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

by N.T. Wright

In this book N. T. Wright provides a concise, authoritative account of the apostle Paul's contribution to the birth of Christianity. In exploring Paul's background and his teaching, Wright refutes the argument made by some scholars that it was Paul and not Jesus who founded Christianity. Rather, as Wright shows, Paul's gospel revolved around Jesus of Nazareth as Israel's Messiah and king, and Paul consistently pointed to the crucified and risen Jesus as the foundation of the church and Lord of all.

Genres: Theology, Biblical Studies, Religion, Christian, Christianity, Nonfiction, New Testament

245 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1997

About the author

N. 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.

Reviews

[Ben De Bono · Rating 5 out of 5]

What St. Paul Really Said is probably N.T. Wright's most controversial book. Many evangelicals have gotten up in arms over the views he presents. John Piper wrote an entire book in response to his take on justification.

After reading it, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand what the problem is. His conclusions do differ from traditional evangelical takes on several points, but conclusions aside the book is thoroughly evangelical. Much of it is devoted to a strong defense of the evangelical view of Scripture, Paul, Jesus and Christianity. Wright holds very closely to Sola Scriptura. He clearly sees the Bible as God's Word. He rejects and dismantles attempts to pit Jesus against Paul, as if the two held to different religions. Wright is clearly operating from a conservative take on Scripture. Wright is defending all the things we as evangelicals have said need defending. What's more, he's doing a much better job of it than we typically do. Even if Piper and others might disagree with his conclusions, I think the appropriate response of evangelicals to this work is to applaud it, not condemn it.

That said, I do want to discuss the conclusions Wright comes to on the Gospel and Justification. Although it is my belief that his conclusions arise from a thoroughly evangelical and conservative framework, they do go outside the evangelical norm.

First, the Gospel. Evangelicals, especially in North America, typically think of the Gospel as having to do with personal salvation. We have Gospel meetings where people are called forward to individual repentance. We think of the Gospel message as a description of how someone begins a personal relationship with Jesus. Having grown up evangelical, I can safely say that's roughly how I've always thought of it.

Not so, says Wright. According to him the Gospel is not about a personal call to repentance. Rather it is a proclamation that Jesus is King and that his Kingdom has come. It is not an invitation to faith but a summons to obedience. Therefore, the choice we are given under the Gospel is not whether or not we will accept Jesus, but whether we will answer the summons of the Gospel or live in rebellion to King Jesus.

None of that is to say that Wright doesn't believe in personal salvation. But personal salvation is not what Paul has in mind when he speaks of the Gospel. The Gospel is not a call to begin a personal relationship with Jesus. It is the announcement of the Kingdom. Relationship with God, regeneration and the indwelling of the Spirit are all effects of the Gospel, but in and of themselves they are not what the Gospel is.

That has significant implications for how we evangelize. Do we invite people to make Jesus a part of their lives or do we proclaim that he is Lord over all and that they have a responsibility to submit to his lordship? The difference may seem subtle, but when played out it radically changes how we approach conversion.

The second area where Wright challenges traditional evangelical conclusions is justification by faith. Here is where we come to the main focus of the controversy surrounding Wright and this book. Protestantism has long held that justification is about salvation. When Paul talks about justification, he is saying that we are not saved by works but by faith. In this way of thinking, God takes away our sin and gives us his righteousness. Justification is the process by which that happens and we are imputed God's righteousness Again, that has been my experience growing up in evangelicalism. I've always thought of justification in those terms and, before encountering Wright, had never heard it taught any other way.

But according to Wright justification is not about how we get saved; it is about how you know who is and is not saved. It is the sign of covenantal membership. In other words, justification is not how you get in, it's how you tell who is in.

We see this played out in Philippians 3:1-11. In this passage Paul contrasts justification through circumcision with justification through faith. Just by seeing the two sides of that contrast we should know something is up with our traditional view of justification. Circumcision was never something done to gain salvation. You did not enter God's family and find grace on the basis of circumcision. Rather, in the old covenant, circumcision was a sign that you were a member of the covenant family. Justification by faith functions the same way in the new covenant. It is not the mans by which we are given grace, but the sign that we have been given grace and belong to God's family.

Therefore, justification is not about being given something, but about a status. As mentioned above, the Protestant view has traditionally been that we are given God's righteousness through justification. In Wright's argument, justification is about being declared righteous before God.

To prove this he shows that when Paul talks about justification he is invoking the language of a Jewish law court. By bringing in that metaphor he is painting a picture in which we, the accused party, stands before God, the judge. Justification does not mean that the judge gives the accused anything. Instead, it means that the judge hands down a verdict of not guilty. That is what is going on when we are justified by faith. God has declared us not guilty before him and faith is the covenantal sign of that declaration.

I hope it goes without saying that I am radically simplifying Wright's argument. I'm not even scratching the surface and I'd strongly encourage you read the book for yourself. That said, my goal is to show, even with this far too brief summary of his argument, that Wright is not way out in left field with his arguments. Whether you agree with them or not, they are built upon a solidly evangelical foundation of biblical evidence. Again, Wright is operating from a high view of Scripture, the very thing we evangelicals so adamantly (and rightfully) insist upon!

Unfortunately, it would seem to me that most of Wright's critics have failed to understand his argument. Piper and others have accused him of promoting salvation by works. That's not the case. His point in discussing justification is not that we are saved by works but that justification really has nothing to do with the means of salvation. Disagree with that if you want, but don't accuse him of saying things he isn't saying.

Personally, I'm completely on board with Wright's arguments. There are many parts of the New Testament that begin to come into focus when read in light of his view on justification and the Gospel. I believe evangelicalism owes Wright a debt of gratitude. He's defended and advanced theology from a solidly conservative foundation and should be commended for it. It's unfortunate that so many among us are determined to do the exact opposite and treat him as a heretic. You may not agree with his conclusions, but at least respect him as a man who loves God and takes Scripture seriously

[Julio Alejandro · Rating 5 out of 5]

No puedes mirar igual a Pablo después de leer este libro. Sin duda una obra magnífica,la cual, también te retará a vivir conforme al Evangelio.

[Eric Blessing · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book filled me with tremendous hope — on an academic and pastoral level — as it recaptured why I love studying Paul's writings about Jesus.
When it comes to introducing someone to the world of Pauline study in an engaging way while not undermining critical thinking, my go to recommendation for years has been, Introducing Paul, by Micheal F. Bird. While Bird's book is still engaging, What Saint Paul Really Said invites the reader into rethinking a lot of our historical Christian vocabulary, such as "Gospel" and "justification," and invites its readers into reading the New Testament the way Paul might have viewed the world. In the first chapter, Wright explains a quick history of recent Pauline scholarship the has influenced the confessing Church and how readers of the Word must be careful not to make Paul's thoughts our own. He then proceeds to build a fairly neat background for Paul based on what we actually know about him. The rest of the book's bulk explains what Paul's worldview looked like in light of Jesus, and how he framed his mission of gospel and justification to Jews and Greeks. The second to last chapter sums up the book as a whole, and forms encouraging application for those who confess Jesus as the one true king in a post-truth and post-modern world. Sadly, the last chapter felt like a sharp left turn, arguing against a semi-popular idea of the time that Paul created the religious Christianity we have today. While I do not disagree with what Wright presents in said chapter, it felt like the book was already complete, and that Eerdmans may have wanted him to say something on the topic.

[David S. T. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Without a doubt the letters of Paul have created plenty of doctrine and discussion in the Church, even in 2 Peter the writer mentions that Paul’s letters contain some things that are hard to understand. N.T. Wright sets out to explore Paul again this time focusing on what he might have thought in a 1st century Jewish context. Overall this book was pretty interesting, it starts with a brief summary of the recent Pauline studies, and it gives plenty of places to go if someone wants to dig a little deeper. He ties Paul’s zealous Pharisee thoughts to his new thoughts in Christ and how that defines his view of the Gospel which is Jesus is Lord. He also claims that neither Judaism nor later Paul’s later Christian thought were a form of a Pelagian religion of self-help which might disappoint the people who don’t actually read this book and assume that any difference in the idea of Justification in Faith Alone means that Wright is now advocating a new form of Pelagianism. (Although any mention of works will get the label of Semi-Plegianism thrown around, I never got the impression that he believes we’re made righteous because of someone we do, at the same time does anyone truly believe that you can only have faith alone and live an antinomian lifestyle and still be saved in the end?)

My favorite part of the book was the last true chapter(9) which is sort of an application chapter, focusing on changing the world, especially moving away from serving mammon and Aphrodite, and instead serving Jesus as Lord and moving towards ‘the ecumenical task’. He quotes someone saying that ‘One is not justified by faith in justification by faith’. I have to completely agree, I wonder what Paul would think had he seen the split this justification by faith has caused in the church for the past 500 years. Does anyone really think that Christian’s who lived during the first 1500 years aren’t really Christians because they didn’t believe in Justification by Faith Alone as presented by the reformation? Is this doctrine really worth a lack of unity in the body of Christ which according to Paul was supposed to be one body, I don’t think it is.

The subtitle of this book is ‘Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?’ This question is briefly discussed in the last chapter of the book which was apparently added on after the book was completed, and it focuses on a book by A.N. Wilson. Its pointed out that Wilson has some pretty inventive ideas about Paul (some of which are completely off base), but in the decade plus since this book was published Wilson has returned to Christianity, I’m more interested in seeing him write his own critique of his Paul book.

[Dominic Foo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Christ as the Fulfilment of Israel's Covenant Mission

I told a friend that I had a lot of difficulty trying to understand what Wright is saying because he's rather unfocused in his writings and tend to try to say too much and go all over the place. The only book, before this one, I've managed to complete was "Paul: In Fresh Perspective" and even then I had no idea what his main thesis was.

A friend then recommended this book which is an earlier book where the editor imposed some constrains upon his writing, and I was not disappointed. In my opinion it was honestly a great book which I couldn't put down and finished within a week. I would go so far as to say, once you read this, it's almost impossible to go back to thinking within the old perspective framework.

To give a brief sketch of his main thesis concerning Paul's theology, we need to understand the background expectation of Israel around the time of Paul, partially grounded on the Old Testament covenants, partially extrapolation, and then how the appearance of Jesus fulfilled the covenants but subverted the extrapolated expectation. In short, we need to understand the background historical space and narrative the first century Jew exhibited to understand where Paul was theologically, and what Jesus meant for that narrative and historical characterisation.

We can understand this by beginning our discussion with a curious critique of Judaism by the Lutheran Augsburg Confession:

//They condemn also others who are now spreading certain Jewish opinions, that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed.//

This condemnation is sort of correct, there was an expectation during the time of Paul that Israel will in fact exercise dominion over the ungodly, maybe not "everywhere" but certainly in Israel itself. But why would they expect this? We can analyse the expectation of Israel by looking at two biblical canticles found in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer Morning and Evening Prayer liturgy.

First we have the Nunc dimittis or the Song of Simeon from Evening Prayer:

//And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the comfort of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus to carry out for Him the custom of the Law, then he took Him into his arms and blessed God, and said,

“Now Master, You are releasing Your slave in peace,
According to Your word.
For my eyes have seen Your salvation,
Which You prepared in the presence of all peoples,
A LIGHT FOR REVELATION TO THE GENTILES,
And for the glory of Your people Israel.”//

-Luke 2:25-32

Then in the Morning Prayer we can find the Benedictus or Song of Zechariah:

“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
For He visited and accomplished redemption for His people,
And raised up a horn of salvation for us
In the house of David His servant--
As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old--
Salvation FROM OUR ENEMIES,
And FROM THE HAND OF ALL WHO HATE US,
To show mercy toward our fathers,
And to remember His holy covenant,
The oath which He swore to Abraham our father,
To grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies,
Might serve Him without fear,
In holiness and righteousness before Him all our days.
And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High,
For you will go on BEFORE THE LORD TO MAKE READY HIS WAYS,
To give to His people the knowledge of salvation
By the forgiveness of their sins,
Because of the tender mercy of our God,
With which the Sunrise from on high will visit us,
TO SHINE UPON THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS AND THE SHADOW OF DEATH,
To direct our feet into the way of peace.”

-Luke 1:68-79

These two hymns pretty much summarises the expectation, the problem, and the hope of Israel.

What was the expectation? Israel was the elect nation, a nation with whom God has chosen to covenant with to save and redeem *all creation and all people*, to be a light to the Gentiles. By the gifts of oracles, "the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises" (Romans 9:4), Israel was supposed to be God's agent for redemption in the world, for the world, and to the world in the bondage and darkness of sin.

What was the problem? Israel was not a light to the Gentiles, the God's covenant promises to Israel to save them from their enemies were not fulfilled, Israel was under literally under pagan dominion and oppression, i.e. the Roman Empire. Israel could not "serve Him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before Him all our days." As the language of the time goes, Israel was still in "exile", instead of Israel being a shining beacon to a world fallen under idolatry and paganism, they were serving pagans instead. All was not "right" with Israel. Was God going to be faithful to His covenant and "do right" by his own word and oath?

So the pagans were not streaming into Israel to learn from them concerning the true God to whom they should render true worship, instead many Israelites were compromising with the pagans, being willing collaborators to the pagan powers, abandoning the Torah, their distinctiveness as the elect people of God, and being corrupted by pagans instead. The problem as such was both external and internal. Not only was Israel under a pagan power, Israel itself was sinning against the very God whom they were supposed to represent, and was herself under the dominion of sin with laxity and compromise with the Gentile pagans.

What was the *perceived* hope of Israel back then? Paul's background here was apparently that of a Shammaite Pharisee, of the rigorist school. They believed that by strict and uncompromising return to Torah observance, and maybe even by violence and liberating Israel from Roman dominion, they could restore Israel to her destiny and vocation, to be both free of both foreign dominion and for Israel to be restored to pride of place, and superiority, among the nations, as was fitting for God's elect people. They would inaugurate the true kingdom of God on earth, a kingdom, which they believed, will be defined by the distinctive practices of the Torah which marks out the pure Israelites from the pagans who do not have the Law.

So what happened? Jesus happened, he was incarnate, he did inaugurate the Kingdom of God. However he did this, not by leading a glorious war of liberation from Rome, but by Word, example, forgiveness, and healing and miracles, by dying instead by their most visible execution method, and being risen from the dead in triumph over the ultimate weapon of the pagan powers and principalities.

What was "the Gospel"? In Paul's own words:

//Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed as good news to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I proclaimed to you as good news, unless you believed for nothing.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep. After that, He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.//

-1 Corinthians 15:1-8

The Gospel refers to *events in salvation history*, the death of Jesus, his resurrection, his appearances, the calling of the apostles, etc. It was literally *news* in the sense of a report of events in newspapers and on the news channel. It did not refer to how one became a Christian, how one, individually, could be saved or justification or whatever. It referred to events in salvation history which fulfilled the covenant hopes of Israel.

Thus, the legitimate expectation, that God will "set the world to rights", that is, to "make righteous", or even "justify"(!), the people of Israel and the broader Gentile world has been fulfilled, in Jesus. God's righteousness, his covenant faithfulness to his oaths and promises, has been vindicated in Jesus. God has acted and intervened to perform the oath and covenant He swore to Paul's forefathers, Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, as opposed to the pagan powers or Roman Emperor, is now the true Lord and King of the world, again, not by a war of liberation, nor by restoring the polity of Israel characterised by the Torah observance, but by faith in the Lord and King Jesus Christ, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, and by forgiveness of their sins by Word and baptism, and by holiness and righteousness according to the will of God. Jesus Christ has succeeded in restoring Israel and the world to rights where the Torah has failed.

So the Kingdom of God has come, in the lordship of Jesus Christ, the true Israel is revealed, in the true Jew Jesus Christ, the light to the Gentiles now shines in the world, in the face of Jesus Christ. Now all the world, both the Jews and the Gentiles, not by Torah observance but by faith alone, has been cleansed from their sins and restored in holiness to do what God created and designed all mankind to do, to know His love, to worship Him in love, and to love as He does. By faith in Jesus, not by reconstituting the polity of Israel as defined by Torah, shorthand for "by the Law", both Jews and Gentiles are freed from paganism and sin. Creation is being restored, starting with first the Jews, then the Gentiles, and finally the rest of creation.

Wright main thesis as such was that Paul's theology was centered around these grand events of salvation history, Israel's election, her covenant mission to the world, her present oppression and suffering under the Romans, and the covenant promises of liberation from their enemies to be restored to their vocation to be a light to the Gentiles to lead them into salvation, and how all these have been fulfilled in Jesus contra being fulfilled by reconstituting the polity of Israel by strict Torah observance. Thus, one was a member of God's kingdom, a true child of Abraham, by faith and becoming incorporated into the Church via baptism, not by Torah observance.

It is against the background of this grand events whereby we can understand Paul's polemics concerning justification by faith versus works, which is not about becoming a Christian, or staying a Christian, it is about how one can know that one is in the Kingdom of God and part of the true Israel. Incorporation in the kingdom of God is now a distinguished by faith and not Torah observance, etc.

There is a lot more which can be discussed about how we are to understand "God's righteousness" as a covenant faithfulness whereby He performs the oath he swore to Israel and declares the true Israel to be in the right. However, his main thesis here could be summarised as, how would the Kingdom of God and Israel be restored? Not by pure Torah observance, but by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which opened the Kingdom of God to all the world by faith.

My few criticisms here would be that Wright is a SJW somewhat in his understanding of the implications of Paul's theology, but otherwise, I think the broad outlines are basically correct.

[Matthew Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Intro

A short while back, at my life group, I commented I was weary of NT Wright, having heard one of my friends was reading his book. I have consumed a lot of reformed theological content and recalled that Wright’s scholarship on Paul, particularly around themes such as justification and end times, was heretical, to put it mildly. If you are interested, John Piper wrote a book in response to Wright’s, trying to dissuade people from the dangerous theologies Wright is spouting. From what I have read, I love John Piper’s ministry and his books, but setting his review aside, and other reformed theologians for that matter, I wanted to see what Wright how Wright faired off his standing.
NT Wright was/is particularly interested in two admirable things. Firstly, Reading Paul in the context of the time he was writing. That means understanding the nuances of the words defined by their context-locked usage and redefining them apart from our modern developed definitions. And, secondly, understanding how Jews received the Gospel in the first few hundred years of its pronouncement. But Jews were not the only recipients of the day because through the gentiles we can apprehend in a modern context why Paul speaks as he does. Through these lenses, I will now summarise the condensed form of the book and what I believe are the key takeaways.

The Book at a Glance

Saul began his journey as a zealous man after God’s heart, which took shape in the typical Pharisaical way of the second temple period. Zeal looked like eradicating any contention to the Torah, and the pollution of pagan idolatry in and around Israel, often violently with force. Zeal sought the assurance God would rejuvenate Israel to its former unpolluted, non-sinful state. The beauty for Saul arrived in the revelation on the Damascus road. Christ accomplished in the middle of time what Saul had been seeking God to do at the end. Saul’s age to come had become Paul’s present condition of being. If the forthcoming time had arrived and the fulfilment of the resurrection alongside, it was now the moment when the Gentiles became part of God's family. Paul is thus determined to spread the good news (Gospel), the message of a royal victory: Jesus of Nazareth conquered death and sin upon the cross, and in His resurrection, the new age of grace and righteousness began. The crucified Jesus was Israel’s Messiah and king, extending his lordship and sovereignty to all nations. This Gospel message introduced a challenge to all other gods and idols. The difference between our modern conception and Paul’s is that the Gospel is not a means for one to earn salvation but that the announcement of the Gospel results in people's salvation. The Gospel is the authoritative summons to obedience to the king and established Christ as Lord of Israel, the whole world, and subservient to none.
Such a message was relevant to both gentiles and Jews alike. Unfortunately, it also challenged both parties. For gentiles, recognising Christ’s Lordship above all Pagan gods or idolatrous cruxes was like listening to screeching chalk. For Jews, comprehending Christ's broken and mutilated state had achieved the promised royal victory was not zeal. Furthermore, the redemption of Israel now as a partial fulfilment, leaving them in the in-between of a current and future restored state, was like offering green tea to an English man who asked for a cuppa. And for both, the burdensome requirement to confess the Roman leader as Lord and God, dominated.
For Paul, however, the Gospel was a faithful fulfilment of God’s covenant promise to His people: God’s righteousness. Righteousness is an intriguing term. It is found most commonly in the Jewish law courts and established prominently in the laws of the Torah. Righteousness sought restoration between two opposed parties, considering the vulnerability of the weaker party to bring about mutually flourishing circumstances for both. For this reason, the execution of righteousness differed between contexts. Being righteous is nought to do with one’s moral favour or goodness; being righteous is personal vindication in the eyes of the judge. Through the royal victory (the gospel message), God’s righteousness (his commitment to the covenant promise) has restored His creation and people to Him and bestowed upon them the status of righteousness before Him. God does not bestow His righteousness upon us but passes a verdict down to us. We are declared righteous because of His royal victory. Ultimately, the Gospel of Jesus reveals God’s righteousness, as He pronounces the believer is also righteous.
The covenant promise was not confined to and lavished upon Israel alone. From the beginning, God intended to repair all creation and all nations. In another surprise announcement, given its well-established and documented account in the TaNaK, Paul insists that all who share the faith in Christ belong at the same table. They are part of the same family, justified to Him: our newly declared righteousness from God is our justification (welcoming) as a part of His covenant family and our sins removed. This present justification identifies the future revelation. The ultimate verdict at the end of history through Christ has begun in our present. And this last-day verdict is now anticipated whenever someone today believes the Gospel message. Let this not be a works-based salvation theology but merely a badge. The declaration that one has been made a member through the righteousness bestowed by the grace of God alone.
Think about how this whole picture comes together. A proclamation of the Gospel involves the Spirit moving within the speaker, and the hearts of those listening, and concludes with the birthing of faith. Is faith something one does? No, faith is God’s marking of a person as part of the covenantal family of Christ because of a confession of His Lordship. Thus, if faith is the sign of one being a member of the covenant family, Justification is the declaration that one has become what today we have come to define as a Christian. Believing the good news is accepting Jesus is the Lord of all the earth and all peoples, and his royal victory over sin and death is complete. We are restored in the present in fellowship with him and each other as the body of Christ today, awaiting future bodily restoration and whole rejuvenation of our world. The end goal, as Paul saw it, and so should we, is not to be removed from our world but restoration of the new Eden, fellowshipping with Christ in person as in the beginning.

One Final Word

That is my best summary of NT Wright’s book. While I went into this sceptical that NT Wright was sprouting heresy because of what I had read in the reformed world, I was pleasantly surprised. In my discourse, I am arguing for the case of covenantal theology that NT Wright is laying down. I find myself persuaded by his argument. Does that mean he has every correct answer, and I profess his theological reading is the only valid Christian means of living? No, far from it. But what I find in Wright is a way to read the story we, as disciples of Christ, are familiar with from a fresh perspective. One where the punchline is the same: Christ died to forgive my sin. Not to diminish His grace, lordship, commitment to his covenantal people, or future restoration, but piece together each aspect of what made this message so challenging. I would encourage any Christian to read this book and consider its propositions, and I feel the challenge to approach his mammoth novel on Paul’s life and ministry in the future!

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great, but troubling.

[Mark Jr. · Rating 3 out of 5]

A review I wrote way back when at the beginning of my PhD work:

No one active in Pauline studies can afford to ignore Tom Wright and his contribution to the “New Perspective” on Paul. This is due not to his contribution to an orthodox understanding of Paul’s critical doctrines but to his provocative re-understanding of Paul’s most important doctrine.

Wright first surveys important developments in Pauline scholarship since the field shifted from conservatism to radical reconsiderations of Paul. Schweitzer, Käsemaan, and most notably E. P. Sanders—all made contributions to this (r)evolution in understanding the great apostle. Wright, however, gives too much praise to all of these unbelieving scholars, though he does criticize them later in the book for “dismembering” Paul.

The second chapter turns to Paul’s conversion, laying a foundation for Wright’s understanding of Paul by describing just what type of Jew he had been before the Damascus road. He was a strict Shammaite (a redundancy, certainly!) despite the leniency of his Hillelite teacher Gamaliel. He saw himself, as many other Jews saw themselves, as part of God’s plan to bring about the prophesied ascendancy of Israel. His fulminations against Christians were driven by this holy zeal.

It is here that Wright first makes clear his departure from a typical—he calls it “radically anachronistic”—evangelical understanding of Paul, and his own statement of the difference is worth quotation:

Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, timeless, ahistorical system of salvation. They were not even primarily interested in, as we say today, “going to heaven when they died.” (They believed in the resurrection, in which God would raise them all to share in the life of the promised renewed Israel and renewed world; but that is very different from the normal Western vision of “heaven.”) They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel. (32-33)

Wright himself points to this statement as very important in his line of reasoning because Bible readers can now understand what background Paul, a former Pharisee, carried into his New Testament epistles. Zealous Jew Saul of Tarsus had expected an Age to Come in which Israel would be vindicated before God, and now Christian Paul’s Damascus road experience made him a herald of this new kingdom. Indeed, the gospel, Wright says, is a “narrative proclamation of King Jesus” including Jesus’ crucifixion and his resurrection, the latter of which proved Him to be Messiah. But “Messiah” was not in Paul’s day the benign term it has now become; for Paul to proclaim Jesus as Messiah and Lord was to fire a shot directly at the Roman imperial cult. His gospel was an authoritative summons to obey this new ruler. It was this political blasphemy which persuaded Pilate to finally condemn Jesus, and Paul was touting the same message.

Paul’s claim that Jesus was Lord to whom all other kurioi must bow was not the only shocking affirmation the apostle made. He also spoke openly of a “one true God”—Whom all Jews took quite seriously and Whom (among other gods) many Gentiles feared as well. Wright argues that “the ‘gospel’ is for Paul, at its very heart, an announcement about the true God as opposed to false gods” (59). The reason this affirmation was so shocking was that Paul directly challenged pagan deities (like Diana of the Ephesians, whose followers rioted when Paul made his proclamation) in addition to the imperial cult.

However, Paul was not striking out in wholly new religious territory; he did not consider himself to be starting another religion per se. He, Wright says, was just as dedicated to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as he had always been, only now he had a new understanding, gained by revelation, of what that meant. God had revealed Himself in the person of His Son, Jesus of Nazareth, and now Paul could proclaim the Jewish Shema with a deeper understanding.

And proclaim Paul did, to Jew and Gentile alike. Wright traces the implications of Paul’s message to pagans, and points out just how directly he challenged them. He takes issue with the history of religions movement and their assertions that Paul derived his theology from paganism. That is wrong in two respects, Wright says: first, Paul’s message was thoroughly Jewish, and second, the key question about Paul’s message is not so much where it came from anyway, but where he meant it to go.

Then comes the real area of contention Wright faces with the rest of evangelicalism, his definition of justification. Wright uses his new understanding of Paul’s Jewish context to reject the definition which would turn the righteousness of God (dikaiosunh qeou) into “imputed” righteousness. Instead Wright summarizes dikaiosunh qeou as God’s own righteousness displayed in His “covenant faithfulness.” He examines the occurrences of dikaiosunh qeou in the NT and mines evidence to support his view. While clearly denying that God imputes (or even imparts) His righteousness to believers, Wright does still see justification as providing men with a certain legal status, namely “righteous”; but Wright claims that the traditional view of imputation turns God into a cold logician who accomplished justification by a trick and hardly merits worship.

Justification, then, becomes not the means by which a man enters into an appropriate relationship to God, but the test by which others can tell whether that man is indeed a member of God’s covenant family. Wright runs through all of Paul’s major epistles picking up this thread.

Wright devotes his last chapter to summarizing the views of A.N. Wilson as expressed in his work Paul: The Mind of the Apostle. He gives the book more praise than it is due, but does oppose it on nearly every point.

Wright is an evangelical Anglican who wrote for the Tyndale series of New Testament commentaries, but he uses his new understanding of justification to call for ecumenism among Christians. He also expresses doubt as to whether Paul is the source of the Acts 17 speech attributed to him, and even wonders aloud about Paul’s authorship of Colossians. His book brims over with charges that past exegetes and commentators and theologians have missed various emphases in Paul or have entirely misread him. Naturally if that were so, Wright would be performing a distinguished service for the church. But this reviewer expresses some doubt as to this, though he admits defeat in not being able to evaluate Wright’s view fully. This reviewer awaits the help of the more learned in combating what he views to be an innovation, and as controversy often sharpens our view of truth so he trusts that Wright’s diligent work will spur the church to a better understanding of the crucial doctrine of justification. It remains to be seen as Wright’s work is evaluated whether or not he has understood What Saint Paul Really Said.

[Seth Garcia · Rating 5 out of 5]

In N.T. Wright’s What Saint Paul Really Said, Wright attempts to reframe the beliefs of Paul within its proper context. He contends that Paul’s beliefs are not of his own invention as he has often been accused (hence the subtitle “Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?”), but rather the extension of first century Jewish beliefs about what God is doing in the world that Paul then shapes around the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Although Wright’s book is approaching 30 years old (first published in 1997), I found his words incredibly eye-opening. It easily cut through so many of the silly debates that have muddled just exactly what Paul is saying, such as the endless arguments in Protestant circles about what constitutes a “work” for salvation, what exactly it means to be saved, how Christians should live in a world after Jesus’ resurrection, and so on. Perhaps more than any other book on Paul that I’ve read, Wright opened my eyes to how much of Paul I’ve been reading through the lens of Martin Luther rather than the lens of Paul himself.

Wright’s contributions to Pauline scholarship are of course going to be colored by his open profession of Christian faith, but I can’t help but think that he has captured Paul’s thoughts better than any other modern writer. This book is valuable to those interested in religion from a secular standpoint, theologians, and lay Christians alike.

[Aaron Green · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a perfect 'Intro to New Testament' book. N.T. Wright is truly a master as he is incredibly intelligent, but his books are easily digestible (something not always easy by scholars). The only reason it wasn't five stars was that the subtitle, 'Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity' does not seem to be what Wright is spending most of his time answering. It seems that he is actually answering, 'Did Saint Paul Mean to Emphasize Justification by Faith'. He spends the last chapter addressing someone who wrote about Paul being the actual founder of Christianity in 1997 so I felt the book could have actually done without the last chapter altogether. He gives an excellent understanding of Paul, the Gospel, and what justification by faith actually means to Paul. Again, this book is a must for New Testament studies and is moving to #3 on my shelf.

[Trevor Atwood]

Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah, is Lord.

For this phrase summarizing what Paul meant by “the gospel”, I will be forever grateful for this book. I love that this announcement has personal implications- but to think of it first as a public and overarching declaration of good news is, indeed, transformative and needed in our individualistic Western thought.

[Gideon Yutzy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Paul was trying to get everyone to see how Jesus had blown open Israel's story, a story which he, Paul, loved so much, into a universal one. Unlike some of Wright's other books, I didn't find it particularly revolutionary or fresh in that it feels like some of the points were obvious. It left me questioning whether the book really needed to be written, especially under such an ambitious title.

[Phil · Rating 3 out of 5]

What Saint Paul Really Said

This is NT Wright's somewhat controversial book on the apostle Paul. The controversy basically has to do with the "New Perspective" on Paul described and advocated by Wright in the book. The book, however, looks at other topics as well--discussion of the new perspective only occupies a few of the chapters.
Wright spends the early parts of the book attempting to "place" Paul as a thinker and person. Paul was a Jew. But what sort of Jew? He was a Pharisee. But what sort of Pharisee? He was basically the sort that expected God to act very soon in history to deliver the Jews from their exile, which he perceived as still going on--much prophecy was yet to be fulfilled. Wright thus paints a picture of Paul as one who was very interested in what God was doing to and for and through his chosen people. He then goes on to detail how all of this was restructured as a result of Paul's encounter with Jesus. Wright is at his best here, when he describes how encounters with Jesus had such a profound and history shaping impact on the apostles. He argues very convincingly that Paul certainly believed Jesus was Yahweh himself, and that while Paul played a unique and extremely influential role in shaping early Christianity, he was faithful to Jesus' message and mission, and thus did not "invent" Christianity (the book is subtitled "Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?").
Now for the controversy. As I see it, Wright basically takes two positions on Paul that go against the traditional understanding of the meaning of Paul's letters. First, he argues that when Paul talks about "The Gospel," he's not talking so much about a formula for getting saved, but rather is speaking about the announcement of the good news that, since Jesus was crucified and has risen, he is Lord of the whole earth, and that God has defeated evil through him. Though I think he is right that the word "Gospel" in Paul has perhaps been distorted somewhat in common usage, I think he goes too far in drawing a contrast between a sort of "forgiveness formula" evangelicalism and "how Paul really thought things worked." No doubt there is some tension here, but I think some of the things Wright says are misleading, in that he seems to suggest that Paul didn't really care about individual salvation, but only the broader picture of what God was doing in the world. I doubt Wright believes this himself, but his words come close to saying as much, at times.
The second (and related) controversial position is Wright's understanding of the phrase "justification by faith." According to Wright, "justification by faith" didn't mean for Paul what Luther and the other reformers thought it meant, in that it did not have do with a "transfer" or "imputation" of God's righteousness to us, but was rather a declaration by God that someone is already a member of the people of God. If someone has faith in Christ, they are declared a member of the covenant people and thus have forgiveness of sins and will be vindicated on the last day. Thus for Wright, the doctrine that divided the Church, that caused Catholics and Protestants to mutually condemn each other, is ironically supposed to be a doctrine that should unite all Christians who share a common faith. Though I have some disagreements with Wright's total understanding, I really do think this understanding of "justification by faith" has some truth to it, is liberating, and has potential to bring unity to the Church--but I'm biased because I've struggled a lot personally with the Catholic/Protestant issue. I won't touch this quagmire further, except to say that perhaps Wright has oversimplified and then been further oversimplified by his opponents. One thing reading about this debate has taught me is that these theological issues can be a lot more complicated than they seem at first.
For the most part, I enjoyed the book. I always like NT Wright's vision of history, and the controversy surrounding the Wrights views does not detract from a lot of helpful and insightful information about Paul.

