What do you think?
Rate this book
Delivered from the Elements of the World: Atonement, Justification, Mission
With the question reframed for the wide screen, Leithart pursues the cultural and public settings and consequences of the cross and resurrection. He writes, "I hope to show that atonement theology must be social theory if it is going to have any coherence, relevance or comprehensibility at all." There are no small thoughts or cramped plot lines in this vision of the deep-down things of cross and culture. While much is recognizable as biblical theology projected along Pauline vectors, Leithart marshals a stunning array of discourse to crack open one of the big questions of Christian theology. This is a book on the atonement that eludes conventional categories, prods our theological imaginations and is sure to spark conversation and debate.
368 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2016
33 people are currently reading
228 people want to read
About the author
Peter J. Leithart
130 books367 followersPeter Leithart received an A.B. in English and History from Hillsdale College in 1981, and a Master of Arts in Religion and a Master of Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 1986 and 1987. In 1998 he received his Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge in England. He has served in two pastorates: He was pastor of Reformed Heritage Presbyterian Church (now Trinity Presbyterian Church), Birmingham, Alabama from 1989 to 1995, and was founding pastor of Trinity Reformed Church, Moscow, Idaho, and served on the pastoral staff at Trinity from 2003-2013. From 1998 to 2013 he taught theology and literature at New St. Andrews College, Moscow, Idaho, where he continues to teach as an adjunct Senior Fellow. He now serves as President of Trinity House in Alabama, where is also resident Church Teacher at the local CREC church. He and his wife, Noel, have ten children and five grandchildren.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
January 22, 2026
This is the Leithart magnum opus. Leithart at last gives us his own distillation of the New Perspective on Paul, at last he gives us his fully matured (oh the irony) description of the entire Bible, and at long last we have his take on how the Old Testament prepared, really prepared for the New Testament.
In chapter 1, Leithart does a little word-study on the Greek words phusis and ta stoicheia, commonly translated “nature” and “the elements.” He argues that Paul uses such terms to refer to what we would call “sociological realities.” For Paul, Jews and Gentiles have different natures because “prior to the coming of Jesus, the social worlds of Jews and Gentiles were both organized by practices, structures and symbols.” He argues that passages such as Rom. 2:14-15, 11:24; 1 Cor. 11:14; and Gal. 2:15 use “nature” to refer to things which don’t describe untouched nature, and that the word for “elements,” though commonly thought of by Greeks as the four elements, were also linked with spiritual powers and with the rituals that appeased them and thereby prevented political and social disaster from striking. Paul uses them in Gal. 4:3, 9 and in Col. 2:20 to refer to the world before the cross—the world which was made up of purity regulations, sacrifices, and liturgical ceremonies, and which characterized both Jewish and Gentile societies.
Leithart socializes another term used commonly by Paul: the Greek word sarx, meaning “flesh” and often glossed by the Reformed as “sinful nature.” He argues mostly from Genesis that flesh is a broad-ranging term that encompasses human strength, whether prowess in war or in sexual conquest, as well as man's vulnerability, his feet of clay, and the need he has for God. I have heard Leithart and psychologist Richard Beck argue such things in other contexts and when I was first introduced to it, it really helped me to see works and faith all over the place in the Old Testament. Even better, it helped me see how the New Testament transposes that Old Covenant key, rejuvenating my Protestantism at a time when I was inclined to doubt it. He also carefully explains how Spirit and flesh relate: flesh needs to be animated by God's Spirit, just as Adam was animated by God's Spirit. Man fell when he tried to preserve his life by relying on his own flesh instead of looking upward to the one who gave him life.
His conception of sarx also makes his discussion of Torah and the Levitical system in chapter five quite koshur. Leithart makes it clear that the sacrifices were enacted rites that, by killing the animal’s flesh and raising it in a smoky “spiritual” aroma to the Lord, reminded Jews not to put confidence in their flesh, but to put confidence in God’s life giving Spirit. However, the law is imperfect, or rather the people it works on is imperfect. The Torah only brings Israelites and Priests into God’s house part of the way; the nations remain outside, as do many of the unclean. However, even then Leithart insists that the Law was in some sense meant to be a ministry for the nations, and in fact Israel itself was a substitute for the nations.
This brings us to his interpretation of the Jews of Jesus' day. Leithart interprets Rom. 7 as referring to the corporate Israel using the law as a means of excluding the Gentiles and as a weapon against the poor and sinners in Israel instead of using it as a means of inclusion and forgiveness: "At its worst, Pharisaical oral tradition is the law turned to flesh—turned into a means for reinforcing fleshly distinctions, restrictions and enhancing fleshly boasting—which is why Jesus so ferociously attacks the Pharisees." The Law came to a fleshly people and resulted in the “works of the Law,” which Leithart glosses as “what the Law does to a fleshly people.” Leithart explains in a helpful footnote that this certainly includes good deeds, but like sarx he wants to make the phrase much broader to encompass Jewish rituals. In keeping with this view, Leithart joins other commentators in arguing that Gal. 3:19 should not be translated the law “was added because of transgressions” but the law “was added so that there might be transgressions.” Torah provokes sin, not just on the individual level, but historically in the nation of Israel.
Leithart makes the compelling case, along now familiar N.T. Wrightean lines, that "the Righteousness of God" does not refer to imputed righteousness, but rather to God's covenantal righteousness and in line with Richard Hayes’s thesis, he argues that “faith in Christ” should often be translated as “the faith of Christ.” He is also clearly influenced by Wright in his rousing defense of retributive justice, but he also thinks that Jesus by touching the unclean, eating with sinners, and loving enemies brought a new, redemptive and restorative righteousness that was in the Torah in seed form but comes to maturity only with the Incarnation.
He also considers the atonement and connects it more tightly to the Gospels. He argues that when the fleshly Jews turn the law into a means of condemning and crucifying Jesus, God’s prosecution of flesh is complete and the cross becomes the site of the condemnation of sins that God had left unjudged. He also insists that Jesus is penal substitute for his death-fearing disciples, for the Torah-abusing Jews and, since Israel was substitute for the nations, for the corrupt Roman Gentiles. Leithart describes Jesus’ death as removing the old purity-regulation system which governed Israel by putting a symbolic end to “flesh,” and he says that Jesus’ resurrection should be seen as God's vindication or “justification” of Jesus’ life. He also links the ascension and the giving of the Spirit with the smoke of the sacrifices ascending to God, a very simple, yet profound observation.
When Leithart discusses justification, he starts from his earlier description of justification as God’s vindication of Jesus and as a vindication of His promises to Israel. Key for him in what follows is that God justifies Jesus by raising Jesus from the dead. Justification is not just a forensic declaration, but is also a declaration that God follows up on by raising Jesus from the dead. Leithart makes two key departures from traditional Protestant formulations. He argues that Paul uses the term “justify” to refer to an act by which God declares us just and, because God’s speech is potently creative, this declaration changes not only our status, but also our character. In other words, God says we are righteous and because of this declaration the Spirit makes us increasingly righteous. In short, justification is a “Deliverdict,” a verdict that delivers from the power of sin.
So when Leithart turns to Galatians 2, for instance, he links this liberative connotation with Paul’s claim that he has died to the law. By being justified, Paul is not only freed from the curse of sin, but also dies to his identity as a Torah-shaped Jew. While Paul may still perform certain ceremonies, he is not defined by them as he once was and is not tempted, like the Galatians, to return to Egypt. However, he is also careful not to let the law’s “maturing” function overcrowd its sin-cursing function. Jesus came to free Israel from a specific curse they incurred for not performing the law, a curse that is inevitable whenever flesh is involved.
There's more, but it should be clear that I'm very sympathetic to this all. So why the three-star rating? I would say that what is good is really, really good, but there are some rhetorical confusions which are connected to The Baptized Body and Against Christianity and I think they are important.
So first, he "socializes" natures. In Reformed theology, "nature" refers often to our nature as either sinful or justified. Leithart’s etymological discussion of phusis and ta stoicheia is persuasive and clearly demonstrates that the terms are not being applied to things as they were initially created by God. However, C.S. Lewis in his book Studies in Words examines the history of phusis and argues that it is not restricted to the philosophical definition, but can also mean “kind” or “category.” Therefore I remain skeptical that the philosophers would have batted an eyebrow at Paul’s use of the word, and I don’t think it challenges what most theologians have meant by the term.
Leithart emphasizes how the Torah was instituted so that by “doing the law—performing sacrifices, keeping purity laws, attending feasts at the temple, approaching God through the priest—inculcates habits of weakness, which means a habitus of faith and a vocation to assail fleshliness.” As explained here, this is consistent with the Reformed tradition, which considers the sacraments as pedagogues or “spoken words” that make us practice and embody a stance of faith and love towards God. Similarly baptism and the Lord’s Supper take Gentiles and Jews molded by purity regulations, and train them to remember that their fundamental being is defined, not by fleshly divisions, but by Jesus’ death and resurrection for their sins.
Leithart's exegesis, I think, strengthens the Reformed emphasis on sacraments as aids or helps towards faith. However, Leithart goes even further arguing that since the enlightenment and perhaps since Aristotle our notion of “nature” has been insufficiently Biblical: “The Bible does not share our materialist or atomized anthropology, according to which human beings remain what they are no matter what shape their social setting takes or what direction their cultural values impel them. ‘Institutional’ patterns determine nature, so that a person who lives under Torah is “naturally” a Jew, naturally one hypo nomou.”
While a person’s identity may be re-defined in many wonderful ways by baptism, their status before God as justified or unjustified is not determined by baptism, yet Leithart seems to say the contrary in a footnote, Leithart says that the idea of a nature underneath one’s baptized identity betrays “an unbiblical anthropology that separates ‘external’ patterns of ritual and life from the ‘internal nature’” and assumes that “a change from complex and multiple sacraments to simpler and fewer ones does not touch the fundamental being of a person or a society." Our beings are certainly impacted by what happens to our bodies including public rites and rituals, but our fundamental being can only make us into one of two kinds of people. As C.S. Lewis so eloquently put it, “there are those who say to God thy will be done, and those to whom God says in the end, thy will be done.” I don't think Leithart would deny what I'm saying, but his rhetoric is a little confusing.
