What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gospel of Christ Crucified: A Theology of Suffering before Glory
The Gospel of Christ Crucified offers a biblical reconstruction of the principal elements that make up the apostolic gospel. Assuming a first-century Jewish worldview, the apostles understood the death of Jesus primarily in sacrificial terms for the atonement of sins. In this way, their presupposed expectations of the future and eternal life remained fundamentally unaltered--the day of the Lord, resurrection of the dead, and kingdom of God would assuredly come because their Messiah had been vindicated by God. Far from changing, spiritualizing, or realizing their Jewish hopes, the death and resurrection of Jesus amplified them. Moreover, the fact that the Holy Spirit was poured out following Jesus' ascension confirmed this gospel of Christ crucified.
500 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2014
81 people are currently reading
100 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
November 19, 2021
It's rare that I struggle with a book like I did this one. People I love & trust, whose faith is genuine, & from which I have learned a lot, have been positively encouraged & grown by reading it, so I genuinely wanted to give it a chance. The positives: I don't doubt that Harrigan is a genuine Christ-follower. I appreciate his heart in writing the book, as well. From the outset I cannot state that I explicitly disagree with the case that he puts forth here because... and this is the books main weakness... there isn't one. At least, not really. Here's what I mean...
For starters, John presumes a questionable definition for "Gospel", & falls back into the same old error made by many to conflate the plan of salvation with the Gospel. But that's not a deal-breaker for me... many pastors/scholars/authors make the same mistake, & I still read them regularly.
He also presumes an outdated, long disproved concept of "righteousness" as "good or moral", instead of "faithfulness", which is the Biblical notion... and the righteousness we have is given by God, so we are judged according to God's "covenant faithfulness" (ie, "righteousness") to us. That said, I can let that slide as a reader... it's a common mistake.
Also, he presumes a great deal with regards to the End-times & John's Revelation, leaning fundamentalist (in a negative sense - not merely strong on Scripture, but without questioning foundational assumptions). I mean, it is absolutely a "literal" approach to interpreting a text when the text is conveying a dream - dreams by their very nature contain metaphor, & so when approaching a passage of Scripture conveying dreams the most rigid reading is not necessarily the most faithful one. When we remember that we are reading about John's dreams, that should lead us to be significantly more openhanded and consider that dream language is almost always imagery & metaphor. It's dangerous to assume that dreams should be interpreted as authentic "history". That is not to say it’s entirely untrue, but his assertations are bold & often unjustified.
And there is the book's problem: almost every radical statement is unjustified, or rather, never justified in any significant way. If one isn't already biased towards his reading of the text, there's nothing here to change anyone's mind in any way whatsoever. For me, it led to deeper skepticism about his positions.
I am a Biblical inerrantist. I truly, and absolutely believe in, & trust the canon of Scripture to convey God's truth, & I try to remain continually open to correction. I have changed my mind so many times on how I read passages because good Biblical evidence was given to me that I had misread or misinterpreted the text. I don't know if it's lack of time, or ignorance of solid, Evangelical scholarship. but there is no real "engagement" with the text here - simple cherry picked verses, out of literary and often historical context.
For the most part the only case made for any of points is direct scripture references, which any other scholar can do as well, often to make an opposing point. One must use some scholarship to point out why that verse in his mind means one thing and in the mind of the other scholar means something else, otherwise just quoting scripture when making such bold assertations doesn’t actually ultimately make your point at all, but continues to confirm whatever interpretive framework originally held by the reader.
I can't even count how many times I looked up a verse that was cherry-picked to back up a point & immediately thought, "This has verse does not mean what he thinks it means, & has nothing to do with the point he's trying to make." And as someone with a deep love for Scripture, it PAINS ME. This is the same approach to Scriptural interpretation that results in Southern Baptists having the largest population of converts to Mormanism and Jehovah's Witness sects - using this method one can twist the Scriptures into saying almost anything we want. There's no genuine engagement with the text, but mere eisegesis.
I could go on because I have other critiques, but I don't know if it would add anything to the above point, which is the most important, & leads to every other issue I have in the book. His take on eschatology is questionable because he assumes a position, then cherry picks isolated Scripture out of context to eisegete to state that perspective is the "Biblical" perspective. Likewise, he does the same with the creation story in Genesis. Every step along the path towards the author's main point is fraught with mislaid case upon mislaid case, build on out-of-context cherry-picked passages, & ignoring engaging with the best interpretive work that Evangelical academia has to offer. Not once did I disagree with the Scripture on ANY of these issues - but I regularly questioned his SPIN on the Scripture, which almost always was stated as the clear, Biblical understanding (which is isn't).
When the author occasionally mentions the work of other scholars (especially those whose work I have read thoroughly), it was as though he'd either not read their work apart to skim it for a statement that might support his case out-of-context, or that he seriously misunderstood the points that they were making. Either way, it never feels like a serious, authentic engagement of ideas that might be in opposition to his own. On top of that, his case is chock full of logical fallacies that would take a full article to unpack/expound upon.
When the author references a specific cherry-picked passage from an alternate translation because it apparently better fits his case, there's no justification as to why that translations take on that passage is to be trusted over and against the others.
John states that the Scriptural view of time and eternity is meant to be taken at face value, but what he assumes as “at face value" is actually a specifically modernistic creation of Western philosophy, and not in line with ancient Hebrew thought whatsoever. To take the Bible “at face value“ as an ancient Israelite would not at all fit his fundamentalist leaning view of the English text and what a modernist, western, fundamentalist Christian would read it as. So ultimately this is not literal or “at face value“ at all because it ignores how the text was originally meant to be read, instead reading into it his own cultural and literary assumptions.
The one highlight of the book is Chapter 6, on which I agreed with many of his conclusions, although - in my view - the proper work was never done to justify them.
Again, it is possible that this book was intended to be a multivolume work & the author simply didn't have either the time, resources, or both to accomplish that in its first edition. If so, I'd like to read a final version. I hate to assume that someone is incorrect simply because they haven't "shown their work", but when so much excellent, Jesus-centered, Bible-believing work has been done, much of which would push back at John's main points at almost every turn, I am left with no choice but to be generally dissatisfied with what THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST CRUCIFIED is attempting to do.
Keep seeking Jesus, engaging with His Word, & growing.
For starters, John presumes a questionable definition for "Gospel", & falls back into the same old error made by many to conflate the plan of salvation with the Gospel. But that's not a deal-breaker for me... many pastors/scholars/authors make the same mistake, & I still read them regularly.
He also presumes an outdated, long disproved concept of "righteousness" as "good or moral", instead of "faithfulness", which is the Biblical notion... and the righteousness we have is given by God, so we are judged according to God's "covenant faithfulness" (ie, "righteousness") to us. That said, I can let that slide as a reader... it's a common mistake.
Also, he presumes a great deal with regards to the End-times & John's Revelation, leaning fundamentalist (in a negative sense - not merely strong on Scripture, but without questioning foundational assumptions). I mean, it is absolutely a "literal" approach to interpreting a text when the text is conveying a dream - dreams by their very nature contain metaphor, & so when approaching a passage of Scripture conveying dreams the most rigid reading is not necessarily the most faithful one. When we remember that we are reading about John's dreams, that should lead us to be significantly more openhanded and consider that dream language is almost always imagery & metaphor. It's dangerous to assume that dreams should be interpreted as authentic "history". That is not to say it’s entirely untrue, but his assertations are bold & often unjustified.
And there is the book's problem: almost every radical statement is unjustified, or rather, never justified in any significant way. If one isn't already biased towards his reading of the text, there's nothing here to change anyone's mind in any way whatsoever. For me, it led to deeper skepticism about his positions.
I am a Biblical inerrantist. I truly, and absolutely believe in, & trust the canon of Scripture to convey God's truth, & I try to remain continually open to correction. I have changed my mind so many times on how I read passages because good Biblical evidence was given to me that I had misread or misinterpreted the text. I don't know if it's lack of time, or ignorance of solid, Evangelical scholarship. but there is no real "engagement" with the text here - simple cherry picked verses, out of literary and often historical context.
For the most part the only case made for any of points is direct scripture references, which any other scholar can do as well, often to make an opposing point. One must use some scholarship to point out why that verse in his mind means one thing and in the mind of the other scholar means something else, otherwise just quoting scripture when making such bold assertations doesn’t actually ultimately make your point at all, but continues to confirm whatever interpretive framework originally held by the reader.
I can't even count how many times I looked up a verse that was cherry-picked to back up a point & immediately thought, "This has verse does not mean what he thinks it means, & has nothing to do with the point he's trying to make." And as someone with a deep love for Scripture, it PAINS ME. This is the same approach to Scriptural interpretation that results in Southern Baptists having the largest population of converts to Mormanism and Jehovah's Witness sects - using this method one can twist the Scriptures into saying almost anything we want. There's no genuine engagement with the text, but mere eisegesis.
I could go on because I have other critiques, but I don't know if it would add anything to the above point, which is the most important, & leads to every other issue I have in the book. His take on eschatology is questionable because he assumes a position, then cherry picks isolated Scripture out of context to eisegete to state that perspective is the "Biblical" perspective. Likewise, he does the same with the creation story in Genesis. Every step along the path towards the author's main point is fraught with mislaid case upon mislaid case, build on out-of-context cherry-picked passages, & ignoring engaging with the best interpretive work that Evangelical academia has to offer. Not once did I disagree with the Scripture on ANY of these issues - but I regularly questioned his SPIN on the Scripture, which almost always was stated as the clear, Biblical understanding (which is isn't).
When the author occasionally mentions the work of other scholars (especially those whose work I have read thoroughly), it was as though he'd either not read their work apart to skim it for a statement that might support his case out-of-context, or that he seriously misunderstood the points that they were making. Either way, it never feels like a serious, authentic engagement of ideas that might be in opposition to his own. On top of that, his case is chock full of logical fallacies that would take a full article to unpack/expound upon.
When the author references a specific cherry-picked passage from an alternate translation because it apparently better fits his case, there's no justification as to why that translations take on that passage is to be trusted over and against the others.
John states that the Scriptural view of time and eternity is meant to be taken at face value, but what he assumes as “at face value" is actually a specifically modernistic creation of Western philosophy, and not in line with ancient Hebrew thought whatsoever. To take the Bible “at face value“ as an ancient Israelite would not at all fit his fundamentalist leaning view of the English text and what a modernist, western, fundamentalist Christian would read it as. So ultimately this is not literal or “at face value“ at all because it ignores how the text was originally meant to be read, instead reading into it his own cultural and literary assumptions.
The one highlight of the book is Chapter 6, on which I agreed with many of his conclusions, although - in my view - the proper work was never done to justify them.
Again, it is possible that this book was intended to be a multivolume work & the author simply didn't have either the time, resources, or both to accomplish that in its first edition. If so, I'd like to read a final version. I hate to assume that someone is incorrect simply because they haven't "shown their work", but when so much excellent, Jesus-centered, Bible-believing work has been done, much of which would push back at John's main points at almost every turn, I am left with no choice but to be generally dissatisfied with what THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST CRUCIFIED is attempting to do.
Keep seeking Jesus, engaging with His Word, & growing.
September 8, 2025
This book is a very insightful retrieval of the gospel as Jesus earliest followers would have heard and understood it (and as Jesus preached it.) While I might have some nuanced perspectives from Harrigan on a few things, on the whole this book has been paradigm shifting to say the least. The 21st century church needs to recapture what He calls the cruciform apocalyptic gospel, putting our hope not so much in a Spiritually realized Kingdom of God in this age, but in the glory of the Kingdom of God to come at the resurrection in the age to come!
Maranatha!
Only reason this is a 4/5 is because Harrigan’s prose is not the easiest to read.
Maranatha!
Only reason this is a 4/5 is because Harrigan’s prose is not the easiest to read.
May 11, 2022
This is a hard one to review - there wasn't a lot that i disagreed with... and I especially appreciated his main points of emphasis - the centrality of the cross, the importance of the resurrection of the dead, the suffering of the saints as persecution, and the all-encompassing judgment Day of the Lord.
However he often pits various views as mutually exclusive, without fully demonstrating why. For example, anything labeled "inaugurated eschatology" is fully rejected in his worldview, which he maintains is the original "unaltered Hebraic apocalyptic worldview". That's all well and fine, but he failed to show exactly why they have to mutually exclusive. Maybe I just misunderstood his argumentation, but I wasn't able to put two and two together with a number of his exclusions.
In general, statements made in the affirmative are very helpful and make the book worth reading, but opinions in denial make it more of a mixed bag.
However he often pits various views as mutually exclusive, without fully demonstrating why. For example, anything labeled "inaugurated eschatology" is fully rejected in his worldview, which he maintains is the original "unaltered Hebraic apocalyptic worldview". That's all well and fine, but he failed to show exactly why they have to mutually exclusive. Maybe I just misunderstood his argumentation, but I wasn't able to put two and two together with a number of his exclusions.
In general, statements made in the affirmative are very helpful and make the book worth reading, but opinions in denial make it more of a mixed bag.
July 24, 2017
Read 12 pages and couldn't continue. The author questions God's omnipotence, the reality of Jesus' divinity, and doesn't believe in evolution. What a crockpot!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 25, 2022
Though he doesn't call it this, a good case for historic premillennialism. (He mounts some half-hearted critiques of dispensationalism, but nothing very substantive.) The subtitle is somewhat misleading, as only the last chapter concerns itself with suffering and martyrdom. Though I ultimately disagree with the conclusions, there is much to be appreciated in this book; the choice to mount an Evangelical critique of inaugurated eschatology, which at this point is ubiquitous in the Reformed world and elsewhere, is a hard one and will not earn the author much academic applause. Much like Mark Kinzer, he skims over some of the challenging issues such as the utility of a post-advent temple and its soteriological significance.
October 3, 2022
I'll be honest I was expecting something different when I purchased this book. I think that Mr. Harrigan is genuine in his beliefs but I found his approach to be a bit off-putting. Without being long-winded I think that the crux of the issue is that Mr. Harrigan and I come from slightly different theological approaches and this book does not do much to convince me that his views are more accurate.
September 20, 2019
I absolutely love this book. It is a must read for any Evangelical believer interested in teaching and/or doctrine.
May 5, 2022
Simply put, this saved my faith from being shipwrecked! Thank you John.
March 6, 2023
One of the best books there is on the Truth and accurate worldview.
October 14, 2020
So grateful for this rich yet simple exposition of the overarching story of the Bible. I felt trusting of Harrigan’s words because he used a plethora of scripture references and other resources. Thank you for this work, John!
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews