What do you think?
Rate this book
The Future of the People of God: Reading Romans Before and After Western Christendom
At a time when the Western church is having to come to terms--painfully and often reluctantly--with its diminished social and intellectual status in the world following the collapse of Christendom, we find ourselves, as interpreters of Paul, increasingly impressed by the need to relocate his writings in their historical context. That is not a coincidence. The Future of the People of God is an attempt to make sense of Paul's letter to the Romans at the intersection of these two developments. It puts forward the argument that we must first have the courage of our historical convictions and read the text before Christendom, from the limited, shortsighted perspective of an emerging community that dared to defy the gods of the ancient world. This act of imaginative, critical engagement with the text will challenge many of our assumptions about Paul's "gospel of God," but it will also put us in a position to reconstruct an identity and purpose for the people of God after Christendom that is both biblically and historically coherent
- GenresTheologyNew Testament
188 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 2010
11 people are currently reading
34 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
August 1, 2012
Another book from Jordan's booktable at the conference. It was something of a wild ride. The prose is a bit turgid and cumbersome at times, but then it is aimed toward academics, so we can't really fault him for that. Perriman's goal is to re-read Romans in light of its original context and thus free it from the post-Reformational shackles with which we naturally restrain its power. As a result, Perriman is interested in the intertextual echoes of the OT in Romans and Paul's sweeping argument, following all the right people on that note; Richard Hays, James Dunn, N. T. Wright, etc. Along the way, however, he falls into the perennial scholarly error of reaching back not to the OT but to the intertestimental writings like Wisdom of Solomon, which, as lovely as they are, have less than nothing to do with Paul's interests.
On the other hand, the book is staunchly preteristic in its approach, incorporating such realized eschatological views into the whole of Paul's argument rather than leaving it on the surface like previous generations of preterists have done. Without this preteristic reading of the book, Perriman concludes, the whole thing goes right off the rails and we're hopelessly lost in a morass of our own making, chopping and hacking to get it to fit into some sort of structure we can understand and process. This approach led him in some interesting directions, and some readings that parallel things which Jordan has been saying for thirty years, which Perriman came to on his own (in itself this is confirmation enough that Jordan's readings are far less "speculative" than some would like us to think).
Most interesting of these intriguing directions is his claim that the promise that Jesus will be set up as King of Kings, to triumph over rebellious Israel and topple all the old gods, is not fully realized until Constantine is enthroned and Christianity becomes the religion of a Roman Empire now gutted of its former paganism (for all of those who attempt to cling to the old ways), that this is the climactic conclusion to the eschatology of the New Testament, when the old gods are thrown down and discarded, to be burned outside the camp. This was an appealing argument for me, one which arose naturally from his reading of the text and which roots the pro-Constantine view (exhibited most wonderfully in Leithart's Defending Constantine) in the actual eschatological expectation of the New Testament and of the Apostles themselves. There really is no other conclusion possible; if Christ is King of Kings, who has toppled the powers at his ascension and vindication, then He must be publically recognized as such.
This is not to say that Perriman (or I) wish to hold Constantine up as a perfect figure, or the adoption of the Christian faith in his lifetime as wholly without its own challenges and crises, nor that either of us is pushing for a theocracy on earth in the sense that everyone gets fevered up over; it is merely to make the historical observation that Constantine's response was a nature one in a world that is really governed by Christ as Lord and King, and that this was, all things considered, a positive trend.
On the other hand, the book is staunchly preteristic in its approach, incorporating such realized eschatological views into the whole of Paul's argument rather than leaving it on the surface like previous generations of preterists have done. Without this preteristic reading of the book, Perriman concludes, the whole thing goes right off the rails and we're hopelessly lost in a morass of our own making, chopping and hacking to get it to fit into some sort of structure we can understand and process. This approach led him in some interesting directions, and some readings that parallel things which Jordan has been saying for thirty years, which Perriman came to on his own (in itself this is confirmation enough that Jordan's readings are far less "speculative" than some would like us to think).
Most interesting of these intriguing directions is his claim that the promise that Jesus will be set up as King of Kings, to triumph over rebellious Israel and topple all the old gods, is not fully realized until Constantine is enthroned and Christianity becomes the religion of a Roman Empire now gutted of its former paganism (for all of those who attempt to cling to the old ways), that this is the climactic conclusion to the eschatology of the New Testament, when the old gods are thrown down and discarded, to be burned outside the camp. This was an appealing argument for me, one which arose naturally from his reading of the text and which roots the pro-Constantine view (exhibited most wonderfully in Leithart's Defending Constantine) in the actual eschatological expectation of the New Testament and of the Apostles themselves. There really is no other conclusion possible; if Christ is King of Kings, who has toppled the powers at his ascension and vindication, then He must be publically recognized as such.
This is not to say that Perriman (or I) wish to hold Constantine up as a perfect figure, or the adoption of the Christian faith in his lifetime as wholly without its own challenges and crises, nor that either of us is pushing for a theocracy on earth in the sense that everyone gets fevered up over; it is merely to make the historical observation that Constantine's response was a nature one in a world that is really governed by Christ as Lord and King, and that this was, all things considered, a positive trend.
January 28, 2015
This is an important and complex, though brief, work that is perhaps marred by somewhat repetitive argument and some turgid prose.
In a nutshell, Perriman's argument is that Romans (and indeed the entire New Testament) is to be read in the light of the political realities of the first century Roman Empire and that Paul's prophetic texts of impending judgement are to be read as glimpses of a historically realistic political and military crisis that was about to overtake the Jewish world and the entire Greco-Roman oikonomeia. Romans as a whole is Paul's exhortation to the faithful community in Rome outlining the kind of people they must be if they are to survive the coming crisis and bear witness to God's victory in the radically-reshaped coming order.
Many of his readings of passages in Romans will seem unfamiliar, but he mounts a vigorous and consistent case, and brings many little-regarded intertextual references from the Jewish Scriptures to bear in illuminating Paul's text.
I don't think the book will be as widely read as it probably should be, as there's something in here to displease almost everyone.
For the orthodox, there's Perriman's unremitting intention to read the New Testament texts of judgement as historically referential – it is this-worldly political and military judgements that will vindicate YHWH as king of his people in the face of dominant pagan Roman power. While he is careful to note the unprecedented and disruptive power of the resurrection and the "new creation" which it opens up as something beyond material socio-political realities, the overall argument is that too many of Christendom's readings of Romans (and the NT) have left behind a secure historically and politically realistic grounding, swapping it for theological abstractions that only make sense in light of later intellectual currents.
For Anabaptists, there's a defence of Constantine and Christendom as the form that God's victory over the nations took in actual history. This is not at all, to be blunt and brief, a fashionable view.
For emergent church types, there's Perriman's staunch refusal to avoid or diminish Paul's language of God's wrath as a historically and politically realised experience of the people of God and the pagan nations.
New Testament studies have shown an increasing turn towards deep engagement with the political and social context of the First Century. But the challenge of reading the New Testament historically (and avoiding unwarranted abstractions and later theological accretions) is powerful and Perriman challenges us to carry it through consistently.
In a nutshell, Perriman's argument is that Romans (and indeed the entire New Testament) is to be read in the light of the political realities of the first century Roman Empire and that Paul's prophetic texts of impending judgement are to be read as glimpses of a historically realistic political and military crisis that was about to overtake the Jewish world and the entire Greco-Roman oikonomeia. Romans as a whole is Paul's exhortation to the faithful community in Rome outlining the kind of people they must be if they are to survive the coming crisis and bear witness to God's victory in the radically-reshaped coming order.
Many of his readings of passages in Romans will seem unfamiliar, but he mounts a vigorous and consistent case, and brings many little-regarded intertextual references from the Jewish Scriptures to bear in illuminating Paul's text.
I don't think the book will be as widely read as it probably should be, as there's something in here to displease almost everyone.
For the orthodox, there's Perriman's unremitting intention to read the New Testament texts of judgement as historically referential – it is this-worldly political and military judgements that will vindicate YHWH as king of his people in the face of dominant pagan Roman power. While he is careful to note the unprecedented and disruptive power of the resurrection and the "new creation" which it opens up as something beyond material socio-political realities, the overall argument is that too many of Christendom's readings of Romans (and the NT) have left behind a secure historically and politically realistic grounding, swapping it for theological abstractions that only make sense in light of later intellectual currents.
For Anabaptists, there's a defence of Constantine and Christendom as the form that God's victory over the nations took in actual history. This is not at all, to be blunt and brief, a fashionable view.
For emergent church types, there's Perriman's staunch refusal to avoid or diminish Paul's language of God's wrath as a historically and politically realised experience of the people of God and the pagan nations.
New Testament studies have shown an increasing turn towards deep engagement with the political and social context of the First Century. But the challenge of reading the New Testament historically (and avoiding unwarranted abstractions and later theological accretions) is powerful and Perriman challenges us to carry it through consistently.
July 18, 2021
A challenging but fascinating look at Romans through an eschatological lens and with a sort of partial-preterism viewpoint. Perriman argues against a heavily theological or doctrinal reading (in the Reformed tradition for example) that universalizes and abstracts what is a letter full of contingency, history and narrative. Rather than setting out a systematic doctrine Paul is offering specific advice and rhetoric to the church in Rome based on his understanding of the historic events that lie ahead for them. Paul sets out how and why God through Christ is judging his people ISrael first and then the Roman/Pagan world. And that this process, the day of wrath, will require the churches to walk a narrow path to life as first lived out through Jesus. From our vantage point we can see that the martyr church did in fact achieve this as God judged the Jews (AD 70) and then the Greeks (the fall of pagan empire and the rise of Christendom). In a significant way, Constantine marks the Parousia.
This understanding of Romans then has implications and impact on how the psot-Christendom Church understands its place and its story. It is almost impossible to summarize something as complex and nuanced as this book but is well worth your time. It will challenge you and make you think no matter what your eschatological or theological perspective.
This understanding of Romans then has implications and impact on how the psot-Christendom Church understands its place and its story. It is almost impossible to summarize something as complex and nuanced as this book but is well worth your time. It will challenge you and make you think no matter what your eschatological or theological perspective.
December 2, 2012
I guess there are some that will say if you are well read in N.T. Wright this book will be nothing new to you. I think I would have to disagree in some sense. This book is certainly worth your time and I will be rereading it soon. Perriman breaks down Romans and sublimely carves out its place in the narrative of the "People of God." While reading Romans in the way Perriman suggests limits pastoral and dogmatic significance it opens up some interesting ways to explore what it means to be the people of God. (paraphrase Chp. 1) Learning from his insight brought me a lot of peace and understanding, so for that I am thankful. You may not agree with all of the specific arguments and points throughout the entire book, but at the very least I would guess that this book will lead you to understand and perhaps subscribe to the main thesis that he lays out in the first chapter.
September 1, 2021
Which is more encouraging to faith?
...the fulfilled promise of Jesus within a generation to come again to judge Judean nationalists by destroying with fire Jerusalem and the temple using Roman forces of Vespasian and son Titus, or...
...the unfulfilled promise of Jesus for nearly 2 millennia to come again to judge all humans who ever lived, condemning some to eternal torment but rapturing the rest to heaven as creation is destroyed by fire?
My own faith is encouraged by the first understanding of Jesus' promise and weakened by the second.
Andrew also supports the first by reading Romans with us.
...the fulfilled promise of Jesus within a generation to come again to judge Judean nationalists by destroying with fire Jerusalem and the temple using Roman forces of Vespasian and son Titus, or...
...the unfulfilled promise of Jesus for nearly 2 millennia to come again to judge all humans who ever lived, condemning some to eternal torment but rapturing the rest to heaven as creation is destroyed by fire?
My own faith is encouraged by the first understanding of Jesus' promise and weakened by the second.
Andrew also supports the first by reading Romans with us.
January 14, 2025
This book is extremely consistent and clear. Although I didn't know where he was going at times, he pulls it back together.
March 18, 2014
Perriman rescues the book of Romans from the clutches of Reformation debates and reveals more (but not all) of its inner coherence by reading it in a narrative-historical manner as part of the overarching story of Israel. Especially masterful is his unpacking of Paul's metaleptic quotations of the Old Testament scriptures to expose the intended resonances with the situation of Paul's Roman readers. This approach bears the most fruit for Romans 1-8 and 12-16. I was less impressed with Perriman's handling of Romans 9-11, since he treats the theme of chapter 11 (for the reingrafting of unbelieving Israel) as a disappointed hope that is only discussed as a possibility, for polemical purposes. The final two chapters, discussing application to the current "Post-Christendom" church, were vague and really called for a new book-length treatment.
So, in sum: bracing narrative-historical exegesis, but not so strong on 9-11 or on the present day. Hence, 4 rather than 5 stars. Still, the most paradigm-shifting theological book I've read in the last 5 years.
So, in sum: bracing narrative-historical exegesis, but not so strong on 9-11 or on the present day. Hence, 4 rather than 5 stars. Still, the most paradigm-shifting theological book I've read in the last 5 years.
June 7, 2016
Perriman offers a very helpful look at Romans in narrative-historical perspective, building on and critiquing the work of earlier exegetes of the New Perspective on Paul (especially Dunn and Wright). Perriman is at his best in his examination of Chapters 1-8 and then again 12-16. The work is full of robust, thoughtful, and convincing exegesis focused particularly on Paul's use of the Old Testament and filled out with plenty of Perriman's own examples taken from the literature of Second Temple Judaism. He does fall a bit flat in exegeting Chapters 9-11, which he sees as being little more than Paul's wishful thinking. Finally, Perriman closes with some great general thoughts on what all of this means for the Church in the era of Post-Christendom. I find him a bit too pessimistic, but he's helpful and inspiring none-the-less. The last chapter serves as a springboard into Perriman's "Re:Mission" book in which these ideas are explored further.
October 19, 2010
Another example of 'spoiled by Wright.' If I hadn't read so much of him, this book probably would have been remarkable. Though he does diverge from Wright on several significant points, the doorway to his overall direction of his though is already wide-open if you're well-versed in Wright.
November 13, 2016
Solid exegesis; and great job at pointing the church in the right direction in reading Romans in our context. Brilliant book.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews