2.75

I didn't expect to be rating this one so harshly, but I honestly found it to be tame and muddled. I have not read any of Wright's "proper" theology books, but this does not give me a good impression of his ability to convey information to the reader. His visual aids are not helpful, and he spends more time re-summarising and emphasising the apparent complexity of the subject matter than he does in actually getting to the meat of it.

But what's perhaps most frustrating is that he doesn't seem to know who his audience is. If this is a book for the converted, wanting to dig deeper into the character of Jesus, then anything new and informative is actually spread quite thin. On the other hand, if the intention is to provide the curious and the sceptics with more accurate historical context and rid them of a perspective that's been muddied by western stereotypes (which honestly seems to be the case initially), then he makes far too many leaps and bounds in terms of what the reader can be expected to swallow. A focus on Jesus from a purely historical perspective, asking questions as to what that might say about claims to his divinity, would be far more effective if you didn't assume that your readership will take at face value that he worked miracles and rose from the dead.

Not to say I didn't get anything from this, but it was heavily overshadowed. Not sure if I will read any more Wright; the two commentaries I read from him didn't do loads for me either. ( )

This was not a bad book, but it was not what I expected it to be, and what it was was not something I had an interest in.

As a non-Christian who has an interest in the Bible as historical documents, when I heard that this was a book that looked at the New Testament from a historical perspective, my mind immediately jumped to authors like Bart Ehrman who look at the New Testament as historical documents but start with an assumption that Jesus could not have been who the gospels say he was. What I was hoping this book would be was a contrast to that: a book that looked critically at the New Testament as a set of historical documents and struggled with their shortcomings as such but from a perspective that Jesus could have been who the gospels say he was. (By the way, if you know of such a book, please leave a comment!)

Instead, in this book, Wright takes the gospels at face value and looks at them through the historical lens of first century regional politics and religious expectations. Wright's argument, which he develops thoroughly, is that by looking at how the gospels present Jesus and the expectations that his audience would have had, one must see that Jesus's message was a political message: the Kingdom of Heaven is here right now, not in some future far away realm. God is sovereign right now. God does not rule through might and conquest. God rules through sacrifice and love.

Even though this book was not what I expected it to be, one thing it did do well is show how from this enlarged perspective, many of the standard debates of Christianity can be resolved by taking a third perspective. For example, on the topic of faith and works, Wright might say (I'm interpolating a bit), that the belief that God's Kingdom is fundamentally transformative and cannot help but be expressed in both faith and works. Faith and works are only in conflict if you think of faith as merely a matter of belief and works as merely a matter of action. But when one takes as central living the reality of God's Kingdom, both flow naturally from that overriding ideal. ( )

A lot of noodling around, but goes nowhere. A waste of my time. ( )

I read "The Challenge of Jesus" by N.T. Wright last year and wasn't impressed. I decided to give Wright a second chance by reading "Simply Jesus" and this time I found it much more interesting but still a rather dry read.

However, I was particularly struck by Wright's historical knowledge and insight into 1st century Palestine. His use of various illustrations to explain things also resonated with me. For instance, his use of the "perfect storm" to explain the three-fold conflict that was brewing upon Christ's entrance upon the world stage: 1) The Romans looked to Augustus Caesar as the "son of god" (son of Julius Caesar who was deified). 2) The Jews were in the midst of a 1,000+ year drama awaiting for their messiah to deliver them once again from their new oppressors. 3) The Jews were looking for the establishment of a new Jewish kingdom and expecting God to rule the world and essentially be king over all the earth.

Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah did indeed usher in God's kingdom upon the earth, but not in the way that the Jews were expecting. Instead, Jesus healed people and made them right, He forgave sins... something only God was able to do. Those who sensed God's presence in their lives were now healed, forgiven, and essentially set free... the new Jubilee. And, God truly became in charge with the establishment of His new kingdom on earth. He didn't rule from the temple instead He ruled through Christ, not by might, but through peace and forgiveness... as King over the Jews and the world.

Overall, not a bad book, but lacks anything new or riveting. The beginning was interesting but towards the middle of the book it became somewhat mundane and I struggled to finish it. When I crossed the finish line it left me wondering if Wright could have reduced the size of the book by at least 1/4 of the space it took to write it. After reading two of Wright's books I've come to the conclusion that Wright just isn't for me. Do I recommend the book? Probably not. But, I wouldn't discourage anyone from reading it neither. ( )

A well written book. Easy to grasp what Tom Wright is saying. Good theology, well presented ( )