My second problem would have to do with his complaints against the Reformed tradition's take on justification and sanctification. Leithart defines justification as "a judicial act [that] transforms a person’s life-situation as well as their status." Instead of Sanctification following Justification like one car tailgating another, Sanctification follows Justification like a caboose hitched to a train. The declaration that we are perfectly righteous is implemented by a gradual and imperfect sanctification through the Spirit whose end result is perfect righteousness. This is all well and good and Protestant. Justification and Sanctification, though more tightly linked remain a "twofold movement." Not all need be convinced of his readings of the terms such as “Justify,” “the Faith/Faithfulness of Christ,” and “Justification” to admit that the way he formulates it is within the Protestant pale.
However, Leithart thinks that the problem comes from modern Reformed theologians and pastors sharply distinguishing between one’s perfectly righteous status imputed by faith and one’s imperfectly righteous infused righteousness. He is aware that “Classic Protestant soteriology has had ways of dealing with this problem,” but then he adds, almost as an afterthought, “Dogmatic formulations emphasize the inseparability of justification and sanctification as the duplex gratia that comes from Christ. Though true, this point has not been resilient enough to prevent theological and pastoral ambivalence.” In other words, even though one’s fundamental identity is changed following justification, the two are not tightly enough linked unless they are cause and effect. Douglas Wilson has already noticed this, but the problem is not that the two concepts are linked enough, but that sin creates the disjunction, and while it’s nice to see the two more closely together, it hardly seems to have been the cause of all the sinful abuses of the doctrine we have seen.
I'm also a bit dismayed by this statement in a footnote: “This should not be taken to imply that baptism is the sole site of this justifying act, or taken to minimize the Spirit’s work through preaching. After all, Paul begins Gal 3 with a reminder that the Galatians received the Spirit by hearing with faith, or by hearing the message of the Faith. When they heard and believed the gospel, the Spirit invaded their lives and “justified” them from sin, flesh and ta stoicheia. Paul is not entirely clear about how justification by trusting the message is to be reconciled with justification by baptism. But he says both, and we must at least do that.” I'm a bit bothered that a man of such vision and imagination thinks that the relationship of baptism and faith is unclear in Paul's mind, though perhaps this is just Leithart's Lutheranism. I wish he had clarified this, not for the heresy-hunters, but for the people who are confused about what he's saying. Even so, it is clear to me that he’s still trying to make faith part of the initial, not progressive justification.
My third and final problem with the book is that he does not distinguish between the visible and institutional church. The visible church is the “the whole body of mankind scattered throughout the world, who profess to worship one God and Christ, who by baptism are initiated into the faith.” The institutional church is what we normally think of: groups of visible Christians gathering weekly to worship and often to perform the sacraments. However, there is nothing in Scripture that implies that any visible, institutional church is the locus of salvation, or even that we owe our allegiance to such institutions in a way that trumps other institutions.
While the institutional church can be the site of much social transformation, much can also take place outside of it, performed by individual Christians or even by Christians working together in non-Christian institutions and the fruits of the Gospel might even be better displayed by a non-Christian group than by a Christian group. To deny this would imply that in any dispute between the institutional church and just about any other earthly institution, the institutional church would be right, which is what the Catholic church teaches. Leithart does talk a lot about the Spirit though, and he is very right to insist that the Spirit transforms institutions, but he mixes categories when he says such things as ““By forming the church, [baptism] plants within the cities of this world a new form of the city; the church stages an eschatological form of social life before the nations and before the principalities and powers. Baptism announces that fleshly society is not the only form of human society, announces not merely the possibility but the reality of a communion that is constituted by the Spirit.”
For Leithart, fleshly divisions are removed in the unifying rites of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and they look forward to a society in which such fleshly distinctives are removed. This might very well be true of the final consummation, in which even marriage is no longer a distinction. However, as Leithart admits again and again, male and female differences are not dismantled by the Eucharistic meal, and the other distinctions he wants to gradually be erased (slave and master, Jew and Gentile, what have you) might be erased in many different ways. Naturally, an institution like slavery should be removed, but does the Lord’s Supper really encourage that?
I work for a publishing company and they can tell me what to do to a more limited extent than they might tell a slave and I’m relatively happy with that master-slave relationship since it frees me from having to worry about many of the decisions my bosses make. It seems that the Lord’s Supper ends castes and any doctrine that posits better and worse classes of men in an ultimate sense, but it hardly proscribes a particular vision of a pre-Second Coming society and if the institution were to try to enforce such social changes, they would hardly seem the ideal instrument for reforming society.
At the end of the book Leithart says that, "A Christian willing to take up arms against another Christian is a Christian who has traded in his membership in the post-Babel communion of saints for membership in a nation governed by refurbished stoicheic values. They have traded in their loyalty to the temple of the Spirit for loyalty to the flesh. " My problem with this is that if we accept that there is a visible church as all Trinitarian-baptized believers, then there seems to be nothing that makes these believers gathering together for church any more a spiritual polity than those same believers getting together to form a government, or a business, or a social club. All of the above glorify God in some way and can all potentially go wrong.
Paul says that we are to do good to all men, though especially to the household of faith (Gal. 6:10). We should certainly think twice before going to war with Christians, preferring to let our collective cheek get slapped if safely possible. However, to go to war means that somebody has sinned, and if there is any such thing as a just war, does the presence or absence of Christians make that cause any more or less just? As a matter of fact, would we not be less likely to fight against unbelievers, since doing so would be more likely to send their souls to hell? Leithart describes the shattering of Christendom at the wars of Reformation, but the only way this could really be a unique shattering is if Christians are limited to an institutional churchly unity. The medievals had been killing each other for centuries and Popes had used the power of excommunication as a political weapon just as much as any schismatic Protestants and Catholics.
If I could summarize all of the virtues and flaws of Delivered, I would simply say that it is good insofar as it broadens out the atonement to new territory, explaining how institutions and embodied life are transformed by it, but that Leithart tames the message of Galatians insofar as he does not wholeheartedly affirm that "it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham."
However, I do want to emphasize that I still like Leithart. Leithart continues to insist that in some way faith is part of justification, perhaps even the initial definitive justification. He may be confused about the church, but many Presbyterians have been as well. I wish he was more careful about distinctions, but they seem to be matters of rhetoric rather than substance. Also, for once let me step away from the impassive reviewer role I've adopted and into the (true) role of friend and student. Leithart is a great man, a wonderful husband, father, and grandfather, a diligent, yet playful scholar, and a generous and grateful teacher. I still fondly remember him changing a tire for my undergrad class, having us over with his family for dinner, and his generous patience with my innumerable office hour sessions and vague email queries. I was ecstatic to get published on his blog and then on Theopolis, and I continue to pray for his endeavors. Everything I have seen of him reveals the heart of a man who does what he does because of Jesus. I just wish he'd been a little clearer on such big issues.
In chapter 1, Leithart does a little word-study on the Greek words phusis and ta stoicheia, commonly translated “nature” and “the elements.” He argues that Paul uses such terms to refer to what we would call “sociological realities.” For Paul, Jews and Gentiles have different natures because “prior to the coming of Jesus, the social worlds of Jews and Gentiles were both organized by practices, structures and symbols.” He argues that passages such as Rom. 2:14-15, 11:24; 1 Cor. 11:14; and Gal. 2:15 use “nature” to refer to things which don’t describe untouched nature, and that the word for “elements,” though commonly thought of by Greeks as the four elements, were also linked with spiritual powers and with the rituals that appeased them and thereby prevented political and social disaster from striking. Paul uses them in Gal. 4:3, 9 and in Col. 2:20 to refer to the world before the cross—the world which was made up of purity regulations, sacrifices, and liturgical ceremonies, and which characterized both Jewish and Gentile societies.
Leithart socializes another term used commonly by Paul: the Greek word sarx, meaning “flesh” and often glossed by the Reformed as “sinful nature.” He argues mostly from Genesis that flesh is a broad-ranging term that encompasses human strength, whether prowess in war or in sexual conquest, as well as man's vulnerability, his feet of clay, and the need he has for God. I have heard Leithart and psychologist Richard Beck argue such things in other contexts and when I was first introduced to it, it really helped me to see works and faith all over the place in the Old Testament. Even better, it helped me see how the New Testament transposes that Old Covenant key, rejuvenating my Protestantism at a time when I was inclined to doubt it. He also carefully explains how Spirit and flesh relate: flesh needs to be animated by God's Spirit, just as Adam was animated by God's Spirit. Man fell when he tried to preserve his life by relying on his own flesh instead of looking upward to the one who gave him life.
His conception of sarx also makes his discussion of Torah and the Levitical system in chapter five quite koshur. Leithart makes it clear that the sacrifices were enacted rites that, by killing the animal’s flesh and raising it in a smoky “spiritual” aroma to the Lord, reminded Jews not to put confidence in their flesh, but to put confidence in God’s life giving Spirit. However, the law is imperfect, or rather the people it works on is imperfect. The Torah only brings Israelites and Priests into God’s house part of the way; the nations remain outside, as do many of the unclean. However, even then Leithart insists that the Law was in some sense meant to be a ministry for the nations, and in fact Israel itself was a substitute for the nations.
