What do you think?
Rate this book
How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels
New Testament scholar N.T. Wright reveals how we have been misreading the Gospels for centuries, powerfully restoring the lost central story of the that the coronation of God through the acts of Jesus was the climax of human history. Wright fills the gaps that centuries of misdirection have opened up in our collective spiritual story, tracing a narrative from Eden, to Jesus, to today. Wright’s powerful re-reading of the Gospels helps us re-align the focus of our spiritual beliefs, which have for too long been focused on the afterlife. Instead, the forgotten story of the Gospels reveals why we should understand that our real charge is to sustain and cooperating with God's kingdom here and now. Echoing the triumphs of Simply Christian and The Meaning of Jesus , Wright’s How God Became King is required reading for any Christian searching to understand their mission in the world today.
282 pages, Hardcover
First published March 13, 2012
884 people are currently reading
3803 people want to read
About the author
N.T. Wright
460 books2,863 followersN. 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.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 368 reviews
December 5, 2019
This is my second reading through this book, but there was enough time between the two that many parts seemed almost fresh and new to me. Once again, I am giving this book a solid five-star rating.
Right at the beginning, NT Wright shares how when he was a young student his Bible club wanted to do an exploration of who Jesus was. Different students were to prepare and share different aspects and Wright felt he drew the short straw. It is easy to talk about the birth of Christ. It is easy to talk about his death and resurrection. But his question, "Why did Jesus live here on earth?" seemed quite a bit more difficult. When you look at the Nicene Creed, it jumps right over the life of Christ going from birth to death. NT Wright then uses the picture of surround sound speakers to show that the gospels show four stories that need to be heard in balance in order to understand the music of the gospels.
1st Speaker: "It is important to retell the history of Israel and to show that the story of Jesus is the..." culmination of Israel's history, hopes, and purpose.
2nd Speaker: "The story the gospels are telling, once we turn down the overly loud volume of the second speaker, which has simply been shouting, "He's divine! He's divine!" is the story of how YHWH has come back to His people at last."
3rd Speaker - It isn't just that Jesus was establishing the church. "Rather, the gospels are consciously telling the story of how God's one-time action in Jesus the Messiah ushered in a new world order within which a new way of life was not only possible, but it was mandatory for Jesus' followers."
4th Speaker - "The powers of this world exalt themselves against the Creator God... and God will not be mocked forever. The kingdoms of this world are to become the Kingdom of our God, and He will reign forever and ever."
Right at the beginning, NT Wright shares how when he was a young student his Bible club wanted to do an exploration of who Jesus was. Different students were to prepare and share different aspects and Wright felt he drew the short straw. It is easy to talk about the birth of Christ. It is easy to talk about his death and resurrection. But his question, "Why did Jesus live here on earth?" seemed quite a bit more difficult. When you look at the Nicene Creed, it jumps right over the life of Christ going from birth to death. NT Wright then uses the picture of surround sound speakers to show that the gospels show four stories that need to be heard in balance in order to understand the music of the gospels.
1st Speaker: "It is important to retell the history of Israel and to show that the story of Jesus is the..." culmination of Israel's history, hopes, and purpose.
2nd Speaker: "The story the gospels are telling, once we turn down the overly loud volume of the second speaker, which has simply been shouting, "He's divine! He's divine!" is the story of how YHWH has come back to His people at last."
3rd Speaker - It isn't just that Jesus was establishing the church. "Rather, the gospels are consciously telling the story of how God's one-time action in Jesus the Messiah ushered in a new world order within which a new way of life was not only possible, but it was mandatory for Jesus' followers."
4th Speaker - "The powers of this world exalt themselves against the Creator God... and God will not be mocked forever. The kingdoms of this world are to become the Kingdom of our God, and He will reign forever and ever."
September 25, 2012
In this book N. T. Wright explores the purpose of Jesus's earthly ministry as presented in the Gospels. He is concerned that historically, the church has focused on the incarnation and passion of Christ and ignored his ministry (apart from appeals to its proving his deity or making possible his active obedience). Wright realizes that major problems ensue when the middle of the Gospel story is divorced from the ends (incarnation and cross), and he highlights the Social Gospel as the primary example of that problematic approach. His goal in this volume is to integrate the whole.
Before preceding with his positive argument Wright first surveys six inadequate (though not entirely wrong) answers:
○ "To teach people how to go to heaven" (42)—Wright focuses on the fact that heaven is not the biblical goal but a renewed earth. Eternal life is not about disembodied souls in a timeless state but about life on earth in the age to come. He is correct about this. But if going to heaven is translated "to enjoying eternal life in the age to come," this is a question that Jesus addresses at key points in his ministry, Nicodemus and the Rich Young Ruler being key examples.
○ To provide people with an ethic for life—Wright is rightly concerned that Jesus not be reduced to another Buddha or Muhammad who taught religious truths to people. However, when contextualized in the larger picture of Jesus's ministry, Wright correctly embraces the idea that Jesus was teaching people how they ought to live.
○ To provide a moral example—Wright grants that Jesus is an example to be followed in some particular ways (e.g.,, 1 Cor. 11:1 or Mark 8:34). But he rejects this answer for two reasons. First, Jesus is not an example that we are able to copy. We just can't live up to his standard. Second, Jesus is doing unique things in his life that no one is supposed to try to imitate.
○ "His perfect life means that he can be the perfect sacrifice" (50)—Wright is willing to grant the Bible does present Jesus as the sinless sacrifice and that his sinless life is part of this. He notes John 8:46 (cf. Mark 10:18); 2 Cor. 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5; Luke 23:14-15, 22, 31, 41, 47 (p. 50). Wright rejects, however, the Reformed teaching that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law and its teaching about Jesus's active obedience (Romans 5:19) (p. 51). Overall, Wright concludes, "But, beyond these passages [noted above], the gospels show no interest whatever in making the link that much traditional teaching has employed. If that was what they were trying to say, you'd think they would have made it a bit clearer" (51). But Wright himself has assembled an impressive array of passages that make this point. He could add to this the Old Testament background that stands behind Mark 10:45, and he could factor in the significance of the temptation accounts which stand at the beginning of the Synoptic Gospels' presentation of Jesus. This seems to be an important element that should play a role in whatever answer is given the question of the significance of Jesus's ministry.
○ To provide us with stories "so we can identify with the characters in the story and find our own way by seeing what happened to them" (52)—Wright again acknowledges that this is a possible and legitimate use, but he doesn't believe it is reason the Gospels were written.
○ "To demonstrate the divinity of Jesus" (and his humanity) (53)—Wright believes the Gospel writers would have affirmed Jesus these points, but he says even John who opens with this theme does not make it the major theme of his gospel. Rather, John, and all the gospels are "to tell us what this embodied God is now up to" (54). Wright's affirmation is correct, but his denial is too sharp. My study of Mark has led me to conclude that demonstrating the deity of Jesus is a major theme of the Gospel from its opening verses.
Wright responds that the gospels are actually "trying to say that this is how God became king" (57). This is a good summary of the message of the four Gospels (and despite Wright's rather annoying rhetoric of having discovered a lost theme that has been missing from the church until he wrote this book, this theme can be found in Herman Ridderbos's The Coming of the Kingdom and in the writing of dispensationalists such as Craig Blaising).
In turning toward making a positive argument, Wright highlights four themes found in all the gospels. He thinks some of these themes are over-emphasized and some are under-emphasized. Getting these four themes correctly balanced is, in Wright's view, essential to understanding the Gospel message about Jesus's life. The themes are:
(1) "the story of Israel"—Wright laments that the Gospels have been read as the solution to the sin problem of Genesis 3, skipping over the story of Israel entirely, or looking at it as a "plan A" that went wrong with the gospel as a "plan B" that allows people to be saved by faith without having "to keep that silly old law" (84-85). In Wright's view Jesus is "the climax of the story of Israel"; he is "Israel's supreme representative" who finally does bring about God's purposes for Israel (183). Wright's emphasis on the importance of the story of Israel is commendable. Israel is the national focal point of the Old Testament for significant reasons, and the New Testament must not be cut loose from the Old. But Israel's story is set within the larger human story that begins to go wrong in Genesis 3. Wright is wrong to minimize the Gospels as presenting the solution to the problem that begins there. Wright's comments about not having to keep the "silly old law" are over the top. No serious scholar argues for that. Furthermore, he should not so lightly dismiss the plot of God giving Israel a law that the could not keep and then replacing that law covenant with a new covenant. That is the story that Deut. 28-30 plots explicitly from the beginning (and he ends up summarizing Israel's story similarly less than a hundred pages later, compare 84-85 with 178-79).
(2) "the story of Jesus as the story of Israel's God"—Wright thinks that the emphasis of Jesus as God has been overemphasized. In his view, it obscures the more subtle ways that that the Synoptics identify Jesus as Israel's God. It is this that causes people to think John has a high Christology and the Synoptics have a low one. Wright has a point. Jesus is not a generic god incarnate. A tight connection to the Old Testament history and prophecies is important. Nonetheless, Wright seems to write as though conservatives, who have staunchly defended the deity and humanity of Christ in the gospels, and the liberals, who in his view misread the Gospels in different ways, are equivalently in error and in need of his setting things right. This is not fair or accurate.
