What do you think?
Rate this book
History and Eschatology: Jesus and the Promise of Natural Theology
How can we know about God? That question increasingly bothered scientists and philosophers in the modern period as they chipped away at previously imagined "certainties." They refused to take on trust the "special revelation" of the Christian Bible, trying instead to argue up to God from the "natural" world. That is the theme of the Gifford Lectures, inaugurated over 130 years ago.
This natural theology has usually bracketed out the Bible and Jesus—and with them, usually, the scholars who study them.
History and Jesus and the Promise of Natural Theology represents the first Gifford delivered by a New Testament scholar since Rudolf Bultmann in 1955. Against Bultmann’s dehistoricized approach, N. T. Wright argues that, since the philosophical and cultural movements that generated the natural theology debates also treated Jesus as a genuine human being—part of the "natural world"—there is no reason the historical Jesus should be off-limits. What would happen if we brought him back into the discussion? What, in particular, might "history" and "eschatology" really mean? And what might that say about "knowledge" itself?
This lively and wide-ranging discussion invites us to see Jesus himself in a different light by better acquainting ourselves with the first-century Jewish world. Genuine historical study challenges not only what we thought we knew but how we know it. The crucifixion of the subsequently resurrected Jesus, as solid an event as any in the "natural" world, turns out to meet, in unexpected and suggestive ways, the puzzles of the ultimate questions asked by every culture. At the same time, these events open up vistas of the eschatological promise held out to the entire natural order. The result is a larger vision, both of "natural theology" and of Jesus himself, than either the academy or the church has normally expected.
This natural theology has usually bracketed out the Bible and Jesus—and with them, usually, the scholars who study them.
History and Jesus and the Promise of Natural Theology represents the first Gifford delivered by a New Testament scholar since Rudolf Bultmann in 1955. Against Bultmann’s dehistoricized approach, N. T. Wright argues that, since the philosophical and cultural movements that generated the natural theology debates also treated Jesus as a genuine human being—part of the "natural world"—there is no reason the historical Jesus should be off-limits. What would happen if we brought him back into the discussion? What, in particular, might "history" and "eschatology" really mean? And what might that say about "knowledge" itself?
This lively and wide-ranging discussion invites us to see Jesus himself in a different light by better acquainting ourselves with the first-century Jewish world. Genuine historical study challenges not only what we thought we knew but how we know it. The crucifixion of the subsequently resurrected Jesus, as solid an event as any in the "natural" world, turns out to meet, in unexpected and suggestive ways, the puzzles of the ultimate questions asked by every culture. At the same time, these events open up vistas of the eschatological promise held out to the entire natural order. The result is a larger vision, both of "natural theology" and of Jesus himself, than either the academy or the church has normally expected.
469 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 17, 2019
84 people are currently reading
608 people want to read
About the author
N.T. Wright
461 books2,875 followersN. T. Wright is the former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England (2003-2010) and one of the world's leading Bible scholars. He is now serving as the chair of New Testament and Early Christianity at the School of Divinity at the University of St. Andrews. He has been featured on ABC News, Dateline NBC, The Colbert Report, and Fresh Air, and he has taught New Testament studies at Cambridge, McGill, and Oxford universities. Wright is the award-winning author of Surprised by Hope, Simply Christian, The Last Word, The Challenge of Jesus, The Meaning of Jesus (coauthored with Marcus Borg), as well as the much heralded series Christian Origins and the Question of God.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
He also publishes under Tom Wright.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
February 4, 2020
I have to admit, it was slow going for the first couple chapters of this book. Wright spent a lot of time setting the groundwork for his proposal of integrating Jesus into natural theology. Perhaps this stage setting could have been a bit more concise. Once we got past this, the rest of the book was brilliant and makes this a must-read.
That slow-going stage-setting was essential. Wright argues that the modern way of seeing the world is actually a retrieval of the Epicurean philosophy of the ancient world. This philosophy leads us to a stark division between nature and supernature (Lessing's "ugly ditch"). From this, secular people argue there is no supernatural since we cannot observe it with tools of rational, scientific discovery. Christian apologists argue that there is a God because miracles have happened. But Wright points out many of these apologists are playing into the Epicurean game. The God presumed is basically a Deist God, so the Christian accepts the gap between nature and supernature, only to argue sometimes this gap is leapt over. Along with this, the Christian argues that the goal is to escape from this natural world into some ethereal heaven (a la Platonic philosophy).
Wright goes on to argue that the worldview of the early Christians rooted in Judaism goes directly against this worldview. In this he is arguing against the common division between natural theology and specific revelation, as in, natural theology is what we can learn about God through thinking or reason or whatever and then once we've exhausted that, we go to the Bible. Wright's argument is that Jesus is part of history so such a division is unwarranted.
Anticipating the critique that his proposal is bringing back ancient ideas, Wright continually points out that the modern worldview is itself an ancient idea. There is no reason to favor the sort of Epicureanism that is how we moderns generally view the world. In a contest of two ancient worldviews, the Jewish one just might actually be better.
This Jewish worldview, Wright shows, is seen in the story of Scripture where there is no ugly ditch between heaven and earth. Instead, the two are joined through the Temple. Likewise, the Sabbath unites natural time with supernatural time. Rather than a division, there is an interlocking. For Wright, as a Christian, Jesus is the ultimate revelation of both of these: he is the true Temple in whom heaven and earth are united and he is the one who brings the Sabbath rest From this, we are tasked as image-bearers of God to continue our vocation which God created us with in the beginning. Here he notes seven aspects of this vocation: justice, beauty, spirituality, relationships, power...and two more (hey, the book is not in front of me right now).
He calls these aspects signposts. One big theme he draws on is how we see differently prior to and after the resurrection. The usual Christian way would be to use these things as some kind of proof of God (you see, we want justice and God brings justice). Wright rejects this. They are broken signposts. But once we look back, in light of the resurrection and crucifixion, we see how they point to God.
Overall, this is a rather brilliant book. There is lots here to think about. It fits in well with other critiques of the modern world and the reminder that there is no neutral sphere that we must fit religion or God into. Instead, every way of viewing the world is some sort of philosophy and we all favor certain ones. There were a few things I wish he had gone into more deeply. For example, how does Judaism relate? A lot of what he says about vocation seems to echo what Alan Segal (in a book I just finished) basically said what Rabbinic Judaism became. Wright talks about mission, but he is no evangelist. This is the kind of mission it is easy to get behind. But, leading into my second question, what about church history? How does Wright feel about tradition? Is he the one to finally get it all right? Is everyone else who did not see it this way wrong?
I think he's right; I resonate deeply with his view of what Christianity is and how to go about serving those around us and all that. But I love church history and the tradition wonder how to integrate this in such a way that also does not just cast off all the good ideas throughout the last 2000 years.
I could probably say more, but I chose to write this review right before I need to head to the bus stop to get my kids...all I can say is, give it a read and be inspired and find lots to think about!
That slow-going stage-setting was essential. Wright argues that the modern way of seeing the world is actually a retrieval of the Epicurean philosophy of the ancient world. This philosophy leads us to a stark division between nature and supernature (Lessing's "ugly ditch"). From this, secular people argue there is no supernatural since we cannot observe it with tools of rational, scientific discovery. Christian apologists argue that there is a God because miracles have happened. But Wright points out many of these apologists are playing into the Epicurean game. The God presumed is basically a Deist God, so the Christian accepts the gap between nature and supernature, only to argue sometimes this gap is leapt over. Along with this, the Christian argues that the goal is to escape from this natural world into some ethereal heaven (a la Platonic philosophy).
Wright goes on to argue that the worldview of the early Christians rooted in Judaism goes directly against this worldview. In this he is arguing against the common division between natural theology and specific revelation, as in, natural theology is what we can learn about God through thinking or reason or whatever and then once we've exhausted that, we go to the Bible. Wright's argument is that Jesus is part of history so such a division is unwarranted.
Anticipating the critique that his proposal is bringing back ancient ideas, Wright continually points out that the modern worldview is itself an ancient idea. There is no reason to favor the sort of Epicureanism that is how we moderns generally view the world. In a contest of two ancient worldviews, the Jewish one just might actually be better.
This Jewish worldview, Wright shows, is seen in the story of Scripture where there is no ugly ditch between heaven and earth. Instead, the two are joined through the Temple. Likewise, the Sabbath unites natural time with supernatural time. Rather than a division, there is an interlocking. For Wright, as a Christian, Jesus is the ultimate revelation of both of these: he is the true Temple in whom heaven and earth are united and he is the one who brings the Sabbath rest From this, we are tasked as image-bearers of God to continue our vocation which God created us with in the beginning. Here he notes seven aspects of this vocation: justice, beauty, spirituality, relationships, power...and two more (hey, the book is not in front of me right now).
He calls these aspects signposts. One big theme he draws on is how we see differently prior to and after the resurrection. The usual Christian way would be to use these things as some kind of proof of God (you see, we want justice and God brings justice). Wright rejects this. They are broken signposts. But once we look back, in light of the resurrection and crucifixion, we see how they point to God.
Overall, this is a rather brilliant book. There is lots here to think about. It fits in well with other critiques of the modern world and the reminder that there is no neutral sphere that we must fit religion or God into. Instead, every way of viewing the world is some sort of philosophy and we all favor certain ones. There were a few things I wish he had gone into more deeply. For example, how does Judaism relate? A lot of what he says about vocation seems to echo what Alan Segal (in a book I just finished) basically said what Rabbinic Judaism became. Wright talks about mission, but he is no evangelist. This is the kind of mission it is easy to get behind. But, leading into my second question, what about church history? How does Wright feel about tradition? Is he the one to finally get it all right? Is everyone else who did not see it this way wrong?
I think he's right; I resonate deeply with his view of what Christianity is and how to go about serving those around us and all that. But I love church history and the tradition wonder how to integrate this in such a way that also does not just cast off all the good ideas throughout the last 2000 years.
I could probably say more, but I chose to write this review right before I need to head to the bus stop to get my kids...all I can say is, give it a read and be inspired and find lots to think about!
August 22, 2020
A very great book. One of the best. Sweeping, authoritative, staggeringly comprehensive. A full epistemology of love complementing and perhaps superseding Lesslie Newbigin’s work, a Christian history of Western ideas including a scathing indictment of the Enlightenment, a swerving of Stephen Greenblatt’s The Swerve back to true, a reading forward of Richard Hays’s Reading Backwards, a magisterial theodicy, a cruciform natural theology, a view of the Bible from far away and up close.
NTW has been trying out versions of these ideas for many years and books. This time he wrote them out with the concision of someone who’s mulled the issues over a long time and finally figured out how they fit together with the minimum of gap and fuss and circumlocution. The style is eloquent and sometimes beautiful, the range of reference very wide. It’s a high-octane intellectual page-turner (seriously, hard for me to put down sometimes) celebrating Jesus.
NTW has been trying out versions of these ideas for many years and books. This time he wrote them out with the concision of someone who’s mulled the issues over a long time and finally figured out how they fit together with the minimum of gap and fuss and circumlocution. The style is eloquent and sometimes beautiful, the range of reference very wide. It’s a high-octane intellectual page-turner (seriously, hard for me to put down sometimes) celebrating Jesus.
December 21, 2019
My dude brought it. Astounding.
July 13, 2021
Phenomenal. I read this after listening to the full lecture series that informs and frames the content of the book. Both are equally worth the investment, and for what it's worth I recommend listening to the lectures and reading the book second. The book adds some pieces by attaching the lectures into a chapter by chapter progression of his thesis. And reading it helps the lecture to sink in and carry that extra layer of possible reflection.
Wright can be noted for having differing styles when it comes to his large body of works. Sometimes he writes on a pastoral level, sometimes on a theoretical and philosophical/spiritual level, sometimes on a historical/academic level. And often there are different notes of all of these things that find their way into different types of projects. His penchant for wanting to cut through the noise of the larger religious divide that exists within Christendom often leads to criticism coming from both sides of the extreme positions, leaving him in a bit of a no mans land territory when it comes to his academic rigour and equally vibrant and active devotion to his Christian faith. His meandering philosphical material can be frustrating to practically conditioned evangelicals who demand more clarity, for example, on where he stands on penal substitution. His devotional nature can tick off the academics who believe this colors his attention to history and historical criticism. And his academic stuff is not always given the foothold it deserves in a constanly moving and shaping and growing field of Christian studies. This is of course a big reason why I appreciate him so much. For me he gives permission and freedom to think and challenge and to also hold a vigorous faith without apologies or concern for these things needing to cancel out doing either honestly.
This fits firmly in the academic category, and while the New Testament in its World (and the other parts in his penoppulant series that has been said to be the culmination of his life's work and magnum opus) is seen to be his greatest achievement,, I think this deserves a place in that conversation. I think his Biography on Paul is still my favorite (really transformative), this one contends for that right. This builds a firm and clear foundation for where he is coming from, why this is the foundaiton he works from in his own academic and broader interests, and how it is that the thesis in this book is necessary for seeing the conflicts that do exist in a better and more clear light.
The basic argument in this book stems from the question, how do we see history and eschatology together, be it from a religious or non-religious perspective. His concern is for building a foundation for the Christian faith to reintegrate eschatology into history, but this reaches into the larger discussion of what history is, how we approaach and study history, and the implications of this for modern scholarship. In that way he is trying to level the playing field while at the same time allowing us to enter into the quesiton of eschatology from all directions with a firmer grasp on how to that honestly and with greater purpose, regardless of ones conclusions. He then moves from there to examine the problems with a Christianity that has largely jettisoned natural theology from the discussion altogether, seeing Jesus as the means through which we can enter back into the historical quesiton and shed a light on some longheld beliefs about eschatology that Wright sees as problematic and even harmful to the larger discussion of history and religion.
The case he makes is exhaustive, strong, liberating, and enriching. And for those who don't appreciate his more meandering style, this is some of his most concise work on display, stucturally speaking. I think part of that is because he has some freedom here not to have to qualify the different facest of his argument to a muddled and busy field of all sorts of Christian thought, concerns and debate. This is working from the ground up in terms of helping us to understand the landscape through which we arrive at a lot of those debates in the Modern world,, and thus he can leave those other controversies to the side for the time being.
