Review of N.T. Wright, How God Became King

N.T. Wright, How God Became King: The Forgotten Story of the Gospels, New York: HarperOne, 2012.

N.T. Wright’s recent book on the nature of the message of the Gospels that has been ignored by both scholarly and ecclesiastical circles has some merit. It presents an argument which ecclesiastical leaders ought to hear. However, in trying to present the “gospel” of the gospels universally, Wright presents here a case study in the problem of trying to exegetically create systematic theology. The New Testament is not systematic theology (in fact it is 27 separate books) and most modern attempts to make it systematic do so by appealing to the historical Jesus – while the books might be diverse, there was only one historical Christ and therefore there is one consistent message. To his credit, N.T. Wright has done that very thing in his very popular three volume set: The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God, and The Resurrection of the Son of God. However, in this book, Wright explicitly argues that this argument rests upon the gospels rather than the historical Jesus. While explicitly this is accurate, the concept depends upon the historical Jesus – it just does not admit it.

Brief Summary of the Work

Wright begins his book with an apologia to the church – take the gospels seriously. He argues that protestant denominations are so focused on Pauline theology that the gospels are used as merely proof texts to present that theology. More specifically, he argues that it is not even the whole of Paul’s theology that Protestants preach, but merely the forensic justification (or judiciary model) in Romans 2-4. This model is the one in which humans have failed to follow God’s law and are therefore condemned to death. In order for these sins to be paid, then Jesus vicariously atones for those sins and dies on the cross to pay the penalty for others’ sins. Wright argues that this model is the theology preached in churches (and he admits is the one usually presented in the creeds). The observation he makes is that while Jesus’ birth and death are discussed, his life is usually skipped (except for cute little object lessons to explain Pauline theology).

He then turns his critique from the ecclesiastical world to the scholarly. He argues that scholars have attempted to dissect the Bible so that the whole of the message of the gospels is lost due to the atomizing effect of modern criticism. He does not quite condemn all scholarly analysis as unhelpful, but he does argue that the focus on small units of texts obfuscates the larger picture. He sees this as a result of the agendas of a historical critical agenda which was championed in the enlightenment who bring the premise that the whole of the gospels cannot be accurate.

Wright’s argument is that the heart of the gospels’ message (and he does think of all four gospels having one key message) is for Jesus to establish himself as a king in the sense of the Jewish Messiah. He notes that nearly all expectation of the messiah is a kingly role and that the gospels are both aware of that fact and they present Jesus as accomplishing this feat (though admittedly in a way no one expected). He argues that Jesus did establish the kingdom of God on earth (challenging the modern attitude about God’s reign as being something otherworldly) which begins in the present (rather than waiting on a future ideal) and will be completed in a new way at the end of days. Further, he argues that a major element of this message is political – Jesus was presenting a challenge to the Roman Empire as establishing a new kingdom (in short presenting that there really was a reason for the Romans to crucify him). The revolution was not the type of political revolution one might have expected, but it was very political nonetheless (which the gospels highlight).

Finally, Wright argues that there is nothing inherently wrong with creedal Christianity that does not mention this aspect of Jesus’ life. Wright merely argues that the creeds should not be the only aspect of the church’s view of Jesus. He argues that the creeds are very helpful in how the kingdom of God is established cosmically (as well as personally). He believes that the emphasis on taking the gospels seriously provides a rich resource for spirituality in the modern world which avoids the pitfalls of ecclesiastical laziness and scholarly skepticism.

Merits of the Book

Large portions of this book have much merit. First, I (as one can see very easily if one looks at my page on ministry related topics)[1] have argued that the church ignores major portions of scripture in order to read everything in light of their own theology (largely based on Luther’s reading of Romans 2-4). Here Wright and I are in complete agreement. The gospels are not usually taken very seriously on their own – they are used as object lessons for Pauline theology. I would go one step farther than Wright in suggesting that the odd nature of many churches is that they rarely preach on Paul’s letters, instead, they use the object lessons of miracles and parables to present that same idea.[2] This fundamental reason for Wright’s book is valid and very useful.

Second, his argument that the goal of the gospels’ presentation of the life of Jesus is to present him as establishing the kingdom of God in the context of Israel’s expectations of Messiah is very valid for the synoptic gospels. The main goal of the synoptic gospels is the kingdom of God. Every parable is describing the kingdom, the actions of Jesus are interpreted as fulfillment of prophecy concerning Messiah in Matthew, Jesus is the eschatological hero in the Gospel of Mark, and Jesus is the organizer of the new movement by being the exemplar model of the martyr to create a new community of God’s people (what Wright calls “God’s Renewed People”) in the Gospel of Luke/Book of Acts. This is the fundamental message that cannot be simply ignored as it often is.

Further, Wright is correct in arguing that the political aspect of the kingdom of God is ignored in the western world because it is bothersome to those who believe in a division between the political and the religious. John Dominic Crossan has gone to great length to show how Jesus was a complete social and political revolutionary while at the same time being a complete religious leader. The religious and political are equally present in Jesus’ message if one understands the first century occupied Palestine.[3] That this aspect is played down so much that it nearly disappears in the Protestant church is accurate and should be addressed.

Further, the emphasis on Jesus as king (establishing his reign over the earth) is not only present in the gospels but also is present as the main theme throughout the entire New Testament. Wright’s subject is laudable – Paul, who is used to deflect the reading of the gospels, has as his main message (if one looks beyond Romans 2-4) as eschatological – the coming reign of God over the earth. The kingdom/reign of God motif is a relevant study that ought to be taken more seriously as it is presented in the New Testament (rather than how it is presented by fundamentalist Christians who have a shocking message which unfortunately has little to do with the message in the New Testament).