[Josh Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps in spite of itself, Wright's book aimed at the layman is really a tour de force in historical grammatical interpretation of St. Paul--what did Paul mean in his context (few will rival Wright in his ability to dive into ancient Jewish thought and come with the pearls of wisdom he does). This is, I think, the right question, and Wright has elucidated an understanding of Paul's soteriology that is grounded in his first century Jewish context. I found about 85% of his material sound and enlightening, 10% enigmatic (I think he contradicts himself on important points a few times), and 5% theologically questionable. So this is a good book, and there is much here to enrich my understanding of Paul. Protestants in general should avail themselves of his scholarship. I found his focus on Wilson at the end puzzling. After pushing back mainly (though not exclusively or self-consciously) against Reformed theology most of the book, he reserves his most elaborate criticism for a scholar no Reformed theologian would even have in his library. Wright guards himself against sweeping criticisms by presenting a nuanced and multi-faceted approach to Paul, and anyone who sweeps aside his scholarship sweeps himself aside as well. This is what (I think) has made him a formidable scholar. I find Wright very even-handed, but not for the sake of even-handedness but for the sake of clarity and intellectual honesty. One can't ask for more than this. Most of what he writes is amenable to the Reformed position, I think. In essence he argues the bulls-eye is not here (personal justification), but just a few inches left, and justification is affirmable considering the fuller scope of revelation. So Wright finds himself creating a new mainstream not by Reforming our understanding of Paul wholesale (as Luther did) but by a more innocuous relocating of Paul's central concern, which includes the main emphasis of the Reformers. This is not insidious, but honest scholarship. Someday I'll read more, but in the mean time there are other books to read. I would only add that as a former student of Rabbinic Judaism, Wright may present the rabbinic position on OT eschatology a little to monochromatically--a point few of his readers will notice. The Mishnah does not finally present a perspective on eschatology, but records several perspective which describe possible understandings. Finally, he could have availed himself of Gabriele Boccoccini's work on "possible Judiasms." In spite of his excellent biography at the end, this seems like an oversight.

[Ann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow! I'd hate to be on the wrong side of a debate with N.T. Wright — one almost feels sorry for A.N. Wilson, whose book he is mainly responding to. While I was totally unaware of Wilson's take on Paul, Wright states in no uncertain terms that Paul has been misunderstood by Wilson and other scholars who suggest that Paul, not Jesus, was the real founder of Christianity. In an excruciatingly clear argument, the steps of which he recaps for emphasis before adding the next one, Wright shows how Paul the Apostle retained the shape of the Jewish doctrine of justification but changed its content, redefining the character of the Messiah around the crucified and resurrected Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Paul's gospel, according to Wright, is not “how people get saved” but simply the announcement of the lordship of Jesus — that he is the expected Messiah, and that God's promise to redeem the world (not just the Israelites!) has already been fulfilled through Jesus’ death and resurrection. This announcement, says Wright, “works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other.” In the final chapters Wright discusses how this theology plays out in the lives of real people, first for Paul’s contemporaries and then for us today. The message is one of hope for all.

[Tyler C · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first half of the book was phenomenal. His description of Saul turning into Paul was incredible. He describes Saul who was trying to bring the kingdom of God and the fulfillment of the OT promises to bear with the sword. At his conversion, Paul realizes that Jesus has done in his death and resurrection what Saul was trying to do with the sword. Likewise, his discussion on Pauls theology being rooted in a Jewish worldview and how Christ has fulfilled the OT promises are very good. However, he's discussions on The Righteousness of God and Justification are not at all convincing. To be short, he NEVER mentions the active obedience of Christ in his life and this effects much of his theology. Likewise, after being so Christ centered in the first half of the book, he doesn't even mention Christ in the courtroom scene. He stresses the Abrahamic covenant, which is good, but does not touch on the first Adam. Lastly, it was interesting to me that he never mentions the Passover or the Exodus when he talks about Justification. And no wonder he doesn't because it would drastically effect the way he views justification. I would rate the first half of the book with 4 stars (and also the last chapter). For a great response and discussion see Tom Schriener and Wrights debate at ETS.

[Eric · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well, unfortunately, this book is rather dull.

Dull. Dull dull dull, my God it's dull, it's so desperately dull and tedious and stuffy and boring and desperately dull! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMOmB1...

Well, maybe it's not that dull. =~) But with a subtitle like "Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity," one could hope possibly for some scandal. As it turns out (and I shouldn't have been surprised), N.T. Wright is writing a book to partially respond to people who assert such a a scandal.

But on its own, the book isn't that terrible. It is full of your regular N.T. Wright theology. Nice, somewhat applicable, conservative, and a good correctional to popular evangelical misconstructions.

For someone interested in N.T. Wright but not wanting to invest in the book as a whole, a good investment would be to borrow this book from the library (or me) and just read the last three chapters. They are a good read on their own and a little less dull than the first part of the book.

[Sameh Maher]

الكتاب رائع جدا ويقدم طرحه بأسلوب بسيط وقيم فى نفس الوقت
وهذا فى اطار لمناقشته لسؤال كثيرا ما يثار فى الاوساط المهتمة بتاريخ المسيحية والدراسات الكتابية ...
هل بولس الرسول هو المؤسس الحقيقى للمسيحية ؟؟؟
كى يجيب الكاتب عن السؤال كان لابد من دراسة شخصية بولس نفسها وتحوله من يهودى غيور من مدرسة شمعى الى المسيحية بكل رحابتها ....
يناقش الكاتب بمهارة كيف رأى بولس المسيح كنقطة ارتكاز لكل تعاليمه واهما التبرير بالايمان ...
ويقدم فى طرحه ان بولس وجد المسيح فى عمق كل التعاليم اليهودية التى تربى عليها لم يكن يجادل بنصوص كى يحقق نبوات بل يرى المسيح فى قلب التقليد اليهودى نفسه فبولس لم يترك يهوديته لحظة واحدة بل كرز بها فى نور المسيح ... لم يكرز بتقاليد يهودية بل بفكر المسيح من خلفيته اليهودية
الكتاب رائع ويستحق القراءة اكثر من مرة ...
وسوف يطبع فكرك بطريقة جديدة لقراءة بولس الرسول
الكتاب رائع جدا ويمزج الحس الاكاديمى كباحث مع التطبيق الروحى فى مزيج جميل

[Erin Henry · Rating 5 out of 5]

This books feels like a game changer for me. He defines terms is such new ways to be though back by very detailed research. Such as God's righteousness is his reason for keeping his covenant but not a status He bestows on us. We are righteous in that God the judge rules in our favor.
And the gospel or good news is not how people get saved but the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ (and Christ is a title not a last name) which works with power to bring people into Gods family
And justification is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family. (P133)
I think it will take me awhile to digest and understand all the ideas in this book.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

About five years ago a friend recommended that I read N.T. Wright. I asked him which of Wright's books would be the best one to start off with, and he recommended this one. I think it was a good recommendation. I did find it to be very accessible, while remaining at a high level in terms of its theological thought.

In this highly researched book, Wright unpacks what Paul likely believed about God and Jesus and The Way. The book also examines the history of traditional Judaism, and explores how what Paul was taught prior to his conversion influenced his later teachings.

There is too much good to talk about everything inside these pages, but I highly recommend this book.

[Ashley Baker · Rating 1 out of 5]

I think that this was a well written book, but the implications of what Wright said could be damaging to the church.It leans too far toward works based salvation. See John Piper's book for a further explanation. I wouldn't recommend this book. It seems totally wrong to me.

[Andres Muente Barbagelata · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excelente libro de uno de los grandes teólogos contemporáneos. Mezcla de amplio conocimiento, quedando en evidencia que es un historiador prolijo, y un amor profundo por el mensaje de la esperanza de Dios.

[Samuel Muñiz · Rating 5 out of 5]

¡Uff! Dolió pero dejó una gran satisfacción.

Considero que, Wright, a diferencia de otros teólogos se enfoca más en el aspecto práctico del evangelio; esto, es lo que hace que sea controversial.

[Luis]

En un grupo de Yahoo, estamos leyendo este libro que tanto impacto y controversio hizo en el mundo de habla hispana, en medio de los circulos Protestantes Reformados, y ahora en medio de los Protestantes Reformados de habla Hispana.

Quisiera dar mi resumen del primer
capitulo.

Aproximaciones al pensamiento de Pablo.


Si hay algo que existe en nuestro contexto latinoamericano, es la
analfabetisacion bíblica. Todos creen que el cristianismo comenzó con ellos, y
terminara con ellos. El porque el primer capitulo impactaría a un Hondureño,
Salvadoreño o Panameño que asiste a la iglesia regularmente, pero nunca ha
profundizado su conocimiento sobre la historia del estudio Bíblico, será que
Wright da tanta historia del siglo 20, que el hermano sin formación teológica,
llegara a pensar, "¿y que de los 20 siglos anteriores?" Esto, no cabe duda que
da un fuerte tumbo al cristiano que encontramos sentado en la banca o silla en
la iglesia, y no olvidemos al pastor de la iglesia, con limitada, y a veces, no
existente formación teológica.

Wright recuenta primero como Albert Schweitzer, a principios de este siglo,
trata de rescatar a Pablo de los eruditos del siglo pasado, que creían que Pablo
era mas bien un Judío Helenista, que introdujo ideas griegas al cristianismo. El
segundo tema introducido por Schweitzer, es si el centro de la teología Paulina
era la justificación por fe, u otro punto. Con esto, Wright logra demostrar, o
guardarse las espaldas, de que la cuestión de que si el centro del pensamiento
de Pablo es lo que el Protestantismo ha sido la justificación por fe no es un
tema o punto solo tocado por el, sino que ha estado presente dentro del
cristianismo, y en el caso de Schweitzer, en el protestantismo Luterano. Para
este, el tema central era `estar en Cristo'. Pero si algo me impacta de la breve
introducción de Wright sobre Schweitzer, es que si estamos empecinados en ver a
Pablo como un teólogo dogmático, no lo entenderemos jamás.

Rudolf Bultmann trata de hacer un puente entre lo que encontramos en el texto, y
como esto se aplica a los seres humanos 20 siglos después. Esto suena como que
pudiera ser resuelto con la hermenéutica, pero Bultmann introduce una dosis de
existencialismo en su teología. Bultmann, a contrario de Schweitzer, pone a
Pablo dentro del contexto helenista, abrazando el "pensamiento griego", pg. 21.
Para Bultmann, el centro del pensamiento Paulino era la `grave situación humana
a la que Bultmann llamo "el hombre bajo le ley", pg. 22. Para mi, Bultmann
descontextualiza a Pablo, y lo lleva cautivo al siglo 19, donde Pablo es mas
bien un producto de la influencia griega, donde el judaísmo no tiene mucho que
ver con su mensaje.

W. D. Davies, trae a Pablo de nuevo al concepto de que su transfondo judío tenia
mucho que ver con su mensaje. Por lo visto, muchos habían adoptado la posición
de que Pablo atacaba el Judaísmo por este ser tan contaminado, y esa fue la
razón por la cual se le atribuye a Pablo la adopción de conceptos griegos, ósea,
un rechazo a sus raíces étnicas y teológicas. Si esto es así, sabiendo que
Lutero y muchos Reformadores equipararon al judaísmo con la iglesia católica
romana, se demostraría que sus conclusiones fueron tintadas con cierto grado no
solo de antisemitismo, sino que también han impuesto a Pablo un contexto del
cual el no se considero ser parte.

Ernst Käsemann, alumno de Bultmann, ofreció una nueva síntesis Paulina en los
años 60 y 70. Tomo en cuenta tanto lo dicho por Schweitzer sobre el judaísmo ser
una religión apocalíptica, y que la doctrina de la justificación era el antídoto
en contra del orgullo humano. Pero su contribución mas grande es que dejo a
Pablo hacer una critica al Judaísmo, no desde una perspectiva griega, como lo
haría Bultmann, pero dentro del mismo Judaísmo. Esto parece devolver a Pablo a
sus raíces, y me recuerda de cómo el quiere que todo Israel sea salvo, cf.
Romanos 9:2-4.

El ultimo mencionado por Wright es E. P. Sanders, quien escribió Paul and
Palestinian Judaism. Recordemos, y esto Wright lo menciona, Davies fue el
profesor de Sanders, por lo tanto, se espera cierta continuidad con Davies.
Sanders estudio los documentos del primer siglo, apócrifos y pseudoapócrifos, y
otros manuscritos, y llego a la conclusión de que el Judaísmo del tiempo de
Pablo había sido mal representado. Para Sanders "el judío guardaba la ley porque
esta agradecido a la gracia de Dios – no para entrar en el pacto, sino para
mantenerse en el pacto. Estar en el pacto es regalo de Dios. Sanders llamo a
esta ida `el nomismo pactal'. Es esta posición, que se diferencia con el
Protestantismo, que hace la justificación por fe el centro del pensamiento
Paulino, que alarmo, y sigue alarmando a muchos el día de hoy. Y esto también
me llama a mi la atención. Si el Judaísmo era tan malo, como Lutero y los
Reformadores nos dicen, ¿porque entonces no fue Jesús el que lo dijo? El critica
a los judíos, y esto lo vemos en el evangelio de Juan, pero es en ese mismo
evangelio donde afirma que los Judíos saben lo que adoran, mientras que los
Samaritanos no, cf. Juan 4. Los primeros Cristianos no tuvieron problemas de
adorar dentro de los parámetros Judíos. La ruptura, por mi lectura de Gálatas y
Hechos 15, fue la inclusión de Gentiles en la iglesia.

Por conclusión del capitulo, Wright nos entrega una forma de cómo acercarnos al
estudio, que consiste de Historia, tomar los hechos históricos del tiempo de
Pablo; Teología, aunque se debe de buscar el centro del pensamiento de Pablo, no
obstante, no se debe refugiar en solo estudiar el texto, sino que ver como los
textos trabajan en la `narrativa' Paulina; Exegesis, esto es consultar las
fuentes primarias, el texto bíblico como también aquellos documentos que nos
informan del contexto en el cual Pablo vivió; Aplicación, como vivimos las
escrituras el día de hoy.

Como dije al principio, este capitulo, al evangélico promedio, le daría una gran
sorpresa. Pero creo que al mismo tiempo, su sed por aprender mas de las
escrituras, lo hará leer mas y mas. Wright nos entrega una corta pero concisa
introducción al estudio de Pablo en el pasado siglo. Esto no es algo que los
críticos de Wright en Español toman en cuenta. Ósea, me dan la impresión de lo
que paso en el siglo 16, hasta el día de hoy, no ha existido diferencias entre
los Protestantes, hasta que apareció Sanders. Para saber detalladamente el
debate sobre el estudio Paulino a través de los tiempos, seria bien leer el
libro por Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The "Lutheran"
Paul and His Critics. No obstante, Wright introduce ya en su primer capitulo, su
metódica de cómo el llega el tema, que es que cree que Pablo es un judío
hablando desde una perspectiva judía, y que la justificación por fe no es el
centro Paulino. Lo primero, seria aceptado por muchos, lo segundo, es lo que
alarma tanto a muchos tanto en el lado de habla inglesa Protestante, como
también ahora entre los de habla hispana.

En este segundo capitulo, Wright nos introduce lo que el considera que fue de gran importancia en la formación religiosa de Pablo, y que mas adelante tubo que ver con su misión como evangelista, maestro y apóstol en su ministerio cristiano.
De Pablo, solo sabemos quien es por lo que nos dice el mismo en los pasajes como Romanos 10:2, Filipenses 3:6, Gálatas 1:13-14, y I Cor. 15:9. Los otros pasajes donde tenemos información de Pablo, los encontramos en el libro de los Hechos. De especial información para Wright, es Hechos 22:3, donde el mismo Pablo dice que fue discípulo de Gamaliel.

De acá arranca la teoría de Wright, que tiene mas posibilidades de ser factible, de no serlo. Correctamente, Wright nos apunta a la diferencias entre las escuelas Judaicas de Hillel y Shammai. La primera era mas menos severa que la segunda, (cf. pg. 32). Donde se ve que Pablo no tenia el mismo modo de tratar las cosas que su maestro tenia era en su trato para con la nueva secta cristiana que surgía en medio del Judaísmo. Ejemplo es que Pablo estaba dispuesto a perseguir a la iglesia, cf. Gal. 1:13-14, mientras que su maestro, Gamaliel, un miembro partidario de Hillel, llama mas bien a una co-existencia con el Cristianismo, y ver como este termina o prosigue, cf. Hechos 5:34-39. Para Wright, la palabra `celo' es de suma importancia para entender a Pablo, pues esta palabra denota que Pablo no solo tenia una visión piadosa y personal y privada de cómo vivir como judío, sino que Pablo demuestra su `celo' para que otros acaten la ley de Moisés, cf. pg. 33.

Otro punto que Wright introduce en este capitulo, es uno de los puntos mas controversiales de su pensamiento, y este es que Israel aun esta en exilio, a pesar de que vivían en su tierra. Wright da las razones del porque algunos judíos creían que estaban aun en exilio es porque las profecías que debían de haber sido cumplidas después del regreso de Babilonia, no habían sido cumplidas. En la literatura apócrifa ya se le atribuía a Roma el lugar de Babilonia, cf. Esdras 4th y interpretaciones del libro de Daniel, pg. 36. Esto, lo vemos también en Apocalipsis 17 y 18. Este punto, ha sido criticado mucho, y no es estudiado mas cuidadosamente.

