The renowned scholar, Anglican bishop, and bestselling author widely considered to be the heir to C. S. Lewis contemplates the central event at the heart of the Christian faith—Jesus’ crucifixion—arguing that the Protestant Reformation did not go far enough in transforming our understanding of its meaning.

In The Day the Revolution Began, N. T. Wright once again challenges commonly held Christian beliefs as he did in his acclaimed Surprised by Hope. Demonstrating the rigorous intellect and breathtaking knowledge that have long defined his work, Wright argues that Jesus’ death on the cross was not only to absolve us of our sins; it was actually the beginning of a revolution commissioning the Christian faithful to a new vocation—a royal priesthood responsible for restoring and reconciling all of God’s creation.

Wright argues that Jesus’ crucifixion must be understood within the much larger story of God’s purposes to bring heaven and earth together. The Day the Revolution Began offers a grand picture of Jesus’ sacrifice and its full significance for the Christian faith, inspiring believers with a renewed sense of mission, purpose, and hope, and reminding them of the crucial role the Christian faith must play in protecting and shaping the future of the world. (Amazon.com)

While I think Wright occasionally protesteth too much, his conclusions are sound--atonement is substitutionary, but not exclusively. There is much to learn about atonement theory here. I cannot toss out penal substitution, but Wright's ideas, I think, express well why penal substitution isn't the entire story of the crucifixion. ( )

While I think Wright occasionally protesteth too much, his conclusions are sound--atonement is substitutionary, but not exclusively. There is much to learn about atonement theory here. I cannot toss out penal substitution, but Wright's ideas, I think, express well why penal substitution isn't the entire story of the crucifixion. ( )

Wright applies his take on the "new perspective" on Paul as it relates to understanding what Jesus is accomplishing with His death on the cross.

This is a more "reactive" work from Wright than one normally encounters: he is attempting, in his mind, to correct the over-emphasis on penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) in Evangelical theology, and to challenge the way the theology of the cross normally props up a more Platonic, escapist eschatology. He caricatures the standard PSA formulation as "God so hated the world that He punished His Son," and finds it to be more pagan than Christian.

He then goes through a careful analysis of the use of terms surrounding atonement in Second Temple Judaism, and makes much of how Jesus dies at Passover, and thus frames the atonement as a New Exodus/Passover movement. He does well at understanding Paul in covenant terms, going through a detailed analysis of Pauline literature to demonstrate how contextually Paul is very much thinking and writing in covenantal terms, explaining how God has redeemed Israel in Jesus and provided a means for Gentiles to be included among the people of God, as opposed to the Protestant/Reformed emphasis on right standing based on faith versus a works covenant. He artfully demonstrates the point as to restore humans to relationship with God to be image bearers and vocation as God's workers, having been freed from their enslavement to idolatry, as opposed to a more moralistic and escapist view present in much of Christian soteriology and eschatology. He envisions "forgiveness of sins" in terms of "return from exile," thus "reconciliation"; the sacrificial language is understood more in terms of Passover than Leviticus, and seen as Jesus taking upon Himself "Sin" as a kind of power and defeating it on the cross. Throughout he strives to point out the points of continuity throughout the old and new covenant in explaining what Jesus does on the cross - how it is a fulfillment of hope and promise, a re-centering of Torah and Temple around Jesus, and thus the Kingdom in His name. Thus the "revolution": the liberation of mankind, the Jew first but also the Greek, from the powers enslaving them, allowing Christians to live as part of God's new creation.

There's a lot to like here. Wright's portrayal, on the whole, is more consistent with the explicit themes in the Gospels and the NT than what passes for Protestant PSA soteriology. The story is generally told well.

I had the benefit of hearing the Pepperdine lectures which led to this work, and that may color my understanding, but he never comes out and fully denies PSA or the basic logic of sacrifice, but he maddeningly does not give any ground on the issue explicitly in the book. His posture seems a bit too polemic: it is a bit of an overreaction, even if understandable and a bit justified. I would have appreciated a bit more exploration into the deep logic of sacrifice and dying for sin, because I find that to also be part of the issue that Wright correctly identifies as the abhorrence modern man feels at the prospect of the Son of God dying a brutal death "for us." I cannot escape the deep logic of blood for blood, life for life in Leviticus 17, and Wright doesn't argue against it here. There's no deep consideration of why it took a death to overcome the force of sin and evil, and how that death could have atoning properties for anyone else. I grant that PSA warps Isaiah 53 et al, but Isaiah 53 still has someone else suffering for us, wounded for our transgressions, and why this is necessary was plainly evident to everyone in the first century but not so today.

While there's much to like here, of all of what Wright has written, it seems the most incomplete. Perhaps it's because it's a first step in an idea, as he himself admits - in writing this, he felt compelled to modify some of his existing positions. His explanation about the problems of idolatry - very much there in Romans 1, no doubt - are given a level of prominence that is just as not explicit in Paul as is what he critiques about PSA. I would also want to see where what Wright is suggesting has some currency in the Christian tradition, especially from early patristic authors. I guess the argument could be advanced that since the church became so thoroughly Gentile so quickly, and overly concerned about Ebionism, that it very quickly became a bit too Marcionite in its understanding of salvation; nevertheless, it would remain quite concerning if this formulation of the story, however compelling, only exists because it has been excavated through contextual historical application almost 2,000 years later. Possible? Sure. But for something as major as the conceptualization of the atonement as anchored in the fulfillment of what God promised to Israel, you'd like to see some evidence of it from before.

As to what else feels incomplete, it's hard to say exactly, because if it could be said, it would be a productive line of expanding or building upon what is established here. Perhaps that feeling of incompleteness comes from being unduly influenced by standard Protestant conceptions of justification. Nevertheless, it does seem that to make any sense of the need for sacrifice, that God is demanding satisfaction of justice in some way. It's artful to have God punish Sin in order to manifest justice, and there's a lot to commend that, but again, why through death?

Definitely worth consideration, but also hopefully just a beginning for a productive line of thought. ( )

This is perhaps the most significant book I've ever read about Bible, theology, atonement, Jesus, the cross. Several times throughout the book, Wright acknowledges how his own view of Christ and cross has been challenged and changed through the process of revisiting and rethinking Scripture and writing this book. Certainly, my own perception of what Christian faith is all about can never again be what it was (and what I have been taught for most of my life). I strongly recommend this book to everyone: to pastors and preachers; to the believer seeking a better understanding; and to the disbelieving skeptic or atheist who (for good reasons) have found the traditional Western presentation of Christianity unbelievable. ( )