Old Testament Ethics for the People of God

by Christopher J.H. Wright

Nothing confuses Christian ethics quite like the Old Testament. Some faithful readers struggle through its pages and conclude that they must obey its moral laws but may disregard its ceremonial and civil laws. Others abandon its teaching altogether in favor of a strictly New Testament ethic. Neither option, argues Chris Wright, gives the Old Testament its due. In this innovative approach to Old Testament ethics--fully revised, updated and expanded since its first appearance in 1983 as Living as the People of God ( An Eye for an Eye in North America) and including material from Walking in the Ways of the Lord --Wright examines a theological, social and economic framework for Old Testament ethics. Then he explores a variety of themes in relation to contemporary economics, the land and the poor; politics and a world of nations; law and justice; society and culture; and the way of the individual. This fresh, illuminating study provides a clear basis for a biblical ethic that is faithful to the God of both Testaments.

Genres: Theology, Old Testament, Biblical Studies, Christian, Christianity, Religion, Faith

520 pages, Paperback

First published July 1, 2004

About the author

Christopher J.H. Wright, (born 1947) is a Anglican clergyman and an Old Testament scholar. He is currently the director of Langham Partnership International. He was the principal of All Nations Christian College. He is an honorary member of the All Souls Church, Langham Place in London, UK.

Reviews

[Bob Bixby · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have one regret. I wish I had read this book sooner. Wright masterfully explains the Old Testament in a way that was refreshing and reinvigorating to me, a person that was brought up with (and ultimately rejected) a dispensationalism that rendered the Old Testament brittle and almost useless for me. I could see with Wright's help how the Old Testament is more of a "revealed reality rather than a revealed morality" and yet as a revealed reality maintains authority for contemporary ethics. It is not an exaggeration to say that often I found my heart worshiping God and my knees ready to bend. I saw more clearly than before how wonderfully loving God is, the Old Testament God! I strongly recommend this book.

I also appreciate his dismissal of the traditional (at least from my tradition) taxonomy of the Law: civil, ceremonial, and moral. He shows how all the categories of the law reveal the morality of God and carefully explains how the Yahweh-Israel-Land triad is representative of the God-People-Earth triad and therefore paradigmatic in our pursuit of ethical answers for the age and culture in which we live.

[John Martindale · Rating 1 out of 5]

I grew up a preacher's kid, my mom read aloud the one-year bible every year while I grew up, and none of the violence or the troubling depictions of God bothered me in the least; some time or other in my mid-20s, however, for reasons I know not of, something changed. Suddenly I was extremely sensitive, I couldn't read the OT without being deeply troubled; I tried books like Copen's "Is God a Moral Monster" and even Wright's "The God i Don't Understand" and others like it, and though they helped somewhat, still the OT became poison to my faith and the safest route for years was to avoid it like the plague. Eventually, I did a bible school and reading through the entire bible again in my sensitive state resulted in a lot of emotional turmoil. The evangelical stock answers that try to justify what then appeared so overwhelming and plainly evil now sounded as morally disturbing as a true-believer communist utterly convinced Stalin's actions were all moral, upright and necessary, giving an answer for every objection. For example, in 1 Samuel 15, the text has Samuel telling Saul that God wanted him to commit genocide against the Amalekites. What was the warrant given that justified the slaughter men, women, children, and infants? God was said to have taken note of how the Amalekites opposed Israel when they came out of Egypt. So, according to the text, a justification for genocide is getting revenge for an offense 400 years old! The children were to be put to death for their great, great, great, great great-grandfather’s sin. My whole evangelical life, due to a commitment to inerrancy, I had to defend what was absolutely and unequivocal evil. I had to call black white, injustice justice, hatred love, holding grudge forgiveness. Somehow, the meaning of love and justice had to be so elastic and vacuous to include murdering innocent women and children for something their ancestors did 400 years ago. The problem is compounded, for the psychological damage to the Israelite men should also be considered. It isn’t possible to slaughter babies, pregnant mothers, and toddlers without fundamentally darkening and twisting the character of these men and spreading additional evil within families. I can no longer whitewash this pure evil.

Part of what made this book so incredibly distasteful is Wright really wants the Old Testament to be normative as possible, and chillingly, his absolute devotion to the doctrine of inerrancy means his moral compass is utterly shattered; he is completely unable to acknowledge evil when it is staring him in the face. He seems to embrace the divine command ethic; there literally is NOTHING God could do or command that would be immoral. If in the bible God told Abraham to repeatedly rape his son, then skin him alive and roast him on a spit, Wright would simply call it "justice" and magically, everything is fixed, I mean Isaac was born in sin, utterly depraved, he doesn't deserve life... and of course, we all know "God's ways are not our ways..." and "we have no right to question God." Wright's idolatry of the bible has totally destroyed his ethical outlook. For Wright, butchering innocent toddlers and smashing baby's brains out on a rock for something their distant ancestors did 400 years ago is simply just and loving because God supposedly commanded it.

In response to the problem of ethical issues in the Old Testament, Wright wrote:
“We receive the Old Testament as the Bible of Jesus Christ and his church. Since it renders to us the God whom we acknowledge and worship as the Holy One of Israel, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, it is ultimately the Old Testament that claims and judges us, not we who judge, convict or exonerate it.”

Wright appears unwilling as a matter of principle to subject any part of the OT to ethical critique. Therefore, slaughter of innocent women, children and infants for some offense committed by their ancestors 400 years must stand as morally right. So according to Wright, I cannot critique this ethically, I cannot judge it, convict it; It must judge me. So I suppose this means my ethical sense is completely wrong. If God tells the modern native Americans to commit genocide, killing every American, because of the evils committed against their ancestors, I’d need to praise God for his justice. I clearly must also readjust my warped understanding of forgiveness, enemy love and justice; forgiveness actually means holding a grudge, enemy love means killing them and everyone they love, and justice means punishing the innocent for what others did.

What I found most objectionable in his section on economics is how Wright eschews private property and human rights. He points out the land of Israel was God's land and He distributed HIS OWN land among the tribes of Israel to steward, and then in the Psalm, it states God owns everything. The grounding for economics is God alone truly owns anything, that only God has true property rights, There is no universal natural law grounding property rights of life, liberty, and property. Of course, Wright focus' on the more rosy application of this--all the regulations and commands that were to benefit the poor Hebrews. But like John Rawls' philosophy which states nothing actually belongs to anyone has a dark side in my opinion, so what Wright is arguing for, has a dark underbelly (actual alluded to in his appendix on the Canaan Conquest).

Say some foreign people (the Canaanites) are the steward of God's land of Canaan and the Hebrews want to invade this foreign land and take it for themselves. Fortunately, with this theological doctrine, none of it actually belongs to the Canaanites--the houses they built, the fields they planted and livestock they fed are not theirs, they have no rights, but instead, it is God's property to dispose of as He wishes. And Oh, what do you know, 'God' just so happened to decided he doesn’t want the Canaanites to be stewards of the property anymore, and God has decided he wanted the Hebrews to have it. Therefore, it was morally right to go in kill the foreigner--men, women, children, and infants and take the land; laying hold of the wealth generated with a perfectly clean conscience. It's not murder, nor is it stealing since God simply decided to install a new steward and he can do with his property whatever he wishes. And also since all humanity is God's property too, God then told them to they could purchase foreign slaves to their heart's content, with whom they could treat with rigor and pass on as property to their children as an inheritance. This isn't a problem because these people were simply God's property anyways, and God decided to allow the Hebrews to be their slave masters.

I think it is a problematic notion today as well, for to say no one has any fundamental property rights (except for God), means religious leaders (sadly this has happened), either using the bible may inspire people to go slaughter others (as God's tool of judgment) and take their land (God wanted them to possess it), or believe God has spoken to them directly to confiscate the property of the rich and redistribute it to the poor. It means in the name of God we can do just about any evil imaginable since there are no underlying rights to life, liberty, and property for people. If God wants us to take what others have, or take their lives, or their liberty, as long as God commands it, it is therefore perfectly just and permissible--God can do with his property what he wishes. This kind of Divine Command ethics is extremely troubling to me.

Reading Wright's chapter on politics which touches on the evils of Egypt was only unsettling because of his double standard, he condemns Egypt for committing genocide and limiting religious freedom but then defends Israel for doing the same. For example with religious freedom, he goes on about how horrible Egypt was for not allowing Israel to worship, but then has no issue with Deut 13 commanding honor killings, demanding you to kill your son or daughter, or wife or close friend decides to worship differently, you must be first to cast the stone, you can't show mercy. And if you hear someone in an Israelite city is saying "let's worship other gods" you are to go in a kill everyone in the city-- every man, woman, children, and infant--they are all guilty by association--everyone is to be ruthlessly slaughtered because of that worthless idolater. This makes ISIS and the Taliban look tame in comparison, I suppose for Wright the only reason why Islam honor killings are morally wrong is they are done in zealous devotion to the wrong god. That Wright can be okay with these "stark" commands for honor killings which he makes a brief reference to in his chapter on family, gives him no ground to condemn Egypt for their intolerance. I guess in all of this, it just suggests Wright has a tribal-like and a divine Command ethic: evil is only evil when the wrong side does it; nothing is wrong in principle; anything that Wright would consider evil if commanded by another god is automatically considered good if he believes it is commanded by his God. I just cannot stomach this reasoning that would make John Calvin proud. Continuing on in the politic chapter, we get this bombshell, right after God brought his people out of Egypt and then into Canaan, Wright writes "At this point it could be said that the people of God have become not merely a liberated people, but also a liberating people, though it might well be though insidious, in view of recent history, to describe invaders as liberators" NO freaking kidding! My goodness, insidious indeed! He goes on to defend that invading someone else land to slaughter women and children and infants, is an act of liberation! My gosh, ethics? This is ethics?

[Paul Fulcher · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is very difficult to do this magnificent survey of the Old Testament, which formed the centrepiece of my bible study for much of 2017, justice in a brief review, and I am also conscious it is easier to point out the minor faults than the many many strengths: so in summary, read it (the book, not my review).

Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, written by an Anglican clergyman, currently the International Ministries Director of Langham Partnership International, is a comprehensive account of how and why the Old Testament is entirely relevant to Christian's today.

It's important to say what this book is not: "it was never intended as a book about the 'ethical problems of the Old Testament." That - although he does, somewhat begrudgingly, include an appendix on the 'Canaanite problem' - he argues requires another book and indeed I believe his later The God I Don't Understand: Reflections on Tough Questions of Faith was that book.

Instead, he takes the Old Testament as we have it, as the revealed word of our God, and then examines what it means for us today from three angles:

- paradigmatic: the view that 'God's relation to Israel in their land is a deliberate reflection of God's relationship [today] to humankind on earth' - a view he particularly favours and which leads him to place a high emphasis on the socio-economic aspects of the Old Testament, particularly God's sense of justice

- eschatological: the view that God's redemption through Israel will ultimately embrace all nations

- typological: the view that the promises of the Old Testament to Israel are fulfilled in Christ and the wider Christian church

He avoids the temptation that often arises in theological books to spend time arguing with others' intepretations, indeed he is generous in his citing of other's who have wrestled with the same issues, and reserves a survey of dissenting views from his own to a chapter towards the end. Even then he is relatively kind in his commentary, although perhaps his sharpest rebuke is reserved for the theonomist / Christian reconstructionist school of thought from the US, and, in particular, their selective view that while e.g. the sexual norms of the Old Testament apply today in toto, the teachings in the economic sphere have no relevance. In contrast, he strongly commends the word of the Jubilee Centre (http://www.jubilee-centre.org/):

The Jubilee Centre is in the bridge building business, seeking to connect the world of the Bible with the world of contemporary society. Biblical scholars often fail to connect with the modern world. Social reformers often fail to take the Bible seriously. The Jubilee Centre has a fine track record in avoiding both dangers.

His endorsement from their website

If I had a criticism, I would say that, particular where one gets on to questions of social justice, Wright can be a little selective in his interpretation or selection of verses. For example, while I agree with much of his social diagnosis, 2 Thess 3: 6-13 (from the New Testament) could equally be used as an argument to abolish welfare as his interpretation, which is a call for a right to full employment.

But overall, strongly recommended.

[Yulia Todorova · Rating 5 out of 5]

Дуже корисна книга для розуміння старого заповіту та як його принципи та закони застосовувати в сучасному світі.
Особливо вразило пояснення про ювілейний рік, про правову та судову систему, про поняття справедливості та милості.

[Adam Ross · Rating 4 out of 5]

This one was so good I just had to savor it. Took me long enough, too! But that's what this book is, ultimately. Too good. It deals with so much that you have to pause every page or so and reflect. Christopher Wright (no relation to N. T.) analyzes the Old Testament in terms of ethics, trying to understand how the OT relates to us as NT believers, but also seeks to show us that OT ethics actually apply to us as Christians under the New Covenant. These were all handled very well, and with an eye to redemptive-historical, narrative complex and typological approaches. This is what made the book refreshing.

Similarly, the themes that he traces through the OT are just as interesting. For those who always believed the OT was icky and filled with arbitrary rules, general weridness, and "thank-goodness-we-don't-have-to-worry-about-that-anymore, this is the perfect remedy. He shows Yahweh to be a merciful God, commanding care of the creation, love of neighbor, mercy towards the fatherless, widow and orphan, as well as a God that asserts His authority in the public square and the realm of politics. The section on politics will be of particular interest to those who hold to the "Christian Reconstruction" views of the likes of Rushdoony and such folk. He has quite a lengthy section on that view, and does a good job of dealing rationally and fairly with the problems associated with it - problems, I noticed, that James Jordan and Peter Leithart (both former Reconstructionists who abandoned the project early in the 1980s) have also noticed and pointed out.

Highly recommended.

[David Clouse · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ah, the day has come at last. What a journey through the Old Testament. I believe this book is a great primer for how applicable and useful the Old Testament is for believers today. Some might see the intro as slow but it really sets the stage for how the rest of the book plays out. Wright also does a great job surveying other ideas of the use of the Old Testament near the end of the book. All in all, it’s long and technical/scholarly, but still digestible for lay people who take the time. I think it gives amazing insight to the usefulness and applicability of the Old Testament and helps us to understand more of what it would have been like to be an Israelite before the time of Christ.

[W. Littlejohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Look, if I'm 95% done, can we count that as "read"? I just keep forgetting to go back and read the last 5%.

This is a wonderful systematic overview of Old Testament ethics by an evangelical Christian, but one who's actually able to recognize that the OT law is hardly a blueprint for libertarian capitalism. I don't think there's any comparable volume out there from an evangelical perspective, so this is really an invaluable treatment of a difficult subject.

Very readable as well, I should add.

[Elliot · Rating 5 out of 5]

The issue of how Christians ought to apply the Old Testament to themselves has been an issue ever since the early church. Wright has written a comprehensive book that answers a wide range of questions, from "How did the Israelites view the environment?" to "What about the wars against the Canaanites?" Not every reader will agree with all of his conclusions, but this is an excellent place to turn for thoughtful answers to nagging questions.

[Clayton Keenon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic. If all Christians understood the themes he unpacks in the second section of this book, it would both clear up a lot of confusion when reading the Old Testament and refresh our approach to important issues in society. Worth the time to read.

[Hogan Hurley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Academically dense and comprehensive - yet totally worth it. My love for the Old Testament has tripled. Main takeaway - God is concerned that His people live well, and He gives them the way.

[Joshua Clark · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant. Reading this as a theonomist, I thought it had some great correctives whilst also allowing areas in OT ethics that don't often come up to shine, despite the obvious points where I disagreed (including, obviously, Wright's critique of theonomy). Would definitely recommend.

[Tristan Sherwin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not sure how to begin describing the scope of this book - it's just plain brilliant, to use non-scholarly language.

Just how applicable is the Old Testament to those under the New Covenant? I'm sure most of us, as Christians, have asked that question at some point or another. Well, Old Testament scholar Christopher Wright takes 480 pages (excluding a very helpful and extensive Bibliography) to help navigate that question. In short, it still is applicable, but to understand how it is applicable today requires taking the time to understand the ethical framework of the Old Testament Laws within their own Israelite culture and time in contrast to the other cultures around them. That's one of my main loves of this book - as well as it's breadth of scope on such topics as work, ecology, family, politics etc - it doesn't seek to devise some sort of universal transcultural black or white morality, but a social-ethical approach to understanding the Old Testament Canon.

I'm struggling to summarise this book, to be honest. But it'll certainly be a resource that I can see myself returning to again and again within my own personal studies.

[E · Rating 3 out of 5]

Massive book on a very important topic. I respect Wright because he steers away from trying to prescribe micromanaged ethics for today's believers. Instead he looks at the principles animating the Old Testament ethic and spends a good deal of time talking about how and why it is applicable today, while forcing the reader to draw the necessary conclusions for his own life. Wright bases his study in the identity and character of God, which plays itself out in two main arenas in ancient Israelite life--social life and economic life. Other chapters address higher issues such as justice and righteousness, how to understand the import of the promised land, politics, law, culture, etc.

After this sweeping path, he finally answers the question--who says the OT should be normative for life today anyway? This becomes a study of OT ethics as discipline over the last 40 or so years. He also includes an appendix titled "What about the Canaanites" which is as good an 8-page discussion of why the command to wipe them out was legitimate as you will find anywhere.

[Scott Cox · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book I read, “An eye for an eye: the place of Old Testament ethics for today” was published in 1983 while Christopher J.H. Wright was professor at Union Biblical Seminary in India. This excellent book (unfortunately, out of print) deals with Old Testament law as it applies to today's ethical issues. Dr. Wright expands on "case law" applications of God’s laws as they apply judicially today. This premise corresponds to the Westminster Confession of Faith's chapter nineteen entitled “Of the Law of God,” where in section four the Confession speaks of the "general equity thereof" with regards to the continuity of the judicial laws of theocratic Israel. Dr. Wright’s arguments are a pertinent and valuable alternative to the increasingly popular natural law and theonomic theories currently in vogue.

[J.D. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very engaging look into a world that most people do not understand. Many Christians do not understand much of the OT and are fine with it however that does not work for me. Thankfully there are scholars like Chris Wright who do not gloss or skip over events in the Bible but face them head on and wrestle with them. In this book he does just that and brings to light much of a society that is so far removed from our western understanding of life. In doing so we are able to get in the mind better of people at that time and try and understand why certain items have only been recently questionable to our modern ears. He certainly does not give final answers nor try and answer everything but adds that there is much we are unable to understand about Yahweh.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Christopher J. H. Wright is International Ministries Director of the Langham Partnership, which provides literature, scholarships, and homiletical training for pastors in Majority World churches and seminaries. Wright received a PhD from the University of Cambridge and is internationally recognized as one of the most influential Old Testament scholars today. Wright is a committed Anglican clergyman and the author of several books, including The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative, Salvation Belongs to Our God: Celebrating the Bible's Central Story, and The Mission of God's People: A Biblical Theology of the Church's Mission.

Old Testament Ethics for the People of God is the distilled reflection of several decades. Wright has comprehensively revised, updated and expanded his previous work An Eye for an Eye: The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today and included additional material from Walking in the Ways of the Lord: The Ethical Authority of the Old Testament. For Wright, the Old Testament occupies meaningful space in the Christian life for the purposes of informing ethical engagement, and Old Testament Ethics for the People of God demonstrates an innovative approach that examines a theological, social and economic framework for Old Testament ethics.

Old Testament Ethics for the People of God is comprised of three major parts: (1) A Structure for Old Testament Ethics, (2) Themes in Old Testament Ethics, and (3) Studying Old Testament Ethics. In Part One, Wright explores three distinct angles for approaching Old Testament ethics, including theological ("the LORD, as the God of Israel"), social ("Israel themselves as an elect people in unique relation to the LORD"), and economical ("the land of believed the LORD had promised and given to them" [p. 19]). The three chapters in Part One are absolutely foundation for the exploration that follows in Part Two, and readers will do well to spend as much time as needed here before moving into the heart of the book. In Part Two, the foundational structure of Part One is applied to various ethically related themes in the Old Testament. As the heartbeat of the book, Part Two is where most readers will spend their time excavating the riches that Wright has presented. In Part Three, Wright concludes the volume with a historical survey of approaches to Old Testament ethics, a chapter on contemporary scholarship, and a crucial chapter on the hermeneutical implications of the Old Testament as authoritative Scripture for the purpose of Christian ethics.

The strengths of Old Testament Ethics for the People of God are plenty and readers familiar with Wright's work will anticipate much of the same. Where I found Old Testament Ethics for the People of God to shines is in Wright's ability to demonstrate the useful, indeed the imperative nature of the Old Testament for developing a holistic vision of Christian ethics. Wright does a tremendous job upholding the relevance and authority of Old Testament as Christian Scripture and readers will appreciate the accessibility associated with the application therein. Not only will Wright's audience begin to understand the Old Testament more faithfully, but they will begin to see how approachable it is for modern ethical conversations. The weaknesses of Old Testament Ethics for the People of God are few and far between. That said, I think that some readers may desire more than Wright offers at times. For example, there seems to be a looming question about the relevance of the Old Testament for ethical consideration due to the violent portraits caricatured therein. Wright does tackle these concerns throughout the volume in brief and offers an appendix concerning the Canaanites, but the question may still seem to loom over the content of the book. I think Wright made a good decision not to comment more on this particular issue, as it has been and is better addressed in a separate treatment with more dedicated space to the peripheral issues.

Old Testament Ethics for the People of God by Christopher J. H. Wright is one of the most rewarding and well-written books on the subject. Wright offers fresh insight in an illuminating fashion, and readers will reap the rewards of his labor on every page. For those interested in the Old Testament and its relevance to the Christian life, you will not find a more comprehensive and engaging book on the market. Its pages are rich with exegetical and theological treasure!

[Aaron Green · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book surprised me. It had all the attributes of being an educational book that you probably never pick up again after the class is over, but it was astounding and impactful. Granted, I may not read it all the way through a second time, but it will certainly remain on my shelf for reference and reflection.

The reason it's lacking one star is that it is a book you can't help but judge by it's girth and cover. I call it a 'mowing the lawn' type book. What I mean is, I never want to mow the lawn. I have to work myself up to get out the lawn mower and pull the starter, but once I'm going down the lines and I finish, I'm always glad I did it. The same is true here... you may have to really convince yourself to pick it up and read it, but once you do, you'll be really glad you did.

[Trevor Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was another great work by Wright. I thoroughly enjoyed his hermeneutical and paradigm for reading and understanding the Old Testament. I particularly enjoyed chapters one through six. The last two chapters, I admit, were a bit of a whimper. Chapter 13 because I simply do not need to engage with a long list of contemporary scholarship - though this would be a book to any studying the subject. Chapter 14 because I already come from the standpoint of biblical authority being normative. Other than those final chapters, this book was outstanding. I highly recommend this, or any of Wright’s work, to anyone who reads the Bible.

[Abbey Walker · Rating 5 out of 5]

YES
Give this book to your older Christian peers, as an introduction to why Marxism is not at all incompatible with bible. Wright doesn't ever say that explicity, so you could probably trick them into agreeing with him and THEN be like btw that is kinda marxist.
But, even without all that, a great read. Learned a lot. Responsible use of ancient Near Eastern texts and archaeology, and comparative religions study. Lots of nice exegetical nuggets too.

[Joshua Pearsall · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely a good, but long read. Something I think worth reading, even though you might not agree with everything in it. A beautiful look at the ethics intended behind the Old Testament writings, shown so clearly in Jesus own words what always should have been clear & for many was. The law was there for our aid and benefit, not to oppress us. To help us find life & joy, to walk the path of righteousness not the path of wickedness.

[Daniel Supimpa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Compelling and accessible. For those who like me, are entering the area of OT ethics for the first time, this book carries you from the general survey of the field, to thoughtful considerations and a well-argued case for a confessional reading of the OT.

[Joshua McGrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wright does a great job of introducing the study of OT ethics, analyzing the various schools of thought and scholars that have worked within this field, and establishing an argument for how the OT should be read and how it should shape the ethics of a modern-day Christ-follower.

[Gabe Perez · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a must-read for any Christian trying to understand the applicability of the Old Testament to their lives.

I found the chapters on Economics & the Poor and Law & the Legal System to be particularly helpful.

[Graydon Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

A refreshing account of Old Testament theology and ethics!

[Rennae de Freitas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Love, this book!!!

[G. Mark James · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is challenging, engaging, provoking, and refreshing. Every Christian should read this book and ponder it for ethics (and politics) today.

[Dani Pop · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wright proves with this book that one could be an Evangelical, a good OT exegete, a science-informed person and a socially involved one - at the same time.

[Tim Green · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wright on.

[Carter John Fleck · Rating 5 out of 5]

My absolute favorite book on the Old Testament. I recommend this to everyone.

[Adi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have not yet read a book with such an extensive bibliography as this one.