Simply Good News by N.T. Wright (Brief Book Review)

Simply Good News: Why the Gospel Is News and What Makes It Good by N.T. Wright
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Wright starts off by defining the word gospel (good news) as how it would mean to first century people. For many today the gospel is good advice (believe this and you’ll go to heaven when you die) rather than good news. But, the gospel really is news, and that’s how we should present it.

The good news is that Jesus has become king and He is now restoring the world. He’s not going to whisk us all away to heaven and destroy the world. Jesus started this restoration at the cross and will complete it at the last day. N.T. Wright uses an example of a Roman emperor defeating his enemy and taking power. The news of this would be good to all who support this emperor, and they would be happy to hear that he was now in charge. But first, the emperor would have to consolidate his power before taking his throne. So, the good news of his coming to power would include both something that had happened (the defeat of his enemy) and something that would happen (his coming full rule).

We today are living in that between time. Jesus defeated sin and death at the cross, and now His enemies are being put under His feet, and He will one day come and complete the work He has begun of building His kingdom on earth.

Wright also discusses misunderstood concepts people have today about God (and His anger), sin, hell, eschatology, atonement, creation, covenant, rationalism, and romanticism.

I highly recommend this one.

An excerpt…

Most people who regard the statement that Jesus died in your place as the center of the gospel place this truth, this beautiful fragment, into a larger story that goes like this. There is a God, and this God is angry with humans because of their sin. This God has the right, the duty, and the desire to punish us all. If we did but know it, we are all heading for an eternal torment in hell. But this angry God has decided to vent his fury on someone else instead — someone who happens to be completely innocent. Indeed, it is his very own son! His wrath is therefore quenched, and we no longer face that terrible destiny. All we have to do is believe this story and we will be safe. That is the reconstructed scene offered in many churches, sermons, and books. It is not completely wrong. But as it stands, it is deeply misleading. It distorts the very thing it is trying to frame. It takes the truth that Jesus died in your place and puts it in the wrong context. It does indeed make some sense there. But this is not the same sense that it would make if you put it the right context. This, in anyone’s account, is near the heart of what the early Christians meant by the good news. Since it is also, clearly, near the heart of what many Christians today understand by the good news, it is important that we sort this out.
~Page 68 or Location 976 (Kindle)

* You can take an online course on this book taught by N.T. Wright for (I think) $29USD.
Click here for that.

View all my reviews

Kingdom Come (Book Review)

Kingdom Come by Sam Storms
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

“Kingdom Come” is written by Sam Storms and is an explanation of the amillennialist position of eschatology. I would describe this book more as a critique of pre-millennialism and dispensationalism, and a good one too. In fact, it is because of this, that I would describe amillennialism as being a negative eschatology. Not negative in an emotional sense (although that could be said too), but rather negative in the sense that amillennialism appears to be that which the other positions are not. The other two main positions (pre-millennialism and post-millennialism) are positive in their assertions as to what they believe. Amillennialism seems to be more or less the vacuum which is produced when the assertions of the other two positions are rejected. It is as though the amillennialist says, “Well I don’t believe in this (pre), and I don’t believe in that (post), so what I’m left with is the other (a).

I think my favourite chapter of the book is the one on post-millennialism. I would even point to that chapter as a good defence of post-milleniallism. Reading that chapter leads me to conclude that Storms is like all amillennialists: an agnostic post-millennialist. He writes: “I want to believe that postmillennialism is true. The notion of a progressive and ultimate triumph of the gospel within history itself such that when Jesus returns he finds a truly Christianized cosmos is profoundly appealing. But as of the publication of this book, I am not yet convinced. I remain an amillennialist.” (page 384)

View all my reviews

The Vindication of Jesus Christ ~ Brief Book Review

This is the best book I could recommend on Revelation. It is short and simple, but it may be confusing to anyone who is unfamiliar with eschatology and Jordan’s point of view on it.

Basically, Jordan teaches that Revelation describes events that happened in the first century, between AD 30 and AD 70. The climactic judgement/visitation of Jesus on the Jews happened in AD 70 with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem which was also the end of the old world creation. We are now living in the new creation.

Jordan focuses on the symbols of Revelation and how they all come from the Old Testament. For example, 666 comes straight out of the book of 1 Kings.

Jordan also points out how the old creation was governed by angels, while the new is governed by the Church.

Jordan gave a series of lectures on Revelation which consists of 204 lectures and a 300+ page notebook. It can be found here.

The book can be found here.

N.T. Wright’s Justification (Book Review)

This book is written in response to John Piper’s book “The Future of Justification”, which I have not yet read. You do not have to read Piper’s book in order to understand or enjoy Wright’s book.

The whole debate is about the “New Perspective of Paul”, a debate I do not fully understand, although this book helps a lot. From what I can gather, the arguments center around what Paul was really talking about when he was describing salvation in terms of God’s faithfulness and righteousness. The Old Perspective focuses on the individual’s salvation and little else, while the New Perspective says there is more going on than that: a greater purpose which looks at the overarching salvation plan of God including Old Testament Israel.

It seems like it is an “either/or” argument when it should be “both/and”. God both saves the individual sinner through the work of Christ and is creating a special people for Himself who will one day inherit the new heavens and the new earth.

I do recommend the book.

Here’s a video of N.T. Wright explaining the book himself…