La diferencia de los shammaitas, es que ellos no iban a estar sentados esperando la venida del reino de Dios, sino que se sentían obligados hacer algo para que esta venida tomara lugar. Lo que ellos creían, era que para que el reino viniera, Israel debería guardar la Torah primero. De ahí del porque de la oposición a la iglesia, y a otros judíos que no querían guardar la ley. Si esto no tomaba lugar, y Dios traía a su reino, Israel seria juzgada junto con las demás naciones. Este punto es consistente de cómo Jesús en su persona, hace el ministerio que Israel, aunque llamado a ser bendición a las naciones, no lo hizo, pgs. 37-38, Gen. 12:3.

Para Pablo, según Wright, habían "3 puntos cardinales en la teología judía: el monoteísmo, la elección y la escatología", pg. 37. Dios es uno, y a elegido un pueblo, y Dios conquistara todo al final. Este es otro punto importante para contra-restar la posición popular, que tanto Israel como la iglesia son pueblos de Dios. Esto, claramente Pablo lo rechaza cuando habla de ello en Efesios y en Colosenses, cf. Efe. 4:4; Col. 1:13.

La parte principal de este capitulo, es cuando Wright dice lo siguiente en manera de introducir el tema de la justificación, " Ahora creo que eso es tan radicalmente anacrónico (esa visión no surgió en los día de Saulo) como culturalmente irreal (no coincide con el pensamiento judío). A este respecto, Ed Sanders tiene razón: juzgamos mal al Judaísmo temprano, especialmente el fariseísmo, si pensamos que es una versión antigua del pelagianismo. " Pg. 38. Recordemos que Jesús no ataca a los judíos por poner su confianza en la ley, en el sentido que si la cumplían tendrían salvación. De hecho, tales judíos que pensarían tal cosa, no se hicieran presente en el celebración de la Pascua. Es un error pensar que Pablo, o cualquier otro Judía pensaba que podía entrar al cielo por sus buenas obras, pues esto cancelaría la necesidad de celebrar la Pascua.

Es en el tema de la justificación, que Wright nos da una cosmovisión no tan estudiada por los eruditos Protestantes. Wright demuestra como los judíos del primer siglo entendían el significado de la justificación. Wright nos dice "'justificació n' es un termino jurídico, y en el contexto judío se refiere al mayor de los juicios: el que tendrá lugar el gran día en el que el Dios verdadero juzgue a todas las naciones, mas concretamente a las naciones que han oprimido a Israel. Al final, Dios actuara a favor de su pueblo: juzgara a las naciones paganas y rescatar a su pueblo verdadero. Así, `justificació n' describe el gran acto venidero de la redención y salvación, visto desde el punto de vista del pacto (Israel es el pueblo de Dios) por un lado, y desde un punto de vista jurídico por otro (el juicio final de Dios será como un juicio en un tribunal, en el que ganara Israel)." Pg. 39. De ser así, esto jamás he oído tal cosa del pulpito, o en la escuela dominical. Como Wright, me siento algo `engañado', pues se me pinta a un Pablo que no pudo existir dentro del contexto que vivía.

Finalmente, y brevemente, quisiera decir algo sobre la escatología de Pablo. Si se acepta la cosmovisión de Pablo entregada por Wright, que la justificación tiene que ver con el día final tanto como en lo presente, la escatología entonces tomo otro sentido. Y el gran problema para Pablo era que, el sabia que en ultimo día ocurriría la resurrección, pero ahora se topa que "El único Dios verdadero había hecho con Jesús de Nazaret, en medio de la historia, lo que Pablo creía que Dios iba a hacer con Israel al final de la historia.", pg. 42. Esto, por lo visto, cambio totalmente el punto de vista de Pablo, y lo movió a ser un heraldo de lo que Dios había hecho en Jesús.

Es en esa nueva vocación de heraldo de Jesús, que Wright toma en el próximo capitulo.

Dios les bendiga.

Luis Alberto Jovel

[Michael Brooks · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was the pre-cursor to his large work Paul & the Faithfulness of God. (as said by Wright himself).

In classic Wright style we have a large mixture of many things good and bad.

First, the good. In the good he offered a lot of interesting and helpful ways of looking at how the history of Israel had found it's climax in Jesus. He also strongly disagreed with the idea that Paul was founding something very different than what Jesus came to do. Wright also very helpfully showed how Paul's thought was thoroughly Jewish in background but was radically changed when he encountered Jesus. This Jewish thought was also enriched by how he brought this Jewish thought to the Greek world. But Wright strongly argues against this. Wright also had a wonderful chapter on how Paul understood Jewish monotheism in the context of the claims of Christ and the sending of the Spirit. Very powerful and very good! He does use words like "reimagined" are a very soft way of speaking to the authority of it, but more on that in the critique. Wright does a lot of great work in parts of this book.

In my opinion, as is the case with Wright as a whole, the bad outweighs the good. In other words, I think you can mostly find what Wright brings to the table in the good without what he offers subtlety and not-so-subtlety in the negative.

In this work Wright consistently uses earth-bound language when referring to Paul's thought. What do I mean? When thinking of Paul's writing and thought and explaining it only once does he refer to it being God's ideas, or that God was speaking through Paul. Wright never talks that way. Wright always and only talks about it being Paul's thoughts and ideas. This leads him to talk in a way that sometimes uses adjectives like "process" and "develop". When explaining Paul's thought and Paul's writings, Wright rarely every uses language that God inspired, intervened, changed Paul etc. God was never the Divine mover in Paul's thought according to the words and language Wright uses. This is a classic Wright tactic. Wright will only say things a certain way. Meaning, what Wright DOES say in this work is much more meaningful and revealing than what he doesn't. Wright thinks through Paul only in Paul's mind without ever bringing God's actions in Paul's mind into the picture. It seems to make Paul the final arbiter on what is or isn't right. It is very soft on any kind of divine authority in the revelation of Scripture.

Another issue is that Wright changes all of the categories/ideas/events' meaning to the point of almost becoming unrecognizable as a supposed "evangelical". Wright changes EVERYTHING either a little bit or dramatically. Jesus' role, work, and accomplishments are changed. In this we see that the work on the cross is significantly reduced and changed. Wright spends a lot of time on Paul and rarely mentions sin. This is an issue. Was Paul concerned about sin? According to Wright, it is not worth mentioning. Wright has changed the story. Completely. This is no small thing.

Wright is in some ways a very helpful author, but in MANY MANY ways he is destructive. This book reflects much of the same. He is destructive in what he refuses to say. He writes, and writes, and writes, and writes, but never quite says what we (conservative, orthodox, evangelicalism) want him to say, uses the same words we use but means different things, says a lot we don't agree with or like, and claims he believes things he rarely (or ever!) talks about. Wright is a known author. This has been true for a long time. I have read recent work and older work. Common misconceptions that are true over the many years of his writing: He does not believe in substitution as most evangelicals would understand it, even though I have heard Pastors, leaders and bloggers make that claim. Wright rarely talks about sin, and when he does it is a pseudo-spiritual cosmic force rather than a personal problem before God. Wright has changed and limited the atonement and the work of the cross. (This makes sense in his understanding of sin) Wright is strongly influenced by historical criticism and treats the Bible as a primarily human, historical document. Even though he claims and others claim he has a "high view" of Scripture. Wright is known. We know what he believes and we know what he never talks about. We also know what he critiques and that is significant.

This book has benefit if read VERY critically. Wright offers some good material, but from a perspective that is utterly destructive.

[Travis Bow · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like a lot of Wright's books, this one had a lot that made sense and a lot that left me scratching my head. I read it twice, doing a detailed 11-page outline on the second read. Chapters 1-4 and 6-7 were the most valuable; chapter 5 and 8-10 are vague and not very useful.Here are the highlights:

Chapter 1: there's been a lot of disagreement about Paul's origins and theological focus over the years (Schweitzer, Bultmann, Davies, Kasemann, Sanders). Today most think he was a Jewish thinker but there's no consensus on the center of his theology.

Chapter 2: pre-Christian Saul was a Shammaite (strict nation-focused) Pharisee [seems pretty well backed up].

Chapter 3: Paul's "gospel" wasn't strictly "how one gets saved." Instead it was an announcement that 1) Jesus has won the victory on the cross, 2) the New Age has dawned, Israel's exile is over, 3) Jesus is king. Israel's God is the only true God, now made known through Jesus.

Chapter 4: A pretty solid case that God thought Jesus was divine while maintaining Jewish monotheism.

Chapter 5: Starting to get a little vague and hard to follow now - Paul's message showed Christianity as the "reality of which paganism was the parody."

Chapter 6: Maybe the most controversial section, goes into great detail on the subtleties of how to interpret God's righteousness and man's being counted righteous, offering a table of 8 common options, arguing against the common "imputed righteousness" theory in favor of God demonstrated his righteousness by being faithful to the covenant (with only vague discussion of Wright's opinion of man's being counted righteous).

Chapter 7: Gets pretty confusing. Wright makes a decent case that Paul wasn't arguing against Pelagianism (which wasn't really a thing yet) but rather arguing answering the question of "who one is allowed to eat with... who is a member of the people of God. The conclusion of the argument is not 'if you are Abraham's family, you are in Christ', but the other way round." He then goes on (sort of out of the blue without much relation to the scriptures he's been discussing) to make a vague distinction between faith being how someone "gets in" to God's people and faith being a badge of "being in." He favors the latter, seeming to hint that faith is (arbitrarily?) given to some people in sort of an Unconditional Election way: "this person, who (perhaps to their own surprise) believes the gospel, is thereby marked out as being within the true covenant family. Justification is not how someone becomes a Christian. It is the declaration that they have become a Christian."

Chapters 8 and 9: Mostly vague and hard to follow, things like Christianity being "genuine humanness," the spiritual and temporal being one and united, Jesus being Lord of all creation (not just human hearts), even some hints at universalism ("[God's] operation is [not] so that God can have another, merely different, private little group of people who are saved while the world is consigned to the cosmic waste-paper basket... God intends to flood creation with his own love, until the earth is filled with the glory of God as the waters cover the sea"). Some good points in here (like allegiance to Christ going against allegiance to money, sex, or power), but I mostly ended up throwing up my hands on these chapters.

Chapter 10 - a targeted refutation of AN Wilson's view of Paul as a Greek thinker who made Judaism palatable to the wider world by making stuff up about Jesus (like divinity and resurrection).

[George · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fantastic work of academic writing by New Testament scholar and Anglican ex-bishop Tom Wright which serves as an illuminating introduction as to who St Paul was and what he believed.

There are many reflections here about his ‘zeal’ as a conservative Pharisee Jew in the first century AD which translated into his zeal as an early Christian missionary and evangelist after his famous ‘Damascene conversion’. Wright assures us that instead of a complete turn around in his religious beliefs, Paul’s encounter with Christ led to him realising that the one God he believed in his entire life had arrived as Messiah: through Christ the promises of the Jewish God were fulfilled, in a way that was surprising, but it didn’t mean an abandonment of everything Paul believed. Wright offers a great explanation as to why he believes Paul didn’t change ‘religion’ but came to a deeper understanding of his faith. He says, ‘the claim of Israel always was, the message of Jesus always was, and the announcement of Paul always was, that the human race was to be shown, invited to, summoned into, and enabled to discover the true way of being human, the way to reflect the very image of God in every aspect of life and with every fibre of one’s being’. I found this a very beautiful summary of the problem with misunderstanding the Damascene conversion and turning Paul into someone he wasn’t.

Wright also explains the real meaning of ‘gospel’, which he describes as a ‘royal proclamation’ that Christ is Lord and King. So while we have many modern uses for the word ‘gospel’, such as ‘gospel truth’ and ‘gospel music’, the essential meaning is the good news which is at the heart of every Christian’s faith, and indeed is what Wright calls ‘justification by faith’ in Christ: a key pillar of Pauline Christianity. Instead of piling on good works like pagans, and making sacrifices to assuage severe gods who are remote from us and above us, Paul preached the gospel and promised that if we put our faith in Christ, who as sacrificial lamb died for our sins, we can be saved, with ‘justification’ being ‘the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family [of Christians], on this basis and no other’.

The essay finishes with timely thoughts on today’s world, including on New Age worship of ‘money, sex and power’, turning a critical eye to ‘a society where debt, which used to be regarded as somewhat sordid and shameful, is glitzy and glamourous’, sexual liberation promises ‘bliss’ but gives ‘confusion and misery’, and power means ‘force majeur’ rather than a ‘power that is made perfect in weakness’—that is, the power of Christ crucified, in the event that upended human history.

I understand this is a short read and Tom Wright (who writes as NT Wright) has a huge body of work that expands on many of the ideas here, so I will definitely be checking out more of his books in the near future.

[Donner Tan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tom Wright is at the forefront of Pauline scholarship as well as studies on Jesus. His historical instincts, engagement with primary sources and 'big picture' exegesis have led him to a fresh reading of Paul in the historical context of the Graeco-Roman-Jewish world of the 1st century. The outcome is a breathtaking view of the Gospel as understood and preached by Paul to a world dominated by the Roman imperial cult, pagan idolatry, Greek wisdoms and Jewish Messianic hopes. It is in such a world, Wright argues, where Paul does his business and his writings can best be understood against this background. This means that the popular, truncated notion of the gospel as a timeless system of salvation that will 'save our souls' and 'get us to heaven after we die' would have to be jettisoned in favour of the gospel that announces God's reign that has been inaugurated here on earth in the person of Jesus the Messiah. This means that the gospel has a much larger scope (indeed cosmic) than the private relationship one has with God or the eternal destiny of the individual souls. Rather, it speaks of God's faithfulness to the world he has made and how through the covenant relationships with his people, he will set the world aright - culminating in the new heavens and the new earth. This way of reading Paul would require a paradigm shift for Christians who have got used to reading the NT through the 'works righteousness vs salvation by grace' debates that have coloured our reading of Paul since Augustine. Hence, the evident unsettling of some readers. Wright's proposal, while we do not have to agree with every fine point of his exegesis , has the huge edge over the traditional reading for taking the historical setting far more seriously and in so doing invites us to hear Paul afresh as he announces the good news in all its ramifications.

I've found this book to be a great primer to Wright's other more extensive treatments of Paul in many of his other works, including 'Paul for Everyone' commentaries, 'Paul in Fresh Perspectives' and 'Climax of the Covenant' - listed in ascending order of profundity. I recommend it to anyone who is open to letting his reading of Paul be challenged by one of the most respected NT scholars of our day.

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm no theologian but anyone can learn a lot from reading this book. Wright is well versed in current (at the time the book was published--1997) & previous books on St. Paul. He criticizes many of them for failing to consider all of the available evidence. He makes a series of powerful arguments.

Paul's view of "the gospel" is a fourfold announcement about Jesus: 1) Jesus' death on the cross was the decisive victory over the forces of evil; 2) Jesus' resurrection was the dawn of a new age when prophecies would be fulfilled, Israel's exile would be over and the whole world would be addressed by the one creator God; 3) the crucified and risen Jesus was, all along, Israel's Messiah, her representative king; and 4) Jesus was therefore also the Lord, the true king of the world, the one at whose name all knees would bow. It is also a double and dramatic announcement about God: 1) The God of Israel is the one true God, and the pagan deities are mere idols; and 2) The God of Israel is now made known in and through Jesus himself.

Wright discusses righteousness at length, using the analogy of a Hebrew law court where the judge hears the arguments of the plaintiff bringing the accusation and the defendant, the accused. The judge has his own righteousness. The winning side has a different kind of righteousness (i.e., the judge ruling in your favor) conferred upon them. Wright distinguishes between God's own righteousness (both a moral quality and God's salvation creating power) and a righteousness given to humans.

Wright also discusses justification at length. It doesn't mean what a lot of Christians think it means.

I recommend this book. I'll never read Paul's letters the same way again.

[Nicholas Bitterling · Rating 2 out of 5]

Wright would make a better poet than theologian. His definition of justification is evidently problematic in almost every instance. His definitions of "righteousness of God" as "covenant faithfulness" and "righteousness" in any human instance as "covenant membership" introduce a confusing antithesis that is simply indefensible in instances such as Rom. 3:26. His helpful contributions are to the continuity between Jesus and Paul and the anti-racist message of the gospel being participation in the covenant people of God irrespective of any ethnic or cultural boundaries. The problem is that he uplifts the latter to the detriment (and nigh exclusion) of the traditional perspective of the gospel being the way by which it pleases God to reconcile broken sinners to their holy Creator. Wright outright denies imputation due to his novice understanding of biblical languages. He correctly shows that, in theory, Judaism was a religion of faith and not works, but he fails to even address the question of whether it was in practice. Even if Judaism had a robust understanding of God's grace, Paul and Jesus repeatedly argued against the self-righteous legalism of the Jews. Now, if up to this point, Wright is actually correct about everything, he still has the burden of showing that the Jews would have had no reason to ask how they could possibly have union with a holy God, a God who their scriptures undeniably portrayed as ontologically unapproachable. Since Wright (along with most NPP scholars) questions the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles (among other letters), it is much easier for him to dismiss the incessant Pauline theme of justification by faith, not by works.