This brings us to his interpretation of the Jews of Jesus' day. Leithart interprets Rom. 7 as referring to the corporate Israel using the law as a means of excluding the Gentiles and as a weapon against the poor and sinners in Israel instead of using it as a means of inclusion and forgiveness: "At its worst, Pharisaical oral tradition is the law turned to flesh—turned into a means for reinforcing fleshly distinctions, restrictions and enhancing fleshly boasting—which is why Jesus so ferociously attacks the Pharisees." The Law came to a fleshly people and resulted in the “works of the Law,” which Leithart glosses as “what the Law does to a fleshly people.” Leithart explains in a helpful footnote that this certainly includes good deeds, but like sarx he wants to make the phrase much broader to encompass Jewish rituals. In keeping with this view, Leithart joins other commentators in arguing that Gal. 3:19 should not be translated the law “was added because of transgressions” but the law “was added so that there might be transgressions.” Torah provokes sin, not just on the individual level, but historically in the nation of Israel.
Leithart makes the compelling case, along now familiar N.T. Wrightean lines, that "the Righteousness of God" does not refer to imputed righteousness, but rather to God's covenantal righteousness and in line with Richard Hayes’s thesis, he argues that “faith in Christ” should often be translated as “the faith of Christ.” He is also clearly influenced by Wright in his rousing defense of retributive justice, but he also thinks that Jesus by touching the unclean, eating with sinners, and loving enemies brought a new, redemptive and restorative righteousness that was in the Torah in seed form but comes to maturity only with the Incarnation.
He also considers the atonement and connects it more tightly to the Gospels. He argues that when the fleshly Jews turn the law into a means of condemning and crucifying Jesus, God’s prosecution of flesh is complete and the cross becomes the site of the condemnation of sins that God had left unjudged. He also insists that Jesus is penal substitute for his death-fearing disciples, for the Torah-abusing Jews and, since Israel was substitute for the nations, for the corrupt Roman Gentiles. Leithart describes Jesus’ death as removing the old purity-regulation system which governed Israel by putting a symbolic end to “flesh,” and he says that Jesus’ resurrection should be seen as God's vindication or “justification” of Jesus’ life. He also links the ascension and the giving of the Spirit with the smoke of the sacrifices ascending to God, a very simple, yet profound observation.
When Leithart discusses justification, he starts from his earlier description of justification as God’s vindication of Jesus and as a vindication of His promises to Israel. Key for him in what follows is that God justifies Jesus by raising Jesus from the dead. Justification is not just a forensic declaration, but is also a declaration that God follows up on by raising Jesus from the dead. Leithart makes two key departures from traditional Protestant formulations. He argues that Paul uses the term “justify” to refer to an act by which God declares us just and, because God’s speech is potently creative, this declaration changes not only our status, but also our character. In other words, God says we are righteous and because of this declaration the Spirit makes us increasingly righteous. In short, justification is a “Deliverdict,” a verdict that delivers from the power of sin.
So when Leithart turns to Galatians 2, for instance, he links this liberative connotation with Paul’s claim that he has died to the law. By being justified, Paul is not only freed from the curse of sin, but also dies to his identity as a Torah-shaped Jew. While Paul may still perform certain ceremonies, he is not defined by them as he once was and is not tempted, like the Galatians, to return to Egypt. However, he is also careful not to let the law’s “maturing” function overcrowd its sin-cursing function. Jesus came to free Israel from a specific curse they incurred for not performing the law, a curse that is inevitable whenever flesh is involved.
There's more, but it should be clear that I'm very sympathetic to this all. So why the three-star rating? I would say that what is good is really, really good, but there are some rhetorical confusions which are connected to The Baptized Body and Against Christianity and I think they are important.
So first, he "socializes" natures. In Reformed theology, "nature" refers often to our nature as either sinful or justified. Leithart’s etymological discussion of phusis and ta stoicheia is persuasive and clearly demonstrates that the terms are not being applied to things as they were initially created by God. However, C.S. Lewis in his book Studies in Words examines the history of phusis and argues that it is not restricted to the philosophical definition, but can also mean “kind” or “category.” Therefore I remain skeptical that the philosophers would have batted an eyebrow at Paul’s use of the word, and I don’t think it challenges what most theologians have meant by the term.
Leithart emphasizes how the Torah was instituted so that by “doing the law—performing sacrifices, keeping purity laws, attending feasts at the temple, approaching God through the priest—inculcates habits of weakness, which means a habitus of faith and a vocation to assail fleshliness.” As explained here, this is consistent with the Reformed tradition, which considers the sacraments as pedagogues or “spoken words” that make us practice and embody a stance of faith and love towards God. Similarly baptism and the Lord’s Supper take Gentiles and Jews molded by purity regulations, and train them to remember that their fundamental being is defined, not by fleshly divisions, but by Jesus’ death and resurrection for their sins.
Leithart's exegesis, I think, strengthens the Reformed emphasis on sacraments as aids or helps towards faith. However, Leithart goes even further arguing that since the enlightenment and perhaps since Aristotle our notion of “nature” has been insufficiently Biblical: “The Bible does not share our materialist or atomized anthropology, according to which human beings remain what they are no matter what shape their social setting takes or what direction their cultural values impel them. ‘Institutional’ patterns determine nature, so that a person who lives under Torah is “naturally” a Jew, naturally one hypo nomou.”
While a person’s identity may be re-defined in many wonderful ways by baptism, their status before God as justified or unjustified is not determined by baptism, yet Leithart seems to say the contrary in a footnote, Leithart says that the idea of a nature underneath one’s baptized identity betrays “an unbiblical anthropology that separates ‘external’ patterns of ritual and life from the ‘internal nature’” and assumes that “a change from complex and multiple sacraments to simpler and fewer ones does not touch the fundamental being of a person or a society." Our beings are certainly impacted by what happens to our bodies including public rites and rituals, but our fundamental being can only make us into one of two kinds of people. As C.S. Lewis so eloquently put it, “there are those who say to God thy will be done, and those to whom God says in the end, thy will be done.” I don't think Leithart would deny what I'm saying, but his rhetoric is a little confusing.
My second problem would have to do with his complaints against the Reformed tradition's take on justification and sanctification. Leithart defines justification as "a judicial act [that] transforms a person’s life-situation as well as their status." Instead of Sanctification following Justification like one car tailgating another, Sanctification follows Justification like a caboose hitched to a train. The declaration that we are perfectly righteous is implemented by a gradual and imperfect sanctification through the Spirit whose end result is perfect righteousness. This is all well and good and Protestant. Justification and Sanctification, though more tightly linked remain a "twofold movement." Not all need be convinced of his readings of the terms such as “Justify,” “the Faith/Faithfulness of Christ,” and “Justification” to admit that the way he formulates it is within the Protestant pale.
However, Leithart thinks that the problem comes from modern Reformed theologians and pastors sharply distinguishing between one’s perfectly righteous status imputed by faith and one’s imperfectly righteous infused righteousness. He is aware that “Classic Protestant soteriology has had ways of dealing with this problem,” but then he adds, almost as an afterthought, “Dogmatic formulations emphasize the inseparability of justification and sanctification as the duplex gratia that comes from Christ. Though true, this point has not been resilient enough to prevent theological and pastoral ambivalence.” In other words, even though one’s fundamental identity is changed following justification, the two are not tightly enough linked unless they are cause and effect. Douglas Wilson has already noticed this, but the problem is not that the two concepts are linked enough, but that sin creates the disjunction, and while it’s nice to see the two more closely together, it hardly seems to have been the cause of all the sinful abuses of the doctrine we have seen.
I'm also a bit dismayed by this statement in a footnote: “This should not be taken to imply that baptism is the sole site of this justifying act, or taken to minimize the Spirit’s work through preaching. After all, Paul begins Gal 3 with a reminder that the Galatians received the Spirit by hearing with faith, or by hearing the message of the Faith. When they heard and believed the gospel, the Spirit invaded their lives and “justified” them from sin, flesh and ta stoicheia. Paul is not entirely clear about how justification by trusting the message is to be reconciled with justification by baptism. But he says both, and we must at least do that.” I'm a bit bothered that a man of such vision and imagination thinks that the relationship of baptism and faith is unclear in Paul's mind, though perhaps this is just Leithart's Lutheranism. I wish he had clarified this, not for the heresy-hunters, but for the people who are confused about what he's saying. Even so, it is clear to me that he’s still trying to make faith part of the initial, not progressive justification.
My third and final problem with the book is that he does not distinguish between the visible and institutional church. The visible church is the “the whole body of mankind scattered throughout the world, who profess to worship one God and Christ, who by baptism are initiated into the faith.” The institutional church is what we normally think of: groups of visible Christians gathering weekly to worship and often to perform the sacraments. However, there is nothing in Scripture that implies that any visible, institutional church is the locus of salvation, or even that we owe our allegiance to such institutions in a way that trumps other institutions.
While the institutional church can be the site of much social transformation, much can also take place outside of it, performed by individual Christians or even by Christians working together in non-Christian institutions and the fruits of the Gospel might even be better displayed by a non-Christian group than by a Christian group. To deny this would imply that in any dispute between the institutional church and just about any other earthly institution, the institutional church would be right, which is what the Catholic church teaches. Leithart does talk a lot about the Spirit though, and he is very right to insist that the Spirit transforms institutions, but he mixes categories when he says such things as ““By forming the church, [baptism] plants within the cities of this world a new form of the city; the church stages an eschatological form of social life before the nations and before the principalities and powers. Baptism announces that fleshly society is not the only form of human society, announces not merely the possibility but the reality of a communion that is constituted by the Spirit.”
For Leithart, fleshly divisions are removed in the unifying rites of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and they look forward to a society in which such fleshly distinctives are removed. This might very well be true of the final consummation, in which even marriage is no longer a distinction. However, as Leithart admits again and again, male and female differences are not dismantled by the Eucharistic meal, and the other distinctions he wants to gradually be erased (slave and master, Jew and Gentile, what have you) might be erased in many different ways. Naturally, an institution like slavery should be removed, but does the Lord’s Supper really encourage that?
I work for a publishing company and they can tell me what to do to a more limited extent than they might tell a slave and I’m relatively happy with that master-slave relationship since it frees me from having to worry about many of the decisions my bosses make. It seems that the Lord’s Supper ends castes and any doctrine that posits better and worse classes of men in an ultimate sense, but it hardly proscribes a particular vision of a pre-Second Coming society and if the institution were to try to enforce such social changes, they would hardly seem the ideal instrument for reforming society.
At the end of the book Leithart says that, "A Christian willing to take up arms against another Christian is a Christian who has traded in his membership in the post-Babel communion of saints for membership in a nation governed by refurbished stoicheic values. They have traded in their loyalty to the temple of the Spirit for loyalty to the flesh. " My problem with this is that if we accept that there is a visible church as all Trinitarian-baptized believers, then there seems to be nothing that makes these believers gathering together for church any more a spiritual polity than those same believers getting together to form a government, or a business, or a social club. All of the above glorify God in some way and can all potentially go wrong.
Paul says that we are to do good to all men, though especially to the household of faith (Gal. 6:10). We should certainly think twice before going to war with Christians, preferring to let our collective cheek get slapped if safely possible. However, to go to war means that somebody has sinned, and if there is any such thing as a just war, does the presence or absence of Christians make that cause any more or less just? As a matter of fact, would we not be less likely to fight against unbelievers, since doing so would be more likely to send their souls to hell? Leithart describes the shattering of Christendom at the wars of Reformation, but the only way this could really be a unique shattering is if Christians are limited to an institutional churchly unity. The medievals had been killing each other for centuries and Popes had used the power of excommunication as a political weapon just as much as any schismatic Protestants and Catholics.
If I could summarize all of the virtues and flaws of Delivered, I would simply say that it is good insofar as it broadens out the atonement to new territory, explaining how institutions and embodied life are transformed by it, but that Leithart tames the message of Galatians insofar as he does not wholeheartedly affirm that "it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham."
However, I do want to emphasize that I still like Leithart. Leithart continues to insist that in some way faith is part of justification, perhaps even the initial definitive justification. He may be confused about the church, but many Presbyterians have been as well. I wish he was more careful about distinctions, but they seem to be matters of rhetoric rather than substance. Also, for once let me step away from the impassive reviewer role I've adopted and into the (true) role of friend and student. Leithart is a great man, a wonderful husband, father, and grandfather, a diligent, yet playful scholar, and a generous and grateful teacher. I still fondly remember him changing a tire for my undergrad class, having us over with his family for dinner, and his generous patience with my innumerable office hour sessions and vague email queries. I was ecstatic to get published on his blog and then on Theopolis, and I continue to pray for his endeavors. Everything I have seen of him reveals the heart of a man who does what he does because of Jesus. I just wish he'd been a little clearer on such big issues.
November 18, 2025
My favorite Leithart book thus far.
He has completely reshaped the way I understand justification, the flesh, the elements of the world, and how the atonement affects everything. This book is a game changer and completely changes how I share the gospel.
He has completely reshaped the way I understand justification, the flesh, the elements of the world, and how the atonement affects everything. This book is a game changer and completely changes how I share the gospel.
February 12, 2018
Summary: An exploration of why Christians claim the death and resurrection of Jesus is the decisive event in human history, because it is the "delivering verdict" of God against human systems to control sinful human flesh, hence an act with socio-political significance for all peoples.
Anselm posed the question, "Cur Deus Homo?" or "why the God Man?" Peter J. Leithart thinks the more significant question that must be asked is, "How can the death and resurrection of a Jewish rabbi of the first century...be the decisive event in the history of humanity, the hinge and crux and crossroads for everything?"
Leithart's big question leads to a sweeping exploration of pagan and secular culture, Levitical foundations, and Pauline teaching. This is not a book for the faint of heart or one narrowly focused on atonement theories, but rather one that attempts to explain how our understanding of the atonement makes sense of everything and addresses not only the individual but our social and political structures.
Leithart begins with exploring what he calls the "physics of the old creation." We are creatures of flesh, originally good but bent in the fall. Every society subsequently creates "elemental" or stoicheic systems (cf. Galatians 4:1-10) recognizing the pollution of human flesh and creating systems of "do not taste, do not touch" rules that lead to striving for purity. Leithart does an imaginative tour by a Jew of various ancient civilizations describing how these work, whether focused around the fear of death, around phallic displays and fertility, or around violence, honor, and vengeance. These resulted in classes, political structures, and injustices.
God chose Israel for something different. Beginning with Abraham, the cutting of circumcision was an anti-flesh campaign that expanded with Torah and served as a teacher or pedagogue of how to approach God. Yet Torah was co-opted in using purity rules to reinforce ideas of racial superiority over Gentiles and divisions between elite and "sinner" Jews. It became yet another stoicheic system.
Leithart understands that it is the full life of Jesus enacting all that Torah intended, the unjust death in the flesh in which judgment is passed upon human flesh in Christ (Leithart here argues for a carefully defined version of penal substitution), and the bodily resurrection of Jesus by the Father in the Spirit, that together constitute atonement and justification. Leithart elaborates justification as God's "delivering verdict" or "deliverdict" liberating not only from sin and the flesh, but the elemental, stoicheic principles of the world, whether those of other religious systems, Torah, or what Leithart sees as the post-stoicheic systems of secularism which are a kind of relapse from the Christian era's understanding of a Spirit indwelt life. Those united with Christ by faith enter a new epoch, a new humanity breaking down the sociopolitical divisions of the old order, and live according to a new animating principle.
I've offered here only a bare bones summary of a breathtakingly rich argument. I believe he makes several important contributions to our understanding of the work of Christ. One is his discussion of stoicheic elements as a social theory elaborating the ways various societies attempt to deal with the flesh, and the sociopolitical consequences of these systems. While carefully arguing for penal substitution, a doctrine that has fallen out of favor, he contends for a broader understanding of atonement and justification that encompasses the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and centers justification in the objective "delivering verdict" of these events rather than our subjective experience. Along with N.T. Wright, he argues that we are justified by the faith of Jesus, in whom we trust, but he also draws out further what this new status means in terms of a new Spirit-empowered life in the flesh and a new social order contrary to stoicheic systems that has radical implications for Christian mission that crosses social barriers and breaks them down. His analysis of modernity in "Galatian Church, Galatian Age" serves as a rich complement to Charles Taylor's A Secular Age.
Leithart's book covers familiar territory but forces you out of familiar patterns of thinking. I'm still weighing how well "stoicheic systems" can serve as a kind of "social theory of everything." I'm challenged by how often we separate the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and how Leithart brings these together as a seamless whole. The idea of a "delivering verdict," that performs what it declares and powerfully transfers us into a Spirit empowered community speaks of the power of the gospel to effect what it promises. This book stays on my shelves, worthy of further reflection and re-reading.
Anselm posed the question, "Cur Deus Homo?" or "why the God Man?" Peter J. Leithart thinks the more significant question that must be asked is, "How can the death and resurrection of a Jewish rabbi of the first century...be the decisive event in the history of humanity, the hinge and crux and crossroads for everything?"
Leithart's big question leads to a sweeping exploration of pagan and secular culture, Levitical foundations, and Pauline teaching. This is not a book for the faint of heart or one narrowly focused on atonement theories, but rather one that attempts to explain how our understanding of the atonement makes sense of everything and addresses not only the individual but our social and political structures.
Leithart begins with exploring what he calls the "physics of the old creation." We are creatures of flesh, originally good but bent in the fall. Every society subsequently creates "elemental" or stoicheic systems (cf. Galatians 4:1-10) recognizing the pollution of human flesh and creating systems of "do not taste, do not touch" rules that lead to striving for purity. Leithart does an imaginative tour by a Jew of various ancient civilizations describing how these work, whether focused around the fear of death, around phallic displays and fertility, or around violence, honor, and vengeance. These resulted in classes, political structures, and injustices.
God chose Israel for something different. Beginning with Abraham, the cutting of circumcision was an anti-flesh campaign that expanded with Torah and served as a teacher or pedagogue of how to approach God. Yet Torah was co-opted in using purity rules to reinforce ideas of racial superiority over Gentiles and divisions between elite and "sinner" Jews. It became yet another stoicheic system.
Leithart understands that it is the full life of Jesus enacting all that Torah intended, the unjust death in the flesh in which judgment is passed upon human flesh in Christ (Leithart here argues for a carefully defined version of penal substitution), and the bodily resurrection of Jesus by the Father in the Spirit, that together constitute atonement and justification. Leithart elaborates justification as God's "delivering verdict" or "deliverdict" liberating not only from sin and the flesh, but the elemental, stoicheic principles of the world, whether those of other religious systems, Torah, or what Leithart sees as the post-stoicheic systems of secularism which are a kind of relapse from the Christian era's understanding of a Spirit indwelt life. Those united with Christ by faith enter a new epoch, a new humanity breaking down the sociopolitical divisions of the old order, and live according to a new animating principle.
I've offered here only a bare bones summary of a breathtakingly rich argument. I believe he makes several important contributions to our understanding of the work of Christ. One is his discussion of stoicheic elements as a social theory elaborating the ways various societies attempt to deal with the flesh, and the sociopolitical consequences of these systems. While carefully arguing for penal substitution, a doctrine that has fallen out of favor, he contends for a broader understanding of atonement and justification that encompasses the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and centers justification in the objective "delivering verdict" of these events rather than our subjective experience. Along with N.T. Wright, he argues that we are justified by the faith of Jesus, in whom we trust, but he also draws out further what this new status means in terms of a new Spirit-empowered life in the flesh and a new social order contrary to stoicheic systems that has radical implications for Christian mission that crosses social barriers and breaks them down. His analysis of modernity in "Galatian Church, Galatian Age" serves as a rich complement to Charles Taylor's A Secular Age.