(3) the "launching of God's renewed people"—Wright laments the tendency in critical circles to read the gospels simply "as the projection of early Christian faith, reflecting the controversies and crises of the early church" (105). Wright doesn't think it proper to say the Gospels are about "founding the church," since "there already was a 'people of God.'" Nonetheless, Wright does think "the gospels are telling the story of the launching of God's renewed people" (112). In other words, Jesus accomplished Israel's vocation and enabled God's plan to move forward in new ways. Wright's critique of the old community-produced Gospels approach is on target. But the story he sees about "God's renewed people" seems all too similar to what is often called replacement theology. To be sure, Wright takes pains to emphasize that he does not believe Israel has been "replaced" or "abandoned." He argues Israel has been "fulfilled" and "transformed." But in terms of position, rather than labels, Wright view is that of "replacement theology," which I believe to be a problematic position for a number of reasons (see Michael Vlach's Has the Church Replaced Israel). (I'm inclined to treat opposing viewpoints according to the golden rule; for instance I can sympathize with the discomfort of some with the label "limited atonement" and am happy to use "particular redemption" as a more felicitous label; likewise, I'd be willing to use terms other than replacement theology or supersessionism if those who hold those positions had a term that they thought reflected their viewpoint more accurately. At present, however, I know of no alternate terminology.)
(4) the "clash of the kingdoms" of God and Caesar—Wright insists there is not mere a generic kingdom of God versus kingdom of the devil conflict in the gospels (and in the rest of the NT, for that matter), but a specific kingdom of God versus kingdom of Caesar conflict. I believe this is Wright's weakest point. It seems to me that Scripture emphasizes the clash between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. Often Caesar is aligned with Satan against God's kingdom, but Caesar can also be called God's servant. I think Wright has done too much reading between the lines on this score. Furthermore, Wright's commendable tendency to ground Scripture in its historical context sometimes causes him to emphasize historical particularities when those are actually instances of broader, universal points. This appears in his handling of justification, and I think this is another instance of it.
When these four themes are rightly understood, it becomes evident, Wright says, that the Gospels are about "how God became king." But this raises the question of how Jesus's message of kingdom proclamation and the cross integrate. Wright devotes part 3 of this book to answering that question. But before he delves into this topic, Wright takes a brief detour to argue against the Enlightenment idea that religion is a private matter about how individuals can be "spiritual." In order to understand how kingdom and cross fit together, Wright argues that the privatization of Enlightenment religion must be rejected. Christianity is a public religion that speaks to all of life rather than a private spirituality. Wright's critique of the Enlightenment is right on target.
But the question remains: how do kingdom and cross come together? Wright says that Jesus climaxes the story of Israel by suffering as Israel's representative. His suffering now means the story of Israel can move forward. But it is not just Israel, through its representative that suffers, but God himself who suffers. "God himself will come to the place of pain and horror, of suffering and even of death, so that somehow he can take it upon himself and thereby set up his new style theocracy at last" (196). Jesus's suffering renewed God's people, and they follow him by sharing in his suffering which "somehow has the more positive effect of carrying forward the redemptive effect of Jesus's own death" (201). It is through their suffering that the church advances Jesus's kingdom. Then end result is that through the cross the kingdom of Christ triumphs over the kingdom of Caesar. Wright's primary weakness in this section is his dismissal of historic views of the atonement (a secondary weakness is his preterism). He speaks of "distortions that result when people construct an 'atonement theology' that bypasses the gospels" (196). But when he describes the atonement, he says, "God himself will come to the place of pain and horror, of suffering and even of death, so that somehow he can take it upon himself" (196, emphasis added). Throughout this section, the atonement is described with the vagueness of "somehow." This vagueness makes Wright's attempt to connect kingdom and cross less than satisfying.
Wright closes by engaging with those who are part of the theological interpretation of Scripture project. He affirms their critique of historical critical scholarship, but he critiques their abandonment of history and their dependence on the creeds. He is not convinced that the creeds alone will guide believers to faithful interpretations of Scripture. Wright argues that the creeds need to continue to be refined by (historically grounded) approaches to Scripture. He does not want to abandon the creeds, but he does want to enrich them by expanding and recontextualizing (with Scripture) their phrases. This critique of theological interpretation does strike at a particular weakness among many theological interpreters. They should reckon with the arguments he makes here. However, Wright too often has precisely the opposite weaknesses: lack of familiarity with historical theology, a tendency to over-historicize Scripture, and a quickness to abandon traditional theology in favor of new perspectives.
Wright makes many helpful point in this volume. He also makes some unhelpful missteps. For those seeking a better understanding of the Gospels, I would recommend Ridderbos's Coming of the Kingdom.
Before preceding with his positive argument Wright first surveys six inadequate (though not entirely wrong) answers:
○ "To teach people how to go to heaven" (42)—Wright focuses on the fact that heaven is not the biblical goal but a renewed earth. Eternal life is not about disembodied souls in a timeless state but about life on earth in the age to come. He is correct about this. But if going to heaven is translated "to enjoying eternal life in the age to come," this is a question that Jesus addresses at key points in his ministry, Nicodemus and the Rich Young Ruler being key examples.
○ To provide people with an ethic for life—Wright is rightly concerned that Jesus not be reduced to another Buddha or Muhammad who taught religious truths to people. However, when contextualized in the larger picture of Jesus's ministry, Wright correctly embraces the idea that Jesus was teaching people how they ought to live.
○ To provide a moral example—Wright grants that Jesus is an example to be followed in some particular ways (e.g.,, 1 Cor. 11:1 or Mark 8:34). But he rejects this answer for two reasons. First, Jesus is not an example that we are able to copy. We just can't live up to his standard. Second, Jesus is doing unique things in his life that no one is supposed to try to imitate.
○ "His perfect life means that he can be the perfect sacrifice" (50)—Wright is willing to grant the Bible does present Jesus as the sinless sacrifice and that his sinless life is part of this. He notes John 8:46 (cf. Mark 10:18); 2 Cor. 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5; Luke 23:14-15, 22, 31, 41, 47 (p. 50). Wright rejects, however, the Reformed teaching that Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law and its teaching about Jesus's active obedience (Romans 5:19) (p. 51). Overall, Wright concludes, "But, beyond these passages [noted above], the gospels show no interest whatever in making the link that much traditional teaching has employed. If that was what they were trying to say, you'd think they would have made it a bit clearer" (51). But Wright himself has assembled an impressive array of passages that make this point. He could add to this the Old Testament background that stands behind Mark 10:45, and he could factor in the significance of the temptation accounts which stand at the beginning of the Synoptic Gospels' presentation of Jesus. This seems to be an important element that should play a role in whatever answer is given the question of the significance of Jesus's ministry.
○ To provide us with stories "so we can identify with the characters in the story and find our own way by seeing what happened to them" (52)—Wright again acknowledges that this is a possible and legitimate use, but he doesn't believe it is reason the Gospels were written.
○ "To demonstrate the divinity of Jesus" (and his humanity) (53)—Wright believes the Gospel writers would have affirmed Jesus these points, but he says even John who opens with this theme does not make it the major theme of his gospel. Rather, John, and all the gospels are "to tell us what this embodied God is now up to" (54). Wright's affirmation is correct, but his denial is too sharp. My study of Mark has led me to conclude that demonstrating the deity of Jesus is a major theme of the Gospel from its opening verses.
Wright responds that the gospels are actually "trying to say that this is how God became king" (57). This is a good summary of the message of the four Gospels (and despite Wright's rather annoying rhetoric of having discovered a lost theme that has been missing from the church until he wrote this book, this theme can be found in Herman Ridderbos's The Coming of the Kingdom and in the writing of dispensationalists such as Craig Blaising).
In turning toward making a positive argument, Wright highlights four themes found in all the gospels. He thinks some of these themes are over-emphasized and some are under-emphasized. Getting these four themes correctly balanced is, in Wright's view, essential to understanding the Gospel message about Jesus's life. The themes are:
(1) "the story of Israel"—Wright laments that the Gospels have been read as the solution to the sin problem of Genesis 3, skipping over the story of Israel entirely, or looking at it as a "plan A" that went wrong with the gospel as a "plan B" that allows people to be saved by faith without having "to keep that silly old law" (84-85). In Wright's view Jesus is "the climax of the story of Israel"; he is "Israel's supreme representative" who finally does bring about God's purposes for Israel (183). Wright's emphasis on the importance of the story of Israel is commendable. Israel is the national focal point of the Old Testament for significant reasons, and the New Testament must not be cut loose from the Old. But Israel's story is set within the larger human story that begins to go wrong in Genesis 3. Wright is wrong to minimize the Gospels as presenting the solution to the problem that begins there. Wright's comments about not having to keep the "silly old law" are over the top. No serious scholar argues for that. Furthermore, he should not so lightly dismiss the plot of God giving Israel a law that the could not keep and then replacing that law covenant with a new covenant. That is the story that Deut. 28-30 plots explicitly from the beginning (and he ends up summarizing Israel's story similarly less than a hundred pages later, compare 84-85 with 178-79).
(2) "the story of Jesus as the story of Israel's God"—Wright thinks that the emphasis of Jesus as God has been overemphasized. In his view, it obscures the more subtle ways that that the Synoptics identify Jesus as Israel's God. It is this that causes people to think John has a high Christology and the Synoptics have a low one. Wright has a point. Jesus is not a generic god incarnate. A tight connection to the Old Testament history and prophecies is important. Nonetheless, Wright seems to write as though conservatives, who have staunchly defended the deity and humanity of Christ in the gospels, and the liberals, who in his view misread the Gospels in different ways, are equivalently in error and in need of his setting things right. This is not fair or accurate.
(3) the "launching of God's renewed people"—Wright laments the tendency in critical circles to read the gospels simply "as the projection of early Christian faith, reflecting the controversies and crises of the early church" (105). Wright doesn't think it proper to say the Gospels are about "founding the church," since "there already was a 'people of God.'" Nonetheless, Wright does think "the gospels are telling the story of the launching of God's renewed people" (112). In other words, Jesus accomplished Israel's vocation and enabled God's plan to move forward in new ways. Wright's critique of the old community-produced Gospels approach is on target. But the story he sees about "God's renewed people" seems all too similar to what is often called replacement theology. To be sure, Wright takes pains to emphasize that he does not believe Israel has been "replaced" or "abandoned." He argues Israel has been "fulfilled" and "transformed." But in terms of position, rather than labels, Wright view is that of "replacement theology," which I believe to be a problematic position for a number of reasons (see Michael Vlach's Has the Church Replaced Israel). (I'm inclined to treat opposing viewpoints according to the golden rule; for instance I can sympathize with the discomfort of some with the label "limited atonement" and am happy to use "particular redemption" as a more felicitous label; likewise, I'd be willing to use terms other than replacement theology or supersessionism if those who hold those positions had a term that they thought reflected their viewpoint more accurately. At present, however, I know of no alternate terminology.)
(4) the "clash of the kingdoms" of God and Caesar—Wright insists there is not mere a generic kingdom of God versus kingdom of the devil conflict in the gospels (and in the rest of the NT, for that matter), but a specific kingdom of God versus kingdom of Caesar conflict. I believe this is Wright's weakest point. It seems to me that Scripture emphasizes the clash between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. Often Caesar is aligned with Satan against God's kingdom, but Caesar can also be called God's servant. I think Wright has done too much reading between the lines on this score. Furthermore, Wright's commendable tendency to ground Scripture in its historical context sometimes causes him to emphasize historical particularities when those are actually instances of broader, universal points. This appears in his handling of justification, and I think this is another instance of it.
When these four themes are rightly understood, it becomes evident, Wright says, that the Gospels are about "how God became king." But this raises the question of how Jesus's message of kingdom proclamation and the cross integrate. Wright devotes part 3 of this book to answering that question. But before he delves into this topic, Wright takes a brief detour to argue against the Enlightenment idea that religion is a private matter about how individuals can be "spiritual." In order to understand how kingdom and cross fit together, Wright argues that the privatization of Enlightenment religion must be rejected. Christianity is a public religion that speaks to all of life rather than a private spirituality. Wright's critique of the Enlightenment is right on target.
But the question remains: how do kingdom and cross come together? Wright says that Jesus climaxes the story of Israel by suffering as Israel's representative. His suffering now means the story of Israel can move forward. But it is not just Israel, through its representative that suffers, but God himself who suffers. "God himself will come to the place of pain and horror, of suffering and even of death, so that somehow he can take it upon himself and thereby set up his new style theocracy at last" (196). Jesus's suffering renewed God's people, and they follow him by sharing in his suffering which "somehow has the more positive effect of carrying forward the redemptive effect of Jesus's own death" (201). It is through their suffering that the church advances Jesus's kingdom. Then end result is that through the cross the kingdom of Christ triumphs over the kingdom of Caesar. Wright's primary weakness in this section is his dismissal of historic views of the atonement (a secondary weakness is his preterism). He speaks of "distortions that result when people construct an 'atonement theology' that bypasses the gospels" (196). But when he describes the atonement, he says, "God himself will come to the place of pain and horror, of suffering and even of death, so that somehow he can take it upon himself" (196, emphasis added). Throughout this section, the atonement is described with the vagueness of "somehow." This vagueness makes Wright's attempt to connect kingdom and cross less than satisfying.
Wright closes by engaging with those who are part of the theological interpretation of Scripture project. He affirms their critique of historical critical scholarship, but he critiques their abandonment of history and their dependence on the creeds. He is not convinced that the creeds alone will guide believers to faithful interpretations of Scripture. Wright argues that the creeds need to continue to be refined by (historically grounded) approaches to Scripture. He does not want to abandon the creeds, but he does want to enrich them by expanding and recontextualizing (with Scripture) their phrases. This critique of theological interpretation does strike at a particular weakness among many theological interpreters. They should reckon with the arguments he makes here. However, Wright too often has precisely the opposite weaknesses: lack of familiarity with historical theology, a tendency to over-historicize Scripture, and a quickness to abandon traditional theology in favor of new perspectives.
Wright makes many helpful point in this volume. He also makes some unhelpful missteps. For those seeking a better understanding of the Gospels, I would recommend Ridderbos's Coming of the Kingdom.
November 24, 2012
The biggest shift in my theological experience can be traced to an understanding of "the Kingdom of God."
I think that this phrase defines Christian denominations--from those who believe it is Heaven, waiting to come to Earth following an apocalypse, to those who believe it is exclusive to the Roman church, a sect exclusively following one Biblical rule or another, to those who see the Kingdom of God as everybody.
I was eager to read N.T. Wright's take on the Kingdom of God. He presents a highly theosophical argument here (quite a few times, I felt that I was out of my league), using the gospels as the guide to what kind of community Jesus had in mind. Wright feels that Christians, who skip from "was born of the Virgin Mary" to "suffered under Pontius Pilate, died..." in the Apostle's Creed, miss out on what Jesus was really about. And he uses the various voices of the gospel writers to show Jesus story as one that confronted Roman misrule, one that fulfilled the prophecies of the Jewish writers, and one who was sent by God to set up a kingdom "not of this world."
This is a solid book. A challenging one. One that I hope to read a 2nd time, just to get everything it offers. Ultimately, I feel that Jesus' kingdom, as described by Wright here, is to be "on earth as it is in heaven," and compels Christians to serve its eternal purposes.
I think that this phrase defines Christian denominations--from those who believe it is Heaven, waiting to come to Earth following an apocalypse, to those who believe it is exclusive to the Roman church, a sect exclusively following one Biblical rule or another, to those who see the Kingdom of God as everybody.
I was eager to read N.T. Wright's take on the Kingdom of God. He presents a highly theosophical argument here (quite a few times, I felt that I was out of my league), using the gospels as the guide to what kind of community Jesus had in mind. Wright feels that Christians, who skip from "was born of the Virgin Mary" to "suffered under Pontius Pilate, died..." in the Apostle's Creed, miss out on what Jesus was really about. And he uses the various voices of the gospel writers to show Jesus story as one that confronted Roman misrule, one that fulfilled the prophecies of the Jewish writers, and one who was sent by God to set up a kingdom "not of this world."
This is a solid book. A challenging one. One that I hope to read a 2nd time, just to get everything it offers. Ultimately, I feel that Jesus' kingdom, as described by Wright here, is to be "on earth as it is in heaven," and compels Christians to serve its eternal purposes.
March 24, 2012
N.T. Wright Switches Questions with an `Explosive' Result
Millions of Americans know former Bishop N.T. "Tom" Wright as the man who defends the Bible against skeptics. It certainly doesn't hurt that Wright does this in a wonderfully resonant British accent with the confident air of a latter-day C.S. Lewis, who in his day was a famous media personality himself. But, through several recent books, Wright has been trying to change the focus of his message to something he considers much more urgent for our tumultuous times.
Wright certainly is famous as the Bible scholar who answers a hearty "Yes" to the question: Are the Gospels true? The question he is eager to answer is: What do the Gospels mean? In answering that second question, Wright deliberately uses the word "explosive" to convey the kind of passion and power he believes can be unlocked through the Christianity we discover in the Bible to this day. (He uses the e-word in a video he produced for the book, and he uses the e-word in the concluding passages of the book itself.)
Wright has been leading readers down this pathway for years, now, in a series of books that tell general readers about Jesus' life and ministry (especially in his book Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters) and about the entire New Testament as seen through the lens of Wright's Kingdom theology (either in his earlier small-group Bible-study booklets or in his 2011 The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation). These ideas also can be found in the 2010 book After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters. In the UK, Wright is well known for his public statements in venues like newspaper commentaries and Anglican gatherings. Here in the U.S., his American fans may still be making their way through his first dozen or so books. Churchgoers on this side of the Atlantic may not have caught up to Wright's current focus in teaching, especially since he stepped down as bishop of Durham in 2010 so that he has more time to teach and write about issues that urgently concern him.
I recommend watching the YouTube video in which Wright himself gives a pretty good summary of this book's purpose. We include that video in ReadTheSpirit coverage of the new book. You might compare what he says in the video interview with a similar way he words it in the pages of the book itself. There, he writes: This book is about ... "the new reality of Jesus and his launching of God's kingdom. The new reality of a story so explosive ... that the church in many generations has found it too much to take and so has watered it down, cut it up into little pieces, turned it into small-scale lessons rather than allowing its full impact to be felt. Part of the tragedy of the modern church, I have been arguing, is that the `orthodox' have preferred creed to kingdom, and the `unorthodox' have tried to get a kingdom without a creed. It's time to put back together what should never have been separated. In Jesus, the living God has become king of the whole world."
