially the Gentiles, incorporating believers into the Body of Christ and seating them in the heavenlies.

Are we going to believe Paul? Or are we going to believe confused theologians? The rejection of this fundamental, biblical distinction causes the author to fall from the high wire and pull himself apart at the joints, resulting in a confused mess of theology. The author insists on a single story. Yes, perhaps. But even the most unified story can have two distinct plot lines. No doubt they will come together in the end unto God's Glory. Until then, the whole Bible is for us but Paul's Epistles are written especially to us and about us.

I don't write this review to be critical. Rather I write it is because I know what it is like to be lost in a confused and destructive theological mess, and I wish it upon no one. My prayerful hope is that every true seeker of truth will look into the biblical distinction I mention above to see if it doesn't clear away much confusion and fix a lot of problems. Who knows? Maybe you'll end up with a theology that really works.

If you have not first studied the various views of redemption, such as the penal substitution view, I don't recommend reading this book until you have. John Stott's book, "The Cross of Christ" is an excellent study for the serious student of redemption.