Leithart's book covers familiar territory but forces you out of familiar patterns of thinking. I'm still weighing how well "stoicheic systems" can serve as a kind of "social theory of everything." I'm challenged by how often we separate the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and how Leithart brings these together as a seamless whole. The idea of a "delivering verdict," that performs what it declares and powerfully transfers us into a Spirit empowered community speaks of the power of the gospel to effect what it promises. This book stays on my shelves, worthy of further reflection and re-reading.
May 30, 2016
My family and I have changed the rules of the game. After playing UNO for years the standard way, we spiced it up with a few extra twists and turns. Now you can stack the “Draw Four” cards, player by player, until there are no more to be played, thus potentially leaving the last participant who doesn’t have any “Draw Four” cards under a substantial pile. And there are other adventurous variations we’ve added, all of which leave the game structurally the same while internally distinctive. This is the kind of thing Peter J. Leithart, president of Theopolis Institute, adjunct senior fellow of theology at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, columnists for First Things and accomplished author, does in his new 369 page paperback, “Delivered from the Elements of the World: Atonement, Justification, Mission.” Though he stays within the contours of orthodox Christianity, and specifically the Reformed stream, yet he flavors things with some zesty curls and curves. The whole undertaking swirls around a phrase and concept penned by St. Paul in Galatians 4, “the elementary principles of the world” (ta stoicheia tou kosmou). It is an academic, theological and pastoral read, chock-full of footnotes and mild technicalities, that aims to begin unpacking what it means to be delivered from the elementary principles of the world; how, “according to the apostle, Jesus delivered Jews and Gentiles from the elemental world into a new social world that operates by different sociophysical laws” (26).
“Delivered from the Elements of the World” falls into four segments that guide the reader from a recognition of what the elements of the world are, to the justice of God, through the category of justification, and ends up in missions. The volume then concludes with three important appendices that are essential addendums to specific material presented in the book. Throughout the manuscript are numerous footnotes, some taking up a whole page, but enough to make an academic grin and the average reader groan.
In essence, the author is taking Anselm’s question, Cur Deus Homo? (Why the God-man?) and asking it as a question of social and political theology; “Cur Deus Homo for the salvation of human society in history” (13)? And his reason is that “if the gospel is about the salvation of humanity it must carry a message of hope for the salvation of human society” (14). Therefore, according to the author, atonement and justification are both churchly (ecclesiological), forming a “new humanity with a renewed socioreligious physis.” For, the “church is, in fact, the first form of transformed human society. This is why the God-man must die and rise: if society is to be saved, there must be a church; if there is going to be a church, there must be a Messiah dead and risen.” This all means, then, that if “the world is to be saved, atonement must become a social fact. If it is going to be plausible, atonement theology must be social theory” (218). Therefore, because baptism binds together diverse humans across national, ethnic and social lines then it “is one of the rites that effects the social salvation of humanity” (222). But also, adversely, a splintered Church – splintered by politics, nationalism, ethnicity, etc. – is a Church that has slipped back under the elementary principles of the world, into what Leithart denominates as “Galatianism” (258-281). And that is bad news, not only for the Church, but also for the world.
In the end, the author wants us to grasp that the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus has brought about a regime change that has social consequences. The world is under new management; it is no longer under ta stoicheia tou kosmou, but under the Lordship of Jesus. And this change impacts all humankind (203-4), even affecting the shape of world religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism (239-257).
Though I have not done justice to “Delivered from the Elements of the World” in this short review, passing over several crucial aspects and arguments, yet hopefully I have given the proper sense. There will be items in the book readers will likely argue with, as I did. And to quote the book at an ordination exam will probably incite riots and raise a ruckus; nevertheless it is a volume worth engaging and tackling, especially if the reader will approach it not as a definitive divinity declaration, but rather as a speculative thought-experiment into how big might the atonement actually be! John Murray, in his article on “The Atonement” only touched the margins of this subject when he delved into the extent of the atonement. Leithart takes the ball and runs it further down the field. This is a book highly worth obtaining, reading and discussing.
Thanks to IVP Academic for providing, upon my request, the free copy of “Delivered from the Elements of the World” used for this review. The assessments are mine given without restrictions or requirements (as per Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255).
“Delivered from the Elements of the World” falls into four segments that guide the reader from a recognition of what the elements of the world are, to the justice of God, through the category of justification, and ends up in missions. The volume then concludes with three important appendices that are essential addendums to specific material presented in the book. Throughout the manuscript are numerous footnotes, some taking up a whole page, but enough to make an academic grin and the average reader groan.
In essence, the author is taking Anselm’s question, Cur Deus Homo? (Why the God-man?) and asking it as a question of social and political theology; “Cur Deus Homo for the salvation of human society in history” (13)? And his reason is that “if the gospel is about the salvation of humanity it must carry a message of hope for the salvation of human society” (14). Therefore, according to the author, atonement and justification are both churchly (ecclesiological), forming a “new humanity with a renewed socioreligious physis.” For, the “church is, in fact, the first form of transformed human society. This is why the God-man must die and rise: if society is to be saved, there must be a church; if there is going to be a church, there must be a Messiah dead and risen.” This all means, then, that if “the world is to be saved, atonement must become a social fact. If it is going to be plausible, atonement theology must be social theory” (218). Therefore, because baptism binds together diverse humans across national, ethnic and social lines then it “is one of the rites that effects the social salvation of humanity” (222). But also, adversely, a splintered Church – splintered by politics, nationalism, ethnicity, etc. – is a Church that has slipped back under the elementary principles of the world, into what Leithart denominates as “Galatianism” (258-281). And that is bad news, not only for the Church, but also for the world.
In the end, the author wants us to grasp that the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus has brought about a regime change that has social consequences. The world is under new management; it is no longer under ta stoicheia tou kosmou, but under the Lordship of Jesus. And this change impacts all humankind (203-4), even affecting the shape of world religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism (239-257).
Though I have not done justice to “Delivered from the Elements of the World” in this short review, passing over several crucial aspects and arguments, yet hopefully I have given the proper sense. There will be items in the book readers will likely argue with, as I did. And to quote the book at an ordination exam will probably incite riots and raise a ruckus; nevertheless it is a volume worth engaging and tackling, especially if the reader will approach it not as a definitive divinity declaration, but rather as a speculative thought-experiment into how big might the atonement actually be! John Murray, in his article on “The Atonement” only touched the margins of this subject when he delved into the extent of the atonement. Leithart takes the ball and runs it further down the field. This is a book highly worth obtaining, reading and discussing.
Thanks to IVP Academic for providing, upon my request, the free copy of “Delivered from the Elements of the World” used for this review. The assessments are mine given without restrictions or requirements (as per Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255).
June 22, 2024
3.5 stars. Had I read this book a year or two ago, I may have given it 4 or 5 stars.
Leithart has a chapter with a historical fiction narrative between an ancient Jewish man and ancient men from other nations, such as Babylon. They discuss their forms of worship and compare and contrast them. This was really neat, because Leithart makes the ancient world and the way they worshiped come alive in order to build context for his book.
I think I agree with Leithart in principle about the elements of the world being the old order of things, whether Jewish or Pagan, and that the new order of things is in Christ, a new creation. There is a ton I can say about this, but suffice it to say that the old world was ruled by lights, and it is now ruled by The Light.
I appreciated his emphasis on the Ressurection and tying justification to baptism through the lens of the old man dying and the new man being raised to life with Christ through that sacrament. For Leithart, resurrection is justification, and justification is resurrection. I can see where he's getting this from. The Father justified Christ from the dead (a justification we all look forward to for ourselves), and when we are joined to Christ through baptism, we are joined to the Father's proclamation of His Son in the resurrection. I like that. I also have other things I would say. I would say the righteousness of God, or the "justice" of God, is put on full display in the cross of Christ. Why? Because this is an Example of a Human completely submitting to God's will and offering His life to God and neighbor, on behalf of all and for all. There is only One who could do this. I believe this to be the main thrust of Romans. God's righteousness, or "justice," is not merely His faithfulness to His covenant, although it does include that, but is God putting right in Christ what went wrong in Adam. Thus, Christ justified humanity not just through His resurrection but through His entire work and life. I see justification as the human being in alignment with God, which Christ did perfectly. I see it as God's right ordering of things. A man who is blessed is someone who is living in right alignment with God, himself, his neighbors, and creation. A cursed man is someone who is not. This is Torah. This is Christ, the fulfillment of the Torah. This is also what it means to be in Christ.
Disclaimer: I'm going to ramble about my feelings now..
What I found myself wanting, or what I felt was missing, were things like God's mercy toward Adam and Eve in the Garden, punishment as pedagogy, Christ delivering us from the devil and the demonic realm, humanity becoming mortal and thus able to repent by being removed from the Tree of Life, and incorruptibility being restored in Christ who shows us the Way and is the Way. I found myself sort of squirming at notions of penal substitution and explanations of God's anger/wrath and punishment of man. Although, I think Leithart did a good job of qualifying what he means by wrath in one of the appendices, I'm just not sure I see the sins of Israel being put upon the temple and priesthood in the Levitical system. I see it more through the lens of offering one's life because life is in the blood, so penal and imputation theories sort of strike me as a bit off when the lens or epicenter of theology is not legal or forensic, but relational and "knowing." Not that there aren't legal ideas in our faith, but how do we hold all these things together on the tight rope that is the narrow way without falling into the chasm of heresy on either side?
I appreciate what NPP proponents are trying to do, and I appreciate Leithart's agreements and disagreements with them. However, as I read through this book, I just can't shake the feeling that something is off. As if the conversation and approach are starting from the wrong place or something is missing. Like, we're reaching toward trying to gather bits and pieces and are missing something that makes it whole. I can't really put my finger on it, but that's the sense I'm getting now when I read books along this same vein.