Provocative stuff! And Wright fearlessly raises a whole range of issues that will spark discussion in your small group. In the middle of the book, for example, he takes a shot at both Fox News as well as more liberal cultural icons. In the closing pages of the book, he outlines various ways that people "read" the church's great creeds today that wind up mistaking the central meaning of the Gospels. No question: A discussion of this new Wright book will draw a lively crowd in most congregations.
Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters
Kingdom New Testament-OE
After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters
Millions of Americans know former Bishop N.T. "Tom" Wright as the man who defends the Bible against skeptics. It certainly doesn't hurt that Wright does this in a wonderfully resonant British accent with the confident air of a latter-day C.S. Lewis, who in his day was a famous media personality himself. But, through several recent books, Wright has been trying to change the focus of his message to something he considers much more urgent for our tumultuous times.
Wright certainly is famous as the Bible scholar who answers a hearty "Yes" to the question: Are the Gospels true? The question he is eager to answer is: What do the Gospels mean? In answering that second question, Wright deliberately uses the word "explosive" to convey the kind of passion and power he believes can be unlocked through the Christianity we discover in the Bible to this day. (He uses the e-word in a video he produced for the book, and he uses the e-word in the concluding passages of the book itself.)
Wright has been leading readers down this pathway for years, now, in a series of books that tell general readers about Jesus' life and ministry (especially in his book Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters) and about the entire New Testament as seen through the lens of Wright's Kingdom theology (either in his earlier small-group Bible-study booklets or in his 2011 The Kingdom New Testament: A Contemporary Translation). These ideas also can be found in the 2010 book After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters. In the UK, Wright is well known for his public statements in venues like newspaper commentaries and Anglican gatherings. Here in the U.S., his American fans may still be making their way through his first dozen or so books. Churchgoers on this side of the Atlantic may not have caught up to Wright's current focus in teaching, especially since he stepped down as bishop of Durham in 2010 so that he has more time to teach and write about issues that urgently concern him.
I recommend watching the YouTube video in which Wright himself gives a pretty good summary of this book's purpose. We include that video in ReadTheSpirit coverage of the new book. You might compare what he says in the video interview with a similar way he words it in the pages of the book itself. There, he writes: This book is about ... "the new reality of Jesus and his launching of God's kingdom. The new reality of a story so explosive ... that the church in many generations has found it too much to take and so has watered it down, cut it up into little pieces, turned it into small-scale lessons rather than allowing its full impact to be felt. Part of the tragedy of the modern church, I have been arguing, is that the `orthodox' have preferred creed to kingdom, and the `unorthodox' have tried to get a kingdom without a creed. It's time to put back together what should never have been separated. In Jesus, the living God has become king of the whole world."
Provocative stuff! And Wright fearlessly raises a whole range of issues that will spark discussion in your small group. In the middle of the book, for example, he takes a shot at both Fox News as well as more liberal cultural icons. In the closing pages of the book, he outlines various ways that people "read" the church's great creeds today that wind up mistaking the central meaning of the Gospels. No question: A discussion of this new Wright book will draw a lively crowd in most congregations.
Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters
Kingdom New Testament-OE
After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters
June 10, 2015
As I'm now teaching Mark I was eager to find suggestions on what we might be missing and get ideas on fresh ways to view this gospel. Perhaps it's the difference of place and denomination, but I didn't find Wright's hypothesis to be as strong as he presents it. In my circle the gospels are not viewed only in the limited way he says. And his ideas were not earth-shatteringly new. In fact, as I read I often thought "That's it?" and "Duh". Quite respectfully, of course. :) Perhaps his points are true for churches that rely on creeds. But many don't. He either ignores that fact or doesn't know it, to the point that I almost felt he was building a straw man in the first part of his book.
As I read my heart cried out against the limited view Wright has of present day Christians. I wouldn't have minded as much if he hadn't worked so hard to convince his reader that all Western Christians are narrow-minded in the ways he describes. He tosses around terms like "fundamentalists", "the Western church" and "conservatives" like he's really privy to how everyone thinks. I don't believe he is.
Because of DH's job I've lived all over the US and abroad and gotten to know many Christians from quite diverse backgrounds. Does he really think we don't pour over every word of the Bible, NT and OT? Does he think we don't speak with our Jewish friends about their understanding and read and travel to learn to look beyond our own cultural mindsets? That we treat Jews and the history of Israel as irrelevant? That we actually believe our faith is all about us and heaven and isn't intended to transform our world? I won't argue that our mindset is often not Biblical - Platonic dualism often creeps in, for instance. But I can honestly say that the people - quite simple, everyday people - that I spend time with aren't as limited in their thinking as the ones Wright seems to know. Fortunately.
As I read my heart cried out against the limited view Wright has of present day Christians. I wouldn't have minded as much if he hadn't worked so hard to convince his reader that all Western Christians are narrow-minded in the ways he describes. He tosses around terms like "fundamentalists", "the Western church" and "conservatives" like he's really privy to how everyone thinks. I don't believe he is.
Because of DH's job I've lived all over the US and abroad and gotten to know many Christians from quite diverse backgrounds. Does he really think we don't pour over every word of the Bible, NT and OT? Does he think we don't speak with our Jewish friends about their understanding and read and travel to learn to look beyond our own cultural mindsets? That we treat Jews and the history of Israel as irrelevant? That we actually believe our faith is all about us and heaven and isn't intended to transform our world? I won't argue that our mindset is often not Biblical - Platonic dualism often creeps in, for instance. But I can honestly say that the people - quite simple, everyday people - that I spend time with aren't as limited in their thinking as the ones Wright seems to know. Fortunately.
November 16, 2025
If you were to talk to most professing Christians today, you would soon find that they affirm a toothless faith. Ask them to explain the purpose of the Bible’s four Gospels and you will hear the typical “Christmas to Cross” synopsis. You know that reductionist summary that talks squarely on how Christ was born in a manger, lived a perfect life (one which we ought to emulate, of course), and then died for our sins on the cross. But what about all of the stuff in the middle of Christ’s life? As Wright points out, we reinterpret the Gospels to simply be a “How to get saved” manual while ignoring so much of the Gospels are trying to say.
Jesus’ ministry on earth had a purpose. If all that was needed was an incarnation, a death, and a resurrection, then Christ wasted 30+ years on earth when he could have just quickly accomplished our salvation. The idea of kingdom becomes truncated to an ethical structure and the Cross truncated to salvation, but Wright argues that Kingdom and Cross are intrinsically connected. The Gospel story of Kingdom and Cross are not just given for use as a moral guide or apologetics for our faith, Wright argues that the cross is the enthronement of the true king - the establishment of a new kingdom. There were times in this book that, as the young kids say these days, Wright was absolutely cooking. So many quotable sections.
As much as I appreciated and agreed with Wright, there are some necessary caveats to all of this. While it is true that in Jesus, God has truly become King, I do have some concerns that this theme can detract from other important doctrines like Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I say this as someone who takes an eclectic view of the atonement, bringing multiple themes like Christus Victor into my atonement beliefs. Yet we in the Reformed world have long held what Wright is bringing to surface here in the Munus Triplex, that Christ is prophet, priest, and king. My primary concern is that it seems like what Wright is teaching is not a Via Media between all that Christ accomplishes in His incarnation, but rather some form of Tertium Quid that would ultimately replace what our creeds and confessions teach. Perhaps that is paranoia, or perhaps it is not being careful enough.
I do think that the critiques I have seen for this book concerning the idea that Wright is making the Gospels too political are unfounded. You have not been paying attention to Scripture if you believe that the Bible (specifically the Gospels) are apolitical. And I don’t mean republican and democrat politics - Scripture provides its own politic and Christ championed it His entire life. This is His kingdom and He is our king. He is not running for office, he eternally holds the office. It reminds me of the old Lordship controversy, but we could rephrase it like this - you cannot have Christ as your savior and not also have Him as your King.
Jesus’ ministry on earth had a purpose. If all that was needed was an incarnation, a death, and a resurrection, then Christ wasted 30+ years on earth when he could have just quickly accomplished our salvation. The idea of kingdom becomes truncated to an ethical structure and the Cross truncated to salvation, but Wright argues that Kingdom and Cross are intrinsically connected. The Gospel story of Kingdom and Cross are not just given for use as a moral guide or apologetics for our faith, Wright argues that the cross is the enthronement of the true king - the establishment of a new kingdom. There were times in this book that, as the young kids say these days, Wright was absolutely cooking. So many quotable sections.
As much as I appreciated and agreed with Wright, there are some necessary caveats to all of this. While it is true that in Jesus, God has truly become King, I do have some concerns that this theme can detract from other important doctrines like Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I say this as someone who takes an eclectic view of the atonement, bringing multiple themes like Christus Victor into my atonement beliefs. Yet we in the Reformed world have long held what Wright is bringing to surface here in the Munus Triplex, that Christ is prophet, priest, and king. My primary concern is that it seems like what Wright is teaching is not a Via Media between all that Christ accomplishes in His incarnation, but rather some form of Tertium Quid that would ultimately replace what our creeds and confessions teach. Perhaps that is paranoia, or perhaps it is not being careful enough.
I do think that the critiques I have seen for this book concerning the idea that Wright is making the Gospels too political are unfounded. You have not been paying attention to Scripture if you believe that the Bible (specifically the Gospels) are apolitical. And I don’t mean republican and democrat politics - Scripture provides its own politic and Christ championed it His entire life. This is His kingdom and He is our king. He is not running for office, he eternally holds the office. It reminds me of the old Lordship controversy, but we could rephrase it like this - you cannot have Christ as your savior and not also have Him as your King.
December 25, 2023
This book gave me fresh insight and a renewed appreciation for the Gospels.
August 2, 2022
Well that was a challenge...
May 27, 2019
The more that I read N.T. Wright, the more I appreciate what he's trying to do with each of his books. Wright's main emphasis seems to be to unwind our overly pietistic reading of the Bible--or as Wright himself says, "we have all forgotten what the four gospels are about."
Now, I understand that Wright often gets maligned for arguing that it wasn't until he began writing and publishing books that we've begun to return to 'the truth.' And sure, it is kind of fun to poke fun at the way Wright sometimes seems to come off when he says such things. But he is right that the church has largely gone astray from the true teachings of Scripture.
Wright begins the book by showing how the creeds themselves overlook the meat of Jesus's ministry by focusing on his incarnation and death and resurrection. But the New Testament uniformly asserts "that Jesus is already in charge of the world. (Check out, for instance, 1 Cor. 15:20–28; Heb. 2:5–9; Rev. 5:6–14.) That was what they understood by “God’s kingdom.” But for the four gospels this wasn’t something that simply began at the ascension. It was true, in a sense, from the moment Jesus began his public career. This was what they were trying to tell us. And most Christians have never even thought about such a thing, let alone begun to figure out what it means for us today. This is the problem, I believe, with the great majestic creeds, full as they are of solemn truth and supple wisdom. They manage not to mention the main thing the gospels are trying to tell us, and they talk about something else instead." p. 15
Wright's "case throughout this book, then, is that all four canonical gospels suppose themselves to be telling the story that Paul, in some of his most central and characteristic passages, tells as well: that the story of Jesus is the story of how Israel’s God became king." p. 38
Wright then goes on to explain how the message of Jesus's enthronement as King of all Creation, NOW, has been lost in the theological battles over Christology, the historicity of the gospels, the incarnation, atonement theology, and so on.
Wright then emphasizes that, "What the four gospels are eager to tell us, then, is that the messianic kingdom that Jesus is bringing will come through his suffering and indeed through the suffering of his followers. But it is Jesus’s own suffering in particular, gradually revealed as unique and uniquely effective, that is highlighted as the gospel narratives proceed." p. 223
He also tells us that, "The slaughtered and enthroned lamb of Revelation 5 is not only the shepherd of his people; he is also their template. Sharing his suffering is the way in which they are to extend his kingdom in the world." p. 203
There's much more to the book, and he goes to greath lengths in the last section of the book to show from the gospels are "telling the story of how God, the creator God, Israel’s God, became in and through Jesus the king of all the world..." p. 273
This is what is missing from so many of the "gospel" books--a theology of kingdom--a kingdom that has begun. Wright is working to restore a balanced understanding of what the gospels, and the New Testament itself are teaching about Christ. I am glad he's doing it, because it is there, and we so readily overlook it.
Now, I understand that Wright often gets maligned for arguing that it wasn't until he began writing and publishing books that we've begun to return to 'the truth.' And sure, it is kind of fun to poke fun at the way Wright sometimes seems to come off when he says such things. But he is right that the church has largely gone astray from the true teachings of Scripture.
Wright begins the book by showing how the creeds themselves overlook the meat of Jesus's ministry by focusing on his incarnation and death and resurrection. But the New Testament uniformly asserts "that Jesus is already in charge of the world. (Check out, for instance, 1 Cor. 15:20–28; Heb. 2:5–9; Rev. 5:6–14.) That was what they understood by “God’s kingdom.” But for the four gospels this wasn’t something that simply began at the ascension. It was true, in a sense, from the moment Jesus began his public career. This was what they were trying to tell us. And most Christians have never even thought about such a thing, let alone begun to figure out what it means for us today. This is the problem, I believe, with the great majestic creeds, full as they are of solemn truth and supple wisdom. They manage not to mention the main thing the gospels are trying to tell us, and they talk about something else instead." p. 15
Wright's "case throughout this book, then, is that all four canonical gospels suppose themselves to be telling the story that Paul, in some of his most central and characteristic passages, tells as well: that the story of Jesus is the story of how Israel’s God became king." p. 38
Wright then goes on to explain how the message of Jesus's enthronement as King of all Creation, NOW, has been lost in the theological battles over Christology, the historicity of the gospels, the incarnation, atonement theology, and so on.
Wright then emphasizes that, "What the four gospels are eager to tell us, then, is that the messianic kingdom that Jesus is bringing will come through his suffering and indeed through the suffering of his followers. But it is Jesus’s own suffering in particular, gradually revealed as unique and uniquely effective, that is highlighted as the gospel narratives proceed." p. 223
He also tells us that, "The slaughtered and enthroned lamb of Revelation 5 is not only the shepherd of his people; he is also their template. Sharing his suffering is the way in which they are to extend his kingdom in the world." p. 203
There's much more to the book, and he goes to greath lengths in the last section of the book to show from the gospels are "telling the story of how God, the creator God, Israel’s God, became in and through Jesus the king of all the world..." p. 273
This is what is missing from so many of the "gospel" books--a theology of kingdom--a kingdom that has begun. Wright is working to restore a balanced understanding of what the gospels, and the New Testament itself are teaching about Christ. I am glad he's doing it, because it is there, and we so readily overlook it.
April 5, 2018
I love N.T. Wright's material. He has such a refreshing way of explaining theological concepts I've habitually taken for granted (or ignored altogether).
In this book, he manages to challenge everything I've always believed about the Gospels while at the same time illuminating some of the most confusing aspects of them. His basic premise is just what the title claims: the Gospels, more so than simple biographies of Jesus, or Passion narratives with extended introductions, are accounts explaining how Israel's God (in the person of Jesus), has become king of the world.
This perspective makes so much more sense to me of all the material in the middle of the Gospel; all the accounts of water to wine, healing, walking on water, and teaching are far more intelligible as stories of Jesus establishing God's rule over all creation and over all other worldly powers (both political and diabolical).
I highly recommend this book, and I will most likely be returning to it to continue shaping my understanding.
In this book, he manages to challenge everything I've always believed about the Gospels while at the same time illuminating some of the most confusing aspects of them. His basic premise is just what the title claims: the Gospels, more so than simple biographies of Jesus, or Passion narratives with extended introductions, are accounts explaining how Israel's God (in the person of Jesus), has become king of the world.
This perspective makes so much more sense to me of all the material in the middle of the Gospel; all the accounts of water to wine, healing, walking on water, and teaching are far more intelligible as stories of Jesus establishing God's rule over all creation and over all other worldly powers (both political and diabolical).
I highly recommend this book, and I will most likely be returning to it to continue shaping my understanding.
January 4, 2017
Good and thought provoking. Read through as part of a discussion group and breaking out each chapter week-to-week made it a bit harder to keep all the strands together. Still, worth the read.
July 22, 2025
I quite enjoyed this book. I believe the author is Anglican, but he speaks to any branch of Christianity that adheres to the apostolic creed (or Nicene creed), and has something worthwhile to say to anyone who reads and respects the Bible, I think.
His main thesis is that most Christians have completely overlooked the gospels because they are irrelevant to the main story of Christ’s birth as God’s only begotten son/God incarnate, entering his creation and Christ’s death and atonement. The creeds don’t mention any aspect of Christ’s life other than the book ends and so, he laments, most Christian teaching has overlooked the importance of the actual life of Christ.
There are plenty of other reasons that theology and biblical scholarship have missed the point of and dismissed the importance of the gospels.
Wright’s agenda then is to help us better appreciate the story the gospels by helping us see better the story the authors intended to tell. And what is that story?
Well, first I appreciated Wright’s approach which focused on turning up and down the volume on different aspects of that story.
Part of the story is the backdrop of the story of Israel and the Old Testament This is Israel’s story, and we need to appreciate how Christ comes to fufill that story. There are a lot of lovely thematic echoes throughout Old and New Testament he points out that I think any Christian reader would appreciate.
Next is the story of Jesus as the Messiah which needs to be turned down a bit, so we can appreciate more the nuance of how he fulfills the role of Messiah as God entering his creation (in fulfillment of prophecy), and how so much of the gospels are helping shift what the concept of Messiah was thought to be—political ruler like the ones of the earth—and how he seeks to change that (as a servant and embodiment of love).
Next (and these last two are a bit problematic for me), has to do with Eternal Life and the Kingdom of God. In both cases, Wright seems to argue that we think too much about the next life and the second coming and miss the fact that the change was now and the realization and establishment of God’s kingdom on earth with Christ as it’s head did indeed occur. He’s light on the details in some ways, but it seems that he sees the Christian movement writ large as this fulfillment. Forget looking forward to the 2nd coming. Christ came, established his kingdom, empowered his people with the Holy Ghost and they are his agents to enact goodness in the world, to show that might does not make right, but that rather a new way to “rule,” or exert influence, is through serving and loving. And all those in the world who do this in Christ’s name are members of his kingdom.
My issue with this is that while he seems to distance himself from some kind of individualized salvation as the end goal and insist on a real political reality, the political reality seems as good as individualized salvation and people working to spread God’s kingdom or way of doing things, but where is the political reality of that? He doesn’t point to those times where Christian church have had actual political power, or anything, so that seemed a bit fuzzy for me.
Speaking of issues/gripes, he has a lot of gripes about the Enlightenment and how it has distorted our ability to read the gospels in the way they were intended since we take it as an article of civic faith that church and state can, and should, be separate.
Lots to think about, and an enjoyable read.
His main thesis is that most Christians have completely overlooked the gospels because they are irrelevant to the main story of Christ’s birth as God’s only begotten son/God incarnate, entering his creation and Christ’s death and atonement. The creeds don’t mention any aspect of Christ’s life other than the book ends and so, he laments, most Christian teaching has overlooked the importance of the actual life of Christ.
There are plenty of other reasons that theology and biblical scholarship have missed the point of and dismissed the importance of the gospels.
Wright’s agenda then is to help us better appreciate the story the gospels by helping us see better the story the authors intended to tell. And what is that story?
Well, first I appreciated Wright’s approach which focused on turning up and down the volume on different aspects of that story.
Part of the story is the backdrop of the story of Israel and the Old Testament This is Israel’s story, and we need to appreciate how Christ comes to fufill that story. There are a lot of lovely thematic echoes throughout Old and New Testament he points out that I think any Christian reader would appreciate.
Next is the story of Jesus as the Messiah which needs to be turned down a bit, so we can appreciate more the nuance of how he fulfills the role of Messiah as God entering his creation (in fulfillment of prophecy), and how so much of the gospels are helping shift what the concept of Messiah was thought to be—political ruler like the ones of the earth—and how he seeks to change that (as a servant and embodiment of love).
Next (and these last two are a bit problematic for me), has to do with Eternal Life and the Kingdom of God. In both cases, Wright seems to argue that we think too much about the next life and the second coming and miss the fact that the change was now and the realization and establishment of God’s kingdom on earth with Christ as it’s head did indeed occur. He’s light on the details in some ways, but it seems that he sees the Christian movement writ large as this fulfillment. Forget looking forward to the 2nd coming. Christ came, established his kingdom, empowered his people with the Holy Ghost and they are his agents to enact goodness in the world, to show that might does not make right, but that rather a new way to “rule,” or exert influence, is through serving and loving. And all those in the world who do this in Christ’s name are members of his kingdom.
My issue with this is that while he seems to distance himself from some kind of individualized salvation as the end goal and insist on a real political reality, the political reality seems as good as individualized salvation and people working to spread God’s kingdom or way of doing things, but where is the political reality of that? He doesn’t point to those times where Christian church have had actual political power, or anything, so that seemed a bit fuzzy for me.
Speaking of issues/gripes, he has a lot of gripes about the Enlightenment and how it has distorted our ability to read the gospels in the way they were intended since we take it as an article of civic faith that church and state can, and should, be separate.
Lots to think about, and an enjoyable read.
July 10, 2020
Summary: We must not divorce our reading of the gospels from the story of Israel, and a correct reading of the gospels will lead us, like Israel, to full engagement with the world and all its messiness, even as we also live out and know about God's redemptive work and New Creation.
I found it especially helpful to consider how the creeds have tended to shape our view of the canon rather than letting it be the other way around. It is entirely possible for us to affirm each individual phrase of the creeds, yet miss the story of the Bible. Wright is probably in a bee-in-his-bonnet mode more than what is strictly necessary, and he makes more than a few overstatements and generalizations, but that can all be forgiven if you consider the amount of scholarship and content he is compressing into 274 pages.
I found it especially helpful to consider how the creeds have tended to shape our view of the canon rather than letting it be the other way around. It is entirely possible for us to affirm each individual phrase of the creeds, yet miss the story of the Bible. Wright is probably in a bee-in-his-bonnet mode more than what is strictly necessary, and he makes more than a few overstatements and generalizations, but that can all be forgiven if you consider the amount of scholarship and content he is compressing into 274 pages.
February 13, 2021
Brilliant.
Wright convincingly argues that we have all (the common and especially the western Church) misread the Gospels.
Much of today's Gospel message focuses almost exclusively on the Gnostic gospels. We fail to recognize the importance of the Old Testament and the four Canonical Gospels themselves.
He argues that the Gospel is much more, more complex, more beautiful, and more full when we understand that the Gospel is not just our way to heaven but instead how God, the creator God, Israel's God, became in and through Jesus, the king of all the world.
How God Became King, is excellent.
Wright convincingly argues that we have all (the common and especially the western Church) misread the Gospels.
Much of today's Gospel message focuses almost exclusively on the Gnostic gospels. We fail to recognize the importance of the Old Testament and the four Canonical Gospels themselves.
He argues that the Gospel is much more, more complex, more beautiful, and more full when we understand that the Gospel is not just our way to heaven but instead how God, the creator God, Israel's God, became in and through Jesus, the king of all the world.
How God Became King, is excellent.
December 28, 2023
I always appreciate Bishop Wright’s incisive scholarship and practical application. His almost conversational style makes for easy reading. He challenges us to re-think the place and purpose of the Gospels in light of the lack of reference in the creeds to Israel and Jesus actual life. That Jesus comes to bring God’s kingdom to earth and assume his rightful place as King challenges most contemporary understandings of the Gospels. We now live in that kingdom which he inaugurated through his life and death while recognizing it is already here yet not yet complete. Changes the way you think about what it is to be a member of the Kingdom.
October 27, 2024
2.75 stars
Man…
This one took me a while.
Sadly, I was pretty underwhelmed, especially since I’d heard several scholars hype it up a ton. Therefore, I expected it to be earth-shattering.
It wasn’t.
Although I felt it was solid theologically, I found it to be a strange mix of both too complex and confusing for most readers, yet simultaneously too simple for everyone else.
Still love NT Wright tho
Man…
This one took me a while.
Sadly, I was pretty underwhelmed, especially since I’d heard several scholars hype it up a ton. Therefore, I expected it to be earth-shattering.
It wasn’t.
Although I felt it was solid theologically, I found it to be a strange mix of both too complex and confusing for most readers, yet simultaneously too simple for everyone else.
Still love NT Wright tho
April 4, 2024
Another NT Wright mind-bender that took what I knew about the gospels and turned it inside out in an exciting and eye-opening way.
"Part of the tragedy of the modern church is that the 'orthodox' have preferred creed to kingdom, and the 'unorthodox' have tried to get a kingdom without a creed. It's time to put back together what should never have been separated."
"Part of the tragedy of the modern church is that the 'orthodox' have preferred creed to kingdom, and the 'unorthodox' have tried to get a kingdom without a creed. It's time to put back together what should never have been separated."
July 9, 2017
Incredibly insightful, and thought provoking. You may not agree with all of Wright's points, but there is no doubt this book has substance. We can get into the habit of crafting the gospel into short little talking points. In that process we may be missing some pretty important elements of the narrative.
February 11, 2020
Really insightful
Wright puts his finger in why shorthand explanations of the gospel feel truncated, empty, and detached from the gospel narratives. For those who are looking for a fresh significance to the “middle bits” between the birth and death of Jesus, this is a must-read.
Wright puts his finger in why shorthand explanations of the gospel feel truncated, empty, and detached from the gospel narratives. For those who are looking for a fresh significance to the “middle bits” between the birth and death of Jesus, this is a must-read.
May 28, 2012
The basic thesis of the book: while the birth, death, resurrection and second coming of Jesus all find their way into the great Creeds and into formulations of the Gospel proclamation, the life of Jesus gets short shrift. Why did Jesus live? What's the point of the "great middle" between the incarnation and death and resurrection? It's just here that the church stumbles and really does not know what to do with the Gospels. They are treated as back story and as proof a sort that 1)Jesus was God and 2)he was perfectly righteous. Wright posits that attention to the Gospels as story reveals what the Gospel is - Kingdom come through Israel's Messiah. Through Jesus God returns to exiled Israel and reigns as King. I buy in. This transforms the typical Gospel message of the Evangelical from "God is holy and angry at sin-Jesus died to pay the price for sin-belief upon Jesus and receive forgiveness-go to heaven when you die" to "Through Jesus Kingdom has come and the death dealing ways of the kingdoms of this world have been dealt the knock out blow." Through Jesus the prayer "may your kingdom come and your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." In other words, the Good News is theocracy - God reigns. For sure, the kingdom has not come in fullness, but after 2,000 years of church history we have demonstrable evidence that it is here. The dispensationalism of American evangelicalism has convinced so many that the kingdom of God is only future and that the mission of the church right now is to get as many into the lifeboats as possible before the world melts away in fire. For sure, this present world will be rolled up like a coat and there will be a new heaven and a new earth. But the fulfillment of kingdom promises does not mean that kingdom is not present until the complete fulfillment. Kingdom presence develops. I am not a postmillenialist who looks to a Golden Age of kingdom come. But neither am I a pessimist who does not see the "saltiness" of present kingdom realities. Through the Second Adam there is on the earth a new race of people who by that presence bring with them the powers of the age to come. This is a robust Gospel that moves the Christian into a life of God's presence as King.
NT Wright interacts with what Evangelicals consider liberal theology. Wright sees liberal theology as addressing issues that Evangelicals have left unaddressed and therefore must be part of the conversation. In the circles I run in theologians like Barth, Brunner, Pannenburg, Moltmann, etc., are not even referred to because of their doctrine of Holy Scripture. If a person is not an inerrantist, that is about all you need to know. Take a pass and move on. Not so fast. Until these people are addressed in the academy, many of the questions of modern man are left in limbo.
Wright is not a two kingdom's theologian. There is one kingdom because there is one King. Christ has defeated the principalities and powers and the Caesars of this world. And his subjects live the kingdom of God in the city of man, storming the gates of hell from the inside out. This does not mean that any specific church has a political agenda as much as the Christian takes kingdom life into workplace, community and academy. Through a life of service, weakness and grace, kingdom life dethrones the principles that operate in the city of man. The church does not build alternative societies but transform the one in which they live.
NT Wright interacts with what Evangelicals consider liberal theology. Wright sees liberal theology as addressing issues that Evangelicals have left unaddressed and therefore must be part of the conversation. In the circles I run in theologians like Barth, Brunner, Pannenburg, Moltmann, etc., are not even referred to because of their doctrine of Holy Scripture. If a person is not an inerrantist, that is about all you need to know. Take a pass and move on. Not so fast. Until these people are addressed in the academy, many of the questions of modern man are left in limbo.
Wright is not a two kingdom's theologian. There is one kingdom because there is one King. Christ has defeated the principalities and powers and the Caesars of this world. And his subjects live the kingdom of God in the city of man, storming the gates of hell from the inside out. This does not mean that any specific church has a political agenda as much as the Christian takes kingdom life into workplace, community and academy. Through a life of service, weakness and grace, kingdom life dethrones the principles that operate in the city of man. The church does not build alternative societies but transform the one in which they live.
January 13, 2024
NT Wright sets out to answer two questions of the four gospels: What was the life of Jesus all about? And "what is the puzzling relationship between 'the gospel' and 'the gospels.’"
Before reading this book I could not have answered: if you strip away the birth (incarnation) and the death/resurrection of Jesus, what was the life of Jesus about?
His most challenging point is that Jesus did not come to teach people how to go to heaven.
"This is not—demonstrably not—what the four gospels are about. The problem has arisen principally because for many centuries Christians in the Western churches at least have assumed that the whole point of Christian faith is to 'go to heaven,' so they have read everything in that light.”
When Jesus talks about "doing this or that 'so that you may enter the kingdom of heaven,’” he is not saying “so that you may go to heaven when you die.”
"The 'kingdom of heaven' is not about people going to heaven. It is about the rule of heaven coming to earth.”
For as long as I have been reading the Bible this has bothered me - why doesn’t Jesus clearly tell his followers how to go to heaven?
Instead, Jesus spends his time on earth challenging the Jews to become citizens "of the kingdom coming on earth as in heaven.”
I’ve been slowly studying the book of John for the last year and Wright perfectly articulates what I have found:
"Jesus was announcing that a whole new world was being born and he was teaching people how to live within that whole new world."
Wright is worth reading alone for his incredible grasp of the whole bible narrative. He provides stunning summaries of the OT:
"What God does for Israel is what God is doing in relation to the whole world. That is what it meant to be Israel, to be the people who, for better and worse, carried the destiny of the world on their shoulders. Grasp that, and you have a pathway into the heart of the New Testament."
and
"From the start, the project of the people of God has been: "looking after God’s world, making it fruitful, and peopling it.”
and
"This pattern—God intending to live among his people, being unable to because of their rebellion, but coming back in grace to do so at last—is, in a measure, the story of the whole Old Testament.”
Wright's profound understanding of the Old Testament allows him to connect the dots of the very-Jewish gospels:
"When Jesus calls his first followers (1:16–20) and when he singles out the Twelve (3:13–19), he is acting in a deeply symbolic way, echoing the foundation of Israel as God’s people."
Before reading this book I could not have answered: if you strip away the birth (incarnation) and the death/resurrection of Jesus, what was the life of Jesus about?
His most challenging point is that Jesus did not come to teach people how to go to heaven.
"This is not—demonstrably not—what the four gospels are about. The problem has arisen principally because for many centuries Christians in the Western churches at least have assumed that the whole point of Christian faith is to 'go to heaven,' so they have read everything in that light.”
When Jesus talks about "doing this or that 'so that you may enter the kingdom of heaven,’” he is not saying “so that you may go to heaven when you die.”
"The 'kingdom of heaven' is not about people going to heaven. It is about the rule of heaven coming to earth.”
For as long as I have been reading the Bible this has bothered me - why doesn’t Jesus clearly tell his followers how to go to heaven?
Instead, Jesus spends his time on earth challenging the Jews to become citizens "of the kingdom coming on earth as in heaven.”
I’ve been slowly studying the book of John for the last year and Wright perfectly articulates what I have found:
"Jesus was announcing that a whole new world was being born and he was teaching people how to live within that whole new world."
Wright is worth reading alone for his incredible grasp of the whole bible narrative. He provides stunning summaries of the OT:
"What God does for Israel is what God is doing in relation to the whole world. That is what it meant to be Israel, to be the people who, for better and worse, carried the destiny of the world on their shoulders. Grasp that, and you have a pathway into the heart of the New Testament."
and
"From the start, the project of the people of God has been: "looking after God’s world, making it fruitful, and peopling it.”
and
"This pattern—God intending to live among his people, being unable to because of their rebellion, but coming back in grace to do so at last—is, in a measure, the story of the whole Old Testament.”
Wright's profound understanding of the Old Testament allows him to connect the dots of the very-Jewish gospels:
"When Jesus calls his first followers (1:16–20) and when he singles out the Twelve (3:13–19), he is acting in a deeply symbolic way, echoing the foundation of Israel as God’s people."
November 14, 2013
I have looked forward to reading this book since its publication. I was not disappointed. "Why only four stars?" you may ask. Well, it's not because what is here isn't the best, it's only because I usually reserve my five star praise for his denser, more academic work. However, the more time I spend listening to Wright's lectures and reading his popular level works, the more I value his skill at taking heady stuff and distilling it to people who aren't into footnotes.
In this book Wright makes the case that "we have all misunderstood the gospels." He presents a case that the church has long stripped the gospels of their Kingdom message and allowed the great creeds of the church (and often our misunderstanding of their full meaning) to filter out Jewish messianic, political, and this worldly hopes. As he has often said in his writings, we have made the kingdom about going to heaven when we die, and we have made salvation about escaping from this old world to sit around on a cloud, playing a harp. We focus on Christmas and we focus on the cross, but both of these get pulled out of shape from what the original message was intended to be because we have separated these events in the life of Jesus from his declaration of the Kingdom.
Wright does an excellent job of demonstrating how we came to misread the gospels, why it's not the biblical model, why it matters, and what we might do to fix the situation. This book is important for pastors and church leaders. It is important that we reexamine the lenses through which we read the Bible, and it is important that we help our congregations recover from bad neo-gnostic theology. It's vital that we understand the present ramifications of Jesus being seated at the Right Hand of the Majesty on High.
Some people (my friends included) have busted Wright for being repetitive. He is, indeed, repetitious, but this simply reinforces his ideas. I am inclined to feel that this quality of his writing comes from his years of teaching and preaching. He is trying to impress new ideas on his readers and often combat misreadings of scripture; therefore, repetition serves to reinforce his ideas. I can certainly say that it has helped me remember things I otherwise would have forgotten. I don't have to constantly refer to my highlights and note because I have the arguments etched on my brain.
In this book Wright makes the case that "we have all misunderstood the gospels." He presents a case that the church has long stripped the gospels of their Kingdom message and allowed the great creeds of the church (and often our misunderstanding of their full meaning) to filter out Jewish messianic, political, and this worldly hopes. As he has often said in his writings, we have made the kingdom about going to heaven when we die, and we have made salvation about escaping from this old world to sit around on a cloud, playing a harp. We focus on Christmas and we focus on the cross, but both of these get pulled out of shape from what the original message was intended to be because we have separated these events in the life of Jesus from his declaration of the Kingdom.
Wright does an excellent job of demonstrating how we came to misread the gospels, why it's not the biblical model, why it matters, and what we might do to fix the situation. This book is important for pastors and church leaders. It is important that we reexamine the lenses through which we read the Bible, and it is important that we help our congregations recover from bad neo-gnostic theology. It's vital that we understand the present ramifications of Jesus being seated at the Right Hand of the Majesty on High.
Some people (my friends included) have busted Wright for being repetitive. He is, indeed, repetitious, but this simply reinforces his ideas. I am inclined to feel that this quality of his writing comes from his years of teaching and preaching. He is trying to impress new ideas on his readers and often combat misreadings of scripture; therefore, repetition serves to reinforce his ideas. I can certainly say that it has helped me remember things I otherwise would have forgotten. I don't have to constantly refer to my highlights and note because I have the arguments etched on my brain.
January 8, 2024
I struggle with really deep, theological books, so my review may be a little skewed. My husband encouraged me to read this one, because it’s a book that was really eye opening to him. He’s a big fan of NT Wright and has read several of his other books, as well. I was following along pretty nicely for the first half of the book, despite thinking the author uses way more words than he needs to in order to get a point across. Then he lost me. I think I mostly got the gist of what he was trying to convey, but it was a bit difficult for me to follow his train of thought well.
May 3, 2023
This is not an easy book to read. Wright loves long and complicated sentences and, of course, the topic is a complicated one also. I have suggested this as a possible resource for a study of the Gospels during Lent BUT not as the only book for a group to read. Too many will find it a little too complicated, as I did.
Read
September 8, 2023Well-developed and argued thesis about the kingdom of God that seeks to mobilize and revive God’s people in great ways. At times confusing or repetitive, but overall very engaging… Wright’s attitude proved entertaining, but is hopefully not one in practice.
January 11, 2025
NT Wright has been an especially important thinker in my theological development. Through friends who shared his work, I was introduced to robust eschatology with “New Heavens, New Earth” theology (I hesitate to call it a theology as if it is just one among many). This beautiful vision for restoration of creation invited me into a vision of salvation much broader than the “avoiding hell” theology that marked my views previously. As I’ve weathered challenges and doubt, this hope-based faith has kept me tethered to Jesus.
In “How God Became King”, I was given a thoroughly biblical vision for the multi-faceted, and often misunderstood work enacted by Jesus from incarnation through ascension with a special focus on his kingdom vision, so often underplayed in the evangelical churches I’ve attended. Oh, we talk a big game about Jesus as king, but we see no problem with putting America alongside Jesus in our liturgy if not necessarily our explicit teaching. Here, Wright articulates Jesus as Israel messiah first and foremost - not a break from the Judaic tradition but rather its unprecedented fulfillment, and in so doing, the enthronement of Jesus as king, fulfilling, at long last, the theocratic witness of the Hebrew Scriptures. This vision of Jesus as king tolerates no rivals to our allegiance, and it is this costly vision that challenges me in my comfortable Americanized Christianity so greatly.
The most striking revelation to me offered by Wright is that of the cross as Jesus’s enthronement as king. To this point, my understanding of the cross had been so tied up with concepts of atonement and fulfillment of a “salvific plan” that I could not see it for what it was in its barest fact - the shocking and scandalous enthronement of the king of glory. It is still shocking to me to articulate that. I will be pondering that for a long time. Probably as long as I draw breath.
I do not agree wholly with Wright, however. I found his argument for the substitutionary nature of the cross to be hand-wavey, dismissive of the idea that concept may not be self-evident or unarguable. There were also points where I felt his arguments to be laboriously repetitive, but perhaps I was missing subtleties he was trying to emphasize; by no means am I a perfect reader!
As I’ve examined my beliefs, I’ve felt convicted about the gap between the gospel in by bones and the gospel I was encountering in the church fathers and in the more closely examined writings of the NT. This book was a wonderful and timely way for me to start adding color and dimension to the 2D model I’ve had for so long. I hope it can offer similar encouragement and new life to others!
In “How God Became King”, I was given a thoroughly biblical vision for the multi-faceted, and often misunderstood work enacted by Jesus from incarnation through ascension with a special focus on his kingdom vision, so often underplayed in the evangelical churches I’ve attended. Oh, we talk a big game about Jesus as king, but we see no problem with putting America alongside Jesus in our liturgy if not necessarily our explicit teaching. Here, Wright articulates Jesus as Israel messiah first and foremost - not a break from the Judaic tradition but rather its unprecedented fulfillment, and in so doing, the enthronement of Jesus as king, fulfilling, at long last, the theocratic witness of the Hebrew Scriptures. This vision of Jesus as king tolerates no rivals to our allegiance, and it is this costly vision that challenges me in my comfortable Americanized Christianity so greatly.
The most striking revelation to me offered by Wright is that of the cross as Jesus’s enthronement as king. To this point, my understanding of the cross had been so tied up with concepts of atonement and fulfillment of a “salvific plan” that I could not see it for what it was in its barest fact - the shocking and scandalous enthronement of the king of glory. It is still shocking to me to articulate that. I will be pondering that for a long time. Probably as long as I draw breath.
I do not agree wholly with Wright, however. I found his argument for the substitutionary nature of the cross to be hand-wavey, dismissive of the idea that concept may not be self-evident or unarguable. There were also points where I felt his arguments to be laboriously repetitive, but perhaps I was missing subtleties he was trying to emphasize; by no means am I a perfect reader!
As I’ve examined my beliefs, I’ve felt convicted about the gap between the gospel in by bones and the gospel I was encountering in the church fathers and in the more closely examined writings of the NT. This book was a wonderful and timely way for me to start adding color and dimension to the 2D model I’ve had for so long. I hope it can offer similar encouragement and new life to others!
March 4, 2024
N.T Wright has had the greatest impact on my understanding of Jesus, the Cross, Resurrection and Gospels and this book just continues to add more depth and beauty.
For many of us in the western church, Jesus and the Gospels have simply been reduced to a means of a disembodied escapism focused on saving lost souls so that we can go off to heaven when we die. Jesus’s life and death is understood as God coming to rescue humans from this evil world and our evil bodies by taking us far away up in heaven when we die. But, as Wright points out, that is not what the Gospel says nor is it even about that. That viewpoint is a platonic gnostic view.
“Ah, we think, God’s kingdom is simply the sum total of all the souls who respond in faith to God’s love. It isn’t a real kingdom in space, time, and matter. It’s a spiritual reality, “not of this world.” John, though, will not collude with this Platonic shrinkage.” -Wright
Wright beautifully argues that the Gospel is about the climax of the story of Israel and how through Jesus, God becomes King of the World. Instead of Jesus being our ticket to heaven where we will one day escape this world, Jesus is actually the Jewish Messianic King who is inaugurating God’s Kingdom on Earth as it is in Heaven. The Cross is then where Jesus becomes King by BOTH defeating sin and the powers of evil and by reconciling humanity back to God through the forgiveness of sins. Which means that Jesus is not offering us a “new way to go to heaven”, no Jesus is offering a new way of becoming human through the forgiveness of sins and his enthronement as King of the world, and he is inviting us to become a part of the Kingdom of God here and now. A historical and theological reading of the Gospels will never allow itself to be a platonic gnostic escapism focused on leaving this Evil world behind, no it will always and forever tell the Good News that Jesus has brought God’s Kingdom to us.
Honestly I can’t recommend enough of N.T Wright to people, his books “Surprised by Hope” is one of the most important books I’ve read.
For many of us in the western church, Jesus and the Gospels have simply been reduced to a means of a disembodied escapism focused on saving lost souls so that we can go off to heaven when we die. Jesus’s life and death is understood as God coming to rescue humans from this evil world and our evil bodies by taking us far away up in heaven when we die. But, as Wright points out, that is not what the Gospel says nor is it even about that. That viewpoint is a platonic gnostic view.
“Ah, we think, God’s kingdom is simply the sum total of all the souls who respond in faith to God’s love. It isn’t a real kingdom in space, time, and matter. It’s a spiritual reality, “not of this world.” John, though, will not collude with this Platonic shrinkage.” -Wright
Wright beautifully argues that the Gospel is about the climax of the story of Israel and how through Jesus, God becomes King of the World. Instead of Jesus being our ticket to heaven where we will one day escape this world, Jesus is actually the Jewish Messianic King who is inaugurating God’s Kingdom on Earth as it is in Heaven. The Cross is then where Jesus becomes King by BOTH defeating sin and the powers of evil and by reconciling humanity back to God through the forgiveness of sins. Which means that Jesus is not offering us a “new way to go to heaven”, no Jesus is offering a new way of becoming human through the forgiveness of sins and his enthronement as King of the world, and he is inviting us to become a part of the Kingdom of God here and now. A historical and theological reading of the Gospels will never allow itself to be a platonic gnostic escapism focused on leaving this Evil world behind, no it will always and forever tell the Good News that Jesus has brought God’s Kingdom to us.
Honestly I can’t recommend enough of N.T Wright to people, his books “Surprised by Hope” is one of the most important books I’ve read.
November 23, 2022
A great book with a strong thesis which rings incredibly true and profound. His cases were well made and well evidence. But his application slightly threw me off. His rant against democracy and the modern state seemed out of place and disconnected. His main argument for "new theocracy" that the whole book had been leaning towards was simply a case summarized by saying that just because the idea of a separate state and church would have sounded insane to the jews two millenia ago, it should sound insane to us too. Which is not the strongest argument I have. Although a significantly stronger case can be made with all of the foundation that this book relies on. Wright's set up is great, with all of the right passages placed in the right order. It just needed a better engine to carry what we seemed to have missed to why should we rethink everything we currently have to reintegrate this missing message into broader society.
March 2, 2019
I had a hard time getting into this book because Dr. Wright essentially started by saying that Christians have been reading the Gospels wrong for centuries, if not longer. I hate that kind of clickbait online and felt defensive right away. After a while, I realized that Dr. Wright wasn’t talking to me or about me. He was talking to his fellow Anglicans, Catholics, and those of certain mainline and evangelical denominations. The bottom line issue he dealt with was that we can’t read the Gospels from our modern perspective, or through the perspective that grew out of the Enlightenment, but from the perspective of the original audience. That left me feeling grateful to those who discipled and trained me to view the Bible in that way.
October 11, 2020
I found the premise of this book to be quite fascinating, as the typical Nicene Creed that is sung at every Orthodox/Catholic liturgy as the declaration of Christian faith goes directly from Christ's incarnation to his crucifixion without any mention of his life. I hadn't paid much notice to this fact and that other than the Gospel reading at the service, there is little mention of Christ's time on Earth. The author makes a very simple case that we ought to read the Gospel books in their entirety and appreciate the story that is told, and he has a masterful knowledge of Scripture. I found myself woefully unprepared to handle all of the Biblical references and was motivated to do a better job of truly learning the Gospels and the life of Christ.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 368 reviews