Product Description

N.T. Wright, a world authority on the life and letters of Paul, responds to A.N. Wilson's claim that it was Paul and not Jesus who founded Christianity. He delivers a devastating critique, contending that Paul was a faithful witness and herald of Jesus Christ.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #18857 in Books
• Published on: 1997-06
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 192 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780802844453
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

Review
N. T. Wright's What Saint Paul Really Said leads readers through the current scholarly discussion of Paul and gives a concise account of the actual contribution Paul made to the birth of Christianity. Wright offers a critique of the argument that claims that it was Paul who founded Christianity and shows clearly that Paul this allegation is simply not true. But rather that Paul was the faithful witness and herald of Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish Messiah and the risen Lord of the Christian faith. And that neither he, nor any of those who immediately followed him in the leadership counsels of the Christian church, every claimed or thought otherwise. -- Midwest Book Review

From the Back Cover
Recently, A.N. Wilson has claimed to show that it was Paul, not Jesus, who founded Christianity. But how does this thesis, which in various forms has been debated for over a century, stand up? In What Paul Really Said, N. T. Wright - a world authority on the life and letter of Paul - leads readers through the current scholarly discussion of Paul and gives a devastating critique of views like Wilson's, showing that they fail to take account of all the evidence. Paul was not the "founder of Christianity" but, rather, the faithful witness and herald of Jesus Christ.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
One of the most striking things about Pauline Christology - Paul's statements about Jesus - is this: at the very moment when he is giving Jesus the highest titles and honours, he is also emphasizing that he, Paul, is a good Jewish-style monotheist. Faced with this evidence, we either have to conclude that Paul was really a very muddled theologian indeed, or that he intended to say, as clearly as was open to him, that when he put Jesus and God in the same bracket he was not intending to add a second god to the pantheon, as in paganism. Nor was he intending that Jesus be seen as somehow absorbed into the being of the one God, without remainder. He was inviting his readers to see Jesus as retaining his full identity as the man Jesus of Nazareth, but within the inner being of the one God, the God of Jewish monotheism.

Customer Reviews

Seting the record straight
I think a couple of words are in order in response to the criticism of some of the reviewers of this book.

First off, Wright is most assuredly not teaching any sort of a works based salvation. He simply points out that when Paul speaks against the Judaizers of his day, we can not, as Luther did, project onto them a meaning consistent with that of the Medieval Catholic Church. That is, Luther read Paul struggling with the Judaizer's speaking of the "works of the law" then saw his own struggle with the Church that seemed to place an endless string of hoops to jump through to achieve salvation. He assumed Paul was speaking to him in his situation directly. "The Just shall live by faith" became for Luther a liberating statement. Faith, not works, is how one is justified before God.

However, Wright explores more precisely what it was Paul was up against. What it was, was those who insisted that the things which made the Jews separate from the nations, such as circumcision, food laws, etc. desired to impose these on new Christians as a badge of their membership in the New Covenant. No, Paul says. It is faith, not these works of the law, which mark you out as a true covenant member. If you live in faith, which is of course outwardly exhibited in obedience, then you will be known as a true covenant member. This is most definitely not telling us that through our works we are or even can be justified before God.

Instead, God's justification is really closely tied to his righteousness. Not just righteousness in terms "God is better than us" (though he certainly is) but righteousness in terms of His faithfulness to His covenant. God will justify His people. In fact, in time and history, He has done so in the cross. The cross is very central to Paul's writings.

But, who are God's people? Those who believe the Gospel. What is the Gospel? According to Wright, the gospel Paul preached was not a set of instructions on how one goes about "getting saved," but the gospel was the proclamation of the good news that God had redeemed his people in the cross, that Jesus had rose from the dead, and (this is very central) that Jesus is now the reigning King of kings and Lord of lords. He is the King over all of the universe, so this is a universal message, not confined only or even primarily to the Jewish nation. Those who profess a belief in this are part of the visible covenant people, but the true members will be known by their fruits.

All this is not to say Luther was totally wrong or without merit, and certainly it was not to say the Roman Catholic Church was right. Yes, Wright is a Protestant, the reader from Canada's criticism notwithstanding. The first century Jews just simply did not hold to a works based salvation as many since Luther have supposed. With this in mind, we can not take Luther's interpretation as completely accurate.

Another somewhat soft criticism is that the book is mis-titled, since only the last chapter actually concerns the issue of whether St. Paul was the true founder of Christianity. Admittedly, I had the same initial reaction because this is not something overtly talked about for the majority of the book. However, the entirety of the book outlines the fact that Paul was simply taking the teachings of Jesus as they were to be interpreted for those in Paul's time - and all subsequent ages. He is building the case throughout that Paul is not creating something new, but is a Jew of Jews who is interpreting Jesus the only way one can - through the scriptures of the Jews. Therefore, though he only speaks directly to the point in the final chapter, the point is actually built upon throughout the whole book.

Wright does, I believe, a masterful job of taking what is obviously deep, scholarly work and putting it into terms an average Christian can understand. I think this is a much-needed gift, as deep theological works are above the ability of all but a few, yet most popular books are nothing but fluff and baptized pop-psychology.

I highly recommend this readable, and enlightened interpretation of Paul. I have a whole new outlook on Paul and look forward to reading through his letters again 'with new eyes"!

A brief introduction to the New Perspective
Although many within the traditional Protestant camp dish out some harsh criticism toward Wright, I think no one will contest that Wright is a first rate scholar and that his views must be taken seriously and engaged by other evangelical Protestants. That being said, I think Wright's new work on Paul's gospel message is a great work that sheds new light on a topic that most think they have fully grasped. The reason why I like Wright's work is because he attempts to understand Paul from a 1st century Jewish mindset, and not from a later perspective. I think most Protestants would do well to reconsider if the 16th century interpretation of Paul is really the best one, and understand that that interpretation is a product of 16th century scholastic Augustinianism, and does not try to understand Paul as a first century Jewish scholar. This is why the New Perspective is so helpful at giving us a new dimension within which we can understand Paul's teachings.

Briefly, Wright begins the book by arguing that the heart of the gospel is not how one can get into a right relationship with God, but that it is an imperial proclomation that Jesus and not Caesar is Lord. I thought this idea was well argued for and has some merit, but I am not fully convinced. Then Wright argues that membership in the covenant community is much like that of traditional Judaism; One becomes a member of this corporate community via the covenant, and then one remains in that covenant community. In addition, Wright takes a different view of what exactly the righteousness of God means in a book like Romans. Wright believes the genitive construction is best understood as a subjective genitive and not an objective genitive; That means the righteousness of God is God's covenant faithfulness to his creation, and not some gift of righteousness that God bestows to mankind. For those in the Protestant camp who might disagree, even John Piper holds a similar view so this idea is hardly novel or not well accepted within traditional Reformed circles.

Wright believes that God's covenant faithfulness was manifested when he sent His Son, Jesus Christ into the world to redeem creation. This act was a demonstration of God's faithfulness and ushered in the time of renewal and the new age that Paul had so eagerly awaited as a zealous Pharisee. Not much disagreement here, but where I do have qualms with Wright is over his denial of imputed righteousness. Wright believes that there are few Scriptures that speak of an imputed righteousness of Christ and the ones that do are misunderstood. Right believes that faith is not what makes one right with God, but what identifes one as a valid member of the covenant community. Thus, justification is not soteriological but ecclesiogical. If one is going to accept this view I believe Wright will have to develop this idea more fully and should devote a future book solely to this topic. Although there are a few areas of disagreement, I believe this book should be read by all Protestants so that they can approach the Pauline corpus from a more Jewish mindset.

Tremendous Exposition of Paul!
N.T. Wright is a tremendous author, whether you agree with him or not. He does a wonderful job of showing that Paul was the faithful interpretor of Jesus, and not the founder of Christianity. Wright argues that if Paul would have said the same things Jesus did, then he would have been claiming Messiahship as well.

A previous revewier has stated that this book is the end of Protestantism. His reason is that "the central theme of the gospel to Protestantism is justification by faith". That may be the case within some strands of Protestantism, but is not so all throughout the board (i.e. the Redemptive-Historical school of Reformed Theology with Vos, Ridderbos and Gaffin).

Now to the controversial "Fresh Perspective on Paul" as Wright calls it. I am a confessional Protestant who adheres to the Westminster standards, and do not have a problem highly endorsing the eschatological focus of this book. He says that the crucifixion is the chief eschatological act. This ligns right up with what Richard Gaffin says in 'Resurrection and Redemption' from a Reformed perspective.

I really liek his interpretation of 'dikaiosune theou', or righteousness of God. That has been a perplexing topic in the history of interpretation and is usually identified as a genitive of origin to uphold the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness. However, Wright classifies it as a subjective genitive, where the righteousness is God's own righteousness in His covenental faithfulness by redeeming Israel. This clears up a lot of muddled water where that the genitive of origen will not work in all contexts.

His notion of justification is the other controversial aspect of his theology. He puts it in the first century Jewish context, rather than a polemical context of church history. The three themes of 1st century Jewish theology that he explains are law court, covenant and eschatology. This has some interesting twists that many will not like, but I find to be quite helpful. I have little problems with an already/not yet aspect to justification (to be more biblical theological), which would correlate with his emphasis on the eschatological nature of justification (see Romans 2:13).

This is a tremendous work that is highly recommended!