Customer Reviews

What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I think a couple of words are in order in response to the criticism of some of the reviewers of this book.

First off, Wright is most assuredly not teaching any sort of a works based salvation. He simply points out that when Paul speaks against the Judaizers of his day, we can not, as Luther did, project onto them a meaning consistent with that of the Medieval Catholic Church. That is, Luther read Paul struggling with the Judaizer's speaking of the "works of the law" then saw his own struggle with the Church that seemed to place an endless string of hoops to jump through to achieve salvation. He assumed Paul was speaking to him in his situation directly. "The Just shall live by faith" became for Luther a liberating statement. Faith, not works, is how one is justified before God.

However, Wright explores more precisely what it was Paul was up against. What it was, was those who insisted that the things which made the Jews separate from the nations, such as circumcision, food laws, etc. desired to impose these on new Christians as a badge of their membership in the New Covenant. No, Paul says. It is faith, not these works of the law, which mark you out as a true covenant member. If you live in faith, which is of course outwardly exhibited in obedience, then you will be known as a true covenant member. This is most definitely not telling us that through our works we are or even can be justified before God.

Instead, God's justification is really closely tied to his righteousness. Not just righteousness in terms "God is better than us" (though he certainly is) but righteousness in terms of His faithfulness to His covenant. God will justify His people. In fact, in time and history, He has done so in the cross. The cross is very central to Paul's writings.

But, who are God's people? Those who believe the Gospel. What is the Gospel? According to Wright, the gospel Paul preached was not a set of instructions on how one goes about "getting saved," but the gospel was the proclamation of the good news that God had redeemed his people in the cross, that Jesus had rose from the dead, and (this is very central) that Jesus is now the reigning King of kings and Lord of lords. He is the King over all of the universe, so this is a universal message, not confined only or even primarily to the Jewish nation. Those who profess a belief in this are part of the visible covenant people, but the true members will be known by their fruits.

All this is not to say Luther was totally wrong or without merit, and certainly it was not to say the Roman Catholic Church was right. Yes, Wright is a Protestant, the reader from Canada's criticism notwithstanding. The first century Jews just simply did not hold to a works based salvation as many since Luther have supposed. With this in mind, we can not take Luther's interpretation as completely accurate.

Another somewhat soft criticism is that the book is mis-titled, since only the last chapter actually concerns the issue of whether St. Paul was the true founder of Christianity. Admittedly, I had the same initial reaction because this is not something overtly talked about for the majority of the book. However, the entirety of the book outlines the fact that Paul was simply taking the teachings of Jesus as they were to be interpreted for those in Paul's time - and all subsequent ages. He is building the case throughout that Paul is not creating something new, but is a Jew of Jews who is interpreting Jesus the only way one can - through the scriptures of the Jews. Therefore, though he only speaks directly to the point in the final chapter, the point is actually built upon throughout the whole book.

Wright does, I believe, a masterful job of taking what is obviously deep, scholarly work and putting it into terms an average Christian can understand. I think this is a much-needed gift, as deep theological works are above the ability of all but a few, yet most popular books are nothing but fluff and baptized pop-psychology.

I highly recommend this readable, and enlightened interpretation of Paul. I have a whole new outlook on Paul and look forward to reading through his letters again 'with new eyes"!

Although many within the traditional Protestant camp dish out some harsh criticism toward Wright, I think no one will contest that Wright is a first rate scholar and that his views must be taken seriously and engaged by other evangelical Protestants. That being said, I think Wright's new work on Paul's gospel message is a great work that sheds new light on a topic that most think they have fully grasped. The reason why I like Wright's work is because he attempts to understand Paul from a 1st century Jewish mindset, and not from a later perspective. I think most Protestants would do well to reconsider if the 16th century interpretation of Paul is really the best one, and understand that that interpretation is a product of 16th century scholastic Augustinianism, and does not try to understand Paul as a first century Jewish scholar. This is why the New Perspective is so helpful at giving us a new dimension within which we can understand Paul's teachings.

Briefly, Wright begins the book by arguing that the heart of the gospel is not how one can get into a right relationship with God, but that it is an imperial proclomation that Jesus and not Caesar is Lord. I thought this idea was well argued for and has some merit, but I am not fully convinced. Then Wright argues that membership in the covenant community is much like that of traditional Judaism; One becomes a member of this corporate community via the covenant, and then one remains in that covenant community. In addition, Wright takes a different view of what exactly the righteousness of God means in a book like Romans. Wright believes the genitive construction is best understood as a subjective genitive and not an objective genitive; That means the righteousness of God is God's covenant faithfulness to his creation, and not some gift of righteousness that God bestows to mankind. For those in the Protestant camp who might disagree, even John Piper holds a similar view so this idea is hardly novel or not well accepted within traditional Reformed circles.

Wright believes that God's covenant faithfulness was manifested when he sent His Son, Jesus Christ into the world to redeem creation. This act was a demonstration of God's faithfulness and ushered in the time of renewal and the new age that Paul had so eagerly awaited as a zealous Pharisee. Not much disagreement here, but where I do have qualms with Wright is over his denial of imputed righteousness. Wright believes that there are few Scriptures that speak of an imputed righteousness of Christ and the ones that do are misunderstood. Right believes that faith is not what makes one right with God, but what identifes one as a valid member of the covenant community. Thus, justification is not soteriological but ecclesiogical. If one is going to accept this view I believe Wright will have to develop this idea more fully and should devote a future book solely to this topic. Although there are a few areas of disagreement, I believe this book should be read by all Protestants so that they can approach the Pauline corpus from a more Jewish mindset.

N.T. Wright is a tremendous author, whether you agree with him or not. He does a wonderful job of showing that Paul was the faithful interpretor of Jesus, and not the founder of Christianity. Wright argues that if Paul would have said the same things Jesus did, then he would have been claiming Messiahship as well.

A previous revewier has stated that this book is the end of Protestantism. His reason is that "the central theme of the gospel to Protestantism is justification by faith". That may be the case within some strands of Protestantism, but is not so all throughout the board (i.e. the Redemptive-Historical school of Reformed Theology with Vos, Ridderbos and Gaffin).

Now to the controversial "Fresh Perspective on Paul" as Wright calls it. I am a confessional Protestant who adheres to the Westminster standards, and do not have a problem highly endorsing the eschatological focus of this book. He says that the crucifixion is the chief eschatological act. This ligns right up with what Richard Gaffin says in 'Resurrection and Redemption' from a Reformed perspective.

I really liek his interpretation of 'dikaiosune theou', or righteousness of God. That has been a perplexing topic in the history of interpretation and is usually identified as a genitive of origin to uphold the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. However, Wright classifies it as a subjective genitive, where the righteousness is God's own righteousness in His covenental faithfulness by redeeming Israel. This clears up a lot of muddled water where that the genitive of origen will not work in all contexts.

His notion of justification is the other controversial aspect of his theology. He puts it in the first century Jewish context, rather than a polemical context of church history. The three themes of 1st century Jewish theology that he explains are law court, covenant and eschatology. This has some interesting twists that many will not like, but I find to be quite helpful. I have little problems with an already/not yet aspect to justification (to be more biblical theological), which would correlate with his emphasis on the eschatological nature of justification (see Romans 2:13).

This is a tremendous work that is highly recommended!

Wow...

This is one of the best books on Pauline thought I have ever read.

It is difficult for many Western Christians to hear, but much of what we believe about what Paul really said is born out of the polemics of the reformation and counter-reformation. Eastern Orthodoxy never went through the fires of a reformation (save a comparatively minor bout with iconoclasm that did not end up splitting the eastern wing of the church). Thus, it is arguable that the three great branches of Christianity ended up developing Pauline theology in different ways due to historical forces largely beyond any one individual's control.

This book, it seems to this reviewer, tries to cut through the muddle by placing Paul firmly in his first century context. The image of what St. Paul really said emerges as layer after layer of what has been added to Paul by centuries of history and scholarship (liberal and conservative) is removed. Those fiercely loyal to the 16th century reformationist view of Paul will find some things to agree with in this book, but for the most part will be challenged. Those loyal to the Catholic tradition will perhaps be less challenged by overall thesis of the book, but they will be challenged to examine just where Protestants get Paul "right."

I have one observation about the supposed "New Perspective." It is, to me, a problematic moniker. Rather, Wright seems to be arguing for the "orthodox perspective" (small "o") of Paul. This book is way more Catholic and Orthodox than many other evangelical Protestants might like. This book is more protestant than some Catholics (especially traditionalists) might like. However, it is clearly not an exercise in syncretic ecumenism. Rather, Wright is pointing to truth, by giving an authentically biblical and historical reading of the Pauline texts, and letting the evidence, as opposed to any pre-existing loyalty to a dogma, lead him where it may. This is what the best biblical scholars do. And Wright is one of the best living.

Wrights treatment on Paul aims to grasp Paul the apostle in his context of his own day and age and all that implies. Protestant christians will be uncomfortable with Wright's take on justification, and maybe a few other things, but relax, Wright is not out to short circuit a gospel of grace, contrary to the accusations by some. Wright makes many very bona fide points in this work, and it is very much worth learning from. For instance: The apostle Paul's main message was not how to go to heaven when you die ( as if that's what was being asked by first century Jews of Paul's day and age ), but rather Paul's message was simply that Jesus is Lord. Jesus is the true King not Caesar, or anyone else. Jesus is God's son, and as such is the Lord of the universe. Jesus is The God ordained location of God's redeeming and ruling activity. Wright's worth is that he aims to help biblical readers situate the new testament in it's first century Jewish context, and then see what that means for the good news of Jesus that the new testament proclaims. For the most part, not withstanding a few possible gliches, he does a much needed job at that.

In this work, Wright sheds light on certain epistles of Paul which have been, for lack of better term, misinterpreted (perhaps misapplied) in recent commentary history to fit a "reformed mold," if you will. Having read Wright's work, for the second time now (once before seminary once after), and also having heard certain popular reformed evangelical thinkers respond to it, I think Wright has been wrongly assessed by these thinkers. In this work, Wright is not denying nor rejecting the "reformed doctrine of justification," rather he is simply declaring that Paul is not communicating this doctrine in his epistles which many contemporary reformed thinkers have concluded that he is. I believe Wright has shed some very important light on these texts that perhaps has long been overlooked; perhaps this is so due to a search for passages (proof-texting) in order to 'prove' a particular doctrine (i.e. the reformed doctrine of justification).

Wright provides three categories that he thinks Paul's view of justification entails; Covenant, Law Court, and Eschatology. Here is how Wright describes each:
"Covenant. Justification is the covenant declaration, which will be issued on the last day, in which the true people of God will be vindicated and those who insist on worshipping false gods will be shown to be in the wrong."
"Law Court. Justification functions like the verdict in the law court: by acquitting someone, it confers on that person the status `righteous'. This is the forensic dimension of the future covenantal vindication.
"Eschatology. This declaration, this verdict, is ultimately to be made at the end of history. Through Jesus, however, God has done in the middle of history what he had been expected to do-and, indeed, will still do-at the end; so that the declaration, the verdict, can be issued already in the present, in anticipation."

Back in 1997 or 1998 when I first read "What Saint Paul Really Said", as a good friend of mine from Marquette University often liked to say-I was scandalized. Back then I was so entrenched in my reformed thinking that this book offended me. Almost ten years later, tons of research in Paul's epistles, deeper research into the Catholicity of the Reformation, a deeper and formal study of hermeneutics (inside and outside the classroom), and my studies in Luther's theology, I'm not as scandalized with this second reading.

For the last ten years I have struggled with certain aspects of reformed theology, especially as it has been presented by contemporary thinkers (i.e. the confusion between the gospel proclamation and the doctrine of imputation, the casting away completely of Church Tradition as if it had no importance at all, etc.). Moreover, when I always came to the texts of Paul (and the book of James), there were various things that just did not "click" within my reformed framework, certain texts that did not make sense in light of certain thinkers/reformed commentaries. After reading Wright for the second time certain things about Paul's Epistles just jumped out at me and they made more sense.

All that being said, the question remains, am I totally convinced by Wright's small work? Not completely, but it has at least opened my eyes to a newer way of looking at Paul. Furthermore, many of the Pauline texts that "baked" my mind when I read them many years ago and confused my "reformed" senses suddenly made much more sense. So, with this history of entrenchment in reformed doctrine I can fully understand that when someone who is in that same position reads Wright they seemed "scandalized." However, that should not keep you, if you are reformed in your thinking, from reading this work. It is definitely worth reading and considering.

I have skimmed or read in detail most of Wright's book, but since I will be working with it for the rest of this semester I may find need to reappraise it. So far, so good, as I am concerned.

This book is only "dangerous" and "unorthodox" if you interpret the entire Pauline corpus based on Romans 5 and Galatians 3. Wright's claim is that a larger horizon needs to be accorded to Paul's thought than justification by faith (which is NEVER "alone")--however, what some other reviewers here neglect to mention is that Wright says that this is *central*, but not THE center, of Paul's theology.

I approached the book very guardedly, because I thought his prologue was rather pompous. But I actually found the writing to be very good and the scholarship to be judicious, even if he doesn't on the surface appear to immerse himself in "hardcore" exegesis. He takes what is good from Sanders and other modern biblical scholars and tries to separate it from liberal crap.

His exposition on the Pauline Trinity--God, Lord, and Spirit--was breathtakingly good. His defense of Jesus' primacy in the founding of Christianity is admirable. Finally, his treatment of Paul's Jewishness was very helpful and gives further motivation to my desire to immerse myself in the OT/Jewish world, to help my understanding of the roots of Christianity.

As an aspiring scholar, with conservative-leaning tendencies, I found this book to be quite inspiring. I think Wright provides a good example of scholarship that is largely CORRECT, illuminating, and at the same time beneficial spiritually.

May the grace of Jesus Christ our Lord be with you.

`What Saint Paul Really Said' by preacher and Canon Theologian of Westminster Abby is yet another installment in the very old dialogue among Christians on the understanding of Paul's background, writings, and theology. As someone who is just now entering into this conversation, I am exceedingly happy to have come across this book, as it goes a long way in laying out the various positions of the major speakers on the issues found in Paul's letters. And, it is not simply a `survey' of positions, as it definitely takes a stand on the most important issues in Paul's theology.

While other books deal with earlier centuries, this volume really only deals with the most important voices of the 20th century, beginning with Albert Schweitzer. One of Wright's best services is to discuss Schweitzer's four questions we need to ask about Paul's writings, which is only appropriate, since, Schweitzer's voice is the first and one of the most important in this conversation of the last 80 years. I'll repeat them here, because they have been immense help to me in learning how to present Paul's writings to a Bible Study class. Therefore, I suspect they will be of great value to anyone else starting on a similar journey through this material.

1. Where does Paul stand in the history of first century religion?
2. Where is the center of Paul's theology? Where does it start?
3. What is the exegesis of Paul's individual letters?
4. How do we apply Paul's theology to our lives today?

I'm inclined to reverse 2 and 3, as we would seem to want to interpret individual writings before doing a synthesis in assembling Paul's theology, but who am I to argue with Herr Schweitzer, who maintained an interpretation of Paul's theology which stressed one's `being in Christ' and made the `justification by faith' so dear to Luther a relatively less important issue. From Schweitzer, we move on to Rudolph Bultmann, who interprets Paul through Heidigger's existential glasses, and sees Paul as a Hellenist, applying Greek philosophy to Christian doctrines. Next are the scholars, W. D. Davies and Ernst Kasemann (sic). The last and possibly most important figure from Wright's point of view is Ed. P. Sanders, who literally effected a revolution in Pauline studies by focusing on Paul and the doctrines of the Jewish factions within which Paul studied as a youth.

I can see the importance of Sanders' point of view in a heartbeat, as my most pressing question in all my reading about Paul up to this point is `how really different was first century Judaism from Paul's framing of Christianity. Lo and behold, I now discover that this is in fact a critical milestone in Pauline scholarship. Makes me feel I'm on the right path in understanding these writings.

What I find enormously ironic is that after all the other voices in this conversation, the weight of opinion, especially after Ed Sanders' key work, `Paul and Palestinian Judaism' seems to have returned to the position held by Schweitzer in his 1930 ` The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle'.

On the face of it, this historical interpretation may not seem too relevant to Paul's theology, but I believe it is important in understanding Paul, if only to be accurate in how he is translated from his original Greek. So, Wright, along with Sanders and Schweitzer is convinced that Paul's theology grew directly out of his background in radical Pharisaic Judaism.

A second really important lesson I get from Wright is that if I really wish to understand Paul, reading him through Luther's eyes may not be the best idea. For as right as Luther may have been about many things, he tended to misinterpret Paul by equating the doctrines of Paul's Hebrew contemporaries with the mistaken doctrines of the Roman church that Luther wished to reform. Luther may go so far as to see first century Hebrews as Pelagians, who thought the only way to salvation was through good works. Paul's citing Abraham's covenant with God is more than enough to show Paul understood that Jewish beliefs rested on a faithfulness to their God and not on adherence to special markings or practices.

A third illumination from Wright's book is a demonstration of how complicated some key issues in Paul's writings may be. One important topic is the `righteousness of God'. Wright demonstrates how this expression in its original Greek can have as many as eight (8) different meanings. Some of these interpretations are plainly unlikely, but one is much more likely to get it right (especially if you happen to encounter some bad translations) if you know what meanings to avoid.

After reading through most of Wright's book, one may come to wonder if it's true that Schweitzer and Sanders have managed to get it right in the first place, why do we need Wright's voice chiming in with yet another book? The answer lies in the publication of the book `Paul: The Mind of the Apostle' by A. N. Wilson, which presents an interesting psychological portrait of Paul, but gets his theology and historical influences all wrong. Oddly enough, I may still read Wilson's book, as it may reveal the one thing Paul has most in common with Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard. This thing is the soul-wrenching fear and guilt so effectively captured by the Existentialists, but by no means original with them.

This may not be the best book for answering the fourth of Schweitzer's issues on applying Paul's message to our life today, but it is a dandy discussion of the other three issues. If you read Wilson's book, you really must read Wright's book as well before letting Wilson's interpretation get too strong a foothold on your view of Paul.

N.T. Wright again bridges the gaps between scholarship and spirituality; liberal and orthodox. Many readers will find his work shocking because he is conservative, but never orthodox. The most controversial aspect of this book challenges the tradition interpetation of justification (righteousness) by faith. For Wright, righteousness before God is not imputed or imparted by God, for instance by "accepting the free gift of Christ." Righteousness and Justification are the verdicts rendered in the law court to those that keep the covenant.

This raises the question about who is "in" and who isn't, as well as how can you tell who is "in." What are the markers of covenant membership? Wright tells us that Paul's great ephiphany is that the covenant markers of circumcism and keeping Torah have been replaced by the covenant marker of Faith. Justified by Faith, not works.
Recommended, but this book will leave you wanting to explore Wright's ideas to their fullest implications.

This is one of the best books I've read in a while. For those unfamiliar with N T Wright this is the book to get. He conciselt and clearly articulates his Pauline theology, which is definitely in line with the "New Perspective". Basically he sees the gospel as the announcement that Jesus is Lord - not the announcement of "salvation by faith alone". In Wright's mind Paul never left his Jewish stances at all - rather he realized that Jesus was the Messiah who has fulfilled all of the prophecies of Isaiah 40-55, Ezekiel 37, Daniel 7 etc. As such he sees Jesus' resurrection as God having returned to Zion. Thus he does not hold to a premillenial or dispensational scheme.

His stance overall is conservative - he holds to a divine Jesus whi DID rise bodily. But his New perspective leanings will be different than most fundamentalists are used to.

I rated it five stars because it is so clear and readable. I do not agree with Wright on most points - but I know well where he stands and why he stands there! The only complaint would be that he does not interact much (in this book) with other scholars and thus has very few footnotes - but in Wright's defense this book was not intended to be an in depth scholar-level piece. One can readily find that in his 3+ volume series on the NT.