Just A Glimpse Of The End Days:The Kingdom of Heaven Is At Hand

---

I've read and listened to a number of his works and much in this book was similar, but that which was new left me feeling a bit like I felt when I listened to the audiobook and despite re-listening to sections, parts just refused to adhere to my brain and I failed to get the precise significance of some his interpretations of key passages.

I've read and listened to a number of his works and much in this book was similar, but that which was new left me feeling a bit like I felt when I initially read Wright years ago--an arm full of puzzle pieces, but not a clear sense how to piece it together. I do like how Wright takes Christ dying and rising "according to scripture" seriously, and offers a compelling case of how the gospel is in fulfillment of Jewish scriptures, themes, and hopes, and reveals the faithfulness of God to the covenant.

Better than anyone else I know, he sets Jesus' death in its historical context. I appreciate Wright challenging the Platonist elements that have influenced the gospel, the Roman road presentation and the penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement. He shows how the gospel isn't just about our going to heaven when we die, but about people turning from idols, worshiping the true God and fulfilling their vocation as image bearers. Somehow Jesus' death was God's way to get folks to turn from idols to Him, so they could be forgiven and experience the new exodus.

There were a number of interesting tidbits. Wright pointed out how an animal wasn't slain upon the altar, but his life blood was spilled and used for purification, and how the only animal that had the "sins transferred" upon his head wasn't slain, but sent away. He thus briefly shows the complexity of the Old Testamental sacrificial system and some problems with the Penal Substitutionary perspective, and suggest that it wasn't punishment for the animal in place of the sinner, but instead about the life blood for purification.

Briefly, he applies this to Jesus' work on the cross. I wish he went more into it. For me, since I am a product of the modern age, it is not easy associating blood with cleansing, the Levi' practicing of coating just about everything is animal blood seems disgusting to be quite honest. The symbolism doesn't resonate or make sense to me. It's not like Jesus' magical blood was smeared all over us, or we were washed in the blood of the lamb. If Wright, is right it often seems to me he is there is that troublesome fact that most Christians have been dead wrong for the last years about the centerpiece of Christianity.

After one gets beyond the initial thrill of the vista that his historical perspective offers, one sees a problem with just how rooted the gospel is, in a very complex Jewish History. To understand the gospel aright, one either needed to be deeply immersed in the Jewish world of Jesus and Paul, or to be a scholar who immerses himself in a world long past. The gospel no longer seems universal, but instead very esoteric; destined to be misunderstood by Gentiles who wouldn't have the faintest clue of the historical context which gave its extremely ambiguous message its meaning. Sadly, for me, even after going through the book, I still can't get a sense of why the cross.

It is still just so muddled in my mind, the whole thing is like a giant non-sequitur. It is just so easy to talk about Jesus' death on the cross doing this and that, and his blood cleansing away our sin. But it's just like we are piecing nonsense words together and shaking our head in agreement. I am too much the Greek I suppose, like Paul said, the cross is foolishness. I am glad that somehow a man dying a brutal and humiliating death upon a Roman torture device has come to represent and inspire sacrificial love.

There are lots of analogies of sacrificial love that make perfect sense, like the man who runs into a burning building to save enemies life, or for a recent Hollywood example Batman flying the nuclear bomb out of the city right before detonation. But how is someone being crucified the emblem of laying one's life down for another? Historically speaking, in no way does his dying look anything like one laying down one's life for another or some kind of substitution or a religious sacrifice.

Since the event itself doesn't seem to suggest any of this, the theological meaning tacked on seems ill-fitted. We are just so detached from the ancient Jewish world, the point and purpose of the archaic Levitical sacrificial laws is impossible to be confident of. Even if we know what the ancients meant, how is Jesus being executed even remotely similar to Jewish sacrifices? There was no ceremonial slicing of the throat, no altar, etc Jan 31, Jonathan rated it really liked it. I read this book as part of a group we had all seen N.

Wright lecture on this topic at a local college , and I'm not sure I would have made it through this book on my own. It's a little denser than what I usually read, it's outside my field of knowledge, and it gets technical in some places that, for me, made the argument difficult to parse.

But this is a very good book, one worth pushing through. What was difficult for me in reading this is that Wright has several strands of his argument that I read this book as part of a group we had all seen N. What was difficult for me in reading this is that Wright has several strands of his argument that really need to be read together, but it seemed I could only hold one strand in my mind at a time. When I picked up one strand to examine it more closely, I lost the other strands. It was also difficult to see where the book was going.

It made me see where, exactly, the differences in Wright's view result in practical, real-world applications. And once I saw that, the rest of the argument began to click. This isn't just a theological nit to pick; it matters to how we view the world and our role in the story of Scripture. If I wasn't fully convinced by the individual aspects of Wright's argument, I'm certainly compelled by the vision he presents of the church's vocation. I think the latter half of the book is stronger than the first.

While Wright has a way of reframing a conversation with big ideas, I usually find him most convincing in his closely examined exegesis, and the later chapters on Paul are where this really comes into play. Part of the problem is I fear unfounded generalizations, and Wright offers in the early part of the book thin evidence for the generalizations he draws--not that he doesn't have the evidence, but he doesn't always present this evidence in a way I find convincing.

This wasn't as mind-blowing to me as Surprised by Hope was, but this was a very good book, and I'm glad I read it with others who are more knowledgeable than I am. Wright is writing about 1st century history and biblical context, he's world class. When he writes about current events and social sciences, he's merely an educated observer. Yet he writes about both as if he has the same authority in each field. That was both the delight and dismay of reading this book.

Also, he repeats himself ad nauseam, with a very cyclical argument pattern. This book is pages too long. I've often felt this about Wright but feel confirmed in this opinion now, When N. I've often felt this about Wright but feel confirmed in this opinion now, his target is often hard to define for his popular work but it seems to be undiscipled Christians and their uninformed leaders.

When he writes he will dismiss what he finds stupid about what he has observed in modern Christianity, and then apply that resentment globally. He's not nuanced enough in his critique. He also feels the need to destroy normative views on Christ's substitution, God's wrath, and imputation, though he always uses a caveat "not entirely," allowing himself wiggle room.

Some may admire that, but often it felt like a cop out. A lot of reviewers make a big deal about his last two chapters which are the best ones. He's more direct, clear, and less repetitive. But he's still speculating a lot about the grand swath of western Christianity, and seems to think that traditional views of atonement are pagan, and that this has caused most of the church's problems. He doesn't really help any sense of urgency about this because he's not clear about what view of the atonement would be heretical. Even after calling a myopic view of penal substitution pagan, he goes on to say it's not the worst thing to believe that way since it's better than unbelief.

I often wondered to myself, has he done much pastoral care?

How does he communicate with regular church folks? I would never recommend this book to a new or immature Christian simply because it would confuse the crap out of them. I don't find this book essential. It's aim is to make sure we have a well rounded, historical Christian worldview that is active in the world we live in now, not just preparation for Heaven, but his approach is not built for his target audience, and his conclusions are often wanting.

Oct 12, Josh rated it really liked it Shelves: Michael Horton offers a good review here: Jul 06, B. Richardson rated it it was amazing. The Revolution began on the cross, a Friday some two thousand years back. It was on that day that "the Kingdoms of this world have become the Kingdoms of our God. As usual, Wright does an excellent job with this connecting the whole of scripture into one narrative to show what th The Revolution began on the cross, a Friday some two thousand years back.

As usual, Wright does an excellent job with this connecting the whole of scripture into one narrative to show what the cross means for us today. Wright points out early on how early Reformed theologians Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et al were in a sense "finding the right answers to the wrong questions".

In their attempt to correct many of the errors within the RCC of the time, they ended up creating a "works contract" atonement theology that "Platonized eschatology, moralized anthropology, and paganized soteriology" he uses this phrase at least a half dozen times over the course of the book and I don't blame him. By "platonized eschatology" he means that the atonement came to mean Jesus died on the cross so we can one day go to heaven.

While not incorrect, it is definitely incomplete. By "moralized anthropology" he means, because of the cross, we are now supposed to live a good life out of gratitude rather than recognizing that we are now a royal priesthood and representatives of God's kingdom on earth. Again, not incorrect but incomplete. By "paganized soteriology" Wright means: Not enough has been taught about the full covenant justice and love surrounding the events of the crucifixion.

As with any book outside the Bible, I don't agree with everything said. The biggest bone I have to pick here is that Wright is that he often presents his views as "fresh" or "new" and that everyone else for the past x years or centuries has been getting it all wrong. That's just not true. His ideas might be expressed in a unique way but they are not in themselves unique.

The biggest danger I see in this is that many simpler minds might cling to this and accuse him of being too liberal, or radical, or even a heretic when NT Wright is certainly none of these things. Wright is simply a brilliant theologian who writes profound works in a simple way.

I am blessed by everything I have read of his and this is certainly one of his best books. I love Wright, but sometimes I want him to just come out and state his argument simply and concisely. I enjoyed this book, and, in general, I think I understand his take on the crucifixion and what it accomplished; however, there are still some areas where I am fuzzy on how all this works. That could be my inabilities as a reader, I will definitely try to outline his argument when I get more time and see if that helps. This book is well worth reading and contemplating.

I really liked David's revi I love Wright, but sometimes I want him to just come out and state his argument simply and concisely. I really liked David's review and agree with his points. You should check it out: Jul 20, Akash Ahuja rated it it was amazing Shelves: It may only be mid-July, but this book is an early contender for the best book I'll read all year. Wright has important words to say how we consider what Jesus' death means for us, how the early church interpreted it, and how that changes how we are to live our lives today.

He writes clearly and beautifully, and deconstructs the Platonized ideologies that the church has blindly embraced. I have nothing more to say than- read this book.

May 01, Matthew J. Slisher rated it it was amazing. This is yet another masterpiece of N. Wright -- a highly recommended read! As always, reading Wright is more like watching an artist paint a beautiful picture, than it is grinding through an intellectual read. The varying hues and perspectives that Wright presents on the meaning of the crucifixion, as always in classic Wright style keeping the WHOLE of the Scriptures in view, causes worship to ignite afresh in my heart for what God in Jesus did for humanity and all of creation on the cross.

Wright carefully but persistently nails home the point that unless we understand the cross in the light of Jewish history and the whole of Scripture, we end up with a very weak, "platonized" view of the cross merely as the means of how sinners can go to heaven when we die. I love how Wright shows that in Christ, and no more clearly than on the cross, the new temple is perfected -- the temple being that place where heaven and earth intersected again with all of the OT imagery in the background.

And not only that, but the cross is the time and place where God's new rule and reign on earth was actually inaugurated. What I appreciated about this book though, is that he fleshed out even more his insights on how the traditional views of "penal substitution" theology throw shade on the more glorious and majestic theology of the cross. According the Wright, traditional evangelical "penal substitution" theology supposes that God is "angry" at humanity and so must take it out on His Son.

The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus's Crucifixion

This, he argues can have very negative consequences on our response to such a "god" who has to lash out in anger on someone because of the sin of humanity. He also argues that the idea of "transferred righteousness", as traditionally taught in evangelical spheres, also falls short of what is really happening on the Cross. Here, Wright prefers to translate "righteousness" in these key Romans passages as "covenant faithfulness". Rather than the cross being seen as God's instrument of punishment on Jesus, Wright rather presents a different view of the cross as the place where God in Christ takes on Himself all of the evil in the world.

So Jesus, on the cross, in effect is allowing all that is evil -- including the consequences of sin and rejecting God -- to fall on, and be completed on Himself. In this way, he interposes on behalf of all humanity. Wright also suggests that the sacrificial system established for Israel was not focused on the actual killing of the animal, but on the "blood" that was shed as a result of the sacrifice.

So it is not the killing of the animal, per say, that brings God satisfaction, but the blood from that sacrifice that was brought into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled on the mercy seat. Wright also has some pretty amazing insights on the Mercy Seat, which I commend to the reader to pay attention to! In conclusion, I'd highly recommend this book! You will be hard pressed to put it down. Let it upset your theology for a moment, and allow yourself to be transported in worship as you reflect on the meaning of the Cross afresh!

May 09, Matthew rated it really liked it Shelves: Finally finished it after sitting with, perusing, reading, and stewing over it for about a year. Picked it up originally to read while preaching through the book of Exodus. Stayed with it even after we left the wilderness. Wright is strong in the ways he usually is, weaving texts and threads and themes of scripture into the great fabric of God's story of Creation and New Creation. There are sweeping and moving passages as only N.

The integration of human vocation, holiness, Finally finished it after sitting with, perusing, reading, and stewing over it for about a year. The integration of human vocation, holiness, and the divine drama of salvation is moving.

The reclamation of Jesus dying for our sins in accordance with the scriptures is clarifying. The articulation of that death breaking the powers through the power of forgiveness of sins is simultaneously simple and profound. His articulation of idolatry money, sex, power and it's healing - the love of power is triumphed by the power of love - is helpful for articulating sin and salvation in my world that is resistant to "traditional" language for both.

I found Wright's exploration of the Exodus motif for the events of the cross extremely helpful. After all, of all the festivals in the life of Israel Jesus chose Passover as the frame for the events of Holy Week. I do sometimes wish that making an argument didn't require the over-stating of a case though. In Wright's case sometimes his corrective to the Western proclivity to, "offer 19th century answers to 16th century questions rather than offering 1st century answers to 21st century questions" is a little overdone.

Here I think Wright over-states the Western pre-occupation with atonement models and theories in favor of the biblical story. It reminds me a little of the seminary debate between Biblical and Systematic Theologians. But then again I was a systematics guy, so I would say that That's next on my list. Here's to integrating Biblical and Systematic theology! Mar 03, Patrick Willis rated it it was amazing Shelves: This was a superb read! In typical Wright fashion, the material is engaging and thought provoking all throughout. In this volume, Wright takes on the 'platonized' version of Christianity that marks nearly all of the Western church, namely the view of atonement and eschatology ending with us 'abandoning' earth and 'going to heaven.

Rather than living by a 'works contract' view of atonement for this is highlights the penal substitution perspective , Wr This was a superb read! Rather than living by a 'works contract' view of atonement for this is highlights the penal substitution perspective , Wright emphasizes a 'vocational covenant' perspective.

This seems similar to what I read though I could be wrong because it's been a few years and I didn't read the whole volume to G. While there is a lot of repetition, I believe Wright does so because of the subject matter he's addressing and the high likelihood of a reader to lose track of the picture he's trying to weave together and fall back into the platonized Christianity we are currently in.

This book is definitely worth a read for minister and non alike! Though I'm sure if you were to read it by itself, you'd develop an itching for more that could only be satisfied by reading the rest! May 30, Lynn Joshua rated it liked it. So much good here, but sadly lacking in conciseness.

He takes almost half the book to tell us what he is NOT saying. Not this, not that, maybe partly this, but not really, ugh. He is not saying that Penal Substitution is wrong, he is saying that the focus on Penal Substitution as the only way to look at the atonement distorts our understanding of what Jesus did on the Cross, and this view needs to be framed with the Christus Victor view. However, I began to feel Lewis was onto something So much good here, but sadly lacking in conciseness.

However, I began to feel Lewis was onto something when he just refers to Aslan's atonement as Deep Magic. The main thrust of his argument is that the crucifixion of Christ restored the Covenant God made with Israel but expanded it to include all people. By fully bearing the consequences of Israel's sins, the covenant people are forgiven. When the Gentiles are grafted in to the covenant through Jesus, they too stand under the forgiveness of sins. And yes, each of us receives forgiveness personally through faith in Christ; but only because we are united with the forgiven covenant people. He disparages this often - oversimplifying the traditional view into a straw man.

Worth reading for the last few chapters, at least.

I plan to reread Stott's "The Cross of Christ" next. Sep 29, Misael G rated it really liked it. Disagree with his view of the atonement and the structures his arguments. I think he pits arguments against one another that aren't necessarily in opposition to one another - ie. A good read to think of the atonement from another perspective, but the straw men he builds can be frustrating. Not every Christian who believes Penal Substitutionary Atonement has a platonic view of heaven, and not every christian who believes in PSA forgets Disagree with his view of the atonement and the structures his arguments.

Not every Christian who believes Penal Substitutionary Atonement has a platonic view of heaven, and not every christian who believes in PSA forgets the whole Old Testament narrative. In any case, the last three chapters of the book are highly worth it. Aug 04, Greg Miller rated it really liked it.

Give it a good read. Take some of the many great well thought out points, and leave some of the less coherent ones. This book describes much of NT Wright's work, great insight that is much needed in the church, but is also weirdly incoherent in spots. I decided to take my time reading this book in caution and curiosity bc of the criticism Wright has received.

I must say that i do not find most of the criticism to really be accurate to what Wright is saying. Does Wright tend to go on little un Does Wright tend to go on little unnecessary rambles? Does Wright believe in a dangerous false Gospel? In my opinion, absolutely not. This book is a long read, but should be beneficial for those who choose to dive in Nov 21, Peter Yock rated it really liked it.

But there's no way around it: NT Wright is one of the most majestic writers on the planet today. His sections on the Gospels and Acts in this book were extraordinarily powerful and helpful. Read also Galatians 4: Because of the truth of this fact concerning the nature and eternal Deity of Jesus Christ, it is obvious why He has to be the Final Messenger from God to men. He came to bring a perfect revelation of the love and power of God.

Human minds cannot really grasp the character of God. But we do know, in some measure, about love, grace, compassion, mercy, power, holiness, immortality and infinitude. We can know what God is like by looking at His Son and listening to Him. Human beings, being limited to the impressions gained by their five senses, find it impossible to understand invisible realities and spiritual truths in an abstract way. For this reason, Jesus constantly taught by means of parables.

A parable is a story in terms we do understand, which explains truths we do not understand. Here is one of the most important parables that Jesus told. There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a fence around it, dug a pit for its winepress, and built a watchtower.

Then he leased it to tenant farmers and went on a journey. When the harvest time was near, he sent his slaves to the tenants to collect his portion of the crop. But the tenants seized his slaves, beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other slaves, more than the first, and they treated them the same way. Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants? Then he will lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him his portion at the harvest.

For this reason I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one on whom it falls will be crushed. They wanted to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowds, because the crowds regarded him as a prophet Matthew The actual story is easy to understand. Here is the meaning behind it.

Instead of obeying the Word of God, Israel despised the prophets and persecuted them and sometimes even killed them.

The Transfiguration (Matthew ) | www.farmersmarketmusic.com

This is a simple fact of history, examples of which are recorded in the Old Testament. Jesus, the Son of God is the last of all the messengers to mankind.

In the parable, the wicked men killed the son. When Jesus came men crucified Him!

The story goes on to show that no other messengers will be sent! Those who rejected and despised Jesus will be punished by God. He died and rose again and is for evermore a living Savior whose power can never be changed, canceled, abrogated or superseded by any other human being. His power is called the power of an indestructible life.

See a Problem?

Who has become a priest not by a legal regulation about physical descent but by the power of an indestructible life Hebrews 7: And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him Hebrews 5: Every other prophet, every other teacher, every other leader lived and died and other men carried on the work they began. But Jesus, alive from the dead, lives forever and is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them Hebrews 7: Jesus claims this Himself.

Read His own words: When I saw him I fell down at his feet as though I were dead, but he placed his right hand on me and said: I am the first and the last, and the one who lives! I was dead, but look, now I am alive—forever and ever—and I hold the keys of death and of Hades!

Could anything be more final than that? Jesus is the Last one! Who has power to save us from sin—dead prophets, or a Savior who died and rose from among the dead and lives forever? Whom should we love and trust—prophets or the living Savior who holds the keys of hell and of death? The resurrection of Christ is the fact that gives Him the place of absolute finality.

It is important that we read 1 Corinthians 15 at this stage verse numbers have been included for convenience. In fact, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Christ, the firstfruits; then when Christ comes, those who belong to him. If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they baptized for them?

This is as sure as my boasting in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord. If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. For some have no knowledge of God—I say this to your shame! With what kind of body will they come? What you sow will not come to life unless it dies. People have one flesh, animals have another, birds and fish another.

The glory of the heavenly body is one sort and the earthly another. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Where , O death , is your sting? Do not be moved! Always be outstanding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. The apostle Paul lists some of the striking facts about the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Notice the following points:. It is the guarantee that true believers in him will rise from the dead verses One striking fact in these verses is the contrast made between Adam and Jesus. What does this mean? Adam was the first man on earth and was therefore the federal head of the human race.

He was created by a Divine miracle and appointed to govern the earth for God. But as we have seen in earlier chapters, Adam sinned, and every human being has inherited as a result a sinful human nature which brings death. Paul puts it this way: So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned Romans 5: He was born of the Virgin Mary by a special Divine miracle so that He might become the Head of a new race of spiritual men and women whose sins have been forgiven.

From Adam to Jesus, death reigned over all men, but Jesus overcame death and rose from among the dead. The contrast is made very clear. Adam, the first head of the natural human race, brought sin and death to man. Adam was tempted by Satan and caused sin to enter human experience Genesis 3. Jesus was tempted by Satan but did not sin Matthew 4: Adam was created as a living person, but Jesus is a life-giving Spirit Corinthians John says, I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand John Through the first Adam we all inherit mortal life and a sinful nature.

Through the last Adam we all may inherit eternal life. Notice the importance of 1 Corinthians

• Jours dExil - Tome III (French Edition)
• Diamonds Are Forever
• Change the Way You Think: Winning the Everyday Battles of the Mind
• basic work
• The Storm (Impossible Choices - Book 1)