Critiques of the Study

This book, while having some laudable elements (as described above), largely is a case study in how ecclesiastical scholars try to create a systematic theology on the historical Jesus while simultaneously denying that they are doing any type of study on the historical Jesus.

The study of the historical Jesus is one that has been taken up over the past several centuries to attempt to get beyond the messages of the gospels to the person who lived from 4 BCE to 33 CE. Most everyone is happy to admit that the gospels are pieces of literature and are not compendious. Therefore, there has been an emphasis to look beyond them to the person, Jesus of Nazareth. In the past 50 years, the scholars who work most diligently on this topic have been criticized as being reductionist. They have taken too much away from the message of the gospels by suggesting that some of the things Jesus does in the gospels are not historical. Most notably, the scholars are often lampooned for denying miracles (most notably the resurrection of Christ himself) and seeing Jesus as either a wandering prophet discussing the end of the world or as a social reformer attempting to start a social revolution.[4]

Conservative Christianity (which Wright is a part of) has taken some offense at the scholarship on the historical Jesus as they see the pictures of Jesus presented as being too reductionist to be helpful. They seem to believe (as Wright does in the book) that these depictions are products of the enlightenment with the agenda that Christianity is not true, and therefore the goal of the study will be to disprove Christianity’s main points.

In response to the study of the historical Jesus, much of conservative Christianity has denied the value of the study and insists that it will not be done. The problem with the study of the New Testament is that the church seeks what “the gospel” is in a book with 27 different authors with wide variety of messages among them. There is not a gospel, but many gospels if one were taking it seriously. This has been challenging to many, so they have sought a systematic theology that would provide identity to people over the years.

The field of systematic theology has done a good job of presenting consistent and exhaustive theologies which depict a full Christian identity. These studies have resulted in expansive works which have the kingdom of God as a concept that is tied very closely to the rest of their theology. Some, such as Schweitzer, Barth, Multmann, and Pannenberg have used kingdom of God theology as central to their systems of theology. The critique leveled against these thinkers, though (with the possible exception of Barth) is that systematics is more influenced by philosophy than it is by scripture.

If Christianity does not want to create a consistent theology from systematics and is nervous about creating one through history, it is unclear how a system of faith can be “biblical.” Wright falls into this trap and shows how it is practically solved – by pretending that the gospels are consistent through a Trojan horse approach to the historical Jesus.

Wright argues that there is a consistent message in the gospels concerning the kingdom of God. However, he knows that the term is only used twice in the Gospel of John (and used wildly differently – see John 3). Further, he must know that the nature of the kingdom of God is rather different between Matthew and Mark as compared with Luke. Matthew and Mark see it as the coming disclosure in the near future of God at the end of days. Luke sees it as that, but also as a present reality already present in the community of believers. Wright seems to have taken a “maximalist” approach and basically feels that Luke’s version must be Jesus’ because it includes more rather than less.

The discussion of Wright’s solution betrays his plan – he looks beyond the gospels to find “Jesus’ meaning” which then he expects all of the gospels to be presenting a central theme. Note that what Wright did was the study of the historical Jesus – his consistent theme that makes the gospels unite is what Jesus “actually said.” Here is the fine point of the critique – while denying that the book is depending on the study of the historical Jesus, it completely depends upon it.

As mentioned in the beginning of the essay, Wright has done extensive work on the historical Jesus and the view of this book is quite consistent with his picture of Jesus which he academically and thoroughly describes. However, the particular work discussed in this essay does not do that same thing. Unless one is already quite familiar with Wright’s corpus of work (which he does reference frequently throughout the pages of this book), it would be very difficult to understand his point of view.

The second main critique is his lack of sources for those he attacks. He creates two straw men which are unfair. The first is the ecclesiastical dolt who ignores most of the scripture that they say they believe. Using real sources from real people could substantiate this hyperbolic statement. However, the blanket statements are difficult to take too seriously. The second straw man is the vague description of “modern scholars” who are the enlightenment elite who want to destroy all faith. Again, next to no scholars are explicitly mentioned (much less the specific ideas that they present). This type of vague assault is helpful for presenting his own perspective, but it is not very fair to either camp. A more complete discussion ought to occur before lambasting the two groups to the extent that he does.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, this book’s merits do not outweigh its demerits. Its greatest interest to the reader is a case study revealing what type of argument is made to create a consistent message in conservative circles. Wright’s work as a whole is quite good and I would recommend to all his New Testament and the People of God series to see what he thinks about the gospels as they relate to the historical Jesus. That study is erudite and has much integrity (he spends a major portion of the first volume doing a fine job of showing how he will prove his points which he then uses consistently throughout the volumes). I do not agree with every aspect of that series, but it is a good study that deserves attention. This book, unfortunately is less valuable.  

---

[1] www.bennickodemusministry.blogspot.com

[2] Wright does allude to this practice in recounting a conversation about this odd nature of the church’s use of Paul by suggesting they only preach Paul but oddly do not talk about Paul directly that often.

[3] John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, (New York: HarperOne, 1993).

[4] For the view of Jesus as a social reformer, see Crossan, The Historical Jesus, for the concept of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet see Bart Ehrman, Jesus: The Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).