If you like Leithart as a teacher and are in circles that are having these discussions, I'm sure you'll love this book. I'm not in those circles anymore, and some of these conversations have just lost their appeal to me.
Leithart has a chapter with a historical fiction narrative between an ancient Jewish man and ancient men from other nations, such as Babylon. They discuss their forms of worship and compare and contrast them. This was really neat, because Leithart makes the ancient world and the way they worshiped come alive in order to build context for his book.
I think I agree with Leithart in principle about the elements of the world being the old order of things, whether Jewish or Pagan, and that the new order of things is in Christ, a new creation. There is a ton I can say about this, but suffice it to say that the old world was ruled by lights, and it is now ruled by The Light.
I appreciated his emphasis on the Ressurection and tying justification to baptism through the lens of the old man dying and the new man being raised to life with Christ through that sacrament. For Leithart, resurrection is justification, and justification is resurrection. I can see where he's getting this from. The Father justified Christ from the dead (a justification we all look forward to for ourselves), and when we are joined to Christ through baptism, we are joined to the Father's proclamation of His Son in the resurrection. I like that. I also have other things I would say. I would say the righteousness of God, or the "justice" of God, is put on full display in the cross of Christ. Why? Because this is an Example of a Human completely submitting to God's will and offering His life to God and neighbor, on behalf of all and for all. There is only One who could do this. I believe this to be the main thrust of Romans. God's righteousness, or "justice," is not merely His faithfulness to His covenant, although it does include that, but is God putting right in Christ what went wrong in Adam. Thus, Christ justified humanity not just through His resurrection but through His entire work and life. I see justification as the human being in alignment with God, which Christ did perfectly. I see it as God's right ordering of things. A man who is blessed is someone who is living in right alignment with God, himself, his neighbors, and creation. A cursed man is someone who is not. This is Torah. This is Christ, the fulfillment of the Torah. This is also what it means to be in Christ.
Disclaimer: I'm going to ramble about my feelings now..
What I found myself wanting, or what I felt was missing, were things like God's mercy toward Adam and Eve in the Garden, punishment as pedagogy, Christ delivering us from the devil and the demonic realm, humanity becoming mortal and thus able to repent by being removed from the Tree of Life, and incorruptibility being restored in Christ who shows us the Way and is the Way. I found myself sort of squirming at notions of penal substitution and explanations of God's anger/wrath and punishment of man. Although, I think Leithart did a good job of qualifying what he means by wrath in one of the appendices, I'm just not sure I see the sins of Israel being put upon the temple and priesthood in the Levitical system. I see it more through the lens of offering one's life because life is in the blood, so penal and imputation theories sort of strike me as a bit off when the lens or epicenter of theology is not legal or forensic, but relational and "knowing." Not that there aren't legal ideas in our faith, but how do we hold all these things together on the tight rope that is the narrow way without falling into the chasm of heresy on either side?
I appreciate what NPP proponents are trying to do, and I appreciate Leithart's agreements and disagreements with them. However, as I read through this book, I just can't shake the feeling that something is off. As if the conversation and approach are starting from the wrong place or something is missing. Like, we're reaching toward trying to gather bits and pieces and are missing something that makes it whole. I can't really put my finger on it, but that's the sense I'm getting now when I read books along this same vein.
If you like Leithart as a teacher and are in circles that are having these discussions, I'm sure you'll love this book. I'm not in those circles anymore, and some of these conversations have just lost their appeal to me.
November 21, 2017
Leithart's "Big Red Book" is certainly big. And eclectic. Reading Leithart is always a head rush, and I love the way his writing transverses the boundaries between multiple disciplines. Even when I disagree with his conclusions, I find him a thought-provoking writer with good questions. I say this because I absolutely loved most of what I read in Delivered from the Elements, but I was never convinced of his one main thesis, that "atonement theology must be social theory if it is going to have any coherence, relevance or comprehensibility at all."
I really want to sit down and hash this out in discussion before I post a longer review. (Which may never come. Who knows?) But I will say here that I absolutely loved part 1 of the book. Also, I am strongly persuaded by his interpretation of "the elements of the world", and most of the applications that I see flowing from his definition would greatly warm Martin Luther's heart. In fact, at one point in the 30 or so pages of notes I took while reading, I simply wrote, "Leithart's Lutheran roots are showing." I really liked many of the implications for missions that he drew from the atonement as well.
On the negative side, I disliked the way he turns "nature" into a socio-political concept; I think it has some potentially bad implications for regeneration. Some of the kookier things he accuses protestant atonement theory of have no footnotes; only that "some Protestants have taught..." Finally, I'm not sure why atonement has to be directly horizontal, rather than primarily vertical with immediate horizontal applications. Just as the greatest commandment (love for God) is vertical, and the second greatest (love for neighbor) is horizontal and flows from it, so likewise I don't see why the atonement can't be primarily vertical while immediately having all the horizontal applications Leithart yearns for.
-----------------------
One additional thought: The appendices in this book are not just for looks. Reading them is, in my opinion, essential to really understanding Leithart's perspective, as a good bit of the exegetical and theological heavy-lifting happens there. I have no idea why these sections ended up as appendices rather than as chapters in the book proper.
I really want to sit down and hash this out in discussion before I post a longer review. (Which may never come. Who knows?) But I will say here that I absolutely loved part 1 of the book. Also, I am strongly persuaded by his interpretation of "the elements of the world", and most of the applications that I see flowing from his definition would greatly warm Martin Luther's heart. In fact, at one point in the 30 or so pages of notes I took while reading, I simply wrote, "Leithart's Lutheran roots are showing." I really liked many of the implications for missions that he drew from the atonement as well.
On the negative side, I disliked the way he turns "nature" into a socio-political concept; I think it has some potentially bad implications for regeneration. Some of the kookier things he accuses protestant atonement theory of have no footnotes; only that "some Protestants have taught..." Finally, I'm not sure why atonement has to be directly horizontal, rather than primarily vertical with immediate horizontal applications. Just as the greatest commandment (love for God) is vertical, and the second greatest (love for neighbor) is horizontal and flows from it, so likewise I don't see why the atonement can't be primarily vertical while immediately having all the horizontal applications Leithart yearns for.
-----------------------
One additional thought: The appendices in this book are not just for looks. Reading them is, in my opinion, essential to really understanding Leithart's perspective, as a good bit of the exegetical and theological heavy-lifting happens there. I have no idea why these sections ended up as appendices rather than as chapters in the book proper.
November 15, 2018
Just started this. I expect to be inspired, stimulated, confused, and informed.
Leithart confesses early on that his treatment of the subject will be "deliberately idiosyncratic". Like the man, much of that I expect will be brilliant, and some of it perhaps unhelpful. It may be that what he has to say can be put in the terminology of reformed scholasticism (and thus appear less disturbing in places), but the author has never quite chosen that path.
Update 1: A third of the way in and so far I have learnt a lot and feel enriched by most of what he has said.
Update 2: I'm up to page 222 (about two-thirds of the way). Most of what he says is rich--and richly pregnant with further insights. If his theory of the atonement and "the one" are extra layers to our understanding of the gospel then this is pretty good stuff. It is hard, however, not to get the impression that he is often setting up false dichotomies, and at the very least relegating the classic understanding of the atonement to a minor insight. With that I am a lot less comfortable.
Finished. The appendices are even more radical than the book. I am not at all convinced that Protestant orthodoxy needs all the corrections he prescribes. Nor do I feel he is very fair to the tradition, for I think that as a whole the tradition makes many of the points or emphasizes the threads he presents as 'new'. It is also hard not to get the impression that the sociopolitical has eclipsed all else in his narrative.
But this book does enrich certain elements too often in the background. It stimulates on every page. I certainly feel I mainly benefited from its reading--even if read with a skeptical eye.
Liked it a lot.
Leithart confesses early on that his treatment of the subject will be "deliberately idiosyncratic". Like the man, much of that I expect will be brilliant, and some of it perhaps unhelpful. It may be that what he has to say can be put in the terminology of reformed scholasticism (and thus appear less disturbing in places), but the author has never quite chosen that path.
Update 1: A third of the way in and so far I have learnt a lot and feel enriched by most of what he has said.
Update 2: I'm up to page 222 (about two-thirds of the way). Most of what he says is rich--and richly pregnant with further insights. If his theory of the atonement and "the one" are extra layers to our understanding of the gospel then this is pretty good stuff. It is hard, however, not to get the impression that he is often setting up false dichotomies, and at the very least relegating the classic understanding of the atonement to a minor insight. With that I am a lot less comfortable.
Finished. The appendices are even more radical than the book. I am not at all convinced that Protestant orthodoxy needs all the corrections he prescribes. Nor do I feel he is very fair to the tradition, for I think that as a whole the tradition makes many of the points or emphasizes the threads he presents as 'new'. It is also hard not to get the impression that the sociopolitical has eclipsed all else in his narrative.
But this book does enrich certain elements too often in the background. It stimulates on every page. I certainly feel I mainly benefited from its reading--even if read with a skeptical eye.
Liked it a lot.
August 30, 2022
This is a very fresh analysis and discussion of new Testament theology, which offers a more integrated view of how old are new covenant‘s come together in Christ, and how God is forming one new people out of Jew and Gentile.
Leithart wants to stress that salvation is of a people, It is fundamentally communal as well as individual and personal. This is a salutary counterbalance to our current default to individualistic thinking both inside and outside the church.
In the first part there is a really great discussion of the “elements of this world“ and what that means in terms of Gentile and Jewish bondage to purity/impurity boundaries as means to address the ” flesh“. Next, the discussion of what flesh means in the New Testament is very helpful and makes sense of Torah teaching as the background .
The next session sections move to address justification and faith and this is where maybe some of the questions may arise as to how far the author is stating a position that is a variance from the confessional reformed position. But Bradford Littlejohn ‘s extensive review , I think , mitigates some of these questions and possible concerns.
What is refreshing about this book is the way it ranges across both testaments weaving political, social and covenant perspectives, thus restoring a perspective that is cosmic.
Most of my questions relate to the first appendix where Leithart expands his view of metaphysics. I did not find this convincing.
In summary I would say this is highly worthwhile and definitely a refreshing and stimulating read. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Leithart wants to stress that salvation is of a people, It is fundamentally communal as well as individual and personal. This is a salutary counterbalance to our current default to individualistic thinking both inside and outside the church.
In the first part there is a really great discussion of the “elements of this world“ and what that means in terms of Gentile and Jewish bondage to purity/impurity boundaries as means to address the ” flesh“. Next, the discussion of what flesh means in the New Testament is very helpful and makes sense of Torah teaching as the background .
The next session sections move to address justification and faith and this is where maybe some of the questions may arise as to how far the author is stating a position that is a variance from the confessional reformed position. But Bradford Littlejohn ‘s extensive review , I think , mitigates some of these questions and possible concerns.
What is refreshing about this book is the way it ranges across both testaments weaving political, social and covenant perspectives, thus restoring a perspective that is cosmic.
Most of my questions relate to the first appendix where Leithart expands his view of metaphysics. I did not find this convincing.
In summary I would say this is highly worthwhile and definitely a refreshing and stimulating read. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
December 18, 2017
Leithart is one of the most electric theologians writing right now (that I'm aware of). He weaves through a massive amount of material and highly-contested scholarly debates in this book, which is probably the closest he will get to a fully-developed, systematic theology.
His framing of 'physis,' human nature, and the ways these concepts frame a fundamental understanding of Biblical writers as compared to our, modern perspective, was hugely helpful for me. His discussion of "Torah" in general is some of the most helpful stuff I've read on that topic (and I'm pretty well-versed in "New Perspective" material), and I absolutely loved the surprising 'fictional travelogues' that are sprinkled throughout the first sections of the book.
Leithart wades into controversial territory with boldness, scholarly rigor, and even humor. His theology is truly "systematic," in that every part makes sense within the whole, and the result is a deeply-integrated account of how exactly Jesus' life, death and resurrection are the fundamental "hinge point" of history, which truly re-create society and humans within it. If you are into any of the debates around "pistis Christou," justification, atonement theories, or the new perspective on Paul, then you absolutely owe it to yourself to be familiar with Leithart's work here.
His framing of 'physis,' human nature, and the ways these concepts frame a fundamental understanding of Biblical writers as compared to our, modern perspective, was hugely helpful for me. His discussion of "Torah" in general is some of the most helpful stuff I've read on that topic (and I'm pretty well-versed in "New Perspective" material), and I absolutely loved the surprising 'fictional travelogues' that are sprinkled throughout the first sections of the book.
Leithart wades into controversial territory with boldness, scholarly rigor, and even humor. His theology is truly "systematic," in that every part makes sense within the whole, and the result is a deeply-integrated account of how exactly Jesus' life, death and resurrection are the fundamental "hinge point" of history, which truly re-create society and humans within it. If you are into any of the debates around "pistis Christou," justification, atonement theories, or the new perspective on Paul, then you absolutely owe it to yourself to be familiar with Leithart's work here.
June 14, 2022
Upon final analysis, Leithart’s approach to the atonement provides a new reconstruction of familiar ideas that deliver a consistent and compelling theology. Along with valuable articulations of the flesh and God’s manifestation of justice, the work promotes an atonement theology that see’s the event of the cross in light of the history of God’s redemptive work, through Israel before, and the church afterwards. Despite several areas where significant topics seem to be lacking, the edition identifies how God is restoring and transforming humanity through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Rescuing humanity from fleshly life under the elements of the world through the work of the conquering Christ.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 15, 2018
My earlier notes here. A potential problem with Leithart is that most people who read him either "join his camp" or "attack his camp." I don't want to do either. I actually think the book is quite good. It has a lot of promise for evangelism and missions and steers a path through the problems with New Perspective on Paul. It is also a good book on metaphysics.
Main idea: the fundamental physics of every society consists of purity, pollution, and ritual (Leithart 12). If you “relocate” the sacred then you change the structure of society. Goal: a successful atonement theology must show how Jesus’s death and resurrection is the key to history.
One interesting point is that he draws attention to the word "nature." Yes, the NT uses "substance" language, but not the kind usually thought. The NT use of “nature:” a moral order rooted in the differences of the sexes (27). When Paul uses “nature” it is neither Aristotelian or Stoic. Gentiles do not have the Torah “by nature” but they still can do what Torah commands (sometimes). Physeis is closely linked to nomos, so of law means a change of the elements (29).
Here is the problem: given what is wrong with the world, how does Jesus's death as my substitute fix the world? Leithart will defend substitutionary atonement, but he does not the problem in most popular accounts. If the goal is to cash Jesus out as the credit card on my account, then did it matter that he was a Jew? Framed another way: how does Christ's dying for me deliver humanity from ta stoichea? You have to be able to answer this question.
“The elements (ta stoichea) are features of an old creation that Christ has in some way brought to an end” (25). In both Gentile and Jewish worlds they are structures and symbols that involve distinctions between purity and impurity, sacred and profane.
Yahweh’s intention is to destroy the fleshly physics. When he introduces Torah he is continuing his cutting away of flesh. The problem with flesh is that flesh spreads pollution (100). As Leithart notes, “Torah cannot kill flesh without killing the man or woman who bears that flesh” (102).
Torah provides a way for Israel to be Yahweh’s people among the division of nations. It regulates the flesh but does not fix it. As long as Israel is under Torah she is under managers. It is spiritual and we are flesh. If we come to it it will kill us.
Justification
(1) The judgment is not a mere verdict of righteousness, but it is the very act by which it is accomplished (181). “It is a favorable judgment in the form of resurrection.” It also makes more sense in the historia salutis than in the ordo. Justification was an act in Jesus’s life (1 Tim. 3:16). And through it we are delivered from the realm of death and stoichea to the realm of Spirit.
Thesis: Paul denies that the Spirit comes through the mechanisms of Torah (193). Flesh and Torah are mutually defining (Romans 7:1-6). Paul’s argument: to be reckoned righteous is to receive the Spirit. We receive the Spirit who does acts of power by hearing the message [as Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Humanity is supposed to grow into maturity, but it cannot do this while remaining under the elements and Torah. The elements are beings who guard and manage children. They could be angelic beings, since Jews received Torah through angels and Gentiles were under beings that are “by nature no gods” (Gal. 4.8).
While stoichea regulate the elements of social life, and a dissolution of stoichea would dissolve the universe, Jesus gives the Spirit who is the new fundamental element of social life (219). As the Spirit spreads, stoicheic divisions give way to a new order of the Spirit. Instead of a pyramid society of slaves, Paul sees a single body.
Conclusion
The book has several appendices of varying interests. My main problem with the book was it could have been about 50 pages shorter. The chapter on Presbyterian Buddhists was neat, but could have been reduced to a footnote.
Main idea: the fundamental physics of every society consists of purity, pollution, and ritual (Leithart 12). If you “relocate” the sacred then you change the structure of society. Goal: a successful atonement theology must show how Jesus’s death and resurrection is the key to history.
One interesting point is that he draws attention to the word "nature." Yes, the NT uses "substance" language, but not the kind usually thought. The NT use of “nature:” a moral order rooted in the differences of the sexes (27). When Paul uses “nature” it is neither Aristotelian or Stoic. Gentiles do not have the Torah “by nature” but they still can do what Torah commands (sometimes). Physeis is closely linked to nomos, so of law means a change of the elements (29).
Here is the problem: given what is wrong with the world, how does Jesus's death as my substitute fix the world? Leithart will defend substitutionary atonement, but he does not the problem in most popular accounts. If the goal is to cash Jesus out as the credit card on my account, then did it matter that he was a Jew? Framed another way: how does Christ's dying for me deliver humanity from ta stoichea? You have to be able to answer this question.
“The elements (ta stoichea) are features of an old creation that Christ has in some way brought to an end” (25). In both Gentile and Jewish worlds they are structures and symbols that involve distinctions between purity and impurity, sacred and profane.
Yahweh’s intention is to destroy the fleshly physics. When he introduces Torah he is continuing his cutting away of flesh. The problem with flesh is that flesh spreads pollution (100). As Leithart notes, “Torah cannot kill flesh without killing the man or woman who bears that flesh” (102).
Torah provides a way for Israel to be Yahweh’s people among the division of nations. It regulates the flesh but does not fix it. As long as Israel is under Torah she is under managers. It is spiritual and we are flesh. If we come to it it will kill us.
Justification
(1) The judgment is not a mere verdict of righteousness, but it is the very act by which it is accomplished (181). “It is a favorable judgment in the form of resurrection.” It also makes more sense in the historia salutis than in the ordo. Justification was an act in Jesus’s life (1 Tim. 3:16). And through it we are delivered from the realm of death and stoichea to the realm of Spirit.
Thesis: Paul denies that the Spirit comes through the mechanisms of Torah (193). Flesh and Torah are mutually defining (Romans 7:1-6). Paul’s argument: to be reckoned righteous is to receive the Spirit. We receive the Spirit who does acts of power by hearing the message [as Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Humanity is supposed to grow into maturity, but it cannot do this while remaining under the elements and Torah. The elements are beings who guard and manage children. They could be angelic beings, since Jews received Torah through angels and Gentiles were under beings that are “by nature no gods” (Gal. 4.8).
While stoichea regulate the elements of social life, and a dissolution of stoichea would dissolve the universe, Jesus gives the Spirit who is the new fundamental element of social life (219). As the Spirit spreads, stoicheic divisions give way to a new order of the Spirit. Instead of a pyramid society of slaves, Paul sees a single body.
Conclusion
The book has several appendices of varying interests. My main problem with the book was it could have been about 50 pages shorter. The chapter on Presbyterian Buddhists was neat, but could have been reduced to a footnote.
April 5, 2022
For Christians who have come to see the NT implications of an Orthodox preterist framework of the NT, this is a good place to come to reexamine the NT discourse on atonement and justification in light of this framework. He wrestles with often misunderstood or neglected passages without jettisoning the traditional teachings of Anselm and Calvin.
A worthwhile read for students of the atonement. Certain to alarm, puzzle, and fascinate.
A worthwhile read for students of the atonement. Certain to alarm, puzzle, and fascinate.
December 10, 2020
Faulty/obfuscatory theology wrapped up in pretty decent and imaginative writing. Leithart continues to promote the basic assumptions of the federal vision, re: covenant of works, Christ’s saving work, and the war of theological enterprises (systematic vs. biblical). Second star granted for good writing and extensive bibliography/research. The theology proposed is unbalanced.
January 17, 2024
Going to read again. Some minor quibbles here and there. Well worth the read.
February 16, 2019
This was a difficult book to rate. It opened up a lot of avenues of thought and theological ideas to wrestle through. There was a lot of fruitful contemplation upon biblical texts and theological application, even if I couldn’t agree with Leithart on every claim. His chapter connecting penal substitution to the gospel narrative is fantastic and itself is worth the price of the book.
But my biggest issue is one of trajectory. I could see how grabbing onto Leithart’s ideas of atonement being a “regime change” could lead to some bad places-places where biblical ethics, especially on sexuality, are simply seen as “stocheia”- Elemental structures to be displaced by the “Spirit.” Near the end he outright admits that his idea of life in the Spirit brings ambiguities. Perhaps I just want to hold onto the “elemental things,” but I don’t think we are at a time or place to be bringing ambiguities into the life of the church.
But my biggest issue is one of trajectory. I could see how grabbing onto Leithart’s ideas of atonement being a “regime change” could lead to some bad places-places where biblical ethics, especially on sexuality, are simply seen as “stocheia”- Elemental structures to be displaced by the “Spirit.” Near the end he outright admits that his idea of life in the Spirit brings ambiguities. Perhaps I just want to hold onto the “elemental things,” but I don’t think we are at a time or place to be bringing ambiguities into the life of the church.
March 27, 2017
This a wonderful work of biblical theology of the atonement. I think I understand why on page 166, footnote 35 Leithart says the Father does count the Son as guilty on the cross. He never joins the accusers of Jesus. But it doesn't make sense to say that when Jesus became sin on the cross (2 Cor. 5:21), and He was therefore forsaken by the Father and received His wrath, that He wasn't treated as guilty. Jesus wasn't guilty for the false accusations of His accusers, but the real guilt and penalty of the sin as He was forsaken by the Father was surely imputed to Him. If the second Adam, the representative of the human race, didn't bear our guilt, why was He forsaken? I want to think more about this but it seems like Leithart misses on this one. The book is still an astonishing and fascinating book full of insights.
July 6, 2016
An absolute tour de force. Moving far beyond the tired battles of limited/unlimited, penal substitution or not, and the like, Leithart presents a picture of the atonement that justifies the Christian conviction -- oft-repeated but seldom explained -- that Jesus' death and resurrection is the center of history.
Get it. Read it. Then read it again.
Then, when you want to put it into action, get Danny Silk's _A Culture of Honor_. Silk doesn't have the exegesis or the theology to back his convictions, but he's got God's heart for application.
Get it. Read it. Then read it again.
Then, when you want to put it into action, get Danny Silk's _A Culture of Honor_. Silk doesn't have the exegesis or the theology to back his convictions, but he's got God's heart for application.
June 18, 2016
Great! I will give a more detailed review in the future
January 19, 2022
I read widely and enjoy all kinds of books, especially biblical theology books that 'make you think' not leave you frustrated. Clearly, the author Leithart enjoys drawing out his repetitive theories of what Paul means by 'being delivered from the elements of the world' in great detail. The problem is that this book is written for the highly academic, technical theologian, not the average Christian laymen, simply put. The author seems to say a lot but doesn't appear to enjoy being clearly understood by his ideas. Often his reasoning is circular and his logic somewhat weakened by his obtuse direction he confusingly appears to want to go in his writing. To be sure, if I wrote a research paper, in the fashion of this book, in graduate school, I can only imagine the massive costernation I would face upon it's graded return to me slashed over with abundant red ink. FYI: The best theological books do not attempt to impress you with an overly opulent vocabulary, but moreover, with deep concepts that actually make sense and stimulate further reflection. With that thought in mind, I would not recommend this book for anyone unless they enjoy wading through pages upon pages of the massive verbiage of 360 pages that could be rewritten and condensed to 50 or so pages, at best.
June 29, 2025
Peter Leithart is one of our generation's truly original and insightful theologians, and this is Peter at his finest.
He seeks from the outset to discover how the death of Jesus, "an event in the putative backwaters of the Roman Empire," can be the hinge on which all history turns, the "crux and crossroads for everything." In order to do so, he presents atonement theology as social theory.
The title, of course, makes reference to Galatians 4:3-4, in which Paul makes the argument that the gospel redeems us from the "elementary principles of the world," to which we were formerly enslaved.
What are these elementary principles? In what way were we enslaved to them? How does the gospel free us from these elements?
Leithart takes on all these questions and more, and in so doing, takes on theologians of all stripes, including those of his own Reformed tradition. He also succeeds, I believe, in presenting a theory of the atonement that meets the criteria he set out for himself: historically plausible, Levitical, evangelical, inevitable, and Pauline.
Highly recommended.
He seeks from the outset to discover how the death of Jesus, "an event in the putative backwaters of the Roman Empire," can be the hinge on which all history turns, the "crux and crossroads for everything." In order to do so, he presents atonement theology as social theory.
The title, of course, makes reference to Galatians 4:3-4, in which Paul makes the argument that the gospel redeems us from the "elementary principles of the world," to which we were formerly enslaved.
What are these elementary principles? In what way were we enslaved to them? How does the gospel free us from these elements?
Leithart takes on all these questions and more, and in so doing, takes on theologians of all stripes, including those of his own Reformed tradition. He also succeeds, I believe, in presenting a theory of the atonement that meets the criteria he set out for himself: historically plausible, Levitical, evangelical, inevitable, and Pauline.
Highly recommended.
October 23, 2024
DNF - made it about 70% of the way through.
This book had a slow start and I don’t think it ever quite gained momentum for me. I first couldn’t buy into Leithart’s reading of Leviticus after coming off of a fresh reading of Eberhart and Rillera on the Levitical Sacrificial system. And once Leithart started building on that foundation I couldn’t buy into the bigger picture of what he was saying.
I think there are some great aspects of this book and I did enjoy reading through his work on Pistis Christou being better understood as “the faith of Jesus Christ.”
Perhaps this book is someone else’s cup of tea, but not mine.
This book had a slow start and I don’t think it ever quite gained momentum for me. I first couldn’t buy into Leithart’s reading of Leviticus after coming off of a fresh reading of Eberhart and Rillera on the Levitical Sacrificial system. And once Leithart started building on that foundation I couldn’t buy into the bigger picture of what he was saying.
I think there are some great aspects of this book and I did enjoy reading through his work on Pistis Christou being better understood as “the faith of Jesus Christ.”
Perhaps this book is someone else’s cup of tea, but not mine.
December 28, 2020
I like Peter Leithart, but his entire premise on what the "Elements of the world" are is flawed from the beginning. Not that everything here is bad, but if you're looking for a more historical-contextual understanding of what the "elemental spirits" are that Paul refers to, see Michael Heiser's work "Unseen Realm" and his episode of Naked Bible Podcast episode 229.
https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-cont...
https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-cont...
February 11, 2018
Wow. Not sure what to make of that one. Basically, it was vintage Leithart. Some parts are so brilliant. Other parts I’m just trying to get my head around. Some things feel like they came out of left field. Other things feel like fresh versions of classic truth. This one will take some time for me to digest.
Read
May 29, 2019Admittedly, I only read part one to ascertain how Paul understood the terms of circumcision, the elements of the world and the flesh. These were necessary to understand Colossians. That part was most helpful.
I did read some parts of section three. Overall those were deep waters that were edifying and require more study. They were Interesting but not relevant to my current study.
I did read some parts of section three. Overall those were deep waters that were edifying and require more study. They were Interesting but not relevant to my current study.
July 16, 2019
I will have to revisit this book again,there is much to reflect on. I have never thought so deeply about the atonement, nor understood why it’s historicity is so central to Christianity until I read this. Some really good stuff in the footnotes (there are many).
October 9, 2018
Part One and Four were worth the price of admission.
March 12, 2021
One of the most profound books I've read.
January 19, 2024
A fascinating read!
Leithart's approach to a crucial (but often neglected) aspect of Paul's theology unlocks much for the reader!
Leithart's approach to a crucial (but often neglected) aspect of Paul's theology unlocks much for the reader!
June 21, 2025
Mostly over my head.
Currently reading
June 14, 2017Some flashes of brilliance so far and generally quite good but not as engaging as some of his other more recent work nor as nuanced as it should be for, what is, a systematic effort.
The footnotes are driving me crazy! Haha
Some of these footnotes are left without due comment, e.g. there are ones which link 'the flesh' with 'pleasure' in what are enormous theological claims. Peter doesn't really comment on these or critique them and I find that most unhelpful. I've seen more complex articles of his on first things so was very surprised at this oversight.
The footnotes are driving me crazy! Haha
Some of these footnotes are left without due comment, e.g. there are ones which link 'the flesh' with 'pleasure' in what are enormous theological claims. Peter doesn't really comment on these or critique them and I find that most unhelpful. I've seen more complex articles of his on first things so was very surprised at this oversight.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews