N. T. Wright’s “Paul: In Fresh Perspective”

N. T. Wright. Paul: In Fresh Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. 195pp. $25.00.

In many ways, there is not much that is “fresh” about N. T. Wright’s Paul: In Fresh Perspective. The book consists largely of a rehashing of material that he has already written about elsewhere. Wright acknowledges this fact in the preface where he states that the current work develops themes from three of his previous writings on Paul: What Saint Paul Really Said (Eerdmans, 1997), The Climax of the Covenant (T. & T. Clark, 1992), and his commentary on Romans in the New Interpreters Bible (Abingdon, 2003). Wright is not so much attempting to break new ground in this work, but rather he intends for it to stand as a pointer to a fuller treatment of Paul that will form volume IV of his series “Christian Origins and the Question of God” (p. xi).

The book divides into two parts that broadly define the direction of Wright’s thinking on Paul. In part one, “Themes,” Wright’s introductory chapter locates Paul in his own historical setting. According to Wright, Paul was a man shaped by “three worlds” plus one: Second-Temple Judaism, Hellenistic Culture, the Roman Empire, and the church. In this chapter, Wright also reaffirms his commitment to the so-called “new perspective” on Paul. The remainder of part one is taken up with three dyads that according to Wright form the matrices from which Pauline theology develops: Creation and Covenant (chapter 2), Messiah and Apocalyptic (chapter 3), and Gospel and Empire (chapter 4).

In the first three chapters of part two, “Structures,” Wright offers a sketch of the shape of Paul’s theology (p. 83). Because Wright finds the familiar topics of Reformation soteriology an inadequate framework in which to understand Paul (p. 83), he suggests that Paul is best interpreted within the framework of what the Jews of Paul’s day believed. The structure of second-temple Jewish faith had three tiers: monotheism, election, and eschatology. For Wright, “Paul’s thought can best be understood, not as an abandonment of this framework, but as his redefinition of it around the Messiah and the Spirit” (p. 84). For this reason, Wright’s argument proceeds by explaining Paul’s rethinking of God in chapter 5, his reworking of God’s people in chapter 6, and his reimagining of God’s future in chapter 7. The concluding chapter of the book takes up the difficult question of how Paul’s gospel relates to that proclaimed by the Jesus of the canonical Gospels, how Paul conceived of his apostolic task, and how Paul informs our understanding of the task of the church in the present day.

In this book, Wright has made his case once again that Paul cannot be properly interpreted apart from his historical context. Wright does not argue that Paul merely mirrors the philosophical and theological premises of his Jewish and Greco-Roman background. Rather, he shows that Paul both agrees and disagrees at significant points with both. This fact enables Paul to be both thoroughly Jewish and Roman, while at the same time confronting both with his gospel. This reviewer looks forward to seeing how the details of this approach will work out in his forthcoming volume on Paul in “Christian Origins and the Question of God.”

Yet even for all of his learned explication of Pauline theology, Wright’s exegesis in this book leaves much to be desired. Rather, I should say, that the exegesis is nearly non-existent. Rather than getting bogged down in the details of careful exegetical work, Wright is constantly referring the reader to his former works on Paul. These notices come up so often, that one wonders why Wright has chosen to write this volume at all.

Nevertheless, one theme that Wright returns to time and again appears to be at least one “fresh” emphasis on his part. In chapter 4 in particular, Wright argues that Paul’s gospel contained “echoes” of the rhetoric of imperial Rome. The upshot of this observation is that Paul thought that his message offered a direct political challenge to the dominant world power of his day—the Roman Empire. This so-called “fresh perspective” on Paul argues that the unveiling of the Messiah as Israel’s king and the world’s true Lord challenges the grand claims of pagan empire (p. 40). This means that, for Paul, to confess Jesus as Messiah is to confess that “Jesus is Lord and Caesar is not” (p. 69; cf. 58).

This much of Wright’s proposal is not controversial. Even the most traditional readings of Paul recognize that his gospel makes Jesus out to be the King of kings, and Lord of lords. Most interpreters would probably agree that there are no political or spiritual rivals to the kingship and lordship of Jesus in Paul’s theology.

What is truly “fresh” about this perspective is the implication that Wright derives from this reading of Paul. It means first of all that Paul’s gospel calls Christians to oppose political entities that make claims to empire and world domination. Wright even hints (via Richard Horsley) that this message of Paul offers a special critique of “today’s monolithic American empire” and that this emphasis should not be dismissed “as a mere leftie fad” (p. 16). Given Wright’s open and frequent critique of American foreign policy elsewhere, this particular application of Paul’s gospel will likely prove to be very controversial.

This book is to be recommended to anyone who wishes to get an overview of Wright’s thinking on Paul. It summarizes the work that Wright has done on Paul up to this point and gives a little bit of a hint as to where he will be going in the future. For anyone who has already been reading Wright’s work, there is not much more here that is not already covered in Wright’s other books. Nevertheless, the book does pique one’s interest in what trails Wright might be blazing in his forthcoming volume on Paul.

One thought on “N. T. Wright’s “Paul: In Fresh Perspective””

  1. ummm…as far as all this “set yourself against the government”, or whatever, stuff goes….I’m pretty sure it was Paul in Romans 13 who told us that ALL authority is from God…

    Romans 13:1-6
    “1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. ”

    I can see how it would be our duty as Christians to vote from a Biblical Worldview basis, but to oppose the government that God has put in place…I would be hesitant to do so, unless in extreme circumstances (Hitler, Stalin, Hussein [spelling])…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s