Really, really loved this one. The ideas that form his larger work are embedded in this through and through, but this singular treatment of one of his biggest concerns (history and eschatology) is a true gift for the Christian community and for anyone else willing to listen to what he has say about the matter of past, present, and future concern.
Wright can be noted for having differing styles when it comes to his large body of works. Sometimes he writes on a pastoral level, sometimes on a theoretical and philosophical/spiritual level, sometimes on a historical/academic level. And often there are different notes of all of these things that find their way into different types of projects. His penchant for wanting to cut through the noise of the larger religious divide that exists within Christendom often leads to criticism coming from both sides of the extreme positions, leaving him in a bit of a no mans land territory when it comes to his academic rigour and equally vibrant and active devotion to his Christian faith. His meandering philosphical material can be frustrating to practically conditioned evangelicals who demand more clarity, for example, on where he stands on penal substitution. His devotional nature can tick off the academics who believe this colors his attention to history and historical criticism. And his academic stuff is not always given the foothold it deserves in a constanly moving and shaping and growing field of Christian studies. This is of course a big reason why I appreciate him so much. For me he gives permission and freedom to think and challenge and to also hold a vigorous faith without apologies or concern for these things needing to cancel out doing either honestly.
This fits firmly in the academic category, and while the New Testament in its World (and the other parts in his penoppulant series that has been said to be the culmination of his life's work and magnum opus) is seen to be his greatest achievement,, I think this deserves a place in that conversation. I think his Biography on Paul is still my favorite (really transformative), this one contends for that right. This builds a firm and clear foundation for where he is coming from, why this is the foundaiton he works from in his own academic and broader interests, and how it is that the thesis in this book is necessary for seeing the conflicts that do exist in a better and more clear light.
The basic argument in this book stems from the question, how do we see history and eschatology together, be it from a religious or non-religious perspective. His concern is for building a foundation for the Christian faith to reintegrate eschatology into history, but this reaches into the larger discussion of what history is, how we approaach and study history, and the implications of this for modern scholarship. In that way he is trying to level the playing field while at the same time allowing us to enter into the quesiton of eschatology from all directions with a firmer grasp on how to that honestly and with greater purpose, regardless of ones conclusions. He then moves from there to examine the problems with a Christianity that has largely jettisoned natural theology from the discussion altogether, seeing Jesus as the means through which we can enter back into the historical quesiton and shed a light on some longheld beliefs about eschatology that Wright sees as problematic and even harmful to the larger discussion of history and religion.
The case he makes is exhaustive, strong, liberating, and enriching. And for those who don't appreciate his more meandering style, this is some of his most concise work on display, stucturally speaking. I think part of that is because he has some freedom here not to have to qualify the different facest of his argument to a muddled and busy field of all sorts of Christian thought, concerns and debate. This is working from the ground up in terms of helping us to understand the landscape through which we arrive at a lot of those debates in the Modern world,, and thus he can leave those other controversies to the side for the time being.
Really, really loved this one. The ideas that form his larger work are embedded in this through and through, but this singular treatment of one of his biggest concerns (history and eschatology) is a true gift for the Christian community and for anyone else willing to listen to what he has say about the matter of past, present, and future concern.
August 31, 2023
Interesting stuff. But falls short in several areas.
October 26, 2023
NT Wright calls us to a worldview that combines heaven and earth instead of separating them.
This book begins by sketching out the history of intellectual movements that in turn shaped Jesus studies. Sadly, the entire enterprise of historical Jesus studies has taken place within a renewed Epicurean worldview. This worldview handicapped this field (and others) by not allowing certain modes of knowing and not being faithful to the subject matter. Furthermore, the adherents of this "modern" worldview, don't seem to realize there is nothing really modern about it. Though most uncritically accept it as the inevitable belief system brought on by scientific progress, the reality is it's just an old worldview that has become popular recently.
* (Interestingly, T.A. Noble's new systematic theology begins by sketching out this very same history with even more depth. Though Noble heavily quotes Wright throughout his work, he doesn't quote this particular book. It must not have come while he was researching his own book. Interesting in that they both were apparently writing about the same subject and coming to similar conclusions).
The problem is, this modern (actually ancient) Epicurean worldview doesn't know how to understand the 'historical Jesus' or the 'second temple Judaism' he lived in. Inevitably, these scholars ended up chopping Jesus up in Epicurus' procrustean bed, imagining there was a deficiency in his and the early church's thinking and acting, not realizing the deficiency was actually with their own worldview. Proper history must look beyond this. (Wright advocates for Critical Realism, though he doesn't speak much of it here). Proper history doesn't mean castigating people from other times or places, or looking down on their beliefs, or trying to explain them away, or trying to make them fit, or thinking they are "quaint", (chronological snobbery, as Lewis called it). Proper history means thinking people's thoughts after them. For example, if you want to know what the gospel writers were trying to say, you're going to have to think as they thought (get into their worldview).
Because of this deficient worldview, historians have misunderstood Jesus. Specifically how history has misunderstood eschatology. Jesus is bringing new creation, the new age, the eschaton, into the present. He is bringing God's reign into our reality. But because this is unthinkable to some, people have misunderstood him. Jesus was not (as some historians think) predicting the end of the space-time universe. This is a category error, but the problem is modern epicureans (as most are), don't even have categories for these things, so they carve the world up into natural and supernatural, and then find some way to dispose of the latter. But if you're actually trying to figure out what Jesus and his followers thought he was saying and doing, you must leave that worldview. Wright focuses on two Jewish symbols and how Jesus and the apostles redefined them in order to show how they thought about it.
Temple and Sabbath
"The Sabbath is to time what the Temple is to place". Here, Wright summarizes what he has said many times elsewhere on these topics (this could and probably will at some point be a book into itself). A brief summary of Wright's summary here:
The Temple - Creation itself is God's temple. The "image" (idol) installed in the temple is humanity. "Image bearing" is the functional vocation of human beings to represent God to His creation (His temple). The physical Jewish tabernacle, and the later temple, is a 'microcosmos', representing creation itself and specifically pointing to the true reign of God in the eschaton (new creation). It is where God is truly on His throne right in the midst of the current (old) age. It is the place on earth where heaven and earth overlap. It is God's space.
The sabbath - Is the same idea. The Sabbath symbolizes not just a rest from work, or a relaxing freedom, but rather Sabbath is the true reign of the true king. YHWH sits as king on the seventh day as lord of creation. The celebration of sabbath is the celebration of the true king reigning and is itself a 'microkairos' of time itself, pointing again to the true reign of God in the eschaton (new creation). It is the time on earth where heaven and earth overlap. It is God's time.
Jesus radically redefines both of these, by FULFILLING them. Jesus Himself is the new temple. The place where heaven and earth overlap. Jesus Himself is the Sabbath, the true ruling king coming to set Himself up on the throne. This takes place right in the middle of our reality. God's time and space overlapping earth's time and space. Now, with the church - the redeemed, those in Christ - we are Jesus' body, the temple, the places where Heaven and Earth overlap through the Spirit. We live in the Sabbath, where the king reigns. Right now, living in new creation in the midst of the old.
What does this mean for epistemology and our worldview? The epicurean, platonist, cynic, stoic, deist, etc., can't accept this (each for their own reasons). We need a new creation epistemology. How can this be defined? Jesus and the New Testament define true knowing by "love". Wright summarizes what knowing really is. Intellectual assent, for example, is an epicurean definition moderns use, but it's naive, shallow, and doesn't actually speak to the heart of the matter.
Knowing is really something that:
- Involves ALL aspects of being human
- Takes place in community
- Is engaged and situated, not detached
- Takes place in a field of claims to power
- Needs to be redeemed by love
Natural theology from the Christian perspective doesn't have an Epicurean heaven/earth split, or an enlightenment past/present/future split (with Lessing's ugly ditch forever dividing past and present), it has instead these three distinct characteristics:
- Integrated cosmos (temple)
- Inaugurated new creation (sabbath)
- Vocational anthropology (image bearers)
If this is what Christianity teaches, then this is where we need to live out of. Our worldview needs to think, live, and understand with different definitions and different ways of knowing and being. A way of being that exists in both heaven and earth, in the old age and the new.
This book begins by sketching out the history of intellectual movements that in turn shaped Jesus studies. Sadly, the entire enterprise of historical Jesus studies has taken place within a renewed Epicurean worldview. This worldview handicapped this field (and others) by not allowing certain modes of knowing and not being faithful to the subject matter. Furthermore, the adherents of this "modern" worldview, don't seem to realize there is nothing really modern about it. Though most uncritically accept it as the inevitable belief system brought on by scientific progress, the reality is it's just an old worldview that has become popular recently.
* (Interestingly, T.A. Noble's new systematic theology begins by sketching out this very same history with even more depth. Though Noble heavily quotes Wright throughout his work, he doesn't quote this particular book. It must not have come while he was researching his own book. Interesting in that they both were apparently writing about the same subject and coming to similar conclusions).
The problem is, this modern (actually ancient) Epicurean worldview doesn't know how to understand the 'historical Jesus' or the 'second temple Judaism' he lived in. Inevitably, these scholars ended up chopping Jesus up in Epicurus' procrustean bed, imagining there was a deficiency in his and the early church's thinking and acting, not realizing the deficiency was actually with their own worldview. Proper history must look beyond this. (Wright advocates for Critical Realism, though he doesn't speak much of it here). Proper history doesn't mean castigating people from other times or places, or looking down on their beliefs, or trying to explain them away, or trying to make them fit, or thinking they are "quaint", (chronological snobbery, as Lewis called it). Proper history means thinking people's thoughts after them. For example, if you want to know what the gospel writers were trying to say, you're going to have to think as they thought (get into their worldview).
Because of this deficient worldview, historians have misunderstood Jesus. Specifically how history has misunderstood eschatology. Jesus is bringing new creation, the new age, the eschaton, into the present. He is bringing God's reign into our reality. But because this is unthinkable to some, people have misunderstood him. Jesus was not (as some historians think) predicting the end of the space-time universe. This is a category error, but the problem is modern epicureans (as most are), don't even have categories for these things, so they carve the world up into natural and supernatural, and then find some way to dispose of the latter. But if you're actually trying to figure out what Jesus and his followers thought he was saying and doing, you must leave that worldview. Wright focuses on two Jewish symbols and how Jesus and the apostles redefined them in order to show how they thought about it.
Temple and Sabbath
"The Sabbath is to time what the Temple is to place". Here, Wright summarizes what he has said many times elsewhere on these topics (this could and probably will at some point be a book into itself). A brief summary of Wright's summary here:
The Temple - Creation itself is God's temple. The "image" (idol) installed in the temple is humanity. "Image bearing" is the functional vocation of human beings to represent God to His creation (His temple). The physical Jewish tabernacle, and the later temple, is a 'microcosmos', representing creation itself and specifically pointing to the true reign of God in the eschaton (new creation). It is where God is truly on His throne right in the midst of the current (old) age. It is the place on earth where heaven and earth overlap. It is God's space.
The sabbath - Is the same idea. The Sabbath symbolizes not just a rest from work, or a relaxing freedom, but rather Sabbath is the true reign of the true king. YHWH sits as king on the seventh day as lord of creation. The celebration of sabbath is the celebration of the true king reigning and is itself a 'microkairos' of time itself, pointing again to the true reign of God in the eschaton (new creation). It is the time on earth where heaven and earth overlap. It is God's time.
Jesus radically redefines both of these, by FULFILLING them. Jesus Himself is the new temple. The place where heaven and earth overlap. Jesus Himself is the Sabbath, the true ruling king coming to set Himself up on the throne. This takes place right in the middle of our reality. God's time and space overlapping earth's time and space. Now, with the church - the redeemed, those in Christ - we are Jesus' body, the temple, the places where Heaven and Earth overlap through the Spirit. We live in the Sabbath, where the king reigns. Right now, living in new creation in the midst of the old.
What does this mean for epistemology and our worldview? The epicurean, platonist, cynic, stoic, deist, etc., can't accept this (each for their own reasons). We need a new creation epistemology. How can this be defined? Jesus and the New Testament define true knowing by "love". Wright summarizes what knowing really is. Intellectual assent, for example, is an epicurean definition moderns use, but it's naive, shallow, and doesn't actually speak to the heart of the matter.
Knowing is really something that:
- Involves ALL aspects of being human
- Takes place in community
- Is engaged and situated, not detached
- Takes place in a field of claims to power
- Needs to be redeemed by love
Natural theology from the Christian perspective doesn't have an Epicurean heaven/earth split, or an enlightenment past/present/future split (with Lessing's ugly ditch forever dividing past and present), it has instead these three distinct characteristics:
- Integrated cosmos (temple)
- Inaugurated new creation (sabbath)
- Vocational anthropology (image bearers)
If this is what Christianity teaches, then this is where we need to live out of. Our worldview needs to think, live, and understand with different definitions and different ways of knowing and being. A way of being that exists in both heaven and earth, in the old age and the new.
March 27, 2021
A must read because it is an essential missing piece of Wright’s collective works. His understanding of history and connection with his understanding of eschatology brings into fresh perspective what has been lacking in previous works. Natural theology, read through the prism of an epistemology of love, brings to light the eschatological vision of heaven and earth joined together. All of this, taken into account with Wright’s other works, is a breath of fresh air.
April 27, 2020
Wright makes the argument that, given Jesus lived in real history, Jesus is not outside the bounds of natural theology. Wright works out the implications for the understanding of both history and eschatology.
All of this serves to offer hope that God, having become part of this world, cares for this world and is working to restore it even now and calls us to do the same.
All of this serves to offer hope that God, having become part of this world, cares for this world and is working to restore it even now and calls us to do the same.
June 8, 2021
Love's Illusions
According to N.T. Wright, Christian epistemology hasn’t been right since the first century church. Things really went south following the Enlightenment, with the church errantly incorporating rationalism, romanticism, existentialism and Platonism into its varied attempts to justify God to men. The Professor aims to set things right again and promises a new epistemology that will produce true knowledge of Jesus from the consideration of nature alone. Let's check it out!
Wright begins with a “radically redefined" natural theology. The old style natural theology, by which one takes perceptions of the natural world and then rationally arrives at universal metaphysical truths, just wasn’t working. It was hard enough to make a convincing argument for any type of god, much less the Christian one, and nature didn’t seem to have anything at all to say about Jesus.
Knowledge of Jesus was never going to be the conclusion of a rational argument premised on nature alone. So Wright makes three moves. First, he simply assumes Jesus as a premise of his redefined natural theology, and not just the historical person of Jesus, but also his crucifixion and resurrection. Second, he rejects rational thinking as a basis for knowledge and asserts that the only way to know anything about God is through a new mode of knowing that Wright calls the “epistemology of love.” Third, Wright redefines knowledge as constituting something you do in space-time, rather than something you conceive in your mind that corresponds with reality; if you perform an act of 'justice', or speak the 'truth,' then you are deemed to know Jesus notwithstanding your lack of any coherent conception or experience of the real person of Jesus. A lot of people would consider this cheating. Its circular, its not rationally coherent, and its not really knowledge at all, so it seems to fail altogether as a legitimate, useful epistemology.
Another serious problem with Wright’s epistemology of love is that it provides no way of knowing what love is. What constitutes “love” is dependent on how one interprets the event of the Crucifixion, and the epistemology only operates on a predetermined interpretation, it does not produce an interpretation.
Wright’s interpretation of the Cross is at odds with the orthodox Christian view that Jesus’s death displayed the supreme act of God’s love toward the world because it atoned for the sins of the world and reconciled man to God. Wright derides this view as “pagan soteriology” and considers a God who would do such a thing as a hate-filled monster. In mocking the orthodox view of love, he recasts John 3:16 as stating: “God so hated the world that he killed Jesus.” Location 5083.
Wright has his interpretation and the orthodox have theirs, and Wright’s epistemology is incapable of discerning which is true because it simply presupposes Wright’s view. If the orthodox interpretation is substituted for Wright’s, then the epistemology of love begins with a different historical past, points to a different eschatological future, and flips all of Wright’s conclusions in this book.
The promise of natural theology referenced in the book’s title ultimately proves to be an empty one.
According to N.T. Wright, Christian epistemology hasn’t been right since the first century church. Things really went south following the Enlightenment, with the church errantly incorporating rationalism, romanticism, existentialism and Platonism into its varied attempts to justify God to men. The Professor aims to set things right again and promises a new epistemology that will produce true knowledge of Jesus from the consideration of nature alone. Let's check it out!
Wright begins with a “radically redefined" natural theology. The old style natural theology, by which one takes perceptions of the natural world and then rationally arrives at universal metaphysical truths, just wasn’t working. It was hard enough to make a convincing argument for any type of god, much less the Christian one, and nature didn’t seem to have anything at all to say about Jesus.
Knowledge of Jesus was never going to be the conclusion of a rational argument premised on nature alone. So Wright makes three moves. First, he simply assumes Jesus as a premise of his redefined natural theology, and not just the historical person of Jesus, but also his crucifixion and resurrection. Second, he rejects rational thinking as a basis for knowledge and asserts that the only way to know anything about God is through a new mode of knowing that Wright calls the “epistemology of love.” Third, Wright redefines knowledge as constituting something you do in space-time, rather than something you conceive in your mind that corresponds with reality; if you perform an act of 'justice', or speak the 'truth,' then you are deemed to know Jesus notwithstanding your lack of any coherent conception or experience of the real person of Jesus. A lot of people would consider this cheating. Its circular, its not rationally coherent, and its not really knowledge at all, so it seems to fail altogether as a legitimate, useful epistemology.
Another serious problem with Wright’s epistemology of love is that it provides no way of knowing what love is. What constitutes “love” is dependent on how one interprets the event of the Crucifixion, and the epistemology only operates on a predetermined interpretation, it does not produce an interpretation.
Wright’s interpretation of the Cross is at odds with the orthodox Christian view that Jesus’s death displayed the supreme act of God’s love toward the world because it atoned for the sins of the world and reconciled man to God. Wright derides this view as “pagan soteriology” and considers a God who would do such a thing as a hate-filled monster. In mocking the orthodox view of love, he recasts John 3:16 as stating: “God so hated the world that he killed Jesus.” Location 5083.
Wright has his interpretation and the orthodox have theirs, and Wright’s epistemology is incapable of discerning which is true because it simply presupposes Wright’s view. If the orthodox interpretation is substituted for Wright’s, then the epistemology of love begins with a different historical past, points to a different eschatological future, and flips all of Wright’s conclusions in this book.
The promise of natural theology referenced in the book’s title ultimately proves to be an empty one.
January 1, 2021
I will not try to do justice to this book in this review, as I am still getting my head around everything it is trying to wrestle with. In a way, it seems to be recapitulating on many themes Wright has written about in previous books - a historical, post modern (critical realist) approach to Christianity and its associated theology. In this case he is aiming to show that history has a place along side the rationalist portrayal of Christianity. A significant chunk of the book is devoted to critique of the enlightenment paradigms that have dominated the modern discourses about Christianity, from both within and without. From without, the 'scientific' discourse which reinvents the older epicurean framework to separate natural and supernatural (and then 'disproving' the supernatural because it is not natural). From within, a similar process which has either relegated the gospel to a psychological effect or placed resolution of present challenges to the age to come. Wrights resolve is that our modern frameworks fail, and are better served by recognizing the framework in which Christianity was born - not a Greek/roman one but a Jewish one. Into which the idea of natural theology, is revisioned to allow nitrous to play a part but also to invite a different view of nature from the rationalized one which has dominated.
Hard work.
I found the going got easier towards the end and the analogies of the empty chalice and broken signposts particularly helpful. It was in these chapters that the vision of a Christianity which can still have relevance to the modern world, even the post Christian west, comes to light. It challenges the church in particular to break from the limited post-life hope disconnected to this physical world. Rather, the now of the kingdom is part of a continuity in which the church is preparing the world for restoration and God's reign here. Not something commonly conceived or taught, but somehow more hopeful. To name one reason, that this vast universe, in time and space, is not here to be cast aside, but instead to be given its full purpose.
Or something like that...even Wright suggests he is trying to begin a new conversation about this area so I'm not going to get close with this review. He does double back over various themes to keep each idea live all through, but even then I don't think I caught the whole thing. But very much worth reading fro anyone wanting to get a glimpse of modern Christian scholarship.
Hard work.
I found the going got easier towards the end and the analogies of the empty chalice and broken signposts particularly helpful. It was in these chapters that the vision of a Christianity which can still have relevance to the modern world, even the post Christian west, comes to light. It challenges the church in particular to break from the limited post-life hope disconnected to this physical world. Rather, the now of the kingdom is part of a continuity in which the church is preparing the world for restoration and God's reign here. Not something commonly conceived or taught, but somehow more hopeful. To name one reason, that this vast universe, in time and space, is not here to be cast aside, but instead to be given its full purpose.
Or something like that...even Wright suggests he is trying to begin a new conversation about this area so I'm not going to get close with this review. He does double back over various themes to keep each idea live all through, but even then I don't think I caught the whole thing. But very much worth reading fro anyone wanting to get a glimpse of modern Christian scholarship.
July 23, 2020
The downside of this book is that it doesn’t go far enough with its foundational eschatological commitments.
The upside is that it goes further than what most evangelical scholars of Second Temple Judaism & Early Christianity do.
Wright’s interaction with updated scholarship (since his giant trilogy made waves) is also a breath of fresh air. His arguments needed a little updating and clarity. Now we have them.
Still, I don’t think he goes far enough. He still toes the whole mantra of “the future has broken into the past” in Paul’s eschatological scheme, which bores me more than watching ceiling fans collect dust.
Three stars is too low. Five stars is easily pushing it. I give this work four stars because half-stars aren’t available yet.
The upside is that it goes further than what most evangelical scholars of Second Temple Judaism & Early Christianity do.
Wright’s interaction with updated scholarship (since his giant trilogy made waves) is also a breath of fresh air. His arguments needed a little updating and clarity. Now we have them.
Still, I don’t think he goes far enough. He still toes the whole mantra of “the future has broken into the past” in Paul’s eschatological scheme, which bores me more than watching ceiling fans collect dust.
Three stars is too low. Five stars is easily pushing it. I give this work four stars because half-stars aren’t available yet.
November 2, 2019
Another ingenious masterpiece. Wright sorts through the messy and contentious explorations of God and the world since the Enlightenment, before taking his readers to scale up this mountainous task through the historical study of Jesus of Nazareth within his first-century Jewish context. The end result is an integrated theology of history and nature that joins the story of Jesus with the glories and tragedies of the human race, and a re-calibrated 'natural theology' that energises God's people to embody his redemptive purposes in the wider world.
May 22, 2021
Throughout the work, Wright brilliantly integrates various disciplines. His arguments are not just holistic by being interdisciplinary but also because they highlight how different issues unite at different levels. Wright is thus able to effectively connect philosophy, history, and theology within the broader cultural trends as well as in specific examples. The emphasis of the epistemology of love as it relates to critical realism is equally valuable for reminding scholars that one must genuinely try to understand the worldview of others (even if those they disagree with) while also being cognizant of potential distorting philosophies that can be projected into the past.
Some minor concerns are that Wright’s discussions on critical realism and the epistemology of love might give the impression that investigation into the aims and motives of others will always be a delight (197, 200). While this may be true for NT scholars studying Jesus, it might be less delightful and more distressing for those studying World War 2 (though presumably, Wright would agree here). Philosophers might also be understandably concerned about Wright’s using ‘love’ as a new mode of knowing (188-189). Wright does appear aware of such a concern and offers some nuances (210). Another potential issue is for those who are not so much concerned about distant or deistic gods but immanent ones. Of course, this topic is not the intention of the present work, and Wright’s discussion is minimal (265-266).
Wright’s work is beautifully written and masterfully argued. It provides an important challenge to those who might not be aware of the extent that neo-Epicureanism has affected their own thought or those around them. Indeed, believers and unbelievers alike will be challenged to thoughtful reflection as both sides have been tempted to separate Jesus from natural theology or, surprisingly, from history itself. Very highly recommended.
Book reviewed for Eleutheria, Liberty Divinity Journal (Volume 5, Issue 1).
Some minor concerns are that Wright’s discussions on critical realism and the epistemology of love might give the impression that investigation into the aims and motives of others will always be a delight (197, 200). While this may be true for NT scholars studying Jesus, it might be less delightful and more distressing for those studying World War 2 (though presumably, Wright would agree here). Philosophers might also be understandably concerned about Wright’s using ‘love’ as a new mode of knowing (188-189). Wright does appear aware of such a concern and offers some nuances (210). Another potential issue is for those who are not so much concerned about distant or deistic gods but immanent ones. Of course, this topic is not the intention of the present work, and Wright’s discussion is minimal (265-266).
Wright’s work is beautifully written and masterfully argued. It provides an important challenge to those who might not be aware of the extent that neo-Epicureanism has affected their own thought or those around them. Indeed, believers and unbelievers alike will be challenged to thoughtful reflection as both sides have been tempted to separate Jesus from natural theology or, surprisingly, from history itself. Very highly recommended.
Book reviewed for Eleutheria, Liberty Divinity Journal (Volume 5, Issue 1).
April 3, 2023
My shelf of NT Wright works extends onto a second shelf, and of all these books, none is more important in my opinion than History and Eschatology. But it is not typical of his other works. In it we encounter the undergirding for his approach to history and interpretation.
To effectively engage the work I found it helpful to watch the first of his lectures to hear him in this different context. And after one lecture I found the book opened up to me.
Wright directly confronts the Epicurean worldview that sustains much of western thought, including theological reflection, and along the way takes on Platonism, Marcionism and Gnosticism as they have found new expressions in our current day. His aim is to call for a hermeneutic of love that allows the text to exist in its own world and time. In particular, he argues for the validity of a Jewish worldview—a temple cosmology, Sabbath-shaped eschatology, and image-based anthropology. Reading backwards from the perspective of Easter enables the Scriptures to come to life and verifies that the broken signposts of creation have been indeed pointing us toward God—but this God cannot be known apart from the resurrection.
Wright refuses to give ground to the Platonist or Epicurean, and steadfastly insists that the ancient worldview of second temple Judaism is no less valid.
Whether or not you agree with all his points, to engage with the philosophical assumptions that have and continue to shape theological reflection is an absolute must. And for this reason, this book is a critical read for any person who seeks to faithfully engage the Scriptures and embody the cross-shaped gospel of the risen Jesus.
To effectively engage the work I found it helpful to watch the first of his lectures to hear him in this different context. And after one lecture I found the book opened up to me.
Wright directly confronts the Epicurean worldview that sustains much of western thought, including theological reflection, and along the way takes on Platonism, Marcionism and Gnosticism as they have found new expressions in our current day. His aim is to call for a hermeneutic of love that allows the text to exist in its own world and time. In particular, he argues for the validity of a Jewish worldview—a temple cosmology, Sabbath-shaped eschatology, and image-based anthropology. Reading backwards from the perspective of Easter enables the Scriptures to come to life and verifies that the broken signposts of creation have been indeed pointing us toward God—but this God cannot be known apart from the resurrection.
Wright refuses to give ground to the Platonist or Epicurean, and steadfastly insists that the ancient worldview of second temple Judaism is no less valid.
Whether or not you agree with all his points, to engage with the philosophical assumptions that have and continue to shape theological reflection is an absolute must. And for this reason, this book is a critical read for any person who seeks to faithfully engage the Scriptures and embody the cross-shaped gospel of the risen Jesus.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 31, 2024
Perhaps my favorite piece of writing from Wright. He is at his best when he is doing sweeping synthesis of historical, philosophical, biblical-exegetical and cultural criticism, and this book is the pinnacle of all those things (in my opinion). Wright integrates his impressive command of an amazingly-wide range of literature (but focusing in particular on history and historiography) to lay careful groundwork for a compelling argument for the place of careful historical appraisal of Jesus Christ in the pursuit of so-called "natural theology."
The introductory chapters are the most technical, and potentially the slowest to work through, but also hold some of the most insightful parts of his argument (his ability to contextualize various movements of historical research in their OWN historical context is amazing, without ever slipping into a squishy relativism). I loved his analytical lens of "epicureanism" as well as his powerful argument of the place of Temple and Sabbath as counterarguments to that modern (and ancient) split-world mindset.
The book is a paradigmatic work in scope, and for those willing to work through it, will bear significant fruit. I agree with the endorsement that names this Wright's "crowning achievement," as it really, truly feels like the synthesized apex of his life and career.
The introductory chapters are the most technical, and potentially the slowest to work through, but also hold some of the most insightful parts of his argument (his ability to contextualize various movements of historical research in their OWN historical context is amazing, without ever slipping into a squishy relativism). I loved his analytical lens of "epicureanism" as well as his powerful argument of the place of Temple and Sabbath as counterarguments to that modern (and ancient) split-world mindset.
The book is a paradigmatic work in scope, and for those willing to work through it, will bear significant fruit. I agree with the endorsement that names this Wright's "crowning achievement," as it really, truly feels like the synthesized apex of his life and career.
March 11, 2020
This is a hard-to-read theological book, not for the feint of heart. I worked my way through it over a period of weeks, but I wouldn't categorize it as enjoyable. I love NT Wright and follow his teachings across many different platforms (e.g., Books, website, Facebook group, his teaching website) but found this book to be hard to process. This was written based on his Gifford Lectures in 2018 - not sure which came first - and sometimes the content seemed better suited for delivery as a speech vs. in written form.
For those interested in digging into his theology, have a theology dictionary handy. He's not afraid to use ecclesial, onotological, epistemological, teleological all in the same paragraph, assuming the reader can surf and navigate across their clinical definitions in real time. To be fair, maybe I'm not learned enough in these terms to process the content quickly. That's fine, so maybe this book isn't for me.
I'm not giving up on NTW, but I will probably stick to his books more geared toward the layperson.
For those interested in digging into his theology, have a theology dictionary handy. He's not afraid to use ecclesial, onotological, epistemological, teleological all in the same paragraph, assuming the reader can surf and navigate across their clinical definitions in real time. To be fair, maybe I'm not learned enough in these terms to process the content quickly. That's fine, so maybe this book isn't for me.
I'm not giving up on NTW, but I will probably stick to his books more geared toward the layperson.
December 30, 2020
This was not an easy book to read. Nor was it a pleasant book to read. But there was a good amount of valuable material within the book. I too often struggled to follow the point that was being made. As a result, I would recommend the book to very few. I hope that the ideas presented in the book can be refined in such a way as to make the ideas more accessible to (more) ordinary people. The main point (that was new to me, and only started after about 150 pages of introduction), was the author denying the (apparent) conflict between modernism (science, philosophy, etc) and faith (that is presumed), and suggesting that instead it is a conflict between a modern form of epicureanism (which has been passively embraced by society) and other forms of thought. The development of “broken signposts”, such as morality, beauty and justice, which he suggests are only understandable in light of Jesus, and His death and resurrection was an interesting corrective on how those same signposts are often to argue for God – a direction of argument that Prof. Wright suggests cannot lead to a Christian view of God.
June 12, 2021
Great book about History linked with eschatology!
Tom starts from the enlightenment period to the great German scholars of the 20th century and paints the journey from where western culture are understanding the word “apocalypse” and the study of the end of the world (eschatology).
Tom writes a deep chapter about what history means and how we have to approach it to study natural theology (which is the foundation of the book for the Gifford lecture).
Finishing with his main explanation about the temple theology of the 1st century and the whole big picture of the Old and New Testament with the cosmological temple, eschatological shabbat and anthropological image bearer to point to the vocational embodiment of Christ leading us to our own vocation as image bearer, micro-temple through the Holy Spirit and living in the Now/NotYet of the great shabbat.
He also introduced the 7 broken signposts for missio Dei where God calls us to.
Great book, with really deep thoughts!
Tom starts from the enlightenment period to the great German scholars of the 20th century and paints the journey from where western culture are understanding the word “apocalypse” and the study of the end of the world (eschatology).
Tom writes a deep chapter about what history means and how we have to approach it to study natural theology (which is the foundation of the book for the Gifford lecture).
Finishing with his main explanation about the temple theology of the 1st century and the whole big picture of the Old and New Testament with the cosmological temple, eschatological shabbat and anthropological image bearer to point to the vocational embodiment of Christ leading us to our own vocation as image bearer, micro-temple through the Holy Spirit and living in the Now/NotYet of the great shabbat.
He also introduced the 7 broken signposts for missio Dei where God calls us to.
Great book, with really deep thoughts!
April 22, 2022
As usual with Wright, he has provocative things to say and I noted many of them with appreciation. He certainly enlarges perspective.
As to this book, a couple of comments. It is a compilation/result of a lecture series (The Gifford Lectures) so the book is highly contextualized as a result. It is about "Natural Theology" and I felt like I was entering into a conversation mid-stream that was dealing with ideas to which I was not privy, and I was looking up a lot of things midstream - disrupting the flow of the book. Wright is also verbose, it feels like he likes the sound of his pen too much. It also felt like he got caught up name dropping, quoting from theologians and expecting you to know the quote/context/argument without looking it up or being reminded of it. I know this is part of the process, in order to critique something, you have to engage in the ongoing conversation, I found I wasn't up for it and wanted him to make his point.
David Ferguson comments on the back cover: "An impressive and timely publication...Bold, lively and accessible, it will generate widespread discussion." I didn't find it accessible. I am a pretty savvy reader of theology with an MDiv., and I found it cumbersome at times. I think it is worth reading, but make sure you are sitting at a desk and taking notes. The book could have been laid out better as well to help the reader, with headings and a bit of outlining.
I want to say that what he says in this book is available in more accessible formats in some of his other writing - but am not aware of which would be appropriate. He deals with the resurrection quite a bit, so maybe "Surprised by Hope" (but it has been at least a decade since I read that) or his more recent work on the crucifixion "The Day the Revolution Began" but I haven't read that.
As to this book, a couple of comments. It is a compilation/result of a lecture series (The Gifford Lectures) so the book is highly contextualized as a result. It is about "Natural Theology" and I felt like I was entering into a conversation mid-stream that was dealing with ideas to which I was not privy, and I was looking up a lot of things midstream - disrupting the flow of the book. Wright is also verbose, it feels like he likes the sound of his pen too much. It also felt like he got caught up name dropping, quoting from theologians and expecting you to know the quote/context/argument without looking it up or being reminded of it. I know this is part of the process, in order to critique something, you have to engage in the ongoing conversation, I found I wasn't up for it and wanted him to make his point.
David Ferguson comments on the back cover: "An impressive and timely publication...Bold, lively and accessible, it will generate widespread discussion." I didn't find it accessible. I am a pretty savvy reader of theology with an MDiv., and I found it cumbersome at times. I think it is worth reading, but make sure you are sitting at a desk and taking notes. The book could have been laid out better as well to help the reader, with headings and a bit of outlining.
I want to say that what he says in this book is available in more accessible formats in some of his other writing - but am not aware of which would be appropriate. He deals with the resurrection quite a bit, so maybe "Surprised by Hope" (but it has been at least a decade since I read that) or his more recent work on the crucifixion "The Day the Revolution Began" but I haven't read that.
October 20, 2024
I generally think Wright did an excellent job of incorporating historiography, Jewish temple and sabbath theology, analyses of historical-critical scholarship, and philosophy into a coherent argument about the place of Christ in natural theology. One definitely has to be patient to see all these strands come together, but the payoff is significant. My points of greatest appreciation are for his analysis of modern epicureanism (the church needs to disown a split-level view of reality as he says) and his fair-minded critiques of panentheism/pantheism. Sometimes I felt he was too skeptical of "rational" approaches to God, and the value of Platonic thinking, but his critiques must be taken seriously (David Bentley Hart would be a good counter-point in this arena).
April 9, 2020
When I first learned that NT Wright had written a book from his Gifford Lectures on history and eschatology, I knew I had to read it. Wright is a masterful New Testament scholar. He is a true academic in the highest sense of the word.
Wright’s Gifford Lectures are a game changer. They shift the worldview of the Gifford Lectures – should his argument be heeded – to a theology that incorporates special revelation from a place of history in the context of a new creation worldview that looks at the cross backwards through this world being interpreted by that most historic moment of all of human history.
For a more in-depth review of this stellar book visit my website - which my name . com.
Wright’s Gifford Lectures are a game changer. They shift the worldview of the Gifford Lectures – should his argument be heeded – to a theology that incorporates special revelation from a place of history in the context of a new creation worldview that looks at the cross backwards through this world being interpreted by that most historic moment of all of human history.
For a more in-depth review of this stellar book visit my website - which my name . com.
August 30, 2022
This is truly an extraordinary book and a supreme example of the creative and discipline-shifting impact of the Gifford Lectures. Through an analysis of history, epistemology, Western philosophy, and biblical theology, N.T. Wright reimagines a natural theology that is does not envision the natural and the spiritual at a remove from one another but enmeshed by the death and resurrection of Christ. His argument challenges the reader to awaken from their idolatry of rationalism and turn their eyes upon cross, to the self-giving God who imbues the cosmos with the promise of new life through the power of the resurrection.
July 13, 2023
The more I read Wright, the more I get it. If you're coming out of a reformed paradigm (and if you're a protestant Christian, you almost certainly are), then Wright's departures and process can be perplexing. Even off-putting. The better I read the Jewish Scriptures though, the more he makes sense. In History and Eschatology, Wright develops his "broken signpost" approach to apologetics. I like it. Typical of his writing, Wright struggles to be concise, but I always find the effort worth the while.
July 7, 2024
Tom Wright provokes the reader to thought
I have read a number of Tom Wright’s books having been introduced to him by an Episcopal dean a number of years ago for which I will be forever grateful. This book makes one expand his thinking about the whole of creation and what will happen in the end as no other I have read. It also has allowed me to see a new revelation of the why of creation and the ultimate purpose and plan of God to have His presence fill the earth as the waters do the sea. Thank you Tom Wright.
I have read a number of Tom Wright’s books having been introduced to him by an Episcopal dean a number of years ago for which I will be forever grateful. This book makes one expand his thinking about the whole of creation and what will happen in the end as no other I have read. It also has allowed me to see a new revelation of the why of creation and the ultimate purpose and plan of God to have His presence fill the earth as the waters do the sea. Thank you Tom Wright.
August 4, 2020
I really enjoyed the way N.T. Wright reframes natural theology, emphasizing the importance of historical context. Like all books of his I've read, it's very dense, so takes a lot of focus to read. I find myself jumping back up to re-read the paragraph I was on because I didn't pay enough attention.
July 8, 2025
I actually read this in about 10 days, though I had a false start last year. 4.5 stars. A bit repetitive in places, though mostly as reinforcement. The argument unpacks deliciously over the course of the book. And the final chapter is anchored by GM Hopkins, so that’s a win. It was a wild experience to read a lot of this alongside Timothy Morton’s Hyperobjects.
September 6, 2021
Wright's ability to contribute to such a wide range of disciplines is astounding. I am not sure what those who have studied natural theology extensively would make of this work, but as someone interested in history and New Testament studies, this was a fascinating and invigorating read.
January 17, 2022
A very hard read but a good one. NT Wright attempts to look at how context matters in terms of how previous scholars have written about Eschatology. I won't claim to understand it all but if this is a subject you like you will and will like it.
September 18, 2022
There is nothing to fear if we are our own masters. There was never any sting at all. Eat, drink, and be merry. There is nothing to fear and love but raw unadulterated Faustian knowledge. There is no truth except one: that there isn’t any truth. Unless of course you engage in critical realist history, embolden and embody an epistemology of Love, and adopt a reborn ancient metaphysic that peers into the future eschatological promise broken and remade in the “natural” world itself by A guy named Yeshua. Of course, we could always stick with our much more ancient, hardest realized but constantly assumed metaphysic…
“Give me a reason for drowning while I hold my breath”
This book is an alternative look at the assumed conversations of natural theology. So clearly gaining wisdom from his Christian Origins and the Question of God collection, this is just one of the many applications. Is there nothing more to Christian “vocation” (not that that word itself is an agreed upon term) than a pagan soteriology, arguing at people that we can Prove God? Is it nothing more than the same Epicurus-box? Can we rise like the tide? Like dead men coming back to life? And not within an epicurean or skeptic test tube…maybe in a world where we have always belonged?
“Euphorias gone
It’s time to move on
I have to believe we can change
When the notes come out wrong
Stop singing along
We can’t be the same old thing
It’s New Years Day!
World broods with warm breast and with ah! Bright wings.”
“Give me a reason for drowning while I hold my breath”
This book is an alternative look at the assumed conversations of natural theology. So clearly gaining wisdom from his Christian Origins and the Question of God collection, this is just one of the many applications. Is there nothing more to Christian “vocation” (not that that word itself is an agreed upon term) than a pagan soteriology, arguing at people that we can Prove God? Is it nothing more than the same Epicurus-box? Can we rise like the tide? Like dead men coming back to life? And not within an epicurean or skeptic test tube…maybe in a world where we have always belonged?
“Euphorias gone
It’s time to move on
I have to believe we can change
When the notes come out wrong
Stop singing along
We can’t be the same old thing
It’s New Years Day!
World broods with warm breast and with ah! Bright wings.”
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 14, 2021
Some of Tom's best work. Recommended for any Christian who grapples with faith and the meaning of history. Philosophically incisive, thoroughly researched, and not-at-all pedantic.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews